Harper Press

This April Fool's, the joke's on humanity

2009-03-31T17:44:00.000-07:00

Sweet Jesus. Just in time for April Fool's Day, how about this little gem?

I love the USO. So please, USO, hear my cry: Why are you courting idiots like this?!?

I'm of two minds on the whole thing

2009-02-20T21:21:00.001-08:00

I really don't know how to feel about President Obama's proposal for the housing industry and the otherwise-doomed-to-foreclose. On the one hand, I definitely understand that if the foreclosures continue, they will do nothing but drag down the prices for the rest of us, resulting in a continuing spiral of underwater mortgages and more foreclosures. I understand that helping out my proverbial neighbor is probably a good thing for me in the long run. I really do. I get it.

But.

What about people like Matt and I? We didn't buy more than we could afford. We carefully considered our budget and stayed within it. We pay our mortgage payment on time every month without an inordinate amount of struggle. We didn't buy a house that was obviously overpriced or inflated. If anything, it was a bit of a fixer upper with some room to go in its ultimate value. We've made some improvements - most of them DIY projects and nothing too extravagant for the neighborhood.

Despite all this, however, housing prices in nearby King and Pierce counties dropped 18% last year. We're lucky in that we're a little bit insulated from this drop by living in Thurston County, but the disease is going to spread at some point. And Matt's job means that we don't have the luxury of staying in this house for five or ten years until all this mess is just a dim memory. We're going to be moving in two or three years.

As of right now, I have no idea what our house is worth. I know that according to the county it's valuation dropped last year, but not by enough to put us "underwater." But I don't know how much longer that will last.

Is anyone going to be bailing me out if I can't get what I owe out of this house in a few years?

I doubt it.

A disturbing milestone for the military

2009-02-05T19:00:00.000-08:00

Army suicides resulted in more deaths in January than did combat. Thanks to unremitting deployments, mental health care that is improving but still woefully lacking, and a quagmire of a war that - despite the rhetoric of the Bush administration - will never be won in a conventional sense, the US military is now killing itself faster than the insurgents can. It is a horrifying commentary on this war and more proof - if more is needed - that the status quo in Iraq is no longer tenable and that the draw down in troop levels cannot begin soon enough.

When fertility treatments go bad

2009-01-31T17:16:00.000-08:00

I've get silent on the issue of the newly born California octuplets for the past several days, waiting to get a better sense of the story to be sure I had my facts straight. Now that I do, I have to say something.

The whole situation disgusts me.

Let me be clear. Fertility treatments are a God-send for many women. This one included. Drugs like Comid or Letrozole, and treatments like IVF and IUI have made it possible for women who would have otherwise been unable to conceive have children that would have otherwise been impossible to conceive.

However, in recent years fertility treatments have increasingly cared more about a woman's unadulterated need for a baby than the health of her babies or the ethics of the situation. First, came a small but disturbing number of women in their fifties and sixties whom doctors assisted in conceiving through IVF. That any doctor would assist a woman past menopause conceive and give birth to a child is, in my opinion, the height of irresponsibility.

Now, however, we've moved to a whole new level of disturbing. The entire situation surrounding the octuplet mom is a horror show: already the mother of six children under eight, the never been married mom has used IVF to conceive all of her 14 children, all of whom are seven or under. Why did she do it? Her own mother thinks she has an unhealthy obsession. As for her, she says she did it to overcome her lonliness following a dysfunctional childhood. Guess what, lady? We all grew up in the nineties - we ALL had dysfunctional childhoods. And I can't think of a single dysfunction that fourteen babies will cure.

I am staunchly prochoice because I firmly believe that no woman should be forced to bear a child she does not want. But there is a flip side to the abortion debate, and this irresponsible and ridiculous woman has highlighted it - when it comes to fertility treatments, simply wanting children no matter the circumstances or the dangers is not reason enough to be medically induced to have them.

This is not to suggest that I believe there should be a limit on the number of children that can be brought into a family. However, a woman who insists on repeated IVF treatments that involve implanting an unethically large number of embryos for no other reason than her own gratification and despite the real health concerns that multiple births can entail is not a loving mother who simply wants a large family. She is disturbed and deluded and possibly mentally ill.

By the way - read the Today preview of the upcoming interview with the octuplet's mom again and notice the timeline. She says she tried unsuccessfully to conceive for seven years before trying her first IVF treatment to conceive her now seven year old. She's 33. Seven years plus seven years plus nine months. How old was she when she started this horror show? 17? 18?

The ungrateful

2009-01-30T22:22:00.000-08:00

I'm not really sure I get the Hudson crash survivor's anger at United Airlines. Following a dual engine failure (a truly unforeseeable occurrence) brought on by a double bird strike (a common problem that plagues most airports, but not a particular fault of the airline), the heroic UA pilot carries out the first successful water landing in commercial airline history and saves every soul on board. After which UA quickly gives all the survivors $5000 checks to cover their lost luggage and offers them a year of upgrades on UA to boot. And these people are cranky about it? They walked away with their lives, $5000 bucks and champagne in first class for a year and they're pissed?

Seriously?

Notes from an inauguration

2009-01-20T17:00:00.000-08:00

The absolute best rhetorical moment from today's inauguration also happened to be its last - the powerful and deeply felt prayer from civil rights leader Reverend Joseph Lowery, which ended with the following words:

Help us then, now, Lord, to work for that day when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, when tanks will be beaten into tractors, when every man and every woman shall sit under his or her own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid; when justice will roll down like waters and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man -- (laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right.

Let all those who do justice and love mercy say amen.

Rev. Lowery's words did more than any mere lip service to the civil rights movement to viscerally remind us how far we've come in this country in the short forty years since Rev. Martin Luther King's death. At the same time, it was a moment of blessed levity in an otherwise sobering speech which made a needed but sobering call for personal responsibility. And like the flub of the oath of office by an obviously nervous Chief Justice Roberts, it was a glimpse of absolute genuine-ness that disarmed all the pomp and circumstance and made the moment that much more powerful for its humanity. I loved it.

Amid all this, it occurred to me that this may have been the first time in my life when I purposefully watched an inauguration live. I must have seen bits and pieces of inaugurations past on television after the fact. Undoubtedly I watched at least one inauguration under duress as a student. But never have I made the decision to watch an inauguration live of my own volition. Never even felt a desire to before. And this one I watched start to finish - poorly read poetry and all. (God bless the inaugural poet for writing what would have otherwise been a lovely poem that she was inexplicably unable to imbue with any kind of passion in its reading.)

Credit to Crooks and Liars for the transcript.

There's never been a better reason to wax

2009-01-16T21:50:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to President-Elect Obama on his upcoming inauguration, and to President Bush on getting the hell out of DC. Let's help him celebrate, ladies!

This New York spa has a few ideas....

Don't mess with the British

2009-01-09T20:59:00.000-08:00

Even were they to be entirely destroyed by a nuclear attack, down to the last man, this article from Slate makes clear that the British have made sure they will have the opportunity to have the last laugh.

The fascinating part is that there's at least a chance that they would choose not to use it, even in the proven event of their own demise.

How spectacularly stiff upper lip of them, doncha think?

Now that's classy...

2009-01-07T18:50:00.000-08:00

This was obviously an accident on the military's part, but what an accident to make. As much as has been made over publishing the names of the military fallen - remember the uproar that accompanied Ted Koppel's decision to devote one full episode to Nightline to simply reading the names of the Iraq dead? - you would think that the military would have less of a tin ear regarding the importance of these men's and women's names.

Another horror of war

2009-01-04T11:40:00.000-08:00

The Army is investigating a cluster of suicides in a recruiting battalion in Houston - four recruiters have committed suicide within the battalion in the last seven years. This NPR story on the investigation is utterly horrifying in the desperation it reveals: combat veterans, many diagnosed with PTSD, forced into recruiting positions where they must paint the best possible picture of the military and war to encourage young men and women to join.

That's not to say that the military can't offer a good life and a host of benefits to many men and women. For my husband, now an Army captain, being an officer in the Army was almost all he ever wanted to do. He enjoys his job, he's good at it, and the job security and benefits are a lifeline in this economy. He is also preparing for his second tour in Iraq. For us, the balance of benefit vs. risk as part of the military is something that we negotiate almost daily. When that balance tips permanently into the risk category, we'll happily move on to another occupation.

However, how can recruiters be expected to explain that negotiation to the teenagers they recruit, all while they are being haunted by night terrors or other remembrances of their recent time in combat? How can they be expected to meet a quota?

Just another pieceof evidence that suggests that the all volunteer military is no longer a feasible proposition.

Fracking Ken Starr

2008-12-24T21:13:00.000-08:00

I can't think of a man more deserving of the title "Worthless Waste of Otherwise Useful Oyxgen" than Mr. Ken Starr. Case in point? This lovely piece courtesy of Calitics:

The Yes on 8 campaign wants to invalidate 18,000 same sex marriages - they've filed a brief with the California Supreme Court to that effect today.

With Ken Starr - yes, that Ken Starr - as their lead counsel:

The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Pepperdine University law school dean Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton....

Question: Is Apple really immune to the economic downturn?

2008-12-17T14:01:00.000-08:00

Answer: I doubt it.

Participating in his first earnings conference call in eight years (and doesn't that very fact say enough?), Steve Jobs did his best to sound confident and cocksure. But this recession isn't exactly leaving Apple untouched. While sales still seem relatively robust, Apple's stock price is off 50% from its height, and even Apple's once mighty refusal to reduce its prices has recently fallen to market pressures. But the real revelation from the conference call was Jobs' answer to the question of when Apple would be a low-priced laptop. Apples, Jobs insists, doesn't "know how to build a sub-$500 computer that is not a piece of junk."

As I sit here writing this blog on a great Compaq laptop that cost all of $400 and is decidedly no piece of junk, I think it is that attitude that may ultimately turn the tide in Apple's seemingly endless capture of market share. Jobs may not know how to build a low-cost laptop, but the American public sure as hell knows how to buy them. And after the steep discounts on many laptops that this Christmas season has seen, you'd better believe that people aren't going to be content to blithely pay $800+ for the privilege of computer portability.

Even Mac lovers might find that Apple loses its shine if it becomes the most expensive technology on the block.

A better idea than I gave Obama credit for

2008-12-14T21:43:00.000-08:00

I admit I was the first to criticize when President-Elect Obama announced he was keeping Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense. I wouldn't have considered his tenure all that spectacular a success up to know - we are, after all, still fighting two futile wars - and I thought the tendency not to "change horses mid-stream" was stupid when we tried it the first time while reelecting Bush in 2004.

However, this article from Slate points out some of the thinking on Gates' that must have been evident to Obama, and that undoubtedly informed Obama's decision to keep Gates on at least for the near future. Deciding that a military that has spent the last six years figthing an insurgent force in the middle of a desert could use fewer stealth bombers and navy warships and more armored vehicles to protect against roadside bombs may not seem like revolutionary thinking, but in a military that has been painfully slow to change its thinking since the end of the cold war, its practically a renaissance in tactics. And it is men like Gates in positions of civilian power - in conjunction with men like Petraeus in the military ranks - that are accomplishing some of the most fundamental change the American armed forces has seen in decades.

Here's hoping it works.

Everybody's thankful for something

2008-11-27T09:35:00.001-08:00

What am I thankful for, you ask? That's easy. Come the holiday season, my thanks is bountiful. But I have to admit that while I love my husband, my family, my friends and my dogs none of them are the target of my thanks during the holidays. Although the economy is in the toilet and I'm grateful to be gainfully employed, I'm not thankful for my job. I'm thrilled to be spending my first Thanksgiving in my own home, but I'm not thankful for my house or anything in it. I'm over the moon that come January 20th we'll have a new administration in the White House and I feel good about my part in that historic accomplishment, but I'm not thankful for it.

The sole focus of my thankfulness this holiday season?

Gravy.

God, I love gravy. I plan on making five cups of gravy. There will be eight of us for Thanksgiving dinner. And if there's not gravy left, I will be supremely pissed.

Hey - everybody has their priorities. And to all you folks out there who have been superseded on my thankfulness scale by golden, pourable goodness, Happy Thanksgiving anyway.

Schadenfreude

2008-11-25T15:43:00.001-08:00

If anyone you are familiar with the fabulous musical Avenue Q, then like me you will find it impossible to think of the word schadenfreude without silently singing to yourself the words "F@#$ you, lady, that's what stairs are for."

I say this because I've been quietly singing that phrase to myself all day after reading this morning in the Huffington Post that Ann Coulter has had her jaw wired shut.

Now don't get me wrong. If Coulter has indeed broken her jaw, I'm sure she's in a heap o' pain. And having had some jaw issues of my own in the past, I know just how unpleasant that type of pain can be. And I really wouldn't wish a broken jaw on anyone.

However. The irony is almost too delicious to discount altogether.

"F@#$ you, lady, that's what stairs are for" indeed.

When your every press conference seems scripted by SNL

2008-11-21T21:57:00.000-08:00

I'm not a Sarah Palin fan. No surprise there. But if I were her, I would find the staff person from her press office that allowed this interview to go on for three minutes with turkeys being obviously and rather gruesomely slaughtered in the background, and I would fire them. Immediately.

You have to be brain dead to allow television cameras to capture this horrific juxtaposition for this length of time.

Ah, sheesh. Just watch it. But lay off right around Thanksgiving. You'll ruin your appetite.

Small favors

2008-11-18T20:25:00.000-08:00

Seemingly against all odds, Ted Stevens has officially lost in his Senate reelection bid. Now behind by more than 3700 votes and with only 2500 votes left to count, it has become statistically impossible for Stevens to prevail (even in Alaska). For the country, Stevens' loss offers two opportunities for celebration.

First, we can all rejoice that the good people of Alaska weren't faced with the embarrassment of having reelected a convicted felon to the Senate. After the slapstick that was the McCain/Palin campaign, Alaskans don't need any more farce in their politics. Considering Steven's egregious ethics violations and the honestly ridiculous gifts he accepted (has anyone seen that horrible fish sculpture?), it seems beyond belief that this is Stevens' first trip to the cookie jar. This is only the first time he got caught with his hand in it. Bravo to Alaskans for refusing to allow Stevens another opportunity to sell his votes.

More importantly, Stevens' loss ensures that Sarah Palin can't appoint herself to fill his seat, an outcome that several news outlets, including this one, had predicted might be in the offing if Stevens won. No Congress - and certainly not the current Democratically controlled one - wants to profane the dignity of its political body by allowing a convicted felon to continue as a voting member. If Stevens had been reelected, the Senate would have been forced to remove him from office, thus setting the stage for Palin to potentially appoint herself to fill the seat or (worse!) participate in a special election. Such an outcome would have given Alaskans the chance to vote for a felon and a maverick-y fighter who pals around with real Americans all in the same election cycle.

That's a hell of a lot of democracy to handle all at once. It's probably better this way.

Four cheers (and four stars) for Ann Dunwoody

2008-11-14T19:13:00.000-08:00

We've come a long way as a nation this year. With Hillary Clinton's candidacy for president, the U.S. took its first serious look at a female presidency while demonstrating only minor squeamishness. But while Clinton still ultimately walked away from that campaign with a host of bruises from banging her head on a glass ceiling that refused to budge, Ann Dunwoody managed to obliterate the military's "brass ceiling.: Today, Dunwoody was officially promoted to four-star general, the first female in U.S. military history to achieve that rank. What's even more amazing to me is that Dunwoody has achieved this first as the culmination to a 33 year career in which she herself has never been in a unit commanded by a female. Not many women get to blaze trails like that in a lifetime.

Just to put this all in perspective, let's consider the meteoric rise of women in the military over the last fifty years or so. Following World War II, women's only access to the armed services was as a WAC, or member of the Women's Army Corps. The highest rank attainable as a WAC was that of lieutenant colonel. No woman could be promoted any higher. And choosing a career in the military meant choosing not to have children since no WAC was allowed to remain on active duty on becoming pregnant and as long as she had a child under the age of 18.

If she can't be the boss, will she be the secretary?

2008-11-13T18:06:00.000-08:00

I don't think I was the only one who was surprised by the revelation today that Hillary Clinton is on President-Elect Obama's short list for Secretary of State. But after the initial shock wore off, a few things started to make sense. Obama was basically honor-bound to offer Senator Clinton some sort of important position in his administration; he owed her that much. After a sometimes bitter primary season, Clinton was a tireless campaigner on Obama's behalf throughout the remainder of the election, and the weight of that support was no small thing.

As much as Obama owed Clinton, however, the only position that had ever been seriously bandied about - Supreme Court Justice - didn't particularly make sense. Clinton is too much of a politician and too much of a policy wonk to ever be truly happy on the bench. Not to mention the fact that there's something a little creepy about being repaid for all your hard work on the campaign trail by being offered a position that requires that someone die first. (Then again, isn't that what being offered the vice presidency is all about....?)

Then there's that sudden thawing of relations between former President Clinton and soon to be President Obama. What changed Clinton's mind? Was it his realization that Obama would soon be the leader of his party and his country that brought him out of his funk? Or was it a tacit agreement that a position like Secretary of State was waiting for Senator Clinton on the other side of the election?

All such political payback considerations aside, I think Clinton would be a fascinating choice for Secretary of State. She has the foreign relations credentials, she has the careful and strategic mind required for the job, and she would be a striking contrast to Condoleezza Rice.

Read it. Watch it. Buy it.

2008-11-12T17:09:00.000-08:00

Read it: I am an avid Diana Gabaldon fan. Maybe even rabid. I started reading Gabaldon's Outlander series when my husband and I first moved to Germany. In a foreign country, barely knowing anyone, and without a job I stumbled into the only bookstore in town with a significant English language section and picked out the fattest books in the whole place - something that would really fill up my time. Not only did Gabaldon's Outlander books fill up the time, but there were also fabulously written, obsessively researched, and beautifully plotted - a trifecta that you just don't find that often in "popular" novels. With a healthy dose of science fiction, a smidgen of romance and a heaping helping of historical fiction Gabaldon's novels are hard to appropriately categorize. In bookstores I've seen them in both the romance and the science fiction sections but don't let these labels turn you off. I promise you that if you crack the first book, you'll want to work through them all. Which will leave you in the position I find myself in currently: waiting impatiently for the next book to come out in late 2009. And then I won't be so cranky all by myself.

Watch it: The MPAA ratings board is not something that often crosses my mind, or at least it hasn't since I turned 17 and didn't have to worry about whether or not I could get into the theatre to see an R-rated movie any more. The excellent - and more than a little disturbing - documentary, This Film Is Not Yet Rated changed all that. The most shocking part of this documentary for me was the horrifying realization that, in the MPAA ratings board, the American public unwittingly condones the kind of censorship of films that would be considered tantamount to book burning if the medium were written word. The MPAA, an agency with absolute power over ratings decisions - and thus near absolute power over a film's marketing and distribution - operates in almost total secrecy, apparently with no set guidelines for assigning ratings, and in collusion with studios. And yet, because American parents have no other means of determining whether or not a film is suitable for children - and because this information understandably matters to them - the MPAA's particular brand of censorship, heavily weighted against sexual scenes and nearly indifferent to violence, is thriving.

Buy it: After never owning a game system until well into my twenties, my husband I went all in with the Wii, and we've loved it. With so many games that we can play cooperatively as a couple, the Wii has given us another activity to enjoy together. Our favorite new game? Guitar Hero: World Tour. There's not a lot to say about Guitar Hero that hasn't already be said. Yes, it makes you feel like a rock god. Yes, you look absolutely ridiculous playing plastic instruments while obviously laboring under the delusion that you're a rock God. No, you don't particularly care. Why? Because you are a rock god, and as such are above such petty human concerns. The bottom line: it really is just that fun.

Throwing Palin to the wolves

2008-11-06T19:23:00.000-08:00

I have to admit that I am taking unabashed pleasure in the sheer glee with which many in the Republican party - heck, many of McCain's own campaign staffers - are taking in throwing Sarah Palin to the wolves. Between the revelations that the $150,000 shopping spree may have been more like $200,000, the Republican lawyers supposedly dispatched to Wasilla to yank the clothes directly from the former VP pick's back, the renewed accusations of diva-like temper tantrums, and - this is my favorite - the claim (on Fox News!) that Palin had to be told that Africa was a continent and walked through the Iraq war timeline with pictures and finger puppets. All in all, it's been nearly too much schadenfreude for me to handle.

Of course, I tend to sober up when I remember that the very same people who are trashing her now are the people who were assuring the American people with straight faces and uncrossed fingers that this woman was fit to lead this nation. That tends to wipe the smile right off my face. Because I can think of no more despicable political act - no better way to demonstrate how little the McCain camp really seemed to care about this nation - than the fact that, knowing what they seemed to know about her character and her qualifications, they nominated her anyway.

To the loser go the crap speeches

2008-11-04T20:21:00.001-08:00

I have never heard McCain give such a lackluster, passionless, flat, sincerely insincere speech as he did when giving his concession speech. He didn't even bother to slow to down at the applause lines.

President Obama

2008-11-04T20:02:00.001-08:00

Switching madly back and forth between CNN, NBC and MSNBC. Texting with my husband and IM'ing with a good friend. And blogging all the while. That's how I will remember the moment that Barack Obama became the first black man to win the presidency.

Ich Leibe Es

2008-11-04T19:04:00.000-08:00

Full of wine and Chinese food that I rushed like a mad woman to buy on the way home, I am finally starting to achieve calm and confidence that Obama is going to win this election. I have been so moved by the amazing turnout for this election and by the equally amazing stories to come out of it.:

On the way home listening to NPR, they mentioned one of their bloggers who is a poll worker in Santa Monica, CA. A woman in ACTIVE LABOR came into her polling place to vote today before going to the hospital to have her baby. They let her go to the front of the line since she was having contractions as she stood there.

A sorority sister in Kentucky waited two hours to vote this morning before having to leave to make a job interview she could not miss. Last I heard, she had returned to the polling place to wait again after the interview and was in her third hour of waiting.

My husband's sister (shout out to you, Christina) sent me a link to this article from Yahoo about an elderly woman who, following a stroke, needs a feeding tube and cannot walk. Yet she still voted from an ambulance and on a gurney.

Another story from NPR that I heard on Monday was about a gentleman who, much like the late Christopher Reeve, was paralyzed from the neck down. With his daughter's assistance, he still managed to cast his ballot.

I love these stories so much because they demonstrate so clearly what can happen in this country when the people are presented with real choice - not the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't choices we've been faced with so often recently, most notably in both 2000 and 2004. I don't have any idea if Obama can sustain this level of idealism; when he can no longer blame Bush for the problems this country faces - when, in fact, they become his problems - this sense of unity may fade into the background. But at this moment, Obama seems to have the type of mandate that Bush claimed to have, but which few presidents actually enjoy. My hope is that he can sustain it and achieve real change.

Stupid Kentucky

2008-11-04T17:31:00.000-08:00

I hate that the first state called for McCain is Kentucky.

I'm not surprised by it, but I hate it.

I feel a little sick

2008-11-03T18:14:00.000-08:00

I thought that the 2004 election would be a benchmark for me as far as emotions go. I was living in Germany at the time, attending a German university and working to complete a degree in American Studies in a program with a multi-national student body. As a consequence, I was frequently reminded of the international goodwill that President Bush's policies, especially with regard to Iraq, had squandered. Most Europeans I spoke with were willing to give Americans a pass on electing Bush in 2000; no one could have foreseen how 9/11 would give the president such an unprecedented mandate to expand executive power, trample civil liberties, and wage an unpopular war. But the consensus seemed to be that if Bush were reelected, the responsibility for his policies would fall squarely on the American people. It's the old chestnut: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Watching that election from the outside, I simply couldn't imagine that Bush would be reelected. Going into election day, the race was obviously close; but polls seemed to indicate that Kerry had a real chance. And then that chance disappeared. I felt absolutely sick. I was embarrassed for my country in the same way I would have been embarrassed for an otherwise strong and intelligent friend who had married a misogynist, afraid that the world would judge her for her choice of mate and not recognize the powerful woman she really was. I wanted more for my nation, and I couldn't understand why my nation didn't want more for itself.

I thought that was as bad as it could get. But this is so much worse. Because if tomorrow night ends with a President-elect McCain instead of a President-elect Obama, the disappointment will be crushing. Not because I am an Obama-maniac. I think anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that while I have become an Obama supporter, my support has been tempered by disappointment in many of his choices and in what has seemed at times to be his sense of entitlement towards the office of the presidency. Too, I fully understand that Obama's success to this point has been highly dependent on the failing economy; without it, he would not be in the seemingly strong position he finds himself in today.

Nevertheless, a McCain presidency strikes absolute terror in my heart. I am terrified that my military husband will be killed in one useless war or another waged by a war-mongering McCain. I am terrified that the anti-American, socialist and communist name-calling that has characterized the McCain campaign will indelibly color a McCain administration, possibly leading to a new era of McCarythism. I am terrified that illness would put a President Palin in office, leaving what is perhaps the world's most powerful position in dangerously unqualified hands.

Eight years have shown us the damage that one man can do to this country. I feel sick thinking how much worse things could get under McCain. And I'm not sure whether or not enough Americans agree with me.

Our bodies, Our selves...Maybe

2008-10-31T20:48:00.000-07:00

This article from Slate.com's XX Factor blog is truly disturbing on several levels, not the least of which is that it brings up an often forgotten factor in all the hype over fetuses and their "rights" (or lack thereof) - the rights of the women who just happen to be incubating those fetuses. Somehow, the abortion war has become so vehement that the life and rights of the women actually carrying these children are slowly being eroded, forgotten and negated. Not only is abortion being criminalized, but the rights of women who actually wish to carry their children to term are being compromised, all because of the supposed tantamount right of the fetus.

I myself have gone to considerable trouble to try and get pregnant. If I found out today that I was pregnant, I would be thrilled. I would in no way wish to have an abortion. But until any baby I am able to conceive is able to survive on its own - well after the 20th week - that baby would be, in my estimation, nothing more than a very wanted, very loved parasite. It is not a human being. And in no way would its rights trump mine. Any argument that they should is not only outrageous; it is also a blatant and obvious attempt to further rob women of their reproductive freedom - perhaps even more so than the issues at work in the abortion debate.

I encourage you to not only read the article, but also to spend the six minutes it takes to watch the video linked through the post. Things like that should never be allowed to happen.

Obama's conversation with America

2008-10-29T20:32:00.000-07:00

I admit to being more than a little worried about the Obama campaign's half-hour extravaganza this evening. I was worried that it was going to be OTT in a this-is-me-already-being-the- president kind of way. I was worried there would be more Greek columns or Oprah appearances (in fairness, there were hints of columns and Lady O, but only partially in frame during some of the video clips). I was worried it would be a love me, love my personal history I-was-Barack's-high-
school-sweetheart-and-he's-a-great-man disaster.

I was wrong.

It was a fine line the campaign was walking here. Presenting Obama's message to the American people without being preachy or didactic. Settling some of the scores with McCain without resorting to personal attacks. Energizing the base to get out the vote in the last week while still remaining moderate and centrist enough to win over independents still on the fence. All in all, I think they accomplished all this beautifully. Here are a few notes about the program in no particular order - no live blogging tonight.

I wasn't sure Obama's message would resonate with me. Then again, I'm not exactly the audience he was aiming for. I was firmly in his corner - hell, I already voted for the man - but I have been unhappy with some of his choices during this campaign. And, given my druthers, I'd rather it be Hillary Clinton in his position. But as it's not, I've come to accept Obama as the nominee. And, in a post-Sarah Palin world, I've come to view him as the only sane choice. But tonight's message even got me a little misty-eyed. I was very impressed by Obama's repeated calls for personal responsibility - a call that has been sorely missing from American's politics for more than thirty years. With regard to energy conservation, children's education, and public service Obama made clear that the American people had as much to accomplish in their own lives as did American government. That's a sentiment that strikes a real chord with me. And it dovetails nicely with Obama's continued calls for people who can afford to pay taxes to actually pay them. Maybe I'm alone, but I don't feel my part of the tax burden is all that burdensome. It's a chunk of money, and Lord knows I'd rather spend it on purses (or at least that's what my husband thinks), but it's not an extraordinary amount to ask of a citizen, especially when the country faces a deficit larger than most country's GDP. Paying taxes and giving back through service and responsibility - that's what American values should be about.

It was interesting that there were no personal testimonies by senators until well into the second half of the program - most were by governors. A subtle attempt to undercut the lack of executive experience argument that's been used against him. If all these executives think he'd be a good president, the argument goes, what's the problem?

The most poignant parts of the whole thirty minutes for me? First, the segment with the American family in Louisville, Kentucky. The confluence of my hometown and a family that's facing many of the same financial stresses and fears that some many of friends left in Louisville are also faced with made it that much more powerful to me. Secondly, the African-American couple, both retired, whose medical bills forced him to go back to work. The segment showed him getting ready to go to that retirement job - at Wal-Mart. I cringed audibly at that one. And if you didn't too, then you need to go rent "The High Cost of Low Prices" right now. It's even on Netflix.

Tomorrow's spin - Will definitely focus on the fact that the campaign is now saying that Obama's tax plan will only cut taxes for American's making $200,000 or less, not $250,000 or less as previously stated. Too, the sheer cost of the add. Obama is going to get slammed on the fact that the only reason he had the funds to pay for it was because he reneged on a promise to use federal campaign funds. But, honestly, he earned those knocks. He did go back on his word, and he's going to have to take the punishment for it.

So here's the real question - did this add make any difference for the folks it was supposed to reach? That no one knows. But it was far from the disaster I feared it would be and much more a serious and measured appeal to the American people. And that's got to be at least partially a good thing.

Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe

2008-10-24T20:51:00.000-07:00

This has pretty well been done to death in the media, which is why I haven't yet bothered to comment. I feel sure that anything worth saying has already been said, ad naseum, on CNN. Nevertheless, I feel like it's my job to comment on these sorts of things, so let me throw my two cents in and be done with it.

On the issue of the appearance double standard - It is absolutely true that a female politician's appearance is much more an issue than that of a male at election time. Study after study has shown that a female politician's wardrobe and hairstyling is a constant source of comment in the media during a campaign while her male opponent's tie and shoe choice rarely comes up. In this estimation, the scandal over John Edwards' $400 haircut is merely the exception that proves the rule. It's also true that no one is obsessing over the cost of Biden's or Obama's wardrobe (McCain looks so ridiculous in his clothing that I hope he isn't spending a fortune on it; if he is, he's getting scammed). Then again, no one would have known about the money Palin spent on clothes if it hadn't been (potentially illegally) charged to the campaign.

On the issue of whether this should be an issue - Sarah Palin has absolutely every right to spend as much money as she wants on clothes. As long as it's her own money. The second she (or her handlers) started spending donor's money, she became fair game.

On the sheer chutzpah of it all - The campaign has tried to justify the expense by suggesting that Palin is a woman constantly in the public eye, and she needs to present a classy and pulled-together exterior. I don't think anyone's debating the fact that image is an issue in a television culture. However, I do resent the implication that in order to dress the part of a VP candidate, Palin has to do so in designer clothing. You spend $2500 on a silk Valentino jacket because you want to, not because you need to. And for her to suggest that she's just a small town girl who understands America's economic pain and disdains elitism while wearing such a jacket is obscene. The fact that she doesn't seem to understand the hypocrisy of it all proves my point better than anything else.

On donating the items to charity - Are you serious? How many people could you have fed with $150,000? How many people could have had warm coats for the winter for $150,000? How many low-income homes could you have heated for $150,000? What exactly is a $2500 silk jacket going to do for anyone in need? Again, if the money were hers, it would be up to her how she spent it. But it's not hers. And for anyone to suggest that donating the items to charity would somehow correct the error is patently ridiculous. If she wants to make ammends, she should donate the same amount of money to a worthwhile cause. Perhaps that would remind her in the future to be careful how she spends donated funds.

On blaming it on the handlers - It has been suggested that campaign staffers - and not Palin herself - actually purchased the clothes, therefore, it's not her fault. I have two things to say to that: if staffers spent this kind of money on her wardrobe instead of on actual campaigning in battleground states, then they deserve to lose. Double dumbass on them. And then there's the issue of Palin requesting a better wardrobe for her appearance on SNL - either the lady had expensive tastes to begin with and those purchases were hers, or she's become accustomed to her new duds ridiculously quickly.

The lesson from all this? If you have a love of fashion, don't charge it to the campaign expense account. Put on the personal credit card and regret it when you get the statement, just like the rest of us. And either way don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you kick off the Joe the Plumber bus tour in Valentino. Everyone knows that Joe the Plumber wouldn't be caught dead wearing anyone but Prada.

Obama wins over the military vote (at least partially)

2008-10-21T21:24:00.000-07:00

This is a great piece from The Huffington Post on Obama and military voters, a demographic that has long been assumed to be either apolitical or to lean heavily towards the Republican side of the spectrum. Perhaps my favorite quote from the piece is this, from Paul Bucha, a retired Army Captain who received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his extraordinary valor in Vietnam. Speaking of Obama, Bucha said:

This is a man that understands uniting and honor. He says there is nothing more they must do who serve abroad to come home with honor. There is nothing more that we can add or we can subtract to what they have done. They are already owed their full honor. So, it is wrong to say someone must surrender to allow us to win before they can have honor.

Especially in light of Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama - which, I might add, was so reasonably and clearing laid out that it gave me some respect for Powell again - the sheer mass of military men and women who are breaking for Obama should hint at the volume of bullshit that underlays McCain's supposed rock-solid support of veterans and military issues.

McCarthyism gets a new name - Bachmannism

2008-10-18T10:48:00.000-07:00

Minnesota Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann deserves to lose her job. Thankfully, the good people of Minnesota have a chance to make sure that happens in a little less than three weeks. Her ridiculous, fear-mongering insistence that Senator Obama - along with other unnamed congressional colleagues - is anti-American, and that the only way to root out the source of the myriad sources of this anti-Americanism is for the media to conduct an expose is a disgrace to the people of her district and the seriousness of the office she holds. (Incidentally, why is it that Republicans hate the mainstream media right up until the point when they want to conduct partisan witch hunts, then suddenly the media is their ally in crime?)

Unfortunately, Bachmann was undoubtedly just taking a cue from the latest McCain/Palin campaign rally in North Carolina, during which Sarah Palin expressed relief at being in one of the pro-America parts of the nation. This kind of speech is taking the politics of division to heights not seen since the 1950's, and it is doing damage to the fabric of this country that may not be obvious for some time to come.

Live blogging the presidential debate, Part II

2008-10-15T17:52:00.001-07:00

9:03pm - Why does McCain always have to bring up some Republican being in the hospital at the start of every debate? Here's a thought - you're a really old guy and you might sicken and die in office; don't highlight all the other old Republicans who are doing that right now.
9:06pm - We're doing the Fundamental count tonight. Total Fundamental Count: 1.
9:11pm - What does class warfare have to do with anything, Senator McCain?
9:15pm - Faced with a tough question on where he would cut the budget to make for a record budget deficit, Obama sounds fiscally responsible without actually answering the question - where in God's name are we going to come up with a trillion dollars to just get even?
9:17pm - McCain's answer to the same question is much worse - first, we'll spend money buying homes and on renewable energy, then we'll create jobs. That'll take care of that wily deficit! Then he falls back on the Nike approach. How will we save money? We'll just do it! I know how!
9:20pm - McCain has a nice line: "Senator Obama, I'm not President Bush. If you wanted to run against him, you should have run four years ago." To make this point, however, he tosses off an unsupported assertion that he can balance the budget in four years. Doesn't say how. Must be the Nike approach again.
9:25pm - Matt has a great idea a little too late - I should have done a "hatchet vs. scalpel" count. Damn.
9:25pm - Schieffer puts it out there: are either of you willing to say the negative accusations to one another's face? McCain, interestingly, decides not to mention the Ayers comments. Although he does have the cajones to call the kettle black on negative ads. Ballsy.
9:28pm - Obama fights back, suggests that 100% of McCain's ads have been negative. Calls bullshit on McCain's suggestion that Obama's failure to agree to a host of town halls engendered the negative ads. Nicely done.
9:32pm - Obama demonstrates the size of his own cajones by calling McCain out on the bad behavior of his supporters.
9:35pm - McCain goes for the jugular. Ayers and ACORN in the same breath. CNN's uncommited Ohio voters - especially women - are not impressed.
9:38pm - McCain smirks and looks snide throughout Obama's measured explanation of Ayers and ACORN. Obama provides plausible explanations for both; McCain looks silly and posturing.
9:39pm - McCain won't let Ayers or ACORN go. Ohio uncommiteds flatline.
9:42pm - Sarah Palin is a role model for women and reformers everywhere? Really? Interestingly, the Ohio uncommited men lap it up; the women flatline. But everyone rallies for special needs babies. Sheesh.
9:44pm - Obama points out that special needs funding will require McCain to put his money where his mouth is. The hatchet won't be so useful there.
9:47pm - Both candidates suggest that we can eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil within 10 years. What neither candidate addresses - is offshore drilling actually feasible at $70-something a barrel instead of $140-something a barrel? I doubt it.
9:53pm - McCain makes a silly and rambling point about Columbia and NAFTA. Then he looks ridiculously shifty-eyed while Obama gives a relatively measured and sensible response. Ohio uncommitteds eat it up. On appearance alone, McCain seems to be losing this debate badly.
9:57pm - Obama gives another measured response on health care. It sounds like a sensible plan although not particularly sexy or inventive.
9:59pm - Asked to give his ideas for controlling health care spending, McCain AGAIN mentions putting medical records online FIRST. His plan sounds piecemeal, not particularly helpful, and doesn't seem to have much to do with actual medical care. Then a lot of attacks on Obama's plan. Ohio uncommitted women are hating life.
10:02pm - Massive bungle for McCain on the health care issue. Obama basically gets to sound sensible twice in a row; in between, McCain sounds useless and ineffectual. And negative.
10:03pm - Finally! Total Fundamental Count: 2. Not much of a drinking game tonight. Just noticed that McCain has no flag lapel pin this evening.
10:04pm - McCain rolls out the "gold-plated Cadillac" health insurance plan analogy again. These days, those policies are apparently covering "cosmetic surgery and transplants." I'll have a brow lift and a new kidney, please.
10:05pm - Total Fundamental Count: 3.
10:08pm - If only it were true. McCain espouses the opinion that qualifications and not ideologies should matter when appointing judges to the Supreme Court.
10:10pm - Obama takes the balanced approach, suggesting that women are the best decision makers with regard to abortion, in consultation with their families, their doctors, and their religious counselors.
10:11pm - McCain carelessly discards Obama's argument about the Lilly Ledbetter and fair pay. Ohio uncommitted women nosedive.
10:14pm - While Obama speaks about finding some common ground on the issue of abortion, McCain sighs dramatically.
10:26pm - McCain giggles and smirks throughout Obama's response on education. Whether or not Obama has the best ideas here, why can't McCain keep his facial expressions in check?
10:29pm - McCain sounds sensible and sincere in his closing statement. Where was this guy the last hour and a half?

No one is going to be won over to McCain after watching this debate. He was dismissive, condescending, and relentlessly negative. It wasn't a particularly pleasant thing to watch, and it was certainly his worst debate performance so far. Obama was his regular wonkish self although he did pull out some of the bigger guns in response to McCain's negativity. For Obama, it was par for the course. For McCain it was a win for the ultra-conservative base and a loss on every other front.

Does God hate abortionists or Catholics?

2008-10-13T21:18:00.000-07:00

In an otherwise interesting piece on pro-lifers who've moved away from the Republican party for this election posted today on Slate, one sentence in particular slapped me right across the face:

"Doug Kmiec, the conservative pro-life law professor, was denied the sacrament this summer after he announced in Slate that he was for Obama."

Nor, apparently, is Mr. Kmiec an isolated incident. Catholic Republicans considering voting for Obama in the upcoming election were referred to anonymously in the piece because they didn't want to be thought of as abandoning their faith and, for some, because they had a real "fear of being barred from receiving communion."

I know nothing about Mr. Kmiec or his beliefs on abortion. Nor do I need to. Because the church - Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise - has no business inserting itself into the politics of its members. Nor does it have any business denying its members a holy sacrament based on their stated political preference. If God has a problem with a pro-life Catholic voting for Obama, I'm sure he'll deal with it in his own way. Petty punishments that use people's faith against them are not only fundamentally ridiculous, they also degrade the sanctity of belief itself.

For shame.

Why this elite woman disagrees with Ann Marlowe

2008-10-08T18:38:00.000-07:00

Head on over to Forbes.com and read this article by Ann Marlowe. Go ahead, I'll wait. It just gives me an opportunity to build up a good head of steam.

I suppose Marlowe would characterize me as one of the angst-ridden elite women she refers to in her piece. I am childless, though not necessarily by choice. I've got a passport, and I haven't been afraid to use it. I have a graduate degree and am (vaguely) working toward a doctorate. I dabble in the garden, however ineffectually. So, since I seem to fit so perfectly into Marlowe's elite mold, I'm going to take the liberty of responding to her simplistic and not terribly thoughtful analysis of how we elite women think with regard to Sarah Palin. Although it's true I'm not yet a "certified member" of the elite, you'll forgive me this presumption I'm sure; last I heard, my certification was in the mail.

Marlowe's main argument seems to be that "elite women" are so perversely opposed to the idea of Governor Sarah Palin as Vice President Sarah Palin because (I can hardly even type this) she makes us feel inadequate. What with her obvious fecundity and her boundless ambition, Marlowe argues that Palin leaves the rest of us feeling as if we've wasted our lives in useless pursuits like volunteering and going to college. Faced with the stark reality of our privately pointless existence, Marlowe thinks that we elite women see in Palin's public purpose an echo of where our lives could have gone if we'd only tried a little harder and done a little more. She's the girl in math class who ruined the curve for the rest of us, and we resent her for it.

Marlowe comes to this conclusion about how elite women think by analyzing our angst-ridden cry, "If Sarah Palin is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, so am I!" Which, I suppose is all well and good. Or it would be. If she hadn't COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. We elite women aren't upset because we feel we have every right to be in Palin's shoes. We're upset because we know we that we have no right to fill her shoes. Nor, for that matter, does she. Sarah Palin is no more qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presideny than your average elite woman, this one included. The best politicians combine a passion for public service and a set of lofty policy ideals with a willingness to compromise and an understanding of how government works by and for the people. They bring a wealth of leadership experience - political or otherwise - to bear on the issue of government. And, hopefully, they get things done. Your average elite woman (or is that an oxymoron, Ms. Marlowe?) may have some of these, but she doesn't have all. Knowing her strengths and weaknesses, she suspects that political life is not the best use of her talents.

Sarah Palin has no such sense of introspection. Nor, incidentally, has she been able to demonstrate a single one of the qualities listed above. Instead of a passion for public service, she's demonstrated a zeal for personal enrichment. Lofty policy ideals were shoved aside in favor of craven political pandering. Palin had no need for an understanding of government; while mayor of Wasilla she paid a city manager to understand government for her. And what about that experience issue?

Despite Marlowe's claims, Palin isn't all that different from your average elite woman - she didn't spend a lot of time in meetings talking about school bond issues and off ramps either. As governor, she spent the majority of her time being paid state per diem not to go to work, all while governing a state with a population smaller than that of Louisville, Kentucky. I'd tend toward the snide if Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson ran for president, and he's got twenty years experience. Yet I'm supposed to feel warm and fuzzy about Sarah Palin? Please.

But experience is just the tip of the elite anger iceberg. The real reason we elite women can't stand Sarah Palin can be found in her every snide wink and subtle innuendo. Every time she wrinkles her nose at East coast elites, every time she attempts to capitalize on financial worries to further divide this country along economic lines, every time she stages a rally where hate speech is not only tolerated but seemingly courted - those are the real reasons we can't stand Sarah Palin. Because Sarah Palin so clearly hates us. But not just us. Sarah Palin clearly can't stand the thought of an America that is truly a United States. And since a united America seems clearly to favor Obama, Sarah Palin seems content to see a divided America vote McCain.

A thousand thanks to Anthony for pointing this piece out to me (despite the uncomfortable spike to my blood pressure from reading it).

Live-blogging the presidential debate

2008-10-07T17:52:00.001-07:00

9First things first: I'm happy to be able to give a shout out to Jen, one of my most loyal readers in Louisville, Kentucky. Here's a challenge, though Jen - you can't just read, you've got to comment every now and again, too.

Now on to the debate:

8:55pm - No danger of train wrecks tonight - or at least not nearly as much danger as there was for Biden and Palin. Instead, both candidates need to focus on appearing strong and competent without being too angry or going overly negative. Another real danger? Ponytail Guy. Watch out for him.
8:59pm - Disappointingly, I've just realized I'm out of wine. No chance of a Maverick drinking game for me tonight.
9:00pm - That is one teeny tiny town in that hall.
9:05pm - Allen's question. Obama is first up; his answer is particularly new - we've heard a lot of this before. But he sounds competent and in charge.
9:07pm - McCain takes on Allen's question and leads off with...energy independence? Really? That's the first step in your plan? Doesn't sound all that useful to help Joe Six-Pack with his gutted 401K. On the upside, McCain does a better job working the room than did Obama who stayed in one spot too long.
9:08pm - Ooohh...let's do a Maverick count and a My Friends count. My Friends total count: 1.
9:09pm - Bizarre mention of folks who make their living on eBay by McCain. Desperate attempt to sound hip and with it?
9:11pm - McCain rolls out the old "I suspended my campaign in this crisis" line. Isn't that so debunked now that it's almost ridiculous to mention?
9:14pm - Obama: "I've got to correct a little bit of Senator McCain's history, not surprisingly..." A little early to be snide, isn't it?
9:33pm - Obama suggests that military families shouldn't be the only ones bearing the burden of service. I'll stand behind that.
9:35pm - Obama again uses the that's a hatchet when you need a scalpel line. It's apropos, but it's old. He could use some new catchphrases.
9:37pm - In McCain's tax plan, childless people get screwed again. Why can't I double the deduction on my dogs from $3500 to $7000?
9:37pm - Brokaw gets scrappy with regard to the debate rules.
9:41pm - Total My Friends count: 2. McCain's plan for Social Security? It's not that hard - you just have to sit down with folks across the aisle. Who knew that's all it would take?
9:42pm - Total My Friends count: 3.
9:43pm - Great question, Ingrid. How will you make Congress get off their tushes on the environment and alternative energy? Total My Friends count: 4.
9:46pm - Obama: "Senator McCain is right that Congress hasn't done anything about renewable energy for the last 30 years. What he doesn't mention is that he's been there for 26 of them." Nice sound bite.
9:48pm - Total My Friends count: 4. By the way - did he just refer to Obama as "that one"?
9:49pm - Total My Friends count: 5. It would have been a long dry night if I'd been doing a Maverick drinking game. I wonder if that's on purpose after all the laughing at the Maverick's expense this week.
9:53pm - Health costs are skyrocketing and McCain hits on....putting medical records online? Really? My mom does this for a living. It's required for all hospitals within the next five years as it is. Why would you mention this, much less first?
9:55pm - McCain calls health care a responsibility. Big mistake. Will Obama capitalize?
9:56pm - Obama calls health care a right. Damn right. He hit that one out of the park, especially with the mention of his mother wrangling with insurance companies over pre-existing conditions.
10:00pm - Total My Friends count: 6. By the way - how could I just have noticed that candy cane tie McCain is wearing? Total My Friends count: 7.
10:03pm - Next debate I'm getting a "Fundamental" drinking game going.
10:06pm - My Friends count: 8. No wait: 9.
10:08pm - How do you exacerbate a reputation?
10:11pm - McCain plays the old "Obama would announce that he was going to attack Pakistan" line. It occurs to me that we announced we were going to attack Iraq. By several days. We gave them a specific time, for Pete's sake. It was a sensible thing to do to give Saddam a deadline and allow innocent people to flee Baghdad. Why does he keep harping on this stupid issue?
10:14pm - Obama, in so many words, calls McCain a crazy old coot.
10:15pm - Total My Friends count: 10. How will McCain get bin Laden? He'll take the Nike approach. He'll just do it.
10:20pm - The lights off McCain's head are a little glaring in the wide view.
10:25pm - Total My Friends count: 11. No wait: 12.
10:31pm - Obama's grandmother was scrimpin' to help put him through school. When did he start dropping his g's?
10:32pm - McCain has the misfortune of having to tell his family story after Obama's. Who's going to believe a white guy growing up in the fifties had it worse than a black man in the seventies?

Overall - I thought it was a narrow Obama win. He showed a lot more fire than he did in the first debate, but he finished weakly on the Russia issue. McCain - other than that senseless "that one" comment - was his usual snarky self. Nevertheless, he finished better than Obama did. I doubt this debate changed any minds - it certainly won't have the power that the VP debate had last week. What was most interesting was how relatively civil this debate was after the nasty turn the larger campaign has taken in the last few days.

BTW - I'm watching CNN now and they focused on whether or not the two would shake hands after the debate. At one point, Obama stuck out his hand in McCain's direction, either McCain ignored it or didn't see it, left Obama hanging, and he ended up shaking Cindy's hand. I wonder if this will be an issue...

The place in hell reserved for women who miquote Madeleine Albright

2008-10-05T09:53:00.000-07:00

Check out this video of Sarah Palin, at a campaign rally in California, suggesting that "there's a special place in hell reserved for women who don't support women." Which is awesome, because I never really feel like I'm able to connect to a candidate until they've damned me to hell. Now we can truly be friends! Interested in what the quote actually said (it's a one word change, but boy does it make a difference)? You can find it here.

Joe pulls a Sarah

2008-10-04T08:32:00.000-07:00

Senator Biden gave a speech at his son's deployment ceremony yesterday. The cameras conveniently captured the whole thing.

I hated it when Palin did it, and I hate it that Biden did it. Those ceremonies are incredibly tough, perhaps even more so for National Guard troops who first deploy to a training area, making their total time away from their families that much longer. Those cameras must have felt incredibly intrusive to the families of those who were deploying. I do, of course, understand that Biden was himself sending his son off to war. And, of course, he has a right to be there. But he could've done so quietly, with no cameras and no speeches. It certainly would've been the classier thing to do.

Read it. Watch it. Buy it.

2008-10-03T20:09:00.000-07:00

Thought I would inaugurate a new segment on the blog discussing all things new and interesting in the world of literature, film, and consumerism - three of my favorite things.

Read it: Two great comedic reads from two very different authors: Bill Bryson's Neither Here Nor There: Travels in Europe and David Sedaris' When You Are Engulfed in Flames. Sedaris' brilliance is, I think, well established, all the more so if you've ever caught him on This American Life. Once you've heard him read one of his pieces aloud, you will never be able to look at his writing the same again. Every Sedaris work from then on will require two readings - one silently to yourself, and another when you read and let his voice recite the words in your mind. I promise you you'll laugh harder the second time. Bryson's tone is a radical departure from Sedaris' in this book, and he's a bit more coarse than I'm used to from his work in A Short History of Nearly Everything. But many of his observations of Europe are spot on - except for maybe that one paragraph about the Germans. Nevertheless, it's a joyful romp across the European continent, and worth you $9.95. It almost makes me wish I was still teaching. I had a student who absolutely loved and constantly tried to emulate the writing of Dave Barry. It would have been fascinating to point him towards Bryson and Sedaris and see if the radical style departure carried over into his writing.

Watch it: Another pairing, this time Capote and Children of Men. Maybe you should save the comedy for after you watch these films; you might need the shot of endorphins. For those of you who remember In Cold Blood from high school, Capote will be a fascinating look at the other side of the page. The movie details Truman Capote's self-serving and narcissistic obsession with the men who killed the Clutter family, and the subsequent book that arose from it. With an astounding performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, this is really not a movie to be missed. Children of Men is one of those films I couldn't force myself to watch when it was in theatres. Who wants to pay $9.75 to be depressed? Unfortunately, I missed the point. Picking up 20 years after an epidemic of infertility sweeps the world, the film considers some fascinating questions about human nature - suggesting perhaps that hope is an emotion inseparable from youth. It's a violent film, but that violence makes its moments of tenderness that much more riveting. While the ending was less than I hoped, the journey was well worth the time.

Buy it: LEGO Batman for Wii. Let's just go ahead and say it. LEGO Indian Jones sucked. LEGO Batman redeems that suckage a bit. While it still doesn't achieve the absolute brilliance of LEGO Star Wars, it's a damn good go at it. And there's no better way to relax with your honey on a rainy Saturday afternoon.

Debate fact check

2008-10-02T19:49:00.000-07:00

Let the fact check begin! The Huffington Post points out that Palin got the name of the commander in Afghanistan incorrect. It's McKiernan. Not McClellan.

Live-blogging the Vice Presidential debate

2008-10-02T17:52:00.000-07:00

5:55pm - I am giddy with anticipation. It's just like watching a NASCAR race and waiting for the crashes. Or watching figure skating and waiting for someone to break a limb.
6:02pm - Palin: "Hey, can I call you Joe?" That was weird.
6:06pm - Palin is being coherent, which is a definite plus. But she looks and sounds a little choked and a lot nervous.
6:07pm - Biden attacks McCain on the whole "fundamentals of the economy" gaffe. Palin restates the ridiculous position that by "fundamentals," McCain meant the American worker.
6:09pm - Palin: "...send the Maverick from the Senate to the White House." Total Maverick count: 1.
6:10pm - Palin hits her cute and perky stride with the "Joe Sixpack and hockey moms across America" comment.
6:12pm - The cute smile to the camera while Biden is talking about a guy who can't afford to fill up his gas tank seems a little odd. I wonder if McCain's scowls and smirks during Obama's debate responses so worried the McCain camp that they suggested Palin smile no matter what.
6:14pm - Despite being called by Biden on the fact that she failed to address his point about McCain's support of deregulation, she pointedly fails to address the issue again, then gets cut off by Ifill mid rant.
6:17pm - Is it just my TV or does Biden look seriously splotchy?
6:18pm - Whoa, Nellie! Palin, in reference to Obama's universal health care plan, says that the average American isn't excited about the federal government running health care "unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately..." Does that include Iraq?
6:29pm - Regarding the housing meltdown, given an opening to rebut Biden's characterization of the campaign, Palin once again declines to discuss the topic.
6:34pm - Palin corrects Biden. "It's not 'Drill, drill, drill', Joe. It's 'Drill, baby, Drill.'"
6:37pm - While stopping short of supporting gay marriage, Biden stands firmly behind rights for same-sex couples. Surprisingly, Palin seems to do the same. I think. It was a little fuzzy.
6:40pm - Palin insists that Obama's votes against military funding are votes to deny troops funds. Trust me on this. My husband always gets a paycheck no matter the outcome of those votes. And I'm pretty sure both Obama and McCain know that.
6:47pm - I'm not sure that Palin's quoting of Ahmadinejad's "Israel is a stinking corpse" comment was a great idea.
6:51pm - How does Palin manage to look so adorable while talking about protecting Israel from an Iranian-led holocaust? Seriously - how does she do that?
6:55pm - Palin: "He has been the Maverick. He has ruffled feathers." Total Maverick count: 3.
6:59pm - Biden states that we spend more money in three weeks in Iraq than we've spent during the entire 6 years in Afghanistan. If it's a correct number, it's stunning.
7:00pm - Gotta quit sighing, Joe.
7:03pm - I'm impressed that Biden is willing to stand up for intervention in Darfur.
7:03pm - I'm equally impressed that Palin has the chutzpah to call Biden someone who, as far as Iraq was concerned, was "for it before he was against it." Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?
7:09pm - Palin: "What do you expect? A team of Mavericks!" Total Maverick count: 4.
7:10pm - Palin lost her adorable there for a while. But look out - it's back.
7:11pm - With her shout out to third graders who get extra credit for watching the debate, Palin manages to sound like an incredibly qualified elementary school teacher.
7:14pm - McCain would put Palin in charge of energy independence. I think that's a bit like putting the wolf in charge of the hen house.
7:16pm - Palin puts herself on record as believing in Cheney's position that the vice presidency exists outside the executive branch.
7:18pm - Ifill pulls out that question that everyone interview question - what would you see as your greatest weakness. Palin completely ignores the question. And I mean completely. Disappointingly, Ifill doesn't call her on it.
7:20pm - Biden turns his negative into a positive, suggesting his excessive passion is his greatest weakness. Nice.
7:21pm - Biden chokes up discussing being a single father after the death of his wife. iIn her response, Palin's chipper grin seems crass after that real display of emotion.
7:23pm - In a rapid rebuttal, Biden more than triples the Maverick count. Total Maverick count: 13. Too bad this isn't a drinking game!
7:30pm - Palin quotes the Gipper.

Final thoughts: Palin didn't look like an idiot, but her perky demeanor seemed out of step with the seriousness of the position for which she is in effect applying, and the dire circumstances surrounding the current financial and political situation in this country. Biden seemed serious, thoughtful, and angry about the last eight years. That anger is exactly the tone Obama should have struck in the debate against McCain. More importantly, though, Biden managed to avoid focusing that anger against Palin. He was respectful towards her; he didn't condescend. And he got the great final line. He had a lot more to lose her than she did, and he nailed it.

When Katie Couric decides to become a real journalist...

2008-10-01T19:33:00.000-07:00

...she really goes all out, doesn't she?

In yet another video clip from Couric's interview with Palin, Palin is unable to name a single publication (newspaper, magazine, etc) that she reads to stay informed on national and world events. She can't name one, but that's okay. Because she reads all of them.

In case you were wondering, I'm happy to name several. The Olympian (the best little paper in Olympia, Washington). The New Yorker. TIME. I dabble in both The Washington Post and The New York Times, both online. And, for my regular online news diet, I skim MSNBC, The Huffington Post, The Daily Background, Crooks and Liars, The Daily Kos and Slate.com almost daily.
Oh, yeah. And Playboy. I like the articles.

No, really. I like the articles.

Hasn't anyone in the U.S. financial system ever played Monopoly?

2008-09-30T19:16:00.000-07:00

Because it certainly seems like if someone had, this financial crisis never would have happened.

Think about it - what happens when you overextend yourself in Monopoly? Your houses and properties get mortgaged. And what happens when you overextend beyond that? Your houses get sold back to the bank at a loss and you have to try to sell your properties to raise cash. And if no one will buy your properties? You rapidly run out of capital, become insolvent and lose. This process is not exactly mystifying. And it more or less exactly describes the implosion of the U.S. housing market up to this point.

The only thing more mystifying than the inability of the US financial markets to see the forest for the trees when it comes to this crisis is the inability of the majority of Americans to understand just how dire the crisis is. This isn't the Savings and Loan crisis. As a nation we are facing down the failure of the free market. And however much it costs, $700 million seems cheap compared to the $1.3 trillion the Dow Jones lost on Monday alone. As a nation we can either pay for it once in a federal rescue package, or we can pay for it over and over again individually as our retirement funds, stock portfolios, and home equity disappears before our eyes. I'll take the $700 million any day.

News Flash: Alaska borders foreign country

2008-09-25T17:46:00.000-07:00

Olympia, WA: In an interview with Katie Couric that was recently broadcast on CBS, Vice Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin dropped a bombshell when she suggested that Alaska's next door neighbors were foreign countries. This provoked a string of similar revelations from around the United States as governors of other states on the nation's borders reacted to the idea that they, too, lived near countries other than their own. The Couric/Palin interview was followed by a hastily arranged press conference in which the governors of Washington, Idaho and Montana banded together to formerly acknowledge the foreign policy experience they have earned from time spent in such close proximity to Canada. Washingon Governor Christine Gregoire was especially eloquent concerning the leadership potential that comes with living on the edge of America:

[Gregoire]: I remember all too well one of my first foreign policy experiences. Crossing back into the United States after spending a long weekend at a family logging camp with my husband and children, the border crossing guards asked me if I had anything to declare. Of course we had a variety of souvenirs picked up on our travels. It took considerable negotiation, but we were eventually able to keep the maple syrup we'd picked up in Vancouver. Unfortunately, my daughter's hockey jersey had to be left at the border. But that's international diplomacy for you; it's all about the give and take.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist was more succinct:

Did you know that Cuba is, like, thisclose to Miami? And did you know that Miami is totally in Florida? And that I'm the governor of that state? I practically have foreign policy experience oozing out my eyeballs. Thankfully, they make drops for that. But I do have to sleep with a tissue. For the oozing, I mean.

Why can't I vote for Stewart/Colbert '08?

2008-09-25T15:08:00.001-07:00

Sarah Palin is supposed to be a serious candidate and Stewart and Colbert are the frivolous ones? What. Ever.

Thanks, but no thanks

2008-09-24T16:15:00.000-07:00

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to McCain:

Hey, John. I think it's super neat that you want to pretend to be helpful with regard to the economy by suspending your campaign and coming back to Washington. But honestly, John, we've been really enjoying the city without you. It's so quiet. There's less bullshit to wade through on the slog to work. The roads around here are a lot safer without the Straight Talk Express constantly veering off course. And let's be honest, nobody misses that temper of yours. But I'll tell you what - the first time we find ourselves in need of someone who admittedly knows nothing about economics during this time of economic crisis, you'll be first on speed dial. Pinky swear.

A retraction

2008-09-24T12:54:00.000-07:00

As much as it pains me to do it, I feel compelled to pass along some new information regarding several of the more egregious political sins I attributed to Sarah Palin in a previous post. Please understand that I am pained not because I was mistaken (that happens all the time) but because I still so strongly feel that Palin is not someone who should be trusted with the running of this country. Nevertheless, truth is a rare commodity this election cycle, and someone should take the responsibility for peddling it.

Here goes.

You learn something new every day: Part 3

2008-09-22T17:54:00.000-07:00

The tenaculum is an instrument of Satan.

That's all I have to say about that.

Supporting the troops

2008-09-19T14:08:00.001-07:00

As a military spouse, I am frequently engaged in conversation, often by strangers, on the war in Iraq. People are often truly interested to know my opinion on the conflict, if my husband's ever been to war, if he came home safely. I think that much of America has a similar yearning - to better understand the course forward in Iraq by talking to those who've been there.

America's soldiers are perhaps the most politically silenced group in America. Efforts to ensure that our armed forces are free from politicization - an otherwise positive step - mean that soldiers don't get polled for their opinion on the wars they fight, or any other issue of the day. They can't appear in uniform at political rallies. They don't organize for candidates. And I think the American public, in this war more than any other, has really come to feel the loss of their voice. The war in Iraq has gone on significantly longer than our participation in World War II, but the all volunteer army has meant that the number of Americans directly impacted by the war has dropped precipitously. Americans are increasingly isolated from the men and women who carry the outcome of American foreign policy to other nations, and I think most Americans realize that they are the poorer for that isolation.

This isolation also means that Americans have become increasingly disconnected from ways to support the troops. After the initial few months of the war when it felt as if every block was busy buying sunscreen and chapstick to send to the boys overseas, supporting the troops came to mean yellow ribbons magnets on the back of the SUV and maybe a feel-good community event once a year. As a member of the constituency that these efforts are supposed to support, let me be clear - while your heart is in the right place, the magnets and the rallies are mind-boggling to me in their uselessness. My husband is currently training to go back to Iraq and put his life on the line for another 12 months. No amount of yellow ribbon magnets will make him whole again if he is injured. No amount of public rallies with marching bands will bring him home again if he's killed.

I don't mean to suggest that anyone with a yellow ribbon on their car is purposefully obscuring the true sacrifice of America's military. On the contrary, I truly believe that most Americans want to support the troops, but have been let down by a political administration that hasn't asked them to direct that need in a more useful direction. This war has seen no rubber drives, no war bond sales, no Rosie the Riveter ad campaigns. And in the absence of this sacrifice, supporting the troops has come to mean something almost inane.

There is, however, one incredibly important and meaningful way you can support the troops this November - you can support them with your vote. If you're not sure what that means, find a military family near you and ask them. For me, it means thinking about Iraq as one of the top three most important issues this election cycle, carefully studying each candidate's plan for the way forward in Iraq, and voting your conscience. What more support could any military family ask for?

For those of you who don't know a military family but are still interested in how an admittedly unscientific sampling of military families feels about the upcoming election, this absolutely heartwrenching blog posting from The Huffington Post is worth your time. I don't mean to suggest that the military families quoted there should be considered representative of the military as a whole - far from it. Political opinions run the gamut in military families. But I would argue that families whose sons and husbands have given their lives for the war in the Iraq deserve a little more respect from us, no matter our political affiliation.

In honor of talk like a pirate day

2008-09-19T13:40:00.000-07:00

Pirate keyboard courtesy of Language Log

What women want

2008-09-16T16:41:00.001-07:00

So here it is: the age old question finally answered. I know you've all been wondering.

Whoa

2008-09-16T12:22:00.000-07:00

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to Sarah Palin:

Hey, Sarah - remember that guy you quoted in your RNC speech? He of the "we grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity" line? His particular brand of dignity seems to include his having the honesty to express his sincere and fervent wish that somebody would blow my Daddy's head off.

Any other favorite writers you'd like to quote?

Can a woman be sexist towards other women?

2008-09-15T14:31:00.000-07:00

Is that even possible? Carly Fiorina sure seems to think so as far as Tina Fey's SNL portrayal of Sarah Palin goes. Although I think Fiorina is off her rocker to even stick a toe down this road - she sounds like a humorless bore - I'm willing to entertain the general concept if someone can explain it to me.

Female misogynist: fact or fiction?

SNL dabbles with relevance; brilliance

2008-09-14T11:08:00.001-07:00

I love to see it when SNL gets back to what it used to do so well - skewering politics in unique and hilarious ways. And Tina Fey does an absolutely perfect Sarah Palin.

Turning undecided into "Hell, no"

2008-09-13T19:30:00.000-07:00

I was having a gut check moment this evening, and couldn't help but wonder if I'm the only women out there who feels this way or if I am but one of a silent but seething female majority. I'm hoping (and praying) it's the latter.

My gut check? That whatever my feelings about Senator Obama and his potential as president, the introduction of Sarah Palin to the race means that it has become absolutely imperative that the McCain/Palin ticket not reach the White House. Obama might be inexperienced; he might be a little shallow on the details when it comes to how he would run the country on reaching the oval office. But I don't think there's anyone who seriously believes an Obama presidency would be anything other than honorable and thoughtful in its intent. And frankly, honorable and thoughtful is sounding awful damn good right about now, especially when you consider the alternative.

For those of you wondering, the alternative is not McCain. At least it's not the John McCain that many of us could have seen ourselves voting for in a presidential election in 2000. That McCain is long since gone, having packed up for good when the new McCain decided that winning the presidential race was more important than principles, ethics, or even telling the truth. Having abandoned all the causes that once made him a maverick reformer, the 2008 John McCain is now, in the word's of Jon Stewart, nothing more than a "reformed maverick" - a little sad, more than a little pathetic, and a lot a Bush Republican.

So, no - John McCain isn't the one we ladies should be worried about. Sarah Palin is the politician who should be striking fear into the heart of every woman in this country, especially if you consider yourself a feminist. I know that most American women haven't been fooled into thinking that McCain's nomination of Palin is anything more than a calculated publicity stunt and an obvious pander. We're savvier than that. Nor are we stupid enough to believe that in the absence of Hillary Clinton on the ballot, any old vagina will do. Whether we supported Hillary Clinton or detested her, for the overwhelming majority of us that opinion had nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with who she was as a woman, a wife, and a politician. We loved or loathed Clinton on her merits, so let's do the same for Sarah Palin. Here are the key facts about Sarah Palin, politician:

Charge victims: As mayor of Wasilla (that holy site of the vaunted 'executive experience'), Palin personally signed off on a budget that reversed existing police policy and charged rape victims for the cost of their own rape kits. The kits cost? Anywhere between $500 and $1200. That's a pretty steep rape tax, if you ask me.
Exploit children: Until recently, most McCain supporters would have been hard-pressed to say how many children McCain had; he just didn't bring them into the political conversation. I respected him a lot for that, especially since it would have been so easy to exploit the fact that two of his sons were in the military and would be deploying to Iraq. When asked about them as recently as a month ago in an interview with TIME, McCain refused to comment. Rather than following in McCain's classy lead here, Palin threw her Iraq-bound son, Track, in front of a national television audience at the RNC. Not content to leave things there, she repeatedly (and erroneously and exploitatively and...) insisted that Track was deploying to Iraq on September 11th (in fact, his deployment ceremony was on that date). For the coup de grace, Palin turned that very deployment ceremony into a political event for the cameras. On September 11th.
Demonize fathers: While Palin's actions in the Troopergate scandal remain under investigation, the one charge we can document is that Palin's continued insistence on disparaging State Trooper Michael Wooten in front of his children resulted in two rebukes from the judge handling her sister's custody case. Apparently the verbal abuse that Palin and her family heaped on Wooten in the children's hearing was such that the judge said he felt it constituted "child abuse" and, had it continued, would have been grounds for reducing Palin's sister's visitation privileges.
Abandon young mothers: Palin believes so firmly in the importance of young mothers taking responsibility and having their babies that she has not hesitated to make political hay of her own daughter's teen pregnancy and her subsequent decision to have the baby and marry the father. But what of other pregnant Alaska teens who are not so fortunate to have support from their families and a partner who is in the picture? Palin was so concerned about them that earlier this year she "used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live." (See the full article here.)
Ban books: As far as we can tell, Palin never actually banned a book as Mayor of Wasilla. But she certainly asked the librarian about the possibility of removing books from shelves on at least two separate occasions. Palin claims these conversations were rhetorical. Can you think of any benign reason for a mayor to have a rhetorical conversation with the local librarian about the possibility of book banning?
Destroy dissent: What happened to the librarian who refused to consider banning books from the library or the state police chief who refused to fire her state trooper brother-in-law or the countless other members of city and state government who got in Palin's way during her tenure as mayor and governor? In almost every case, they lost their jobs or were threatened with the prospect of being fired. Many of these folks served at the pleasure of the mayor (or the governor) and as such Palin had every right to remove them if she wished. However, many of these positions were also supposed to be free from partisan politics. That Palin's removal of many of these state officials seems to not only have been politically but also personally motivated is especially chilling. And it has more than passing similarity with the U.S. Attorney firings that dogged Bush throughout much of 2007.
Still not convinced? Don't take it from me - take it from someone who had a front-row seat for Palin's particular style of politics.

Any one of these issues by itself could perhaps be forgiven. Taken together, however, they paint a picture of a politician who is riding the coattails of a feminism she obviously despises; a woman whose family values she portrays as her most important political asset, but who is willing to throw her own family (and yours as well) under a bus if it provides her with a professional boost; a vindictive and secretive executive who is pathologically incapable of separating personal foes from political opponents.

Ladies, if you want to ensure that the long tradition of excluding women from the White House carries on for another generation, here's my suggestion: elect McCain/Palin 2008. Palin may become the first woman in the White House. If she does, I promise she will also be the last.

A great little flick

2008-09-11T21:33:00.000-07:00

If you're looking for a nice little movie for a lazy afternoon, you could do a lot worse than Waitress with Keri Russell and Andy Griffith. It's a light froth of a movie with a premise that feels fresh and manages to avoid taking you where you expect to go. Russell is the waitress of the movie's title and a pie maker of some renown. Married to an idiotically abusive husband, Russell has finally managed to save enough money to leave him and start her own pie shop. Until she turns up pregnant. While the movie doesn't gloss over the seeming impossibility of Russell's situation, it manages to do so with wry humor and a deft touch. The ending leaves a little something to be desired, but all in all I loved it.

Now where can I get some Old Joe's Horny Past Pie?

Seriously?

2008-09-09T17:54:00.001-07:00

Credit where credit is due to Feministing.com as my source for this photo.

What is Palin on the receiving end of so much "chivalry"?

2008-09-06T09:00:00.000-07:00

You know, not so long ago (I think it was all of three months) sexism in the coverage of political candidates was all supposed to be a bunch of hooey. While poor, lonely bloggers like myself were going on and on about it, the MSM and much of the conservative political establishment were busy labeling folks like us as ridiculous and frenzied feminists who would be much happier if we could all un-bunch our collective panties. While we bemoaned the fact that Obama had never condemned (or even acknowledged) the blatant sexism that often characterized coverage of Senator Clinton's campaign, the sexism itself soldiered on generally unacknowledged. Thanks to Sarah Palin, however, we know now what it takes for sexism to get noticed in this country - if you want the political establishment and the MSM to unite in their condemnation of the sexism you're experiencing in your political career, it helps if you're a cute, petite brunette with a boatload of kids. If one of those kids could also be developmentally delayed, that would also be a big plus. People (men) will kill themselves to leap to your defense.

In the past few days, more teeth have been gnashed over the sexism that Sarah Palin has experienced than were gnashed during the entirety of Hillary Clinton's primary campaign. Let me be clear; I don't disagree that Palin has experienced sexism. Perhaps the most offensive of it is the suggestion that because she has a special needs child, she has no business having a career, much less a successful one. This type of discourse should have no place in politics, and the fact that it is nevertheless so ubiquitous deserves some serious critique. Unfortunately, the critique being spouted by most conservative commentators lately is so obviously two-faced and self-serving (not to mention being six months too late) that it makes me want to scream.

Haven't seen some of the more blatant examples of chivalrous hypocrisy? Check out this link from the Daily Show (thanks to Anthony for bringing it to my attention):

Some random thoughts about tonight's RNC

2008-09-03T19:45:00.000-07:00

A few thoughts about tonight's primetime coverage of the Republican National Convention:

The night's ickiest moment - after Rudy Giuliani delivers an applause line about McCain's support for offshore drilling, Giuliani giggling like a bald-headed school girl while the crowd chants "Drill, baby, drill!"
Overall Giuliani impression - he looked ridiculous. He seemed as if he was delivering punchlines on Saturday Night Live not giving a fairly important speech at a nationally broadcast political event. He sounded ridiculous.
You know how you can read a fortune cookie and say "in bed" at the end of the fortune and it always comes out funnier? Try the same thing with Giuliani's speech, only say "just like I did on September 11th" after every line. It works!
The night's cutest moment - a shot of one of Sarah Palin's younger daughters holding Palin's four month old son. She's lovingly stroking his head trying to smooth his hair down. When that doesn't work, she holds her hand up to her face, licks down her palm and smooths THAT over his head. Unscripted adorable at its best.
That woman would politicize dead body - despite the fact that it has been widely reported that Palin's son Track is not leaving for Iraq on September 11th, she once again claims he is in her speech. While doing so, she manages to break a major rule of OpSec (operational security) by nationally publicizing - however erroneously - a troop deployment.
That woman would politicize a dead body, Part II - having not yet had the opportunity to politicize her son Trig, Palin gives a shout out to all those parents of special needs children and assures them that they'll have an advocate in the White House when she's elected. As if Obama is a special needs baby-hater.
Hey, McCain camp: you don't get to piss and moan that Palin's children are off limits while simultaneously throwing them in front of any camera you can find. If children are going to be off-limits (and I think they should be) they need to be off-limits for YOU TOO.
Overall impression of Palin - her speech was considerably better than last Friday's "nothing-but-a-hockey-mom" mess (although she couldn't help using the line AGAIN). She seemed significantly more in command of the situation. I'm still not sure, though, whether she'll play with Hillary supporters. She's certainly not playing with me.

Give me a (racism) break

2008-09-03T12:50:00.000-07:00

In an article posted a few weeks ago at Slate.com, Jacob Weisberg makes a pretty incredible rhetorical leap, arguing that - as the title of the post spells out - "If Obama Loses: Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him."

Really, Jacob? The ONLY reason?

It seems to me such absolutism deserves the same snarky comments reserved for Clinton supporters who suggested that her loss in the primary was due solely to her gender. As in the case of Senator Clinton, there are any number of reasons why Obama might not reach the White House come November. Racism (in his case) could certainly be considered one of them. But it is far from the only one. Lack of foreign relations experience, too much rhetoric with not enough substance, few detailed policy ideas and the message-sucking juggernaut that is Sarah Palin are just a smattering of other problems that might ultimately sink Obama's campaign. I came up with those off the top of my head, and I'm actually planning on voting for the guy.

Lots of people own white bedsheets, Jacob. That doesn't make us all Klan members

The Ick Alert is at level orange

2008-09-02T16:42:00.000-07:00

Chris Kelly at the Huffington Post posted a pretty snarky bit about Palin today that I wouldn't necessarily dignify if not for one very good point he makes at the end of the piece. Check out the pictures of Bristol Palin near the end of the piece, all taken at last Friday's VP announcement (the one above is representative). I understand why Sarah Palin took the trouble of dragging most of her family to Dayton for the VP announcement; after all, a good portion of her appeal as a VP is her family (or so the McCain camp hopes). But including Bristol in that mix (especially as the fact of her pregnancy had not yet been officially announced) seems, in retrospect, excessively callous. So, how did the Palin family hide Bristol's obvious pregnancy bulge? By having her use her 4-month-old baby brother with Downs Syndrome as cover. Icky.

The MSM was up in arms when a very adult Chelsea Clinton campaigned for her mother during the primaries, with one memorable pundit accusing Clinton of "pimping out" her daughter before being forced by the campaign to apologize for the comment. Chelsea Clinton was a woman capable of making her own decisions in how much (or how little) to assist her mother's campaign. Bristol Palin is a child about to have a baby; if anyone deserves to be protected from this type of naked political mythmaking, it's her. Too bad neither her mother nor her father seem so inclined to shelter her. Instead, it was her baby brother doing the sheltering.

In the game of presidential one-upmanship, McCain screws up bigger

2008-09-02T12:22:00.000-07:00

Anyone who's been reading this blog for any length of time knows my feelings on Obama's refusal to pick Senator Clinton as his running mate; I've made no bones about the fact that I think he screwed up royally. With last Friday's announcement of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP pick, that sentiment only seemed to be amplified. Had I not been out of town all weekend long and away from my computer, I'm sure my blog post on Friday would have been a veritable smörgåsbord of recrimination and doubt centering on McCain's seemingly politically brilliant choice of Palin. And there would have been a host of reasons to feel this way.

As I mentioned in previous posts, I felt that McCain had the unassailable upper hand in VP selection by picking second, especially after Obama damaged his "change" rhetoric by picking a boring old white guy like Biden as his running mate. All McCain had to do was pick a politically viable, yet demographically interesting, VP and the race was his. As of Friday's announcement, Palin seemed to fit this bill perfectly. Improbably, she was the only person in the race with ANY executive experience (however slight), and McCain had set the stage perfectly with his ad criticizing Obama for not having the chutzpah to pick Clinton as his running mate. More importantly, McCain was capitalizing on the anger of the Hillary Haridans by choosing a woman as his number two. While Senator Clinton had convinced many former PUMA's in her convention speech that a vote for Obama was (in effect) a symbolic vote for her, these same women would now be forced to choose between a symbolic vote for Clinton and an actual vote for Palin. Who knows which would come out ahead?

All this, and I haven't even mentioned Palin's working-class background - a background which might well neutralize the he-has-seven-houses-what-does-he-know-about-the-working-class condemnation that has dogged McCain over the last week or two. And (could it be any better?) her son, who enlisted in the Army on the 6th anniversary of September 11th, is about to be deployed to Iraq. Set, game and match.

In my last blog post about this topic, I put myself out there - I said unequivocably that if McCain chose a woman or a member of the military as his running mate that he could not lose. And if I'd blogged on Friday, I'm sure I would have reiterated this statement. But, once again, what a difference a few days makes.

I am now prepared to completely renounce my utter certainty and assert that the race is anyone's to win or lose. Furthermore, I think it's distinctly possible that McCain's choice of Palin might well sink his campaign. Here are a few reasons why:

The first and most obvious reason is the allegation that Palin attempted to force her public safety commissioner to fire a state trooper who just happened to be her sister's ex-husband, and who had just completed a nasty divorce and custody battle with her at the time Palin tried to force his ouster. There is the very real possibility that Palin might be under indictment for ethics violations surrounding this incident at the time of the election. And if there's one thing we can be sure of, it's that voters really hate indictments. When I first found out about this allegation back on August 1st while blogging about Palin, I was convinced at the time that the potential indictment would be enough to sink any chance of her VP nomination. I was obviously wrong - but that hardly means this is a non-issue. Lawyers have been hired, and the legislature seems to just be getting started.
The pregnant daughter issue. There has been much gnashing of teeth over 17-year-old Bristol Palin and her pregnancy the last few days. I'm not sure I really have much constructive to say, other than to pass along a gut reaction I had to the news. Specifically, I couldn't help but wonder what kind of mother would subject her daughter to the kind of media scrutiny and disection that has been going on the last few days by accepting the nomination. This might be entirely unfair, but I can't help but think it. Palin knew her daughter was pregnant when she said yes to McCain; she had to know the information would get out. So why put her family through this? I'm a fairly liberated woman, but I've still got this train of thought running through my mind - I can't be the only one. (A further pet peeve - the announcement simultaneous to that of Bristol's pregnancy that she would be marrying the father. I HATE this. Why should kids be forced to compound one mistake - an unplanned pregnancy - with another - a misbegotten marriage?)
The lack of vetting issue. It seems obvious now that Palin was barely vetted (if at all) prior to her being announced as McCain's VP. Although the campaign might recover from point one above, and probably will recover from point two, I have a distinct feeling that there are other skeletons lurking in Palin's closet that have yet to be uncovered. And one more, I think, will be one too many.

Skeletons, however damaging, aren't the only reason why Palin was a bonehead choice. I fear that McCain's advisors have made the inexcusable error of assuming that any old woman would do when it came to choosing a running mate and securing the PUMA vote once and for all. One would be hard-pressed to discover two women more diametrically opposite than Palin and Clinton. If you don't believe me, then take Clinton's powerful and commanding presence at the democratic national convention and Palin's ridiculous self-introduction on Friday as all the proof you need. Palin may very well be the anti-Hillary, and while this might be just what the Republican establishment ordered, it will not sit well with the PUMA's who weren't sure if they could stomach voting for McCain just to make a point. Perhaps no one summed up the mystery that is Sarah Palin better than Charlie Cook of the National Journal:

The jury is, and will remain, out on McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. It's either brilliant or insane. There isn't much room in between. A narrative storyline is going to develop in the media. It will be either that she is the fascinating, offbeat, not-off-the-rack maverick female governor from a very curious place that reinforces McCain's change-and-reform message and resonates with suburban mothers with children at home; or that her selection was a half-baked, cynical move by McCain that, while "outside the box," probably should have been left in the box and never opened.

When regulating abortion is just the beginning, redux

2008-08-28T08:06:00.000-07:00

The Human Nature blog over at Slate.com has posted an update to its story of a few weeks ago regarding HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt and his "proposed regulation to protect medical conscience" that, by broadly defining abortion to (perhaps) include birth control, allowed pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control based on their conscience. When I blogged about this issue previously, I expressed a fervent hope that Health and Human Services would come to its (admittedly limited) senses and remove the language that conflated birth control with abortion. Nominally, this is the case - as Human Nature points out, the specific language that defined abortion in a manner that included birth control has been removed. However, because no other definition of abortion is provided, the possiblity is still there for the definitions of abortion and birth control to be conflated. Which means that the definition of abortion (and birth control) might eventually be left up to the courts. All in all, I'm not sure that I feel too warm and fuzzy about that prospect.

McCain's new ad

2008-08-24T15:46:00.000-07:00

Normally I wouldn't be one to pass along a Republican attack ad via this blog. However, I think McCain's new ad is sufficiently interesting (and sufficiently relevant to yesterday's post) to make an exception. Once again, McCain is trying to harness the "Hillary Haridans" against Obama, this time by suggesting that her truth-speaking was the reason that the Obama camp never seriously considered her as a VP contender.

This is, of course, utter ridiculousness. There are countless reasons why Obama didn't choose Clinton, and I doubt her "truth-speaking" makes the top ten. Nevertheless, I think the ad highlights Obama's big mistake in not at least making a basic effort to make it seem as if Senator Clinton was on the short list. How hard would it have been to request her financials and other vetting material? Even if he never so much as looked at it?

Did Obama just sink his own campaign?

2008-08-23T17:53:00.000-07:00

I think he might have although only time will tell. Joe Biden - the definition of middle-aged white guydom and a Washington insider to beat all Washington insiders - is not exactly the first guy I think of when I think of 'change'.

The usually sensible Melinda Henneberger at Slate.com completely missed the boat in her Pro-Joe post today, and my problem with her argument pretty well sums up my general opinion about Obama:

Henneberger thinks Biden's penchant for gaffes is charming and she favorably compares Biden's numerous slips of the tongue with those of the current President Bush, arguing that "voters actually liked it when Bush tripped over his own tongue; when he failed in his battle with blurting, they could relate." Um. Right. The only thing more charming than a president who seemingly doesn't know the difference between nuclear and nucular is a vice president who's highest praise for his running mate is that he's "clean".
Henneberger states that "watching the Democratic debates during primary season, I always thought that a viewer who came to the exercise cold would have assumed Biden was the front-runner." This is not what you want said about your VP pick. Presidential tickets should have a lot in common with Dolly Parton - they should be top-heavy. A big worry for team Obama has got to be how to play up Biden's 36 years of Washington experience without making voters wonder why all those campaign signs don't say "Biden for President."
Henneberger mentions that Biden's "heartbreaking personal narrative" is not something that he talks about often, highlighting his very Irish-Catholic restraint. Expect that that restraint will never be seen again. The Obama camp will be milking that tragedy for all it's worth over the next few months. Guaranteed.

All in all, I think Obama made a bonehead choice in Biden. And what's worse, he made it before McCain announced his VP pick. Now that Obama's made such a white bread choice, expect McCain to capitalize by choosing a running mate from one of the following three non-traditional categories:

The democrat-turned-independent: Joe Lieberman. They get along great and Lieberman might give McCain more clout with both independents and democrats (not so much with Repbulicans).
The female: any number of women have been floated as potential running mates for McCain. Women feeling marginalized by Clinton's failure in the primary and Obama's refusal to even vet her as a VP candidate might be well and truly won over by a female choice from McCain.
A soldier: it's a long shot, but a left-field VP choice like General Petraeus would absolutely clinch the election for McCain. It would be such a slam dunk that Petraeus (or a similar military figure) has got to be on the short list.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if McCain picks either a soldier or a female for VP, Obama cannot win in November. With Lieberman, there's still a chance. We'll see.

The Clinton news round-up

2008-08-22T08:33:00.000-07:00

A couple of interesting stories in the news about Hillary Clinton have gotten my attention this week, the first being a piece by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.com concerning the dangerous game some Clinton supporters are playing by adopting the persona of the "Hillary Haridan" as their own. Latwick's overall point is surprisingly not one that had occured to me, perhaps because it seems so obvious - basically, it's that in the aftermath of the democratic primary, the persistent media image of Senator Clinton as a crazed and wild-eyed fishwife was transferred to her supporters. Senator Clinton had quietly withdrawn from the stage but scores of vocal Clintonistas remained, and their disillusionment became grist for the power-hungry, madwoman mill.

As I say, this isn't a particularly earth-shattering revelation; however, Lithwick takes the idea a step farther by pointing out the dangerous game that many Clinton supporters are playing by adopting the image of the madwoman as their own. By embracing their inner Clintonistas and proudly declaring themselves PUMA's, Lithwick argues that these women are appropriating and reinforcing the very imagery used to marginalize them. It's as if the monster in Frankenstein picked up a torch and joined the lynch mob.

While I see Lithwick's point, I'm not sure if I absolutely agree. There is, after all, a history in the US of turning the word used by the rest of the world as gendered epithets into in-group badges of honor - consider words like 'faggot' for the gay community or 'nigger' for the black community. By appropriating these words as their own, these marginalized groups removed at least some of their sting. If the MSM is afraid of the "Hillary Haridans" and their 'mad as hell and not going to take it anymore' attitude, that means that they're at least being taken seriously. Maybe if Senator Clinton had embraced her inner 'bitch' a la Margaret Thatcher, saying "I know I am but what are you" to all those kooks at Fox News, the campaign would have gone differently. Who knows?

Another story in yesterday's Newsweek finally asked the question I'd been waiting to come up ever since Obama started his slow slide in the polls - WWHD (What Would Hillary Do?). In a way, a small but significant portion of democratic voters (those Hillary Haridans) never stopped asking this question, even as the primary was decided and Clinton conceded. But as long as Obama's poll numbers made it look as if the outcome in November was a foregone conclusion, the WWHD brigade gained little ground among the party's mainstream. But, boy - what a difference a few months makes. In the wake of her defeat, Hillary more or less remained off the MSM radar, wholeheartedly threw her support behind Obama (or at least made it look that way in public) and noted that she would be happy to consider the VP slot (even though the Obama camp would rather poke their own eyeballs out with dull spoons rather than offer it to her - perhaps understandably). In the meantime, the God-like aura that had surrounded Obama started to wear a little thin. He didn't gain enough ground with key voters, he seemed unable to convince Clinton supporters that he was their man, he became a flip-flop machine, and he bent his own rules regarding running a clean campaign free of the usual political garbage.

Suddenly, it seems, Vice President Clinton doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

Personally, I think that the only thing that's going to save Obama from an ugly battle to November that will force him to completely abandon his principled stand on political issues is VP Clinton. She's used to taking and dishing the dirt, and no one would be a better attack dog for him. Nothing would shut down team McCain faster than an Obama/Clinton ticket. And now that Obama clearly needs a little political help, he would be smart to ask her.

Unfortunately, I don't think he's that smart. And no matter which middle-aged white guy he picks on Saturday, it's not going to do much to help in the lead up to November.

Sorry about the delay

2008-08-21T13:08:00.000-07:00

To all you faithful readers out there (both of you!) just wanted to say sorry that I haven't been posting as much as usual these last two weeks or so. It's been a perfect storm at my house; with my dad in town, starting a new job, and the Olympics on the tube every night I just havne't been setting aside the amount of time I need to blog regularly. However, I hope to be back up to speed within the next week or so - especially because I know I've left so many people hanging wondering about Part II of my feminism series! ;-)

In the meantime, here's a great little blurb I found as part of today's Slate Sap-O-Meter coverage of the Olympics -

In a live chat, a Slate reader writes:

Whenever a broadcaster mentioned that Dara Torres was 41, I took to responding,
"Also, Jerome Bettis is from Detroit."

Slate contributor Josh Levin responds:

Every timeany interviewer would ask Dara Torres what message she wanted to
give America, she would say: "You don't have to put an age limit on your
dreams." Thanks for the advice, Dara. Also, a Zen question: If my dream is to
put an age-limit on Dara Torres' dreams, who wins?

A superb post from Language Log

2008-08-18T11:11:00.000-07:00

I have decided to let Language Log do my blogging for me today - I found this post in my morning internet ramblings, and it is so [expletive deleted] awesome that I had to pass it on. So please, click on over to Language Log and read up on the fine art of removing scandalous language from journalistic-style quotations. All I have to say is this, my favorite quote from the article:

Summarily reject me? Summarily reject you! Mother summarily rejecter!

News Flash: Abortion won't make you crazy

2008-08-14T09:36:00.000-07:00

A recent report by the American Psychological Association states that there is no evidence that a single abortion of an unwanted pregnancy causes any mental problems for the woman involved.

I'm especially intrigued by the following quotes from the MSNBC article and the report itself:

They said women who had mental health problems before becoming pregnant, women who worried about stigma or secrecy or those who had low self-esteem were more likely to develop mental health problems after an abortion.
"Across studies, prior mental health emerged as the strongest predictor of post-abortion mental health. Many of these same factors also predict negative psychological reactions to other types of stressful life events, including childbirth," they wrote in the report. (Emphasis mine)

These quotes bring up a couple of interesting points. First, who can forget those lovely folks in South Dakota who are now requiring doctors providing abortions to tell their patients that the procedure carries a risk of depression, suicidal ideation and suicide? In a perfect world, the good folks in South Dakota would call an audible and retract that ridiculous law, citing this report as evidence that they were incorrect. Undoubtedly, however, what will really happen is that SD abortion doctors will continue to be compelled to give their patients patently untrue medical information, thus possibly contributing to the very worries about stigma and secrecy that have been shown to be predictors of mental health problems in women who seek abortions. It's self-fulfilling prophesy! How convenient.

Second, if South Dakota insists on giving women the possible "risk factors" of abortion, perhaps they should also inform pregnant women of the "risk factors" of pregnancy. If the same types of prior psychological risk factors are good predictors of mental health problems following stressful life events - events like both abortion and childbirth - then it only makes sense that you should warn both women seeking abortions and women seeking obstetrics care that they are equally at risk for depression, suicidal ideation and suicide following the abortion or the birth. Right?

When regulating abortion is just the beginning

2008-08-12T08:39:00.000-07:00

For those who thought that the frontline of the reproductive wars was the abortion debate, it seems we're about to be flanked. No longer do women need to worry exclusively about free access to abortion services. Now, apparently, we should also be worried about free access to basic birth control pills. So far, the regulation being circulated by the Department of Health and Human Services is still just a draft, but in its current form it seems to give private medical practitioners absolute autonomy to refuse not only to perform abortions or dispense emergency contraception, but also to refuse to dispense or provide prescriptions for basic birth control pills. (Read more here)

There is, of course, still the hope that the DHHS will come to its senses and revise this regulation to protect a woman's access to birth control. But then again, when was the last time any part of the current Washington establishment actually acted sensibly?

Voting done right

2008-08-11T10:19:00.000-07:00

I just had the privilege of participating in my very first Washington State primary (I missed the presidential primary as we were still Kentucky residents when it occurred), and I have to say it was perhaps my most pleasant voting experience ever. Why? Let me count the ways:

Voting in much of the state - and in the entirety of my locale of Thurston County - is done by mail-in ballot. At first, I admit this seemed more than a little weird to me. The whole concept of voting is not nearly such an event when it doesn't involve getting up early before work to drive to the local fire station or high school to pull a lever or push a button (or punch out a chad, for that matter). However, on reflection I find that mailing in my ballot is quite pleasant. It allows for more serious contemplation of your vote. No pressure to get out of the booth and let someone else use their constitutional rights. Time to google the candidates and consider their positions. And if you drop your ballot in one of the drop boxes around town, you don't even need a stamp.
The top-two primary. After much debate and hand-wringing, this primary was the first in the state to use a party neutral, two-top format. This means that the two candidates with the most votes in the primary regardless of party will be the two choices come November. I LOVE this. I think it will really encourage voter turnout for both parties, that it is more in line with the will of the majority, and that it turns party-driven politics on its head. Fabulous. Sadly, it doesn't apply to the presidential election. *sigh*
The candidate brochure. Why doesn't every state do this? About a week before Matt and I got our ballots in the mail, a handy magazine-sized brochure arrived in the mail. In form, it resembled nothing so much as the instructions that come with your tax forms - thin, newspaper like paper, etc. But in content, it was phenomenal. Inside was a picture of each of the candidates running for every office on the upcoming ballot organized in the same order that the ballot would be. And each candidate was given a few paragraphs to summarize their position and what they hoped to accomplish in office. Genius. No more voting for candidates and offices you've never even heard of before. Just consult your candidate brochure and pick the person whose policies seem to mesh with yours. I love this idea. Every state should adopt it. I'm just glad mine already has.

Huge Olympic coverage gripe

2008-08-11T09:36:00.000-07:00

Those of you on the east coast have it made. You get to watch your Olympic coverage live in primetime. Those of us on the west coast are not so lucky. We get to watch our Olympic coverage in primetime as well, but it's not live - it's on a three-hour delay. And boy do those three little hours make a difference. Why? Because by the time the Olympic coverage actually goes on the air here, its outcome is already news. And boy do the local news stations love to yak about it.

Yesterday I had to change the channel three times to avoid hearing the outcome of several events I was looking forward to watching during last night's coverage. Despite my quick fingers on the remote, however, I still accidentally heard that Michael Phelps had won a gold medal yesterday. So the US Men's 4x100 relay team's amazing upset over France was no surprise for me; instead, it was a foregone conclusion before it even happened. What kills me even more is that the local news that immediately precedes Olympic coverage on NBC in my market still gave results for the very events it was about to broadcast. This is so stupid it should be criminal. Maybe I can understand giving results for events that are broadcast in primetime but which happened much earlier. However, for those events that were broadcast live on the east coast, the least the networks can do is embargo the results until the 11 o'clock news.

The pat ending to the anthrax mailings

2008-08-08T14:14:00.001-07:00

How convenient is this? On Wednesday the government released a raft of documents concerning their case against Bruce Ivins. The documents purportedly detail the government's strong but circumstantial case against Ivins and show him to be the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

So - let me get this straight. A mere week after the only suspect in the case commits suicide, the government handily wraps up its case, producing evidence that took seven years to gather and yet still is only circumstantial. And although this evidence is far from a slam-dunk, the government still is able to neatly assure us that Ivins was working alone.

Well. If that isn't the prettiest outcome wrapped up in the neatest bow, I don't know what is.

Did you hear that?

2008-08-08T14:09:00.000-07:00

That's the sound of what's left of John Edwards' political career - and his integrity - hitting the trash heap. Although I'm not absolutely sure that an individual's private indiscretions should always mean the death of their public aspriations, for a man who based almost the entirety of his presidential campaign on his morality and sense of family, the hypocrisy is just too much. Cheating on her while she was battling incurable cancer? How do you do that and then look yourself in the mirror every morning?

So - do you think people are going to take his word about the baby?

Yes, Virginia, there is a feminism, Part I

2008-08-07T14:10:00.000-07:00

For several reason, feminism - and its twenty-first century incarnations - have been on my mind a lot lately. First, because of an excellent book I recently finished reading - Susan J. Douglas' Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female with the Mass Media - that helpfully, cogently, and often humorously recounts the mass media's generally hate/hate relationship with American women over the past fifty years. Second, because of the first season of the excellent AMC channel drama Mad Men which I have been catching up on this past week On Demand. The first of these reminded me about the actual history of feminism in America - a history that is markedly different from the mainstream view of how the movement developed. (Just one example of this difference is alluded to in the picture that headlines this blog. Contrary to what most mainstream media will tell you - there were bra burnings as part of the feminist movement. The 1968 protest outside the Miss America pageant included bras being thrown into trash cans. There were, however, no matches.) The second reminded me about the stultifying climate of the 1950's and 60's from which the movement developed - a cultural climate viciously enforced the virgin/whore dichotomy, expecting the 'virgins' to stay home, raise the children and get dinner on the table my seven while demanding that the 'whores' be good sports about the sexism that surrounded them, work demanding jobs as secretaries and the like for demeaning pay, and be willing to service the boss at the office before he drug himself home to the drudgery of all things familial and domestic.

While no doubt the portrait of 1960 corporate culture that Mad Men paints is likely only a simulacrum of real life, the show has reminded me how very far women have come in a relatively short fifty years. The sexism we decry now has most often gone underground; no longer overt and obvious, gender discrimination is for the most part now covert and subtle. As sexism has become more difficult to point a finger at, it has simultaneously become less powerful - though I find myself disgusted at John McCain for refusing to chastise a supporter for calling Hillary Clinton a bitch, I can at least take comfort in the fact that Lt. Gen. Ann Dunwoody got her fourth star. This is not to say that sexism has become powerless - I think it played at least some part in Senator Clinton's ultimate defeat in the democratic primary - but I would argue what power it retains is a mere shadow of the oppression that Betty Friedan railed against in The Feminine Mystique.

But if gender stereotypes have come a long way in this country so, too, has feminism. Unfortunately, too often women my age tend to defend themselves against the mantle of feminism rather than embracing it as they should. Part of their instinctive aversion to twenty-first century feminism is, I think, the perhaps oppressive shadow that the titans of 60's and 70's feminism still cast and the seeming impossibility of reconciling that feminism with the lives women my age are leading today. I consider myself a feminist, but I am also a happily married woman. And my marriage has not meant for me the same sort of suffocation and unhappiness that many early feminists railed against. The sentiment that marriage was the end of a woman's life - that "It starts when you sink in his arms and ends with your arms in his sink" - is not one that most of the women I know share. Unfortunately, however, it is this Ypte of anti-establishment anger that has become indelibly identified with feminism:

And the crazy part of it was even if you were clever, even if you spent your adolescence reading John Donne and Shaw, even if you studied history or zoology or physics and hoped to spend your life pursuing some difficult and challenging career, you still had a mind full of all the soupy longings that every high-school girl was awash in... underneath it, all you longed to be was annihilated by love, to be swept off your feet, to be filled up by a giant prick spouting sperm, soapsuds, silk and satins and, of course, money. (Erica Jong)

For those of thus - and we are many - who entered into marriage or contemplated it without consideration as to how well we would be kept, such sentiments have served, among other issues, to ensure that when we mention feminism it is usually to disavow it all together. As recently as two years ago I distinctly recall beginning a conversation with the phrase, "I don't really consider myself a feminist..." This despite the fact that many of my most cherished beliefs dovetail perfectly with the concepts of personal freedom that feminism has long espoused.

What changed my mind? Stay tuned for Part II.

Cipro-gate

2008-08-04T14:42:00.000-07:00

Please so immediately to Salon.com and read this chilling piece by Glenn Greenwald on the 2001 anthrax mailings. It's long, but I'll wait. Go ahead.

It's been a long time since I've thought seriously about the anthrax attacks and, if Greenwald is right, it's probably been a long time since you've thought about them, too (notwithstanding the recent headlines about Ivins' suicide). As such, I have difficulty trying to determine whether or not Greenwald is correct in his assertion that the anthrax attacks were a major motivator for the war in Iraq. However, if Greenwald is right, his piece paints an absolutely bone-chilling portrait of collusion in the mainstream media to bring that war to fruition. The most disturbing bit is Greenwald's quoting of prominent journalist Richard Cohen that he (Cohen) had been told in a roundabout way by a highly-placed government official to obtain and keep close a quantity of Cipro (the anthrax antidote) BEFORE the attacks themselves actually took place. At the time, Cohen wasn't an embedded report in Iraq where biological attack was a real possibility. The US wasn't even at war with Iraq in September of 2001. Instead, Cohen was keeping a supply of Cipro on him at all times while living and working in the US, all because of a shadowy tip from a government official.

I'm generally not one to champion conspiracy theories, but in this case the elephant in the room is just to big to ignore. Is Greenwald hinting that the US government was in some way behind the anthrax attacks and that they used them as a further excuse for war?

If I have to watch this, so do you

2008-08-03T22:34:00.000-07:00

I...I just have no words. There are no words...

Obama really is the candidate of change

2008-08-02T10:39:00.000-07:00

If by change you are referring to the fact that he changes his supposed beliefs at the drop of a hat.

A story on today's MSNBC.com notes that Obama has once again changed, this time caving on his previous opposition to expanded offshore oil drilling, "if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources." I have to say, of all Obama's flip-flops, this one is the one that disappoints me most if for no other reason than it is the one that is most obviously the result of political expediency and not, as Obama claims, political compromise.

This is one of those issues where Obama had a real opportunity to stand up for what was right and eschew political pandering. And he blew it. By signing on to the idea of offshore drilling, Obama has done exactly what he criticized Hillary Clinton for doing earlier in the campaign when she floated the idea of a gas tax holiday - a proposal which he called a "shell game" that would mean little to nothing for consumers (see here). How convenient that Obama has now championed his own shell game, supporting offshore oil drilling that would produce no actual oil for at least another ten years and even that oil would more than likely be sold in foreign markets rather than in the U.S.

The American people may not understand this - but it was Obama's job not to cave to political pressure but to explain it to them. At the very least, if he really thought a compromise on offshore drilling was the only way to increase spending on alternative fuel sources, he could have insisted on a provision that would have forced any new oil found through such drilling to be sold only in domestic markets. His failure to do so is not only an environmental failure, it is a failure of political principle.

A fascinating turn of phrase about Sarah Palin

2008-08-01T13:51:00.000-07:00

As the interest in who McCain and Obama will pick as their running mates heats up, I was struck by a piece in the Washington Times putting both Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and financial advisor (and former HP CEO) Carly Fiorina on the short list for the number two position. As it's always been my feeling that a woman should be elected to the presidency in her own right, but probably will be nominated to the vice presidency and then be forced to morbidly hope for a well-timed heart attack to fell the guy in the top spot, I'm all for a women as VP. And these two ladies seem perfectly qualified (and, incidentally, coiffed) for the job. What caught my eye in the story was this quote from Newt Gingrich:

Mrs. Palin is "a mother of five, is a genuine Alaskan, is a hunter, is a dog sledder, is very much for drilling for oil, has a great reform reputation, took on big oil on behalf of the people of Alaska," Mr. Gingrich said. "I think she would bring a level of excitement and uniqueness that people would have to stop and say, 'Boy, this is kind of intriguing.'"

How exactly do you "take on big oil" while simultaneously being "very much for drilling for big oil"? That'll show 'em. "Hey, all you big oil companies! I'm so pissed at your continuous efforts to profit from and strengthen America's addiction to foreign oil that I want you to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Take that!"

Update: Oops. Never mind about Palin. Just found this story at the Huffington Post.

Also - have you seen this video of McCain's response when asked whether insurance companies should be forced to cover the cost of birth control since they also cover the cost of Viagra? Watch his face. He wants to make a tasteless joke so badly. You can see it in his eyes.

John Edwards, we hardly knew ye

2008-07-31T12:14:00.000-07:00

Enough already with the handwringing by the traditional news media about whether or not to report on the John Edwards love child story (check here for a blogosphere discussion of why this hasn't made the 6:00 news yet). I'll admit that I myself was skeptical. When the rumors about the Enquirer chasing Edwards around a hotel at 2am after he met with his supposed former mistress first started circulating, it sounded like utter crap to me. I resisted passing on what seemed to be unfounded accusations in the assumption that within the week Edwards would have issued a stinging rebuke the Enquirer, complete with a plausible explanation for his actions and a denial of the love child allegations. That denial hasn't exactly been forthcoming. In fact, as Kausfiles points out, Edwards has been studiously avoiding speaking to the media about the issue at all.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and the folks who should be figuring out just where that rottenness is coming from are sitting on their hands. Just because this man is no longer a presidential candidate doesn't mean he is immune from public scrutiny.

To the mainstream news media, I say: Prove it or disprove it, but get to work doing your job - reporting (not avoiding) the story.

Obama cancels visit to Landstuhl

2008-07-30T11:35:00.000-07:00

A story published yesterday at NYTimes.com caught my eye. Headlined "A cancelled Obama visit, and the story behind it," the short piece highlighted a campaign story I had otherwise missed - that Senator Obama had scheduled and then cancelled a planned visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (the main US Army hospital in Europe where soldiers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are treated and stabilized before being sent stateside) to visit wounded troops.

According to the Times, the original plan had been for Obama and a campaign advisor - sans photographers and journalists, as is Army policy - to tour the facility and meet with troops. However, the campaign cancelled the trip at the last minute when the Army decided that the campaign advisor set to accompany Obama, a retired Air Force major-general, was told he could not go along. Here's how Obama spun the decision to pull out of the visit:

That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as
political, and the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns. So rather than go forward and potentially get caught up in what might have been considered a political controversy of some sort, what we decided was that we not make a visit and instead I would call some of the troops that were there.

I admit I'm really not sure what to make of all this. However, in general I would say that this excuse seems like utter crap. How could visiting some troops minus reporters (thus no handy photo-ops) possibly be viewed as politicizing wounded soldiers? This excuse seems especially lame since Obama had already visited wounded soldiers in Afghanistan the week prior without any handwringing about politicizing their injuries.

That said, I'm sure that Obama cares about wounded soldiers. Which just makes the fact of the cancelled visit all the more puzzling. It makes him look like a schmuck. It's almost impossible to spin the cancellation in a way that comes off as positive. So why cancel?

"...a new generation of fat-hating, heternormative ---holes"

2008-07-29T08:36:00.000-07:00

Man. I wish that line were mine.

Sadly, it's not. To see its true origins, head on over to Yahoo! Games and its article on a new video game set to be released by Sony and which debuted at E3 not long ago. The game's title, "Fat Princess," pretty much sums it up, managing to be - and this hardly seems possible - just as bad as you think it's going to be. The premise? Get the once-svelte princess as fat as you can by stuffing her full of cake, thus making her harder for your enemies to abscond with.

*sigh*

Fat-hating, heternormative ---holes, indeed.

Obama's not the only one

2008-07-28T08:35:00.000-07:00

For those of you unfamiliar with the scope of my dissertation, a lot of what I write about concerns the power of representation - the depth of cultural meaning that fictional versions of real-life actors can be imbued with in the public conciousness. And, based on this campaign season so far, it seems as if I'm not the only one with the power of representation on the brain. I've written several times about Barack Obama's representational efforts (remember the Brandenburg Gate and the faux presidential seal?), but a recent article in the New York Times points out that it's not just Obama who's trying the mantle of most powerful man in the free world on for size.

In all fairness, I have to acknowledge that McCain has a case of Pennsylvania Avenue envy, too. But I still believe in my heart of hearts that Obama has it much worse. My evidence? Little (Freudian?) slips like the one Obama made last week and which the NYT handily parses for us:

It did not go un-snickered upon within the McCain campaign, for instance, when Mr.
Obama said Wednesday that he wanted to acquaint himself with foreign leaders “who I expect to be dealing with over the next 8 to 10 years.” Not only did Mr. Obama seem to be assuming victory in November but also re-election in 2012 and, for good measure, the option to extend a second term by two years.

I can forgive him the grammatical error (not "who I expect to be dealing with" but "with whom I expect to be dealing" - must I be the grammar police for the world?), but I'm not sure I can forgive him the naked presumption. It's just unseemly.

As promised, my Keith Olbermann crush link

2008-07-27T08:56:00.000-07:00

For all of you who don't watch The Soup, shame on you. But here's the link I mentioned in Friday's post anyway.

All bands should make decisions this way

2008-07-26T10:21:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Anthony for posting this entry about how to randomly choose the name for your band, title of your album, and cover art.

I freakin' LOVE my band.

Band name: Colin Vaughan
Title of first album (I swear I am not making this shit up): We Counted Our Spoons
Album art:

Keith Olbermann is officially my hero

2008-07-25T22:14:00.001-07:00

...and if you saw The Soup tonight, you know why. If you missed it, I'll try to get the clip posted as soon as it shows up on YouTube.

In other news, expect to be inundated with news stories about the Wisconsin delegate, previously pledged to Hillary Clinton, whose delegate-status was stripped in a unanimous vote after she told a Milwaukee newspaper that she was instead considering supporting John McCain. Whether you feel that voters who previously supported Clinton are ridiculous or principled for throwing their support behind McCain, I find it pretty damn annoying that the state party organization was so quick to throw her out on her butt. I understand their desire to protect the party, but the least they could have done was agree to allow her to attend the convention and support Clinton. Removing her delegate status only draws attention to the story (although McCain was doing a pretty good job of that by himself, obviously) and gives it even better legs. Kinda dumb, Wisconsin.

What's Obama up to these days, you ask? It seems he's been busy demonstrating to much of Western Europe what we in the U.S. should have figured out long ago - that he has no discernible platform. Can anyone else visualize what the first year of an Obama administration would like on a policy front? Of course there would be Iraq and economic policy changes (because a trained dolphin elected to the presidency this year would have to come up with some new policy on those two issues), but what else would he do? What does he actually care about? Hillary Clinton cared about health care; McCain cares about foreign affairs. What does Obama care about? And I'm not asking what his policy papers say; I'm asking what he actually talks about in his speeches. What, based on those public statements, matters to him - other than getting elected?

The Dark Knight indeed

2008-07-19T19:53:00.000-07:00

If you're looking for something to do this weekend, you could do a lot worse than spending eight bucks at your local cineplex on the latest Batman flick, The Dark Knight. Director Christopher Nolan has truly surpassed himself with this amazing film, a deeply felt and deeply allegorical work that examines the concept of terrorism perhaps more deeply than has been done since this country experienced it first hand on 9/11.

This may seem like hyperbole - after all, we are only talking about a superhero movie here. But Nolan's story is more than just Saturday morning bravado made dark and brooding for Saturday night audiences. Nolan has managed to combine two deeply felt concepts in a single work - an examination of the infinitesimal distance that defines the difference between good and evil, and the often equally subtle difference between terrorists and those who fight against them. Admittedly, one of the movies most frequently used tropes is hardly new - the idea that 'you die a hero or live to see yourself become a villain' was expressed just as succinctly in Billy Joel's Only the Good Die Young. Nevertheless, Nolan's take on these concepts is worth your time. And the performance by Heath Ledger - an actor I had never much felt strongly about one way or another before this role - is absolutely breathtaking in its calculated lunacy.

When your PhD originally was packaged as a prize in a Cracker Jack box

2008-07-18T15:14:00.000-07:00

With all due credit to the people at Language Log - who published it first - and the folks at XKCD webcomics - who created it in the first place - I have to offer you this little gem. The post at Language Log where it originated is worth a read for its discussion of Labov's test.

Even better - if you're looking for a little satire - is this passage Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female With the Mass Media by Susan J. Douglas:

I am a professor of media studies. You know what that means. I probably teach entire courses on the films of Connie Francis, go to academic conferences where the main intellectual exchange is trading comic books, never make my students read books, and insist that Gary Lewis and the Playboys were more important than Hegel, John Dos Passos, or Frances Perkins. All I do now, of course, is study Madonna. The reason I chose media over, say, the Renaissance or quantum mechanics is that I don't like to read, don't know much about history, and needed desperately to find a way to watch television for a living.

The Brandenburg Gate? Really?

2008-07-17T20:40:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else find weird the news that Barack Obama is not only going overseas to campaign (did someone give France and Germany a vote in the upcoming election?) but is also planning on giving a major foreign policy speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate? That famous site of Ronald Reagan and "tear down this wall" and all that?

Whether or not the speech will actually happen there is yet to be seen. Angela Merkel has been notedly cool towards the idea (although the mayor of Berlin seems stoked) and there has been some suggestion that it takes an invitation to make such a speech and such invitations are really given to other than major heads of state.

It just seems to me that this is presumption at a whole new level. I mean, the guy isn't even the nominee for the party yet, much less a president-elect, and he's campaigning overseas? He can't fake it as a member of the Senate on a fact-finding mission, either. This is pure theatre. And I, for one, find it to be really annoying theatre.

Anybody else?

All this talk about satire

2008-07-16T12:29:00.000-07:00

...has me wishing for a bit of satire I could actually enjoy. If you have the same hankerin', check out this new video from the good folks at JibJab.

Tasteless and Offensive?

2008-07-15T10:45:00.000-07:00

In separate statements during the last few days both the Obama and McCain camps have called the July 21st cover of The New Yorker "tasteless and offensive" for depicting a Muslim President Obama giving a "terrorist fist jab" to his afro-sporting, gun-toting wife in the Oval Office while burning a flag in a fireplace decorated with a picture of Osama bin Laden. Whether or not the picture was good satire is up for debate; however, it must be clear to nearly everyone that the cartoon was most definitely satire. Which begs the question - if The New Yorker is guilty of tasteless and offensive cover art, what about Spy, Radar and The New Republic? Why no outrage over these covers?

Cute baby - now get your butt back to work

2008-07-09T15:35:00.000-07:00

Coming off the tail end of Matt's two-week block leave from work, we're both having a difficult time getting back into the groove of a regular schedule again. However, as I was reminded in this article from last month on Slate.com, there are worse things in the world than that transition back to work from vacation. Worse things like having no vacation at all.

In talking about his new book, The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker, Steven Greenhouse highlights one of the more disconcerting facts about corporate America - that America is the only one of the industrialized nations that does not guarantee its workers any paid vacation or sick time. Worse still? In Greenhouse's own words,

According to a study of 173 nations worldwide, the United States is one of just four that does not provide paid maternity leave. The others are Swaziland, Liberia, and Papua New Guinea. That's not the usual company we keep. (In Britain, women receive 39 weeks paid maternity leave.)

This disparity seems to target two groups of workers specifically - the lower class and women. Lower class because it is those jobs that pay the least where paid time off (and decent health insurance and a retirement plan, etc) are viewed as a 'perks' well above the workers' pay grade. The disparity more obviously affects women - allowing a woman little or no paid maternity leave places an undue strain on a woman in a myriad of ways: potentially impacting a woman's health depending on the invasiveness of her birth experience, sending her back to work before she can appropriately bond with her baby on an emotional level, and - perhaps most importantly - forcing her to make the difficult decision between losing income by taking unpaid time off or going back to work and spending the entirety of her paycheck on daycare. And that's without the added insult of unpaid sick leave which for many women with young children is used more often to care for sick children than to see to their own health.

Then there's the other end of the spectrum, highlighted in a recent issue of Time magazine. Some corporate offices are now allowing women to bring their babies to work with them. I've actually read a few articles like this lately and I have to say the idea makes me want to gouge out my own eyeballs. I appreciate those businesses that are forward-thinking enough to try new solutions to the age-old childcare problem, but I can't imagine how a horde of children in the workplace is good for anyone: not for babies who simply can't be engaged and occupied effectively while Mom is trying to crank out a report on a deadline, not for Mom who must feel the strain of her dual roles all that much more keenly with a fussy baby right at her side, and not for the childless co-worker in the next cubicle who's forced to deal with all the negatives of child-rearing (the screaming, the smelly diapers, the copious bodily fluids on all available surfaces) while experiencing none of the positives.

Honestly, I have to say that the more I think about it, the more the idea of taking your baby to work seems less a benefit of positive corporate initiative and more just a cheap way to avoid manning up to the real solution - giving women paid time off to care for their children when they need it and ensuring that affordable childcare solutions are available for all.

Oh. And we childless people want paid vacation, too.

Wild hairs

2008-07-05T08:29:00.000-07:00

Matt and I got a wild hair this weekend and have replaced the misty rain of the Pacific Northwest for the torrential downpours going on in our hometown for a few days. Hope everyone else is enjoying their long Fourth of July weekend. We know we are.

South Dakota hates women

2008-07-03T20:54:00.000-07:00

A great article on Slate.com detailing a 2005 "informed consent" abortion law in South Dakota that is about to take effect following a ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. South Dakota's definition of "informed consent"? Telling women that the fetus they are about to abort is "a whole, separate, unique, living human being" with which they have "an existing relationship" that is constitutionally protected. Not to mention that doctors are required to give all significant risk factors of the procedure, including depression, suicidal ideation and suicide.

Let's get beyond the big obvious issues that I have with this law - the fact that women are not children, that it is the rare woman who approaches abortion lightly, and that whether or not a woman has an "existing relationship" with her unborn child is not only beyond the realm of legislation but also none of anyone else's damn business.

The real issue here, as Slate.com points out, is the forced speech which doctors in South Dakota are being forced to engage in. It's one thing to give a patient informed consent about risk factors associated with a medical procedure. It's quite another to require a doctor to give what is in essence a scripted description of an otherwise philosophical issue - the definition of 'human being'.

The good news? There's only one abortion clinic in the entire state of South Dakota that this ruling will affect. One. In the whole state.

He does what politicians do

2008-06-26T21:40:00.000-07:00

An interesting "gotcha" from Charles Krauthammer (btw - what a great last name) over at the Washington Post. Krauthammer points out the three or four major flip-flops Obama has made since firmly securing the nomination from Clinton and the accompanying fact that he has been given almost blanket immunity on these flip-flops by the mainstream press.

This is an interesting point to make as the same types of reversals have been met with almost savage intensity and coverage in past campaigns (Kerry was almost paralyzed by them in 2004). So why is it that Obama gets freebie after freebie?

I'm going to ask the question because I think it needs to be asked - is Obama the recipient of less press scrutiny because of his race?

Let me backtrack for a moment. I am not on Geraldine Ferraro's side on this one. I think her comments suggesting Obama's race as the only reason for his success in the primaries were flippantly dismissive of the charisma, grassroots organization efforts, and appeal to a different kind of politics that have made his campaign one for the history books. However, if by 'preferential treatment' she meant the love affair that the press has had with Obama and their subsequent decision to handle his campaign with kid gloves, then I think there is at least a grain of truth there. If even Saturday Night Live could parody this preferential treatment, then I think we have to at least acknowledge its existence.

I will happily concede that the causation for the press' love affair with Obama can not be definitively tied to his race. However, I think its worth it for the question to be asked whether or not it can be answered.

A military milestone for women

2008-06-25T08:44:00.000-07:00

The Army announced on Monday that it has nominated its first female Lt. General to receive her fourth star, Lt. General Ann E. Dunwoody. If confirmed by the Senate, Dunwoody would become the first woman in the history of the Army to attain the rank of four-star General, and she would have done so without ever having served in a combat position (as those positions are still verboten to women).

This is an impressive achievement for Lt. General Dunwoody and for the Army in general. Here's hoping that the performance of women like Lt. General Dunwoody and the female servicemembers who have served so valiantly in Iraq might one day inspire Congress to allow female soldiers to do what they've volunteered to do - serve their country - whether or not that service involves their participation in actual combat.

Finally. They're hiring in my chosen career field

2008-06-23T19:41:00.000-07:00

Chinese menu editor.

Who can I send my resume to?

That's one way to prove you're not elitist

2008-06-22T14:06:00.000-07:00

Has anyone else seen this? I wish I could claim I was making this up, but - honest to God - I'm not. Obama debuted this new campaign logo on Friday in Chicago and it has apparently been modeled on the Presidential Seal. A couple pretty damn obvious problems with this. First, nobody likes the guy who's cocky enough to act as if the contest is over before it's even begun. And nothing says "the rest of this campaign doesn't matter" more than this ridiculous seal. Second - and much more importantly - if you want to ingratiate yourself with working class white voters who think you're elitist, you don't do it by translating your campaign slogan into latin. Not that I speak it, but the good folks at CNN have kindly translated the inscription above the eagle in Obama's new logo, "vero possumus," as "Yes we can."

You've got to be kidding? Right?

I recommend

2008-06-22T13:53:00.000-07:00

Thanks to my husband who purchased the tickets after seeing the show featured on Ace of Cakes, went to the Paramount Theater in Seattle last night to see the absolutely hilarious musical Avenue Q. As the ads for the show say, it's 60% adult situations and 40% foam rubber - like Sesame Street for grown-ups. the show is about a group of muppet-like puppets, monsters, and flesh-and-blood characters living on a street in the New York ghetto called Avenue Q. One of the main characters, Princeton, is a recent college graduate - an English major who can't find a job but is thrilled to be finally finished with college and looking for his purpose in life. One of the human characters? Gary Coleman. This shit is gold.

With musical numbers like "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" and "It Sucks to Be Me," how could you go wrong? My favorite moment? Violent and loud puppet sex. On stage. Set to music. That's what I'm talking about.

The other shoe drops

2008-06-19T10:46:00.000-07:00

Okay. Actually it was the sixth shoe. And it didn't so much drop as float.

In a story that gets more bizarre as the months go by, a another severed human foot - complete with size 10 running shoe - watched up on shore near Vancouver, British Columbia yesterday. This foot was the sixth to have appeared in the waters off B.C. since last August - five right and one left.

The foot appears to have been cleaning severed from its owner.

It is believed that the feet are appearing in lieu of other body parts because they have all been encased in shoes that floats.

Note to self: next time in Canada, be sure to wear clean underwear and especially buoyant footwear. You never know.

UPDATE: Read an article in the newspaper on Saturday that the sixth foot was actually a hoax. Someone had planted a shoe filled with an animal foot on the beach for someone to find. Which is more disturbing? The fact that severed human feet are being found watched up on shore or the fact that some sick bastard thinks that sounds like a good opportunity to punk someone?

Making the first world into the third world one pharmacist at a time

2008-06-18T10:13:00.000-07:00

News this week of a small but growing number of pharmacies that, in an effort to avoid being sued for refusing to provide emergency contraception to women with valid prescriptions due to the pharmacist's religious beliefs, have stopped providing contraception all together.

My favorite part of the story? The news that these pharmacists don't even bother to post the fact that they will refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions so that women attempting to fill such prescriptions are forced to get all the way to the counter and be denied service before they realize who they're dealing with. I'm sure this is no accident; the pharmacists no doubt look at such encounters as a chance to minister to these poor women who mistakenly believe they should have some say in their reproductive future.

This kind of thing really chaps my ass.