Monthly Archives: March 2006

These dreams…

Woke up this morning from a dream about a couple we were friends with (one of the friends who doesn’t speak to me anymore). I’m walking through their house, which looks nothing like their actual house, and everything is marked for a tag sale with prices on it. OK, that’s weird enough, but apparently they had also suddenly decided to have children (which doesn’t make any sense, since they’re in their fifties now, but when do these dreams ever make sense?) So they are playing with their kids, and my friend hands me the baby to admire. I take it, and – it’s a Barbie doll, still in the packaging. Confused, I “admire” it for a minute and then sert it down in a chair. And then I woke up.

Now these are friends who had suddenly become very materialistic after being pretty non-materialistic for most of the time we had known them – suddenly moving up to the big house, buying new cars and the big screen TV and all that. So in my head have I just associated them with this so strongly that it shows up in my dream?

And the baby – I have this image of this woman now, old and batty with her house full of cats, and dolls still in their packaging, calling them her “grandchildren!”

Soaps, Talk Shows May Dull Aging Brains

I always knew Oprah was evil….

Soaps, Talk Shows May Dull Aging Brains – Yahoo! News

New research suggests that elderly women who watch daytime soap operas and talk shows are more likely to suffer from cognitive impairment than women who abstain from such fare.

Researchers stress that it’s not clear if watching these TV shows leads to weaker brainpower, or vice-versa. And they say it’s possible that another explanation might be at work.

Women who watched talk shows were 7.3 times more likely to have long-term memory problems, the researchers said, while those who watched soap operas were 13.5 times more likely to have problems with attention.

More state join the War on Women's Rights

State to offer ‘Choose Life’ anti-abortion license plates

Kentucky to offer ‘Choose Life’ anti-abortion license plates

Anti-abortion license plates bearing the message “Choose Life” will be available in Kentucky within a few months, a state official said yesterday.

A federal court ruling issued yesterday in a Tennessee case says such tags are legal, even though they promote only one side of the debate.

Kentucky abortion-rights advocates said they may also push for abortion-rights plates.

Indiana does not have a Choose Life license plate. Legislation to authorize one was introduced in the 1999 and 2000 sessions of the General Assembly but did not pass.

A Kentucky law that took effect last year allows for citizen groups to petition the Transportation Cabinet to design specialty plates, said Doug Hogan, a spokesman for the cabinet.

Linda Jedlicki of Louisville said she plans to get a Choose Life plate in October when she renews her registration on her Subaru Outback.

“I just think it’s the best message you could have driving around town,” said Jedlicki, a community volunteer. “If just one person stops and thinks, ‘Choose Life,’ it’s worth any amount of money or time.”

Groups seeking specialty plates must present at least 900 prepaid plate applications, be a Kentucky-based nonprofit organization, and meet criteria regarding the message of the specialty plate.

The plates can’t be obscene, promote a political party or position, promote a religious faith, or discriminate on the basis of race, sex or national origin, Hogan said.

Tennessee case

In the Tennessee case, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati overturned a lower-court ruling that said the tag illegally promoted only one side of the abortion debate, according to The Associated Press.

“Although this exercise of government one-sidedness with respect to a very contentious political issue may be ill-advised, we are unable to conclude that the Tennessee statute contravenes the First Amendment,” Judge John M. Rogers said in a 2-1 ruling.

An anti-abortion group, Tennessee Right to Life, declared victory.

“It’s a validation of our position all along that the legislature had the authority to authorize a plate that favors normal childbirth over the practice of abortion,” said Brian Harris, the group’s president.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. said the specialty-plate program is unconstitutional because it discriminates against one side in the abortion debate.

The plaintiffs, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee, said they were still reviewing yesterday’s ruling.

Abortion-rights proponents complained the state does not offer those with other political views a similar way to express them. An attempt to create a Choose Choice tag failed in the legislature in 2002.

Federal appeals courts have been divided over whether such license-plate programs are constitutional. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower-court ruling that said similar South Carolina license plates violated the First Amendment.

Drivers will be able to pay an extra fee in Tennessee for the Choose Life plate, and some of the proceeds will go to New Life Resources, an anti-abortion group.

‘Choose Life’ in other states

Other states that offer Choose Life plates are Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Dakota. Most states donate proceeds to adoption groups, but Alabama, Hawaii, Maryland and Montana donate at least some of the money to anti-abortion groups.

Tennessee joins the War on Women's Rights

Dependable Renegade

AP/Tennessee Right to Life

Fucktards.

(This undated artist’s rendering provided by Tennessee Right to Life, shows the proposed Choose Life license plate for Tennessee. Tennessee can sell license plates that say ‘Choose Life,’ even though it doesn’t offer one with an abortion rights message, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, March 17, 2006.)

To women who live in the South: GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN. If you can’t, DON’T HAVE SEX WITH THESE FUCKTARDS. REALLY!

Irresponsible

Irresponsible – Kirsten Johnson

“To be an artist is to recognize the particular. To appreciate the peculiar. To allow a sense of play in your relationship to accepted standards. To ask the question, “Why?” To be an artist is to risk admitting that much of what is money, property, and prestige strikes you as just a little silly.

To be an artist is to acknowledge the astonishing. It is to allow the wrong piece in a room if we like it. It is to hang onto a weird coat that makes us happy. It is to not keep trying to be something that we aren’t.

If you are happier writing than not writing, painting than not painting, singing than not singing, acting than not acting, directing than not directing, for God’s sake… let yourself do it.

To kill your dreams because they are irresponsible is to be irresponsible to yourself.” — Julia Cameron, Artist’s Way

“Perhaps it is better to be irresponsible and right, than to be responsible and wrong.” — Winston Churchill

“Work while you have the light. You are responsible for the talent that has been entrusted to you.” — Henri Frederic Amiel

“Freedom is the will to be responsible to ourselves”
— Friedrich Nietzsche

“In the last analysis, the individual person is responsible for living his own life and for ”finding himself.” If he persists in shifting his responsibility to somebody else, he fails to find out the meaning of his own existence.”
— Thomas Merton

Make your own plushy artic lobster!

Pattern available here:

Posted by kuri:

Inspired by the recently reported kiwa hirsuta lobster, I designed a plush toy. Although she’s not anatomically correct in every detail (PDF), I think she is an identifiable member of this new species.

For anyone interested in sewing one of their own, I’ve developed a pattern with instructions and released it under a Creative Commons license. I don’t recommend this project for people averse to hand-sewing or turning things inside out—there’s plenty of both involved. But it’s all simple sewing and assembly if you understand the basics of seaming and stuffing.

Via boing boing.

Voice Lessons

So yay, I had my first voice lesson today!

It was actually very cool and informative. Eleonor teaches Alexander Technique so I learned lots about how to stand (pretend I have a tail, how fun is that?), what things I was doing with my head and throat that were inhibiting my tone, and how to fix them, and got to lay on the floor and sing, which was kind of different! I learned how to keep my ribs floating and not to press down with my tongue or tip my head back. It was fun, and Eleonor is very cool and relaxed. Definitely think I’ll go back!

Missouri – we want to be as stupid as South Dakota!

What Mac said. Any woman who votes Republican ought to just sign over her uterus NOW. That’s all these asshats think you are, ladies. A twat.

pesky’apostrophe: always better than an unexpected period.

So. I know we’re all living in this weird world where fetuses and pre-fetuses and the concept of fetuses and sperm and eggs which make up the fetus are suppose to be more important and have more rights than women who have made it to adulthood and babies, infants, and children who are already born. I’m sure everyone who thinks the government should be intruding into our personal lives to stop the unchecked slaughter of babies due to masterbation, family planning, birth control, and abortion should also be spending whatever it takes to ensure the health and welfare of poor children and abused children, right? Right?

*crickets*

Yesterday the Missouri House voted to ban contraceptive funding for low-income women, and to prohibit state-funded programs from referring those women to other programs. You know, because as sponsor Rep. Susan Phillips says, using tax payer money to provide contraception is wrong. It’s wrong, I say!

So let me get this straight – Republicans are constantly bitching and complaining about having their hard earned money confiscated to pay for the stereotypical welfare queen who keeps popping out kids so she can get more welfare, right? Now Republicans are choosing to stop funding to a program that allows low income women to be responsible by limiting the number of kids they have, which might allow them to go to school and pull themselves up out of poverty, thus decreasing the need to spend as much on welfare? I’m sure they could just say that low-income women just shouldn’t have sex, but a good portion of these people are probably married – are they saying that married people shouldn’t have sex? Yes, I know, sex is for procreation with the Republican set, blah blah blah…but then they can’t be allowed to bitch about the welfare queens popping out two dozen kids anymore – they’re encouraging it!

I won’t even mention that the proposal specifically targets low-income women. What about state funding for male contraception? Is Missouri going to ban programs that provide condoms to low-income men and prevent state-funded medical clinics from handing out low cost vasectomies? I didn’t notice anything about low-income men, so this is really just a sexist bill aimed at punishing women for daring to a] be poor and b] have vaginas.

And what if the low-income person in question happens to be a junkie? Isn’t that a little irresponsible to encourage a junkie to get pregnant? I know the goal here is forced childbirth for all, but isn’t that just a teeny bit extreme and not particularly good when the baby is born a junkie, too?

Perhaps the low-income woman is using, let’s say, the birth control pill to regulate her period or control debilitating PMS and cramps. Or maybe she uses birth control of some sort because she’s going through chemo or has a history of ectopic pregnancies or something else. Not every woman uses birth control simply because she’s a big sluts intent on thwarting the patriarchy, you know. Isn’t it really unethical and against a doctor’s oath to refuse brith control under those circumstances?

Not to mention that more unwanted pregnancies due to lack of birth control access means more abortions. Of course, I’m sure that Missouri will follow South Dakota’s lead by trying to ban abortion. Not that it’ll stop women from having abortions…it’ll just mean more women will take matters into their own hands.

Good job, Missouri. What a bunch of schmucks.