This was a pretty difficult prompt for me today, which is why I’m just now writing this post. I needed time to think! Sure, “a favorite word” sounds simple enough, until I realized I don’t necessarily have a favorite word. I’m a fan of words in general, but I don’t tend to latch onto words or develop some sort of connection or emotional attachment to a particular word or group of words. So I basically spent the day periodically thinking of words that inspire me in one way or another.

Revolution is an extremely inspiring word to me. Deeply rooted in my mind as a state of political being, it reminds me of the greatest recent case of widespread activism, that being the Occupy Wall Street protests, which I have been a major supporter of. As a whole, this word reminds me of the greatness that can happen when people come together to demand the rights that they are entitled to on a fundamental human level.

If you want to join in, check out the May Photo a Day Challenge List.

Related Posts:

• #PhotoaDayMay: Something You Do Everyday
• #PhotoaDayMay: Skyline
• #PhotoaDayMay: Pink

A year later, and the film’s cast has only grown more impressive. Ed Harris plays an exhausted John McCain whose own campaign ran away without him once Sarah Palin was introduced to the American public, and Woody Harrelson plays adviser Steve Schmidt who tried to cover up Palin’s inexperience, limited scope of foreign policy knowledge, and incompetence by banking on her charisma to carry her through the campaign.

Check out the following trailer for Game Change; the film premieres on March 10th at 9 p.m. ET on HBO.

Related Posts:

• 40 Movies to Honor Women’s History Month
• 7 Movie Quotes to Get You Through Exams [Videos]
• Thanks for the Sickness, Spring!

Today, some of your favorite websites will not be displaying or functioning fully. They will not be at our collective disposal with just a click of a button, and their content will not be there, ready to entertain us, or inform us, or make us better citizens of the world. Instead, these websites will be dark or possess very little other than a message of protest against proposed U.S. legislation that threatens internet freedom: the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA).

As it stands today, the U.S. has laws in place to fight online piracy and copyright infringement. You see this in action every time you go to watch a YouTube video and instead of the video, you see a notice that it has been taken down due to some form of copyright infringement of [insert big name corporation here]. SOPA/PIPA would do surprisingly little to actually put an end to online piracy and copyright infringement. What it would do, however, is give the federal government the authority to censor and shut down entire websites on a media company’s say-so and put innovation, creativity, and freedom of expression severely at risk.

The U.S. legal system is held up by a fundamental idea: that people are innocent until proven guilty. The passing of SOPA/PIPA would make it so that those who own and operate websites would not be protected by this same right, as their websites could be taken down based on accusation alone and without due process.

Woman Tribune will not go dark today because as much as I support this protest and every single person doing everything they can to raise awareness about how much damage can and will likely be done with the passing of these pieces of legislation, I cannot afford for the ads you see on this website to go down for the day. And that is really the point, isn’t it?

I Work For the Internet. I have been blogging since I was 13 years old–nearly half my life–and exactly four years and one day ago, I published the first post on this website. While I love writing more than doing anything else in life, I did not start Woman Tribune because of my love of writing; I started my other blog, Menstrual Poetry, because of that. I created Woman Tribune with the hope that it would become a stable, full-time job. As a person who lives with clinical depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and a debilitating disease that started as minor dental issues that has over the years caused my body to start attacking itself, I am not what one would call a reliable employee under normal, society-approved circumstances. It is because of the internet and its accessibility that I have been able to make a living by writing, editing, and freelancing as a web designer and developer. Without it, I would very likely have had little to no other options, and honestly, I have no idea where I would be today. If widespread censorship of the internet were to become an everyday reality, people who live in this country who rely on their blogs and internet businesses to keep them alive could lose everything.

Our society has been heavily influenced by the tech industry; how so many of us work and live has been strengthened by the tools and the platforms that have been made available to us because of the creativity and innovation that has been fostered through this industry. By having any aspect of that forcibly oppressed, we would all be affected.

Take action against SOPA and PIPA. Educate yourself about these two bills and what their passing would mean for every single person who goes on the internet every day. On January 24th, Congress will vote to pass internet censorship in the Senate. Until then, write and call your lawmakers and make sure your voice of opposition is heard.

If you run a WordPress-powered blog and want to participate in the internet blackout today, there are numerous SOPA blackout plugins to choose from. If you don’t use WordPress, there are other apps and codes you can use. You can also follow news about the strike on Twitter using the hashtag #sopastrike.

Photo by SOPA Strike

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

The Occupy Wall Street movement is well into its second month. Thousands of people have joined together in New York City’s financial district to hold Wall Street and the corporate forces of the world accountable for their corrupt business practices and profiting from mass injustice made possible by severe income inequality.

Occupy Wall Street exemplifies what a real grassroots movement is and how it can thrive within our society that relies heavily on technology and social media. It is because of this that I have been able to diligently follow Occupy Wall Street on Twitter as well as watch the events unfolding within and around the peaceful protests on the ground via Livestream on multiple channels. It has been amazing to me to witness the thousands who have gathered in New York City and the countless people all over the rest of the country and throughout the world who have created their own events in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The message and mission of Occupy Wall Street has been targeted by multiple mainstream media sources as being convoluted despite the fact that they have released official statements and their own newspaper. The Occupy Wall Street protesters have been condemned as being “unorganized”, but when I saw the nearly-seven-minute documentary by Alex Mallis of the micro community that has emerged in Zuccotti Park, unorganized was by far the last word I could ever think to describe these people or this movement.

I have read more articles and have watched more minutes of video on Occupy Wall Street than I can possibly count and still, after nearly a month after first seeing this video, I can’t help but keep going back to it.

Photo by an0nyc

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

On Monday night Congress voted in favor of emergency debt ceiling legislation just one day before the deadline for action. Congress had been struggling for months to come up with a plan that could be voted on and the reason for the plan coming in just under the deadline is primarily due to fiercely partisan politics at play. If no plan of action was put together for a vote before the deadline, the result would have been devastating for the already fragile U.S. economy.

While this vote was incredibly important, the highlight on the House floor was when Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords made a surprising and emotional return to the House floor. It has been just seven months since Giffords was shot in the head by a gunman in Tucson, Arizona and when she walked into the chamber, she received a standing ovation as well as multiple rounds of applause for her presence.

In a statement from her office, Giffords said:

“I have closely followed the debate over our debt ceiling and have been deeply disappointed at what’s going on in Washington. After weeks of failed debate in Washington, I was pleased to see a solution to this crisis emerge. I strongly believe that crossing the aisle for the good of the American people is more important than party politics. I had to be here for this vote. I could not take the chance that my absence could crash our economy.”

By being on the House floor for this historic vote, Gabrielle Giffords sent one message to the world; this woman will not be kept down.

Photo by Seattle PI

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

Betty Ford, the former First Lady and wife of former President Gerald Ford, died Friday evening of natural causes. She was 93 years old and was surrounded by family at the time.

To say that Betty Ford was an inspiring woman would be an understatement. She was a strong, hardworking, dilligent woman. She was honest, upfront, and unapologetic in her views; qualities that led many to criticize her throughout her time as First Lady. Perhaps most amusing was when many conservatives were calling for her “resignation” in the mid-70s after she appeared on 60 Minutes for a candid interview where she spoke about the possibility that her children may have experimented with marijuana.

Betty Ford is most known today for co-founding the Betty Ford Center. In 1978, she was treated for alcohol and prescription painkiller abuse. Afterwards, she went on to become a tireless advocate for substance abuse treatment. The Betty Ford Center has gone on to become one of the world’s premiere addiction treatment centers in California and many celebrities have fought treatment at the facility, including stars like Elizabeth Taylor, Anna Nicole Smith, Ozzy Osbourne, Lindsay Lohan, and Drew Barrymore, among many others.

Betty Ford was also very vocal when it came to social policy and political activism. She was an outspoken advocate and prominent force in the Women’s Movement of the 1970s. She supported the Equal Rights Amendment, and was proudly pro-choice. For this work, she appeared on the cover of TIME magazine three separate times and was named Woman of the Year where she appeared with other feminist icons who represented and fought for the rights and equality of American women.

Photo by geraldrford

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

The event was hosted by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and to kick off the event, President Obama tweeted from his @whitehouse account about reducing the deficit, a theme that played out heavily during the Twitter-fueled Q&A.

Over 70,000 tweets were sent to the President either through the #AskObama hashtag or mentioned the @townhall username. Several talking points arose including questions about job creation, the economy, housing and the legalization of marijuana. In fact, the most retweeted question of the entire town hall event was, “Would you consider legalizing marijuana to increase revenue and save tax dollars by freeing up crowded prisons, court rooms.” Sadly, the President did not answer this tweet, which is a true shame. I would be genuinely interested in hearing the President’s answer, considering we have known for quite some time now that the 40-year War on Drugs has been a failed effort.

According to White House officials, out of the 70,000+ tweets that rolled in, President Obama answered 18 questions during the event, questions that were carefully selected by a team from Twitter and a group of veteran Twitter users from around the country.

Being the classy bunch we all know them to be, House Speaker John Boehner and many Republican members of Congress took to their own Twitter accounts to berate the President on job creation and the budget; most obvious throughout these tweets were the snarky attitudes oozing from their 140-characters. It made me think that perhaps these politicians are not aware of how our government works. The Republican members of Congress all ran on a platform that promised voters job creation; that is the reason why so many from the right-wing were elected into their positions in the first place. Fast-forward to the present and they are sitting in their cozy positions, passing their workload over to the President and fighting every step of the way to making any headway.

The most enthusiastic of Twitter users during the event were those from the Washington DC area. Other areas accumulating the most tweets were from major cities including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

On June 2, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a report that called for a major change in global drug policy. Not being the type of folks to tell governments what they should change without telling them how, they also included some pretty bold recommendations for how this change could be achieved, including experimenting with the legalization of marijuana, putting an end to drug policies being driven by ideology and politics, and directing resources away from arresting and incarcerating people for drug law violations in such large, sweeping numbers.

The War on Drugs, declared by former President Nixon where he called for the full prohibition of marijuana and other drugs, turned 40 last week. To tie in with this anniversary, former President Jimmy Carter wrote an oped for the New York Times wherein he called for the reform of marijuana laws.

Today will be written in the history books (well, we can hope anyway) as the day in which the first historic legislation to end marijuana prohibition was introduced in Congress, because that is exactly what is happening today.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce bi-partisan legislation ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states legalize, regulate, tax, and control marijuana without federal interference. Other co-sponsors include Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). The legislation would limit the federal government’s role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, allowing people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal. The legislation is the first bill ever introduced to Congress to end federal marijuana prohibition.

I’m just going to go ahead and inject my opinion in here and say that this is some seriously awesome news. The War on Drugs has accomplished a great deal in the last 40 years. It has created and enforced immense conflict, it has solidified marijuana as a commodity in which people have killed and have been killed over, it has consumed massive amounts of federal resources and funds, and it has been the reason why such an astounding number of people have been arrested and incarcerated for growing, picking, selling, and obtaining marijuana to the point where we are running out of room in our jails and prisons. When we find ourselves in the position where we are overcrowding prisons that had been built to house thousands of people, we must eventually come to realize that something within the system must be changed.

If one thing must be made clear, it is that prohibition does not work. It didn’t work with alcohol and it has not worked with marijuana. While the wealthy and upper class will always have access to these things, it is the middle and lower class citizens who are forced into the prison systems, losing years of their lives to a government who refuses to accept that their legislation has failed.

When nearly any politician is asked about issues that are affected by federal mandates, they most often state that issues are best left to the states to decide. It is what we have seen throughout the past number of years with abortion and with gay marriage amendments. We have been seeing that same thing with marijuana legalization, most notably in California. Recently, Connecticut has become the 13th state to decriminalize marijuana and Washington state has been working hard towards achieving their own initiative. However, regardless of the marijuana laws in these thirteen states, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) continues to arrest people under federal law, regardless of the laws mandated in the specific states where these “violations” are occurring.

Regardless of how you feel about marijuana legalization, we should all be able to agree that this legislation will give states the freedom needed to create their own initiatives and the opportunity for their citizens to decide what they want.

Photo by r0bz

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

The legislation would have required a delay to study the unintended consequences of capping the swipe fee. The cap is a new regulation under the Durbin Amendment.

Sixty votes were needed and only 54 Senators voted for the delay.

This is good news for retailers who have the most to gain from a lower interchange, or swipe, fee. The Fed has proposed capping the fee at a maximum of 12 cents per swipe. Banks currently charge 1% to 2%, or an average of 44 cents per debit card transaction. Banks have lobbied hard to keep this fee since a smaller interchange fee would be a devastating revenue loss for banks.

The Federal Reserve Board is now working on final debit card interchange rules which are expected to be released by the end of the month. The new fees are scheduled to take effect on July 21.

“This is a big loss for the banks,” says Bill Hardekopf, CEO of LowCards.com. “This cap on interchange fees will significantly cut banks’ revenue. Traditionally when these revenue cuts occur, banks find new fees and charges to levy on the consumer to make up for the loss in revenue. Since it is unlikely that retailers will pass on the savings to consumers, this regulation could hurt consumers. The only real winners appear to be the retailers.”

Photo by Helcim

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

In the United States today, the cost of in vitro fertilization starts at around $12,400 per cycle. Most often, it takes multiple cycles of IVF in order for it to prove to be effective and still, at the end of your treatment, there is no guarantee that you will come out with the success you had hoped for.

Infertility is recognized by the World Health Organization as a legitimate disease and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has publicly stated that infertility is an “emerging public health priority.” Regardless, it is extremely rare to find IVF, as well as any other assisted reproductive technology services, listed on insurance policies. In fact, only 15 states have passed laws to date that require insurance companies to offer some level of treatment for infertility. That isn’t to say that you will find IVF listed as a covered course of treatment within all 15 of these states, but you will find some form of treatment that will be made available to infertile couples.

Considering that an extremely limited group of people are likely to ever find in vitro fertilization, or most other services like it, listed as a covered course of treatment on their insurance policies, the only other option those seeking this procedure is to pay for it out of pocket. This does not look too great for, well, most people who are diagnosed with infertility. This is especially true since while we have seen a subtle rise in our national economy, we are still very much dealing with the aftermath of a historic financial crisis.

There are obvious considerable cost barriers that infertile couples are faced with. This bill would help to alleviate some of this well-known struggle by making tax credits available to taxpayers who earn an adjusted gross income of less than $182,500. This bill would also make these tax credits unavailable for those who earn $222,520 or more per year.

While the introduction of this bill is light at the end of the tunnel for many who hope to undergo fertility treatments but cannot afford to do so, spreading the word about this bill also raises awareness about the importance of egg donation.

We don’t hear about the option for healthy women to donate their eggs very often. The term “in vitro fertilization” has quickly become quite common and has reached the point where most everyone knows what it is and how it is done, but we usually have a very one-sided thought process when it comes to the procedure. We think about the women undergoing IVF, but not about if she will use donor eggs or who they come from.

In most cases, there is a six to nine month matching wait associated with IVF when a woman is using eggs that are donated. This is merely more time that women undergoing IVF must wait in order to attempt to conceive, not even counting the amount of time one cycle takes to complete. This can become an understandably hard time. The key to more women wanting to donate their eggs is letting them know that it is an option and what qualifies them in order to start the process.

Photo by jeo0072002

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

These self-proclaimed “fiscal conservatives” have gone as far as to threaten and nearly follow through with shutting the federal government down over $40 billion in cuts and they have successfully divided the House in two over their vendetta agenda to completely defund a legitimate, legal and lifesaving healthcare organization that millions of Americans depend on every year.

The National Priorities Project has revealed information on how the federal government has spent each 2010 federal income tax dollar, including a comprehensive bar chart showing exactly how many cents per every dollar are spent on healthcare, income security and labor, the military, as well as each of nine other spending categories.

It turns out that 27 cents out of every dollar paid to the IRS goes to directly fund military spending and the Afghanistan War, a war that upwards of 60% of the American people vocally oppose.

You can find out exactly how much money you have paid to fund the war effort by visiting Rethink Afghanistan’s War Tax Calculator.

By entering the amount of money you have earned this year, as well as how you filed your taxes, whether it be single, married and filing jointly, married and filing separately, or as head of household, you can find out exactly how much money you have paid directly towards the Afghanistan War and other military spending this year.

The military budget has often been described as “bloated” and the Afghanistan War will cost U.S. taxpayers $107.3 billion just this year alone in direct costs. If you oppose the Afghanistan War and oppose your tax dollars directly funding it, you can send an I.O.U. to your Member of Congress telling them that you want your money back by using the War Tax Calculator on Rethink Afghanistan’s website.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

Thursday night, Sarah Palin appeared on Fox News with Sean Hannity, who asked Palin how she felt about Julianne Moore portraying her in Game Change, in which she replied:

“Well, I am all about job creation, and I guess I could provide some of these gals who pretend like they’re me some job security. I would ask, though, that–if they’re of the mind of spreading the wealth around–that perhaps they want to spring for one of my kid’s braces or something as they capitalize on pretending to be me.”

Wow, bitter much? It seems that Sarah Palin believing that there are people who would like to be her is the only way she could get through this particular question of Hannity’s without throwing a temper tantrum of epic proportions.

I think Julianne Moore is just fine with portraying Palin in this movie, though. She is an outspoken liberal who supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election. Game Change, the book, paints Palin in a very bad light and spilled some damaging secrets and quotes from the campaign trail. In one story, it is said that McCain adviser Steve Schmidt was quoted telling Palin’s foreign policy advisers “You guys have a lot of work to do. She doesn’t know anything;” and that was after testing the candidate before the 2008 vice-presidential debate.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

When I saw this video of John Mayer arguing with actor Justin Long, however, I couldn’t help but snicker a little bit. Yes, voicing your support and the reasons behind that support for a politician could be a good thing, but when you’re reduced to yelling your support at someone, well, that doesn’t do much for either person in that conversation.

Note: This video is old. Like, really old. It is, however, just as hilarious now as it was a few years ago.

John Mayer sure is passionate about Ron Paul. Also, I think he may be just as passionate about booze.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

Super Bowl pre-game interviews are not new by any means; two years ago President Obama say down with Matt Lauer for an interview before NBC hosted the Super Bowl and last year he sat down with Katie Couric before CBS hosted the football game. During that interview with Katie Couric the president announced his intention to host a health care summit with Republicans.

So, what did Bill O’Reilly’s interview with the president cover?

Health care reform was understandably on the agenda. Particularly, O’Reilly asked the president his feelings about a recent ruling that was decided by a federal judge in Floroida that declared the bill that was signed into law last year was unconstitutional. He also asked if the president is prepared to fight for health care reform again if the bill he signed into law was ruled unconstitutional and tossed out, which president Obama replied that his administration is not focused on “refighting the battles of the last two years.” and that he is not prepared to go back to a day when a pre-existing condition could mean not getting medical treatment or help.

The ongoing unrest in Egypt was also talked about, in which the president stated that “The U.S. can’t forcefully dictate, but what we can do is say the time is now for you to start making a change in your country.”

Amongst those topics, they also discussed how President Obama feels about the amount of people who hate him and of course, the football game that was to take place that night.

You can check out the interview below:

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

Here is a breakdown of what H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act does:

• Redefines rape
  The federal law, as it is seen and goes into effect today, does not use federal tax dollars to cover abortion unless it is an unwanted pregnancy resulting in rape, incest, or if the pregnant woman’s health or life is at risk. Under the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, the rape exception would only cover “forcible” rape. Ironically enough, the word “forcible” is not defined in the bill. What this means is that if a minor child who is, say, 13 years old, is coerced into a sexual relationship with a man who is not a minor, let’s just say he’s 40, and that girl becomes pregnant as a result of that rape, well, that rape doesn’t count. If a woman is drugged and then raped, that rape doesn’t count. If a woman is unconscious and is raped, that rape doesn’t count. If a woman is mentally disabled and cannot consent to sexual activity and is raped, that rape doesn’t count.

• Puts an age restriction on incest
  If a woman is raped by her father, brother, uncle, grandfather or a member of their family, and she is 18 years old, she cannot use federal funds in order to obtain her abortion. Also, let’s say a 17-year-old girl is raped by her father and she is just shy of her eighteenth birthday. If she was raped when she was 17, but is seeking an abortion when she is 18, would she be eligible? I suppose that’s up to the Chris Smith and John Boehner Official Rape Panel to decide.

• Removes the exception for women’s health
  This bill will allow federal funds to cover abortion if, and only if, a physician certifies that the pregnancy will kill her. If continuing her pregnancy will damage her organs in some way or she will become terribly ill, having to live on medications, dialysis, in a wheelchair or what have you for the rest of her life, she will not get coverage because that isn’t life-threatening.

• Requires government to continue funding agencies and programs that discriminate against women and endanger women’s health
  Currently, it is law that doctors and nurses do not have to provide elective abortion services, nor are health care facilities required to offer abortion services. Under the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, these facilities are given free reign to discriminate when it comes to a woman’s reproductive health care by in addition to not providing abortions, also refusing to refer women to other health care facilities, agencies and programs that do and the government cannot withdraw funds. Due to the GOP’s constant attack on all of women’s reproductive health choices, abortion is being regularly redefined to include emergency contraception and even birth control, which could also be effected by this bill.

• Cuts tax benefit to organizations and/or individuals who select an insurance policy that covers abortion
  Today, most private health insurers cover abortion services. Under the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, tax subsidies that are given to small business owners and individuals who purchase insurance that covers abortion would be cut. This bill would, in fact, ensure that all private insurance companies stop covering abortion services, even when abortions are medically necessary.

Make Your Voice Heard — Speak Out Against H.R. 3

#DearJohn Twitter Protest

If you are on Twitter start following and contributing to the #DearJohn Twitter protest. The #DearJohn campaign was started by feminist social media superhero Sady Doyle. This hashtag was created as a response to H.R. 3 and is being directed at Speaker of the House John Boehner who has made this bill a “top priority.” That’s right, John Boehner and the GOP are not working towards creating more jobs for Americans or reducing the country’s deficit; their top priority is to strip women, and most notably, rape survivors of their reproductive rights.

You can also tweet at John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) as well as the 173 co-sponsors of the bill who are on Twitter by looking them up here. Remember, if you are engaging via Twitter, keep your inquiries and tweets directed at representatives productive without offending or insulting.

Contact Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey and Co-Sponsors of H.R. 3

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act is sponsored by Chris Smith. He authored this bill and should rightfull know how the people whom this bill would effect feel about his position on stripping rape survivors and women of their reproductive rights. You can find his office mailing addresses, phone numbers and fax numbers here.

You can find the list of all 173 co-sponsors of this bill as well as information on how to contact them here.

Contact Your Representative

You have the undeniable right to contact your representative and voice your position on this bill. You can easily find out exactly who your representative is and what their contact information is here.

To quote Sady Doyle on contacting your rep:

Look that person up on Wikipedia, to get a sense of who they are, if you don’t already know. Then, CALL THEM. Be polite; be professional; do not threaten or use violent or abusive language under any circumstances. Explain to them that their constituents don’t support this bill, explain how and why it’s a bad bill, and let them know that if they support or fail to oppose this bill, they can expect that to impact them in a very bad way when it comes to the matter of keeping their jobs. We hired them; we can fire them. We want to flood them with calls, today and tomorrow. We need to stand up and be counted. And we can. But we need to make sure they don’t just see us talking on the Internet. We need to make sure they hear our voices, one by one by one.

When contacting your representative, it is very easy to become flustered, nervous and scatterbrained. Sady Doyle, the lifesaver of activism that she is, worked out a script she used when calling the short list of Democrats who have co-sponsored H.R. 3 and posted it for others to use. If your Representative is not a Democrat, this script is still a really good start to working out what, exactly you want to say.

Hi, I’d like to leave a comment for the Congressman in regards to a bill that was recently introduced.

[They’ll say okay: It’s their job to be open to comments from the public, remember.]

The bill is HR3, which is an extremist anti-choice measure that would strip rights from rape survivors and people who need abortions in an unprecedented way. Even under the Hyde amendment, there were exemptions for survivors of rape and incest, and they received federal funding; this strips that back by saying that only people who are “forcibly raped” will be covered. And 70% of rapes aren’t “forcible.” Not only that, but it makes it much harder for insurance companies to cover people who need abortions, regardless of why they need them, and it strengthens “conscience” restrictions, which means that doctors can refuse to provide reproductive medical care to anyone at any time, if they can claim that their conscience was involved. [Representative] is one of the very few Democrats who has co-sponsored this bill. I’m very disappointed in him. Most Democrats don’t support these extremist anti-choice restrictions, and most Democratic voters won’t be willing to overlook this when it comes to the polls. I’d appreciate it if you could pass that comment on to the Congressman.

[They’ll say yes.]

Great. Thank you so much for your time.

No one has the right to de-legitimize sexual assault survivors and H.R. 3 proposes to do just that. Make your voice heard.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

As Jessica Pieklo over at Care2 pointed out, the Republican party has very much been the “party of no,” obstructing any of President Obama’s agenda goals. But even before making it their mission to see as few agenda goals passed as possible, the GOP has been actively undermining the functioning of the federal courts by blocking judicial nominees. Regardless of which party line you affiliate yourself with, the basic fact of the matter is that the federal court system is at the point of judicial emergency because of the lack of appointed judges available. This has made each judge currently working within this particular circuit carry a workload that is not only extravagant, but unmanageable.

The letter [PDF] reads:

In order to do our work, and serve the public as Congress expects us to serve it, we need the resources to carry out our mission. While there are many areas of serious need, we write today to emphasize our desperate need for judges. Our need in that regard has been amply documented (See attached March 2009 Judicial Congress Recommendations for Additional Judgeships). Courts cannot do their work if authorized judicial positions remain vacant.

While we could certainly use more judges, and hope that Congress will soon approve the additional judgeships requested by the Judicial Conference, we would be greatly assisted if our judicial vacancies-some of which have been open for several years and declared “judicial emergencies”-were to be filled promptly. We respectfully request that the Senate act on judicial nominees without delay.

It is then signed by Republican federal judge apointees Alex Kozinski, Ralph Beistline, Vaughn Walker, Irma Gonzales, Frances Marie Tydingco-Gatewood, Richard Frank Cebull, and Lonny Ray Suko, among others.

It is incredibly rare for judges to speak out in this capacity and this kind of plea and advocacy truly shows just how grim the future looks for the country and every person in it if the House continues to confirm new judges at such a snail’s pace. Timothy Lewis, a retired GOP Judge recently contributed an op-ed article over at Politico saying:

Instead of confirming [the] nominees, some senators have used secret holds and filibusters to block the votes, leaving nominees in limbo for a year or more and undermining the credibility of our judiciary. Fewer nominees have been confirmed during the Obama administration than at any time since President Richard Nixon was in office.

These tactics are, as one senator noted, “delay for delay’s sake.” They are creating an unprecedented shortfall of judicial confirmations and, ultimately, a shortage of judges available to hear cases. For many Americans, this means justice is likely to be unnecessarily delayed — and often denied.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

The collective speeches and talking points of Republican candidates succeeded in swaying voters during the mid-term election and they were voted into the House in almost astounding numbers. When given the opportunity to step in and show Americans how easily, and speedy of course, things could get done with one group over the other, the GOP is going down in recent history by having their Republican campaign to terminate all funding for National Public Radio (NPR) be the first GOP-ordered House vote since the election.

The proposal to defund NPR was the latest winning item on YouCut, an extremely partisan project of the Economic Recovery Working Group that treats politics and issues that affect millions of Americans as more of a social media site, relying on public polls through a website that obviously only attracts attention from right-wing voters, to determine what issues make it to the House floor for a vote.

A release from House Minority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) office read, “This week’s winning YouCut proposal is sponsored by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), and would terminate all taxpayer funding of National Public Radio (NPR), saving taxpayers potentially tens of millions of–perhaps even over a hundred million–dollars. Implementing this initiative would signal that the days of bailing out irresponsible decision-makers at taxpayers’ expense are over.”

Rep. Eric Cantor attempted to make the case for defunding NPR in a speech wherein he defended the actions of an ex-NPR commenter who recently found a home at Fox News, Juan Williams, saying, “To be clear, it is not the government’s job to tell a news organization how to do its job. But what’s equally certain is it should not be the taxpayers’ responsibility to fund news organizations with a partisan point of view.”

Just to clarify Rep. Cantor’s point, Juan Williams was fired from NPR for making not-so nonpartisan remarks about Muslims while on air and while affiliated with NPR. NPR currently receives about 15 percent of their funding through the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which is the parent organization of NPR and PBS. PBS is famously known as an educational organization and NPR is far more bipartisan than most other news organizations; in fact, the only other form of news that I could say truly should win the Bipartisan News Organization of the Year Award over NPR (if it were a real award, of course) is C-SPAN, which I might add, is also publicly funded.

During the House vote to defund NPR, Democrats voted 239-171 to close debate on the underlying measure that the GOP had attempted to throw the issue on top of, without voting on the NPR proposal, completely closing the debate on the issue before it began.

Personally speaking, I do not see the point in defunding NPR, especially when in the speech made on the issue, Rep. Cantor’s only argument is that Juan Williams was fired from the organization. It is impossible to accuse NPR for being a partisan network while using a partisan argument to make your point, but that is precisely what the GOP had attempted. It is very clear that while the GOP’s first order of business was to defund a public radio organization, the underlying issue is that they would like to hold power over free press.

After the issue was deemed dead on arrival, NPR responded to the vote, saying:

Today, good judgment prevailed as Congress rejected a move to assert government control over the content of the news.

The proposal to prohibit public radio stations from using CPB grants to purchase NPR programming is an unwarranted attempt to interject federal authority into location station program decision-making. Furthermore, restrictions on the authority of CPB–a Congressionally chartered, independent non-profit organization–to make competitive grants to NPR, or any other public broadcasting entity, is misguided.

For more than forty years, the federal government has provided financial support for public broadcasting – to serve the public interest with essential educational, news and cultural programming that commercial interests neglect.

America’s independent, locally governed and managed public radio stations have always had the freedom to make programming decisions based on the needs of their audience and local community. The separation between funding and funders and content decisions is a widely respected, long held and fundamental standard of a free press.

In an increasingly fractious media environment, public radio’s value in fostering an informed society has never been more critical. Our growing audience shows that we are meeting that need. It is imperative for federal funding to continue to ensure that this essential tool of democracy remains available to all Americas and thrives well into the future.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

While I’ve given enough attention to articles who ask these same questions and speculate about the entire Democratic party coming to a crashing halt, which is kind of laughable in itself since most of these accusations have been made by right wing voters, politicians and entertainment personalities, I could not help but look into an article recently published by the LA Times that have somehow come to the conclusion that the reason why Democrats lost during the midterm election is because the political talking points weren’t reaching the “kitchen table,” and therefore women just didn’t care.

Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones has created a biannual review of the exit polls, knowing full well that after an election, quite a few highly influential publications come out with articles on who to put the blame of a party’s collective shame for losing, such as what the LA Times did here.

From the LA Times article:

“I think women just did not see an economic narrative that was meaningful to them,” said pollster Celinda Lake. “It really has to speak to the kitchen table. It can’t just speak to banks and Wall Street.”

During a year when the economy was the dominant concern in the electorate, single women were likely to feel those pressures even more acutely. “Unmarried women are the most economically vulnerable group, particularly if they have children,” said Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster. “While there has been a lot of discussion in this recession about men and manufacturing jobs, it still is the case that unmarried women are the poorest. If they feel their concerns aren’t being addressed by Obama and the Democrats around the economy, it sort of makes some sense there was a decline.”

Now, this would be all well and good if there actually was a decline in Democrat women voters, but alas, there was not. As Kevin Drum points out, looking at the same chart the LA Times uses to prove their accusation, you can easily see that nothing special is happening among women voters as they have remained more loyal than average to Democrats this cycle.

Republicans did about 7-8 points better than in 2006, but among women they only did 6 points better. Among unmarried women, they only did 4 points better, and among married women, they only did 4 points better. Women have switched in much lower numbers than most other groups, so for an influential publication that reaches countless people every day to assume that Democrat women just didn’t care this time around, is a travesty and quite unfair to those women voters who take their political voice very seriously.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

When asked by Neil Cavuto on Fox News if he thought Sarah Palin was qualified to be President, Miller’s non-committal response that there were “a number of great candidates out there” angered the Palin camp, sparking Todd’s initial email, where he instructs SarahPAC treasurer Tim Crawford to “Hold off on any letter for Joe. Sarah put her ass on the line for Joe and yet he can’t answer a simple question “is Sarah Palin Qualified to be President”. I DON’T KNOW IF SHE IS.”

Check out the leaked emails below.

Amusingly enough, Neil Cavuto asked Joe Miller during the same interview if he and the Palin camp had made a deal to publicly endorse one another, to which Miller responded (with a noticeable delay) of course not and that he “doesn’t make deals.” However, a deal is exactly what Todd Palin’s email proves was going on, or supposed to go on if Miller could keep up his end of their deal and publicly state that Sarah Palin is indeed qualified to be president come 2012.

This leaked email is also the most concrete proof we have seen thus far that Sarah Palin will be running for president.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

As Jennifer Pozner over at WIMN’s Voices points out, McIntosh’s video “takes a critical look at scare tactics, bigotry and sensationalism in media coverage of the economic crisis and immigration.” What do you think?

According to Jonathan, here’s the rundown of the video: “Donald’s life is turned upside-down by the current economic crisis and he finds himself unemployed and falling behind on his house payments. As his frustration turns into despair Donald discovers a seemingly sympathetic voice coming from his radio named Glenn Beck.”

Check out the video below and share your thoughts on the video, and your thoughts in the comments.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

Last night, President Obama addressed the American people about the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our military’s exit from Iraq and what influence American military will have over the government and people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“So tonight I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country. This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office.”

Watch President Obama’s full address below. For those who cannot watch the video, a full transcript is below.

Transcript:

Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.

I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans. We’ve now been through nearly a decade of war. We’ve endured a long and painful recession. And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we’re trying to build for our nation — a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity — may seem beyond our reach.

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.

These are the rough waters encountered during the course of one of America’s longest wars. Yet there has been one constant amidst these shifting tides. At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am incredibly proud of their service. And like all Americans, I’m awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.

The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces, and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians — and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people — Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people.

That’s what we’ve done. We’ve removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We’ve closed or transferred to the Iraqis hundreds of bases. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq’s leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.

Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces, supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions, and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians — diplomats, aid workers, and advisers — are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. That’s a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq — one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest — it’s in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We’ve persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people — a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page.

As we do, I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it’s time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.

Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our draw down in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders — and hundreds of al Qaeda’s extremist allies — have been killed or captured around the world.

Within Afghanistan, I’ve ordered the deployment of additional troops who — under the command of General David Petraeus — are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum.

As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we can’t do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That’s why we’re training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan’s problems. And next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin — because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.

Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power — including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example — to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that’s based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes — a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibilities of our time.

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction — we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

Now, that effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it’s our turn. Now, it’s our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for — the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jump start industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am President, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and we will do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That’s why we’ve already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We’re treating the signature wounds of today’s wars — post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury — while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we’re funding a Post-9/11 GI Bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the GI Bill helped those who fought World War II — including my grandfather — become the backbone of our middle class, so today’s servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.

Two weeks ago, America’s final combat brigade in Iraq — the Army’s Fourth Stryker Brigade — journeyed home in the pre-dawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.

Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband’s embrace or a mother’s kiss. Most painfully, since the war began, 55 members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice — part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, “I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot.”

Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations — war — and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.

In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar — Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be traveling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

This 10-point lead, which is based on aggregated data from registered voters surveyed August 23rd to 29th, is unprecedented in Gallup’s history, which dates back to 1942 and before this 10-point lead, the highest gap in which Republicans were leading over Democrats was five points which occurred both in July 1994 and June 2002.

2010 could very well hold another Republican wave, especially since Republican voters have also been polled as being more enthusiastic as Democrats to cast their vote. While these could be promising for Republican candidates and right-wing Americans, Gallup is reminding people not too get too set on the poll numbers, warning that Democrats moved ahead in Gallup’s generic ballot for several weeks earlier this summer, meaning some swaying in the numbers is very possible between now and Election Day. Still, this 10-point lead is making some people wonder just how far right we’ll see Congress go this year.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

In a 9-2 decision on Tuesday, Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that all 31 states in Mexico must recognize the same-same marriages that have been and continue to be performed at the capital. An article of Mexico’s constitution requires all states to recognize legal contracts that have been drawn up elsewhere, so for marriage contracts to not be recognized throughout Mexico would be unconstitutional.

This is most definitely a victory of sorts for the GLBT community, friends, family and allies in Mexico and while the marriages of people who love each other in the country will be recognized, the ruling does not state what degree of recognition must be granted to the married couples. This could potentially pose a problem for people living in a state in Mexico that is not GLBT-friendly and who could recognize their marriage, but look for ways to not extend rights given to them by their marriage.

Same-sex couples were granted the right to marry in Mexico in March. Currently, the rights extended to these married couples are the right to adopt children, to jointly apply for bank loans, to inherit wealth and to be covered by their spouses’ insurance policies.

One of the most detrimental of those rights that could come under fire in some states of Mexico is the right for same-sex couples to adopt children. Justice Sergio Aguirre argued against adoptions by married same-sex couples, saying that children might suffer.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

Since the Prop 8 constitutional amendment took effect, those within the GLBT community, as well as their allies, friends and families have been spreading the message that a state’s court system should protect the people’s Constitutional rights and finally, Judge Vaughn Walker heard them loud and clear yesterday when he ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, finding that it violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses while failing “to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

Judge Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments dating as far back as January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can place a ban on gay marriage and prohibit same sex partners from marrying. This ruling is a victory for California and can potentially truly extend the same right and privilege of marriage that is currently being enjoyed by heterosexual couples, to all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation. Judge Walker’s ruling puts him at the forefront of the gay marriage debate and is only the latest high-profile legal decision accredited to the longtime Republican judge.

When the announcement that Prop 8 had been ruled unconstitutional, many celebrities, like Ellen DeGeneres, Kathy Griffin and Milla Jovovich, took to their Twitter accounts to announce their excitement about the ruling.

For more celebrities tweets about Prop 8, check out Women’s Eye on Media.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!

So, remember the other day when I wrote about Fox News and NPR both actively vying for the front row center seat in the White House press briefing room? Well, the announcement of who would get that very important, best seat in the room took place yesterday.

Much to the surprise of practically anyone familiar with both Fox News and NPR, Fox News was given the seat recently vacated by veteran journalist Helen Thomas. The decision, made by the White House Correspondents Association, was unanimous, and Fox News will now join popular broadcast networks and CNN up front. The WHCA stated that its decision to move Fox News to the front seat was due to their length of service and commitment to the White House television pool.

Fox News moving to the front of the room will make room for The Financial Times, who previously did not have a regular seat, along with the foreign press pool, but U.S. News & World Report lost its seat in the process. Politico and American Urban Radio Networks moved up to the third row in the briefing room, and The Washington Times will be moved to the fourth row.

Related Posts:

• None yet, check back soon!