Thursday, November 26, 2009

Breaking News: Adam Lambert is GAY

I only caught the last 10 minutes or so of the American Music Awards (AMAs) and apparently I caught the best, or at least most controversial part. No, not Taylor Swift winning a bazillion awards. I'm talking of course about Adam Lambert. Two things were going through my head during his performance. #1. This song kinda sucks. #2. Huh... he's being pretty sexual/risque in this performance.

Now, I didn't think either of these thoughts would make the morning news the next day, but clearly I was wrong. I didn't think Adam Lambert kissing a guy on stage during the performance was a big deal or would make headlines and I certainly didn't think the sexuality he exhibited would make news either. Yes, there was gyrating, yes there was bondage like costumes, yes there was even some sexual "simulation" but you know what, it was nothing I haven't seen before, mostly or almost exclusively by female performers. I am thinking Madonna, Janet Jackson, Britney Spears, Lil Kim, Lady Gaga, etc. If you think about some of the performances done by these ladies in the past, is it really that different in regards to the sexuality displayed in the performance than Adam Lambert's performance at the AMAs?

The firestorm after Adam's performance started almost immediately. He was scheduled to be on Good Morning America the next morning, on ABC, the same network that aired the AMAs, and that appearance was promptly canceled. This gave CBS a chance to book Lambert and get ratings for their morning show since everyone wanted to see Adam talk about his performance. I saw a clip of the interview, and Adam was totally cool about it. He admitted he could see why some people wouldn't like it and said his music and performances are not for everyone. (h/t Broadsheet)

CBS on the other hand, felt the need to "blur" out Adam kissing a guy on stage and then in the same "controversy" clip literally less than 30 seconds later, showed Madonna and Britney kissing at the VMAs completely uncensored, what do you know. When the interviewer set him up for an apology, "don't you think you owe your fans an apology? THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!" Adam politely declined to apologize, and I say good for him. He was performing at a show for an adult audience, it was almost 11:00 at night his time, and other (female) performers had been sexually suggestive and no one seemed to mind.

Even though there was controversy surrounding the infamous Madonna/Britney/Christina kiss at the MTV Video Music Awards in 2007, it's still been shown on TV multiple times and half the commentary regarding it was about how "hot" it was. For the most part, the media doesn't seem to have a problem with females being sexually suggestive, and there also doesn't seem to be a problem with two females kissing as long as they actually are NOT GAY. Somehow, I don't think Melissa Etheridge or K.D. Lang kissing a woman on stage would've gotten the reaction that Madonna and Britney got. As long as women are seen as sexually attractive and sexually available (potentially) to men, it's ok for them to be sexual. We (as a society and in the media) actually encourage it. Let's face it, we encourage it a lot. It's practically a REQUIREMENT if you want to be a female pop star.

Pop stars have always been pushing boundaries, and while I don't think it's necessary for every performance to be overtly sexual in the way that Lambert's was, I don't necessarily think it's "inappropriate." It wasn't the "Teen Choice Awards" which incidentally featured teen pop sensation Miley Cyrus pole dancing on top of an ice cream truck. If we want to have a conversation about what is and is not appropriate in regards to sexual performances, maybe we should start with why teenagers are pole dancing at an awards show for children? But, of course, we barely heard a peep about it because fetishizing young female sexuality and having teenagers pole dance on top of ice cream trucks is totally normal and acceptable. But Adam Lambert kissing a guy and gyrating on stage is UNACCEPTABLE. THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Thanks, Scott Evans!

Actual comment from AJC (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) article

Yes, women have reproductive rights. They have the right to keep their legs together.

Thanks, Scott Evans. Please tell me more about my reproductive rights...

I feel like whenever I talk about this people look at me differently. You know, the "A word", "shmashmortion." I know I'm not the only "pro choice" person out there, but sometimes it feels like it.

So the big issue in the news lately, maybe you've heard of it. It's called the Stupak amendment, and it's part of the healthcare bill that's being voted on. And I've been reading about it for weeks now, and I'm still confused. So I can only imagine how people who might only read one quick article about it might be REALLY confused.

Proponents of it say that it merely reinforces existing law, which is that no governments funds can pay for abortion. Medicaid, S-Chip, plans for federal employees, military, etc, do not cover or pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is endangered. (Also known as the Hyde Amendment) 87% of employer based insurance plans cover abortions. Guttmacher Institute says that 1 in 3 women will have had an abortion by the age of 45. It's one of the most common surgical procedures there is.

Basically what the Stupac amendment is saying is that the government will ban coverage for abortions from all public and private health plans in the "Exchange" that's going to be created (maybe).

To help individuals purchase insurance, the federal government will provide subsidies (in the form of premium credits) to eligible individuals and families with incomes between 150% and 400% above the poverty level.

The House bill also extends premium credits to individuals with employer-sponsored insurance if their share of premiums exceeds 12% of their income, which could make an additional 1 million people eligible for purchasing coverage in the Exchange.
RH Reality Check

You can read two different articles about it, and they will say two different things (either it's not changing existing law, or it's taking away abortion coverage from millions of women who already have it) But my question is, why do you need a new law to say what's already in an existing law?

So my feeling is that the purpose of the amendment is to continue to chip away at women's rights to obtain an abortion by imposing more and more restrictions and making it financially unfeasible to obtain one. So basically the right to an abortion would only extend to women who can pay out of pocket for it.

60 percent of American's don't want federal funds to pay for abortions? Ok, well we should clearly go with the majority... I'm sure that will work out well. I wonder what other legal medical procedures or medications we can vote for doing away with? Contraception will probably be next on list I'm sure. With all the talk about no shmashmortion coverage, no is talking about how no insurers in the plan are required to cover contraception, as most insurers do now

Odd to me that the same politicians who are against abortion aren't fierce advocates for birth control. I never understood that.

Yet despite its widespread use and acceptance, lawmakers don’t see birth control as the fact of life that it is. Even though politicians are—or, at least, presumably were at some point—regular people, they pretend that something most women have used as a matter of course is a moral issue, and a politically radioactive one at that.

You don't get to pick what your tax dollars go to. I don't like funding two wars, but I'm SOL. I don't think I'm a bad person because I support the right to have an abortion pre-viability, and the right to have an abortion post-viability if the woman's life or health is in jeopardy, a law which incidentally has been in place for 36 years and has not been overturned despite multiple Republican administrations being in office during that time.

That doesn't mean I'm "pro abortion" or that I hate babies. Quite the opposite in fact. And people who don't want it to be legal have every right to persuade their legislators to change the law, which is kind of what's happening in a round about way, but I think then that they should also support funding for contraception, and they should also support government funded healthcare for babies that are born and their mothers who need it. They should support prenatal care and delivery and birth control being covered in all health insurance plans. And if we're going to look at it from a cost perspective (and it's always being looked at from a cost perspective) it's a lot cheaper for an insurance plan to cover birth control than it is to cover children for 18 years.

I'd like to thank Scott Evans for informing me of my reproductive rights. I should actually post his comment in its entirely because it was so nice of him to inform women about their rights and choices.

November 20th, 2009
6:53 pm

Um…are women too stupid to know what causes pregnancy or what? Yes, women have reproductive rights. They have the right to keep their legs together. And if they cannot control themselves for whatever reason, then they have choices which are: 1. The choice to keep the baby or 2. The choice to adopt the baby. The unborn are babies and it’s never right to kill a baby.

I'd like to think that most women do in fact know what causes pregnancy, and well actually, I would hope that men would know too. But that doesn't matter because as we all know men have every right to sleep around because they don't have to worry about getting pregnant and if a man does get a woman pregnant, it was her fault for being a slut who couldn't "control herself" and didn't keep her legs together. Thanks, Scott!

Obviously, as Scott Evans informed me of, sometimes women can't "control themselves" and thus get pregnant. Regardless of current law, we now know from Scott Evan's superior commentary that women have TWO choices. I'm going to give Scott the benefit of the doubt here (why, I have no idea) and assume that in Choice #2 he actually meant give the baby up for adoption rather than adopt the baby since women don't technically adopt babies that come out of their vaginas.

I think the original article from the AJC that my "friend" Scott commentated on makes a good point. Women of childbearing age in the US and most middle aged people do not know an America where abortion is illegal.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court granted women the right to control their own reproduction in a 1973 ruling, Roe v Wade, forty-something Americans have no first-hand knowledge of back alley abortions. It’s likely they haven’t even heard second-hand stories of women who died from infections caused by coat-hanger terminations.

I think it's important to remember that women died from unsafe abortion, and women are dying every day in developing countries from unsafe abortion. 70,000 annually And yes, I do want to see the abortion rate reduced and eventually eliminated. But making it illegal and unsafe is not the way to do that. Education and access to contraception (for both men and women) is.