Well's it's only three months into this new Democratically (and female) lead Congress and we've got the environment on the agenda and exiting the Iraqi war as a priority on the agenda. Rock on, ladies.
Did you see the great gavel moment when Al Gore testified about global warming? Sen. Barbara Boxer, the committee chair, told Sen. Inhofe the deal when he tried, unsuccessfully to set the rules of debate at the testimony. She's got your gavel right here, Sen. Inhofe.
I wonder what the next nine months will bring...stay tuned...
Friday, March 23, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
Legalized Prostitution?
I bet that got your attention, didn't it. One of our college friends had a dog that would tilt her head in that way dogs do whenever someone said "legalized prostitution?" She didn't do it for other words, regardless of the order in which they were arranged or similar intonation.
I heard something on the radio the other day that made me think of it. The report I heard was talking about an interesting occurrence in Turkey. Or I think it was Turkey. It may have been Greece - I wish I could find it! Prostitution is legal in Turkey (and in Greece) - and it seems that some of these illegal trade rings have been 'exposed' by their customers. As men in (Turkey/Greece) are used to visiting women who chose prositution as their profession, they are rather incensed when they encounter women that are not in the trade by choice. I found that interesting.
Now, the odds of legalizing prostitution in certain areas of this country are pretty slim (think about it - what congressperson do you know wants to yell "Save the whores!" at their pep rally?), but I actually think it would be a healthy thing to do: allow women who prefer the 'escort' business to legalize their business, while continuing to go after the underground ops. Nevada's approach (linked below) could be considered an example.
The whole scene surrounding prostitution in this country is so seedy: it's under the carpet in the corner on the fringes. While I don't want sex front and center in everyone's face, I'm a realist: people have sex, they like sex, and they're willing to pay for it. Even if you argue that "you should only have sex with your spouse" (as an abstinence measure touted as particularly effective in curbing AIDS), I think it must be acknowledged that there are a hell of a lot of single people out there that will not be content getting action only from their own hands. It's just life. Be pious about it if you want to, but it flies in the face of human nature and how life works.
I want women to be safe. I want women to be healthy. I want women to feel they deserve both things. I also think some women choose to be escorts or strippers or prostitutes because they want to. More, I think, choose to be those things because they feel they have to (it's the money). And unfortunately, there seem to be a growing number of women from whom the choice has been stripped entirely.
The demand for a sex trade is there, has always been there, and will continue to be there. Continue to advocate abstinence, continue to teach youngsters whatever you will about family values, and how to use condoms, and whatever else you think people need to know to prevent the spread of AIDS and other STDs - but make prostitution legal so that those practice the trade (in the first two cases) can do so without fearing for their life or being futher victims of physical or emotional abuse. Awareness about legal prostitution may also, as has been seen in (Turkey/Greece) lately, help to expose human trafficing rings involving those women involuntarily forced into the trade.
I heard something on the radio the other day that made me think of it. The report I heard was talking about an interesting occurrence in Turkey. Or I think it was Turkey. It may have been Greece - I wish I could find it! Prostitution is legal in Turkey (and in Greece) - and it seems that some of these illegal trade rings have been 'exposed' by their customers. As men in (Turkey/Greece) are used to visiting women who chose prositution as their profession, they are rather incensed when they encounter women that are not in the trade by choice. I found that interesting.
Now, the odds of legalizing prostitution in certain areas of this country are pretty slim (think about it - what congressperson do you know wants to yell "Save the whores!" at their pep rally?), but I actually think it would be a healthy thing to do: allow women who prefer the 'escort' business to legalize their business, while continuing to go after the underground ops. Nevada's approach (linked below) could be considered an example.
The whole scene surrounding prostitution in this country is so seedy: it's under the carpet in the corner on the fringes. While I don't want sex front and center in everyone's face, I'm a realist: people have sex, they like sex, and they're willing to pay for it. Even if you argue that "you should only have sex with your spouse" (as an abstinence measure touted as particularly effective in curbing AIDS), I think it must be acknowledged that there are a hell of a lot of single people out there that will not be content getting action only from their own hands. It's just life. Be pious about it if you want to, but it flies in the face of human nature and how life works.
I want women to be safe. I want women to be healthy. I want women to feel they deserve both things. I also think some women choose to be escorts or strippers or prostitutes because they want to. More, I think, choose to be those things because they feel they have to (it's the money). And unfortunately, there seem to be a growing number of women from whom the choice has been stripped entirely.
The demand for a sex trade is there, has always been there, and will continue to be there. Continue to advocate abstinence, continue to teach youngsters whatever you will about family values, and how to use condoms, and whatever else you think people need to know to prevent the spread of AIDS and other STDs - but make prostitution legal so that those practice the trade (in the first two cases) can do so without fearing for their life or being futher victims of physical or emotional abuse. Awareness about legal prostitution may also, as has been seen in (Turkey/Greece) lately, help to expose human trafficing rings involving those women involuntarily forced into the trade.
- Not more feminisim ... [ealasaid.com: 2006]
I found this entry out in the blogosphere, and it actually sums up my view:A woman brought here under false pretenses and forced into prostitution has a world of problems. I am against that, hands down. Why? Not because I'm against men paying for sex, but because I'm against slavery. Women forced into prostitution don't see a dime of the money the men hand over. That's abuse, sure. That's wrong. Wrong.
But I am pro-prostitution insofar as I'm pro-shitjobs in general. I think it should be illegal for pimps to treat their employees like slaves, the same way it's illegal for McDonalds bosses to treat their employees like slaves. That is the injustice there: that many prostitutes are treated badly and some are actually in slavery. Not the fact that a horny guy brings some dough and offers it to a woman willing to have sex with him. We should fight to make the "choice" so many women have an actual, real choice. - Prostitution in Nevada [wikipedia]
- Greece Now: Human Traffic [www.greece-now.org: 2001]
- FBI urges human traffic co-operation [news.bbc.co.uk: 2001]
Monday, October 30, 2006
The Deadliest Month
War's toll...the deadliest month yet. I think these photos in the New York Times should be posted on every politician's wall...to remind them of the human toll, here at home and abroad. And to every voter, a reminder of what "staying the course" really means. What keeping George Bush's brethren in office might mean for our future. More of the same, regardless of what you call it.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Grr. That gay marriage ammendment thing, again?
I seriously wish this gay marriage "issue" would dry up and go away. To the state (or the federal government), a "marriage" is used to track property (or, more specifically, the taxes associated with that property). In some cases, you might think it used to track offspring, but the birth parents of the child really don't matter - the government just wants to know who paid for the kid that year.
If the hang up is over the M-word - then let the church (mosque/synagogue/temple/etc.) have it. In the eyes of the state/federal government, every married couple would be part of a recognized civil union. Who did and who didn't have a proper church wedding would be as much a mystery as it is now. (If you really want to take that thought out for awhile, why stop at two people? Why can't unions be used to identify and manage people that co-habitate? The paperwork would be a bear, for sure, but there are instances, like sibilings living together throughout adulthood or multi-generational homes, where a definition of a civil union beyond the current two-adult flavor might make sense.
What I find concerning, perhaps alarming - certainly offensive, is the elitism that forms the primary anti-gay marriage argument: "I'm married, and I'm doing something that (my personal) God tells me is right. They're doing something that (my personal) God tells me is wrong." Followed by either, "If they say they're married, it will make my marriage worth less," or "They are abnormal and don't deserve to be married (like I am)." Parentheticals are (pretty obviously) my own addition to the general gist of their tirade.
A quick skim of the history of marriage as a social construct shows vacillation surrounding the role of government when dealing with marriages (or not, as the case may be).
It is my opinion that either: a) the federal government should separate the concepts of marriage and civil unions at the federal level, where civil unions then become the focus of interaction with families (tax returns and whatnot); or b) the federal government shuts the hell up and lets the courts do what is right (not right by a particular flavor of God, but right by people and their civil liberties).
If the hang up is over the M-word - then let the church (mosque/synagogue/temple/etc.) have it. In the eyes of the state/federal government, every married couple would be part of a recognized civil union. Who did and who didn't have a proper church wedding would be as much a mystery as it is now. (If you really want to take that thought out for awhile, why stop at two people? Why can't unions be used to identify and manage people that co-habitate? The paperwork would be a bear, for sure, but there are instances, like sibilings living together throughout adulthood or multi-generational homes, where a definition of a civil union beyond the current two-adult flavor might make sense.
What I find concerning, perhaps alarming - certainly offensive, is the elitism that forms the primary anti-gay marriage argument: "I'm married, and I'm doing something that (my personal) God tells me is right. They're doing something that (my personal) God tells me is wrong." Followed by either, "If they say they're married, it will make my marriage worth less," or "They are abnormal and don't deserve to be married (like I am)." Parentheticals are (pretty obviously) my own addition to the general gist of their tirade.
A quick skim of the history of marriage as a social construct shows vacillation surrounding the role of government when dealing with marriages (or not, as the case may be).
It is my opinion that either: a) the federal government should separate the concepts of marriage and civil unions at the federal level, where civil unions then become the focus of interaction with families (tax returns and whatnot); or b) the federal government shuts the hell up and lets the courts do what is right (not right by a particular flavor of God, but right by people and their civil liberties).
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Digital Rights and "the worst bill you never heard of
Section 115 Reform Act (SIRA) of 2006 will be before congress this week, as mentioned in the following 6 June Slashdot post:
There is, of course, another side to the story. The US Copyright Office has their own synopsis:
AWhiteFlame writes "IPAction.org is reporting on a section of the Reform Act of 2006 [ipaction.org]... From the article: 'This will be a busy week in the House ... [they will be] considering the Section 115 Reform Act of 2006 (SIRA). Never heard of SIRA? ... Simply put, SIRA fundamentally redefines copyright and fair use in the digital world. It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer's memory or buffered over a network would need yet another license.'"
- The Worst Bill You've Never Heard Of [slashdot.org]
There is, of course, another side to the story. The US Copyright Office has their own synopsis:
The draft legislation reflects an understanding and appreciation of the many difficulties facing the music industry today with respect to the digital environment... The most critical and time-sensitive issue is the current unavailability of an efficient and reliable mechanism whereby legitimate music services are able to clear all of the rights they need to make large numbers of musical works quickly available by an ever-evolving number of digital means while ensuring that the copyright holders are fairly compensated.
- Section 115 Reform Act (SIRA) of 2006 [copyright.gov]
Friday, May 26, 2006
Liberals and Jihadism
My husband and I were reading today's Wall Street Journal this morning, and he pointed my attention to a review of Peter Beinart's book, "The Good Fight", by Fred Siegel ("A Direction for Democrats" on W5, for those with hard copy that might want to look). I quote here from the last few paragraphs:
I felt that this particular snippet echoed what I was trying to express in my previous post.
Today's jihadism is the expression of an imperialist imperative that is part of Islam itself, reaching back more than a millennium. It is not a manifestation of poor living conditions.
The reality is that there are no good choices when a major world religion appropriates whole countries or peoples on behalf of a radical, "holy" agenda...
- Fred Siegel, review of The Good Fight, by Peter Beinart, The Wall Street Journal, 26 May 2006, 5(W).
I felt that this particular snippet echoed what I was trying to express in my previous post.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Cockeyed calls for action and the impotence of the knee-jerk response
I received one of these impassioned emails in my inbox the other day:
I find a few things interesting about this email: it's been circulating via chain-email since 2003; of all the urban legend pieces I've seen, this is one of the few that actually has some basis in truth. What bothers me about it is how the events are presented. Yes, the embassy in Tehran was attacked in 1979, and yes, it constituted an attack on (or perhaps a repudiation of?) Western culture in general, and American culture in particular.
Embassies are special cases: they are not subject to local law, yet they are still part of the host nation (Diplomatic mission/Embassy, Extraterritoriality [wikipedia.org]). The blatantly hostile actions against the Embassy in Iran was certainly counter to all established customs of international diplomacy. But there is more to it than that (isn't there always?)
This was the time when Iran was hovering on the verge of revolution, and the US was caught with its finger in the pudding: Iran Hostage Crisis [wikipedia.org]. The email claims that Iran has been making war on the US since 1979, but it fails to mention that we've been meddling in their business (and in the business of Iraq, for that matter, as we played them against each other) for far longer than that. I think it could be argued that we are now sleeping in the bed we made.
What bothers me the most, is this:
It seems to shout "Death to the infidels!" and that is, of course, precisely what they are yelling to their comrades. How is diplomacy possible in an atmosphere of such absolutism? Are we not, by yelling thus, being just as fanatical? Can't we acknowledge the unlikelihood of all Iranians feeling that way? It seems more likely to me that the population of a nation would be silent in response to a dominant group that happens to a) be in charge, b) be armed to the teeth, and c) have apparently no qualms about questioning, terrorizing, and/or executing its own citizens. You want to talk about a culture of fear? (Perform a search, for example, on 'execution Iran', or perhaps 'stoning Iran', you'll get the idea).
I dislike any comparison being made between any country (not the least of which is the one I call my own) and one led by a fanatical fundamentalist regime. That includes the use, by any government, of terms that leave only two options (white/black, good/evil, right/wrong). Absolutist language divides, it foments hate and discord. "United we stand, divided we fall" - nationalistic language binds together a nation ("Kill the infidels!") at the expense of the global community.
You can most likely discern that I'm a peace-lover. I don't see any positive outcome from attacking terrorists - I see only more guns, more bombs, more outrage, more hate. The root of the problem: None of us, especially those of us that are more secular in nature, really have any idea how to combat the primal overtones present in the flavor of Jihad that fanatical terrorists espouse.
References/resources (this is not a proclamation of support, it is merely a list of places/things I visited or found noteworthy en route):
America Wake Up!
That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign US embassy set the stage for the events to follow for the next 23 years.
[...]
I find a few things interesting about this email: it's been circulating via chain-email since 2003; of all the urban legend pieces I've seen, this is one of the few that actually has some basis in truth. What bothers me about it is how the events are presented. Yes, the embassy in Tehran was attacked in 1979, and yes, it constituted an attack on (or perhaps a repudiation of?) Western culture in general, and American culture in particular.
Embassies are special cases: they are not subject to local law, yet they are still part of the host nation (Diplomatic mission/Embassy, Extraterritoriality [wikipedia.org]). The blatantly hostile actions against the Embassy in Iran was certainly counter to all established customs of international diplomacy. But there is more to it than that (isn't there always?)
This was the time when Iran was hovering on the verge of revolution, and the US was caught with its finger in the pudding: Iran Hostage Crisis [wikipedia.org]. The email claims that Iran has been making war on the US since 1979, but it fails to mention that we've been meddling in their business (and in the business of Iraq, for that matter, as we played them against each other) for far longer than that. I think it could be argued that we are now sleeping in the bed we made.
What bothers me the most, is this:
America has to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to hit the Snooze Button again and roll over and go back to sleep. We have to make the terrorists know that in the words of Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor "that all they have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."
It seems to shout "Death to the infidels!" and that is, of course, precisely what they are yelling to their comrades. How is diplomacy possible in an atmosphere of such absolutism? Are we not, by yelling thus, being just as fanatical? Can't we acknowledge the unlikelihood of all Iranians feeling that way? It seems more likely to me that the population of a nation would be silent in response to a dominant group that happens to a) be in charge, b) be armed to the teeth, and c) have apparently no qualms about questioning, terrorizing, and/or executing its own citizens. You want to talk about a culture of fear? (Perform a search, for example, on 'execution Iran', or perhaps 'stoning Iran', you'll get the idea).
I dislike any comparison being made between any country (not the least of which is the one I call my own) and one led by a fanatical fundamentalist regime. That includes the use, by any government, of terms that leave only two options (white/black, good/evil, right/wrong). Absolutist language divides, it foments hate and discord. "United we stand, divided we fall" - nationalistic language binds together a nation ("Kill the infidels!") at the expense of the global community.
You can most likely discern that I'm a peace-lover. I don't see any positive outcome from attacking terrorists - I see only more guns, more bombs, more outrage, more hate. The root of the problem: None of us, especially those of us that are more secular in nature, really have any idea how to combat the primal overtones present in the flavor of Jihad that fanatical terrorists espouse.
References/resources (this is not a proclamation of support, it is merely a list of places/things I visited or found noteworthy en route):
- wikipedia.org
- The complex definition of Jihad
- Of particular interest, this side discussion: Jihad as Holy War
- History of Iran [iranchamber.com]
- A Memoir for a different perspective:
Reading Lolita In Tehran: A Memoir in Books (Azar Nafisi) [amazon.com] - Jihad Watch [jihadwatch.org] - in the "About Robert Spencer" section of this site:
Q: What can we do about this threat?
RS: Many things, but what we must do above all is remain true to our principles of freedom and equality of rights and dignity for all. These ideas and related ones are what set us apart from global jihadists. If we discard them in order to fight the jihadists, we risk erasing the distinction between the two camps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
