A Fetus.

So in my neverending quest to read about things that make me deeply disheartened with this world, I came across this article in the LA Times (unfortunately subscribers-only, but I'll sum it up for you):

A New Generation of Anti-Abortionists. Young people, women, in their teens and twenties, who would like to ban abortion entirely. My particular favorite is a now 20-year-old woman who has campaigned to emend the Colorado state constitution such that a fertilized egg is now defined as a person. A fertilized egg. (That couldn't work legally in America, because fetuses would either have to get visas or be declared illegal immigrants because, after all, they wouldn't have been born here).

Now, putting aside all the traditional pro-choice arguments I keep handy in my back pocket, I think that history has something very important to teach us on this subject.

First, 'abortion' (by which I mean an intended miscarriage of a fetus) has always been practiced by humans. Always. There is no point in history where one could say that no one on earth had an intended miscarriage. Abortion has as true and universal a history as religion, government, and war.

I was originally going to write a long explanation of the legal murder and enslavement of children in ancient Greece and Rome (about 1000 years' worth of Western civilization's 3000-year lifespan), but instead I would like to posit some of the legal ramifications of defining fetuses as persons today.

The Funny ones: being able to drive in the carpool lane while pregnant; filing tax reports for your fetus (and claiming them as a dependent?); ordering off the kids' menu at any restaurant; parking in handicapped spots (since the 'person' inside you is unable to walk); preboarding on airplanes (since the 'person' inside you requires assistance to get down the jetway).

The Scary ones: getting arrested and prosecuted for endangering the life/liberty/happiness of your fetus if you do any of the following while pregnant: drinking alcohol or caffeine, smoking, being near other people who are smoking, eating basil or pesto (or any number of other miscarriage-inducing herbs), taking antacids, being near paint fumes or mercury, dyeing your hair, running, jogging, jumping rope, other strenuous exercise (including sex?), petting or owning a cat, working overtime, getting stressed out, reaching upwards, lifting heavy things, etc.

My point is this: there's a lot of stuff out there that can kill a fetus, and many women miscarry for completely unexplainable reasons. Are we going to have to investigate every single miscarriage as a possible homicide? Are we going to police the movements and decisions of pregnant women? Will you be prosecuted if you fail to report witnessing a pregnant woman eat chocolate or walk past fresh paint? (After all, you may have witnessed an involuntary manslaughter or attempted assault!)

It's absurd.

new year - part I

Having been out of the country (again) for a few weeks, I'm trying to get myself back on the stick writing-wise. Though I have to say that there's not much in the way of happy news to be writing about - the U.S. economy on the verge of a recession, people losing their houses, the environment going to shit, the feuding amongst Democratic party candidates becoming mind-numbingly cacophonous, and now I hear that Obama's "universal" health care plan actually doesn't cover everyone.

This is a short post, and for that I apologize. Go watch some Keith Olbermann. Or drink some champagne. I'm sure things will look better tomorrow morning.

Finally! A Rich Guy I can get behind

Don't read this post yet. Just watch the video (you might have to scroll down the page to get to it).

Warren Buffett is awesome. I cannot hate a rich person who is willing to give up some of their wealth when they see the horribly unfair monetary treatment they get. And I don't say this because I live on a measly $20k per year in an expensive city. I usually qualify for a tax refund anyway. But people like my parents, who *do* end up paying the government well more than what they need to keep to save for retirement and live somewhat well as it is - well, they deserve lower taxes. That's it.
And they know they ought to be keeping more of their money. But because they themselves choose to *believe* the conservative (read: 99% of the fuckall wealthy) rhetoric, they think that the only solution to their problem is to get rid of taxes altogether. We should not be surprised that the fuckall wealthy are riding on the 'get rid of taxes' wagon. We *should* be surprised that our parents, the media that informs them, and the government fail to communicate clearly the sheer surfeit of money that the wealthiest people in our country pull in for themselves, and the relative lack of money they must funnel back into the public domain.
I am not advocating communism here. We all pay money to the government so that we can have streets to drive on, people to help us in emergencies, people to make sure our air is clean and our products are safe, parks and sidewalks to walk on, schools for our kids with already-underpaid teachers - not to mention the (comparatively inexpensive) public services that are necessary to provide for the underprivileged. Don't even get me started on the relative lack of money given for welfare/food stamps/homeless shelters/"handouts" that the conservatives are always railing about. (But if you *are* interested to see where your taxes are going, look here). As I said, we all already pay money to the government, and that is not going to change. I just think that the wealthy should not get special treatment that helps them get wealthier at a faster rate than our parents. And I think #3 wealthiest dude in the country backs me up here.
Unfortunately, unless Mr. Buffett has the cajones to fork out the millions of dollars it would take to get lobbyists in Washington changing the tax code (as if I needed anything more to support my assertion that the wealthy are heavily invested in, well, their money), his words will stay only words.

The Fires

So, fire + evacuees + old terrorist confession = an excuse for Fox news to get your brain thinking more Bushily.

I read it on RawStory (which includes the original Fox News broadcast in all its racist fear-mongering glory), but this youtube video gives you the lighthearted version. Keith Olbermann makes it seem okay, or at least a little laughable, that Fox News took a 2003 terror warning and made it look like these fires all around L.A. were started by Al Quaeda.

Now you just sit, and think. Families are being evacuated, homes are being lost, firefighters are being injured, and all our lungs look like freshly-paved asphalt. And Rupert Murdoch and the conservative media machine want to use all this to make you spend your money on bombs and guns and private soldiers, send your family overseas to kill and get traumatised, and then vote Republican in 2008.

Are you angry yet? Yeah, me too.

hundred dolla bills y'all

Just read from this article from RawStory that the Iraq/Afghanistan war effort, over the next decade (and possibly including what we've already spent - that part isn't clear) will cost more than $2 trillion, with over $700 billion in INTEREST - because we are spending borrowed money.

W.T.F.

No, seriously, let me write that all out:

$2,700,000,000,000.00 total

$705,000,000,000.00 in interest

RawStory estimates that this amounts to $8000 per person in this country. And I thought Republicans were meant to be fiscally conservative. Yeah, that's right Republicans, you just got told. Feel the shame.

omgzzz

I've been out of contact with too many people for too long. I needed to go off the grid for a couple months to study for an exam. But that stage of my life is so over - because I passed. And I never have to worry about it again. So stay tuned for more awesome blogging from yours truly.

A potential kick in the face for male politicians

Feminist strategies have taken many different forms over the years. In the 1960s, women fought for equal pay by saying that they were just as qualified/smart/ambitious as men, that they could perform the same roles. In the late 19th century, women convinced the American college system that they needed access to higher education. Their reasoning? - they needed to be smart so that they could provide a good at-home education for America's sons.

What does this have to do with the present day? Well, one of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton will probably not win a national election in 2008 is because much of our society still thinks (at least subconsciously) that women are fundamentally more emotional (read: less rational) than men. We get moody, we change our minds frequently, we cry, we break dishes, we are 'pussies'. Putting the rational/emotional debate aside, if it were the case that a candidate had less 'rational' ability, they probably would not be as desirable a political leader.

Now, this article about one of the side-effects of Viagra indicates that taking this drug might make you a more 'emotional' person. Viagra apparently increases the production of a "love hormone." [Cue satire] Now we all know that that feeling of love can mess with our decision-making skills. And we all know that some large percentage of those crusty white guys in Washington are popping the little blue pills. So how can we trust political leaders who take drugs that compromise their rational abilities and risk the safety of our nation? These men are turning themselves into women.

So I propose that we ban the use of Viagra by political leaders, police officers, men in the military, CEOs, market analysts, and anyone who clings to the myth of male rationality as a justification for not allowing women into their field. Let's keep male space pussy-free.