...Yet, I am getting overwhelmed by what is going on in the world and can't get my thoughts straight.

There's this Todd Akin thing...Which gets me totally riled up, and it makes me wonder how people who are so stupid can get into Congress (rhetorical wondering, FYI...I know the answers and don't want to discuss them now). I mean, a woman's body shuts down when she gets raped and she doesn't get pregnant? What about the 32,101 women who get pregnant every year from rape in the US?
What about this woman who got pregnant from rape? By the way, that is a great open letter to Todd Akin and I suggest you read it.

But, he did apologize...And he sounds sincere in his apology. And I have at least a tiny bit of respect for someone who can say something so fucked up and then apologize for saying it. A lot of people would go the opposite and say "Fuck you guys, I'm right and I stand by my convictions!" Instead, he humbly said, "I apologize, and I ask for your forgiveness." That is a very hard thing to do, whether you're a politician or Joe Blow from down the street. I mean, it could be that his advisors were like, "Yo, Todd, you gotta make a public apology or else you're going to have to leave this race." (The human race? HA HA. Just kidding.) But I don't think he's a very good actor, and he sounds sincere.

Does that mean I like him? Hell no. He's a bigot, he doesn't get his facts straight before talking to the public, and he doesn't support abortion of a baby conceived when a woman is raped. But...He showed some balls by apologizing. I think a lot of people would be like, "Still, he said what he said, and he's an idiot." Yes. But change happen in baby steps, and that apology is one of them, I think. Maybe now he'll think more about his stance on abortion. It opened up the chance for dialogue between people about these kinds of things. The revolution will not be televised and all that jazz.

 OMG, OMG this is so freaking funny, and there are more just like it!

Well, I guess that's all I wanted to write, really. There's a lot going on in the world, but that's at the forefront of my mind right now. I could write about Avril Lavigne's engagement to what's his face of Nickleback...You know, the one with the long hair and the voice that sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me...But really, that's not important. Scary, yes (I hope they don't have kids). But not important.

I mean, what is it with celebrities dating for 6 months and then getting married? I swear, celebrities rush into these things like no other. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me.

But it's not important. No siree.

God I hope they don't have kids...Two mediocre singers/musicians (if you can call them that) having kids? Either their kids will end up totally boring, or they'll be the opposite and be musical geniuses. That'll be the day.

But, Avril Lavigne and what's his face are not important. I don't care. Obviously.

I'm disturbed by this masculinist movement.

OK, so, I get that feminists came in and they went all extreme and were like "we're tired of being walked all over by men! Men suck! Women rule! Boys drool!" *Battle cry* ...And the like. They really went extreme, so I understand why men would react and become "masculinists." But I think it's dangerous to go either way. Dangerous because it creates just another uneven playing field, which we know does not bode well for society. And not only is it dangerous, it's also just stupid!

I was walking down the street with my boyfriend one day and ran across these posters on a telephone pole:

So, we have masculinists in the city where I live, apparently. OK, I'm going to give it away, after not saying it outright all this time. We have masculinists in Vancouver. (Most of the people who read my blog know it's me anyway.)

What really bothers me about these pictures is the idea that people are saying all men are rapists and men can stop rape. First of all, I don't know anyone saying all men are rapists. I know there are people saying that in some areas of the world, a very high percentage of rape is done by men. But all men? Don't think so. Not even extreme feminists say that ALL men are rapists. And saying "men can stop rape" is a bad thing? Men CAN stop rape. Men who rape can stop. They can choose not to. Unless they are really deranged, I suppose, but then they should probably be in an institution being taken care of, and there's not enough of that going on either (that's a whole 'nother blog post). But yes, men CAN stop rape. They can stop themselves from doing it, they can educate others. That goes for women, too, of course. Women can educate not just men, not just women, but PEOPLE about rape.

Then the second sign. "Sperm! My body! My choice!"

OK, I don't disagree that men have the right to choose to do whatever they want with their bodies, just like women do, but...This just doesn't make any sense. Men produce sperm for their whole lives. Just look at Hugh Hefner - men have sex, and ejaculate, until they are OLD. (I don't know for a fact that Hugh is still ejaculating, but I'm willing to bet he's having a pretty good time in his mansion.) Women can have sex until they're old, but making babies? Not so much. Not after a certain point. Women have limited eggs and limited time to procreate. So, implying that male sperm is somehow being limited is just, well, weird. And I haven't heard ANYONE say, "Men should not be allowed to get vasectomies!" So, what are they complaining about anyway?

My biggest issue with these types of things is the extremism. I don't like extreme feminists, and I don't like the above. I am an equalist, and lots of people will say that it could never happen, with human nature and society we can never be totally equal, blah blah blah. Maybe not. But we can try. We can start treating people with the respect we want to receive from them (the golden rule anyone?). We can stop saying men are better than women, women are better than men. We can acknowledge that we are all on our own paths making our own journeys through life, and no one has a right to say what is the right way to do it. (I mean, unless people are getting hurt in the process, and yes, you can argue that abortion hurts people, but...Let's just not go there, ok? The point is, if someone chooses to do that to themselves, fine. There are people who choose to hurt themselves, not just by abortion but in other ways, and they, in my opinion, are allowed to do that...To themselves. I'd rather they didn't, but who am I to say they can't? When it comes to hurting someone else, on purpose...Yeah, not so much. I digress!)

So, we have the Vancouver Men's Right's Activism group. Their homepage says: "The MRM is a non-violent, non-political movement comprised of men and women who believe, based on a growing body of evidence that the human rights of males are being systematically removed by activists, lobbyists, politicians and academicians who cling to a misguided and wrongheaded belief that masculinity is fundamentally violent or harmful."

Non-violent. Cool. I can get behind that. Non-political? I'm not so sure that's true, especially since they think the human rights of males are being removed, which involves politics, sorry to say. (And is "academicians" a word?) I can also get behind the fact that they feel they're being wronged. Fine. But I still say: no one is telling a man they can't get a vasectomy. No one is telling a man they can't have a job. No one is giving a man a lower paycheque JUST because they're male. Etc.

And it goes on: "A few examples include that Men die roughly 5 years earlier than women, men commit suicide at 4 times the rate of women. In addition, 93% of workplace deaths are male, and while courts enforce financial obligations to women with children,  they have no reproductive rights." What other circumstances are going on here? Why are men dying 5 years earlier? Why are they committing suicide? Maybe it has NOTHING to do with feminism or whether or not males can do whatever they want. Maybe it has to do with something completely different. Maybe it's just coincidence. And where did that data come from anyway? I'm not going to believe something someone just slapped on the internet and called it truth. As for reproductive rights, they kind of have a point there, but I have definitely heard of cases where men were able to get custody because the circumstances with the mother were not right or safe. And if men are complaining about having to pay money to help keep their children healthy, educated, and safe - then they probably shouldn't want to have anything to do with their kids anyway, because kids take MONEY. Hate to say it, but it's true.

This concludes my little rant about this silly masculinist movement. Everything is being completely blown out of proportion, just like early feminists and many feminists today blow their situations out of proportion. Equalism, baby. Equalism.

According to this article, "experts" are saying pot might become legal, and soon. And of course, people are freaking out.

"Caulkins said one of the main reasons for outlawing the drug is to make it riskier to produce and sell, driving up prices and curbing use.  A price collapse after legalization in some states could undermine marijuana laws nationally." OK, Mr. Caulkins, professor at Carnegie Mellon, aren't there ways to create the laws so this doesn't happen? Legalize marijuana and stipulate that there will be price restrictions or something?

Further down in the article: "One option would be to impose strict limits on how much of the drug retailers could sell to each customer." Bam. There you go. Actually, I know dispensaries in Colorado are not allowed to sell more than 2 ounces per day to a certain customer. Unfortunately that does mean that the customer can go to another dispensary and buy 2 more ounces that day, because there is nothing linking the dispensaries together to see if they have bought anything at other dispensaries. (Maybe someone should make a database that all dispensaries have access to...)

The article goes on to say, "Caulkins said Colorado’s proposition would allow residents to obtain a grower’s license fairly easily, making the state a good home for exporters of marijuana.

'They would be able to provide marijuana to New York state markets at one quarter of the current price,' he said, predicting similar price declines in other states."

If we were to compare pot to alcohol...Technically, you are not allowed to buy alcohol and take it to another state, according to this BBC article - I imagine you have to be some sort of "exporter" in order to distribute your brand nationally or something. I know the laws about alcohol are determined by each state, not by the federal government. (Another reason I wonder why the United States is called "United" if the states just do whatever they want.) And maybe it depends on which state you're in, maybe some states allow you to take alcohol out, and some don't.

I digress.

If they make the federal laws from the beginning that you are not allowed to "export" marijuana from state to state, then that solves that problem. I don't see why that wouldn't be an option. When Congress passes a law, they can write whatever they want in it, so why doesn't that get added?

Then you get the question about regulation. The Republicans are all about small government (yet they want to control what you put in your body and what you do with your body...hmmm...), and the Democrats don't seem to mind a little regulation. Alcohol is regulated, as I explained above. You can't take alcohol from Delaware into Pennsylvania? You can't drink unless you're 21? Bars have to close by a certain time at night? You can't sell liquor on Sunday in some states? Etc. etc. That's regulation. So, regulate marijuana. Doesn't seem that hard to me. Eliminate the middle man (and eliminate the "gateway drug" theory, which really only happens when people get pot from a dealer who then introduces them to harder drugs - you don't get that in a dispensary; I should know, I used to work in one), regulate how it's distributed and who can purchase it, and that's that.

In case you can't tell, I'm in favour of legalization. I think it's ridiculous that it is not regulated for adult use. And I think it will be legalized, and soon. Probably in my lifetime. Because things are changing so rapidly. More and more states are adopting medical marijuana laws. More and more people are coming out saying they are in favour of it. Alcohol was made legal again first by prescribing it medicinally. Now we know that alcohol is damaging to our system, and we wouldn't prescribe it medically. Yet we don't have much evidence saying marijuana is damaging (except that smoking it is not a good idea). So if it's safe for your body, why not have it legal? Education is a must, of course. Kids need to learn to use it responsibly, just like with alcohol.

I see no problem with it at all, and many people would back me up.

The government is supposed to represent the people, and let the people decide what they want. Over half of Americans polled are in favour of legalizing marijuana. Doesn't that say something? Shouldn't the government be listening to what the people want?

Oh wait. I forgot. They don't care. The people don't want poverty, but we still have it. The people don't want minimum wage to be so low, but it still is. Etc. etc.

I guess all we can do is hope, and talk, engage in dialogue about these things, write our Congressmen (and women!), and vote. That's probably the most important thing: VOTE.