John McCain Respects Hillary "The Bitch" Clinton

I read on Feministing yesterday a post about one of John McCain's campaign stops in South Carolina. The gathering of supporters and the Republican presidential candidate engaged in a truly riveting Q&A.

Crazy lady in the crowd: "How do we beat the bitch?"

After the laughter subsided, McCain actually answered the question!

McCain: "That's an excellent question. There was a poll yesterday, a Rasmussen poll that shows me 3 points ahead of Senator Clinton in a head to head matchup. I respect Senator Clinton. I respect anyone who gets the nomination for the Democrat Party."

Hm. Is it okay for Clinton to play the gender card now? First of all, the Rasmussen poll that McCain talked about shows him 2 points ahead of Clinton, which is statistically insignificant. Secondly, when are the Republicans going to stop calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party? "Democrat" is a noun which describes any member of the party. "Democratic" is an adjective which describes the party itself. "Democrat Party" doesn't make any sense. This is basic English. Nobody needs to explain to me why Republicans (or should I call them Republics?) continue to call it the "Democrat Party" -- Republicans believe that anyone left of Stalin is an unpatriotic dissenter who hates America and all things democratic. But most importantly, why did McCain dignify the woman in the crowd with an answer? CNN's Rick Sanchez discussed it with conservative strategist Amy Holmes on Out in the Open. Here are the best bits:

Holmes: Well, I think it was a mistake. I don't know if it's as big of a mistake as you're making it out to be. He did recover and he did say that he has respect for Hillary Clinton.

And that respect ends with him finding no issue with answering a question about a U.S. Senator and presidential candidate that identifies said Senator and candidate as a bitch (and perhaps it begins with this lovely game he has on his campaign website featuring caricatures of the New York senator). I mean, I have about as much respect for John McCain to, say, not let the old man drown if there was a way for me to prevent it. Doesn't mean I actually respect the guy.

Holmes: I would have hoped that he would have shown more leadership in defending Senator Clinton's honor, not just as a colleague, but as a woman, and that juvenile joke from the audience about, I thought you were talking about my ex-wife, I mean, come on. This is beneath all of us.

Well, it's beneath everyone but John McCain.

Sanchez: Well, I got to tell you, most people who have seen it are looking at it as a real mistake on his part in terms of the way he handled it.

Later on in the show, Sanchez read the response from the McCain camp:

Senator McCain has on many occasions expressed his respect for Senator Clinton, just as he did when confronted with a question in South Carolina. You would be hard-pressed to find an opponent in our campaign who has been as gracious to Senator Clinton as Senator McCain has in this race.

Boy, if John McCain is being the nicest to Clinton out of all the other candidates, I certainly hope there aren't any cameras at anybody else's campaign stops. Today, McCain's South Carolina campaign manager had this to say about Sanchez's comments on his show the night before:

It not only reflects poorly on him, but on CNN. If Mr. Sanchez had even the faintest perspective on the race for the White House, he would know that Senator McCain has expressed his utmost respect for Senator Clinton numerous times on the campaign trail, as he did at Monday's event in Hilton Head.

"Utmost respect." Dignifying a question posed by a supporter who referred to a fellow senator and presidential candidate as a bitch with an answer is "utmost respect." I'd hate to see how McCain talks about his enemies.

UPDATE: And now it's on everything from T-shirts to yard signs. Goody.

Free Food Without Moving Too Many Muscles

Just use your brain and your fingers to donate food to the hungry.

Go there and do it.

Yay FreeRice.com!

Take Action Friday

Tell the Senate that clean and efficient energy should actually be, you know, clean and efficient.

Stop human rights violations in Pakistan.

Urge the House to fund peace in Darfur.

Demand affordable birth control on college campuses.

Revised ENDA Bill Passes House

In a 235-184 vote, the House of Representatives passed the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) (revised version). If signed into law, this legislation will make it illegal for employers to discriminate against workers based on sexual orientation. In a move to get more votes, the revised resolution omits transgender people. Some Democrats voted nay for this reason. The New York Times article cited above has some pretty thought-provoking passages:

Senate Republicans said that, if worded carefully, it would have a good chance of passing, perhaps early next year.

Oh, how kind of you! I'd really like to know what "worded carefully" really means. "No trannys!" perchance?

President Bush threatened to veto an earlier version of the bill, but a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said the administration would need to review recent changes before making a final decision.

Recent changes = "No trannys!"

Representative Doc Hastings of Washington, who led the Republican effort to get a vote on the amendment [that would put gender identity in the legislation, probably to get more people to vote nay on the entire bill], said he opposed the overall bill in part because many states already had similar laws and because he viewed it as intrusive. “I do not think it is the place of the federal government to legislate how each and every place of business operates.”

Representative Doc Hastings of Washington is protected by federal law from racial, religious, and gender bias in all matters employment.

You can keep the original ENDA, the bill that includes the transgendered, by signing this petition.

Hell yeah you're not fully human!

Oh, I do so love the romance and dating writers for Yahoo!.

David Zinczenko's newest column about sex and dating is no deviation from his norm. In fact, I'd say its only worse than normal.

Check this out:

Men in the presence of women are like children in a toy store. We have our hearts set on that special one, but we are still dazzled by all the glittery objects around us - and we want to look here, there, and everywhere.

Here that ladies? You're an object and a toy. Couldn't he at least come up with new sexist ways of describing women?

I certainly know lots of men who appreciate the female body as one of the world's most luscious visions. They feel the same way about the Grand Canyon - but they aren't going to move there.

Oh, perhaps he's found it. Instead of a toy, now we're vacation spots. But always passive things that are there waiting for the male gaze.

Many guys feel that as long as they're not outwardly being disrespectful with long ogles or stares, then it's okay to engage in some art appreciation (within reason, of course).

Ooh, art pieces. That one's there to class the piece up, I'm sure.

And a woman who tries to squelch that right with paranoid accusations might actually provoke her man to follow up one of those glances with action.

And last but not least: You cause your man to cheat on you.

I don't know why I'm such a glutton for punishment when it comes to these things.

Pat Robertson Endorses Rudy Giuliani

*double take* Whaaa?!

That's right. Feminist hater and all-around lunatic Pat Robertson is endorsing Rudy Giuliani for president.

"It is my pleasure to announce my support for America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans," Robertson said in a statement issued by the Giuliani campaign.

I think it's safe to say that Hell has officially frozen over, even though Giuliani is wishy-washy at best when it comes to abortion rights.

This story was just on Hardball with Chris Matthews, and conservative pundit Joe Scarborough claimed that this is a winning endorsement for Giuliani, as it will bring social conservaties over to Rudy's side. While Pat Robertson's blessing might make a "values voter" think about supporting Giuliani, I think fiscal conservatives who otherwise support reproductive choice, gay rights, and religious freedom will think twice before supporting a candidate who accepts Robertson's endorsement.

What might be more surprisng than Robertson backing Giuliani is Giuliani accepting it. Giuliani is running on the fact that he was mayor on September 11, 2001. However, every feminist remembers when Jerry Falwell, on Robertson's show, said this just a couple days after the attacks:

"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' "

And Robertson agrees. How can Rudy Giuliani accept the endorsement of a man who is so flippant about the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil? I suppose this would only be a legitimate question if Giuliani didn't insert "9/11" into every sentence while campaigning. Even so, I think the right thing for him to do politically is to tell Robertson thanks but no thanks.

Abstinence-Only Education Still Doesn't Work

It's like no-duh mania this week.

Another report shows that abstinence-only education doesn't work.

"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.

We know! So why the hell is Congress increasing funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education by $28 million? $141 million dollars to pay for something that doesn't work! I think of somewhere that money would be much better spent. I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with SCHIP.

Another "No-duh" headline for today

Sexist humor promotes sexism! Who'dah thunk?

Gasp and clutch your pearls, now!

Oh my goodness, doctors don't think Nicaragua's no-abortion policy is a good thing for women's health? Well golly gee, let's rustle up a chorus of "no-duh" for those of us that realize that putting a (dead or dying) fetus above a woman on the importance scale has never been very good for women's health.

Nicaragua's new El Salvador-esque policy of not allowing any abortions at all, even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, has, surprisingly I know, caused an increase in the amount of maternal deaths in the country. Olga Reyes was a law student who, shortly after getting married, became a victim of this policy.

Law student Reyes was one of the three confirmed fatalities. She knew something was horribly wrong, and went with her husband to their small town's medical center. They were sent to Bertha Calderon maternity hospital, more than an hour away in Managua. There, Perez said, Reyes was given a cursory exam, sent home and told to return the next day.

By that time, the bleeding and cramping were worse. Perez said he rushed her to a hospital in nearby Leon, but after she had an ultrasound that confirmed her condition, they left her bent over and in agony for hours in a waiting room. When a doctor at a shift change saw her condition, she was rushed into surgery. She suffered three heart attacks and an exploratory surgery.

Valladares said doctors should have acted quicker.

"They knew she had a limited amount of time before she bled out. The whole world knows that with an ectopic pregnancy," Valladares said. "They didn't treat her, out of fear."

Emphasis mine, because it just shows exactly why legislation like this, and legislation that's akin to it *coughPartialBirthAbortionBanscough* works to kill women who otherwise would have been helped. Doctors don't want to take the legal risk to help these women.

Some doctors privately admit to carrying out what they believe are illegal procedures, while others say they won't jeopardize their careers.

"Many are thinking that instead of taking the risk, it is better to let a woman die," said Dr. Leonel Arguello, president of the Nicaraguan Society of General Medicine.

Boom. Right there. That is exactly why blanket bans on medical procedures are so dangerous. They create a aura of fear and unknowing about whether or not the procedure the doctor is doing, or would have to do, is entirely legal. No doctor wants to jeopardize their career and degree, and often the hesitation that causes is a factor in the deaths of women in emergency situations that need immediate action, much like Olga Reyes' situation. She would still be alive right now if it weren't for that ban.

However, she was left to die so that a doomed embryo could live a little longer to appease others.

The Audacity of Being a Woman

Much of Friday's episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews was about Hillary Clinton supposedly playing the gender card on her campaign. Chris cited a speech that Senator Clinton made at her alma mater, Wellesley, where she said this:

In so many ways, this all women's college prepared me to compete in the all boys club of presidential politics.

According to Chris Matthews, that's playing a "victimzed woman." Really? But wasn't what Senator Clinton said accurate? Hasn't presidential politics been an all boys club? I mean, we haven't had a woman president in *checks watch* ever!

Only Woman Umpire in Pro Baseball Released

Ria Cortesio, the only woman umpire in professional baseball, was released by the minor leagues. "Released" is a nicer word for "kicked out" in the baseball world. Why was she released? I don't know.

Cortesio started this season as the top-ranked umpire in all of Double-A [second highest level of the minor leagues]. If there had been an opening in Triple-A [highest level of the minor leagues], it would've been hers.

There were no vacancies and when the new ratings by minor league supervisors came out in midseason, her ranking substantially dropped. So, too, did her chance of getting a promotion and possibly making it to the majors someday.

A move up would have greatly changed her status — umpires in Triple-A are under the auspices of major league supervisors.

Hmmmm . . . . I'm not going to say whether or not her release was fair. What I will say is that she'd have to be worse than C.B. Bucknor to get ousted. Seriously, Google him. He's the worst Major League umpire in the game. Nobody, including me, has anything positive to say about this guy, except that he's positively inconsistent. Google the title of the article I cited why you're at it (Only Female Ump in Pro Baseball Released). No, Google, that's not what I meant.

WBC -- Westboro Bankrupt Church?

The homophobic harrassers of the Westboro Baptist Church were just ordered to pay $11 million in damages to a father, Albert Snyder, whose son was killed in Iraq. The Westboro Baptist Church protests at funerals of our fallen soldiers because they believe that our men and women are dying in Iraq due to our "tolerance of homosexuality." The United States tolerates homosexuality? That's news to me! The Westboro Baptist Church demonstrated at the funeral of Synder's son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder. The thing is, while the Westboro Baptist Church is rich in hate, they're not so rich in dough.

The assets of the church and the defendants are less than a million dollars, mainly in homes, cars and retirement accounts, defense attorney Jonathan Katz said. The church has about 75 members and is funded by tithing.

The Phelps, the family that founded Westboro Baptist Church, believe their protests are covered by the First Amendment and that reversing the judgment will take "about five minutes." Albert Snyder has a more accurate interpretation of the First Amendment.

[M]y son did not fight for hate speech. And that's basically what it is. Everybody's under the impression that the First Amendment gives them the right to do anything, say anything anywhere, anytime. And along with the First Amendment also comes responsibility.

Take Action Friday

Haven't had one of these in a while!

Enough is enough! Sign the petition to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

Demand accountability for Blackwater mercinaries who murder civilians in Iraq.

Send UN peacekeeping forces to Chad and the Central African Republic.

Tell coporate sponsors to the 2008 Olympics in China to put pressure on China to divest from Sudan.

Urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote "no" on Mukasey and "no" on waterboarding.

Preference for Boys Can Leave Men Screwed in the Future

Not screwed in the literal sense. Screwed in the complete opposite of literal sense.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) released a study about the population imbalance of boys and girls in Vietnam. Like in other Asian countries such as China and India, girls are much less valued than boys. Feminists know that discrimination against females begins before birth -- when families find out that they're going to have a girl, abortion frequently follows. The situation in Vietnam has gotten to the point where only 100 girls are born to every 110 boys. That hardly seems like much of a disparity at all. However . . . .

It estimated Asia was short 163 million females in 2005 when compared to overall population balances of men and women elsewhere in the world.

Over time, the difference becomes huge. Furthermore, the shortage of women can result in human trafficking from other countries, a way of importing wives to make up for the disparity. The men who are too poor to buy a wife? They're screwed (again, not literally).

UNFPA suggets that Vietnam and countries with similar population problems should work to spread messages of gender equality through media and policy and to provide girls with equal access to education in order to help them overcome social barriers. Not only that, someone has to do something about these family planning manuals (see pg. 12 of the UNFPA report). One manual suggests that couples eat more salt, fish, potatoes, and meat three months before getting pregnant in order to have a boy. Yes . . . .

What the Hell, University of Maryland?

So maybe this story just pissed me off because the Feminist Student Alliance at my own university was unable to even put on a Clothesline Project because we're cursed this semester, but even so, this is still some shit.

Apparently, the University of Maryland thinks its more important to protect its athletes from the (non-legal, even) accusations of its female students who have been raped by them.

Yes, they are concerned about lawsuits, but they just got into a lawsuit by making the decision they did. They also have got a bunch of protests and unhappy students because of it as well.

And of course, with any sort of support for women who have been sexually assaulted in this culture, you've got idiot rape apologists who want to demean the survivors.

With so much controversy around this year's project, it was not a surprise that an act of vandalism took place. Someone defaced one of the banned t-shirts by writing on it: "Being inappropriate doesn't equal with rape Idiot."

"I can't believe someone would do that," said Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN) Campus Outreach Coordinator Michelle Spradling.

Apparently, someone had a guilty conscience.

The Clothesline Project takes place on campuses around the country to promote awareness about violence against women. The University of Maryland-College Park has held a Clothesline Project for the past seventeen years. This is the first year that any t-shirts have been banned. The Baltimore Sun reported the speculation of some students that the university took action this year because a shirt which named a prominent former athlete was displayed at last semester's event.

That last line pisses me of so much. So because the guy that was named was a prominent athlete, and thus probably brought the school lots of money and attention, his victim was silenced. Her freedom of speech and ability to speak out about her experiences was muffled because her rapist is a privileged athlete and thus well-liked and well-protected by the school.

Ay yi yi, this is why I don't understand why more people don't think we live in a rape culture.

The Feminist Weekly Standard

I won't take credit for that title. It's all Dan Abrams.

Conservative rag The Weekly Standard has nothing better to get outraged about than Laura Bush wearing a scarf covering her hair while touring the Middle East talking about breast cancer. Laura Bush was on FOX News Sunday where she discussed the complete non-issue with Chris Wallace.

WALLACE: Of course, Mrs. Bush, with a higher profile almost inevitably comes criticism. And some conservatives in this country are upset with you — and we have a picture up there on the screen...

BUSH: Oh, you've got to be kidding.

WALLACE: ... for putting on a scarf given to you...

BUSH: Oh, really?

WALLACE: ... by a Saudi doctor. And let me put up a blast, if you will, from The Weekly Standard. "That she would oblige her hosts by wearing a shmata," which is Yiddish for a scarf, "on her head is a tacit endorsement of Islam's subjugation of women."

BUSH: Well, I did not see it that way at all. In fact, I'd had the meeting with them totally uncovered. I mean, you saw other photographs, obviously.

WALLACE: Right.

BUSH: And they saw this as giving me a gift from their culture. And it was the scarf with the pink ribbons and the pink edging on it, the breast cancer scarf, that I put on.

You go, Laura Bush. Head coverings aren't exclusive to Islam, by the way. It's in 1 Corinthians, people! Of course, the religious texts are safe to be interpreted by anyone in our free society. Not so much in Saudi Arabia. Or is it . . . .

BUSH: [T]hese women do not see covering as some sort of subjugation of women, this group of women that I was with. That's their culture. That's their tradition. That's a religious choice of theirs.

Really? Because Amnesty International seems to think Saudi women have to dress a certain way or else they'll be thrown in jail. I think Laura Bush was reading the same polls General Wesley Clark read.

What's been keeping me from FTTR?

I know it's been a while since I last posted. But I have something now! I've been writing a research paper for my Comp 2 class, and now it is finished. So I have a little free time between projects now! And midterms week is over! Hooray!

So, since I didn't have time to blog because of this paper, I figure I'll take the time to post the content of such paper here now.

“The 'Global Gag Rule': The Exportation of American Hypocrisy And Its Effects On Women's Health in the Developing World”

Imagine that you are a young woman in Kenya. You have recently been married and have had a child. However, your child is HIV positive, just as you are. Not only did you not have the information and technology to prevent your own HIV infection, but you also lacked the resources necessary to prevent your pregnancy and the subsequent transfer of your disease to your child. Since you live in a rural area, it is hard to obtain condoms and other methods of preventing pregnancy and HIV because of the long distance to the nearest town. Other women in your community have also fallen victim to similar situations; some have numerous children because they cannot prevent themselves from becoming pregnant, and the rate of HIV infection in your community is startlingly high. Some women have died or been injured by clandestine abortions. There are clinics that try to help the women in your community, however, they lack the funding necessary to be truly effective in extinguishing such conditions. This lack of funding, and thus the wretched conditions under which you live, can partly be blamed on an American law commonly called The Global Gag Rule.

The Global Gag Rule has been in existence since the Reagan era. Basically, it was set-up as an add-on to the U.S. Hyde Amendment, which is legislation designed to make sure tax dollars don't go to the funding of abortions by excluding it from the list of services provided by Medicaid (“Public Funding. . .”). However, the Global Gag Rule was meant for more than just the U.S. Its reach spans all across the globe. In short, it denies funds to any non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that support abortion becoming legal in the country they serve, perform abortions (legal or illegal), and/or refer women to clinics that perform abortions. It is also the reason why the situation described above is still a common one in the developing world. It is legislation that is motivated not only by the desire not to fund overseas abortions, but also to stop abortion from happening at all. Support for the Global Gag Rule can be prompted by a desire to stop abortion in general, in all countries, or just as a means of protecting the health of the women who would get them in conditions that would be unsafe whether the procedure is legal or not. The problem with The Global Gag Rule is that it doesn't accomplish either of those goals; no matter how well-intentioned it may be, it is simply legislation that is ineffective, and at very high costs.

In addition to the health risks caused by The Global Gag Rule, it is very hypocritical in nature. The hypocrisy of this type of legislation is apparent in the fact that Planned Parenthood, an American institution that provides abortion counseling, abortion services, etc. gains almost a third of it's funds from the U.S. Government (Johnsen). So, essentially, the Global Gag Rule doesn't even match up with what goes on in the country of it's origin. Even the law that it was based on, the Hyde Amendment, does not deny funding to organizations that simply mention abortion as an option; the Global Gag Rule on the other hand, does.

For example, the Global Gag Rule even denies funding to organizations that oppose abortion. Hilary Fyfe is the chair of the Family Life Movement of Zambia (Loder). Her organization opposes abortion, and yet they are also denied funding by the Global Gag Rule (Loder). Her organization simply mentions that unsafe abortions are a possible consequence of unprotected sex, and due to this bit of information that she gives to young Zambian adults, her organization lost $30,000 (Loder). Her organization does not provide abortions, and in fact is against them, so a global extension of the Hyde Amendment should not apply to her group. However, the Family Life Movement of Zambia is still denied $30,000 dollars of aid that could go to the prevention of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, or even unwanted pregnancies and abortions. However, in the U.S., Planned Parenthood, an organization that talks about, funds, advocates for, and performs abortions still obtains funds from the government. Such events just show how the Global Gag Rule does not conform to the standards of its country of origin.

There is also a tremendous effect on the quality of life of the women who are dependent on the clinics that the Global Gag Rule denies funding to. Most of the NGOs that are now denied funding under the rule provided more than the services that caused them to be defunded in the first place. Many provide(d) information and resources used to prevent HIV infections. However, due to lack of funding, many have closed down, leaving people (women especially) in other countries, especially in African countries, susceptible to an increased rate of HIV infection. This increase in HIV infection is spurred by a lack of access to latex condoms, something African NGOs used to provide free of cost to the young and the poor (Loder).

This issue is a large blemish on the face of globalization as a concept. It is very harmful legislation and shows much more concern for ideology rather than actual utilitarian benefits. It also doesn't comply with American values and laws. Not only that, it's a prime candidate for becoming the poster child for those who would argue that attempts at globalization are a way for more powerful countries to force their values on others. The rule of not giving funds to NGOs that even support the legality of abortion stifles the voice of democracy and social change (even if it's not a change Americans want to see) in the countries we claim to be helping. It could be said that such legislation serves to stifle the culture and beliefs of different societies, essentially exporting the beliefs of a certain group of American officials and citizens. This legislation doesn't even really give the countries it affects a choice, either. It simply denies funds without taking their voice into account. Certainly this doesn't comply with America's image of itself: the bringer of democracy and freedom of speech to developing and supposedly oppressed countries.

The exportation of these ideologies often costs the lives of people in developing countries. Women are affected by this issue on a larger scale, however, due to the nature of illegal (or even legal) abortion in “third-world” countries, and the fact that women are infected with HIV at a higher rate (Scherrer). In one year, 70,000 women worldwide will die from an illegal abortion (“Abortion Rates. . .”). With the money that would have been given to some of the NGOs that are now underfunded, those women may have had a better chance of surviving whether what they did was right or wrong.

Officials often point out that funds would not be denied to NGOs worldwide if they would choose to comply with the policy (Loder). They mention that the amount of funds distributed to USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) has not been reduced (Loder). However, they have been allocated to groups who do not mention abortion at all. This is not conducive to reproductive and sexual counseling, as it makes no mention of the possible consequences of unprotected sex, or even failed contraception. While it is true that the Global Gag Rule contains some exceptions for rape, incest, and health, it still takes away money from organizations that even mention abortion at all. So young girls and women who are raped still don't really have any resources to turn to. And of course they didn't have any hope of being able to use contraceptives during the attack, therefore the blackballing of organizations that even mention abortion as a possibility, or even mention the consequences of the process, hurts rape victims the most. In countries where it's a commonly held belief that raping a virgin cures HIV/AIDS, this could definitely lead to more girls seeking out illegal abortion services if they are not given truthful and comprehensive counseling on their other options, or on the possibly fatal consequences of illegal abortion. They would also need better access to HIV/AIDS resources, but of course the Global Gag Rule denies funding to many organizations that would provide such material.

It may seem as though this issue relies heavily on whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong. However, that is simply not the case. The issue of the Global Gag Rule merely has to do with the safety and health of women in developing countries. It is absolutely true that whether abortion is mentioned, advocated, legal, illegal, or never talked about at all, women will seek it out as an option. So why deny funding to organizations that are simply trying to do their best to inform women of ALL of their options, even if they are not advocating for abortion as one of them? All that leads to is more organizations that provide much needed contraception and HIV/AIDS prevention shutting down, losing staff, and losing supplies and resources. Whether abortion is right or wrong, the Global Gag Rule does not help to stop women from obtaining them. It only hurts the organizations that are trying to better women's health in the developing world, and is also hypocritical in that it imposes restrictions on organizations and women in the developing world that are not present in American society. That is why it should be abolished and replaced with a policy that directs America government funds to any NGOs that are trying to help women's health care in other countries whether they mention, support, or perform abortions or not. Women's lives depend on it.

_________________________________________________________________

"Abortion rates same whether legal or not." MSNBC.com. Oct 11, 2007. 14 Oct 2007 .

Johnsen, Jennifer. "Planned Parenthood Annual Report 2005-2006." 2007. Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 27 Oct 2007 .

Loder, Asjylyn Loder. "Report: Global Gag Rule Spurring Deaths, Disease." Women's E-news. 09/25/03. 14 Oct 2007 .

"Public Funding for Abortion." 7/21/2004. ACLU. 14 Oct 2007 .

Scherrer, Paul. "UN report on AIDS paints a picture of devastation—Part 1." World Socialist Web Site. 17 July 2000. 14 Oct 2007 .

This Week in Bill Maher

Is this going to be a weekly thing, me posting about bullshit that happens on Real Time with Bill Maher? This entire segment was a disaster. I don't consider myself an uptight person. I mean, I joke about shit all the time, but it's not funny when you turn oppression into a joke. It's also a good idea to put guests on your show who know what the fuck they're talking about. Let's get to that first.

Andrew Sullivan was on Real Time on Friday night and the panel got to talking about Laura Bush's recent trips to the United Arab Emirates to meet with two breast cancer suvivors and increase awareness about breast cancer in the region. Breast cancer is very seldom checked for, diagnosed, or treated in the Arab world for several reasons. One is that Muslim women can't expose their breasts to a man who isn't her husband, and there aren't very many women doctors in Arab countries. Andrew Sullivan surely didn't think of that before he said this:

What I find amazing is that she's going there to talk about breast cancer! She's talking to women covered [from] head to toe as if breast cancer is their fundamental issue! It's like going to antebellum South and saying that the big problem with Blacks in slavery is that they have sickle cell anemia!

As you can hear in the video, throughout Sullivan's exclmations Bill Maher is trying to shut him up for half a second to explain why breast cancer is a fundamental issue, which he eventually got to do later. Women in that part of the world aren't getting diagnosed and treated for breast cancer for the same reason they're wearing burqas. Then General Wesley Clark had to chime in.

I don't find any fault in Laura Bush talking to the women in burqas. Those women over there, the majority of those women, they've done opinion polling many times, and basically those women like that society . . . . Aren't we the people who say that we oughta respect people despite their differences? Don't we believe that people have the right to choose the way live?

Because in countries where "the women in burqas" can't vote or drive cars or leave their houses without their husbands are going to tell a pollster (most likely a man) that they don't like their oppressive society.Yes, I'm going to believe that. That's basically the point Bill Maher said in response. That's nice. Good job, Bill.


Oh, I almost forgot what Bill said right after that.

We should talk to people in burqas, And luckily, we have some today because -- You're in for a treat. We have been chosen here at Real Time to host the 5th Annual Fall Fundamentalist Fashion Show, and you are gonna love this. Can we have our first model, please?

Then Bill went on to describe the outfits of several women wearing the same black burqa. Lovely. Let the victims be the butt of the jokes and let the men who established and enforced that oppressive society get off free.

Dress it up for midday prayers or dress it down for midnight stonings this one says My mullah brings all the boys to the yard . . . It's first class clothing for second-class citizens . . . .

Tee-fucking-hee.

Gay Men Get Paid Less Than Straight Men

A new study shows that men in same-sex cohabitating couples get paid 23% less than married men. Well, that's not fair. What else isn't fair is how the researchers completely neglect the gender wage gap.

Lesbians are not discriminated against when compared with heterosexual women, the US study found. The report's authors conclude that while negative attitudes toward lesbians could affect them, lesbians may benefit from the perception that they are more career-focused and less likely to leave the labour market to raise children than heterosexual women.

Not so! First of all, women in general, gay or straight, already earn 23% less than White men, and the wage gap increases for most women of color. Furthermore, unmarried women make about 56% of what married men make. And lesbians can't get married in this country, so they make up a part of the unmarried female population. So while it doesn't look like sexual orientation accounts for wage discrimination against women, women in general are still getting a raw deal, and gay men aren't getting any more discriminated against than all women.

Click!

There are these websites that raise money for different causes every time you visit their websites. My friend just sent me one for breast cancer. You just click on the big pink icon, and a sponser donates a free mammogram. Pretty cool, huh? Put it in your favorites so you can click every day. There are other causes you can help on the same site. Happy clicking!