Yeah, Rush, we are sluts. Now give us our birth control.

The Rush Limbaugh slut-shaming incident reminded me of the Stephen Colbert “It Gets Better” video:

Cretins like Rush Limbaugh throw out those words because they’re the worst things that they can think of to call someone. Rush clearly, if you read the transcript, has no fucking clue how birth control even works:

She gives the numbers: $3,000 worth of birth control pills worth of sex. … So the woman comes forth with this, frankly hilarious claim that she’s having so much sex (and her buddies with her) that she can’t afford it. And not one person says, “Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?

If you’re a friend of Rush Limbaugh, please call him and explain that women don’t pop a birth control pill when they want to have sex. It’s not like the Viagra that we know he takes (and that is, oddly enough, covered under a fair amount of insurance plans); it’s the same 28 pills every month, regardless of how much sex you’re having.

To get back to my point, though–Rush really doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. He’s flinging shit and seeing what sticks. Anybody who takes him seriously doesn’t deserve the breath it would require to argue. We should do what Stephen’s friend did–turn around and tell Rush, “Yes, Rush, we’re sluts who love to have sex. And if you want to continue having sex with us, give us our damn birth control.” He’ll eventually have to slink away. Bullies always do.

About these ads

We will be victorious.

Do you hear that? Are you listening? That’s the sound of the people, you crooked Wall Street fat-cats, you corrupt politicians, you cloak-and-dagger billionaires pouring out cash to control the direction of our country.  You forgot one thing:  America is a country of the people.  It may not seem like much now, but it will be. A Wall Street occupation that the press, which you own, is trying to quiet.  Protests gathering momentum by the day.  Millions of “little people” standing up saying that we are tired of being controlled. We are tired of being degraded.  We are tired of being forced to live like second-class citizens.  We are tired of having our voices fall on deaf ears.

We are coming. We are rising up. We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore.


Banned Books Week: What subversives are you reading?

Banned Books Week: What subversives are you reading?.


What does the first amendment mean?

Today I saw a post from the Facebook of the It Gets Better/Trevor Project about a public school teacher who is facing potential consequences over some anti-gay comments on Facebook.  I feel that’s a totally reasonable action, considering that the comments are public if the school administration was able to find out about them, and that they could be as potentially harmful for students as if he had said he doesn’t think black people should get married, or doesn’t believe in interracial marriages, or Jewish marriages.  I was therefore shocked to see how many people were saying that this was violating his first amendment rights, that even though they disagree with his position, OBVIOUSLY, he had the right to say it on his Facebook without any repercussions.  And that discriminating against him for choosing to publicly voice his beliefs is just the same! as discriminating against people for being gay, non-Caucasians, or what have you!

Seriously, I’m almost too irritated to write this blog post.  What the hell? These are all people who support the Trevor Project, so I’m guessing they consider themselves “enlightened”–it just goes to show you that even people you agree with can be ignorant of basic things like the Bill of Rights.

This crops up anytime someone loses their job, or their sponsors, or faces some kind of employment-related consequence due to exercising their ability to speak a bit too freely for the tastes of the people who give them money.  People say, they have the right to do whatever they want in their private lives! It’s a violation of free speech! Blergedy-blerg-blerg.

It’s simply not true.

  • The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.  That’s it.  It doesn’t promise you that you can go around running your mouth in public and not get fired from your job from it. It really doesn’t. It says that Congress can’t make it illegal for you to have an unpopular opinion, to voice any kind of opinion, to have an opinion counter to what the government may think you should have. You can’t get hauled off to jail (unless you break slander or libel laws, but that’s another story).
  • If your job finds out about what you did, it’s no longer private. If you want your right to privacy, you need to protect your right to privacy by keeping things private. Social media is not private unless you lock down your page and don’t allow access to people that you work with (coworkers, students, teachers, clients and customers, management, the list goes on).  When you let in the public, it becomes a public space.  If you keep your profile private and share things with trusted people in your private life only, then your boss will never, ever know whether or not you violated policies, because guess what? It’s PRIVATE.  Now, it would be a different story if your boss hacked into your Facebook or your e-mail or your protected Twitter when you had it set to private and that’s the only way anybody you work with could see it; that is a violation of someone’s privacy.
  • Discriminating against someone because of what they are is not the same thing as someone facing consequences for something that they do.  Almost every business or place of employment has Ye Olde Employee Handbook that details the actions that you are not allowed to perform in order to keep your employment in good standing.  The business gets to decide that as a condition of giving you money.  They’re not allowed to say, “You can’t work here because you’re gay,” and they’re not even allowed to say, “You can’t work here because you disagree with gay marriage,” but they are definitely allowed to say, “you can’t work here because you publicly expressed some opinions that we feel are a negative representation of us as an entity.”
  • Not allowing businesses or employers to create policies that protect them from harm is just as bad as not allowing individuals to speak their mind.  Imagine a world where you, as a boss, couldn’t do anything if one of your employees was, say, telling all of your customers his philosophies being in favor of white supremacy.  Even if he wasn’t doing it at work–maybe he was out in the world talking to your customers, and because of it, customers were complaining to you and telling you that, sorry, as long as he’s employed there and is going to continue to spew hate speech, they can’t continue to patronize your business.  So you can’t create a policy that protects your business from your employees’ “free speech,” and you go out of business.  Is that fair? After all, as a boss, you aren’t asking for people not to have these opinions, or even not to express these opinions, just not to express these opinions in a place and in a way that would harm your business.  If someone has a real problem with that policy, they don’t have to work for you. Businesses and employers should be allowed to protect themselves–if the employee’s freedom of speech impinges on the employer’s freedoms to run their business and project the image that they want of their business, then the employee has to concede to the policies that they set when they accept employment.  The employer has the right to expect certain behavior in return for a salary and the right to protect the image of the business (and thus, their livelihood).
So, a quick recap: the first amendment doesn’t guarantee you can act without consequences. You give up your right to privacy on particular issues when you choose to make your life public.  Social media is not private, unless you take pains to make it private (and even then? people can screencap your page, so make wise choices); if you’re going to post something on Facebook that you wouldn’t be comfortable saying to each of your Facebook friends’ faces, you may as well be taking out an ad in the paper, because it’s public. Your employer has as much right to protect their place of employment as you do to voice your opinions; if you choose to violate policies, that’s your choice, it’s not a right that comes without consequences. The only thing that the first amendment protects is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  ”Congress shall make no law” is still in place even if you have to suffer the consequences of your actions at your job or in the eyes of the public or your friends.

The irony of the problems of big government.

There’s one thing I agree with the Republicans about–the government has gotten too big for its britches. But I don’t agree with it for the same reasons that they think it.  Wuerker’s comic above illustrates the need for government regulation–the government should keep its citizens safe from the kind of unsavory people who would be lazy, cheap or dishonest enough to build faulty cars, to smile and shake our hands while stealing our life savings, or to create badly needed jobs in an unsafe or unfair work environment.  I use the word “should” because I feel that the people of the United States–of any country, really–collectively want to be able to have confidence that the industries we support with the money we work hard to earn are, at the very least, concerned that they won’t put us in harm’s way; history and example have proven that this concern does not uniformly exist.  Because the law primarily exists to protect and enrich our lives, because lawmakers are supposed to be elected to represent the whole of the country and not just those who have financial contributions to make, I thoroughly feel–and many others seem to feel the same way–that the law should protect us from the negligence that arises from the profit motive in the industries that we depend on to live.

The GOP would disagree with these sentiments–they clamor for smaller government, less regulation, more “opportunities” for entrepreneurs.  When George W. Bush was in office, they attempted to accomplish exactly this; yet, what kind of opportunity has it afforded us for our country?  Confidence in the markets is down–way down.  Who’s going to buy American-made cars when a superior, more highly-regulated product is available from overseas? If you check the prices on used cars, used Hondas, Toyotas, and other high-MPG, reliable cars from Japan are leading the market.  The Japanese have extremely high regulations on their vehicles; as a result, their cars are simply built better.  If you had to get rid of your car when it cannot pass an inspection, you would want to buy the best car that you could, to get as much life as possible out of it before having to buy another.  We in America have caught onto their superior product and have put our support and our dollars behind it; meanwhile, scores of people have lost their jobs because our own car industry is floundering.  Who, also, is going to invest in the financial markets right now?  Many working-class people who might have invested before–for retirement, for their children’s educations, to gain capital for a small business or a personal project–are surely now shy of turning their nest egg over to a financial industry that has all-too-recently proven that their unregulated standards of practice could very likely result in the total loss of said nest egg.  Who’s buying houses right now?  Mr. Geek and I want to own our own home, but with the markets so unstable–with the uncertainty of whether or not we would be able to sell the house if we decided to move on, or whether we would lose value in our home after putting in substantial amounts of capital–we have shelved the idea of purchasing a house for the foreseeable future.  I’m sure many people in our situation feel the same way.  What kind of “opportunity” is this for America?  We can barely feed our cats without the fear of killing them with tainted food.

Regulation creates consumer confidence, which leads to more people willing to part with their limited resources to purchase cars and homes, to invest, to start small businesses that employ people.  When the markets are uncertain, we all tighten our belts; we spend less; we employ less; we have fewer opportunities.

This isn’t the only irony of the anti-big-government crowd.  It’s not even the worst irony.  The worst part, for me, is that their left hands are handing away government cash while the right hands hold protest signs saying that we need a “free” market.  I’m talking about subsidies.  A subsidy, in case you’re not familiar, is the use of taxpayer money to bolster a private industry, sort of like a government grant for big business.  What this generally is supposed to accomplish is to help stabilize certain markets–oil, food, and such–to make sure that we can have access to the things that we need to make the country go-go-go.  Only, with the current climate in Washington, these industries are treating it like money for nothing; the oil industry, for example, driving us to the breaking point while making record profits.  Our agriculture industry is subsidized, which should be a good thing–except, look at where the subsidies go.  To corn.  To soybeans. To wheat and feed grains.  To cattle.  To large, industrial farms–only about 2% of agriculture subsidies go to farms where the farmer actually lives there.  That’s significant; farm subsidies used to help people live, not just work.  But, even more, there’s a direct connection between where the farm subsidies go and the quality of food that we eat in America.  I’ve talked about it many times; the unhealthiest food–the processed stuff–is chock full of high fructose corn syrup, corn oil, corn “solids” (whatever the hell that is), hydrogenated soybean oil, wheat flour.  These foods are making us sick; they’re nutritionally deficient and full of empty calories, far too many empty calories; high sugar levels in food contributes to more and more cases of diabetes, occurring now in frightening numbers of children.

What does this have to do with the dangers of big government?  Because the crappy food industry is subsidized by our tax dollars–which immediately puts the competition at a disadvantage, because it’s not getting free government money to help keep its prices low.  It’s not getting free government money to help expand its production and increase supply to meet demand, which would result in more affordable prices for whole ingredients, even organic ingredients.  The playing field is completely uneven in this “free” market.  It’s similar with alternative energy–even with gasoline prices being so high (so much for stabilizing that market, eh?), the oil industry is able to meet consumer demand in a way that alternative energy startups could never compete with.  Yet many of us recognize that our dependence on oil is a huge problem–if not because you’re worried about global warming, then at least because you can see that the people who control a great deal of the world’s oil are not particularly friendly toward us–and that we lack the resources to meet our own supply.  But because politicians–especially the GOP–are friendly with these industries, they get the breaks and we get the shaft.

And let’s not forget about unofficial subsidies–huge corporate tax breaks.  Most of your wealthiest corporations receive not just tax cuts, but tax refunds–to the tune of millions of dollars.  Refunds.  That’s our government giving away our tax dollars to people who already take our money when we purchase their goods and services.  These corporations are getting paid by us twice, just for existing, because someone has to make up the revenue lost when they don’t have to pay their full tax burden.  It hurts our economy because it keeps the money from flowing back and forth like it needs to; our government is too big when it has the power to wreck the economy for corporate greed–greed that doesn’t even make sense–it doesn’t even make sense! It’s stupid to shrink the economy so you can save money!  You can’t save what you’re not earning!

So yes, I do have to agree when these politicians get up in front of the microphones and huff and puff about how government interferes too much in our economy.  By deregulating, the government interferes with consumer confidence.  By handing out subsidies and tax breaks to corporations that return the favor with campaign contributions and cushy jobs, the government interferes with some of the basic tenets of the capitalist market–it creates high barriers to entry and artificially diminishes the ability to compete.  Additionally, the subsidies that should be given out–the ones that we, collectively, as a people, pay for–should be ones that enrich our lives, not ones that make us sick, harm our environment, or generally degrade the quality of our lives.  When a group of greedy fools can hijack our well-being as a nation and bring this level of destruction on the lives of the citizens whom they represent, it’s time to cut back the power of the government.  Just not the powers that they want us to cut back.


Open Letter to Dr. Marcus Bachmann

Dear “Doctor,”

I was reading today that you got glitterbombed at your office by a horde of gay “barbarians.”  (By the way–good.  I’m really glad that happened.)  Heretofore, I had no idea what the hell it is that you do for a living, because I try as hard as I can to avoid most news about your wife, and by extension, you.  I do this in order to keep my brain from totally exploding at the fact that someone such as your wife could make it as far as she has in American politics.  Today, though, I found out that you run a facility that performs reparative therapy for homosexuals who want to un-gayify themselves, and I just wanted to have a little chat about that.

Congratulations on your choice of what may be one of the few careers that is more immoral than those guys whose sole job it was to sell and repackage sub-prime mortgages.  Compared to you, the Enron guys who got paid to jack up the prices of energy in California by rolling out fake blackouts are princes among men.  Not psychology in itself, no–but a reputable psychologist wouldn’t partake in “reparative therapy.”  (I wouldn’t be surprised if the people who claim that you don’t have a real degree are right.)  No, the career I’m talking about is preying upon a minority which is constantly subjected to a barrage of psychological attacks from the intolerant religious right and offering to “fix” the problem in a way that is, in fact, much more harmful than helpful.

What do I mean by that?  Consider American gays and lesbians.  Homosexuality as a psychological “disorder” was overturned by the APA in 1973, yet gays and lesbians are still referred to, mostly by the religious right, as “abominations,” “mentally ill,” “aberrations,” and all manner of anti-homosexual slurs that are damaging to the psyche.  You’re probably thinking to yourself, “Good! They should feel that way!” but you’re a douchebag, so of course you’re thinking that.  The point being that the secular world doesn’t have truck with homosexuals, so all of the damage to the homosexual psyche is done by people of your ilk.

Some of those damaged persons seek help in their time of crisis.  Some, surely, turn to you–after all, if they can “pray the gay away,” all of their problems will go away, right?  Except, of course, that the APA has officially denounced reparative therapy because it doesn’t work.  Never mind that it would be completely unnecessary if the anti-gay crowd would keep its hatefulness to itself, and never mind that the implication that a gay person needs or should want therapy to change their sexual orientation is completely disgusting, it wouldn’t even work if it were based on an acceptable point of view.  Instead of “fixing” the gays, what ends up happening is that gay people feel even worse about themselves afterward–because you’ve made them feel that they are worthless as they are, and even if they want to get “better,” they can’t change who they are.  That’s why your little therapy fails and why it should fail and why it shouldn’t even be up for debate as to whether or not it’s legitimate (hint: it’s not)–gay people are born gay.  Deny it all you want, but you know and I know it’s the truth.  I can’t change my inherent sexuality any more than I can change my own DNA.  I’m actually more likely to be able to change my DNA.

So, to recap: you guys make gay people feel like shit, and then merrily take their money and offer them some quack therapy that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do and shouldn’t even exist in the first place because it’s an affront to all rational human beings.  Although it may not legally be fraud, it’s definitely fraud in spirit.  You, sir, are a huckster, a charlatan, a swindler, a predator.  People come to you genuinely seeking help for a problem that exists only because some hateful people created it, and you take their money and perform a bunch of woo that you know does jack shit.  Regardless of your feelings on homosexuality, taking advantage of people like that makes you a fucking asshole.

Disgusted,

me.


Not going to be able to phone this one in.

Gil Scott-Heron

Thanks to a new Twitter friend, I have some new ideas that I’m gonna blog about very soon.  Until then, I’m going to leave you with the words of Gil Scott-Heron, who passed recently, in March.  These words are still relevant, still relevant, except I think the enemy is not the white establishment, but the rich establishment.  The powers that be are holding us all down, and they don’t give a damn about any color but green.

Stay tuned.  Lyrics/poetry/truth after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,517 other followers