Staggeringly Obvious

Re-Emerging

2008-08-26T13:28:00.001-07:00

Some days I am rather rabbit-like. Loud noises and too much violent and pointless arguing tends to scare me off. So I kind of took most of the primary season off. The fact is, all three candidates were strong, and I liked them all for different reasons.

And now we have Obama and Biden (who was a strong pick, I believe, though at this time having an empty congressional seat makes me nervous...) and it is to that purpose that we can now unite ourselves.

Hopefully...

Consider the source...

2007-12-05T08:40:00.000-08:00

Okay, admittedly most of the MSM has been focused on the presidential primaries, but you'd think there'd be a blurb somewhere about this allegation that I discovered on Redstate.com. The source that they link? The NRCC - National Republican Congressional Committee. And they quote their own Communications Director Jessica Boulanger.

I've googled and tried to find a slightly less biased source, or any real news media corroboration on this, but I've come up dry so far. I shall continue to investigate.

UPDATE: 10:40

Okay, so after some investigation I have found the following - none of the newspapers in Ohio's 5th District are covering anything about a libelous advertisement being pulled off the air. Additionally: according to the NRCC only two stations have pulled the ad: WUPW- which is a Fox affiliate shock and awe, and WNWO which is an NBC affiliate. Both of these stations are in Toledo, which is not in the 5th district. It's in the 9th district. It is the nearest major city, but there are still three stations, not mentioned in the NRCC statement, so I'm currently going to assume that they are running the ad. Also, I didn't note in the last post that not even any of the conservative blogs about this have quoted anything from this supposedly libelous advertisement to support their claim.

UPDATE: 1:20

After poking around some more during my lunch break I've concluded that this really is just inter-Republican propagandizing probably attempting to inspire donations since the NRCC is flat broke. Also, apparently the NRCC has a less-than-fabulous reputation on the ethics front-- to the extent that even some Republican candidates are disgusted.

So I'm done with this story, but I don't think this was a waste of time. I know that liberals have a tendency (as I'm sure the other side has too) to look at something and just say "Oh, that's patently ridiculous, no one will believe that."

Of course, then hundreds of thousands do.

Humbleness is not a word.

2007-12-03T12:11:00.000-08:00

Humility is. I mistakenly used "Humbleness" when advising a co-worker about how to handle his court appearance for a traffic ticket.

Two seconds later the English major in me kicked in and I corrected myself aloud. I'm pretty sure no one noticed, but I'm cool with that.

It did, of course, bring to mind the current political language, which is typified by two things: grammatical errors and hubris. It's everywhere: in blogs, on TV, in the nationally televised addresses of our head of state (in front of other national leaders) and even "news programs" and publications. Of course, I think the errors are a symptom of the arrogance as well - the Neo-con powercore simply doesn't really care about how it's talking heads sound when they open their mouths - or else they'd fix it. I've said it from the beginning: he's the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. If they wanted him to not talk like a yoekel, then he wouldn't. You think the people who managed to get a former alcoholic, draft-dodging, cheerleader elected TWICE can't hire him a speech coach?

I wonder if this hubris issue is new or not? I mean, I'm sure that people running for President have often been arrogant. I think it takes a certain amount of hubris just to say "Damn right I'm the best person to put in charge of one of the most powerful countries in the world!" However, I seem to recall an age where humility and service were ideals that most politicians at least played lip-service to. What really concerns me is that this culture of arrogance is not limited to Neo-Cons, not even limited to politicians or other powerful people. Cultural attitudes are probably the one thing that do trickle down.

I intend to investigate, see if this is a new phenonemon or if I'm merely sugar-coating the past becuase the present is so awful. Look forward to it.

I would like to add that at least I got one thing out of the Don Imus pointless hoopla, and that is I got to hear the NPR news anchor say "Nappy headed hos" and it made me laughed until I cried. And also, I'd like to say regarding Don Imus being back and the world moving on as if nothing happened: whatever.

2007-11-30T12:56:00.000-08:00

In the NYTimes today:

JIDDA, Saudi
Arabia, Nov. 30 — The case of a 20-year-old woman who was sentenced to be
lashed after pressing charges against seven men who raped her and a male
companion has provoked a rare and angry public debate in Saudi Arabia, leading
to renewed calls for reform of the Saudi judicial system.

And from futher on in the article:

A Saudi judge, Ibrahim bin Salih Al-Khudairi of the Riyadh Appeals Court,
said in an interview published in Okaz newspaper on Nov. 27 that if he were a
judge in the Qatif court that he would have sentenced her, her male companion
and the seven rapists to death and that they should be lucky that they did not
get the death penalty.

These are our allies.

You know, like Pakistan. Musharraf's ending military rule! Yay!

Right after he secured a second term for himself. Does anyone still believe that he declared martial law for security reasons?

In other "news"

2007-11-29T11:41:00.001-08:00

Check out Redstate today. They're parroting the ever-faithful righty talking point that as long as the GDP is strong, so is the economy!

Now, admittedly, I am no economist, but luckily Paul Krugman is -- an award winning one in fact. I also highly recommend this column, which discusses that just because Americans are working, doesn't necessarily mean we're making any money.

Also, apparently Mark from Redstate.com didn't watch the You-Tube debate either, just for entirely different reasons.

I guess it shows that no one really disagrees on everything.

Debatable

2007-11-29T11:28:00.000-08:00

Okay. I confess...I didn't watch the Republican You-Tube debate on CNN last night. Instead I played World of Warcraft with my fiance.

My time is valuable, and on my list of priorities, being reminded (repeatedly over the course of an hour or more) of how much I despise the Republican candidates fell significantly below running Allandrael (my fiance's Bloodelf Mage) through Blackfathom Depths with my level 70 Hunter.

To simplify for those of you who aren't much for computers... I'd rather waste time playing a video game for someone else than waste my time watching a bunch of old men prove that, yes, they are in fact all shortsighted, small minded, rich elitist madmen, each of whom have in some way violated previous principles in their quest to become the most powerful man in America.

I like being proven right, but I'm full up on evidence that Republicans are bad for me.

The annual Thanksgiving rant

2007-11-21T21:58:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday of the season.

That's right. Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving is the last untainted holiday. You can tell because they try to start Christmas before Thanksgiving, because there is absolutely no commercial value to Thanksgiving.

Because Thanksgiving is about giving thanks for what you already have, a frame of mind that makes sales blitzes very difficult.

Thanksgiving is about food, family, friends, a day off-- lots of things, but it's not about rampant materialism. It's not about candy, presents, fireworks, status, money, or showing off. Thanksgiving is the most modest holiday of the year. There are no required Thanksgiving colors, decorations, or rituals beyond "gather and give thanks."

Thanksgiving isn't fraught with competing religious overtones; though some like to use Thanksgiving to point discuss the massacre of Native Americans by the invading "illegal immigrants" from Europe -- Thanksgiving is probably the least controversial holiday ever. I've never met someone in real life who was opposed to the celebration of Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving cannot be co-opted, cannot be corrupted, doesn't spark debate and makes everyone simply want to gather with whomever they can and enjoy a meal together.

In today's fast-paced, materialistic, greedy, and expensive world, Thanksgiving basically requires us to slow down. The traditional turkey takes at least four hours to make. You start with the Macy's Day Parade, maybe watch some football in the afternoon, then you sit down and eat and drink and talk with friends and family. Afterwards, fighting off turkey coma, you sit around and digest, making room for pie. In my family, this is usually board game time. We favor Scrabble.

When I was growing up I believed, like most teenagers, that my family was utterly dysfunctional. Now I'm always impressed by how cohesive we are when we come back together for the holidays (I say we, but I'm actually the only one who's moved out so far). We watch all the same TV shows and we all love talking about the show we're watching during commercials (a habit my fiance hates), and on Thanksgiving, we simply shine. My sister and I set the table after my little brother polishes the silver. My dad does the turkey, stuffing and gravy and pie; my mother handles all the side dishes: sweet potatoes, corn casserole, soup, and salad. The whole time we discuss politics, my little sister alternately contributing and complaining that she hates it when we talk politics. My sister and my mother will tell me about the latest knitting things they're doing now (they are deep in the online knitting blogosphere) and my little brother tries to sneak away to play video games, but we keep calling him back and making him participate in cooking and talking.

Of all the holidays, I cannot remember a single horrible Thanksgiving with my family. No huge blowups, no meal-ruining sullen silences. Just my family the way we are: loud, sarcastic, fiercely loyal, showing our affection through "constructive criticism."

Making it hard to be thankful

2007-11-19T12:31:00.000-08:00

The goings-on in Colorado rarely make any national news, and when they do it is almost universally bad. When I was going to boarding school in CO, the Columbine shootings actually prompted one of my friends to say "Wow, I'd almost fogotten that Colorado was a real place - not just South Park."

I shit you not.

Today is no exception. Imagine my surprise when I discover this while reading the NYTimes online:

U.S. / Politics
Proposed Colorado Measure on Rights for Human Eggs
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: November 18, 2007
A proposed amendment raises the prospect of a heated local debate over
abortion at the same time that Democrats are gathering in the state for their
national convention.

The blurb does it no justice. It boils down to this: there are people in Colorado State Government (not just civilian fundies) who want to give fertilized eggs legal rights.

Yeah. I know. More on this later.

I'm planning on making some changes...

2007-11-17T09:51:00.001-08:00

Changes to help me a) post more often and b) make my blog more interesting.

Stay tuned!

It's good to be back...

2007-10-18T04:55:00.000-07:00

...working again anyway. Yes, I was unemployed for two weeks or so. Why didn't I post whilst I clearly had nothing better to do? Well, it took a great deal of skill to avoid panic about being unemployed.

Anywho, today's issues: SCHIP (yes, again), and the FCC considers relaxing media ownership rules (yes, again).

On SCHIP: Read this.

Amanda Robb makes an excellent point. Instead of taxing the heck out of a diminishing population (smokers) and guaranteeing that eventually someone will have to propose taxing something less politically salable, like, I dunno...rich people, why not stop funding a program that's all-but been proven completely ineffective.

Get over it people. Teenagers have sex. I waited until 18 and I was one of the last of my friends to "go all the way" (how many fun euphemisms can I remember?).

And, given that there is basically nothing that you can do to stop your preppy/smartass/slacker/goth/type-A or whatever child from having sex, wouldn't you prefer that someone tell them how best to avoid getting pregnant? Think about it people, who's really gonna raise that grand baby? Think you're up to it?

Of course abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy and STDs. Thing being, when you're 17 all those intangible, far-off possibilities haven't got a chance against the very immediate and very tangible joy of sex.

Furthermore: all this abstinence only, what-some-call-God-inspired (I am not anti-religion, I'm just capable of keeping mine to myself, thank you very much) so-called "education" not only does NOT prevent teenagers from having sex, but it most certainly does enforce the mind set that sex is dirty, wrong or in some way degrading, unhealthy, etc...

Now, there are certain sexually charged situations that are all these things, and it is precisely because such situations exist that we need to be able to differentiate between the good and the bad touch.

Now, and I'm about to dive into a pet peeve of mine, I'm mostly thinking about the effect on young women. On the one hand you have the unquenchable adolescent desire for acceptance, and on the other hand you have an equally powerful authority structure that stands over them and wags their finger and says "Sex is baaaaad, mmkay?"

And then they have sex, because they want to, hopefully, or because they want to be loved, accepted, like everyone else.

You don't have to have a PhD in Adolescent Psychology to figure out that this might affect a girl's sense of self-worth.

Look, you want more teenagers to choose not to have sex? Your best shot (no promises) is to educate them completely and completely without bias. When teenagers feel that a decision is completely their own, that they are empowered and have absolute control over this aspect of their lives, they're more likely to take it seriously. When an adult simply says "don't do it" ... well, come on, that almost guarantees that some of them are going to go out of their way to "do it".

All right, enough discussion of teenagers.

On to mainstream media. Read.

Okay, look, all I've got to say about this is: Fox News. Clearly we cannot trust that people who purport to be journalists to have anything resembling journalistic integrity. And if mainstream media outlets become even more consolidated, we'll soon lose any chance of imposing integrity upon them by using the market.

I'm not guaranteeing that we'd be able to without this relaxation of rules, after all, a lot of people watch Fox News. I have no idea why, but, hey, I don't know why the country cares more about Brittany Spear's next impending breakdown either.

You see, this is all part of a long road that I hope well eventually work our way down: first, we re-establish a diverse news media with real journalistic integrity, then we battle with the electorate, and hopefully they realize that, yes, voting for your congressman is more important than voting for American Idol. Then, hopefully, voters will demand real answers and real issue commitment from our politicians. Good bye soundbytes.

My point is: we need to demand real answers from politicians. When we vote for someone we should know what they want to accomplish in office. We should be able to get definitive answers on where they stand. We should NOT be simply voting for the least offensive.

I'd Just Quit.

2007-09-27T14:49:00.000-07:00

First, read this.

Look. This isn't about free speech. It's already printed; there's no way to take it back. Personally, I think it's great, hilarious in a totally "can't believe they did that" kinda way. And ultimately I think that every one is making too big a deal about this! It's a college newspaper. He's really a student editor. Isn't this all supposed to be a learning experience?

Lesson learned: newspapers are first and foremost businesses. Which means you gotta avoid pissing off the advertisers. Bad editor. Bad bad editor. No cookie.

He's also now the most famous student editor in America. I wouldn't worry about his chances after college.

I have a confession to make...

2007-09-26T16:48:00.000-07:00

I live in Colorado. Yes. It's in the "fly-over zone," some of you may recognize it when I tell you: it's the state where Vail and Breckenridge are.

Why did I consider not disclosing this? Well, because I'm usually in denial about it myself. Colorado is in many ways a microcosm of all the Right-most wrongness in the country. We're home to Focus on the Family, Senator Wayne Allard and this guy. My fiance once joked that he almost broke up with me when he found out I was originally from New Hampshire. This is probably the only place north of the Mason/Dixon line where I can get called a "yank."

But, frankly, there's just so much good material there. And while American probably doesn't need another liberal blogger, it couldn't hurt to have one more in Colorado.

Anyhow, back to Caplis. This is my favorite quote from the article:

Caplis further stated to Silverman, "You don't want to acknowledge that the terrorists themselves -- you know, that [Osama] bin Laden's camp, [Ayman al-]Zawahari has directly sent messages to the Democratic Party in his statements, telling them, we handed you your mid-term victory, now you'd better act right or you're going to lose those benefits."

Seriously? The Democrats have been directly communicating with terrorists? I better vote Republican!

What scares me is that all over this state are people who actually buy that.

And then there's this:

On October 19, 2006, Caplis declared, "If you want America to surrender in this war [in Iraq], then vote for the Democrats. You have a shared interest at that point with the terrorists."

Note the date. Roughly a month later Coloradans elected a Democratic governor and re-elected a Democratic Senator, Ken Salazar. So, also like greater America, perhaps the "overwhelming conservative/moral majority" is largely mythical. Unfortunately we also re-elected Republican Wayne Allard.

Of course, Ken's a very typical "red-state" Democrat. He voted in favor of the monstrous Military Commissions Act of 2006 which stripped habeas corpus rights from from "unlawful combatants."

Note: A bill to restore these rights (and a shred of America's dignity and moral authority) is currently stalled in Congress.

By the way, Colorado made national news this week over a Colorado State University (CSU) paper's printing on its Op-Ed page "F--k Bush" in large letters. Apparently now people are calling for the editor to be fired. Funniest part about this for me? Watching the live anchors this morning explain '...it read "Tase this: F-Bush...only they printed the whole word.' (I'm paraphrasing, but it was funny at 6 AM, trust me)

My generation (yes, I'm revealing that I'm only two years out of college now) would really get taken more seriously if we started using something other than vulgarities to get national attention.

But perhaps I'm putting the chicken before the egg -- maybe we can't get any attention unless we play into the Mass Media need for stories about stupid liberal college students.

Okay, I should say, quickly, that Colorado does have many things to commend it, Colorado College (my Alma Mater), beautiful views, great hiking, skiing, mountain biking, white-water rafting... It's a great place to vacation!

It's Bill O'Reilly Day!

2007-09-26T16:19:00.000-07:00

Or so it would seem. Ever since CNN picked up on Media Matter's coverage of O'Reilly's comments about Sylvia's, a restaurant in Harlem owned and operated by a black family, this thing has just gotten bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And today, five days after the story first was posted on Media Matters for America (MMFA), all of MMFA's leading stories are about it.

If you've just come out of a coma and don't know what I'm talking about, this is the original story as posted on MMFA.

Now, I admire MMFA a great deal; I think they provide an important service to those of us who try to watch the news to be informed, not to be lead by the nose, and I don't think its their fault that this story has gotten so huge. O'Reilly pretty much did it himself, as he usually does, leaping up on his cross and screaming about his "out of context" victimization.

And Fox News can safely ignore all the real news by defending him. I begin to wonder if O'Reilly doesn't say this stuff on purpose, knowing that someone will call him out on it and he'll then be able to flood the news cycle with repetitive and inane invective against MMFA and/or liberals in general.

"[I]f Bill O'Reilly got caught robbing a bank he would say he was taken out of context," sayeth MMFA Senior Fellow Paul Waldman. You should check this out, if only to hear that fabulous line out loud.

Voter ID's

2007-09-25T19:00:00.000-07:00

And the Supreme Court of the United States of American (henceforth known as "SCOTUS") has agreed to hear a case about a Voter ID law in Indiana. The argument for them: it reduces voter fraud (?) which I don't think is entirely true. Yes, it will hopefully prevent dead people voting, but how will it prevent hundreds of voters showing up as felons when they're not? How will it limit voter intimidation? The case against it...well, the media is reporting that "Democrats oppose them on grounds that they lower the turnout among people who tend to vote Democratic" (from the NYTimes).

My opposition to it is this: it's a poll tax. Poll taxes were found unconstitutional in Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 666-668 (1966). I give you the full citation so that you can look it up at your leisure. I would just link to it in FindLaw.com, but it seems that FindLaw is requiring logins (free, but a hassle) now.

There is no state-issued photo-ID that you don't pay money for and there is no substantive difference between requiring you pay money or requiring that you present an item for which you had to pay money.

And, no, you do not need a state-issued photo ID for day to day life. You are only required that you have a driver's license if you are driving a car. Lots of people don't drive cars. You can get non-license state ID's, but they still cost money. As long as these ID's cost money, there will be people who can't get them. These people will be disenfranchised simply because they don't have money to spare for an ID that they've gotten by without.

And no, it's not only illegal immigrants who don't have state-issued ID's. People lose those things you know, and lots of people never even get them. I've got a great friend in Manhattan who doesn't have one because he's never had to drive. People get their license's taken away, but last I checked, we didn't bar citizens from voting simply because they had too many points on their license.

Now, it's arguable that people should have ID's, if only for that worst-case scenario of identifying their body, but the state cannot require it for voting if it costs money.

From the case: "(a) Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines which determine who may vote may not be drawn so as to cause invidious discrimination. Pp. 665-667."

A voter ID requirement will do so.

The biggest difficulty in overcoming this law is going to be in a) arguing that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applies, b) arguing that the interest of the state in implementing the voter ID requirement is not great enough to supersede the right of all citizens to vote. This will help:

"(b) Fee payments or wealth, like race, creed, or color, are unrelated to the citizen's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Pp. 666-668."

On the other hand, the Right has done its level best to put "strict constructionists" in the court. Strict constructionist merely means "against individual freedoms and for particular social/political agendas." We are talking about people who will argue, straight-faced that warrentless phone-taps are not unConstitutional because there weren't phones when the Fourth Amendment was written thus:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Seriously.

Tragically, I have not gone to law school, so perhaps there's some glaring legal flaw in my equating voter ID requirements to poll taxes, but I think it's arguable. And it's certainly less partisan and whiny than declaring that voter ID requirements are harder on Democrats than Republicans.

Bad artists copy. Great artists steal. ~ Pablo Picasso

2007-09-25T15:55:00.000-07:00

I discovered some fabulous blogs today, and I'd like to mention one at the start, as it has informed my posting today:

The first blog to get added to my blogroll today was Socialist Unity. Today the post was a letter from Iranian dissident and author Akbar Ganji to the UN. I strongly advise that you visit the blog and read the letter. It's a very powerful and interesting commentary on the situation with Iran and the West. Here's a quote:

"Above all, we hope that with Your Excellency’s immediate intervention, all of Iran’s political prisoners, who are facing more deplorable conditions with every passing day, will soon be released. The people of Iran are asking themselves whether the UN Security Council is only decisive and effective when it comes to the suspension of the enrichment of uranium, and whether the lives of the Iranian people are unimportant as far as the Security Council is concerned. The people of Iran are entitled to freedom, democracy and human rights. We Iranians hope that the United Nations and all the forums that defend democracy and human rights will be unflinching in their support for Iran’s quest for freedom and democracy. "
~ Akbar Ganji, to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the UN

Essentially, he argues that the US and other western nations are not aiding the growth of liberty and democracy in Iran by focusing on Ahmadinejad and nuclear weapons. Iran is guilty of nightmarish violations of human rights, issues that really must be addressed. We can't let Iran be like another Afghanistan - we were content to ignore their human rights violations; we only noticed and cared once the Taliban became a threat to us. Will we do the same to Iran? Ignore the plight of their people, but bring down the hammer over uranium enrichment? That's almost explicitly declaring that Western lives are more important than Iranian lives.

Speaking of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he told the UN that his country will ignore censure over uranium enrichment. Like anyone didn't see that coming? He's been reiterating his argument that the Iranian program is completely peaceful and for energy purposes only during his trip to NY and basically setting the Iranian government up with another excuse to grind the fear and war axe when the UN and US sanctions Iran anyway.

And one more, probably very unpopular mention involving Ahmadinejad: he's a raving lunatic, but his general point about the plight of the Palestinians isn't nuts. Perhaps the Palestinians should ask him to stop speaking out on their behalf (I would), he's not exactly the best representative of their interests.

Ahmadinejad aside - something must be done about the awful conditions that Palestinians live under. Their situation is a festering sore in the middle east and nothing will be accomplished that even resembles peace or progress until that situation - most likely a two-state solution - is resolved.

And, again, you should really go to Socialist Unity and read the letter (at least...the other posts are all very good as well).

Moving on to domestic issues: John Edwards came out with a plan to combat AIDS today. Most intresting part of the plan (to me) it included needle-exchange programs. Which, while studies show that they work, haven't always been very popular. It's too easy to propagandize against them, arguing that they encourage drug use, despite the fact that there's no proof that they do.

Once again John Edwards is first to have real, implementable policy. Once again he stands out as the candidate from whom we can truly expect real change.

And once again he gets the shaft because everyone as basically assumed that Hillary will win the election. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) once again declined to endorse a candidate, even though reports say that Edwards would win if they had an up-down vote today.

Apparently, despite the fact that Edwards is the strongest on issues the union cares about (health care, worker's rights, minimum wage, collective bargaining, the existence of unions in general), they're scared of backing a loser.

Oh, and please do follow that link and read the comments at the bottom. Anti-union sentiment in this country is a real problem and no one seems to realize how harmful it is. Collective bargaining has historically been the only effective way for "blue-collar" workers to improve or maintain employment that is safe and pays a livable wage (which in this day and age includes benefits). It's capitalist propaganda that pits different parts of the working class against eachother, preventing them from realizing that they could be the most powerful force in the country. No, I'm not a Marxist, but you have to admit that he did get some things right.

And what a Monday it was...

2007-09-24T15:41:00.000-07:00

So much happened today that just... well, I shall begin where I begin and end shortly before my fingers begin to bleed:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (yes, I copy/pasted it) spoke today at Columbia University and successfully (from what accounts I could find) said basically... nothing of substance. Frankly, he'd do well in the US if he hadn't chosen the wrong strain of bat-shit-insane-pedagogy. And he's clearly not that crazy or that stupid, because he noticeably ratcheted back on the lunacy. He also showed a distinctly political aversion to either outright owning or outright disowning previous, unpopular statements.

So, of course, with Ahmadinejad not really providing anything new in the way of controversy, the question remains: was it appropriate to allow him to speak at an American institution of higher learning at all?

Yes. Tasteful? Well, that's an entirely different debate. But Columbia was holding a series of such forums with many, many different world leaders, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a president. In fact, he's the president of a country that will, like it or not, have a HUGE impact on how the next decade rolls out. Sooner or later we're going to have to have a real talk about Iraq with Iran.

Moving on... straight past the lingering "MoveOn.Org" whipping boy (seriously, can we talk about something that matters now?)

President Bush predicts that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic primary against Obama! Shock and aw... crap. Look. I'd love help elect the first woman president. I really would. But I just hate her politics. Her and nearly every other incumbent Democratic Representative and Senator. Centrist politics gets us NO WHERE. And even Obama has been pounding the bi-partisan drum. Gag me. Did Democrats not get the message in 2006? We want to change the direction of this country. And it's not a small adjustment. We need something drastically different : not Republican Lite.

And Hillary is Republican Lite. Which is sad, because she wasn't always, but progressive politics is no place for "once bitten: twice shy" individuals.

Who am I backing then, you may ask? Edwards. He's electable, he's populist, he's progressive, he's for workers, for families, for the poor. He was the first one to come out with a health care reform plan (and four months later, Hillary pillaged it). Of all the candidates, he's the only one who I can actually believe cares.

I'm sure this won't be a particularly popular point of view but I really, really want to see a significant change in discourse. I want a president who speaks on the issues and actually says something worth listening to; I'd like to see an end to soundbites.

A girl can dream, can't she?

And the Jena 6. Personally, I think that the entire country has been over-criminalizing youths. Trying children as adults does nothing except land them in cells with real adult criminals. Basically, we send them Crime U. Once again we've reacted out of pure fear and the minute that someone crosses the line we're ready to throw them in jail and lose the key. This does no one any good. Whatever happened to rehabilitation? Yes. Sometimes someone has to go to jail for life, but we've been lowering the bar for decades. I remember when getting into a fight, even a brutal one, just got you suspended. And it worked. Maybe we just had particularly good parents in my school district, but kids were far FAR more afraid when our teachers called our parents.

And of COURSE race had to do with it! Something violent was going to happen eventually. Did they really think that it would just...blow over? That kids would get bored with it after hanging nooses from trees and cars and committing arson? What scares me is that, eventually, the adults will get bored with it. This won't be the start of a larger, nation-wide (much needed), movement to address the racism that still thrives in this country. It'll hang around for a few news cycles and then...fade away.

Frankly, looking around these days, I'm shocked we ever had the attention span to watch the entire OJ Simpson trial on cable TV LIVE. We didn't just get highlights and hand-picked "facts." We actually watched the whole thing...at SCHOOL. I'm not saying it was particularly educational (I can think of a lot of better ways to learn about our legal system). But I really can't imagine anyone doing that now. No wonder it's so hard to get a real discussion of the issues going. Serious issues are boring.

And to prove my point: lost in today's hubbub was the UN summit on climate change began. And guess who's not going to be there? You guessed it! Our very own Commander in Chief. Interestingly enough, y'know who did speak to the assembly? Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governator of California. He wants to legislate green house gas emissions. Bush wants to to stick his fingers in his ears and blame it all on the sun. Woo boy. But, let's not forget, Bush also raised the legal limit of arsenic in our water. That's right. It was just too much of a financial burden on those poor ol' chemical-waste producing corporations. This is years ago, of course, and it got lost like a fart in the wind then.

I guess he figures he won't live long enough to see the full damage he's wrought. But he'll die knowing that his name will live on forever - probably as an expletive.

Who cares about kids...

2007-09-21T14:02:00.000-07:00

Apparently, not George W. Bush. See also this article by MediaMatters about inconsistent coverage of Bush's statements and stance.

From the MediaMatters article:

"...the Congressional Budget Office estimated in May that 'maintaining the states' current programs under SCHIP would require funding of $39 billion for the 2007-2012 period and $98 billion over the 2007-2017 period -- increases of $14 billion and $48 billion, respectively, over the baseline spending levels.'"

And both articles note that Congress is attempting to budget an additional $35 billion and Bush is saying only $5 billion more.

And let me remind you all, since it seems to have gotten lost somewhere in the shuffle, that we're talking about insuring children. This is not Universal Healthcare, though that would be infinetely simpler. We're talking about ensuring that children have access to preventative care, vaccinations, routine check ups, medicines, and antibiotics.

Kids. Children who cannot be accused of being lazy, itinerant or having knowingly entered this country illegally. Children. Babies. The next generation.

And he's going to veto the budget bill if Congress attempts to adequately fund the program so that children won't die of things that never, ever even entered into my world when I was a kid. Mumps, measles, allergies and asthma (inhalers aren't free...neither are epi-pens). Routine infections that insured children handle easily with a round of relatively low-dose antibiotics can threaten un-insured children's life-long health when the bacteria in their ears or nose or throat multiply and move to even more vital organs.

Ironically enough, reliable, researched support for SCHIP can be found from a source that one could hardly be called liberal - Brigham Young University professor Richard Butler. In conjunction with researchers from the University of Arizona, Professor Butler published an article in Pediatrics. In the article they show how it actually costs the taxpayers more money to leave children un-insured than to insure them with SCHIP. You can read a slightly more non-MD-friendly article about the article here.

Not that this shocks me at all. Preventative care is infinitely less expensive than a full-blown medical emergency- the only way that most un-insureds (yours truly included... knock on wood) get treatment: in the Emergency Room.

So, to review today's staggeringly obvious point: Ensuring that all children in America are insured is just the right thing to do, but if that's not a good enough reason there's also the fact that it's the fiscally responsible thing to do.

So there. Here's one pinko-commie-wingnut-socialist-nazi-Liberal who's got it over on the Republicans on morals and spending. Shock. And. Awe.

Clearing my throat.

2007-09-19T12:52:00.000-07:00

I've never been one to ease into anything. So today's rant topic is... (drumroll please...)

Female circumcision! (Yes, you should read the damn link).

Here's my thing: the Taliban committed outrageous violations of human rights, largely upon women, for years before we invaded. Now, our reason for invading Afghanistan was valid, and all I mean to say is WTF took us so long??!!

Meanwhile, tacit and awknowledged allies allow this practice to go on: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt... It's been going on for ages in Sudan, but no one starts paying attention until whole communities are affected, not just the women.

I once was ranting at school about the Taliban's treatment of women (yes, this was pre-9/11), and actually had a friend tell me that I wasn't respecting their religion.

Seriously.

I support freedom of religion. You show me proof that ANY of those 7-13 year old girls say "Mommy, could I please have my clitoris cut off so I can be a better and purer Muslim?" mis-informed or not, and we'll revisit the issue.

But I think we all know that there is no element of choice in this.

And the reaction is so blase! Rape carries shorter prison terms than weed possesion. Women still make barely 75 cents for every dollar a man in the same position makes.

None of this gets discussed. Not even by the first, major-party woman candidate for president. The first woman with a real shot of getting elected. No one talks about it. Women's issues don't have any political cache anymore. Women suffer every day, all over the world, including here in this country, and it causes barely a ripple. Rape victims are victimized a second time by the system. God help you if you're sexually assaulted or harassed by a public figure! We always try to villianize the woman. Even other women do it!

I don't know which is worse: the persistent inequality, the fact that there's still this belief that men must take care of women, or the fact that, if that's men's job, they're doing a massively crappy job of it.

Sex is wrong and bad and dirty, so women must cover themselves up and mutilate their bodies and surrender their liberty. A woman's purpose is to marry so you must avoid anything that will make you less appealing to a potential husband. Women are overly emotional and make lousy leaders, or, if they're excellent leaders, they're completely unemotional and lousy people.

Double standard much? Why don't more people talk about this? Why isn't this in the news every day, because it happens every day.

Or perhaps I should punctuate that differently. "Why isn't this in the news every day? Because it happens every day."

I have arrived:

2007-09-18T19:14:00.000-07:00

Yes. The Wonderkitty has her own blog. Beware...

BEWARE!

Fear it. Fear the Blog. There's no telling what I might do with this thing! Rant on about politics, my crappy job, or post my poetry (yes, I reel you in with the politics then... WHAM!... poetry. I'm evil like that...)

The Wonderkitty is Dangerous. But fear not... the Wonderkitty is also your friend.

The kind of friend who got you to do really, really stupid things when you were a kid.