Witch.Words

FUCKING STOP: An open letter to Gov. Perry and the Texas GOP

2013-06-26T18:12:00.000-07:00

Dear Gov. Perry, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, and the Texas GOP,

You don't know me, and I'm not a Texan in any way, shape, form, or fashion. So I'd say you won't care what I think about this fiasco - except that you've already made it abundantly clear that you don't care what anyone thinks of what you're doing here, whether they're a constituent, a politician with the opposition, or God Herself, so I know it's nothing personal.

Since my words, and indeed, my very existence mean nothing to you, I will feel free to speak my true mind on this in very blunt terms.

You are the biggest pack of filthy hypocrites I've ever seen.

You (the wider GOP) venerate the Founding Fathers, who fought a war and founded a nation over the right to be treated with respect and have a say in one's government - and yet you blatantly disrespect the modern people of that nation when they gather by the hundreds and thousands to tell you to STOP. You idolize (and I mean that in the truest sense of idolatry, by the way) a group of men who are remembered for, among other things, decrying "taxation without representation" - and yet you will happily impose far more intimate regulations on your constituents' very bodies while silencing their representation, whether it be through their elected officials or through their own voices raised in protest.

You use procedural trick after procedural trick to try to force those elected voices to shut up, eventually forcing them from the floor under guise of respect for parliamentary procedure - and yet you're quite happy to blatantly violate the same rules you insist everyone else abide by as soon as it suits you, by altering documents and timestamps to literally rewrite history once it became clear you'd lost.

Do you know why I am political in the ways that I am, Mr. Perry (et al)? Because I still believe in - still want to believe in - the the noble ideals I was told we as a country stood for, as a child growing up in America. I want this country to offer liberty and justice to all. I want a government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people.

And you people claim to love the Constitution, love the Founders, love what this country "stands for" - that is, what we claim to stand for - and yet your actions tell a terrifyingly different story.

Because when you are faced with The People Themselves, in the flesh, by the hundreds, literally raising their voices to prevent you from making unjust laws that trample on their rights...

And your response, after every dirty trick and lie and machination you used failed you, is to say "That's fine, we'll just try it again next week"...

You are not acting in the spirit of the lofty goals of liberty and justice and freedom. You are channeling King George. (Hell, at this point, I'm inclined to say you're channeling Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine too, but that's my penchant for hyperbole and my geekishness sitting down for a drink together, so.)

You are liars. You are hypocrites. You are power-hungry tyrants unfit to wield authority over an ant colony, much less millions of human beings. And you need to fucking stop.

With intense loathing,
J

The new "You're either with us, or with the enemy"

2013-06-14T09:57:00.000-07:00

The rhetoric from the right has been getting more and more frenzied these past couple years. I suppose that's what happens when your absurdly racist party is simultaneously confronted with a Scary Black Man President and increasing evidence of your slide into irrelevance as your single priority of "taking care of rich straight cis white Christian male businessmen" becomes ever-clearer at the same time that that particular demographic is shrinking compared to the size of every other demographic that you've made it quite obvious you hate. So the bit I came across today isn't *surprising*, but it is, I think, something to note.

There's plenty to unpack in this particular off-the-rails screed from Don Feder of World Congress of [Cishet 2-Parent Unlimited-Children White Christian] Families about how Obama is totez gonna start rounding up conservatives and putting them in concentration camps any day now (and what IS it with these people and their Holocaust-appropriation fetish anyway?), but there was one line in particular that jumped out at me.

Recall Obama’s bitter-clinger remarks from the 2008 campaign – identifying resistance to his message primarily among those who cling to religion, guns and "anti-immigrant" sentiment. Think of his anti-nationalism (including the rejection of American exceptionalism) and attacks on the family, via same-sex "marriage" and taking medical decisions out of the family’s hands.

As an aside, "taking medical decisions out of the family's hands" is something to condemn when it's Democrats making it possible for people to even *consider* making medical decisions at all via expanded access to health insurance and health services, but taking medical decisions out of people's hands is awesome when it comes to Republicans legislating pregnancy and reproductive decisions? Uh huh. We see you, hypocrites.
But the part that got me here was the bit about "rejection of American exceptionalism" as equivalent to anti-nationalism.

If you don't believe the U.S. is inherently superior to all other nations on this planet, you are anti-nationalist. If you do not believe we're better than everyone else, you hate America. There is no middle ground. There is no patriotism that allows for any understanding or critical examination of this nation's flaws. If you don't uncritically laud everything America does as awesome simply because it was done by "the best country on Earth", it's a sign that you hate America and everything the country stands for.

(Considering that, if you look at our history, we have spent a lot of time and effort on standing for greed, corruption, imperialism, colonialism, warmongering, and genocide, I'm not sure why we *shouldn't* hate at least a solid portion of what this country "stands for", but that's a whole other conversation.)

Twelve years ago, Dubya famously said, "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."

They've put it in fancy euphemisms and made a dog-whistle of it, but it's the same sentiment. If you fail to believe 100% that this is God's Country and we can do no wrong, if you fail to uncritically support everything this nation does, you are the enemy.

And they wonder why I'm far more afraid of conservatives in my own country than I've ever been of nebulous "terrorists" halfway across the world.

Help a feminist blogger get her business off the ground!

2013-06-13T17:31:00.001-07:00

Quick links if you wanna skip the whole reading-the-post part:

That said, here's the story:

I realize I haven't posted much at all here for awhile, and that's for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

Seriously stressful home life stuff
Jumping around between shitty temp jobs
A repetitive-strain injury to my right hand that makes typing for long periods of time difficult and painful
Battling moar depression stuff (bleh)

But most relevant to this post, I've also been working on trying to get my jewelry business off the ground.

I make chainmaille jewelry (link goes to the maille tag on my tumblr blog where I post photos of completed pieces as well as works in progress [and, ahem, rants and crankiness about the making process when shit gets fucked up]) to sell on Etsy, to family/friends/coworkers, and by word of mouth. And the instability of temp work I've been dealing with lately (along with the raves and encouragement from people who've seen my work helping me to gain confidence in my skills) has made me think - what if I could fill in the gaps in income with this work? Maybe even be able to jump off the treadmill of the 9-to-5? So I've been working on trying to make the shift from hobby to business. I don't expect to make millions, but I'd like to be able to be at least partially self-sufficient from this. The thing is, being a business requires looking like a business and acting like a business, and that requires some stuff I don't have and can't afford what with being between jobs and struggling to get by - more/a greater variety of raw materials, better tools, business cards, displays and packaging, table fees for local craft fairs, a small light tent for professional-looking product photography, etc.

Which is why I've created an Indiegogo fundraiser campaign to help me out with this. The perks I'm offering include discount codes for my Etsy shop and pieces of custom jewelry. Every donation is appreciated, no matter how small, and if you can't donate, signal-boosting is equally appreciated! Toss the link up on FB, reblog my donations post on tumblr, retweet the new-post tweet for this post, any and all getting-the-word-out is awesome.

Or just buy something from my shop. That would work too. ;-)

Thanks!

Anti-Choicers Do Not Have Souls

2013-05-29T12:21:00.000-07:00

Because no one with a soul, or, hell, even a modicum of human decency, would do this:

“Hey,” he says. He holds out his smart phone, as if he thinks I’m going to look at it. “Is this your mother?” The question seems so out-of-place, it doesn’t quite register. Of course, I don’t answer. “It sounds like she was a good woman,” he says. ”This is her obit, right?”
And he begins to read to me from my mother’s obituary.

...

Ron shared it with some other protesters while he was at it, handing them his phone to read, nodding in my direction to point me out. I think they’ve just learned that you can google someone and find out a lot about them, and are really excited about this new skill. Quick to share their opinions too. According to them, my mother is ashamed of me. She’s looking down from heaven, she can see me, and she’s afraid for me. She doesn’t want me to do this. She’s upset that we’ll be separated for eternity, cause I’ll be going to the other place. My mother wants me to know that there’s still time for me to change, to turn away from this evil.

That is the account of a clinic escort at the Louisville, KY abortion clinic, which is apparently host to some of the worst, most intense anti-choice protesters in existence.

Like, for example, the kind of amoral assbag who would read someone's mother's obituary to them to try to harass them into going away.

I thought I'd basically heard it all when it came to anti-choice shenanigans - lies, medical misinformation, picture-taking of clients as they arrive, if they can get a name calling the patient's family or even workplace to try to get someone to come shame/guilt them into not going through with their abortion, and my favorite (and by favorite I mean the worst thing I've heard of them doing) where they got the info of a 16-year-old girl who'd had an abortion, and a year later sent her a "baby's first birthday" greeting card splattered with red paint to look like blood. But seeking out information about someone's lost loved ones and publicly using that to harass and attack them? That's a new low, even for anti-choicers.

And, of course, it stands on their usual rhetoric about how apparently all mothers are pro-life, as evidenced by the fact that they chose to have kids, regardless of how laughably inaccurate that idea is when you consider that some 60% of abortion patients already have children, and are often choosing to terminate their pregnancy in order to be able to better care for the kids they've already got. They know nothing about this person's mother. They don't even know if she believed in god, was Christian, believed in heaven or hell. They're literally just using the dead as a sockpuppet to try to give their own beliefs added emotional impact by putting their words in her mouth.

That is sick, that is twisted, that is wrong as fuck, and I want as many people to hear about this as possible, because it is a perfect example of how their "compassion" and "caring for life" is nothing but a front to mask some vicious bigotry and serious control issues.

My Father's Name

2013-03-21T16:59:00.001-07:00

[originally written as a rant on my tumblr]

I swear to dog the next time I hear someone talk about a woman taking her husband's name as a contrast between "her husband's name" and "her father's name" I AM GOING TO BITE YOU. VERY VERY HARD. NOT IN THE SEXY WAY.

Because this name that I have right now, the one that’s been on all my paperwork for twenty fucking seven years, THAT IS MY NAME. Mine. MY name.

My father shares it, yes. As does much of his extended family. This is true. And it is also true that I share a last name with his family, rather than with my mother’s family.

But that
does not
make it
any
less
MY NAME.

I have not been going around in the world for twenty-seven years answering to a borrowed name.

Every time I wrote it on a piece of paper for school,
every time I answered to it in roll call,
every time I responded to it at rugby practice,
every time I have entered it on DMV forms
and medical forms
and tax forms,
I have claimed it as MINE.

If (when, gods willing) Ozz and I get married someday, if I choose to change my last name*, it will be me choosing to exchange my name for his. Not me giving up my father’s name in order to take on my husband’s name.

I guess what I’m saying is, don’t you fucking dare act like my name doesn’t really belong to me, just because it belonged to a man before me. He doesn’t keep ownership of the name we share because I bear it, any more than he keeps ownership of my body or life because I bear his genetics. When you act like it’s still *his* name, you’re also acting like I’m still *his* in some way. And I may be slightly touchier than most about this because my father and I have some truly epic Issues, but you imply that I’m somehow *his* in any way beyond what allegiance I freely choose to give him as an independent adult in my own right, and I will fucking cut you.

We clear?

*Spoiler alert: I won't. Or at least, it won't be a straight mine-gone-take-his-instead. I don't even like his last name and it sounds terrible with my first name. We'd been considering hyphenating, which would probably be my preferred choice.

Anti-Choicers Say the Darndest Things: Giving vs Forcing

2013-02-25T14:32:00.001-08:00

Remember how I posted awhile back on South Dakota's intent to lengthen the already-ridiculous 3-day waiting period for abortions by decreeing that weekends and holidays don't count toward the 3 days, as if people seeking abortions can only think properly on weekdays?*

Well, they've decided they need to clarify why they're doing it. It's not because we can't think on weekends and holidays. It's because anti-abortion activists take the weekends off just like the rest of us, meaning they don't have access.

Which, on first glance, makes very little sense, until you get a bit further into their "explanation", where they say:

One of the other purposes (of the bill) is to provide the woman with the opportunity to seek out counseling from other persons or individuals within the pregnant mother’s natural support system, such as the woman’s regular care physician, who’s never going to be open on a Saturday or a Sunday, or such as a clergy member

Hoooo boy, what a lot of loaded language to unpack.

So first of all, what catches my eye right off is the phrase "pregnant mother". They're coercively labeling all pregnant people as mothers, regardless of their feelings on the issue, or indeed their actual fucking gender. I would quite possibly actually slap someone who tried to refer to me as a "mother" simply because I was pregnant one time, if they said it to my face. Being pregnant and being a parent are two separate things, even before we get to the issue of NOT ALL PREGNANT PEOPLE ARE WOMEN SO YOUR GENDERED TERM FOR A PARENT DOESN'T EVEN WORK. Especially when you're specifically talking about a subset of the population of pregnant people who are actively seeking to terminate their pregnancies, you're probably going to find a fair number of them who do not see themselves as parents at all (unless they're already parents to actual children, which 60% of those who get abortions are) because if you don't intend to have the baby, why would you refer to yourself in relation to it like that?

From there I move on to raise an eyebrow at "natural support system". It's not overtly a bad phrase, but something about it bothers me, and I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it. Perhaps it's the "natural" bit, which casts a certain air of judgment over just who the pregnant person includes in their support system. Because you know this guy means: the potential father, the person's doctor, their priest (because obviously he assumes everyone would seek counseling from a Christian clergyperson), or their immediate biological family such as parents. But many people have very different support systems, including friends, chosen family, online friends, etc., which implicitly are excluded from this concept of "natural" support system. It also subtly casts the counseling that patients receive at the clinic - which they do, they always do, even where it's not required by law, as it's not in California but I did have to sit down and talk to someone for long enough to make sure I knew I had other options and they'd help me with those if I wanted to do something else - as "unnatural" and inferior, which is probably the other thing that's raising my hackles.

But the real gem of this quote, the thing that throws their lies into stark relief, is a single word.

Opportunity.

As in, "give her the opportunity to seek counseling from places that aren't open on weekends".

I dunno about you, but when you're legislating requirements for how someone handles a situation, I don't really feel like you can call that "giving an opportunity" to someone. That's called "forcing them to do things your way" and it's a very, very different concept.

I mean, do they think that there's a time limit between the initial consult and the actual procedure? Like, once you have your consult, the timer is running down and if you don't finish up with your second appointment RIGHT THE FUCK NOW you'll lose the chance to have it at all? Because people are quite capable of waiting an extra few days if they feel the need to. They're not being rushed by anybody but the ticking clock conservatives have turned biology into with their X-week restrictions and bans, so if pregnant people are feeling pressured to hurry up and get their abortion, it's not pro-choicers' fault. It's standard business tactics, though, I suppose. Create the problem so that you can tout your ability to create a solution to it.

You can't forcibly give someone an opportunity. That's not what "opportunity" means. That's not what "give" means, either. If you are taking charge and setting requirements, that's force, control, and coercion, not generosity and opportunity.

If a pregnant person wants to visit a CPC or a member of the Christian clergy who isn't available on weekends, and get counseling, there is nothing in this universe stopping them from waiting an extra couple days to do so before returning to the clinic or making their second appointment. Nothing. At. All. They already have the opportunity to do so. They have the opportunity to wait as long as they need to before making a decision.

I have an idea. Why don't we ~~force~~ generously give everyone the opportunity to consider their decision to undergo ALL elective medical procedures? Institute three day waiting periods before tooth whitening. Before rhinoplasties and breast augmentation. Before gastric bypass surgery. Before wart removal. Before laser vision surgery. Before vasectomies. Don't the people undergoing all these things also deserve the opportunity to consider their decision and seek out second opinions and counseling from their natural support network, including their hypothetical clergy? I mean, if that's the logic we're operating on, why restrict our legislative generosity only to pregnant people? Let's give EVERYONE lots of time to think about their medical choices before they do anything.

Weekends and holidays not included, of course.

*I just heard a bit ago that the SD House passed the measure; I'm unclear on whether the SD Senate has also done so and it's on to the governor yet or if there's still a chance to stop it before it goes that far.

Anti-Choice Hypocrisy, Teens and Parents' Rights Edition

2013-02-21T14:08:00.000-08:00

Let me start by saying I'm glad this case turned out the way it did. I think what the parents were doing to her was despicable and fucked-up and crossing a line into outright abusive, and I'm happy that the court sided with her against her parents.

But I have one question.

What makes this case, where the parents were going to force a young woman to have an abortion, different from a situation in which parents force their teen to have a baby?

Because they are different. Anti-choicers will applaud the fuck out of "parents' rights!" and such when it comes time to restrict a young person's ability to make their own decision about ending their pregnancy, when their decision is to have an abortion - witness anti-choicers' repeated and often-successful efforts to pass the most restrictive possible versions of parental consent/notification laws, which require a teenager to at least notify, and in many cases get a permission slip from, their parents before having an abortion. Which gives the parents the opportunity to interfere, thus forcing the pregnant teen to give birth.*

Yet they're also applauding the fuck out of this case, where the court sided with the young woman in question to override the "parents' rights" in order to let her make her own decision about ending her pregnancy.

Good gods. The malodorous stench of hypocrisy is so thick in here, I may need a gas mask.

Which is it, anti-choicers? Do you support the rights of the parents to control which medical procedures a teenager may, may not, or must undergo? If so, why are you viewing this court case as a victory? It specifically placed an injunction against the parents' attempts to assert their "rights" to control their daughter's reproductive health. It placed the teen's wishes and choices above the parents' "rights" to make fertility decisions for her.

And if you support the right of pregnant teens to make their own reproductive health decisions independently of their parents' wishes, as your behavior regarding this case suggests, then why have a large portion of your legislative efforts historically been dedicated to attempting to enact laws that require parental consent before a minor undergoes an abortion? You'll take "notification" if that's all you can get, but you're always angling for "consent" whenever possible, and y'all have gotten pretty fucking stingy about those judicial bypass clauses too, putting as many obstacles as possible between a pregnant teen and their ability to make independent choices about their pregnancy.

So with one hand, you work to enact laws that take decisions about a minor's reproductive health and fertility out of that minor's hands and place them firmly under parental control, while with the other, you work to give those decisions back to the minor even if it means getting a court to overrule the parents' control.

And you do this based purely on which decision the teen is making and how that aligns with your opinion on how the situation should be handled.

Either you trust teens to make their own reproductive health choices, or you don't. If you're going to help and be happy for this girl because she gained the legal ability to choose for herself how to manage her pregnancy, then you damn well ought to be extending that same courtesy to young people who need that legal ability to make their own decisions, even if you don't agree with the decision in question.

Because "More rights...for people who agree with me, and fuck the rest of you, I will legally force you to "agree" with me too!" is in no way a morally-sound position to take. And since y'all are so attached to your notions of being on the moral high ground, you might want to attend to that little problem.

*And indeed, I've heard some horror stories about parents who refused to sign consent forms for epidurals or other pain medications during labor, to "teach her a lesson she won't forget". It's not about "preventing abortion" - that's just the mechanism by which it works. The true intent is to force them to give birth.*

Who should we entrust with the care and teaching of our children?

2013-02-15T09:18:00.002-08:00

So, let me get this straight.

A teacher, who had performed in porn prior to her teaching career, can be fired for her past conduct because her students and colleagues are hateful whorephobic fucks who couldn't remember that a sex worker, former or current, is also a human being who deserves respect, with the district superintendent saying that her past experiences in sex work are "incompatible with her responsibilities as a role model for students"...

...but a school counselor who openly says, on the news, that gay kids have no purpose in life unless they un-gay themselves and become straight Christian kids is just "expressing her First Amendment rights," and so no disciplinary action will be taken.

What the flaming, festering fuck?

Does the school counselor not also have responsibilities as a role model for students? Are gay students not also students for whom this counselor is responsible for being a good role model to? How can she be a good role model for students who she has already told she believes are worthless and without purpose?

How is one's past history, which would not have been known to the kids she taught at all, if her colleagues hadn't found her videos and downloaded them onto their phones to share around and show the principal (what a way to treat a colleague, huh?), somehow worse than a recent statement made in a very public forum advocating overt discrimination against a section of the student body for which one is responsible?

Chose at one point in the past to use your body to engage in sex on camera to make money, which you no longer choose to do and have not since becoming an educator? FOREVER IRREDEEMABLE SHOULD NOT EVER BE PERMITTED TO EXIST IN THE PRESENCE OF DELICATE, PRECIOUS, INNOCENT CHILDREN LEST THEIR HEARTS BE TAINTED BY YOUR SLUTTINESS.

While on camera for the local news, say flat out that non-het children are worthless so long as they continue to be non-het? HEY THAT'S HER RIGHT SHE CAN BELIEVE WHAT SHE WANTS THERE'S NO NEED TO DO ANYTHING I'M SURE SHE'LL STILL TREAT THE NON-HET KIDS IN HER CARE WITH THE SAME RESPECT AS THE STRAIGHT KIDS, AND THE NON-HET KIDS WON'T AT ALL BE HUMILIATED OR SHAMED OR OTHERWISE AFFECTED BY HER ASSERTIONS.

This is a truly sickening clusterfuck of misogyny, slut-shaming, whorephobia, homophobia, and Christian supremacy in action. Look at all the messages being sent:

Once a woman engages in sex work, she is forever worthless and should expect to be thrown aside once any non-sex-work profession she attempts to move into gets wind of her past.
Women's sexuality is hot and belongs on-camera, but once a woman has put her sexuality on camera, that's the only place she belongs and the only thing she should expect to do forever because she has sullied herself for anything else.
If you find out that someone you work with as an equal was once a sex worker, you are freed from all obligation to treat her with respect, and it's fine to share around the evidence of her prior career among other colleagues while at work.
If her effectiveness in the classroom is compromised by the blatant and disgusting disrespect and shaming aimed at her by colleagues and students alike, the solution is not to enforce codes of conduct that require everyone to behave their damn selves, but just to throw her out on her ass instead.
Advocating discrimination against as many as possibly one in ten of the kids you serve, telling children who are in a high-risk category for self-harm and suicide that they're worthless and their lives have no purpose, is totally fine, and you'll be protected from consequences.
Gay children's emotional and mental health isn't worth protecting, and they should be expected to still work with and under the "guidance" of someone who has outright told them they're worthless, so long as she said it because Jesus.

Fuck every single person involved in the handling of both of these situations. Principals, colleagues, judges, superintendents, everyone. Y'all can just rot in hell for being terrible, terrible examples of human beings.

Abortion Tourism

2013-02-08T10:40:00.001-08:00

Here's a hilaritragic word of the day for you: "abortion tourism"

Which of course just makes me think about like...abortion cruises*, destination abortions, abortion getaways, guided abortion tours...

But according to a clinic worker who testified at a hearing earlier this week in Alabama, on a new TRAP law** that could shut down all the remaining clinics in the state, it was used in earnest. (Well...as earnest as Republicans ever get in their maximum plausible deniability mode when they're trying to explain away their actions with the guise of "concern" for women.) When confronted with their obvious motivation of trying to close down all the remaining clinics, they claimed that they weren't doing any such thing, but such regulations were needed to stop Alabama from becoming a "haven of abortion tourism".

I, um...wait, what?

I just have two questions for these...people.

What exactly is so wrong with so-called "abortion tourism"? An abortion is an abortion is an abortion, whether it takes place in New York or Indiana or Nevada or anywhere else. Please explain to me how traveling to obtain an abortion in another state is somehow worse than obtaining an abortion in your state of residence. Explain it to me like I'm 2, because this does not make any sense whatsoever. More specifically, explain it to me in a way that makes sense without relying on the premise that "women shouldn't be able to wiggle out of the laws we instituted to give us control over their bodies." Because it sounds an awful lot like that's exactly your problem, that some people will be able to escape your control - and "maintain our (illegal and gained by deceptive piecemeal restrictions since a true ban is unconstitutional) control over the bodies and decisions of pregnant people by keeping them trapped in states where we've managed to functionally ban legal abortion without banning it" is a downright abusive goal.
And how exactly does your TRAP law prevent such "abortion tourism"...without closing the available clinics? This makes even less sense than the objection to the concept itself. I mean, you're using "regulatory non-compliance" as your smokescreen here, but as soon as it becomes about "abortion tourism", that smokescreen blows right away. Are wider hallways and larger elevators going to keep non-Alabamans away? Perhaps you believe non-Alabamans couldn't bring themselves to get their abortion from a doctor with an Alabama medical license and admitting privileges at a local hospital? Please, explain how regulations ostensibly intended to "protect the safety of women" seeking those services will cut down on the number of people able to access those services? Because that's...not what safety regulations are for, nor is it what they do when applied properly. So if you intend for your so-called "safety" regulations to reduce the rate of use of the service they're being applied to, UR DOIN IT WRONG.

So not only are the GOP trying to sneak de facto abortion bans past the Constitutionality issue - what's that hissy they always throw about Dems "disrespecting the Constitution" and such? - they're being a bunch of lying liars who lie about the issue.

Stellar morals there, guys. And you wonder why you have to resort to electioneering and voter suppression to keep from being rendered utterly irrelevant as a party.

*Paging Women on Waves...
**Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. Things like requiring admitting privileges, forcing abortion clinics to adhere to more stringent building codes by reclassifying them as "hospitals" or something more strictly regulated than regular outpatient clinics, playing zoning games, using administrative pressure and unreasonable reporting requirements to try to shut down as many clinics as possible.

Shitting on abuse survivors: totally the Christian thing to do.

2013-02-07T13:53:00.001-08:00

The Violence Against Women Act, which provides funds and programs to help victims/survivors of domestic violence and all kinds of abuse, is the sort of thing you'd think would be a no-brainer for wide bipartisan support. Who could be against helping women who've been abused? Only actual abusers themselves, right? Or abuse apologists?

Or, apparently, devout professional Christians.

The FRC seem to be shitting their pants over this mainly because the current update to VAWA would help those gross unnatural queer women, illegals who deserve whatever they get for being in this country in the first place, and Native women who haven't had the courtesy to die off and stop reminding us of our genocidal roots.

I mean, I'm trying to be hyperbolic here, but I kind of feel like it's not that far from the truth. Those are the things they cite in their opposition - that they can't approve of a bill which has provisions to help queer women (because that's "giving them special rights"), undocumented immigrants, etc. Their contempt is further measured by their claim that the Democrats added these oh-so-awful pieces to the bill purely in order to force Republicans to oppose it so the Dems can point to it as evidence that the GOP is anti-woman.

First of all, we didn't need additional evidence. Y'all trumpet your misogyny to the skies each and every damn day. You are to the point where people are trying to hold workshops to teach you fuckers to keep your goddamn mouths shut about women's issues because of the massive backlash every time you speak. WE KNOW you're anti-woman. It's never been up for debate.

But second of all, it's disgusting that the only reason they can apparently think of for specifically ensuring that underserved and more-vulnerable populations receive the help they need is for political maneuvering. Not because there are people who need help. Only because politics.

Projection complex, thy name is the GOP.

Oh, but it's not just that the bill specifically looks to help someone other than straight white American citizens. It's that, and the money:

You can help by contacting your Senators and urging them to vote against VAWA and end the real abuse of taxpayer dollars.

Emphasis original.

So let me get this straight: women being repeatedly assaulted, physically, emotionally, and/or sexually: not really abuse, why are we wasting our time on this? The government spending money to help those women: ABUSE! SHUT IT DOWN RIGHT NOW STOP ABUSING MY WALLET WAHHHH

I feel like a fucking broken record here, but Republicans, JFC your priorities are terrible.

Sen. Campfield, what the fuck did I JUST say about not wanting to write about you any more?

2013-02-04T10:51:00.000-08:00

It is becoming more and more clear that Stacey Campfield is the sort of man who should not be in a position of authority over an amoeba, much less any more complex life-forms. Check out this breathtakingly condescending and ableist response to a constituent of his, who emailed to criticize his recent legislative grandstanding:

Telisha Cobb: Senator Campfield, I am writing to you today as a mother, active citizen, and born and raised Tennessean. You are an embarrassment to our great state. Folks all over the country and here in Tennessee are looking at the bills you are proposing in shock. They are the most ignorant and morally lacking legislation that could be proposed this year. It is clear that you are targeting homosexuals and low-income families with hogwash legislation. You need to search your heart, your values and your Christianity to find a better way to represent us as a whole. We will do everything in our power to make sure you are not here in 2014. There are numerous grass roots parties that are making their voices heard.

Stacey Campfield: You seem to have some serious, deep anger issues. Have you ever thought about therapy? I hear they are doing some wonderful things with medications these days.

What. The. Unholy. Fuck.

Her email was simple, direct, dignified, and professional, a simple statement of "This stuff you're doing is Very Not Okay. Stop it." And to this, he thought it was acceptable to, in essence, tell her that she's crazy for disagreeing with him and should be medicated until she agrees?

Which is reprehensible in and of itself, but then you get into all the ways that a powerful white man telling a woman (of color? I would guess so from the pictures I found but I don't know if she identifies as such) that she's "angry" and needs therapy or medications draws on a whole history of pathologizing women's anger and dissent as a major avenue of structural misogyny, and it gets about 100000x uglier.

Kitten, you seem to have forgotten how this whole elected-representative-thing works. You are not the lord of your own little fiefdom by virtue of having been elected. You are a representative - that is, you are there to represent the people who elected you. And if they feel you are doing a poor job of representing them, they have every right in the world to tell you so and demand that you shape the fuck up, because while elected official/voter doesn't quite analogize with an employer/employee situation, it's close enough, and YOU ARE NOT THE EMPLOYER. You are the worker. And your bosses are hauling your ass in for a performance review and/or write-up for failure to adequately perform your job duties. Which makes it absurdly inappropriate to sass them and display this kind of condescendingly rude attitude. When the people who gave you your job call you on the carpet for wasting company time and resources on being an asshole, you listen up and change your ways, or your ass is out on the curb.

For someone who is an official in a democratic system of government, you have an awful lot of contempt for citizen input, which is one of the core mechanisms by which any sort of democracy operates. Somehow I'm thinking you'd do better playing God on your own little private island somewhere. Why don't you go try that instead of trying to play God here the U.S.?

And by the way, Stacey? Yeah, they are doing some pretty amazing things with medications. I'm on some of them and they've fucking changed my life.

But I still think you're a reprehensible shitbag with the morals of a bloodsucking insect, and my opinion and anger are in no way invalidated by the medication I take.

Fuck off back to the cesspit you crawled out of, you suppurating anal sore.

That angry enough for you?

MY UTERUS IS SO FUCKING METAL

2013-02-01T14:34:00.000-08:00

Conservatives keep finding new ways to surprise and delight/horrify me. It's pretty impressive, to be honest. Today's hilaritragic dose of "Excuse me, in which reality do you live? It sounds like a fascinating place to visit!" comes from Kevin Swanson of Generations Radio, a conservative Christian radio show based out of Colorado Springs:

[S]cientists that have done research on women’s wombs after they’ve gone through the surgery [have] compared the wombs of women who were on the birth control pill to those who were not on the birth control pill. And they have found that with women who are on the birth control pill, there are these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb. They’re just like dead babies. They’re on the inside of the womb. And these wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.

A stick-figure comic of a political rally. One figure in the crowd holds up a large sign reading [citation needed] in the style of Wikipedia's superscript notation of incomplete sources.

DEAD BABY GRAVEYARD WOMB is going to be the name of my death metal band, you guys. I just can't let a name like that go to waste. Either that, or the title of my memoirs. Maybe both. It sounds like the title of a Dethklok album, doesn't it?

Nathan Explosion: This is metal... for [dead fetuses].
Skwisgaar Skwigelf: [dead fetuses] don't gots no good music to listen to.
William Murderface: Yeah, it's true.

Props to Mr. Hyperbole for working in the phrase "dead babies" or "little babies" three times in five sentences, I guess. Repetition, repetition, repetition. Say it over and over again and people will eventually believe it.

Congratulations, Kevin Swanson. Your hard-on for incredibly, absurdly inaccurate "science" and attempts to wring the most emotionally-compelling/viscerally disgusting insults out of it have, like vegangelicals and the "bloodmouths" thing, flopped so hard you've actually created a sweet new term for us to describe just how hardcore and metal our bodies are.

Thanks bro!

Mr. Campfield, back already?

2013-02-01T14:03:00.001-08:00

The douchebubble who brought us death certificates for aborted fetuses, a bogus attempt to join the TN Senate Black Caucus (he then cried racism when they told him to GTFO), banning people on public assistance from winning the lottery (because clearly, people on welfare win the lottery ALL THE TIME and then stay on public assistance afterward, costing the state a metric ass-ton of money, right?), and the other day's cheerful "No grades, no food" bill, is back for another round.

He's reviving last year's "Don't Say Gay" bill, which prohibits teachers and other staff at public schools from even mentioning homosexuality in any context for grades k-8, but with some fun new additions. Specifically:

At grade levels pre-K through eight (pre-K-8), any such classroom instruction, course materials or other informational resources that are inconsistent with natural human reproduction shall be classified as inappropriate for the intended student audience and, therefore, shall be prohibited.

LEA policies and procedures adopted pursuant to this section shall not prohibit:

A school counselor, nurse, principal or assistant principal from counseling a student who is engaging in, or who may be at risk of engaging in, behavior injurious to the physical or mental health and wellbeing of the student or another person; provided, that wherever possible such counseling shall be done in consultation with the student's parents or legal guardians. Parents or legal guardians of students who receive such counseling shall be notified as soon as practicable that such counseling has occurred

Bolded is the new addition to the law. The thing is, it's kinda sneaky. Ostensibly it's just about making sure the parents know if their child is in trouble and might need help, and that's what conservatives will (and maybe already have, I haven't checked yet) claim as defense against it being pointed out that they're trying to legally compel outing children to their families. (In fact, at first glance, that's what I thought. For about half a second.) But look at where it is in the law, and what it's attached to. You can't in one breath you say "You can't talk about Teh Gay..." and in the next say "...except if the kid is in need of counseling and then you have to tell their parents" without the very strong implication that counseling a student *for* Teh Gay is what needs to be reported to the parents.

This gets especially sinister if you're familiar with some of the common right-wing fundie arguments against non-het sexuality. They genuinely consider it - non-het sexuality itself - to be disordered behavior, perversion, inherently harmful. To them, two women who have been together for thirty years, never cheated, no abuse, no major issues at all, still as blissfully in love as the day they met, are harming themselves and each other simply by being together. Take that and make it about teenagers, about whom conservatives are already having several large litters of kittens over their hormones and sex drive and the possibility that they might not remain utterly chaste and have their first kiss at their ultra-het church wedding...and any sign of Teh Gay could instantly be taken as "potentially harmful behavior".

So for all the plausible-deniability of "it's not about gay, it's about troubled children who need help!", it's not even the slightest stretch, especially in that area of the country, to imagine evangelical Christian school staff "counseling" a child simply because they believe the kid to be non-het, because they do believe it to be "behavior injurious to the physical or mental health and wellbeing of the student" - and then, per the new requirements, making a call to Mom and Dad to tell them "I think your child has a case of Teh Gay". And who gives a shit what happens then, amirite? It's not like GSM youths make up some 40% of the homeless population in that age bracket, despite being only 5-10% of the total population. Not like anti-gay parents have ever, like, abused their gay children, or had them faux-kidnapped and sent to isolated abuse camps to try to "convert" them. No, I'm sure a non-het kid being outed to a potentially anti-gay family is totally and completely safe.

And when I finish this sentence and stand up, a unicorn will materialize out of my ass.

Please, Campfield, stop wasting everyone's time with your reprehensible, harmful garbage legislation. Crawl back into the hole you came out of. I would very much like to not have to type your name ever again. Kthx.

Making the rights of children dependent on their grades, Part 2

2013-01-30T11:36:00.000-08:00

Just yesterday I posted about the Senator in Tennessee who wants to make TANF assistance payments to families conditional on how well the children are doing in school. Today, the Universe saw fit to deliver Round Two of this sort of fuckery to me, in the form of a school in Maryland making religious accommodations for Muslim students conditional on their grades.

Gosh, why didn't anyone ever tell me that the human rights of children - rights to food, shelter, and religious expression - are contingent upon how well they please the almighty public education system? "Get good grades" is not as simple as it generally sounds, for a variety of reasons ranging from developmental disabilities, different learning styles, difficulties with particular subjects, or simply being the kind of kid whose unconventional personality and academic style is "unacceptable" by the rigid standards of the public school system. (Show of hands, who here got in trouble, repeatedly, for not showing your work or for using alternate methods to get your answers, because it made more sense to you than the "right" way of doing it - even if you still got the correct answer? *raises hand*)

This comes down to ageism and Islamophobia, pure and simple. Islamophobia because they're certainly not requiring Christian students to get good grades before being allowed to wear a cross or pray before class. Ageism because I'd love to see a workplace try to make legally-required religious accommodations contingent on your latest performance review. Just imagine the shitstorm that would kick up!

For bonus fuckery points, this "accommodation" - and I hesitate to call it that, because can you call a conditional concession that must be earned a real accommodation? - only came about after some Muslim students began praying during the day at school, and teachers got upset and tried to make them stop, telling them "this is a Christian school".

By the way, Parkdale High School is a public school.

At which point the principal stepped in - good for her, I guess? Really I shouldn't have to feel approval of that course of action, it's the bare minimum requirement of school management, caring for the needs of all one's students equally, but there are plenty who wouldn't have said anything, or would have supported the teachers in their harassment of Muslim students. - and came up with this "compromise". I just want to ask, why was a compromise necessary? Why could she not have just told the teachers to STFU and look up the 1st Amendment as pertains to education, and given Muslim students the accommodations they needed without making it conditional?

Oh. Right. Because fuck fairness, when it comes to children, Muslims, or Muslim children.

People seeking abortions may only think about their decisions on business days, according to South Dakota

2013-01-29T11:01:00.000-08:00

In the chip-chip-chip fight to render Roe a meaningless statute by eroding access to abortion services until we have the right, but not the ability, to access it, waiting periods have been a core piece of the movement. Force people to make two visits to the clinic, which makes it harder for people who don't live near the clinic, which very few people do at this point what with absurd over-zoning and regulation forcing clinics out of business. Force people to have to arrange rides, time off work, childcare, or missing class not once, but twice, possibly missing out on an extra day's pay in the process. Make the whole thing drag a little more and hope that some of them tip over into the 2nd trimester while they have to wait, so that it becomes even more difficult, costly, and time-consuming to get that abortion. And do it all under the plausible deniability of "we just want to make sure you don't do something you'll regret! We are helping by making sure you take lots...of...time...to think about this (because we assume you haven't already thought about this, because if you had, obviously you wouldn't have decided to do it, Q.E.D.)."

And last year, if you'll recall, South Dakota made infamy by insitituting the longest waiting period thus far, at 72 hours (most states that have it are 24 hours, though I think there might be a couple 48s).

Not satisfied with that, they're now trying to make those 72 hours stretch e v e n f u r t h e r by specifying that they mean 72 hours, not including weekends and holidays.

>.>
<.<
o.O

So...if the ostensible point of waiting periods is about making sure pregnant people ~~SIT DOWN AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING YOU FILTHY BABY-MURDERING WHORE~~ take enough time to come to a reasonable decision so they don't do anything they'll later regret...what does it matter which days the sit-and-think period encompasses? Are people incapable of considering serious, life-altering decisions* on their days off?** If anything, I'd think that'd be when people have more time and leisure to consider major issues, when they're not busy taking care of work, kids, and/or school obligations.

It all makes perfect sense when you know what's really going on, whisper-thin veil of concern for pregnant people aside, but usually they try a little harder to hold on to that veil. When they start proposing restrictions that no longer make even surface sense with their supposed reasoning, they're beginning to risk more people figuring out what's actually happening. Which suggests two very scary possibilities, to me. Either they really do believe that people won't notice, that the average public isn't paying enough attention to catch the disconnect and suss out their real motivation (and what scares me here is the possibility that they're right) - or they are so confident in their political power after all the gerrymandering bullshit of late that they don't care how it looks, they're sure it'll go through anyway, and that's all that matters to them.

Like I said. Scary possibilities.

*It's a serious, life-altering decision for some, but not for all; I phrase it this way because that's the framing that always surrounds this issue when we talk waiting periods.
**Not that weekends and holidays are everyone's days off, though a lot of people forget that. Retail and food service don't stop for holidays and weekends. And considering that it's low-income people, like those who work retail and service industry jobs, who are generally most affected by abortion restrictions, it sort of makes this doubly shitty by imposing a more or less irrelevant concept of "non-work days" on the people it's enforced against.

State Sen. Campfield to TN kids: "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"

2013-01-28T16:22:00.000-08:00

Or rather, in this case, "The starvings will continue until your grades improve!"

By which I mean, he has proposed a bill to punish the families of underachieving children on public assistance by decreasing their TANF allotment (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, ie, food and living subsidies).

"How are your grades, little Timmy? Well, no pressure or anything, but we could get kicked out of our apartment and end up in a shelter if your grades aren't up to snuff! Have a great day at school, kiddo." Because as we all know, children learn best under pressure and threats of starving their whole family. It's a motivation thing.

And the whole ugly affair gets even grosser, if you read his own words on the subject:

One of the top tickets to break the chain of poverty is education. To achieve a quality education is like a three legged stool. The state has put a lot of responsibility on schools and teachers to improve student performance. If the children don't produce, it could impact the pay of the teacher and the standing of the school with the state. We have pushed two of the three legs of the student performance (teachers and schools) to improve, and they are. ... The third leg of the stool (probably the most important leg) is the parents. We have done little to hold them accountable for their child's performance. What my bill would do is put some responsibility on parents for their child's performance.

First of all, "If the children don't produce"? Produce? Are we talking about schools here, or child labor factories? Come on, Mr. Campfield, let that ill-fitting compassion mask slip a little further and show us the full extent of your disdain for poor children and how you're already seeing them as future disposable worker-commodities.

Secondly, are you just completely unaware of the fact that children are dependent upon their parents to provide food/shelter/etc.? Children don't exist in a vacuum. Putting "responsibility" and "accountability" - ie, punishments - on the parents transfers those effects directly to the kids, who are relying on their parents to be able to care for them. So you can cloak it in "parental responsibility" language all you like, but it still comes out to punishing children for bad grades by TAKING THEIR FUCKING FOOD AND HOUSING AWAY. And there is absolutely no possible circumstance in which that is anything but a hideously, grossly unethical and immoral thing to do. (But of course, Stacey Campfield has a 100% rating with Tennessee Right to Life, and sponsored a bill in 2007 to issue death certificates to aborted fetuses. He's very consistent that way. All about caring for the lives of children, amirite?)

Thirdly and most importantly, this completely and utterly fails to take into account the sorts of structural barriers to excelling at school that poor children ALREADY FACE. Kids are already under stress when their family is struggling with poverty, both stress within the family - especially if there are issues of food scarcity, which has effects on a child both physiologically and psychologically - and from the fact that kids are evil, nasty, bullying little shits sometimes, and poor kids make a great target for that kind of bully. Additionally, children who have learning disabilities or illnesses - mental or physical - that make school more difficult are less likely than their economically well-off peers to receive the interventions and accommodations they need, which further sabotages their ability to do well in school. Then you have older - teenage - kids in poverty-level households who may well be trying to hold down jobs in order to help their families get by, which takes time away from schoolwork.

He frames it as "Parents are responsible to make sure their kids are ready for school and that they get an education." Which, again, shows stunning ignorance of what families in poverty are having to do to get by. Parents who are struggling to make ends meet often just don't have time to do the suburban-middle-class "make sure your kids have a nutritious breakfast, drop them off at school, pick them up after school, and help them with their homework" thing. That takes time and energy that the parents are already expending just trying to make ends meet.

So to sum up, this absurdity of a proposal specifically targets those children who are already struggling the most with school, sets up a hard-line target that doesn't take any variance in circumstances into account, then threatens to punish those who don't meet the requirement by pushing their whole fucking family even further into poverty.

What part of that sounded like a good idea to you, Senator?

And is it just me, or is there a "welfare queens" sort of dogwhistle in there, too? The whole thing, especially the fact that it hinges on rhetoric of "parental responsibility" and parents "not doing their job [of making sure their kids do well in school]", seems designed to evoke the image of lazy welfare-dependent adults who are just not bothering to help their kids out of apathy or spite.

See, class, here we have a truly stunning shitshow of ignorance, arrogance, classism, racism, and paternalism, held together with BOOTSTRAPS GODDAMNIT.

Congratulations, Mr. Campfield. You are officially the douchiest Republican I've seen in the last few days. Which, considering the state of your party, is actually kind of an accomplishment. I hope you can look back fondly on this experience from your post-political career in the very near future after the people you claim to represent toss you out on your ass.

Quote of the Day

2013-01-02T20:14:00.000-08:00

What will religion look like in the year 2060? Conservative Christians will be treated as second class citizens, much like African Americans were prior to civil rights legislation in the 1960s. Family as we know it will be drastically changed with the state taking charge of the children beginning at birth. Marriage will include two, three, four or any number of participants. Marriage will not be important, with individuals moving in and out of a 'family' group at will. Churchbuildings will be little used, with many sold to secular buyers and the money received going to the government. Churches will not be allowed to discuss any political issues, even if it affects the church directly. Tax credit given to churches and non-profit organizations will cease. Christian broadcasting will be declared illegal based on the separation of church and state. The airwaves belong to the government, therefore they cannot be used for any religious purpose. We will have, or have had, a Muslim president. Cities with a name from the Bible such as St. Petersburg, Bethlehem, etc. will be forced to change their name due to separation of church and state. Groups connected to any religious affiliation will be forced out of health care. Health centers get tax money from the state, making it a violation of church and state. Get involved! Sign THE STATEMENT."

- The [White, Straight, Rich, Nuclear, Christian] American Family Association, in an email designed to make privileged asshats very, very afraid indeed.

There is only one possible response to this.

A screen-cap from the old Spiderman cartoon. Spidey is pointing urgently at something off-screen, and two policemen beside him are laughing. Macro-style text on the image reads "LOOK AT HIM. LOOK AT HIM AND LAUGH."

This Should Be Interesting...

2013-01-02T19:00:00.000-08:00

I've complained before about the IRS' privileging of churches and religious organizations. My complaints were generally more about churches being totally tax-exempt despite their politicking, which has gotten bolder and bolder in its forays over the border between "non-specific beliefs that have political ramifications" and "telling people how to vote or who to vote for" - and the IRS has done nothing about it.

These two lawsuits, however, take up against different religion-specific tax rules, ones I hadn't even known existed. Apparently, churches and affiliated organizations which have 501(c)(3) status or want to acquire such don't have to pay application fees, which secular non-profits do - and these are not $20 copay type fees; apparently, they can run up to $850. Which isn't *that* much to most big orgs, but a lot of starting-out non-profits don't have a generous budget, and so this takes a big bite out of what they can do as they're getting set up. Additionally, churches and religious organizations aren't required to submit yearly financial information filings, which secular non-profits do. When the IRS itself estimates a total of 211 work-hours to complete the relevant filing? That's not a small inconvenience. The informational filings are public information, and must include the names of any donors who give over $5,000. People who want to donate fuckbuckets of money to churches to carry out their (frequently political) work can do so in anonymity, but if you want to donate to a secular non-profit, your contribution goes on public record.

I don't know enough about the relevant laws and precedents to speculate on these cases. But I think it'll be interesting to see how they play out, and if it might help lay groundwork for further challenges to churches as tax-exempt demi-political organizations (for those who choose to behave that way).

The Problem With Reinstating the AWB

2012-12-21T18:01:00.002-08:00

[This is going to be a post about guns, and it does include pictures of them]

Fair warning: I am far less anti-gun than most people who share my other sociopolitical positions tend to be. I believe in gun control. I believe that the US's gun laws are pretty fucked and need some serious overhaul. I also believe that said overhaul needs to be sensible, measured, and written by people who know what they're talking about.

In recent weeks, in the wake of the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary, I've been bombarded by requests from the cause orgs I'm on the email lists of, asking me to sign petitions in favor of reinstating the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004.

I have not signed these. And I'm not going to.

This is not to say that I am against the idea of tightening our current gun laws. Not at all, not even a little bit. But there are some major problems with just saying "let's reinstate the existing AWB".

Firstly, that the old ban was bullshit. It created the phrase "assault weapon" out of thin air (much like the partial-birth abortion ban did with its title) to describe a very broad class of guns that could best be described as "Guns That Look Scary." It banned certain combinations of features that sounded reasonably unnecessary, without actually reducing the availability of the style of guns it ostensibly banned.

Let me ask you something, real quick. When someone says the phrase "assault weapon", what kind of gun do you think of? Something like this, right?

Bushmaster M4A2, which counts as an "assault weapon" for purposes of the 1994 AWB because of its folding stock, pistol grip, and bayonet lug.

It's scary-looking. It's a semi-auto civilian version of a military rifle, and it serves pretty much no purpose for an average person to have aside from "this looks cool/makes me feel cool".*

Here, let me show you a gun that was specifically made for the AWB era to conform to those rules:

Gee, that looks really similar. Identical, even. And it nearly is; same mag capacity, same pistol grip. They just removed the bayonet mount and changed the stock to fixed-length.

So...how did the AWB make things safer, again? Will the fixed stock make it kill fewer people or something? Was there a rash of gun-based stabbings with bayonets that we needed to crack down on?

If an assault weapons ban is passed that ends up being nothing more than a reinstatement of the old ban, the opportunity and social will to push for real change that was created by the ugly events of last week will be wasted, and the NRA will have won another round by keeping the conversation stagnant.

I don't want cosmetic change. I don't want lip service that still leaves ridiculously-unnecessary weapons and accessories widely and legally available. There's much kerfuffle about "politicizing" the deaths of so many children, but which is more politicizing? A political move for show and constituent goodwill that makes a mere incremental difference in the rates of gun violence in this country? Or a real change to try to prevent the like from happening again?

Here's what I'd like to see from a new gun-control law, in no particular order:

Reinstate the limit on high-capacity magazines. I'm tempted to say drop it to 5 instead of 10, because what on earth could you be hunting that actually needs 10 shots to drop it? If you need 10 rounds to drop your prey, you're either a terrible shot and shouldn't be firing guns around other life-forms anyway, or hunting things that probably shouldn't be hunted and why are you doing this? I realize this makes target shooting less fun because you have to keep stopping to either reload or switch to a fresh mag, depending on how many mags you own, but...tough titties. A less smooth and flowing sport shooting experience, or mass murders a few times a year? Not exactly a tough decision, unless you've had a truly successful compassionectomy. (And if you have, what the fuck are you even doing here? Go away. Return to the WND swamps from which you came.)
Standardize controls on the process of acquiring guns. I personally know someone who has purchased guns while traveling to other states where things are far less restrictive, then brought them back into California, rather than deal with the waiting periods and trigger lock and background check requirements here. That shouldn't be possible - or at least, it shouldn't be that simple.
Same for issuing carry permits. When my gun-nut ex and I were driving cross-country, we'd had to plan for which states allowed what in regards to his gun, whether it had to be locked in the trunk, could be in the glove box if unloaded, or could be sitting on the dashboard in plain sight. States set their own qualifications process for getting a carry permit, and some have reciprocal agreements to honor each other's permits, and some don't, and that's frankly ridiculous.
Mandatory registration of all guns. I'm not under the illusion that this will do anything to stop certain elements of society from having, acquiring, selling, etc. under the radar. I knew people in Tennessee who could literally make a gun start to finish including the ammo. And there's always a criminal element willing to flout the law. But again, as has been pointed out many times, all the shootings in the past few years have been carried out with guns legally acquired, and no major shooting has ever been stopped by an armed bystander, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that reducing/controlling the total number of guns in circulation is probably going to help somewhat, or at least not make things worse.
Common-sense restrictions on what caliber guns people can legally keep in their homes. You do not need a fucking .45 or .44mag handgun for self-defense. A 9mm will suffice perfectly well for that purpose. Nor do you need a rifle in 7.62x39, which is a MILITARY ROUND. 7.62x39 was made for a Russian machine gun, and is what the AK-47 shoots. What in the world does a civilian need military rifle rounds for? Serious question. What are you doing that you need this? Explain to me why your safety can only be guaranteed by keeping weapons of war in your house. I'd really like to know what the hell you get up to in there.
For collectors or fans of exotic guns and ammo, I suggest a compromise. You can own them, buy them, etc. But they must be kept under lock and key at a licensed shooting range or gun dealership. You can access and shoot them whenever you like, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to need to keep a Russian sniper rifle in your bedroom.**
Speaking of which, tighten licensing and monitoring and regulation on gun dealers. No more of this swinging by Walmart to pick up a new gun. Require that the same procedures for licensing, sales, and background checks be followed at gun shows as in regular shops. (In an ideal world, I'd like to see gun shows go the way of the dodo entirely, but I think that would probably provoke too much pushback to be feasible right now.)

The opportunity we have right now to create meaningful change in the way this country handles guns came at an incredibly high price. Let's not squander it on simply reinstating what few limits were wrested from the resisting grasp of the NRA nearly 20 years ago. We need to do better.

*I sympathize with this feeling as a justification for owning a particular gun, I really do. Why else did I have a Desert Eagle .50 or my FN PS-90? For feeling like a badass. Duh. I had a thigh-holster for the DE and I was excellent with the PS90, out-shooting gun-nut ex and one other with my PS90 and non-magnification optic, standing, versus their rifles on bipods with scopes and them shooting prone. I really truly enjoyed owning both of those guns, going shooting regularly and honing my skills as well as having fun with it.

"I wanna feel like a badass" is not sufficient justification to keep such guns available when weighed against the lives of children, though. No matter how cool the gun is.

**I speak from experience. Gun-nut ex's favorite rifle was his Dragunov, and it spent an irritating amount of time just laying around our room rather than in the giant gun safe it was supposedly kept in.

Someone doesn't know the history of her (former) organization...

2012-12-15T13:40:00.000-08:00

It seems Karen Handel, the woman responsible for Komen's withdrawal of funding for breast exams from Planned Parenthood because icky, abortion, has taken her anti-PP fervor with her after leaving Komen in the wake of the massive PR backlash they received.

Only, she's making the most ridiculous claims now in criticism of PP, especially for a former Komen official who's still defending actions she took while a member of the organization.

[She] alleges that Planned Parenthood “literally co-opted the color pink” from Komen in a sinister “bait and switch.”

Gee, that's a funny accusation to make, coming from a former VP of an organization whose most recognizable symbol, the infamous pink ribbon, was itself co-opted from the woman who created the original breast cancer awareness ribbon in all but color, because she declined to participate in the commodification and corporatization of her work. Hypocrite.

PS: People can copyright some really stupid stuff - DNA, anybody? - but I have yet to hear of anyone successfully copyrighting a color. Komen didn't invent pink, and they don't own pink. You're just mad because the public backed PP and you lost in the court of public opinion. Take your ribbons and go home, please.

Connecticut

2012-12-14T13:29:00.001-08:00

I've been sitting here staring at the blank "new post" screen for several minutes now, unsure how to begin, or even what to say, really.

My heart aches - literally, my chest hurts and makes breathing difficult - with horror at what happened today. May the souls of those who were killed find peace, in whatever way is best for them. May the shooter's soul never find rest for the rest of eternity. I cannot imagine the kind of pain the parents of the murdered children, their siblings, grandparents, extended family, as well as families, friends, and partners of the adults who died, are feeling right now. I hope they can find some kind of peace, solace, and healing.

I am disgusted almost beyond words at the way those who want to reopen the conversations around gun violence and gun control legislation, in order that massacres like this don't happen again, to anyone, ever, are being chastised for "politicizing" the issue. Is it politics to say "This is an awful tragedy, and we should do something so that it doesn't happen ever again"? If so, then I'm 110% willing to "policitize" the issue, if it means a reduction or cessation of loss of life to incidents like these. A big, hearty FUCK YOU to those who use such tactics to silence a conversation that we obviously desperately need to be having in this country right now. They know that for as long as they can keep kicking the can down the road, hiding behind the victims' pain and trauma to hold on to the status quo, they win. And if that's not politicizing the issue, I don't know what is.

On that note, the first person to try to frame this in terms of "crazy" or "lone nutjob" in my presence is going to find their face suddenly, and forcibly, intimately acquainted with a fucking BRICK. I am "crazy", after a fashion. I am not always particularly stable. And yet somehow, I've managed to get through 27 years on this earth without massacring children. Funny, that.

Same goes for any claims that if more people had been armed at the school, this wouldn't have happened. To quote commenter aphra_ben at Shakesville, "The sooner the US debate accepts that being able to shoot a gun is not the same thing as being able to effectively neutralize an armed threat, the better off we'll be." Unless this country is willing to go to the collective time, effort, and expense of educating and training every single gun owner in not only target accuracy, but also tactics and police/military procedures for such instances, not to mention psychologically preparing them to fire on and possibly kill another person, simply increasing the number of firearms present in a given location at any given time isn't going to do fuck all. "Has a gun" != "Knows what to do in a situation of gun violence (and can do so effectively, without inadvertently causing further casualties among bystanders)".

I'm a lot more gun-friendly than most progressives tend to be - comes of living with a collector and pistol instructor for a couple of years and regularly going shooting with friends in a very gun-friendly state - but even I will say, there is no amount of "I enjoy recreational target shooting" that justifies the overly-free availability of firearms, when the result is this much death.*

We didn't have the conversation after Virginia Tech. We didn't have it after Aurora. We didn't have it after Portland. All because nobody wanted to "politicize the tragedy". We promised we'd revisit it later, once the wound wasn't so fresh. And yet we didn't. We don't. When are we going to finally just goddamn well do it?**

*I still disagree that reinstating the old assault weapons ban is even remotely helpful, for a variety of reasons that begins and ends with "this is why we don't let legislators write the definitions of things they're not experts in", much like most reproductive health laws. But that's a specific issue with the how part, not the whether or not we should do something part.
**There's a sick part of me that could kinda see the shootings as being on a timetable - "Okay, it's been long enough. Quick, let's have another shooting before anyone tries to talk gun control, to give us another excuse to avoid it!" When they're happening so horribly often, well, there will simply never be a time where it's far enough removed, because another one will have taken place in the interim. It works out so nicely for the pro-gun lobby that one begins to wonder if it's not perhaps a feature, rather than a bug.

Republicans fart in science's general direction - again.

2012-12-06T16:47:00.000-08:00

Since Indiana state senator Dennis Kruse apparently can't take a hint after his last few attempts to pass a bill to allow/mandate Creationism be taught in science classes in his state went nowhere fast, he's now introducing what he's calling, in classic Republican spin style, a "truth in education" bill. It would require teachers to produce proof on demand any time a student challenged or disagreed with the scientific subject being taught.

First of all, isn't that basically what school is? Maybe it's different in Indiana, or maybe schools have changed since I was there, but I don't remember much by way of truly rote learning in science, aside from basic things like the periodic table and the laws of thermodynamics. When we learned about evolution, it wasn't just "We evolved. End of story."* It was a whole subject, complete with an age-appropriate rundown of the discoveries and theories and reasoning that support it. No, we weren't reading anyone's dissertations or scientific journal articles, but we had the cliffs notes from them. If you challenge what the teacher's telling you, perhaps you should just read through your textbook and get your "proof" that way? (Hmm. On second thought...bad idea, actually.) Everything they teach in science classes is supported by evidence to at least some degree. We're not the ones who just throw ideas together and call it truth - you're thinking of Creationism.

I almost hope they do pass this. I'd love to see some self-righteous student stand up and challenge the teaching of evolution, and have the teacher cite research, then turn around and ask them "So what's your proof, then?" I mean, fair is fair. Also, I move to have Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye put together "Teacher's Proof Kits" for common questions so that teachers don't have to waste time on some evangelical kid trying to disrupt everyone else's learning with inane debate - just chuck a booklet at the kid's head and move on.

The one thing that would concern me is how they're defining "proof". The bill hasn't been introduced yet so I don't have the text to look at, but I'm wary, because Republican-led legislation around science issues tends to be vague as fuck or have really weird or totally wrong definitions for things. What's the standard for proof here? "9 out of 10 dentists agree"? Every single article on the subject in every single scholarly journal for the last 20 years must agree with this conclusion? Or are we trying to use the actual scientific definition of "proof"? Because that'll go nowhere fast. Since science is a constantly moving, changing, self-refining field, the standard for "proof" is set extremely high - hell, even gravity is just a theory in scientific terms. Make it so you can only teach 100% "proven" science, and science classes will get a hell of a lot shorter - and students will lack important information and background in the field, simply because some asshole in a suit willfully misinterpreted scientific notions of "proof" and "theory" in order to undermine science and get Creationism a toe in the door.

*Although my favorite super-simplified explanation of evolution ever came from my senior year environmental science teacher. When we began that unit, he started class by saying "Evolution can be summed up in four words: dead things don't breed." It's stuck with me for ten years now. Clearly this is an effective teaching tool.

The Beauty of Anti-Choice "Logic"

2012-12-06T09:20:00.000-08:00

TW: sexual abuse, reproductive coercion

This isn't the first time I've seen this argument, and I'm sure it won't be the last. But something about the way it's phrased here kinda poked my brain with a sharp stick.

Over-the-counter birth control pills could encourage men to prey upon younger girls and dictate their contraceptive choices, according to Janice Shaw Crouse of the Christian activist group Concerned Women for America.

"Any guy who is older and taking advantage of a younger girl could put her on a pill," Crouse said.

This really leaves me with only two possible conclusions. Either CWA et al believe that a lack of hormonal BC will prevent men from abusing young women - a dubious notion at best, and with no factual support whatsoever for the idea, I'm calling shenanigans - or they believe an abuse victim is better off abused *and pregnant*, than just abused. (Also, victims of sexual abuse would never have the agency to decide for themselves that they'd rather be protected, and seek out BC themselves.)

Yes, because what a young teen or pre-teen who's being abused needs is an unwanted pregnancy on top of that whole abuse thing. I'm sure that'll be very helpful. Especially considering these asshats are the ones who would then force her to carry and give birth to her abuser's baby. That'll do wonders for the child's mental health, really. "Well, the abuse was discovered when you got pregnant [and theoretically has been stopped]! Hooray! Now it's time to further derail your life by having a baby at 13! Aren't you glad we're here to help you?"

Lucky teens, to have CWA on their side. With friends like these...

The War on Christmas, or "Other religions exist and this upsets me"

2012-12-04T17:20:00.000-08:00

(Post title shamelessly taken from here)

♫ It's the most wonderful time, of the year ♫
♫ With the AFA yelling ♫
♫ "The war has begun! This is something to fear!" ♫
♫ It's the most wonderful time, of the year ♫
♫ It's the hap-happiest season of all ♫
♫ Why can't those heathens see, that there ought to be ♫
♫ A creche at City Hall? ♫
♫ It's the hap-happiest season of all ♫

See? I can do Christmas spirit. Sorta.

Is it just me, or have the Religious Wrong become ever more hyperbolic in their flailing of late? Because this one, from Buster Wilson at the AFA, is a real doozy:

I don’t understand, ‘you’re not the majority anymore, this is not a Christian nation and you’ve guys have got to quit trying to cram everything down people’s throats,’ nobody’s trying to cram—look, it is the folks who don’t want us celebrating Christmas that are cramming that view down our throats and using the courts to do it. So if we don’t want to start cramming things down people’s throats, then why don’t the folks who are opposed to us celebrating Christmas, why don’t they be quiet for a while because they are the ones that are using the court system of this country to force Christians to not be able to celebrate Christmas at Christmastime.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that translates to "You are standing up for yourselves using the systems designed to do so, and that is forcing us to acknowledge your existence! Which makes me feel threatened because it undermines the illusion that we are and will forever be in charge here! Stop cramming your existence down our throats! In fact, stop existing at all!"

But you know, guys, he's got a point. Clearly...

Rockefeller Center Tree, NYC

...the existence of Christmas...

Christmas lights display at a Mormon Temple

...is in dire danger in this country...

San Francisco City Hall in Christmas lights

...and if we're not careful...

Official White House Christmas Tree

...it could be stamped out entirely!

No, indeed, there's no...

Michelle Obama at a Christmas event for kids at the White House

...Christmas spirit...

Tree and lights display, Wakeeney, Kansas

...to be found here.

Decorated houses in Lawrence, Kansas

None whatsoever.

I mean, the word Christmas...

Flyer for Columbia County Fox Family Christmas and Tree Lighting

...can't even be spoken...

Logo for Christmas Tree lighting in Indian Trail, North Carolina

...openly, for fear of government retribution. It's all kept very...

Promo image for the 90th Annual National Christmas Tree Lighting, hosted by Neil Patrick Harris

...low-profile, as we fear for our safety and our ability to celebrate our holiday!

The GOP and Fetuses, Sittin' in a Tree...

2012-11-26T13:54:00.000-08:00

...giving out tax credits for parents-to-be!

Another one for the "Couldn't Make It Up If I Tried" bin, here. The Michigan GOP has proposed a new $160 tax credit for "women who are at least 12 weeks pregnant by the end of the year". This is, mind you, after they voted to eliminated the $600 tax credit for actual born children last year.

Have children you're struggling to keep fed and healthy? Fuck you! In your first trimester of a pregnancy which may or may not come to term anyway because pregnancy is complicated shit? Here, have some government money!

LOL consistency what?

It's an attempt to tiptoe their "fetal personhood" fetish a little further into law via taxation: "See, the tax code treats the fetus as a person for whom the parents can claim a tax credit! Obviously this means they are a person and therefore have more rights to your body than you do."

I can't decide if they're getting sloppy - in particular the part about it contrasting so blatantly with eliminating the tax credit for actual children - or just getting bold. Either way, it's pretty ridiculous. In a scary sort of way.