I decided to google "trisarahtops" just now. I never realized how completely over-used it is. But I did make an exciting discovery. Someone put my Protect Marriage Washington entry on stumbleupon.com, and I've had almost 800 views. I know that on the interwebs that's not all that many people, but it's a hell of a lot more than my myspace readership and a lot more people than I ever thought looked at anything I write. So I feel pretty special. Also, when you google "Protect marriage washington commercial", I'm the third result. I'm pretending that these two facts mean I am a unique snowflake whose opinion is interesting and special. Thank you, readers, for stroking my very, very small ego.

Protect Marriage Washington, an anti-gay rights group organized in response to a referendum recognizing civil unions and all that they imply for gay couples, has released a commercial that I found pretty interesting. In particular, this part:

"In May of 2004, Gay marriage was legalized in Scandinavia...

What Happened..? Did you know... That year alone suicide rates doubled. The illegal drug rate increased 19 times. And to say the least the traditional picture of Marriage being One Man One Women was completely shattered. What about our country? Did you know..77% of ALL aids cases in the United States are related to homosexuality? Also, recent news reports indicate that the legalization of gay marriage will start a movement that will result in YOUR CHILDREN being taught about gay marriage as a normal form of life. Are we willing to let this happen? Whose future is really at stake?"

First off, I guess they don't know that Scandinavia isn't a country. In fact, Denmark, Sweden and Norway legalized same-sex partnerships in 1989, 1993 and 1994, respectively, but partners are still unable to marry in a church or adopt children. I can't find any evidence that anything happened in May 2004 in any Scandinavian country regarding gay marriage. So far, we have shot down two of the three points about the state of Scandinavia these days. Here's another: the research I have found indicates that suicide rates in all three countries have gone down in the last decade. So gay couples having legal partnerships (not even marriages) couldn't be the cause for a so-called increase in suicide by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, as for the fact about AIDS cases in the US, their numbers are pretty old. The statistics for 2007 indicate that AIDS cases related to homosexuality are more like 50%. So...I don't even know.

Lastly, I really don't think gay marriage will be taught in school as a normal form of life. In fact, I don't remember a whole lot about being "taught" about any form of marriage or relationship. I do know that I and some of my friends were either children of divorced parents or unmarried parents. At no point did any teacher sit all of us down and teach us about how it's perfectly fine to get divorced or have children out of wedlock. And trust me, never once did I hear an elementary school teacher even say the words "gay" or "lesbian". So it would follow that gay marriage would not be part of the public school curriculum, right?

And how can a "news report" indicate future trends? It's the news. It's not science, it's reporting things that happened and are currently happening.

I don't know if I can change anyone's mind about gay marriage. It's not really what I'm intending. I just want all of you to know when someone is spreading false information about it. In my opinion, it takes a special kind of hate to make up horrible statistics simply to deny consenting adults to marry other consenting adults, and it would be pretty pathetic if my marriage prospects hinged on that.

----------------------------------------------------
Edit:
The organization has taken the video down, but I finally found a clip from the commercial. It's from the Colbert Report and the commercial isn't shown until around the 1:30 mark.

I got this from wireandroses . It's pretty personal and depressingly...depressing.

( Here we go... )

On October 6, a bill introduced by Sen. Al Franken which would bar the U.S. from doing business with contractors that include a "rape-clause" in their employee contracts was passed. It's pretty much a no-brainer, but why would we have to have this bill in the first place?

In 2005, a 20 year-old female employee of Halliburton/KBR was allegedly drugged and gang-raped by seven of her co-workers. The legal papers include this information:
"When she awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, she found her body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured and her pectoral muscles torn‚ which would later require reconstructive surgery. Upon walking to the rest room, she passed out again."

She was treated by a US army doctor "who gave forensic evidence to company officials. She says the firm placed her under guard in a shipping container and she was released only after her father asked the US embassy to intervene." (That's right; she "was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and 'warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.'") "When the forensic evidence was handed to investigators two years later, crucial photographs and notes were missing."

Let me point out that one of her rapists actually confessed.

When she returned home to the United States, she was told that she could not file charges against either her rapists (even the one who had already confessed) nor the company. Apparently, it said so in the fine print of her contract.

Even more disturbing, this is not an isolated case. More allegations have recently come out. One woman claims she was fired after making complaints of sexual assault. Some I won't even write here because they are even more graphic (one woman remembers exactly what happened when she was raped by two co-workers).

So, when Al Franken introduced his bill and it passed, one would imagine this would be the end of my blog. However, there are a couple very important points left to talk about. Yes, the bill passed, but it passed 68-30. Thirty people in our Senate think that it's okay to have contracts with companies who contractually give immunity to rapists. Who are these thirty senators? Well, they were all Republicans. (On the Senate floor, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) called Franken's bill “a political attack directed at Halliburton.”) Because I think it's important that you all know who supports companies that legally protect rape, here are all of the senators who voted nay:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Because nothing brightens up a room like a lamp fashioned from the severed head of Spider-Man. It actually sort of makes sense, being bitten by a radioactive spider and all.

day 01 | a song
day 02 | a picture
day 03 | a book/ebook/fanfic
day 04 | a site
day 05 | a youtube clip
day 06 | a quote
day 07 | whatever tickles your fancy

Is it just me, or does he look sort of sadistic?



( And two flea market finds )

I've neglected this so badly. Let's pretend it's because I've had so many important things to do.

day 01 | a song
day 02 | a picture
day 03 | a book/ebook/fanfic
day 04 | a site
day 05 | a youtube clip
day 06 | a quote
day 07 | whatever tickles your fancy

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
--Mohandas Gandhi

day 01 | a song
day 02 | a picture
day 03 | a book/ebook/fanfic
day 04 | a site
day 05 | a youtube clip
day 06 | a quote
day 07 | whatever tickles your fancy

day 01 | a song
day 02 | a picture
day 03 | a book/ebook/fanfic
day 04 | a site
day 05 | a youtube clip
day 06 | a quote
day 07 | whatever tickles your fancy

Something Awful
More specifically, the Photoshop Phriday section.

Uh-oh. I forgot to do it yesterday. So this is day 03.

day 01 | a song
day 02 | a picture
day 03 | a book/ebook/fanfic
day 04 | a site
day 05 | a youtube clip
day 06 | a quote
day 07 | whatever tickles your fancy

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou.
I think pretty much everyone has read this book, and if you haven't you should. You want to be cool, right? Baa.

Texas Congressman hosts town hall meeting, spews anti-public option propaganda that doesn't even hold water, gets told, leaves early with tail between his legs...

...and there's a video.

7 Day Meme stolen from megyal 

day 01 | a song
day 02 | a picture
day 03 | a book/ebook/fanfic
day 04 | a site
day 05 | a youtube clip
day 06 | a quote
day 07 | whatever tickles your fancy



I took this outside the Abraham Lincoln Museum. I think it's purty.

7 Day Meme stolen from megyal 

day 01 | a song
day 02 | a picture
day 03 | a book/ebook/fanfic
day 04 | a site
day 05 | a youtube clip
day 06 | a quote
day 07 | whatever tickles your fancy

</div></div>
Everything Goes to Hell</div>

Sarah Palin would be entertaining were it not for the large number of people who actually believe her. She recently propagated the "death panel" lies in her Facebook account, saying "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."  She didn't come up with the idea all by herself, though. That honor goes to Betsey McCaughey.

Now Palin is lamenting--once again, on Facebook--that the US Export-Import Bank is loaning taxpayer dollars to a firm in Brazil in a time like this. That's sure to get people's attention. What probably won't get much attention is the fact that the money is not taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, if you go to the Ex-Im website, you'll find that the bank "enables U.S. companies — large and small — to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy." It's their job.

Sarah Palin spews anti-Democratic nonsense apparently without taking the time to check the facts for herself. The woman is not credible. Someone should say something.

8-16-09 Meet the Press with guests Tom Daschle, Tom Coburn, Rachel Maddow, and Dick Armey.

When questioned on the health care bill's end-of-life decision inclusion, Tom Coburn says that "government shouldn't weigh in on it". I don't understand why people think this is a government decision. The government does not weigh in on our end-of-life decisions. The bill simply proposes that patients are covered for consultations with their doctors about this issue. It is completely voluntary for every American under this bill. No one wants to kill you or me.

Apparently, on the issue of health care, the President is approved by 43% and disapproved by 49% of those polled. I didn't catch who administered the poll.

Dick Armey cannot refute the fact that he and his organization, FreedomWorks, is associated with groups that glorify violence at town hall meetings. The group in question is Tea Party Patriots, which has a video of a violent incident at a town hall meeting on their front page, and which is a partner of FreedomWorks. Rachel Maddow really kills him on this point.

Now, Tom Coburn says that most people who get a referral have already had one opinion. Speaking from my own experience and the experiences of people close to me, this is not even almost the case. If I know I want to see a dermatologist, or a psychologist, or a whatever-ogist, I have to go to my general practitioner and get a referral to some doctor in my network. Not because I want a second opinion. I want a specialist. Sarah's advice: if you have an argument to make, don't make points that every American can refute.

When David Gregory brings up the subject of the public plan in the bill, Tom Daschle says that if we want to keep costs down and keep insurance companies accountable (yes, please), a public option is the answer. Dick Armey, of course, claims that the bill is unfair, and that it will discourage private options. I'm not sure what his point is here. Honestly, I have a private plan, and I'm pretty discouraged. Maddow, who is my girl, says that the fact that so many of us are uninsured (and I might add, unhappily insured) won't be solved by Coburn, Armey, and most Republicans' beloved option to be able to buy insurance across state lines, but rather what we need is health care reform with a public option.

Coburn's ending statement proclaims that your and my doctor won't be able to do what he knows is in your and my best interest. Because the big bad government won't allow it. Completely unlike your and my insurance company, who decides that surely we only need to see a specialist "x" times a year and we already had cancer before we came to them, so they can't be expected to pay for anything.

I think Tom Daschle made the ultimate point in the discussion: "...Are we building this plan for insurance companies or the American people?"

There are many more ridiculous, comfortingly sane, and inciting points that I missed as a result of my attempt at sort-of-liveblogging. If anyone has anything to add, please do.

I think people were shooting in the parking lot outside my apartment. I heard three bangs and I spilled my Theraflu all over the place. When I went to my window, I saw someone look up and take off running. I guess it's a good thing I'm on the second floor.

Reminds me of sweet home Chicago.

I can be cruel / I don't know why.