Little3wing's Journals

It's official

I am now boyfriend-free. Look out boys! Actually, I don't know anyone in this town. The only friends I had were through my ex, so that's out. I need to find some friends. Maybe I'll whip up some applications.

Anti-gay marriage lies

Protect Marriage Washington, an anti-gay rights group organized in response to a referendum recognizing civil unions and all that they imply for gay couples, has released a commercial that I found pretty interesting. In particular, this part:

"In May of 2004, Gay marriage was legalized in Scandinavia...

What Happened..? Did you know... That year alone suicide rates doubled. The illegal drug rate increased 19 times. And to say the least the traditional picture of Marriage being One Man One Women was completely shattered. What about our country? Did you know..77% of ALL aids cases in the United States are related to homosexuality? Also, recent news reports indicate that the legalization of gay marriage will start a movement that will result in YOUR CHILDREN being taught about gay marriage as a normal form of life. Are we willing to let this happen? Whose future is really at stake?"

First off, I guess they don't know that Scandinavia isn't a country. In fact, Denmark, Sweden and Norway legalized same-sex partnerships in 1989, 1993 and 1994, respectively, but partners are still unable to marry in a church or adopt children. I can't find any evidence that anything happened in May 2004 in any Scandinavian country regarding gay marriage. So far, we have shot down two of the three points about the state of Scandinavia these days. Here's another: the research I have found indicates that suicide rates in all three countries have gone down in the last decade. So gay couples having legal partnerships (not even marriages) couldn't be the cause for a so-called increase in suicide by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, as for the fact about AIDS cases in the US, their numbers are pretty old. The statistics for 2007 indicate that AIDS cases related to homosexuality are more like 50%. So...I don't even know.

Lastly, I really don't think gay marriage will be taught in school as a normal form of life. In fact, I don't remember a whole lot about being "taught" about any form of marriage or relationship. I do know that I and some of my friends were either children of divorced parents or unmarried parents. At no point did any teacher sit all of us down and teach us about how it's perfectly fine to get divorced or have children out of wedlock. And trust me, never once did I hear an elementary school teacher even say the words "gay" or "lesbian". So it would follow that gay marriage would not be part of the public school curriculum, right?

And how can a "news report" indicate future trends? It's the news. It's not science, it's reporting things that happened and are currently happening.

I don't know if I can change anyone's mind about gay marriage. It's not really what I'm intending. I just want all of you to know when someone is spreading false information about it. In my opinion, it takes a special kind of hate to make up horrible statistics simply to deny consenting adults to marry other consenting adults, and it would be pretty pathetic if my marriage prospects hinged on that.

Very important information you may not know

On October 6, a bill introduced by Sen. Al Franken which would bar the U.S. from doing business with contractors that include a "rape-clause" in their employee contracts was passed. It's pretty much a no-brainer, but why would we have to have this bill in the first place?

In 2005, a 20 year-old female employee of Halliburton/KBR was allegedly drugged and gang-raped by seven of her co-workers. The legal papers include this information:
"When she awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, she found her body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured and her pectoral muscles torn‚ which would later require reconstructive surgery. Upon walking to the rest room, she passed out again."

She was treated by a US army doctor "who gave forensic evidence to company officials. She says the firm placed her under guard in a shipping container and she was released only after her father asked the US embassy to intervene." (That's right; she "was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and 'warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.'") "When the forensic evidence was handed to investigators two years later, crucial photographs and notes were missing."

Let me point out that one of her rapists actually confessed.

When she returned home to the United States, she was told that she could not file charges against either her rapists (even the one who had already confessed) nor the company. Apparently, it said so in the fine print of her contract.

Even more disturbing, this is not an isolated case. More allegations have recently come out. One woman claims she was fired after making complaints of sexual assault. Some I won't even write here because they are even more graphic (one woman remembers exactly what happened when she was raped by two co-workers).

So, when Al Franken introduced his bill and it passed, one would imagine this would be the end of my blog. However, there are a couple very important points left to talk about. Yes, the bill passed, but it passed 68-30. Thirty people in our Senate think that it's okay to have contracts with companies who contractually give immunity to rapists. Who are these thirty senators? Well, they were all Republicans. (On the Senate floor, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) called Franken's bill “a political attack directed at Halliburton.”) Because I think it's important that you all know who supports companies that legally protect rape, here are all of the senators who voted nay:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Sort of liveblogging Meet the Press

8-16-09 Meet the Press with guests Tom Daschle, Tom Coburn, Rachel Maddow, and Dick Armey.

When questioned on the health care bill's end-of-life decision inclusion, Tom Coburn says that "government shouldn't weigh in on it". I don't understand why people think this is a government decision. The government does not weigh in on our end-of-life decisions. The bill simply proposes that patients are covered for consultations with their doctors about this issue. It is completely voluntary for every American under this bill. No one wants to kill you or me.

Apparently, on the issue of health care, the President is approved by 43% and disapproved by 49% of those polled. I didn't catch who administered the poll.

Dick Armey cannot refute the fact that he and his organization, FreedomWorks, is associated with groups that glorify violence at town hall meetings. The group in question is Tea Party Patriots, which has a video of a violent incident at a town hall meeting on their front page, and which is a partner of FreedomWorks. Rachel Maddow really kills him on this point.

Now, Tom Coburn says that most people who get a referral have already had one opinion. Speaking from my own experience and the experiences of people close to me, this is not even almost the case. If I know I want to see a dermatologist, or a psychologist, or a whatever-ogist, I have to go to my general practitioner and get a referral to some doctor in my network. Not because I want a second opinion. I want a specialist. Sarah's advice: if you have an argument to make, don't make points that every American can refute.

When David Gregory brings up the subject of the public plan in the bill, Tom Daschle says that if we want to keep costs down and keep insurance companies accountable (yes, please), a public option is the answer. Dick Armey, of course, claims that the bill is unfair, and that it will discourage private options. I'm not sure what his point is here. Honestly, I have a private plan, and I'm pretty discouraged. Maddow, who is my girl, says that the fact that so many of us are uninsured (and I might add, unhappily insured) won't be solved by Coburn, Armey, and most Republicans' beloved option to be able to buy insurance across state lines, but rather what we need is health care reform with a public option.

Coburn's ending statement proclaims that your and my doctor won't be able to do what he knows is in your and my best interest. Because the big bad government won't allow it. Completely unlike your and my insurance company, who decides that surely we only need to see a specialist "x" times a year and we already had cancer before we came to them, so they can't be expected to pay for anything.

I think Tom Daschle made the ultimate point in the discussion: "...Are we building this plan for insurance companies or the American people?"

There are many more ridiculous, comfortingly sane, and inciting points that I missed as a result of my attempt at sort-of-liveblogging. If anyone has anything to add, please do.

headdesk

Politicians have been telling people things that have been spreading like wildfire. Like, the health care reform bill sets up a "death panel" that judges whether a given citizen is worth the cost of health care. And that every five years, the elderly will have mandatory consultations with their doctors who will tell them how to end their lives sooner (I don't even know what to say to that one).

The thing is, the "death panels" already exist. They are your health insurance policies. Yours and mine. Read up on it. Private health insurance companies decide if it is cost effective to pay for your surgeries and treatments.

Furthermore, a whole lot of people who are worried are already on government health care--Medicare. Ask your grandparents, it's pretty popular.

But this is the funniest thing I've seen yet. An article in Investor's Business Daily says,

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

That really would be terrible. On the other hand, Stephen Hawking LIVES IN THE UK. Was born there, still lives there. And, considering his debilitating disease, he seems to be doing pretty well.

Check your facts, folks.

P.S. Apparently Investor's Business Daily corrected their article.

Kind of in a fucking bind

What if your boyfriend's parents, while joking about his accidental journey into a bad part of Chicago, said that he was "the wrong shade of tan for that part of town. You can get a tan on vacation, but it's still the wrong shade of tan..." Maybe you suspect his parents are these super Italian, rich white people that have a lot of cars and a big house and they say that fat women look like "...you know...country women"

And then the very next day, you find out that your deadbeat Puerto Rican grandfather was actually your black grandfather.

Do you tell your boyfriend that no, he's not dating a latino chick, he's dating a black chick?

"Disappointed" isn't nearly strong enough.

I'm watching Pat Buchanan on the Rachel Maddow Show, and I sincerely feel ill. Why do people go to him for his comments? Is it just for shock factor? Is is because they can count on him saying something so disgustingly offensive and possibly even make up facts to support it? He claims that the reason 108 of 110 Supreme Court justices have been white is because white men wrote the constitution and founded our country, which means they deserve it more. (At one point he says "100% of the people who died at Gettysburg were white men" History lesson: slaves and ex-slaves fought in the Civil War on each side respectively.)

Since Barack Obama announced his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, I've heard so many things that disturbed me. That the democrats picked a "Hispanic chick lady" (I'm actually quoting Glenn Beck) as a part of affirmative action. That she was racist for her "wise Latina" comment which was taken grossly out of context, but which, in context, I wholly agree with.

I doubt any of you have actually been watching the confirmation hearings. I've watched a little during the last two days, and it turns my stomach. It seems to be the Republican strategy to try to alienate Hispanic voters. Not only did they constantly refer to the "wise Latina" comments (again, completely out of context), but they kept comparing her to other Puerto Rican judges. "Had you voted with Cabranes, himself a — of Puerto Rican ancestry — had you voted with him, you could have changed that case." Yep. Apparently, Senator Sessions is of the opinion that Puerto Ricans should stick together. Senator Graham said she was a bully judge and asked her if she had a "temperment problem". Senator Coburn joked around for a moment, doing a Ricky Ricardo impression (telling Sotomayor, “You’d have lots of ’splaining to do.”) Now, I might let that one slide, because it could have been completely innocent. But after bringing up race so much in the hearings of a Puerto Rican judge makes doing impressions of Cuban tv characters seem like a bad choice.

I'm really not sorry for my soap box moment. If you made it to the end of this entry, I thank you, and hope you take some time to think about the people who are going to ask for your vote in the future. I don't hate Republicans. But I hope most would agree that the ones in Washington are shockingly ignorant douchebags.

By the way--yes, I'm Puerto Rican.

NYT confirmation hearings liveblog

there's a light on in chicago

Things I will miss about Chicago when I move to St. Charles on Saturday:

- my friends

- First Aid Comics (James Nurss is a great comic-guy to have)

- the Borders two blocks from my apartment

- the autographed pictures of Obama plastered all over the local Walgreens

- the University of Chicago campus

- downtown in general

- Chicago Transit Authority (I'm not even being sarcastic. Having access to anywhere in Chicago at almost any time is worth the fart smell.)

- thinking I'll actually go to Belmont sometime, even though I never do

- thinking I'll actually go to Angels & Kings

- concerts

- crazy and/or homeless people doing crazy things (wheelchair fight on the #6, guy sitting on sidewalk saying to me "What's up, Jesus?")

- the Point

- Star of Siam

- Edwardo's on 57th

- having a grocery store across the street from my apartment

- my new hot neighbor who my boyfriend doesn't need to worry about because she's a girl

- city pride

- being able to claim references in Fall Out Boy songs

Way to go, Texan Republicans

Texas lawmaker: Asians should change their names to make them 'easier for Americans to deal with.'

On Tuesday, State Rep. Betty Brown (R) caused a firestorm during House testimony on voter identification legislation when she said that Asian-Americans should change their names because they're too hard to pronounce:

"Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese - I understand it's a rather difficult language - do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?" Brown said.

Brown later told [Organization of Chinese Americans representative Ramey] Ko: "Can't you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that's easier for Americans to deal with?"

Yesterday, Brown continued to resist calls to apologize. Her spokesman said that Democrats "want this to just be about race."

Let's hear it

I recorded "America's Suitehearts" for the Fall Out Boy karaoke contest on myspace. I need at least 100 plays to qualify for the contest. *hint, hint*

http://ksolo.myspace.com/actions/showSongProfile.do?rid=1113155&sid=28320&uid=3112310