Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Mitt Romney's Favorite Things Auto-Tuned By The Gregory Brothers (VIDEO)

Posted: Updated: 05/15/2012 1:38 pm

Mitt Likes Music, Including This

A Musical Mash-Up Video by the Gregory Brothers

Mitt Grits

Mitt Romney may not formally become the GOP nominee until the Republican National Convention, but his position as the 2012 choice has been cemented by a much more important measure: He got auto-tuned by The Gregory Brothers.

The music collective, who first gained widespread Internet fame for their "Auto-Tune the News" remix videos, released their latest audio-visual ode to Romney's "favorite things" on today (as an "op-doc"). We all knew his love of all things business (and firing people), but who knew how rapturously he believes in lakes, iPads and, um, the Keystone cops?
The Gregory Brothers recently performed at The Comedy Awards, where they won for Best Viral Video (for their "Winning" video about Charlie Sheen).

Terrifyingly Hilarious:

Nebraska Woman Gives The Most Amazingly Bonkers Anti-Gay Rant Ever also two women of Grace for Gay Rights

You know what’s not funny? Hate. You know what’s also not funny? People going on hate-filled rants. However, you know what is funny, people going on hate-filled rants that make so little sense that they sound like someone took the worst comments from a political message board, mixed all the words around, translated them to Japanese, and then translated them back. And that’s what happened at a council meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska and it resulted in one of the craziest videos you’ll see this week.
Recently, Nebraskan cities have been trying to deal with the lack of protection that LGBT citizens have from discrimination. The state’s anti-discrimination laws don’t cover sexual orientation. YouTube user aksarbent has been uploading videos of some of the more interesting moments from hearings on the issue. One of them, he or she labeled “Best in Show!” and, good lord, is that not hyperbole.
Wearing a big white hat, a woman gets up and reads a screed that you need to hear to believe. She begins by accusing the ABC show Wipeout of being “produced in Holland by gays, bis, and orgiers” who like to see “people perishing.” At least I think that’s what she’s saying. And it just gets weirder and weirder.
In no discernible train of thought, the woman accuses Hillary Clinton of turning lesbian in college, gay people of being “homociders” who all dying at the age of 40, gay men of molesting boys because “they don’t have AIDS yet,” talks about the health risks of “licking anus,” and says something I can’t even figure out about Whitney Houston being naked when she died.
Again, there’s nothing funny about bigotry but there’s something amazing about watching a video that makes it clear just how ridiculous these beliefs are.
Plus, the kid sitting directly behind the lady who can’t stop cracking the hell up really seals the deal!
Watch the video below:

Published on May 15, 2012 by
Lincoln Nebraska proposed LGBT protection ordinance: Best In Show! Jane Svoboda lays down some lyrics for a cover version of Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen).

Original video:
Everybody's Free original track: - For all your photography needs

Fight for Gays

Published on May 11, 2012 by
She recounts her Steel Magnolia moment 30 years ago when Lincoln first attempted to pass LGBT protection (it was voted down) — among a bunch of homophobic beauty shop patrons with whom she politely took issue — and was backed up by the salon operator.

This woman truly lives in a state of grace.

Romney’s stellar performance

LYNCHBURG, Va. -- It wasn't exactly the belly of the beast Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney visited recently on a picture-perfect commencement day at "the world's largest Christian University," but his appearance was a test as to whether the conservative school, founded by the late Jerry Falwell, would embrace a devout Mormon. And Romney passed.

The more than 30,000 assembled in Liberty University's stadium to hear his commencement address not only applauded him when he proclaimed that marriage was a relationship between one man and one woman but also when he appealed to a "common purpose" in pursuit of shared goals, regardless of theological differences.
While President Obama is all about coolness, Romney is the sober grown-up. Republicans support Romney not because of his personality, but because he credibly addresses our shared critical challenges.
Mark DeMoss, president of the DeMoss Group, an Atlanta-based public relations firm, and also a member of Liberty's board of trustees and a Romney adviser, introduced Romney. DeMoss' late father, Arthur S. DeMoss, was a generous donor to the university in its early days. DeMoss said of Romney, "I suspect I won't agree with Mitt Romney on everything -- but I will tell you this -- I trust him. I trust him to do the right thing, to do the moral thing, to do what's best for our country. I trust his character, his integrity, his moral compass, his judgment and his perfect decency. And finally, I trust his values -- for I am convinced they mirror my own."
That's a better endorsement than some evangelicals give each other.
In an interview following the commencement, I talked with Romney about his campaign and about the recent Washington Post story that claimed he took part in a bullying incident in 1965. I wanted to know why he didn't hit back harder at the charges and why he hasn't challenged the Post for not delving deeper into the president's past. Romney said simply, "That's probably not my nature.
"We'll see how the campaign develops over time. We may take on some of those issues, but probably our best course will be that the president wanted to turn around the economy and he hasn't and that it is bumping along the bottom. A lot of people like him. You can't forget the fact that a lot of people who voted for him last time I need to have vote for me this time."
When I asked him about the unfulfilled promises from previous Republican presidents to reduce the size and cost of government, it produced his longest answer: "I'm in this to get America right. I'm absolutely convinced that the future of liberty, not just for us, but for many in the world, depends on America changing its ways. And we are going to have to dramatically cut back on the scale and influence of government, or else we're going to become a second-tier nation, unable to defend ourselves and defend our liberties and the liberties of friends around the world.
"I've learned it's not just about slowing down the growth of programs, because what will happen four or eight years later is someone will just raise the growth of these programs and we'll be right back to where we started. If you're going to change things you must eliminate programs."
Romney says many programs that "are still good" can be sent to the states "and then grow the funding at the rate of inflation," or in the case of Medicaid or Food Stamps, or workforce training programs, "maybe inflation plus one percent." He predicts if structural changes are made, federal spending will be reduced to "20 percent of GDP, rather than the 25 percent it is today."
Good ideas, but not new for Republicans. The challenge will be getting them through Congress, which even when it is run by Republicans has been difficult.
While evangelical voters blew hot and cold on other GOP candidates during the early primaries, Romney's reception at Liberty University is a sign they are slowly warming to the idea of him as president.
Email nationally syndicated columnist Cal Thomas at For archived columns, go to



CAL THOMAS: Your response to what some conservatives say was a Washington Post “hit piece” on a high school prank you played on a classmate who some say later declared himself a homosexual was awfully mild. Did you consider pulling a “Newt” and attacking the media for going back 47 years in your life to find something negative?

Mitt Romney: That’s probably not my nature. They have their job to do and I understand they will write and say what they want to say. I thought the best response from me was an honest and straightforward one which was that some of the things you do in high school are stupid and if anyone was offended I apologized for that. I think the American people want someone who can focus on the present, not high school nearly fifty years ago.

Q: Now what do you REALLY think?

A.     (laughs)
Q: What about President Obama? There have been no investigations of his admitted drug use, no demands for his college transcripts or Harvard Law review articles. Wouldn’t asking the Post why they haven’t gone out and done more investigations of him have been a legitimate response?

A: We’ll see how the campaign develops over time. We may take on some of those issues, but probably our best course will be that the president wanted to turn around the economy and he hasn’t and that it is bumping along the bottom. A lot of people like him. You can’t forget the fact that a lot of people who voted for him last time I need to have vote for me this time. And by the way, I don’t find him an unlikable person. I disagree with him vehemently on the course he’s taking the country. I think his policies have failed us dramatically, internationally and domestically. It will be a successful campaign for us if the voters can focus on who can get this country going, not just short term but long term in a way that produces jobs and a better future.

Q. Previous Republicans running for Congress or president have said the would cut the size of government and cut spending and then after they are elected it seems that nothing really changes. They mostly manage the growth of big government. Why should people believe that this time it’s really going to happen and how do you do it when you know the media will paint you as uncaring about the poor?

A. I didn’t get into this as the next step in my political career. I’ve had a very private life. I served in government four years. I joked that I didn’t inhale. I entered this race at the insistence of my wife. I resisted for a long time. She was persuasive. I’m in this to get America right. I’m absolutely convinced that the future of liberty, not just for us, but for many in the world, depends on America changing its ways. And we are going to have to dramatically cutback on the scale and influence of government, or else we’re going to become a second tier nation, unable to defend ourselves and defend our liberties and the liberties of friends around the world. How do you make big government smaller? I’ve learned it’s not just by slowing down the growth of programs, because what will happen four or eight years later is someone will just raise the growth of those programs and we’ll be right back to where we started. If you’re going to change things you must eliminate programs. So I must eliminate some programs. Number two, a lot of programs that are still good we have to send back to states. And then grow the funding at the rate of inflation. And say the state has housing vouchers, or Medicaid, or Food Stamps or workforce training programs, you have these programs that will grow with inflation or in the case of Medicaid, maybe inflation plus one percent, but that’s it. You have to live within those parameters. You make those kinds of structural changes and America will go back to where federal spending is 20 percent of GDP rather than the 25 percent it is today.

Q. People need a reason to fire a president after one term. With Jimmy Carter it was double-digit interest rates, unemployment and inflation. For George H.W. Bush it was breaking his promise not to raise taxes. What are the primary reasons voters should fire Barack Obama?

A. Number one, he did not turn around the economy as he said he would. He told the Today show ‘If I don’t turn around the economy in three years, I’ll be looking at a one-term proposition.’ He established his own benchmark and he failed it. He also said if we let him borrow almost a trillion dollars against our children, he would hold unemployment below eight percent. It has not been below eight percent since. Thirty-nine straight months. Those are some of the reasons to say ‘let’s get someone in there who has a different vision to get America going again.’ But number three, the policies he has put in place are not going to help America down the road, either. Obamacare makes thinks worse for our economy and for our deficit. His regulatory policies are so massive and so intrusive that in some cases they are crushing community banks that small businesses depend on to grow. He’ also made it harder for us to take advantage of our energy resources, long term. The fact that oil and gas production are up right now is because of the policies of his predecessors. His policy has been to hold off on the production of those resources. The decisions he has made over the last three and one-half years are a throwback to old school liberal policies. They did not work in the past, they’re not working now and they won’t work in the future.

Q. You addressed theology and theological differences in your commencement address. One of the theological challenges is Islam. We’ve had this president and previous presidents say Islam is a religion of peace, yet what you hear coming from the mouths of many of their leaders is ‘kill the Jews, the cross worshippers, take over America and replace the Constitution with Sharia law.’ What is your view of Islam and the threat level to the United States and internationally?

A. My view is the great majority of Muslims and the great majority of the leaders of the Muslim faith seek to have a peaceful existence with families and prosperity. I also recognize there are radical, violent jihadists , Islamists, Salafists who have as their objective the violent over throw not only of governments in the Islamic world, but governments of peoples throughout the world. And their intent is to cause as much suffering to achieve their goals as possible.  So I look at someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and believe he has an intent to eliminate and destroy people, like the people of Israel and that he will attack America if given the opportunity and that we have to recognize that among a great nation there are some people who have used it (Islam) to foster a purpose of radical, violent jihad and that is not over, it does not begin to be over. This will be a long effort, which will be waged by us, but also by Muslims in the Arab world and throughout the world. There are major Muslim nations like Indonesia and others that are dealing with issues of this nature and they are trying to fight back against the radicals in their midst and we will be part of that struggle as well.

Gun Safety for Kids and Youth

What are the statistics about young people and firearm deaths and injuries?
The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [1] :
  • In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
  • This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
  • The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:Four teen boys
    • 214 unintentional
    • 1,078 suicides
    • 1,990 homicides
    • 83 for which the intent could not be determined
    • 20 due to legal intervention
  • Of the total firearms-related deaths:
    • 73 were of children under five years old
    • 416 were children 5-14 years old
    • 2,896 were 15-19 years old
For more information: Child Trends DataBank has available these teen homicide, suicide and firearm death statistics.
In addition to firearm deaths, we need to look at how many children and young people are hurt by guns. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in 1997, 2,514 children aged 0-14 were non-fatally injured by guns. In the same year, 30,225 young people aged 15-24 sustained nonfatal firearm injuries. These statistics include suicide attempts and both intentional and accidental shootings [2].
According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries [3].
What do we know about kids and gun accidents and suicides?
When researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns. Likewise, school kids aged 5-14 were over 13 times more at risk of accidental firearm death in the states with high gun ownership rates. The findings indicate that gun availability is associated with accidental death by shooting [4].
Most guns involved in self-inflicted and unintentional firearm injuries (that is, in suicides and accidents) came either from the victim's home or the home of a friend or relative [5].
Where and how safely do families with kids store their guns?
More than a third (35%) of homes with children—that's 22 million children ages 18 and under in more than 11 million homes—had at least one firearm, found researchers in a RAND-UCLA study [6]. But only 39% of these families keep their firearms locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. 43% of these U.S. homes with children and guns reported keeping one or more firearms in an unlocked place and without a trigger lock. Nine percent keep their guns loaded as well as unlocked. This analysis is based on data from 1994 interviews conducted in tens of thousands of households by the National Center for Health Statistics. (See Guns in the Family: Firearm Storage Patterns in U.S. Homes with Children for a fuller report.)
So, what does this mean to me?
If you have kids in your house, and you keep firearms, keep the guns locked and unloaded, with the ammunition locked in a separate location.
Before your child goes to a friend's house, you should ask the friend's parent whether the family has firearms in the house, and how they are stored. This can be part of all the usual things you would discuss before a visit, like allergies, snacks, sunscreen, etc.
For more information on asking these kinds of questions, visit the Asking Saves Kids (ASK) website sponsored by the non-political PAX organization in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics.
What are the risks for teens?family in living room
Parents of teenagers are less likely to store firearms safely [7].  This is a big concern, since most firearm injuries happen to teens. Teens are at greater risk of attempting suicide, and a suicide attempt with a gun is likely to be deadly.  More than 90% of suicide attempts with a gun are deadly, and teens in homes with firearms are at higher risk for committing suicide [8}.
Are my children at risk if I own a gun?
This is a controversial subject. Many people feel safer when they have a gun at hand. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)* has reviewed the current medical research on the subject and concluded that if you have children, it is safer not to have a gun in your home (see the AAP policy statement for more details).
What if I've taught my kids not to touch a gun if they find one?
A number of studies [9], [10], [11], [12], suggest that even kids who are trained not to touch guns can't resist, and that parents have unrealistic expectations about their kids' behavior around guns. That's why parents are encouraged to keep guns unloaded and locked separately from ammunition , and to ask about guns at the houses where their children play. Here are links to the full text or abstracts of the studies:
For more information on asking other parents these kinds of questions, visit the Asking Saves Kids (ASK) website sponsored by the non-political PAX organization in cooperation with the American Academy of Pediatrics.
How can I keep my child safe from gun injury?
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the best way to keep your child or teen safe from gun injury or death, is to never have a gun in your home, especially not a handgun.
For those who know the dangers of guns, but still keep a gun in the home, each of the following four measures helps protect children and teens from accidental firearm injury and suicide [13]:
  • Keep the gun locked
  • Keep the gun unloaded
  • Store the ammunition locked
  • Store the ammunition in a separate place from the gun
Other safety measures are:
  • Hide the keys to the locked firearm and ammunition storage boxes.
  • If your friends or family keep a firearm, urge them to keep it locked and unloaded.
  • Only parents should know the location of the gun storage.
  • Check with your local police for advice about safe storage and gun locks.
  • When handling or cleaning a gun, never leave it unattended, not even for a moment.
  • Teach your children never to touch guns. Make sure they know that guns can be dangerous.
  • Talk with your kids about the risk of firearm injury outside the home, in places they may visit or play.
  • Do you know which of your children's friends have guns in their homes? Your child might—and might even know where they are kept.
  • Talk with your children about guns and violence and about the differences between TV and video game violence and real life violence.
  • Simple steps parents can take to reduce children's risks from guns (from the AAP)
  • Listen to AAP Health Children Radio: Firearm Safety.
What can communities do?
The AAP has released a policy statement on Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population. Here is a summary of their recommendations:
  • The best way to prevent firearm-related injuries to children and teens is to keep guns out of homes and communities. family in front of house
  • The AAP urges that guns be subject to safety and design regulations, like other consumer products, as well as tracing.
  • The AAP urges the development of quality, violence-free programming and constructive dialogue among child health and education advocates, the Federal Communications Commission, and the television and motion picture industries, as well as toy, video game, and other software manufactures and designers—in hopes this would reduce the romanticizing of guns in the media.
  • The AAP supports evaluating firearm injury prevention and intervention strategies such as conflict resolution, alternatives to violence, storage techniques (like trigger locks, lock boxes, and gun safes), and educational programs for kids and teens.
  • The AAP urges that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as the National Center for Health Statistics keep a coordinated, comprehensive, national surveillance data system.
What about non-powder guns, BB guns and toy guns?
Whether or not your kids use toy guns, there are some basic facts you should know.
  • Non-powder guns such as ball-bearing (BB) guns, pellet guns, air rifles, and paintball guns can cause serious injuries to children and teens [14].
  • Playing with toy guns could make it easier for your child to mistake a real gun as a toy.
  • Pellet and BB guns are high powered and can easily hurt your child. BB guns can also kill. They should be used only under adult supervision. The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) recommends only kids 16 years of age or older use BB guns.
  • Parents may underestimate the potential for injury from BB and pellet guns, unless their child has been wounded by one [15].
  • Police officers may mistake a toy gun in your child's hand for a real gun. Toy guns should not look like real guns. They should be brightly colored.
  • Make sure the firing sound is not too loud. It could damage your child's hearing. Children should wear hearing protection. Don't let kids fire cap guns closer than one foot from their ears, and only use them outdoors.
  • Toy guns with projectiles, Airsoft guns and paintball guns can cause eye injuries, including severe and permanent vision loss [16] [17] [18]. Kids should wear eye protection when using them.
  • Don't let kids put caps from toy guns in their pockets. They can ignite and cause burn injuries.
  • Read the AAP's policy statement on the injury risk of nonpowder guns.
Where can I get more information?
Here are some excellent websites for parents, kids and teens from
  • Gun Safety (for parents) covers these topics: what kids know about guns; talking to your child about guns; and safety if you have a gun in your home.
  • Gun Safety (for kids) talks about gun safety at home, at friends' and neighbors' houses, and at school.
  • For teens: Someone at School Has a Weapon. What Should I Do? (You can call 1-800-SPEAK-UP to leave an anonymous tip if there's been a weapons threat at your school.)
  • Firearm Safety in Your Home offers comprehensive advice from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
  • Video:  Firearms Safety Depends on You is a National Shooting Sports Foundation-developed program that provides a thorough overview of firearm safety.
Related topics on YourChild:
YourChild: Hunting and Shooting Sports Safety
  Children and Safety
What programs can help with firearm safety?
  • PAX: Real Solutions to Gun Violence is the largest non-political organization dedicated to ending the gun violence crisis in America. PAX's mission is to look at gun violence as an urgent public health crisis with practical solutions that all Americans can embrace. They conduct two campaigns:
  • The ASK Campaign (Asking Saves Kids) is based on the fact that many families with children have a gun, and almost half these guns are left unlocked or loaded. ASK aims to get parents nationwide to ask about guns where their children play. ASK simply urges parents to ask their neighbors if they have a gun in the home before sending their children over to play. It is a comprehensive national public health campaign, developed by PAX, in partnership with the American Academy of Pediatrics.
  • The Speak Up Campaign helps students prevent school shootings through 1-866-SPEAK-UP, the nation's only anonymous hotline for kids to report weapon threats in their schools. SPEAK UP works with students, educators and parents in lots of ways to bring the SPEAK UP message to their schools and towns.
*The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is an organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults. For more information on the AAP, please visit
Written and compiled by Kyla Boyse, RN.  Reviewed by faculty and staff at the University of Michigan.

Updated November 2010
U-M Health System Related Sites:
U-M Pediatrics
C.S. Mott Children's Hospital 

Putting a CAP on accidental shooting injuries and deaths

Originally published Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM
    Most Popular Comments
    • It starts with personal responsibility. Not laws. Not trigger locks. PERSONAL... MORE
    • Just curious... how many innocent people does the medical profession place below ground... MORE
    • ...studies, conducted here in King County, showing that people in the home are 43 times... MORE

    IN our local community and in the nation, parents are grieving for their children who have been injured or killed recently by guns. We have all read the headlines, seen the news reports and shaken our heads about these tragedies. While we all agree that such events should not have happened, what realistically can be done to prevent them from occurring?

    It is pointless to debate the role of guns in America. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to possess handguns in their homes. Many individuals do (44 percent of households in Washington state have a gun), and they keep those handguns loaded and unlocked — despite studies, conducted here in King County, showing that people in the home are 43 times more likely to be killed by that gun than is an intruder.

    Nevertheless, we all would agree that children and troubled youth should not have access to guns that their parents and relatives legally possess. What can be done, then, to protect children and the community?

    One very effective option is locking devices. Using gun or cable or trigger locks can decrease by 55 percent to 73 percent the risk of death to youth living in homes with guns. Simple measures of locking up guns and ammunition separately and keeping guns in the home unloaded can effectively decrease the misuse of guns and prevent the tragedies we have recently seen.
    Another intervention is to hold the gun owner criminally responsible when shootings do occur because a child or teenager has obtained access to guns kept in the home. A number of states, but not Washington, now have these "child-access prevention" (CAP) laws. Scientific studies have found that states with CAP laws have a lower rate of accidental, unintentional shooting deaths among children under 15 years of age and a lower rate of suicides among 14- to 17-year-olds.

    A 2009 poll in Washington found that more than half the voters in the state are concerned about the level of gun violence in their community; this was true both in King County and Eastern Washington. Three-fourths of voters in the state support laws that would require gun owners to store all guns in the home with trigger-locking devices or locked in a gun safe if there are children under the age of 18 living in the household.

    While laws take time to pass, locked gun storage is an effective and immediate solution to help keep our communities safe. The LOK-IT-UP website,, of Public Health — Seattle & King County, provides information about locking-device options and tips for encouraging safe storage among family and friends. Locking devices are widely available where guns or firearm accessories are sold, through most discount stores and from online retailers.

    No parent in the community wants his or her child or teen to be a shooting victim. Can our elected public officials do what the majority of the voters want and pass some sensible firearm legislation on which we can all agree? Will those who own guns help to protect others by storing their guns responsibly? The public is waiting for answers.

    Dr. Frederick P. Rivara is professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, a founding member of the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center, and chief of the general pediatrics division at Seattle Children's Hospital.

    It's Past Time to Protect Children Not Guns

    I just found this and the report which is at the bottom of this blog.  You know how I feel, if there are moms and dads out there who believe like I do that we need laws ts, anybody who does not check out.  I mean if we can have data bases for criminals, for the different types of registered guns, for sex offenders, for terrorist, then we should have one for gun ownership, the minute someone buys a gun their name and gun register goes straight into the computer. We need to get tough on street sellers, unauthorized dealers, gun shows, and even legal gun dealers. No one gets a gun without taking a gun course.  If parents have guns and have children, those children (if older  enough to understand) need to take a course in gun safety. 
    I do not know about all of you who read my blog, but I am tired of reading a paper, seeing the news, or discussing with neighbors that another child has been injured or killed by a gun.  
    It is time for us as Americans to tell our congress people that we want gun advocacy, 
    we are angry that the NRA has such a monetary  hold of Republican representatives and senators that they are afraid to vote the way their constituents want them to vote.

    by Marian Wright Edelman

    Thousands of people across the country have poured into the streets -- from New York to Sanford, Florida -- to demand justice for Trayvon Martin. Hundreds of thousands more stepped up to protest online. In response to the public outcry, the Sanford chief of police has temporarily stepped down and the state prosecutor has stepped aside. But nearly one month after 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was stopped, stalked, shot and killed while walking home from a convenience store, armed only with a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea, his killer, George Zimmerman, has not been arrested.

    Today, the Children’s Defense Fund released its new report, Protect Children, Not Guns 2012, dedicated to the memory of Trayvon Martin and the thousands of children and teenagers killed by guns in America, including the 5,740 children killed in 2008 and 2009 according to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for
     Disease Control and Prevention. 
    Our leaders in Washington, D.C. are not alone in refusing to make America safer. Forty-two states have adopted preemption laws to ensure state legislatures control of gun policy, impeding the ability of cities to develop local solutions to gun violence in their own communities. (Image: Black Youth Project Chicago)
    Where is the outrage over every single one of the thousands of children and teens killed by guns -- too many by gun slinging Americans unrestrained by common sense gun control laws. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, also known as the “shoot first, ask questions later” law, is now under national scrutiny. But will it and others be changed to protect children rather than gun owners and sellers?
    April 16 marks the fifth anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre where 32 students and faculty were killed by a gun, 25 others were injured, and many more were traumatized. Each year since then has seen gun victims -- young children, teenagers, young adults, a member of Congress, a federal judge and many more. Days, weeks, months and years go by and little or nothing -- except fleeting headlines, tears, trauma and talk -- is done to protect children instead of guns.
    • The 5,740 children and teens killed by guns in 2008 and 2009:
      • Would fill more than 229 public school classrooms of 25 students each;
      • Was greater than the number of U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan (5,013).
    • The number of preschoolers killed by guns in 2008 (88) and 2009 (85) was nearly double the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2008 (41) and 2009 (48).
    • Black children and teens accounted for 45 percent of all child and teen gun deaths in 2008 and 2009 but were only 15 percent of the total child population.
    • The leading cause of death among black teens ages 15 to 19 in 2008 and 2009 was gun homicide. For white teens 15 to 19 it was motor vehicle accidents followed by gun homicide (2008) and gun suicide (2009).
    • Of the 116,385 children and teens killed by a gun since 1979 when gun data was first collected by age, 44,038 were black -- nearly 13 times more than the number of recorded lynchings of black people of all ages in the 86 years from 1882 to 1968. But more white than black children and teens have died from gun violence which threatens all in America everywhere.

    By any standards of human and moral decency, children in America are under assault, and by international standards, America remains the unchallenged world leader in children and teen gun deaths.

    Analysis of the most recent data from 23 high-income countries reported that 87 percent of all firearm deaths of children under 15 were in the United States. The rate of U.S. gun homicides for teens and young adults 15 to 24 was 42.7 times higher than the overall gun homicide rate for that same age group in the other countries.
    Why are common-sense gun regulations so shockingly absent in our country? Even in the wake of the Tucson tragedy and the near-fatal shooting of one of their own, Congress failed to act. Calls for banning high-volume ammunition clips and tightening up the federal background check system were ignored. Our leaders once again capitulated to the powerful gun lobby over the rights of children and citizens to life and safety. In November 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.

    If a similar bill is passed by the Senate and becomes law, a person with a permit to carry a concealed handgun in one state -- a person like George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida -- could carry that concealed weapon in another state even if it was against the second state’s law. 

    Proponents of such dangerous laws maintain the fiction that guns promote personal safety. It is long past time to acknowledge gun violence as a hugely serious threat to children, teens, and overall public health and safety.

    1. Our leaders in Washington, D.C. are not alone in refusing to make America safer. 
    2. Forty-two states have adopted preemption laws to ensure state legislatures control of gun policy, impeding the ability of cities to develop local solutions to gun violence in their own communities. 
    3. In 2011, Kansas, Mississippi and Utah enacted laws allowing concealed weapon permit holders to carry loaded, concealed firearms in or on the grounds of elementary and secondary schools. 
    4. With all eyes on Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, few noticed a law passed last year that, if upheld, threatens loss of a medical license for doctors who ask patients about whether a gun is in the home although it is not at all unusual or inappropriate for pediatricians particularly to ask patients and parents of patients about possible safety hazards in the home including guns.
    • We have so much work to do to build safe communities for our children. 
    • We need leaders at all levels of government who will protect children over guns. 
    • We need a relentless, powerful citizens’ voice to break the gun lobby’s veto on common sense gun policy. 
    1. Our laws must control who can obtain firearms and close the gun show loophole, require consumer safety standards and childproof safety features for all guns, and strengthen child access prevention laws that ensure guns in the home are stored safely and securely. And all must take action and ask political candidates this fall what steps they will take to protect children from guns. 
    2. We must remove guns from our homes where children so often find them and put themselves and others in harm’s way and combat cultural glorification of guns and violence. 

    As a nation, we must aspire and act to become the world leader in protecting children against guns rather than leading the world in child victims of guns. 

     Every child’s life is sacred and it is long past time that we protect it.

    Marian Wright Edelman
    Marian Wright Edelman is the president of the Children's Defense Fund.

    Protect Children Not Guns 2012

    Court Ordered Notice Program About Two Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Settlements Is Initiated

    Wanted to let people know there are a lot of documents that I have to upload to Scribd. It will take some time to do this.  So please be patient. Because it is a lot.  

    press release
    May 8, 2012, 11:00 a.m. EDT


    NEW ORLEANS, May 8, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- A notification effort ordered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana is beginning today to notify people, businesses and other entities about two separate proposed settlements with BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company ("BP") related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP has estimated the cost of the proposed settlement to be approximately $7.8 billion. The total amount BP will pay to settle valid claims is uncapped, and the ultimate cost will depend on the actual outcomes of the court-supervised claims processes.
    People may be affected by one or both settlements. In each settlement, Class Members have separate legal rights and options, including submitting claims for benefits, opting out or objecting to each settlement.
    • The Economic and Property Damages Settlement (or "E&PD Settlement") includes people, businesses and other entities who live, work, conduct business operations and/or own/lease property in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, along with specified Texas and Florida counties. The E&PD Settlement generally covers the following types of claims: 
      • 1) Seafood Compensation; 
      • 2) Economic Loss; 
      • 3) Loss of Subsistence; 
      • 4) Vessel Physical Damage; 
      • 5) Vessels of Opportunity Charter Payment; 
      • 6) Coastal Real Property Damage; 
      • 7) Wetlands Real Property Damage; and 
      • 8) Real Property Sales Damage. 

    In addition to compensation for actual damage, payments to eligible claimants may include a multiplier related to unknown future damage.
    • The Medical Benefits Settlement (or "Medical Settlement') includes "Clean-Up Workers" and people who resided during specified periods in 2010 in specific coastal areas and wetlands areas. Medical Settlement benefits include 
      • (a) payments for Specified Physical Conditions including reimbursement of hospital expenses, 
      • (b) a 21-year Periodic Medical Consultation Program, and 
      • (c) a $105 million Gulf Region Health Outreach Program, available to all Gulf residents, Class Members and non-Class Members alike, in order to strengthen healthcare capacity and increase health literacy throughout the region.
    Detailed information on the two settlements can be found at the settlement website, The website has detailed maps that allow users to see if a geographic location may be included within one or more zones.
    Notices will be mailed to known potential Class Members and are scheduled to appear in thousands of media outlets over the next 60 days in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. Notices are to appear in Gulf Coast daily newspapers, print publications, television and radio spots and on Internet websites. A parallel nationwide media effort includes well-read consumer magazines, trade publications and highly-trafficked Internet websites.

    The Court has appointed 
    • Stephen J. Herman (Lead Class Counsel), 
    • James Parkerson Roy (Lead Class Counsel), 
      • Brian H. Barr, Jeffery A. Breit, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Philip F. Cossich, Jr., 
      • Robert T. Cunningham, Alphonso Michael Espy, Calvin C. Fayard, Jr., 
      • Robin L. Greenwald, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Rhon E. Jones, Matthew E. Lundy, Michael C. Palmintier, Joseph F. Rice, Paul M. Sterbcow, Scott Summy, Mikal C. Watts and Conrad S. P. Williams as Proposed Settlement Class Counsel to represent each of the Settlement Classes.
    Class Members can submit a claim to either or both Settlements, or they can ask to be excluded from, or object to, either or both Settlements.  
    • The deadline to object to either or both settlements is August 31, 2012.  
    • The deadline to request exclusion from either or both settlements is October 1, 2012.
    • The deadline to submit most E&PD claims will be April 22, 2014 or six months after the E&PD Settlement becomes effective (that is, after the Court grants "final approval" and any appeals are resolved), whichever is later.  
    • There will be an earlier deadline to submit E&PD Seafood Compensation claims. The earlier deadline to submit Seafood Compensation claims will be 30 days after final approval of the Settlement by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (regardless of appeals). 
    • The deadline to submit Medical Benefits claims is one year after the Medical Settlement becomes effective (that is, after the Court grants "final approval" and any appeals are resolved). 
    • Exact claim filing deadlines will be posted on the website as they become available.
    • With the exception of some Seafood Compensation Program claims, eligible E&PD Settlement claims will be paid on a rolling basis and E&PD Settlement claimants may receive payments before the Court considers whether to grant final approval. 
    • Medical Settlement benefits will not be issued until after the Court grants final approval and any appeals are resolved.
    • A toll-free number, 1-866-992-6174 has been established in the case known as In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179, along with a website, where notices, each Settlement Agreement and other documents may be obtained.
    Case #2:10-MD-02179-CJB-SS
    SOURCE United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

    All People are Created Equal

    I found this surfing the internet, reading it reminds me of today's political environment.  Please note the date.  And it was written by two women.. Take that and smoke it in your pipe  Mr Republicans.
    Check out the paragraphs near the bottom of the writing be4 the resources. The ERA amendment has not been passed here in the United States, and I find that terribly disappointing, this is the land of the free and the home of the brave.  We as women have not been accorded the equal rights, that men have.  The writers were correct when stating "All men are created equal" that is in the Constitution, but what about us. It does not say 'All men and women are created equal' That is because way back when the Constitution was written, women were not involved with its conception, it was very much a man's world. I will not go any deeper, because it would get deep. And this little piece of writing says it all.


    Peaches Arrington 
    Professor Judith Watry ly
    English 102 
    11 March 2004

    “When I asked, What walks on four legs in the morning,
     two at noon, and three in the evening, you answered Man. 
    You didn’t say anything about woman.”  “When you say
    Man,” said Oedipus, “you include women too.  Everyone
    knows that.”  She said, “That’s what you think.”
                                                                ---Muriel Rukeyser, “Myth”

          All people are created equal, right?  If that is true, then why does it feel strange when speaking the phrase, “All people are created equal?”  It feels strange because we, society, men and women, have been trained in early childhood to say, “All men are created equal.”  It has generally been accepted that the word “men” includes everybody.  As a child, I remember asking my teacher, “what about the girls?”  She laughed at my comment and went into a ½ hour discussion about how the word ‘man’ means everybody, boys and girls, men and women.  I then asked her why it doesn’t say “all women are created equal” and have that apply to everybody as well.  Instantly, all the 3rd grade boys said, “no way.” 

          The point is, even third graders know that we are not all equal.  We, men and women, were not created equal, were not born equal, do not live equal and do not die equal.  Our jobs are not equal, our pay is not equal and our life styles are not equal.  In fact, I cannot seem to find one area at all were we are in fact, the same or equal.  This does not mean that either sex is better than the other.  It just means that we are different.  This is a good thing.  Otherwise sex would be boring and children would be impossible.  There are things that a man can do that a woman can’t.  A man is physically stronger than a woman and that gives him many benefits, like lifting heavier objects.  This is great for women, because we really don’t like taking out the garbage anyway.  Likewise, there are special functions reserved just for us women, like bearing children.  And just as most women are glad to have the husband take out the garbage, he is equally as happy not to have to go through labor contractions. 

        Male and female bodies are physically different, and not j ust the pelvic region.  Our brains are “molded” slightly different and there are size differences in a few of the glands as well.  For instance, Jim Thornton of USA Today tells us that “the SDN, or sexually dimorphic nucleus, a cluster of cells in the hypothalamus is 2 1/2 times bigger in males than in females” (Thornton).  He then tells us that, “Another brain structure with a sex-based size discrepancy - this time, it's larger or thicker in women - is the corpus callosum, the bundle of nerves that link the right and left hemispheres like a biological computer cable. Two other connecting cables, the anterior commissure and the massa intermedia, are larger in women” (Thornton).
          Doreen Kimura, who is a professor in psychology at Simon Fraser University, tells us, “The structural differences affect the hypothalamus, which controls sexual responsiveness, and the corpus callosum, which connects the left side and right sides of the brain and permits the flow of information between them. Male brains have less ability to simultaneously access both sides of the brain and generally have more development of he right side, which gifts them with better processing of visual and spatial information and a more focused problem solving capability. The female brain structure allows freer access to both sides creating a climate for less focused or specialized data processing. The structurally more balanced female brain permits better use of the left side, which controls verbal and language fluency, but is less capable than the male brain in visual and spatial interpretation(Kimura).

          So, do these small differences cause so many problems that we are not able to co-exist as equals?  The answer should be no.  Our physical differences are not so much that is like contrasting an ape and an ant.  Most men and women have the same goals, wants, needs and desires.  Women desire wealth and power as much as men.  Men would love to spend some time home with the kids.  But society is the problem here.  Society is not willing to let a woman run companies, fly our bombers or become president of the United States.  At the same time, can you imagine a man who, in front of his Sunday Football friends, during the game, decides to turn away from the game for 10 minutes to play dolls with his daughter and how he would be ridiculed?  And though now we do have a few female fighter pilots, and a few fathers who might stop during a football game to play dolls with his daughter, there isn’t nearly enough of either.  Daughters need their fathers and sometimes they need them during that time
          Society is the problem.  It is been bred into each one of us, girls wear pink, boys blue; boys play with trucks and cars, girls play with dolls; boys play in the dirt and get dirty, girls stay inside and stay clean in their dresses; boys work “men jobs” and girls stay home and take care of the baby or become secretaries.  It is this kind of thinking that has negative effects on both genders. (the atmosphere of the 50s & 60s)

           When this type of thinking exists, it is very difficult to see past what the real differences are and what they aren’t.  We know in child abuse victims that the child will begin to ‘go along’ with the beatings so that they will not be as severe.  Similarly, women will go along with sexist jokes, groping, sexual advances, looks, comments and even assault – just so that they can get through life and somewhat do what they want to do, but at less pay. 

          Men also have a lot to tolerate on their end.  Even if they are not an egotistical, womanizing creep; many feel that they have to behave somewhat as others so as to not be discriminated against from other men.  My husband once stood up in a room where several men were telling extremely sexist jokes in front of several women and asked them to please stop and to be considerate.  The men who were telling jokes, instantly began to call him a girl, tease him that he must be gay and asked what exactly was wrong with him.  And while one of the three women that were in the room at the time thanked my husband for trying to stand up and do something about it, the other two women joined in with the men asking if my husband was gay. 

         This goes to show the thinking of a large part of society.   If there is any one thing that needs to be changed, it is our attitude towards each other.  Sure, it would be nice if legally we all had the same rights (Constitutional Amendment).  However, changing one word in the constitution will not change how we are viewed, talked about and treated.  It is the minds, emotions and attitudes that need to change.  And short of making it illegal to say something bad about another gender, I do not see how this will all change. 

          I tell my three daughters that they can help change this with not tolerating any type of “gender abuse.”  If there are people sitting around telling jokes which make them feel uncomfortable, I tell them to ask them to stop and tell them they are being rude and impolite, something their mother’s should have told them long ago.

           Perhaps that is where the education needs to begin, with the parents.  Supposed we took a group of children and raised them with things completely opposite of what they are now.  We could have the mother leaving home every morning going to her CEO position of a large company and the father working as a secretary, or even stay home as a homemaker.  We could have the father play the “caregiver” and the mother be self-absorbed with her work, not coming home until late at night.  We could have the father prepare the meals, do the cleaning and shopping.  On weekends we could have the mother cut the grass, do the home repairs and build a dog house.  What do you suppose the children growing up in this type of environment would choose for their own roles in the environment? 

           Should parents raise boys and girls as equals and in the same manner with the same toys, same clothes and surrounded by friends who are being raised in the same manner, would the outcome be different?  I suspect it would be.  Without the outside social influence, I would wager that boys would be helping with the dishes and the girls would play with the trucks with the boys.  I would be willing to further that wager that if this same situation was carried out into adulthood that some of the girls would become pilots, astronauts, mechanics and engineers; and that a large number of boys would become nurses, secretaries and even homemakers.  And what is wrong with that?

          A modified version of the above is exactly what needs to happen.  Currently society tells women that we have equal opportunities available to us.  However, we are raised in stereotypical gender-biased homes.  Unfortunately, our brain processes these roles when we are extremely young and it is very difficult to change the view.  These are the views that are damning to women and to some men as well.

          Because of the biased gender views that exist today, some companies and corporations pay women less than they do a man, for the same job.  One occurrence of this is an EEOC lawsuit under Equal Pay Act Title VII, where “a federal jury awarded $2.2 million to a former employee of Outback Steakhouse.  The employee alleged that the restaurant chain discriminated against her by paying a male counterpart a significantly larger salary and then firing her after she complained. Following four days of trial, the jury deliberated about five hours before awarding the female plaintiff $27,000 for the difference in earnings, $36,800 in back pay, $50,000 in compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, and $2.1 million in punitive damages” (EEOC). This is not an isolated instance.  While this case was brought to justice by one state who has adopted the ERA, it continues to happen elsewhere.  There is of course a perfectly reasonable excuse for this from the companies, “it is legal.”

           Large companies are not the only one profiting from the legalities of discrimination, insurance companies make sure to profit as well.  Insurance companies force women to pay a higher premium for the same coverage that a man receives.  They claim that they do this because women live longer than men; or that they have higher healthcare costs than men do due to pregnancy.  While there was a ruling that made this illegal by Title VII’s sex discrimination in employment; this only applied to those who received insurance through their employer and not by those who purchased private insurance.  While this insurance difference may not seem to be such a big deal, it would save women who are discriminated against by this over 2.5 billion annually (Now).  I would say that is a pretty big deal. 

        Currently women earn 0.73 cents for every one dollar a man earns, doing the same job.  This has increased from the 1920’s when at that time we earned 0.59 cents for each one dollar, (an increase of 0.14 cents in the last 84 years) (Maloney).  This income loss does not just hurt the female either; it affects the husband as well.  That lost income could have bought them some baseball tickets. 

        Not that you would find any females playing on the field.  Donna Lopiano tells about her experience in trying to become “part of the team.”  She had dreamed of becoming the pitcher for the New York Yankees from the age of 5.  She tried out for Little League at the age of 10 and was found to be the best pitcher at tryouts.  After receiving her uniform and the world’s greatest ego boost, a father walked up with a rule book and pointed out four little words, “No girls are allowed” (Lopiano).
               Women are finding  the same words still posted near the military recruiting stations.  Currently only 14% of our military personnel are female.  Some would claim that this is due to women not wanting to be in the military.  However considering that many military positions are still off limits to women, this may explain this small percentage better.  In fact, as of 2002, in the Army branch there are a total of 123,657 jobs off limits to females, including 8,318 Officer positions and 557 Warrant Officer positions.  The Air Force claims to be “fully integrated” however statistics show that there are still 1,684 positions still restricted from females, including 61 Officer positions.  Marines have 30,810 positions that are not being filled by women (Harrell). 

                When you consider that there are 6 million more women then men in the United States, with 56% of our Bachelor’s degrees and 57% of the Master’s degrees being awarded to the female population, one would expect those numbers to be slightly higher (Maloney).  The military viewpoint is this is due to a majority of positions being limited until 1992, when Congress repealed the combat exclusion laws which now allow women into combat, or at least indirect combat.  The Department of Defense also replaced their risk rule and allowed more women into positions.  Now they are only restricted from direct ground combat.  Hence, the above mentioned positions which are still deemed, “no girls allowed.” 

                These positions are most clearly off limits due to the same arguments presented in 1992, when the combat exclusions laws were presented.  These arguments alleged that women were unable to carry their own “rucksack” for 12 miles.  They claimed that “a group is only as good as its weakest member…”;   “women are at higher risk for exercise-induced injuries than men”; “it would cause sexual jealousy, social and moral conflict in the troops”; and that “putting them in the same roles is just ludicrous.”  (United States Presidential Commission).
                A possible solution to the above statements could be to have the military control the men of the units who would have difficulty in dealing with “sexual jealousy, social and moral conflict,” and have women meet the same training requirements for these positions.  Then, if a person can pass the physical requirements, they are in; regardless of skin color or anatomy.  Of course this would only take care of the actually physical conflicts, the attitudes of both sexes needs to be adjusted as to create a non-harassing workplace. 
                 Presently several groups are working hard at equalizing some of the above problems.  The ERA organization is working at (and has been working at) trying to amend the United States Constitution by adding a small phrase,
     “Section 1.  Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of by any states on account of sex. 
      Section 2.  The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.          
      Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification” (Equal Rights Amendment).  

    This amendment was first introduced into Congress in 1923.  Congress finally passed it and submitted it to the states for ratification on March 22, 1972, with a 7 year deadline.  This 7 year deadline was then extended to June 30, 1982.  When June 30, 1982, arrived only 35 states had ratified, leaving the amendment 3 states short.  

    It has been reintroduced into every session of Congress since that time (Equal Rights Amendment).
                While amending the constitution would be a big step in equal rights between men and women; it will not take care of it all.  As stated earlier, it is “we the people of the United States,” (United States Constitution) who need to stand up and change what is happening.  Men and women, boys and girls, male and females need to change the way things are going. 
                Part of the solution would be to start with education.  Many men and women are not aware that women do not have equal rights.  In fact, “72% of male and female adults in the United States believe that the Constitution does make it clear that we have equal rights,” and “96% of Americans believe that we should have equal rights” (ERA Campaign).   Others who are aware that the ERA has not passed .....

    Congress believe that we are “pretty much” getting equal rights and the amendment is not necessary. 

    Unfortunately, “pretty much” is not close enough.  Most of these responses have been from men who state, “What more do women want?”  The answer is fairly simple, 

    • Women do not want to be put up on a pedestal; 
    • They do not want to be protected to a point where they are excluded, 
    • They want the right to fight for their country and die for it if they so chose.  
    • They do not want to be looked up on as something different as in a different species.  
    • They want to be respected as much as a man expects, 
    • Looked upon as a man wants to be looked upon - 
    • As a human, as an equal, with equal rights guaranteed by law.     

    Arrington 11
    Works Cited
    ERA Campaign Network.  Equal Rights Amendment.  16 Feb. 2004.  18 Feb. 2004. 
    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the United States.  Highlights of Equal
    Pay Act Cases.  10 June 2003.  24 Feb. 2004.  <>
    Equal Rights Amendment Organization.  Equal Rights Amendment.  5 Nov. 2003.  4 Feb.
    Harrell, Margaret C., Beckett, Megan K., Chien, Chiaying Sandy, Sollinger, Jerry M. 
    The Status of Gender Integration in the Military.  Santa Monica:  Rand.  2002.
    Kimura, Doreen.  “Sex Differences in the Brain.”  Scientific American.COM   13 May
    Lopiano, Donna.  Sport in Society.  Growing Up With Gender Discrimination in Sports. 
    Ed. Richard E. Lapchick.  Thousand Oaks:  Sage Publications, 1996.  
    Maloney, Carolyn B, Congresswoman.  Equal Rights Amendment.  20 Nov. 2003.  4 Feb.
    NOW.  National Organization For Women.  Who Needs An Equal Rights Amendment?
    You Do!  2004.  18 Feb. 2004.  < >
    Thornton, Jim.  “Why the Female Brain is Like a Swiss Army Knife.”  USA Weekend.  3
    United States Constitution.  13 Oct. 1999 
    United States Presidential Commission.  The Presidential Commission on the Assignment
    of Women in the Armed Forces.  Washington:  GPO, 1992.