Blog Against Theocracy

I've decided to participate in the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm this weekend, March 21-23, 2008. I'm sure it's only a coincidence that it falls over the Easter holiday...

Bloggers all across the country will be posting articles or thoughts about one of our most fundamental freedoms: the separation of Church and State. While I have some rudimentary background in political science, I have no desire to hold forth on the fundamental Constitutional guarantees which are currently being compromised by the irrational, morally bankrupt religious extremist who claims to be our Commander-In-Chief...

Okay, maybe I do, but instead I wanted to address a particular issue which is directly relevant to my daily life: reproductive rights. And I'm not talking about abortion, although I could... No, no, I'm going to stay on point.

When I was 16, my mom took me to see our family doctor to discuss the increasing symptoms I was having - which, back then, were still only referred to as "female troubles". To be more accurate, I had cramps. REALLY BAD cramps. Horrifically painful, debilitating, "waking up with slivers of wood under my nails from gripping the bedpost in agony" kind of cramps.

After an exam, my doctor explained that the best way to combat my symptoms would be to prescribe a regimen of birth control pills. Being Catholic, I was unsure how my mom would react to this news, but she was cool with it. After watching me suffer for years, I think she would have agreed to anything, but she also explained that this would actually be allowed under current Church teaching anyway, since there was a valid medical purpose.

Unlike some of my friends (you know who you are!), I was not sexually active at this young age, so my use of the drug I was taking - and have taken ever since, in some form - was purely medical in nature. Within a few months, my symptoms subsided to a somewhat more tolerable state, and everyone was happy - no harm, no foul.

Then I went to college. (Well, for awhile, anyway. But back to the point...) In this one instance, my complete and total dependence on my parents worked to my advantage. Since I still came home every few weeks, I continued to have my prescriptions filled at my home pharmacy.

Some of my new college friends, however, were not so fortunate - they were stunned to find that many local pharmacists refused to fill birth control prescriptions. This was particularly hard for freshman girls, who were required to live in the dorms and were not allowed to park cars on campus. The local girls just went home for their meds, like I did. But for a few, the only option was to take a bus to Planned Parenthood, where they could usually get their medications, although most found that their HMO or PPO insurance coverage would not apply for these out of network drugs.

I was baffled - and frightened. What would have happened if I had chosen to attend one of the out of state schools to which I had been accepted, and therefore couldn't get my prescriptions filled at home every month? Memories of the excruciating pain I had experienced years before flooded back... Plus, I had always heard that college towns were usually more liberal than their surrounding areas. How pervasive was this problem, if it was this bad at a state university?

The whole situation was so infuriating and downright ridiculous. The idea that some random redneck could make arbitrary decisions about my body and my right to treat my life-changing medical condition filled me with rage and disgust - it still does.

Looking back, I feel so naive - things have gotten much worse in this regard since my college days in the early 90's. And that's one of the many reasons why defending the separation of Church and State is so important. Just as all Americans have the right to worship how (and if) we choose, we also all have the right to do our jobs, raise our children, treat our bodies and live our lives free of interference from anyone else's religious beliefs.

Or, at least we should.

(If you think so, too, check out the First Freedom First website for details on their nationwide live simulcast event next Wednesday, March 26th. It's a free broadcast hosted at many theaters across the country - you can find one near you here.)

----------------
Now playing: The Cranberries - Salvation
via FoxyTunes

Mr. Elrod Goes to "Wahington"?

Once again, I'm brimming with Hoosier pride.

As some of you may know, my congressional district here in Indy - the Fightin' 7th - is currently without representation in the House, due to the somewhat sudden (although hardly surprising) passing of longtime local politician Rep. Julia Carson in December.

Hoosiers will be hitting the polls this coming Tuesday for a special election to replace Carson for the remaining months of her term. As expected, the Democrats have thrown their support behind Julia's grandson, City-County Councilman Andre Carson.

And then there are the Republicans. Granted, winning this contest only guarantees a few months in the Congressional seat, since the regular elections are scheduled for this November. Still, a victory now would be a big publicity boost for any candidate, and would certainly give him or her a leg up on the competition this fall.

So it would seem that this might be a fortuitous opportunity for the Republicans to attempt to assume control of the 7th, which has been one of the few solidly Democratic districts in our exceptionally red state. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem like the GOP candidate, state representative Jon Elrod, is getting much support from the party.



Well, either that or Republicans are morally opposed to spell check. You know, maybe: "That Bill Gates shouldn't interfere with God's true plan for our spelling..."

(As an aside, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that, while the nice people at Taking Down Words and Blue Indiana were kind enough to circle the misspelling of "commercial" in the above ad, the word "television" on the previous line is also misspelled. In for a penny, in for a pound, I suppose.)

And now for my favorite part of the story... the one and only Jon Elrod television commercial. While it is not normally my practice to post Republican campaign ads on my blog, I had to make an exception for this. Pay particular attention to the on-screen graphics at the beginning:




Wow! Now you know that's got to be one smooth campaign operation.

Stay classy, Indianapolis!

Trying to Contain My Hoosier Pride

When I dream about the moonlight on the Wabash
How I long for my Indiana home.

Somehow, I don't think John McCain shares my love of the Hoosier state... at least, not today.

Fellow Hoosier (and my new hero) Thomas Cook of Blue Indiana filed an official complaint with the Indiana Election Commission this afternoon, contesting the inclusion of John McCain on the ballot for our May 6th primary. Seems that Senator McCain's local campaign organizers (including our esteemed Governor and King of Creepy Comb-Overs, Mitch "Montgomery Burns" Daniels) failed to collect the required number of petition signatures in one congressional district to qualify for the ballot. Huh. (You can read all the details here.)

Predictably, the Republican Powers-That-Be have already approved McCain for the ballot despite this little technical snafu, and I'm sure that they will either ignore the complaint or finagle some way around it. This is what politicians do, after all.

Still, I never thought I'd live to see the day when a Republican candidate - ANY Republican candidate - would have trouble finding signatures for anything in Indiana. I bet could get 100 names in my own neighborhood tomorrow on a petition advocating drunk driving with orphaned cancer puppies if I said I was collecting them for the Republican party. How hard should it be to get 500 names in any district for the acknowledged national Republican front-runner in this overwhelmingly red state?

I kinda wondered why McCain was coming to Indianapolis this Friday... We don't usually get a lot of visits from national candidates. There's not really much reason for it - it's a waste of time for both Democrats and Republicans. For Democrats, there's not much return on the time invested during such a busy season; and for Republicans, our state is typically a slam-dunk with or without a local campaign stop. In light of this new information, though, the hastily-arranged visit is starting to make sense. If McCain's staff is at all competent, they have to be concerned about what appears to be waning support for their candidate in the heart of one of the reddest states in the country.

I think my favorite part of this story, though, is the DNC response:

Despite the fact that the McCain campaign clearly failed to qualify for the ballot, Republican Attorney General Steve Carter and Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita (who recently endorsed McCain) rubberstamped it anyway, trying to sneak McCain onto the ballot. Clearly, the Republican Culture of Corruption is alive and well within the McCain campaign.

Clearly, the Democratic National Committee spokesperson hasn't spent much time in Indiana. The "Republican Culture of Corruption" is just business as usual around here.

Select A Candidate

Sorry for my prolonged absence from the blogosphere... As you know, we had a death in the family recently, so things have been a bit more hectic than usual around here. I'm going to try to get back in the saddle over the next few days.

Warm thanks to all of you who expressed your sympathy for our loss & offered your support in our time of need. Please know that your kindness is greatly appreciated.

So, on to business... I came across this quiz on Patrick's Place, and thought it might be fun to post here. As usual, my answers matched me with Dennis Kucinich - which would be fine, if he had even a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. *sigh*

Political musings...

As the good people of New Hampshire file through their polling places to cast their votes today, I thought it would be an auspicious time to talk a bit about my take on the primary season so far...

Last week's Iowa caucuses were historic and inspiring, with a record turnout, especially for the Democrats. In the current climate of political cynicism, it was refreshing to see so many new and young voters turning out to support their candidates. On a personal note, I was glad (though not totally surprised) to see that ALL 3 qualifying Democratic candidates received more votes than any of the qualifying Republicans, reinforcing the feeling that any Democratic nominee will have a good chance at reaching the White House this year. Much was made of Hillary Clinton's 3rd place finish, but even she was several percentage points ahead of Republican winner Mike Huckabee.

Of course, the big story this week has been Barack Obama - both his Iowa win and the momentum he's gained as a result of it. Obama's Iowa victory was stunning not because it was a surprise (he had been the frontrunner in the polls for several weeks) but rather due to the margin by which he won. I think that, while Obama has picked up a lot of support over the months of his campaign, most pundits - and voters, for that matter - were not sure if this would translate into actual votes. It seems like everyone was hedging their bets, waiting to see if anyone else would dare cast their votes for him before they would publicly back him as a candidate. I know that's sort of how I've felt... Obama seems like a decent guy who shares many of my beliefs, and he certainly has the charisma and presence to be a contender. But all the scuttlebutt over the past year revolved around the theory that Hillary Clinton was the clear frontrunner whose nomination was almost inevitable. So, I felt, why get invested in a candidate who doesn't have a chance? I think a lot of others have felt this way, too, whether they want to admit it or not.

But after Iowa, the floodgates opened - suddenly, it's not so unreasonable to back Obama. And with each passing day, his poll numbers continue to rise. I don't believe this is because people all over the country are unduly influenced by the opinions of Iowa caucus voters. What Iowa did for Obama was prove that people in the heartland have heard his message and not only support it, but are also not afraid to vote for him, despite the fact that he is young, black and somewhat unproven. Now scores of closet Obama supporters are stepping out from the shadows to be counted.

As for myself, I'm still officially undecided, but I find the groundswell of support for Obama to be inspirational. Politically, my beliefs would probably align more closely with Dennis Kucinich, the former candidate Chris Dodd, or (lately) John Edwards. But Obama has been the most charismatic from the beginning, and I can't help but pull for him to some extent. My main concern with Obama has nothing to do with his age, color, background, or lack of experience. No, what bothers me is that his actions don't always seem to match the rhetoric. He talks a lot about change, but I haven't seen much effort on his part to initiate that change. He's against the war, but has voted to fund it (a tough political spot to be in during a presidential campaign, admittedly).

But I would have no problem casting my vote for Barack Obama as president... Of course, I would have no problem voting for any of the other remaining Democratic candidates, either. This may have something to do with why I'm still undecided... Any of them would be so-o-o-o-o much better than what we've had for the past 7 years that it's hard for me to quibble over small platform differences.

The only one I can't get really excited about is Hillary Clinton, which is a shame. I think it would be cool to have a woman as president. But of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one that worries me most. Primarily, I'm concerned that she would be less than supportive of rolling back the unconstitutional powers that have been ceded to the Executive branch by the Patriot Act, which is a major issue for me. How can you be a Democrat and not stand up for civil liberties and basic rights like habeas corpus? That being said, I think Hillary Clinton has a lot of qualities necessary for a great American president, and I would certainly vote for her were she the chosen Democratic nominee.

In all honesty, I feel that most of the Republican candidates would be reasonably capable in the Oval Office, too - not that I would ever vote for any of them. But despite our differences in values, I feel that the majority of the Republicans have the potential to at least be effective executives - and any of them would be an improvement over Dubya (faint praise, at best). Not that I wouldn't still complain about them, as I have done about every previous Republican president in my lifetime (and a few before my lifetime, too!). But I don't think I'd be quite as worried about the future of our country - heck, of the entire planet - as I have been during the Bush/Cheney years.

I guess that may be the only positive legacy of the current administration: they really put things into perspective. I remember feeling frightened by the concept of Dan Quayle being only one heart attack away from the presidency.... Ha! Little did I know what depths of incompetency were yet to come. I used to think Ronald Reagan was evil, but now he just seems like a big, fuzzy puppy dog. Nixon? A bad apple, sure, but no longer the anti-Christ. He almost seems like an amateur compared to Dick Cheney... Once again, I guess the apprentice surpasses the master.

I've been saying this for years...

What political ideology do you have? Your Result: Democratic Socialist   You are the standard European socialist who believes that the government should spend large amounts of money on social welfare programs. You also believe that these social welfare programs are mandated by the people who vote in your ideal democratic government
Communist
Libertarian
Anarchist
Authoritarian Capitalist
Fascist
What political ideology do you have? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

We're Famous!

My good ol' home state of Indiana made it onto Crooks and Liars today... I'm so proud.

For those of you who haven't heard, a few years ago our duly elected legislators, in their infinite wisdom, decided to pass the strictest voter ID law in the country. Of course, it has been challenged, but so far every court has upheld the law, despite evidence that it has already disenfranchised a number of indigent, elderly &/or disabled voters. Let freedom ring.

The issue is due to come before the Supreme Court this year, but considering the current balance of the court, I'm not holding my breath.

His stupidity is effervescent...

So, last night I'm minding my own business, kicking back with some dill pickle spears and a little Olbermann - perfect ending to the day, right? Of course, Keith can't make it through the entire hour without kicking a little caca on Bill Orally. He's actually made it into an art.

There was a whole segment devoted to Billo's unnatural fixation with graphic sexual details in his interview with Miss New Jersey. So far, typical Keith - very amusing. In the daily Worst Persons in the World segment, he revisits Billo on another topic - his repeated assertions that the Daily Kos is just like the Nazis. Ridiculous, to be sure, but certainly par for the course.

Then this happened.

Regarding Herr O'Reilly, Keith said: "His stupidity is effervescent. It glows. It fairly undulates and vibrates... I'll stop now. I'm getting Billo excited."

Has anyone out there ever tried to inhale a dill pickle spear? I would consider filing suit against MSNBC if I didn't think the whole thing was so damn hysterical. Shouldn't you warn a person before uttering what just might be the MOST AWESOME PHRASE EVER??

If you missed it the first time, you can see it here: