My beloved better half constantly chides me for exiting the popular political narrative during a given discussion. As a made up example: she’ll call bullshit on Obama’s not repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and I’ll jump in with, “having a military is bullshit.” So I’m not much fun when discussing the kinds of tactical political minutiae favored by my intellectual peers–or political events in general, frankly.
I’m a big fan of reading Cracked.com (the articles, not the comments…dear sweet Jebus, the comments). Normally, it’s pretty funny, and a little off the wall, and very occasionally, I get the idea that the writers might have a progressive bent to them (the article about racist Disney cartoons definitely suggested it). Sometimes, they totally miss the boat entirely, and then I do like I do with most of my media- complain to Hubby, and shrug it off as “that’s the world”. Cracked does a photo-shop contest once a week, the grand prize being 50 dollars normally, and most of the time the pictures can be quite clever. This week, the thread was “If Everyone Had An Unlimited Advertising Budget“.
And this is the point that I felt like I had to say something to the interwebs.
My reactions looking this over were thus:
I am moving to a new city at the end of the month, seeing as I hate where I live and also because I’ve decided to flee the world of academia for a little while (possibly forever). Hubby and I already have a new apartment, which is nice and close to where he works. But, new city means I have to do the unthinkable; get a new job.
I always hate getting a new job; mostly because I have to beg to get a job that I know is going to make me miserable. It always seemed wrong to me; I have to do all the work of constructing an advertisement for myself so I can submit to giving up the bulk of my waking hours doing menial shit that I’m never going to see the point of. But, unless this lottery ticket pays of, and since I’m awful fond of being able to pay for the rent on this new place and eating (and paying off the jackals at student loans) I’m searching for someone who wants my skills.
Probably the worst thing about job searching is the advice that I should take the first job someone is willing to give me. I am sick to death of people saying a company “gives” you a job. I am also sick to death of pundits saying that tax cuts means that more “investors” will “give” people a job. I’m also sick to death of companies seeming to think that employing people is a barrier to their wealth and growth, and talking about it as if employing people was some sort of altruistic action.
It isn’t. This goes double for the government. When they’re debating this “stimulus” package, they need to know that this is them investing in the health and growth of our own country.
Employees are where owners get their money. I realize that this sounds counter-intuitive to some, and completely “duh” to others. But without employees, businesses don’t DO anything, don’t produce anything, and surely don’t make money.
Take, for instance, the airline industry. Airline travel has decreased 7 percent, or so it is projected. Now, a bunch of different airlines have laid of employees, and shut down whole wings of airports. What is the result of this? Well, first and foremost, it means that their quarterly stock price goes up 2 percent*. In the mean time, it means a few different things. First and foremost, getting a plane down, unloaded, and off-again (called “turn arounds”) are much, much longer. This means that customers have a greater level of irritation with the flight (because no one likes waiting in a plane). But, I suppose, more importantly for the businesses, this means that they are losing money by the boatloads. Take 350 lbs of jet fuel/ hr, per side for an engine at idle on a CRJ-200, one of the most common commuter jets. Axillary power unit unit, extra 150 lbs fuel/ hour. Then there is battery power, or an external power source.
To sum; you have four different places you can get power for a plane; the engines, the APU, a battery, or the external power source. If you have people on the plane, you want some source of power, (you need lights on). Ideally, if you’re on the ground, you want to be connected to an external power source as opposed to burning fuel of any kind. But, in order to get connected to the external power source, you need a ground crew to maneuver you into position, and to hook you up. If you have very few ground crew people, each plane’s going to be going off the APU or an engine longer. A rampie costs $12/hr (if they have some seniority time; I believe they have been advertising a starting wage of $9/hr). Jet fuel costs 4 dollars a MINUTE (240 dollars per hour- this is a Hubby and Captain calculation, and they should know). A time savings of 3 minutes pays for the rampie’s wage for that whole hour. This is just one example in one industry of how less people means less money.
Additionally, having less employees also means that traveling is going to be more uncomfortable, with longer lay-over times (because of fewer flights) and more crowded planes. In the long term, this is going to mean that less and less people will be inclined to fly commercially if they have other options (like businesses deciding it’s in their best interest to get private jets) and other people foregoing the vacations entirely. So, to me, it looks as if they’re trying to fix a cut by cutting off their whole leg. If you cut off your employees, you’re cutting off the people who make your whole company run.
That’s why I say we should change the entire look of jobs; these aren’t gifts, and you shouldn’t be grateful for your company for hiring you. If I’m grateful to a company, it’s what they gave to me that they didn’t need to (additional training above the job I was hired for, flex-time, and actual interest in my well-being, bennies that weren’t there in lieu of a pay-check raise), not the stuff I contracted to do for them.
*Can anybody explain to me where these prices come from? Seriously, I’m nearly convinced that these numbers are voodoo and magic but I never went beyond microeconomics in class, and people frequently say the same things about other “soft” sciences, which I know isn’t true because I learned about them.
“A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners and that recognize the matchless value of every life.
Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms; creating or implanting embryos for experiments; creating human-animal hybrids; and buying, selling or patenting human embryos.
Human life is a gift from our creator, and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.”
Former president George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 31, 2006
I’ve always liked that quote, especially the part about creating human-animal hybrids. I’ve been facilitating the mass production of human-animal hybrids since 2000–thousands of pounds of them at this point. But others are way ahead of me–the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, for example, has been pumping ‘em out at the commercial scale since I was in grade school. But I don’t think that former president Dubya really understood that when he made the above remarks. I don’t think he really understands what “human-animal hybrids” are. I suspect he meant he’d been reading too much science fiction and got really emotionally involved in one of those stories where innocent humans are force-fed wolf genes as part of a secret government plot to create super-soldiers. I figure Dubya has no problem suspending his disbelief when it comes to the idea of the government doing stuff behind its citizen’s backs in the name of national security. It seems likely that he’s absolutely unaware that all the insulin, for instance, that has been distributed in the United States since 2006 has been derived from human-animal hybrids, and was the majority of it for a long time before that.
The reason I’m contemplating this fairly old quote anew is the most recent installment via the Texas Board of Education of the ongoing drama that is the attempt to teach only science theories in science classrooms. People like Dubya really can’t cope with science at all. In the majority of cases, and certainly in his case, that’s because they haven’t taken a single science class since whatever general crap they were forced to sign up for in high school to obtain the absolute minimum number of science credits required in their state to graduate, or possibly they copped into one of those “Physics is Phun!” courses that fulfill similiar minimum science credit graduation requirements in college. (I am so not making up that course name, by the way.) But that’s not always or exclusively the case.
Back to Texas:
Dueling theories of how the universe was created got a split decision Friday night from the Texas Board of Education, which required examination of “all sides of scientific evidence” in new science standards, but rejected language requiring teachers to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories.
The debate pitted proponents of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution against supporters of religion-based theories of intelligent design, or creationism.
“Science loses. Texas loses, and the kids lose because of this,” board chairman Don McLeroy, a creationist, told the Dallas Morning News.
“A creationist.” Is that some kind of career, now..? A small bit of Googling reveals that Creationist McLeroy is actually Dr. McLeroy, a dentist, and got a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering at Texas A&M. Now, I don’t know what’s changed exactly in the past several decades since he attended college, but while electrical engineering degrees are not pure-sciences heavy, they do require a bit of college-level science courses, namely some freshman- and sophomore-level physics and chemistry. So we can’t really assume in his case a lack of real exposure to the knowledge that the world, not to mention the rest of the universe, isn’t made of magic and senseless acts of beauty. (Maybe that scared him off the electrical engineering track and onto dentistry, though–that’d make sense.)
But really, I can sort of empathize. The clear thread running through the anti-teaching-science-only-in-science-class camp is that knowing too much about the world and all the things in it from a science standpoint destroys the mystical and terrifying awe of what could possibly be the cause of rainbows, tsunamis and how a real live baby pops out of a woman’s body nine months after a man shoots some stuff from the pee hole in his penis that resembles nothing more than papier-mache glue into her vagina. The more you learn about how and why things work, first at the macroscopic level and then the microscopic level and even beyond, the less mysteriously gorgeous those little everyday miracles start to look. In other words, the less and less likely you are to believe the explanations and rationales for these things provided by the Holy Bible instead.
And in our public schools? Religion doesn’t get taught. Only, for example, biology gets taught. One might adopt the line of reasoning that, since public schools are required by law to remain silent about religion, then the only input that children receive on the subject is from their parents, whereas the school’s version of biology has no such monopoly–parents are free to instruct their children in biology as well as religion. However, the fact that the deck is already stacked in religion’s favor this way doesn’t sway these folks–they don’t want their children being taught biology in school at all if the answers that biology provides about the world around us disagree with the ones the Bible does. Since they usually can’t swing quite that, they strive to have the gaps and unsureties, no matter how major or minor, in scientific theories dwelt on and debated in the biology classroom. This, they say, is teaching the controversy.
You know, I’m willing to buy into this. Really, I am. I would absolutely go for this, if we get to do the same thing with Intelligent Design, which huge swathes of the folks of McLeroy’s ilk swear up and down isn’t religion and therefore, should not be a problem in public schools. I recommend we institute a mandatory new class for all high schoolers, that must be taken before they can graduate, and call it Evolution and Intelligent Design: Teaching the Controversy! The theory of evolution would be thoroughly explored, what it can explain as well as what it can’t…and the idea of an Intelligent Designer would also be explored, and what it can explain as well as what it can’t. The two course textbooks could be Of Pandas and People for the evolution controversy side, and The Blind Watchmaker for the intelligent design controversy si—
…yeah, like any of those people would ever let their kids anywhere near that book.
But if they’re willing to deal, I am.
I leave you with this thought from our beloved Onion: The Theory of Intelligent Falling
The AP is in the running for best headline of the year:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Is everything spinning out of control? Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.
Horatio Alger, twist in your grave.
The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country’s sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance.
Evidence that the end is nigh includes natural disasters, man-made disasters, rising gas prices, the TV writers’ strike, and steroid use in sports.
This, incidentally, is not presented as an editorial. It is FACT, people. News item: We’re screwed.
Head over to Fengi’s for the original screenshot of the piece, which emphasizes the objective fact that Michelle Obama is the Antichrist.
When I started reading this article on MSNBC, I thought it was going to be about the tragedies of lethal fetal anomalies and the awfulness that pregnant women who find themselves in the situation of having a fetus with one have to endure, needlessly and dramatically compounded by our anti-choice culture.
Well, it did start out that way.
However, it switched gears rather spectacularly about three-fourths of the way through:
An alternative: perinatal hospice
Directly across a parking lot from Dr. Tiller’s clinic is a facility with a different take on what to do about ill-fated pregnancies. Choices Medical Clinic, a privately funded nonprofit, opened in 1999 and is one of as many as 2,500 “crisis pregnancy centers” nationwide that exist to persuade pregnant women to avoid abortion. Choices was one of the first centers to offer perinatal hospice: end-of-life services for fetuses akin to the standard hospice care available to the sick and the elderly.
The facility doesn’t provide primary medical care; deliveries or inductions are done at local hospitals. But women who enlist its hospice services are invited to have free sonograms every day of their doomed pregnancy and, if they find it a comfort, can have free professional pictures taken of them and their dead or dying children after they are born. “Our job is to start from the womb to the tomb,” says Scott Stringfield, M.D., a family physician in Wichita and medical director of Choices. “We try to comfort women and facilitate greater closeness to their child.”
Whoa! Run that by me again..?
Not every blog post has to be a work of fine art. And certainly, many of us bloggers write badly in many ways. I, for example, write long sentences and repeat words too many times. Also I love the comma. Love it, love it, love it. I have enough journalism classes behind me that I know what I’m doing wrong, but they’re so thoroughly behind me I no longer have to care. What I’m saying is, I try not to be the person who harps on other people for poor writing, since I have little room to talk, plus most of us make it up to our audience by being occasionally funny, insightful, or relevant.
However, if you’re going to be none of those things ever, and you’re going to claim to be a part of an educational clearinghouse – implying that you are kind of on top of your subject matter, an not, say, a month behind and tickled pink on the more obvious developments – could you at least do us the favor of not writing a melodramatic 14-year-old girl’s diary entry?
Young People of Today
Published by HotMama247 May 19th, 2008 in Abstinence
Young people of today are overtired, anxiety-ridden, compulsively active, and constantly depressed with recurring fits of paranoia and becoming more promiscuous and irresponsible. The pro-aborts tell us this is normal.
I don’t expect Betty Smith, here, but your passage does bear striking resemblance to something she wrote:
“Intolerance,” she wrote, pressing down hard on the pencil, ‘is a think that causes war, pogroms, crucifixions, lynchings and makes people cruel to little children and to each other. It is responsible for most of the viciousness, violence, terror and heart and soul breaking of the world.”
She read the words over aloud. They sounded like words that came in a can; all the freshness was cooked out of them. She closed the book and put it away.
Ok, maybe you can’t sound like the author of one of the Great American Novels, however, you can avoid sounding like her thirteen-year-old protagonist, and should, considering that even unworldly, teenage Francie knew she was writing crap that day.
Francie, of course, wrote a true statement (“Intolerance is bad; it causes the following bad things”) and realized that the appropriate response to her self-righteous little screed was “Yeah, so what? Tell me something I don’t know.” Your situation is a little different. You take a statement that is arguably true in some communities (“Kids are over stressed”), apply it to all kids, and then somehow try to make the whole thing pro-choicer’s fault. I’m sure there’s a hope chest full of assumptions there, but you’ve lost me and you’ll have to fucking prove it. Once again, let’s do this in list form:
1. Link, for the love of Christ, link to something that supports your argument. Otherwise, you’re just rocking on your porch, muttering about kids these days and ordering them off your lawn.
2. “Pro-aborts”? Pardon, educational clearinghouse, your slip is showing.
3. At least link to the pro-aborts who are saying it is right and natural to make the children who slipped through their abortiony grasp into neurotic stressed-out slutbags with no sense of responsibility. Seriously, do these people exist anywhere but in your head?
4. Take a writing workshop at your local community college or adult education center. Please.
I’ve never seen Sex in the City. I’ve heard it’s good, but not brainwashing, sex-zombie-creating good.
I guess something in the ending credits reminds you not to talk about that bit. And it almost worked.
You can only watch Samantha Jones bed so many gorgeous guys before wondering if 4-inch heels and sky-high confidence would allow you to do the same.
At least that’s what happened to “Lisa” (not her real name). She got hooked on “Sex and the City” when she was a 14-year-old growing up on Long Island, N.Y. It was the same year she lost her virginity. She soon graduated to ordering cosmopolitans at bars she snuck into and cheating on her boyfriend with up to seven other guys — in one week.
Not that this article is saying that Sex in the City turned Little Lisa into a Teenage Sexbot in the City (“To be clear: “Sex and the City” can’t be blamed for creating a generation of sluts.”) but…
Lisa left her “Samantha” ways behind at 19, when she moved to Utah, became a Mormon, married a man within the church and gave birth to two children. For the first year of her marriage, her husband forbade her to watch “Sex and the City” for fear that it would lure her back to her habits of sex, drugs and one-too-many cosmos.
“I had to sell my DVDs on eBay,” she said. “But now it’s OK. It took a while to get here.”
Hmm, troubled teenager raises hell for five years, then in three years manages to find religion get married and have two kids. Well, I’m convinced. I’m ready to take her word on pretty much everything. Nothing fishy going on here. I suppose she could at least give SatC credit for teaching her efficient time-management skills, at least.
So is there really danger here? Let’s ask Perfectmatch.com’s Dr Needspublicity:
“It did have some impact given that it was a sea change in how women talked about sexuality and what was shown on a network — full frontal nudity, talking about affairs, vibrators, etc.,” said Pepper Schwartz, a University of Washington sociology professor and relationship expert for Perfectmatch.com. “If it’s not permission giving, it at least demystifies and normalizes what goes on in women’s lives in a more than snickering way.” (emphasis mine)
Ah, I see. Can’t have that now, because the day women learn to admit they cheat as much as men and vibrators are freely available in all 50 states is the day our society drowns in a sea of fuck-me pump wearing cosmo snorking child whores. Not that I’m saying this will happen if Sex and the City reaches number one in the box office, but basically we’re doomed. Doomed.
That’s what Angela Hwang, 24, found when she started watching the show in cable syndication, after it went off HBO. She and her girlfriends routinely compare their experiences to “Sex and the City” episodes.
“My girlfriends and I, every single guy we’ve been with we can relate to one of the guys on the show,” she said. “We’ve all had Samantha moments. We’ll say, ‘Remember the guy I saw last week? He was exactly like the guy in episode 15.’”
Oh, my God: women are identifying with the characters and situations of a well-written show. We’re all going to die. And since I’m not a SatC fan, maybe I’m unaware of this, but do these fabulous young fans of Samantha and Whatshername actually refer to the episodes by a single number? Is it possible someone’s making quotes up here?
But Dr. David Greenfield, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Connecticut’s School of Medicine, believes there’s danger in taking “Sex and the City’s” so-called lessons off the small screen and applying them in the real world.
“With teenagers and young adults, there’s a certain degree of role modeling that goes on. There’s a certain ‘if it’s done on the screen then it’s OK, it’s normal,’” he said. “You watch ‘Sex and the City,’ you see these women go out for dinner, come back, and wake up in satin sheets with a gorgeous guy. Who wouldn’t like that? But it doesn’t show what goes on under the surface in real sexual relations. Sex is an extraordinarily complex, emotional process. No one wants to talk about that. They’re not going to see the reality.”
And the circle is complete: we are now back to the bullet theory of media consumption,meaning that Sarah Jessica Parker has actually torn the fabric of space and time, and the 1960′s are leaking into today, and soon we’ll all be burning cheap sweaters from Steve and Barry’s for warmth before death comes for us all. Great fucking job, Samantha.
I love it when the mainstream media in the US lets its liberal freak flag fly. You know you’ve found yet another true lefty when they’re writing articles about genocide abroad, the evils of Big Oil, or our health care crisis. Also, when they write an editorial titled “Why I defend President Bush when I’m abroad.”
Americans abroad can thank George W. Bush
For ruining our reputation. For reminding them why they left. For making the locals around them feel like the good guys, no matter where they live. For not causing global thermonuclear war (yet)?
for sharpening our survival skills.
Does this mean that all the international asskickings brought on merely by mentioning you’re American have been by design? I suppose we were getting soft in our hegemony.
We have weathered a sea of anti-Iraq war protests and had the intelligence of our president and those who voted for him questioned more times than we care to remember.
False assumption #1: That Americans abroad are “weathering” these insults as opposed to lobbing them.
False assumption #2: That our president’s intelligence has been “questioned” as opposed to demonstrably proven false.
In my hometown of San Francisco,
See? Liberal. This is totally going to turn out liberal.
A few days ago we all piled on ACB for, among other things, being kind of silly. In response, they closed comments on many posts, deleted unfavorable comments, and otherwise completely ignored us. Their blog, like the rest of the site, remains almost breathtakingly underwhelming. For example, if you become an AC member, do you know what you can get? An email! Weekly! But that’s not all…they’ll also send you a certificate! To paraphrase Cat and Girl, that’s exactly zero dollars worth of goods for free! A near-unbeatable value.
Did you know that as an affiliate, you receive weekly e-mail updates with all the latest information regarding the abstinence community and a certificate of affiliation? You could also receive a gift certificate to the Sex, Love & Relationship Store; a link on our Website; and complimentary registrations to our upcoming conference.
On second thought, it’s possible that they should send you a check with that certificate to at least partially compensate for the pain and shame of being formally affiliated with such ineptitude. For I know they read my post, and while I expected most of my critique to be soundly ignored, there was one piece of advice that I thought they’d pounce on and that was achieving an air of legitimacy by adding hotlinks wherever they claimed to assert a fact. Really, as Ann Coulter knows, the references don’t have to go anywhere relevant or back up your point, but they should be there, reassuringly underlined, providing the subliminal cue that maybe the person writing the post read and thought about their words for a few seconds.
But at ACB, there are few, if any, links. They are conspicuous in their absence. They draw attention to the fact that ACBloggers are just spewing synapse goo randomly; that they’re so filled with anti-choice, anti-sex propaganda they don’t even need to pretend to refer to outside authority, or even inside authority. Their facts all so obviously true to them why would they need to justify them?
Enter again, HotMamma247-still making waiting hot- with a rare multi-sentence post on Gardasil.
There are now more growing concerns over the dangerous side effects linked to the vaccine for HPV. The vaccine targets four types of Human Papilloma Virus that cause most cervical cancers. The Merck product was fast tracked by the FDA in 2006 and aggressively promoted in an advertising campaign. However, a government watchdog group now says there are very serious problems with Gardasil including paralysis, convulsions and seizures in young girls. This is extremely serious findings and everyone should heed them. There should not be a mandate that school girls across the nation be given this shot!!
Ok, SexiliciousMILF69, let’s do this in list form, shall we? The following statements should DEFINITELY have links:
1. government watchdog group Which one? Why should be give a flying fuck?
2. serious problems A link to study or review article goes here. Less agenda-y, the better. Bonus points for linking to supporting material on the words paralysis, convulsions and/or seizures.
3. A link to some official calling for a mandate to give girls the shot. Or even a PP spokesperson. Since lots of people actually do think every kid should have this shot, this one should be easy to do, which means you could gain bonus points with people who think like you do without bending the truth or distorting the facts at all. This one should have been a no-brainer.
The following statements could have optional links, to give it that extra-internet-scholarly feel:
1. fast-tracked by the FDA
2. aggressively promoted
3. growing concerns
Don’t thank me, I’m just trying to help.
PS to HotMamma: I hope you’re actually hot. Because the internets are a cruel, cruel place, and if you keep doing this and a picture is eventually associated with you (and it will be) and you are not smoking hot, well, I value my shreds of feminist credibility too much to give you a hard time over it, but I can’t do anything about the rest of the interwebs. If you were posting for anything but an anti-sex site that has at least one recent pearl-clutching post about our oversexed culture, it might slide. But you’re not, so consider changing the moniker. Plus, numbers are so 1997. What is that, your aol screenname? Actually, just change the name. There’s no way you’re hot enough to be safe from post-exposure harassment; no one is.
If this is what counts as an “educational organization” in abstinence land, then hell yeah we need to stop giving them money. They’re just not that bright.Thursday, May 8th, 2008
Hi everybody! I’m sorry I haven’t been posting lately, not that y’all have noticed with our fantastic new bloggers filling the void I’d left behind. I took my last final ever today (squee!) and am gearing up to leave the country in a few weeks, so things have been a bit busy. And I was wondering, I should blog, but with my head stuffed full of MEMS manufacturing processes and phase diagrams, I haven’t had a moment to come up with an interesting thought about anything. What could I blog about?
The Abstinence Clearinghouse is “a privately funded 501(c)3 non-profit, non-partisan international educational organization.” I hope they know alot about abstinence, because their bloggers don’t know jack squat about making an argument. Let’s start with Annie, author of the two of the first three posts on ACB. I don’t know much about Annie, because none of the bloggers write an introductory post, nor is there a bios page. The subject of Annie’s groundbreaking first post? The epidemic of teens taking nude photos of themselves with camera phones:
So teens are now using cell phones to take nude photos of themselves for general circulation. They have to know that once it’s out there, it’s really out there. That’s not just embarrassing–which it will be, sooner or later–it’s a little creepy when you think about who might be looking…and why.
I’m not sure what I like best about this post; the conversational opening, the lack of a link to anything explaining this phenomena to those of us who have never gotten a clear, much less titillating, picture out of a camera phone, or the scare ellipses. What nefarious reasons could a stranger have for looking at an anonymous picture of your nude body? Annie was just warming up, though. In her second post, “Planned Parenthood seeking 1 Million Opponents to Abstinence” she really shines.
On April 29th, Planned Parenthood sent out an email calling out to its supporters to join them in challenging Presidential candidates to talk about sex…They are asking for 1 Million “strong, caring, fed-up people who aren’t afraid to talk about sex,” to sign onto their letter by November 4th this year.
You see, this is what is wrong with the teens today.
Of course I see. How could I not see that the Planned Parenthood One Million Strong campaign to “elect pro-choice candidates at every level, including a pro-choice president and Senate and House members; pass laws and policies that support women’s health; defeat anti-choice ballot measures; and turn out one million pro-choice voters in November 2008!” is exactly what is wrong with kids these days. ( I assume Annie is talking about the 1 Million Strong campaign, as it is the only thing on PP’s website with that number associated with it. Annie, being a crackerjack debater, didn’t provide any supporting quotes from the email or links or anything crazy like that.) When I think of today’s youth with their hip-hop music, their Hannah Montana and their grassroots political actions for women’s health and reproductive choice, I wish we could return to a simpler time.