salienne: (Fringe Olivia what is this)
So as many of you may or may not know, the House of Representatives recently passed the Pence amendment, which would cut federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Due to the Hyde Amendment, these funds cannot go towards abortions. Instead, they go towards such services as STD testing, pregnancy testing and cancer screenings. In other words, it would cut off basic health services for over a million impoverished patients, especially women.

I, naturally, told my representative this was not okay.

Here is the response that I get:

"Thank you for letting me know of your opposition to any attempt to restrict federal funding for Planned Parenthood in fiscal year 2011.

As you may know, on February 19th, the House approved H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, by a vote of 235-189. Attached to this spending measure is an amendment that would deny federal funding to Planned Parenthood for the remainder of this fiscal year. Despite what you may have heard or read, this amendment does not cut any funding for health services, and it does not prevent other organizations from receiving any health services funds as provided for in the Continuing Resolution. (What does he think the funds go to--wild gay orgies, followed by abortions for the lulz?)

While I appreciate knowing of your thoughts in this regard, I voted for this amendment because according to Planned Parenthood's recently released 2008-2009 annual report they received a staggering $363.2 million in government grants and contracts, a $13.6 million increase from the previous year. A fact sheet released in September of 2010 also revealed that for this same time period, Planned Parenthood performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions. (Correlation=causation, apparently. Whoooooooooooo) Planned Parenthood continues to receive more government funding each and every year while they simultaneously perform an increasing number of abortions. It is my belief that subsidizing abortion providers under the umbrella of family planning – other than in special cases such as the life of the mother – must no longer be accepted. (THE HYDE AMENDMENT, YOU PIECE OF LYING SHIT. YOU DON'T EVEN MENTION IT.)

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Although we may not agree on this issue, I am confident that there are many issues on which we do agree and it is my hope that you will continue to keep me apprised of your interest in legislative matters important to you.

With best wishes and personal regards, I am Bill Young, a rampaging douchecanoe."

Does he think I have the IQ of a doorknob? Seriously? Not only are abortions medical procedures, so even if I did believe his whole "we're funding abortions!" spiel he'd be wrong, but does he honestly expect me to believe these federal funds are just being given willy-nilly? If they don't go towards medical procedures, what do they go towards?

smh i can't even
salienne: (Farscape frell)
As mentioned earlier, I contacted my representative (a Republican) about HR3, otherwise known as the "Only some rape is real rape, and incest--really that bad?" bill.

Well, he got back to me. I find his response, um, infuriating to say the least.

Thank you for letting me know of your opposition to H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act. You can be sure that I share your interest in this regard and appreciate knowing of your thoughts.

As you know, H.R. 3 would prohibit the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

H.R. 3 has been referred to various committees, including the House Judiciary Committee, where it awaits further consideration. Because of your interest in this regard, and in an effort to be of all possible assistance to you, I have taken the liberty of sharing your opposition to this measure with my colleagues on the committees. As they continue to review the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, please know that they will keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding this matter of mutual concern. It is my hope that you will continue to keep me apprised of your interest in legislative issues important to you.

Now, reading that, can you tell where he stands on the issue? 'Cos if you were to skim, reading only the first paragraph with any real depth, you might even think he agrees with my opposition! I mean, he shares my interest, right?

...And then we come to paragraph two, which completely misrepresents the scope and fundamental purpose of the bill and neglects to so much as mention the Hyde Amendment.

Suddenly, close reading becomes a lot more important than it has been since, say, English class last year. Suddenly I understand why he shares my "interest" and not my concern. Suddenly that last paragraph and really this entire e-mail seem strikingly disingenuous.

Congressbro, and I mean that as condescendingly as possible, I would respect you a lot more if you weren't trying to hide your stance on this Bill by pandering to both sides, hoping I won't pay attention on any final vote. Hoping I wouldn't notice you're one of the fucking cosponsors, you cowardly piece of hypocritical misogynistic trash.

So unbelievably disgusted right now I can't even
salienne: (Fringe Olivia crying)
My father likes to watch Glenn Beck. Oftentimes he'll sit at his computer, reading some Russian e-book or another, with Fox News on in the background. Naturally, I try to avoid, say, any part of the house that isn't my room when this is going on to control the rage.

I was in the kitchen grabbing a snack, and I heard maybe a minute of this man's show. A minute.

Have a direct quote:

“Who do you trust? Do you trust the experts anymore, or do you trust your gut?” (i.e. Truthiness or facts, pick a side!

Guess which option his tone implied was right. Really. Just guess.

And my father is standing there and watching this shit.)

I can't.

People listen to this. This is why so much of the US doesn't even believe in global warming/climate change. This is why so much of the US is convinced that, the more education you have, the less you know.

I just...

People listen to this, and they believe it. Including my father.

I give up on the world for tonight.
salienne: (Default)
Sadly, not an exaggeration. The Texas GOP is seriously considering opting out of Medicaid.

A few choice quotes:

Far-right conservatives are offering that possibility in impassioned news conferences. Moderate Republicans are studying it behind closed doors. And the party’s advisers on health care policy say it is being discussed more seriously than ever

“This system is bankrupting our state,” [Representative Warren Chisum] said. “We need to get out of it. And with the budget shortfall we’re anticipating, we may have to act this year.”

State Senator Jane Nelson, Republican of Flower Mound, who heads the Senate Public Health Committee, said dropping out of Medicaid was worth considering — but only if it made fiscal sense without jeopardizing care.
(Because not being able to afford care? Definitely won't prevent people from accessing it.)

Now I'm not saying the US, and many many US states (Texas included) aren't having severe financial difficulties. But to even consider dropping the only real health care option low-income people have is inhumane, especially when there are other options.

(Such as, I don't know, tax people making above $250,000? But we can't have that!)

Anyone remember Grayson's summary of the Republican's Health Care Plan?

To jog your memory:

(Quick summary: Republican HC Plan: Don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly.)

Please, tell me...

In what way is he wrong?
salienne: (Default)


(I am the one on the left.)

Overall, I actually really enjoyed the Rally. It started off a bit slow with just a band playing, but whenever Stephen and Jon interacted, it was highly entertaining. I especially loved how they INTERRUPTED FAMOUS SINGERS and also sang their own song about who's more American.


When Jon did his speech in the end, I admit, I had some issues. He was very much "balanced" and not particularly fair (e.g. the media montage... saying gay people are ruining America is FAR different than condemning racism in the Tea Party, and racism doesn't just come in the form of violence), and his and Stephen's privilege showed quite a few times.

That said, the message to calm down and stop listening to the media as they treat every problem as The End, to work together as we do on a daily basis, to recognize that we're all a community of Americans... was pretty damn good. You can tell Jon Stewart cares a lot about this country and believes in our ability to get it together, so I really have to give him an A for effort there.


Nov. 4th, 2009 11:34 am
salienne: (Default)
1. I wake up this morning and hear that Maine's voters are bigots who've voted to repeal the law legalizing same-sex marriage.

2. I go to my 9 AM class and learn more about pay gaps and horizontal and vertical segregation in the workforce, resulting in women getting screwed over across the board.

3. It's cold and rainy when I leave class.

4. I need to take all my pictures off photobucket, because it hates me.

Stop the world, I want to get off.
salienne: (Farscape frell)
Okay, I don't post about politics on here much, I really don't. Sometimes I bitch about sexism, sometimes I mention gay marriage, but this?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Gun Show - Barrel Fever
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealthcare Protests

^Showing you the comedy version of the news, because anything else makes me want to beat my heat against a wall.

Seriously, say what you will about Obama or health care or gun control, but you do not bring fucking assault weapons to a rally, and you sure as hell do not bring one to a rally with the president.

It's common sense and basic decency, and if you honestly see nothing wrong with this bullshit, do not pass go, do not collect $200, and get the hell out of this country. Because you scare me.

ETA: Apparently the man with the assault rifle? His appearance was staged. He knew the reporter, the cops knew he was there.

This man, the reporter, and the police officers all thought bringing a loaded assault rifle to a rally with a bunch of people, the president nearby, was a good idea.

Just... are there any words?
salienne: (DW wth?)
...the US is one of the many nations that says no.

Linky to article

Obviously, a declaration wasn't going to do much anyway, but... really?

“We are opposed to any discrimination, legally or politically, but the nature of our federal system prevents us from undertaking commitments and engagements where federal authorities don’t have jurisdiction,” said Alejandro D. Wolff, the deputy permanent representative.

"We're against discrimination! Just... only if the federal government is doing it, not the States. Especially where that icky 'marriage' issue comes up."

On the bright side, gay rights were discussed at the UN! And had a fair amount of support! Yay!
salienne: (DW wth?)
About the "gay kisses" in Milk:

"See, if it's me, I'm kind of hoping I do screw it up," Letterman shot back. "That's what you want, isn't it?"

"To screw it up?" Franco asked.

"I mean, do you really want to be good at kissing a guy?" Letterman said as his audience howled with delight.

From here, which is actually a pretty good article.
salienne: (DW wth?)

People don't go to Church anymore. Thus THEY WILL START GIVING OUT SUICIDE PILLS.


Epic Fail

Nov. 5th, 2008 03:34 pm
salienne: (DW wth?)
Okay, even for discrimination against homosexuals... Arkansas, you're doing it wrong.

Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children
An Act Providing that an Individual who is Cohabiting Outside of a Valid Marriage May Not Adopt or be a Foster Parent of a Child Less than Eighteen Years Old.

In the words of my roommate, anyone want to take bets on how long it takes for the first heterosexual unmarried couple to file a lawsuit?

And in the meantime, those lucky lucky kids get to go live in group homes. Hoorah!
salienne: (DW Donna Martha Rose)
So, let's say there's a bus. It's a nice bus, a big bus, a coach bus. Got leg-room, lots of space, A/C, whatever. Sure in the back some of the chairs a little ripped, an A/C unit or two busted, a slightly different view with a few scratched windows, but it's not a big deal. And at first, anyone who gets on the bus can sit down wherever, go however far they want on it. Pay the fare and you get the usual bus ride. So it really doesn't matter that some parts of the bus near the back just aren't as good, because people can sit wherever they want (although most prefer the front, because who wouldn't?).

Except then the bus driver decides, he doesn't like this whole "most people sitting near the front" thing, even though that's where all the best seats are and there's plenty of room. So he decides, say, every 10th person has to go sit in the back. As long as they pay, people can get on or off the bus however much they want, and there's always plenty of room, but every 10th person still has to go sit in the back. It's just better that way, he decides.

And it's not bad in the back of the bus. No crud on the seats, exhaust fumes, plastic seats. It's almost the same. Just... a little worse for the wear, a little hotter, a little bumpier.

But anyone who gets on this bus--old, young, college student, easily motion sick, model, politician, midget, whatever--has to follow the bus driver's arbitrary rule. Every 10th person must sit there in the back, even though sitting in the front wouldn't bother anyone else. Because the bus driver doesn't like having that many people in the front, even though people are getting on and off at a pretty regular rate, even though there's always plenty of room.

Even though there are some people who just don't like it in the back because it's not quite as good.

So I would personally like to thank you, Florida, for being such a great bus driver. And you , Arizona. And you too, California.

Really, thanks. Good to know we've got people like you looking out for the well-being of all those lucky 9/10 people who get the privilege of sitting in the front.
salienne: (Default)

-__-;;;=FL's Amendment 2, Arizona's whatever, and quite possibly CA's Proposition 8. *Is more than a little pissed off about this, which is terrible right after the glee of Obama*
salienne: (Farscape not broken)
The fact that in the future, assuming I ever find someone worth marrying, there's a 50/50 chance I won't be able to because of completely ridiculous and bigoted constitutional amendments makes me more than a little furious.

("I love you." "I love you too." "Marry me?" "I'd love to! So who's getting the sex change, you or me?")

'Cos even though I voted "No" on Florida's fun little version of Proposition 8, it still has a very very good chance of getting through.

...At least there's always Massachusetts, right?


The best part is, it makes a great argument for the other side.

"She said that mommies and daddies have to get married first [to have a baby]."
[My Addition"] "Well, honey, you can also have two daddies, and we'd love to raise you in a safe and steady marriage situation. But you see, there's this new constitutional amendment..."

Also, what kind of little girl thinks people only get married for babies? For little kids, marriage=love Disney style, with maybe a baby sometime in the future. I don't think you'd find one mainstream USA kid who thinks Shrek and Fiona got together because they really just wanted to make little Ogres.
salienne: (not broken)
And I quote from my textbook: "[The Supreme Court] overruled a Texas law criminalizing sodomy when practiced by two persons of the same sex. By a 6 to 3 decision, handed down on June 26, 2003, the Court affirmed that the rights of liberty and privacy guaranteed under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment include the right of two consenting adults to engage in such acts within the home." (Emphasis mine)

So in 2003, just 4 and a half years ago, a third of the Supreme Court thought male homosexual relations (not marriage, but the sex act itself) should be illegal. As in, the State should control actual private practices that affect no one but the two (or more, I suppose) parties involved, even if it occurs only in the parties' personal residences.

To quote the ever reliable Captain Jack Sparrow, "That's a sad commentary in and of itself."
salienne: (Pirate)
When engaged in any sort of debate, but especially a political one, and especially one that begins to center around race, do not, and I repeat, do not attempt to make your point by calling the other person ignorant. Holding an opposing opinion is not ignorance; it's holding an opposing opinion. Now, I realize "ignorant" sounds like an intelligent way of sneakily calling someone an idiot and thus wrong in his/her beliefs, but you know what? It makes you sound like a pompous moron, and it pretty much brings the discussion to a screeching halt of rising tempers and name-calling.

If in the middle of a debate, someone pointed their finger at you and started going, "Hahaha, you're stoooopid," would you want to listen to them? Would you even want to bother with them? No. So please, tell me, why be a hypocrite and do it yourself? What on earth do you think it's going to accomplish except maybe make you look good (which, by the way, it also fails to do)?

That is all. Thank you.
salienne: (frell)
Why I really dislike this country from time to time...

So apparently bans on gay marriage are constitutional in MD...

Choice bits:

The 4-3 ruling essentially sends the issue of same-sex marriage back to the state legislature and ruled that a ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights.

Just like banning interracial marriages does not discriminate based on race! :D

"In declaring that the State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structure, our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote

.....But the Justice System is there to uphold civil rights, not protect the State's supposed interest in a "traditional family structure". That's the legislature's job, and as we've seen oh so many times, legislatures discriminate. And they do so under the guise of what's right for the citizens. That's what's happening here.

And even going the 'traditional family structure=good' route, single parents should then have their children taken away, as should divorced and then remarried parents. Hell, take the adopted kids too--it's not like they're with their natural, "traditional" family.

In rejecting the argument that the state's Equal Rights Amendment protected the rights of same-sex couples to marry, the court scoured the legislative and media record of the debate during the 1970s and concluded it does not apply.

The measure, which was passed by the General Assembly and ratified by voters, was not intended to address sexual orientation, the majority decided.

...Just like the Constitution wasn't meant to address the rights of slaves, foreigners, or women.

Oh, let me count the BS. -_-

There's a protest. I didn't hear about it early enough to go, but I really wish I had...


salienne: (Default)

July 2011

1718 19 20 2122 23
24 2526 27 28 2930


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags