Reproductive rights quick hit

OH NO! Canada's going to split into tiny pieces!

BRING IT HARPER. BRING IT!

To those of you who don't pay attention to Canadian politics, you really should right now. This is one of the most interesting times in Canadian political history. Right now 2 of the national parties, the NDP and the Liberal Party have forged a coalition deal that would, when the confidence vote fails (it's only a matter of time Harper, just deal with it) create a coalition government led by the Liberals. (You can read the accord here.) The Bloc Québécois is not formally part of this coalition, but has pledged their support for the next 18 months. (If only we could have Gilles as PM. *sigh*). Not only that, but Green Party leader Elizabeth May has also lent her support to the coalition. That means that 4 of the 5 major parties are UNITED behind this effort. And they have all made concessions. (As one does when one makes alliances like this. And also as one does to actually get shit done in government.)

Let me take a step back. Besides being evil, or as Gilles Duceppe likes to do let's just say that Harper is the Canadian Bush, Harper did a few things to bring this on. He did what every politician does and said that he would make an effort to work with the other parties, then he calls an election (which he said he would not call, btw) and the first thing he does is spit on the other parties. (Well, more accurately poke at them with a sharp stick.)

This is in no particular order, but has a common theme.

1) Proposes to take away public subsidies of political parties. As it stands now, each vote earns the party $1.95.

But because the Conservatives have such a strong fundraising base, their subsidy represents only 37 per cent of the party's total revenues.

By comparison, the subsidy amounts to 63 per cent of the Liberals' funding, 86 per cent of the Bloc's, 57 per cent of the NDP's and 65 per cent of the Greens'.

So who gets hurt? Every single party in opposition to the Conservatives.

Well there are several points in this one link so here's the link and here are the points:

2) Cutting public service pay

3) Suspending the right to strike for federal employees

4) (My favourite) PAY EQUITY! Who needs it!

And he would put a crimp in pay equity – a program that requires Ottawa to pay women equal wages for work of equal value – although there is no evidence that the current system is either iniquitous or expensive.

And then there's the Tories taping a private caucus call of the NDP. (Hello, ever hear of Watergate?)

The Prime Minister's Office handed out copies of the recording to reporters on Sunday, claiming it showed the NDP and the Bloc Québécois had long conspired to topple the Conservative government.

And there's also that whole thing where Harper and the Tories like to insult the Bloc at every opportunity. (Because they're evil and THEY HATE CANADA AND ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY! HIDE YOUR CHILDREN! THE QUÉBÉCOIS ARE COMING!)

One poke too far? Did he seriously think that a *larger* minority in Commons would somehow make the opposition go against the Charter of Rights? That they would let you bulldoze through them doing whatever the hell you wanted? Yet he continues to show that he thinks that getting several more seats for the Tories makes him able to do whatever he wants without the confidence of the Commons. There was supposed to be a confidence vote that Harper put off until the 8th trying to stave off the inevitable. What happens now is up to the Governor-General. She has several (historic) options: If Mr Harper asks her to prorogue (all bills, motions, etc are expunged and the parliament is in recess), her likely response is to ask him to prove that he has the confidence of the House. He can’t do that, so he’ll either have to ask for an election or resign. If he asks for an election, she can’t really grant it to him given that she has a letter from the coalition - according to convention she pretty much has to allow the coalition an opportunity to demonstrate that they can govern. An election will be the last resort. This is what I'm hoping for and this is what historically happens. But we shall see, not won't we.

To see *exactly* what's been happening may I suggest CPAC (It's the Canadian CSPAN). December 1st's Question Period (I hope this works as a direct link to the video if not just search) is rather good and December 2nd's is even better. It was all over the news as this is a rather historic time in politics and times like these have never been seen in Canadian Parliament. (At least not broadcast.)

BRING IT HARPER!

Of course they want the prorogue, because it would give them more time to spread their lies. They're calling the opposition alliance and possible unseating of the Tory government an undemocratic, illegal coup. As one expert said Harper either doesn't know parliamentary politics or he's lying. I know which one my money's on. They're also saying that the separatists are going to be running the nation. Um, well, no, the Bloc is not part of the coalition and Duceppe already said that he pledged to support and do what's best for CANADA during the next 18 months under the coalition government. Again I say OH NOES! THE SEPARATISTS ARE RUNNING THE COUNTRY! OMG CANADA IS DOOMED! During the 12/1 Question Period session Harper kept saying that they refused to sign the Coalition Accord in front of a Canadian flag when there's a lot of footage of them IN FRONT of a Canadian flag. The guy just can't stop lying. Here's to a new government and soon.

But for some brevity (and common sense) in this situation may I suggest Canadian Cynic and Bloodless Coup!.

Canadian PM Debate drinking game

This list was compiled from rules from the last PM election cycle and from the "Canadian Indecision" group on my knitting site Ravelry.

Take a drink whenever Duceppe:
Starts talking about things not releated to the question
Takes over Layton’s turn to speak
Speaks french for no apparent reason

drink whenever layton mentions boardroom tables and/or kitchen tables.
drink whenever harper infantilizes/effeminizes dion.
drink whenever one of the party leaders accuse harper of being pro-alberta and/or pro-oil companies.

drink when Stephen Harper sounds smug
drink when May or Layton make a grandiose promise they'll never be able to fulfill.
drink when anyone completely ignores the question and goes off on an unrelated rant

Take 2 drinks if:
Harper calls the Green Shift "a tax on everything"
Harper or Layton accuse May of being a Liberal
Dion says "stimulation"
anyone blames a previous government for something

3 drinks if Harper makes vague (or overt, basically any) reference to a group (or province, *coughNFLDcough*) that he doesn't need to get elected

start drinking whenever anyone mentions the sponsorship scandal and don’t stop until (presumably) harper shuts up.

If anyone agrees with Harper chug the rest of your drink (or a new one and yes you still have to do it if you're crying)
start doing shots when elizabeth may brings out the bong.

While we're on the subject of debt

Marcy Kaptur rocks!

Hey Washington!

Are you going to buy my debt next? What's a couple of thousand dollars in student loans compared to $700 billion?

Score one for Disability Rights

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day and finally Congress did something right. (Well the Senate anyway.)

On September 11th the Senate passed S. 3406, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. This is a big fucking deal for people with disabilities. Now I'm gonna ask you to send a short email to you reps and ask them to vote for it (it had 77 cosponsors in the Senate (including my own, Patty Murray, who I love, and Hillary Clinton) so hopefully that's some indication that it will easily be passed in the House as well). What is so great about this? It changes the language, it removes some of the worse paragraphs, it gives people with disabilites (more) legal recourse if discriminated against, and it changes the definition of disability as well as putting in writing (thank god-this is something that means a lot to me personally as someone *on* disability who is mostly functional on medication) that the determination of whether or not one has a disability is made without taking into account things that aid in helping the person to lead a "normal" life. Observe:

'(E)(i) The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as--

'(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen therapy equipment and supplies;

This is important because the courts ruled in the past that there have been rulings that have said that if such assistive devices improve your life then, viola! you are no longer disabled as in the 1999 case Sutton v. United Airlines. My life is 10x better on medication and I'm continually scared of being kicked off of disability as a result which means no Medicaid and no medication. Whee. What a catch-22. I become almost fully functional with medication and then I am kicked off because I am only fully functional to fall back into my less then desirable state of functioning just to go back on SSI-D and medication. Whee again. And I'm not the only one who lives with this fear.

Back to the legal recourse. Many different types of disabilities were not included and were being discriminated against and not recognised by the courts under the current laws. Non-physical disabilities, i.e. the ones that most people think of when they hear the term 'disability' were generally discriminated against, because, well, if you can't see it it doesn't exist, right? Wrong. And this Bill is changing the laws to make sure that people like me are covered. If the government pays me disability why then am I not included in the ADA? Hmmmm.

In a statement, Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, praised the bill's introduction: "The ADA Amendments Act is the most significant civil rights bill of the 110th Congress. This act will correct narrow court interpretations that have restricted ADA coverage in the workplace, and taken away coverage for people with diabetes, epilepsy, serious heart conditions, mental disabilities, and even cancer."

I am writing first as a HURRAH that this was passed for the 43 million people in the US living with a disability, but also to ask that you do contact your reps (whether you actually vote or not-I don't care and they don't know) because this bill needs to pass the House. This amendment needs to happen. For me. For the 43 million others and all those undiagnosed. For the people who are usually left behind when talk of civil rights is brought up.

(Oh and while you're at it you should add something about HR 676 single payer healthcare-then no one would have to worry about going without medical care or medication.)

Also, currently there are Disability Rights Activists blocking all the doors at McCain's Campaign Headquarters (follow the happenings through Twitter) What are they asking for? Housing! Call McCain headquarters at 703-297-8900 to tell them to get the housing platform to McCain!

I'm going to scream

Anti-white racism?

Who has the power? Really? Don't give me some specific scenario. In society who has the power?

It's called discrimination and if one more person calls it "racism" or "reverse racism" or "anti-white racism" I'm going to start breaking things.

You, as a white person, are given privilege in our society because you were born with the colour skin you were born with. Look at congress. How many people of colour are there? Hmmmmm? CEO's of companies? Think of positions of power and think of how many of these positions are filled by a person of colour. Who controls the power. Guess what? It's people who look like you, and because of that you directly benefit from it. You ARE part of the power structure.


By the way, replace "person of colour" with "woman" and "racism" with "sexism" and the argument is the same one I would make, because that argument's bullshit too. Prejudice a woman has against a man is not sexism.

Don't believe me? Ask yourself these questions:

-Does my prejudice against you suddenly create a culture in which you will be likely to experience violence from an intimate partner?
-Does it devalue your work so that you are making less money then women for equal work?
-Are you suddenly the victim of racial profiling since it is known that white people commit all sorts of crimes?
-Are you now going to see people of your own race depicted in the media less often?

Um, no, no, no, and, well looky here, NO.

WA Caucus Obama v Hillary

SO today were the WA caucuses. I was caucusing for Hillary. Of course I knew that there would be plenty of Barack supporters in attendance and I was sad that they were the majority in my precinct (9 delegates to 2), simply because of the reasons that they gave for supporting him.

1) I hate Hillary.
Ok, why? Nothing concrete, of course.

2) He's not a politician, he doesn't "play the game."
Oh yeah? He's slagged off the other candidates just as much as they have slagged off each other. And just because he doesn't appear to play the game, he *IS* a politican and he *WILL* be making compromises and deals. If he's elected, boy will you be disappointed.

3) He'll change the system.
Not even superman can do that. People don't seem to understand how the system works. We need someone who can change things from the inside out, someone who knows how to work and manipulate the system. B/c there's that whole checks and balances thing.

4) Hillary's voting record shows she makes compromises.
See #2, also he abstains from so many controversial votes, which is something he won't be able to do as president. Aren't you scared that you don't know what he's going to do when faced with a hard decision? It terrifies me.

5) He inspires young people
Well, we not only had the *youngest* people in our precinct, but when we broke up into candidate caucuses we also had the majority of young people, funny how that works, eh?

6) He's a uniter.
A) Bush said that *shudder*, B ) if he's such a uniter then why was it not unanimous? Also how much uniting do you think he'll be able to do without making compromises?

Also, I got up to give a speech for why the undecideds should vote for Hillary (or Obama supporters should change their votes) and I was visibly shaking. Never done that before. Shaking and my voice was quivering, but even Obama supporters told me I did a good job, so I guess it wasn't that bad, but I'm finally starting to calm down, 5 hours later.

Did you know

that Winston Churchill was agnostic?

And most Americans wouldn't vote for an atheist/agnostic.

Evangelicals are going to eat me

Now I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm not anti-religion. I have read holy books from most major religions and studied others. The basic tenants are good, but it is impossible these days for many people to seperate the politics from the religion. I was raised strict Roman Catholic and I was an atheist at age 10, partially because I couldn't understand the conflicting depictions of God (on one had he is all-loving and all-forgiving and on the other he's vengeful and spiteful) and how people who would go to church week after week and then throw out all the things Jesus preached once they left. Hypocricy does not sit well with me, nor did it as I was a kid. While I am now currently agnostic, I believe that religion can be a positive influence on peoples lives. I do not think that everyone can live in the existentialist way that I use and the religion can teach them to be moral people. Sometimes people need fear or guilt to make them moral (evidence to this can be seen all over the news) and whatever can do that is good in my eyes. Now if only people would follow that in their daily lives.

And then I watch things like Jesus Camp.

This movie is going to give me nightmares, I just know it. The youth ministers and the kids themselves (most under the age of 10) talk about creating and being in God's Army. I learned that 75% of children that are homeschooled in the US are evangelical Christians. They are taught that the earth is 6,000 years old, and that science is just a belief, that there is no way that science can prove anything* and that things that have become commonly accepted as fact are bullshit. (I used to think Catholics were the crazy ones, but at least they believe in the big bang and that evolution is compatible with the Christian faith. Which is one of the things that still confuses me to this day. It started when I was a kid, and if you listen to Genesis who says that God's days had to be 24 hour periods? It's God ffs. S/He can do whatever the hell s/he wants and who says a day in the bible does not equal millions upon millions of years?) How will these children do in college without the basic knowledge all children learn. Now I'm a big fan of homeschooling b/c I know some very brilliant people who came out of it and learned at a very accelerated rate, learning much more then they ever would have at public school. (Has to do with the multi-age classes, etc.) It's the same problem I have with Amish kids only being taught through 8th grade, because any more learning makes them 'too proud.' Then what real choice do they get when they go on Rumspriga (sp?)? They don't have the education to go out into the real world and many people never try (or know that it's available) to learn at a higher level, so they go back to what they know. I don't mind people going back to their religion, or choose a religion, but I think they should be given a true choice. Give them a chance to think about what they are doing and understand that this is what they truly want and believe.

OK, now I've read the Bible and nowhere in it does Jesus preach intolerance, hate, war, or persecution. Then the woman pastor tells people that if Harry Potter is an enemy of god and if he had been alive while Jesus was alive then he would have been killed for being a warlock. Say what? It's fiction, people AND Jesus would have been tolerant and forgiving. Witchcraft is nothing like in the books, but that's another story. (I spent a few years experimenting with witchcraft/paganism. But it all came down to the fact, and this is really what pulled me in, is that nature is a higher power. It is everywhere, it is everything. It is a powerful force to be respected and honoured. I went back to being atheist, because in my own ways I honour nature and the universe around us by fighting for our environment constantly. Which is one thing that the Evangelicals seem to miss b/c they think they can use all our resources now b/c Jesus is coming soon.)

These children are being brainwashed. The whole reason I became agnostic is because my parents taught us kids to think for ourselves, to question everything and not to follow blindly. They're getting indoctrinated at home (which is also their school for most the kids in the video) and at churches that tell them they must be Evangelical Christians to be saved. I had a problem with being confirmed when I was 12 because I felt that that did not fully reflect what confirmation was supposed to be. It is supposed to be a personal decision to say yes, I accept Catholicism as my religion. It's supposed to be a choice made when you have the ability to do it for yourself, not because your family wants you to. 43% of Evangelicals are 'born-again' before the age of 13. They are not given time to make a decision for themselves.

OK, 'take back America for Christ?' Where does this Christian persecution complex come from? Last I looked the US was predominantly Christian. And look at our government. So incredibly Christian. The only non-protestant to ever be elected was JFK who was, *gasp*, Catholic. There's a war on? Between who? The evangelicals on one side and the evangelicals on another? The 'true christians' (evangelicals) and all of us who are going to hell even if we are moral people?

Another annoying thing is the fact that whatever they do, they do because God is doing it. How is god sanctioning people who kill abortion providers? How is god sanctioning the idea of hate and believing that people of other faiths are all going to hell? How the hell can they bless President Bush when he has done so many unChristian things, like attack a country for oil which results in the death of so many lives, some of them Christian? "This means war!" That is what the lead minister was yelling at the congregation of children. War? Jesus was no fan and I will never EVER be ok with a religion that preaches war in any form. Also it teaches these poor kids to not take responsibility for their actions. Whatever they do is what god wants. How many needless deaths have occured because of this very belief that they can do no wrong because it's 'God's will.' The man who killed Dr. Slepian thought he was doing God's will. That's very VERY unChristian. And immoral.

Speaking of abortion, how much does a 4 year old know about the complex matter of abortion? Well at this camp they learn a bullshit version of what one side believes is the truth. I'm sorry, but basic medical fact is that a baby is not fully formed at a couple of weeks. They're teaching them lies, and these kids have little to no oppurtunity to learn the truth before they make up their minds. Again, I call this brainwashing. (It is also not uncommon for anti-abortion activists to get abortions and think that there is some special exemption for them. Ask your local abortion provider if you don't believe me.)

OK, now I'm off to have nightmares about being killed for being 'an enemy of God.' Also I have to be up for Greek Orthodox mass tommorrow morning. I've always wanted to check it out (I like going to different religious services barring a few crazy ones.) and I thought tommorrow would be good b/c after mass the annual Greek fest is happening. Woo Woo. Next week I'm going to check out the local Quakers. I love the Friend's Center in Philadelphia, afterall they were the 'pro-choice cheerleaders' at the 2000 RNC in Philly. I wonder if they are one of the more radical/liberal sects. Well I'll find out next week.

Also, Christian Heavy Metal? Isn't that an oxymoron?

*While we can't conclusively prove anything, the rigorous scientific process will either prove or disprove theories pretty well. What these people don't understand is that any theory that is posed goes through a long period of others trying to disprove the theory. Theories are not adopted lightly, nor should they be. My math and science profs always told me that when I write something I have to also look at it through the eyes of someone who hates me or vehemently disagrees with me to see where my arguement is weak to make it stronger, because if they can people will disprove what I have to say.

Really the war in Iraq is about oil????

Alan Greenspan tells that the war is about oil.

In his new book, Greenspan has declared that the main reason for the war in Iraq is oil. A republican telling the truth about the war? A respected one no less? What's happening?

I personally think that this is awesome partially because I've been trying to tell my parents that, but they're way more likely to listen to Greenspan instead of me. (I mean my dad reads Ann Coulter and my parents think that O'Reilly really is 'fair and balanced.')

(Quoted article below)
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

Leagalisation of prostitution does nothing to alleviate abuse

Turkish political candidates talk about how legalised prostitution does not mean better circumstances for prostitutes.

"They talk about domestic violence, but it was the state that beat us up," she says, in the stuffy, shabby office that is serving as her Istanbul headquarters.

Frequently breaking down in tears, she goes on to talk about 18-hour working days in the brothel, social security payments withheld, even murder.

"Serpil, mother of three; Fatma from Diyarbakir; Hatice from Izmir; all three were killed while I was inside and their deaths passed off as overdoses," she says. That was the rule for disobedience, she explains: first, a beating, then rape, then murder.

"We're not here simply to get attention," Tukrukcu says. "We're here so that people know the truth about all these things."


Two women are bravely overstepping the public taboos against former and current prostitutes by running for office. They seek to ban prostitution, focusing on the state-employed prostitutes that both were pushed into. Their stories, like the one above show that it doesn't matter if prostitution is legalised and regulated (like the state sanctioned brothels in Turkey) that prostitutes still fall victim to rape and abuse, and even murder, which is the same problems that women working as prostitutes the world over have problems with.

I hear a lot from people who support the legalisation of prostitution saying that it will make conditions better for prostitutes. There are not many places where prostitution is legal, so looking at Turkey's problems with prostitution give us a glimpse into how legalised prostitution works. The bottom line is that it is no safer then illegal prostitution.

Now I do not support the arresting of prostitutes. This I think is a crime. These women all ready have enough problems without having to deal with the law. I support the Swedish Model which criminalises the buying of sex and decriminalises the selling of sex. The also offer programs to help the women integrate into society by offering a plethora of job skills for them to learn. And those are the people that should really spend time in jail: the johns. It is not the woman's fault for needing to sell herself to get by, but it is the john's fault for raping these women for money. When mens demand for women to be accessible for rape on demand diminishes then we will see prostitution disappear. But this means that we need an equal society where women are not treated as the sex class, but instead seen as fully human.