I swear I’m not slacking on posts!  I planned on doing one last night, but well, I’m a klutz and I busted my hand open and spent the night at the hospital having glass removed.  Once I’m back to two-handed typing I promise the most awesomest, rantiest, coolest post ever!  With oh so many robots and conspiracy theories!!!!!

Until then, meditate on some Sagan.
Also, I really need help opening the bottle of wine I bought yesterday.  Any takers?


Get Rick Santorum Out of My Fucking Vagina!

Everytime I read the news I see some new article about Rick Santorum thinks he owns my lady bits!  In all fairness, this is not entirely him.  The anger and agitation and proposed legislation that inspired this post comes from a plethora of sources, including Obama’s caving to a 5 man “expert witness panel” on Healthcare Access.  (And yes, contraception is a matter of healthcare).  However, I like to put a face on my Rage–a Rageface, if you will–and this issue’s Rageface is Rick Santorum.

I feel like I’m in a fucking time warp/Twilight Zone whereI have to go to a back alley to getan abortion.  Where I have to prove I deserve an abortion because I was raped–though in fairness, Santorum still wouldn’t let me have one.  This was only reinforced when Foster Freiss told me to put an Aspirin between my legs, and I will get back to this un-joke later.  Oh, yeah, and in case I wasn’t put in my placed enough as it is, Virginia thinks I literally must be raped before being allowed to have an abortion.  Fo realz.  Viriginia wants to force a woman to have an invasive ultrasound which will require the use of VAGINALLYPENITRATING MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS AGAINST THE WOMAN’S WILL before allowing her to get an abortion.

The whole issue of contraception blew up because of two things:  the Susan G. Komen issue and the Healthcare Reform.

The Komen issue/scandal, I like to look at as a huge, awesome victory for women and for the common person in general.  Komen, although a well meaning institution and one the does a lot of good, is a huge political and corporate institution.  They make a ton of money and cannot avoid being effected by politics.  Their initial choice to stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood was a bad one and one completely motivated by personal politics.  I was so excited that PP clients themselves were the ones to put the pressure on Komen and that it was enough for them to reconsider their position.  I felt it was such a great victory!  Yay little people!  That’s how the system is supposed to work!  No violence, no burnings, just change!

The next issue *le sigh* is still going on.  Fucking.  Fuck.  Is all I have to say about this whole issue of whether or not religious institutions should be required to provide women with contraception.  I just want to scream every time I think about it.

Contraception is the one reason why women have been able to make the grand strides they have in the last 60 years.  Because of contraception women are able to CHOOSE to pursue and education and career and whether or not they want to have a family–an yes, there are women who do not want children.  GASP!  Women who work in parochial schools, private hospitals, etc. have every right to that same choice.  98% of Catholic are currently or have in the past used some type of contraction, yet their voices have not been heard in all of this.  I want to see a sea of Catholic women and women who work in Catholic institutions to march in front of the church saying “FUCK YOU!  I want my no-baby pills!”  It is the rightof a woman to make decisions about her reproductive health, uterus, and other lady bits, not the right of her boss.

I also think I need to point this out, because apparently people think that women only take birth control pills because they want to have tons of crazy non-committed, non-baby making, sadistic, dirty dirty sex:  birth control serves many other purposes for many women.  It is a hormone pill essentially.  It really serves many functions including helping cramps, balancing of hormones helps many other physical, biological, and emotional functions, it can help many women with weight control, back pain accompanying menstruation, migraines.   So yeah, can we get like a doctor to speak on this fucking issue?  One who knows what they’re talking about.

Ok.  This is getting really long and I have actual things to accomplish.  More to come on this same issue. Foster Freiss and his idiotic self as well as the 5 man panel testifying on birth control (because that somehow made sense to our backwards ass country).  Until then, I present you with The Sacred Whore, Sheela Na Gig!

I also didn’t edit this, so yeah.

Journalists really need to be better trained in interpreting research & statistics.

I suppose I could also have added they need to be less biased while reporting research, but the title was getting really long.

I had a major facepalm moment while reading an article the other day.  It was covering some cognitive research about how people with differing political ideologies view the world differently.  A decent article by itself.  It showed that Conservatives generally have a more strongly negative reaction to negative information while Liberals have a more positive reaction to more positive information.  Essentially they hooked people up to eye tracking devices and showed them 4 pictures at once.  The pictures were a positive/happy/touching pic, a negative/scary/anger-inducing pic, and 2 neutral pics.  They measured how much time people of various ideologies (I can’t remember if they were self-identified or if they actually used a measure on this, I would think they used a measure of some sort) spent looking at the various pictures.  They found Conservatives looked at the negative images longer, while Liberals looked at the positive ones.

So, insert media.  Apparently to a journalist this means that Conservatives are fearful and angry people.  I’m no fan of Republicans.  I’m also no fan of Democrats.  But what I really hate is when research is willfully misinterpreted and/or when people write about things they don’t fully understand.  I read through the article and really could not figure out if this was some crazed reporter who had zero ability to read or write objectively–at which point they should be fired.  And we wonder why people are so ill-informed and dumb.

Just now, I was reading another article.  This one also covered a research study in Social Psych.  It reported that Conservatives are of lower intelligence than liberals and are less informed.  Another facepalm.  Unfortunately, I also read this article.  It actually was really really badly written and researched.  Their definition of Conservative showed a really really obvious lack of understanding for the values behind it; their variables were social conservativism and racism, really? That’s your research definition?  They matched IQ from age 10/11 with ideology at age 33.   They made the same willful misinterpretation of the previously mentioned article in the lit review.  The entire writing was obviously bias, to the point I don’t understand how it got published–oh wait, because the field and the organizing bodies are super bias too.  So anyway, a published, peer-reviewed research article found that people on the right wing are dumb and racist.

But then I went back to reading the actual online news article that covered this.  It reported this as “empirical fact” that conservatives are dumb and racist.   Can we please put together a brief info session on social science research and facts? Correlations?  Everything else?

New Rules for Political Debates

I get really really annoyed when I watch political debates.  Politicians are super adept at avoiding questions and playing on sympathies and traditional thinking.  I’ve gathered that the key to successful political debating is making people feel good rather than saying anything that is true or makes sense.  No wonder we end up with such shitty candidates.  Watching the GOP debate, I though John Huntsman was the only person who actually gave real answers and no one took him serious for a second.  Mitt Romney is excellent at this.  I don’t think he has ever directly answered a question with facts.  When he does try to talk, he says things like “I like firing people” and “I’m not concerned about the very poor.”  Why do people like this man?

So, here is my proposal of new rules of political debates.  In my head, these rules will help force candidate to actually answer questions, thus telling us something about their plans for the office they are running for.
1. Candidates have only 150 words to answer each question.
Justification:   By giving them a word limit, candidates will be forced to get to the point, rather than talking around the issue.  Using less flowery, more straightforward language will also make their statements more understandable.  They have to say what they mean, which means we, the people, will understand what they mean.

2. The moderator may ask for further evidence for their claims.  In this case, they will receive another 150 words to cite evidence.
Justification:  Sometimes, with bigger issues, you need more evidence.  Evidence! Facts! Yay!

3. Points will be awarded for answers based on how comprehensible and logical they are.
Justification:  People should be able to detangle what politicians actually mean and their responses should be based on fact and reason.  Robert Heinlein believed that governments and people fail together when they get too caught up in ideological and value-based thinking, rather than looking at various possibilities that actually work.  Emotions block logical thinking.  Politicians play on emotion on purpose, because it stops people from thinking about actual issues.

4.  The winner of the debate will get some kind of special boost in the primary. (I don’t know what this would be yet)
Justification:  Candidates have to be motivated to win the debate and to be logical and comprehensible, or else they will continue to talk in circles and lie and act all gung ho about things that make no sense.

5.  Who will judge this you ask?  Why Spock of course!
Justification: Cold, logical, emotion-shaming Spock.  He’s badass.

6.  Spock is allowed to phaser those who give shitty answers.
Justification:  They deserve it

7.  A “dashboard” will be shown below candidates for whose watching on TV/Internet and on the big screen behind candidates for those in the audience.  The dashboard will include the word ticker, the Politi-Fact Truth-O-Meter, and will scroll the actual statistics of what they are talking about along the bottom.
Justification:  I realized there are issues with the Truth-O-Meter.  I disagree with it often; I think they give certain politicians a little more leeway in their judgement than others.  However, it is a good general tool.  It confronts the public on straight-out lies and, in this case, would keep politicians honest.  How awesome would it be to hear Gingrich talking about “blah blah, poor people are lazy, blah” and see the Truth-O-Meter on the big screen behind him being like “PANTS ON FIRE!” It’s a beautiful moment in my head.  Now, I don’t think this should be so damn difficult to get the meter and the stats, because we have the internet.  Hire a bunch of undergrad, or even grad, poly-sci majors and make them google their asses of during the debate!  

8.  Candidates will be held to a “5 God Limit.”
Justification:  I would prefer a “0 God Limit,” but I realize this is straight up no possible with out politicians.  They bring god into everything.   So, they will now be held to mentioning “God” 5 times.  Every time after that they get phasered.  Politicians justify everything using religion, even if it has nothing to do with religion.  This is yet another example of depending on emotion and tradition that makes me crazy.  Completely nonsensical legislation is passed every goddamn damn day with the justification of religion and tradition.  I’m sick of this.

That’s all I can think of right now.  Maybe I’ll think of more later.
I have this theory.  (I am a conspiracy theorist and proud of it.)  The US Government has made a deal to let our feel good prez have another term, for whatever reason.  So, they gathered the most un-electable gaggle of freaks in the Republican Party.  There is no possible way that Obama will lose the upcoming election. And, btws, I’m really not a big Obam fan.  But really?  Just look at the other options! Pa. The. Tic.

This is me forcing myself to make a post.

Or else I would have no motivation to do anything.

I’ve been really busy punching myself in the face, as I have interviews for training sites for the next two weeks.  So I wanted to show everyone (by which I mean my sister and my only friend), how I feel when being interviewed.  **See above.