The Good News and the Bad News

[Trigger warning for violence.]

On Tuesday, Deeks posted about a bill under consideration in South Dakota which would have effectively legalized the murder of abortion providers. The good news is that the bill has been shelved.

The bad news is that the New York Times has reported this news under the headline: South Dakota Shelves Bill Aimed at Defending Unborn.

Which is a pretty nice way of describing proposed state-sponsored terrorism against its own citizens.

If you think that's hyperbole, think again. From the poorly-headlined article:

Dr. Marvin Buehner, of Rapid City, S.D., who is the only doctor in the region to provide abortions for women whose health and safety are at risk, said he was shaken by the measure.

"Once you get the sense that the Legislature will tolerate violence against abortion providers, even if the legislation is not enacted, it crosses the line into intimidation," he said.
I say again that the anti-choice movement, which includes a decades-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and violence directed at abortion providers and abortion seekers, is the most brazen, unapologetic terrorist campaign in America, its co-ordination and orchestration done right out in the open, where no one in the media or politics will call it what it is.

It is terrorism, in defense of an inherently violent ideology.

I refuse to mince words about this anymore.

Open Wide...

Thanks for the Hot Tip, Officer Garbagebrain

[Trigger warning for victim-blaming in association with sexual violence.]

Wow:

Students and staff at Osgoode Hall Law School are demanding an apology and explanation from the Toronto Police Service after one of their officers suggested women can avoid sexual assault by not dressing like a "slut."

On Jan. 24, a campus safety information session was held at Osgoode Hall, where members from York security and two male officers from Toronto police 31 Division handed out safety tips to community members.

Ronda Bessner, who attended the session, remembered being surprised by what the officer suggested to women.

"One of the safety tips was for women not to dress like 'sluts.' He said something like, 'I've been told I shouldn't say this,' and then he uttered the words," said Bessner, Osgoode assistant dean of the Juris Doctor Program. "I was shocked and appalled. I made contact with the police [...] and we've asked for a written apology and an explanation."
That officer ought to lose his fucking job. Given the fact that he explicitly said he's been told not to talk victim-blaming shit but decided to do it anyway, he's essentially indicated that sending him for awareness-raising isn't going to help. Not only is making public statements like this a deterrent to survivors coming forward to report sexual violence, but what reassurance can the public have that this officer will rigorously pursue cases in which he deems the victim to have done something he erroneously believe provoked/justified the attack? None. Fire his ass.
Toronto police spokesperson Constable Wendy Drummond confirmed the incident has been brought to the attention of senior officials and is currently under investigation.

"[This is] definitely something that we take very seriously. This matter [...] has been brought to the attention of our professional standards unit and is something we will be looking into," she said.

However, she could not confirm whether Toronto police intend to issue an official apology.

"We are of the position that if these comments were made, it is definitely something that we will [act on]," she added.
I love the implication that the staff at Osgoode Hall Law School might have conspired to make the whole thing up. False rape apology charges! You know how women are. He said, she said, and all that.

The irony of this failful response is rich indeed.

[Via.]

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute


Video Description: Footage of Dudley playing with his friend Sam at the dog park last weekend. Set to Yann Tierson's "Yellow."

I've written previously about the sweet friendship that has developed between Dudley and a black lab called Sam who we see at the dog park. Sam lost his companion dog last fall, and he's not great with other dogs; it's not that he's aggressive toward them or afraid of them—he just has no interest in them, or, perhaps more accurately, has less interest in them than in chasing a ball. And Dudley has no interest in chasing a ball, or engaging in the tumbling rough-house favored by the other big dogs, but he loves to chase.

The two of them, who couldn't have more different personalities—Sam is utterly disinterested in people and affection; Dudley adores people and seeks out affection from anyone who will give it—have formed this sort of perfect, complementary friendship. Sam's owner throws the ball; Sam chases the ball; Dudley chases Sam.

The casual observer might think they don't interact at all, really, or even that Sam might be annoyed by Dudley, but if Dudz wanders off to get some water, Sam, who just gulps big mouthfuls of snow without slowing down, will run over impatiently, spinning in joyful, frenetic circles to get Dudz back in the game. And occasionally, instead of returning the ball, Sam will leave it in snow and then cheekily take off running while Dudley investigates it, just to get a head start on him.

They are lovely to watch, these two big-hearted creatures who, without a word, have found a way to give each other exactly what they need.

Open Wide...

Water For No One

Back in December, a Bedford (New Hampshire) couple--Aimee and Dennis Taylor--objected to the use of Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America in a high school finance class because of the description of Jesus being "a wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist." And:

Aimee and Dennis Taylor complained about the book's foul language, descriptions of drug use and characterization of Christianity when it was assigned to their son's personal finance class at Bedford High School in the fall and later pulled him out of school at his request. On Monday, they asked the school board to remove the book from the curriculum and create a committee of parents to review and rate all other books used in the school, but the board held off on making a decision until it hears from its curriculum committee next month.

Dennis Taylor said school officials were either utterly careless in choosing the book or were "intentionally agreeing with Ehrenreich and taking the position that Jesus was a drunken bum."

"The administration and the people with the master's degrees taking care of our children clearly in this case seemed to lack common sense, common decency and with regard to civil rights, an understanding of common law," he said.

He noted that had the book been turned into a movie, his son would be too young to see it given the obscenities. And both he and his wife said the passages about Jesus were an attack on their son's faith.
They're back at it again, this time attacking Sara Gruen's Water For Elephants. Now they want everyone who approved its use to be fired.

A second book has been pulled from the Bedford High School curriculum following complaints about its sexual content by the same parents who started the argument about “Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By In America,” which was removed from the high school’s personal finance course last month.

Sara Gruen’s best-selling book “Water for Elephants” was scheduled to be used in one of the high school’s intersession programs – three-day experiences in April geared to give students a valuable opportunity beyond the classroom – but Bedford High School Principal Bill Hagen said the decision was made last week to remove that course as an option.

Bedford residents Dennis and Aimee Taylor sent complaints to Hagen and Superintendent Tim Mayes about the book last week and denounced the text at the Bedford School Board meeting Monday.

Dennis Taylor said he read “Water for Elephants” in its entirety after his youngest son, Ethan, signed up for the intersession course. His oldest son, Jordan, was pulled out of school following the controversy about “Nickel and Dimed.”

Taylor said he was appalled by the “graphic descriptions” of oral sex and masturbation in “Water for Elephants,” which is a historical novel about an old man remembering his time as a circus veterinarian during the Great Depression.

[...]

“This book is likely to be a rated-X book, and thus, is totally unsuitable for use by the school,” Taylor said in an e-mail. “I advocate that all persons responsible for the chain of events that lead to this book being used be fired or terminated from the School Board.”

Taylor further suggested that the school only allow “youth versions” of particular books or organize a parental review system over the summer that would look at books that students need parental permission to read.

“I intend to fight every similar book that crosses my path,” Taylor said.
Now, this "intersession" is optional and the choice to read Water For Elephants was optional within this optional course. AND there was a permission slip sent home about it.

The school pulled it anyway. Why? Because they wanted to avoid the controversy that came when dealing with Nickel and Dimed. While that is kinda, sorta understandable...no. Just no. Now every time this notorious book-banning couple finds something they personally object to, they'll raise a stink. You've given into their tantrum and that's not ok. You could have told them that they're free to not allow their kid to read the optional book in the optional course. To pull him out of it. However, all the OTHER PARENTS who approved it for THEIR children also get consideration and you will not take it away from them. Those kids are important too.

Personally, I adore Water For Elephants. I didn't expect to really like it, much less love it. It's also being made into a movie (which could be a good thing or not, as adaptations don't always go well). You can see the trailer here.

I have nothing but contempt for book banners.

Open Wide...

Whoooooooooops

Actual Headline: Trip to Paris saves this marriage. [Note: There is an anecdote at the link that may trigger re: stalking.]

Actual Thing That Saved This Marriage:

By August 2009, the couple had cautiously started spending time together again, even venturing out on a few dates. "It wasn't the dinners or dances that made me feel in love, but the conversations," says Mary. Del, who had been seeing a therapist, finally opened up to her about his worries and fears. "To me, the most seductive thing a man can do is be truly honest," says Mary.
So...the hard work of self-examination, straightforward communication, and a willingness to make oneself vulnerable to one's partner.

But, by all means, let's keep telling the lie that grand romantic gestures are what make and save relationships, rather than the difficult and frequently tedious (but hugely rewarding) daily practice of building and maintaining good habits of trust and communication.

That always works out well for everyone.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Pet Shop Boys: "New York City Boy"

Open Wide...

Open Thread: World Protests

I have read so much about the various protests going on in and near the Middle East this morning, I'm not even sure where to begin. So I'm just going to throw out some links and open up comments for discussion.

The GuardianLibya's regime must now fear its people's anger: "Two months ago, the mere thought of freedom was out of the question in Libya. But today, the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have sowed the hope of freedom in the hearts of each and every one of us. For us Libyans, Egypt showed that what happened in Tunisia was not an exception, or something that cannot be repeated."

BBC—Libya protests: Activists call for 'day of anger': "Anti-government activists in Libya have been using social networking sites to rally support for protests on what they are describing as a 'day of anger'. ... The protests reportedly began after the arrest of Fathi Terbil, who represents relatives of more than 1,000 prisoners allegedly massacred by security forces in Tripoli's Abu Salim jail in 1996."

CNN—Many hurt in Yemen clashes, opposition lawmaker says: "At least 20 people were injured in clashes between stone-throwing pro- and anti-government demonstrators in Yemen's capital Sanaa Thursday, an opposition lawmaker told CNN. ... Yemen has been convulsed by daily protests for nearly a week, as demonstrations sweep the region."

The GuardianThe Yemen Protests in Pictures.

CNN—After crackdown, army patrols Bahrain's capital: "Army vehicles rumbled through the streets of Bahrain's capital Thursday, hours after three people died and scores more were injured when security forces stormed an encampment of protesters in the dead of night."

CNN—9 killed in Iraqi Kurdish protests: "Nine people were killed and 47 were injured Thursday when hundreds of protesters clashed with security forces in Sulaimaniya, a city in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, according to Dr. Raykot Hamed Salih, a health official there. ... Iraq, like many of its neighbors, has been convulsed by popular protests since demonstrations toppled the leader of Tunisia last month."

The Guardian'A lot of graduates in Morocco get to 30 and still don't have a job': "Tunisia and Egypt are being watched intently in Morocco and Facebook groups have called for nationwide protests on 20 February."

El Hassan bin Talal in The GuardianDon't fear the Middle East's new wave:

The entire Arab world is witnessing a tectonic shift. There is a fragile, if for many sublime, expectation that democracy may now spread in our region. At the same time, the prospect of Arab self-determination has left some uneasy. One of the defining characteristics over the last 18 days of protest in Cairo is that no one has been able to predict what would happen next. But today some things can be said with certainty.

The first is that there is no going back. A new generation has come of age. Creativity, new communication technologies and the use of rational peaceful protest have restored Arab self-esteem. Cairo concluded what Tunisia had hinted at: that decades of realpolitik had failed. It seems to have united east and west in the understanding that true security begins with the dignity of the human being, and is based upon what we often refer to as hurriya, or "freedom".

...Recent events have shown that men and women make their own history, and are capable of controlling their own destinies. Unfortunately in our region this has not always been self-evident. It is now. Rather than fearing this "new wave", Arab governments should embrace it.
The Guardian's live blog of all these protests is here.

Open Wide...

Back In Time


Photographer Irina Werning is working on a pretty cool project. She's invited her friends to recreate their childhood photographs with their grown-up selves. See above. That's her friend Lucia in 1956, and again in 2010. It's brilliant really.

The project is called Back To The Future, and more photos can be seen on her website.

The images are somehow heartwarming, poignant, and hillarious all at the same time. Take a peek.

Open Wide...

Bachmann Birther Overdrive

Her mendacity would be hilarious if it weren't so insidious:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said Thursday it's not for her to say whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States — or a Christian.

"That isn't for me to state; that's for the president to state," Bachmann, the leading Tea Party lawmaker in the House, said on "Good Morning America" on ABC. "When the president makes his statements, I think they should stand for their own."
Yes, when will the president FINALLY reassure US voters that he's a citizen and a Christian?! It's long overdue, Obama!
"We should take the president at his word," Bachmann said.
But foremostly fail to acknowledge his words, so that we can continue to pretend he hasn't ever commented on his citizenship status or religion.

Yikes.

At this point, I have officially moved from "not giving a crap" to "actively hoping it turns out he was born on Planet Psych! just to blow these assholes' minds."

Open Wide...

Which Victims Matter

[Trigger warning for sexual violence, victim-blaming, rape apologia.]

I'm pleased to see so many people across the political blogosphere expressing both outrage and compassion about the sexual assault on Lara Logan, as well as condemning the heinous and contemptible statements of Nir Rosen and too many rightwing commentators to count.

The last time I can recall the political blogosphere rallying around a survivor so robustly was in 2007 when Halliburton/KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by male coworkers in Baghdad and then held against her will by her employer, because her having been raped might make them look bad.

Logan and Jones are my sisters in a grim sorority. I do not want nor intend to minimize what happened to either of them, nor suggest that they were not deserving of every bit of righteous outrage and heartfelt compassion that was afforded them. I hurt for those two women.

But I hurt for the women in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, in Brazil, in the Ivory Coast, in Japan, in Uganda, in South Africa, in Afghanistan, in India, in Mexico, in Guinea, in Kyrgyzstan, in Haiti, in DR Congo, in Sudan, in places all over the world, too.

I hurt for women who are not thin, blond, beautiful, white women raped on the job. I hurt for all of them. And for the men who survive sexual violence, too.

I beg my colleagues to pay more attention to them.

They all matter, too.

If we are to have any success in dismantling the rape culture, we cannot sustain a hierarchy of victims. We cannot rally around one victim because she is assaulted in a country on which the media is already focused, and ignore mass rape in a place the majority of the media diligently ignores. And we cannot justify inattention by saying the problem is too big.

The ubiquity of rape demands more of our time and effort, not less.

The rape culture depends on apathy. People at risk for sexual violence depend on vigilant concern. Which is it going to be...?

All in.

Open Wide...

Top Chef Open Thread



[Image: His name is Mike Isabella and he's a douche.]

Discuss.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Photobucket

Hosted by a Lego Eggo waffle.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What's the best bad pun you know?

I'll get us started.

Hey, Llama ask you a question: guanaco on a picnic? Alpaca lunch!

Open Wide...

Blog Note

Disqus is glitchy again. If you're getting a "system error" message when you try to comment, it's not just you. Comments just aren't showing up at the moment.

It's not something we can control on our end. Hopefully, it will be resolved soon. My apologies for the inconvenience.

UPDATE: Looks like it's working again now. If you're still having problems, fire me an(other) email.

Open Wide...

Number of the Day

[Trigger warning for sexual assault and medical malfeasance.]

$3,000: The fine, in addition to a four-month suspension, that was levied against Montreal physician Dr. Barry Rabinovitch by the Quebec College of Physicians after he was discovered to have filmed his female patients with a hidden camera.

According to the disciplinary report released Tuesday, the investigation found that Rabinovitch filmed 10 to 15 women in various stages of undress in an examining room between January and May 2009.

...The professional order calls the actions "hateful and degrading" and says the penalty must send a deterrent message to all members of the profession.
FAIL. The message their penalty actually sends is: "It'll cost you three grand and a nice vacation to sexually assault your patients."

[H/T to Shaker Aphra_Behn.]

Open Wide...

Wednesday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, proud distributors of the Grammy-nominated album Olivia Sings Stuff.

Recommended Reading:

Mustang Bobby: It Was All a Lie

Resistance: Assimilate! Assimilate! [TW for racism]

Belva: Fighting Racism, One Swimsuit at a Time [TW for racism]

Brian: Dialogue with a Troll [TW for fat hatred, self-harm]

Andy: Mormon Mom Reposts Video Speaking Out for Same-Sex Marriage Despite Threats from Church Officials

Tigtog: Gratuitous Colin Firth Blogging

Leave your links in comments...

Open Wide...

Sensitive Areas

by Shaker koach

[Trigger warning for description of "enhanced security pat-down."]

I recently flew across the U.S. and was selected to go through the body scanning machines at one airport. I declined, and opted to receive the TSA pat-down instead. Since I'm not easily triggered by pat-downs, I thought I'd go through it, pay careful attention to what was said and done, and then share my experiences with others, so they can make a more informed decision knowing what the pat-down entails.

This is not about the pros and cons of airport security, how to actually create a more secure environment, the health implications of backscatter machines, etc. This is only about what you can (probably) expect if you opt out of entering the backscatter machine and have to be patted down by TSA agents.

I am a cis lesbian and present as a butch, fat female.

My flights were on a major airline, through mid-size airports. Although all of the airports had backscatter/millimeter wave machines installed, they were only being used at one airport. (This always intrigues me—why have the machines if they aren't used? I've seen security officials decide to stop using the machines when the security lines get too long, sending everyone through the simple metal detector instead. Somehow I don't think that busyness = less chance of terrorism, or that terrorists would be unable to notice this pattern. But I digress.)

My partner and I were in one of the lines that were occasionally directed1 toward the backscatter machines; as we got closer to the machines, I wrestled with my choice. If selected for backscatter searching, would I do it, or would I refuse? I decided to opt out of the backscatter machines and have the pat-down, for two reasons. First, I thought I might be able to leverage my not being triggered to provide a description to those who may be triggered, or just want to know what to expect. Secondly, I see this as a small form of civil disobedience, a token stand against the process of eroding our liberties. I refuse to submit to the machine just because everyone else is or just because everyone thinks I should.

A male TSA official waved me toward the backscatter machine and said, "You need to go through there."

koach: No, I decline.

TSA (professional, slightly bored): Really? You do know that means we'll have to pat you down, including touching sensitive areas (with a glance at my breasts)?

koach: Yes, I know.

TSA: Ok, stand over there, on the yellow X. (There was an X on the floor, made from yellow tape. The TSA official said, 'Call for a female screener,' and another agent, with a much louder voice, did so.)

2nd TSA agent (professional, calm, pulling on latex gloves): You want a pat-down instead of using the machine?

koach: Yes.

2nd TSA agent (a little skeptical): Well, you know I will have to touch you all over, including sensitive areas?

koach: Yes, I know. I'm fine with that.

2nd TSA agent: Do you want a private screening, or is out here ok?

koach: Here is fine. (I wanted it to be public, open—let others see. This is my bit of civil disobedience, my protest against the system.)

2nd TSA agent (very calm, almost resigned): Ok then. Where are your items? (We waited until all of my items—carryon bag, laptop, shoes, jacket—came through the metal detector. The agent collected them and put them on a table in front of me. I was not allowed to touch my belongings, but I could see them. She asked me to remove everything—even a cough drop and a receipt—from my pockets. She stood facing me, about two feet away—just inside my personal space.) Ok, I'm going to describe the process to you. If at any time, you are uncomfortable or want me to stop, just say so. If you want to go to a private screening area, we can. Ok?

koach: Ok.

2nd TSA agent (professional, perhaps a bit nervous): I'm going to ask you to hold out your arms. I'll start by touching your head, your hair, your neck. I have to touch your collar; you may feel a bit of tugging. I'll run my hand down your arms and your fingers. Then I'll check your torso. I have to check the front of your torso, using the back of my hand. I'll swoop under your chest, from the middle around to the side. I'll do this on both sides. Then I'll check your legs. On your legs, I have to go from your torso, from where I meet resistance, down to the floor in one motion. On the interior of your legs, I have to go from where there is resistance to the floor. I have to check your waistband and your pant cuffs. You may feel like I'm tugging on it as I check it. Ok?

koach: Ok, I'm ready.

2nd TSA agent: Do you have any problems areas, with being touched? Any difficulties I should know about?

koach: Nope, nothing.

The TSA agent then did as she described. She asked me to stand on the yellow X, my feet about shoulder width apart, and hold my arms up, straight out from my shoulders (forming a T-shape). From behind me, no more than a foot away, she touched the top of my head, ran her fingers down my hair (but did not run her fingers through my hair). My hair is short, but thick, and she kind of patted it, to make sure there was nothing hidden in/under it. She touched my ears and my neck, then put two (gloved) fingers just inside my shirt collar (I was wearing a t-shirt). Still behind me, she grasped my collar and lightly tugged on it, first the left side, then the middle, then the right side. She ran her hands down my shoulders, my upper and lower arms, all the way to my fingertips. She did this on both arms, on both the outer and inner sides of my arms. Then she touched my back, running the palms (I think) of her hands from the top of my shoulders down to my pants waistband. She did this a few times, to cover my entire back.

Then the TSA agent came around to face me, standing a little less than arm's length away (it felt pretty close to me, just a bit closer than is usually comfortable). She repeated checking my arms, in same way. Then she said, "Now I'm going to check the front of your torso. I'm going to use the backs of my hands, like this," demonstrating a roughly U-shaped hand gesture, with the backs of her gloved hands toward me. "I'll do this a couple of times, on both sides." She looked at me to see if I objected. When I did not, she began touching me with the motion she had demonstrated. She did not look me in the eyes, but watched her hands; it seemed she was being deliberate, careful, and precise. I was wearing a sports bra, so she could not easily put her hands between my breasts, but just kind of started at the bottom of the bra in the middle, and moved her hands across the bottom of my breasts to the outside, near my armpits. (I am large breasted, a DD, and she did not "pick up" my breasts and check underneath them. May have been the sports bra.) She used the back of her hands to softly pat me on my clavicle, above my breasts, on my breasts, and on my stomach, down to my pants waistband.

Then she had to check my pants. My shirt was untucked, hanging over my waistband, so she asked me to pull it up, so she could visually inspect my waistband. My stomach and back, about 1-2 inches, were exposed. She went behind me again and touched the waistband of my pants, then tugged horizontally on my waistband (so it didn't feel as if she was trying to pull my pants down). She tugged in the middle, on the left side of my back, on the far left side, and on the right and far right. She then crouched behind me, touched my waistband, and ran her hands from my waist, over my buttocks, down the backs of my legs, to the floor. (I do not know if she used her palms or backs of her hands.) She did this a few times, to cover my entire backside and thighs.

Still behind me, she then said, "Now I'm going to check the interior of your legs. I'll go from where I meet resistance straight down to the floor." She put her hands, palms together as if she was praying, between my legs at about knee height. Because I am fat, when I am standing comfortably, my thighs meet and touch below my vulva. She slowly moved her hands up, until they touched where my thighs come together; my pants were a little baggy and this did cause my pants to move, to bunch up a little around her hands. She then separated her hands, and moved the backs of her hands down the insides of my legs until her hands touched the floor. She repeated this process.

Next she moved to my front, and essentially repeated the same steps: asking me to raise my shirt a bit, tugging on my waistband, running the backs of her hands down the fronts and outsides of my legs, then checking the interior of my legs in the same way. At no time did she touch my genitals; I think it was only because my fat thighs came together. People with a wider stance, less-fat thighs, or a more ambitious TSA agent, might have their genitals touched.

The agent finished by tugging lightly and horizontally on my pants cuffs (again, it did not feel like she was trying to pull my pants down, but just pulling the cuffs away from my body). She then told me to wait a minute, while she ran her gloves through a machine (to test for residue from bomb-making, I believe). She came back and said, "You're finished. You can put on your shoes and gather up your stuff," which I quickly did.

I am not triggered by strangers touching me, but nonetheless I did feel a bit uncomfortable—I think it was the depersonalized nature of the experience (similar, maybe, to some experiences of hospitals and medical professionals). She was not rude, but she clearly did not care about me, koach, in the least. She was just doing her job. Having my body touched like that was a bit uncomfortable. I also felt that I was putting her in an awkward situation by insisting on a pat-down, though none of the TSA agents said anything like that. I assume that some TSA agents will be more aggressive in checking between and under breasts and between legs. Overall, I was surprised and impressed with her professionalism, her lack of interest in my body as a body, and the amount of time she took to explain and describe her actions. It is safe to say that not all TSA agents will behave this professionally, but at least a few do.

-----------------------------------

1 A word on the selection: One TSA official chose people, apparently at random, to use the backscatter machine; everyone else went through the simple, standard metal detector. The people selected to use the backscatter machine weren’t entirely chosen at random: one man complained about having to take off his belt, and he was selected; two young people of color, in their late teens or twenties, were selected; one person per apparent family group was selected. The TSA official also let all people with toddlers go through the metal detector, often carrying the kids, contrary to reports I’ve been reading. I don’t know the rationale behind the some of the selections, but if you watched, the not-quite-randomness became apparent.

Open Wide...

Open Thread: WTF Wisconsin

Links via my friend CheeseBreath, who notes she sent them along in case "the Shakers are interested in Wisconsin's GarbageFart(TM) of a governor. What's happening is what the right has been threatening for years. It's just that it looks like they'll pull it off in Madison. At least there's been a healthy resistance."

Paul Harris at The GuardianWisconsin's Tea Party takeover:

Wisconsin is rapidly becoming a disturbing showcase of where America as a whole is headed, as Tea Party political ideas takeover the Republican party. What began as a ragtag scattering of conservative activists two years ago is now starting to have real political power and putting its anti-government, slash-and-burn ideas into practice in ways that impact millions of Americans.

Wisconsin is at the cutting edge of that transformation. Under its Tea Party-favoured new Republican governor, Scott Walker, and with a state legislature that recently flipped from blue to red (that is, from Democratic control to Republican), it is pushing a rightwing agenda that is shocking to American progressives.
TPMDC—Union Protests Continue, Teachers Call In Sick Opposing WI Gov's Proposals: "The protests against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) proposals to roll back public employee unions rights are continuing Wednesday, with schools in the state capital Madison closing as the result of teachers calling in sick en masse."

UWM News: Statement of Chancellor Biddy Martin on the state budget repair bill.

Blue Cheddar: The Public Stands Their Ground—A "Filibuster" of Testimony Continues Until 3AM Wednesday in Wisconsin.

Gluten Free Pumpkins: Political activism – getting the facts down.

Open Wide...

See How Title X Impacts Your State

If you live in the States, that is.

Guttmacher has created a very fabulous tool that allows you to get a good picture on just how much Title X does in your state (or any state, for that matter). Check it out:
State Facts About Title X and Family Planning.

From Oregon, for example:

Title X–Supported Services in Oregon

•Title X–supported centers provided contraceptive care to 70,300 women in Oregon in 2008.(3)

•These centers served 30% of women in the state in need of publicly supported contraceptive services and supplies, compared with 27% served by such centers nationally.(3)

•Of the total contraceptive clients served by these centers, 72% had incomes at or below the federal poverty level, compared with 70% nationally.(8)

•In 2006, 81 family planning centers in Oregon received support from Title X.(9,10) They included:

Health department clinics: 74
Community health centers: 3
Planned Parenthood clinics: 4
Hospital outpatient clinics: 0
Other independent clinics: 0

•These centers provided contraceptive care to the following numbers of clients:(9)

Health department clinics: 46,790
Community health centers: 1,420
Planned Parenthood clinics: 25,140
Hospital outpatient clinics: 0
Other independent clinics: 0

Impact of Services Provided by Title X–Supported Centers in Oregon

•In 2008, contraceptive services provided at Title X–supported centers in Oregon helped women avoid 14,600 unintended pregnancies, which would have resulted in 6,500 births and 6,100 abortions.(3)

•In the absence of these services, the level of abortion in Oregon would be 51% higher.(6,9)

•In 2006, contraceptive services provided at Title X–supported centers in Oregon helped women younger than age 20 avoid 3,819 unintended pregnancies.(11)

•In the absence of these services, the level of teen pregnancy in Oregon would be 55% higher.(7,11)

•By helping women avoid unintended pregnancies and the births that would follow, the services provided at Title X–supported centers in Oregon saved $18,199,000 in public funds in 2008.(12)
Four, four, Planned Parenthood clinics saw more than half as many clients as seventy-four health department clinics.

I know I keep saying this: Please write your congresspeople. Tell them not to support HR 217: Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act.


[Related Reading: Chip, chip, chip...]

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute


O HAI. U GOT A TREAT 4 ME?

Open Wide...