Another sane solution from the GOP

GOP Congressional candidate Tom Mullins on putting landmines on the U.S.-Mexico border. And he doesn't sound like he's joking:

"We talk about a border fence and really what we get down to is its very difficult to have a fence and have that work. But we have some low-cost, low-tech solutions. And I know it sounds crazy, but we have -- we used to have land mines. I know it sounds like a crazy thing. But if we wanted to stop -- if we, have an attack on the United States, a nuclear attack, and we find that they carried the nuclear weapon and the people, the people who harmed us came across the border and we say, 'We have got to secure the border,' we could put land mines along the border.

I know it sounds crazy.

We could put up signs in 23 different languages, if necessary. And we could put up some barbed wire and say, 'We are securing the border. If you want to cross the border, you cross legally. You cross through the areas where we have our border patrol agents, where we have the checkpoints, and so you follow the law.'"

The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get

You go girl

Portia De Rossi's Prop 8 PSA. And that's all I want to say about that right now.

Obama takes a step forward for women's rights & the abortion issue

Last week, President Obama lifted the ban that prevented giving federal aid to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information. The ban, better known as the "Mexico City policy" or "Global Gag Rule", has been in and out of effect ever since President Reagan adopted the policy back in the 1980's. The war between pro-life and pro-choice is a serious one, and I wanted to clear up some things about this Global Gag Rule because it doesn't just cover the yes-or-no issue of whether you think abortion is morally wrong or not; the policy was a great threat to the rights and health of women worldwide.

In a nutshell, the Global Gag Rule means that no organization can receive USAID funds (Agency for International Development) or family planning assistance if it performs abortions, provides counseling and referral for abortions, or lobbies to make abortion legal or more available in its own country. Apparently, this included organizations that don't even particularly mention "abortion", but instead mention "family planning", "reproductive health", "women's rights", or "free, informed choice". One can see how this would violate freedom of speech if it applied to domestic policy and how it perpetuates an image of American arrogance - in other words, it tells poor developing countries that they would receive no U.S. help if they do not conform to the Christian right agenda. As a result, thousands of women's health clinics were forced to close, the hardest hit being those that depended on U.S. foreign aid as their primary means of funding. Women who lived in an area where there was only one main clinic within miles and miles of another were simply out of luck.

The sad thing is that regardless of whether an organization received USAID funds or not, none of those funds would have been able to be used for abortions anyway. Under the Helms Amendment of 1973, international organizations are prohibited to use US funding to "pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions." If those agencies wanted to perform abortions, they would have had to find their own way to fund the procedures. But because of the Global Gag rule, many facilities that did not even perform abortions were forced to close, stripping women from receiving services such as STI screening and treatment, HIV testing and counseling, and basic family planning and reproductive health care services. Thousands of women were denied the very services that may have prevented abortions from happening in the first place.

The World Health Organization estimated that the number of women who died from unsafe abortions every year (about 70,000) soared due to Bush's policies. Even in the Philippines, where abortion is illegal and many of the citizens are of the Catholic faith, the International Planned Parenthood Federation estimated that there are up to half a million unsafe abortions performed a year. President Bush and many of his supporters decided to exercise their political power to serve their ideology rather than really taking a look at what is going on in the world and trying to help millions of women and young girls.

There are many more instances in which President Bush took a step to reverse progress in family planning and world health. Under President Clinton, USAID was one of the 2 biggest donors of condoms in the world, since condoms have been shown as one of the most effective means of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. When W. Bush came into office, he ended the shipping of condoms and other contraceptive supplies to 16 of the poorest developing countries in the world. Those governments, along with 13 other countries that could not receive supplies from USAID because of the gag rule conditions, were only able to provide 1/8 the number of condoms necessary to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS.

To be fair, there are also many examples in which the access to abortions has had a detrimental impact to some societies. In parts of India, the natural ratio between newborn boys and newborn girls has shifted to favor boys because of sex-selective abortion. Sadly, in many areas of the world baby girls are seen as less worthy due to cultural, socioeconomic, or other reasons.

As for my own views on abortion, I consider myself pro-choice, but with that being said, if I were ever put in that situation I don't think I would ever allow myself to go through it. I don't think that all cases of abortion are morally impermissible (i.e. cases of rape, incest, if it's a threat to the women's life), but I'm also pretty uneasy about partial-birth abortions - read up on "dilation and extraction" if any of you want to know why. Anyways, I say all this because just as our personal views on this issue may not be just black or white, neither are domestic and international policies surrounding this issue. The Freedom of Choice Act is now a big story in the news as well as a source of controversy, and before you make up your mind about this policy, I really urge you to do some research on it, as I'm sure misinformation would be spewed from both sides of the spectrum. Whether you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice, it is important to look at this issue and the corresponding policies from both sides and not take anything for face-value.

*Edit* If anyone is interested in reading the text of the FOCA, see here

Searching for answers

I know my recent posts have been heavily centered on politics and religious arguments here and there, but with the significance of this year's election and controversial issues on the ballot, these past couple months have really influenced me in how I view the world and why - pretty much because I forced myself to really sit down and critically think about these issues. It's just been on my mind lately, and while all this introspection is very liberating for my mind, it is also very frustrating.

I guess you could say I'm in some sort of religious/spiritual limbo. More so religious I should say, because what I'm not confused about is my belief in God or my stance on "hot topics" between church and society - abortion, homosexuality, abstinence-only education, etc. - it's crystal clear. What I am confused about is what does this mean for me as someone who was raised Catholic. I just feel that I am not able to commit 100% to being what a Catholic "should be" simply because of what I believe. Even if I were to commit 500% and devoted everything to my faith, I feel like no matter what I absolutely cannot be considered Catholic simply because I believe women should have a choice when it comes to abortion. Or that same-sex marriages are not immoral. Or that sex education is very critical and would help to reduce numbers of abortions and teenage pregnancies to begin with.

Some of it has to do with how the leaders of the church have spoken out against prominent Catholics in politics for their stance on abortion. After VP-to-be Joe Biden received communion in Florida recently, one of the bishops from that area suggested that Biden not present himself for the sacrament anymore, simply due to his pro-choice stance. Biden is not the only Catholic politician in the public eye that has been asked to stop receiving communion. I wouldn't have such a hard time balancing my views if the church authority didn't publicly condemn this middle ground where I stand right now.

There's really no arguing with the Catholic church because of the importance of papal infallibility. This basically means that the pope, working through the Holy Spirit, is free of error when he declares something as right or wrong. This is essentially what makes the Catholic church different from others; it does not stress religious interpretation by the individual but by the church universally. Everyone has their own idea of what it means to be a Catholic, but if you disagree with one of the core messages that the church preaches today, can you really still identify yourself as a Catholic?

I'm not so sure.

I'm not at all trying to put down Catholicism because if that's what works for you, then all the power to you. It's difficult to really devote yourself to a particular faith and if you can do it and it makes you happy, I find that pretty admirable. As for me right now, I don't want to characterize myself as a "cafeteria Catholic", picking and choosing what I like about the teachings. What's the point if you don't give your all? For anything? As of now I feel like a huge hypocrite when I proclaim myself as a Catholic then get into an argument on how we need to fight for reproductive rights or marriage equality.

I know there is a balance somewhere. I know that thinking logically and thinking in terms of religion are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. I just don't know if that entails fully committing to a Catholic faith for me right now. I don't want to distance myself from something I've known my whole life but I feel like there is no compromise...

My Turn on Prop 8 Thoughts

I posted this as a comment in one of the Coolkidsroom's entries, but I put more effort in it than I intended so I thought I would post it here as well -

"One really has to consider how society today views marriage as opposed to the institution's origins and history. In ancient times, a "marriage" was based on property distribution, gaining power, or having children. If this is the case, wouldn't it make sense for these arrangements to have existed long before humans even began to record history, before anything that we would recognize now as religion? For many religions today, bringing children into the world and raising them to believe in God is still stressed within marriage - does that mean an infertile man or woman has no reason to marry? Of course not.

In any case, it is obvious that the reasons for "marriage" have evolved as we have. Not everyone views marriage as a religious union, but as a legal and/or social union. It wasn't even until the 1500's when the Council of Trent required the presence of a priest and witnesses in order for a Roman Catholic marriage to be recognized. Before this point, marriage by consent was the norm. Does this invalidate the "marriages" prior to this point?

Long story short, why do (most) people want to get married nowadays? To spend the rest of their life with someone they love, legitimize their relationship in the public eye, whatever have you. What makes 2 men or 2 women wanting this different from a man and a woman? The church has stood the test of time and whoever wants to follow what the church suggests, that's fine. But not everyone wants a religious wedding. Not everyone is religious. The freedom of religion means the freedom to worship whoever you like, however you'd like, but it also means to not pass legislation in our country that would infringe another's freedom of religion or freedom to not adopt religion at all, which includes the right to a marriage defined outside of the church's terms.

Honestly, I don't know why people are so bothered with how others conduct their lives as long as they aren't hurting themselves or the well-being of others. And as for civil unions being compared to marriages, let us remind ourselves how "separate but equal" turned out for us before..."

Edit - Part 2:

"To clear up some things, I brought up the existence of marriage before religion/recorded history because many of the most popular and influential religions are codified into a specific doctrine for which its followers must obey - the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, etc. Whether religion existed before recorded history or not does not matter, you really cannot state that marriage was created through the church as we know it, therefore the church has no more right to control marriage than the state does.

As for the personal freedom issue, whether Prop 8 passes or not, heterosexuals are not denied the right to marry. Voting no on Prop 8 really is not infringing on your or my freedom of religion because we will still be able to exercise our right to be married if we pleased. If Prop 8 passes, some of our friends would lose that right. Nothing would change about the church. The church will not recognize same-sex marriage either way, so only the freedom of homosexuals will have a real impact. Just like when Roe vs. Wade was passed - the church's position on abortion remained the same, and those who stood against abortion still had the choice of being pro-life. Legalized abortion was not forced into their ideology.

The entire text of Proposition 8 is less than 10 sentences long, but the only words that matter are: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". This includes marriage through church, marriage through the state, marriage period. Same-sex couple will not be able to marry, even with a separation of church and state. Where is the equality in that? Even if civil unions are supposedly equal to marriage, then why do people still want to get married and not just accept a civil union? Or leave it at cohabitation? What marriage means to you is different from what it means to me, from everyone else in California, and it has changed and evolved since the beginning. There is much more to marriage that transcends sexual orientation."

Political Peeves: Sarah Palin

With the upcoming election in less than a month, I can't help but give my 2 cents on the campaign and issues that I think are important and to get it out of my system, even if it's just on this page and for its 5(?) readers. This will be the first of a few posts, and I'll start off with my feelings about Sarah Palin.

If any of you have noticed this in person, I will now explain why everytime someone mutters the words "Sarah Palin", my typical reaction is to do something like this:

Roll eyes + *sigh* = my blood starts to boil. I can almost feel it.

Forreal, I have irrational hate towards this woman as a politician. I mean I'm sure she's a great mother to her family and would blend in just fine with the PTA and band (and hockey) moms, but this woman's anti-science, anti-environment, and anti-women's/ reproductive rights stance just grinds my fcking gears. My boss at work, a well-off, Orange County civil trial attorney, is pretty much as Republican as one can be; he calls Sarah Palin "the village idiot".

And before someone tells me that this election is about electing the next president and not second-in-command, I am well aware of that. I support many of Obama's policies and would vote for him over McCain, regardless of the other name on either party's ticket. But this post is about Sarah Palin and not Obama, and if you don't like it then GTFO. It just scares me that McCain would choose someone so out of touch on issues as his Vice President. Honestly. Why? It's not because of experience or merit or qualifications or anything that would seem to make sense, that's for sure. To reel in female voters who will vote for her based on her sex? Maybe. If that's the case, that just pisses me off even more if his campaign thinks I will vote for a candidate just because she is a woman without reading the issues. I am not that stupid, and I certainly hope all other female voters aren't either. She is no Hillary. She is no champion of women's rights.

Since there are so many things I could say about why I can't stand Sarah Palin, a short list will have to suffice for now. Feel free to do your own research about these points:

+ On her foreign policy experience: "Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada...our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of..." 'Nuff said.

+ "Troopergate" scandal. Abuse of power? Unethical?

+ Although no books were banned from the local library in Wasilla, in 1996 then-mayor Palin had raised the issue of banning books to librarian Mary Emmons at least twice. Emmons flat out opposed Palin each time. Some time later, Emmons was fired, not because of censorship, but because Palin felt that she did not have Emmons' support. Palin then decided to withdraw her termination letter to Emmons after residents rallied behind the librarian and against what they thought was Palin's attempt at censorship.

+Supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge , the largest protected wilderness in the United States. I should note that McCain does not even support this. Opposes listing the Polar Bear and Beluga Whale as endangered species and even sued the federal government after the bear was listed as threatened in May.

+Opposes embryonic stem cell research. My bias as a Biosci major may be a factor for me here.

+Claimed that global warming is not man-made, but later claimed that she does not rule out man's influence either (I say damage control by her advisors). Hello - carbon emissions? Deforestation? The meat industry? With her answers to questions about this issue and other ones like foreign policy, she just does not seem to have a clue about important issues that I want my Vice President to be somewhat knowledgeable about. I don't want a "Joe Six Pack" or a hockey mom in office, I want someone exceptional.

+She has stated that she is a proponent of teaching both evolution AND creationism in schools. It has also been reported that she endorsed the teaching of Intelligent Design - and if you've been reading my blog, you know how I feel about that. Although Palin has not necessarily pushed for Creationism in the classroom, I think we should just stick to a separation of church and state. Religion can and should be taught in religion or theology class, but not as science. I also wonder if proponents of teaching creationism alongside evolution would feel the same about the teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam in the classroom- it makes me question whether Palin would still follow her own words: "You know, don't be afraid of information"...

+Palin is pro-life, and although I respect others who share that same stance, it's important for me to vote for a pro-choice candidate. This topic will get its own post in the future, focusing on the Global Gag Rule because this policy does not get a lot of publicity but I think it is an important one that deals with women's & reproductive rights, foreign aid and poverty.


To be honest, I feel a little bad for Sarah Palin. I don't think she is nearly ready enough to take on the potential role as Vice President, and she was put on that ticket for reasons other than experience and qualifications. If I thought she was qualified, this wouldn't even be an issue. I want to like her, I really do. It would be great to have an example of an understanding, compassionate woman who is in touch with the issues, a powerful, intelligent one who fights for women's rights all while juggling the important roles of mother and wife. I guess I will need to wait a little longer...

Declare Yourself

Continuing with the political theme of this week's top news stories...

What's Your Political Compass?

Yours truly:

Some international contemporary leaders:

Just thought it was interesting.  Oh yeah, one more thing:

VOTE!