annemariem's blog

In the spirit of tomorrow's holiday...

Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:12:59 -0800

Alternet's blog has a post about conflict diamonds with some good recommendations on how to have a socially conscious Valentine's Day.

Treehugger also has a post about 50 ways to please your lover - in an eco-friendly way.

Other ways to celebrate?

Attend one of the many local productions of the Vagina Monologues. Haven't heard about it? Check out their website. The V-Day movement is all about raising money and awareness for the anti-violence-against-women movement. It is centered around performances of the Vagina Monologues at colleges (and elsewhere) all around the country, on or around Valentine's Day. (Get it? V is for Valentine's Day, and for Vagina, and for Violence.) Each college chooses a nonprofit that does anti-violence work to receive the proceeds of the events.

SOTU: Er, that wasn't exactly what I meant...

Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:58:36 -0800

On Tuesday night, when Bush talked about increasing funding for alternative energy research by 22%, and the need to reduce our "addiction" to foreign oil, I was skeptical and thought "gee, that's not much of an increase", and "how's he going to do that again?"

Well, it turns out I was not skeptical enough. I forgot that Bush has a track record of trumpeting programs even as he is simultaneously trying to cut funding for them. So, here are a couple of gems that have emerged in the day and a half since the speech.

Gem #1: In an article from Knight Ridder, on Wednesday, February 1:

"One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally. "

The article goes on to explain that "the new technologies could reduce America's oil appetite by the equivalent of what we're expected to import from the Middle East by 2025, [Alan Hubbard, director of the president's National Economic Council] said. But we'll still be importing plenty of oil, according to the Energy Department's latest projection."

It begins...

Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:56:28 -0800

So, this isn't exactly local. We are lucky enough to live in a state that would still allow abortion even if Roe was struck down. But it still worries me, for the sake of all the other women (and men) that this could affect...

Courtesy of Alternet's blog Peek, United Press International reports that today, only one day after Alito was confirmed, five states are considering across-the-board bans on abortion, except when a woman's life is in danger. Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

I don't know what sort of chances these bans have of actually passing. The Director of Americans United for Life has even said that he anticipates the bans will be struck down in the lower court. But I know I will be paying close attention to see where this goes.

Three cheers for greater understanding!

Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:52:07 -0800

So... remember last year when the gay rights bill failed to pass the WA State Senate by, like, a single vote? The bill that adds "sexual orientation" to the law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, etc?

Well, this year, maybe it will have a chance. Senator Bill Finkbeiner, former Republican Senate minority leader, announced this week that he has changed his position and will vote to support the bill. Why, you may ask? According to this Seattle Times article, "he has had several conversations that led to greater understanding of the discrimination gays and lesbians experience."

Donahue vs. O'Reilly

Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:52:59 -0700

Ah, if only this man was on TV every day... oh wait, he used to be! D'oh!

Phil Donahue was on the O’Reilly Factor yesterday, and he did an amazing job of defending the anti-war stance, reframing the issues, and generally not letting O’Reilly walk all over him. Check out Alternet's post about it.

Those Frenchies... always thumbing their noses at us.

Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:07:15 -0700

Why don't they understand the importance of driving huge trucks, burning lots of gas, and not cleaning up after ourselves? We have a RIGHT to dump pollutants into our environment!

Ok, well, except for the fact that we have to live in this environment of ours, and if we dump pollutants into it, we have to drink contaminated water, and breathe contaminated air. And then we will all get cancer.

Although most Americans are in denial of such things (we have a right to drive big SUVs!), the French seem to grasp the concept. They have AMENDED THEIR CONSTITUTION to include an "Environmental Charter".

New info released on the Monorail

Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:28:10 -0700

Check out the latest on Seattle's transportation, um, "challenges":

The Monorail

The Viaduct

The Streetcar

Conservation at Snoqualmie Falls

Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:50:26 -0700

Yesterday I read an interesting article in the Seattle Times about efforts to set aside land near Snoqualmie Falls, to protect the land from development. It was interesting to me because it seems like I don't often hear about these sorts of things going on right in our backyard. First, the article talked about past efforts at conservation, which have succeeded in preserving the 100 acres of wilderness behind Snoqualmie Falls - the land was purchased by Cascade Land Conservancy. If not for this group, all that wilderness would probably now be subdivisions of the town of Snoqualmie. So, yay for conservation!

Next the author talks about current efforts for conservation in the same area: "The plan, looking ahead to a century of growth expected to double the population in a four-county region, aims to make almost 1.3 million acres of forests, farms and stream beds in the Cascades foothills — an area 24 times the size of Seattle — permanently off-limits to developers." That's a lot of wilderness! I love it.

"Your Social Security Statement" - Whaa?

Tue, 10 May 2005 23:14:48 -0700

Upon coming home from work tonight, I found an interesting little gem in my mailbox. "Your Social Security Statement" from the Social Security Administration. Hmm, I thought... I've never seen one of these before.

It's a four-page document with sections such as "What Social Security Means to You", "Your Estimated Benefits", "Help Us Keep Your Earnings Record Accurate", and "Some Facts About Social Security". It tells me that it was "Prepared especially for [me]" and tells me what my taxed Social Security Earnings were for the past six years, which is as long as I have paid into the system. It also tells me how much I would get if I were to become disabled right now, and how much my spouse or children would get if I died this year (if I had a spouse or children). Apparently I haven't worked long enough to qualify for retirement benefits, so I don't know how much I will get when I retire.

So what I want to know is this - did everyone get one of these? Do these get sent out every year? I have never gotten one before, as far as I can remember, and as I mentioned above I have paid into social security since 1999. I want to know: have any of you received one of these documents?

The ins and outs of primary elections

Tue, 10 May 2005 23:03:34 -0700

Recently, I had a conversation with some other better donkeys about the state of primary elections in Washington State. Rumor had it, one of them said, that the Republican party in Washington State is trying to change the rules of the new primary system to require that Republican party officials have the authority to decide which candidates have the right to run under the Republican party – because they want to choose only one candidate per race to run in the primary. Wow, I thought. That’s scary. The whole point of the primary is for voters to be able to pick which candidates should run in the general election. Those damn Republicans…

Well, I read an article in the Seattle Times on Friday that stated that both parties – Democrats and Republicans – should be able to choose their candidates for the primary. Apparently my previous thought was a little premature – both parties are arguing for this change.

So, why is this all happening?

Justice Sunday - Freedom of Religion or Freedom to impose religion?

Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:11:55 -0700

So, you all may have heard about "Judicial Sunday", the televised rally of sorts that the religious right put on to criticize Democrats for wanting to use the filibuster "against people of faith". In the last few days, a variety of newspapers and online journals have published articles discussing this event. The PI has an editorial criticizing Senator Frist for his involvement, and a great cartoon on the topic of judicial nominees and evangelical Christians. And Salon.com has an article that points out the faulty logic that the evangelicals are using to claim that they are victims of religious discrimination, and the way they claim that putting the Bible above the law is desirable behavior in a judge, which is certainly troubling to me.

Are flame-retardants saving lives, or causing permanent damage? Hard to say.

Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:21:13 -0700

A few weeks ago I wrote a post about chemicals in cosmetics that are, over the long term, poisonous. In today's PI, an article discusses another type of chemicals that may be slowly poisoning us - fire-proofing chemicals, known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers. As the article notes, scientists have found the chemicals "in fish caught in the Columbia River, local women's breast milk and household dust in Seattle."

Now, apparently, whether these chemicals are dangerous is still up in the air: "Industry groups insist it is safe, while environmentalists and some government officials maintain there is cause for concern." While my initial instinct is to trust environmentalists (whose primary concern is for the health and safety of humans and other creatures) over industry groups (whose primary concern is profit), this article is pretty vague on this point. We could use some better data on what effect these chemicals have on people, particularly small children. Or maybe the data exists, and we need some journalists who actually know how to cite scientific data. A particularly maddening sentence from the article reads: "Although there's no evidence that PBDEs have accumulated in people at levels that pose an immediate health threat, there are concerns that the flame retardants can harm brain and bone development and thyroid function." So, is there scientific evidence, or not? Is anyone studying this? I want to know!

The sad state of sex ed in the US of A

Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:02:39 -0800

So, I have written a couple of blog entries so far on the subject of sex ed, so I figured, why stop now...

Today I discovered that on NARAL Pro-Choice America's website, they posted a mock sex-ed test as an April Fools Day joke. The "correct" answers to the text are based on what is currently taught in schools in various federally-funded abstinence-only sex ed programs.

As I scanned through the exam, most of the questions/answers didn't surprise me, like the inflated failure rates of contraceptives (usually condoms) at preventing pregnancy and STDs. However, one caught my eye:

Women who want to keep a partner should do what?
A. Secretly keep several partners so if they lose one or two, no sweat.
B. Never, never, never act too smart.
C. Fashion home-made chastity belts out of household items such as old pie tins and rusty tacks.
D. Make up ridiculous lies about the incredible wealth they will one day inherit.

The "correct" answer is B.

Whatever happened to compassionate conservativism?

Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:41:46 -0800

Not that I ever thought that “compassionate conservativism” wasn’t an oxymoron. But sometimes even I am surprised…

You all may be familiar with the “global gag rule” which prohibit any international aid organization receiving US funding from performing abortions or even discussing abortion. Well, according to a new article on Salon.com (watch the ad to get a free pass to the website), conservatives in Congress are considering another gag rule: for needle exchange programs. With the same “more information = bad” logic as the abortion gag rule, it would prevent aid organizations from even telling addicts that they should use clean needles.

Do you know what's in your makeup?

Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:25:52 -0800

I already had plenty of reasons not to wear makeup on a daily basis, such as: I don't want to support an industry based on making women feel that the way they look naturally isn't good enough; I don't want to have to get up 10 minutes earlier in the morning; I could spend that money on other things; etc.

Now I have another reason: ingredients in makeup may cause cancer or screw with my reproductive system. We have no way of knowing for sure, because the FDA does not conduct health testing of cosmetics ingredients, or require cosmetics makers to do so. However, the EU conducted extensive tests (for 3 decades) on carcinogens and toxins, and as a result decided to ban two chemicals, known as pthalates, because in laboratory tests, they caused birth defects and led to reproductive problems. It's perfectly legal to use those chemicals in makeup here, and companies don't have to report whether they do or not. That's right, your makeup may have toxic ingredients, and they don't have to tell you.