Yay!

We have our first black President, Barack Hussein Obama. Woot!

Feminism; Religion

An article on LiveScience posits that Feminists Have More Fund. The author of the piece seems somewhat surprised by this--because not all feminists are ugly! *gasp*--which I find kind of ironic.

Yes, feminists look just like you! We're not some kind of exotic species. ~_~ And yes, when two people in a relationship are both feminists, happiness and harmony follow. Why? We share things equally; neither of us looks down on the other or feels looked down upon; we can be more comfortable because we don't necessarily adhere to traditional gender roles for things like breadwinning; we aren't as likely to be bent out of shape about how other people are living their lives; etc. It makes perfect sense--when all parties see both sexes as equal, then equal treatment follows from that, and happiness on all parts follows from that.

-------------------------------------

Are we a Christian nation?

Perhaps we are, but as the author of this piece states, that's not necessarily a good thing. When such complicated things as "religion" and "nation" get mixed up, we get Jesus crucified by the Romans; we get unparalleled religious persecution okayed by the state; we get a breakdown of a large part of what makes this nation great.

We need to tread carefully and make wise decisions in order to avoid the mistakes of our predecessor countries and in order to preserve important parts of our culture, our Constitution, and our various religions.

Peace.

Er...about that posting...

I started a diet a week and two days ago, and since then I've been spending a lot of time at SparkPeople.com. ~_~ Sorry about that.

Part of the problem is that I care about so much of the news--not the fluffy stuff like whatever Paris Hilton's or Brittany Spears's latest stuff is (unless I'm talking about how it relates to feminism/the world's view of women)--that it's hard for me to focus on a single topic and post about it. Therefore, I start to feel bogged down.

So I think I'm going to try to figure out what topic I want to cover, and then go from there. I will probably go with a religious/political angle, since theology is my main specialty.

And I might have to make this a weekly posting for a while, until I can get the rest of my routine going. ~_~

Peace.

Color of Change

Okay, now that my life has slowed down again, I have more time to put into this blog.

And the first thing I want to bring up is the case concerning the Jena 6 in Louisiana. For those who don't know:

In Jena, Louisiana, the local high school had one shade tree. At the explicit exclusion of black students, white students stood under that tree daily. As a means of peaceful protest, a black student received permission to sit under that tree. The next day, three nooses hung from the tree. The principal discovered that some white students were responsible for the nooses and moved to expel them. The superintendent found out about the principal's intentions and stepped in to say that expulsion wasn't necessary for the "silly prank"--instead, the students should only have 3-day suspensions.

After that, a series of events happened: several black kids protested the light-weight suspensions by sitting under the tree; the DA visited the school and told the protesting kids that he could "take away your life with a stroke of the pen;" part of the Jena school building was burnt; a black kid visited a white kids' party and was beaten--the white kids were charged with assault; a white guy tried to rob a store at gunpoint and several black guys tackled him down and wrested the gun from his control--the white guy got off scot-free, but the black guys were arrested; a white student who supported the noose-hangers taunted black students with racial slurs and was beaten by six black students, who were then charged with attempted second degree murder and aggravated assault (a charge which requires a weapon; the weapon was deemed to be one of the black students' shoes)--the white student went to the hospital, was released and attended a school event that very evening. (For more on these charges, including the bail prices and amount of time the black students spent in jail, please visit Truthout.org.)

Obviously, justice is not truly being served in Jena. The oldest black student, Mychal Bell, was initially sent before an all-white jury--how is that a jury of his peers? His original sentence has since been overturned, because the court said that his case should've been held in juvenile court. So, he will now be tried there, although the DA involved says that he is appealing the court's decision.

What makes me angriest about all of this (aside from the racial injustice) is the mainstream media's coverage. Only yesterday morning did I hear Good Morning America discuss the Jena 6--and their 'headline' speech said that the case was one of people thinking that six black students who beat a white student were sentenced unfairly. !! Well, yes, it is about that, but it's about so much more than that, too. And yet that's what I hear from most of the main news networks. What is with this sloppy reporting?

On the other hand, this has been a rallying cry for people to support real civil rights reform and legislation. We are in the midst of great turmoil and great change, and ColorOfChange.org has taken up the banner for this fight. Please visit their site to sign their petition and learn how you can take action to help.

And for more good coverage on the Jena 6, please visit AlterNet.org and search for "Jena 6" (without the quotes) on their search engine. There, you'll find stories such as this one by Melissa McEwan about John Conyers calling for hearings on the Jena 6 case.

Peace.

Easter Weekend Post

Okay, so I was supposed to post this yesterday, but life intervened. So, I'm posting it today.

I want to take a look at theocracy, in connection with the Blog Against Theocracy" movement.

Initially, I wanted to cover art and theocracy, taking specific looks at the chocolate Jesus statue and the Obama as Jesus sculpture. However, that was before my letters to the editor of my local newspaper received another reply.

You can read my original letter and the first reply at the links provided in that post. My next letter was published on March 16, 2007. I answered Mr. Absher and his claims about James Madison not wanting a Bill of Rights. Mr. Absher proceeded to attack me more and to show his ignorance of history even more.

This has started me thinking more about the Religious Right's wish to revise history. There are other gems like Mr. Absher's on my local newspaper's site. So many people are so ignorant--willfully or purposefully--about religious history, government history, and national history that it is becoming easier and easier for the leaders of the far-right to revise history however they see fit.

For example, Texas is currently considering a bill that would require schools to teach Biblical literature. That, in itself, I do not have a problem with. However, this particular Bible-lit course has some big issues. First of all, it is created by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. If you just glance at their site, you might be fooled into thinking that it is a mainstream, freedom-loving council harmlessly trying to educate our youth. However, this Talk To Action piece will soon disabuse you of that notion.

The NCBCPS uses a lot of historical revisionism in its "curriculum." This comes in the form of misquotes and misattribution of quotes. Harmless mistakes? I doubt it. If any teacher taught about evolution without carefully checking his/her facts, or if any council put out "educational" material on evolution that wasn't thoroughly cross-referenced and safe from misquotes and misattribution of quotes, there would be quite a hue and cry from the public. So why would a group trying to put biblical literature into the curriculum of our public schools not thoroughly check its own work? Historical revisionism. (Follow the links on the Talk To Action site to read more about specific revisings found in the NCBCPS curriculum.)

Why is this dangerous? First, it isn't just a "Texas issue." TIME Magazine's April 2 issue featured a cover article on "Why We Should Teach the Bible in Public School." We all need to be aware of this movement, especially if sources such as TIME are picking it up.

Second, as you can see from the Letters to the Editor of my local newspaper, above, if we don't educate people on real American history and real religious history, they will spread the lies themselves. We've all seen people forwarding stupid chain e-mails even with the ease of use and availability of sites such as Snopes.com. People do the same thing with any kind of inaccurate information.

Third, we already have an administration in place that wants to use an erroneous theological platform to take away our freedoms. At what other point in our history have we considered writing discrimination *into* the Constitution? Now we have people pushing bills to restrict marriage to a church-recognized union between one man and one woman; to raise "Covenant Marriage" (which makes it all but impossible for couples to divorce) above other forms of marriage; to bring about the Rapture/Apocalypse.

Of course, none of these things are biblical concepts, but the far-Right wants their form of "Christianity" to hold sway in their vision of a theocratic society, and their form of Christianity includes these concepts.

Isn't it scary that there are people out there who *want* to bring about the destruction of the world via their vision of a bloody Apocalypse? Isn't it scary that there are people out there who believe in the "Rapture"--used here to refer to a theology that did not arise until 1840--and want to push that view down everyone else's throats? And isn't it scary that there are people who actually want to see other people go to hell and be punished for eternity?

Of course, not all Christians feel this way; I myself am one who is disgusted by historical revisionism and by Dominionist tactics. Historical revisionism, though, threatens to wipe out all the hard, honest and integrity-driven work of our forebears in the name of pushing specific, narrow, intolerant religious beliefs on a nation of people of many different religions. And its success so far can be measured by the number of people who swallow the lies laid forth in such "education"--the Letters to the Editor are just a representative example.

One way we can fight such revisionism is to broaden our reading scope. Instead of taking in just one or two media outlets, we can engage with many different outlets. Such is the wonder of the internet. :) I myself subscribe to Alternet and to The Christian Worldview Network. One gives me a mostly-liberal perspective, the other gives me a very conservative perspective. I also try to stay abreast of the mainstream news via outlets such as my local news stations in the morning, AOL news, and MSN news. We can--and should--educate ourselves on any perspective offered on things like teaching biblical literature in schools and historical revisionism.

Another way we can fight revisionism is by joining with organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and First Freedom First and DefConAmerica. These organizations are dedicated to protecting our great nation from becoming a theocracy.

Third, we can educate one another. I'm attempting to do so with my Letters to the Editor; this is an activity most of us can participate in with our own local newspapers. We can learn what our Constitution actually says and pass that knowledge on to others.

And now I'm going to go do my duty to educate other people against erroneous knowledge by writing another Letter to the Editor.

Peace.

Blood Breakthrough

So it's been a while since I posted. Like, a couple of months...my how the time flies when I'm playing Guild Wars! lol

Anyhow, scientists have made a blood'>http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/scientists-make-blood-breakthrough/2007/04/02/1175366109912.html">blood breakthrough--they have turned A, B, and AB blood into O negative blood. This is the universal donor! They haven't been able to make it successfully RPH negative, but this is the best discovery in blood donation/blood work in a while! I'm really excited by this--if we could have O neg on hand all the time, then there wouldn't be such a "blood crunch" every time a crisis occurs.

Peace.

Sex

So, I think we've all heard about the study that says 95% of all adults have/had premarital sex, and that that includes our grandparents and great-grandparents. I find it funny that so many people have focused on the "older women" aspect of the angle--I've heard several news anchors say, "My grandmother had sex before marriage!" Most people seem to think that's normal for men, but not so normal for women. Well, I ask you, if it's normal for men to have sex before marriage but not for women to do so, then are the men having sex with each other?? Some of them, yes, I'll grant that, but not all of them. And that means they have to be having sex with women (assuming all partners are human, of course). So...why is it so weird to think of women having sex before marriage? *shakes head*

Anyhow, on top of that, this piece proves the need for safe abortion, contraceptives, and real sex ed:

"Not surprisingly, researchers in the '50s found that less than one in three married couples reported being happy or very happy with their relationship. Compare that to today, when 61 percent of married Americans report themselves to be "very happy" in their marriage. Part of the sour spouse problem of the '50s was that many couples didn't really want to be married to each other. Often, they were trapped into marriage by unintended pregnancy. With no sex-ed, no birth control, no legal abortion -- the exact legislative agenda of today's pro-life movement! -- teen birth rates soared, reaching highs that have not been equaled since: there were twice as many teen mothers in the '50s than today."

And, of course, there are the 'feminist' arguments that being able to plan/postpone families helps women have a foothold in the workforce. But I think that paragraph above does more to show the twistedness of the pro-life-as-law movement than anything else. It's an very well-written article, and I highly encourage you to read it all. And when you're done, read up on Plan B availability and on a British finding that abstinence is a myth.

And, on that note, is it possible to find middle ground on the abortion debate? This columnist thinks not, and thinks it's a mistake to try to do so.

"The only reason for regarding an abortion as more regrettable than a root canal, then, is the belief that moral personhood is not fundamentally about having a certain kind of mind. This is a strange view, when you think about it: If we are ever visited by some alien species, we will decide what kind of treatment we owe them by reflecting on the sorts of minds they have, not by poking at their genetic structure. If the most popular basis for considering fetuses persons is some sort of theory about souls, giving credence to this view tacitly endorses the notion that public policy ought to be tailored to accommodate moral premises whose sole basis is theological."

Unfortunately for the columnist, there are those who really do want a theocracy in control, rather than the republic we have now. I personally find the idea of a theocracy horrifying, but that would be one of the big reasons I'm not a member of the Religious Right.

I agree, though; I don't think there can be a real middle ground. It would be nice if there were fewer abortions--but that means we have to keep abortion safe and clean by keeping it legal. We can't pick and choose the circumstances in which someone can have an abortion, because we may never know all of the reasons behind a woman's choice to abort. People are funny like that--they may say part of the reason, or something else entirely, and not bring up the whole reason for things they do.

These dolls, meanwhile, are one of the healthiest things I have seen in a while. The dolls have real anatomy and provide for realistic looks at family life.

"Each 16-inch cloth adult Amamanta doll has genitals and pubic hair, and the mother doll features breasts that can be snapped onto the baby doll's mouth to help reinforce the importance of breastfeeding."

The dolls come in a few different nationalities currently, and they aren't harmful to body image the way something like Bratz or Barbies are. They're more expensive, of course, but that's because their creator pays her workers a living wage and because the company is a small start-up. All around, these are wonderful creations. If I had a kid, I'd want my kid to have a set.

Peace.

Catching up

Well, it's been a while since I did daily posting--but I want to try to get back into that habit, because we finally got a computer at home and might be getting broadband access soon. Woot. :)

I have a bunch of links saved up, which I'm wading through at the moment. I think I'll kick this off with the ones relating to sex/gender.

First, we definitely need to eliminate the wage gap between women and men. I don't care who didn't ask for what or who worked for what before. Men and women should be getting equal pay for equal/equivalent work.

"But aren't women at fault for not negotiating? Babcock concluded that women are essentially trained not to and penalized by employers when they do. Rigid gender-based stereotypes and behavioral norms urge women to behave modestly and wait to be given what they deserve rather than negotiate for it. The economist also has shown that negotiating can sometimes hurt a female job candidate. In research she co-published last year, she found that female candidates who ask for higher salaries before receiving a formal job offer are often not hired at all. Not surprisingly, males who negotiate do not face similar negative consequences. This empirical evidence supports what many women already know from experience: When they ask for what they deserve, employers often view them as overly aggressive, pushy or too "difficult" to hire.

Given the tremendous ramifications of this pervasive discrimination, it's high time for courts to stop accepting excuses based on women's failure to negotiate, and instead put the burden of pay discrimination where it belongs: on employers. It's the employers who should be obligated to carefully evaluate their pay structures to ensure that female ap-plicants [sic] are paid what the position is worth -- and what similarly situated male applicants would be paid."

Also, the media needs to stop telling us about the outfits of women they profile. Quick, what's one of the first things you think of in relation to Jackie O.? Most women will say, "Her fashion." Or any President's wife, really. It's ridiculous and needs to be stopped. As the author of this piece says, what a woman wears does not relate to her capabilities.

And, while I don't usually say we need to go back to the old way of doing things, in this case, I think we do. Single moms on welfare have it really hard, and the newest regulations--such as not allowing necessary things to be counted as work-related activities--make receiving TANF for single moms unnecessarily difficult.

"Under the new Department of Health and Human Services regulations postsecondary education leading to a bachelor's degree and English as a Second Language programs may no longer qualify as core work activities under the new regulations.

That means any welfare participant wanting to gain a university degree will need to do so on top of the 20 or so hours of core work activities that meet the narrower federal definition. Advocates say this will add additional transportation and child care expenses and pinch off time to spend with their families.

Some states counted job searches, readiness programs and vocational education as work experience to get around a six-week limit on job searches. Doctor-mandated, third-trimester pregnancy bed rest, domestic violence counseling, caring for ill or disabled relatives, and study time were among the activities states had leeway to include as work-related activities.

Now none of those activities can meet the weekly work-hour requirement, and states can no longer tailor work activities to meet the needs of individual families." Contrary to popular opinion, welfare recipients are not, for the most part, mooching off the state and the taxpayers. Some do, yes, but most do not and most want out of that kind of lifestyle. Giving them more restrictions makes their efforts that much closer to being futile.

And, on that note, we need to make things easier for *all* working moms.

"Heather Boushey, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. found that the drop in women's work participation rates between 2001 and 2005 was largely due to a weak labor market, and further, men's labor rates also dropped at this time. Joan Williams, the director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings, recently reported that 86 percent of those women who did leave their jobs did so because of inflexible office policy, not Martha Stewart fantasies."

Why does this matter? It's not just an issue of "those silly feminists" as some people think:

"For example, only 1 in 7 American workers get paid childcare leave -- a policy that has proven to reduce infant mortality, improve children's learning and reduce juvenile delinquency. That is to say, it has real consequences on more than 'only' the women involved.

So, what's at stake right now? Well, it looks like some of our more prominent Democratic leaders have a few things to do, which I think fit nicely with Nancy Pelosi's 100-hours commitment: to have fair wages, good childcare, etc. And if you need more evidence for fair wages, check this out.

And, if you have questions or think that women in power goes against nature, please read this. It makes sense that women and men would work together to procure things like food and shelter, no matter the time period. And, as this article points out, early humans and early Neanderthals wouldn't have spent a lot of time in one place--animals migrate, and so anything hunting those animals would have migrated, too. It just makes good sense, even moreso when one realizes that Neanderthals and homo sapiens would have had to have moved for gathering purposes, too.

And then, of course, we have the creation of WikiChix, in response to perceived sexism in the Wikipedia world. I have to say that I agree with the statement given by the WikiChix site in this article--that it is nice to not have to defend one's self and one's ideas just because one is a woman, but rather to get to the crux of whatever matter is at hand without those delays.

Peace.