information addict

Edward Cullen Twilight Robot Tote Bag choice of tote colors

I… what?

The problem is that when you get people to think about this logically, they’re pro-choice. But when you appeal to them emotionally, they’re all too easily sucked into hating on sluts, believing female sexuality is dangerous, and wanting it to be controlled. When asked specifics about how it should be controlled, people balk—-they want it to be controlled, but they don’t want there to be actual force involved, in part because most Americans have female sexuality as part of their own sex lives, and they don’t want their own bedrooms invaded. The key to creating a sex panic is making the panickers believe this is about Other Women. And unfortunately, 65 Democrats are convinced that this amendment is about punishing Other Women, not their own voters.

—
pandagon.net - we are the public option

×

Hee. Soaps.

×

[M]any of the 39 Democrats that voted for the Stupak Amendment still voted against the final bill. Had all 39 Democrats who were voting against the bill anyway voted against Stupak, the amendment would have been soundly defeated. But this way they protected their own interests at the expense of millions of women in the United States.

—
Many Dems Who Voted For Stupak Still Voted Against the Bill | RHRealityCheck.org

×

stuff white people do: whiten their names

This is an interesting post, full of examples of people who have changed their names from something “ethnic” to something “white.” I don’t think every example he provides is an example of whitewashing. Names like Alice Cooper and Iggy Pop are obviously fake, so I don’t think they count. Same with Vanilla Ice. Who’s going to listen to a rapper called Robert Van Winkle?

And in the case of Ritchie Valens, that name was a deliberate whitewashing of his real name by his record label, who wanted him to seem less Mexican in order to sell more records to white people. Doubtless the same is true of other names on this list.

But a lot of these are just fascinating. I had no idea that Ben Kingsley was born Krishna Banji, or that Albert Brooks’ real name is Albert Einstein (another understandable name change). Or that Kirk Douglas is really Issur Danielovitch Demsky, or that Helen Mirren is really Ilynea Lydia Mironoff(!). I’m ready for a movie star trivia night now.

×

a head less throbbinary

November 7

democrats who voted yes on the stupak amendment

abbyjean:

a total of 64 democrats voted yes on the stupak amendment, helping it pass 240 to 194.to see a full list of names, states, and contact info, please check here. if you live in their districts, please let them know how you feel about this.

62 of those were men. the women are Dahlkemper (PA) and Kaptur (OH).

7 were from various parts of pennsylvania. 4 were from texas which surprised me because i didn’t know there were four democratic reps from texas. relatively few were from the west. 23 were from southern states.

all of them placed unreasonable restrictions on a legal medical procedure - the only medical procedure to be restricted in any way by the health reform bill.

×

Either we all have the right to choose or none of us has it.

—
The Answer to the Stupak? Overturn Hyde Now | RHRealityCheck.org

×

FDL Action » Stupak Amendment Could Likely Be Used by Insurance Companies to Discriminate Against Low Income Americans

think4yourself:

The Stupak amendment would prevent any private health insurance plan from covering elective abortion, if even one of its customer used even one dollar of affordability tax credits. The problem is that the Stupak amendment will conflict directly with other parts of the bill. The bill would require “guaranteed issue.” This means that any insurer offering coverage to individuals on the health insurance exchange must accept all customers.
If the insurance companies offering plans on the exchange are not allowed to turn down any customers, it means no basic insurance plan on the exchange could cover abortion. There would be no way to prevent that at least one of the plan’s customer would be using affordability tax credits to help purchase the plan. So the effect is no plan sold on the exchange could offer abortion coverage as part of its basic package.

The contradiction could be solved in a different manner. The decision could be that insurance companies who offer plans covering abortion on the exchange would be allowed to turn down customers using affordability tax credits. This would create a dangerous loophole for the new guaranteed issue rule. This could lead to the ghettoizing of the health insurance exchange. Insurers would know that offering plans that cover abortion would prevent low income Americans from being able to sign up. Low income Americans tend to have higher medical costs and are less profitable, less desirable customers. Offering abortion coverage would be a simple way for an insurance company to keep them out of their risk pool. Since the exchange has dangerously weak risk adjustment mechanisms, this Stupak Amendment could become a profitable tool used by insurers to discriminate against low income Americans.

It seems the Stupak Amendment would either effectively ban any basic health insurance plan sold on the exchange (the individual and small business market) from covering abortion or would create a way to discriminate against low income Americans. Either way the Amendment will have far reaching ramifications for our health care system.

×

Wal-Mart bans gay couple for NOT shoplifting

This is fucked-up.

×

I'm totally outraged....but at least proud to say I live in a district whose representative voted NO on the Stupak Amendment.

twofish:

Thanks for trying to protect my rights, Gwen Moore.

Ditto.

×

PostSecret: Sunday Secrets

×

Excedrin for Your Racial Tension Headache. (via Feministing)

×

Snowy Grill Totally Looks Like Karl Lagerfeld

November 6

Anti-choicers treat the whole process of reproduction as if getting pregnant is a rare and precious event, like finding a giant lump of gold in your backyard, and as if nature was stingy about attempts to create life. If this was true, they might have more of a reason to get offended at attempts to control when you give birth. But outside of those people who suffer from infertility (in which case, they have every reason to grab onto every chance at childbirth that comes along), the biological fact of the matter is that our reproductive systems are all about waste, all about killing billions in order to save the few that have the best shot.

—
“What If My Mother Had Aborted Me?” (via katedanger)