Loretta Lynn For “The Pill”

            I am a huge country music fan. When you listen to country music there are few artists you can't ignore, no matter how long ago these artist began their careers. Those artist are of course Johnny Cash, Conway Twitty, Patsy Cline, and Loretta Lynn. These four artists are the epitome of what country music was and they are a perfect example of the greatness a country musician should try to obtain through out their careers. Johnny Cash was "The Man in Black", Conway Twitty had the most number one singles of any act until 2006, Patsy Cline is the Queen of Country Music, and Loretta Lynn the Coal Miners Daughter exemplifies a true rags to riches story.

             These musicians are probably some of the most notable musicians in American History. One thing sets Loretta Lynn apart, though. She was an outspoken advocate for women's rights and equality for women and she also spoke out against the Vietnam War. She has more banned songs than any other country artist. Among those songs are, "Rated X" which talks about the stigma of divorced women, the song was more controversial because it's frank language rather than it's message. Another was "Wings Upon Your Horns", which discussed the loss of teenage virginity, which to Loretta Lynn who was married at fourteen and had four children before leaving her teenage years may not seem that controversial. Then the one song that is catching a lot of attention because of the contraception issue going on right now is "The Pill", which speaks of the liberation of women via the pill.

             That song was released in 1972. In 1972 Loretta Lynn rejoiced in the fact that there was a pill that a woman could take that would prevent her from having more children and prevent that woman from being tethered any further to a man. To say this song was controversial back then is an understatement, in some places now that song is still very controversial. The thing I'm trying to convey by talking about this song is why is a woman born in Kentucky in 1935 more progressive on hormonal contraception forty years ago than a person born in 1978 in legislature today.

             It doesn't make sense, really, I am perplexed by how little sense it makes to be anti-contraception. Contraception isn't an evil thing and women who use contraception aren't more likely to be more sexually active. Contraception is a safety net for that time when a woman does go out and things do get a little hot and heavy or God forbid when a woman is attacked and raped. Contraception also has many uses away from it's sexual aspects. Contraception is used when women have a thyroid problem or an ovarian cyst but many contraception opponents claim contraception is only used so women can go out and perform acts of bumping nasty's, I'm eighteen bumping nasty's is hilarious to me I apologize for using it if any one is offended by my use of it.

         Contraception was invented and better forms of contraception will continue to be introduced into society. It is a necessary thing nowadays and to prevent a woman from using it is not only illogical but also immoral. Hormonal contraception should given a different name because it's current name is doing more harm than good and could be putting many women in danger especially in states where the Personhood Amendment may be put into law. It seems we have been regressing recently and until we as a society learn how to stop being dumb we will continue to regress further in to the ubiquitous darkness that was the individually repressive Dark Ages.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcdONaKSQM&w=420&h=315]

Science and Abortion

            I stumbled upon a pro-life facebook page the other day. At first I was like "Alright this is pretty cool. People voicing their opinions in a reasonable and peaceful manner." Then I began looking through the pictures and I saw the discussions people were having in relation to the pictures and I became even more appreciative of facebook as a place to convey ones political or religious beliefs. A few moments later I lost a little of that appreciation when I stumbled upon a  picture of a single celled organism or possibly some other cell, one that may become a baby someday, with a few sentences written on it. The picture read " If a single living cell was found on a distant planet, scientists would exclaim that we have found life elsewhere in the universe. So why is a single living cell found in the womb of a pregnant woman not considered life?" The person who created must not know anything about science.

             I don't know much about science but I have never received a grade lower than a B in a science class  so I know a little bit about science and little about how scientists speak. If a scientist saw this picture that professional probably would have called the creator of this picture a smart ass who was trying to put, or rather take, words from a scientists mouth. See a scientist will say anything that is made up of cells has life. By the logic of a scientist a sperm cell has life, an egg inside a woman has life, a single celled organism on some distant planet has life. Where the logic of a scientist differentiates from a person of the pro-life persuasion is that a sperm cell in implanted in a woman's uterine lining is not human life.

Abortion isn't black and white as many people believe. Some people will say when you're dealing with abortion you have those who are pro-life and pro-abortion. It's not like that at all. I am the perfect example of someone who is pro-choice. I don't believe abortion is right but I don't necessarily think it's wrong but if I got a girl pregnant I'd ask her to keep it because I believe it's wrong for me and the woman I am in a relationship with. So while I may oppose abortions personally I understand that some people have different beliefs and their circumstances are different than mine.

               Then there's the "infanticide" thing. You know when a woman wants an abortion and some how miraculously survived and people have to choose what to do with the, I don't know what to call this so I apologize if I offend any one right now, half born child. Often people elect to finish the abortion and sometimes people keep and raise the child. But "infanticide", which has been totally bastardized, is what happens when a half born child is killed. People say this is worse than abortion and that it should be illegal but what does one do with a child they wanted to abort but, ended up surviving and now has some severe medical problems. The woman obviously tried to abort it the child for a reason and now you're going to force her to keep it or she's going to give it to the state where the government will have to pay for the medical bills and pay for the orphan system to raise the child until the child is adopted. You're caught in the cross hairs with this topic.

               What I am really trying to say is abortion is confusing. The less we as a nation stop trying to marginalize it to an issue that is black and white the easier it will be for us to talk about it. People are either pro-life or pro-choice and they are stiff in those positions. If we loosen those reigns a little bit we will be able to have a more intelligent discourse and get more done and create a lot more reasonable bills that will help a lot more women and families. And that is the most important thing right? Protecting Americans.

Gay History?

Last July Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill mandating LGBT history be taught in schools across California. To say the least, I am very proud to be a Californian for this reason alone. However, a lot of my Californian counterparts do not feel the same way about this momentous bill. People were outraged and took to social media sites claiming God will smite Californians who supported this bill. Others stated teaching LGBT history will turn children homosexual. One person even asked, "What gay history?" Statements like these left me perplexed, even dumbfounded at the ignorance of some people. America alone is saturated in the history of the LGBT community and more history is being made every day. People asked what difference does it make that people are taught that Leonardo Da Vinci or Andy Warhol were gay. The difference it makes is if some one admires the works of these men and knows they were gay they may be more accepting of the gay individual in their class or the entire LGBT community.

 Other people were dropping references to the bible and asking why can't kids be taught about the life of Jesus Christ. My problem with that is it alienates the groups of people who aren't christian and also we live in a secular state. It shouldn't matter what the bible says about anything in a building funded by the state or federal government. And not only that but what about the other things allowed by the law of the land but forbidden by the bible. Like incest, which is discussed in Leviticus 19: 6-30 but allowed in 16 states, or how about the love of money which Jesus says is an abomination in Luke 16:15. What about how the bible says it's wrong to eat shell fish, like crab or lobster but, I've never seen any one protest a Red Lobster or Joe's Crab Shack.Then there's the "don't mark yourself as the pagans do" that means no tattoos or piercings but people get cross earrings and bible scriptures tattooed all across there body, but nobody boycotts tattoo parlors. Or please some one I have rounded the edges of my beard and since the bible says that is an abomination punishable by death I should no longer be allowed to live on this earth. Some people, like San Diego pastor Miles McPherson, will argue some laws of the Old Testament shouldn't be taken seriously any more but the one about homosexuality being an abomination still rings true. I'm tired of people using their religion to be homophobic. They take the Bible and other holy books like the Qu'Ran as absolute truth with no mistakes rather than for what they really are, books. Books that have been translated, re-translated, and are missing some parts.

  I'm going to get off the religious aspect now and go into other issues people have with the law. One black woman said "They give us the shortest month of the year but the can teach the history of these evil people." That woman probably doesn't even know that there's an Asian Pacific American month, Hispanic Heritage month, or American Indian Heritage month. She complains about having the most notable heritage month and tries to compare it to a law that is trying to end discrimination and hate crimes against another American minority. Yea, she comes off sounding intelligent. Another person said " I don't want to sound like a gay basher but this law is stupid and alienates heterosexuals." I'm sure, the people who can get married and divorced at any time and are other wise given privileges not awarded to homosexuals feel alienated because a groups history is being taught. I understand where he's coming from but it holds nothing to common sense.

 I am proud this bill passed and I am eager to see what good it will do for future generations. I am just disappointed that this bill won't have an affect on the older people who need it. Until every one is tolerant of every ones differences we will see discrimination, hate crimes and unnecessary suffering. I'd like to see an America where people don't fight each other over asinine reasons such as race, religion, or sexual orientation but I'm a dreamer filled with innocence. I can only hope and no one better try to stop me. Bible

abominations link
http://www.dragonlordsnet.com/abomination.htm Southern California LGBT History link 

http://www.lgbthistory.org/ Some Celebrities of the LGBT community link 

http://www.queerattitude.com/society/famous.php

America's Economy Wounded but Not Dead

America’s economy has gaping wound in the middle of it’s chest and we have two parties arguing about how to deal with it. We have the republicans who have often said the numbers aren’t real and they are a lot worse than the president and his administration is letting on or a few republicans will say the economy doesn’t need a band aid but, they don’t offer any viable economic plans. On the other hand you have democrats who are little too band aid happy. The democrats provide a lot of short term economic plans but they haven’t provided any long term ideas. So the question a lot of people are asking themselves and their politicians is, “Do we just let the economy bleed out or do we dress the wound and apply pressure until we have a permanent cure?”

Politicians are making the economy a partisan thing but when has other peoples money, job, or livelihood been a partisan thing. We have people saying “No no no, we can’t worry about the poor people and we can’t raise taxes on the job Creators.” We tried that for about ten or eleven years now and look where it’s got us. We’ve shot our economy in the foot and we’re slowly pointing the gun higher and higher up our economic body. If we continue down this road we’re going to be shooting our economy in the head and America as a nation will be left for dead and our grandchildren and great grandchildren will spend their entire lifetimes trying to revive the American Economy.

We as private citizens need to write our representatives and tell them we want our government working for us and only us. We don’t care about corporate interests or money. We don’t care what you think are job creators because we took high school economics and understand that in a capitalistic society we the people are job creators. Their stories that wealthy people who send jobs overseas are job creators here in America is tired and old. We voted our representatives into office to do two things. 1) Represent us and our wishes,and 2) Protect our rights. Recently they have been protecting our rights but they haven’t been representing us or our wishes. Let’s tell our representatives like it is. We get them into that job and we can get them out of it. If we just remind them of that I’m pretty sure they’ll represent us more often.