Maurice Sendak

From a recently published 2011 interview with Maurice Sendak:

I can’t read the papers anymore. I just feel sorry for Obama. I want him so much to win. I would do anything to help him win. He’s a decent, wonderful man. And these Republican schnooks are so horrible. They’d be comical if they weren’t not funny.

He pretty well captures the anxieties of the Democratic Party for the last 18 months. Thank God it's over. For now.

That's all. Read the whole interview here.

Rosen v. Romney

Disclosure: Not married, not a mom, no kids... but I'm about to talk about all of those things.

The Romney campaign has been using Mrs. Ann Romney as a surrogate for the candidate when talking about women's economic issues. Yesterday, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen questioned the wisdom behind that tactic, saying that Ann Romney, a stay at home mom who raised five children, "never worked a day in her life."

Oh muh gawd. The shit's still hitting the fan. Congressmen, pundits, and politicos on both sides have rushed to Mrs. Mittens' defense, saying that of course raising those kids was hard work. Anti-feminists see this as a vindication of what the left thinks of them, that we don't value women who decide to stay home with their families. Suddenly the right is talking about "choice" -- the choice that some parents make to not work outside the home. Stop stealing our language, damnit!

Then there's the second part of Hilary's comment that no one is talking about. This part: "[Ann Romney]'s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing."

While Hilary's first point should have been phrased better, her overall message was clear: Mrs. Romney has never worked in the sense of a salary, benefits, bosses, meetings, "Office Space," get up and go to work kind of job -- the kind of job for which 8.3% of the American population is desperately searching, the kind of job that pays for a mortgage, for a car, for college. Through her husband Mr. Bain Capital, she has been shielded from the devastating realities of the economic recession. It's a legitimate question, then, that she might not be the right person to relate to American women about their economic woes.

No one is saying that Ann Romney didn't work hard while raising her children; of course she worked hard and probably did an amazing job (setting aside the fact that she raised five Republicans -- no one's perfect). But she has never been financially responsible for herself or her family. She was able to choose to stay home with her children. Her family didn't need any additional income she might have contributed had she chosen to work. Regardless of what she chose to do, she had options.

Let's talk about me for a second. If I had a baby tomorrow, I wouldn't have many options. I don't have a husband who makes a bajillion dollars a year to support baby and me. I would continue to go to my job (that pays about this much) and hire someone to watch the kid. Whatever money didn't go to the babysitter would go toward food, rent, clothing, electricity, etc., and definitely not toward a couple of Cadillacs. Staying at home to raise this kid, as much as I might like to, would not be an economic option for me.

That's my what-if scenario. That's the reality of a lot of single parents out there who don't have the luxury of a partner to provide complete financial support. Hell, that's the reality for a lot of two-parent homes who need both incomes to support their families. Having a parent who is able to stay at home and not contribute to the family's income is a luxury. No one is saying that there's anything wrong with a parent staying home. It's just simply not a financial reality for many, many American families.

Hilary Rosen has since apologized to Mrs. Romney. Tomorrow we will all be outraged over something else.

But Mitt Romney will still be using his wife to try to connect with American women. And what his campaign doesn't realize is that women are not going to relate to Ann Romney (and decide we like her husband) simply because she's a woman. The fact that she can give birth does not in any way give her insight into the difficulties facing middle class women these days. She hasn't had to count the days until the next paycheck, face unemployment, or put off buying groceries because rent is due. I bet she's never walked out of a doctor's office because the bill was going to be too high.

So I'm sure Mrs. Romney is a nice person and a great mom, but the Romney campaign needs a new surrogate if they want to appeal to working women.

For more back and forth between the parties, read:
- Hilary Rosen's blog post regarding the whole thing (she says a lot of what I just wrote, but hers is better)
- Ann Romney's response to Rosen's comments

Following up with... not much.

A week and a half ago I posted about some pretty awful statistics concerning African American women in Memphis and breast cancer mortality rates. The numbers alone were distressing: in Memphis, Tenn., African American women diagnosed with breast cancer are more than twice as likely to die of their illness than white women, the highest racial disparity out of the twenty-five largest cities in America.

What really got me mad, though, was the fact that this study was largely ignored by both press and electeds in Tennessee.

I kept waiting to do a follow up to that post, thinking that a non-blogger would pick it up and spread the outrage. Perfect timing, with the healthcare law before the Supreme Court, right? Didn't the whole country just get really pissed off and fired up over breast cancer, like, last month?

Well, it's been almost two weeks since that study was released, and as of this morning, there was still only one Tennessee paper who had reported on it. Aisling Maki of The Daily News in Memphis put out her story last Wednesday, and it was an excellent piece. You should definitely read it.

And of the nearly twenty (twenty!) individuals representing Memphis or parts of it in Nashville and in Washington, Representative Steve Cohen (TN-9) alone stood up for his constituents. On the floor of the House of Representatives, Rep. Cohen referenced the study, saying that the findings were unacceptable.

Watch Rep. Cohen's short speech from last week:

And that's it.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what the Daily News published and what Rep. Cohen said -- some fine reporting and a welcome display of leadership in Congress. However, were it not for some bloggers far more talented than I am, I don't have much confidence that this study would have received even this much attention.

But really: that's all?

Lost in the mess of who's paying for birth control, and weirdos dressing up like Ben Franklin and yelling about socialism, is the real goal of the Affordable Care Act: to make healthcare affordable for everyone, including those who are least able and most vulnerable. What's happening in Memphis is the product of a broken healthcare system. Instead of lifting up Memphis as a city that needs the Affordable Care Act to save its inhabitants, or making Memphis a success story of affordable healthcare, Tennessee is sweeping Memphis and its women under the rug: our dirty little secret, hidden in the corner of the state.

Do I sound pissed? You're reading that right.

Another "worst of" win for Tennessee

A black woman diagnosed with breast cancer in Memphis, Tennessee, is twice as likely to die as her white counterpart.

This is according to a study (pdf) released this week examining racial disparity in breast cancer mortality rates. Of the twenty-five largest cities in the country, Memphis topped the list with the greatest racial disparity: the ratio of black women to white women who die of breast cancer in Memphis is 2.09. The study was conducted by Sinai Urban Health Institute in Chicago with funding from the Avon Foundation.

The results were published on Wednesday. It's now Friday.

The Washington Post published a story about this study on Wednesday, and DC wasn't even on the list of cities surveyed. The Denver chapter of Susan G. Komen tweeted a link to a Denver Post article, which is how I found out about the study.

You know where this study didn't make news? Tennessee. Not in Memphis, not in Nashville.

And in the legislature: where was the impassioned plea for the leaders of Tennessee to do something about this appalling statistic, yet another layer of a health crisis already plaguing the state's largest city? It didn't happen.

We know what these numbers mean: black women are not getting the same access to cancer treatment that white women are. This is not a genetics problem; it's a care problem, it's an education problem, and it's a socioeconomic problem.

And it's exactly this kind of care inequality that the healthcare reform bill is supposed to alleviate.

The fact that this study has gone unreported and apparently unnoticed in Tennessee has to be a result of two things: laziness and cowardice.

The laziness accusation speaks for itself. Frankly, I expect so little from the Gannett-owned Tennessean that I'm hardly surprised.

It's the blatant cowardice of both the Tennessee press and the Tennessee political leadership that astounds me. Any discussion of this study will inevitably lead to talk of healthcare costs, poverty, and race -- issues that Democrats, including President Obama, are (or should be) dedicated to addressing. But rather than risk the appearance of supporting President Obama or his healthcare bill, Tennessee leaders are willing to ignore the plight of sick, black women in Memphis. On the second anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act, Conservatives are still trying to equate affordable care with socialism, anti-Americanism, and all sorts of bad -isms. Apparently, the few liberals left in Tennessee are simply too scared to set the record straight.

As we've seen in recent months, the Tennessee legislature has taken a decidedly goofy turn. From don't say gay to shariah law to "insidious" UN proposals, Republicans have made Tennessee a running joke, and Democrats cannot and have not done much to stop them. But in this case we're talking about breast cancer. For the second time this year, I'm having to say that breast cancer is not a political issue. Trying to stay off the "worst of" lists should not be a political issue. And yet here we are.
 
I know one more "worst of" list that Tennessee should be on.

Hiatus

I've been away from blogging for a few weeks. To all six of my readers out there, I'm sorry; but I had a minor crisis of purpose. Let me explain.

Another day, another story attack on women's health. Every single day! From Virginia to Texas to Arizona, legislators are hell-bent on scaring, shaming, or taxing women away from their doctors. Republican nut-jobs in Tennessee this week decided to open the books on abortion statistics, providers, and patients in the state (in a stunning display of intelligence, they backed off); and in the same week these defenders of family values welcomed back into the fold a Republican legislator who beat his wife. Beat. His wife. Yeah.

The crush of red state politics on speed has been almost too much to take in. Wait, they're sticking what into where? They're taxing that? What -- why -- huh? -- they think what? -- who are these people?

Faced with the onslaught of anti-women, race-to-the-bottom policies, my speaking and writing patterns had been reduced to some version of the above. Not conducive to eloquent blogging.

I could only write so many blog posts about how angry all of this makes me. As soon as I finished a draft, some new idiocy had come out of another State House. Better writers than I am had said what needed to be said about abortion, contraception, and women's health. I felt that I had nothing of substance to contribute, only more outrage.

So for the past few weeks I sat stewing in front of my computer. Nothing I can do. Adding to the noise isn't helping anything. These crazies don't respect women or their rights and nothing is going to change and it's all going to hell in a hand basket and will someone please get me a glass of wine already?

Then I read a blog post by Lori Day on the Huffington Post called "The Loneliness of Being Female in 2012 America." After reading it, I was able to put a name to how I've been feeling: lonely. It's the feeling of being left out of the conversation, this one being about women's health and access to care. It's deeply personal, and yet the gap between my personal outrage and the reality of law-making seems wider every day. Ms. Day talks about anomie, "describing the moral disconnect one can feel between his or her own personal values, and the values and laws thrust upon the individual by society." What a perfect word for these times.

I know there are a lot of people out there thinking the same things I am. Whenever I read one of their blog posts, I think to myself, "Whew! I'm not alone in thinking that ___ is total bullshit!" It feels like a triumph to have someone agree with you, to read their words and to realize that they have perfectly captured what you've been thinking. Most of all, though, it confirms that we're not alone -- and in the end, that's all we're really looking for, right?

And so I had my first bloggy epiphany. I remembered why I started blogging and why it's important to me that I continue. It's about keeping the conversation going and not letting the other side win by shutting up. It's protecting ourselves and our friends from feeling left out, becoming discouraged and giving up.

So I'm back. Not with anything particularly profound, but profundity is sometimes overrated. For now, it's enough to vent my frustration into the blogosphere and add to that conversation.

I hope that we can connect on some of these issues. From now on, I'll hold up my end.

Crisis over. I will still take that glass of wine, if anyone is offering.

Cowardice

Republicans: you have officially been out-classed by Don Imus.

Don Imus, of "nappy-headed hos" infamy, has condemned, in no uncertain terms, Rush Limbaugh's attacks on Sandra Fluke last week.

Here's an excerpt from Don Imus's on-air denunciation of Rush Limbaugh:

[Rush Limbaugh is] an insincere pig. Pill-popping pinhead... It's disgraceful. He has no guts... Look what I did, and what I did was a lame attempt to be funny. And it was three words and I went and met with these people after I'd been fired. You know you got to look them in the eye, you've got to show guts... He's a punk... Enough of what he said. He's a coward. You can't attack somebody like that.

I love this. One jerk saying to another jerk, "Dude, I know I'm a jerk, but damn -- you're an even bigger jerk."

It's expected that decent people will hit the roof when jerks like Don and Rush start talking filth, but when even the jerks' sensibilities are offended, something is rotten in the state of Discourse.

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker wrote, "Indeed, [Rush Limbaugh] has united decent people of all stripes and persuasions with his vile remarks about a Georgetown University law student." It's a rare issue that puts President Obama and Senator John McCain on the same page, not to mention Don Imus, but that's exactly what Limbaugh, "the uniter" as Ms. Parker writes, has done. (Please note: decent people, Don Imus, same paragraph -- who knew?)

So with all these people united by a sense of decency in the midst of the increasingly indecent political conversation in this country, why are so few of those people Republicans? There's been a lot of talk of cowardice on the part of Rush Limbaugh, but the real cowardice I see is coming from the GOP.

What if someone attacked your daughter, your mother, your friend, on the air in the most vile language possible to thousands and thousands of listeners? Somehow I don't think you'd comfort your loved one by saying the offender was being "absurd" (Santorum), or that it wasn't "the language I would have used" (Romney), or by saying nothing at all (Gingrich).

Come on! If someone calls your daughter/wife/mother a slut and a prostitute, the reasonable reaction is to hunt that person down and beat them senseless with a frying pan, not to dither over word choice. Everyone knows this.

"Tangled" is a great movie.

But instead of making a grab for the frying pan, the GOP is making a grab for votes. The base of Republican voters now requires GOP politicos to give in to Rush and similarly disgusting bullies in order to win their support. The bad guy wins and the GOP's war on women continues, because no one will stand up and say, "Enough."

I don't know whether I'm more disgusted with GOP legislators who give in to this cowardice or with their supporters who seem to demand it. I'll admit it, I've always said that Conservatives need to get their heads examined -- why else would they be Conservatives? -- but this round of ugliness seems to confirm that admittedly snarky liberal-left position. How else could anyone listen to the hate-speech of Rush Limbaugh and not recoil in disgust?

It really is a sad day when a former shock-jock is setting a standard for decency that a major political party can't live up to. Republicans, get it together: cowardice is not flattering on anyone.

The very sorry Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh, that infected pimple on the swollen nose of conservative talk-radio, has apologized for attacking someone on his show. Quick, go buy lottery tickets. Check the sky for flying pigs.

After witnessing the early stages of a mass-exodus from his advertisers, earlier today Rush issued your basic "sorry I'm not sorry" official apology for calling Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, among other things, a slut.

He also called her a prostitute, referred to a former Speaker of the House as "Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi," and implied that Ms. Fluke's parents must be ashamed over their daughter's testimony. These are just the highlights of his tirade on Wednesday. Listen to the whole rant if you want, but remove all breakable items from the area -- you'll want to throw things.

He went on to hurl even more horrible insults at Ms. Fluke in particular and at women in general. Taking a page from Foster Friess' book on birth control, Mr. Enlightenment offered to pay for enough aspirin for all female Georgetown students to keep between their legs. He also said that if the taxpayers are going to supply the birth control, they should be able to watch the consumers of said B.C. have sex. Hell, he'd already called women sluts and prostitutes -- why not make the jump to porn stars?

So by saying, "Sorry for my choice of words, next time I slander a woman's reputation I'll use a more grown-up word for 'promiscuous,'" it's all ok, right? The hatred and vitriol behind his words is all forgiven, as long as he doesn't use the word "slut" again. He's definitely learned his lesson this time, that Rush.

Before I continue with thoughtful analysis, I'm just going to get this out of the way: Rush Limbaugh is trash.

Three wives have already decided that they would rather be alone than live in matrimony with him, and I wouldn't bet on the staying power of Mrs. Rush Limbaugh #4. He's a hateful, drug-addled little man whose mother probably hated him, leaving him to deal with his crippling mommy issues on the radio. A misogynist and a bigot who cashes in on the hate of his similarly socially-stunted listeners, he can probably only get it up (whatever little of it there is) by watching re-runs of Newt Gingrich speeches.

Whew! I needed to get that out.

The point isn't that Rush used specific words to insult Ms. Fluke -- it's that he resorted to this type of ugly name-calling to insult any woman who would dare to stand up for herself. This language is used to put women down, to make them feel small, to make them feel embarrassed and ashamed of taking control of their bodies. This is bullying, plain and simple.

Democrats love to paint Rush as the spokesman for the GOP, and the GOP denies this characterization carefully as it tries not to alienate the base. But listening to the political discourse of recent weeks, I have to believe that Rush speaks for a much larger percentage of conservatives that the GOP establishment would like to admit.

How else does one explain the legislation passed in Virginia last week? The state-required trans-vaginal ultrasound is simply a way for the state to shame women at a time when they are vulnerable. The Virginia legislature has made its message to women clear: If you're stupid enough to be in this situation, you don't deserve our respect.

What about Senator Blunt's thankfully-defeated amendment to allow bosses to determine what courses of treatment are "moral" enough to be paid for? This is what I heard: You don't deserve the right to choose if your choices are not as "moral" as mine.

Or Mitt Romney, the likely GOP presidential nominee and about as mainstream R as one can get, saying this about Rush's attack on women: "I'll just say this, which is, it's not the language I would have used." Again, the message was fine, he just wouldn't have been so crude in his delivery.

The conclusion I have to draw is that Rush says, in more inflammatory and offensive language, what GOP legislators are thinking.

Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh has the luxury of not having to campaign. No one calls for his resignation when he offends millions; rather, his listeners cheer. He's a kazillionaire with the highest-rated talk show in the country. If some advertisers pull out, big deal. He could buy up all the advertising for his show and not even feel it. I bet that by next Tuesday he'll have walked back this "apology" so far that Ms. Fluke will be a slut again.

Explicit or implicit, these attacks on women are as disgusting as they are pervasive in GOP policies. They serve to demean, to shame, and to silence. That's not acceptable anywhere, anytime, and it's certainly not acceptable in 2012. This is not political correctness gone crazy: this is decency, and that is something to which women are entitled.

And Rush: one final word to you. The amount of sex one is having has no effect on the amount of birth control pills one must take to avoid pregnancy. If you knew anything about female anatomy, you would know that -- you sorry excuse for a man.

"Blunt" force trauma to women's health

The Senate is voting tomorrow on a transportation bill, to which is attached the Blunt Amendment. The name of the section to be inserted into the bill is "Respect for Rights of Conscience." Aside from the fact that it's a funny bit of language to put into a piece of transportation legislation, it's Tea Bagging constitutional bullshit.

This is the GOP's play to deny birth control coverage to women, and not just if the employer is a religious institution. If the CEO at Big Corporation, Inc. decides s/he is morally opposed to birth control (or blood transfusions or vaccinations), that's it. No more coverage and a big flip of the bird to the Affordable Care Act.

All this under the guise of upholding religious freedom.

The GOP claims that the Obama administration has "trampled" on the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution by requiring all employers, including religiously affiliated institutions, to provide birth control to their employees under the new healthcare law. Churches are exempt from this provision, but anti-choice loons are saying that any organization that provides a secular service, i.e. university, hospital, etc., with ties to a church ought to be exempt. By the way, please note that I'm using "anti-choice" to talk about run-of-the-mill birth control -- as in, the pill. And as mentioned above, Senator Roy Blunt's amendment (R-MO) would extend that exemption to allow any employer to deny birth control coverage to its employees if doing so would be contrary to its "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

Let's be clear: this is not really about religious freedom for the GOP. This is about shoving women back into the 1950s and trying to hide behind the Constitution while doing it. This is about the GOP making a sharp right turn in an election year and attempting to take the rest of the country with them. This is about giving corporations more say over women's health choices instead of leaving it to, say, women.

But let's pretend for a minute that passing the Blunt Amendment is really about rectifying an alleged free exercise violation built into the Affordable Care Act. And let's also pretend that the Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and is therefore the law of the land until the Supreme Court takes it under consideration... oh wait, that second part is reality. Right.

So the question here is: Does a certain population deserve an exemption from complying with the Affordable Care Act due to their religious views on birth control?

Playing the free exercise card is, in theory, a good tactic. The American people are all about free exercise (unless you're a Muslim). Establishment clause... I think some people are a little vague on that one (stop trying to put the Ten Commandments in every public space -- sheesh), but free exercise can be summarized with small enough words for people to understand: the government shouldn't interfere with religion.

But in practice, free exercise is not a "Get out of jail free" card for disobeying a generally applicable law. For example, I'd have been in serious trouble had I refused to pay taxes based on my moral opposition to the war in Iraq: tax evasion is a crime. In 1983, Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status because of the university's policy prohibiting interracial dating, a policy allegedly grounded in the university's religious values: can't take money from the feds and have institutionalized racism. And in 1989, the Supremes (I'm nothing if not reverent on this blog) decided that use of an illegal drug during a religious ceremony still counts as illegal use: illegal drugs are illegal (like that logic?).

The Supreme Court does not have a strong track record of upholding individual religious beliefs over obeying valid laws. Exemptions to complying with an otherwise constitutional and generally applicable law are rare, which is what Senator Blunt and his fellow GOP goofballs are asking for.

One Supreme Court Justice in particular has done some fascinating work on this issue. To illustrate my point and simultaneously stick it to the conservatives, I turn to that bastion of conservative goofiness on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Scalia has a brilliant legal mind. Like Vincent Van Gogh, this brilliance is accompanied by a fair portion of loony, his of the conservative jurisprudence variety, as opposed to the ear-chopping type. But loony or not, Justice Scalia is smarter than anyone reading this blog.

Justice Scalia and his doppelganger, Mr. Bates, the brooding valet of Downton Abbey.

One of the cases I references above was a 1989 decision, a result of Employment Division v. Smith. Back in the 1980s, a couple of guys in Oregon were fired from their jobs and denied unemployment benefits after participating in a Native American religious ceremony which involved smoking peyote. Peyote is classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance by the DEA, and at the time of the employees' firing, this drug was illegal in Oregon. "Free exercise!" they yelled. "That law infringes upon my right to practice my religion!"

"Nope," said the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion in this case. As I've said, the man has some goofy ideas about constitutional interpretation, but in this instance, he articulated the real interest the United States has in narrowly defining the scope of free exercise.

One of the first points the Court addresses in this decision is the idea of a generally applicable law and its relation to the Free Exercise Clause. A law that specifically targets a practice "because of [its] religious motivation" would be unconstitutional. However, an individual is not exempt from complying with a law that is "not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise  constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons."

Later in the opinion, Justice Scalia writes:

To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling" -- permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself," Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. at 98 U. S. 167 -- contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.

He continues:

What it produces in those other fields [where an exemption would be granted] -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

And finally, Justice Scalia sums it up nicely:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.

Whaddya say about liberal activist judges now, GOP?!

Ahem.

It's not a perfect comparison to what's happening with the Affordable Care Act, so please don't jump on me over the nitty gritty. The point I am trying to make, though, is that the Supreme Court has held that a religious or moral opposition to a law does not automatically constitute a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. I am morally opposed to a lot of things, but that does not mean that the law has to accommodate my every whim just because I claim a conscientious base for my opposition.

And in the case of complying with the Affordable Care Act's mandate that employers provide insurance coverage for birth control, I have seen nothing to suggest that a particular group's religious beliefs were targeted. In 2012, birth control is part of basic women's healthcare. I don't care who you are, you know at least ten women who are on the pill. You probably also know (*gasp*) a woman who has had an abortion.

And if we as a country have decided that universal healthcare is essential part of our public policy, you better believe that women are included in "universal." Please see the Fourteenth Amendment.

In conclusion, GOP members of Congress need to read the Constitution of which they claim to be the sole protectors. I think they'll see that the founders built in a separation of powers; in addition, there's another constitutional tidbit called judicial review. So leave the constitutional interpretation to the guys in the black robes. Believe me, they're smarter than all of you.

Thin Mints - or Communist Cookies?

Breaking news, America: the Girl Scouts of America are evil.

Not only do they sell their delicious cookies to increasingly chubby Americans, but as it turns out, they're also a bunch of liberal feminists who are turning your daughters into sex-crazed Communist lesbians. (That is what "evil" means, right?)

According to an Indiana State Representative who apparently did a google search for "Girl Scouts, conspiracy, socialist" and is now an expert on the evils of the Sisterhood of Many Badges, GSA is a "radical" puppet organization for Planned Parenthood, backed by "radically pro-abortion" Michelle Obama and her husband, President B. Hussein Obama.

State Rep. Bob Morris sent a letter to his colleagues this week, encouraging them to join him in his refusal to sign a resolution celebrating the 100th anniversary of Girl Scouts of America. Bob decided to take this course of action after "talking to some well-informed constituents" and doing a "small amount of web-based research." Among other things, this champion of the innocent came across this astonishing tidbit:

Many parents are abandoning the Girl Scouts because they promote homosexual lifestyles. In fact, the Girl Scouts education seminar girls are directed to study the example of role models. Of the fifty role models listed, only three have a briefly-mentioned religious background—all the rest are feminists, lesbians, or Communists.

All this through a small amount of online research! The man is clearly an internet genius, as well a truly gifted writer.

I also did a small amount of web-based research on this Girl Scouts scandal. I will share my findings with you.

Here is a picture of State Rep. Bob Morris of Indiana:

Indiana State Representative Bob Morris

Here is Rep. Bob Morris' doppelganger:

Lenny the Lizard

Here is a picture of President Ronald Reagan fraternizing with the enemy:

The Gipper surrounded by little lesbian Communists

And here is a picture of the evil Girl Scouts, as depicted on a box of their Communist Cookies, raising the American flag in what I'm sure is actually a salute to Kim Jong Un:

Evil recruitment tool #1

Okay, enough research. I'm sure it's as comprehensive as Rep. Morris'.

Has my "small amount of web-based research" convinced you that Girl Scouts of America is trying to ruin the lives of thousands of young girls?

Or are you convinced that Rep. Morris should take some advice from my previous post and shut the hell up? Stop embarrassing your party, you nincompoop!

I was a Girl Scout back in the day. My mom was a Girl Scout and later my Girl Scout leader. Communism, homosexuality, abortion? I didn't learn about any of that from Girl Scouts. I don't think I even knew what those things were until I'd actually left the Girl Scouts.

Instead, I learned about respect, self-esteem, and being prepared.

I remember making a lot of crafts with puffy paint and sequins, and going to camp to make more crafts with more puffy paint and sequins. I also learned and promptly forgot how to tie some complicated knots.

I made a bunch of friends, went to a lot of pool parties, and took field trips to fire houses, churches, and libraries. I also learned how to stand up to bullies, how to work through arguments, and how to work together as a team. I spent a ton of time outside with my buddies and got to enjoy being a little girl.

If I ever have a daughter, she's going to join Girl Scouts and like it, damn it.

Does someone want to point out what I'm missing here?

S.T.F.U.G.O.P.

I've been saying it for years, and after last week I'm going to say it again: the GOP needs to shut up. I mean it. The GOP has got to slow down its descent into political madness. I'm a new blogger -- I can't keep up! I've got drafts of six posts that I had to abandon because the GOP embarked on some new round of idiocy before I was able to finish any of them.

But really, it's time for the GOP to take a moment. The middle-aged, white, male legislators of the GOP need to quit talking about contraception. It's embarrassing.

This whole mess over birth control is an embarrassment. Someday they will look back on it with that same feeling of humiliation and regret that tends to follow an especially festive night at the bar. Does the GOP really think this will end well for them? It won't. They're not going to win, and when they lose this battle, they'll also have lost what little credibility they had left with women.

Do they not hear themselves? Do they not cringe every time one of their party opens his mouth -- or holds a hearing? Women were told on national television (to a female interviewer, by the way) that family planning should go back to "keep your legs together." GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum thinks that the pill is "harmful" to our society, that "if [sex is] not for purposes of procreation, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women." Are we really having this conversation in 2012?

Questions for Santorum, and let's include other Republican men for good measure:
  - Do you really feel diminished by all those people out there having sex who aren't married?
  - Are you so insecure in your own marriages that you feel diminished by the sexual relations of other couples?
  - And you, Mr. Santorum, expect people to believe you won't feel diminished by, say, China? Pakistan? Iran?

When we were younger and a kid on the playground was being mean, some adult usually told us that the other child was upset about something else. Putting other kids down was a way for the bully to cover up insecurities, to create a distraction from the real problem.

That's what I feel like is happening here. We're back on the playground. Congressional Republicans know that they can't win on real issues, like jobs, the economy, taxes, etc., so they throw themselves into these social non-starters, like birth control. It's a lot easier to stand up in a "hearing" and call unmarried women sluts than to work with Democrats to help the middle class. In Tennessee, it's easier to throw the gay kids under the bus than to work on our state's unemployment numbers.

Here's some advice for Rick Santorum in particular and for the GOP in general: Get some therapy, because you are seriously repressed; quit worrying about what other people are doing in their bedrooms; and until you get those feelings of inadequacy worked out, just shut up.

My Wallet, M.D.

Last week I walked into the waiting room of a doctor's office. Five minutes later, I walked out. I didn't see a doctor, I didn't speak with a nurse, I didn't have a single interaction with an actual healthcare provider. The only people I spoke with were in the billing department.

I walked into that office for a test. Apparently it's a rather routine test, but it was one that a specialist had recommended I get -- and quickly. Being a slight hypochondriac ("ohmigosh, it's a tumor, I know it"), I was a bit nervous going in. I wanted to get it over with and have the reassurance that I was going to live to see another day.

And then they told me how much my bill for the day would be: nearly $600.00.

"But I have insurance." Yes, but you have to meet your deductible before your insurance kicks in.

Oh don't worry, they said: we can work out a payment plan, and the full amount will be due in 90 days.

I remember one bit in particular from this conversation. The woman I was speaking with said something to the effect of, "But your doctor wants you to get this test. I really think you should reconsider." To which I responded: "How many ways do I have to say this: I cannot afford it."

From there, the conversation continued as one might expect: I burst into tears, canceled the appointment, and left.

What shocked me after I stopped crying (and I cried for a good 30 minutes) was how quickly I'd made that decision. My doctor told me to get this test -- as he was the one with the M.D., I listened -- but as soon as I heard that dollar amount, that test was not happening. Shut it down.

In one of my Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood rants, I said that women should not have to pit paying for healthcare against buying  groceries. Wouldn't you know it, that's exactly what I had to do. And I am employed! I have a small but steady paycheck, no dependents, and minimal debt. But right now, I cannot afford to be anything but healthy.

I'm not placing blame here: not on the doctor, not on the hospital, maybe a little bit on my insurance company. Thankfully my situation is small potatoes, but it's indicative of a system that needs to be fixed. Similar episodes are playing out over and over across the country, where patients are walking away from hospitals and clinics because they can't afford their services. The patients' wallets, instead of their doctors, are prescribing treatment.

I'd love to get your feedback on this. Have you had a similar experience? Has healthcare become a luxury good in this country? How do we combat the rising costs of medical care?

Five Friday Happys

I've spent all week being really mad: ranting, raving, "The world is going to hell in Susan G. Komen's hand basket!" kind of mad. I'm exhausted. That kind of rage takes serious work. And anyway, I wanted this blog to have a little less outrage and a lot more Miss Piggy.

By the time I get to Friday, I am often so full of my own ire that my stomach hurts. I need to take a step back and use the internet for its higher purposes: expanding trivial knowledge and watching funny videos on YouTube.

So instead of more ranting, here are five Friday Happys to take into the weekend. No commentary (well, maybe a little), just a few things to make you smile. To really get in the mood, you should start singing "My Favorite Things" right now.

Happy #1: Charles Dickens turns 200 next week, and the Queen of England is throwing him a birthday party! Get your favorite bookworms together next Tuesday and run around a restaurant saying, "Please, sir, I want some more."

Happy #2: This video of Rita Moreno singing "Fever" with Animal and Floyd is probably one of the greatest Muppets moments ever. Rita: 1, Muppets: 0.

Happy #3: Billy Ray Cyrus is writing his memoir, due out next spring. I really hope he spills the beans on who does his highlights (snark) and how he feels about... oh, who cares? Enough with the memoir craze, already.

Happy #4: More Muppets. The Swedish Chef making Swedish meatballs. Muppet gold.

Happy #5: And how's this for a Friday Happy? Susan G. Komen for the Cure just now released this statement. I'm so glad you came around, Susan. Gotta tell you, though, I'm still a little miffed that you would turn on me like that. Our friendship is on probation; I'd say we're frenemies. But I'm happy you're back. Sort of.

Happy Friday, everyone!

*Still singing "My Favorite Things." This is going to be stuck in my head all day...

Shame on you, Susan.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure, arguably the nation's leading charity for breast cancer research and eradication, announced yesterday that is was yanking its funding for breast cancer screenings at all Planned Parenthood affiliates.

Read that again. Now let's break this down.

Taking away funding... for breast cancer screenings... for women who can't afford to go to anywhere else.

Are you disgusted? I am.

Some background:

According to SGK, this move was in response to newly-adopted bylaws that forbid the funding of any organization under government investigation. Thanks to Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), congressman from the second worst state in the union (after Indiana), Planned Parenthood now falls into this category. This crusader against women's healthcare initiated a congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood's use of federal funding, an obvious play to his anti-choice supporters going into an election year.

[A word on federal funding for abortions: it hasn't happened since 1976. There's this thing called the Hyde Amendment, named after Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), which has been tacked on to every single appropriations bill for the past 34 years. It specifically doesn't allow for federal funds, i.e. Medicaid, to pay for abortions. So everyone needs to end it with this "federally funded abortions" bullshit.]

Now back to Susan G. Komen for the Cure hating poor women.

Oh yeah, I went there.

As an organization allegedly dedicated to funding research and treatment for breast cancer, they should probably change their mission statement: now they're "fighting every minute of every day to finish what we started and achieve our vision of a world without breast cancer... for rich people."

Because rich people don't go to Planned Parenthood; poor people do. With its 800 health centers around the country, in many cases a Planned Parenthood clinic is the only option some have, not only for reproductive and sexual health, but for primary care (think flu shots) and basic cancer screening. In the past five years, grants from SGK given to Planned Parenthood have paid for 170,000 clinical breast exams and 6,400 referrals for mammograms. (Note: those are screenings paid for exclusively by SGK; overall, Planned Parenthood conducted more than 700,000 screenings in the past year.) Those are some pretty good numbers. Now that funding is gone.

Granted, Planned Parenthood will make up the difference in funding. Women around the country are outraged, as they should be, and that outrage will manifest itself in donations to Planned Parenthood. But that's not the point.

The point here is that cancer screening for women in need is now a political issue. Breast cancer screening, which has less than nothing to do with abortions, is apparently something that poor women can live without. Susan G. Komen can now go to all of its corporate sponsors, who can then go to their consumers, and assure them they are not supporting an organization that, among other things, provides abortions.

Hooray! Poor women be damned! Let them eat cake -- and take out a loan to find out if they have cancer!

Ladies, this is only the latest in a series of outages against women's healthcare. Against abortion? Fine, don't have one. But your birth control pills should covered by your insurance, you should have an annual check-up with a gynecologist, and if you feel a scary lump, you should get yourself to a doctor and get that checked out without having to decide, "Well, I guess I won't buy groceries this week." This is our health, and we need individuals and organizations who will stand up to these anti-women crazies and demand decent healthcare.

So way to go, Susan G. Komen for the Cure: you gave into the pressure to cut women's healthcare and you probably lost a bunch of donors who expect better from you -- you've got at least one angry donor right here. I certainly can't in good faith continue to give to a charity that is so easily bought by right-wing nut jobs. And now I feel like a shit for yanking my own funds for cancer research.

Shame on you, Susan. We hoped for better.

Stacey Campfield is the worst

And he's single, ladies!

Tennessee State Senator Stacey Campfield was on the radio yesterday doing what he does best: embarrassing Tennesseans and generally offending... well, everyone.

This is what The Worst looks like. Stupid orange tie...

For a quick rundown of what this neanderthal had to say about gay people, AIDS, and the "glorification of homosexuality," read this from The Huffington Post. The full interview is available here.

In between suggesting that children are being coerced into homosexuality and that AIDS is only acquired through gay sex, Senator Campfield attempted to drum up support for his "Don't Say Gay" bill, coming to a Tennessee legislative session near you. Oh yeah, I'm talking about that guy.

All together now: WHAT A DOUCHE.

There isn't any commentary I can contribute that hasn't already been said. Really, the commentary writes itself.

But I will say this: guys like this do not have to be in government. Our state and national discourse does not need to include this kind of filth. We deserve to be represented by people who want the best for Americans -- all of them.

Unfortunately, Senator Campfield isn't up for re-election this year, so we can't kick him out. There are, though, plenty of politicos out there who share his backwards politics, many of them right here in Tennessee! Lucky us!

So get involved. Send money. Volunteer. Talk to your friends and neighbors. And good grief: vote. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Show up, Tennessee.

Please don't embarrass me.

There's an episode of Tina Fey's showbiz sitcom 30 Rock called "TGS Hates Women." About halfway through the episode, Tina Fey's character Liz Lemon confronts Abby, a new writer and self described "sexy baby." Liz wants Abby to drop the idiot girl in pigtails act and grow up. Shit gets real when Abby tells Liz that how she chooses to act is none of Liz's business.

Liz responds: "Except it is, because you represent my show and you represent my gender in this business and you embarrass me."

Last week in Tennessee, State Senator and Senate Judiciary Chairwoman Mae Beavers, R-Mt.Juliet, proposed a bill that would strip the Tennessee supreme court of its power to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the Tennessee legislature.

This woman, the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee (no law degree, by the way), a committee that one might assume deals with all things judicial, wants to throw out judicial review.

Remember judicial review? That's the Marbury v. Madison one. It's been on the books since 1803. Judicial review is a check on the legislative and executive branches; it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority; and if you need an example of judicial review in action, go into a public school: if you see a child who isn't white, bingo. And did I mention that it's been the law of the land for over 200 years? For a little context, we've had a federal constitution for less than 225 years.

Thankfully, someone convinced Senator Beavers to withdraw her bill. For perhaps a zillion reasons, this was a good move. As one prominent DC lawyer put it, even if the legislature did get the bill passed, "the US Supreme Court would knock it down while pointing and laughing."

Now back to 30 Rock. To quote Liz Lemon: Senator Beavers, you represent my gender on the Hill in Nashville, and you embarrass me.

In all fairness, the Tennessee legislature has brought its fair share of idiocy to the floor. Instead of creating jobs or doing something about the state's regressive tax structure, our dearly elected officials are putting all their efforts into gutting women's healthcare, banning Muslims from worshiping anywhere, and making sure that "Christian" kids can bully their gay classmates without being sent to the principal's office. Thank God for the great state of Tennessee!

So yeah, I am singling out Senator Beavers because she's a woman.

Women have enough trouble in politics. Between Michelle Bachmann, Christine O'Donnell, and Sarah Palin, we've got enough representation in the crazy arena. Nancy Pelosi, for all she did as the first female Speaker of the House, is still a favorite punching bag of Republicans. Good grief, people hate on Michelle Obama because she wants America to have healthy kids.

Let's put this in terms of Saturday Night Live. Will Ferrell had a mean George W. Bush. It was seriously funny for almost a decade. It helped that Bush Jr. gave Ferrell plenty of material to work with. But no one holds a candle to Tina Fey's Sarah Palin. The 2008 edition of the Yale Book of Quotations listed "I can see Russia from my house!" as its number one quotation of the year. The economy went to hell in a hand basket, we elected a black president, and the best line from the whole year was Tina Fey making fun of a female Vice Presidential candidate -- a candidate who had been in national politics for about two seconds when that sketch aired. Tina Fey's Sarah Palin will outlive Tina Fey and Sarah Palin.

Senator, and all women in elected positions, you have to be better than the men you work with. Men have had centuries to say stupid stuff in government, and the human race has had centuries to learn to not listen. Whether you realize it or not, your voice carries through the noise. You're still somewhat of a novelty. It's completely, utterly, disgustingly unfair; but when you say or do something as stupid as sponsoring a blatantly unconstitutional bill, people notice.

In conclusion, I'm going to channel every 13-year old everywhere: Please just don't embarrass me.



A few notes:
- Yup, big fan of Tina Fey. Look for many more 30 Rock references on this blog.
- The hilarity of the Senator's name does not escape me.

I told you I was a Dem.

I would like to take this moment to say a few things about a certain former Speaker of the House.

In what can only be seen as a statewide brain fart, South Carolina Republicans decided that Newt Gingrich was the most promising candidate to take on the Barack Obama campaign machine.

I'd like to say a heartfelt thank you to the voters of South Carolina. And Newt, best of luck to you. I hope your campaign of hypocrisy and bigotry takes you all the way to the Republican nomination. Then we can all revel in the bloodbath that will ensue when David Axelrod has his way with you.

In the meantime, though...

WARNING: Rant approaching.

Back in March 2011, Newt gave an interview to the Christian Broadcasting Network. In this interview, Newt blames his previous infidelities on how "passionately [he] felt about this country." This reiterates what he's said in the past, which is something along the lines of "I loved my country so much that I couldn't keep my hands off my female staffers."

In case anyone has forgotten, this is the same man who led the charge against President Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. This man distracted the legislative and executive branches from the business of running a country with a sex scandal and a ridiculous impeachment process. Not saying the Clinton wasn't a dirtbag (he was), but come on. Should Newt really be the one talking about ineffective government?

My point here is that Newt is running for the nomination of the most morally smug, closed-minded, backwards party in the history of political parties. The party that believes it has a monopoly on American morality is really going to nominate this piece of garbage? Does anyone really believe that he only cheated on two wives with the two women who became his second and third wives? Of course not. It's only another display of Newt's blinding arrogance that he thinks another intern or staffer won't come out of the woodwork the second he gets the nomination.

So again, my sincere thanks to the Republican voters of South Carolina. There's nothing I'd like more than to see Newt at the top of the ticket in November.

#ImA-nnoyed with Dr. Pepper

Recently Dr. Pepper has been playing this ad:

It's a cute bit of advertising. "You're an original when you drink Dr. Pepper!" Look at all those people coming together. And those shirts are kinda fun.

Except clearly Dr. Pepper has a view of women shared by your average 15-year old boy. Of the first five shirts this ad features, two of those are worn by women. See if you can guess which ones:

"I'm a one of a kind."

"I'm a dreamer."

"I'm a cougar."

"I'm a beginner."

"I'm a control freak."

Really, guys? A cougar and a control freak? The men are labeled with thoughtful, positive descriptions; the women are portrayed as old and shrill. Get over your ex-girlfriends, move on from your "Graduate" fantasies, and start to see women as more than "Cathy" cartoons.

We all (men as well) have moments when the control freak takes over. And I saw one of the Twilight movies in the theater: the average age in that room was about 35, and you better believe it wasn't only the teenagers drooling over Taylor Lautner in the buff. We can and should own those parts of our personalities, but that doesn't mean we should be reduced to minor characters in a romantic comedy.

Dr. Pepper made a mistake. This kind of thoughtless sexism drives me up the wall. I was offended, because I know that I am more than my worst moments.

As for me, I'll be sticking to Diet Coke, thank you very much.

The F-word

The F-word makes people cringe. Its use is taboo in polite conversation, and definitely don't say it in front of your conservative parents. Drop this F-bomb into a friendly discussion and suddenly the atmosphere changes.

Get the fuck over yourselves, people. We're adults here.

The word I'm talking about is feminism.

If you're truly honest with yourselves, you probably think the following: that I am a militant man-hater with bad hair and offensive BO; that I don't shave my legs and that I can't take a joke; and that this blog is going to be an endless liberal tirade against the tyranny of men.

In other words, ignore me. Don't take me seriously. I bitch and moan about this stuff all the time. 

It's sad that the idea of feminism has been so perverted. Instead of empowering women, the word has been chewed up and spit out as another way to put us down, a way to marginalize and belittle.

So here's the real scoop: I was raised by loving parents to be a polite but confident and intelligent woman -- in other words, no daddy issues here. I have a very nice boyfriend. I have a college education, a job, but no cooking skills. I have spent years and too much money agonizing over my hair, which does actually have the potential to be pretty bad. I love to read and do it often, but if there's an episode of The Real Housewives of Wherever on TV, I'll watch it ("She did NOT just throw wine in her face!"). I love wearing and playing with make-up.

And I am a feminist. A Miss Piggy feminist, if you will.

So yeah, I like pink and dressing up, but mess with moi or my frog and I will kick your ass.

Welcome to my blog. I'm glad you're here.