desertvixen: (Initial D)

 Apologies to those who already read it on FB, but I felt like I should share here as well:

Today is Women's Equality Day, celebrating the fact that women were finally granted the dignity of full participation in our society. Yes, that right was granted by men... after women marched, protested, organized, went to prison, suffered force-feeding when they went on hunger strikes, and generally shamed enough men with power into doing what was right. Men may have held the pen that gave women the right to vote, but only after the actions of women put that paper there for them to write on in the first place.

Now, let's all remember to celebrate this on November 6th as well - get out and vote. 

desertvixen: (Initial D)
 Guess what I did during breakfast?  Listened to Sarah Palin's speech in which she resigns because she doesn't want to be a lame-duck governor.

 I think we can pretty safely assume she's not running for a higher office, because any potential opponent would be able to kill her with that.

 I can't say I'm going to miss her. 

 I think the subject has been pretty well covered everywhere else.



Oct. 3rd, 2008 05:45 am
desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)
Yes, I got up at 0345 so I could watch the VP debate live.

Neither one really screwed up or scored, IMO.

Not as entertaining as a lot of people were probably hoping for, and probably not much of a game changer.

The people who like Palin are still going to like Palin. The people who don't like her are still going to not like her.

The reservations I have about that ticket can't be fixed by a good debate performance, but I'm also not one of the legions of "undecided".

desertvixen: (Default)
From [ profile] rockahulababy:

So Palin can't name any Supreme Court decisions besides Roe v. Wade. The rules: post information about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historical, on your LJ. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN LJ to spread the fun!

Here is mine:

Miranda v. Arizona

This is the Supreme Court decision that mandated police officers to read someone being placed in police custody/held for questioning/arrested their rights before questioning them. The Fifth Ammendment of the Constitution protects us from forced self-incrimination.

*** *** ***

Here's mine:

Gideon vs. Wainwright

In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys. Clarence Earl Gideon appealed his conviction for robbery after doing research in the prison library, and sent a handwritten appeal.

And it has the book, Gideon's Trumpet.

Because justice should not be limited to what you can pay for.

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)
So, I was getting all calm about the political stuff and plotting what I was going to write.

Then I saw the newest go-round of "deny Democratic politicians Communion because they vote pro-choice" (directed at Biden and Pelosi) and I about lost it.


And in my opinion, "voter's guides" assembled by any group, conservative or liberal, should also NOT BE IN CHURCH.

Especially when it comes to choice.  Or, more narrowly, the abortion question.

Would I, Danielle, ever have an abortion?  Probably not.  I don't want to say "never" because I don't know what all life has in store for me, and I might face a situation where I feel that termination of a pregnancy is the best option.

But it's not my place to tell other women what to do with their bodies.  It's not my place to make that decision for other women.  Women need to have the right to make that decision for themselves - with the input of their doctor and male partner where appropriate. 

It is not my place to judge a woman for deciding to have an abortion, or deciding on what ground it's okay to have an abortion.  That starts us down a slippery slope that I have no intention of sliding down.

So I remain pro-choice.

There are more issues at play than just abortion.  The Catholic Church is also anti-death penalty, which is a stance I don't see many of these "pro-life" people taking. 

I acknowledge that there truly are people who are pro-life and not just anti-choice.  I acknowledge that there are people who do more than simply pay lip service to the sanctity of the unborn life, and then ignore it once it's here on Earth and needs support from someone besides the mother. 

I will do more than acknowledge them.  I commend them for their service, for putting their belief into action.

But I still think women should have the right to choose.  Pregnancy and childbirth (even if you are going the adoption route) are lifechanging events.  Despite what some people would like to think, they can still kill you.  They can cause lifelong health problems.

When I look at the Republican ticket, I don't see support for social justice.  I definitely don't see support for choice.  I see a mentality that doesn't support what I believe in.  I see a party that claims to be all about "family values".  I don't know about everyone else, but hatred is not one of my family values.  And hatred is what I see.  Hatred for those who want the right to marry their same-sex partner (just like us straights), hatred for those who are different, hatred for those women who don't want to be controlled. 

I believe in choice.
I believe in same-sex marriage.
I believe in not discriminating against the LGBT people in our society. 
I believe in the separation of church and state.

 And I believe that four more years of Republican rule would be a very bad thing.

 That is why I will be casting my vote for Barack Obama on November 4.  Not for the sake of party unity, but because I believe he is a better choice than John McCain.

 Excuse me, I have to go donate to Obama/Biden '08, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL. 

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

I was hoping there would be a link to the interview transcript, but no luck.

So, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild is now supporting McCain/Palin.

I'm scared. 

The part that really drove me: where she said we shouldn't be worrying about abortion.  It's constitutionally protected.

Um, actually NOT.  A woman's right to choose is protected by this little case known as Roe v. Wade (with some follow-on cases), which interprets the privacy rights in the Constitution to cover a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body.  A case that could be overturned.

Not that it would really matter to HER anyway.  I don't know her exact age (and Google is not helping), but if I had to guess I would say she is probably past worrying about periods.  Even if I'm wrong on that case, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild is going to have options the rest of us do not.

Nothing says elitist like telling us what not to worry our pretty little heads about, lady.

desertvixen: (amusing)

This one made me laugh because it was quite true.  Not posting the whole thing, just the bit that made me laugh.

WASHINGTON - Is it just me, or is this the most bizarre presidential
campaign in modern American history?

Eighteen months ago, John McCain was the front-runner for the Republican
nomination. Fourteen months ago he was toast. Seven months later he was
the presumptive nominee.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Rodham Clinton was the front-runner
before being deposed in Iowa and resurrected in New Hampshire, only to
lose a marathon by a nose. A guy no one ever heard of five years ago is
now the Democratic nominee for president, and a woman very few members
of the Republican establishment have met is McCain's running mate. And
that's leaving out all the soap opera twists, turns and rumors of the
past 48 hours.

Then, to cap it off,  a hurricane hits Louisiana again, almost
precisely on the third anniversary of Katrina, the event that marked the
beginning of the Bush administration's downward political spiral.

Let's face it: If this were a political novel, we all would have put it
down after the third chapter for being too far-fetched.

The jury is, and will remain, out on McCain's selection of Alaska Gov.
Sarah Palin to be his running mate. It's either brilliant or insane.
There isn't much room in between. A narrative storyline is going to
develop in the media. It will be either that she is the fascinating,
offbeat, not-off-the-rack maverick female governor from a very curious
place that reinforces McCain's change-and-reform message and resonates
with suburban mothers with children at home; or that her selection was a
half-baked, cynical move by McCain that, while "outside the box,"
probably should have been left in the box and never opened.

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

The link below is to her column for the back of Newsweek

Hypocrisy is only bad when it is improperly used.
-George Bernard Shaw

I never thought I would live long enough to see the day when the
Republican presidential candidate would cite membership in the PTA as
evidence of executive experience, when the far right would laud the
full-time working mothers of newborns, when social conservatives would
stare down teenage pregnancy and replace their pursed-lip accusations of
promiscuity with hosannas about choosing life.

The Republican Party has undergone a surprising metamorphosis since
Sarah Palin was chosen as its vice presidential candidate
. In Palin I
recognize a fellow traveler, a woman whose life would have been
impossible just a few decades ago. If she had been born 30 years
earlier, the PTA would likely have been her last stop, not her first.
Her political ascendancy is a direct result of the women's movement,
which has changed the world utterly for women of all persuasions. It is
therefore notable that Palin has found her home in a party, and in a
wing of that party, that for many years has reviled, repelled and sought
to roll back the very changes that led her to the Alaska Statehouse.


But expediency is an astonishing thing, and conservative Republicans
have suddenly embraced the assertion that women can do it all, even
those conservative Republicans who have made careers out of trashing
that notion. James Dobson of Focus on the Family once had staffers on
his hot line saying, "Dr. Dobson recommends that mothers of young
children stay at home as much as possible." He now applauds a woman who
was back at work three days after her son, who has Down syndrome, was

Even to state that simple fact resulted in outrage among those at the
convention, who screamed double standard. But the double standard was
mainly theirs. The governor was aggressively marketed in terms of her
maternity, yet questions about how she managed to mother five and lead
the state were dismissed as sexist.

This as well.  They're playing this issue well.

The governor's two years leading
Alaska, which in terms of citizens served is the equivalent of being
mayor of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., was said to be the linchpin of her
appointment, but questions about her breadth of experience were
dismissed as sexist. Her surrogates wanted the press to write about
mooseburgers and ignore how the governor had once pursued the kind of
earmarked federal funds she now insists are anathema to her.
Conservatives have probably used the word "sexist" more in the past week
than they have in the past 50 years.

 This as well.

This would all have been entertaining if it were not such rank
hypocrisy. These are people who have inveighed against affirmative
action, a version of which undoubtedly played a part in this selection.
These are people who inveighed against personal attacks on their new
nominee when the wingnuts of their own party elevated such attacks to a
fine art by accusing Hillary Rodham Clinton of fictitious misdeeds
ranging from treason to murder. To try to suggest Sarah Palin might
garner the Hillary Clinton vote, that one woman is just the same as
another, that biology trumps ideology, is the ultimate evidence of true
sexism, and I hope Senator Clinton will travel the country and say so.

Amid the drumbeat of female Amazonian competence occasioned by the Palin
nomination ran one deeply discordant assumption, the assumption that
women are strong and smart and sure and yet neither sentient nor moral
enough to decide what to do if they are pregnant under difficult

The governor has talked about the choice she and her
pregnant teenage daughter have made, but would deny other women the right to make their own choices.

This is my biggest problem, right here.  I know there are other issues, but for me this is the important one.  It's great that they made the choice that is right for them, for their beliefs, for their situation.

But Sarah Palin is not me.  I would not want my daughter to decide to marry someone at 17, whether she was pregnant or not.  I would want my daughter to be able to make the choice that is right for her.  Abortion might be that choice.

She talks about fighting the old boys'
network and corrupt politicians, but would turn over the private
reproductive decisions of American women to both. This is not choosing
life. It is choosing unwarranted intrusion into the family lives of

This is an interesting way of making the argument.  I like it. 

Which, ironically, is exactly what the Republicans accused the
press of doing in the case of Governor Palin.

When Democrat James Carville said he found the choice of Palin
perplexing on the merits, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said
she found that "offensive to American women." I found her offense
offensive to American women, since at its core was the notion that
Governor Palin should not and could not be judged by the same standards
as her male counterparts. In fact, all the cries of sexism suggested
that, yet again, the Republicans had underestimated the ability of women
to lead; when the governor finally took center stage, it was clear that
she needed no protections or excuses. If she is as sharp and
self-assured as her convention speech, the first thing she will do, in
the parlance of the sport she played under the nickname "Sarah
Barracuda," is to slam-dunk the notion that she can't take an elbow. She
certainly knows how to give one.

John McCain has been no advocate for women; when asked during the
primaries, on the subject of Senator Clinton, "How do we beat the
bitch?" he responded, "Excellent question." (Note to the GOP: that IS
sexist.) He has been either hostile or clueless on issues like
contraceptive funding, workplace protections and aid to poor mothers.
And his running mate will likely walk in lock step with him on all those
things. But she could certainly help move the inevitable tide of women's
rights, the tide that has floated her own boat, by demanding that she be
honored with the same tough scrutiny the guys in this race get. Which
was, in case these improbable born-again friends of feminism missed it,
the entire point of the exercise in the first place.

*** *** ***

I know choice is not the only issue, but for me it is a major one.  A candidate who is not pro-choice would have to have A LOT to make up for that flaw (in my eyes).  Choice is important for me, for my daughter.

 Also, it's really great that Sarah Palin had a job where she could mesh work and family.  I mean that, absolutely, without sarcasm.  I think it is wonderful that she can manage to fit her kids in her schedule, that she has a support network she can depend on, that she understands that family is important.  So this is what I'd like to know:

 What would Sarah Palin do to ensure that all mothers, not just mothers able to tailor their own job, are able to mesh the commitments of work and family without making one suffer unduly?

 (Since Sarah Palin is unlikely to drop by here, please feel free to contribute your own suggestions.)



desertvixen: (evil kitty)

 Yes, Fundies Say The Darndest Things (FSTDT) is on my daily reading roll.

 There were several goodies today:

It's a preclude to the one world religion. When the pope (Catholic) and the Muslims create a permanent dialog (meaning they are going to try to relate to each other's religion, or basically say they tolerate each other), that is two religions merging into one.

No, it means DISCUSSION. 


Given the choice between a man who believes in Creationism and a man who believes in socialism, I'll always side with the former. Socialism is a demonstrably false religion aimed at enslaving mankind. Socialism is the opiate of the masses.

Please to not be semi-plagiarizing Marx and turning the idea inside out.



desertvixen: (penelope wtf?)
Holy f*ck.

This site is positively overflowing with the Crazy. The scary Crazy.

Let's take the short tour...


DNA, the "feminist silver bullet". Complete with the accusation that the majority of rape allegations are false, and a cause of the destruction of our justice system. Why would they do it? For the victim compensation.


Because, of course, you can't have a good crazy fundy site that DOESN'T bash the Catholics.

From the site: In addition to these questions, we should also add the following two hidden secret facts:

1. There were 100 MILLION fewer Protestants after WWII than before, but a few million MORE Catholics.
2. It was the RCC who banned religious freedom in 1774 who spurred on the American Revolution two years later, in 1776.

More from the site: "What we must always keep in mind is that the REAL CONTROLLERS operate“BEHIND THE SCENES”. I call these “real controllers” the Vatican-Papacy-Jesuits-Knights of Malta cabal. The leaders of this “cabal”simply LOVE to put “TOKEN Jews” in prominent, and highly visible, “mid and upper-level management” positions (e.g., the supposed “founders
of Communism”, the head of the Federal Reserve, top bank managers, Soviet Gulag camp commandants, “neo-conservatives”, etc.). Thus “the Jews” get BLAMED for the “conspiracy” while the Vatican/Papacy’s top players (high-level Roman Catholic prelates, Jesuits, Jesuit “temporal
coadjutors”, top members of Opus Dei, the Knights of Malta, and high-level Knights of Columbus) stay HIDDEN, as much as possible, “BEHIND THE SCENES”, allowing OTHERS to take the blame for the
Vatican-Papacy-Jesuits-Knights of Malta cabal’s own sinister and nefarious activities!


Accusation that the Holocaust is fake. Despite, you know, all that proof.


Petition for good Christian women to give up the vote. Oh yes, and accusation that giving women the vote caused all that bad governmental growth. The nation must be protected from half of its population having an actual voice.


AIDS. "Mostly carried by blacks". Additional focus on AIDS being the fault of the Jews because of the fact that there are "112 hereditary diseases only carried by Jews".

*** *** ***

There are really no words to describe the pathetic factor of these people and their conspiracy theories.

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)

So, hoping this pretty naked statement will convince people that Huckabee is not Mr Nice and Friendly.

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

This attitude scares me. I really can't say any more than that.

Actually, I can.

Newsflash: We can't all agree on what God's standards are. Not even all of the Christians can agree on God's standards, speaking as a Catholic.

Further Newsflash: Not everyone living in America is a Christian.

desertvixen: (schroedingers cat)
90% John Edwards
89% Barack Obama
88% Hillary Clinton
88% Chris Dodd
80% Joe Biden
77% Bill Richardson
75% Mike Gravel
74% Dennis Kucinich
51% Rudy Giuliani
38% John McCain
33% Tom Tancredo
30% Mitt Romney
29% Mike Huckabee
20% Fred Thompson
13% Ron Paul

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

Grabbed from the fabulous [ profile] tepintzin.

Not too too surprised. Although the gun control question could have given you a little more room to decide your stance.

I'd rather support Obama over Edwards, partly due to the Edwards campaign's action on the bloggers controversy - it seemed a little spineless, but more than that, it seemed like no one in the campaign read any of their writing and saw the need to plan a response.

Hillary - as much as I want to see them introduce Madam President, as much as I want my daughter to see a woman president, I am not sure she's the right candidate.

I have a longer post on that, but I really need to pull it together.

desertvixen: (DF)

President Bush, asked about the South Dakota measure in an interview with ABC News' Elizabeth Vargas, said Tuesday he hadn't "paid attention to that, to this particular issue you're talking about" but "I am not going to prejudge how the Supreme Court is going to judge a particular issue."
However, he said, "My position has always been three exceptions: rape, incests and the life of the mother." Asked if he would include the broader category of health of the mother, Bush said: "No. I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office."

I know some of the discussion about the bills in South Dakota and Mississippi have included women wondering about how the distinction between a woman's life and a woman's health. I guess now we know (I hadn't seen this particular quote previously) what the President thinks.

As a woman, I'm scared, very scared. Considering that GWB thought they should keep Terry Schiavo alive as well, I guess anything up to just short of a woman hemorraging to death in the middle of delivering a baby won't count as endangering the woman's life.

So would he support forcing a woman to continue a doomed pregnancy? (Anacephaly comes to mind.) Forcing a woman to carry a child that has no chance of life - which by the way, you're now financially responsible for. Personally, I think it would either make me crazy or drive me to doing something harmful to myself.

Call me selfish, but I'm one of those people who doesn't want to live if I'm not *alive*. The quality of life is a big factor, and I think some people are starting to blur that one out.

I'm pro-choice, because it affords women the right, the basic right, to make decisions about their lives. Our reproductive life impacts on every single area of our lives, and we should be able to control it.

I think we should have access to abortion, if needed, without having to jump through flaming hoops. I think we should have access to birth control, at an affordable cost, and access to a method that works for us. I think we should be able to walk into any pharmacy and have our prescriptions filled, without worrying about if the pharmacist is "okay" with it. (BTW, if they're so concerned about our sex lives, stop selling Viagra while you're at it.) And I think we should have the right to these choices without being hounded and harrassed and disrespected.

desertvixen: (feminine intuition)

Judge eases up on woman in taped rape case
Woman initially to be required to watch video of her alleged attack

Read more... )



desertvixen: (Default)

October 2017

12345 67


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 22nd, 2017 08:16 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios