Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Wow. What a cunt

Be political. Be "edgy". Say outrageous things... but giving over your whole journal in the first place to the concept that Idly bitching about the president as the center of all evil on the face of the earth is somehow productive, useful, or even entertaining (to those of us who are older than 15)is just, well, not.

Scathing, yes. "I wish his mother had aborted him" coming from the mouth of someone who apparently is really into reproductive rights, no.

Reproducing photo after photo (on your photobucket account that stops working so quickly it's pointless) and the full text of Reuters and AP articles in your journal doesn't make you a journalist. You're just a plagarist.

Also, using information in your views that you got from naral.org (a pro choice web site)and presenting it as blatantly factual with no slant is just a little narrow viewed for someone who's obviously political and should understand that propaganda works both ways.
Further, using a map that talks about the availability of contraception and considers wether or not it is covered by state employee's insurance to be a major factor in its grade for availability is pretty assinine. The map in and of itself is working off of definitions that don't matter (wether a state agency offers insurance that covers birth control or not has fuck all to do with how available it is in the state as a whole), and so using it as the backbone of your argument means that your whole argument comes across as false, especially when you're making screaming, wild replies at anyone who disagrees with you.

This is just one example of where I think the anti-bush commentary is going very very wrong and those who want him out of office are coming off as hysterical and without morals, making it easier to rally bush's traditional voter base around him.

Edit: and how does being a super feminist gel with being in several differn't "no ugly" "nonugly" communities? "I'm a feminist, and belive in the sisterhood of women, but only for the cute chicks"?


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
May. 11th, 2004 07:42 am (UTC)
Cute chicks deserve more rights
wether a state agency offers insurance that covers birth control or not has fuck all to do with how available it is in the state as a whole

True, but it has to do with how available it is to the segment of the population that has trouble affording it without insurance. Also, non-subjective information at Naral is generally factual, since it's backed by modern science (with footnotes) as opposed to studies from the 70's and 80's or studies by one of the handful of anti-abortion "scientists."

Otherwise, i more or less agree with you.
May. 11th, 2004 09:10 am (UTC)
Re: Cute chicks deserve more rights
I think it was the presentation of the information. She took the charts presented on Naral to mean that "birth control is not available" in the states they gave poor grades to instead of "the obtaining of birth control is difficult for those who really need insurance to offset the cost"

The way she used it, not the info itself, and pretending that this information somehow equalled out to mean that Bush is satan.

I'm not a fan of Bush, not a supporter. But acting as if you are knowledgable about politics and then spouting the party line in everything you do without further thought (especially in the abortion/ reproductive rights arena where politicians may talk a different talk, but they all walk about the same walk) is pretty damned backward and short sighted.

I've given up on finding anything factual and unbiased on topics that are also hot button political matters. Trying to find an article or study *not* done by someone with a vested interest in the results going one way or another has just begun to feel impossible.
May. 11th, 2004 10:18 am (UTC)
Who's a bad goat?
Again, i agree with almost everything, but one thing: "especially in the abortion/ reproductive rights arena where politicians may talk a different talk, but they all walk about the same walk."

What did you mean by that? Because that isn't the case at all the way i'm reading it.
May. 11th, 2004 11:14 am (UTC)
Re: Who's a bad goat?
I mean that the implication ("If we're not careful, the white states could easily turn into black states if we vote for Bush again. This is the kind of future that all women are facing if we vote for Bush.".. it's in a post much lower on the page)that Bush is somehow the ONLY political force (or rather that republicans are the only political force) to ever pass laws making contraception difficult to obtain is a false one.

The idea that just becuase their politcal game plans are different that their policies are different is naive, from my point of view.

I know that *generally* democrats have had a more favorable view of the need for contraceptive availability, but that doesn't mean that they've done anything about their view. I find it hard to believe that since the beginning of the Bush administration he's strong armed insurance companies into discontinuing coverage for contraceptives and I doubt that under the Clinton administration that the availability map from Naral would have been wildly different.

From what she's said in her posts, I've seen a strong partisan view (which is fine) that refuses to admit that some of the bad things in this country are also the responsibility and "fault" of the democrats (which is not fine).
I don't think I've *ever* seen a strong difference in the policy making of republican and democrat elected officials, though their campaigns are typically very different.
May. 11th, 2004 11:55 am (UTC)
Yes, i'll do a Nader trading thing again, if possible
Democrats have done many things to protect a woman's reproductive rights. For example, several of Bush's judicial nominees have been successfully blocked by Democratic filibusters. Fortunately, pro-choice Supreme Court justices have managed to live through Bush's presidency (thus far) and he hasn't been able to nominate the 5th anti-choice justice.

Since Republican control of both the Legislative and Executive branches of government, several pieces of legislation have been passed that would have been vetoed under Clinton. For example, the Fetal Protection Act (or whatever it's called federally) makes it so that it's a double homicide to kill a pregnant woman on federal ground. That was passed to try to establish personhood for an embryo/fetus. Don't even get me started on "partial birth" abortion.

That availability map wouldn't be wildly different under Clinton because states have the jurisdiction there, not the Federal Govt. In the Texas, Republicans have done a lot of evil since the gained control of both Houses of the Legislature.

Democrats and Republicans do have a strong difference in policy making in the realm of reproductive choice. That's why i'm in favor of holding my nose and living with a Kerry presidency.
May. 11th, 2004 12:55 pm (UTC)
Re: Yes, i'll do a Nader trading thing again, if possible
I hate those judge-blocking filibusters. I hated 'em when the Republicans did it during Clinton's administration, I hate them now. They're a noxious tactic that should not be used by either side. They're just one of the ways that political parties are making the country less representative of its people, like gerrymandering or the riders people put on the major budget bills because they could never pass on their own.

Has anybody come up with examples of partial-birth abortions being performed for non-medical reasons? Wife did a bunch of research and every one she could come up with was either a matter of saving the mother's life, or getting rid of an essentially-already-dead baby, or both. She's used the information to cause several Christians to change their minds on the issue.

Hurrah for federalism! Yeah, yeah, I know, it allows individual states to impose laws you don't like, but it's worth remembering that it also allows individual states to impose the laws you DO like. I think Vermont is still doing gay marriages...

If you're not willing to hold your nose, you just shouldn't even think about politics, ever. Heh... there's an amusing idea. Have a booth with voter registration materials, and give out free clothespins with donkeys and elephants pyrographed into them.
May. 11th, 2004 08:40 am (UTC)
Speaking of Bush...
Here's what he said in Iowa (from NY Times):

"You've got to get out there and turn out the vote," Mr. Bush told them. "That's what we call the grass roots. I've come to fertilize the grass roots."

I just thought that was too funny...
May. 11th, 2004 08:58 am (UTC)
Cute chicks need better access to abortion because they need it more often from getting dragged off and raped because they asked for it by being cute chicks.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )


A Non-Newtonian Fluid

Latest Month

March 2010
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow