Self Promotion
How's the Moon?
moon phases |
2006
2005
--MacBeth V.v.
“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”
/|\
All depends on what "In Vain" means
God, I love Terry Jones. (I actually did like Erik the Viking, but I was ten when I saw it, so I have no idea how bad it actually is).
posted by Mary, 3:55 PMI'll be honest, this baffles me: an executive order by Pres. Bush demanding the DHS establish a center for faith-basesd initiatives.
I'll be honest, I can't quite figure out what this is about. I mean, it sounds like he wants to mix religion with Homeland Security. But maybe I'm just not good at lawyerese to figure out what exactly is the goal here. Gott mit Uns? I mean, I can be pretty paranoid, but should I be that paranoid?
So what exactly is this order saying?
Sec. 2. Purpose of Center. The purpose of the Center shall be to coordinate agency efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social and community services.Sec. 3. Responsibilities of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives:
(a) conduct, in coordination with the WHOFBCI Director, a department-wide audit to identify all existing barriers to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the delivery of social and community services by the Department, including but not limited to regulations, rules, orders, procure-ment, and other internal policies and practices, and outreach activities that unlawfully discriminate against, or otherwise discourage or disadvantage the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in Federal programs
Um... so... is he saying that any organization run by a religious group shouldn't have to answer to the laws regarding employment? In other words, the gov't should fund a religious organization that won't hire someone beacause they're gay, or liberal, or some other excuse? Why is the government using religious organizations? And why does the Department of Homeland Security need to be involved? What exactly is the point of this order?
(Am I playing dumb? Heh.)
I guess this is what scares me: society is becoming rapidly desecularized. Religious belifes are the new rules--if you don't believe in dispensing birth control, fine! you shouldn't have to lose your job as a pharmacist. Don't want to employ gays? Fine! No need to compromise your religious beliefs. Don't want to hire unmarried pregnant women? Fine! Let the slut starve.
There is a reason we're a nation of man-made laws. It's because we can't agree on the religious ones. That's how it's always been; and even if the theocrats get their dream state, there will still be inquisitions and witch hunts. That is human nature. That is what we're ultimately up against.
And having the government mandate theocracy doesn't make it any easier.
posted by Mary, 2:30 PM[Arizona] House bars human egg sales, stirs women's ire
State representatives voted Monday to make it illegal for a woman to sell her eggs, but they refused to impose similar restrictions on men selling their sperm.On a voice vote, the House of Representatives said that a woman who sells her eggs could be sent to prison for up to a year and fined up to $150,000. The same penalty would apply to any organization or doctor who made the purchase.
Lawmakers also gave preliminary approval to a companion measure requiring that before women even donate their eggs, they be informed of medical risks. Here, too, legislators refused to warn men of the potential legal and ethical risks of donating sperm, including the possibility that a child born from the donation could seek them out and demand support.
I bolded that one part for a reason--the logic, I can only assume, is that women are such fragile, unthinking creatures that they don't understand the potential consequences of donating genetic material. Men, on the other hand, are already smart enough to understand the consequences, aren't they?
But here's what's actually enraging:
Stump said the disparate treatment is justified. And, he said, it has "nothing to do with gender politics."He said there is a medical risk from the procedure of donating eggs, from both the hormones injected into women to produce multiple mature eggs and the harvesting procedure.
"I would wager there's not one recorded instance of someone dying from donating or selling sperm," Stump declared during the House floor debate. "In fact, it's more dangerous for a man to cross the street than to donate sperm."
Stump conceded that the medical risk remains the same whether the eggs are donated or sold. And nothing in his legislation makes donation illegal.
What they really hate is the idea that women can make money--more money--off of this.
Yes, this is a potentially hazardous procedure. I certainly wouldn't do it, not only because of the health issues (and I have a near-pathological fear of surgery), but because of the offspring issues (yeah, I'd like keep my offspring). But if the issue was that this is dangerous, there are plenty of elective surgeries we could make illegal, too. No more breast implants, no more stomach stapling. But it's not about health, and it's not about protecting women. It's about control, just like it always is.
Because ultimately, how is this fundamentally different from offering your kid up for adoption?
*Not to be flippant, but... name that Beatles song!
posted by Mary, 2:30 PMI Love You, Philip Seymore Hoffman
Not just because you're a phenomenal actor; it's because of your acceptance speech. When he talked about how his mother raised him and his three siblings on her own, I damn near cried. Why? Because my mother raised two girls on her own.
Society stigmatizes single mothers. Mostly, they only go after women who are divorced or have the child out of wedlock, not after widows like my mother. I personally don't think it matters how the children came about--that a woman decides to raise the children and is able to do it is still amazing. Hell, it's hard enough these days to raise a kid with two parents--even if one of the parents wants to stay home, it's difficult if not impossible for most people to afford it.* Conservatives lambasted Clinton's It takes a village to raise a child title (and concept), but it does. If there is no network of support, whether it be daycare, relatives, or an economic system that's willing to pay people a living wage, if there's no community, there's nothing. That goes for single and dual parent households.
Anyway, my point is that it was a touching speech made in a climate where women are routinely under threat by a pseudo-religious misogyny that demands women either be celibate if they can't afford kids (which is difficult for a number of reasons, not the least being that relationships are seldom so simple, as well as being incredibly classist) or "submit" to their husbands (and thus get knocked up again and again).
*I'll be honest, I have my prejudice against stay-at-home, non-career-holding parents, since I was never raised by one. But that's for another entry.
posted by Mary, 2:00 PM