Tea Party, Economy and Killing the Middle Class

First, watch this video:
 This, along with watching Maddow tonight, the recent Occupy Wall Street movement, and paying attention in my Early American Working Class history class has brought me to this rant. First, a small history lesson:

 In Colonial America, we had something called an “assize of bread.” This set the weight and price of a loaf of bread in the colonies. This ensured that every working American could afford to feed their family. If anyone proposed anything like today, they would be called a socialist. We also had laws against these actions:
 • “forestall”: Buy provisions before they reach market
 • “regrate”: Buy at market and resell at a higher price
 • “engross”: Buy a crop still in the field (speculating)

Again, today, if you suggest any regulations like this, or any regulation in general to be imposed on businesses and corporations, you’re a socialist.

 Back then, working people really felt like they were entitled to a voice and a piece of this country. They knew their power and acted on it by forming unions and striking for fair pay and shorter hours. They participated in their government. We don’t do this anymore, at least not until the situation is too dire to really do anything.

 Yes, the Boston Tea Party was an act of revolt against the British telling the colonies what to do. Yes, the colonies wanted their own government and they participated in it. But they also wanted to do so to impose a moral economy, which is clearly not the task of today’s Tea Party. Moral economy, above all, opposes free-riders, people who only take and do not give. What’s one of the biggest tenants of the tea party? Don’t tax the rich. Working class people, unionized people, formed the core of resistance against the British. What does the Tea Party want to do? Attack the middle class and take away collective bargaining. When you lower the taxes on the haves, the have-not’s have to pay for it. The national debt is going anywhere, and republicans aren’t going to budge on cutting some defense funding. The money has to come from somewhere, and it’s going to be the middle class.

 Trickle down economics doesn’t work. Corporations take the money they save and raise their own salaries. If you want to give tax breaks, keep an eye on the corporations you give it to. Require proposals. Make them tell you how many jobs they promise to create.

 You can try to make a case that our county now is not our country then, and I completely agree. But if you’re going to claim one piece of the American Revolution, you had better take a look at the whole picture. And we do need regulation, right now, because our largest corporations aren’t living a couple houses down the street, where we can talk to them about our concerns or have any real input on how they do business. They are huge entities with a strangle-hold on this country. They’re not committed to a moral economy. They don’t have a conscience that would make them possible candidates for self-regulation.

 One of my coworkers said, “Corporations should regulate themselves. They’re not going to do things to hurt us because they would lose money.” On the contrary, they constantly do things to hurt us because it saves them money, and no one cares enough to pay attention. Halliburton, case and point. Mountain top removal corporations. Wal-mart.

 I don’t get what’s so hard to understand. If they want to move oversees, whatever. There’s always someone else to do the job, and you can provide incentives for them that you were wasting on the ones that left. Let’s grow businesses that care about workers. Deal?

On the Republican Debate

Dear Republican candidates,

I would really appreciate it if you could pull your heads out of Reagan's ass long enough to listen to some points I need to make following your most recent debate:

1. Lowering taxes on the rich doesn't do a damn thing other than overburden taxes on the rest of us. I get that you want to create jobs. Great. Require business to apply for tax breaks with a proposal detailing how they're going to make it count. That way, you can make sure you're not just throwing money at people who aren't going to use it wisely, and so it can be monitored.

Also, the lack of jobs isn't the only problem. The lack of jobs that provide a living wage is, along with people not learning the skills necessary to excel at their jobs.

2. Stop messing with education. It's been proven time and time again that education advances cultures and people in general. It's your job to provide affordable education, or else our best and brightest are going to be America's biggest exports. Focus on science, not religiosity in our schools. The rest of the world is laughing at us.

3. Stop chipping away at women's health. It's not helping anyone and it's not going to fix any of your problems.

4. I'd rather be eaten by rabid wolves than live in a country where Michele Bachmann is president. Please don't let this happen. The entire world will laugh at us and, if she gets her way at all, we will revert back to the 1950s. Her role model is Phyllis Schlafly...the woman that worked tirelessly to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, describes herself as an anti-feminist and once said, "If marriage is to be a successful institution, it must…have an ultimate decision maker, and that is the husband." Oh, and she also said that Roe v Wade was the worst decision ever made. Great role model.

5. Has anyone else seen the recent increase of energy-related commercials? Do not let these vultures gain any tighter of a grasp around the neck of this country. We need regulation. Without it, it's just a matter of time before disaster strikes. I want jobs, but not at the cost of our well-being.

6. I'm pretty sure universal health care will not bring about the apocalypse. Does Obama's health care plan need work? Yes. But everyone should have access to affordable quality health care. It should be a right, not a reward.

7. This one's to Rick Perry in particular: Global warming is real. The science IS settled. Same with evolution. You would know these things if you ever picked up a book or read a scholarly article. You can't get your science from Fox News. There are outliers, but almost all respectable scientists can agree on these two things. If something were to come along and disprove them, the science would definitely shift, but none such things ever has. Also, your use of Galileo in your response about climate change was in total opposition of the point you were trying to make.

8. Reagan is not your savior. For more info read this post.


Please keep these things in mind when you're attacking each other on stage the next time. We all know my vote goes to Obama, but I don't know about the rest of the country. If one of these clowns gets elected, the consequences will be toughest on the working class. "Let them eat cake" comes to mind.

Teaching Creationism

Haha, here's an unpublished rant I found in my drafts:

Want to teach creationism in schools?

Fine with me. But teach all creation stories. Every single last one, especially Pastafarianism, because they all have the same thing in common, they rely on faith , not any kind of measurable data or scientific truths.


Deal?

Also, while you're talking about education reform, let's talk about Thanksgiving and Christopher Columbus.


Columbus didn't find America. It was here all along, with people living on it. People were living meaningful, good lives long before that evil villain of a human, Columbus, came here.

Want to know about genocide?! You don't have to look outside of U.S. borders.

Oh, Thanksgiving, we were so thankful that we massacred Native Americans in droves, sent many young Native American children to horrible Christian assimilation camps in Canada, drove them off of the only land they ever knew, and forced them to assimilate into a culture where it was damn-near impossible to make honest money doing something they didn't have to throw away their whole culture for. It wasn't just a little moving around an re-locating. It was extermination. Recognize it. Call it what it was.

Want to know what I'm thankful for?! I'm thankful that I have access to education so that I can un-learn all of the nonsense perpetuated by the textbooks of my youth, no doubt handed down by the sadists at the Texas Board of Education. (Also thankful for my family, animals, coffee and friends. Moy awesome)

But, really...

History matters, and how you teach it matters. Stop lying to our kids.

Where to draw the line between art and mass production...

I just watched a documentary via Netflix titled "Exit Through the Gift Shop." It was about street art, and also about the nature of art. After buying a book of Banksy's work while I was still in high school and hanging a poster of several of his locations in my room, I was definitely interested in what I thought was going to be a documentary about art's role in cultural critique.

The documentary was really interesting, though admittedly not what I was expecting at all. Thierry Guetta was the central figure. He was a French guy that live in LA and was obsessed with videotaping everything. Just by chance, he started taping one of his relatives that was Invader. From there he met and started taping Shepard Fairey and others on a pretty obsessive basis. He told them he was taping for a documentary though this wasn't true. Due to the nature of street art, things don't remain permanent, so it's easy to see why videotaping the art and its process had such an appeal. Guetta began pursuing Banksy. Eventually he met him and became one of the few people Banksy trusted with protecting his identity.

After shooting a ton of Banksy work, and seeing the huge response to Banksy's exhibition in London, Banksy asked Guetta to actually put together the documentary he had been saying he was going to do. The commercial success of Banksy's work meant street art as a whole was being commercialized and sold at extremely high prices, and its roots were being forgotten. Guetta took his boxes upon boxes of video tapes and produced this drawn out, heavily edited, unwatchable, almost schizophrenic compilation of some of the footage he had taken of street artists. Guetta seemed to have viewed it as his own creative endeavor rather than a showcase of street art talent.

Upon seeing it, Banksy told him that he should try making his own art. Well, he did. Starting off small, he used the same stark stencil designs and pasting techniques that other artists had. He called himself Mister Brainwash. Using mostly Photoshop and a horde of outside sculptors and designers, Guetta made his own army of artwork. It sounded like everything started off as his ideas, but that he hired outside people to make everything actually happen, which is something I have a problem with. Using all of his money and resources, even refinancing his house and using other more extreme measures, Guetta produced a lot of stuff in a very short amount of time and found a space to showcase his work. He got a promoter, convinced Banksy and Shepard Fairey to endorse his work, and gained a ton of hype overnight. He never took the time to develop as an artist, or pay his dues so to speak. He drove his construction team crazy because he just didn't know much about much. He had no experience with anything, he couldn't make decisions and he seemed to resent listening to people who did know what they were doing. His work sold for outrageous amounts of money. His art show had a huge crowd and was well-received. It made him a millionaire.

So what it art? What makes Guetta different from Banksy or a graphic designer, or some mass-produced snarky silk-screen tee-shirt? Where is the line, if there even is one? As for me, I don't know, but I've never thought of art in this way. I have a problem with anything made with a computer being considered art, but I can't really articulate why. I like Guetta prints as t-shirts, but I don't know if it's art.

The documentary also raised a lot of questions considering how modern technology is changing art. Just today, I read about how Urban Outfitters is stealing designs from indie artists. I could paint or write something, put it up on the internet, and someone on the other side of the world can see it instantly and use it if they want. Copyright exists sometimes, but it gets kind of hazy. Everything gets kind of hazy. Art seems to have this essential primitiveness, but essential elitism built in. But is that putting an emphasis on the process and not the result? It that right? I'm really not sure. I'm not an art student, so I don't know what theories and such are involved in these questions. I'm not even sure if any of this makes sense. But, until this documentary, I never really thought of art in this way.

Oh, I should also mention that some people think that Guetta isn't actually Mister Brainwash, that this whole documentary was furnished by Banksy as some sort of meta critique of the nature of art. I don't know if I believe that or not, though it would make it even more interesting.

But whatever. Just go watch it. It's cool.

Casey Anthony Trial and Hockey Rage

It's been a while since I last updated this, I think it's entirely ridiculous how people are foaming at the mouth about the verdict of the trial. I work at a pizza shop, and at least five people today were STILL talking about the trial. It's still all over the tv.

It's terrible that a little girl died. But, the case against Casey Anthony was not strong. Their entire body of evidence consisted of photos of Anthony partying. No DNA. No fingerprints. Nowhere near enough to put her in jail. The DA was entirely too sure he was going to get a conviction, and he and his team didn't make a strong enough case.

I'm not saying she didn't do it. I have no idea if she did. But our justice system works in a way that you have to prove guilt, not necessarily innocence. That's why we have a trail by jury. They did their job, rightly I think, by deciding that the prosecution didn't prove guilt. If you don't like it, you can go to a country where a fair trial is not a constitutional right. If you were on trial, you would want a jury to do their job too.

Thanks for this, but you're dead to me now.

So, about hockey....

Max is going to by a Flyer. Believe me, it took everything in me to not put the f-bomb in that sentence. I get the whole, "he's a young player, he's still looking to make some money," and even the "Pittsburgh couldn't offer him what he was worth." To that, I still say bullshit. We gave Kennedy and Duper less than they could have gotten elsewhere, but they strayed because they believe in the team, and they love our city. But you turned down a 3-year deal to play with the Flyers for 5 years and 9 million dollars. You weren't too great last season, and you didn't step up like other members of the team to fill the holes left by Geno and Sid. Thanks for helping us get a cup in 2009, but you're dead to me now. Sorry it had to end like this. It feels like a bad breakup.

As for Jagr, he's an idiot. If you want to play games and act like a jag-off, you don't deserve to be a Penguin. Have fun in Filthadelphia with Max. I sincerely hope someone throws nachos on you when we play you at home in December.

And Rupper, I love you. I'm really sad Shero didn't sign you again. I hope NY is good to you, and you deserve all the money you're getting. Also, you're on my list of favorite people ever for many reasons, including this tweet from you:

"3 things will stay true.... 1) I won't like the Miami Heat (LBJ) 2) grown men shouldn't ride scooters 3) I will hit the Mullet,for all fans!"

So, I love you. So much. Have fun in NY.

Alex Ovechkin

Oh hey, guess what....

The Flyers, the Pens and the Caps all have the same number of wins in the second round of playoffs.

....And the Pens didn't even make the second round. Take that, Ovi and Hartnell.


In honor of the Caps getting swept 4-0 by Tampa Bay, here's some of the best videos of Ovechkin falling on his face:










Seriously, I hate Ovi. I hate everything about Ovi...from his missing teeth, to his quarter-machine bling, to his sporadic facial hair, to his general lack of sense, but especially his mountain of an ego.

He's an moron. In one picture, this is why I hate him:




Also, he should probably not have a twitter account. It's clear that English is his second language:

"Thanks u caps fans!we love u!!!you guys kill tonight them!!it was the loudest rink!!!!!!!!!"

"Rock the red!!!!!!!we need u guys tom!see u on the ace!good night..."



I'm really hoping the Bruins take the cup, but I'd be okay with Tampa Bay too. I am so ready for next season. I have two more finals left before I get to go home, and 11 days till I'm 21. I am really happy right now.

BP Oil Spill

It's ridiculous that it took a year for the media to start caring about the lasting effects of the BP oil spill.

Today I, with a group of concerned student, marched to Sheetz then around campus to protest the strangle-hold big oil has on our country and our future. Similar protests were held all over the country today in response to the one year anniversary of the oil spill.

Oil doesn't just go away. It take may years for ecosystems to rebuild after being destroyed by oil.

All those BP commercials are nonsense. People and wildlife are still suffering. We, as a country, need to move away from our oil addiction and demand that our government invests in cost-effective clean and sustainable energy.

Open Letter to Obama

Hey yinz, I've been really busy this past week with homework, helping with the Rally to Save the Budget for IUP, and two programs that Women's Studies Club is hosting this week: a Screening of the Coat Hanger Project and a performance by activist spoken-word poet ANDREA GIBSON!!! I'm excited.

I've tried to stay away from politics for the past couple days, just to keep on track with school and events, so this post is just going to be general....just an open letter I wrote to President Obama:


Dear President Obama,

I'm one of the many college students that you inspired with your promise of change, of government responsibility and transparency. I voted for you, and I remember celebrating as the results came in on election night with an impromptu rally at the center of campus, watching as flags were waived and many students cried because, finally, we had an African-American president.

I was there.

But I was also there, watching and reading the news during the gulf oil spill. I was there when the House of Representatives passed a bill that would put my reproductive choice at stake, taking away money from Planned Parenthood and other very necessary health care clinics. I was there, watching, when Speaker Boehner didn't clap at the repeal of DADT that you rightly mentioned during your State of the Union Address. I was there watching the union battles of Wisconsin. I was there when you promised us along the campaign trail that our soldiers would be out out of Iraq and Afghanistan very soon.

Mr. President, I want change, and I am holding you responsible for your promises. You didn't inspire the masses by running on a platform of "Um, I think we can." It was "Yes, we can." And still, I believe we can dust off "Yes We Can." We need more change, more reform and a more humane and responsible government. I know it's tough to be tough against the tide of partisan politics, where often party lines are more important than the issues. But you need to stand up and do something. I really fear for the direction of the country with the rise of the Tea Party and the Republican-majority House of Representatives.

I still support you. I still think you have a real chance to leave a legacy of hope and humanity in office. But, you need to get tougher. You need to show politicians on both sides of the aisle that you were elected by the people, especially the young people, and your duty is to make sure that they are heard. So, please, don't step down, and earn that Oval Office in the eyes of the American public and the history books. We need you to lead us through these tough economic times, while maintaining the integrity of the nation for the people, for all of the people.

Thank you Mr. President.

Sincerely,
Kelsey Gross

Blaming "Immoral" Behavior for Natural Disasters & Double Standards for Islam

Glenn Beck, in a characteristic act of crazy, decided to blame moral wrongdoing for the tsunami and earthquakes that have recently plagued Japan. God's blaming them for their sins.

Yeah, you just read that right. Japan, and the world's failure to follow the 10 commandments (which Glenny calls the "10 rules of thumb," clearly without researching the fact that "rule of thumb" is a phrase from the 19th c. that refers to the law that a husband wasn't allowed to beat his wife with something wider than his thumb) have caused earthquakes and a tsunami in Japan. Apparently Glenny never learned about plate tectonics. Or forming logical arguments. He said:

"What God does is God's business, but I'll tell you this...there's a message being sent. And that is, 'Hey you know that stuff we're doing? Not really working out real well. Maybe we should stop doing some of it.' I'm just saying."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/03/14/2011-03-14_glenn_beck_japan_earthquake_could_be_message_from_god_to_follow_the_ten_commandm.html#ixzz1GoA5hUdd

He's not the only one spewing this type of garbage. In 2010 his bff Rush Limbaugh blamed the passing of Obama's health care plan for the volcanic eruption in Iceland that resulted in ash wreaking havoc on Europe.

It's not just Fox "News" either. Televangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson famously blamed the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on God's rage brought on by several different groups of people:



So feminists, "abortionists," homosexuals, the ACLU and pagans are to blame? Glad we got that cleared up....and I thought it was the airplanes manned by terrorists that hit the towers, and government people not taking the threats from al-Qaeda seriously. How dumb of me.

Ridiculous.

And that wasn't all from Robertson. He also claimed that Hurricane Katrina was caused by legalized abortion, and that the tragedy in Haiti was caused by the Haitian people's "pact with the devil."

This guy still works with the 700 Club show that is perpetually spamming my TV. He was even a Republican nominee for president in 1988. He still campaigns for Conservative Republican candidates today. Separation of Church and State my ass.

But, anyway...

This staggering display of fear mongering, and manipulating religion for control, is almost a right of passage for Fox "News" personalities. You guys have more in common with the Westboro Baptist Church than you'd like to admit. Their line for picketing the funerals of soldiers and others, famously, is that God is angry with America, and so He's allowing people to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. Beck's line is that God is angry that the world isn't following the 10 commandments, so He's allowing people to die in Japan. The only difference is that Beck is picking on people from another country, rather than those from our own.

It's ridiculous to support him but condemn the Westboro Baptist Church. It's also unfair to judge Islam by its extremists, but not do the same to Christianity. It's unfair to only call terrorists, "terrorists," when they believe in a different man in the sky then you do.

Just to call some more attention to this, here's a little something from Twitter (I'm KGrizzle):

TPO_Hisself : Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah"

KGrizzle: @TPO_Hisself Deuteronomy 2:25 basically says the same thing. about 23 hours ago via web in reply to TPO_Hisself

He didn't respond to me. The text I talk about, from Deuteronomy 2:25 in the Bible, says:

"This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you."

How is that any different from what he quoted from the Qur'an? I just don't get it.

Sorry to go off on a religious tangent, but I feel like some things just need to be said. No religion is better than any other. No one can prove their "rightness," because that's the nature of faith. But I don't really want to get into religion here too deeply. Just do whatever you will do and I will tell about it. Oh, I do love Sharon Olds.

Edit 3/18/11: I got a comment on Facebook defending Glenn Beck:

"Kelsey, what Glenn Beck is refering to is Revelations. That fire and brimstone will rain down on us for all the immoral things that are happening. He's using it as an example. More natural dissasters are happening and they are getting worse and worse.We all know that shifting plates cause earthquakes literally, but he's talking figurativley."

My response:

"It didn't sound very figurative to me. I think it's very misguided to manipulate the suffering of a nation for religious purposes, good or bad, figurative or not. Even if we were all "good Christians" earthquakes would happen because the earth shifts. Natural disasters are not necessarily getting worse, but they are getting more frequent, and scientists are looking at natural causes for it. They seem worse because coastal cities are the most densely populated, so when there is a disaster, it causes a lot more damage. I think what Glenn Beck's doing is dangerous. There should be an emphasis on better building codes, maintaining natural barriers, etc, not fire and brimstone. Didn't God say he helps those that help themselves?"

If they comment back, I'll post it.

Edit 3/18/11: There were some more comments:

Different person from the first: "Kelsey let it go people can thing and say what feel be a duck let it roll off your back."

Me: "I would...except that people are listening to this maniac and believing him. There are people that would elect him to office. There are segments of this country that take his word as law, as infallible. That's terrifying, so I'm saying what I feel. He can say whatever wants, but I'm going to criticize it when necessary."

Response: "The people listen too think the same way"

I'm not really sure what the last response from them was supposed to mean, but if I figure it out, I'll let you know. Someone also "liked" the first pro-Beck comment that I got, though I think it was one of their friends.


Comments please!!!

Update on Corbett

I'm glad to say that a lot of people are outraged about Cobett's attack on education. If you're not, you should be.

I'm proud to go to a university where our president, Dr. David Werner, confronts the issue directly:

"Essentially, if it takes effect, this reduction will change the character of the university as we have known it. It will change the programs and services we can offer students; it will affect their ability to graduate in four years; and it will jeopardize their ability to secure an education they can afford.

We have been good stewards of the taxpayers’ money. While the State System Board of Governors has increased tuition every year since 1998, the rate of increase has been well below the rates found at other universities. In four of the last five years, the increase has been below the rate of inflation."

President Werner Addresses Governor’s Proposed Budget, Encourages Contacting Legislators - President - IUP

And Werner's not the only one. Several different universities have presidents and officials that have spoken out against the cuts.

Please take action. We need all the help we can get. Our education is in jeopardy.




Find your elected official and urge them to fight's Corbett's proposed cut.

Sign the petition with thousands of concerned PA students and faculty to protect our schools and tell Corbett that we're not going to back down.

Bogus Anti-abortion Arguments

Well, it's been brewing, but here is the big long abortion blog post. I think it's necessary for me to post this in its entirety because of the complete lack of sense I'm hearing from the "pro-life" side, and the deep roots of their agenda popping up everywhere. Have you searched Google lately for anything relating to abortion? They've taken over the search results.

So, I'm going to take some anti-abortion arguments and try to do my best to squash them. The arguments I've heard from anti-abortion people are numbered, my argument against them is underneath:

1. Life starts at the moment of conception. Abortion is killing an innocent child.


I'm sorry, but an acorn is not a tree, an egg is not a chicken and a fetus is not a child. It's a potential child, in the same way that an acorn is a potential tree. It doesn't grow on it's own. It depends on many other things in the same way a fetus depends on the body of woman for it's nutrients. If a woman does not wish to let something grow inside her body, she should be able to remove it.

I've heard the argument, "there's no difference between a baby in the body, and one that's born." The difference is that the woman has, in effect, given the fetus permission to take her nutrients and continue to form until birth. It's all a matter of what the woman wants. The reason it's wrong to kill a baby once it has been born is because the choice was already made by the woman to let the fetus grow and develop into a human, not just a potential human. I feel like this is almost common sense.

2. The religious argument; God hates abortion.

If your version of God creates everything, and oversees everything, then how can God be against abortion? He (and I'll use He because that's what it is to Christians), is responsible for miscarriages. God's the biggest abortionist there is. There are many more miscarriages per year than there will ever be abortions. How can God let that happen? Also, God, by extension, also created the abortion doctors and the technology used to perform abortions. How can you account for that if you believe what you say you believe?

Also, who are you to judge? You don't know the circumstances surrounding every woman who gets an abortion. If you don't like abortion, the solution is simple: don't get one. Personally, I would never get one and will probably never have to make the decision, but if I were pregnant, 15, homeless, with no support, then my perspective may be different. Why is this so hard to understand?

Furthermore doesn't this idea of "conception is the point where life starts" make menstruation and male masturbation a huge sin?! Every time it happens (or you make it happen, whatever, I'm not judging) you are potentially killing half a baby. Go ahead Republicans, try to outlaw then enforce that one.

3. Have you seen those pictures the anti-abortion people hold up?!

Most abortions are done when the fetus is smaller than the tip of your pinky finger. These disgusting posters anti-abortion people use are gross exceptions to the rule. Because they know their argument is goofy and makes outrageous assumptions, they are using fear and disgust to try and make a point.

We could use disgusting pictures of back-alley abortions to prove our point. But, largely we don't, unless it's used with respect, and with a nobler purpose than shock value. Why? Because we have respect, both for the women and for the advancement of our argument. If anti-abortion people had any respect for what they themselves defined as "life," then they wouldn't be using those pictures.

I'll agree in one respect; I'm not okay with most abortions, except for medical reasons or case-by-case reasons, after the end of the second trimester. By that point, the woman should have either made the decision to let the fetus grow or not.

4. Planned Parenthood and other abortion-providers perform abortions on girls under 18 without parental consent.

I think that, if you're old enough to have sex, you should be old enough to deal with the consequences. I don't think a parent should be notified if their daughter gets an abortion. It's her decision, not theirs. They should also be understanding and open-minded enough that their daughter doesn't feel like she's keeping a secret. But it's her body, not theirs.

To the "it's easier to convince teenagers to have an abortion" argument, I call bullshit. Who is convincing anyone to have an abortion? It's a choice. You get the facts and make a choice. This also is an unfair assumption to put on teenagers. It's not like they don't have brains capable of thinking through decisions.

If you want more about Planned Parenthood, and the fact they they support a wide range of services other than abortion (like cancer screenings, etc.), check out my other post.

5. Why not just have the kid and put it up for adoption?

This goes back to the notion of allowing something to grow inside of you. If you don't want to allow it to grow, no one should be legally forcing you to. Adoption is great if you want to take that route, but no one should be forced to have a baby.

And what would happen if women were forced to bring their unwanted pregnancy to term? Unless the GOP wants to adopt and provide great homes, schools, support and resources to these children, don't talk to me about adoption. Even if they did pledge to provide these things, it all still defaults to the women's choice to allow the fetus to grow.

6. "What about dads...that baby is half theirs. They should have a say." .... Or basically any other male-centered argument.

I don't like making this argument, but it does have value. If men were the ones that got pregnant, then you could have a say. But you can't get pregnant. You don't have this fetus growing inside of you. Therefore, whether you are the father or not, it doesn't matter. You can try to talk to the woman in question, but ultimately it's her decision. This is why family planning and birth control are so important. If your a man and you don't like abortions, YOU'RE IN LUCK, you never have to get one!! When you guys start getting pregnant, then we'll talk.



7. If abortions stay legal, then more and more people will get them.

Do you really think that we can't trust women to make their own decisions? Abortions are not just done haphazardly. It's a medical procedure and, like all medical procedures, should not be taken lightly. No one just goes to get an abortion for fun....are you kidding me?

8. Women are meant to be mothers. Abortions are defying what it is to be a woman.

If you still define womenhood by domestic capabilities, or by genitalia, then I have absolutely no hope for you. Gender is culturally constructed. Some of what's feminine today was masculine a few years ago. What's feminine in our culture is masculine in another. Personally, if you think this way, I only hope that you never end up in a position where you are overseeing women. Women can be mothers, or not. Housewives, or not. It doesn't make them any less of a woman. This is why choice is so very important in the never-ending battle for equality of opportunity.

9. Abortion is a form of racist population control.

Yes, it's true that minority women have abortions more often than white women. But this isn't just about race. Socio-economic status is embedded in this. Lack of access to birth control, bad health-ed classes and many other factors are also embedded in the racial divide of abortion.

No one's limiting your number of children, or encouraging an abortion. If they are, they're idiots.

I've heard some questionable arguments about Margaret Sanger being a racist. Even if there is truth to this, it doesn't matter. The need for birth control and choice is bigger than just one woman, questionable motives or not.

10. If you don't want to have a kid, you shouldn't have sex.

So if you eat fatty and greasy food and develop a heart problem, then your bypass surgery shouldn't be covered? If you play football your whole life, then your knee surgery shouldn't be covered? If you develop cancer from something avoidable then your treatment shouldn't be covered? If you have type 2 diabetes brought on by diet, then your insulin shouldn't be covered? I could go on. Obviously this isn't the case. So why should we make it the case for sex? It makes no sense.

Want to bring Christianity into it? The Bible may condemn premarital sex. I won't argue with that. But it also condemns people that eat shellfish, wear polyester and trim their beards on certain days (Seriously, read your own book). It also says it's okay to kill your kids of they disobey, to stone women for a whole host of minor offenses, and a wide range of other things that are illegal and/or morally reprehensible today. And Christians, last time I checked, you weren't following these things. Why? They're all from the same book. What makes one thing more important than the other? If it was all presumably written with divine intervention, then what makes one thing more important than another? I'm not trying to be offensive, but why do you get to pick and choose if the entire book comes from the same larger source?

This argument that I stated originally, which is very close to the norm of slut-shaming, may have worked when we didn't have widespread access or knowledge of birth control techniques and when the modern school of thought dictated that women didn't like sex; that they were supposed to be submissive and feel ashamed for having sex. I'd like to think we've come a long way since then. Sex is a personal choice. And so abortion should be too.

11. Edit 3/16 12:41 am: Forgot one.... the"if you get an abortion, you'll die/become infertile/get cancer/ put yourself at other health risks" argument

Any statistics about mental health, cancer risks, or just about any other kinds of bodily harm to a woman resulting from abortion, are able to be manipulated by both sides. Find me one statistic about cancer risk, and I'm willing to bet I can find one that negates it. That said, surgical abortion (an outpatient procedure) is a medical procedure, and like ALL medical procedures, freak things can happen. But it's a case by case basis just like any other type of procedure. One person may react to something differently than another, recovery times differ, etc.

Check out this site if you want more info about infertility.

And, about cancer, I'm copying and pasting something I said in my "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion" post:

Abortion does not cause breast cancer, but it may put a woman at a higher risk. But, so may smoking, genetics, previous conditions, having no children, long-term hormone treatments, getting your period before you're 12, alcohol, being overweight and a whole host of other things. Scientists still don't know what causes cancer, and they still don't agree on whether abortion is a factor. (http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer)

Some arguments of my own:

1. How is a pill before having sex any different that a pill after having sex? Both are halting pregnancy. I don't understand how people that use birth control can be against abortion. And I have news for you, just about everyone is using birth control. You don't just magically go from an average of 7.0 children per family in 1800, to 3.5 in 1900, to 2.3 in 2000s. It's not like people just stopped having sex. Duh. Which, again, is why abstinence-only education is just beyond ridiculous.

2. There is nothing more big government than trying to tell a woman what to do with her body and limiting her access to abortion clinics and birth control. America is supposed to be the place where anyone can choose their own destiny and make their choices accordingly. For some women, this doesn't involve having children. And for all people, it should involve family planning.

3. Under several different health care plans, Viagra is covered but birth control and abortions are not. This is just ridiculous for obvious reasons.

4. Abortions are not permitted in military hospitals. Obviously, having sex while enlisted may be frowned upon, but it does happen. And rape in the military does happen. Abortions need to be available so women don't feel as though they need to revert to the coat hanger.

5. Whether you outlaw it or not, abortions are going to happen. Instead of being in a sanitary doctor's office where the risk of medical problems from abortion are less than the risk of medical problems from getting tonsils out, the abortion would be performed in someone's house. Or in an alley. With unsanitary equipment. And you can't stop it from happening. If I wasn't so against the use of fear-mongering to gain favor, I would put the graphic pictures of back-alley abortions on signs to use against the people who support revoking the legal status of abortion.

6. I don't support looking at people as thought they were dollar signs, but if you are cost-minded, and not against government-funded abortion based on supposed moral beliefs, then think about how much more welfare money this country would have to give out to women if they were forced to have unplanned children that they simply don't have the means to support.


So, are there any more anti-abortion arguments you've heard? Can you spot any holes in my own arguments, perhaps things I can improve upon? Any other comments?

Edit 3/16: Also, I really recommend checking out the 12th & Delaware documentary if you haven't already.

Various Atrocities Aimed at Women

Congresswoman Elenore Holmes Norton (DC) speaking about proposed legislation and making a call for young feminists to join together and speak out against the war on women.

I went to Washington D.C. this weekend for the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference. It was incredible....all of it; the conference itself, the restaurants in the area and exploring D.C. after midnight on Friday and Saturday.

But this post isn't about Thai Place, Busboys and Poets, Tonic or GW Delicatessen that served great food, or my adventures, or the magnificent cupcakes from Georgetown Cupcakes. It's about what I learned from the conference.

My favorite quotes from the conference were:

"If you want change to happen get off the sidewalk and get on the street and start walking." -U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis

"When there are a few women in politics, women change. When there are a lot of women in politics, politics changes."- Women's Learning Partnership President Mahnaz Afkhami

I've never been in a room full of so many passionate and like-minded people. The speakers of the general assemblies were great, and the workshops I chose to attend were also great.

As I'm sure most of you know, a women's right to reproductive choice is on the chopping block. I learned a lot about legislation, particularly the Stupak on Steroids bill and the attacks on Planned Parenthood and other Title X organizations. All of the speakers of the first panel were awesome:

• NOW President Terry O'Neill
• Congresswoman Elenore Holmes Norton (DC)
• Founder and President of the Salem College FMLA Kari Ross
  
• iamdrtiller.com creator Steph Herold
• Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, Tina Tchen
• FMF President Ellie Smeal
  

The first workshop I went to had three women that became professional organizers and advocates for reproductive health and women's rights. My favorite speaker was Samantha Sewell (Conference and Events Program Director for Bluegreen Alliance) , but Dvora Lovinger (Deputy Chief of Staff for John Sarbanes) and Jen Heitel Yakush (SIECUS Director of Public Policy) were great too. The speakers talked about how they went from being an undergraduate to landing their dream jobs. I'm really considering entering that field, so it was great to hear from people that were in my position not too long ago. All were genuine and passionate about the issues that matter most to me, like reproductive choice, sex education in schools and working with politicians to get legislation passed.

The second workshop, with FMF President Ellie Smeal and FMF Global Programs Coordinator Anushay Hossain, was about opposition research and questioning the fundamentals of the pro-life movement. Ellie spoke about how deeply embedded the pro-life agenda is in our culture. From access and cost of birth control and contraceptives, to religious influence, to government mandates that control education and funding to sex education and AIDS prevention abroad, to questioning the money trail that leads up to the working-aged white males that make up most (or at least half) of the people that yell outside of abortion clinics. It's all interrelated, and it all works to limit the choice of women and their opportunity for independence.

The last panel I went to focused on a global view of women's health. My brain didn't want to function when UNFPA Chief Sarah Craven said that in Ethiopia, with a population of 7 million (so about 3.5 million women) there are only 104 OB-GYN's, and only 50 of them are practicing. Most of them only practice in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. Because of this, both the maternal mortality and infant mortality rate are staggering. Pregnant women have to travel for hours and sometimes days, usually via donkey, to get to the hospital. When the mothers do manage to live through birth, they often suffer chronic health problems as a result of the lack of OB-GYN's and other resources available. All of this is happening when most girls become wives at 14-16 years old, which carries its own inherent birthing risks. Most women in Ethiopia have their first sexual encounter before they have their first period.

It's a similar story in Iran and Afghanistan, as I heard from WLP President Mahnaz Afkhami and nurse Mina Ayob. Most women don't have access to prenatal care, and few even know what it is. There aren't enough hospitals with the facilities needed to perform caesarean sections or other things needed for the birthing a breached baby.

Also in Afghanistan, I learned that most of the money the U.S. sends goes to constructing traditional madrasas, schools that only allow boys. The only real aid we provide for women is the training of midwives. But there still isn't a widespread effort to provide contraceptives and sex-negotiation skills to women. It all has to go through the men. This isn't just Afghanistan either, this is the extent of our efforts in many different countries. We focus on abstinence and fidelity instead of the proper use of contraceptives and sex negotiation techniques for women who are culturally forced to submit to their husbands. Organizations that do anything otherwise don't receive funding because they have to sign an agreement saying that their focus is on abstinence and fidelity.

And, of course, we know this is happening at our schools in the U.S. too. Abstinence-only education and slut-shaming is the norm instead of a focus on practical advice that everyone should know. Kids have sex. Sorry parents, teachers, religion...it's true. So stop pretending that it doesn't happen because it's causing serious harm to America's youth, and youth worldwide.

With all of this, there was a lot of talk about the union-busting nonsense in Wisconsin, which now threatens Ohio and other states too. In Wisconsin, unions of firefighters and police officers were allowed to remain, while unions of teachers, nurses and care-providers were not. Can you see the gender lines here? Walker said that public service employees are the police and firefighters, but then what are teachers, nurses and care-providers? We need them just as much as we need police officers and firefighters.

There was also discussion about the education cuts federally and at the state level, and the importance of higher education in general. Hilda Solis was amazing. For more on education cuts, check out my last post on Corbett.


So, the conference was awesome. D.C. is wonderful. I took some pictures that you can find on either my Flickr account or Facebook. Here's a taste:

Corbett

Why is education always the first thing to be cut?

We NEED educated people to make sure these kinds of things never happen again. Duh.

Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett, in his infinite wisdom, wants to implement serious cuts to education, reducing funds by 52%. PASSHE (PA State System of Higher Education) already suffered big cuts in the last year. I know that at my school, IUP, there was a lot of work done to put a cap on new hires, and try to do away with majors and entire departments that didn't have a specified number (I think it was 30) graduates in the past five years. One of these departments was philosophy...I don't think a university could be called a university without a philosophy department.

But Corbett wants to continue to make it harder for kids like me to get an decent education:

"The Republican wants to slash funding for the 14 State System of Higher Education schools from $444 million to $232 million. State-related universities don't fare any better. Penn State's funding, for instance, would drop from $304 million to $152 million." from here.

Also, Penn State president Graham Spanier called it ""a near-total abandonment of higher education," in this article (same as above). Penn State may even have to close some of its campuses.

Higher education cuts aren't the only ones. Public schools have a lot to lose too. The Pittsburgh Public School District stands to lose $34 million with Corbett's budget plan.

On top of all this, Corbett refuses to even tax Marcellus shale natural gas, saying that it would hurt the budding industry. Ridiculous.

"The amount the Legislature spends on itself would decrease 1.4 percent, to $296 million, a smaller percentage cut than at least 13 other agencies including the departments of Agriculture, Education, Emergency Management and Health."

Read more: Corbett drops budget ax on education, state employees - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_726380.html#ixzz1GDaB7NP4 (this article also has highlights of all of the cuts if you scroll to the bottom)

So, Corbett's paycheck is more important than our education, heath, food and emergency funding. Awesome. I'm glad to know that my state really cares about my well-being. I'll probably post a follow-up to this as I find more info. This will be my last post for a couple days because I'm off to D.C. tomorrow for the 2011 National Young Feminists Leadership Conference!

Also, here's a couple videos from WTAE about the spending cuts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4WvgYfdm9w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD9_dAhMJNA (focuses on education)

Gingrich and Huckabee

So I'm pretty content at the moment. I've done nothing but sleep, watch movies and read books for the past five days. Spring break is awesome. But, while flipping through the channels, I caught a lot of fragmented conversations about Newt Gingrich as a 2012 GOP candidate and Mike Huckabee sounding off about Natalie Portman's pregnancy.

edit 3/ 15: According to Rachel Maddow (video at the bottom of the page), Gingrich probably isn't even running, he just wants to make it appear as though he's running to get money.

Gingrich has said he's running for president in 2012. He's is one of those people that believes in a very narrow definition of patriotism, and he throws the word around a lot. The following quote, from http://www.ontheissues.org/newt_gingrich.htm, infuriates me:

Replace multiculturalism with patriotic education. (Dec 2006):

In the classroom, the very concept of America is under assault. The traditional notion of our country as a union of one people, the American people, has been assaulted by multiculturalism, situational ethics, and a values-neutral model in which Western values and American history are ignored or ridiculed. Unless we act to reverse this trend, our next generation will grow up with no understanding of core American values. This will destroy America as we know it, as surely as if a foreign conqueror had overwhelmed us.

It is absolutely necessary to establish a firm foundation of patriotic education upon which further knowledge can be built; otherwise, Americans will lack understanding of American values & how important & great it is to be an American.

It is important to understand what makes America so unique and why generations of diverse people immigrated to this great land for freedom and opportunity. If Americans do not appreciate America, then how can they be ready and willing to defend her?

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.133-134 Dec 31, 2006

I don't understand why being worldly and learning about many different cultures and beliefs is frowned upon in this country. How can we know ourselves if we don't know anyone else? Why do you think Americans are told to pretend to be Canadians while abroad? Because we don't care to know about the rest of the world, but we expect everyone to look at us and tell us we've done right.

Ugh...

People like Newt throw around this expression of "American values," but I just don't understand what is meant by it. Other than a notion of individualism, I'm really not sure what else could be considered an American value. We profess to be humanitarians, to be morally responsible, the land of plenty, etc. but we are forever doing things to negate these.

Gingrich wants to eliminate the EPA, he's against gay marriage and he's anti-abortion. Oh, and also, Gingrich was the one who helped to impeach Clinton based on his sex scandal, while Gingrich himself was cheating on his wife. Awesome. I totally want this maniac running my country.

Here's one of his more famous speeches:



yuck. I think he has some intelligent moments, but he reeks of that narrow-minded republican conservative dogma.




Now onto Huckabee. He spoke out against Natalie Portman for being pregnant but not married, saying that she's a poor role model for young girls. This same guy praised Bristol Palin while she was pregnant, saying he was happy that her family is supporting her.

Why Portman? I'm not sure but I think that the fact that she campaigned for Obama has something to do with it.

I don't know enough about Portman to say whether she could be a role model for young girls. I just know I loved her in V for Vendetta, The Other Boleyn Girl, Garden State and her SNL video (<- lots of bleeped-out swearing. but it's funny and you should watch it if you haven't). She's a great actress, an activist, and she seems like a pretty cool person. I really liked this video of her from Time:




So why is Huckabee picking on her? He doesn't like that she's supposedly glamorizing single motherhood. Yeah, it's true that most single mothers aren't going to be making millions of dollars like Natalie. Duh. We know this. I think it's ridiculous for Huckabee to pick on Natalie. And it already looks like most of America is on her side.




Also, I'm excited to be leaving for Washington D.C. on Friday for the Feminist Leadership Conference!!


Edit 3/15: lol @ Newt Gingrich even more. Here's the episode of Maddow that I mentioned in the beginning of this post:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Lady Gaga

I know this will win me some haters, but I just can't hop on the Gaga train.

I never liked her music to begin with. I hate most of the mechanical crap that so many people are embedding into their music, though I do have some exceptions like M.I.A. But largely, if I want to listen to computer noises, I would. I'd rather listen to a person's voice and a person playing an instrument.

But anyway, she played a show in Arizona and condemned the passing of SB1070, the bill that basically made racial profiling legal in order to get rid of illegal immigrants. This was her little rant:

"I’ll tell you what we have to do about SB1070. We have to be active, we have to actively protest, and the nature of the monster ball is to actively protest prejudice and injustice and the bullshit that is put on our society because you’re a superstar no matter who you are or where you come from, and you were born that way."

Cool, right?! A star using their visibility to do good. But here's where I have a problem:

I'm pretty sure the people that have hundreds to spend on going to your shows are already the superstars. Most Mexican immigrants don't come into this country with a few hundred extra dollars to spend on seeing Gaga. If she really practiced what she preached, her shows would be free. She has some cool ideas, but she lacks the follow-through.

As for all the crazy fashion crap, it's a gimmick. It's to get us to forget that she sounds like any other computerized pop person, except she wears weird clothes and talks likes she's on something.

I'm also not okay with her new song "Born this Way." These are the lyrics. For such a strong subject, she's using really repetitive, largely meaningless lyrics. If this meant so much to her, you would think she would try to have it pack a little more punch.

Here's a review of the song, one that I agree with.

I'd be much more inclined to listen to her if she stayed Stephanie Germanotta and didn't turn into Lady Gaga. I think she's a less talented rip off of Madonna. She was so much better before she went crazy:

Dr. Phil

^ This is his "I'm making millions off of giving bad advice" smile

My mom watches "Dr. Phil." My grandma watches "Dr. Phil." But, frankly, I find him cringe-worthy. I tend to refer to him as "the walrus."

The reason why I'm singling him out right now is because of a recent show of his where he was hugely perpetuating heteronormativity. In this episode, a mother asked something like "hey, my 5-year old like barbies. I'm concerned, what should i do?"

Well, Mr. Phil (I'm not okay with giving him Dr.) recommended that she take away the barbies and replace them with boy-toys to avoid "confusion." First of all, a five year old boy is playing with dolls, it doesn't mean he's gay. And even if it did...why the hell is that a bad thing? Being gay is not being "confused," you moron.

Here's what he said, from http://blogout.justout.com/?p=27259:

“There are developmental stages in kids and it is not unusual, particularly for young boys, to experiment and get stuck on certain stimulus items,” says Dr. Phil. Particularly because the little boy has two older sisters, he says, it’s not unusual.

“This is not a precursor to your son being gay,” explains Dr. Phil. He’ll know that in time, but this is not an indication of his sexual orientation.

Dr. Phil tells Robby that she has a job to do: “Direct your son in an unconfusing way. Don’t buy him Barbie dolls or girl’s clothes. You don’t want to do things that seem to support the confusion at this stage of the game … Take the girl things away, and buy him boy toys.”

Most importantly, he tells Robby, “Support him in what he’s doing, but not in the girl things.”

“And if your son is gay,” Dr. Phil continues, “he’ll learn that when he passes puberty and gets into a lifestyle and determines what his orientation is, and his lifestyle will flow from that. It won’t be a choice; it will be something that he’s pre-wired to do, and he’ll know that in plenty of time if he’s an adult. But you shouldn’t take this as an indication of that at this point.”

This whole thing throws me off at the last paragraph. He agrees that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, but he stills refers to fostering a child's own creation of identity, through playing, as creating "confusion." Uh, what?

Another article slam's Mr. Phil's advice, saying:

Child psychologist Sally-Anne McCormack, from www.parentsonline.com.au, said she would have no concerns with boys playing with stereotypical "girls' toys''.

"At that age, children are still exploring their world and that includes gender roles. It's about learning," she said.

"Being exposed to a variety of different toys promotes creativity and free play, and should be celebrated.''

(http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/television/dr-phil-tells-mother-not-to-let-her-son-play-with-dolls/story-e6frfmyi-1226003693294)

A lot of his so-called advice is "just suck it up" or "get real." Well sir, there are things that just don't work like that. When it comes to teenagers that are acting out, there's more to helping them then sending them to boot camp and saying that they're awful people. Your method of "pointing out the obvious" is flawed in several ways. You over-simplify emotions and circumstances, and you very rarely take the individual into account. If you were actually a clinical psychologist, you would know that.

Mr. Phil also gives conflicting advice. In a article, titled "An Analysis of Dr. Phil's Advice About Relationships," from the Journal of Couple and Relationship Theory (citation at the bottom of the post), the authors describe how Mr. Phil encourages equal and respectful relationships, but he also helps to perpetuate gender role stereotypes which only create larger divides in relationships.

He also likes to put a lot of blame on modern technology and the horror of being a two-income family. It's true that parenting was more active when one parent, usually the mother, was home taking care of the kids. But I don't ever want to go back to the days where that was the norm. I think women, mothers or not, should have the opportunity to work outside the home if they choose. I don't think it's right for any parent's life to just end the moment they have kids. Here's an excerpt from a article in Biography (citation at the end of this post):

(he had just blamed the media and the glamorization of sex and drugs and whatnot for teenagers going bad)

BIOGRAPHY: So it's the multimedia's fault?

DR. PHIL: It is not just the presence of that. It is also the absence of something else. Parents are more absent than they ever have been. There is a lack of active, involved parenting. We are now a 70% double-income society. Part of the problem is that we choose lifestyles that require two incomes, and so there is an absence of both parents from the home. It's also that when those parents do come home, they are tired so they sit comatose and watch television and don't know what is happening in their kids' rooms or on the Internet."

Also, Mr. Phil, just about every lifestyle, unless one spouse is in a very high-paying job, requires two incomes. Secondly, I don't think parents should be like hawks. I'm not a parent, but I know if I were a child whose parents were watching my every action I would only get better at keeping secrets and lying. Parents have to teach their kids right from wrong, but also give them some room for exploration. Teach your kids enough that you can trust them to do what you think is right. Encourage questions. If it makes sense to them, they;ll follow what you're saying. They'll figure it out, and if they need help, be open enough so that they come to you to ask questions. That's what active parenting is to me, not exhausting yourself with monitoring everything they do.

But I'm not a parent, so take that how you will.

As for Mr. Phil, his license for independent practice was revoked in 1989 after he was found to be having a relationship with an employee. But no one's perfect...though I think his show should come right out and say that he hasn't been active in that world since 1989.

I don't doubt that he's helped some people. But I don't agree with how he's doing it.

His show, like many other shows, is more about exploiting people than it is about helping them. And we watch because we like seeing that our families are normal compared to others. It's comforting to know that, although things may be bad, they're not that bad. It's ridiculous. Do you really think you're helping your teenager by forcing them to go talk to Mr. Phil in front of the whole country? I'm not okay with it.

Mr. Phil is by no means the only person with this kind of show. They're everywhere. Why? Because so many people watch them and marvel at the suffering of others. We're a pretty sadistic country. How else could you explain the popularity of things like Maury or Jerry Springer?

So, how do you feel about Mr. Phil? Are there any other prescriptive TV shows that you just can't stand?


The articles I mentioned earlier:

James Banning, et al. "An Analysis of Dr. Phil's Advice About Relationships." Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy 10.1 (2011): 53-68. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2 Mar. 2011.

McGraw, Phil, and Wes Smith. "The Doctor Is In: A Revealing Chat With Phil McGraw." Biography 7.7 (2003): 44. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2 Mar. 2011.

Objectifying Women in Advertising

Dear America, please stop using women and sex to advertise your slimy burgers.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, here it is:

I attended panel a couple weeks ago about the way the media uses women, particularly the objectification thereof, to sell products. It's been marinating in my brain and a rant had to come out sooner or later, so here it is...


Why do we need to see half-naked women (and men for that matter) in a ad for clothing? Isn't that counter-intuitive? Why do we need sexual references embedded in an ad for a burger?! How is a greasy slimy burger sexy in the least?

Why do companies only advertise yogurt, and chocolate a lot of times, to women? Have you ever seen any man but Mr. Clean in a cleaning commercial? Why do magazines feel the need to lighten the skin of minority women on their covers?

For health food commercials, women are always supposedly tricking and nagging their husbands into being healthy. Women are never the ones driving pick up trucks. In fact, according to ads, men should be skeptical of any woman driving, especially their wives:

Uh, what?! I can use a drill. Does that make me less of a woman?

Not only are these ads perpetuating a stereotype of women to our culture, but it's also giving women a ridiculous standard to live up to. It's physically impossible to measure up to Barbie without plastic surgery. It's giving men an unrealistic picture of women. It's also perpetuating the "woman's work" myth. Not only is it pushing women into this domestic sphere that many have fought so hard to break out of, but it's excluding men from entering this domestic world. It's damaging to both sexes. Men can do laundry. They can clean up kitchen messes. But you would never know it if you ever watched a laundry detergent or cleaning product commercial. Objectifying and perpetuating stereotypes of women hurts both sexes. It's still not okay to be a boy with an Easy Bake Oven. It's not okay that girls still feel the need to act weak or unintelligent to gain favor. One of my favorite representations of this is in a Crimethinc poster that I have hanging on my bedroom wall:

This is only a symptom of a larger societal problem. Think women are equal in the workforce? Then why are women STILL only making .77 to every dollar a man makes for the same job? Why are there only a handful of female CEO's to match a huge number of males? Why do many major religions still exclude female ministers?

This is larger than just a few ill-advised ads. It's a huge societal problem that needs to be addressed.

Why do we feel the need to demean women to sell products? Obviously it must be working in some respects because it continues to pop up all across the board, from food to cars to web hosting.

I don't have the answer. I think the first step is to become more conscious of ads, to realize who is being targeted and how it is being done. It's easy to blindly and numbly watch TV or flip through a magazine, but we need to be more active as consumers because if there's anything we have in common, it's that we are consumers. We have to realize that these ads are not just silly things intended to get our money. They want our money, but they also carve a niche in the network of pop culture. Is this what we really want our culture to reflect of us?

Out of all of the ads I've come across, this one may be the most sickening to me:

I'll let you all come up with your own reactions to this because I can't even fathom why this would ever be thought of as acceptable.

So, are there any ads that you really hate? Any reactions to the ones I've listed? Thanks for reading!!

Snide Comments About Letang's Hair

How could you not love this?!

I love Kris Letang, super-mega-awesome defenseman for the Pittsburgh Penguins. He's a definite contender for the Norris trophy. He made it to the all-star game when he wasn't even on the ballot because so many people wrote him in. His stats are awesome. He's getting around 30 minutes per game now, and he's really stepping up to fill the gaps left by tons of team injuries. He seems pretty down to Earth, but he's still a total badass. All of this, and he's only 23.

...and the hair....

I love it. It makes me happy. And I don't appreciate the anti-hair comments from jealous fans of other teams, especially calling him greasy and whatnot. Get your own all-star defenseman...who also happens to be totally gorgeous and French-Canadian.

This was a totally pointless post. I just wanted to talk about Letang and share my madness. I've gotten into so many political arguments in the past few days that I don't really want to talk about it. So...

Here's some more gratuitous hair pictures. I don't know where I got them from. I have like 200 pictures of him on my computer. If they're your gratuitous hair pictures and you don't approve of them being on my blog, let me know and I'll take them down. I think a lot of them came from here:












You're welcome. I'm such a creep. Here's one more GIF just in case that wasn't enough: