Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare… You’re thinking of Jesus.

I know what it is!

It’s the “A”, a prominent symbol for atheism. I put it next to a white one to compare to the images from the ad.

It looks like it was just slapped on, especially in the third one. Was this just an accident? Is he being trolled by his graphics department? Or is he trying to say something to the libertarian atheists who are listening to him? Hmm.

Approximately 30,000 protesters marched in Tel Aviv last night, with social justice activists blocking central streets and chants of “Mubarak. Assad. Netanyahu” filling the air.

Tel Aviv police arrested 42 activists, which is an extremely rare number, “if not unprecedented,” according to +972 Magazine, which has been closely following the circumstances surrounding the sudden rise of Israel’s progressive left.

…

These protests, which began as explicit anger at the rising rental prices in cities across the country, have been fueled by the response of Netanyahu’s government, which initially, with hostile rhetoric, dismissed them as being part of a large, leftwing movement being funded by outfits such as the New Israel Fund. The initial rhetoric, which claimed that the protests were not about anything other than the “Zionist Left’s” political agenda, only served to increase protesters’ anger and resolve.

These reactions from Netanyahu and other government officials have served to broaden the protests, which have now moved from rent prices to a host of social justice issues: women’s rights, union rights and education reform, among other things, with general chants of “revolution” heard on the streets last night.

…

What has yet to be heard, in the protests, are calls for more democracy in the wake of the anti-democratic laws that have recently been passed. Also absent has been the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Wow. Read the entire article.

Recently, Allen West said Debbie Wassermann Schultz is unladylike just prior to Michele Bachmann having her rarely debilitating migraines. Regarding the Wasserman-Schultz/West debacle, I do think that what West said to Wassermann Schultz was not only rude but completely out of place. Who is he to decree what is ladylike? That’s my first annoyance. Not to mention, he sent this email out to the entire House! Talk about ungentlemanly. I get the feeling he doesn’t think she’s ladylike because she’s speaking out as he, a man, does. If so, that is very sexist. Now, the fact that he demands an apology from her instead of the other way around is just maddening. Why would Wasserman Schultz have to apologize for his rude remarks? Sexist or not, it makes no sense.

Representative Allen West is a Lieutenant Colonel. In the military, if you said something like that, you’d be busted so fast. It’s very un-military-like to have such little respect for your peers and say anything close to what he said/wrote in the manner he did it. He should know better. West plays the military card whenever possible, but only to his convenience. Another thing to note is that he’s new in congress, Wassermann Schultz has been there for quite some time. He’s trying to fight up and make a name for himself. It’s fairly common these days. That alone is not sexist but throwing around terms like ‘ladylike’ as an offense is just too far.

Michele Bachmann’s instance is much different. She has migraines and I understand. I’m a bit jealous that her meds are affordable while mine aren’t but that’s another post. I do not fault her for having migraines; there are many other reasons I oppose her. The backlash against her has been called sexist, though I’m not so sure.

I have an inkling that her competitors, on all sides, want to bring her early numbers down. Most republicans know she’ll have a much harder time beating Obama in the general election than a moderate Republican. And many democrats just don’t like her. I think that’s a reason they are using everything they can to attempt to destroy her name. Though, some say it’s because she’s a woman. Women are more likely to get migraines, but those numbers are changing. Men have traditionally been known to get more cluster headaches, which can be confused with migraines. It’s really hard for a physician to figure out the type of headaches a patient gets, especially with varying symptoms. I’m not even sure what type of headaches I get. I’m starting to think they’re an undiscovered kind.

I have sympathy for Bachmann in this particular instance and will not use her migraines against her. Is it sexist to says she’s unfit due to them? I’ve heard many people saying she’s unfit as an excuse to get her out of the ring. I don’t think it relates much to her being a woman, though I could be wrong.

Seen this? “Everything I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11”

Well, then, I could just as easily say: Everything I need to know about Christianity I learned from the crusades.

Islam has a lot of problem in it, as do all religions. Islam isn’t that much different, it’s only newer and there’s been no reformation. Hatred and violence are in the Bible just as the Koran. Don’t get me wrong, I do not defend Islam. I also don’t defend Christianity or Judaism.

However, Islam may be a bigger problem because its horrors from it are happening now. The crusades were 800-900 years ago. The doings of Islam are more prevalent in today’s world. While Islam is a bigger issue, if I said the latter, “Everything I need to know about Christianity I learned from the crusades,” there’d be a barrage of negative comments from Christians telling me why that “logic” is false.

Alright. The Pro-LIfe stance pretty much says that the right to life supercedes all other rights. This means that the pregnant persons’ right to bodily domain is superceded by the fetus’ right to be alive.
And yet, we never hear a peep out of them in situations in which the right to bodily domain supercedes the right to life.

If abortion is to be made illegal and the right to life is to be considered more important than the right to bodily domain, then the right to life must over come ALL OTHER RIGHTS.

According to this piece, the basic rights that Pro-Lifers must give up in order to put life person a person’s right to bodily domain:

• Mandatory blood, marrow, organ donation regardless of age, situation, etc.
• No killing another human being under any circumstances
• Birth control must be made illegal
• Investigation of all menstrual blood for bodies, and if found, proper action to be taken
• Artificial insemination must be made illegal or have a mandatory pregnancy sign-up
• Recording “Date of Conception” and not “Date of Birth” (And don’t forget the Conception Certificate!)
• Issuing Death Certificates to all miscarriages

At first it sounds like a slippery slope extreme example, but it really isn’t. If you value life above all else, above respect for another person’s body; then, yes, why not try to make all these laws as well? Not that I’m trying to give anyone ideas.

Just in case anyone isn’t aware, pro-life implies that one wants to make abortion illegal (or at least restrict it). Affording someone the choice, well, that’s obviously pro-choice. There is no such thing as pro-abortion. I say this because I’ve run into people saying that they are pro-life but upon further discussion, they are actually pro-choice. But just don’t “like” abortion. Well, I have news for you: No one likes abortions. No one wants abortions. But it’s a medical procedure that exists. And needs to.

It will always exist, no matter what the law says. When it was illegal, women died from back alley abortions. Illegality is not going to stop them. Keeping them safe is far too important.

That said, the whole mission of pro-lifers or anti-choicers (as they really are) is to make their views the law of the land, thereby removing choice (and rights) from all women. Any libertarian who says they are pro-life, is not a libertarian. I am not a libertarian but I understand the idea behind it. I suppose, I am sort of a libertarian on social issues. In any case, I respect someone for being a true libertarian because they seem to be so rare.

Making it the case that the local or federal government has to see out every pregnancy to the end is authoritarian and borders on theocracy. Sure, abortion isn’t a nice thought. In fact, it’s awful. But sometimes, it’s necessary. Whether for the mother’s health and well-being or just because she refuses to be an incubator for the state. It’s her decision to make. Trust her.

But I digress. Coming back to the original piece at hand, I find it an poignant train of thought. I’ve always noted the inconsistencies that the right-to-lifers will get stuck in between. If one values life above everything else and wishes to make abortion illegal, then s/he should have no problem with the government making blood and organ donations mandatory.

If you’re interested, there’s a great philosophical test entitled Whose Body Is It Anyway? that brings up a similar angle.

One more thing. There’s something I can never get an answer for: what would the punishment be? Jail time for the doctor and/or the woman? A fine? A stoning? (And not the good kind!) Breaking a law has to result in punishment of some form.

EDIT: I have decided not to respond to the comments below. It appears that some people refuse to even try to understand the point of the original article I wrote about.

He has also warned of the risk of radical Islam, as in a film called “America at Risk” that is grounded in the notion that “we are at war with radical Islamists – and it is a war we are losing.”

But the former House speaker seemed to conflate the two arguments over the weekend, suggesting that his grandchildren could eventually find themselves “in a secular atheist country” that is potentially dominated by “radical Islamists.” [Read more]

How could anyone even say something this stupid? Secular atheist country, maybe. I wish. But dominated by theocracy? That’s what we are fighting against. What our forefathers and mothers fought so arduously against. The fact that people say this while there are some that don’t call him out on this is sickening. It’s so infuriating to hear such ignorance from someone with power. My brain hurts even trying to follow this line of thinking.

The more secular nations may, for instance, outlaw burqas. So, what was he saying again?

I went to film school. Which isn’t uncommon for web developers, designers, and such. (See: Micki Krimmel)

I believe I choose film production for a myriad of reasons. One: they didn’t have computer animation or web design at University of Miami (where my parents wanted me to go). I didn’t want to transfer later and have to start over; I didn’t want to be in college for more than four years. Two: I wanted to move somewhere other than Miami after graduation. Film production was really my only option where my parents didn’t give me the “you can do that here” line. I really had to get away, you know?

But I loved it. I had a great time in film school (yes, actual film). I learned a lot that transfers over to what I’m doing these days.

I moved to corporate position at TNT/TBS when I realized that production was just too much. 60 hour plus work weeks. Always looking for the next job. I wanted something steady for a bit. I loved working at TNT in the sense that my coworkers were great and the company is great to work at…for a large corporation. I was having panic attacks and loads of unnecessary stress. My health felt as if it were fading even more so. But I stuck with it for three years…due to the great people I worked with. I also got some cool perks (see above).

I never joined a union but if I had stayed in production, I would have needed to after being a PA. Hollywood is a union town, so I have a slightly different perspective on unions.

I see some flaws in them,  but overall I see their purpose. If enough people want to strike and you don’t, you still have to. That can’t be right. Yet, it’s the only way to ensure you won’t be underpaid and overworked (as if 12+ hours per day aren’t enough). They could stand a few changes, but overall I support them.

How does this relates to the government union protests in Wisconsin? It really doesn’t, save for the fact that I have a slightly different general perspective on unions. To remove their collective bargaining means to destroy them completely. I can’t see how anyone wants that. Those who do, must never call 911 when necessary. They must put out their own fires. Umm, bravo?

If you are one of those who think teachers aren’t always the best, I don’t want to see the quality of teachers go down the tubes. I had some awful teachers but I also had some wonderful ones. I went to public school and had a relatively good experience. I had teachers who said I wouldn’t even make it to community college. I was lazy because they were poor teachers. That could get worse? No thanks! On the other side of the coin, I had some great teachers. We need more of those. And that won’t happen if we cut and demolish public school funding or collective bargaining rights from unions.

Collective bargaining rights is all they have to ensure they don’t get underpaid and overworked.

If it weren’t for unions we wouldn’t know of weekends, sick and vacation paid leave, 8 hour work days (except for those in entertainment but they get paid for it!), child labor laws, worker’s compensation, and more.

Trade unions were responsible for setting the ball in motion- for making these things standards in the work force. It may be argued that they could stand some reform, but to get rid of them completely would be a bad move.