I Stand with Planned Parenthood

From the time I was a very, very little girl—from as far back as I can remember, actually—my mom would always joke (yet she was serious) that, if she had ten minutes to live, “I would tack the phone number for Planned Parenthood next to the phone for you girls, and then I’d eat hamburgers until I died.” From the time I was tiny, I was taught how important what Planned Parenthood does is. What do they do? They provide birth control. They prevent unwanted pregnancies and children coming into this world when their parents are not ready for them. They empower girls and women to have choices in life. They provide affordable health care. They provide counseling. And yes, they do provide abortion services but that is only 3% of what they do. It’s the other 98% that is so important. It’s the other 98% that prevents more abortions than they will ever, ever do, and more than probably any other organization or entity in the world. They are about what their name is: planned parenthood. Not accidental parenthood—planned, wanted, welcomed, rejoiced-in parenthood. That is the way children should come into this world: when they are wanted, when their parents are ready for them and can afford to take care of them.

Now along come some divisive, patriarchy-supporting, rich MEN and they are convincing everyone that Planned Parenthood is bad, Planned Parenthood is evil. Why? How are they evil? They are not “selling baby parts”, that is utter despicable propaganda, designed to stop this fine organization from helping women. Because make no mistake about it, people: as unfathomable as this may sound/seem in 2015, these men want us barefoot and pregnant. Which sounds pretty good to me right now, actually, although I’m way too old but anyway it should be up to the person if she wants to be barefoot and/or pregnant, not up to some hateful, violent people who want to shut down Planned Parenthood.

They don’t give a hoot about stopping abortion, they want to stop BIRTH CONTROL. Birth control and affordable health care, that is what Planned Parenthood is about, that is what they have been doing since before I was born, that is what I was taught as a tiny girl I should REVERE about them and always know and always keep that phone number “tacked by the phone.”

And when I got old enough to need birth control, I was so blessed to have a parent whom I could pick up the phone and turn to, and actually a college health center I could go to. But if that amazing little health center hadn’t been there, do you know where I would have gone? PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Because I’d been taught. Because I knew. Because I had it told to me again and again even as a tiny child: Planned Parenthood is there for you when you need them. Be sure to know their name. Be sure to keep their phone number tacked by the phone.

I stand with Planned Parenthood!

Clinton or Rubio: Which One is Really Yesterday?

What gets me is Rubio trying to spin Hillary as "yesterday" and same old same old, when that is purely AGEISM: it is based SOLELY on the age/generational difference between Clinton and Rubio. If you base your vote on IDEAS versus ageism, you see that it is the Republicans and Rubio who espouse the profoundly TIRED, OLD, and utterly discredited ideas of the past, namely, three words: trickle down economics. I mean, REALLY? You can't get more YESTERDAY than that, Marco.

Hillary is older than Marco but her ideas are PROGRESSIVE, whereas Rubio's and the Republican party's are REGRESSIVE. No mas trickle down! NO MAS. That is the true bridge to the PAST.

Last time I checked, elections are about IDEAS, not biological age...unless you count the EXPERIENCE factor, which is a GOOD thing and usually (but not always) goes along with age. There are good things to be said for youth and good things to be said for age, but trying to paint someone as "yesterday" and "the past" just because they are older than you is PURE, unabashed ageism, period. Ask yourselves: which IDEAS are relevant and healthy for today? Then it becomes evident why Rubio is trying to spin your attention away from where it should be focused.

Binary Blues

The following article (see link below) infuriates and profoundly dismays me. This is what's wrong with society! Why can't this kid just be himself? He's not "wearing a disguise", he just doesn't fit into society's/the DMV's binary box of what a male should look like. This is who he is and he has the right to be who he is, binary box be damned!!!!!!!!!

If he keeps having experiences like this, he may feel like he has to "choose" one way or the other (one side or another of the gender binary) instead of just being himself, and that is a crime. Why should he have to fit himself into what the DMV or anyone else says he should be? He doesn't fit neatly on one side or the other of "the line", and that is PERFECTLY FINE--the DMV doesn't have the right to say "Step onto what we define as the MALE side of the line!" This just infuriates me beyond any ability to even adequately express the degree of my infuriation.

P.S. PLUS this is a clear violation of his civil rights and I hope he takes this all the way up to the Supreme Court!

Link: Teen forced to remove his make-up for driver's license photo.

Pork Yes, Love Thy Neighbor No?

Soooo, let me see if I have this: If I'm a Christian restaurant owner in Arizona, it's okay if I serve pork (bible says no), open my restaurant on Saturday (bible says no), and serve shellfish (again, big fat NO), yet I can't, in good conscience, allow all my fellow humans equal access to my establishment because "those people" over there, who I am commanded to LOVE by the bible I claim to be bound to follow, engage in some behavior that I don't approve of and that I think God doesn't approve of (even though God clearly says I'm supposed to LOVE MY NEIGHBOR AS MYSELF) ...or I think they do, I can't really tell because right now they are just two people presenting themselves at my restaurant and asking to be let in and allowed to support my business.

So, do I have this situation evaluated correctly?

Well, I might have to open a restaurant in AZ and refuse to serve radcon fundie bigots because they are VERY offensive to everything that MY religion stands for!*

And where does it stop? Religious freedom is fundamental to our constitution. Bigotry and discrimination are NOT. Get to know the diff, fundie radcons.

( * AND everything that my COUNTRY stands for!!! You know, the constitution: yeah, THAT. That's what the laws in this country are built on, NOT on what ONE radical, hate-filled wing of ONE religion MISINTERPRETS their own bible to be saying!)

Travesty for Trayvon

I am very dismayed about the George Zimmerman verdict.  I think it was a bad one and sets a terrible legal precedent.  Zimmerman got off on a “stand your ground” defense.  His lawyers kept trying to make a case that he was defending himself against Trayvon Martin.  And one lawyer got on CNN last night and said that he thinks what “people are confused about” (I am NOT confused—I think I understand the law better than this condescending fool, but moving along…) is that they (“we”:  the so-called “confused people”) are taking into account that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, and we shouldn’t do that, because, according to this fool, the law only looks at what was going on in the moment of the struggle.  You know what I say to that?  BULLSHIT:  the last time I looked, the law looks at the WHOLE scenario.  And if we look at the WHOLE incident, start to finish, it is documented heavily that, every step of the way, George Zimmerman was pursuing Trayvon Martin and it was Trayvon Martin who felt threatened!  So IF Trayvon Martin did turn around and attack George Zimmerman at one point, then it was HE who was standing his ground, not Zimmerman!  It was Trayvon who clearly should have been protected under any “stand your ground" law!  Yet Zimmerman is not the one dead, Trayvon is, and Zimmerman walks free under some overly broad and misapplied “stand your ground” law.

Let’s look at some of the clearly documented facts that we know:

1.  Trayvon Martin is dead and George Zimmerman killed him.

2.  George Zimmerman pursued Trayvon Martin (to me, this is the key point), even after the police dispatch operator TOLD HIM “we don’t need you to do that.”  They asked, are you following him?  Zimmerman said yes.  They said, as I just wrote but bears repeating:  “we don’t need you to do that.”

3.  Trayvon Martin felt threatened.  This is DOCUMENTED in his phone call with his friend.  He said there was a creepy white guy following him.  HE had cause to “stand his ground” under Florida law, NOT Zimmerman!  How was Zimmerman threatened?  He could have turned back at ANY TIME until the actual struggle, and the actual struggle was because TRAYVON felt threatened!!!  And that is ASSUMING that Trayvon started the actual physical struggle:  we don’t know that, it could have been Zimmerman who started it.  But to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt on that one, just say Trayvon started it:  that would be legal under the “stand your ground” law!  Trayvon felt threatened and fought back.  He wound up dead.

The “stand your ground” law has been turned on its head here and misapplied.  It is an overly broad, dangerous, pro-gun law in the first place, but in this case it has been horribly perverted.  This is a travesty of justice and a sad day for my state of Florida and our country.

Message from Home

Walking through sunshine chilled blue all around
Suddenly seized seeing mountains death bound
Filled with dark clarity
Forced to hear chime
Feeling sharp happening
Water, air, crime
Decimation, desolation
Desecration so near
Toxic spill, violent pill
Infusing all dear

Scream NO
Silent future reel seems so real
In sunshine I’m present, yet dark danger feel
Facing monster naked eyes cannot see pass
Mutant air surrounds green in sick silent cast
Stealthily slaying life like knife’s slow slash
Invisible death claiming all in its path

Stand here yet there hearing clearly through trees
Request for respect from familiar north breeze
Turn like a compass needle pointing toward home
Receiving perceiving magnet’s message alone
Future cries stop it now
Don’t let clock chime
Grab hands and hold still
To hope there’s still time

Memo to Antonin Scalia: "Separate but Equal" = Unconstitutional

Antonin Scalia: "I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?"

Me: Well, I can't believe I have to inform you on this, since you are a Supreme Court Justice (!!!) and therefore should know the basics of constitutional law, but since clearly you do NOT, allow me to answer your dumb-ass, bigoted question: It became illegal to exclude homosexual couples from marriage the day the constitution became the law of this land.

Do you have any other questions I can answer for you, Antonin?

P.S. Get with it, Antonin. Just because "separate but equal" is state law in some states, doesn't make it CONSTITUTIONAL. Just look at the history of our country: The constitution will trump bigotry, every time. Even when it is euphemistically labeled "separate but equal'