But the FDA came in and said “why stop those under 17? this is safe for all young women capable of pregnancy!”

But then HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the FDA, the people who actually know WTF they’re talking about, “nah, the idea of this being available to YOUNG GIRLS OMG sounds scary! so I’m going to say no to this and keep the current age restriction LOL”. And Obama supports her decision.

*sigh*

Really? I mean, I’m not surprised in a way. Typical pandering bullshit, trying not to make the Republicans too uncomfortable. And politics doesn’t like women or youth and therefore especially doesn’t like young women! So the Obama administration wants to make its policies less squeamish to the average anti-youth misogynistic Joe Six-Pack by not – gasp! – letting 12-year-olds access emergency contraception!

Sebelius claimed that she wasn’t so sure it was actually safe for those under 17. Because she knows better than FDA, the people who have to comb through mountains and mountains of research that’s been conducted before they come to such a conclusion. Right. Hey, Sebelius, you know what’s actually not so great for young girls? PREGNANCY!

Again, though, shouldn’t be surprised. Politicians reach astounding levels of cluelessness when it comes to just about anything about young people, especially their reproductive issues. They ignore any statistics and sense and just cover their ears and go “la la la la la!” and just pass more laws to hurt young people for their political gain. Hey, it’s not like those young people can VOTE!

Anyway, here’s a Change.org petition about it. And here’s a lovely piece by Scarleteen! And here’s a lovely paragraph from that piece:

It’s so tremendously important that your requests for rights like these be heard. And that the incredibly sound, sage things you say like this from reader Arai, “These politicians really need to get on the same CENTURY as the one young people live. All the questioning for contraceptives, abortion rights, gay marriage are real in today’s society,” or this from reader Katrina, “Politicians on both sides of the aisle reach unheard of levels of cluelessness when it comes to youth reproductive rights and needs,” are heard and seen. It is, of course just as important that they are also very thoughtfully and with great intention considered in choices like this, but we can’t help much with that part, save continuing to say things like that and continuing to be ardent supporters of youth rights, including reproductive rights.

Yes, that Katrina is me!

DC police think that a hemp shop selling Flex Your Rights’s “10 Rules for Dealing with Police” is indicative of them encouraging people to break the law.

Oh noes!

Wait… do they know that NYRA’s 2010 Annual Meeting played “10 Rules”? And we were in DC? And one of our organization’s positions is – gasp! – lowering the drinking age?! OMG that must mean we’re encouraging underage drinking and therefore law breaking! Someone arrest us! Arrest us for… I don’t know… something…

With the blatant police abuse we’ve seen lately at the Occupy events and else, something like this is hardly surprising.

From the search warrant affidavit:

Your Affiant notes that while this DVD is informative for any citizen, when introduced into a store that promotes the use of a controlled substance this DVD becomes a tool for deceiving law enforcement to keep from being arrested. The typical citizen would not need to know detailed information as to US Supreme Court case law regarding search and seizure because they are not transporting illegal substances in fear of being caught.

Oh, my good God… Hey, you know who else might have detailed info as to such Supreme Court case laws? The Supreme Court. And they’re – gasp! – also right there in DC! Oh, think of the children! Goodness, they’d better start raiding law schools because the students there might be – gasp! – learning about laws and rights and how to – gasp! – defend people who have broken those laws!

Oh, but they point out the problem is that it’s a hemp shop and thus “promotes use of a controlled substance” and that along with informing people of how to defend their rights is their red flag. That’s interesting, since as seen here, you especially would need to know your rights since simple possession and use of said controlled substance (ridiculousness of its illegality aside) is unneeded to have the police raiding you. Having a DVD containing information about simply knowing the laws of the land is enough for them to accuse you of misdeeds. So, yeah, if anything, they are proving their own statement wrong, and making it even moreso that, yeah, people not partaking in said disliked activity still need this information!

I also wonder where these raids are for other suspected illegal activity. Raiding any Tea Party assholes for likely breaking gun control laws? Raiding any churches or individuals who actively promote child abuse and even advise people on how to hide from Child Protective Services on it?

No, just peaceful protesters. If I’m not mistaken, this shop was in particular targeted because of involvement with Occupy DC. Which, again, if merely peacefully protesting and selling a DVD informing people of laws and rights is seen as constituting unsavory activity deserving of police raid, then the protests and rights DVDs are just being made all the more necessary!

Speaking of Occupy, stay tuned for tomorrow…

I’ve also seen lots of references to the day that it is “the day everything changed”. And with that, some have said it was the day America “lost its innocence”.

Um… what?

Statements like this, as well as weirdly similar statements about so-called childhood innocence make me seriously think that, well, they keep using that word, and I don’t think it means what they think it means.

For one, being innocent tends to mean you haven’t done anything wrong, or at least not in a certain context. Which, yeah, I don’t think I need to point out there why it’s then a wildly inappropriate statement about the United States! I mean, hey, I love this country and am proud to be American, but I’m not for a second going to pretend this country is by any stretch “innocent”. Just… no.

It’s also incredibly odd to then pretend that 9/11 destroyed whatever this so-called “innocence” America had was. Innocence tends to go hand in hand with “purity” for some reason, and I’m not entirely sure how these people think the USA was so “pure”. I mean, we’d been attacked before, albeit of much smaller scale than this. And even if we were to pretend being attacked like this was an indelible blemish on the supposed white sheet of American purity, is that really the main thing to be focusing on? Not that, you know, three thousand people died and New York is still missing its two tallest buildings?

It’s also troublesome to claim that being a VICTIM of an attack makes you not innocent anymore. Um, no, it’s the perpetrators who aren’t innocent! Again, confusing being innocent with being pristine. That the terrorist attack somehow permanently spoiled us. And how did it do this exactly? Is it because of some cultural purity fetish that some loss of it is a deep crime and loss in and of itself? I mean, really?

Though perhaps, if we’re to use this “innocence” ideal here, maybe it’s telling. As said by Mignon McLaughlin and Julian Gutierrez, innocence is basically ignorance that pleases the rest of us somehow. And as it pleases us, we treasure it for some reason, despite the fact that ignorance is lack of knowledge and lack of knowledge is a vulnerability.

And ten years ago yesterday, three thousand people paid the ultimate price for this supposedly beloved vulnerability.

In which case, why again is it a BAD thing we’ve “lost our innocence”?

I’m going to say neither of those!

As a youth rights activist and founder of #16tovote on the 16th, I often hear that the voting age should be replaced with some sort of test one must pass to get the right to vote at any age. This way, at least only those smart enough or informed enough will decide the government and it’s not ageist.

Eh… not so much.

Proponents of test-instead-of-voting-age rarely seem to have a clear idea of what this test would be and are dismissive of how extremely easy it would be to abuse it, to end up disenfranchising people based on ideology, location, education level, or just plain test-taking ability.

And what would it be testing? US History? What about it exactly? Should someone be disenfranchised for, say, forgetting which President caused the Trail of Tears? Or what about questions about historical events whose details are up for a lot of debate (i.e. absolutely anything about the Civil War)? If such a test for voting were in place, would then have to be extremely basic questions like “who was the first President?” But something like that is common knowledge anyway. Someone who knows that could still very well be “incapable of voting” (whatever someone’s definition of that is). And even the few people who might not know that may still have pressing reasons to vote on something.

Maybe not a history test then. It’s also been suggested voters should demonstrate they know what the candidates they are voting on actually believe. Just one problem. Pop quiz! What’s John McCain’s stance on abortion? What’s Mitt Romney’s stance on healthcare? What’s Obama’s stance on LGBT rights and same-sex marriage? Good questions, seeing as those, plus others like it, are ambiguous. These politicians have been on both sides of those issues. Plenty of candidates flip-flop seemlessly or are even intentionally ambiguous or vague on these issues. Even without a voting test, this is a common annoyance for us average voters. It wouldn’t help if a misstep in navigating this political hellhole could also cost us our voting rights!

Then there’s a basic IQ or literacy test. Nothing to do with politics or history. Because apparently dyslexics or the learning disabled don’t get to have a voice in society. Or blind people, for that matter. As for IQ, what most people fail to realize is that like most other methods of measuring people mentally it is inexact and often used for prejudicial purposes (Asians are typically higher up, blacks are typically lower, whites are average, for example). Hell, it was originally created just for young students in order to help figure out what areas they needed help with, but has since spiraled out of control into other areas where it doesn’t belong. Using it to decide to deny someone their voting rights would be a most horrendous abuse of it.

There are other examples of proposed voting competence tests, but they all have the same pitfalls. In many cases, they decide voter eligibility on unrelated abilities or on method or reasons for voting. Voters vote for a reason, and they shouldn’t be blocked because someone else decided their reading comprehension or political savviness isn’t up to par. Or that they aren’t voting for the right reasons or the right way.

But of course, as we have currently, instead of all that, we just decide anyone under 18 is incapable of voting (whatever that means) and everyone 18+ is. That whatever test there is, all under-18s fail and all 18+ people pass. Age is a separate measure from political knowledge or literacy, but you often get opponents of lowering the voting age still making that case, that the voting age is because people under it don’t meet whatever the speaker’s personal preferences of “maturity” or political knowledge or whatever are. Or you also get those in favor of lowering the voting age saying it should be around 13 because that’s around puberty. What sexual maturity has to do with ability to vote, I have no clue!

Instead of saying people without certain civics knowledge should not be allowed to vote, we should be asking why so many people in a country governed by voting don’t have this ability, and seek to rectify that. Not to just cast them off as unworthy, especially if, despite this, they still do want to vote. And they should still be allowed. It is their right. They are governed and they should be allowed to consent to that governance just like everyone else.

And absolutely anyone setting these vague voting eligibility rules believes themselves to be worthy, while many others who do the same would rule them out. It’s yet another fear that, you know, people who think differently from you or haven’t lived as long as you have just as much a say in the government as you do! And as such, it’s incredibly un-American to want to silence them.

So what do I recommend? No voting age or test at all? So that even a 4-year-old can wander into the polling place and cast her ballot? Some youth rights people say things like “she can’t read the ballot anyway, she can’t reach it, she wouldn’t want to”. Which, honestly, is still very disenfranchising language. Supporting her having the right to vote must include support for her having the ability. Voting right now, being open to only adults, is built for adults. If young kids had the franchise too, then the voting system would have to change to accommodate their smaller sizes, lesser likelihood of being able to read the choices, their lesser ability to travel to the polling place. Perhaps pre-K classes could go to the polls together and file one by one into little child-sized voting booths with voting machines designed for people who may not be able to read well, that maybe lights up the candidate’s names and says out loud who they are. Whatever the case, even though even with adults there are lots of accessibility concerns (lots of people’s polling places are accessible only by car, essentially disenfranchising those who don’t drive and can’t get a ride and can’t mail in their ballot, for example), accessibility would become a much bigger issue with enfranchised children. You can’t just say they have the right to vote. You have to make sure they are able to if they want to. That will have to come with a lot more youth liberation advances down the road, which I should think would be in place by the time abolishing the voting age entirely would be at all feasible. Hell, just lowering it to 16, which is virtually free of these extra accessibility issues, is hard enough!

And saying someone shouldn’t vote because they’ll vote the same way as their parents is the stupidest fucking excuse ever. OMG, someone might vote the same as someone else! Oh noes! Again, it’s more micromanaging people’s exact reasons for why they cast their ballot, when really, it’s their own business why.

So what do I suggest? No tests, definitely. Voting age? Well, I’d like to see it abolished eventually and certainly encourage dialogue on it and ideas on how it would work (i.e. aforementioned accessibility issues) and what it would look like. For now, focus should be on efforts to lower it. I wouldn’t mind seeing it lowered to 12 or even 10 as things are. And, hell, once it’s that low, it’ll give a clearer idea of what going even lower might look like and how to deal with accessibility issues and any concerns over voting coercion (admittedly something little kids would be more vulnerable to barring any major societal shifts toward youth liberation, though development would still be an issue). Or maybe instead of abolition could drop it to 5 or something. It gets murky when talking about kids that young.

Some say with young kids voting, candidates would get voters through promises of free ice cream. Not an unreasonable guess. Replace that ice cream with healthcare and same-sex marriage, and suddenly it’s politics!

This has been Day 45 of the 100 Days of Summer, Round 11.

And today came the verdict at last…

7-2, in favor of EMA. Two dissenters were Stephen Breyer and (surprising absolutely no one) Clarence Thomas.

WE WON!!!!

Check out the official document here!

I’ve been retweeting a lot of remarks and articles today in response to this ruling, so here’s a nice roundup.

Hypervocal says

This marks the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on video games, and now, because of this decision, it seems that video games have earned an equal place at the First Amendment cultural table along with books, music, movies and other entertainment products.

Slashdot notably notes that

Notable in the opinion is a historical review of the condemnation of ‘unworthy’ material that would tend to corrupt children, starting with penny-novels and up through comic books and music lyrics. The opinion is also notable for the odd lineup of Justices that defies normal ideological lines, with one conservative and one liberal jurist dissenting on entirely different grounds.

Good ol’ Reason, complete with a pic of Schwarzenegger signing something behind a Protect Our Children sign, quotes some of Scalia’s great majority opinion and concludes with:

Acknowledging the legitimacy of concerns that some violent entertainment is inappropriate for minors, Scalia nonetheless reminds us that ‘even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply.’

Ars Technica seems just plain sick of this shit and is glad to see the ban failed, saying

The law, as it was written, was bound to fail. Every previous state law that tried to enact some sort of ban has been struck down as unconstitutional. California’s law sought to control the sale of games with “deviant violence” to children, but lacked a clear definition of what deviant violence would entail. While the California law would have added an exception to the first amendment to exclude certain content from protection, in essence saying that video games were not speech, the Supreme Court has decided that video games are in fact expression, and are afforded the same rights and protections as every other art form sold to consumers. With a decision this clear, we’ve hopefully seen the last of state laws attempting to regulate the sale of video games to minors.

GamePolitics shows that butthurt California State Senator Leland Yee, the guy who proposed and has relentlessly pushed for this video game ban and wasted a lot of taxpayer money on it, is butthurt

California State Sen. Leland Yee said that today’s ruling by the Supreme Court “put the interests of corporate America” before the interests of children.

…

Yee went on to say that the eight years of legislative and legal battles were worth it because it raised the consciousness of this issue for many parents and grandparents, and has “forced the video game industry to do a better job at appropriately rating these games.”

Taxpayers in California probably disagree with Yee, who encouraged the state to spend money to defend a law that was inevitably struck down. The only ones truly enriched by the legal battle and victory was the videogame industry because this ruling has set a precedent that can’t be ignored by lawmakers daring to tackle the subject of violent videogame legislation.

Alyssa Rosenberg of Think Progress goes in-depth about the opposing arguments between Justices Scalia and Thomas.

Thomas draws a draconian line in the sand, saying that children have no right to read or access any material or speech without obtaining their parents’ approval first: “The historical evidence shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over their minor children and expected parents to use that authority to direct the proper development of their children. It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood ‘the freedom of speech’ to include a right to speak to minors (or a corresponding right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents.”

Yeah, Clarence Thomas is a douche. But then Antonin Scalia rips him apart!

And it’s a delight to see Scalia utterly dismantle his total disregard for the rights of minors in a footnote, saying:

Justice Thomas ignores the holding of Erznoznik, and denies that persons under 18 have any constitutional right to speak or be spoken to without their parents’ consent. He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none. [...] It does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent. The
latter would mean, for example, that it could be made criminal to admit persons under 18 to a political rally without their parents’ prior written consent — even a political rally in support of laws against corporal punishment of children, or laws in favor of greater rights for minors. [...] In the absence of any precedent for state control, uninvited by the parents, over a child’s speech and religion (Justice Thomas cites none), and in the absence of any justification for such control that would satisfy strict scrutiny, those laws must be unconstitutional.

In other words: “Jesus Christ, Thomas, STFU already!” But go read that whole piece for the two justices’ opposing recounts of history.

Our good friends National Coalition Against Censorship give NYRA and the ACLU a shoutout in mentioning our joint amicus brief for this case, and say

The impulse to ‘protect’ children by restricting what they can read, see, and hear is pervasive, and the decision issued today makes it clear that vague assertions about harm, or social disapproval of certain kinds of material, do not justify government restrictions. That also applies to books in public schools and libraries, which are of course challenged regularly.

The Court also rejected the claim that “the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent.” The decision thus leaves it up to individual families to set their own rules, without officials saying “what the State thinks parents ought to” do.

Whether it’s video games, movie, comic books, or music, parents and youth have a legitimate interest in making choices about what is appropirate without unwanted and unwarranted state interference.

And there’s Mother Jones in all its glory, promising that

To the nation’s young gamers—

I know you are no longer satisfied by the rantings of Cave Johnson, the eccentric dead billionaire in Portal 2. I’m aware you cannot countenance another 30 levels of Angry Birds. I sense that, just for once, you want to see something hemorrhage like the old days. Well know this: the judicial branch has not forgotten about you.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court on Monday put an end to a long-stalled California law that would have prohibited the rental or sale of violent games to minors.

That articles also points out…

There are of course more extreme cases of double standards and slippery slopes. With all the demands to have video games like the Grand Theft Auto series (content includes gang warfare, indiscriminate violence, colorful language, and some tongue-in-cheek depictions of sex) kept out of reach of children, an impressionable youngster can still stroll into any Barnes & Noble and pick up a copy of Justine by Marquis de Sade (content includes sado-masochistic Christian monks, orgiastic rape, mass murder by arson, and rampant torture).

It’s not a stretch to claim the latter would be more damaging to your average fifth grader.

Reminds me of a guy at our rally who brought with him a comic book or something, whose video game version was M-rated and would have been banned, while that comic book would be perfectly okay for anyone to buy.

Unfortunately, there was the annoying one from Scientific American, harping on that Leland Yee is a child psychologist and therefore knows best what’s good for children

Yee’s stance on whether to let children under the age of 18 play video games depicting violent scenarios—murder, car jackings and the like—is that such games cause “an increase in aggressive behavior, physiological desensitization to violence, and decrease [in] pro-social behavior,” according to an earlier statement on Yee’s site. His position lines up with those of the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Among other supporters of Yee’s position is a group of psychologists and social researchers led by Craig Anderson, director of Iowa State University’s Center for the Study of Violence, who last year authored a paper that pointed to “clear and convincing” evidence that “media violence is one of the causal factors of real-life violence and aggression.” The study, entitled “The Influence of Media Violence on Youth” and published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, concluded that “research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts.”

Somewhere I think Tipper Gore had an orgasm.

SciAm does throw a bone to the opposing side. Uhhh, sort of.

The other side of the violent video games disagreement claims that violent crimes among juveniles are declining even as video games have gotten more violent and that it is difficult to establish a causal relationship between any one medium and a group’s behavior, let alone the actions of an individual.

In a June 2010 Scientific American article social psychologist Dara Greenwood evaluated arguments on both side of the debate. Whereas research by Cheryl Olson, a public health specialist at Harvard, found that children’s reported motivations for video game playing and found that their top rated choices were to have fun, to compete well with others, and to be challenged. Olson also elaborated on the psychological benefits such play might afford, describing how video games facilitate self-expression, role play, creative problem-solving, cognitive mastery, positive social interactions and leadership.

Greenwood acknowledged that “no media psychologists worth their salt would conclude that violent video games will turn your children into gun-toting sociopaths.” Still, she concluded that violent media, including video games, may affect people in “countless subtle ways, increasing hostility and apathy to those around us.”

That’s… something? Maybe?

Well, then there’s this at the end…

California’s loss in the Supreme Court has a greater impact than simply scuttling that state’s attempt to limit children’s access to violent video games. The 11 other states—Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia—that submitted an amicus brief in support of California’s law now find their options likewise limited.

OMG like oh noes! You mean states who want to infringe on the free speech rights of young people and game sellers are finding their options limited? Oh, we must feel so sorry for them! How dare they be blocked from violating their young citizens’ basic liberties based on not-very-conclusive “science”?

Yeah, go to hell, Scientific American. I am disappoint.

Hate to end on that note. So here’s one more bit of awesomeness from Mother Jones on the Scalia versus Thomas battle!

So it’s a good day for free speech and youth rights! My beloved organization NYRA was closely involved in this case, signing onto the amicus brief and holding that kickass RALLY late last year, and today all of our work has come to fruition, and justice has been served! Even just the tiniest victories take enormous work and dedication, but we’re on our way to a world where rights of youth are actually respected. It may seem a video game issue is trivial, but it’s not, it’s sooo not. Because when something turns discriminatory and could mean criminal penalties, especially for no real compelling purpose, it gets real.

In closing, here’s Eric’s review of the case on the NYRA blog.

This has been Day 35 of the 100 Days of Summer, Round 11.

Yup. Woke up just before 6am this morning and turned on the TV to BBC America, just in time for the service. I watched the royal wedding. I watched Prince William and Catherine Middleton get married, just like the whole rest of the world.

At Westminster Abbey, which I visited when I was in London a year and a half ago, so that was kind of cool on its own!

In spite of the annoying obsessions over it, positive and negative, I still watched it.

Then again, why not? It was cute. It was neat. The people on the ground there watching the event and decked out in union jack-themed costumes were hilariously cheesy. It was seeing the continuance of old tradition. It made lots of people happy.

I mean, there are ethical issues with it, sure, depending on who you ask. Some are whether the royal family should even still exist. Some are the amount of tax-payer money that went into it. Some involve issues with preparation. Valid concerns.

And there’s the complaints that since this has been going on, it’s all the news seems to want to talk about, setting things like Japan’s seismo-nuclear clusterfuck and Middle East uprisings on the backburner. Those things are definitely more important than the royal wedding, yes. No argument there. But I do have to ask… did you really expect anything different?

Of course the media is going to focus so much on the royal wedding! Lots of people are interested and it’s a lighter topic. That’s what the media does. Don’t be so shocked when it’s doing the same thing it’s always done. This is why I generally don’t watch the news. They don’t cover anything I want to really hear about. CNN and others are going to talk about this and Obama’s birth certificate ad nauseum, that is to be expected, that’s what they do, so the nice easy solution to that is, obviously, get your news elsewhere.

There are more serious issues and they need attention, yes. But life is too short to be uselessly bitter, and, goddamn it, we need the less serious fun stuff now and then!

And to listen to William and Kate’s vows including the words “for richer or poorer” and to giggle and say “richer is underlined”.

SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!

You know what I’m really getting fucking sick of? Or, at least, that I’m choosing to mention at the moment? Every time the temperature dips a little higher or a little lower than is normal for a given season, you get wingnut assholes deciding this is some definite information about global warming.

You see it from both sides…

“OMG, it’s a 70 degree day in January! Global warming has killed winter!”

“OMG, it’s a 50 degree day in July! Global warming doesn’t exist!”

Uh, hi, I’d like to introduce you both to the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy.

I mean, it’s of course not about expressing any actual scientific knowledge, as those with actual scientific knowledge on this get drowned in partisan propaganda, and many scientific studies even then get performed often by or at least funded by those who want a particular result. No, the entire point is to be a pompous ass to the other side, all like “see? I was right about global warming and you were wrong!” Who cares if the “info” you’re basing this on is even remotely sound when it can be made to fit your gloating needs at a given moment, right?

So, really, STFU both of you. If you think one unseasonably warm or cool day or week or even season totally validates your insistance that global warming is a real threat or just something Al Gore made up, then you don’t have any damn clue what you’re talking about on this issue.

And, just saying… regardless of the truth of global warming… it’s hardly the only reason to be worrying about air pollution.

For example, every time Obama does something most of his supporters don’t like (which is all the time, but more on that in a sec), you get the conservatives and libertarians acting all like “see, see, and you all thought he was so great!” Or, a few years ago, liberals showing the conservatives the atrocities of the Iraq War and other shit George W. Bush did, saying they cannot possibly support him now.

Yeah, it doesn’t quite work that way. Being a fan, whether of a politician, a musician, sports team, or whatever else, does NOT mean blind agreement with each and every single thing they do, say, or believe. It does not mean finding out they said or did something you strongly disagree with means disavowing any and all support (though it might, depending on severity).

Yes, Obama has done things I do not agree with. And I knew this when I voted for him, when I was glad he won, when I watched his inauguration hopefully. Despite the campaigns making him seem like a second Jesus, nobody (well, again, who has any degree of intelligence [in b4 "LOL that rules out all his supporters!"]) actually thought this about him. He’s still a damn politician, and therefore still going to break promises. Anyone who actually expects to only vote for a politician who is line with their own views and values 200% will then never vote for anyone and is an idiot.

There’s a feminist blog I read now and then, The Curvature. She blogs about, of course, feminism, as well as the Beatles. She’s a huge fan of John Lennon. But, as she states several times, “John was an asshole”. She’s still a fan of him and the rest of the Beatles, despite occasionally observing times they were misogynist, racist, or whatever else. Yet she is still a Beatles fan!

Right now, I’m watching My Big Fat Greek Wedding, incredibly funny movie! Of course, there are issues with it. There isn’t much of a plot. It still has the air that Toula is supposed to get married, even if that marriage wasn’t quite what her family expected. But it’s enjoyable anyway.

I’m sure no Eagles fans support what that asshole Michael Vick did to those dogs, yet they support the team in spite of it.

Many NYRA members don’t totally support everything NYRA stands for (whether that we go too far or don’t go far enough) yet they still stick with us.

Many Jews and/or supporters of Israel still may condemn the flotilla attack and other Israeli atrocities.

And don’t even get me started on all the things that happen on the Simpsons that I choose to overlook because I still like the show so much!

And, of course, which sort of inspired me to write this, are the people who still support Wikileaks, yet also believe Julian Assange is an asshat rapist. The people who may still be fans of Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann despite their major fuck ups in the whole thing. The people who still identify as progressives despite many leading progressives taking the rape apology stance regarding Assange.

Here’s a good quote:

I’ve seen Rosemary’s Baby, but I still think drugging and raping a 13-year-old is wrong. I can believe that a radically honest and open government is better for everyone, and I can still think that people who hold women down and forceably have sex with them against their will should go to prison. And you can even be a bleeding heart, pro-union pinko liberal like me and still know that Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore got this really, really wrong.

This is all not to say that these failings aren’t still dealbreakers for some people. They absolutely are. For SOME individual people who decided as such. For others they are not, for reasons those individual people decided. But nothing is required across the board, because nothing and no one is perfect, and everyone has different and oftentimes uneven thresholds for what is and isn’t forgivable or at least overlookable (is that a word?).

So remaining a fan or supporter of someone or something does not at all require or mean blind agreement with everything about them or it. Fans and supporters are very aware of the faults of the object of their admiration, yet their support remains, because, in a nutshell, it beats an alternative.

YOU SUCK!!!!

I realize the Republican Party seems to exist for no other reason than to stop the Democrats from doing whatever it is they’re doing, no matter what it is. To be fair, Democrats do the reverse as well, but not quite as much, considering almost no Republicans in Congress or Senate seem to ever vote the “Democrat” side of an issue, while Democratic Congressmen and Senators do so quite a bit. And it’s pisses ordinary Democrats the hell off! But I digress.

So, as part of the Republicans’ agenda of don’t-fucking-let-anything-pass, now they’ve effectively stalled legislation to get teen behavior modification facilities some much needed regulations. HR 911 passed the House and then it’s been in a Senate committee to see if it’ll get put to a full vote before the Senate. We NYRAnians met with the chair of that committee, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), to help move it through the committee. The senator agrees with our position on it. The trouble was some pesky Republican Senators on that committee who seemed to have some qualms about some of what this anti-torture school legislation is asking. Seriously, go to the above link to read Alex’s piece about it in Huffington Post. These Republican Senators have a problem with things like forcing school to do things like, oh, NOT withholding food or vital medical treatment from students as therapy.

NYRA is on this! Alex has been posting good stuff to Huffington Post now and then, and now Dave Moss is a regular writer on education on Change.org! Check out Dave’s write-up on Change about this issue! And sign the petition!

Because, really, this is more than just an issue of justice and common sense. It’s a matter of life and death. It’s a matter of thousands of people, real people, having suffered through these places, often for such ridiculous reasons as coming out of the closet, for slipping grades, for questioning the family’s religion, or for whatever other reason the parents deem enough to send their children to places with fewer safety regulations than PRISONS. And while it may not seem like survivors of these programs make up a huge proportion of all teenagers, EVERY teenager is at risk as long as these places exist and are legal. Absolutely any teen you know can wind up sent away to one of these places at any time. I don’t know about you, but I find that really fucking terrifying. And I’m too old to be a victim now. Imagine the terror for those who still are teens.

I know people who’ve suffered through programs like these. They’re my friends. They’re good people. Programs like these did not make them good people. They were good people already, yet someone in their life couldn’t fucking appreciate them for already being good people and felt the need to ship them off to a torture school.

But I suppose the idea of so many endangered young lives means nothing to Republicans. Nothing other than they must oppose any legislation to help them, that is. Because otherwise they’d sound like no-good Democrats and we can’t have that!

Eh, didn’t find much. Washington Post and the Gazette had little profile articles on some of them, with experience, credentials, and affiliations, and other stuff. Some had quotes, most of them I was indifferent, very few I either liked or disliked. Some I couldn’t find any information on whatsoever! So, whatever, I got at least a vague idea of who to vote for, so after work I wandered to the usual elementary school and cast my ballot.

So let’s review. In doing my citizen’s duty of voting, this involved… spending some time Googling candidates to get a cursory look at any information about them, and then going to my polling place, telling them my name, putting a stupid little card into the machine, touching the screen to select the candidates I decided probably wouldn’t enslave us all, finished, put the stupid little card into a box, got my “I Voted” sticker, and walked out.

And this, using a search engine and pressing buttons and getting a sticker, apparently, is something people under 18 are somehow too immature to do.