Our 44th President is African American. I'll be honest; while I thought I might see it in my lifetime, I never thought it would be this soon.
The world seems overjoyed, and people are walking around with a spring in their step. Blogs and news outlets are filled with wonder as people spoke of tears and fireworks and hope. But, you guys? Not to rain on your parade or anything, but if you've met me you know that's pretty much how I roll.
Barak Obama. I feel he's the better man for the job, but both choices were pretty poor to begin with. He has a lot to learn and, I think more than any President in recent memory, has more to prove. Because I worry that people think he can wave some kind of magic wand and make everything okay. Sorry, it isn't going to happen. He's just a man. True, I think he has a better idea of what is right for this country than McCain did, but internationally? I'm not sure he has the chops, and hope he surrounds himself with strong, experienced advisors. And that he listens to them.
We all need to roll up our sleeves and help him. This country was not built by one person, and it can't be repaired by one. So those estimated 14 million people who turned out to vote that didn't turn up last election time? Get ready and roll your sleeves up; it's going to be a bumpy ride.
I was pleased to learn yesterday that the Connecticut State Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage. Hurrah! That makes three; only 47 more to go :)
I don't see anything wrong with a legal union between two consenting adults; I know a lot of people have issues with the religious aspect of marriage but I'm not one of them. To me marriage is just a legal union; therefore, it should be available to all who are of age and desire it. As recently as twenty years ago interracial marriage was still looked upon with disdain; society has largely gotten over that, and it will hopefully get over this.
I hope the California amendment isn't repealed; I shall certainly be using my vote to ensure that it does not.
isn't that how it goes? I heard a scary woman on NPR this morning talking about how she is afraid to vote for Obama because he would "take care of his people first." She also mentioned as how she'd never thought of herself as a racist before.
His people? Obama's "people" are actually gifted biracial children of hard-working single mothers who, really, could use a bit of a break. I do find it interesting that most people take it for a given that all of the past presidents would, in fact, look out for "their people", who tend to be hugely wealthy corporate types. So, given my 'druthers, I'd rather have a President who gave a break to those in the lower economic sections of the populations in the hopes that it might trickle up a bit to me.
I'm just sayin...
I am becoming more and more concerned about the state of my country. And I don't just mean the whole usual war in Iraq, Bush didn't know anything about Hurricane Katrina (which we all knew was a total lie, and now there's proof! I love video), let's let Dubai manage our ports stuff, I mean abortion. The fundamental right allowing women to make choices about their own bodies.
Mississippi has now jumped on the anti-abortion bandwagon, seeking to limit abortions to cases only where the mother's life is in danger. This is on the heels of a similar action that looks likely to become law in South Dakota, which will also only allow abortion when the mother's life is threatened.
W says his disagrees with the South Dakota bill, says he hasn't paid all that much attention to the situation at all. Right. He may support the option of abortion in more cases than the SD and MS laws will permit, but I bet that George W. Bush is watching the situation unfold with glee, because it fits in with his overall agenda.
There is a lot of baggage that comes with being pro-choice, just like someone who isn't. People see you as supporting one thing, without question or reservations, but it isn’t like that at all. I wish people would understand that many of us have just as many issues with the Movement as do those who seek to ban abortion. But we support the overall platform because we believe that it is the right thing to do. We believe that women should be able to control their bodies.
I wish women didn't have to have abortions; that every child was healthy and wanted and conceived in love. But you know what? That isn’t reality. Because some babies have genetic defects and some women are raped or children are victims of incest, and many people who have children are not ready emotionally or financially for the responsibility. I wish all of the babies could be given up for adoption, because there are so many people who want children that can't have them (myself included). But for some women, they are not comfortable with that choice. And because I support the overall choice, I have to respect this one.
The way I see the U.S. lumbering toward a more religious-centered government with shrinking individual rights, it makes me wonder what I can do. What I want to do is to move someplace where there are more like-minded people, but that's kind of the ostrich way of handling it. After the Presidential election someone, I can't remember who, said that more people who want to make changes in the red states should move there and let their views be known. I am not sure I want to be that political, but I do know I am really scared of the road our country is heading down. And I want to do more.
Should you need help remembering where you were when you first really felt confident that the U.S. realized Iraq had finally fulfilled expectations of slipping into civil war, remember this headline from Reuters: "Bush denies Iraq headed for civil war."
He also does not "buy (the) premise that there's going to be a civil war." when chatting with ABC News, either, so don't go starting that again.
And the whole "world is round" thing? Total conjecture, ya freakin' heretic!
So he claims he didn't know. I shouldn't be suprised, given all of the other stuff he's said, but this one just throws me for some reason.
I mean seriously, how could you not know this? And if you didn't, how could you just be all okay with this? Everyone's a terrorist except for Duabi? Girl, please! He wants to know when Muslims check out something from the library; he knew about this.
I got this e-mail today, and it's one of those chain-lettery kind of things that I actually find valid. So, rather than sending it out, I am just going to post it:
A lot has been said about how to prevent rape.
women should learn self-defense.
women should lock themselves in their houses after dark.
women shouldn't have long hair and women shouldn't wear short skirts.
women shouldn't leave drinks unattended. fuck, they shouldn't dare to get drunk at all.
instead of that bullshit, how about:
if a woman is drunk, don't rape her.
if a woman is walking alone at night, don't rape her.
if a women is drugged and unconscious, don't rape her.
if a woman is wearing a short skirt, don't rape her.
if a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don't rape her.
if a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you're still hung up on, don't rape her.
if a woman is asleep in her bed, don't rape her.
if a woman is asleep in your bed, don't rape her.
if a woman is doing her laundry, don't rape her.
if a woman is in a coma, don't rape her.
if a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don't rape her.
if a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don't rape her.
if a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don't rape her.
if your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don't rape her.
if your step-daughter is watching tv, don't rape her.
if you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her.
if your friend thinks it's okay to rape someone, tell him it's not, and that he's not your friend.
if your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.
if your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there's an unconscious woman upstairs and it's your turn, don't rape her, call the police and tell the guy he's a rapist.
tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it's not okay to rape someone.
don't tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape.
don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x.
don't imply that it's in any way her fault.
don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he "got some" with the drunk girl.
don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.
Pass this message on if you've a mind to; it's a good one.
Just in case you've been out of the country for the last several years, or in a coma, or happen to be a very wealthy Republican, it's important to remember that, like pretty much everything he says, certain bits of the State of the Union Address should "not be taken literally".
As I was listening to the Govenator's speech to the Sacramento Press Club, I am dismayed yet again by his ability to say a whole lot of absolutely nothing. It reminds me of the governor in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, who is a caricature politician. So is Schwarzenegger, really. But the problem is that he's technically real.
The most annoying thing is the way he "sidesteps" being critical of the Bush Administration by claiming that issues such as the war in Iraq and Border issues are "national issues", so he claims to have no opinion of them. Ummmmm...hello? We are a BORDER (*^%^% STATE, so please give Californians at least a semblance of the illusion that you possess independent thoughts. By not stating an opinion or worse, intimating that state politicians (and, by extension, their constituents) should ignore what's going on in Washington and simply smile wanly as George Bush leads us further down this bizarre road we're on right now.
Well, obviously, I'm against the whole Alito thing, not just because I'm a woman but because I have a brain. Part of me thinks that Harriet Miers was just a distraction, but I could be reading too much into the whole situation.
I like this piece in Slate where William Saletan plays Judiciary Committee Senator and questions Sam Alito on his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Read Right to Wife: Why Does Judge Alito Treat Women Like Girls? and see why I'm a tad disconcerted.
It seems that Ann Coulter and I have found some common ground.
No, seriously.
That, and Hell has thrown their name in the hat to host the next Winter Olympics.
It could be that Annie is just realizing that George isn't the Republican Dream Date she thought he was...which could actually occur. At some point.
Or I've entered a parallel universe.
In which I have common ground with Ann Coulter.
Must lie down now. Need Aleve...
I will say that I try to avoid Mom bashing generally, especially since I'm not one myself.
But Ladies and Gents, I believe we do in fact have some additional insight as to why George W. Bush is the way he is.
Think Daddy B's cheerful example of robbing the poor to make things better for the rich made W. the hypocritcal "compassionate conservative" he is today? Well, turns out that may not have been the only factor.
Shudder. Barbara Bush's statements tell us a lot about why her son sees the world as he does.
Has anyone seen the "man" who took Snowball away from his nine-year-old owner while the poor kid was being evacuated from the Superdome in New Orleans?
Because I need to explain some things to this heartless bastard.
Like you don't rip possibly the only thing a child may have left of his former life out of his arms just because of "rules". Stupid fuck.
Where were you when people really needed you? Pulling the wings off flies?
Once upon a time there was a completely unqualified man called Michael D. Brown. He got his job as the Bush-Appointed chief of FEMA largely being frat buddies with Bush's 2000 campaign manager. He has no background in emergency management, and his main previous employment was as a commissioner of horse show judges - a post from which he may or may not have been fired in a swirling cloud of lawsuits because apparently he wasn't qualified for that job either.
Believe it or not...go on, Google away. Prove me wrong.
It does not take a psychic to see that the Bush Administration has successfully located their scapegoat.
Not that the guy doesn't deserve it. It just pisses me off that George W. and his cronies are going to wind up throwing this guy to the wolves to distract from their own culpability in appointing him in the first place. And let's not even mention the resources that were channeled away from the danger point by this pustulating ulcer of a presidential administration, or the insane fortune that the oil guys are making off this disaster, or..
I need to lie down again, and I must avoid any news of this travesty at all costs.
I may never sleep well again. First the Hurricane and its ensuing nightmares, and now George Bush is going to get to name not one, but TWO, Supreme Court Justices. One of whom will be Chief Justice.
And before you remind me that Rehnquist is conservative, just shut up. It's not the same thing. A George Bush conservative Justice is soooo very different from a "normal" conservative Justice that it makes my heart hurt.
It just seems like the world is spiraling out of control, and I'm honestly so ashamed of what the U.S. has become that I'd really consider leaving. Seriously, as opposed to the times we've just casually added up points to see if we could emirate to Canada.
It’s just so strange here right now; I think the callous disregard for the lives of those stranded in Hurricane Katrina. It’s like the government didn't care about these people or what was happening to their own county; notice how the troops and actual help didn't arrive until Bush was making his official strafe over New Orleans?
Do Americans matter so little to the U.S. government? They could have fixed the levees, but instead followed the religious convictions of our "elected" official (don’t' get me started on the Electoral College) and threw money and resources at Iraq. Where Americans are losing their lives and are unable to help the people in their own country when a crisis arises here.
There is nothing at all wrong with being globally philanthropic; I am proud that the U.S. takes a roll in a lot of good things internationally. However, what is becoming increasingly disenchanted with is how little the U.S. government cares for the U.S. people.
I need to stop watching Hurricane coverage and just lie down for a while; it's all just too depressing on top of everything else.
The Mayor of New Orleans is not mincing words regarding his thoughts and feelings about the response time for assistance to his city. There's video, too.
You go, Ray! Would that more our politicians were doing the same.
Some of my nastygrams to the White House, my state senators, and my congresscreatures are going to go out today, demanding accountability for the sorry-ass state of FEMA and the ridiculous mismanagement that is resulting in us turning away aid from a number of sources in addition to simply not apparently being able to pull our administrative heads out of our bureaucratic asses enough to deal with this situation a little more quickly, a little more thoroughly, a little more humanely than it is currently being handled.
Need their addresses? They're right here.
And yes, I do see that some convoys have finally reached New Orleans with relief supplies. It's about goddam time. That does not mean, however, that you shouldn't still write to voice your overall displeasure.
On another note: Wicked tonight. I'm really not up for it and wish I could trade in the tickets for cash and send it to Mercycorps or the various animal rescue groups working to help out. Actually, I really want to go to New Orleans. I feel useless.
Before he finally just apologized and shut up, Pat Robertson tried to clarify the remarks he made on Monday by saying that he was misinterpreted. Because, you see, kidnapping is also a way of "taking" someone "out". And that was really more the direction he was going in, not outright murder.
If it wasn't so mortifying, it would be laughable. And somehow it is, just a bit, in a deeply twisted way.
Dear Senator Santorum,
Today I was listening to an NPR interview with you, and I was devestated to hear of your plight. It seems that you find it a very rough row to hoe being a "person of faith" in this culture and to be public about it. Lambchop, I weep for you. It must be so achingly difficult to be a white college-educated male professional politician in this culture. My heart breaks with how much trouble you have ramming your cryptofascist religiously-motivated political agenda down people's throats. (Don't think I didn't see what you tried to do with the "No Child Left Behind" Act, either, okay? You're not that sly and I'm not that stupid.) Cry me a freakin' river.
Here's a thought, Rick: if everyone who is even a single angstrom to the sociopolitical left of the current Pope seems to be criticizing your stance on a whole lot of issues, maybe it's not because you're a Christian and maybe it isn't because you believe in God. Maybe, just maybe, it's because you're a jackass.
Look around and you might notice that there are a wide variety of people out there in the world who are "people of faith" and who work in various public arenas from the perspective of their faith who are not receiving, or have not received, for some reason, the same kinds of criticism.
Try for a few minutes to see if you can figure out what the difference is between you and them, Rick. And if you can't figure it out, ask Jimmy Carter, 'cause believe me, mon ami, he knows.
Points to ponder,
Kath
This breaks my heart.
It isn't the dogs, it's the owners. Ban breeding and crack down on backyard breeders, not every (&%(*&)$(*& dog! Make spaying and neutering mandatory for the breed, but don't take them away from their families.
About 99% of pit bulls are not the problem, and this won't solve it.
Some people think Fes is a pit bull puppy, although I am not sure why. If someone tried to separate us, I'd have to move. Seriously. You can't have my dog, freaks!
The basic idea of eminent domain is a good one; you can seize land for schools and roads and such, things that are in general use by and benefit the public.
When the Supreme Court made some "modifications" to eminent domain earlier this month, I knew it would not be long before the greedy land freaks here in the Bay area started taking people's land for no other reason than for profit.
What does please me is that this hideous act of legalized theft seems to be uniting both Liberals and Conservatives. It is good to know that we can still come together for a common cause; maybe there's hope for us yet.
The ACLU has a good Reform the PATRIOT Act page and blog to keep people aware of the continuing challenges that are occurring as the USAPA threatens to sunset and the Bush administration tries to make it permanent.
As always, Molly Ivins talks to the threat against Public Television much more articulately than I could ever hope. Since I don't like it when newspapers require you to register in order to read things, I've pasted it here for your enjoyment.
AUSTIN -- I was watching the PBS science program "Nova" the other night and spotted the liberal bias right away. I knew it would be there because Ken Tomlinson, the Bush-appointed chairman of the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), says the network is riddled with leftist leanings. Sure enough, in a program on tsunamis and what causes them, the show blamed it on shifting tectonic plates in the earth's surface. Then the graphic shows these two tectonic plates grinding against each other -- suddenly, the one on the left sort of falls down, and the big, aggressive plate on the right jumps on top of it, causing a killer tsunami. See? Wouldn't have happened on Fox.
I have listened patiently to years of right-wing bull about liberal bias in the media, but let us be perfectly clear about what is happening at PBS. Big Bird is not in favor of affirmative action. Bert and Ernie are not gay. Miss Piggy is not a feminist. "The Three Tenors," "Antiques Roadshow," "Masterpiece Theater," "Wall Street Week" and nature programs do not have a political agenda. "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" is biased in favor of boring, old, white guys who appear on painfully well-balanced panels. "Washington Week in Review" is a showcase for "Inside the Beltway," conventional wisdom, power-parroting, political-geekhead, Establishment journalism -- there is nothing liberal about it.
But there is a plot to politicize public broadcasting. It is plain as a pikestaff, and it is coming from the Right. It is obvious, undeniable and happening right now. The Bush administration is introducing a political agenda to public broadcasting. They are using the lame pretext that PBS is somehow liberal to justify it into a propaganda organ for the government. That is precisely what the board of CPB was set up to prevent 40 years ago; it is there to be a firewall between public broadcasting and political pressure. Ken Tomlinson is a disgrace to the purpose of that board, he has a political agenda and is engaging in a raw display of ideological bullying. The right-wingers in the House of Representatives are backing his power play with a threat to cut off funding for PBS entirely.
Tomlinson's claim of liberal bias at PBS is based on the program "NOW with Bill Moyers," even though Moyers' program frequently featured guests on the Right. Moyers is now retired, and the show has been cut to half an hour. Tomlinson "balanced" it with a weekly program by the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal, who don't even bother to pretend to be objective: They are right-wing beyond argument. Tomlinson actually spent $10,000 of the taxpayers' money to pay some consultant to find bias in Moyers' program but has never released the results of that "study."
Tomlinson, himself a former head of Voice of America in the Reagan administration and a retired editor Reader's Digest, has been an active right-winger since I first met him in 1974. He is also the Bush-appointed chair of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and other official arms of the government's propaganda machine. He is a Bush information apparatchik. It is quite clear he believes PBS and NPR should also function as cheerleaders for the government.
His choice for president of the CPB is Patricia Harrison, who is such a Republican activist she was elected co-chair of the Republican National Committee, where she was particularly noted for attacking Hillary Clinton. This is beyond open partisanship. Harrison is currently at State, where she oversees that department's propaganda arm, including the production "news segments" openly intended to support Bush administration policy. She has testified before Congress about the value of such "news segments" in swaying public opinion.
When Richard Nixon attacked PBS 35 years ago, the Republican chairman of CPB resigned in protest over the political interference. The impeccably Republican Ralph Rogers of Dallas led a nationwide effort to stop the malicious meddling. Where's a decent Republican when you need one?
I've read all those studies that show people on the Right lack the gift of empathy. I can see they have a real hard time imagining themselves as people on welfare or as blacks in East Texas -- that's quite a stretch even for white bleeding hearts like me. What I don't get is their inability to do the simplest exercise in elementary fairness -- how would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot?
Let's pretend Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 election. Who do you want her to appoint chairman of CPB? James Carville? Noam Chomsky? Or should she show how much she understands the importance of the independence of public broadcasting by naming an esteemed Republican, say John Danforth or Alan Simpson or Richard Lugar? How about anyone who understands that the function of journalism is not to toady to those in power but to challenge them? Is that too much to ask?
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.
COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Originally Published on Thursday June 16, 2005
Today I will turn in my final paper for the semester, which means I'm DONE with school until the fall. YAY! I decided not to take anything this summer because none of the courses interested me. Today was also the day we request classes for fall, and I've asked for both Archiving and Web Design. I said I only wanted one, and the school will let me know which one I get to take in a few weeks. It took me an hour to get to the Request page, largely because it was the first day and courses tend to be on a first come, first serve basis. This will be the third time I've requested the Web Design course, maybe I'll be one of the lucky winners this time around.
It was a pretty good morning until fear reared its ugly head and I read that Oklahoma lawmakers have just passed a resolution asking that all gay-themed children's books and "other age-inappropriate material" be moved to the adult section of public libraries. The resolution is requesting resolution asks libraries to confine homosexually themed books and other age-inappropriate material to areas exclusively for adult access and distribution.
In the vast majority of American libraries all patrons have access to, and can check out, all items in a library, regardless of age*. So in order to do as this resolution requests, librarians are going to have to create separate gay collections, of adult and teen and childrens' materials, restricted to adults (because "access to" means "looking at"). I guess they will also have to be patrolled as well, to ensure that kids don't happen to find a book where a character is anything less than completely heterosexual.
Don't get me wrong; it's entirely appropriate for parents to make decisions about what their children are exposed to. However, it is not appropriate to make sweeping judgments and to effectively ban people from unintentionally coming across material they may or may not agree with. If we could do that, I'd prefer we start with something like Mein Kampf. But that still wouldn't be right.
What if books with interracial couples are next, or books with single parents in them? I mean, we don't necessarily know how they became single parents, do we?
The whole thing just makes me sad about some of the things going on in America, again.
*I know some places do restrict R-rated videos, and I have heard of libraries where children are restricted to the children's collection, but those are few and far between, and I'd imagine most libraries in OK don't operate that way. Yet.
So the judge in the England case decided to declare a mistrial, saying that he didn't think she understood what she was doing was wrong and won't accept her guilty plea. What crap!
Of COURSE she knew what she was doing; they all did. And it was wrong. But hey, why let the U.S. troops take responsibility for their actions? Most of them were just reservists, so why hold them up to any kind of moral standard???
I knew the U.S. was going to find a way out of letting the folks at Abu Ghraib walk, but this is particularly innovative. And repugnant.
This week has seen some strange news stories; there are three in particular that alarm me in some way.
Here they are, in no particular order of vexation:
When I'm already feeling really down and stressed, this kind of crap makes me want to stay in bed all the more. Sometimes I really do think America is doomed, but not in the way the Christian right wishes it was.
Creepy. Just...creepy. And wrong. Feels wrong. And icky.
Now, I realize these people probably ran up huge legal bills and I suppose this is one way to pay off some debts, but...I mean, something is just SO WRONG with this.
And as a bonus, did you know that Shiavo's parents are named Schindler? I can hardly wait for the tabloid headlines. Shudder...
I really with I knew the back story on this whole thing. I just can't begin to imagine what is really up with all of these people.
Book of the Night Club: Olga's Story (review copy), by Stephanie Williams.
Anyone who wonders why public education is languishing in the United States need look no further for examples than this article. I am deeply ashamed that an article like this is able to be written in regard to what goes on in public education in my country. And that is seems to be acceptable makes it that much worse.
I realize that textbooks never tell the whole story, and sometimes even don't tell half of the story particularly well. That is why I dislike them. But this...
I am sorry that the parents in these religious organizations are so threatened by their children's sexuality, and that their boundaries are so blurred that can't see that their children need to be allowed to grow up and make their own choices. They obviously don't feel that they are able to communicate to their children adequately, and that they have to create the illusion that their ideas are the only possible way to live.
Sounds like they don't have a lot of faith in their faith, doesn't it?
You asked, so I'm telling...
I do not know Terri Schiavo, and I can't pretend to despite the copious amounts of information that has kept us abreast of her situation throughout the years. The whole thing seems creepy, and I feel that there are large parts of the puzzle missing that might not come to light until long after the whole thing is resolved.
I do know that she put herself in this " persistent vegetative state" by taking diet drugs; this tells me that her appearance was paramount to her, and helps me to believe that she did tell her husband that she would not want to live as she has been.
I do not know her husband's true motivations for wanting to end her life, and I can't pretend to. Again, we don't know the whole story there, and never will because one of the parties involved can't tell us her side.
I do know that I would not like to "live" this way, and neither would my husband; we have discussed it extensively and will be updating our living wills. Still, I think the only way she can pass away is cruel; surely there must be a better way to humanely end her life than starving her to death.
I know that Jeb Bush should not be granted custody of Terri Schiavo, because that would be wrong. If anything, that is something her parents should have tried if they already haven't. I feel that the Republicans see this more as a religious issue than one about Terri; I don't think they're really thinking of her at all. Congress can't get together to balance the budget or find enough money to fund educational programs, but they can all roll in off the Golf Course on a Sunday for Terri Schiavo. Not that she isn't important; but as I said, I don't feel that it's really about her.
I know that her parents love her, and that they genuinely do want what is best for their child. They love her, and for some reason feel that she can improve (although it's been made pretty clear that Mrs. Schiavo won't ever be able to be "present" and aware). But I wonder if their hatred for her husband is guiding their moves to some extent.
I want to believe in miracles, but I can't. I think Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die.
Book of the Night: If You Lived Here, I'd Know Your Name: News from Small-Town Alaska, by Heather Lende.
California's ban on same-sex marriage has been ruled unconstitutional!
Thank you, Judge Kramer.
This just makes me feel all warm inside. I know so many couples who have been together seemingly forever, and just want some legal recognition of their commitment. I know that not all gays and lesbians believe in or support gay marriage, but I think that couples should at least have the option. And it's also nice to see a little nick in the conservative wall (you know George Bush is in the chapel right now praying that California falls into the sea so he can try to pretend it never existed, just like reproductive rights).
Try to look at it this way, homophobes: even if your son turns out to be gay or your daughter turns out to be a lesbian, you can *still* look forward to planning a big, beautiful wedding.
All this AND it looks like I'm gonna be able to ask for a Kolchack the Night Stalker DVD set for my birthday with a high likelihood of getting it!
Hurrah!
Book of the Night: Fierce Attachments: A Memoir, by Vivian Gornick
This, for starters. The survey, sponsored by the James L. Knight Foundation, found that 35% of the high school students surveyed thought the “First Amendment goes to far in the rights it guarantees.” The study also found that three-quarters of the students think that flag burning is illegal and that “they don’t know how they feel about the First Amendment, or they take it for granted.” This sort of ignorance and apathy from the next generation makes me nervous.
I think the difference can be attributed to the change in the political climate over the past half decade. Look at the PATRIOT Act. Look at these challenges to our civil liberties that are made in the name of protecting us from terror. Look at how the government has limited our access to information and to music and literary works for the sake of the corporations (particularly the publishing and entertainment industries). Is it any surprise that high schoolers who have grown up in this environment have such an ambivalent relationship with their own freedoms? Christ, it's like a giant Omaha.
The political climate in America has become so contentious and so nasty. Anyone who disagrees with the views of the moral majority is unpatriotic or doesn’t care about the welfare of children or is a communist. And anyone who disagrees with the liberals is an idiot or a bigot. There seems to be no intelligent debate, just name calling (and that goes for many “liberals” too). Even in Congress, it’s the left versus the right, and there are so few examples of true cooperation or bipartisanship anymore. Everyone is just so polarized, and that makes it more likely that the people in power (the conservatives) are going to do what’s good for them and not what’s good for the country.
I read an interesting article by Frank Rich in the New York Times, about how Clint Eastwood, a Republican, has been painted by the Right as a communist due to his recently released film, Million Dollar Baby. I won’t spoil the movie, but I’ll just say that it touches on a certain theme that the Christian Right is not fond of (though it also touches on several other themes that are a favorite of the Right). Eastwood defends his film and discusses how the political climate has changed in recent years:
“Maybe I’m getting to the age when I’m starting to be senile or nostalgic or both, but people are so angry now,” he adds. “You used to be able to disagree with people and still be friends. Now you hear these talk shows, and everyone who believes differently from you is a moron and an idiot - both on the right and the left.” His own politics defy neat categorization. He’s supported Democrats (including Gray Davis in the pre-Schwarzenegger era) as well as Republicans, professes the libertarian creed of “less government” and “was never a big enthusiast for going to Iraq but never spoke against it once the troops were there.” In other words, he’s in the same middle as most Americans. “I vote for what I like,” he says. “I’m not a loyalist to any party. I’m only a loyalist to the country.” That’s no longer good enough, apparently, for those who feel an election victory has empowered them to enforce a strict doctrine of political and spiritual correctness.
Eastwood is one of the last few free-thinkers in this country – a man who votes with his conscience rather than based on the party affiliation of the candidate. And this is how I think it should be. During the whole presidential election insanity, I thought about campaigning for Kerry. But really, the people that I spoke with about opportunities disconcerted me. Their whole argument was that they wanted to get Bush out of the White House, which is hardly a bad thing. But they really had nothing to add about Kerry being great or being the best guy for the job. I wasn’t willing to tell people to vote against one candidate by voting for the other. Is that supposed to inspire anyone? It’s that kind of narrow-mindedness on both sides – this red state/blue state mentality – that is tearing our country apart.
I wish I had some words of wisdom about all this. I know I’ve kind of gone off on a tangent, but I think all of this is connected in some way to how our nation and our political system is changing. And I really don’t know what we can do about it. I wish that people would take a lesson from Eastwood and be true to your values, not to a party. Keep an open mind. Respect what the other side has to say and try to work with them, not against them. Remember that this country was built upon the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, and that they should be upheld in all spheres of American life. The government is supposed to be the voice for the entire population, not just those in the red states.
And so it begins. The Bush Administration shakes it's finger angrily in the direction of PBS as Margaret Spellings, the newly-minted Secretary of Education, lets it be known that in her world, there are no federally-funded children's television programs with homosexuals on it. Or rather, there shouldn't be. Or rather, Despite the fact that PBS strives to show the diversity of the United States by featuring families that all children may conceivably have, we have decided that not all children deserve to be validated in this way. Just hide the homos or we may stop funding you.
Okay, I may be overacting a bit, (maybe she thought that because the episode was called "Sugartime" there might be illicit displays of affection) but this does unsettle me. If one of the first things that the new Secretary of Education does is threaten an institution like PBS because she isn't personally comfortable with something, where do you go from there? Only up, I hope.
I will say that I understand that PBS had decided to remove the show before Spellings started squalling, but in some ways I have a hard time believing it because it was shot nearly a year ago. Why pull it now? What makes something on that show unacceptable now that was okay last March when it was filmed?
I love PBS; before cable it was really the only place on television to find out about the actual world. How other people live, what their experiences were. Growing up in Nebraska I craved otherness, sure there was something out there aside from the white, emotionally repressed, politically conservative people I was raised around. And PBS showed me that there was.
I don't know what I'd do if I had a child and we saw a children's show that featured a polygamous family group, or one that practiced polyamory (which I don't necessarily think is wrong; I just don't feel it's a good type of relationship for children to grow up around). I would be hard pressed to explain what my children were seeing to them, but I would. As carefully and as calmly as I could. Because that's what you have to do. Because that's how the world is now; people can and do feel comfortable living in it in all kinds of ways. Which is overall a good thing.
While I am not completely sure that W and his ilk could take down PBS, I don't like the way the agenda for their "mandate" seems to include making children of gays and lesbians (or any child, for that matter) feel invisible. Taking away an image of a gay family does not erase them from society, the same way that abstinence education (which is cheerfully Federally-funded, or should I say blessed?) does not decrease the likelihood that teens will have premarital sex. It's just more of the turtle behavior that the Bush administration encourages, which isn't the actual world. My PBS affiliate is showing Postcards From Buster tomorrow, and my TiVo is at the ready. I'll watch it, and I'll be watching you, Dub. Don't mess with my PBS.
Book of the Night: Where She Came from: A Daughter's Search for Her Mother's History, by Helen Epstein
There was a time when I didn't mind Republicans. Seriously. I know, I know, but it used to be that Republicans weren't all that bad and talking to one didn't make my head hurt. Monied? Definitely. Elitist? Most certainly. But there was a time when there was a kinder, gentler Republican. Remember FDR? When I realized he was a Republican I was floored; I mean, he actually cared about people, wanted to create jobs and everything. I can even relate to some of the Republican "values", because I consider myself overall fiscally conservative. But what happened to the socially liberal Republican? And don't laugh, because there were some. Remember when nobody thought that Sealab 2020 was a real cartoon and just something I made up? Trust me on this one, too.
Christine Todd Whitman has a book out that looks interesting and which I will certainly read. It's about how polarized the Republican Part has become and how the dominant Right's agenda on race, the environment, sexuality, women's rights (via abortion) and seemingly everything else that touches all of our lives has the potential to tear our country apart. I like her term "social fundamentalists", so I think I'll like the book.
One of the reasons that I think that party has changed so much is that they're experiencing a sort of "not in my backyard" syndrome. Like whites in the 60's who wanted equal rights for blacks but didn't necessarily want to live next door to them. Now that their vague generalities are materializing in front of them, it's a different matter altogether.
Book of the Night (Friday) : Ragtime in Simla, by Barbara Cleverly.
I heard the saddest thing last night...two women wondering about how Bush got reelected given his low approval rating. They mention that they didn't vote themselves because it "wouldn't make a difference", but they were very depressed about the Inauguration.
Excuse me? If you didn't even try to stop him being elected to a second term, shut up. It may suck to be all of us right now, but if you voted at least you took a stand. There are people in my office who are as concerned about the upcoming Second Act of the Regime as I am, but they didn't vote. You know what? Your inaction helped elect him, so in some ways he's more your problem than mine. My conscience is clear.
But let's not get started on the Inauguration. The American Progress Action Fund sheds a little bit of light on how the enormous cost of the festivities could more reasonably spent.
$40 million: Cost of Bush inaugural ball festivities, not counting security costs.
$2,000: Amount FDR spent on the inaugural in 1945…about $20,000 in today's dollars.
$20,000: Cost of yellow roses purchased for inaugural festivities by D.C.'s Ritz Carlton.
200: Number of Humvees outfitted with top-of-the-line armor for troops in Iraq that could have been purchased with the amount of money blown on the inauguration.
$10,000: Price of an inaugural package at the Fairmont Hotel, which includes a Beluga caviar and Dom Perignon reception, a chauffeured Rolls Royce and two actors posing as "faux" Secret Service agents, complete with black sunglasses and cufflink walkie-talkies.
400M: Pounds of lobster provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the exclusive Mandarin Oriental hotel.
3,000: Number of "Laura Bush Cowboy cookies" provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the Mandarin hotel.
$1: Amount per guest President Carter spent on snacks for guests at his inaugural parties. To stick to a tight budget, he served pretzels, peanuts, crackers and cheese and had cash bars.
22 million: Number of children in regions devastated by the tsunami who could have received vaccinations and preventive health care with the amount of money spent on the inauguration.
1,160,000: Number of girls who could be sent to school for a year in Afghanistan with the amount of money lavished on the inauguration.
$15,000: The down payment to rent a fur coat paid by one gala attendee who didn't want the hassle of schlepping her own through the airport.
$200,500: Price of a room package at D.C.'s Mandarin Oriental, including presidential suite, chauffeured Mercedes limo and outfits from Neiman Marcus.
2,500: Number of U.S. troops used to stand guard as President Bush takes his oath of office. Because they have no more pressing duties.
26,000: Number of Kevlar vests for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that could be purchased for $40 million.
$290: Bonus that could go to each American solider serving in Iraq, if inauguration funds were used for that purpose.
$6.3 million: Amount contributed by the finance and investment industry, which works out to be 25 percent of all the money collected.
$17 million: Amount of money the White House is forcing the cash-strapped city of Washington, D.C., to pony up for inauguration security.
9: Percentage of D.C. residents who voted for Bush in 2004.
66: Percentage of Americans who think this over-the-top inauguration should have been scaled back.
Considering the difficult time our Nation and the world is experiencing right now, what better gesture could our President make than to have a very small, deeply scaled-back inaugural and visibly use the money elsewhere? He's barely out of the starting gate on Term II and already he's showing the world how little he knows and cares about it in general.
Forty-one years ago Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and delivered his I Have A Dream speech. I still get goosebumps every time I hear it; the beauty of the words is almost indescribable. I might not feel this way if his dream had become reality, if his ideals of brotherhood and equality, freedom and justice had stopped being just that--ideals. But they didn't.
The America of today is a different one than Dr. King envisioned; indeed, it's quite different from an America I ever thought I'd live in. In George W. Bush's America, there is no inspirational dream; there's just a nightmare for those who are not rich, straight, and white. In Bush's nightmare, you get all sorts of footnotes, addenda, and caveats. In W's world, the speech goes like this:
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." [1] I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. [2] I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. [3] I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. [4] I have a dream today.
1. Equality for all, except for homosexuals. In Bush's America, marriage is a right reserved for straight citizens. Ideally Christian ones of the same race.
2. Brotherhood for all, except for Muslims. If racial profiling, snooping through library records, and tapping phone lines don't do it, surely special cards will do.
3. Freedom and justice for all, except for those who have oil. Those people will have to be bombed into submission, even if it means war with no end in sight. No matter how many members of our Military have to die to do it.
4. No prejudice against anyone, except against all women (especially those who want the right to control their own bodies), blacks, browns, gays, the poor, liberals, and anyone whose definition of patriotism doesn't fit.
Myself, I'm pretty fiscally conservative, and while I consider myself liberal overall I'm not exactly a bleeding heart. But I believe in Dr. King, and what he wanted, and that his dream might be the only thing that can get our country back on track.