I love this line in the New York Times: “The news that 51 percent of all women live without a spouse might be enough to make you invest in cat futures.”
When powerful people want to stand for something they believe in, they don’t blog about it. Goldman Sachs managing directors don’t have a “blog for massive bonuses” day. Choice is something we deserve; it’s our right under the law.
Blogging is about agitation. The rights we exercise when we blog are our First Amendment rights. I feel that a “blog for choice” day diminishes the message that choice is our right in the US. For now, at least.
Of course, the US Capitol is swarmed by anti-choice activists exercising their rights to demonstrate. Blogging for choice doesn’t stop them from swarming.
On BlogHer today, founder Lisa Stone had a great post covering women bloggers’ coverage of Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she is running for president.
Lisa noted how Hillary’s announcement, her use of online video to do so, her invitation to hear from us, the voters, caused a lot of women bloggers who normally blog about everything BUT politics, to comment.
I wrote this in a comment on BlogHer and it’s got me thinking:
Same for Edwards, and Obama. Do you think when/if McCain and his team announce they will be quite so cozy?
I for one worry I am too cynical to accept politicians’ invite to “join the conversation,” a popular buzzword these days on their websites’ and YouTube videos. On the other hand, it’s better than the alternative, and it’s a refreshing alternative to Bush’s paternalistic attitude towards governance.