Disclaimer: Some parts of this blog may contain adult-oriented material. (It is NOT porn or erotica, however some of the content is not appropriate for children). If you are under your country's legal age to view such material or find such material to be "objectionable"... please leave this page now. Reader discretion is advised (however if you could not infer from the title that this may be an adult-oriented blog, then you should not be on the Internet at all).

Everything on the Evil Slutopia blog is copyrighted 2006-2009 by the E.S.C. and ESC Forever Media and may not be used without credit to the authors. But feel free to link to us as much as you want! For other legal information, disclaimers and frequently asked questions visit ESCForeverMedia.com

January 30, 2009

Good News/Bad News for Republicans

The Republican National Committee selected a new chairman today. (I was going to be politically correct and say "chairperson", but come on. Sarah Palin notwithstanding, we're talking about Republicans here.) I think there's some bad news and some good news for the GOP in the results.


The bad news: On the day before the vote, Chip Saltsman removed his name from consideration for the position. Chip was the former campaign manager for Mike Huckabee's presidential run, and he's also the guy who thought it would be an excellent idea to send out mix CDs around the holidays containing such fabulous songs as "We Hate The U.S.A" (referring, of course, to us evil liberals), "The Star Spanglish Banner", and the smash Rush Limbaugh endorsed hit "Barack The Magic Negro". Saltsman didn't give a specific reason for pulling out of the race, but it's a sad thing because I think it's pretty clear that this was a guy with the creativity, courage, and sharp political instincts necessary to restore some G to the faltering OP. Too bad.

The good news: The RNC eventually voted for Michael Steele, who will be the first African-American to serve as RNC chairman. This is great for Republicans, not because Steele is apparently more moderate and less wingnut, but for a couple of other reasons. First, it only took them six ballots and about a million hours to settle on Steele, which means the party will be totally united with zero infighting. And second, he's black, which means that for the next few years every Republican can answer any accusations that their party is at all racist by invoking the tried and true defense of "we're not racist, we have a black friend!" And since there are currently really no popular or prominent black politicians anywhere on the Democrats' side of the aisle that I can think of, maybe this will even help to draw some African-American support to the GOP. See, Republicans are smart.

Related Posts:

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 29, 2009

Yay!

There's not much more we can say. Well, actually we could say 'it's about fucking time' or 'all of the Republicans who voted against this (100% of them were male) are huge douchebags', but let's be positive and just stick with 'yay!'.



REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT UPON SIGNING THE LILLY LEDBETTER BILL
January 29, 2009 10:20 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: All right. Everybody please have a seat. Well, this is a wonderful day. (Applause.) First of all, it is fitting that the very first bill that I sign -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act -- (applause) -- that it is upholding one of this nation's founding principles: that we are all created equal, and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness.

It's also fitting that we're joined today by the woman after whom this bill is named -- someone who Michelle and I have had the privilege to get to know ourselves. And it is fitting that we are joined this morning by the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. (Applause.) It's appropriate that this is the first bill we do together. We could not have done it without her. Madam Speaker, thank you for your extraordinary work. And to all the sponsors and members of Congress and leadership who helped to make this day possible.

Lilly Ledbetter did not set out to be a trailblazer or a household name. She was just a good hard worker who did her job -- and she did it well -- for nearly two decades before discovering that for years, she was paid less than her male colleagues for doing the very same work. Over the course of her career, she lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits -- losses that she still feels today.

Now, Lilly could have accepted her lot and moved on. She could have decided that it wasn't worth the hassle and the harassment that would inevitably come with speaking up for what she deserved. But instead, she decided that there was a principle at stake, something worth fighting for. So she set out on a journey that would take more than ten years, take her all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and lead to this day and this bill which will help others get the justice that she was denied.

Because while this bill bears her name, Lilly knows that this story isn't just about her. It's the story of women across this country still earning just 78 cents for every dollar men earn -- women of color even less -- which means that today, in the year 2009, countless women are still losing thousands of dollars in salary, income and retirement savings over the course of a lifetime.

Equal pay is by no means just a women's issue -- it's a family issue. It's about parents who find themselves with less money for tuition and child care; couples who wind up with less to retire on; households where one breadwinner is paid less than she deserves; that's the difference between affording the mortgage -- or not; between keeping the heat on, or paying the doctor bills -- or not. And in this economy, when so many folks are already working harder for less and struggling to get by, the last thing they can afford is losing part of each month's paycheck to simple and plain discrimination.

So signing this bill today is to send a clear message: that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody; that there are no second-class citizens in our workplaces; and that it's not just unfair and illegal, it's bad for business to pay somebody less because of their gender or their age or their race or their ethnicity, religion or disability; and that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory, or footnote in a casebook. It's about how our laws affect the daily lives and the daily realities of people: their ability to make a living and care for their families and achieve their goals.

Ultimately, equal pay isn't just an economic issue for millions of Americans and their families, it's a question of who we are -- and whether we're truly living up to our fundamental ideals; whether we'll do our part, as generations before us, to ensure those words put on paper some 200 years ago really mean something -- to breathe new life into them with a more enlightened understanding that is appropriate for our time.

That is what Lilly Ledbetter challenged us to do. And today, I sign this bill not just in her honor, but in the honor of those who came before -- women like my grandmother, who worked in a bank all her life, and even after she hit that glass ceiling, kept getting up and giving her best every day, without complaint, because she wanted something better for me and my sister.

And I sign this bill for my daughters, and all those who will come after us, because I want them to grow up in a nation that values their contributions, where there are no limits to their dreams and they have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers never could have imagined.

In the end, that's why Lilly stayed the course. She knew it was too late for her -- that this bill wouldn't undo the years of injustice she faced or restore the earnings she was denied. But this grandmother from Alabama kept on fighting, because she was thinking about the next generation. It's what we've always done in America -- set our sights high for ourselves, but even higher for our children and our grandchildren.

And now it's up to us to continue this work. This bill is an important step -- a simple fix to ensure fundamental fairness for American workers -- and I want to thank this remarkable and bipartisan group of legislators who worked so hard to get it passed. And I want to thank all the advocates who are in the audience who worked so hard to get it passed. This is only the beginning. I know that if we stay focused, as Lilly did -- and keep standing for what's right, as Lilly did -- we will close that pay gap and we will make sure that our daughters have the same rights, the same chances, and the same freedoms to pursue their dreams as our sons.

So thank you, Lilly Ledbetter. (Applause.)

(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)

[The White House Blog also has the remarks made by Michelle Obama and Lilly Ledbetter after the bill was signed.]



Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 27, 2009

In defense of sex workers

So apparently I have no morals. At least that's the popular opinion lately. Why am I so morally void? Because I'm not offended by the idea of having sex for money. Scandalous!

Yes, it's true. I got into a heated debate about sex work.

It's kind of funny that as often as we get into fights defending groups of people that we may consider ourselves members of (sluts, single mothers, birth control users, people who say "happy holidays") we also get pretty heated defending groups that we do not 'belong' to (homosexual people, community organizers, pregnant men, Muslim airline passengers). And now sex workers.

In what had started as a relatively innocent online conversation about Natalie Dylan (the 22 year old woman who is auctioning off her virginity online), Jezebel and I ended up defending myself - and the sex work industry - from some pretty nasty comments.

I'm not going to post all of the conversation, because it was long and stupid and some of the stuff said was relatively tame or irrelevant to the points I want to address. So here are just a few general excerpts (both the stuff that bothered us and some other stuff to put it context). We were originally going to designate people as Dumb Bitch #1 and Random Person #2... but that got annoying and confusing. So we're just going to name them after Beverly Hills 90210 characters, which is probably also confusing, but much more fun. (The roles of Lilith and Jezebel will be played by themselves).

Steve Sanders
So there is a 22 year old woman using the name Natalie Dylan who is selling her virginity online. The transaction will take place in Nevada on the bunny ranch where this is legal. She has had over 10,000 offers with the top offer 3.7 million. What kind of society provides 10,000 men willing to pay serious dollars for this??

Andrea Zuckerman
The same society that says it is OK for her to sell her virginity.

If she wants to get by on her back that is her choice. If someone wants to spend that much money on a fantasy then that is their choice.

Brenda Walsh
Wow. I don't think I could do that for $3.7m. I don't get the fetish over virginity. I can promise, virgins aren't much fun.

Steve Sanders
She takes off her clothes, lays on her back, and spreads her legs. Nothing more is expected from her.

Andrea Zuckerman
Or on her knees, on top, on her side, her stomach, all fours...etc. You know for 3.7 million I would hope the person gets something exciting. Maybe a variety sampler.


Valerie Malone

Call me crazy, but I would almost consider doing that. I wouldn't make it my career, but making almost 4 million for something that I gave away doesn't seem like a bad deal. I'm surprised no one else has done it previously, of course it only works for her because she's pretty.

Kelly Taylor
4 million? This is obscene.

Andrea Zuckerman
Imagine that...a story and thread about a hooker being obscene.


Jezebel
Right, because everyone knows that all sex workers are just "obscene" every single minute of every single day.


Steve Sanders
I didn't think the hooker was being obscene, not at all. I find it odd that other women haven't come forward for similar payouts in exchange for something they give away for free.

Andrea Zuckerman
I didn't say she was. I'm shocked more people don't do this either especially considering that virtue isn't held in regard as it once was.


Jezebel
Thanks for clarifying. So sex workers aren't constantly obscene, they just have no "virtue". Got it.



Andrea Zuckerman
I was using virtue in the definition of 3.chastity; virginity: to lose one's virtue.

Definition of "virtue"

I find it hard to believe someone that held virtue in this definition would sell it to the highest bidder to pay for grad school. And no, I don't believe society in general holds virginity in as high of a regard as it once was.


Jezebel
Maybe it's a geography thing - I don't think I've ever heard anyone use that word in that way in normal everyday conversation, so I assumed you were referring to the first two definitions.

As far as society valuing virginity less now, that's probably true. But I don't really think that a society should hold virginity in high regard. Responsible decision making, comprehensive and effective sex education, access to affordable health care and contraception? Sure. Virginity in and of itself? Not really.



Cindy Walsh
I read that article the other day and all I could think is I bet her parents are sooo proud of their little girl!!!



Lilith
Sex work is just a job like anything else. I don't have any moral objections or opinions about it. I think if it's legal and SAFE, then go for it.



Steve Sanders
But most sex workers are involved with illegal activities which makes this an un-safe job. Sure strippers are legal but that's not where the real money is made.



Lilith
There are two main arguments as to why sex work shouldn't be legal: "it's not moral" and "it's not safe". If it was legal, it would be regulated, it would be safer. I don't think laws should be based on morality (nor do I find prostitution to actually be immoral).



Brenda Walsh
While I agree with Lilith in theory, the practice hasn't gone so well. The Netherlands is closing down a lot of its red light districts because of this. There are still 'unlicensed' prostitutes who are able to fake their way through the system, many of whom are trafficked in. Trafficked persons are brought in via organized crime and are either already junkies (easier to grab) or forcibly shot up with drugs to make them more compliant. While I don't think that there's anything wrong intrinsically with sex work, it is constantly followed by a far more objectionable spectre.



Cindy Walsh
Take a trip to Thailand some time - you may change your mind about not having moral objections or opinions about it.



Jezebel
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but if you're talking about trafficking, that's not the same thing as sex work.

Sex Work, Trafficking: Understanding the Difference



Lilith
I have some moral objections about the way certain food service companies are run, but that doesn't mean that I disagree with eating food. You need to learn to separate specific situations from an industry as a whole. Sex work - when it's voluntary - is just work. I don't know what you're referring to specifically, but nothing will change my moral opinion of sex work in general.



Cindy Walsh
No, I'm not talking about trafficking. I'm talking about sex work. Pay for play. Women who choose that line of work. No one is forcing them into it. They see it as a job - a darn good one in fact.

Would you have a problem if your daughter at age 22 wanted to auction off her virginity or wanted to work at the bunny ranch???



Jezebel
I was thrown off by your mention of Thailand. Are Thai prostitutes, like, extra immoral or something?



Lilith
I've already said that I do not have moral objections to sex work in general, so why would I have moral objections to it if I decide to "take a trip to Thailand some time"?

I wouldn't hope for my daughter to do that kind of work, but I also wouldn't hope for her to take a lot of other career paths that have nothing to do with 'morality'. I wouldn't want her to be in the military or law enforcement because I don't think it's safe. Just as I don't think that sex work is presently safe. That doesn't mean I think soldiers or police officers are immoral (well not all of them, jk).

I love my daughter and would support her in any of her life goals. I would hope that she had higher aspirations than to be in sex work - not because I think sex work is bad, but because she's mentally brilliant and I'd love to see her doing something where she'd use her mind, not just her body. In the same respect, I'd feel the same way if she was a dancer or athlete, not because I don't respect those professions but because I know she can do more. (And that's not "better" that's "more").

I would hope that by the time she's 22 if she did want to do that kind of work that it would be completely safe and free from legal/social stigma. But I don't anticipate that happening any time soon and it's obviously not now. So I'd be lying if I said "Oh yeah I'd be totally 100% cool with my daughter wanting to be a prostitute!" but my reasoning wouldn't be based on so-called morality.


Cindy Walsh
You stated you had no moral objection to sex work. I suggested that you take a trip to Thailand and you may change your opinion regarding how you feel about sex work. The significance of bringing up Thailand is becuz I spent a fair bit of time over there and it changed my opinion about sex work completely. Even tho it is an illegal practice over there, a portion of their economy thrives on prostitution and it is everywhere. Not all of the 'bargirls' are forced to be there. Some choose it strictly for the money and the opportunity to travel. Even some of the university girls resort to turning tricks for extra money. Store clerks, massage therapists, hotel personnel --- the place is crawling with willing sex workers. The demand is great and so is the supply. Personally I found it quite immoral and sad. Not becuz I am prude or anything like that, but simply becuz it pissed me off that these women felt they had no other option.

I guess you answered my questions and you wouldn't have a problem with your daughter being a sex worker or auctioning off her virginity. And your reasoning isn't based on so called morality but due to the fact that you think she can do more with her life. (I too hope your daughter will have higher aspirations for her life when the time comes) I will say that I wouldn't want my daughter mixed up in sex work of any kind.


Lilith
Quote: ...a portion of their economy thrives on prostitution and it is everywhere. Not all of the 'bargirls' are forced to be there. Some choose it strictly for the money and the opportunity to travel. Even some of the university girls resort to turning tricks for extra money. Store clerks, massage therapists, hotel personnel --- the place is crawling with willing sex workers. The demand is great and so is the supply.
I don't really understand why that would change my mind. That is a perfect example of why I do NOT have moral objections to sex work. It is an industry, just like any other.

I do have some objections about the way the industry is run. In addition to the safety issues, there are often sexist and exploitative aspects. The fact that many women do turn to sex work because they have no other option is a problem and it isn't really the same thing as women who willingly choose it because that's what they want to do. (I do see the difference between 'being forced' and having 'no other option' and truly 'voluntary').

But I have absolutely NO moral objections to the idea of having sex for money.

I didn't say I wouldn't have an objection to my daughter being a sex worker. Just that I would not have a moral objection. (I guess it would depend on the situation for me to really be able to answer completely). I would have much more of a moral objection if my daughter was cheating on a significant other or sleeping with a married man or something like that, than if she was having safe, honest, consensual sex for money.

I would absolutely have sex for money if it was safe and legal and not likely to lose me custody of my daughter. I would. I wouldn't be on the street having unprotected sex with random gross strangers for $20 in an alley or anything... but in the right situation, with the right person, for the right money... if it was legal and not socially stigmatized the way that it is now and there was very little health risk, I would ABSOLUTELY do it. I have no moral qualms about it at all.


Cindy Walsh
You're entitled to your opinion. I still believe you'd change your moral opinion about sex work if you went to Thailand.


Lilith
If you still believe that then you are missing my point. Either that or you are defining 'moral' in a different way than I am. The situation in Thailand may very well be immoral, but that doesn't mean that sex work in general is immoral. Or that my or your version of 'morality' is necessarily the right one. I do not have a moral objection about sex work and I'm not to judge an entire industry and an entire concept based on a specific example (Thailand) because that is not what sex work is everywhere.

Maybe if you took a trip to Nevada or some else, you might change your moral opinion of it?


Donna Martin
It does sound like a lucrative business endeavor, but what puts me off is the fact that usually, working in that business, you don't get to pick who you have sex with. If it wasn't bad for business to pick only the guys you are attracted (or moderately attracted) to, and if I was single with no relationship in sight, I think I would consider it, but that's not the case most of the time.


Lilith
Well, yeah that's why I said: in the right situation, with the right person, for the right money, if it was legal, if it was not socially stigmatized, if there was very little health risk. The state of the prostitution industry as it stands right now - I wouldn't personally want to get involved in that. But the concept of sex for money (instead of say, sex for love) ... I don't have a moral issue with that at all and would do it in theory.


Cindy Walsh
For fcksake Lilith, I've been to Nevada, I've been to Rio, in fact I've been to every continent except Antartica which I hope to see this year.... regardless of my world travels, the sex industry is everywhere. I found it downright nasty in Thailand and that is why I made that reference. My definition of moral is standards of behavior, the difference between right and wrong etc....I don't think our definitions are different, perhaps our morals are different. You don't have a moral objection to sex work, you wouldn't object (morally) if your daughter chose that line of work. In fact, you've clearly stated you'd actually like to be a sex worker if it were legal and safe and you could choose your partners and the price.

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion. Why the argument? I don't care if your morally void when it comes to sex work. In fact, most people involved in that industry are morally void on some level. My opinion on this issue comes from experience and I still think if you took a trip to southeast asia you'd soon change your mind.

Donna is very right when she says you don't get to pick who your customers are. They pick you. Big fat balding old men who haven't been able to see their dicks in years will pay big bucks to boink a woman 20 years younger than them ---- ick.

Lilith
Wow, okay. The Nevada line was a joke. I thought it was an obvious allusion to your repeated comment that if I went to Thailand I would change my mind. Look - I'm not blind to the negative aspects of the sex industry. I know that it isn't all peaches and roses. It is those negative aspects that make me want to support sex workers rights groups and hope for the legalization and regulation of prostitution.
My comment about the definition of 'moral' was a joke, because it's ridiculous to suggest that I would change my moral code if I saw the real dirty truth about Thailand. I accept your opinion of prostitution, I just disagree with it. I could take offense to your suggestion that I am morally void or that most sex workers are morally void, but I'll just accept that our morals are very different. I'm not 'arguing', I just want you to accept that the specific situation in Thailand is not going to alter my overall belief system (that it's not wrong to trade sex for monetary compensation).
Quote: My opinion on this issue comes from experience and I still think if you took a trip to southeast asia you'd soon change your mind.
And there it is again. My opinion on this issue is based on my personal beliefs. I do not have a moral objection to sex outside of marriage, to sex without love, or to sex for money. I don't. NOTHING is going to change my opinion on that. Nothing. Do I think that all aspects of the sex work industry are awesome? No, of course not. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite. But rather than that making me change my morals, all it does is make me want to fight for the industry to change. Not to cease to exist, but to become better.

I think you may have a closedminded view of what prostitution has to be. There are many different 'ranges' of sex work. There is a difference between a struggling, street walker and, say, a highly paid escort with opportunity to be more selective. Regardless, that's irrelevant. If I were to ever pursue sex work (I don't plan to, I'm speaking hypothetically) I wouldn't let men 'pick' me without having any say in the matter. I didn't say I would be a sex worker, I said I would have sex for money. (Now you can argue that they're the same thing, but what I'm saying is I would accept payment for sex. It doesn't mean I would put myself in a situation that I wasn't 100% in control of). Obviously it's not common that you would have that much control, which is another problem I have with the current state of the industry. But like I said, I wouldn't ever consider being a sex worker in the current state of the industry. I was speaking theoretically, duh.


Cindy Walsh
It's sad to me that this is your personal belief system.

I don't think I have a close minded view of what prostitution has to be. It is what it is. What it has been for thousands of years. It just gets seedier and greedier as time goes on. duh.



Jackie Taylor
I don't get why this is sad to you. If she thinks fucking for some cash is ok and in some cases, a good idea, why is this sad? Dude, let a girl dream, will ya?



Lilith
I'm sorry that it's so sad for you that I think sex is... sex. And not something sacred. My bad. So much for respecting my opinion and all. Now I'm not only morally void but my belief system makes you sad. I'm sorry for the way that my lack of morals has saddened you.

Like I said, that is a closedminded view. Sex work takes many many many different forms. It's not all seedy and greedy. It's not all like Thailand. It's not all women on the street. It's not all "big fat balding old men who haven't been able to see their dicks in years" picking me. The fact that you can't even comprehend of a situation where a woman might have control over who she sleeps with, makes it clear that your view of sex work is very narrow.

When I said that I wouldn't have a moral problem accepting money for sex, that doesn't mean that I'd actually consider entering the sex work industry as it is today. I certainly wouldn't make a career of it. Not everyone who's ever had sex for money is necessarily a sex worker. (I may have mixed drinks at a party once or twice but it doesn't make me a bartender, lol).


Cindy Walsh
It's sad to me that people in general have no morals. It's sad to me that this woman will pass these beliefs on to her child who will probably grow up more evil and more slutty. She can dream on all she wants - but of course only after a trip to Thailand!!!

Lilith
And on that note, you can go fuck yourself. For free.
PS: If anyone else would care to educate themselves on the sex workers rights movement (that is, go beyond the stereotypes and judgment):
Desiree Alliance
Bound, Not Gagged
Women, Rights and Change


But Cindy - don't bother. You seem happy in your ignorance and I'd hate to make you feel any sadder. How I choose to raise my child is none of your fucking business. I certainly would never take any parenting advice from you.

Jezebel
Oh what the fuck ever. 'Different morals than you' is not the same as 'no morals'. Get over yourself.

Jackie Taylor
Awww, you took away my brilliant off-handed no-harm meaning comment of:
Quote: If she thinks fucking for some cash is ok and in some cases, a good idea, why is this sad? Dude, let a girl dream, will ya?
and unleashed this catty viciousness of:
Quote: It's sad to me that this woman will pass these beliefs on to her child who will probably grow up more evil and more slutty.
That's just evil. You as a mother know what it feels like when someone brings the kid into the picture and you went and did that. You totally overshadowed my comedic beauty. Bitch.

Jezebel
Really, you have no clue just how much you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Lilith's daughter is smart, talented, open-minded, funny, kind, understanding, mature, a good friend, and a good person. She could already teach you a thing or two about...well, everything.


Claire Arnold
Quote: Donna is very right when she says you don't get to pick who your customers are.
At least in legal Nevada brothels, Donna is very wrong. Sure, the men come in and pick who they'd like to sleep with, but if the sex worker says "No" then that's that.


Donna Martin
I wasn't talking of absolutes, I am not aware of the rules of the business everywhere, I can only assume that there's a very few (comparing to the world population of prostitutes), that can actually choose who they want to have sex with, and I didn't say they all can't choose who they DON'T want to have sex with either.


Cindy Walsh
My apologies, I was wrong to bring the kid into it.
Truly, I hope the kid aspires to do great things with her life and doesn't become involved with sex work of any kind. I hope she will find sex somewhat sacred and not just think sex is just sex. I really do. I think that is sound advice.

As usual any kind of discussion between myself and Lilith has to end up with her telling me to fckoff.

I realized I was never going to change her moral beliefs (or lack of) nor was she going to change my mind about sex workers. She can be a sex worker cheerleader all she wants. I doubt it will make any difference in an underworld that has always been run by men.

We were this close to actually having a decent exchange of views on a very contraversial subject, its a shame it had to end up with name calling. Truly - I am sorry I said that about your child. I am not that vindictive of a person.

Lilith
Quote: I hope she will find sex somewhat sacred and not just think sex is just sex. I really do. I think that is sound advice.
I don't share those hopes. I hope that she will find the strength to make her own decisions and form her own opinions and not succumb to a bullshit society that does not value a woman's sexuality and choice.
The only kind of discussions that end with me telling anyone to fuck off, are those in which someone completely disrespects me (e.g., telling me I have no morals) and/or uses my daughter as an arguing point against me.
Quote: I realized I was never going to change her moral beliefs (or lack of) nor was she going to change my mind about sex workers. She can be a sex worker cheerleader all she wants. I doubt it will make any difference in an underworld that has always been run by men.
1. You're still saying I have a lack of morals. So again, fuck you.
2. If you actually realized my moral beliefs weren't going to change, then why were you repeatedly insisting that they would change... if I went to Thailand?

3. I never tried to change your mind about sex work, I just tried to get you to quit saying I would change mine.
If sex work is predominantly run by men (I don't agree that it always is) and exploiting women, that's exactly why people should support sex workers rights groups. Prostitution is never going to go away. What can change is the way the industry is run.

Steve Sanders
Much of the prostitution (at least in the states) has become run by independent females, if in doubt check craigslist. They don't need the man for protection because they are not protecting any turf. Business is done via cell phones and the internet.

Emily Valentine
Quote: I would have much more of a moral objection if my daughter was cheating on a significant other or sleeping with a married man or something than if she was having safe, honest, consensual sex for money
I am curious how you would expect that, by being a sex worker, your daughter *wouldn't* be sleeping with married men on a regular basis. Anyone that's ever watched Cops or read a police blotter knows that a large percentage of men soliciting sex are married. Not sleeping with them would cut out a large amount of her earning potential. Not to mention, how would she ensure that a man isn't lying about being married? Even if she checked for marriage licenses in his name in her state, there is always the possibility that the marriage took place in another state or country.

And, what about men who are divorcing? That's even trickier -- there's a big market of lonely men looking for a pick-me-up, but how would she be sure she wasn't being lied to about the state of the marriage, only finding out months into the business relationship that (hypothetically, of course...) the man whose wife lives 1400 miles away is not, in fact, separated and preparing to divorce as he claimed initially. Would this business relationship cause you to decide your daughter is morally void, her opinion on unrelated moral issues no longer valid or appropriate?

Steve Sanders
Any thoughts why there is a market for lonely men and not women? I know there are lonely women but that doesn't mean they are willing to pay for play at least not in any large numbers.

Watching a recent CNBC report on prostitution - they brought up that there are two types of johns; the ones that want to talk (lonely), and the ones that don't want to talk (seek power). It's the power seekers that get all the fame in the media such as Spitzer.

Lilith
I was speaking theoretically. I have no moral issue with the concept of receiving compensation (monetary or otherwise) for sex or sexual acts. Whereas I do have some strong opinions on dishonesty and infidelity (you're free to disagree with me, as those are my morals and I don't put my morals on other people). That's why I said "safe, honest, consensual sex for money". I do realize that in reality, it would be very difficult if not impossible to ensure those conditions, which is why my comment was meant to be theoretical. I should've been clearer on that point. As I've already said before, I would not be happy if my daughter wanted to be involved in sex work, but my reasons would not be based on a moral aversion to "sex for money" - it would be more so based on the state of the sex industry and the things that go along with it (which sadly, often does include dishonesty and infidelity, among a ton of other things that concern me).
Quote: Would this business relationship cause you to decide your daughter is morally void, her opinion on unrelated moral issues no longer valid or appropriate?
I would think that my daughter's morals are perhaps different than mine, but I'd never think her 'morally void'. I disagree with certain acts/behaviors, yes, but what you're describing there is a potential gray area. I value honesty in relationships - all relationships, be they purely sexual or not. I would be disappointed if she got into a relationship with someone who had a wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/etc but I wouldn't blame her if she did so unknowingly.

Obviously I know that it's difficult to be sure that anyone you're sleeping with (be it a relationship or business transaction or something in between) is being completely honest with you. I know shit happens and people make mistakes but overall, as theoretical CONCEPTS... I morally disagree with cheating and lying. I do not morally disagree with sex as a commodity.
The conversation died down after that... leaving some points unanswered and some points over-answered. Maybe because she felt bad about crossing the line. Maybe because she realized she wasn't going to win the argument. Maybe because it's taking her days and days to come up with another response. Maybe because she just doesn't care enough to continue arguing over something like this. Or maybe there's some other mysterious reason, who really knows.

Regardless, this topic has made me remember how much I care about sex workers rights... The truth is, I don't even really know much about the sex workers rights movement. It's not an issue that is personally close to my heart. It's not something that affects me at all. The reason I care about it - despite being relatively ignorant (although not as ignorant as "Cindy Walsh") - is because, as we've said on here before... the issues of one group of women, are the issues of all women. Sex workers rights are women's rights. (In the same way that we can't relate to the idea that only gay people should care about gay rights). 

And that's part of the reason that we decided to share this conversation - there's so much ignorance and judgment and so many misconceptions when it comes to the issue of sex work, and this experience has made us want to learn more and write more about it (Stay tuned). Oh, and please click the donate button at the top of the page if you want to help finance our upcoming trip to Thailand.

Related Posts:

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 26, 2009

AARP: American Association of Raunchy Perverts

Yes, it's true. The media watchdog group Morality in Media has uncovered some truly shocking conduct on the part of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Apparently, the January issue of the AARP Bulletin contains an ad for the website BetterSex.com. Now, of course we can all see the first problem immediately. Why is an organization for people who are "retired", and therefore most likely kind of old, promoting sex in the first place? All good moral people know that sex is for procreation, not recreation, so old people should be done with it anyway.

But it's far worse than just the concept of old people boinking. I'll let the president of MiM explain it:
Morality in Media (MIM) president Bob Peters has contacted the American Association of Retired People (AARP) for running an ad seeking customers for BetterSex.com.

"BetterSex.com promotes itself as providing bona fide sex education materials for adults," he notes. "I think that many people, if they looked at the content of these materials, would say this is pornography."

Besides the website's graphic and explicit nature, Peters has another objection to it. "BetterSex.com doesn't just promote adult sex education," he points out. "It also provides hundreds, literally hundreds, of pornographic movies, ...many of which you would find in an adult bookstore."

The website is connected to Phil Harvey, founder of Adam and Eve stores, which is one of the largest pornography businesses in America. The website is operated by the Sinclair Institute, established by Harvey in 1991.

Wow, graphic and explicit pornography? This sounds pretty serious. So, of course we had to head over to BetterSex.com to see what kind of twisted, immoral filth we would find there.
Who We Are: The Sinclair Institute™ and our Better Sex ™ website are leading sources of sexual health information and a classy and secure resource for educational products for adults who want to improve the quality of intimacy in their relationships. It is hard to imagine a balanced life without an enjoyable and rewarding sex life. Better Sex works with a Better Sex™ Advisory Panel of psychologists, doctors and sex educators to create award winning products such as the Better Sex Video Series ®, winner of a Telly Award ®.

Better Sex ™ Defined: Our Better Sex ™ philosophy is simple. Better sex results from mental and physical stimulation. Better sex ™ relationships include trust, intimacy, and a spiritual bond between loving partners. Our goal, stated in our motto, is better relationships, better sex ™. Better sex is an aspiration that brings pleasure, happiness, and long lasting reward. Curiosity, a willingness to experiment and learn and creating an unselfish desire to share are crucial to having better sex. We look forward to guiding your search!.
Trust? Intimacy? A spiritual bond between loving partners? I'm sure all of that sounds as immoral and offensive to you as it does to us. The AARP should really be ashamed of themselves for promoting the ridiculous notion that consenting adults in committed relationships should have access to information and products that might improve their sexual health and enhance their sex lives and by extension, the quality of their relationships. Looks like we need to get an "abstinence only retirement" movement started immediately so that old people can stop contributing to the moral decline of our society with their disgraceful intimacy.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 23, 2009

Senate Confirms Franklin!

The Senate voted yesterday to confirm Aretha Franklin, President Obama's nominee to the new Cabinet level post of Secretary of Awesome Hats. The vote was 100-0. Yes she can!















[Reuters photo via Yahoo]



[UPDATE: You can keep up with all of the awesome hat action by following Aretha's Hat on Twitter.]

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

But He's Only Half-Black...

We started this draft a few days after Election Day. We decided not to post it, because we figured it would take only about two days for people to move on from this topic. But shortly after the Inauguration on Tuesday, we started to hear similar sentiments (from different people)...

The original content came from a "discussion" on an online message forum. (Yes, we know that arguing on the internet is stupid). I've quoted the original poster's comments only, as she was the only person on the forum who seemed to hold that opinion. Everything else is a combination of responses we made at the time, additional commentary made after the fact during the process of writing the blog, and paraphrasing of other people's comments. It would be too long and tedious (for you to read and for us to edit) if we gave everyone's comments as direct quotes - we all shared relatively the same point of view anyway - but we wanted to clarify that in case anyone from *over there* happens to stumble across the blog entry and thinks we were trying to steal their ideas.

So here it is...



When Barack Obama won the election, we were really happy over here at Evil Slutopia. Not just because we like the Obama/Biden platform and not just because we really really really hated the McCain/Palin platform... but also because it was a huge, momentous occasion. It was amazing to see how many people were touched and moved by his election. The first black President of the United States. No matter who you voted for, everyone had to admit that was a big deal right?

Or not.

Shortly after Obama's landslide win, we saw this on a message board somewhere:
There's one thing that really rubs me the wrong way, and that is how much emphasis they're putting on the fact that he's "black", when he's not really black, he's half black, and that really isn't something to take into consideration, unfortunately, it seems like too many people voted for him just because the color of his skin and that really pisses me off.
Um, what!? We weren't really sure we even wanted to address this subject on the blog, mainly because we weren't exactly sure how to address it. But here goes...

Now I'm sure there's a small percentage of voters out there who used his race as a motivating factor to vote him. A small percentage. I'm also sure that there was an equal or greater percentage of voters who did not vote for him because of his race. (Or because they thought he was Muslim, which was just another form of prejudice). For the most part, I think people voted the way they did because they felt that their candidate was the best one for the job. Or because their candidate was less horrible than the opposing candidates.

Even though I don't think we should have voted for him because he's black (or as the original poster put it, "half black"), I do think it merits celebration of the milestone that this is. Yes, Barack Obama is not 100% African American; he is biracial. Should that somehow make his accomplishment any less powerful?
...the news keep showing people crying and saying how historic this is just because he's a little tan. He's definitely different than Bush, but he doesn't seem that special to me to call this historic. I think it's very racist to make him seem more special just because he is HALF black.
Now I don't know anyone who suggested that Obama was "more special" because he was black (or half-black). He isn't necessarily special. But this is an extremely historic event. We celebrate or pay homage to a lot of "firsts" and this is a huge one. No one is suggesting that he will be any better as a president because of it, but it's still huge. America has come from a point where black people used to be property to a point where a black man has been elected president. Whatever your politics, that is still significant.

It is historic, because our children will grow up knowing (not hoping or dreaming) that someone besides a white man can be president. When a woman finally becomes president (which please let it happen in my lifetime!!!) it will be just as historic because of how hard women in our country fought to get there. When our children are adults, they will not even remember a time when it was a dream or crazy to think of a "minority" President.
Americans really do give too much importance to race.
Well, considering America's vast history of oppression against people based on race, can you really blame us? But I also think that celebrating our differences is a beautiful thing. Hating what makes others different from us is the problem. Race should not be the most important thing, but we should not underestimate its importance either.
There were slaves in Peru too, not just black, but chinese and indian too. Still, they're not as bitter as the formerly-opressed ones here.
Note: In case you didn't realize yet, the poster is originally from Peru. This isn't really that significant, but perhaps some cultural differences might explain for the lack of understanding of race issues in the U.S. Anyway, moving on...

Hm. Bitter? I agree that American do put a lot of importance on race (and yes, that can be a bad thing at times) but I don't agree that people are necessarily "bitter". Regardless, there is very little bitterness this week. People are celebrating! I also disagree with the term "formerly oppressed". Oppression didn't end when slavery did. I don't think that race should be that important, but for a lot of people - who have been defined by their race in a negative way for so long - that's not something that's so easy to just shake off. This is a really big step and it's a shame that it took so long!
I thought he was black at first until I saw a commercial where they showed pictures of his mother, she's white right? so, he's half black technically. I make that distinction because people keep calling him black but he's not, it's not really important what color he is, but if you're going to call him something, at least be accurate.
I do get her point. Sort of. Yes, he's actually biracial, but the media went crazy over him being black. He personally has said he doesn't think of himself as black or white or mixed race or anything. He thinks of himself as... Barack Obama. Period. And I think that's a great thing. He never made his campaign about race (although a lot of other people may have). But on the other hand, it is still monumentally historically HUGE that we have an "openly black" President in the United States finally. (I say "openly" because I was recently informed that several past presidents - Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Harding and Coolidge - were "part black").

When a black person is discriminated against, there is only one factor that determines his or her status as "black" - the color of his or her skin. Nobody checks to see if you have African blood in you; if you look black, they consider you to be a black person. It sucks that we feel the need to categorize people based on that, but the sad fact of the matter is that that's the way our society perceives race.

Even though though he's not 100% black, even though he doesn't necessarily feel "black", even though he was mostly raised by his white side of the family... he looks black, so for the purposes of undeserved oppression he is black. He has had just as much opportunity to experience racial discrimination as anyone who is 100% black.

Whether he is 100% or 50% or 25% or even 1%... people can visibly identify him as not being "an old white guy" and that does mean something in our society. (There were people yelling "kill him" at his opponent's rallies - how much racial hatred do you want to see before you think this is significant?) "Only half black" was enough to get you sold on an auction block in the 1860's. "Only half black" was enough to keep you on the back of the bus in the 1960s or hung in your front yard.
It's 2008 not 1860. Those ideas are just being perpetuated by overcompensating.
What I mean is that Americans overcompensate when it comes to black people, making everything they do more special just because they're black, and this, in my opinion, only perpetuates the idea of racism. That's why people in other countries think americans are extremely racist, it's not just the "white man" that hates "blacks", it's how touchy the subject has become in this country, when in the end, we're all PEOPLE.
A clear misunderstanding of why this is a monumental occasion. This is not a case of overcompensation or affirmative action. His presidency will not be "more special" simply because he is black. No one is suggesting that Barack Obama is more special because he's black. But he's not less special because he's black either - and that's where this comes from in some ways. For a long time black people were considered to be second-class citizens (and before that, property!) Even now, in the 21st century, black people are still oppressed in a lot of ways. No one is suggesting that to be black makes you better. We're suggesting that to be black doesn't make you any worse either! (Still an outrageous concept for some).

It's horrible that it took this long for there to be, not just a black president, but a black major party candidate or even any black candidate with a remote chance. (Alan Keyes does not count). After this election, hopefully race will have nothing to do with anything, because we will have set a precedent that anyone can be president. (Well, okay, any man can be president, but we're hopeful that we'll see a woman in office soon enough). It's not racism to get excited about that. It's because of racism that it took so long for that to be possible.
I am aware that there were slaves in other countries too, like I mentioned previously, we had slaves in Peru too (African, Chinese, Peruvian Indians), but Americans do seem to overcompensate in my opinion, and to me it's just horrible to see sometimes black people abusing that even when they're not opressed anymore. I'm from Peru, there were slaves there but we don't have bitter black or Chinese people still complaining of how the "white man" is "keeping them down".

Sometimes even if in a particular occasion nobody is oppressing them they still take advantage of that.

What I mean is how ridiculous it's become when minorities are treated with equality and they still complain that they're being discriminated against, it happens, maybe because they're so used to being discriminated that they think everybody will try to opress them all the time, when that's not the case.
People are still oppressed. Racism still exists. Are black people not allowed to be bitter about ongoing racism? Sexism still exists too and at times I certainly am bitter about that. I'm angry about how long it took us to get to where we are today and I'm angry about how far we still have to go. I'm not only angry about it... I have hope, but I refuse to give up and a certain level of anger motivates that.
"Complacency is not staying still - complacency is moving backwards."
There is just as much danger in complacency for anyone as there is for me. Anything that makes you "different" can make you a possible target for discrimination. We should all work to further our rights and the rights of others, and sometimes anger can inspire this. Why should we shut our mouths or pretend that oppression doesn't exist just because it isn't actually blatantly occurring every single minute of every single day?

And who is to say that it isn't occurring every single minute of every single day? Oppressed people are constantly oppressed. Oppression is not necessarily an "act", it is a state of being. If you are from an oppressed group/minority in the U.S., that oppression exists constantly. It's not just like "when you _____, you are oppressing me"... it is "because I am ______, I cannot ________". You may not always feel it or you may not always see it, but it is still there.

I think the further and further we get towards all people being equal and no one being oppressed based on race, gender, religion, anything... is good. A black president is good. Not because a black president will be a better president, but because it's one step further towards black people becoming... just people. A female president? One step towards "female people" becoming... people.

But of course, the whole premise that oppressed people are "taking advantage" of their oppression is ridiculous. What exactly are they using this advantage for? And really, what does that have to do with Barack Obama anyway? I really don't think he "took advantage" of being black in order to get elected. Honestly, to suggest that anyone uses their oppression to "take advantage" of something... well that sounds a hell of a lot more "racist" than celebrating a "half black" president. Often when I hear someone speak this way, it sounds like they are trying to rationalize their own racism. "Oh, they think they're always being oppressed, when they're totally not!" It's the same as when some people don't understand why we still need to have Black History Month or Women's History Month, etc.

*Also on a side note: upon some further investigation, Peru is not the super awesome "color blind" country she painted it to be. Perhaps racial relations are in fact different than they are in the U.S., but she's definitely being misleading to suggest that the minorities of Peru are totally and completely free from feelings of oppression.
I don't think I'm a racist, I don't believe in "races", I believe we're all people and no one is better or worse because of the color of their skin or their physical features. I do believe though that there's a lot of racism in the US, not only from whites that don't like blacks or Hispanics or Asians/etc, but also from minorities that think all whites/or all men are against them, when that's not the case. Why can't people in such a developed country just realize we're all the same?

I don't care what color Obama is or what his religion is, if he's a man or a transgender or whatever, I never said I thought he used his skin color or background in his favor, what pisses me off is the reaction of some people making a big deal of only the fact that he's not white.

As Americans, we have a long and ugly history with racism, prejudice and inequality. The fact that we have a black man as a president is monumental because it means that some of the wounds of our history are beginning to heal. It means that old barriers are being dropped and people are looking at a person's platform and not simply the color of their skin.

Even though slavery is over a hundred years in the past and the Civil Rights Movement was forty years ago, it's been a long hard road to this moment. Maybe the focus on his race does seem to trivialize his victory (making it seem race-based instead of issue-based) but I think that the majority of people did vote for his platform and for his ideas of change. At the same time, there's really no way to not celebrate Obama's racial victory as we celebrate his presidential victory. It's a breakthrough moment in our culture.

I would have been really really really upset if McCain and Palin had won, but I would at least have recognized the historical moment that it would have been to have the first female Vice President. (I think she'd have SUCKED at the job and I'd be seriously pissed, but it would still be something monumental, even if bittersweet). You don't need to support Obama to realize why it's a big deal that he won. I definitely don't think he should have won because of his race, but I don't believe that he did.
I don't think he won because of his race, and I'm glad that his race wasn't really an issue during the campaign. It just doesn't make sense to ME to put so much emphasis on his race now that he won. Same thing if McCain and Palin would have won, I don't think it's a big deal to have a female vice president.
It is a big deal because it's never happened before. And it's a big deal because of the reasons why it's never happened before.
"If a one-legged man won the Boston Marathon, people would say it was a big deal. He overcame immense obstacles to achieve that. There are similar obstacles to minorities in this country."
Even two years ago, nobody thought that a black man would be able to overcome the (subconscious but substantial) racism in our society. Pundits were even saying that even people who said they'd vote for Obama would not be able to bring themselves to vote for a black man when they were in the privacy of the polling booth. (The Bradley Effect). Now that a minority has achieved the highest office in the U.S., it will provide the most compellingly positive example to minority children everywhere that if they study hard, and work to improve their lives and overcome the obstacles in their lives, that they may someday be successful.

When John F. Kennedy was elected it was also huge, because he was the first Catholic President. No one thought he'd be a better president because he was Catholic... but no one believed that America would actually let a Catholic man be President. When he was elected, not only Catholic children realized "hey, that could be me someday", but so did black children, Latino children, female children. They realized "hey, someone different really can do this if they work hard enough... maybe I can!"

Now JFK didn't "take advantage" of his Catholicism to win and Obama didn't "take advantage" of his race to win. They won in spite of it. And I hate to even use the phrase "in spite of" because it implies that they are flaws, which they're not. So I'll say that they won in spite of the country's prejudices and fear. It's not a big deal to have a black President. It's a big deal that America is changing and while racism most definitely still exists hardcore... this is proof that it's changing and it's a big step towards helping it continue to change.

We are all collectively celebrating victory over a major shortcoming of our entire nation. We're one step closer to the Presidency not being out of reach for any group of people.

It would be great if someday we could have two candidates for President and no one even cared or noticed what their race or gender was and they were completely on an even playing ground. That's a really awesome dream, but it's not reality yet. Barack Obama was at a disadvantage being "the black candidate" against the status quo. I know plenty of people who outright said they weren't voting for him because of his race/his alleged religion/his "too ethnic" name. (I can't even imagine the amount of people who also felt that way but didn't admit it). The fact that he still beat McCain in a LANDSLIDE victory, despite those people... that is an accomplishment. And to pretend it doesn't matter if he's black or "half black", is downplaying that accomplishment.
Unfortunately, discrimination is still huge in this world, but hopefully, with time, people will realize that anyone can do anything regardless of their race/sex/age/etc, I guess I still have a hard time with all the different types of discrimination in the US considering I believe THIS is a country where people have all kinds of opportunities that they may not have in their own country.
I really want it to be reality, where people just accept that we're all equal and don't care about race or anything like that. But at the same time, to ignore our differences also does us a disservice. Pretending there are no differences between our races and cultures is almost as bad as racism. I think you should be proud of your sexuality, heritage, gender, race, etc. I think these should be celebrated. Pretending we're all the same diminishes some of the things that make us the most beautiful. The important thing to remember though is that we're are all different, but none of those differences mean that we are better or worse than anyone else.

The ESC is very happy to welcome our new president to office.

Related Posts:

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 22, 2009

Blog for Choice 2009

Today is January 22nd, 2009, which means it's the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Blog for Choice Day!

This year, we're all being asked to answer to this question: What is your top pro-choice hope for President Obama and/or the new Congress?


After thinking about this year's theme, we'd say that our top pro-choice hope is that we can render this question obsolete within a few years. After eight years of being beaten down by the ignorant, sexist, anti-choice Bush administration, it's understandable that the concept of "pro-choice hope" feels pretty foreign and also kinda awesome right now. But in addition to being pro-choice hopeful, we should also be pro-choice unsatisfied and pro-choice determined and pro-choice loud so that we can make real progress quickly. We've got a moment here where we can take a breath and not feel like we have to spend all of our time being on the defensive constantly, so let's take full advantage of it.


Here's our top 10, with lots of links. We want it all.

  1. Overturn the Global Gag Rule immediately. This is the ultimate "pro-life isn't" policy, hurting women and families and denying critical health care to people around the world under the guise of "respecting life". We were hoping that President Obama would have done this already so that we could start off the list with one item already crossed off, but it does still seem that he plans to do it very soon, and if he doesn't he should hear from all of us until it happens.

    We also hope he listens to the recommendations in this new report: "Five former directors of the Population and Reproductive Health Program of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) today urged the new Obama administration to move quickly to restore U.S. leadership in global family planning.

    The former directors issued a joint report, Making the Case for U.S. International Family Planning Assistance, as Barack Obama takes office as president. The report argues that U.S. investment in family planning assistance programs overseas must more than double as soon as possible if global anti-poverty and development goals are to be achieved amidst the worldwide economic downturn."


  2. End all federal funding for abstinence only sex education programs that have been repeatedly proven totally ineffective. Pass the Prevention First Act as soon as possible. "The Act aims to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by increasing funding for Title X, expanding Medicaid family planning services, ending insurance discrimination against women, improving awareness of emergency contraception, providing compassionate assistance for victims of rape, reducing teen pregnancy rates, and ensuring that Federal programs provide medically accurate information."


  3. Pass the Freedom of Choice Act - "a measure that will codify Roe v. Wade and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women".


  4. Take action immediately to reverse former President Bush's (wow, that's fun to type) horrible last minute HHS "conscience" regulations. It's not going to be as easy as signing an executive order, so the process needs to begin right away. Several states have already filed suit against the rules, which could help. [Update on this one - it looks like this rule may be subject to President Obama's executive order freezing all of Bush's midnight regulations, which would be really good news.]


  5. Eliminate federal funding for so-called crisis pregnancy centers that really just exist to mislead, manipulate, and shame pregnant women.


  6. Repeal the Hyde Amendment and ensure access to reproductive health services, including abortion, for low-income women, women serving in our military and the families of military personnel, women serving in the Peace Corps, women in federal prisons, women receiving health care from Indian Health Service, and women on disability insurance. (Also, lift all Department of Defense restrictions on abortion access for women in our military.)


  7. Appoint judges who respect a woman's right to choose.


  8. Restore affordable birth control for college students and low-income women by passing the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act. The act was just reintroduced by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY). "Since 2006, prices for birth control have skyrocketed as high as $50/month at clinics and college health centers as a consequence of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. This act included a little-noticed provision that prohibited the decades-old practice of pharmaceutical companies selling contraceptives to college clinics and clinics serving low-income women at deeply discounted rates.

    Crowley commented in a statement: 'A bureaucratic mistake should not stand in the way of protecting the health and safety of millions of women across the nation,' he said. 'At no-cost to the American taxpayer, this simple legislative fix will restore affordable access to safe, effective birth control – reducing unplanned pregnancies and eliminating a considerable financial burden on millions of college-age and low-income women. I am proud to reintroduce this bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Reps. Kirk, Ryan, Dent, and Schiff, and I am confident we will address this issue in the 111th Congress.'"


  9. Allow federal employees enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program to choose insurance policies that cover abortion.


  10. Understanding that we've got to act locally too, we also hope to see the Reproductive Health Act passed so that the right to choose is strengthened here in New York.


  11. Bonus item! President Obama released this statement today. Let's hold him accountable to these words for the next four years.

    On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.

    While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.

    On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere.

For more information on the work that needs to be done now, check out Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration, a report put together by a "coalition of medical, public health, research, religious and religiously-affiliated, women’s health, legal, and other advocacy organizations". Get informed and then get up and get involved. It's our job now to make sure that all of this hope becomes lasting change.


Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

Senator Clinton Now Officially Secretary of State

It's official now. Meet our new Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton:


"Always and especially in the crucible of these global challenges, our overriding duty is to protect and advance America's security, interests and values, to keep our people, our nation and our allies secure, to promote economic growth and shared prosperity at home and abroad, and to strengthen America's position of global leadership so we remain a positive force in the world, whether in working to preserve the health of our planet or expanding opportunity for people on the margins whose progress and prosperity will add to our own."


"I believe that American leadership has been wanting, but is still wanted. We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal -- diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural -- picking the right tool or combination of tools for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy. This is not a radical idea. The Ancient Roman poet Terence declared that "In every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first." The same truth binds wise women as well."


"Right after I was nominated, a friend told me, "The world has so many problems. You've got your work cut out for you." Well, I agree, but I don't get up every morning thinking only about the threats and dangers we face. In spite of all the adversity and complexity, there are so many opportunities for America out there, calling forth the optimism and can-do spirit that has marked our progress for more than two centuries.Too often, we see the ills that plague us more clearly than the possibilities in front of us, but it is the real possibility of progress, of that better life free from fear and want and discord, that offers our most compelling message to the rest of the world."


"I want to emphasize the importance to us of this bottoms-up approach. The president-elect and I believe in this so strongly: Investing in our common humanity through social development is not marginal to our foreign policy but essential to the realization of our goals.

More than two billion people worldwide live on less than $2 a day. They're facing rising food prices and widespread hunger. We have to expand civil and political rights in countries that are plagued by poverty, hunger, and disease. But our pleas will fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually improves people's lives while weeding out the corruption that too often stands in the way of progress.

Our foreign policy must reflect our deep commitment to help millions of oppressed people around the world. And of particular concern to me is the plight of women and girls, who comprise the majority of the world's unhealthy, unschooled, unfed, and unpaid. If half the world's population remains vulnerable to economic, political, legal and social marginalization, our hope of advancing democracy and prosperity is in serious jeopardy. The United States must be an unequivocal and unwavering voice in support of women's rights in every country on every continent.

As a personal aside, I want to mention that President-elect Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was a pioneer in microfinance in Indonesia. In my own work on microfinance around the world, from Bangladesh to Chile to Viet Nam to South Africa and many other countries, I've seen firsthand how small loans given to poor women to start businesses can raise standards of living and transform local economies.

The president-elect's mother had planned to attend a microfinance forum at the Beijing Women's Conference in 1995 that I participated in. Unfortunately, she was very ill and couldn't travel and, sadly, passed away a few months later. But I think it's fair to say that her work in international development, the care and concern she showed for women and for poor people around the world, mattered greatly to her son, our president-elect. And I believe that it has certainly informed his views and his vision. We will be honored to carry on Ann Dunham's work in the years ahead."


"Well, [Senator Boxer], you have been such a leader. And I have been honored to be your colleague and your partner in a number of these efforts that have been undertaken on behalf of women around the world.

And I want to pledge to you that as secretary of state I view these issues as central to our foreign policy, not as adjunct or auxiliary or in any way lesser than all of the other issues that we have to confront.

I, too, have followed the stories that are exemplified by the pictures that you held up. I mean, it is heartbreaking beyond works that, you know, young girls are attacked on their way to school by Taliban sympathizers and members who do not want young women to be educated. It's not complicated: They want to maintain an attitude that keeps women, as I said in my testimony, unhealthy, unfed, uneducated.

And this is something that results all too often in violence against these young women, both within their families and from the outside. This is not culture. This is not custom. This is criminal. And it will be my hope to persuade more governments, as I have attempted to do since I spoke at Beijing on these issues, you know, 13 and some years ago, that we cannot have a free, prosperous, peaceful, progressive world if women are treated in such a discriminatory and violent way.

I have also read closely Nick Kristof's articles over the last many months, but in particular the last weeks, on the young women that he has both rescued from prostitution and met who have been enslaved and abused, tortured in every way: physically, emotionally, morally.

And I take very seriously the function of the State Department to lead our government through the Office on Human Trafficking to do all that we can to end this modern form of slavery. We have sex slavery, we have wage slavery, and it is primarily a slavery of girls and women.

So I look also forward, senator, to reviewing your legislation and working with you as a continuing partnership on behalf of these issues we care so much about.

And finally, the work that the women of the Senate did in connection with First Lady Laura Bush on behalf of the women of Afghanistan has been extremely important. That program was started in the State Department. It was midwifed by a group that I helped to start back in the Clinton administration called Vital Voices. Mrs. Bush has been outspoken on behalf of the plight of Afghan women, on behalf of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, and other women facing oppression around the world. And I'm very pleased that that project will be spun off to Georgetown where it will continue under Mrs. Bush's sponsorship.

So we're going to have a very active women's office, a very active office on trafficking. We're going to be speaking out consistently and strongly against discrimination and oppression of women and slavery in particular, because I think that is in keeping not only with American values, as we all recognize, but American national security interests as well."




The New York Times has the full transcript of the confirmation hearing, and Jezebel has video of Secretary Clinton's remarks about Ann Dunham and her work on the issue of microfinance. (Hillary Clinton talks about her own experiences with microfinance programs around the world during her time as First Lady in her book Living History.)


And just as a side note: the Senate vote to confirm Hillary Clinton today was 94-2. The two senators who voted against confirming Clinton were David Vitter (R-LA) and Jim DeMint (R-SC). Vitter wanted more restrictions on donations to Bill Clinton's foundation, and DeMint shared those concerns but voted against confirming Clinton because of her pro-choice views. (Although just a few days ago, after Clinton's nomination was sent from the Foreign Relations Committee to the full Senate, DeMint had said, "I think Senator Clinton could be one of our best secretaries of state".)

DeMint said he opposes Clinton's positions on such matters as providing aid to foreign groups that perform abortions. "I do not plan to slow up this nomination, but I do find it difficult to support a nominee who I know will pursue policies so contrary to American sovereignty and the dignity of the human person," he said. DeMint's full statement explaining his vote is on his website. So is his contact information.

Related Posts:

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 21, 2009

National Doughnut Tragedy Averted

Yesterday could have been a tragic day, but thanks to the determined activism of the American Life League, the abortion doughnut crisis was averted.

In light of a nationwide marketing trend to capitalize on the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, American Life League challenged Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. Thursday on the propriety of using the phrase "freedom of choice" in their corporate announcement regarding a free doughnut giveaway on Jan. 20 - Inauguration Day. Subsequently on Friday, Krispy Kreme updated the announcement. The following is a statement from Judie Brown, President of American Life League:

We are grateful to Krispy Kreme executives who realized the inappropriate use of the phrase "freedom of choice" and have changed their announcement, available on their web site.

Barack Obama is one of the most radical pro-abortion politicians ever elected president. Even though Obama claims he is not pro-abortion, but rather "pro-choice," his record speaks for itself. Obama received millions of dollars from the "freedom-of-choice" abortion industry because he swore that as one of his first acts as president, he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act, a legislative proposal that would wipe out a litany of incrementalist pro-life legislation with one stroke of his pen.

The use of the phrase "freedom of choice" by any corporation, particularly when used to coincide with President-elect Obama's inauguration, is offensive and demeaning to the millions who have suffered either directly or indirectly through abortion. Abortion is a tragedy for everyone involved in it. Thus we felt obligated to issue our original statement and subsequently communicate with Krispy Kreme Inc.

American Life League thanks Krispy Kreme for correcting their public statement. Their corporate decision was not only wise but will result, we are certain, with an increased number of customers not only on January 20th but for years to come.


I think we can all learn some valuable lessons about activism from the brilliant victory achieved here by the ALL. It's easy to be successful if:
  1. You're a Christian conservative organization and the target of your protest is a company that is reportedly owned by Christian conservatives who are likely to be more than happy to go along with your stupid request.
  2. Your protest is based on something so incredibly stupid (did we mention that it was stupid?) and inconsequential that it affects absolutely nobody anywhere in the world, making it more likely that people will just let you have your way rather than argue about it because who cares.
We're thinking they should try taking on Burger King next. That whole "have it your way" thing has got to be a subversive commentary on abortion rights.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 19, 2009

Who's Who in the Obama Administration

Change is upon us... Tomorrow Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Everyone has been researching and reading and writing and talking and worrying and debating about Obama for quite some time now. And we know a hell of a lot about soon-to-be Vice President Joe Biden as well.

But they're not going to run this country on their own. So here's a brief look at some other important people in the Obama/Biden Administration...

THE CABINET

The Position: Secretary of State
The Job:
The Department of State advises the President in the formulation and execution of foreign policy and promotes the long-range security and well-being of the U.S.
The Nominee: Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York
The Scoop: I think the "good side" on this one is obvious: it's Hillary Clinton! The "bad side"? Well... it's Hillary Clinton. A lot of people are mixed on the Hillary Clinton issue... personally the ESC is happy about this selection. She's smart, she's diplomatic, she's experienced, she's already well known by other world leaders... and maybe this move will appease those PUMAs and "Hillary Supporters for McCain" (wtf) once and for all. But on the other hand, there is still that little issue of Bill Clinton (specifically his international business relationships).


The Position: Secretary of the Treasury
The Job: The Department of the Treasury formulates and recommends economic, financial, tax, and fiscal policies; serves as financial agent for the U.S. Government; and manufactures coins and currency.
The Nominee:: Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
The Scoop: From 1998-2001, Geithner served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs and was later director of Policy Development at the International Monetary Fund. Geithner played a pivotal role in the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns, the decision to bail out AIG, and the decision to not save Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy. Although he's been called "very unusually talented" and praised for his understanding of government and markets... some people are a little nervous about whether or not he can get our country out of financial crisis.

The Position: Secretary of Defense
The Job:
The Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our country.
The Nominee: Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense
The Scoop: Gates will remain in his position as Secretary Defense for at least the first year of Obama's presidency. Under Obama's administration, a review of U.S. policy and strategy in Afghanistan will reportedly be of high priority to Gates.

Position: Attorney General
The Job:
The Department of Justice serves as counsel for its citizens, representing them in enforcing the law in the public interest.
The Nominee: Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney
The Scoop: Holder is a former Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and was Deputy Attorney General (under Janet Reno), during Bill Clinton's administration. Holder opposes the death penalty, favors closing Guantanamo, is critical of the U.S. "torture policy",and was against the way the Bush administration has enforced the Patriot Act. If confirmed, Holder will be the first African American Attorney General of the U.S. (He was also the first African American Deputy AG).

Position: Secretary of the Interior
The Job:
The Department of the Interior protects and provides access to the U.S.'s natural and cultural heritage; manages public lands and minerals, national parks, national wildlife refuges, and western water resources; and upholds Federal trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and our commitments to island communities.
The Nominee: Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado
The Scoop: Salazar would be the second Hispanic Interior Secretary (after Manuel Lujan, Jr., under President George H.W. Bush). Some environmental groups are concerned about Salazar's ties to the coal and mining industries, however the League of Conservation Voters gave him a 100% perfect score for 2008.

Position: Secretary of Agriculture
The Job:
The Department of Agriculture works to improve and maintain farm income; to develop and expand markets abroad for agricultural products; to help curb/cure poverty, hunger and malnutrition; to ensure standards of quality in daily food supply; to enhance the environment and to maintain production capacity by helping landowners protect the soil, water, forests, and other natural resources.
The Nominee: Tom Vilsack, former Governor of Iowa
The Scoop: As the former Governor of a "farm "state", he's certainly no stranger to agricultural issues. However the Organic Consumers Association does not support Vilsack for Agriculture Secretary, citing a preference for large industrial farms and genetically modified crops.

Position: Secretary of Commerce
The Job:
The Department of Commerce encourages, serves, and promotes the U.S.'s international trade, economic growth, and technological advancement.
The Nominee: TBA
The Scoop: Obama's original pick for Commerce Secretary, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, recently withdrew amidst a federal grand jury investigation of $1.5 million in state highway contracts.

Position: Secretary of Labor
The Job:
The Department of Labor works to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the U.S., to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment.
The Nominee: Rep. Hilda Solis of California
The Scoop: Solis is long-time advocate of civil rights for women and people of color. She is pro-union and has always been a strong advocate for workers rights, immigration reform and environmental issues.

Position: Secretary of Health and Human Services
The Job:
The Department of Health and Human Services is literally a department of serving people, from newborn infants to persons requiring health services to elderly citizens.
The Nominee: Tom Daschle, former Senator of South Dakota
The Scoop: Daschle is said to be planning to turn the health care system's goal away from just treating illness toward keeping people well, including a big focus on prevention. He's also quoted as wanting to restore confidence in the FDA, by ensuring that decisions be based on science and not politics or ideology. (That's a big concept for us here at the ESC, because the science of issues like abortion, birth control, and stem cell research are often overpowered by politicians' "morals"). Daschle was given a 50% rating by NARAL, due to a "mixed" voting record on pro-choice issues and will also serve as the director of a newly-formed White House Office of Health Reform.

Position: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
The Job:
The Department of Housing & Urban Development is responsible for programs concerned with the U.S.'s housing needs, fair housing opportunities, and improvement and development of the U.S.'s communities.
The Nominee: Shaun Donovan, Head of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development
The Scoop: Donovan has a "national reputation for curtailing low-income foreclosures, developing affordable housing and managing the nation's largest housing plan".


Position: Secretary of Transportation
The Job:
The Department of Transportation establishes the U.S.'s overall transportation policy, including highway planning, development, and construction; motor carrier safety; urban mass transit; railroads; aviation; and the safety of waterways, ports, highways, and oil and gas pipelines.
The Nominee: Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois
The Scoop: LaHood is one of two Republican members of Obama's Cabinet (Robert Gates being the other, although he is technically registered as independent). Some feel that LaHood is a little inexperienced for this particular position (and has a poor track record when it comes to environmental issues), expecting the Chairman of the House of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to play a stronger leading role. Although we are pleased to see an Arab American (he's of Jordanian and Lebanese descent) in the Cabinet.

The Position: Secretary of Energy
The Job:
The Department of Energy's mission is to foster a secure and reliable energy system that is environmentally and economically sustainable; to be a responsible steward of the U.S.'s nuclear weapons; to clean up the Department's facilities; to lead in the physical sciences and advance the biological, environmental, and computational sciences; and to provide premier scientific instruments for the U.S.'s research enterprise.
The Nominee: Steven Chu, Professor of Physics and Molecular & Cellular Biology, Univeristy of California, Berkeley. Also the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The Scoop: A winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics (1997), Chu has been a vocal advocate for alternative energy and nuclear power. Chu will be the first Chinese American to hold the office of Energy Secretary and the second Chinese American to be a member of the cabinet (after Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush).

The Position: Secretary of Education
The Job:
The Department of Education establishes policy for, administers, and coordinates most Federal assistance to education. Its mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nation.
The Nominee: Arne Duncan, CEO of Chicago Public Schools
The Scoop: A former professional basketball player, Duncan has extensive experience in educational policy and management. He has earned a solid reputation for "confronting pressing issues in public education" such as transforming weak schools and raising teacher quality. He also received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Lake Forest College (2003).

The Position: Secretary of Veterans Affairs
The Job:
The Department of Veterans Affairs operates programs to benefit veterans and members of their families, including compensation payments for disabilities or death related to military service; pensions; education and rehabilitation; home loan guaranty; burial; and a medical care program incorporating nursing homes, clinics, and medical centers.
The Nominee: Retired General Eric Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army
The Scoop: A Vietnam veteran, Shinseki is the only Japanese American and Asian American to be promoted to the Army's top position and the first Asian four star general in the U.S. military. He's well known for his public "disagreement" with Rumsfeld over the amount of troops needed for postwar occupation of Iraq. (Shinseki's estimate was much higher than Rumsfeld's and was harshly rejected. Over time many came to believe that Shinseki was correct, including Central Commander Gen. John Abizaid).

The Position: Secretary of Homeland Security
The Job:
The Department of Homeland Security's first priority is to protect the nation against further terrorist attacks by analyzing threats and intelligence; guarding our borders and airports; protecting our critical infrastructure; and coordinating the response of our nation for future emergencies.
The Nominee: Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona
The Scoop: Many consider Napolitano the "most effective governor" at combating illegal immigration. Formerly Arizona's Attorney General, a lot of people feel that Napolitano will be perfect for this job (and not because Ed Rendell thinks she has "no life" because she has no family, idiot). Good stuff about her: She's pro-choice and pro-education. The bad stuff: Despite rumors of being homosexual (denied), she opposes same-sex marriage. Arizona's third female governor, she was the first woman to win reelection in Arizona. If confirmed, Napolitano would become the first woman appointed Secretary in the relatively new department.


CABINET-LEVEL ADMINISTRATION OFFICERS

The Position: White House Chief of Staff
The Job:
The Chief of Staff has managerial and advisory roles including supervising key White House staff, controlling the flow of people into the Oval Office, managing the flow of information, protecting the interest of the President and implementing the President's agenda.
The Nominee: Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois
The Scoop: A former Senior Advisor to President Bill Clinton, Emmanuel remained neutral for much of the 2008 campaign finally endorsing Obama. He's well known for going up against Dick Cheney's claims that he was not a part of the executive branch, and therefore not subject to executive orders and regulations. (Emmanuel threatened to cut off the $4.8 million dollars in "executive-branch funding" received by the Vice President's office). Bonus: Emmanuel received 100% voting records from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

The Position: Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
The Job: The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for enforcing the U.S.'s Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, as well as other environmental statutes.
The Nominee: Lisa Jackson, Chief of Staff to the Governor of New Jersey
The Scoop: In addition to 16 years with the EPA, she has also served as New Jersey Commissioner of Environmental Protection for two years. She's been praised for helping to put New Jersey in a "leadership role" on the issue of climate change, for introducing legislature that would cut greenhouse gas emissions, for discouraging the building new coal plants and for increasing the states goals for wind and solar power. The first African American and first African American woman to serve as Chief of Staff to the Governor of NJ, she will also be the first African American to serve as EPA Administrator. (The fourth woman to do so and the second "New Jerseyan").

The Position: Director of the Office of Management and Budget
The Job: The Office of Management and Budget oversees the activities of federal agencies; advises on a range of topics relating to federal policy, management, legislative, regulatory and budgetary issues.
The Nominee: Peter Orszag, recent Director of the Congressional Budget Office
The Scoop: Orszag's job will be require a close review of federal spending programs with the goal of "eliminating those programs we don't need and insisting that those we do need operate in a cost-effective way." As director of the Congressional Budget Office, Orszag drew attention to the role rising healing care expenditures were likely to play in the government's long-term fiscal problems so we can likely see some attempts at healthcare reform during Orszag's tenure with the OMB.


The Position:
Director of the National Drug Control Policy
The Job: The Office of National Drug Control Policy establishes policies, priorities, and objectives in an attempt to eradicate illicit drug use, manufacturing, trafficking, and related drug crime, violence and health consequences.
The Nominee: TBA
The Scoop: Obama has stated that his administration will aim to make health policy decisions based on science, not ideology or politics, but we'll have to wait and see how that actually applies to drug issues when he finally selects his "Drug Czar". A few names that have been floating around include Rep. Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, Atlanta police chief Richard J. Pennington, and Dr. Don Vereen, Obama's own Drug Control transition team leader.

The Position: Trade Representative
The Job: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is responsible for developing and recommending U.S. trade policy to the President; conducting trade negotiations at bilateral and multilateral levels; and coordinating trade policy within the government.

The Nominee: Ronald Kirk, former Mayor of Dallas, TX
The Scoop: Kirk is a proponent of free trade, however many expect him to advance Obama's concerns about including environmental and labor protections within trade pacts. A partner in a Dallas law firm, Kirk was the first African American mayor of Dallas. He is also remembered for demanding a "national apology" for slavery.

The Position: Ambassador to the United Nations
The Job: The U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations represents the U.S. on the U.N. Security Council and in all plenary meetings of the General Assembly. (Barack Obama has returned this position to cabinet level).
The Nominee: Susan Rice
The Scoop: Another "Clinton alum" (she served on the staff of the National Security Council and as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during Bill Clinton's presidency), Rice served as a senior foreign policy advisor to Obama during his campaign. Allegations have been made that Rice played a key role in missing an opportunity to neutralize Osama bin Laden back when he was still in Sudan. Rice will be America's third female ambassador to the UN (after Madeline Albright and Jeane Kirkpatrick) and the first African American woman to hold the position.


OTHER IMPORTANT PEOPLE

The Position: Senior Advisors to the President
The Job: The Office of the Senior Advisor takes responsibility for strategic initiatives, intergovernmental affairs, political affairs and the office of the Public Liaison (see below).
The Nominees: Pete Rouse, Barack Obama's Chief of State in the Senate and David Axelrod, consultant for AXP&D Message and Media
The Scoop: Both Axelrod and Rouse have worked with Obama before. Axelrod was the chief strategist for the 2008 Obama campaign and has been credited with some of the Obama trademarks, such as "hope" and "change". He's also served on campaigns for Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Chris Dodd. In addition to being Obama's Chief of Staff, Rouse was also co-chairman of the transition team and served as chief of staff to Sen. Tom Daschle (South Dakota), Sen. Dick Durbin (Illinois) and former Lt. Gov. Terry Miller (Alaska).

The Position: Senior Advisor for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liason
The Job:
The Senior Advisor for Intergovernmental Affairs serves as the President's liaison to state, local and tribal governments. The Office of Public Liaison promotes Presidential priorities through outreach to concerned constituencies and public interest groups, including planning briefings, meetings and large events.
The Nominee: Valerie Jarrett, President and CEO of The Habitat Co.
The Scoop: A longtime friend of Barack and Michelle Obama, Jarrett served as a senior adviser for Obama's presidential campaign and as co-chair of his transition team. Jarrett has also served the state of Chicago as Deputy Corporation Counsel for Finance and Development, Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley, and then Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Development. (She also was chairperson of the Chicago Transit Authority).

The Position: Surgeon General
The Job: Part of the Office of Public Health and Science, the Surgeon General serves as America's chief health educator by providing scientific information on improving health and reducing the risk of illness and injury.
The Nominee: Dr. Sanjay Gupta, neurosurgeon and news correspondent
The Scoop: Gupta could be the highest-profile surgeon general in history and according to some sources may have an expanded role in providing health policy advice. Formerly a White House fellow and advisor to Hillary Clinton, Gupta currently hosts a show on CNN and publishes a column in TIME magazine. The public response to Gupta's nomination has been mixed: Some feel that his communication skills and high profile will allow him to prioritize medical reform, while others are concerned about potential conflicts of interest with drug companies. (And we all know how Michael Moore feels about him).


The Position: Solicitor General
The Job:
The Office of the Solicitor General is responsible for conducting all litigation on behalf of the U.S. in the Supreme Court and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts.
The Nominee: Elena Kagan, Dean of Harvard Law School
The Scoop: Kagan has previously taught alongside Barack Obama at the University of Chicago Law School, served as President Bill Clinton's Associated White House Council and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council, and was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1999 (although she was never confirmed due to Republican blocking of the nomination). Bonus: Kagan has written widely on a range of First Amendment issues and in ways supportive of free speech rights. She is currently the first female Dean of Harvard Law School and will be the first woman to serve permanently as solicitor general.


The Position: Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
The Job:
The Federal Reserve System is the central banking system of the U.S.
The Nominee: N/A
The Scoop:
Barack Obama will not be able to appoint a new chairman until 2010, when George W. Bush's 2006 nominee Ben Bernanke's term will be up.

The Position: Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
The Job:
The head of the Social Security Administration is responsible for adminsitering the Social Security programs (retirement, survivors and disability) as well as the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.
The Nominee:
N/A
The Scoop:
A new commissioner will not be appointed until 2013, when George W. Bush's 2007 nominee Michael J. Astrue's term will be up.

The Position: Director of National Intelligence
The Job:
The DNI is serves as the principle adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to national security.
The Nominee:
retired Navy Adm. Dennis Blair
The Scoop: Blair is a four-star admiral and former top U.S. military commander in the Pacific region who has served as an associate CIA director for military support and alos at the White House National Security Council.
Obama has said that he is committed to "a clear end to torture" and restoring a balance between security and constitutional protections, however many feel that Blair's past actions indicate a lack of concern for human rights. Most significant is his laissez-faire attitude about the crisis in East Timor in the late 90s. (Concerned by the increasing violence against independence groups in Indonesian-occupied East Timor, the Clinton Administration ordered Blair to meet with the commander of the Indonesian military and tell him to shut down the pro-Indonesia militia. Not only did Blair not deliver this message, but he instead offered Indonesia military assistance).

The Position: Director, Domestic Policy Council
The Job:
The Domestic Policy Council coordinates the policy-making process with respect to domestic issues and ensures that domestic policy decisions and programs are effective and consistent with the President's stated goals.
The Nominee: Melody Barnes
The Scoop: Previously the Exec VP for Policy at the Center for American Progress, Barnes left the CAP to work on the Obama campaign and serves on the advisory board for Obama's transition team.
She has worked on civil rights, women’s health, religious liberties and judicial appointments and for the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Bonus tidbit of info for the Evil Slutopia readers: In addition to working for the Center for Reproductive Rights, she was a board member of EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood.

The Position: Chair, Council of Economic Advisers
The Job:
The Council of Economic Advisers advises the President on the economic policy of the White House.
The Nominee: Christina Romer, co-director of the Program in Monetary Economics at the National Bureau of Economic Research
The Scoop:
A former vice president of the American Economic Association and John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship recipient, Romer's early worked focused on a comparison of macroeconomic volatility before and after WWII and the causes of and U.S. recovery from the Great Depression. She has done extensive work on fiscal and monetary policy, including the impact of tax policy on government and general economic growth. Romer was given the task of co-authoring the administration's plan to recover from the 2008 recession with economic Jared Bernstein. To hear from her directly on Obama's proposed "jobs creation" package: video and report here.


The Position: Director, National Economic Council
The Job: The National Economic Council coordinates policy-making for domestic and international economic issues, coordinates economic policy advice for the President, ensures that policy decisions and programs are consistent with the President's economic goals, and monitors implementation of the President's economic policy agenda.
The Nominee: Lawrence Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government
The Scoop:
A recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal for his work in several fields of economics, Summers served as Secretary of the Treasury for the last year and a half of the Bill Clinton Administration. Summers offended a lot of people during his tenure as President of Harvard University (2001-2006) including affirmative action advocates, environmentalists, and women. Perhaps his most famous offense among feminists would be his suggestion that there are more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions because of inate differences (basically, that men are more likely to be scientists because men are naturally just better at science, whatEVER).

The Position: Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
The Job:
The President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board is a new panel of non-governmental experts from business, labor, academic and elsewhere that Obama is creating to help deal with the current economic crisis. (The Board will be established initially for a two-year term after which Obama will determine whether or not its continuation is necessary).
The Nominee: Paul Volcker,
Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Group of Thirty and a former Federal Reserve Chairman
The Scoop: Volcker has a long history with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He began there in 1952 as a full-time economist and later returned in 1979 as Chairman under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Regan.
Other notable experience includes work at the U.S. Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the United Nations Association of the United States of America. Volcker's time at the Federal Reserve was widely credited with ending the U.S.'s "stagflation" crisis of the 1970s, but also with contributing to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s.

The Position: Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality
The Job: The Council on Environmental Quality coordinates federal environmental efforts in the U.S. and works closely with agencies and other White House offices in the development of environment and energy policies/initiatives.
The Nominee: Nancy Sutley, Deputy Mayor for Energy and Environment for Los Angeles
The Scoop: A current member of the Board of Directors for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Sutley's resume includes time as an EPA official during Bill Clinton's administration, an energy advisor to Gov. Gray Davis, a deputy secretary for policy and intergovernmental relations within the California EPA and on the California State Water Resources Control Board.
A member of Hillary Clinton's California LGBT steering committee during the Democratic primaries, Sutley is the first prominent gay person to earn a senior role in Obama's new administration.

The Position: Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change
The Job: The so-called "climate czar" coordinates environmental, energy, climate and related matters for the federal government.
The Nominee: Carol Browner, Principal of The Albright Group LLC
The Scoop:
Browner served as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the entire eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency (
the longest term in the history of the agency), where she established climate change as an important environmental issue requiring change. She also established herself as "unpopular" with a number of industry groups and conservative members of Congress. She is widely known for championing common sense, cost-effective solutions to pressing environmental and public health challenges.

The Position: Chairman of the House of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
The Job: Formerly known as the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, this standing committee of the House of Representatives has jurisdiction over America's surface transportation, freight and passenger rail and the inland waterway system.

The Nominee: N/A
The Scoop:
This is an elected position, currently held by Rep. Jim Oberstar since 2006. So why mention it at all? It is speculated that Oberstar, a Democrat from Minnesota, will play a stronger leading role during this administration, downplaying the role that Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood will play (see above). Oberstar is an internationally recognized expert on aviation and aviation safety and was a member of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism. He also authored and has passed the Safe Routes to School program. He has a generally liberal voting record (considered the third most liberal member of the Minnesota congressional district) but opposes abortion and gun control, meh.

The Position:
National Security Adviser
The Job: The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, serves as the chief adviser to the President on national security issues.
The Nominee: retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, Jr.

The Scoop: Currently the Chairman of the Atlantic Council of the United States, Jones has served as chair of the Congressional Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq and was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of State as a special envoy for Middle East security in 2007. Twice he was asked by Condoleeza Rice to be Deputy Secretary of State, but he declined. Jones' record has been described as that of "someone who [is] unencumbered by strong ideological leanings [and] can evaluate ideas dispassionately whether they come from left or right" (quote: Michael Crowley).

The Position: Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs
The Job:
The Office of Legislative Affairs serves as the President’s liaison to the United States Congress.
The Nominee:
Phil Schiliro
The Scoop: Schiliro was a senior advisor to Obama's presidential campaign and the transition team's Director of Congressional Relations. Before joining Obama's campaign, he was Chief of Staff to Rep. Henry Waxman of California and the House Oversight Committee.


The Position: White House Counsel
The Job:
The Counsel's office advises the President on all legal issues concerning the President and the White House.
The Nominee:
Greg Craig
The Scoop: It was earlier speculated that Craig would be nominated for Secretary of State. He served as senior advisor to Secretary of State Madeline Albright and was the director of policy planning. Notable points on his 'resume' include playing a key role in getting economic sanctions imposed against the apartheid government of South Africa, serving as a go-between on Tibetan issues between the Dalali Lama and the Chinese government, and
representing Elián González’s father in the famous custody battle.

The Position: Cabinet Secretary
The Job:
The cabinet secretary serves as the liaison between the White House and the heads of executive departments.

The Nominee:
Chris Lu, former legislative director of Obama's Senate office
The Scoop: Lu served as an advisor to Barack Obama during the 2008 election and then as the executive director of the Obama-Biden Transition Project. A former classmate of Obama at Harvard Law, Lu also served as a law clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals (Third Circuit), on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives, and as a special advisor to John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election.


The Position: Staff Secretary
The Job:
The Assistant of the President and Staff Secretary is responsible for managing communications to the president and circulating documents among senior staff.
The Nominee: Lisa Brown, Executive Director of the American Constitution Society
The Scoop: In her pre-government career, she worked as a lawyer for Shea & Gardner and had a substantial pro bono practice focusing on disability issues, civil rights and social justice. A former member of the Executive Board of the President's Committee for Employment of People with Disabilities, she also served as Deputy Counsel and then later Counsel, to Vice President Al Gore.

The Position: Press Secretary
The Job:
The Press Secretary is the primary spokesperson for the Administration.
The Nominee:
Robert Gibbs
The Scoop: The Communications Director for Barack Obama in the Senate (and for Obama's 2008 campaign), Gibbs also served as Communications Director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for four separate Senate campaigns (including Obama's in 2004) and as Press Secretary for Rep. Bob Etheridge. He served as Press Secretary for John Kerry's presidential campaign for a period of time (resigning in response to the firing Jim Jordan) and was criticized in 2004 for launching attack ads against Howard Dean's campaign. His most recent "claim to fame" was confronting Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes back in October, for giving Andy Martin a forum to make accusations against Barack Obama without addressing Martin's history of conspiracy theories and Anti-Semitism.

The Position: Communications Director
The Job:
The Communications Office is responsible for the planning and production of the President's media events.
The Nominee:
Ellen Moran, executive director of EMILY's List
The Scoop: Before EMILY's List, Moran served in the Political department of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (a labor union federation) where
she coordinated Wal-Mart corporate accountability activities and worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development on international democracy work in Indonesia. She has managed campaigns for members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, as well as a few governors and 1992 presidential hopeful Tom Harkin. She also helped plan both Clinton inaugurals.

The Position: Director of the Office of Urban Policy
The Job:
This brand new office will take a "comprehensive approach to urban development" by coordinating federal efforts to help America's cities.

The Nominee: Adolfo Carrion, Jr., Borough President of the Bronx
The Scoop: A Democrat, Carrion is the most vocal outer-borough of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan (which would charge drivers a fee to enter Manhattan between 8am and 6pm) in an effort to reduce congestion and minimize air pollution. He also pushed for improvements to mass transit.
He is currently the highest ranking Latino elected official in the state of New York. A notable moment in Carrion's history: In 2007 he demanded an apology from the German government after a racist and "anti-Bronx" military training exercise popped up on YouTube.

There are still even more members of the administration who you might want to know about (and who knows which of these nominees will or will not actually be confirmed). So you can be sure that we'll be continuing to cover this topic as the selection process and hearings continue. In the meantime, for more detailed information about what the President's Cabinet does and each department's responsibilities: click here or here. Happy Inauguration!

Related Posts:

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 16, 2009

Krispy Kreme Joins The Right Wing Hunger Strike

Right wing conservatives are boycotting foods almost too quickly for us to keep track. We just got finished reviewing the American Family Association's beef with Campbell's Soup, and while we weren't looking the American Life League made a grab for the spotlight by announcing that they're mad at Krispy Kreme.

So, what did the delicious doughnut makers do to incur the wrath of the ALL? Did they donate thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood? Run an ad in The Advocate featuring a lesbian couple enjoying doughnuts with their kids? No, I'm afraid it's much more sinister than that. Believe it or not, the people at Krispy Kreme actually had the nerve to...use the phrase "freedom of choice" in a press release about their Inauguration Day free doughnut promotion. I know! Can you believe they thought they'd get away with such a radical political statement? Good thing the ALL is watching out for this sort of thing. Here's their press release:


KRISPY KREME CELEBRATES OBAMA WITH PRO-ABORTION DOUGHNUTS

The following is a statement from American Life League president, Judie Brown.

"The next time you stare down a conveyor belt of slow-moving, hot, sugary glazed donuts at your local Krispy Kreme you just might be supporting President-elect Barack Obama's radical support for abortion on demand – including his sweeping promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as soon as he steps in the Oval Office, Jan. 20.

The doughnut giant released the following statement yesterday:

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet "free" can be.

Just an unfortunate choice of words? For the sake of our Wednesday morning doughnut runs, we hope so. [Isn't "unfortunate choice of words" an unfortunate choice of words for the ALL, considering that this is a press release condeming Krispy Kreme for using the word choice?] The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that "choice" is synonymous with abortion access and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand.

President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda. Celebrating his inauguration with "Freedom of Choice" doughnuts – only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion – is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy.

A misconstrued concept of "choice" has killed over 50 million preborn children since Jan. 22, 1973. Does Krispy Kreme really want their free doughnuts to celebrate this "freedom.""

As of Thursday morning, Communications Director Brian Little could not be reached for comment. We challenge Krispy Kreme doughnuts to reaffirm their commitment to true freedom – to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and to separate themselves and their doughnuts from our great American shame."


We encourage groups like the American "Life" League and the American "Family" Association to spend as much time and energy as possible working on ridiculous, useless, stupid protests like this one. Maybe while they're focused on this crap, the rest of us can actually make some progress.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 15, 2009

Dumb Things Soon-To-Be Ex-Presidents Say

From tonight's farewell speech from President Bush:

"Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school."

Just a small misstatement there, Mr. President. Actually, Afghanistan has gone from a nation where women were stoned in the streets to one where young women are sprayed with acid on their way to school. I know I'd really feel 'encouraged' to do something if I was afraid of being the victim of a brutal attack on my way to try to do it.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 14, 2009

Campbell's Soup Gay Update

We're in the habit now of regularly checking in with groups like the American Family Association to see what ridiculous new protests they're cooking up, so I noticed today that there's an exciting update to their recently announced boycott of Campbell's Soup. First, they were mad because Campbell's featured a lesbian couple and their child in an ad for Swanson broth in the The Advocate, and totally blew off the AFA's threats about "staying neutral in the culture war" by saying that they will continue to support all types of families and advertise in publications like The Advocate. Now, they're targeting the Campbell's Labels for Education program.

Here's what this evil and subversive program is all about:
For more than 30 years, Labels for Education has been awarding free educational equipment to schools in exchange for proofs of purchase from the Campbell family of brands. It’s a fun, easy program where students, families and members of the community work together for a common goal.

Today, over 80,000 schools and organizations are registered with Labels for Education, benefiting more than 42 million students. Over the years, we've been able to provide more than $100 million in merchandise to America's schools!
Sure, this sounds all warm and fuzzy and nice, right? Oh, that's just what they want you think. The AFA tells it like it is:

Many people aren't aware that when their school participates in Campbell's "Labels for Education" program they are supporting a company that has openly come out in support of homosexual marriage, and it has no intentions of stopping that support. "Labels for Education" provides equipment for schools in exchange for proofs of purchase from the family of Campbell's brands. Many of the schools that participate don't know that Campbell's supports the homosexual publication The Advocate with advertising. The Advocate is a leading promoter of same-sex marriage.

...Check to see if your school participates in Campbell's "Labels for Education" program. If so, ask them to stop participating. These labels support a company that openly supports homosexual marriage.
So, the American "Family" Association wants parents and teachers to stop participating in a program that puts school supplies and educational equipment into the hands of their children, because the company that sponsors the program ran an ad that none of the kids will ever see and which will never affect them in any way. And is the AFA going to provide the supplies themselves to the schools that agree to drop the Campbell's program? Of course not. They don't care about depriving kids of learning opportunities (and, you know, depriving LGBT people and families of being-treated-like-human-beings opportunities) as long as it serves their "pro-family" agenda. It makes all kinds of sense, doesn't it?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 13, 2009

Blue Gal Tells It Like It Is

In the video below, our new bestie Blue Gal responds to Sarah Palin's recent Scooby Doo villain-esque statement that she might have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those darn meddling anonymous bloggers. Enjoy.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 12, 2009

Our Blog is Fabulous

...according to Linda-Sama, who has given us a "blog award" over at her site Linda's Yoga Journey.



Thank you!

(She also gave us an awesome little write-up on her other blog Ramblings of an Ageless Hippie Chick, check it out).

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 11, 2009

Strippers, Rapists and Murderers...

What do they all have in common? They're all a result of single motherhood... according to Ann Coulter. Now of course, we hate Ann Coulter. We hate her so much that we don't even like to acknowledge that she exists, so it pains us to actually write about her at all. But this one's just so incredibly ridiculous, we had to say something about it already.

Probably not too many of you have read Coulter's book, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (we're not even going to link to it, because we don't want to give her any more free publicity than necessary). In it, she makes the claim that children of divorced parents or single mothers are "future strippers". A few days ago she defended this statement on Hannity & Colmes as "something that needs to be said". She goes on to say that single motherhood is a "recipe to create criminals, strippers, rapists, murderers".

She also made the claim that liberals hate marriage (I guess that's why gay people want the right to get married so bad) and that single mothers are "victimizers who are treated like victims". Speaking of victims, she also had some choice words for President-elect Barack Obama and other "children of a black father who abandoned them and a white mother who raised them"...

Honestly, I can't even summarize and paraphrase it all, because it defies commentary. I'm just going to cut and paste:

COULTER: ...they all identify with the ethnicity of their black fathers to establish victimhood status in America. Because that is how you get ahead in America, by being a victim.

COLMES: And you accuse them of insulting the women who struggled to raise them.

COULTER: Correct.

COLMES: Yet you have insulted them by calling them strippers.

COULTER: No, I didn't call the mothers strippers.

HANNITY: Oh, my goodness.

COULTER: I said that this is a recipe for creating -- and it is, it is a fact --

COLMES: Oh, their kids are strippers. OK.

COULTER: Yes, and they will be, and that is a fact. You liberals pretend you care about facts.
You know what Ann, us "liberals" do care about facts. So let's look at the actual facts, shall we? There may in fact be some statistics that link single parenthood to crime, however it's stupid to assume that this is a causal link. (That is, there are other factors that lead to that association, not the single parenthood itself).

I think it's worth looking at why you're a single parent. Do children of divorce actually suffer from the divorce or rather, from the effects of living with fighting/unhappy parents pre-divorce? The factors leading to the divorce, maybe well have more of a negative impact on children. I think it comes down to the quality of the parenting received and/or the happiness and mental states of the parents. There are plenty of criminals who were raised by both a mother and a father.

Also how much of the negative behavior that studies have linked to children of single-parent households comes from the fact that a two-parent structure (and that's two parents of opposite genders obviously) is still considered to be the only positive family environment? I wonder how often it is a self-fulfilling prophecy... one where the "destructive and rebellious" children of single mothers is less the fault of single mothers than it is of society's condemnation of single motherhood.

There's a lot of stress associated with being a single parent in a today's world, not just the normal stresses of trying to parent alone - but the guilt associated with the stigma of single parenthood. Yes, it's better today than it has been in past years (guess that's the fault of those damn "liberals" Ann keeps talking about) but it's still stigmatized.

Ann also fails to look at the role economics plays into the equation. Poverty is often linked to crime and other "negative" factors (such as limited access to quality education) and single women with children are more likely to be living under the poverty level. That doesn't mean that single parenthood causes people to become criminals. Maybe if the politicians would spend less time criticizing single mothers and more time providing government services to help them, the statistics would change.

Certain studies have indicated higher rates of criminal activity in the African American community as well, but it would misleading and wrong to twist those statistics into a blanket claim such as "black people are more likely to be criminals". Without acknowledging the fact that black people are more likely to be living under the poverty level (and more likely to be oppressed), that statement out of context is inaccurate and completely racist.

Yet, that's what Ann Coulter is doing here - she's focusing on only one small part of a much bigger picture. Of course, I'm only referring to the alleged link to criminal behavior, which brings me to my next issue. I'm not sure which part of Coulter's theory is more offensive and hilariously ridiculous. The claim that the children of single mothers will become strippers, rapists and murders... or the fact that she equates strippers with rapists and murderers. Last time I checked, stripping was not a violent crime (or a crime at all). Last time I checked, being called a stripper is not an insult (something that even "liberal" Alan Colmes seems to miss).

I'm not sure if there are any statistics that support or refute the claim that children of single parents are more likely to become strippers. I'd be really curious to see how Ann can defend that one as a "fact"... but still not curious enough to actually buy her train wreck of a book.

Related Posts:

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 10, 2009

Dump DOMA & Blue For Equality

Today's the day for nationwide protests against the Defense of Marriage Act.

On January 10th, we will come together as one UNITED FRONT asking the LGBTQ community to join us in signing an Open Letter to President Barack Obama, during a NATIONAL DOMA PROTEST.

This letter will remind President Elect Barack Obama of the promises he made to us.
It will also serve as a pledge from our community that we will hold him to his promises and help him achieve them.

We can’t just put a letter online and ask that people sign it.
We need to take to the streets. As we all know…
VISIBILITY IS THE KEY TO EQUALITY!
Outreach & Education Will End Discrimination.
We MUST Infiltrate, to Educate, and Stop Hate!

About DOMA:

On September 21st, 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into federal law. DOMA, wrote discrimination into the Constitution with two strict regulations:
  1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
  2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
To drive the point even further, 37 states slowly but surely adopted DOMA as a state-wide regulation further amending state Constitutions. This appalling law tells the American people that it is OK to discriminate. That it is OK to recognize the LGBTQ community as less than equal. This same law, that the California Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional set the precedence for Proposition 8. This same law has nullified many rights that come with Domestic Partnerships. This law has nullified the heterosexual rights that come with Common Law Marriage. This law blurred the lines of separation of church and state even further. And this law, is one of many that President Elect Barack Obama has PROMISED to repeal in his "Open Letter to the LGBTQ Community."

Signatures on the open letter are supposed to mailed to Join the Impact on or before January 12th, so even if you're not attending a protest today, you've still got a couple of days to go to their site, print out the letter and signature page, sign it and ask some family and friends to sign it. Let's let the Obama administration know that we want them to make this promise a priority. For more information on the efforts to repeal DOMA, check out People For the American Way's Dump DOMA site.


Tonight is also the night to go Blue For Equality.

Display a BLUE LIGHT in your front porch, window or store front to show support for EQUALITY FOR ALL.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 9, 2009

The Right Wing Is Going To Starve

Queers United brings us the story of yet another protest from the American Family Association.

The American Family Association is calling for a boycott of Pepsi due to their support for the "homosexual agenda" and they are asking their constituents to take action by letting Pepsi know they plan on boycotting.

They are angry because Pepsi donated $500,000 to the Human Rights Campaign as well as $500,000 to Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays(PFLAG)

Pepsi has also marched in pride parades and handed out Pepsi products and paraphernalia in an effort to market to the LGBT community.

In addition PepsiCo has workshops to trains its employees in diversity training which includes educating about sexual orientation and gender identity issues.
So, let's review. The right wingers can't drink Starbucks because of that mermaid whore on their cups - it's practically hardcore porn, no self-respecting conservative Christian would carry that thing around. It probably threatens traditional marriage somehow too. And they can't go to Dunkin Donuts instead, because then the terrorists win. McDonald's is off-limits, because the whole company (not just Ronald) is totally gay. Campbell's Soup? Sorry, no, they've been infiltrated by evil lesbians doing horrible things like cooking meals for their children. This means they also can't have other Campbell's products like Swanson broth, Pace salsa, Pepperidge Farm cookies and goldfish crackers, Prego sauces, and V8 juices.

And now Pepsi products are off the table too, which means not just soda but also stuff like Frito-Lay chips (no Doritos, Tostitos, or Cheetos!), Quaker Oats (no Captain Crunch or Life cereal and no Aunt Jemima syrup either, and no Rice-a-Roni, but that's probably good because we all know anything called "the San Francisco treat" would probably turn you gay anyway) and Tropicana juices. They own Naked Juice too, but that doesn't matter because AFA members would never walk around with a bottle that had the word NAKED on it in big letters, that would be shameful. They also make Gatorade, so any athletic evangelicals will have to switch to Powerade or some other -ade product or be stuck with water...but not Aquafina, cause that's PepsiCo too, sorry. Looks like they better start planting some anti-gay victory gardens before they completely run out of food options.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 7, 2009

The Last Acceptable Racism?

Today's blog was inspired by a blog written by our friend the Czech: "Is It Illegal To Be Muslim in the USA?" which discussed the recent AirTran incident.

What else did they “do” to appear suspicious to those around them? If a white, non-Muslim couple had had the same discussion as Ms. Ijaz and her husband while waiting for a flight, can we reasonably expect that they would be prevented from boarding the flight and questioned by the FBI?

Now we know that this story is almost old news already. Everyone has written about it. There was just something about the way the Czech phrased her title that really got me thinking. Is it illegal to be Muslim in the U.S.? It may not technically be, but people have certainly been acting as if it were.

She also referenced in her blog, an incident that took place in December in Georgia, where a Muslim woman was arrested for refusing to remove her head scarf at a security checkpoint. Back in July a woman was denied a job at an Abercrombie Kids, because her headscarf did not "fit the Abercrombie image". The sexist-racist-Islamopohobic trifecta of Mona Awad's lawsuit. Just today we saw an article about a man who sued JetBlue (and won) after he was told to remove a t-shirt with Arabic writing on it. And who can forget all the bullshit comments made during Barack Obama's campaign?

What the fuck!?

The saddest part of the AirTran story, in my opinion, wasn't that they were subjected to such horrible treatment (although yeah, that was pretty bad). The saddest part was this quote from one of the detained passengers, an American-born lawyer, Atif Irfan:
"My wife and I are generally very careful about what we say when we step on the plane," he said, adding that they have received suspicious looks in the past. "We're used to this sort of thing but obviously not to this extent."
It completely and totally sucks that this incident happened. But even more so, it sucks that the Irfan family (and countless other Arabs, Arab-Americans, Muslims, Hindus and other "foreign looking brown people") have to be very careful about what they say. It sucks that they're used to this sort of thing.

It sucks that unfounded suspicions of Barack Obama being a Muslim cost him some votes (obviously not enough though, phew, but it still did). But even more so, it sucks that his religion was an issue at all.

It was Colin Powell (go figure) who said:
Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
Sometimes it feels as though Muslims/Arabs are one of the last remaining groups of people which it is still "acceptable" to be racist against. Sure there are still a lot of anti-Semites and white supremacists and other people that breed hate... but part of our own government still continue to condone Islamophobia (and Xenophobia).

Now I can't necessarily get the real heart of this issue because I don't have much personal experience on it. I'm not Arab or Muslim and I think I can only count the number of Arab/Muslim people I know on one hand. But in the same way that I care about gay rights, despite being heterosexual... I care about sex workers rights, despite not being involved in sex work... I care about abortion rights, despite being a parent... I care about this issue.

And so I'm pissed off.

Related Posts:

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 6, 2009

Joe Biden Dream Watch

I had a Joe Biden dream the other night. I was at some event where he was speaking, and I snuck backstage so I could talk to him. (Apparently there are no Secret Service agents in dreams, which made it really easy.) I told him all about the Joe Biden Feminism Watch, and he laughed and was all "no, really?", and I was all "yes, really!", and he thought it was awesome and gave me a hug. I also gave him an ESC business card, and then had to explain what our name means and that we weren't posting about his feminist achievements in between porn and/or erotica posts. (Not that there would be anything wrong with that, but it would have required a longer explanation probably.) So he took the card and he was happy and thought it was all cool, and then he went off to give his speech and I woke up with a massive hangover.

I think there are two important messages that this dream was trying to communicate.

1. Stop slacking on Obama/Biden Feminism Watch posts, because there's a lot to write about.

2. Don't drink a ton of Corona at happy hour, and then stop at both McDonalds and Starbucks on the way home, because you will have weird dreams about hanging out with Vice Presidents.

Related Posts:

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 5, 2009

Celebreality: The Love Returns

You've probably noticed that we haven't written about reality TV lately nearly as much as we used to. Partly it was because we were caught up with the election and other political stuff, and partly because we just weren't feeling it anymore. You can only watch Lauren Conrad rolling her eyes at everything and Tila Tequila pretending to be bisexual for so long before you just need a break.

So I think I can point to this moment right here, from the Rock of Love Charm School reunion show, as the exact moment that my love returned. (I can't speak for the rest of the ESC, because I know that they don't all hate hate haaaaaaaaaaaaate Megan the way I do, but I think they'd all agree that it was generally awesome.)



So with this glorious moment (plus the fact that the finalist of Charm School were Destiney and Brandi M. and not like horrible Megan and Lacey or something), the boozed up dramalicious premiere of Rock of Love Bus, and the awesomeness that is Confessions of a Teen Idol, I think the ESC is officially back in the celebreality business in 2009.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 2, 2009

Amazon's Best (Man) Books of 2008

We noticed something interesting about Amazon.com's list of Editors' Picks for the 100 best books of 2008.

Out of the top ten books on the list...

  1. The Northern Clemency by Philip Hensher
  2. Hurry Down Sunshine by Michael Greenberg
  3. Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America by Rick Perlstein
  4. The Forever War by Dexter Filkins
  5. The Story of Edgar Sawtelle: A Novel (Oprah Book Club #62) by David Wroblewski
  6. The Likeness: A Novel by Tana French
  7. Serena: A Novel by Ron Rash
  8. So Brave, Young and Handsome: A Novel by Leif Enger
  9. The Lazarus Project by Aleksandar Hemon
  10. The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America by David Hajdu
...only one is written by a woman. And there are only three books by women in the top 25, five in the top 35, and 27 in the full top 100 (including one book co-written by a woman and a man). Now, we're not suggesting that every list of this type has to have perfect 50/50 gender parity, but these numbers seem kinda skewed to us. Somehow we really doubt that 2008 was just an 'off year' for women writers, so we're forced to conclude that this list can suck it, and also that we need to make more reading lists in 2009.

If you're in the mood for some slightly less manly suggestions to add to your reading list for the new year, here are some resources:

Related Posts:

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this

January 1, 2009

Every Kiss Does Not Begin With Kay: Open Hearts?

One of the good things about the holidays being over is that we won't be subjected to this commercial anymore, for the Jane Seymour "Open Hearts" collection at Kay Jewelers.




We see where Jane was trying to go with this whole 'open hearts' idea, we really do. And it is a nice message. We're too jaded and cynical and evil to be moved by it, but we get it. Really.

It's just that...the thing kinda doesn't really look all that much like "open hearts", unless you already know that's what it's supposed to be. Our informal poll of what people thought this looked like produced these answers:


~A snake
~A sea monster
~A wave
~A five year old's scribble
~An ass (actually, now that we're looking at it again, it kinda looks like our friend Castallare's Fat Bottom Girl's ass. She should totally sue.)



There's also the fact that, if you get something like this as a gift, pretty much everyone who sees it on you will know that it came from that generic jewelry company with the annoying commercials and about how much it cost. And there's nothing really horribly wrong with that, but we tend to prefer stuff that's a little more unique. Okay, mostly we just couldn't let this holiday season go by without mentioning that we hate Kay Jewelers and annoying holiday jewelry commercials. At least now we'll get a little break before the Valentine's Day advertising starts.

Related Posts:

Stumble Upon Toolbar Digg this