Blog for Choice 2011

Today is NARAL Pro–Choice America’s Blog for Choice Day. For the third consecutive year, I am participating.

This year’s topic is: “Given the anti–choice gains in the states and Congress, are you concerned about choice in 2011?”

The answer to that question is complex. Abortion, as it gets people riled and worked up,  serves as an excellent motivator for Republican voters, as well as a fundraising tool. Since politicians will eventually learn from losing, it is unlikely that anti–choicers in the US Congress will try to eliminate such an excellent political tool. Indeed, they had complete control of the federal government for six years and only passed the PBABA, which didn’t prevent a single abortion. In addition, any ban would also have to get through the Senate and past Obama’s veto pen. For these reasons, the chance of anti–choicers making a serious attempt to ban abortion is pretty unlikely. It’s far more likely that they’ll just throw table scraps at anti–choicers, try passing an analogue to the PBABA, and make a lot of noise about abortion to keep their supporters worked up. The GOP will gladly have people continue to believe that they intend to ban abortion, however.

On the state level it is different. I agree with Melissa McEwan that the real access issues will be at the state level. There anti–choice activists will try anything to eliminate any pretense of reproductive rights. They will attempt to add arbitrary exclusions that retain a nominal right to abortion, while throwing obstacles that add serious impediments to access. They might even go after contraception as well. And the faux minimalists on SCOTUS will likely uphold most of the restrictions. It would be a kind of incrementalism, slowly eating away at reproductive rights like rust or tin pest go after metal. The end result could well be a regime where abortion rights nominally exist but are completely gutted of meaning and impact.

So in short, there are reasons to be concerned at the state level, and far less so federally.

World Women’s Going to Vermont

USA Hockey has announced that the 2012 IIHF World Women’s Championship will be held in Burlington, Vermont. The 2012 tournament will be the fifteenth edition of the World Women’s. This will be the third time the tournament has been held in the United States, after 1994 and 2001. The tournament has been preliminarily scheduled to run from April 7 to April 4, 2012. It will feature eight teams and over 21 or 22 games.

USA Hockey has also released a video to mark the announcement:

Gosh, that music so much sounds like what you’d use for a movie theme sound….

Morphing into Faux News North

Americans are some of the most uninformed people on the planet. Part of this is due to the quasi–propaganda that is fed to people by talking heads on cable news. It causes a divisive society where people don’t think critically, where they believe demonstrably false lies, and where the pundits form their opinions and do the thinking for them.

If a proposed new regulation at the CRTC goes through, that is what will happen to Canada. What those regulations do is make it easy to spread false or misleading news.

Many comments have already been sent to the CRTC; those comments are negative. You can send your own comments by clicking here and scrolling to “2011–14″ and clicking on the submit button. I sent in my comment and (if you’re Canadian) so should you. Let the CRTC know what a bad idea this new regulation is.

(Note: I’m stickying this post until the CRTC comment period expires; scroll down for new posts)

On the Saskatchewan decision

Recently, a court in Saskatchewan ruled that marriage commissioners there are not allowed to refuse to marry same–sex couples due to religious objections.

This is the correct decision. No one forced you to become a marriage commissioner. You knew going into it that you might have to marry same–sex couples. Since you chose to enter it you should face the consequences of your actions. To do otherwise is disrespectful as it tell you that you are not a rational person who is responsible for their actions. To insist that you should not be forced to do your job goes against the principle of personal responsibility. Why do conservatives hate personal responsibility?

Religion is a choice. Absolutely no one is forcing you to follow a religion that requires bigotry against gays and lesbians. And if you truly believed that marrying a same–sex couple would send you to hell, well guess what. There is no way that losing your job could possibly be worse than that. To act otherwise is to betray a serious lack of conviction. Why do conservatives have such weak convictions?

There is no way that grandfathering in bigots who were marriage commissioners before same–sex marriage was approved is a good move. Suppose that at one time, the age of consent was fourteen. Suppose further that it is raised to sixteen. The idea that we should allow those who previously had sex with fifteen–year–olds continue having sex with fifteen–year–olds is an idea that ain’t gonna fly.

If you can’t be forced to do your job, other people should not be forced to employ you. To insist otherwise, you are forcing the government to hire extra marriage commissioners, thereby wasting taxpayers’ money. Why are conservatives in favour of big government?

If you think that you shouldn’t be forced to do the job you signed up for if you are a marriage commissioner, you undoubtedly take the same view of a Friend or Jain (these are Pacifist faiths) joining the military but refusing to fight, claiming freedom of religion. Any argument that would apply to marriage commissioners would also apply to military deserters. Why do conservatives hate the troops so much?

10 years of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is celebrating ten years today.

This is an example of the amazing democratization of information the internet and Web 2.0 have wrought. Other examples include things such as blogs, social networking sites, and “sharing” services like YouTube. Web 2.0 gives easy access to pretty much whatever information you want (no guarantees of quality, though). Web 2.0 also gives you easy access to other people. In many ways, we all know more facts and more people.

In light of my comments above, Wikipedia is an excellent example of Web 2.0. It is certainly more accurate than some random rant page, if only because so many people see it. This also has disadvantages, as it is obvious that a lot more people are interested in celebrities than in third world legislators. Hence, the surplus of coverage in one area and the deficiency in the other. Other problems might be the bureaucracy and power structure behind the users.

All in all, Wikipedia is far from perfect; one of the reasons it got so big was because it got started first. There are certain to be challenges in the years ahead, as society and the internet continue to evolve.

Team USA world U18 champs

I have just become aware of the fact that the 2011 IIHF World Women’s U18 Championship ended yesterday. As someone who really likes women’s ice hockey (it’s better than men’s hockey because there’s no bodychecking) I find it a little embarrassing that I didn’t even know this tournament was being held until today. Anyway, Team USA beat Canada 5–2 in the final. Congratulations on winning the fourth consecutive final between those two teams.

The final rankings are:

1. United States
2. Canada
3. Finland
4. Czech Republic
5. Sweden
6. Germany
7. Switzerland
8. Japan – relegated to Division I

Get off your high horse

As pretty much everyone knows by now, there was a shooting at a Safeway store in Casas Adobes, Arizona. Six people, including a judge, congressional staffer, and a nine–year old girl were killed, and congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was seriously injured. I offer my condolences.

I must ask, is it really necessary to use every event or crime as a means to try scoring political points? People on both the left and right do this. Get off your high horses and do something more appropriate, classy, and tasteful. It is disrespectful for everyone affected. Trying to “take advantage”, so to speak, only works through appeals to emotion. Appeals to emotion may convince people, but are irrational because no decision has been made in a reasonable, thoughtful, or rigorous manner. And when people don’t make rational decisions, everyone suffers.