This is, of course, all under the guise of restoring her autonomy to her. This, certainly, could have nothing to do with the state essentially getting all butthurt about Polanski’s flight, and is all about restoring law and order!

Isn’t it ironic?

Also in “omg, are you living under a rock news”: Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize despite his authorizing his own troop surge in Afghanistan. It’s because, as I’ve sarcastically noted before, Bush was an asshole, but Obama has reasons for continuing Bush’s war-mongering, civil liberties disrespecting, homophobic, oppressive policies.

It’s like a no smoking sign on your cigarette break, my friends.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

Ron Paul.  Okay, three, if you’d prefer to roll with “Ron Paul rEVOLution REVOlution.”

A manarchist must have been hanging out at Passyunk and Bainbridge.

Every time a member of Campaign for Liberty parrots off the “Ron Paul Loves Freedom” standard talking points, God kills a kitten, then Rickrolls some unsuspecting n00b, and then follows up by teaching some poor sap the meaning of shock image.  You know, I could believe it if it weren’t for the hit-you-over-the-head obvious fact that “Ron Paul Loves Freedom” is officially 100% old meme.

Well, that and if I weren’t female.

When members of the Libertarian party slobber all over Ron Paul, it sends a message to women (and queers and Mexicans) that not only is our participation unnecessary, but also that our issues are not ones rooted in freedom.  Before you jump on me, I’m quite aware that there’s got to be a few participants in the Ron Paul REVOlution who are Hispanic, gay, and/or female. I’m also quite aware that every time some poor “freedom loving” 9/11 truthing stereotype prattles on and on about how Ron Paul is Love Over Love it takes every ounce of composure I have to not lean in very closely and scream “Ron Paul doesn’t give a flying fuck about my freedom.”

Yes, I get it.  He cares about issues very near and dear to your average libertarian stereotype: guns, prostitution,  weed, and keeping basement apartments legal.  While I share your love for those things, dear freedom fighters, I also happen to think that having autonomy over my own body is super cool.  I’ll also go so far as to say that you cannot be pro-life and a libertarian.

Yeah, I said it and I’ll say it again in more explicit terms: if personal freedom and choice are the crux of the libertarian argument, then you are a hypocritical fuckwad if you are a pro-life libertarian.

I fail to see the logic in trusting me with an AK-47, but not trusting me to make the decision that is best for my life and my situation.  I fail to see the logic in arguing that I should have the right to shoot an intruder – defined as “someone who is not invited into my home” – but I can’t remove an unwanted fetus from my body.  I fail to see the logic in allowing me to have access to a fully automatic gun capable of popping off multiple rounds with the touch of a trigger, a weapon which exists only to hunt (humans), but having a medical procedure that doesn’t impact you is “murdering a baby.”  Trust me, hypocritical pro-life libertarian asswipes, me having sex with you is not an option, therefore it is 100% none of your damn business.

Every time a libertarian tells me that Ron Paul is “good 95% of the time,” my head wants to fucking explode, because I’m part of that 5%.  As a woman in a heterosexual relationship, it’s unfathomable that the LP or it’s members would support a man who has shown me that he does not view me as trustworthy as a man.  When you remove the right of women to control what happens in their own bodies, you are saying that I am inferior to a man, all because of that pesky xx thing.

The fucked up shit is that, if you were to listen only to people like Catherine Seipp, you’d think that abortion was irrelevant.  Right, because there are absolutely no reasons why pro-freedom individuals should give a rat’s ass about abortion.  It’s not as if it’s another form of governmental oppression waged against a group of citizens.  If you want me to be 100% perfectly honest, this is a large reason why I have the nagging feeling that many of the female contributors on Reason are essentially affirmative action hires.  Their writing skills are nowhere near on par with the male contributors, and when speaking about feminism, it is clearly that they often haven’t pulled their heads out of their asses long enough to read a damn book or academic article about feminism. Instead, they figure that a Google search or two, and some recollections of some feminist stereotypes will be enough to write a thorough criticism.  Besides, it’s not like chicks can perpetuate misogyny, right?

In a libertarian context, freedom and liberty should be the most important aspects of any issue.  Period.  Given that I could lose my job during my pregnancy due to my inability to perform it while pregnant, I could be pregnant with a Tay-Sachs baby, I could be making too little to support myself and a baby without taking government aid, I could have taken every reasonable precaution to prevent pregnancy, or, like many a gun owner, I could just not want to be pregnant at this time, I don’t understand how abortion is not an issue of freedom.  All of these are valid reasons for an abortion (as are a million others).  Why are the same libertarians who argue that compulsory tax legislation is anti-freedom often so resistant to treating abortion like an issue of personal freedom?  Most concerning, though, is why is abortion being re-framed as a left v. independent issue?

As I said on Twitter, feminism and libertarianism are not mutually exclusive.  If you support the core argument of feminism, that women deserve equal opportunities to men, and you support one of the core arguments of libertarianism, that the government has no right to infringe upon your freedom, then they seem to work together far more often than they pull one another apart. My body and my right to determine what goes into or stays out of it are not political fodder.  Or, to put it more simply, either you love freedom, or you don’t.  If you do, that might mean having to accept things you don’t really like, that make you uncomfortable, or that gross you out.

I can accept that that a society with minimal government means garbage I don’t personally support will be legal.  Why can’t you accept it when it pertains to my life?

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

(Seriously, Ms. Mangu-Ward, your writing skills are atrocious, even for state university levels.  Now that I’ve found out you are a Yale grad, I probably won’t stop weeping for humanity.

Yes, I have many more thoughts on this subject.)

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

1. Apparently, the scene of a rape in Fairmount Park is also a dead zone for cell phones and police radios.  The Inquirer makes this info public, making the info easily accessible for both victims and perpetrators of sexual assault.
2. Livejournal turned 10, meaning that the internet itself is, indeed, old meme.
3. Here is one of the few links I’ve been able to find that supports an NHS-styled system in the US, can give reasons why, and doesn’t resort to ad hominem bullshit.  Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the commenters.
4. Watch out, H&M, you could be next! In both “stupid boycotting” news and a follow up to this post, Democrats are now boycotting all Apple products because Apple hasn’t pulled advertising from Glenn Beck’s “show.”  I guess hipsters will either have to become Republicans or rock out on their Zunes…for the irony, man!
5. A little old, but about 2 weeks ago, PA State Rep Denny O’Brien (R) pushed – along with the perpetually annoying John Walsh – for a bill to require DNA collection for every arrest.  Talk about fucking gross.
6. Luckily, the Duke Lacrosse Player Gang Rape case isn’t the only legacy Duke University will leave behind: Baby boomers are binge drinkers.  Well, that is if they have more 5 drinks in one sitting.  5 drinks, of course, defined using the strictest of definitions (8 oz. of beer, 4 oz. of wine, 1.5 oz. hard liquor), making many Long Island Iced Teas a drinking binge in and of themselves.
7. Two cops say “drugs aren’t necessarily bad, mmmkay?”  No, really, they do.
8. Earlier this week, I had two people on my Facebook friends post a link to a Whitehouse.gov page to dispel rumors about the socialized health care plan the Obama Administration is (was?) pushing for.  That might have been one of the lulziest things I’ve ever seen on Facebook.
9. Kate Winslet as Mildred Pierce makes me wish I had access to HBO.
10. It’s nowhere near enough, but shockingly, Mayor Nutter is cutting both city jobs and delaying the start of a new police cadet class.  Unfortunately, this might mean that cops will have to stop trolling the Gayborhood for “loiterers” and threatening with trespassing charges at 2:03 am.
11. Fucking ridiculous.  The Bible – and only the Bible – is a required text in Texan school districts.
12. I’d like to think that the past eight and a half years have taught Americans a thing or two about putting too much trust into the government, but apparently that only counts when it’s Bush’s horrific policies.
13. And we’ll wrap it up with another link from Reason, this time about an in-love couple abusing police resources.  It warms my heart, I tell you what!

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

…and not with my female ex-roommate’s maturity.

The irony being – of course – that this ex-roommate broke up with her first girlfriend and began initiating her relationship with that exes cousin within a few hours of their breakup.  Then, after she and the cousin – predictably – broke up, she moved onto one of the cousin’s best friends.  I’m going to assume that this was also within a few hours.

No, that’s not some serial killer shit or anything.

Really though, what should you expect from people who work things out by having a falling out, ignoring one another for several months, and then sweeping everything under the rug?  It’s funny, because after reading through about 8 gajillion old posts I’ve made (between Livejournal, Blogger, and WordPress), I’ve noticed a pattern where I have a hell of a time picking friends.  Two themes, however, keep rearing their little heads:

1. The people in question causing more drama then they’re worth
2. The people in question have an inability to work things out with one another

I don’t think there is anything commendable about allowing people to walk all over you, treat you like shit, and then working out your issues with one another via a Facebook friend request.  This is doubly true if there is constantly some big drama between everyone a mere week or two prior to “working things out.”

In a similar vein, there is nothing shitty or bitchy or lacking in self-respect about demanding – much less expecting – an apology for certain behaviors.  There’s even less that is shitty or bitchy or lacking in self-respect about telling someone who has treat you in a shitty manner to fuck right off.  I give a lot of chances for people to redeem themselves, and that’s probably what’s done me in the most over the years.  After reading through, deleting, editing, and organizing several thousand posts from my old Livejournal and blogger accounts, these are the biggest themes I keep seeing.

The craziest thing is that – with some exceptions – I don’t even necessarily think many of the people I’ve encountered are doing it maliciously.  In most cases, I think they’re just not intelligent enough to see how inherently fucked their social interactions are.  Simply put: they’re children and they lack the understanding necessary to realize why they can’t function in society.

What does sadden me, however, is the fact that a lot of this shit has been perpetuated by women I know.  By women who are “feminists.”  Really?  How feminist is it to encourage bullshit competition between your fellow sisters?  How feminist is it to giggle about the back biting, shit talking, gossipy bullshit that hurts all women? Shit, man, it’s 2009.  I thought that sisterhood was supposed to mean something in our interactions with one another.  I thought we weren’t supposed to do this shit anymore.

I’m the first to admit that I am not perfect or that I have acted in a 100% truly supportive manner, but the way some would tell it, my more recent political shift (which aren’t mutually exclusive from feminism) somehow makes me a latent misogynist.  When, fuck, I’m one of the few that has tried to make a supportive environment for those who need it.  There is nothing unreasonable, fucked up, or shitty about wanting to engage in an honest dialogue with others, which means that we won’t always agree on shit.

I know it seems to be the consensus that the only productive discussion is one in which everyone agrees with you, but there is a distinct difference between respectful disagreement and nasty little digs accusing others of having their self-respect packed away in a box.  The photo that began this post may seem like it’s dredging up “ancient history” (read: shit that everyone wants to sweep under the rug), but the reality is that it’s symbolic of so much shit from the past two years.  It is far more telling than any amount of poorly executed trolling could ever be, and the reactions to it are also far more telling than the reactions to any amount of poorly executed trolling.

And although none of us want to believe that we are in the wrong – especially when it seems that our misguided stubbornness is the one of the few things we really have left – I find it very hard to believe that it’s all my fault.  The answer is more complicated and nuanced then “Drunkenatheist is a mean cunt,” and I think that it’s important to keep that in mind.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

I know this might come across as some snarky little “gotcha” commentary, but I have a 100% legit question:

How can socialized/universal/tit-tastic/wtfever you want to call it health care simultaneously make health care accessible for everyone while not causing additional waiting times for various procedures?

It’s not a matter of me “buying into propaganda” or any dismissive thing like that.  It’s a legit question.  I don’t see how it is possible to give people “free” health care that will encourage them to get medical treatment without a large increase in people utilizing that “free” health care and choking up the health care system.  Seriously, it takes a good 2 months or so to get a gyno appointment in this country for a routine checkup; I find it very difficult to believe that the wait times would not increase significantly.

It’s a very basic supply and demand equation.  When everyone suddenly has access to health insurance, but the number of doctors don’t suddenly multiply, you’ll be stuck with a much higher demand than supply.  Which is going to lead to longer wait times and a higher chance that you won’t be able to get time-sensitive treatments.  I’m not a fancy pants economist here, but it seems pretty obvious to me.  I’m wondering if maybe I’m missing something and somebody could explain how you can get both more accessible health care while not choking up the system.

Of course, I’m not even taking into consideration the endless bullshit calls and doctors appointments that will inevitably help to choke up the system even more than it already is in low-income, urban areas.

I’m sure this will draw out a ton of idiots whose only “constructive” words on the matter are along the lines of “Y DO U H8 POOR PPL? NO H8!”  Right, because the rich often have to go to dental schools to get broken teeth fixed and can’t just get squeezed into an appointment at the real dentist or an oral surgeon.  (For the record, I had appointment #2 on Thursday and appointment #3 is scheduled for next Thursday.  My jaw is still a bit sore from all the yanking and prodding around in there.)  It sucks that we’re out a few hundred bucks that we really don’t have for me to get a root canal and another few hundred bucks for me to get a crown.  At the same time, I’m really lucky that within 3 weeks of breaking my tooth, I’ll have most of the work done.  I don’t know if I could guarantee that luck with a universal/socialized health care plan.

The biggest shame in all of this is that universal/socialized health care’s supporters are often the biggest reason I’m turned off from it.  I mean, John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, states an OPINION in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and liberals go ballistic.  (Because you’ve never held an opinion that your employer’s clientele may not like.)  A twitter friend childishly bleated that if universal health care didn’t go through, she was going to cancel her insurance plan and rely on ERs for everything.  I’m assuming she’s not planning on paying those bills, but regardless of whether or not she is, her empty threat highlights the fact that very few Democrats and liberals seem to understand how to make this plan more palatable.  It highlights the fact that many seem to care less about alleviating people’s fears and concerns and more about just getting what they want done.

It’s for the same reason that certain episodes of Intervention make my fucking head explode.  They will sometimes chase the addict down to force them to go into treatment; this, to me, points more to the family’s desire to get their own way then to make sure the person gets off drugs/alcohol and stays off.  I really hate the fact that high ranking Democrats are reminding me of attention seeking reality TV “stars.”  Isn’t it a little scary that this is the first comparison I’m making in my mind?

I would love for Democrats to actually, truly explain why this plan is good, why it will be beneficial, and why it won’t end the way I see it ending.  I have a feeling that even if getting this clear explanation was possible, Democrats would rather pull the same exact Bush era shit they were decrying since 2001.

I can’t imagine why I’d vote third party.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

-20 points for the owners/friends of owners for acting like douchebags on the Yelp boards
-20 points for phillygrrl for labeling the owners as hipsters given the Philly related links on the right sidebar of the blog

This is a stalemate of douchebaggery. I’d threaten to not go there just based on the fear of running into self-loathing hipsters who don’t understand humor while being waited on by an owner who hasn’t heard that internet = serious business (cause that’s not old meme or anything), but I also enjoy patronizing overly hipster businesses that will annoy people. And, let’s be honest, it’s not like I have money for much of any consumable crap.

Middle class families will see their taxes cut — and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.

–President Obama

O rly?

In case you haven’t been following the word on the street with regard to cigarette taxes, you might not know that the federal government decided to jack up cigarette taxes in the past…err…month? I know, I know, you’re probably thinking that it’s cool to increase cigarette taxes because smoking is an ooky addiction that is terrible and horrible and every time you light a cigarette, god kills a kitten. Or something like that. Typical rich white liberal logic. Freedom, when in respect to abortion or sucking dick, is cool, but me choosing to smoke a cigarette is awful and should be infringed upon. Because gee gosh, I chose to start smoking! (Never mind that socially conservative right-wingers constantly use the same basic arguments against both abortion and gay rights.)

What’s fucking hilarious about this argument is that Democrats, the party that overwhelmingly supports anti-smoking legislation, also claim to omg!care! about the middle and working classes, as well as the poor. But gee gosh, as pointed out by Tax Foundation’s handy little breakdown, funding S-CHIP through cigarette taxes – a tax on a vice disproportionately consumed by the poor/working/middle classes – consequently also disproportionately impacts the poor and working classes.

My favorite part about all of it is that the official party line on raising cigarette taxes is that “these taxes will force people to quit, therefore improving everyone’s general health.” But no one seems to think about the fact that clearly the government doesn’t what you to quit. If they did, a program like S-CHIP wouldn’t be funded by a per use tax. (At least that can’t be done while still maintaining to “care” about the poor. If the intended public health consequences occur, than say goodbye to S-CHIP.) Also, if the government really gave that much of a shit about you quitting smoking, you might actually see tax money being spent on smoking cessation aids instead of asinine anti-smoking garbage. You know, something that might be USEFUL.

So what I propose is that you say “fuck the government” and quit smoking. I’m contemplating turning into a Facebook movement, but then I might be thought of as a radical militia woman.

But I was totally, 100% wrong.

When French foes of capitalism want to mount an effective protest, they phone Xavier Renou.

As one of France’s top protest consultants, Mr. Renou teaches activists how to chain themselves to trees, damage genetically modified crops and withstand police interrogations. These days, his phone is ringing off the hook, as the tumult in the global financial system has led to a boom in protests.

Why the fuck didn’t I think of this shit first? I could use my (surprisingly decent) business skills to market the left-wing struggle to stupid college students who simply want something to fight against. Bonus points for being able to make bank before they realized the utter futility in sending me $67 a pop to teach them how to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and roast vegan marshmallows. (Which, for the record, can be quite tasty.)

But I think I enjoy this one much more…

“I suggest the slogan, ‘No to NATO,’ ” he recently counseled an anti-NATO protester by phone, while sitting in a Paris café. “Use black writing on an orange background. It’s more visible to the cameras.”

Holy mother of God. How stupid are these people? I mean, clearly, they’re stupid enough to pay some dude $67 a pop to teach them how to effectively go limp, chant, and write on posterboard, but srsly? You really need help with the phrase “No to NATO”? And, if that weren’t bad enough, you actually need to be told to use dark marker on a day-glo piece of posterboard? THAT MIGHT BE MORE VISIBLE? REALLY? HOT DAMN! I KNEW THAT WITHOUT PAYING HOMEBOY. MAYBE I, TOO, COULD CONSULT RICH WHITE PEOPLE WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO ON HOW TO EFFECTIVELY WRITE ON POSTERBOARD.

Still, he says, it’s hard to make a living from protest. And fighting big business requires real cash outlays.

“I want out of capitalism,” he says, adding, “We are always in a bit of precarious financial situation.”

LULZ.

Oh, fair left-wing brothers and sisters in the struggle, capitalism isn’t just buying shit you don’t need.

Maybe I will have to open up a branch of protest consulting (lol, I keep typing that as “consluting”) and create my own ‘Merikan protest consulting monopoly in the U S of A.

Who’s with me?