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.