Here's some interesting news

Abortion rights groups have long opposed ultrasound laws, which are typically enacted by anti-abortion legislators in an effort to dissuade women from having abortions. Personally, I haven't opposed laws mandating women should have the option to view the ultrasound, but if she doesn't to look at it, then you can't physically force her to look at it.

But perhaps pro-choice groups can rest a little easier. The New York Times reports today that ultrasounds seldom actually have the effect of changing a woman's mind about abortion. The NYT interviewed women and staff at clinics in Alabama for the story.

Staff members interviewed at three of the seven abortion clinics in the state estimated that 30 percent to 70 percent of women chose to see ultrasound images. But they said it was uncommon for women to be dissuaded.

It had happened occasionally, they said, when a sonogram revealed a multiple pregnancy or when a woman was already deeply unsure about her choice...

“About half of women opt to view them,” said Diane Derzis, who owns the Birmingham clinic. “And I’ve never had one patient get off the table because she saw what her fetus looks like.”

One woman even reported that she found it reassuring...

“It just looked like a little egg, and I couldn’t see arms or legs or a face,” said Tiesha, 27, who chose to view her 8-week-old embryo before aborting it at the Birmingham clinic. “It was really the picture of the ultrasound that made me feel it was O.K.”

Interesting...

The Supreme Court is not a fucking beauty pageant.

For as strongly as I support a woman's right to choose abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, a pregnancy gone wrong, or any number of other difficult life situations, there are indeed some pro-lifers who I really respect. It's a small number, but they're out there. (This is where I give a shout-out to the lovely Ms. Kelsey Hazzard, of Secular Pro-Life.)

There really are some pro-lifers out there who are genuinely interested in helping needy pregnant women. That is totally cool! Much as I may disagree with their views on whether or not abortion should be legal, I greatly respect that some people are actually willing to follow through on their rhetoric and help women who would rather not have abortions. (There are some very legitimate criticisms of some crisis pregnancy centers that I'll have to save for another time.)

Alas, Gingi Edmonds does not fall into the aforementioned category of pro-lifers I respect. I recently discovered the writings of Ms. Edmonds on Facebook. She is an avid anti-abortion activist and a self-proclaimed freelance photographer based out of California. (By the way, for a truly awesome freelance photographer, contact Jeremy White. He will not bother you about politics.) Edmonds also apparently holds very anti-gay views and as far as I can tell, has not an intelligent thought in her head. I'm not saying that to be mean, either! Just check out this post that I'm about to disembowel.

As those of us who follow politics instead of sports know, President Obama recently nominated Elena Kagan to fill Justice Stevens' spot on the Supreme Court. Kagan appears to be pro-choice, so abortion opponents are screaming about that, but not Gingi!

Apparently faced with a dearth of any original or constructive criticism of Kagan, Edmonds decided to exit onto the low road and attack Kagan for her lack of glamour and conventional feminine beauty.

Edmonds muses:

How can she be an aware and insightful interpreter of these complex and modern times if she's never heard of Crest Whitestrips?

What? Really? ... I mean... Seriously? Even if that was an attempt at satire, it was pretty bad satire, unless that's what passes for comedy among anti-abortion activists.

Let's read on, shall we?

All joking aside, I think the fact that she looks like a foot is extremely relevant. A person's cleanliness and tidiness (combed hair, brushed teeth, clean clothing) are a clear indicator of mental orderliness and tidiness. We don't have to view her un-Constitutional and pro-abortion record to get an indication that she is not fit to be in a position of leadership in this country.

To clarify, I don't like her simply because she's unattractive. I can accept that Elena Kagan is an ugly bull dike. But an ugly, pro-abort, socialist bull dike? Never.

Umm... There doesn't actually appear to be any evidence that Kagan lacks basic hygiene. Sure, she doesn't fit our ridiculous standards of conventional feminine beauty (Speaking of those who live in glass houses, neither does Edmonds), but she doesn't look dirty or unkempt. A quick Google image search reveals that Kagan actually looks rather well-groomed and tidy. And while we're judging a person's character based on superficial images found on Google, I think Kagan looks downright jolly.

Gingi, if you want to see some people who really don't give a shit about their appearance, I invite you to come to Enfield Superior Court any day between Monday and Friday. If you're lucky, you might see a DUI defendant wearing pajamas or an obviously unwashed domestic violence defendant wearing a t-shirt that reads "Fuck the police."

But maybe Edmonds is onto something. Maybe women who support abortion rights are uglier than women who oppose them. Just check out the heinous wench whose pic I posted above. :-P

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!

Are you aware of this? Everybody Draw Mohammed day was initiated in response to the death threats that South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker received after airing an episode that purportedly showed the Muslim prophet Mohammed. The Muslim religion apparently forbids depictions of their prophet, and well, we all know how extremists get sometimes...

Well, Comedy Central censored the second part of the episode in question, which, in my humble opinion, is complete bullshit. I respect all people equally, regardless of faith, race, sexual orientation, or any other silly arbitrary qualities. (That is, of course, until they do something individually to piss me off, but let's not talk about Sarah Palin anymore). But I also think that hack job Comedy Central did on South Park amounts to nothing more than cowardly self-censorship.

Yes, some people used EDM Day as an excuse to be racist piles of shit, but there should be no prohibition on poking fun at religious differences among people and certainly no prohibition (self-imposed or otherwise) on simply depicting a religious figure. (And by the way, anybody who watched the South Park episode in question would know that they also depicted Buddha snorting cocaine, which is way more blasphemous than just showing a cartoon Mohammed.)

And I firmly believe that we must push those boundaries, push those envelopes. Nothing must be so sacred that we are willing to kill for it. I also believe in laughter. I think we should all be able to occasionally laugh at the differences amongst us. It keeps us human, keeps us humble. And if you can't laugh, you might cry; which would you rather do?

So with that, I'd like you to have a look at the little cartoon Mohammed guy in this post. I have little artistic ability, but my wonderfully talented boyfriend Dave has it in spades. He whipped up this little guy yesterday for Everybody Draw Mohammed day. Pretty obviously unoffensive, I'd say.

My $0.02 on the Blumenthal-Vietnam controversy

As some of you may know, Connecticut's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, was recently accused of lying about his military service after this NYTimes article. Essentially, they're saying he said he was in Vietnam when he wasn't. Blumenthal is running for Chris Dodd's Senate seat, and he's up against a clusterfuck of Republicans, including Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons, and Peter Schiff, who is... Well, who knows what the fuck Peter Schiff exactly is. The Tea Party endorsed him, even though he's not really a raving nut, but I probably still won't vote for him, although part of me strangely kind of wants to vote for him. (Of course, I'm moving to New York in about a month, so I may not vote in this thing anyway.)

So anyway, back to Blumenthal. I want to stress that I have no opinion on this, but I do want to share this little anecdote. I was covering the Memorial Day parade in Enfield last year, and there I happened to spy Mr. Blumenthal. I ambled over and started talking to him, so I could get a few quotes for my story. Mostly happy horseshit like, "This parade is great" and "We should honor our veterans."

He said something to the effect of "When I was in the Marines during Vietnam," and I off-handedly followed that up with, "Oh, did you go to Vietnam?" to which he replied that, no, he had not gone to Vietnam. He had simply served in the military while the Vietnam War was happening. I thought so little of that remark that I didn't even put it in my story. (I also thought it might sound kind of stupid to write, "Blumenthal, who served in the military during the Vietnam War but never went to war...")

So... There you have it: My Dick Blumenthal-Vietnam story. Make of it what you will. Or don't. Whatever.

Eating healthy has made me into a food snob, apparently.

The Hartford Courant reports that today is the ground-breaking for Connecticut's first Sonic restaurant, to be located in Wallingford.

On the one hand, it's about damn time, since they've been airing their commercials for years in this state with the nearest Sonic being in New Jersey.

On the other hand, I have a really hard time getting excited about another shitty fast food establishment.

Nothing but incoherent rage

Ugh. Talk about sexualizing little girls! I hate to be harsh (Oh, who am I kidding? I LOVE to be harsh!), but I think these girls' parents and dance teacher/s ought to be tarred and feathered. And then arrested for promoting child pornography. Or something. There is just no universe in which this is appropriate. Seriously.

"White privilege doesn't exist, so shut up about it already!"

On the heels of SB 1070 (Sorry, guys - I'm not opening that can of worms here), AZ Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law a bill prohibiting classes "that advocate ethnic solidarity, that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group."

Specifically, the bill targets the African-American, Mexican-American, and Native-American studies classes offered by the Tucson Unified School District.

From the link:

State schools chief Tom Horne, who has pushed the bill for years, said he believes the Tucson school district's Mexican-American studies program teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people.

Public schools should not be encouraging students to resent a particular race, he said.

Yeah, because it's totally a class in school that teaches minority students to resent white people.

He went on to say, "It's just like the old South, and it's long past time that we prohibited it."

If you don't understand what is wrong with that statement, then I suggest you brush up on your American history, specifically, your antebellum American history.