What is Wrong with Arkansas?
I read this earlier tonight, and was literally speechless for a bit. How is it possible that this man could find support, of any kind, in America, much less Arkansas? This is what I read:
"A candidate for the Arkansas legislature, Charlie Fuqua, says that children who don't demonstrate "respect for parents" should be put to death, the Arkansas Times reports. Fuqua is a former member of the Arkansas legislature and has received support from the Arkansas Republican Party and two sitting members of Congress.
Here's the key passage from Fuqua's 2012 book, "God's Law: The Only Political Solution":
The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21."
And this man is running for public office? Not for the leader of a fundamentalist (loony) cult? When did America decide to accept murderous fanatics as fit for public office? For that matter, when did we decide to accept pathological liars as fit for public office? What ever happened to honor? Truth? Dignity?
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Sunday, August 5, 2012
More Insanity
I read an article by Richard (RJ) Eskow yesterday that I found in a newsletter I get. It was entitled "Hey, Sarah Palin! Some Marxists Want a Word With You". This may be the first time I've actually written the words "Sarah Palin". As a rule, I don't see/hear/read anything by or about that woman. I would say she's a disgrace to women, except that she is a disgrace to humanity.
In the article, Eskow ridicules Palin for her statements re Elizabeth Warren speaking at the Democratic Convention, stating that she's "almost confessed to her Marxist views". Eskow takes issue with Palin's use of the word "Marxist", as well as her locution, calling the verbal equivalent of an Escher drawing. (And I so agree with that!)
Eskow then offers her some other quotations from people she would have to call Marxist based on her criteria ~ people like Lincoln, Eisenhower, Bush I. One I really liked came from Eisenhower, who I have to admit is not a President I every really cared for. Except for this:
Every gun that is
made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense,
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not
clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the
sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of
threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.Should any
political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and
eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again
in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that
believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil
millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.
Their number is negligible and they are stupid
Right on, Ike! Sadly, of course, their number is no longer negligible, but yes, yes, they are still stupid.
And another from Ike:
In most communities it is illegal to
cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious
international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to
achieve local political aims? (Iran, anyone?)
I loved the fact that Eisenhower refused to lower the tax on the 2%ers. It was at 92% during his administration, and he felt the country needed the money, so he wouldn't lower that rate more than one point, to 91%. And insited that corporate taxes stay at 52%.. And they complain today about an effective rate of 13% being way too high? Oh, and he expanced the Social Security ranks by about 10 million people.
And from Lincoln:
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
"job creators"?
I am just sick to death of these completely irrational human beings that currently inhabit the Republican party. To me, it's treasonous to sign a document pledging to uphold a policy of an individual who has never even held elective office. Congresspeople are sworn to uphold the Consitution, not Grover Norquist. It's at least fraud.
The duty of a congressperson is to represent the interests and concerns of the people who elected him/her. It is not to impose their own half-baked ideas on everyone, regardless of whether they're one of his constituents or not. What part of "representative" do these cretins not understand? And Mitch McConnell? You were sworn to uphold the Constitution, too. What part of "My goal for this Congress is to make sure that Obama is a one-term president" relates to that, at all? And did your constituency actually elect you to blockade a presidency? Did they elect you to try to torpedo each and every act that would better their lives, ease the rapid descent into poverty? I sincerely doubt that. Shame on all of you!
The duty of a congressperson is to represent the interests and concerns of the people who elected him/her. It is not to impose their own half-baked ideas on everyone, regardless of whether they're one of his constituents or not. What part of "representative" do these cretins not understand? And Mitch McConnell? You were sworn to uphold the Constitution, too. What part of "My goal for this Congress is to make sure that Obama is a one-term president" relates to that, at all? And did your constituency actually elect you to blockade a presidency? Did they elect you to try to torpedo each and every act that would better their lives, ease the rapid descent into poverty? I sincerely doubt that. Shame on all of you!
(Eskow's article can be found in the Nation of Change newsletter, but I can't find a way to link it here. Sorry.)
Thursday, July 19, 2012
I read this the other day, and laughed. But I also think it's a great idea.
Here’s what you should do, Mr. President. In the debates this fall, pull out a small, laminated card you’ve had made as a prop for this purpose. Then remind Mitt Romney that the ranks of the uninsured today are equal to the combined populations of Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Kentucky, Arkansas, Utah, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
Read that list slowly, Mr. President. Then ask your opponent: Would America turn its back on the citizens of these 25 states if everyone there lacked basic health coverage? That’s what we’ve been doing for decades. You knew it was right to act when you were governor of Massachusetts, Mitt. How can you pretend we don’t need to solve this for the nation? And how can you object with a straight face when your own pioneering plan was my model?
And then, there was Ann Romney, telling the world that she and Mitt have already released "all you people need to know" about their finances. Seems Ann shares Mitt's tendency to insert foot when speaking.
Seriously, what is it Mitt doesn't want us to see in his tax returns? Given how poorly his campaign is doing at defining the election on his terms, he couldn't possibly think that allowing Obama (and the media, and more and more Republicans) to continue to question why he won't release his tax returns is a good strategy. As this goes on and on and on, you really have to wonder, what is in those tax returns? What has Mitt so scared about us seeing that he's stonewalling even his own party?
Secrecy has never been much of a selling point for the Presidency. We don't like being kept in the dark (well, those of us who aren't simulating mushrooms don't).Mitt seems to love it, however. He's against disclosing his campaign money bundlers, against the Disclose act to make all those PACs list their donors, against releasing his tax returns (even though he gave years and years of those same returns to John McCain while he was running for president.) I guess letting another 1%er look at his returns is different than letting the other 99%ers see them. That's a rather telling point, don't you think?
A Great Political Idea
Here’s what you should do, Mr. President. In the debates this fall, pull out a small, laminated card you’ve had made as a prop for this purpose. Then remind Mitt Romney that the ranks of the uninsured today are equal to the combined populations of Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Kentucky, Arkansas, Utah, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
Read that list slowly, Mr. President. Then ask your opponent: Would America turn its back on the citizens of these 25 states if everyone there lacked basic health coverage? That’s what we’ve been doing for decades. You knew it was right to act when you were governor of Massachusetts, Mitt. How can you pretend we don’t need to solve this for the nation? And how can you object with a straight face when your own pioneering plan was my model?
~~~~~Matt
Miller, in a Washington Post opinion piece, July 10, 2012
And then, there was Ann Romney, telling the world that she and Mitt have already released "all you people need to know" about their finances. Seems Ann shares Mitt's tendency to insert foot when speaking.
Seriously, what is it Mitt doesn't want us to see in his tax returns? Given how poorly his campaign is doing at defining the election on his terms, he couldn't possibly think that allowing Obama (and the media, and more and more Republicans) to continue to question why he won't release his tax returns is a good strategy. As this goes on and on and on, you really have to wonder, what is in those tax returns? What has Mitt so scared about us seeing that he's stonewalling even his own party?
Secrecy has never been much of a selling point for the Presidency. We don't like being kept in the dark (well, those of us who aren't simulating mushrooms don't).Mitt seems to love it, however. He's against disclosing his campaign money bundlers, against the Disclose act to make all those PACs list their donors, against releasing his tax returns (even though he gave years and years of those same returns to John McCain while he was running for president.) I guess letting another 1%er look at his returns is different than letting the other 99%ers see them. That's a rather telling point, don't you think?
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
I was incensed the other day when one of Romney's guests at his Hamptons weekend fundraiser told a reporter that people like common workers just "didn't get it" about what was at stake in this election. They "have less education", this woman said. They just don't understand their world, apparently.
While I am not saying that everyone in America is brilliant, or even well-educated ,(well, not in Texas, I guess, since they keep putting crazy stuff in their standards for education) I am sure that many, many people this woman dismisses as "poor, uneducated voters" do indeed know what this election is about. And it is my fervent hope that this snotty woman, and others like her, find that out in the most painful way, by the re-election of Obama.
I guess the rich are different. Really different. Clueless about the world they're living in, sometimes even clueless about the little circle of entitlement they inhabit. Talk about class warfare? That was a statement surely intended to start one.
And there was good ole Mitt, ranting on about how taxing the rich would hurt our economy, burden the "job creators", and all sorts of bad things. Doesn't that man read? Every graphic out in the last month has clearly shown that "job creators" do not inhabit the 1% world. In fact, the lower their rate of taxes, the worse the economy does in terms of employmen, wages, and growth.All of those things go up, by a lot, when the upper tax rate hits anything over 70%. And goes down, by a lot, when the rate dips below 35%. The real job creators, the middle class, need a tax break. The 2% at the top of the wealth scale do not.
We've been down this road before. Over and over. Doing the same thing, giving the wealthy more and more benefits, lowering their tax rates, all in the belief that all sorts of good things would "trickle down" to the bottome 98%. As everyone knows, it HASN'T WORKED! And no wonder. What Romney, et al, are proposing to do is basically, keep doing the same thing, over and over, and he keeps telling us to expect a different result. Standard definition of insanity, no?
And where is the media on all this? Why don't they call him out on his pet failed policies? On his flip-flopping? Why do they keep reporting what he says as the truth, rather than just more campaign rhetoric? What happened to fact-checking? Why aren't they in full hue and cry about his refusal to release his tax returns? We already know he had, or has, a Swiss bank acount, and many accounts (at least 30) in the Caymen Islands and other off-shore locations. What else is he hiding? And if he's not hiding, why doesn't he release them? His own father had no qualms about releasing 12 years of his tax returns. But wait ~ his dad earned his money the regular way, through work and smart investing (of his own money). Guess Mitt isn't a "chip off the old block". He's more like the oil we get out of tar sands. Dirty, and hard to process.
While I am not saying that everyone in America is brilliant, or even well-educated ,(well, not in Texas, I guess, since they keep putting crazy stuff in their standards for education) I am sure that many, many people this woman dismisses as "poor, uneducated voters" do indeed know what this election is about. And it is my fervent hope that this snotty woman, and others like her, find that out in the most painful way, by the re-election of Obama.
I guess the rich are different. Really different. Clueless about the world they're living in, sometimes even clueless about the little circle of entitlement they inhabit. Talk about class warfare? That was a statement surely intended to start one.
And there was good ole Mitt, ranting on about how taxing the rich would hurt our economy, burden the "job creators", and all sorts of bad things. Doesn't that man read? Every graphic out in the last month has clearly shown that "job creators" do not inhabit the 1% world. In fact, the lower their rate of taxes, the worse the economy does in terms of employmen, wages, and growth.All of those things go up, by a lot, when the upper tax rate hits anything over 70%. And goes down, by a lot, when the rate dips below 35%. The real job creators, the middle class, need a tax break. The 2% at the top of the wealth scale do not.
We've been down this road before. Over and over. Doing the same thing, giving the wealthy more and more benefits, lowering their tax rates, all in the belief that all sorts of good things would "trickle down" to the bottome 98%. As everyone knows, it HASN'T WORKED! And no wonder. What Romney, et al, are proposing to do is basically, keep doing the same thing, over and over, and he keeps telling us to expect a different result. Standard definition of insanity, no?
And where is the media on all this? Why don't they call him out on his pet failed policies? On his flip-flopping? Why do they keep reporting what he says as the truth, rather than just more campaign rhetoric? What happened to fact-checking? Why aren't they in full hue and cry about his refusal to release his tax returns? We already know he had, or has, a Swiss bank acount, and many accounts (at least 30) in the Caymen Islands and other off-shore locations. What else is he hiding? And if he's not hiding, why doesn't he release them? His own father had no qualms about releasing 12 years of his tax returns. But wait ~ his dad earned his money the regular way, through work and smart investing (of his own money). Guess Mitt isn't a "chip off the old block". He's more like the oil we get out of tar sands. Dirty, and hard to process.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
On Marriage Equality, and Not
I was surprised this week by a colleague of mine. I had forwarded to her an email about the President's comments on marriage equality. She's rabidly anti-Obama, but I thought she'd appreciate his position, since one of her sons is gay. Her response? She doesn't support gay marriage, because God created marriage to be one man and one woman. She hopes her son will find someone to love and build a life with, but he shouldn't be able to marry.
I don't know whether I was more surprised that she would cast her youngest son into the twilight zone, or her idea that God created marriage.
The Greeks were noticeably not Christian. They were polytheists, didn't even think of being monotheistic. They had marriage. Of course, they didn't call it that (probably because English hadn't been invented yet, nor would it be for many, many centuries). The concept, however, was alive and well in Ancient Greece. Until much later, the Romans were polytheistic, as well, and had marriage. It seems, in fact, that every society that ever existed (and left records) has had an institution that nearly everyone would recognize as marriage. I say nearly to account for those die-hard, blinded-by-the-light fundamentalists that claim everything was created by God, long before any group even knew He existed.
Instead of being created by God, I think marriage was coopted, as so many rituals and institutions were, by the early Christians in their zealous take over of the various groups. They reassigned all sorts of feast days to Saints Days, Christ's birthday, His death, etc. It's how they replaced the older gods or other deities. Wow, everybody has a big to-do in winter. Let's call it Christmas, and say it was the day our Christ was born, and soon they'll forget it had anything to do with those heathen gods. It was a brilliant political move, and the early Church was highly political.The Church created new rituals to replace the older, non-Christian ones they found. They created a ritual for marriage, for baptism, for dying. The world hadn't existed without these prior to the rise of Christianity, but the Church supplanted all the older rituals and belief systems, both stealthily, and when necessary, forcefully.
I don't claim to know what God thinks, or wants. I've never spoken to Him in person, you know? And while I may have prayed now and then, I didn't, and don't, think He was listening. I know He never responded.I honestly don't believe anyone, ever, has truly heard from God.Ever. I know the Bible says some folks did, but then, the Bible was written by primitive men to explain their world, and their hierachical control of it. You can't really accept it at face value. I mean, really. What sort of omniscient, omnipotent, super-evolved deity would accept slavery as okay, would condemn women for having a vagina, and exalt men for having a penis? No, thanks, I'll pass on worshipping that sort of god.
So, I guess I'm just more troubled by my colleague's indifference to her son's status. He has always been the best of her children. Her oldest, a girl, put her through hell, got into drugs and illegal activities, spent some time in Juvie, and then in jail. Hated her mother. Her other son tends to use her rather than really support her. (She's divorced, has been for years.) He mooches off her constantly. Borrows money, never repays it. Doesn't have his own cell phone, so uses one on his mother's account, but doesn't pay the bill for it. Lives with her even now, but pays no rent, and doesn't do anything around the house. He even brought his girlfriend, with her two dogs, to live with him for a while, then left the dogs there when his girlfriend had to return to Canada because her visa was expiring. He's going to marry this woman someday, but he hasn't yet asked her. He just assumes she'll say yes.
The youngest son, the gay son, has been independent for some time. He ran into some difficulty with employment for a awhile (he got injured in a motorcycle accident, and was laid up for a long time. His company went out of business while he was recovering.), and moved home. He pays rent, he buys food, doesn't ask her for anything. He's a good guy. And this is the son she says doesn't deserve the right to marry, should he find someone he wants to spend his life with. I just don't understand this at all. You're supposed to love all your children equally, albeit in different ways. How can she work so damned hard to rebuild a relationship with her daughter, who is finally on the road to recovery, or allow a son to take such blatant advantage of her, and still consign the third child to a never-never land of not-quite-equal, not-quite-entitled to the same civil rights as others?
She's my colleague. They aren't my kids. But I just can't wrap my head around this, and I'm hurt by her cavalier attitude towards her son. I guess I expected more, better, from her.
I don't know whether I was more surprised that she would cast her youngest son into the twilight zone, or her idea that God created marriage.
The Greeks were noticeably not Christian. They were polytheists, didn't even think of being monotheistic. They had marriage. Of course, they didn't call it that (probably because English hadn't been invented yet, nor would it be for many, many centuries). The concept, however, was alive and well in Ancient Greece. Until much later, the Romans were polytheistic, as well, and had marriage. It seems, in fact, that every society that ever existed (and left records) has had an institution that nearly everyone would recognize as marriage. I say nearly to account for those die-hard, blinded-by-the-light fundamentalists that claim everything was created by God, long before any group even knew He existed.
Instead of being created by God, I think marriage was coopted, as so many rituals and institutions were, by the early Christians in their zealous take over of the various groups. They reassigned all sorts of feast days to Saints Days, Christ's birthday, His death, etc. It's how they replaced the older gods or other deities. Wow, everybody has a big to-do in winter. Let's call it Christmas, and say it was the day our Christ was born, and soon they'll forget it had anything to do with those heathen gods. It was a brilliant political move, and the early Church was highly political.The Church created new rituals to replace the older, non-Christian ones they found. They created a ritual for marriage, for baptism, for dying. The world hadn't existed without these prior to the rise of Christianity, but the Church supplanted all the older rituals and belief systems, both stealthily, and when necessary, forcefully.
I don't claim to know what God thinks, or wants. I've never spoken to Him in person, you know? And while I may have prayed now and then, I didn't, and don't, think He was listening. I know He never responded.I honestly don't believe anyone, ever, has truly heard from God.Ever. I know the Bible says some folks did, but then, the Bible was written by primitive men to explain their world, and their hierachical control of it. You can't really accept it at face value. I mean, really. What sort of omniscient, omnipotent, super-evolved deity would accept slavery as okay, would condemn women for having a vagina, and exalt men for having a penis? No, thanks, I'll pass on worshipping that sort of god.
So, I guess I'm just more troubled by my colleague's indifference to her son's status. He has always been the best of her children. Her oldest, a girl, put her through hell, got into drugs and illegal activities, spent some time in Juvie, and then in jail. Hated her mother. Her other son tends to use her rather than really support her. (She's divorced, has been for years.) He mooches off her constantly. Borrows money, never repays it. Doesn't have his own cell phone, so uses one on his mother's account, but doesn't pay the bill for it. Lives with her even now, but pays no rent, and doesn't do anything around the house. He even brought his girlfriend, with her two dogs, to live with him for a while, then left the dogs there when his girlfriend had to return to Canada because her visa was expiring. He's going to marry this woman someday, but he hasn't yet asked her. He just assumes she'll say yes.
The youngest son, the gay son, has been independent for some time. He ran into some difficulty with employment for a awhile (he got injured in a motorcycle accident, and was laid up for a long time. His company went out of business while he was recovering.), and moved home. He pays rent, he buys food, doesn't ask her for anything. He's a good guy. And this is the son she says doesn't deserve the right to marry, should he find someone he wants to spend his life with. I just don't understand this at all. You're supposed to love all your children equally, albeit in different ways. How can she work so damned hard to rebuild a relationship with her daughter, who is finally on the road to recovery, or allow a son to take such blatant advantage of her, and still consign the third child to a never-never land of not-quite-equal, not-quite-entitled to the same civil rights as others?
She's my colleague. They aren't my kids. But I just can't wrap my head around this, and I'm hurt by her cavalier attitude towards her son. I guess I expected more, better, from her.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Reliving the Past
I'm going to be 60 in another few months. I lived through a time when women had to fight to be allowed to work, to receive the same pay (and we're still working on that, sadly) as men, to have control over our own bodies, to make it unnecessary to go to a back-street butcher to end a pregnancy. It was an ugly past, that. Sure, there were good times even during that past. I went to college. I graduated with honors. I worked for a while, started a company, was successful. Personal tragedy brought that to an end. I got set adrift for a while, worked sporadically. Found a calling that spoke to me and became a teacher. But during that whole time, there was always this culture war going on.
My mother told me, early and often, to hide my intelligence, because men didn't like intelligent women. My father told me to go to college, my mother said I shouldn't, I should find a man and get married instead. I grew up in a family that had two different sets of expectations; one for the boys and one for the girls. The girls had to learn how to "keep house", the boys didn't. They had to learn to ride a bike, mow the lawn, and make friends. I didn't meet any of their expectations. My father was pleased; my mother was disappointed. I lived in a neighborhood that cherished that discrimination against women. A city, a state, a nation that cherished that discrimination. Girls weren't supposed to grow up to be successful, independent people.
Imagine my dismay, then, to see that exact same discrimination coming from the Republican candidates this year, and from statehouse after statehouse. Republican governors and legislatures passing laws to limit abortion, contraceptives, routine health care for female issues. Where states are repealing things like equal pay statutes. I really loved the statement from one Republican legislator. State Senator Glenn Grothman, who defended Scott Walker's repeal of pay equity protections explainedto reporters that women aren't paid the same as men for the same work because money is more important to men.
Of course it is! Women don't need money, we don't have bills to pay for rent/mortgage, food, clothing, etc. Huh?
We're now facing all the same arguments that we did half a century ago, arguments we thought we were done with. Birth control? Abortion? (When are these Republicans going to realize that birth control would eliminate a huge number of abortions?) Equal pay? When is enforced male dominance going to become a thing of our past? When is the manufactured fear of women going to become a thing of our past?
I work hard to make sure the students I have don't share that bias, that each of my students understand that everyone is equally valued. We do not discrimate based on gender, sexual preference, race, ethnicity, or any other quality. I support the candidacies of many women running for national office, and some men. I donate to Emily's List, Move-On, DFA, and a host of other political entities.
I am single. My only child, a daughter, died a long time ago. I don't have to worry about what sort of life she would have. Instead, I worry for all my students, and what the future holds for them. If Romney wins, if states vote Republican, I fear for my students. They will be growing up in country hostile to them on so many different fronts ~ poor, Hispanic, female, gay/lesbian. Talk about stacking the odds against them!
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Okay, I've just had it. Totally. Who do these idiots think gave them the right to micromanage a woman's life? Any woman. All women. Arizona is passing a law that makes *women* have to tell their employer why they're taking contraceptives, and if he doesn't like it, well, then, no insurance for her! And, since AZ is a right-to-work (heh) state, well, he can just fire the bitch.
** Why do we call states that ban unions, and allow any employer to fire any employee for any reason, why is it called "right-to-work"? Shouldn't it be called "right-to-fire", instead?***
Kansas is promoting a bill that encourages, and finds blameless, doctors to withhold information, or lie to the patient about information that informs them about a yet unborn child if it's negative. Oh, and the Congressman who stood up and told the world that women should just go ahead and carry a dead fetus to term, because, gosh, cows, pigs, and chickens do it all the time.
And Virginia, that said women who wanted an abortion had to endure a "medical rape" before being granted an abortion. (and then blinked and changed the bill.) A procedure that is legal in the US, by the way. Let's not forget that dummy who gleefully offered to provide aspirin to any women seeking contraceptive service, cause "gals just put aspirin between their knees" and voila! No conception.
Texas is defunding Planned Parenthood, cause, gosh, 3% of their funding goes to abortions, but none of them in Texas. And the 97% that goes toward women's health ~ cancer screenings, Pap smears, general health, well, that's just too bad. And another almost 200,000 women lose any access to health care, because all the clinics, Planned Parenthood and others, are closing up shop. Way to go, Texas!
And this, from a woman (only physically, apparently) who actually said, out loud, in front of God and country, that women could expect to be raped if they joined the military, but allowed that some women should get help if they were among the few who were "raped too much". Once isn't enough? And rape is a reasonable response to a woman who puts her life on the line to protect this country?
So, where are all the comparable bills for men? Do men have to tell their employers why they are using Viagra? Should doctors be encouraged to lie to male patients about testicular cancer? I mean, if a doctor allows a man to remove his testicles, isn't that tantamount to abortion, too? I mean, killing sperm is a crime, right? If removing an egg is tantamount to abortion, then certainly, sperm must be accorded the same status. And shouldn't men be gelded, since, gosh, horses, dogs and cats do it all the time.
Funny how Santorum is righteously glad to circumscribe the rights and privileges of women (who really shouldn't work, or go to college, or remain single, or ever try to prevent pregancy, and when they are pregnant, shouldn't ask for pre-natal care), all in support of the "family", but never says a word about what men can and should do. Like take responsibility for their sperm. Or support the children they father. Or honor their marriage vows and never have an affair. Never abuse a woman or child. Support the family he creates, since his wife is forced to stay home and become a baby factory.
Frankly, I believe Santorum and his ilk are terrified of women. Afraid they aren't going to look as good to women who think for themselves. Terrified that a woman may be better than them at a job they want. Afraid they might have to actually grow up in a world where women are equals. How sad. And how sad that this sick psychological disorder doesn't get treated, but gets approval from a large section of America.
God save America ~ the Republicans sure won't.
** Why do we call states that ban unions, and allow any employer to fire any employee for any reason, why is it called "right-to-work"? Shouldn't it be called "right-to-fire", instead?***
Kansas is promoting a bill that encourages, and finds blameless, doctors to withhold information, or lie to the patient about information that informs them about a yet unborn child if it's negative. Oh, and the Congressman who stood up and told the world that women should just go ahead and carry a dead fetus to term, because, gosh, cows, pigs, and chickens do it all the time.
And Virginia, that said women who wanted an abortion had to endure a "medical rape" before being granted an abortion. (and then blinked and changed the bill.) A procedure that is legal in the US, by the way. Let's not forget that dummy who gleefully offered to provide aspirin to any women seeking contraceptive service, cause "gals just put aspirin between their knees" and voila! No conception.
Texas is defunding Planned Parenthood, cause, gosh, 3% of their funding goes to abortions, but none of them in Texas. And the 97% that goes toward women's health ~ cancer screenings, Pap smears, general health, well, that's just too bad. And another almost 200,000 women lose any access to health care, because all the clinics, Planned Parenthood and others, are closing up shop. Way to go, Texas!
And this, from a woman (only physically, apparently) who actually said, out loud, in front of God and country, that women could expect to be raped if they joined the military, but allowed that some women should get help if they were among the few who were "raped too much". Once isn't enough? And rape is a reasonable response to a woman who puts her life on the line to protect this country?
So, where are all the comparable bills for men? Do men have to tell their employers why they are using Viagra? Should doctors be encouraged to lie to male patients about testicular cancer? I mean, if a doctor allows a man to remove his testicles, isn't that tantamount to abortion, too? I mean, killing sperm is a crime, right? If removing an egg is tantamount to abortion, then certainly, sperm must be accorded the same status. And shouldn't men be gelded, since, gosh, horses, dogs and cats do it all the time.
Funny how Santorum is righteously glad to circumscribe the rights and privileges of women (who really shouldn't work, or go to college, or remain single, or ever try to prevent pregancy, and when they are pregnant, shouldn't ask for pre-natal care), all in support of the "family", but never says a word about what men can and should do. Like take responsibility for their sperm. Or support the children they father. Or honor their marriage vows and never have an affair. Never abuse a woman or child. Support the family he creates, since his wife is forced to stay home and become a baby factory.
Frankly, I believe Santorum and his ilk are terrified of women. Afraid they aren't going to look as good to women who think for themselves. Terrified that a woman may be better than them at a job they want. Afraid they might have to actually grow up in a world where women are equals. How sad. And how sad that this sick psychological disorder doesn't get treated, but gets approval from a large section of America.
God save America ~ the Republicans sure won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)