Okay.
I come from the land of snow. Anyone who is from Upstate New York will concur: four inches of snow is practically light rain. Anyone from FMHS will probably nod and tell you that a WALL of snow, ice, and hail would probably still mean that we had to go to school - and no hope of a snow day except to pray for an hour or two delay.
Now I understand that parts of this country just aren't equipped to handle snow. And I'm sure folks who actually voted for George W. Bush will say that snow in Alabama is a freak coincidence and that global warming just doesn't exist.
But for people in the northeast in the mid-Atlantic region, we should at least have some sort of game plan, right?
RIGHT?!!
All of us well versed in what winter actually means would laugh when they would put sand on the snow at my college. Try salt. It works better. But we understood that in places that are older and sporting the ever-popular federalist architecture of brick, brick, and more brick, that sand was essential to upkeep on the bricks.
But explain to me how sand would be more effective on pavement than on brick.
The whole state is covered in sand. Then again, Delaware uses cement primarily for roads, but that's a whole other can of worms.
What's even more laughable is how they move the snow around. When that foot or so fell on Delaware, it looked like they strapped shovels to trucks going 15 down my street. Even in New York City, they got the trash trucks to get the industrial shovels and clear that shit. You'd think that in a place where there are more trucks than people that they might have figured that out.
I was one of two people in the office today, presumably because of the snow. I could have left early. I didn't. I actually got a good amount done today. It wasn't so annoying. Until I left the office to go to the mall to return my guitar cable for my ibook, peruse the new mac minis, and take a moment to wish that I had more money to buy the kind of equipment that I need to write the music for the CBC's upcoming show.
That's another story.
Needless to say, I've come home slightly pissed. But let me tell you why.
1. Most people used to snow will tell you - when you scrape the snow off of your car, it isn't just about the windows. Hit the lights, hit the tires, and for godssake, hit the roof of your car! I can't tell you how annoying it is to dodge chunks of wet snow from the car in front of me or not to be able to tell that the car in front is going to make a right hand or left hand turn.
2. If you are in a smaller car and you have problems with sliding, throw the car in a lower gear. The tire rotation slows down and you can get a better grip on the road. Sure, it takes up a little more gas, but you'll get wherever you're going in one piece. I promise.
3. If you are afraid of snow, don't stay in the left lane and go 25. It's freakin' annoying as shit.
4. If you aren't afraid of snow and the guy in front of me is going 25, don't tailgate me half an inch away from my car and flash the high beams. You can tell that there's a car in front of me because I've moved slightly to the right so that you can see them. And you know I can't get into the right hand lane to let you through because there's people going 20 there.
5. Shoveling your walkway is fine. Putting the excess snow into my freshly shoveled driveway isn't. Screw you.
As you can tell, I'm slightly peeved. I understand people's concerns, but c'mon. If you can't handle the snow, don't go out.
The journey, trials and tribulations, rants and faves of a humble and proud trade unionist.
2.24.2005
2.18.2005
Finding myself back from the sunny land of Philadelphia this morning, I wish to talk about...
Public Restrooms.
This isn't because I came from Philly today after spending an evening assisting the Cardboard Box Collaborative in their newest show, Now Serving - which anyone in the Philly area really must go and see. It's actually held over from my weekend in NYC this past weekend.
Well, what I really wish to talk about is something more specific about public restrooms.
For starters, if you are lucky enough to go to a nice, decent restroom, chances are that you will encounter those toilet seat covers.
As the daughter of an infection control nurse, I can tell you scientifically and without a doubt that these are a very important and good invention.
Now I've found that if you are loitering around reststops on the highway or turnpike, these come very much in handy. At the same time, however, the thing holding them to the wall is cheap as hell. So you go ahead and pull on one to use it and the thing rips halfway in your hand. A little annoying, you go ahead and pull on another one...which rips in your hand. After about four tries, you're pretty damn near frustrated, and depending on your situation, perhaps edgy as hell because you need to use the toilet. Finally, you slowly pull out one and the other halves that have ripped off in your hand stream out at you like candy out of a pinata.
This isn't the only frustrating thing.
Then you go to put it on the seat. You carefully rip the center out of the rest of the cover, like you do - and so that you don't have the uncomfortable situation where you pee on yourself - and place it gently on the seat. By the time you undo your pants and go to sit down, the weight of the center dropping to the toilet water has pulled the back of the seat cover into the toilet and is slowly beginning to drag the rest of the cover into the toilet with it.
So you grab another one - which proceeds to rip in your hand. So you go through the whole process again...
...and again.
By the time you finally get it to stay on the toilet, you've got seven toilet covers on the seat, twelve ripped up in the toilet so that you can't see the water in the bowl anymore, and you've lost the urge to use the toilet.
Is anyone else slightly frustrated or at least mildly amused by this situation? I find it annoying as hell, but really funny now that I think about it. I mean, if you're afraid of germs (thanks, mom) like I am, toilet covers serve a very important function. If they could figure out a way to design it so that you only have to use one...
Public Restrooms.
This isn't because I came from Philly today after spending an evening assisting the Cardboard Box Collaborative in their newest show, Now Serving - which anyone in the Philly area really must go and see. It's actually held over from my weekend in NYC this past weekend.
Well, what I really wish to talk about is something more specific about public restrooms.
For starters, if you are lucky enough to go to a nice, decent restroom, chances are that you will encounter those toilet seat covers.
As the daughter of an infection control nurse, I can tell you scientifically and without a doubt that these are a very important and good invention.
Now I've found that if you are loitering around reststops on the highway or turnpike, these come very much in handy. At the same time, however, the thing holding them to the wall is cheap as hell. So you go ahead and pull on one to use it and the thing rips halfway in your hand. A little annoying, you go ahead and pull on another one...which rips in your hand. After about four tries, you're pretty damn near frustrated, and depending on your situation, perhaps edgy as hell because you need to use the toilet. Finally, you slowly pull out one and the other halves that have ripped off in your hand stream out at you like candy out of a pinata.
This isn't the only frustrating thing.
Then you go to put it on the seat. You carefully rip the center out of the rest of the cover, like you do - and so that you don't have the uncomfortable situation where you pee on yourself - and place it gently on the seat. By the time you undo your pants and go to sit down, the weight of the center dropping to the toilet water has pulled the back of the seat cover into the toilet and is slowly beginning to drag the rest of the cover into the toilet with it.
So you grab another one - which proceeds to rip in your hand. So you go through the whole process again...
...and again.
By the time you finally get it to stay on the toilet, you've got seven toilet covers on the seat, twelve ripped up in the toilet so that you can't see the water in the bowl anymore, and you've lost the urge to use the toilet.
Is anyone else slightly frustrated or at least mildly amused by this situation? I find it annoying as hell, but really funny now that I think about it. I mean, if you're afraid of germs (thanks, mom) like I am, toilet covers serve a very important function. If they could figure out a way to design it so that you only have to use one...
2.14.2005
I think that I have figured out a possible way for Mike Bloomberg to win re-election in 2005. And we should be cheering this issue on.
Bear with me here.
Let's look at some facts about NYC, shall we?
1. NYC is overwhelmingly Democrat. 5-1 Democrat to Republican ratio in the state. That's ridiculous. Well, not for me, 'cause I'm a Democrat. But still, that's pretty decent odds, right? Don't ask me why we have a Republican Governor, I'll explain why we have a Republican Mayor shortly.
2. These Democrats aren't typically moderate. No, we're the in-your-face liberals. C'mon. You don't live on an 24 square mile island or adjoining boroughs with more than 8 million people from all over the world, 7 million rats, and 10 million pigeons without being slightly liberal.
3. Mike Bloomberg isn't really a Republican. For those not joining in from the Apple, Hizzoner (the mayor) switched parties to avoid running in the crowded Democratic field in 2001. He was one of the major donors to Gore/Lieberman in 2000 and many Republicans and conservatives speak of him with a bit of snide.
4. For those of you living under a rock, Bloomie is a BILLIONAIRE. The man spent $78 million on his mayoral campaign - out of his own pocket. For a liberal responsible donkey like me, I appreciated the fact that he didn't run with anyone in his pocket. In fact, that was one of his campaign "things" - he wasn't a normal politician, he didn't have special interests, only the city mattered to him. For a city facing some serious problems in 2001, including a spiraling budget gap, the businessman was a good choice - especially if you weren't particularly fond of Mark Green (the Democratic Mayoral candidate in 2001).
These are just the facts I wish to highlight in this argument.
Many of you may not be aware that New York City is on the verge of being the next "battleground", if you will, in the fight for gay marriage. Click on that link. Check it out. Basically, a Manhattan judge ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to forbid gays from marrying - that the state constitution did not specify marriage, therefore, no one could bar anyone from marrying anyone.
Side note: does that mean I could marry my pinkie? I'm just curious.
Back at the ranch...
Now Mr. Mayor, as he has been apt to do - much to the chagrin of his campaign staff (trust me, I was there), has made a contradiction of himself. He told reporters that he personally believed that gays should be given the same freedoms as heterosexuals and that government should not create laws to forbid people to marry, no matter who was marrying whom. Yet, he also said later that he would appeal the judges' decision to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in the State.
Um. I don't get it.
Well, I sort of do. His argument, which starts to make a little bit of sense, is that he wants to force the state to make a decision "so that people will have a right once and for all to know where they stand." He does not want the situation they had in San Fransisco where the mayor married all of those gay couples only to have it overturned months later.
Sure, he's worried about his re-election. And he's probably feeling some heat from his Republican friends.
But I wish to call attention to those facts I listed above.
1. New Yorkers may be mostly democrats, but if given the right reasons to re-elect a Republican, they will do it. Case in point: Giulani. If he wants to win re-election, he has a better chance of siding with the 5-1 Democrats.
2. The chances of his favorable rating going up if he stands up for civil rights will most likely go upwards fast. Remember the liberal factor here.
3. He's not really a Republican. Sure, he's raised a lot of money for them, but he has always said that it isn't about party or politics, it's about doing what's morally right. Dante said it best: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those, who in times of great moral crisis, retain their neutrality." If it wasn't for people standing up for morals, we would still have slavery, segregation, male-only voting, and awful events like the Holocaust. I'm not taking this too far - when some people have rights and other don't share the same rights, then there will always be oppression.
4. Because he will self-finance his campaign again, what difference does it make if he pisses some people off? Sure, there will be plenty of Catholics and religious folks calling for his head, but those ladies in the Upper East Side will, at best, stay home on election day, leaving the same situation as 2001 where he was elected because Mark Green lost. That's probably important to remember. He won because Mark Green and the Dems made a mistake that upset a lot of party members (present company included) that they stayed at home on November 2nd. This could work in his favor if he has a strong challenger, which is likely. But the democratic challengers are also supporting gay marriage.
Does this make sense? Isn't it kind of obvious? I think so.
If he wants to avoid the political mess that will begin to ensue over his contradiction of word and deed, the other, less controversial method might also work to gain favor - and yes, I'm talking about Civil Unions.
Sure, it's not marriage, but at least it's better. With civil unions, gay couples can at least be acknowledged. NYC would never have that horrible consequence where gay 9/11 survivors who could not collect the benefits of their lost loved ones because they were gay. While a lot of people might be against gay marriage, they aren't against gays having rights - I'm talking about New York here, people. I'm fully aware of those folks who don't want gays to have any rights at all.
I mean, come on. Go with your conscience, Mayor. Go with your morals. Go with your instinct. People may never believe what you say, but they'll always believe what you do. You can't be for people having rights and then fight against them having those rights. Shit or get off the pot.
And not only will you be making a huge statement for civil rights, mark a place for yourself in the history books, you just might keep your job.
"Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
Bear with me here.
Let's look at some facts about NYC, shall we?
1. NYC is overwhelmingly Democrat. 5-1 Democrat to Republican ratio in the state. That's ridiculous. Well, not for me, 'cause I'm a Democrat. But still, that's pretty decent odds, right? Don't ask me why we have a Republican Governor, I'll explain why we have a Republican Mayor shortly.
2. These Democrats aren't typically moderate. No, we're the in-your-face liberals. C'mon. You don't live on an 24 square mile island or adjoining boroughs with more than 8 million people from all over the world, 7 million rats, and 10 million pigeons without being slightly liberal.
3. Mike Bloomberg isn't really a Republican. For those not joining in from the Apple, Hizzoner (the mayor) switched parties to avoid running in the crowded Democratic field in 2001. He was one of the major donors to Gore/Lieberman in 2000 and many Republicans and conservatives speak of him with a bit of snide.
4. For those of you living under a rock, Bloomie is a BILLIONAIRE. The man spent $78 million on his mayoral campaign - out of his own pocket. For a liberal responsible donkey like me, I appreciated the fact that he didn't run with anyone in his pocket. In fact, that was one of his campaign "things" - he wasn't a normal politician, he didn't have special interests, only the city mattered to him. For a city facing some serious problems in 2001, including a spiraling budget gap, the businessman was a good choice - especially if you weren't particularly fond of Mark Green (the Democratic Mayoral candidate in 2001).
These are just the facts I wish to highlight in this argument.
Many of you may not be aware that New York City is on the verge of being the next "battleground", if you will, in the fight for gay marriage. Click on that link. Check it out. Basically, a Manhattan judge ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to forbid gays from marrying - that the state constitution did not specify marriage, therefore, no one could bar anyone from marrying anyone.
Side note: does that mean I could marry my pinkie? I'm just curious.
Back at the ranch...
Now Mr. Mayor, as he has been apt to do - much to the chagrin of his campaign staff (trust me, I was there), has made a contradiction of himself. He told reporters that he personally believed that gays should be given the same freedoms as heterosexuals and that government should not create laws to forbid people to marry, no matter who was marrying whom. Yet, he also said later that he would appeal the judges' decision to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in the State.
Um. I don't get it.
Well, I sort of do. His argument, which starts to make a little bit of sense, is that he wants to force the state to make a decision "so that people will have a right once and for all to know where they stand." He does not want the situation they had in San Fransisco where the mayor married all of those gay couples only to have it overturned months later.
Sure, he's worried about his re-election. And he's probably feeling some heat from his Republican friends.
But I wish to call attention to those facts I listed above.
1. New Yorkers may be mostly democrats, but if given the right reasons to re-elect a Republican, they will do it. Case in point: Giulani. If he wants to win re-election, he has a better chance of siding with the 5-1 Democrats.
2. The chances of his favorable rating going up if he stands up for civil rights will most likely go upwards fast. Remember the liberal factor here.
3. He's not really a Republican. Sure, he's raised a lot of money for them, but he has always said that it isn't about party or politics, it's about doing what's morally right. Dante said it best: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those, who in times of great moral crisis, retain their neutrality." If it wasn't for people standing up for morals, we would still have slavery, segregation, male-only voting, and awful events like the Holocaust. I'm not taking this too far - when some people have rights and other don't share the same rights, then there will always be oppression.
4. Because he will self-finance his campaign again, what difference does it make if he pisses some people off? Sure, there will be plenty of Catholics and religious folks calling for his head, but those ladies in the Upper East Side will, at best, stay home on election day, leaving the same situation as 2001 where he was elected because Mark Green lost. That's probably important to remember. He won because Mark Green and the Dems made a mistake that upset a lot of party members (present company included) that they stayed at home on November 2nd. This could work in his favor if he has a strong challenger, which is likely. But the democratic challengers are also supporting gay marriage.
Does this make sense? Isn't it kind of obvious? I think so.
If he wants to avoid the political mess that will begin to ensue over his contradiction of word and deed, the other, less controversial method might also work to gain favor - and yes, I'm talking about Civil Unions.
Sure, it's not marriage, but at least it's better. With civil unions, gay couples can at least be acknowledged. NYC would never have that horrible consequence where gay 9/11 survivors who could not collect the benefits of their lost loved ones because they were gay. While a lot of people might be against gay marriage, they aren't against gays having rights - I'm talking about New York here, people. I'm fully aware of those folks who don't want gays to have any rights at all.
I mean, come on. Go with your conscience, Mayor. Go with your morals. Go with your instinct. People may never believe what you say, but they'll always believe what you do. You can't be for people having rights and then fight against them having those rights. Shit or get off the pot.
And not only will you be making a huge statement for civil rights, mark a place for yourself in the history books, you just might keep your job.
"Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
2.10.2005
It's official. I'm staying in Delaware.
I'll be working on the Social Security issue here in the good 'ol First State. I went to the Council Office today to get acquainted. It's interesting. And less than 5 minutes away from my house.
Looks like I'll be a Delaware-ian until around June when I'll be shipped off to the Garden State to work on the governor's race.
I finally feel like I have a sense of purpose. I start on Monday. Jeez, I am just that bored.
In the meantime, I'll be busy getting the house ready. Digital cable, high-speed internet, and regular trash pick up - here I come! I'm excited.
At the same time, I'm bummed. Not only will Megan be in Oklahoma City, I don't get an OK adventure. But it's okay. At least I know what I'll be doing. It'll be a new challenge, so I'll enjoy it.
But I gotta run and figure out all the details - and unpack my clothes - and continue cleaning so I can finally stop working on the house.
In other news, did anyone see that Prince Charles will be marrying Camilla Parker-Bowles in April? Any thoughts? I'm not sure what I think yet.
Coming soon - a blog that I've been meaning to post on how Mike Bloomberg could win re-election in NYC. And it comes down to the rainbow pages. Go figure. That'll come soon, I promise.
I'll be working on the Social Security issue here in the good 'ol First State. I went to the Council Office today to get acquainted. It's interesting. And less than 5 minutes away from my house.
Looks like I'll be a Delaware-ian until around June when I'll be shipped off to the Garden State to work on the governor's race.
I finally feel like I have a sense of purpose. I start on Monday. Jeez, I am just that bored.
In the meantime, I'll be busy getting the house ready. Digital cable, high-speed internet, and regular trash pick up - here I come! I'm excited.
At the same time, I'm bummed. Not only will Megan be in Oklahoma City, I don't get an OK adventure. But it's okay. At least I know what I'll be doing. It'll be a new challenge, so I'll enjoy it.
But I gotta run and figure out all the details - and unpack my clothes - and continue cleaning so I can finally stop working on the house.
In other news, did anyone see that Prince Charles will be marrying Camilla Parker-Bowles in April? Any thoughts? I'm not sure what I think yet.
Coming soon - a blog that I've been meaning to post on how Mike Bloomberg could win re-election in NYC. And it comes down to the rainbow pages. Go figure. That'll come soon, I promise.
2.09.2005
2.04.2005
Mulling.
Karma exists, people. This is karma for making light of Jessica, both recently and in Seattle. Gotta be.
And in the meantime, I don't know why my comments aren't working. I hope they fix it soon so I can see what Jill hast written.
Back to unpacking now that I have a decision to make quickly. Er, SOON-er, if you will.
Hahahahaha. I'm so funny.
I'm intentially being vague. But because I'm sorting it out. But if you look above under the blog title, you'll get the drift...
Karma exists, people. This is karma for making light of Jessica, both recently and in Seattle. Gotta be.
And in the meantime, I don't know why my comments aren't working. I hope they fix it soon so I can see what Jill hast written.
Back to unpacking now that I have a decision to make quickly. Er, SOON-er, if you will.
Hahahahaha. I'm so funny.
I'm intentially being vague. But because I'm sorting it out. But if you look above under the blog title, you'll get the drift...
2.02.2005
Lordy, I was on quite an unwieldy rant last evening. That's okay. I still feel very strongly about the issue. But that's not the point of today's post.
Unemployment is very becoming for my blogger. As you can tell.
So here's a funny story I wanted to share. Because it's just that good.
Lemme preface this. Many of you are aware of my friends, but this story involves me, Fabs, and our other friend, Vicki.
There's an awesome story from the Fabs and Vicki NYU years that involves Vicki getting ridiculously wasted on the last day of class with some of her film classmates. Fabs was basically called in to assist in the drunkenness that was Vicks. After trying to feed her Ramen and ultimately eating it herself, Fabs was having a conversation with the other folks in the room as Vicki, wrapped to her neck in a blanket, was starting to fall over - again - and Fabs caught Vicki trying to keep herself upright by biting, since it was the only thing not under a blanket, and more likely - that she could control.
Maybe you have to hear that story in person. Either way, brilliant.
So Fabs and I go to see "National Treasure", which is so good, I've seen it thrice. Yes. Thrice. I don't care what you think. I am a big American history geek, so I've seen it with friends who want to see it and since I can hardly say no to a movie I like, I've seen it thrice.
Anyhoo, the guy playing Riley in the movie is the guy who got Vicki wasted on that last day of classes.
Fabs turns to me and says excitedly (we were the only two in the theatre at that moment in time), "That's the dude that got Vicki wasted! He was the retarded kid in "Gigli" and everytime I see him, I say to myself, 'That's the dude that got Vicki wasted!'"
We laughed. Watched the movie. Had a great time.
It wasn't until we were driving to D.C. the next day that I made a realization.
I turned to Fabs somewhere on 95 between Baltimore and DC and interrupted her incredulously.
"Wait! You've actually seen 'Gigli'?!!?"
After she peed her pants, I asked her if it was as bad as they said. She said a quick, "Yeah" and continued with the rest of the story she was telling before I so rudely interrupted her.
I would actually see "Eight Legged Freaks" or "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" before I saw "Gigli".
But the dood who got our friend drunk is in it.
And that is my story. No, you will not receive your ten cents back.
Unemployment is very becoming for my blogger. As you can tell.
So here's a funny story I wanted to share. Because it's just that good.
Lemme preface this. Many of you are aware of my friends, but this story involves me, Fabs, and our other friend, Vicki.
There's an awesome story from the Fabs and Vicki NYU years that involves Vicki getting ridiculously wasted on the last day of class with some of her film classmates. Fabs was basically called in to assist in the drunkenness that was Vicks. After trying to feed her Ramen and ultimately eating it herself, Fabs was having a conversation with the other folks in the room as Vicki, wrapped to her neck in a blanket, was starting to fall over - again - and Fabs caught Vicki trying to keep herself upright by biting, since it was the only thing not under a blanket, and more likely - that she could control.
Maybe you have to hear that story in person. Either way, brilliant.
So Fabs and I go to see "National Treasure", which is so good, I've seen it thrice. Yes. Thrice. I don't care what you think. I am a big American history geek, so I've seen it with friends who want to see it and since I can hardly say no to a movie I like, I've seen it thrice.
Anyhoo, the guy playing Riley in the movie is the guy who got Vicki wasted on that last day of classes.
Fabs turns to me and says excitedly (we were the only two in the theatre at that moment in time), "That's the dude that got Vicki wasted! He was the retarded kid in "Gigli" and everytime I see him, I say to myself, 'That's the dude that got Vicki wasted!'"
We laughed. Watched the movie. Had a great time.
It wasn't until we were driving to D.C. the next day that I made a realization.
I turned to Fabs somewhere on 95 between Baltimore and DC and interrupted her incredulously.
"Wait! You've actually seen 'Gigli'?!!?"
After she peed her pants, I asked her if it was as bad as they said. She said a quick, "Yeah" and continued with the rest of the story she was telling before I so rudely interrupted her.
I would actually see "Eight Legged Freaks" or "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" before I saw "Gigli".
But the dood who got our friend drunk is in it.
And that is my story. No, you will not receive your ten cents back.
Ladies and Gentleman, Boys and Girls, step right up for your favorite time of the week and mine:
SOAPBOX TIME!
Okay. I can't help it. I saw it on CNN today when I was doing my daily news digest and I have to say something about it.
"Medicare to cover Viagra".
It's just too good for me to pass up. I mean, according to the President and the Republicans in office, health care is fine, but we just have to shift the burden away from the employers and back onto the employees and give citizens a "real choice" about how to handle their health care....
...by making them pay for everything. But that is another issue for another time.
Okay.
I should mention that the sub heading of the article read: "In medically needed cases."
Yeah. Could they maybe define that a little more? I mean, how do you decide who is a medical need and who isn't? Arent' these just men with Erectile Dysfunction as caused by old age? So is it really weeding it out to say "in medically needed cases"?
I'm just warming up.
In all honesty, is it really necessary for an older gentleman to have an erection? I mean, compared to things such as, I don't know, a cure for cancer? Stem cell research? Remedy for AIDS? Yes, that seems right. Let's just put those things aside so that men can have sex after they lose the ability to "hold an erection on the high holy days" (Kudos to J. Larson).
Bob Dole himself was on TV a few years back telling us how important a thing it was for them to have discovered and produced Viagra.
I just threw up a little bit thinking about that commercial. I really didn't want to know anything at all about Bob Dole's sex life. Eww. I'm thinking about it again. Shit. I did it again.
Okay. Here's why I'm pissed: I'm not a man. I don't have a penis.
And because of it, I can't get birth control on Medicaid. None of us women can. Because in today's world, insurance and Medicaid only covers the ability of men to have an erection no matter what age they are. But for us ladies, who are given the ability to give life, who already make less money than a man in the workplace, who are forced to make a decision between career and child-raising - cannot get birth control covered.
And why? Freedom of Religion. Not a bad thing, at all. Yet, because of religious fundamentalists (yes, I'm using that term when talking about Evangelicals, Christians, and Catholics - of which I was raised**), women cannot get birth control covered by insurance because basically, churches have effectively lobbied against it from happening. I have been told that legislators are too afraid to push it for fear that they'll get bitchslapped by a church. Or because they believe they are a part of the holy trinity, I don't know.
Look, I was raised Catholic. I was baptized. I am well aware of the bible and other religions. But if churches are going to play this game, if they are going to hand out anti-choice, anti-gay literature, if priests and reverends are going to continue (or begin) endorsing candidates from the pulpit because of their view on choice and/or marriage, if churches are going to raise money for anti-choice legislation and Constitutional amendments, then the churches, no matter what their denomonation, must be forced to register as lobbyists and pay taxes. I'm sorry. Well, no I'm not. Anyone or entity that choses to play politics, must abide by the rules. If women cannot have their birth control covered by insurance because of religious issues, then isn't it only fair that everyone be forced to play by the rules?
Of course, only the Democratic Women's Caucus is even discussing this up there. No one else wants to touch this. I don't even know if anyone is talking about it anymore at all, except Hillary Clinton. Whom I know is a favorite of the GOP.
Ladies, if you aren't pissed by now, here's a few other things that'll be sure to get a bee in your bonnet:
There was word around Capitol Hill with all of this Social Security talk (which is really another soapbox for another day) that Republicans and the Bush Administration have toyed with an idea for adjusted benefits based on gender - since women tend to outlive men. Translation: Women will have less Social Security benefits because they are alive for a longer period of time? I swear to god, this was just floated a few weeks ago.
And then there's the Supreme Court issue. We should all be worried. If President God-talks-only-to-me gets to put up to four Justices on the bench, we're screwed to holy hell. It's bad enough we are teetering on Roe v. Wade, we're still dealing with Bush's Global Gag Rule* (see below), the Partial Birth Abortion Legislation that has no provisions for the health of women, and now Ralph Reed practically has his own office in the West Wing.
I thought we had come so far. The conservative right becomes the mainstream and now it's not just gays and Middle Easterners hiding from the the angry mob. All of us. Women, minorities, immigrants. It's feels like open season. What's the quote? "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Of course, President Cowboy is too busy jamming freedom down other throats. Too bad he isn't spreading it on the homefront. I also blame John "I lost my last election to a dead guy" Ashcroft.
Every part of me wishes badly that the Democrats get their shit together soon. Part of me very badly wishes the Republicans were of the Teddy Roosevelt kind so that I can feel somewhat safe. But no, instead we've got bible-thumping, homophobic, misogynistic, good 'ol boys in the majority again. Way too "pale and male" up there.
Hmmm. I wonder why Medicaid, a federal program in the hands of those older white men in Washington, would cover Viagra...
Clearly a rhetorical question.
And quite clearly, I'm agitated by it. I've had all day to stew and think about it. Argh.
*From the Center for Reproductive Rights: "The global gag rule undermines the right to freedom of speech—a universal human right, highly valued and protected in the United States. This policy violates freedom of expression by preventing overseas reproductive health and advocacy organizations from speaking out and lobbying their own governments on their own countries’ abortion laws or policies. The global gag rule censors health-care professionals in overseas family planning clinics, depriving them of the ability to provide full and accurate information to their patients. It prohibits foreign NGOs involved in advocacy and/or health service provision from communicating with their governments in order to decriminalize or improve the safety of and access to abortion, and prohibits public education campaigns about abortion. The global gag rule is the epitome of viewpoint-based discrimination, because it does not constrain organizations working to oppose legal, safe and accessible abortion. The global gag rule also undermines the free speech rights of human rights advocates."
**These comments are not meant in anger. They are meant as a point for discussion and reference. And they are meant in frustration of what is happening to society. Anyone wishing to send concerns and hate-mail to the author are urged to do so at: Kiss my Naturally Brown Ass Productions, Washington Square Arch, TOTCHLAND, New York 10012.
SOAPBOX TIME!
Okay. I can't help it. I saw it on CNN today when I was doing my daily news digest and I have to say something about it.
"Medicare to cover Viagra".
It's just too good for me to pass up. I mean, according to the President and the Republicans in office, health care is fine, but we just have to shift the burden away from the employers and back onto the employees and give citizens a "real choice" about how to handle their health care....
...by making them pay for everything. But that is another issue for another time.
Okay.
I should mention that the sub heading of the article read: "In medically needed cases."
Yeah. Could they maybe define that a little more? I mean, how do you decide who is a medical need and who isn't? Arent' these just men with Erectile Dysfunction as caused by old age? So is it really weeding it out to say "in medically needed cases"?
I'm just warming up.
In all honesty, is it really necessary for an older gentleman to have an erection? I mean, compared to things such as, I don't know, a cure for cancer? Stem cell research? Remedy for AIDS? Yes, that seems right. Let's just put those things aside so that men can have sex after they lose the ability to "hold an erection on the high holy days" (Kudos to J. Larson).
Bob Dole himself was on TV a few years back telling us how important a thing it was for them to have discovered and produced Viagra.
I just threw up a little bit thinking about that commercial. I really didn't want to know anything at all about Bob Dole's sex life. Eww. I'm thinking about it again. Shit. I did it again.
Okay. Here's why I'm pissed: I'm not a man. I don't have a penis.
And because of it, I can't get birth control on Medicaid. None of us women can. Because in today's world, insurance and Medicaid only covers the ability of men to have an erection no matter what age they are. But for us ladies, who are given the ability to give life, who already make less money than a man in the workplace, who are forced to make a decision between career and child-raising - cannot get birth control covered.
And why? Freedom of Religion. Not a bad thing, at all. Yet, because of religious fundamentalists (yes, I'm using that term when talking about Evangelicals, Christians, and Catholics - of which I was raised**), women cannot get birth control covered by insurance because basically, churches have effectively lobbied against it from happening. I have been told that legislators are too afraid to push it for fear that they'll get bitchslapped by a church. Or because they believe they are a part of the holy trinity, I don't know.
Look, I was raised Catholic. I was baptized. I am well aware of the bible and other religions. But if churches are going to play this game, if they are going to hand out anti-choice, anti-gay literature, if priests and reverends are going to continue (or begin) endorsing candidates from the pulpit because of their view on choice and/or marriage, if churches are going to raise money for anti-choice legislation and Constitutional amendments, then the churches, no matter what their denomonation, must be forced to register as lobbyists and pay taxes. I'm sorry. Well, no I'm not. Anyone or entity that choses to play politics, must abide by the rules. If women cannot have their birth control covered by insurance because of religious issues, then isn't it only fair that everyone be forced to play by the rules?
Of course, only the Democratic Women's Caucus is even discussing this up there. No one else wants to touch this. I don't even know if anyone is talking about it anymore at all, except Hillary Clinton. Whom I know is a favorite of the GOP.
Ladies, if you aren't pissed by now, here's a few other things that'll be sure to get a bee in your bonnet:
There was word around Capitol Hill with all of this Social Security talk (which is really another soapbox for another day) that Republicans and the Bush Administration have toyed with an idea for adjusted benefits based on gender - since women tend to outlive men. Translation: Women will have less Social Security benefits because they are alive for a longer period of time? I swear to god, this was just floated a few weeks ago.
And then there's the Supreme Court issue. We should all be worried. If President God-talks-only-to-me gets to put up to four Justices on the bench, we're screwed to holy hell. It's bad enough we are teetering on Roe v. Wade, we're still dealing with Bush's Global Gag Rule* (see below), the Partial Birth Abortion Legislation that has no provisions for the health of women, and now Ralph Reed practically has his own office in the West Wing.
I thought we had come so far. The conservative right becomes the mainstream and now it's not just gays and Middle Easterners hiding from the the angry mob. All of us. Women, minorities, immigrants. It's feels like open season. What's the quote? "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Of course, President Cowboy is too busy jamming freedom down other throats. Too bad he isn't spreading it on the homefront. I also blame John "I lost my last election to a dead guy" Ashcroft.
Every part of me wishes badly that the Democrats get their shit together soon. Part of me very badly wishes the Republicans were of the Teddy Roosevelt kind so that I can feel somewhat safe. But no, instead we've got bible-thumping, homophobic, misogynistic, good 'ol boys in the majority again. Way too "pale and male" up there.
Hmmm. I wonder why Medicaid, a federal program in the hands of those older white men in Washington, would cover Viagra...
Clearly a rhetorical question.
And quite clearly, I'm agitated by it. I've had all day to stew and think about it. Argh.
*From the Center for Reproductive Rights: "The global gag rule undermines the right to freedom of speech—a universal human right, highly valued and protected in the United States. This policy violates freedom of expression by preventing overseas reproductive health and advocacy organizations from speaking out and lobbying their own governments on their own countries’ abortion laws or policies. The global gag rule censors health-care professionals in overseas family planning clinics, depriving them of the ability to provide full and accurate information to their patients. It prohibits foreign NGOs involved in advocacy and/or health service provision from communicating with their governments in order to decriminalize or improve the safety of and access to abortion, and prohibits public education campaigns about abortion. The global gag rule is the epitome of viewpoint-based discrimination, because it does not constrain organizations working to oppose legal, safe and accessible abortion. The global gag rule also undermines the free speech rights of human rights advocates."
**These comments are not meant in anger. They are meant as a point for discussion and reference. And they are meant in frustration of what is happening to society. Anyone wishing to send concerns and hate-mail to the author are urged to do so at: Kiss my Naturally Brown Ass Productions, Washington Square Arch, TOTCHLAND, New York 10012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)