Cleveland Says: Gays Rock!

So guess what?

Apparently, Cleveland just beat out Boston as the host city for the 2014 Gay Games!

That's right. Cleveland is more inclusive than Boston! We win! I'm so proud of my state for seizing this opportunity, and for trying to become more open and welcoming to the gay community.

However, as excited as I was to read about this in the Akron-Beacon Journal, the statement at the bottom of the page disheartened me:

"Ohio.com and the Akron Beacon Journal disable commenting on stories when we believe the feature will be used excessively for anonymous postings that are personal attacks, abusive or hateful. This is one such story."

How sad is that— when a newspaper can't allow comments to be posted beneath an article because of the near certainty that at least one of those comments will be a disgusting expression of bigotry and hate?

On Health Care For All Americans

One of the reasons I've largely avoided writing about the heath care debate on A New Philosophy is that, really, it's not so much a "debate" as a screaming match between a group of illogical ignoramuses ("Public healthcare will kill your baby!") and a group of incredulous but apathetic supporters ("You're pulling this crap out of your ass, but I refuse to combat these absurd allegations because they make no sense.")

But this story on Yahoo today made me think twice about my silence, because it really illustrates why the health care debate is moot: people who have already reached conclusions will refuse to admit new evidence that may induce them to change their minds.

Steve Hoffman of the University of Buffalo did a study wherein he talked to fifty Republicans, all of whom believed that there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. (Newsflash: there wasn't one.) As the participants engaged in the study, they were slowly given more and more evidence that their beliefs were false. However, only one of the participants ever changed his/her mind; the other forty-nine participants began to utilize what Hoffman refers to as "motivated reasoning": "Motivated reasoning is essentially starting with a conclusion you hope to reach and then selectively evaluating evidence in order to reach that conclusion," Hoffman said.

This is what has happened in the health care debate. Conservatives— who are still angry that President Obama won the election and who hold fear of governmental intervention into the economic sphere as one of their foundational beliefs— cannot reconcile themselves to a bill that is supported by President Obama and requires governmental intervention in the health care system. Therefore, in order to preserve these emotional viewpoints, they begin to see danger in every line of the bill. "Seniors can receive counseling if they wish to write up a living will" becomes "Seniors will be executed at death panels!" "Let's give preventative care to Americans so that they won't get to the point where they need expensive procedures" becomes "Health care will be rationed and heart transplants will be unavailable!"

Here's what I know: the government already runs health care plans— Medicare, Medicaid, and the armed services' health care— and they seem to work just fine. When I was in Florida, every single old person I met (and I must have met hundreds) was absolutely in love with Medicare— Democrats and Republicans alike. And even Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, agreed (somewhat accidentally, I'll admit) that the armed services have the best health care possible. (More alarming, however, was his assertion that ordinary Americans don't deserve the same care.) The government also runs lots of things that we like: the police forces, for example, and the mail.

Guys, it doesn't make any sense to argue against government-run health care, because YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. This is a democracy, people. We elect these folks. In a government-run health care system, health insurance is answerable to YOU, the voter, and if you have a problem with the way things are being run, you can write a letter to your Congressman, and you can protest with other people who also have a problem with it, and if enough people hate the way things are working, something can be done. Private interests, however, are only answerable to stock holders; if I have a problem with my Medical Mutual insurance (and believe me, I do, considering that somehow the $200/month that I pay doesn't entitle me to be covered when I go to the doctor to get a birth control prescription), I can feel free to write a letter, but no one's going to care, considering that I have no shares in the company and therefore can claim no influence over its decisions.

I've never really understood the fear over government-run programs. It's not like we have a king or a dictator or someone who can simply do whatever he/she wants without any repercussions or consequences. In a democracy, YOU control the government. Remember what happened last year? We decided that we wanted the Republicans to run things back in the late 90s and early 2000s, and then, when they did a crappy job, we took them out and tried something new. That wasn't a random act of politics— it was a DECISION that we made AS A COUNTRY. If you didn't vote for President Obama, I can understand how you could feel alienated (oh, believe me, I felt that way in 2000, and in 2004), but when you take a look at the election results, you realize that there was a CHOICE. As much as I hated it then, I had to admit that the American people CHOSE Bush, at least in 2004. We The People spoke, even if the voice was a hysterical and irrational one. And last year, the teacher asked everyone in the class to raise their hands if they wanted Obama to be president, and the majority of the kids in the class raised their hands.

What's ironic about this whole debate is that those who are against government-run health insurance are actually USING THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD. Through town halls and letters and petitions and phone calls, they are changing the debate, except what they're saying is: "We would be powerless to change a government-run health can system." Um, really? You can easily use the political system to protest the inception of government health care, but you can't possibly imagine using that same system to improve that health care? How does that even make sense?

Over this past month or so, we've heard from a lot of people (many of them crazy-eyed folks akin to the "Obama is a Muslim" woman from the McCain campaign), and very few of them have been willing to say what they'd like to see in a bill, instead of just what they're afraid of seeing. So here's what I'd like to see:

-Universal government-run health care. Yeah, that's right— your ability to afford medical care should not rest on whether or not you are A) rich, B) employed, or C) old. Everyone should get to go to the doctor if they're sick. Everyone. And really, I don't give a shit if that means you have to pay higher taxes for some poor person to go to the doctor, because guess what? That's called community. Anyone can wave a flag or sing a patriotic song, but loving your country means loving its people, and sharing with them when necessary. If you don't like that, then I refer you to poverty activist and lifelong lover of the underprivileged Jesus of Nazareth, or alternatively, to your mother, who (I assume) taught you that sharing is caring.

-No more "pre-existing conditions" crap, and no more of this "that procedure isn't necessary even though it could change your entire life for the better" stuff. If a person has diabetes when they join the insurance plan, then the insurance plan still has to cover the treatment. If you have a benign tumor that has taken over the entire right side of your face and removing it would restore your vision and your quality of life, then that tumor gets removed, and the procedure is covered. Period.

-Coverage for ALL women's health procedures— gynecological checkups, pap smears, mammograms, birth control, and, yes, abortions. If you don't approve of abortion, then you should be able to check a box on your tax forms that says you don't want your money allocated for those purposes. (Although I'm not very sympathetic; I don't believe in war, but I don't get to opt out of providing tax dollars for all the wars we seem to be constantly fighting.) Otherwise, let the rest of us rational folks help women who simply can't afford to burden themselves (and the taxpayers) with an unwanted child.

-Preventative care to help avoid expensive health problems. Which is cheaper: a triple bypass, or a few sessions with a personal trainer and dietician who can help you figure out how to eat right and work physical movement into your daily life? Is it easier to operate on a cancer patient in the advanced stages of the disease, or to screen for the cancer regularly and make sure it can be caught early on? Which is easier to provide: a lifetime of treatment for an obese child, or a talk with his/her parents over what kinds of foods he/she should be eating? I've see parents filling their infants' bottles with Coke, for goodness sakes— and these are parents who genuinely want what's best for their children, but who just don't realize that pumping them with sugar and calories 24/7 is going to make them sick. As much as I like to assume pessimistic things about the world, my experience has taught me that, for the most part, people have good intentions, and they want to make their families and their communities and their world healthier and happier. If you give them the information they need— and, more importantly, if you provide strategies for people to implement and utilize this information in their daily lives— you can go a long way towards preventing complicated treatments for serious illnesses down the line. Prevention doesn't always keep disease from occurring, but it can help lower the incidence of some diseases, and can help spot the development of others before it's too late.

Yep, it might be pretty expensive, but I have this nagging feeling that, perhaps, it's not a lack of money overall that's our problem— it's a mismanagement of it. I'm pretty sure we could take a good hard look at our federal spending and figure out where we could make some cuts (*cough cough* DEFENSE! *cough cough*) so that this important piece of legislation could pass.

(As a side note: I am so totally loving the tax-on-soda idea. TOTALLY. We often buy a lot of Coke to feed Adam's soda addition, and a tax on Coke would simultaneously help to fund health care AND help Adam and I cut back on the amount of expensive and unhealthy soda we drink, thereby making us healthy and saving us some money. Let's go for a tax on all junk foods— maybe we could even allocate a little of it towards a federal program to help poor families purchase fresh veggies instead of processed foods or red meats!)

Conclusion: After a few months of pondering and analyzing the information and watching lots of different news channels (although Fox News was tough to get through) and reading lots of different publications, A New Philosophy officially and wholeheartedly endorses a single-payer, government-run healthcare system that covers all Americans, regardless of their income or their employment status. And while it pretty much goes without saying, this blog also endorses the leadership of the Democratic Party on this front, and encourages Republican lawmakers to listen hard and consider the interests of their constituents above the interests of insurance company executives or campaign donors or their own political careers. (Blue Dog Dems would do well to listen up, too.)

This is not a time to save face, or to play it safe, or to maintain the status quo. Now is the time for heroes. Now is the time for bold leadership. Now is the time for change.

Now is the time for a true morning in America.

And now, watch this cute little video.

What Happened, Gov. Strickland?

I was horrified to learn that Ohio governor Ted Strickland, a man who is usually pretty reasonable and smart, has developed Executive Order 2008 03S, which, when it takes effect (soon!), will make it impossible for milk producers to label their milk cartons "rBGH-free."

Why does this matter? Well, rBGH is an artificial hormone given to cows to force them to produce more milk. While the FDA states that there is no difference between milk made from rBGH-injected cows and those not injected with the hormone, many studies (and some of the FDA's own publications) have exposed the increase in disease that cows experience when injected with rBGH, particularly the disease known as mastitis. Mastitis is a disease that causes inflammation, swelling, and pus drainage, some of which ends up in the milk product. Milk from cows treated with rBGH contains higher levels of Insulin Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1); Humans naturally have IGF-1 in their bodies, but increased levels have been linked to colon and breast cancer.

As a consumer, I would prefer my milk providers not to use this chemical; I'd rather pay slightly more for a product that is 1) safer, and 2) not made in a way that causes horrible pain and debilitated sickness in cows. If companies ARE going to use it, I'd prefer that I know about it, so that I can use a brand that doesn't use it— and there are plenty of brands available. So why not let me choose for myself?

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a similar gag bill last month, so Ohio is actually the ONLY state where it's illegal to label milk as "rBGH-free." And why? Don't I have the right, as a consumer, to know what I'm consuming? What about when I choose to get pregnant— why wouldn't you want a pregnant woman to be able to consume chemical-free products in order to promote the health of the fetus?

I'm going to call my governor’s office tomorrow, and I hope my fellow Ohioans who have done their research and agree with me will call [(614) 466-3555] or email the governor to express their concerns, as well!

"Body" of Evidence

The political world never ceases to amaze and astound me.

First it was the election of Barack Obama as president— something I never even dared to hope that my country would be capable of doing. Then it was the idea that people— rational, educated American adults— would take seriously any political statement that came out of the mouth of Miss California.

And now?

Jesse "The Body" Ventura— former wrestler, infamous governor of Minnesota, and dubious movie actor— just talked intelligently about torture.

Wow.

And the more I read about him, the more I feel like I might have been wrong about him. As a teenager, I remember laughing when he was elected, and thinking, "Are these the sorts of people I want making decisions in my government— brainless former wrestlers?" To me, the election of Ventura stood for what I thought was wrong about elections in general: the emphasis on celebrity and personality instead of positions on issues and actual qualifications.

But y'know, maybe he got a bad rap. I've been reading up on him tonight, and I completely disagree with him on fiscal issues and unions...but I like that he didn't seem fazed about standing up for minorities. He supports gay rights, abortion rights, and the separation of church and state; he made public transportation (including light rail) a priority, and he vetoed a bill requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, which I think was pretty brave.

I dunno— I still think he was under qualified, but at the same time, I'm hesitant to define that necessary qualification. I mean, isn't that issue always at the heart of our democracy? Aren't we all secretly hoping, deep down inside, that the next great leader will come, not from law school or the business sector, but from the unremarkable masses?

Ah, well. It's a confusing thing to think about; that line of thinking brings us to a sense of egalitarianism that we sorely need nowadays, but it also gave birth to the presidency of George W. Bush. The problem, perhaps, is that we need not confuse obscure origins with general mediocrity. Great men can live amongst us, can work beside us, and we might never know it unless they could be given a chance to lead. That just doesn't mean that men who are mediocre at heart will one day turn great.

Anyways...I wish I'd been old enough to really research him properly when he was governor. He seems like an interesting (but strange) person.

All, Or Nothing

Today, as you're no doubt aware, is Earth Day, and in my opinion, a central part of being an ecologically responsible person is thinking globally. I'm not just talking about being informed about international events or considering global perspectives (although those are important things, too)— I'm talking about trying to overcome our more selfish impulses by thinking about the common good.

I mean, a lot of the ecological problems we're experiencing today came about because, for a long time, people just didn't think broadly enough. People didn't think about what would happen to the earth and its living creatures when they tossed trash on the ground— they only thought about what an inconvenience it would be to have to properly dispose of their waste. They didn't think about landfills and pollution when they tossed out perfectly useful things— they only thought about how much nicer it would be to have new things instead of reusing the old ones. No one really cared about the fact that cars were polluting the environment, because, hey, it would be so durned annoying to have to improve fuel efficiency. And if manufacturers worked hard on improving the gas mileage of their cars...well, then prices would go up, and families might have to make do with one or two cars instead of five or six!

Of course, we all know this, and we know that the selfishness problem doesn't just stop with our environmental issues— it's part and parcel of our economic woes ("But I want that huge house RIGHT NOW!"), our societal problems ("Well, I guess I could give ten dollars to charity this month, but only if I'm sure I can afford that new pool I want"), and, to some extent, our political woes ("I could never support measures to help the poor if it means taking away some of MY money— I have a right to buy as much crap as I want, you know").

I really enjoyed this Newsweek piece about the epidemic of narcissism in the United States. (As a side note, I did disagree with a few of the author's points, namely with her mockery of the idea that it's important to love yourself. I don't think positive self-esteem is the same thing as selfishness, and in fact, I think a lot of selfishness has to do with feeling inadequate and insecure, and not wanting to show it.) I'm amazed that thirty percent of college students agreed with the statement: "If I show up to every class, I deserve at least a B." Who are these people? And how could their parents have raised them this way?

What's even more amazing to me is that a whopping eighty percent of Americans describe themselves as Christians, and yet we continue to see such blatant selfishness in the political, social, and environmental arenas. Um, did some people miss the part where Christianity is almost entirely about self-sacrifice? I mean, the central Christian story is about a guy who, instead of marketing his popular philosophical ideas into a series of self-help books and tapes and retiring early with his millions, chose to die a horrible, painful, slow, public, humiliating death in order to show the world what true love means. The idea isn't that Jesus died so that we could spend our days buying plasma TVs and designer-label clothes; the idea is supposed to be that, like Jesus, we should work on giving ourselves to and for others.

Here is one of my favorite parts of the Bible:

[The early followers of Jesus] devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. [Acts 2: 42-45 (NIV)]

Early Christians weren't going around saying, "Gee, poor people must be poor because they're lazy and selfish. They certainly don't deserve my money. I worked hard for what I have, and I think I should buy myself a nice new pair of sandals." They gave to anyone as he had need. They weren't saying, "Well, I'll keep what's mine, and to hell with the rest of the world. I don't need to worry about other people's air or water or land." They had everything in common. If eighty percent of Americans are Christians, why are there still so many poor people? Why is there so much waste, so much destruction? Why do have such difficulty even identifying problems as problems, let alone fixing them?

Like I've said before, I don't think everyone needs to be a Christian, and I'm not really into evangelism or conversion; I'm proud to know a lot of wonderful, kind people who live their lives quite happily and contentedly without the need to believe in God. What I'm trying to say (in my own clumsy, preachy, whiny, roundabout way) is that, if I'm going to be a Christian, I need to be constantly trying to see the interconnectedness of things, to understand how my actions affect those around me— even people I don't know or like, not just my family members and friends.

Now, I'd be a hypocrite if I said I was always a loving, caring, sharing sort of gal. I'm no Jesus; I'm no saint. I like Girl Scout Cookies and video games as much as anyone; sometimes I get caught up in what's good for me, and what makes me happy, and I don't give a thought to what other people want. I can be quite the narcissist, myself, and I'm not offering my life up as the paragon of anything (well, maybe the paragon of sleeping, since I'm pretty good at taking naps!). I'm not perfect, and I know that no one is perfect, and I don't expect anyone to become perfect. But a lack of perfection does not mean an abdication of the responsibility to try and make things BETTER, to try and identify the negative and hurtful aspects of your lifestyle and your mindset and to improve them, wherever and however you live. Every single day, I wonder how I can become a better person, and slowly, I think I'm making headway overall, even if I do a heck of a lot of backsliding in the process.

Just because the world will never be a rosy utopian paradise doesn't mean we should just give up and turn our backs. Just because everything seems all messed up and broken right now doesn't mean we should stop trying to spread as much love and compassion as we can, or that we should stop working to see the beauty in the brokenness. Just because some people find themselves unable to love their world and their neighbors doesn't mean that we should join them.

Saving the earth means cultivating a sense of us rather than just me, even if it's not always a permanent (or easy) state of mind.

Differences Of Perspective

I was reading this article when I realized-- doesn't 9/11 seem like it happened a long, long time ago?

I mean, it's been almost eight whole years, right? Tomorrow, I will turn 24 years old; when 9/11 happened, I think was only 16. Then, it seemed like a moment that would define my generation-- we all talked about our lives as occurring "post-9/11" and our government and society functioning in a "post-9/11 mindset."

And now, it seems like something so far away, something from the shadowy past-- like Pearl Harbor or Vietnam.

And as I mulled these thoughts over in my brain this afternoon, I realized: the reason it feels like this to me is because 9/11 did not actually change my life. I lived in the middle of Ohio, not in New York or Washington; I didn't know anyone on the planes or in the buildings; heck, I'd never even been to either of those cities at that point in time.

The wars that began after 9/11 have touched me, but not in those painful deep places, the places where people who have lost loved ones are touched. I am not an Afghani citizen, and no bombs fell on my house. My friends went off to war, but they've all come back so far, and really, the Iraq War probably would have happened without 9/11: it was something the Bush administration had been cooking up for awhile.

I suppose this is the reason I never felt angry on 9/11. When we went around and talked about it in our class on that September day, I found myself in hot water with my furious classmates for saying that I couldn't feel angry. All I felt was sadness: a deep sorrow for those who had been killed, and even for those who had committed the killings. I mean, if you're killing yourself in a desperate attempt to murder as many people as you can before you die, you've got something dark and heavy inside you, and something horrible must've happened to make you that way.

And so I began to think about how many of us live lives that are isolated from the lives of other people. For a man who lost his wife on 9/11, that day changed his whole life; to him, it would seem ridiculous that I have only fragmented and vague memories of that day (really, I only remember crying in French class and then, later on, explaining to my littlest sister what had happened that day). We'd each be living lives that were completely uninformed by the experiences of other people. We wouldn't understand one another at all.

This is what I think about when I get loud and passionate about politics. I like a good debate, but sometimes, when I argue with one person down to the nuts and bolts of our beliefs, I am confronted with what is truly, when you get down to it, the source of my anger: I can't understand how the other person thinks. I want so much to understand why people think and do certain things, and it's so upsetting to know that sometimes, I'm just never going to get it.

Understand, though, that my frustration is not always with those on the opposite end of the political spectrum— it's with the situation. You know how they say that one of the first signs that a child is maturing is that he or she understands physical perspective? I read somewhere that a toddler doesn't understand that what he/she is seeing is not what everyone else is seeing; if a toddler sees a brown duck, a white duck, and a black duck from left to right on a river, he/she doesn’t realize that someone on the other side of the river will see a black duck, a white duck, and a brown duck from left to right. He/she thinks everyone sees the ducks in the same way, in the same order.

Well, I spend a lot of my time trying to put myself in the place of the person on the other side of the river. And when the person on the other side says, “those aren’t ducks, they’re giraffes,” I get confused, and frustrated, and mad at myself and the world.

I mean, I can understand the arguments that social conservatives put forth: I understand why gay people make them uncomfortable, and I understand why they think that cuddly-looking fetuses are exactly the same as full-grown human beings. I understand the why. I just don’t understand the how. How do they think this way? How did they begin thinking this way? And how do I get inside their heads so I can really understand the process behind their conclusions?

So just know that, if I vehemently disagree with you, I’m not angry with you, and I don’t think you’re a bad person. I just think you’re a confusing person, and I want you to explain why you think the way that you do. Don’t just quote me a Bible verse or tell me you hate lefty communist bitches— just talk me through your thought process, so that we can break it down and I can understand what you’re thinking and how it differs from the way I think.

So help me understand. Please.

A Dream Deferred?

When did the definition of the "American dream" stop involving real freedom and start exclusively indicating home ownership?

Since the housing crisis began, it seems like every news article has referred to the American dream as being somehow destroyed if a person doesn't own his or her own house. For example, something rubbed me the wrong way about this piece in the Wall Street Journal, which is actually titled, "In the Exurbs, the American Dream is up for rent".

Well, I admit, part of the reason this article irritated me was the idea that the featured couple bought a $235,000 house and put ZERO DOWN. Who the heck does that? I mean, seriously, how is that ever ever ever a good idea? Did no one teach these people about how money works? Did they never read Dave Ramsey's books or anything? And I wasn't crazy about the quote from their random friend, either: "Overall, a community of owners versus renters is obviously going to be better." Uh, okay, except I like my community of renters, and you couldn't PAY me to live in some of these Stepford-esque developments they've got these days, with their stern iron fences and their controlling community boards.

But really, the article mostly irritated me by insinuating that owning a home is somehow a RIGHT. No, guys— having shelter is a right. The UN says so. Owning your own home? Not so much. That's a luxury. Must I constantly demarcate the line between necessity and want for these folks?

In fact, I can't understand why people spend so much money on owning, instead of just renting. I rent, and guess what? When my toilet breaks, I don't have to fix it. When it snows, I don't have to shovel. Mowing the lawn? Not my job! Sure, you can't have a garden, and I guess there are a few rules. But there are definitely perks, too, so home owners don't need to act as though we're all hopeless, sad sacks of misery over here in Rentland.

And even putting aside the insulting idea that renting is somehow a horrible sacrifice— why must the definition of the American dream be so materialistic, so shallow? After all, writer James Truslow Adams coined the phrase in his 1931 book Epic of America by saying this:

"The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position... The American Dream, that has lured tens of millions of all nations to our shores in the past century has not been a dream of material plenty, though that has doubtlessly counted heavily. It has been a dream of being able to grow to fullest development as a man and woman, unhampered by the barriers which had slowly been erected in the older civilizations, unrepressed by social orders which had developed for the benefit of classes rather than for the simple human being of any and every class."

That's more like what I've always considered to be the American dream: the ability to live your life the way you want, to make the choices you want, to become whomever you want to become. To me, the American dream is something far beyond keeping up with the Joneses— it's actually a way of becoming your own person, free from societal pressure or government oppression.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to own a home; one day, we'll probably own one ourselves. I just think that there are more important things to dream about, that's all— and I think the term "American dream" needs to become about more than just who owns what.

What's your definition of the American dream?

Marriage without the marriage

Well, it turns out that my mother was on to something. I said it couldn't happen, but it might:

They're considering separating civil marriage from religious marriage in California!

I think it's a GREAT idea. Instead of issuing marriage licenses to couples wanting to live together in a state of matrimony, everyone would get a "civil union license"— even straight couples. Marriage wouldn't exist legally— only religiously. If, after you get your civil union license and you were legally bound together, you wanted to get married in a church, you could, but no church would be forced to marry you. Everyone wins: gay people get to have the same marital rights and privileges as straight people under the law, but no one's forcing any church to bless it, or to call it marriage.

It makes sense. I mean, as the article points out, it's not like the state issues you a baptismal certificate or a license for your bar mitzvah. So why is it different with marriage?

Plus, as an added bonus, anti-gay activists can stop with the "Oh, it's just a matter of definition" simpering, because they won't be able to hide behind that defense anymore. Then we can get down to what this is really about: that some people think being gay is evil. And then we can show those people that they're being silly and unfair.

The above article said something I thought was a little goofy, though: "For many couples joined in matrimony, having the state no longer call them married may make them feel as if something important had been taken away - even if it's hard to define just what was lost."

Uh, what? How would calling what I have with Adam by another name make me feel like something is "lost"? If my relationship is recognized by the federal government (for tax and property purposes) and the Episcopal Church (for spiritual reasons), then what the heck do I care what they write on the certificate? As long as Adam and I can be together, and as long as I get his cash monies when he kicks the bucket (or vice versa), and as long as I can still remember that day when I stood up in front of the entire world and my God and swore I would do this thing, then it's done. You can't unravel it that quickly— and I would hope that other married people would feel the same way.

At the end of the Episcopal marriage ceremony, the priest always says, "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." And no man will, especially not with technical definitions, and especially if those definitions are in the service of helping my fellow human beings to express their love. Only Adam and I control our future together. So bring it on, California— and I hope your good influence spreads here!

Obama and Reagan

Hey, check out this fascinating editorial in the Wall Street Journal about how Obama's liberal critics are missing the point of his bipartisan overtures. The part I like best is how it actually compares Obama to Reagan! :P I mean, I dislike Reagan and think he was a pretty awful president, but still, it's an interesting thought.

Please do check it out. While I was reading it, I felt as though it was a truly original piece— I was like, "Wow, I never thought of it that way before." It's a pretty cool feeling!

A Friendly Note To Our Republican Friends In Congress

Dear House Republicans,

Hello. My name is Philosophy Walker. I live in Ohio. I am a married woman.

I work 40 hours per week at a job for which I am not particularly suited, and at which I am not particularly skilled. In other words, I am an English major working at an accounting firm. I do this so that I can afford to pay my husband's full tuition at Youngstown State University.

I also write, meaning that my day is usually as follows: work from 8 am to 5 pm, have dinner from 5-6, write from 6-10, and then go to sleep.

My husband (who, by the way, should not even be working in his condition, what with his bruised ribs and all) works 50 hours per week at an exhausting, physically demanding job, and also attends college full-time. He is not allowed to do homework at work, so he pretty much gets about two or three hours of sleep per day. I haven't seen him for more than twenty minutes at a time for four days.

My husband needs to quit his job, but he can't. Know why? Well, for one, we wouldn't have health insurance if he quit, and for another, the economy is so bad that if he quit, he'd never find another full-time position.

In conclusion, STOP WHINING AND SIGN THE DAMN STIMULUS PACKAGE.

I really need you to do this. I don't need a tax cut. I need you to create jobs. I need you to invest in our infrastructure. I need you to stop pretending like yelling really loudly can accomplish anything at all.

Please.

Love and kisses,

Philosophy

Fun With Genetics

Want to know about your genetic predisposition towards disease, or the likelihood that you'll pass diseases on to your kids? How about getting information on your ancestry?

With Time's Invention of the Year, 23andMe, you can find out all these things are more!

For $399, this online company sends you a package with a sample tube. Simply spit into the tube, send it back, and in 8-10 weeks the company will send you a link to a site where you can see all the hidden potential (and danger) that has been lurking in your genes ever since you were born.

OMG I WANT THIS SO BADLY.

If only I had $399 to burn. :)

The Joys of Legislative Paralysis

Ugh— I'm getting so tired of the media whining about the fact that the Democrats in Congress aren't, like, rolling over and playing dead anytime they disagree with soon-to-be-President Obama. I happen to think that disagreeing with the leader of your party is a GOOD thing.

We've just seen what happens when members of one party defer too often to their President: our system of checks and balances only works when Congress acts as Congress and not as a solid voting bloc that does the bidding of the President. Let's all just think back over the last eight years, a period that saw the highest percentage of party-line voting in the Republican Party in decades. Don't we all wish that those Republicans who had doubts about Bush's policies on the war or the economy or the environment would have been able to stand up and oppose the President instead of squashing their own personal skepticism in favor of party loyalty?

I took this politics class a couple years ago in which we learned that the Republicans had gained a lot of the power they had in the early part of this decade simply by refusing to allow dissent within the party. Whenever a Republican disagreed with the president (like Colin Powell did, or Arlen Specter) he or she was punished, either by being forced out of power or by having other lawmakers refuse to work with him/her. When you look at the Republican voting patterns, you see (at least between 2001-2004) a much higher tendency to vote with the rest of the party than you see with the Democrats. And I think the Dems recognize that too much agreement within the party is bad for both the party's ability to govern and for the government's ability to accurately represent the American people.

So I think it's great that the Dems aren't claiming they have some sort of absolute mandate to run the government according to their own whims and fancies, and that they're challenging the president-elect to meet the expectations and desires of the voters, not just the majority whips. And I'd like to hear a little less whining about it from the press, thanks very much.

Predictions, Pundits, and Porn

I'm posting part of a very entertaining Feb. 2006 interview between Playboy Magazine and Al Franken. Check out how many things he predicted correctly about the 2008 election— and how many he got completely wrong. (In fact, I've highlighted some of the particularly insightful or completely mistaken bits.)

***

PLAYBOY: In The Truth (With Jokes) you predict that in 2008 Al Franken will win a Senate seat, the Democrats will win a huge congressional majority and a “unity Congress” will be formed with a few good Republican members. What in the world are you thinking?
FRANKEN: It’s a grand new design. We Democrats will control both the House and Senate, but we’ll have some Republicans who are not jerks chairing committees. Jim Leach would be banking chair. He’s a professorial type I’ve gotten to know because I have an interest in the Community Reinvestment Act, which makes sure that banks lend money to people who have been historically denied capital—minorities, women and the poor—so they can buy homes and start businesses. Leach has also been one of the few Republicans who has wanted to investigate war profiteering. I’d keep McCain. He’d be commerce committee chairman. Lindsey Graham is the only Republican talking about raising the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes. According to my scenario the Republicans who remain will come from very red districts or will have made their peace with the fact that Bush has been a disaster. I’m not saying we’d give them a lot of chairmanships. This is ridiculous fantasizing, by the way.

PLAYBOY: Care to dream on about your version of a “morning in America” for liberals?
FRANKEN: We will start to prevail. Nothing changes Washington like one good presidential election. We have some great leaders. Hillary will be a great leader. Barack Obama is a great leader. Eliot Spitzer is a great leader. (Philosophy's note: HA!)

PLAYBOY: Your account of the 2008 presidential race pointedly excludes mention of the gender of the Democratic winner. Is that a not so coy reference to Hillary?
FRANKEN: I think she will make a run for it and get the nomination. The joke is that I avoid the issue. I just say we have this incredibly talented and visionary nominee. But a lot of good candidates may run against Hillary. Kerry might run again. Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico and a former UN ambassador, energy secretary and member of Congress, might run. He has a wealth of experience. John Edwards will run again.

PLAYBOY: Republicans will certainly do their best to derail the Franken scenario.
FRANKEN: But who do the Republicans have? They can’t nominate McCain, because the conservative wing of the party doesn’t like him. And unless they nominate McCain, they lose.

***

Also, do any of my political friends out there happen to have a link to the original 2000 Playboy article by Al Franken entitled "Porn-o-rama!"? I've somehow completely missed the political flap that occured because of it, and I'd like to read it for myself instead of having political pundits tell me what it's about. But whenever I try to Google it, I just get other people talking about it, not the actual piece itself— and I have very little faith in the ability of political pundits to recognize irony, satire, or real humor. If anyone could direct me to the original source, that would be awesome.

The Real McCain stands up!

Is the real John McCain back?

Well, I saw a gleam today in this article. Not only did McCain refuse to promise to support Palin if she became a candidate for president ("I can't say something like [I'd promise to support her]. We've got some great other young governors. I think you're going to see the governors assume a greater leadership role in our Republican Party"), but he also rejected certain complaints from the RNC that Obama has not been honest about his contact with disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich:

"You know, in all due respect to the Republican National Committee and anybody -- right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together, not only on an issue such as this, but on the economy, stimulus package, reforms that are necessary."

This sounds more like the normal John McCain, the John McCain I'd always said would have made the 2000 election a tough choice for me. Now, if he can only stop pretending to like evangelical conservatives and go back to supporting a woman's right to choose, he'll be completely restored.

Prop 8: The Musical

Want to see the funniest video of the week? Check out the star-studded Prop 8: The Musical!

My favorite part of the video is Jack Black being Jesus, but that's second only to Neil Patrick Harris singing, "gay marriage will save the economy!" and Allison Janney as a mean-spirited gay-hater.

You'll laugh, you'll cry...well, actually, you'll only cry if you laugh so hard that you cry. But it's a funny video, and there are lots more videos there about why Prop 8 is a bundle of crap.

Tiny Feminists of the World: Unite!

Feminism isn't just for grown-ups anymore.

I was exactly like this as a child, although not so much into sports, as I wasn't naturally athletic and I tended to dislike things that involved the possibility that I could lose at something.

And is anyone else curious about the fact that the video is sponsored by Barbie? I mean, when I was younger, Barbie seemed like the ultimate symbol of anti-feminism, but now, when put beside more modern dolls like Bratz, Barbie seems positively empowered. I mean, yes, she's anatomically impossible and wears only high heels, but hey, at least she had a few careers— there was Doctor Barbie, there was Teacher Barbie, I even think there was a Barbie with a business suit of some kind. Those Bratz dolls are not only offensively snotty-looking, they're also pretty shallow, eh? All they do is go to the mall and fish for boyfriends and talk on little tiny plastic cell phones.

Anyways, I digress. What I enjoyed about this video the most is that the featured girl really DOES know what feminism means. Adults have twisted and perverted the word to mean something mean-spirited, but this girl seems to have done her homework and found that feminism simply means "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes...organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." (Thanks, Merriam-Webster! And while we're talking about M-W, did you know that they have declared "bailout" to be the 2008 Word of the Year?)

Ruby doesn't see feminists as man-haters or as paranoid name-callers. Ruby sees feminists as having diverse and expansive roles. When listing her top careers, she lists "writer" and "doctor" right beside "pop star" and "mommy". She knows that feminism is the reason she— and I— can dare to dream endlessly about what we'll be when we grow up, even though fifty years ago girls were permitted only a handful of such dreams.

It's refreshing to see that each successive generation is a little more open, a little bit more accepting, than the one before it.

Presidential Trivia

Usually I'm not into celebrity-style political trivia, but this stuff is just too good to pass up. Observe this piece from the Telegraph: The 50 facts you might not know about Barack Obama.

My favorites? I love that he's left-handed, and that he has read every single Harry Potter book! Also, who had any idea that he could speak Spanish?!

It's a fun list of facts, even if few of them are politically relevant. Plus, I like anything that humanizes politicians— after all, they're mostly not bad people, and I actually think that a good number of them enter politics in order to make a difference in the world. Why else would someone put themselves through the hell that is a political campaign?

Election Update 4

It's 11:53 PM.

Sen. John McCain just gave a fabulous concession speech. My favorite part:

"In a contest as long and difficult as this campaign has been, his success alone commands my respect for his ability and perseverance. But that he managed to do so by inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president is something I deeply admire and commend him for achieving."

For a moment, there, we saw the old John McCain...the real John McCain.

EDIT: Okay, guys, I'm out. I got very little sleep last night, so I'm going to head to bed. Expect a very long, very detailed analysis of this election victory tomorrow!

And remember: yes we can, yes we will...yes we DID!

Election Update 1

I'm going to be updating tonight in RED, so that I can really underscore the importance of the situation. :P

It's 8:25 PM. CNN has only projected a few really obvious states (Vermont, Kentucky), and Ohio— the most important state in this election for yours truly— is still too close to call.

I just wanted to point you toward a sweet article my friend Benjy from Vassar just wrote for the Huffington Post! He used to work for Talking Points Memo, and now he's doing Huffington stuff. It's funny and truthful, and I think you'll really enjoy it!

The Economist and Obama

Heads up: The Economist, which has long been a champion of both social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, has endorsed Barack Obama for president.

I've posted this partly because the endorsement is so measured and balanced; I think some conservatives will even enjoy it, as it takes into consideration so many of McCain's strengths and Obama's weaknesses. It acknowledges that McCain was an excellent choice in the primaries, noting:

"The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider [endorsing Obama]. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies."

It also discusses some of Obama's possible shortcomings:

"Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead."

And it really nails what's wrong with the Republican Party these days:

"Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism."

My favorite part is where is discusses how Obama's identity can actually be helpful to him as a president seeking to heal the country's rifts and strengthen America's position in the world:

"Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism."

In conclusion, says the author:

"So Mr Obama...is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait."

So go read this endorsement! It's a very interesting piece from a very interesting source. I don't agree with everything in there, but I think it's pretty good food for thought, on the whole.

Oh, levity!

Check out this hilarious video, in which Ron Howard, Andy Griffith, and Henry Winkler re-enact your favorite old-time television programming in order to endorse their chosen candidate for the White House!

"POW!" from Powell

So Colin Powell has announced his endorsement of...Barack Obama!?

Wow, I totally didn't see this coming. We'd all believed that Powell wouldn't endorse anyone— he's a Republican, even if he's a moderate, and he's McCain’s good friend, but at the same time he has deep ideological differences with the Bush Administration, and, whether or not you want to admit it, we all know that McCain has been pretty friendly with GWB since 2003.

So we all assumed he wouldn't say anything about endorsements. And we were wrong, I guess. I suppose it makes sense when you see it all on paper, but I’m still kind of shocked.

While I was reading the above article, it occurred to me how much more fun this race would be if Powell were running on the Republican ticket instead of McCain. Wouldn't that make everything a lot better? It would eliminate the whole undertone of racism that the McCain camp has been stoking (again, I stress that this sentiment is NOT one that McCain himself holds, but rather one perpetuated by his aides and advisors), because how can you run those offensive "Who IS Barack Obama?" ads when both candidates are black? Then we could focus on having a national discussion of the issues, not on whether or not America is ready to "handle" having a black president— because one way or another, America would have to suck it up and get ready.

Plus, then we’d have two candidates who’ve opposed the war in Iraq, and then we wouldn’t have to hear all this bullshit about “raising the white flag of surrender,” and then my friends could all come home and not get killed in a fight they didn’t want in the first place.

Sigh. Hindsight is 20-20, isn’t it?

Oh, and the New York Times article on this subject can be read here.

Analysis of a Political Feline

So I totally gave up on watching the last debate about halfway through, for the reasons I previously listed. Instead, I am documenting, for your edification, my previous claim that my cat is afraid of John McCain.

No, really! When Charlotte Brontë spots his wrinkled visage on my TV or computer screen, she becomes intensely irate. By contrast, when Obama is debating, she becomes calm and begins purring. As part of my crack reporting here at A New Philosophy, I bring you...

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION EVIDENCE THINGIES!

1.Here is Charlotte Brontë as Senator McCain brings up Bill Ayers for the millionth time:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please note the way she pulls back her ears flat against her head, and how she narrows the tops of her open eyes.

2. Here is Charlotte Brontë as Senator Obama discusses how the repeated mentions of Ayers "says more about [McCain's] campaign than it says about me":

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, note the relaxed position of her head and ears, as well as her closed eyes— a classic sign of feline contentment.

3. Let's look at Charlotte Brontë's background as an indication of political alignment. She was born to a single mother in poverty, the only surviving child from a litter of only three. She grew up in the care of her aunt, an older and more responsible cat who had nonetheless fallen prey to the same wicked charms that Charlotte's mother had adored, and given birth to a litter of kittens by the same father. These were Charlotte's half-siblings: Otis, Princess, Nala, and two others who would be adopted by loving humans soon after their birth and given good jobs as barn mousers. (FYI: Otis was killed in the line of mousing duty several months ago; at the time of this posting, Nala is missing and presumed dead).

Charlotte was physically ill as a child, but without health insurance she was unable to be treated for giardia, roundworms, and her heart murmur. Alone and forgotten, she would watch her half-siblings play out in the yard, longing for the day when she could join them. Her mother, still mooning over the three-legged, one-eyed tomcat who had impregnated her, would abandon Charlotte Brontë for hours on end to go out on hot dates in the nearby cornfields. Charlotte had but one protector, my mother-in-law Alice, who would feed and care for her as the summer wore one.

Then, she met me.

Charlotte and I were destined for one another. Brought suddenly from her sleepy home in an Ohio garage to the bright lights of New York, Charlotte became a Cat of the World. She studied poetry, politics, and journalism, and quickly became bilingual, picking up French like it was her native language. Mingling with Vassar's intellectual elite, Charlotte learned to debate, to dissent, to research, and of course, to procrastinate and then turn in something crappy at the last minute. She was accepted lovingly by her TA7 family— the mathematical genius Olivia, the brilliant linguist Claire, and the Old English scholar with a bent for philosophy, Trevor.

But it was too good to last. Fearing the iron fist of College Administration would come slamming down upon us, I sent her to live with her surrogate grandparents, my parents. Back in Ohio, Charlotte would become familiar with her adopted cousins: Buster, an evil mastermind posing as an old fool; Sylvia Plath, a cruel ice queen, Marmalade, a playful schizophrenic, and Scarlett O'Hara, a poor scattered cat whose mental handicaps were beyond the healer's art. She would feel at home there, but she would miss her surrogate mother.

Finally, I returned with a degree in hand—triumphant! At long last, Charlotte had a surrogate mother— and a surrogate father, as I married Adam and began to live a happy life in my new apartment in Ohio.

I submit to you that, through extensive interviews and documentation detailing the life of this extraordinary feline, I believe that my cat is a Democrat. Yes— Charlotte Brontë believes in caring for the poor. Charlotte Brontë believes in open access to birth control (her mother, by the way, had another set of kittens recently, by the same no-good father; their names are Sadie and Lenore, and Sadie was killed in a car accident in September). Charlotte Brontë believes that healthcare MUST be a priority. Charlotte Brontë believes that families are whatever you want them to be, not what society tells you they ought to be.

Yes, Charlotte Brontë has learned a lot from her short life. Is it any wonder that she can't afford John McCain?

The message was brought to you by the Council for Democratic Pets [CDP].

...now, wasn't that much more entertaining than a silly old debate?

Conservatives vs...McCain?

John McCain is having a bad week, guys. It appears that even some conservatives dislike his antics.

Apparently a lot of conservatives are angry over McCain's new mortgage plan; I've heard some of them in my neighborhood refer to it as "thinly-veiled socialism" and "a reward for greedy people who tried to buy more than they could afford." And for once *drum roll please*...I kind of agree. Well, not about the socialism part, but more about it being a bad idea. OMG...I agree with conservatives?! Whoa! Obama really CAN bring us together!

Then there's the fact that Christopher Buckley, son of prominent (but unfortunately now deceased) conservative William F. Buckley and a major conservative in his own right, just came out as endorsing Obama. Earlier this year he was a McCain fan, but McCain's crazy-ass accusations and his ridiculous VP choice (among some other things) made him change his mind. This is the first Democrat he's ever supported.

Honestly, I think his father, the late Mr. Buckley, would have supported his decision. William F. Buckley was pretty durn conservative, but he stopped short of the sort of hysterical, racist atmosphere that seems to be pervading the McCain camp. Buckley was a conservative with real gravitas, and he often displayed a fine analytic mind— he believed in being a conservative because he wanted smaller government, not because he hated black or Arab people (which he didn't).

EDIT: And upon further reflection, I've decided that I truly do feel bad for McCain. Y'know, this sucks for him, because as much as I dislike McCain and his plan for my country, I genuinely think that he is not an ignorant racist. McCain is a smart man, an educated man, and, until this election cycle, I think he had some genuine principles he tried to live by. No one likes to be king of the racists, and no one likes to think that their base of die-hard supporters consists largely of people who believe that Communism is still a major threat to the US and people who think Obama is a Muslim terrorist who doesn't say the pledge of allegiance and eats babies for breakfast. I think McCain wants to win this thing because people support his policies and his ideas, not because they don't know any better, and it must really pain him to be in the position of trying to win an election on the backs of people who take forwarded emails seriously. That sucks, man.

Maybe I'll write him a sympathy letter or something. I do actually feel kind of bad for him.

ANOTHER EDIT: Also, to clarify, in case anyone took my statements the wrong way: I was not indicating that all Republicans or all McCain supporters are racists— far from it. Rather, I was observing that it must be very frustrating to a man like McCain to see supporters like the ones in the above article standing up and declaring such blatantly racist views. I am sure there are many tenderhearted, non-racist McCain supporters— after all, his supporters seem to constitute at least 40% of the nation, so obviously the majority of them are not bigots.

Just wanted to get that straight— I'd hate to paint everyone with the same brush.

Obama-Bartlet '08

As a fan of Aaron Sorkin's work, I can't believe I missed this gem: a mock screenplay detailing an imagined meeting between Senator Obama and fictional president Jed Bartlet from The West Wing.

It's smart, funny, and really insightful. It also gave me a little nostalgic moment for the good ol' days of The West Wing! Remember all the good times— the Portland trip, the Stackhouse filibuster, the time CJ sang "The Jackal" and danced?

I miss that show like WHOA.

Sexism and E-Voting

Two completely unrelated topics to discuss, here— I just couldn't stand to let either one go by.

First off is a video of Brooke Hogan— a woman whose new reality show gives fresh meaning to the phrase "celebrity by proxy"— as she disses the entire female sex by explaining why women should, apparently, not be presidents.

"I’m so moody all the time, I know I couldn’t be able to run a country, ’cause I’d be crying one day and yelling at people the next day," says bubble-headed Brooke, and it's disturbing to see the thoughts of chauvinistic middle-aged men come straight out of the mouth of a curvy blonde.

I'm wondering: how come female stereotypes always come into play during election season, and never male ones? You never see women discussing politics by saying, "Oh, that John McCain, he could never be president. He's a man, and men are all testosterone-driven boars who can't keep it in their pants. I don't want my next president to be some sex-crazed Neanderthal."

Brooke, perhaps you ought to speak for yourself next time, and remember that most women are not, mercifully, anything like you.

Second to bat is this article, shot my way by my friend Claire. It talks about electronic voting machines and the havoc they've been causing in Ohio. I just don't get why we keep using these machines. It's been proven that they can be hacked into (quite easily, in fact) and that they are responsible for the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of votes. In a crucial, narrow-margin state like Ohio, we can't afford this crap any longer.

I say, let's return to optically-scanned paper ballots. Didn't they always get the job done before?

FAQ

Q: How can John McCain be trying to steal the banner of change from Obama when his aides are taking money from Freddie Mac?

A: He can't.

John McCain: Sell By Nov. 08

John McCain's recent visit to my hometown has really stirred in me a sort of incredulity, a complete and utter refusal to believe that this man is actually running a fairly legitimate campaign for the presidency.

Okay, so I got the appeal of McCain eight years ago, the first time he ran. Back then, McCain really was a maverick, disagreeing with his party on important issues and refusing to follow the Republican's Toe-The-Party-Line policy. But several things have changed since 2000, my friends.

First: John McCain is pretty much W's lap dog, or at least leading up to, during, and following the invasion of Iraq.* I don't want a man who is that closely associated with the top Republican thinkers (I use the term loosely) to be running my country,

Second: He was old then, but now he's TOO OLD. I mean, the man is 71. Isn't the country looking for change right now? How would electing the oldest white guy in the history of American presidents exactly send that "change" message?

And of course, in closing: if the workers of my hometown didn't like him, then why would anyone else?



*This reminds me of something else I want to discuss: how is it that now that a majority of Americans are against the war, our citizens only express anger and never apologies for their own callous behaviors? Um, guys, 80% of you were standing stupidly behind the president while I was attending peace marches back at the start of the war. How about some of you idiots fess up and, instead of saying "We were duped!" consider the phrase, "We didn't bother to think for ourselves!" Take some responsibility, yo!

...but this is a discussion for a later date.

Impeachment!

Dennis Kucinich just submitted the Articles of Impeachment against President Bush. How exactly is this not newsworthy enough to be covered? I haven't seen anything about it anywhere, in any major news outlet whatsoever.

Okay, I'm so totally not one of those people who believe in a media conspiracy, one way or another. I'm actually a member of the media-- I'm a journalist, and I know that I never slant or leave out anything because of my political beliefs. Neither do other journalists I know; it's just something we don't do, mostly because we think of ourselves as professionals who must stay neutral and fair. We may snort or roll our eyes while writing a story or driving to an interview, but our coverage is honest and equal. My minor in American Politics at Vassar was basically a minor in Media Politics, because most of my classes focused on that particular aspect. And I know enough now that I usually assert the absence of a bias, liberal or conservative, in the media.

But right now, for the first time, I'm a little skeptical.

Sure, Kucinich is a leftist, and is often mocked for his short stature and his radical politics. But he did just officially submit these articles, and they are going to be brought before Congress. That's a big deal, whether or not you take Kucinich seriously.

When those same articles were brought against Bill Clinton, it was all the media could talk about. Why aren't they reporting this stuff now? The charges against Clinton involved lying about sex; the charges against Bush involve lying about war, propaganda, and tyranny. Which one is more serious, d'you think?

Check out this video, which shows Mr. Kucinich presenting the articles to the House. Please note what rude asshats the Representatives are all being at the beginning of the video, as they seem to initially refuse to come to order. I suppose I'm speaking specifically of the Republican contingent, which seems to persist in speaking (more accurately, yelling) out of turn like the hooligans they, for the most part, always are.

I'm Never Moving to South Dakota

My good friend Claire (whom y'all may have seen commenting on this blog) shot this horrifying article along to me describing South Dakota's vicious, misinformed abortion law. The law states that doctors must instruct women for whom they are about to perform abortions that "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," and that the woman, apparently whether or not she knows it or wants it, has "an existing relationship with that unborn human being." They're also required to "inform" women about certain questionable "facts," such as the idea that abortion leads to increased depression and suicide (despite, of course, actual medical and scientific evidence, which in reality suggests that depression is more concretely linked to having unwanted children).

What irritates me here is not only the fact that doctors are being forced to say things to their patients that they may not actually believe-- I'm even more alarmed by the patronizing approach to women's health, by the idea that women need to be lectured and indoctrinated because they're incapable of working the abortion question out by themselves. Um, I don't think most women waltz gaily into abortion clinics without having thought about their decision quite seriously. Abortion isn't fun, and I think women who have abortions have usually weighed the pros and cons before finding themselves at the clinic.

And of course, my favorite part of the article is this: the law only applies to one clinic, because (and I am not making this up) there is only one abortion clinic in all of South Dakota.

This is why I need to get out of the Midwest, people.

Breaking News: Brutality at the RNC

It seems that anti-war protestors at the RNC convention are being harassed, arrested without having committed any crime, and generally intimidated by federal law enforcement. In fact, they've been raiding their homes and arresting them BEFORE they even go out to protest.

From Campaign Silo:

"We're now hearing that "snatch squads" are picking up random people off the streets in the Twin Cities, and someone from Democracy Now has been detained."

From Salon:

"In the house that had just been raided, those inside described how a team of roughly 25 officers had barged into their homes with masks and black swat gear, holding large semi-automatic rifles, and ordered them to lie on the floor, where they were handcuffed and ordered not to move. The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant. They were forced to remain on the floor for 45 minutes while the officers took away the laptops, computers, individual journals, and political materials kept in the house."

From Code Pink:

"Two lines of troops surrounded all sides of a peaceful march just winding down—put on, by the way, by the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign—and threw tear gas, released flash grenades (at least four of them), intimidated, harassed, and roiled a crowd standing up for their right to speak out against a damaging administration into a frenzy they then had to control, through further intimidation and harassment."

From the Minnesota Independent:

"One officer, Guntzel says, came within three feet of a member of the National Lawyers Guild, and despite the individual’s clearly marked lime-green NLG hat and legal pad in hand, doused him with a chemical agent."

From Coldsnap Legal:

"Many arrestees are also being denied medical attention. One arrestee with hemophilia and another with asthma are being denied their prescription medication. An arrestee with a broken finger is being refused medical care, as is a person who has been coughing up blood. An anemic woman reported to Coldsnap today that she passed out for 20 to 30 minutes due to iron deficiency and was told that she could not receive iron because it was a prescription medication, and because she refused to identify herself. Iron is in fact an over-the-counter supplement. The same anemic woman reported seeing a Sheriff knock another woman to the ground and drag her out of the room by her hair."

Um, why am I not seeing any coverage of this stuff on the national news? It's all, "Lieberman gave a good speech!" and "Let's look at pictures of Sarah Palin as a beauty queen!"

C'mon, folks, this is ACTUAL NEWS here. We can't make a big fuss about China beating up protestors if the same thing is happening in our own country!

I've drafted an email to CNN; if anyone else would like to send an email as well, go for it.

Massive Debt? No Thanks, I'll Pass.

Our current financial crisis highlights a very important fact about our country: Americans are stupid when it comes to money.

I really enjoyed this article, which points out that all those idiots who thought mortgages didn't have to be paid back are now having children, and probably are teaching them to be just as immature and harebrained about their spending habits. So let's get some financial education programs going, eh? Maybe it would help if people truly grasped the way credit and debt work, instead of borrowing and spending more recklessly than teenage girls with mom's stolen plastic.

I can't understand how people can think like this, how they can be so silly. When you borrow money, you owe someone something. I hate that. I hate feeling beholden to anyone-- it makes me nervous, and what's more, it makes me feel guilty, so that every time I buy some ice cream or a new dress I think to myself, "I shouldn't be doing this. I should be paying back what I owe." Owing money isn't a pleasant feeling when it's only $20 of debt; imagine how awful it must be to owe thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands! And people are willingly, even eagerly, entering into this type of situation? No thanks, not for me.

Thoughts On My First New York 9-11

Today I received a lovely email from Sandra requesting my thoughts on 9/11, since this is my first time being in New York for it. I'm sorry to say that, like usual, I don't have anything particularly deep to say on the subject. But I did read a fascinating article from the New York Times today about what New Yorkers thought would happen after 9/11, and it got me thinking about how strange it was to be here for this particular anniversary.

For one thing, while I thought I might feel some sense of solidarity or closeness with other New Yorkers today, I actually ended up feeling kind of isolated or, I dunno, out of place. Everyone else was remembering that day from an up-close-and-personal perspective: how they got home from downtown, how they saw the second tower fall while standing on their rooftops, how that guy from work lost his mom when the first plane hit. And then there was me— and I was sixteen years old then, and safe in Ohio, in a place no one would ever think to bomb.

As my day at work wore on, I found myself drifting mentally, wondering about terrible things and feeling guilty for wondering about them. What if something like 9/11 happened again, right now? I wondered. And I was surprised to find that the questions my brain asked of me were petty and selfish: how would I contact Adam if the phones were down? How would I get home if the streets were blocked off? How would I be able to let my family— spread all across the country— know that I was okay? And that was shocking in and of itself, because for some reason I'd always assumed I would be selfless in a crisis, that I'd be thinking about how I could help strangers, not how I could get back to my home and my husband and my kitties.

And then I read that Times article, and I realized that, as much as I can think about the what-ifs of another crisis, there's really no predicting the future. Because what the article highlights is that many of the changes that New Yorkers expected would occur after 9/11 either didn't become permanent or never really materialized at all. Tourists still flock to Times Square, and people still work in tall buildings, and we're not all clamoring to stick flags all over everything. It's okay to disagree with the president now (or, apparently, to call him a liar by screaming at him on national television— and by the way, if I happened to be Rep. Joe Wilson's mother, I'd be chewing him out right about now), and being a Muslim doesn't automatically mean people look at you nervously (I saw two women in full burqas walking down the street the other day, chatting quite happily) and people still flock to airports in droves. After 9/11, life changed, and then that change wore off, and we went back to being, in many ways, the same as we've always been.

Which raises the question: how exactly does society change? We all assumed that 9/11 would "change everything," but really, my life was only changed for about three years afterwards, and then after that, things started to balance themselves out again. So if a major historical event can't change the way we think about each other and about society, what can? I used to think that sudden, shocking moments were what shape history, but I'm not sure I understand anymore how society evolves.

And what does this mean for the post-recession world? We keep assuming that the lessons we've learned after the fall of Reaganist economic theory will stick, but will they? I've seen multiple news articles claiming that the change this recession has inflicted upon the American psyche will be permanent, that we'll all be thrifty and keep huge savings accounts and cut up our credit cards and learn that a $20 purse looks much the same as a $2000 purse, but how long will that knowledge last? I'm not sure anymore if we'll even manage to keep that collective memory for ourselves, let alone pass it to our children. Who knows— maybe in eight years our memories of the recession will feel as dreamlike as my memories of 9/11 do now.

Of course, for some people, 9/11 really did take a horrible toll. For those who lost friends and family members in the attack, and for those thousands upon thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians who were killed in the wars we began as a result of 9/11 (and yes, Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, but Bush used misinformation about the attacks and the fear that the attacks created to justify the invasion, and I seriously doubt he would have been able to mount the war without 9/11), that day in September did change the rest of their lives. But what about society as a whole? What did we learn from the experience? More importantly, what did we retain?

On Facebook today, my news feed was clogged with status messages in the vein of "Never forget!" and I know they were well-intentioned. But while I doubt many of us will ever forget the way it felt to watch the towers fall, to mourn the sudden deaths of thousands of people, and to wonder what was going to happen next, I'm afraid we'll lose the less tangible aspects of the tragedy. Can we manage to remember, not just what 9/11 felt like, but what it meant, what it represented? Can we hang on to the ways we changed, however temporarily, and can we remember both the good changes and the bad?

How will you remember 9/11?

Abortion: A Man's Choice?

Claire recently pointed me towards a new law being considered in the Ohio House, a bill that would require a woman to get a man's permission to have an abortion.

House Bill 252, introduced by Representative John Adams (R — Sidney), requires any woman seeking an abortion to identify the father and seek his permission to have the procedure. If he refuses to give consent, she is not permitted to have the abortion. The bill does nothing to require the father to provide any child support or care after the child is born, and it forces women who have become pregnant as a result of rape to file a police report in order to terminate the pregnancy— even if filing the report puts her in even more danger from her attacker.

Oh, it gets better: if a girl gets pregnant because of incest or sexual abuse, she can either file a police report (again, even if that report would expose her to greater danger or more abuse) or she must ask her abuser for a paternity test. If the abuser refuses to participate? No abortion.

Here's the kicker: any woman who gets an abortion without the approval of her man would be sentenced to six months in jail and a $1000 fine. A second offense would be a fifth degree felony, which is punishable by up to a YEAR in prison, a $2,500 fine, and all the disadvantages that come with being a felon for life (i.e., being unable to find a job ever again, being barred from voting in elections, etc).

Now, I'm not actually worried about the bill's effects; there's no way in hell it'll pass (Ohio may not be all that progressive, but we're not morons), and even if it DOES, it's clearly unconstitutional, so it'll be struck down by the Ohio supreme court within a month.

No, I'm not posting about this bill because I want to defeat it, since its defeat is inevitable. I'm posting about it because this bill actually destroys the arguments of the very people who have cheered it on.

Because, you see, pro-lifers often justify their arguments by saying that they're NOT inherently sexist. Oh no, they say— abortion has nothing to do with the rights of women. We love women's rights, they say. This is about the fetus, not the woman.

Well, it's pretty hard to make that case with this bill, isn't it? Saying that abortion is only okay if a man says it is— that's blatant sexism right there.

If anti-abortion activists really had faith in women, in their ability to make decisions for their own lives, they wouldn't bother to bomb clinics or cover their mouths with duct tape on the steps of the Supreme Court. The fact remains that the pro-life movement doesn't think that women are smart enough, or moral enough, or good enough, to make these life-and-death decisions for themselves.

I've found that people's attitudes towards abortion tend to change with the situation. Sure, they say, a poor single woman has an excuse, but why would a married chick get an abortion? People seem appalled that I'd consider abortion if I got pregnant right now— as though being married magically means that I have a job (that EITHER of us has a job) or a stable home or the desire to become a mother right this second. And the question I get asked more than any other is this: "But how would you husband feel about it? Wouldn't he be mad?"

Well, no, he wouldn't. Adam is adamant about not wanting to bring an unwanted child into this world. He is completely supportive of abortion rights, and is entirely aware that neither of us could possibly raise a happy, well-adjusted child right now. When we've actually moved into an apartment, when one of us is employed, when he's out of school and ready to be a real priest— then, maybe we'll talk. But right now, we're both unemployed, we're spending the month of July living out of my grandmother's house, and our living situation is precarious at best. We'd never do that to any child.

But most of all, Adam recognizes that an abortion would be MY CHOICE, and that while it takes two people to make a baby, it certainly doesn't take two to carry that baby to term. He realizes that my body is MINE, and he'd be horrified by the idea of anyone wanting me to carry anything inside my body without my own express consent.

This is all hypothetical, of course— we always take numerous precautions to avoid pregnancy, so hopefully we won't ever have to think about this issue concretely. But it's comforting to know that I have the support I need to make that decision, if the time ever comes to make it.

My body doesn't belong to my husband— it belongs to me. Why does my husband see that, but the state of Ohio doesn't?

The Pride of Youngstown

It's been a week of terrible firsts for the Mahoning Valley: we had our first swine flu case and our first local Catholic priest molestation scandal.

But we had one first this week that was a lot more cheerful— our first gay pride festival!

Adam, my sister Tatiana, and I all drove over to the celebration in downtown Youngstown. It was pretty small (it IS the first gay pride festival here, and these things need time to grow), but it was still a good time. There were a few food stands, some organizational booths (the ACLU, the Unitarians, and First Federated Church were all there— if I'd have known about this sooner, I would've put together an Episcopal booth!), and a stage where drag queen performers battled it out for Miss Gay Pride Youngstown. (My favorite was Brittany Cheers, who did actual cartwheels and splits and even had backup dancers! She won, of course.)

We only saw one protestor— a sour-faced man carrying a poorly made green sign with the words "Remember Sodom" scrawled in a childlike hand— and as we were entering, the police officers at the event were ejecting him. I overheard the police officer saying something to the effect that the guy was blatantly trying to start fights and intimidate people, so he could go "protest" somewhere else. According to the Vindicator article above, though, the rest of the ten or so protestors who had been there before we arrived had left after the organizers reminded them that, while it was their right to protest, gay people had just as much of a right to picket the protesters' churches with signs. Apparently, the thought of having their tactics turned against them made them think twice about what they were doing.

I had my face painted (I got whiskers and a little pink nose— and consequently had a lot of gay guys walk up to me and whisper, "Meow!") and gazed lovingly at a tie-dyed, rainbow pair of underwear that I simply couldn't afford. The dancers were all fabulous, of course, and they inspired Adam to promise to take us to Utopia, one of Youngstown's few gay bars, where many of the dancers regularly perform in drag shows. And if you read the above article, you'll know what I'm talking about when I say that I got to pop Maxine Factor's bubblewrap dress!

The cutest part of the day was when we picked my sister up from my parents’ house to go to the festival, and as we were leaving, my mom shouted at us, “Be loud! Be proud! Be Youngstown!” with the air of someone telling her children, “Now, remember to put on a sweater, and take your umbrellas, my dears!”

I have the coolest family in the world.

Here are some pictures from the event:

(From top: a view from the curb; Adam dances to the music; a drag queen performs.)

 

In Defense of Local Food

This article rubbed me the wrong way— particularly its sense of humor. I mean, I like to mock wealthy people and the way they wear expensive "workout clothes" and "gardening attire" as much as anyone else, but making fun of eco-consciousness? Not cool, guys.

Basically, the article is intended to be a lightly humorous piece that skewers Michelle Obama for starting her organic garden. It then segues into a more general mockery of the "eat locally" movement, and the idea that people could subsist without Big Agra. The whole thing seems to be intended to paint the Obamas as elitists who refuse to use "handy and effective nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides" in order to save themselves some (precious, precious!) time.

First of all— c'mon, dude, it's hard enough to get people excited about being environmentally conscious, even without making it look goofy. I like to mock a lot of things I actually like— liberalism, religion, people who have too many cats. But the humor inherent in this piece isn't cute, really— it's just kind of condescending, and pretty deliberately ignorant, as a matter of fact.

Second of all: honey, if you're going to admit at the beginning of your article that you don't garden and that you suck at gardening, then shut the heck up. I'm not interested in your opinion on gardening if your only experience with it is helping your wife do it. And furthermore— the author's calculations are wildly off. If your homegrown tomatoes cost anything close to $5 apiece, YOU'RE DOIN' IT WRONG. And really, organic gardening ISN'T any harder than gardening with pesticides— as long as you're not a lazy whiner. Why make Michelle out to be the namby-pamby in her Jimmy Choos when YOU'RE the one who can't handle a little natural fertilizer, huh, punk?

But what bothers me the most are the more serious points that the author intends to make. Quoting a letter from a lobbying group representing pesticide makers? Oh, THERE'S a reliable source. And of COURSE the average farmer produces enough food to feed 144 Americans— because the "average farmer" is not an individual, but rather a large corporation that owns several mega-farms. And for that matter, who CARES? We know we have a food surplus in this country. Production isn't the problem; distribution and quality are.

And really, the most annoying part is that he doesn't actually seem to understand the real POINT of the local-food movement— that it USES FUEL to move food around. His assertion that New York City would starve if left to fend on local food alone is stupid, because the parameters he gives as being the acceptable definition of "local" aren't actually written in stone anywhere. There are plenty of people who believe that "local" could mean "from your region" or "from your country" as much as "from your town." He's just...being kind of stupid. Am I the only one who thinks this guys just sat down at his computer and thought, "Well, things are a little slow this week, but I've gotta churn out an article for my editor somehow..."?

I can take a joke, and I know the author means to be humorous. I just think he comes off as smug and unknowledgeable and, well, moronic.

Young Gay Republicans!

Just when I start getting geared up to assume that the Republican Party is made up entirely of backwards, hate-spewing fundamentalists, a story like this comes along and proves me wrong.

I'm impressed that Cindy and Meghan McCain will be speaking at an event for a gay Republican group. Did you know there were gay Republicans? I've never met any, but I guess they DO exist!

The group, known as Log Cabin Republicans, is working to pass same-sex marriage and civil union laws across the country:

In an interview Thursday with CNN, LCR Spokesperson Charles Moran said the organization is lobbying New York Republicans to help pass the same-sex marriage law championed by the state's Democratic Gov. David Paterson.

"We have people on the ground, we're identifying our bases of support, looking at our polling, looking at our research, so that we can be ready to assist the marriage coalition in New York with targeting those crucial GOP votes," Moran told CNN.

I'm so glad to hear those voices of dissent within the Republican Party; for the longest time, dissent was pretty much taboo within the GOP, but now it seems that the party is embracing the idea that different sorts of people could become Republicans.

In fact...I wonder if the LCR accepts financial contributions from Democrats?

A Reason To Move To Iowa

Um, with all due respect to my Iowan friends out there— how in the heck did Iowa become cooler than Ohio?

I am speaking, of course, of the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to permit gay marriage. Huzzah!

My fellow Ohioans: I am disappointed that we weren't first. C'mon, guys...we're the coolest Midwestern state. Let's start acting like it.

Of course, it's still going to take awhile for the ruling to take effect, and I'm sure there'll be a referendum, eventually. But for now, I'm envisioning my sister's wedding, out in a cornfield by a barn, maybe with some cows and some chickens. And gingham? I like gingham!

Our new slogan should be "The Midwest: Not As Stodgy As You Thought!" :P

Reflections on the politics of Octomom

I apologize for bringing her up again just when she seems to be riding off into the Tabloid Twilight, but I very much enjoyed this editorial about the Octomom and the political hoopla surrounding stem cell research. It's the first editorial I've seen that, instead of placing blame for Octomom's existence on the public or the media or Angelina Jolie, really takes a look at what her actions mean in terms of our society's values— and, in particular, how much she embodies a particular social conservative view when taken to its logical extreme.

Outrage at Nadya Suleman is understandable, and people from all places on the political spectrum have come out against her en masse. However, a lot of the criticism seems to be focused ONLY on the fact that she can't possibly pay for all these kids. The insinuation here is that, if her last name happened to be Rockefeller (or Jolie-Pitt), having that many kids wouldn't be as irresponsible, which makes me a little uncomfortable. Having that many kids is a bad idea, no matter what your bank account looks like.

But the problem is that Nadya Suleman is, in her heart, the world's biggest poster child for the pro-life movement— and that's something I think the pro-life movement doesn't want us to realize, because she makes them look pretty bad. The woman had eight embryos implanted in her womb because she didn't want them to be destroyed. We hate Nadya for having this many kids, but we forget that this is the entire reason why stem cell research has been so controversial: pro-lifers don't want leftover embryos to be destroyed, but they can't quite figure out what to do with them. If using them for medical research is somehow unacceptable, and keeping them frozen for millions of years is silly, expensive, and pointless, then the only other logical solution is more Nadya Sulemans. I mean, with thousands of kids in foster care waiting to be adopted, how exactly would we, as the Bush administration misguidedly suggested, "adopt" out these embryos? There are too many embryos, and not enough willing families to take them.

Nadya Suleman also had a chance to minimize the risks to herself and several of her children by having one or more of her pregnancies terminated. Ms. Suleman, however, chose to keep all of them, because, according to her mother, she didn't want to "kill her babies." Well, congrats, Nadya— now you've got more kids than you can handle, who will probably never get the care they need, and who will probably have mental and physical problems for the rest of their lives. 

Nadya Suleman's desire to save embryos has, paradoxically, ended up endangering her health and the health and well-being of her other children. And yet, this is the choice that the pro-life movement wants you to make. They want people who use fertility treatments to conceive a child (which Suleman originally did in order to conceive ONE child) but they don't want those extra embryos (which, by the way, need to be extracted in case the first pregnancy attempt fails) to be destroyed. Well, then what happens to them? What happens to the extra embryos?

In this case, they went to Nadya.

I'm reminded here of a book that really moved me: Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes, a book by Chris Crutcher that I read in ninth grade. Back then, I was firmly against abortion— mostly because I was pretty unfairly judgmental about my pregnant classmates and didn't know many of them closely. Then, I read this book, which features a high school ethics class that debates the pros and cons of abortion. This was around the same time my good friend became pregnant and was prevented, by her Catholic mother, from having an abortion, and I was forced to think hard about whether or not that was a fair decision.

The quote that really moved me was this:

"I think this 'When does life begin' argument is kind of cute, but it's a dead end. If we let it go on long enough somebody will get punched in the nose, or Brittain [a fundamentalist character in the novel] will have a coronary incident. No offense, Sally [another fundamentalist character], but most of the right-to-lifers I know— and I know a lot of them because they call at our house pretty regularly to say how much they hate my dad— get all wrapped up with life in the womb, and life after death, for that matter, but they don't give a rip about life after birth. All you have to do is look around to see we've got big trouble in that area. People are starving to death all over the world. Their lives are spent trying to get something into their bellies, which they never get, and then they die. And to tell you the truth, the people who seem willing to fight to the death, or who are at least willing to carry a poster in front of the Deaconess clinic, are politically against giving them anything. The second they're born, they're on their own... I just don't think you can have this argument without talking about the quality of life. Not just life. Quality... I don't think a baby who is born as a 'consequence' has much of a chance."

To me, that's what Nadya Suleman is about— quality of life. How much better would the lives of her six previous children have been, if she'd considered the quality of the children she was about to have, instead of just the quantity?

Joe Scarborough And Me, BFF?

Oh. My. Gosh.

Conservative Joe Scarborough ACTUALLY MADE SENSE FOR ONCE.

From a Yahoo article ("Bush A Four-Letter Word At CPAC"):

Other speakers warned audiences [at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference this week] that they needed to rethink their priorities in order to come back to power.

Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman and current host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” warned the GOP against becoming the party of resistance and urged conservatives to tone down their rhetoric against Obama.

“We have to present alternatives, we can’t just say no,” he said. “There is an alternative to everything we hear from the White House every single day, but we can’t just say no.”

He added: “We’re not going to win votes and we’re not going to win elections by calling Barack Obama a communist.”

Wow. That was, like, an incredibly intelligent remark. I'm actually impressed. I mean, I'm not so impressed by the rest of the article, especially the part where "Cliff Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, suggested that Obama is not an American citizen."

But Joe Scarborough said something really smart, and I am duly appreciative. I might have to start paying more attention to him. Perhaps I could add him to my collection of Republicans Who Interest Me. :)

What Is "Waste"?

If you have a few moments, check out this great article from Time Magazine defining exactly what "waste" is in the stimulus bill, and what will actually help us fix the economy. It's a great piece that takes an intelligent look at how many different approaches can be taken to stimulate business and create jobs. I really enjoyed it, and I think it makes a few excellent points!

The Politics of Food

I always have to laugh when people say that politics can't affect them. Are you serious? Political issues affect your education, your job, your family, your money...even the food you eat. Take me for example: because of politics, I'm going to have to stop eating one thing I like, and I'm going to start buy more of a different thing.

Because George W. Bush thinks like a vengeful fifth-grader instead of a mature adult, I won't have any yummy Roquefort cheese, a delicacy that I've enjoyed since college with my dear friend Claire. In his last days in office, Bush slapped a 300% tariff on this delicious cheese, in retaliation for 1) France disagreeing with the US on Iraq in 2003 (and hey, who was right on that one? My money's on France) and 2) France and the rest of Europe choosing not to eat hormones in their beef. The tariff effectively amounts to closing the US market for Roquefort— a shame, since I love that cheese, and therefore do not feel as though Mr. Bush was accurately representing my interests in this matter.

On the other hand, it's time for me to get over my preference for Coke over Pepsi, or at least to begin buying more Fritos. Pepsi is under fire for a British ad depicting a man getting pumped up to go and talk to a hot person, only to pass by the hot chicks at whom we assumed he was staring and begin flirting with a muscular guy. The ad isn't particularly supportive of the gay lifestyle, in my opinion, and even has the guy's friends look shocked at the sudden revelation of his sexual preference.

But apparently the idea that Pepsi would acknowledge the existence of gay people in any way infuriated the "American Family Association" (and, you see, I put that in quotation marks to emphasize the absurd irony of that name when it is applied to a group that is distinctly against the formation of certain families) and drove them to protest the ad.

And Paul Boykas, Pepsi's director of public policy, was unapologetic about the ad: "Among the values promoted by the PepsiCo Foundation is ensuring a work environment that is respectful and where associates are valued for their contributions. I hope this helps clarify this grant by the PepsiCo Foundation.”

When I showed this article to Adam, he was understandably annoyed at these people's interpretation of the Bible. "Jesus is about love, not hate," he said quietly. "Why is that so hard for some people?"

So we're going to be purchasing more Pepsi products in the future. Yay for Pepsi!

Re: My Little Sister's Friends

Think before you speak.

Lobsters and Lesbians

Kudos to the great state of Maine, which is considering legalizing same-sex marriage!

Oh, Maine. You have given us Olympia Snowe and L.L. Bean, and now you may become a new stepping stone on the way to civil rights equality.

Thanks, Maine!

Political Smokescreens

I was all set to get mad about Obama asking Rick Warren, that bigot who seems to think that pews and choirs are somehow antithetical to the idea of worship, to give the invocation at his inauguration. Not only does it send a bad message to the gay community (as Warren was in favor of Prop 8)— it's also just TACKY. The man is a marketing guru, for goodness sakes, not a real man of God. I'm MARRIED to a REAL ministry man, so I know the difference. I've always disliked Warren, for the silly way he interprets Scripture and for the level of stupidity he attributes to your average modern churchgoer.

This is my favorite part of this article on Warren:

During a session titled "Dealing with Opposition," Mr. Clyde [who works closely with Warren's church] recommended that the pastor speak to critical members, then help them leave if they don't stop objecting. Then when those congregants join a new church, Mr. Clyde instructed, pastors should call their new minister and suggest that the congregants be barred from any leadership role.

"There are moments when you've got to play hardball," said the Rev. Dan Southerland, Church Transitions' president, in an interview. "You cannot transition a church ... and placate every whiny Christian along the way."

Yeah— THAT'S real Christian.

So I was mad, because I've always felt that this guy is a jerk. But then I read this article about how Obama is considering appointing an openly gay man as the Navy Secretary. And then I began to think that this Rick Warren thing is a smokescreen, yo. Give the evangelicals someone they recognize up front, and maybe they won't complain so loudly when you pointedly indicate a re-evaluation of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

And then I felt better about the whole thing. I'm willing to give cosmetic concessions to make other people happy if it gets me some substantive policy changes in terms of gay rights.

So I'm okay with picking Rick Warren, for now. If it makes evangelicals happy without compromising my fight to win equal rights for my sister, then let's do it.

I just hope we really do see some movement on that horizon. Soon.

Thoughts on the Auto Industry Bailout

Some reflections on the question of whether we should bail out the automakers...

Okay, you know how I hate financial irresponsibility. I hate when people live outside their means, when they purchase expensive homes and cars and then act surprised when they're expected to pay for it all in the end. I hate these characteristics even more intensely when they are to be found in businesses; if you can't afford to run your company, you shouldn't be taking bonuses and nice all-expenses-paid trips to Hawaii.

So in principle, I'm opposed to bailing out anyone— Wall Street, the banks, people who took out stupid, risky mortgages, and the automakers.

But the problem is, I don't think this is a decision that can be made based on the fact that I am responsible and auto industry CEOs aren't. I mean, I'm from the Rust Belt, so hating GM is in my blood. But I think we have to think about the workers.

I live in Youngstown, OH, a city with a population of about 70,000. And guess what? We're poor. About 1/4 of our people (and 40% of our children) live below the poverty line. CNN once calculated which cities in the US have the lowest median incomes, and guess who finished dead last (and by "a large margin")? Y-town.

And right now, our largest employer— the largest employer in all of Northeastern Ohio, in fact— is General Motors. The GM Lordstown Assembly Plant employs more than 7,000 people in our area, and is basically the linchpin of our economy.

Now, no one close to me works at GM (my dad's a professor, my mom's a middle school teacher, and my husband is a machine operator at an aluminum factory), but I know that if GM were to go under, we'd be seeing HUGE unemployment numbers here. We'd be up to Depression-era levels of unemployment, people. Maybe worse.

So as much as it irritates me to have to bail out any company when I'm sure their higher-ups don't deserve it, I have to remember the little guys, the employees who have been working hard to turn out good cars and who didn't have anything to do with any financial mismanagement or poor planning.

I agree with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama when he says that rewarding companies for mismanagement is wrong. But I also think punishing employees for something over which they never had any control is equally wrong, and since there are 3.8 million GM workers who might be facing unemployment, I think worrying about them is much more important.

And if GM files for Chapter 11, even if they don't lay every single person off, that would mean a drastic decrease in employee benefits. Do we really want 3.8 million more people with no health insurance, or with insufficient coverage? Do we really want to see people who have worked their whole lives on an assembly line take massive pay cuts, lose benefits and employee rights, all because the economy is crapping out?

Yes, we need STRINGENT regulations to come with the bailout— there ought to be set terms, set conditions, and real punishments for not following through with what is asked. But we can't just sit here and do nothing. We can't just let people lose everything they have.

I'm willing to write my tax check to help these folks out. I'm hoping there are folks out there who'd be willing to do the same for me. So sue me— I'm a sucker for the idea that, deep down, we all might be nicer than we know.

HEE!

I know I've already posted once in this section today, but this is just too funny to keep to myself.

Damn...maybe I should become an important player in either one of the two major parties. I've always wanted to take a cruise. :P

Election Update 2

It's 10:36 PM.

WOW. If current projections are correct (and that's obviously not locked up), it looks like almost every single state that I have ever considered home will have gone for Obama. That's Pennsylvania (where I lived from age 5-10), New Mexico (where I attended boarding school for two years), New York (where I went to college for 4 years), and, of course, the big O-H-I-O!

The only one of my "home states" that is still too close to call is Florida, where I was born. It'd be great if I could get the full set, though...so GO FLORIDA! YES WE CAN!

I Voted!

I meant to wait until 9 a.m. to vote today, since I didn't want to crowd the polls when I have all day to go and many other people need to go before work. But my dad woke me up at 7 a.m. with a text message saying that he and my mother went to vote at 6:30 a.m. and the lines were out the door, and then I was so excited about voting that I couldn't get back to sleep.

So I got up, fed the cat, brushed my hair, put on some clothes, and headed to Frank Ohl Middle School to vote.

The process was a little haphazard— I walked into the gym, where tables with numbers on them were set up all around in a big rectangle. When I asked what to do, I was directed to a small man with a blue binder, who opened it up and told me that Philosophy E. Walker of Austintown was to report to table 34. Having done so, I showed my photo ID and, just for good measure, my voting postcard and recent bank statement, as well. The lady at the table seemed impressed that I was so well prepared!

I was given a choice: I could use a voting machine, or I could fill out a paper ballot. I opted for a paper ballot, as I'm strongly suspicious of the voting machines— a friend of our family had a voting machine record his vote for Bush instead of Kerry in 2004, so I didn't want to get burned that way. The volunteers seems puzzled as to why a young whippersnapper like myself would be leery of the machines, but they shrugged and set me up at the paper ballot table, which I shared with five people, all over the age of 80, who all whined constantly about "newfangled computer contraptions." In fact, there was one elderly gentleman in a blue baseball cap at the end of the table who was either having an incredibly tough time deciding or was sliding into a coma, as he was staring at his ballot when I sat down and was still staring at it, having remained completely still the whole time, when I stood to leave.

My ballot, disappointingly, looked exactly like the absentee ballots have for all these years. I was hoping they'd be different somehow...sparkly and pink, maybe? :P However, I attacked my ballot with vim and vigor, carefully yet enthusiastically filling out each bubble with the Special Voting Pencil that the woman at the table had given me. When I was finished, I placed my ballot into an opaque folder, walked to the big ballot box, and slid the ballot out of the folder into the box with my own two hands. Apparently, Austintown is very much a fan of proper voting procedure, as they requested that I keep my ballot completely hidden in its folder as I stood from the table and walked to the ballot box.

When it was over, the woman at the table gave me my sticker! Here's a picture of my wearing my sticker (although you can't really read it because the camera takes a mirror-image photo):

Also, please note that I had not yet showered when this photo was taken, which accounts for my generally ratty appearance. Also, I have had about five hours of sleep today, so my eyes are a little puffy.

Then I skipped home singing blithely to myself, thereby clearly alarming several innocuous passersby who stared at me as though they felt I might be clinically insane. I was home for about ten minutes before Adam arrived, flushed and victorious, with news of his own voting experience. He'd gone right after he got off of work this morning, and he had seen his uncle there, and he'd had to pee so badly that he was happy he'd had a sheet to remind him of the issues he should vote "yes" on so that he could get out of line and into a bathroom ASAP.

He also asked the voting lady to give him a few extra stickers, and she did, so now I have a sticker on my jacket AND a sticker on my shirt! YAY!

If only I could drive...then I could get my free coffee from Starbucks.

Notice

At the request of my family and my husband, I am going to be taking a leave of absence from my Politics section until Tuesday evening.

Yesterday I suffered no less than three hysterical panic attacks while reading news stories on CNN.com. Then last night I was awakened, sweating and tearful, from a dream wherein Condoleezza Rice was chasing me through the woods with a meat cleaver.

As a result, I am entering a No Politics period. I will not be checking or posting in this section for the next two days, although I will still be posting in my other sections. I will also not be reading or commenting on any other political posts here. I will not be visiting any news websites, watching any television news, or reading any political blogs. I will not be reading political stories in the newspaper, and my husband will change the channel whenever a political ad comes on. My father and mother are joining me in this political blackout, and will be following similar rules.

Tonight Adam is taking me out for a romantic dinner-and-a-movie date to ease my tension. There will be no discussion of politics. We will have dinner at Johnny's, where we had our first date, and then we will go see "Tropic Thunder" at the dollar theater.

I'll catch you guys on Tuesday evening, when I will once again be politicking it up. I'll be updating starting from about 3 or 4 in the afternoon and running up until the major networks call the election. I'll also be sharing my voting story, and I encourage all of you to share your stories with me!

Goodnight...and good luck.

Calling All Conservatives!

In a previous entry, I noted that it's important to read news from a variety of sources— liberal and conservative blogs, liberal and conservative news sites, and general interest intermediaries (CNN, BBS, etc.). In my comments section, I said that I have a difficult time finding intelligently written conservative blogs or news sites to balance my liberal ones.

So far, I've only found Townhall.com. It's got some interesting viewpoints and some news details you don't find in other websites. I also really liked how the site makes its bias obvious— it makes no effort to turn out neutral reporting, but it makes that premise clear, so less media-savvy folks aren't confused or misled. I only found two irritating problems: 1) an apparent inability on the part of anyone writing articles there to use Spellcheck, and 2) a rather annoying number of repetitive or obvious reports. For example, several days ago I came across this article, entitled "Optimism high for few saying US moving right way." The entire article was about— I am not making this up— how a poll shows that people who are happy with the way the country is working right now are also the happiest with the way things are going for themselves. "Sixty-nine percent of those saying the U.S. is heading the right way report being happy in their own lives, while 52 percent of those sensing the country is on the wrong track are happy personally." Um, I thought that was a pretty obvious conclusion there, bucko. I really didn't need an entire news article to tell me this.

So this is a challenge for all the conservative folks out there: find me an interesting, intelligent, provocative conservative website. Post it here in the comments, and the person who gives me the best site link will be announced and featured in my next political post. Plus, you'll totally win my undying respect and admiration. Feel free to post more than one site, so that we'll end up with a plethora of options when we're finished.

BONUS POINTS: find me a SECULAR conservative blog. At least 22% of people in this country don't identify as Christian in any way, so I want a blog that speaks to everyone equally.

A Call For Bipartisan Understanding

I was saving this post for after the election, but after reading the awful mudslinging that has occurred on Lori's farewell page, I really think I need to do this now.

We are a divided nation, and y'know what? That's a good thing. I don't buy that "house divided against itself" crap, because I think that dissent and discussion and disagreement is the sound of our Republic at work. Democracy is messy, democracy is difficult, and that's why it WORKS— because it takes into account everyone's wildly different life experiences and personalities and perspectives, and while it can't make everyone happy all of the time, it can seek to not make anyone miserable most of the time.

Open disagreement is the key to understanding. Take Lori and I, for example. Lori and I come from very different places in life: she's from California, I believe, and I'm from Ohio, and she's 46 and I'm 23. She's a rabid conservative; I'm a rabid liberal. We disagreed, we clashed, we said brusque things back and forth to one another.

But that was why I liked her. I liked that Lori came and commented on some of my posts, and I liked being able to shoot back comments at her. I don't think either of us took ourselves too seriously, of course, and that must have helped, but I think it was exciting because it got us talking.

After all, our viewpoints in this country are narrowing because of the Daily Me, and so conservatives and liberals rarely have any place where they can discuss politics together and then turn around and talk about how their work is going or what their pets did that morning. Because we all only read liberal or conservative blogs, because we only ever link one another to liberal news websites or conservative news websites, we don't get to have the kind of dialogue that I've always felt that Lori and I enjoyed. We only talk about politics on message boards or television programs, and we rarely ever get to see inside the other person's life, to see what they're thinking and feeling and how that contributes to their political opinion.

Reading Lori's posts broke down some of the stereotypes I had about conservatives— for example, I didn't really know they were even allowed to live in California, and I certainly didn't know that any of them were creative freelance writers with independent minds. In turn, I hope and pray that Lori got to see a liberal who is a Christian and who is married and who comes from a small town. I think that's what I like most about PNN— that it brings us together to learn things about each other's situations in life, so that we're not just debating policy endlessly (after all, I already know what conservatives think about gay marriage, and they already know what I think), but rather we're learning about the psychology behind those beliefs. I learned that a lot of Lori's political beliefs are motivated by her love for her family, and hopefully she learned that mine are, too.

And so, I think this is what we have to remember now as we move into the final stages of this election: we are ALL Americans here, no matter what we believe, and we ALL have a right to a voice in what our government decides. That's why I'm calling on all of us— conservatives, liberals, moderates, Martians, whatever: no matter who wins the White House, we need to involve EVERYONE in the governing of our United States.

As a liberal, I know what it's like to feel completely disenfranchised by my President. The frustration I've felt these past eight years, as the Bush Administration sent my friends to be killed in a war I've opposed since its inception and drove my birth control prices up while pretty much calling me a whore and shipped my Muslim friends from high school to Albuquerque in a dirty school bus so they could be herded like cattle into registration rooms to be interrogated by government officials when their only crime was being a Muslim— that frustration was one of the worst feelings I've ever had in my life. It's a terrible thing to know that people who don’t care what you think run your government, the government that controls your life and your future and your family’s futures.

This is why we need to respect one another. If Sen. McCain wins the White House, conservatives need to listen to what liberals have to say; if Sen. Obama wins the White House, liberals should makes endless room at the discussion table for conservatives and give them their full attention. This democracy thing only works if we don't fall prey to the tyranny of the majority.

It's tempting to see the last eight years as merely a referendum on Republican policies, and I think to an extent the association between the policies and the problems is somewhat valid. But I think it would be dangerous to assume that this is the ONLY thing that has gone wrong. The Bush Administration is a lesson in what happens when you plug your ears and yell loudly so that you don't have to listen to anyone else's warnings or opinions. If you don't find other perspectives to contrast with your own, you end up with tunnel vision.

We cannot afford to make that mistake this time around, no matter who wins in November. None of us can afford to ignore wisdom from anywhere, because we need all the brainpower we can get to figure out a way out of this economic and military swamp we're mired in. None of us can afford to say, "talk to the hand" or, "who cares what you think?" because we need one another right now.

So as we take our seats for the final act of this dramatic, surprising, and— quite frankly— pretty damn interesting election cycle, let's each save a seat in the theater for someone who disagrees with us. Let's make it a habit to look at the other side and wonder if maybe we have something in common beyond politics. And to the people whose party wins: let's try to include everyone in our discussions of America's future. As cheesy as it sounds, it's the only way we can all win.

Love,

Philosophy

P.S.: Anyone in the Youngstown-Warren metro area who would like to meet up on election night is welcome to come over and watch my reasonably large television with me and my husband, regardless of political affiliation. There may be some spinach-artichoke dip involved to sweeten the deal, and possibly, if we're cautious and don't get too rowdy, some cheap white wine. Interested parties may contact me by email or by comment.

Sen. Clinton Stumps For Sen. Obama in Youngstown

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio— Hillary Clinton spoke Friday afternoon in front of a large crowd at Beeghly Center on the campus of Youngstown State University.

The university has previously played host to other important players in this year's election cycle, including Senator John McCain, former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama.

As a precursor to Sen. Clinton's appearance, Youngstown native Ed O'Neill, who played Al Bundy on the popular television show "Married...With Children," gave a short address concerning his commitment to Sen. Obama. O'Neill, who was a graduate of Catholic Ursuline High School in Youngstown, toured the Mahoning Valley Friday in support of Sen. Obama's campaign.

Rep. Tim Ryan, the Democratic representative of Ohio's 17th, appeared onstage with Gov. Ted Strickland and Sen. Clinton and gave a short welcome speech. Gov. Strickland followed, and his remarks were headlines locally, as he publicly announced his desire for Rep. Ryan to run for Senator of Ohio in the next election cycle. Rep. Ryan appeared surprised, blushing noticeably as a nearby female supporter yelled loudly, "Tim is fine!"

Sen. Clinton then took the stage to thunderous applause. Sen. Clinton easily carried Ohio during her losing primary battle with Senator Obama, and she spoke of her appreciation for the support Ohio residents have given her. She then renewed her commitment to electing Sen. Obama, urging former followers not to harbor resentment and to remember the mistakes and lessons of the past eight years.

"Fool me once, shame on you," the senator intoned amidst loud cheers. "Fool me twice— shame on me."

Many in the crowd appeared energized and excited by Sen. Clinton's speech, and several times shouts of "Tell 'em, Hill!" and "Yeah!" could be heard. Hand-painted rally signs displayed messages like "Youngstown Welcomes Hillary" and "Ohio 4 Obama" and a series of audience members seated on the dais behind the speakers held letters that spelled out "OH For Change".

Sen. Clinton seemed to garner the most crowd enthusiasm when she spoke of the faltering economy. Youngstown, which suffered massive economic collapse following the death of the American steel industry in the late 1970s, is a city that has seen some of the worst fallout from the recent economic trouble. In August, Youngstown was declared one of "America's Fastest-Dying Cities" by Yahoo! News.

“Jobs, baby, jobs," Sen. Clinton told the crowd of supporters. "That is what this election is about.”

News cameras and reporters were present from many local news stations and newspapers, and from several Pittsburgh and Cleveland affiliates. However, the rally also made international news, as a team of Australian reporters from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation attended and filmed the proceedings. In a local news clip, the Australian team explained that the Australian government and economy have extremely close ties to the United States, and so the American election is a topic of great interest to many Australian citizens.

Following the rally, Sen. Clinton joined the crowd on the floor to autograph rally signs, shake hands, and speak with Valley voters about their concerns. Secret service agents and police officers appeared frustrated by the crowd's enthusiasm for Sen. Clinton, and attempted to encourage supporters to leave as soon as they received their autograph.

YSU President Dr. David C. Sweet was also spotted in the auditorium moments before Clinton spoke, and multiple YSU professors appeared in the crowd.

Sen. Clinton is campaigning on behalf of Obama across the Midwest this week, as is her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

 

PICTURE CAPTIONS (from top right, moving downward): 1. Senator Hillary Clinton speaks on behalf of Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid; 2. Television star Ed O'Neill returns to his hometown to speak in support of Sen. Obama; 3. Rep. Tim Ryan helps to introduce Sen. Clinton onstage; 4. Gov. Strickland encourages Rep. Ryan to run for Senate; 5. Beeghly Center began filling up more than an hour before Sen. Clinton's speech began; 6. Sen. Clinton roused the crowd with her enthusiastic support for Sen. Obama.

(Picture credit and reporting by Philosophy Walker of PNN.)

Obama and McCain: Rivals...or LOVERS?

This newsbreak was brought to you by ANewPhilosophy: mocking the political process since 1986!*

*Note: This was the year I first learned to speak. Previous to this year I was only able to mock the political process internally, not verbally.


WASHINGTON, D.C.— Senators Barack Obama and John McCain are engaged in a bitterly divisive struggle for the presidency of the United States. But does their strained rivalry conceal a feeling deeper than partisan difference, more personal than rhetoric and debate?

This blogger's answer is: YES.

While the candidates may have serious disagreements about the nature of government, the economy, and America's image in the world, can't two people who love each other overcome these divisions? After all, we all know at least one couple who vote differently from one another— I myself know three or four. Sometimes, that political friction can lead to a spark, a spark that kindles romance in one another's hearts.

After all, the candidates, while they've clashed strongly in the debates, seem to care for one another deep down:

"I have to tell you, [Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared as of president." -McCain

" I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- Senator McCain has served this country with honor, and he deserves our thanks for that." -Obama

Do these sound like the sorts of things that men who hate one other would say?

And yesterday, during the final presidential debate, cameras caught McCain in a moment of impetuous forgetfulness:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that is what you think it is: Senator McCain is attempting to GRAB SENATOR OBAMA'S ASS. Nearby journalists report that McCain whispered, "Yeah! Imma tap that ass tonight!" to which Senator Obama replied, "Not here, John! Meet me in the red room!"

Yes, McCain has used vaguely racist advertisements to smear Obama, and yes, Obama has pretty much accused McCain of being the blood brother of beyond-lame-duck George W. Bush. But can we not see their disagreements as a lover's quarrel? My husband and I sometimes argue and disagree, but at the end of the day we put aside our differences and remember how much we love each other.

Senators, please don't throw away what you have together. It just might be something truly beautiful.

He's Not...But Even If He Was, Who Cares?

This editorial from CNN really hones in on something that has been bothering me ever since that very ignorant and unfortunate woman said to John McCain, "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab."

Okay, well, first off, he's not. The press has been quick to point this out, and John McCain himself instantaneously corrected her on this.

The problem is that this is as far as the conversation goes, when in fact we should be pretty pissed that people out there feel that, by virtue of being an Arab, a candidate would therefore be untrustworthy. After all, when McCain corrected his follower, he said, "No ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man, [a] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues."

Wait— so an Arab isn't a decent family man? Why not take this time to explain that there is a major difference between fundamentalist, extremist suicide bombers and mainstream Muslims, just as there is a difference between gay-bashing, science-denying Christian evangelicals and mainstream Christians like me?

Oh, but I know why— because, whether McCain likes it or not, his campaign managers have basically put all their eggs in the racism basket. I mean, that's why these "Who IS Barack Obama?" ads and slogans have offended practically everyone— they don't seriously suggest that we don't know about Obama's family life or policy initiatives, because he's been running for president for two years, and you can look that stuff up on the internet in five seconds. What they're suggesting is that Obama is the sinister "other", that there is something unknowable and untrustworthy about him because he's black, because he doesn't look (or, as the ads suggest, think) like us whitey whitertons.

Listen to this great piece on NPR about the undertone of racism and fear that has come out of the McCain camp quite recently. It's a fascinating examination of exactly what is being said in this election cycle and what exactly it is intended to mean.

Again, I don't think this is really the result of any policy that Senator McCain came up with himself. I think McCain is probably a very nice old man who likes black people just as much as he likes white people. But I think he is too easily manipulated by his managers and backers and all the hundreds/thousands of people who go into running a national campaign. You know what I think? I think McCain wasn't afraid to break with the party in the 1990s, when the party was still accepting dissenters and McCain was a younger man. But since the election of GWB in 2000, the Republican Party has grown more and more intolerant of dissent or disagreement within the ranks, and as McCain grew older and less able to deal with the pressure from all sides to conform, he began to give in, little by little, to the darker forces in the party.

And now, when he really needs to stand up and say, "NO! I will NOT use racism and misinformation and intolerance and ignorance and RANK STUPIDITY to win this election, because I am BETTER than that," he can't, because he is so dependent on these thugs in the party to tell him what to do. But you can see it on his face these days: he hates having to resort to personal attacks. He is seeing more and more that the majority of the country just doesn't want anything to do with most of his policies these days, and it pains him— because he really wants to win because the polls say he is the best man for the job, not because Billy Bob and Wyatt Jefferson over in Southern Ohio believe that those A-rabs are out to git us all, dang it.

But this is why we can't afford to elect McCain. He's a nice person, I'm certain of that— but if he can't find it in himself to refuse the machinations of his campaign aides, how will he refuse or resist the later machinations of cabinet officials and close advisors?

For more on McCain's inability to speak out about the racism his own campaign has been perpetuating, check out this nifty NPR story here.

The Third Debate: MIA

I didn't even watch the third presidential debate.

Yeah, I know, it's a crying shame. I was so so so excited about watching these things, and now I've put on the Weather Channel 33 Doppler radar just so I won't have to watch what I know is playing on every other channel.

Sure, some of you may say, "Philosophy, you have a horrible migraine! Of course you shouldn't be watching TV!" But I say to you, "Nay! It is my bounden duty to watch the debates and faithfully relate my innocent, unbiased, and unpartisan opinion to the masses at PNN. And by the way, GO BARACK!"

So why, you may ask, did I sully the good name of A New Philosophy by taking my leave of tonight's newsworthy events? I believe I can summarize my reasons with the following excuses:

1.) My cat is afraid of John McCain. Like Dave Barry, I am not making this up: my cat Charlotte Brontë becomes extremely agitated whenever John McCain is onscreen. She stares at the TV with wide, fearful eyes, perhaps in terror that McCain will pop out of the television and promptly send her to Iraq. I don't understand why she's so freaked out, really, but there you have it. By contrast, she purrs and makes a Happy Cat Face whenever Barack is speaking for any length of time. Now, I don't wish to excite the sympathies of PETA and bring upon myself some sort of accusation of cruelty to animals, an accusation that would probably result in paint being thrown at me or dolls with knives in their heads being shipped to my address. Therefore, I simply refuse to subject my cat to images that clearly terrify her.

2.) I'm starting to hallucinate that SNL is real. I tried turning on the debate at 9 p.m. tonight. I really tried. But as soon as I saw the moderator and the studio audience and the two little writing desk thingies (what were those, anyway?), I started having flashbacks to the VP Debate. No, no, not the REAL VP debate— the Saturday Night Live spoof of the VP Debate. All I could see was Tina Fey saying "Maverick!" And then I started twitching.

3.) These debates don't tell me anything I don't already know. I think perhaps my love affair with debates has been a love borne of ignorance. In the previous two election cycles I was 1) away from home, 2) without a personal television, and 3) much busier than I am now. Therefore, the debates accorded an opportunity for me to catch up a little bit on where each candidate stands. Now, though, I've known exactly where each of them stands for months and months, and it's starting to feel a little repetitive.

In all seriousness, folks: aren't scripted debates a little outdated in the age of online information? If these debates were actually DEBATES— that is, if each candidate argued for their position on the issues and tried to convince voters that they should change their minds about the issues— it might work. But our current concept of the debates— as forums wherein each candidate explains their policies and opinions to citizens in scripted, rehearsed statements— is kind of bogus, because I can look up each candidate's position on any number of issues just by turning on my computer. Want to know exactly what Obama's economic plan entails? Check out his website. Want to know how John McCain voted on environmental issues? You can see every single vote he's ever made online.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: we already know how each candidate feels, and they can't really try to persuade us to change our minds on issues while they're running for election at the same time. That would be risky, and no politician is willing to take risks like that when the stakes are this high. So maybe they should each just make one thirty-minute address to the nation, and we'll leave it at that.

4.) I totally have the worst migraine ever. It's true. Can someone bring me an aspirin or something?

You So Crazy, Caroline!

So, um, this political scandal on Wonkette, regarding Republican candidate for Ohio state house Caroline Hergenrother? Kind of my fault.

See, what Wonkette doesn't mention is that Hergenrother, who helped her husband start a bar fight on Sept. 20th, started it because she had already been drinking. AT MY WEDDING. Adam's mom babysits her kids, so she knows their family, and she was totally at our pig roast that night.

So it's kind of my fault, see. If we hadn't gotten her liquored up in the first place, she wouldn't have gotten in trouble.

Wow, I didn't expect to be actually involved in politics or anything. I was perfectly happy simply to make fun of it all.

The VP Debate: A Drinking Game

Having just finished watching the hilarious train wreck that was the VP debate, I have decided to deal with the ridiculousness in a typically 20-something fashion:

I've created a drinking game!

THE RULES: Each player has a drink— beer, wine, or a mixed beverage of his or her choosing. Shots may be used, but only shots of liquor with a proof of 80 or below, and only if half-shots are used. Because, y'know, there'll be a lot of shots.

THE DRINKS: Each player will take a drink of her/her beverage or a half-shot every time:

1. Sarah Palin uses the phrase "darn right."

2. Sarah Palin answers a question with a blatantly inappropriate segue.

3. Joe Biden smiles or laughs happily and kindly at Sarah Palin to cover up the fact that he WANTS TO RIP HER EYEBALLS FROM THEIR SOCKETS.

4. Sarah Palin uses the phrase "Joe Six-Pack," thereby insinuating either that us Midwesterners are alcoholics or that us Midwesterners have killer abs.

5. Sarah Palin references hockey moms.

6. Sarah Palin sounds like a Canadian trying hard not to sound like a Canadian.

7. Joe Biden corrects Sarah Palin.

8. Sarah Palin refuses to acknowledge what Joe Biden has said and instead talks about something completely different.

9. Sarah Palin pronounces the word "nuclear" as "nucular" (Bonus Point: Any other time she says anything else remotely Bush-like).

10. Any time Sarah Palin tries to use her time as mayor of a town of 9,000 people as evidence for knowing anything at all about domestic policy, foreign policy, ethics, reform, or anything not related to killing wild moose out on the tundra.

BONUS ROUND: Take two drinks/half-shots any time either candidate runs out of time or references being almost out of time.

So let's put the debate tapes back on loop, and get on with the PAR-TAY!

The First Debate

Wow, I love a good a$$-whooping!

I didn't expect to see that tonight. I expected McCain to shout Obama down using the phrase "I WAS IN THE MILITARY!" every time Obama tried to get a word in edgewise. And I expected McCain to come off pretty well on issues like defense and fiscal policy.

But whoa, McCain was AWFUL. Like, really awful. Did you notice how he never even looked Obama in the face? And the part where he said he would shut down all spending during the financial crisis except for military appropriations was particularly cringeworthly. Like, isn't the point of government that it takes care of its citizens in a crisis? How is stopping ALL FUNDING for EVERYTHING, including things like schools and roads, a good idea when we're all wretchedly poor? I could practically hear my down-home Ohio brethren yelling, "Say WHAT?"

And he just looked so...old. I know that really doesn't matter in terms of policy, but...he just looked SO FRIGGIN' OLD. It made me a little sad for him, to tell you the truth. If he's elected, I don't think he could make it through his first term. He looks like he's falling apart at the seams.

With that one under our belts, I can't wait to see the vice-presidential debate! At least then we'll KNOW it's gonna be a smackdown, and we'll be prepared for the brutality. They should sell popcorn at that one!

More Moore!

Okay, I know we all have wildly differing feelings about Michael Moore. But I think there are two things upon which we can all agree:

1. Regardless of his political views, he makes high quality, well-shot, well edited films; and,

2. He has done a lot to raise the profile of the plight of the Rustbelt.

Moore's first film was called Roger & Me: A Humorous Look At How General Motors Destroyed Flint, Michigan. I live in Youngstown, Ohio, a place that was officially declared WORSE OFF than Flint in a recent news article. We here in Youngstown appreciate what Mr. Moore has done for collapsed former industrial towns, because frankly, if he hadn't made that film, no one would give a crap about our dying city and our dying economy and the fact that we got this way because CEOs felt the need to keep lining their pockets instead of putting money back into their factories so they could stay internationally competitive.

So, I've always felt a certain fondness for Mr. Moore, and I was intrigued by his decision to release his new film, Slacker Uprising, on the internet, FREE OF CHARGE. You can download it or stream it, and Mr. Moore encourages everyone to burn it on DVD or email it to their friends.

I salute you, Mr. Moore. I think it's a wonderful thing when a man makes a film because he believes in what he's making, not because he wants to sell DVD rights. And I encourage everyone to check the film out— the website is pretty overwhelmed right now, so I haven't been able to get my copy, but I intend to do so as soon as I can. Even if you don't like Michael Moore, I think watching his films is always entertaining, and you can certainly learn plenty about life in the Midwest— a subject that most filmmakers approach with a certain level of condescension and stereotype, but which Moore is able to portray accurately and sympathetically.

Oh, and apparently the film will soon be available for free download from iTunes. Word.

The Debates

I'm so excited about the debates! They're always so much fun— the discussion leading up to them, the actual televised events (oh, what I wouldn't give to be able to attend one!), and even the talking heads and brutal internet discussions about who "won" and who looked like an idiot.

I don't know if they'll do it this time around, but I really enjoyed the way iTunes made the 2004 debates free for downloading soon after they were televised. It was wonderful to be able to go back and listen to what the candidates actually said, without being distracted by how long and dour John Kerry's face looked or by George Bush's nasty little smug smirk. It was also kind of interesting because you could kind of hear the comments that people made over the clapping and cheering that followed certain strong policy statements. To this day, I enjoy occasionally putting a debate on and enjoying the irony as George Bush declares how well the war is going and John Kerry tries to look like a warmongering redneck in order to appeal to us Ohioans.

Here's the schedule of the debates, followed by my predictions (I don't merely predict winners or losers, because I think different people are looking for different qualities in their presidential choices... although I think it's pretty clear who I'm voting for and what I like in a candidate!):

 

Date: September 26

Subject focus: domestic policy

Place: University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS

My predictions: John McCain will play to his conservative base by saying things he can’t possibly believe in reality, mostly relating to abortion (as late as 1999, he said he didn’t personally like abortion but wouldn’t repeal Roe v. Wade, then switched his stance when he began his presidential campaigns). Barack Obama will attempt to actually explain where he is on the issues, while trying not to look like he is exploiting the fact that, next to him, John McCain looks like he already died two years ago.

Verdict: Republicans will talk about how strong and wise McCain looked. Democrats will talk about how Obama has substantive policy ideas and McCain does not. No citizen in the entire country will change his/her vote.

 

Date: October 2

Subject focus: vice-presidential debates

Place: Washington University, St. Louis, MO

My predictions: Sarah Palin will try hard not to show how little she knows about politics, current events, or anything not relating to her personal biography. Joe Biden will try hard not to allow his superior foreign policy and governing experience to look like arrogance. Both candidates will try not to mention any of the following topics (though for opposite reasons): Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, Sarah Palin’s Troopergate scandal, Sarah Palin’s attempt to censor library books while mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin’s propensity to say stupid things relating to the relationship between Alaska and Russia.

Verdict: Joe Biden will blow up and yell at Sarah Palin, and Republicans will be outraged. Sarah Palin will look like a deer in the headlights whenever asked about foreign policy/domestic policy/the economy/anything that is not abortion, and Democrats will be outraged. Sarah Palin will claim that Joe Biden’s frustration was the result of sexism and not the result of the idea that she claims to have the same governing experience and ability as Biden despite the fact that she has been a leader of 670,053 people for 2 years and Biden has been a leader of 853,476 people for 35 years. Republicans will be outraged at Biden for this, Democrats will be outraged at Republicans for buying into this. Biden will come off better overall, but expectations for Palin's performance will be so low that she can’t possibly disappoint anyone. As a result, no citizen in the entire country will change his/her vote.

 

Date: October 7

Subject focus: town hall format (but not real subject focus, as far as I can tell)

Location: Belmont University, Nashville, TN

My predictions: McCain will feel comfortable in the town-hall situation, as that is his favorite form of debate. Obama will feel comfortable in the town-hall situation, as he is very personable and prone to fine oration. McCain will try very hard to focus on questions concerning: terrorism, being in the military, funding the military. Obama will try very hard to focus on questions concerning: poverty, the economy, human/civil/personal rights, John McCain’s house-counting abilities.

Verdict: McCain will look less old than usual. Republicans will glow with pleasure. Obama will still make McCain look like a corpse with rigor mortis already apparent. Democrats will glow with pleasure. No citizen in the entire country will change his/her vote.

 

Date: October 15

Subject focus: foreign policy

Place: Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

My prediction: McCain will talk about his military service. Obama will talk about how much George Bush has screwed up Iraq and Afghanistan and pretty much ruined our relations with every single foreign country other than China (and that's mostly because China is busy being mad at France). McCain will make thinly veiled accusations about Obama’s lack of military experience. Obama will make thinly veiled accusations about McCain’s closeness to George Bush.

Verdict: McCain will appeal to Republicans’ need to have international pi**ing contests with both allies and enemies. Obama will appeal to people who have extensive experience in international travel or exploring other cultures, who will also therefore be Democrats. No citizen in the entire country will change his/her vote.

 

General prediction: McCain will look like an out-of-touch millionaire Bush supporter who is about to die at any moment. Obama will look like a ritzy Hollywood glamour guy who is also a black man. Both candidates will therefore appeal to their respective bases and repulse the other party.

General verdict: No one’s minds will be changed. Nobody’s votes will be swung. Hundreds of thousands of dollars will be wasted on trying to change the landscape of American political thought, and I will be the only one entertained by the proceedings.

In Memoriam

I just wanted to take a moment to remember Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the Ohio Congresswoman who died after suffering an aneurysm on Wednesday evening. She was 58.

Congresswoman Tubbs Jones was an active and vocal member of the House, and co-sponsored legislation to help working families, students, and women. A strong opponent of the war, Tubbs Jones was one of only 11 members in the House sane enough to vote against invading Iraq. She was the chair of the Ethics committee, and served on the powerful Ways and Means committee, as well.

Out of respect for her memory, I'll be saving my angry rant post about John McCain for tomorrow. Today, let's remember Rep. Tubbs Jones, and all the good work she did for Cleveland, and for our country.

Rest in peace, ma'am.

Getting Pretty Icy In Hell These Days

Wait, wait, wait— Paris Hilton said something intelligent and politically savvy?!

Well, Newsweek says so, and I think they may be right. Plus, I love the idea of painting the White House pink. Maybe I would add some glitter, too.

Not that my endorsement means much, but...

I wanted to take a moment to urge you to have a look at Gary Peters, who is running for Congress in Michigan's 9th district. He's a supporter of gay rights (so I'm told) and a he's a war veteran-- plus he got his doctorate degree at the same place my dad did, Wayne State University (albeit my dad's degree was in Biology and Mr. Peters' was in law, but whatever).

My friend Leora is currently his campaign's finance director, and I like her a whole lot, so when she told me she'd found a great candidate, I was intrigued. I checked him out myself, and he seems pretty cool. Michiganders, take note!