republicans ain't shit

republicans hate women. go tell your representatives and senators to oppose these vile misogynists.

It's official: Americans can no longer take prescription birth control for granted. Yesterday, Monday, July 25, anti-choice representatives in the U.S. House made it clear that they support pharmacies that refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions - and that women have no right to birth control.

The radical right's campaign to stop birth control
The House Small Business Committee held a hearing on whether pharmacies should be allowed to refuse to fill women's prescriptions. Anti-choice Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told a witness, who had been denied birth control and emergency contraception by her pharmacist, that she had no "right" to her prescriptions - she only believed she did. Anti-choice Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) told a witness whose prescription had also been rejected by a hostile pharmacist, that her "minor inconvenience" - that is, risking an unintended pregnancy - was nothing compared to the "conscience" of a pharmacist.

The right's anti-birth control campaign doesn't stop in Washington, DC. Across the country, the radical right has engaged pharmacies in its campaign to block women's access to birth control. Women like Julee Lacey, a 32-year-old married mother of two and first-grade teacher from Texas, are being turned away by vigilante pharmacists who think it's their job to dispense morals instead of medicine.

Now, as many as 20 states officially protect pharmacists like Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, who says she'd lecture women customers to get off the pill. Other states are pursuing an even more aggressive strategy. Just last month Wisconsin passed a bill to block state universities from filling birth control prescriptions.

change the world, but slowly

i thought i'd post this link about bush's supreme court nominee for those of you with questions. though i'm thinking bush's qualification of his vow to fire those responsible for outing cia agent plame means rove is guilty and should be fired, i'm willing to learn more about roberts before judging whether to support or oppose him.

a leak

i want to withhold judgment, but if this karl rove stuff turns out to be real, even if it isn't part of some elaborate web of lies to con the american people into supporting the war in iraq (though i think it is), then bush has a lot of answering to do. my fear is that he won't fire karl rove, that he won't even declassify him. my fear is that ever since bush has been in office he has been intent on undermining democracy and freedom for personal gain for himself and his cronies. whatever he might tell you, his actions point to that goal rather than any real direction and support for the american people. this president has done more to hurt our nation's image worldwide, and to undermine our confidence in government, and to unravel decades of health, environment, and fiscal advancement, than any president before him. it scares me that the american people elected this clown, and it scares me even more that who they elect next won't be any better. in fact, he'll probably be more egocentric and thus more destructive. the republicans are destroying america and they don't care.

prove me wrong.

my question is this: if it turns out rove was the one tho leaked plame's name, will bush fire him? will he push him out of government or just reassign him somewhere else and still ask his advice and show him classified information? will the republicans push for rove's ouster the way the democrats are now? i'm willing to let the investigation run it's course, but if rove is the guilty party he should pay the price of such things. endangering an american secret agent is a dangerous thing, and worse if done merely for political reasons to damage opponents. it is close to treason in my book. does bush have the integrity to do what is right in this situation?

i don't think so.

i have no readers, so i can say whatever i want.

george bush makes me sick. he keeps beating the drum about terrorists, using the victims and their families' grief as a political tool to build support for his homicidal ways. like in his last speech about this war in iraq where he kept invoking the name of 9/11, an event that happened almost four years ago. he claims to be doing what he's doing in iraq to avenge those killed in that attack, and all of america, but a government investigation showed no connection between saddam hussein and al-qaeda. furthermore, they're not finding these weapons of mass destruction, which means the official reasons we attacked iraq were wrong. it's all a big mistake.

you want to know something, though? there is a country with ties to al-qaeda. a country that funds them and helps recruit them and probably even protects them despite it's claim to be helping the united states. what is this country? saudi arabia. president bush has ties to saudi arabia, and that country has the largest deposit of oil in the world. attacking it, overthrowing the government, would jeopardise that oil, and certainly would disrupt production and send prices soaring. furthermore, a democratic government might not be so sympathetic to america's oil needs, and might work to drive up prices. in fact, it would probably be much less helpful than the present monarchy/dictatorship. so we support non-democratic institutions even while we struggle to build democracy in a war-torn country. if al-qaeda accuses us of hypocrisy, we have nowhere to run. if they claim we're only engaged in the middle east for oil, they aren't far off. if they think we're a threat to their worldview, they're absolutely right.

only one of those strikes me as an ok thing, and it's not greed or hypocrisy.

not my words, but worth reading anyway.

During his speech, President Bush disappointed Americans. Instead of offering the American people a clear path to success in Iraq, President Bush returned to the same defensive and discredited rhetoric. The American people, and most especially our troops, who are serving with great courage, deserve better than discredited, shopworn political rhetoric from their Commander-in-Chief.

President Bush clearly linked the 9-11 attacks with the war in Iraq, implying that Saddam Hussein was involved and responsible for September 11th. However, the President himself was forced to disavow this link in September of 2003, after Secretary Rice and Rumsfeld stated there was no connection. Instead of offering the American people a clear path to success in Iraq, he returned to the same defensive and discredited rhetoric. Patriotism and love of country does not demand endless sacrifice on the part of our troops. The American people deserve honest leadership and honest answers.

Reagan Aide David Gergen "Offended" by Repeated Mention of 9/11. "I was troubled and offended by the regularity of coming back to 9/11, because as you say, none of the terrorists were linked to Saddam and there has been this myth for a long time that is not true that Saddam is somehow responsible for 9/11..." [CNN, 6/28/05]
WHITE HOUSE FORCED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN 9/11 AND SADDAM HUSSEIN IN SEPTEMBER OF 2003...

President George W. Bush: "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." [FNS, 9/17/03]

Condoleezza Rice: "...We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either, that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11." [ABC, 9/16/03]

Donald Rumsfeld: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that [Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11th attacks]." [CNN, 9/16/03]
...BUT NOW BUSH IS RETURNING TO DISCREDITED RHETORIC

President George W. Bush

"We went to war because we were attacked." [Radio Address, 6/18/05]

"This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001." [Bush Speech at Ft. Bragg, 6/28/05]

war for america

the turning point starts now.