Obama's in Ottawa! (GOP serves pork tenderloin for dinner in his absence.)

I was just browsing Jezebel and came across this post. Of course, I had to read even more about Obama's visit to Ottawa, and squee about how I've appreciated the same bakery as Obama. I spent part of the morning reading about it in the National Post, even though I felt a little dirty even touching the Post. I couldn't help myself! There were so many pictures! He looked so cute with our esteemed Governor-General Michaëlle Jean. Apparently, they discussed how awesome it is that they're both black. (That was not meant to be condescending. I'm totally sincere.)

There was also a press conference with Stephen Harper. He didn't look as cute with Obama. The whole relationship is still brand spanking new, so I don't feel like commenting on US-Canada relations at this time.

I read on and then clicked over to this blog post at Politico, where some of the commenters seem to be confused about why exactly it's hypocritical for Republicans to be lining up for stimulus money now, after delaying it for weeks with their incessant whiny brattiness. The argument seems to be that they have to pay for it, so they might as well partake in the pork chops.

First of all, let's get the snark out of the way by making fun of an idiotic comment.

wow the democrat who was whining about bush spending a trillion on the war in iraq your wrong it was 600 billion over seven years and Obama the great dictator spent that within 100 days !!!

Posted By: Garret | February 19, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Only 600 billion? Oh, ok then. I didn't realize that it was such a bargain! All criticisms withdrawn. Thank you for showing me the light, Garret. It's really too bad that I read this article in the New York Times right after reading your comment: Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise

For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

It seems that the second Bush was even less honest than the first about the actual size of the budget shortfall. Lying about the state of the govt is kind of a dictator thing to do, though, isn't it? I don't want to block your righteous outrage with petty facts, though, so moving on.

As a public service, allow me to demonstrate why the Republicans are being hypocritical:

House Republican: "This stimulus package will not do anything to help and is a complete and utter waste of money! I must stand against it!"

The bill then passes, as House Republicans knew that it would.

House Republican: "So, can we get some of that stimulus money? It would totally help us out."

Simply put, the Republicans voted against this bill insisting that it was a waste of money and would not do anything useful. There were even suggestions that it might make things worse by breeding a population that depends on govt bailout money instead of working really hard to become Wall Street execs and make obscene amount of money bleeding society dry.

Now that it has passed, as they knew that it would despite their grand-standing, they're lining up to get that money because they KNEW ALL ALONG that the bill was not a waste of money, and in fact, was incredibly useful. I guess you could say that a lot of stuff in the bill was good, but not necessarily economically useful, and I would disagree and then concede the point. But that's not the tack that they're taking, as evidenced by this quote:

“This critical funding is vital to protecting our schools from budget cuts and teacher layoffs. Because Florida has been hit especially hard by a rise in foreclosures, unemployment, and recent natural disasters, we are experiencing a crippling budget crisis. Now more than ever, we must invest in our state’s future,” said the letter.

It's very clearly talking about economic disasters and the economic fallout of natural disasters. It is shameful that for the purposes of political partisanship they voted against a bill that was necessary for the economic well-being of their constituents.

That is why it is hypocritical.

Blog for Choice Day

Today is the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the landmark decision legalizing the right of American women to choose. In honour of today, I'm participating in Blog for Choice Day 2009, even though I'm not American.

This year's topic is our pro-choice hopes for Obama and the new Congress, and it's why I felt that it was important to blog today, despite not being American, and my belief that the many, many restrictions on choice in the United States, some of which are supported by ostensibly pro-choice people, infringe on the rights of women to exist as free human beings. (I'm a believer in the reasoning behind the Canadian Supreme Court's decision that any restrictions on abortion in essence force women to be pregnant against their will violates their very personhood.)

But I didn't really want to talk about my hard-line position on abortion today. I wanted to talk about the Global Gag Rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy. The policy bars any organization that receives US funds from having anything whatsoever to do with abortion, whether it is providing them, advocating for them, or counselling women on their very existence, whether or not abortion is legal in the country where the organization is located.

This is ideology trumping the actual health and well-being of the citizens of these countries, and using American aid as a tool to enforce this ideology on women who have very few other options. It puts health-care providers in the position where they are either prevented from giving women ALL the information they want, regardless of the risk to women's health and safety, or foregoing necessary funding and supplies. Essentially, they're playing with people's lives, because they can. Because they've decided they have that right.

Incidentally, abortion is now legal in Mexico City, although not in the rest of Mexico.

The Global Gag Rule was originally implemented by Reagan, thereby neatly fitting into my theory that Reagan was a scourge on humanity. It was reversed by Clinton at the beginning of his first term, until Bush reinstated it at the beginning of his presidency. Obviously, this means that it remained standing throughout Bush Senior's term, meaning that all three Republican presidents of the last thirty years deserve equal blame for this abominable policy.

So my hopes for Obama and the new Congress? Bye bye Global Gag Rule. And I don't know if it's possible, but it would be great if Congress could pass some legislation prohibiting future evil presidents from bringing it back once Obama's term has ended. The health and well-being of women and their families worldwide shouldn't depend on the whims of a president bowing to anti-choice interests.