Print This Post Print This Post

Dec

15

Remains of the Day, 12/14/07

Filed Under Foreign Affairs, Mental health, Ohio, Politics, Remains of the Day | 2 Comments

1. Three from the Washington Post:

-Sealed off by Israel, Gaza reduced to Beggary: where’s the perspective, you might ask? You have to read to the end of the three page article.

-This uprise from employers against immigration legislation has been predictable from before the issue arose anew less than a year ago. Which presidential candidates will have the courage to say, big effing deal – you cannot have it both ways – to the businesses and Americans?

-Analysis of how President Bush will make us pay for his abuse of power to protect himself, in vain I might add.

2. Wonderful post by Scott Piepho on Attorney General Marc Dann’s Akron Press Club address.

3. My political female blogging friend, Catherine Morgan, on the consequences of the most recent SCHIP veto.

4. A “pay it forward” contest. I have a great pay-it-forward story that I want to use in a post. I still need to get to the bottom of why it had to happen though.

5. A well-written Plain Dealer editorial, with a conclusion I also happen to like re: the Ohio legislature should not outlaw teachers’ strikes. Why I say it’s well-written: because it uses facts, stats and other evidence to discuss both POVs and then recognizes the stronger of the two sides, all things considered.

6. Copyblogger on fear again – because you really need to keep this in mind if any of it is an issue for you.

7. I haven’t quite figured this out yet, but apparently the House Oversight and Gov’t Reform Committee is publishing online drafts of hearing transcripts and we’re being encouraged to read through them. I love the idea but I’m not quite sure where everything is or what everything is.

8. If you or anyone you know is about to have brain surgery, do NOT read this article.

9. Two for Tom Blumer – not because I agree with either one but because I know Tom can never have enough fodder on related topics (I say that with a smile): “Class definitions always will be a moving target for journalists” and “Report says that the rich are getting richer faster, much faster.”

10. Joseph makes an excellent point on Plunderbund in this post about State Rep. Shannon Jones’ bill to require docs to show ultrasounds prior to abortion:

According to Jones the new requirements allow women to “make a more informed decision” because “choosing elective surgery of any kind is no small decision.”

Really? That’s your goal with this bill is to help women choosing elective surgery to make a more informed decision?

So maybe we need to expand this bill include all kinds of elective surgery- so that EVERYONE can make a more informed decision…

Maybe we need to force doctors to show women an ultrasound of their breasts before they have them enlarged/reduced?

Or maybe show people an ultrasound of their normal digestive process before they get gastric bypass surgery?

How’s that sound Shannon?

Maybe we can call it the Elective Surgery Informed Decision Act of 2007 and people won’t see this bill for what it really is: another piece of anti-choice legislation intended to undermine Roe V Wade.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:09 pm December 15th, 2007 in Foreign Affairs, Mental health, Ohio, Politics, Remains of the Day | 2 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Dec

15

Biden, Clinton, Dodd & Obama fail to vote on military spending bill that passed 90-3

Filed Under Campaigning, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Government, Military, Politics, WH2008 | Comments Off

I’ve mentioned these “not voted” votes before. Doesn’t it bother anyone? That they don’t take a stand? I don’t care where they are. I don’t care that they are running for president. I care about how they take stands under circumstances like this.

Here’s an article about the vote and the two Dems and the Indepedent (Feingold, Byrd and Sanders, respectively) who voted against funding Iraq and Afghanistan at the levels in the bill:

Feingold and two other war critics, Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., opposed the $696 billion bill which the Senate overwhelmingly approved and sent to President Bush. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., voted for the bill.

Feingold said his vote was consistent with his opposition to the war in Iraq.

He said the bill “does nothing to end the president’s misguided, open-ended Iraq policy, which has over-burdened our military, weakened our national security, diminished our international credibility, and cost the lives of thousands of brave American soldiers.”

Now what?

The bill approved by the Senate on Friday authorizes money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it doesn’t actually provide the money. The president wants Congress to provide $196 billion as emergency funding to avoid budget restrictions.

Democrats tried to get congressional Republicans and the White House to accept $50 billion of that amount in return for beginning withdrawal of most combat troops from Iraq. Bush threatened a veto, and congressional Democrats are now considering their next move.

Feh. (I picked that up from Jeff Hess – feh on you too! lol)

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:30 pm December 15th, 2007 in Campaigning, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Government, Military, Politics, WH2008 | Comments Off 

Print This Post Print This Post

Dec

15

What does the “crackdown on child pornography” accomplish?

Filed Under Crime, Culture, Mental health, Parenting, Politics, Social Issues | 2 Comments

From Crackdown on Child Pornography:

Cybercrime, the majority of which involves child pornography, is now the FBI’s third-highest priority, behind counterterrorism and counterintelligence.

Is that right, as in what the priorities should be for the FBI? Another article that demonstrates the intense focus on behavior long after it’s already cemented with a character, rather than an article focused on how we help people stop developing the behavior in the first place. Let’s not even get into what this is doing to the prison population.

Notice how the article traces the introduction of child pornography into the States, but it doesn’t say a word about how or why a person engages in the behavior in the first place and asks all the wrong questions:

Underlying the debate are efforts by researchers to understand the perpetrators. Do people who view the images harbor a latent sexual interest in children that the Internet brings out, or does the Internet prompt the urges? And will people who view child pornography molest children?

Note that “understand the perpetrators” is interpreted as trying to understand what the perpetrators will do next and what triggers the perps behavior.  Not the why, not the etiology.

Do not click away from here thinking that I don’t believe that people with an interest in child pornography should proliferate and thrive.  That would be the farthest thing from the truth of my desire: to eliminate whatever the drive is that allows people to desire to engage in behavior related to child pornography.  But focusing on the criminality of it seems to be doing very little to stop the creation of the interest.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:31 pm December 15th, 2007 in Crime, Culture, Mental health, Parenting, Politics, Social Issues | 2 Comments 

"));