The regular computer is again broken and typing on this laptop must be equivalent to the seventh circle of hell. To top it off, my ADD is in full swing. I’ve been a napping fool and don’t have the usual tiredness to keep me somewhere near attentive, and just found myself sitting in front of the TV knitting in a bikini top when I was supposed to be out gardening, in part because I was in the garden, came inside for some water, realized I hadn’t tried on the new bathing suit, then forgot about the gardening, started some laundry, and realized Montel was on. So I totally had to sit down and knit socks. Duh.
In addition, I just completed my first summer exam (and did well, I think) and have a load of homework due tomorrow. Don’t expect much blogging from yours truly in the next few days.
And since you’re here and feel the urge to read something of quality, take a few moments to see these notable posts.
Amanda notes one of the most important things overlooked in arguments in favor of abortion-related parental notification laws:
What’s not addressed in that selective bit of reasoning, of course, is that if you are under 18 and want to have a baby, no one has the right to stop you. You have reproductive choice when you are under 18, unless, of course, your choice is the one that the religious right doesn’t want you to have. More than a few parents would love the right to force a teenager to have an abortion, but that’s not their legal right.
Parental consent/notification laws are just one of many laws that have been placed on a woman’s right to choose, modifying it so that it’s not actually her right but someone else’s. Parents have veto power now, and in the past, for those who forgot, so did husbands.
Amanda also writes on the new study released that women are (still) underrepresented in journalistic media. Her conclusions aren’t surprising, at least not for the population that reads this blog.
At Volsunga, Ms. Thang is pissed about an article that skewers teen parents and their relationship to the welfare system. Look, do you want us to carry out our pregnancies or not? Can’t have it two ways.
Lynn at Noli Irritare Leones writes her second to last piece on Emma Goldman and her views on violence. This one is particularly interesting. Give it a read.
The first letter out of Flea’s email bag is from a minister working through his thoughts on homosexuality, abortion, and choice. He maintains a rather passive view toward non-church members, one that both Flea and I can respect, but some of her responses made me want to stand up and cheer, in particular, this response to the ages old assertion that if a teen mom wants a break from her kids, she’s an irresponsible mother:
Oh, by the way, as a 35-year-old mother I can tell you it’s very important for me to be able to blow off steam with kids my own age every now and then. My 46 and 49-year-old sisters, who are also mothering young children, feel the same way. I can’t imagine why it should be different for a 17-year-old mother. All work and no play makes for a depressed mommy, and that isn’t good for the baby.
If there’s one thing that pisses me off, it’s the looks and comments I get when E is at his father’s and I go out for the evening. I even receive some of the same criticism from my family. No one thinks twice when a married couple gets a babysitter for the evening, but anyone who had a child before the age of twenty and dared not to marry the babydaddy deserves eternal banishment from the world of fun for the rest of her life.
Right. Moving along…
What kind of government dispenses free viagra for rapists? Good question. Ours does. Majikthise offers an alternative perspective on this story, in part that functional sexuality may be the key to psychosexual rehabilitation.
The Fshk Blog points out this article in the NYTimes on blogging, and Pandagon’s response to what is, by all account other than conservative accounts, a very complimentary article on blogging. Complimentary articles by MSM on blogging are rare. Take them with grace.
Also at the Fshk Blog, Media Matters debunks ten myths related to the now “resolved” “nuclear option.” Waveflux does an excellent job explaining the inevitable fallout from this political compromise.
Chuck found a particularly interesting definition of the word fascism while reading a book on linguistics. It reads as follows:
“The word ‘fascists’ in my title is used ironically, in the style of 1960ish political rant, of cousre. It is not used in its sense as a technical term. Fascism in the technical sense inovlves “the presence of a charismatic leader, a high degree of militarism, the endeavor to create a monolithic nation, and to include all institutions within a single political party, and intensive propaganda in a collectivist ideology.” (P.L. van den Berghe, Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective, John Wiley, New York, 1967, p. 109)
Shakespeare’s Sister discusses the core values of the Demoractic party, taking Kos to task for being a mouthpiece for the political party and his willingness to give up individual issues to gain votes. Like Shakes, I’m a reluctant Democrat, but only because they’re the closest powerful party that (shallowly) represents many of the issues I am passionate about, even if it chooses to abandon them once they get enough consolidated power to truly enact some change. It’s a painfuol compromise, but better than opting out whatsoever.
At the Liberal Avenger, Michelle & Jesse Malkin are skewered for their defense of internment and institutional racism.