So last week when the Pro Bowl rosters were announced, I texted my Mom and youngest sister (aka Lizard) to do a post mortem. Several Panthers are either primary or alternate selections...far fewer than I would like, of course, but I'm a little biased. (It can't help but escape my notice that, once again, the teams with the greatest national exposure get the most players selected, regardless of performance. HELLO, Washington Redskins, I'm talking to you.)
Anyway, the Panthers left tackle Jordan Gross is a primary selection for the NFC. I voted for Gross and Travelle Wharton not because they're Panthers, but because they anchor an offensive line that's vastly improved as a unit this year. Mom and Lizard, however, disagreed, citing Gross' numerous false start penalties. I argued that false starts are just part of being an offensive lineman*...but I wondered - Is Gross really worse at counting than his counterparts in the rest of the NFL?
Lucky for me, Doug Farrar (a contributor to FootballOutsiders.com, the best Web site in the history of the Internet) looked at this just a few weeks ago. It turns out that, while the Panthers lead the league in false starts, the biggest individual offender is tight end Dante Rosario. Gross is tied with rookie right tackle Jeff Otah at four calls each, the same as the Chicago Bears' Josh Beekman. All are behind the Cowboys' Flozell Adams (six) and the Colts' Ryan Diem (five).
If memory serves, the Panthers ditched the zone blocking schemes they used last year, and now frequently bring up everybody but the ball boy to help clear the way for DeAngelo Williams and Jonathon Stewart. For every big running play, there's a kick-ass block from fullback Brad Hoover or tight end Jeff King or prodigal wide receiver Muhsin Muhammed. (At least two of Williams' TDs against the Giants last night are good examples of King blocks. I probably missed more, but I tend to watch King because I'm madly in love with him.)
Interestingly, earlier this season center Ryan Kalil took the blame for the penalties, saying he had trouble with the snaps. May or may not be true, but it's something to think about other than the reasoning that the guy who gets called is always the one who messed up.
*This is completely different from when I bitch about Chris Gamble, and someone inevitably points out that getting burned is just part of playing in the secondary, because I have an irrational dislike for Chris Gamble.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Fires, space heaters and other things that shouldn't be
Let me tell you a story that's mildly funny now that I'm past it. I moved into my first apartment in the late summer of 2004. In all the first-time grown-up stuff like signing up for cable and utility service, I only ran into one problem. The woman who'd lived in my apartment before me had developed Alzheimer's, and so her family had taken on power of attorney, which in this case included closing out her accounts. Most services were fine with this, except for one - Piedmont Natural Gas, which insisted (with the bureaucratic certainty that only a company with a monopoly can truly summon) that the person whose name was on the account had to be the one to close it - never mind that that person didn't have the mental capacity to do so, let alone the legal authority.
I moved in at the beginning of August, and by the time the gas company figured out what "power of attorney" meant, it was November, and it was cold. I called to make an appointment to have my heat turned on, only to be told there might be as long as a two-to-three week wait now that demand had increased along with the cold weather. I had a series of very unpleasant nights swaddled in every blanket I owned - I was also getting over strep throat at the time, FWIW. And one night, unable to sleep because I was so cold, I bit the bullet.
My stove was electric. I was raised by a former fire marshal and arson investigator, so believe me, I was perfectly aware of how stupid I was about to be - but I felt like I didn't have any other choice. I set the oven to its lowest temperature, opened the door and curled up on the kitchen floor. I slept pretty well, considering.
For me, this was a short period of inconvenience that I knew would pass. But for many people, that "danger vs. hypothermia" battle is one they fight every day through the winter.
On Thursday night here in Winston-Salem, a four-year-old girl died in a house fire that authorities believe started with a space heater. It's the city's third fire fatality in as many weeks, and the second related to space heaters - the day before Thanksgiving, a woman died when a space heater caught her bedspread on fire. A space heater caused another house fire in Greensboro this week, in which a woman and her two granddaughters were injured. Now, these families aren't stupid, and they're not lazy. They just weighed the options and decided that the risk was worth it.
"We are more concerned now with the economy the way it is, if people can't afford to buy oil heat or pay their gas bill, then the alternatives would be to use some type of portable heater," said Norman Mitchell, the city's deputy fire marshal to the Winston-Salem Journal.
It wasn't fire that killed and wounded these people and destroyed their property. It was poverty. The family of the girl killed Thursday had their heat turned off last winter by my friends at Piedmont Natural Gas when they couldn't pay a $700 bill. That's the cost of a f*cking widescreen TV at Wal-Mart. And now a child is dead.
So what can we do? How do we fix this? We could outlaw dangerous space heaters...but that would leave some poor families without heat entirely. We could push for more regulations governing fire-retardant blankets and drapes, but that's still only a band-aid - it doesn't get at the real problem. Poverty is the macro-level issue here. I'm concerned with something more immediate.
Only something like 20 percent of homes in the U.S. use natural gas, but even the cost of propane and electric heat are tied to the price of oil - which has dropped to a three-year low. Yet the Department of Energy predicts that natural gas prices here in the Southeast will rise between one and two percent this winter. I would like to know why that is. (And don't tell me it's because it's going to be a colder winter. I can fill up my Saturn for half what it cost in June.) I would like for Piedmont Natural Gas - the state-designated provider for my area - to explain to me why a child died over $700. Then I would like my state legislators to tell me what they're doing to ensure that this utility - which I have no choice but to use - isn't gouging the sh*t out of us.
By the way, the other state-protected utility, Duke Energy, has a program called "Share the Warmth," where customers can donate money to a fund that provides heat for poor families. Piedmont Natural Gas has no such program to my knowledge. (And, in case I haven't mentioned, their customer service is sh*t.)
I'm mad as hell, and part of that is a natural desire to look for somebody to blame. A lot of people will blame the family who brought a space heater inside and left it unattended. Some will just throw up their hands at the unavoidable tragedy of it all. Me - once, just once, I want someone other than the grieving relatives to lose sleep.
I moved in at the beginning of August, and by the time the gas company figured out what "power of attorney" meant, it was November, and it was cold. I called to make an appointment to have my heat turned on, only to be told there might be as long as a two-to-three week wait now that demand had increased along with the cold weather. I had a series of very unpleasant nights swaddled in every blanket I owned - I was also getting over strep throat at the time, FWIW. And one night, unable to sleep because I was so cold, I bit the bullet.
My stove was electric. I was raised by a former fire marshal and arson investigator, so believe me, I was perfectly aware of how stupid I was about to be - but I felt like I didn't have any other choice. I set the oven to its lowest temperature, opened the door and curled up on the kitchen floor. I slept pretty well, considering.
For me, this was a short period of inconvenience that I knew would pass. But for many people, that "danger vs. hypothermia" battle is one they fight every day through the winter.
On Thursday night here in Winston-Salem, a four-year-old girl died in a house fire that authorities believe started with a space heater. It's the city's third fire fatality in as many weeks, and the second related to space heaters - the day before Thanksgiving, a woman died when a space heater caught her bedspread on fire. A space heater caused another house fire in Greensboro this week, in which a woman and her two granddaughters were injured. Now, these families aren't stupid, and they're not lazy. They just weighed the options and decided that the risk was worth it.
"We are more concerned now with the economy the way it is, if people can't afford to buy oil heat or pay their gas bill, then the alternatives would be to use some type of portable heater," said Norman Mitchell, the city's deputy fire marshal to the Winston-Salem Journal.
It wasn't fire that killed and wounded these people and destroyed their property. It was poverty. The family of the girl killed Thursday had their heat turned off last winter by my friends at Piedmont Natural Gas when they couldn't pay a $700 bill. That's the cost of a f*cking widescreen TV at Wal-Mart. And now a child is dead.
So what can we do? How do we fix this? We could outlaw dangerous space heaters...but that would leave some poor families without heat entirely. We could push for more regulations governing fire-retardant blankets and drapes, but that's still only a band-aid - it doesn't get at the real problem. Poverty is the macro-level issue here. I'm concerned with something more immediate.
Only something like 20 percent of homes in the U.S. use natural gas, but even the cost of propane and electric heat are tied to the price of oil - which has dropped to a three-year low. Yet the Department of Energy predicts that natural gas prices here in the Southeast will rise between one and two percent this winter. I would like to know why that is. (And don't tell me it's because it's going to be a colder winter. I can fill up my Saturn for half what it cost in June.) I would like for Piedmont Natural Gas - the state-designated provider for my area - to explain to me why a child died over $700. Then I would like my state legislators to tell me what they're doing to ensure that this utility - which I have no choice but to use - isn't gouging the sh*t out of us.
By the way, the other state-protected utility, Duke Energy, has a program called "Share the Warmth," where customers can donate money to a fund that provides heat for poor families. Piedmont Natural Gas has no such program to my knowledge. (And, in case I haven't mentioned, their customer service is sh*t.)
I'm mad as hell, and part of that is a natural desire to look for somebody to blame. A lot of people will blame the family who brought a space heater inside and left it unattended. Some will just throw up their hands at the unavoidable tragedy of it all. Me - once, just once, I want someone other than the grieving relatives to lose sleep.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
A grammar lesson for area baseball fans
Winston-Salem's minor league baseball team announced its new name/mascot today. The team formerly known as the Warthogs (and the Spirits before that) will now be......The Dash. (One of my co-workers just asked me, "As in 'Mrs.'?")
Personally, I was always partial to the Spirits - not just because that was what they were called when I was a kid and I don't like change - because I just liked the carefree, soaring sound of it. But my college's mascot is also the Spirits, and I can tell you from experience that it's extremely difficult to represent graphically. Most abstract team names - the Browns, the Cardinal, etc. - either ditch the mascot or go with something else altogether - like the Carolina Tarheels, whose mascot is a giant psychotic-looking bovine.
And I hated "The Warthogs." I'm a firm believer that a team name should be unique to the area where it plays. Generic is bad, and the only thing connecting "Warthogs" to "Winston-Salem" was a bit of bush-league alliteration. This is why the "Jazz" belong in New Orleans, the "Ravens" in Baltimore, the "Hornets" in Charlotte and the "Packers" and "Steelers" in Wisconsin and Pittsburgh, respectively. Isn't a sports team supposed to represent local pride? How can it do that when its name sounds like it came out of a Random Nasty Animal Name Generator?
Which brings me to "The Dash." Again, I have no problem with abstract team names, but they can be awkward until people get used to them (like the Tarheels and their not-at-all-native-to-NC mascot with which NO ONE but me seems to have an issue...). Whoever came up with "The Dash" probably thought he/she was doing exactly what I mentioned above - choosing a team name inexorably tied to Winston-Salem. Here's my problem: that thing between "Winston" and "Salem" IS NOT A DASH. It is A FRACKING HYPHEN.
And yes, I'm upset about this. I'm a writer; it's part of my job to get pissy when people screw with the English language. Especially peeve-inducing is the fact that the dash and hyphen are two of my favorite punctuation marks. (Yes, I have favorite punctuation marks. Shut up.) Hyphens connect words that belong together only temporarily, finding a clear linguistic intent in random strings of words - "a good looking man" and a "good-looking man" are two different things (unless of course the hot guy also has really good vision). A dash is a semi-colon with an attitude - I love dashes so much that part of my editing process is making sure I take half of them out. (See how I just did that? Aaaaah, it makes me happier than Ben & Jerry's.)
So I'm officially reserving judgment on "The Dash." As long as people don't start referring to hyphens as dashes and citing the local baseball team as evidence, I'll stay neutral.
Personally, I was always partial to the Spirits - not just because that was what they were called when I was a kid and I don't like change - because I just liked the carefree, soaring sound of it. But my college's mascot is also the Spirits, and I can tell you from experience that it's extremely difficult to represent graphically. Most abstract team names - the Browns, the Cardinal, etc. - either ditch the mascot or go with something else altogether - like the Carolina Tarheels, whose mascot is a giant psychotic-looking bovine.
And I hated "The Warthogs." I'm a firm believer that a team name should be unique to the area where it plays. Generic is bad, and the only thing connecting "Warthogs" to "Winston-Salem" was a bit of bush-league alliteration. This is why the "Jazz" belong in New Orleans, the "Ravens" in Baltimore, the "Hornets" in Charlotte and the "Packers" and "Steelers" in Wisconsin and Pittsburgh, respectively. Isn't a sports team supposed to represent local pride? How can it do that when its name sounds like it came out of a Random Nasty Animal Name Generator?
Which brings me to "The Dash." Again, I have no problem with abstract team names, but they can be awkward until people get used to them (like the Tarheels and their not-at-all-native-to-NC mascot with which NO ONE but me seems to have an issue...). Whoever came up with "The Dash" probably thought he/she was doing exactly what I mentioned above - choosing a team name inexorably tied to Winston-Salem. Here's my problem: that thing between "Winston" and "Salem" IS NOT A DASH. It is A FRACKING HYPHEN.
And yes, I'm upset about this. I'm a writer; it's part of my job to get pissy when people screw with the English language. Especially peeve-inducing is the fact that the dash and hyphen are two of my favorite punctuation marks. (Yes, I have favorite punctuation marks. Shut up.) Hyphens connect words that belong together only temporarily, finding a clear linguistic intent in random strings of words - "a good looking man" and a "good-looking man" are two different things (unless of course the hot guy also has really good vision). A dash is a semi-colon with an attitude - I love dashes so much that part of my editing process is making sure I take half of them out. (See how I just did that? Aaaaah, it makes me happier than Ben & Jerry's.)
So I'm officially reserving judgment on "The Dash." As long as people don't start referring to hyphens as dashes and citing the local baseball team as evidence, I'll stay neutral.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Something nice about President Bush
In honor of World AIDS Day, let me do something I don't do very often - praise President George W. Bush. In his emphasis (maybe even over-emphasis) on the "war on terror," one of the things that gets lost is the fact that the Bush Administration has funded AIDS treatment around the world at a much higher level than this country did before he took office. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar) pays for 2 million people suffering from AIDS to have life-saving medicine, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. In an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, Bush named Pepfar as one of the accomplishments with which he's most proud.
Another proud accomplishment - though one that's not exactly fully "accomplished" - is the liberation of Afghanistan. First Lady Laura Bush went on "Meet the Press" Sunday to talk about life in Afghanistan, particularly for women and girls. I thought she did a great job, and she's obviously committed to this issue. I'm not sure why she hasn't been more vocal about it during her husband's term...But I'd dearly love to be a fly on the wall at Crawford or Camp David when she and George talk about how much better things in Afghanistan would be if he hadn't flitted off to Iraq, leaving the job unfinished.
Okay, sorry to get snarky. Today, just this once, I'm going to choose to leave aside the unmet potential of the Bush tenure, and focus on the people - millions of them - whose lives are actually better off thanks to President Bush.
Another proud accomplishment - though one that's not exactly fully "accomplished" - is the liberation of Afghanistan. First Lady Laura Bush went on "Meet the Press" Sunday to talk about life in Afghanistan, particularly for women and girls. I thought she did a great job, and she's obviously committed to this issue. I'm not sure why she hasn't been more vocal about it during her husband's term...But I'd dearly love to be a fly on the wall at Crawford or Camp David when she and George talk about how much better things in Afghanistan would be if he hadn't flitted off to Iraq, leaving the job unfinished.
Okay, sorry to get snarky. Today, just this once, I'm going to choose to leave aside the unmet potential of the Bush tenure, and focus on the people - millions of them - whose lives are actually better off thanks to President Bush.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Cabinet speculation, or, Who does Bill Richardson have to kill to get noticed in this town???
By now even the meteors circling the Planet Formerly Known as Pluto have heard that Sen. Hillary Clinton is “on track” to be President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of State. My reaction is a decided “meh.” I can understand the pressure Obama is under to offer Clinton a senior post, and she is certainly qualified to do *something* in the Cabinet. But State? I just don’t see it.
If I were asked what Clinton’s A-number one expertise is, I wouldn’t say foreign affairs or diplomacy. When it comes to domestic issues like education or health care, I couldn’t think of anyone better. But not State. And there’s the small issue of her disagreeing with Obama on many fundamental foreign relations issues – she still won’t admit that supporting the war in Iraq was a mistake, for instance. With the exception of her goodwill trips as First Lady, she has zero foreign policy experience.
Of course, any Clinton appointment will bring up the elephant in the room – Bill’s finances. When his foundation has accepted shady donations from some of the same nations that the State Department will have to deal with, the neon light reading “Hel-LO! Conflict of Interest!” is flashing so frantically that I can’t help but wonder if Obama isn’t setting her up for failure. “Sorry, PUMAs, I tried to appoint Hillary to a post that matters, but that Big Bad Congress wouldn’t confirm her nomination. Oh, well.”
(Today one of my co-workers wondered if Obama weren’t just trying to get her out of the way. I say no, because first of all State is not exactly a chump job. But it’s an idea…How ’bout Joe Lieberman, Ambassador to Madagascar?)
Meanwhile, we have a former U.N. Ambassador and energy secretary who negotiated more peace agreements than Carter has liver pills, and who endorsed Obama early on to boot. Yep, my man Gov. Bill Richardson still can’t get any respect. You know where CNN has him? The Commerce Department. I don’t even know what they do.
In that vein, I don’t get Tom Daschle at Health and Human Services. Not only would HRC be a million times better here, Daschle’s wife (until recently) worked for a lobbying firm that represents the health industry. That’s not exactly the most reassuring thing in the world.
I’m more reassured by the leak that Tim Geithner will be the nominee for Treasury Secretary. As head of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve, Geithner’s been at ground zero of the financial crisis on Wall Street. And, at least according to my favorite economics professor, Geithner was warning about the sub-prime danger years ago. I like prescience. Also, he’s backed smaller commercial banks (the life-blood of credit in the 99.9% of the country that isn’t Wall Street), but also has the confidence of the big market guys.
At this point, it looks like the Obama team is still in trial-balloon mode – I won’t allow myself to get too happy or pissed off until he makes the actual nominations.
If I were asked what Clinton’s A-number one expertise is, I wouldn’t say foreign affairs or diplomacy. When it comes to domestic issues like education or health care, I couldn’t think of anyone better. But not State. And there’s the small issue of her disagreeing with Obama on many fundamental foreign relations issues – she still won’t admit that supporting the war in Iraq was a mistake, for instance. With the exception of her goodwill trips as First Lady, she has zero foreign policy experience.
Of course, any Clinton appointment will bring up the elephant in the room – Bill’s finances. When his foundation has accepted shady donations from some of the same nations that the State Department will have to deal with, the neon light reading “Hel-LO! Conflict of Interest!” is flashing so frantically that I can’t help but wonder if Obama isn’t setting her up for failure. “Sorry, PUMAs, I tried to appoint Hillary to a post that matters, but that Big Bad Congress wouldn’t confirm her nomination. Oh, well.”
(Today one of my co-workers wondered if Obama weren’t just trying to get her out of the way. I say no, because first of all State is not exactly a chump job. But it’s an idea…How ’bout Joe Lieberman, Ambassador to Madagascar?)
Meanwhile, we have a former U.N. Ambassador and energy secretary who negotiated more peace agreements than Carter has liver pills, and who endorsed Obama early on to boot. Yep, my man Gov. Bill Richardson still can’t get any respect. You know where CNN has him? The Commerce Department. I don’t even know what they do.
In that vein, I don’t get Tom Daschle at Health and Human Services. Not only would HRC be a million times better here, Daschle’s wife (until recently) worked for a lobbying firm that represents the health industry. That’s not exactly the most reassuring thing in the world.
I’m more reassured by the leak that Tim Geithner will be the nominee for Treasury Secretary. As head of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve, Geithner’s been at ground zero of the financial crisis on Wall Street. And, at least according to my favorite economics professor, Geithner was warning about the sub-prime danger years ago. I like prescience. Also, he’s backed smaller commercial banks (the life-blood of credit in the 99.9% of the country that isn’t Wall Street), but also has the confidence of the big market guys.
At this point, it looks like the Obama team is still in trial-balloon mode – I won’t allow myself to get too happy or pissed off until he makes the actual nominations.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Jon Meacham on "The Daily Show"
It's a banner day! Two of the people on my "People I Want to Have a Beer With" list discussing yet a third person on my "People I Want to Have a Beer With" list! Jon Meacham, an editor at Newsweek, goes on "The Daily Show" to talk about his new book on Andrew Jackson's presidency:
I know Jackson did horrible things, and was kind of a dick to boot, but I just can't help but love him. For better or worse, he changed the presidency forever. (And launched the Democratic Party, becoming the first president to pay off the national debt.) But, for the record...Yes, I know Jackson represented Tennessee and lived there when he was launching his political career, but he was from North Carolina.
Bonus: the interview goes into coverage of presidents and their candidates. Interesting...
I know Jackson did horrible things, and was kind of a dick to boot, but I just can't help but love him. For better or worse, he changed the presidency forever. (And launched the Democratic Party, becoming the first president to pay off the national debt.) But, for the record...Yes, I know Jackson represented Tennessee and lived there when he was launching his political career, but he was from North Carolina.
Bonus: the interview goes into coverage of presidents and their candidates. Interesting...
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Football day!
So my doomsday prediction about the Panthers losing to the Lions didn't come to pass, though my guys were down 10-0 at one point. Not even a TD by my future husband Jeff King (yay for the tight ends!) could help me shake that sense of foreboding........I'm just saying, set aside my step-dad's jinx and the Panthers' unfortunate propensity for losing to terrible teams. Daunte Culpepper made me nervous. It was in this very stadium three years ago that Chris Gamble destroyed the ligaments in Daunte's knee, and possibly his Hall of Fame career. Washed up, written off, Daunte has one last shot at redemption, in the very place where it all went south. If you'rer writing the Daunte Culpepper Story, how would you end it? Exactly.
Even though the Panthers were up 31-22, I was deeply freaked out to have to leave my house at 4 p.m. so that I could get to my nephew's "super bowl" on time. But the boys pulled it out, and now at 8-2 they're narrowly leading the division. Now, for the day's main event...
The "super bowl"/cheerleading competition was actually scheduled for yesterday. Yes, it rained all through Friday night and Saturday morning, but by the time I woke up Saturday, the sun was shining and the day was on its way to 70 degrees. But the geniuses in charge of the league decided that the field was too fragile to handle 22 80-lb. players at one time, so instead these nine and ten year olds found themselves playing at sunset in 40 degree weather.
There's not much better than watching little kids play football. Sure, most of them weigh less than their pads and helmets, but it's just so cool to see a 10-year-old lob a pass (!) and another 10-year-old actually catch it (even if it's a 10-year-old from the other team...). There weren't a ton of completions, thanks to the fact that the kids' hands were frozen blocks of ice. But they were hard-core into it. I wish I could say the same for the refs, who seemed to take a fairly casual attitude toward their officiating. It irritates me to see adults blow off anything that's so important to the kids involved.
My sister was justifiably pissed off that my nephew sat the bench the whole time, but I think he was more concerned about getting to someplace warm. Even though he wasn't having the best time in the world, I'm really proud of him for sticking it out for the whole season. And I'm even more pleased that no one cheap-shotted him after the whistle this time, because I really wasn't looking forward to beating up a little kid, even one from Mt. Airy.
But the best part came before the game started. The woman singing the national anthem was apparently under the impression that she was auditioning for "American Idol," judging by her unfortunate belting tendencies. Toward the end she blew out the microphone or something, because she started cutting in and out about the time we saw through the night that our flag was still there. Here's the cool part: all around me, I could hear random people picking up where she left off, singing along through the end. It was one of those cheesy moments that nevertheless give you chills for some reason. Maybe I'm just a goofball, but I thought it was awesome.
Even though the Panthers were up 31-22, I was deeply freaked out to have to leave my house at 4 p.m. so that I could get to my nephew's "super bowl" on time. But the boys pulled it out, and now at 8-2 they're narrowly leading the division. Now, for the day's main event...
The "super bowl"/cheerleading competition was actually scheduled for yesterday. Yes, it rained all through Friday night and Saturday morning, but by the time I woke up Saturday, the sun was shining and the day was on its way to 70 degrees. But the geniuses in charge of the league decided that the field was too fragile to handle 22 80-lb. players at one time, so instead these nine and ten year olds found themselves playing at sunset in 40 degree weather.
There's not much better than watching little kids play football. Sure, most of them weigh less than their pads and helmets, but it's just so cool to see a 10-year-old lob a pass (!) and another 10-year-old actually catch it (even if it's a 10-year-old from the other team...). There weren't a ton of completions, thanks to the fact that the kids' hands were frozen blocks of ice. But they were hard-core into it. I wish I could say the same for the refs, who seemed to take a fairly casual attitude toward their officiating. It irritates me to see adults blow off anything that's so important to the kids involved.
My sister was justifiably pissed off that my nephew sat the bench the whole time, but I think he was more concerned about getting to someplace warm. Even though he wasn't having the best time in the world, I'm really proud of him for sticking it out for the whole season. And I'm even more pleased that no one cheap-shotted him after the whistle this time, because I really wasn't looking forward to beating up a little kid, even one from Mt. Airy.
But the best part came before the game started. The woman singing the national anthem was apparently under the impression that she was auditioning for "American Idol," judging by her unfortunate belting tendencies. Toward the end she blew out the microphone or something, because she started cutting in and out about the time we saw through the night that our flag was still there. Here's the cool part: all around me, I could hear random people picking up where she left off, singing along through the end. It was one of those cheesy moments that nevertheless give you chills for some reason. Maybe I'm just a goofball, but I thought it was awesome.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Dirt.
Or, as Newsweek diplomatically puts it, "Secrets of the 2008 Campaign," aka all the dirt reporters were honor-bound to conceal until after the election. Back when we were hearing about Gov. Sarah Palin's alleged issues (more on that later), I was kind of miffed at the whole "secret" thing...when what you as a reporter see or hear of a candidate directly contradicts what that candidate is saying out on the trail, I think you kind of have an obligation to let people know while they can still do something about it. But most of what's in this gripping seven-part loooooong read is pretty tame, falling into the "interesting, but not exculpatory" category.
For instance...Sen. Hillary Clinton was more ambivalent about running than the caricatures of her would have us believe. So was Sen. Obama. McCain's campaign was even more dysfunctional than it appeared. Cindy McCain still hates Karl Rove (putting her a little higher on my "people I want to have a beer with" list).
Now, about the Palin drama...in an earlier post, I was a little dubious about the much-reported claims that she didn't know if Africa were a country or a continent, among other things. Well, it turns out that the Africa tidbit came from a "McCain aid" who's not actually a real person. I have to say, it scares the hell out of me that so many news outlets could be taken in by a hoax. It's an indictment of the way business is conducted in the world of the 24-hour news cycle, where the emphasis on how quickly a reporter can deliver the meat, and not necessarily on how well-cooked it is.
It's also telling that the first MSM outlet to report "Eisenstadt"'s claim was good ol' Fox News. It's nice to see that their sloppiness extends to conservative political figures on occasion. When Melissa at Shakesville first wrote about the segment where Fox's Carl Cameron gleefully threw Palin under the bus (hint: when Bill O'Reilly is the moderate voice of reason in your discussion, you should probably consider drawing back), I honestly thought she was laying it on a little thick. After all, it's not "sexist" to report facts, is it? But when those facts turn out not to be facts, one has to ask - why did Cameron rush to the air with a completely unsubstantiated (because the source is fake) story? Is it that old media disease, "must get the story out first"? Or is it that he didn't care because the rumor fit a prevailing conservative narrative that women just aren't equipped to handle governing? It's troubling on many levels.
So on one hand, we've got a meticulously reported behind-the-scenes account of the 2008 presidential race that I want to keep for my great-grandchildren, and on the other, a sad example of why so many of us are so wary of trusting the mainstream media. Sigh.
For instance...Sen. Hillary Clinton was more ambivalent about running than the caricatures of her would have us believe. So was Sen. Obama. McCain's campaign was even more dysfunctional than it appeared. Cindy McCain still hates Karl Rove (putting her a little higher on my "people I want to have a beer with" list).
Now, about the Palin drama...in an earlier post, I was a little dubious about the much-reported claims that she didn't know if Africa were a country or a continent, among other things. Well, it turns out that the Africa tidbit came from a "McCain aid" who's not actually a real person. I have to say, it scares the hell out of me that so many news outlets could be taken in by a hoax. It's an indictment of the way business is conducted in the world of the 24-hour news cycle, where the emphasis on how quickly a reporter can deliver the meat, and not necessarily on how well-cooked it is.
It's also telling that the first MSM outlet to report "Eisenstadt"'s claim was good ol' Fox News. It's nice to see that their sloppiness extends to conservative political figures on occasion. When Melissa at Shakesville first wrote about the segment where Fox's Carl Cameron gleefully threw Palin under the bus (hint: when Bill O'Reilly is the moderate voice of reason in your discussion, you should probably consider drawing back), I honestly thought she was laying it on a little thick. After all, it's not "sexist" to report facts, is it? But when those facts turn out not to be facts, one has to ask - why did Cameron rush to the air with a completely unsubstantiated (because the source is fake) story? Is it that old media disease, "must get the story out first"? Or is it that he didn't care because the rumor fit a prevailing conservative narrative that women just aren't equipped to handle governing? It's troubling on many levels.
So on one hand, we've got a meticulously reported behind-the-scenes account of the 2008 presidential race that I want to keep for my great-grandchildren, and on the other, a sad example of why so many of us are so wary of trusting the mainstream media. Sigh.
On Prop 8
Nov. 4, 2008 was an interesting day in American history. Yes, we elected a moderate-progressive with an improbable backstory (who happens to be black), which came as a relief to me and many other Americans. At the same time, a majority of voters in California - that supposedly reliable progressive state - were voting to strip tens of thousands of citizens of their civil rights.
I've heard a number of explanations for the passage of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, ranging from confusion about what a "yes" vote meant to supposed homophobia among the large number of African Americans who came out to vote for Barack Obama. Since Prop 8's passage, proponents of same-sex marriage have, well - not to put too fine a point on it - gone apeshit. I don't blame them. If my state's government put my very right to live my life up for a popular vote, I'd be pissed, too.
To say the last week and a half has been contentious is putting it mildly. Protestors have targeted the voters who supported Prop 8, particularly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who pumped millions into advertising in favor of Prop 8. They've publicly mulled boycotts of companies who donated money to the pro-Prop 8 effort, and even the entire state of Utah, where the Mormon Church is based. And now the targetees are pushing back, accusing the protestors of bigotry.
So let's make sure we're clear: however many people California requires to sign a petition to get an initiative on a ballot felt that it was appropriate to ask the public whether gay people deserve the same civil protections and privileges that come along with marriage as straight people do. Tens of millions of dollars were spent trying to persuade people that the answer was no. Then 52 percent of Californian voters decided that gay people were, in fact, second-class citizens. The people whose rights were just stripped away take exception to this, and say so........And they're the bigots?
Ok, first of all - no. Nobody's boycotting people who gave money to John McCain. Nobody's witch-hunting people who disagree with them politically, like, I dunno, the Bush Administration's been doing for much of the last eight years. Nobody's calling them terrorist sympathizers, as the vice president and several members of Congress did me and others who opposed the Iraq war. Nobody's going all Joe McCarthy on people who privately oppose same-sex marriage.
The First Amendment guarantees that Americans can speak freely, support causes and associate with like-minded others without fear of reprisal from the state. It does not guarantee that you can openly support discrimination against other citizens without having to deal with the consequences, such as a boycott by the citizens against whom you want to discriminate. If I don't hire you because I don't like how you voted, you have every right to sue my pants off. If I'm marching in front of your temple, on the other hand - welcome to America. Hope you like the view.
And while we're on the subject, let me introduce you to my other best Constitutional friend, the equal protection clause. That means that the laws, and protections under those laws, apply to this person (or couple) over here the same as they do for this person (or couple) over there. If you want that to not be so, then you'd better give me a better reason than "I think what Person B does in the privacy of his or her bedroom is icky."
I'm sick and tired of people asking me why I, an openly straight woman, emphatically support the right of gay couples to marry. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the people who want to flout the intent of the law be required to explain to me why I should go along with them?
I've never heard a single convincing argument as to why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. You're welcome to try, but you'll probably fail. You see, I love this country, and I love its laws. I curl up at night with a copy of the Bill of Rights in one hand and The Federalist in the other, with the Gettysburg Address embroidered on my pillow for good measure. And I'm a devout Christian - I'd give my life for the man who told his followers that their highest calling is to treat others the way they would want to be treated. I can't imagine ever - ever - twisting the laws of the noblest experiment in the world's history to enforce a distorted interpretation of the teachings on which I try to base my life.
The Prop 8 supporters who are being so extraordinarily called out this week made a choice to involve themselves in the political process (and in my opinion chose the wrong side). They can't hide from that choice now.
I've heard a number of explanations for the passage of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, ranging from confusion about what a "yes" vote meant to supposed homophobia among the large number of African Americans who came out to vote for Barack Obama. Since Prop 8's passage, proponents of same-sex marriage have, well - not to put too fine a point on it - gone apeshit. I don't blame them. If my state's government put my very right to live my life up for a popular vote, I'd be pissed, too.
To say the last week and a half has been contentious is putting it mildly. Protestors have targeted the voters who supported Prop 8, particularly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who pumped millions into advertising in favor of Prop 8. They've publicly mulled boycotts of companies who donated money to the pro-Prop 8 effort, and even the entire state of Utah, where the Mormon Church is based. And now the targetees are pushing back, accusing the protestors of bigotry.
So let's make sure we're clear: however many people California requires to sign a petition to get an initiative on a ballot felt that it was appropriate to ask the public whether gay people deserve the same civil protections and privileges that come along with marriage as straight people do. Tens of millions of dollars were spent trying to persuade people that the answer was no. Then 52 percent of Californian voters decided that gay people were, in fact, second-class citizens. The people whose rights were just stripped away take exception to this, and say so........And they're the bigots?
Ok, first of all - no. Nobody's boycotting people who gave money to John McCain. Nobody's witch-hunting people who disagree with them politically, like, I dunno, the Bush Administration's been doing for much of the last eight years. Nobody's calling them terrorist sympathizers, as the vice president and several members of Congress did me and others who opposed the Iraq war. Nobody's going all Joe McCarthy on people who privately oppose same-sex marriage.
The First Amendment guarantees that Americans can speak freely, support causes and associate with like-minded others without fear of reprisal from the state. It does not guarantee that you can openly support discrimination against other citizens without having to deal with the consequences, such as a boycott by the citizens against whom you want to discriminate. If I don't hire you because I don't like how you voted, you have every right to sue my pants off. If I'm marching in front of your temple, on the other hand - welcome to America. Hope you like the view.
And while we're on the subject, let me introduce you to my other best Constitutional friend, the equal protection clause. That means that the laws, and protections under those laws, apply to this person (or couple) over here the same as they do for this person (or couple) over there. If you want that to not be so, then you'd better give me a better reason than "I think what Person B does in the privacy of his or her bedroom is icky."
I'm sick and tired of people asking me why I, an openly straight woman, emphatically support the right of gay couples to marry. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the people who want to flout the intent of the law be required to explain to me why I should go along with them?
I've never heard a single convincing argument as to why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. You're welcome to try, but you'll probably fail. You see, I love this country, and I love its laws. I curl up at night with a copy of the Bill of Rights in one hand and The Federalist in the other, with the Gettysburg Address embroidered on my pillow for good measure. And I'm a devout Christian - I'd give my life for the man who told his followers that their highest calling is to treat others the way they would want to be treated. I can't imagine ever - ever - twisting the laws of the noblest experiment in the world's history to enforce a distorted interpretation of the teachings on which I try to base my life.
The Prop 8 supporters who are being so extraordinarily called out this week made a choice to involve themselves in the political process (and in my opinion chose the wrong side). They can't hide from that choice now.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
GOPers do a post-mortem
Reading about why Senator McCain lost the presidency on left-leaning blogs is kind of pointless. (Gratifying, but pointless.) So today I decided to go straight to the horse's mouth: Townhall.com, a site I usually only visit when I'm linked there by one of the aforementioned left-leaning blogs appalled at something posted there.
First, Michael Medved explores how McCain lost by getting almost as many Republican votes as President Bush did in '04 - Bush made up the difference with independents, which this year tended to break for Obama. I don't know if his stats are accurate, but it sure sounds logical. After losing the 2000 Republican nomination, McCain made a tactical decision to veer rightward. In his presidential campaign, he seemed to go totally off the rails in a bid to win over hard conservatives, to the point where he contradicted his own votes on Bush's tax cuts and other issues. For every vote McCain picked up in "the base," he probably lost two in the middle. Picking an extreme social conservative like Gov. Palin as his running mate was just icing on the cake.
And then there's Ann Coulter, who can actually be pretty funny when she's not being crazy. Case in point:
"This was such an enormous Democratic year that even John Murtha won his congressional seat in Pennsylvania after calling his constituents racists. It turns out they're not racists -- they're retards. Question: What exactly would one have to say to alienate Pennsylvanians? That Joe Paterno should retire?"
Of course Coulter's never been high on McCain - she's definitely one of the conservatives the campaign hoped to attract with the Palin pick. But it's interesting that her conclusion - "How many times do we have to run this experiment before Republican primary voters learn that 'moderate,' 'independent,' 'maverick' Republicans never win, and right-wing Republicans never lose?" - is the exact opposite of Medved's.
And I don't even know what to say about this whole post-election crucification of Palin. Anonymously sourced McCain campaign people are leaking to the press that she's a shopaholic "diva" who didn't know that Africa was a continent and couldn't name all the countries in North America, even though she lives in one and right next to a second. Okay, first of all, there's no way that's true. So we're left with one of two conclusions...Either the leakers seriously despise Palin for one reason or another, or they're preemptively trying to undermine any future political career she might have. Either way, it doesn't point to a very happily run organization. Reason #957 why I'm glad they're not running the country.
I'm not gloating - far from it. It's just fascinating to see conservatives bicker, insist upon mutually exclusive interpretations of facts and in some cases outright call one another out. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were Democrats. ;)
First, Michael Medved explores how McCain lost by getting almost as many Republican votes as President Bush did in '04 - Bush made up the difference with independents, which this year tended to break for Obama. I don't know if his stats are accurate, but it sure sounds logical. After losing the 2000 Republican nomination, McCain made a tactical decision to veer rightward. In his presidential campaign, he seemed to go totally off the rails in a bid to win over hard conservatives, to the point where he contradicted his own votes on Bush's tax cuts and other issues. For every vote McCain picked up in "the base," he probably lost two in the middle. Picking an extreme social conservative like Gov. Palin as his running mate was just icing on the cake.
And then there's Ann Coulter, who can actually be pretty funny when she's not being crazy. Case in point:
"This was such an enormous Democratic year that even John Murtha won his congressional seat in Pennsylvania after calling his constituents racists. It turns out they're not racists -- they're retards. Question: What exactly would one have to say to alienate Pennsylvanians? That Joe Paterno should retire?"
Of course Coulter's never been high on McCain - she's definitely one of the conservatives the campaign hoped to attract with the Palin pick. But it's interesting that her conclusion - "How many times do we have to run this experiment before Republican primary voters learn that 'moderate,' 'independent,' 'maverick' Republicans never win, and right-wing Republicans never lose?" - is the exact opposite of Medved's.
And I don't even know what to say about this whole post-election crucification of Palin. Anonymously sourced McCain campaign people are leaking to the press that she's a shopaholic "diva" who didn't know that Africa was a continent and couldn't name all the countries in North America, even though she lives in one and right next to a second. Okay, first of all, there's no way that's true. So we're left with one of two conclusions...Either the leakers seriously despise Palin for one reason or another, or they're preemptively trying to undermine any future political career she might have. Either way, it doesn't point to a very happily run organization. Reason #957 why I'm glad they're not running the country.
I'm not gloating - far from it. It's just fascinating to see conservatives bicker, insist upon mutually exclusive interpretations of facts and in some cases outright call one another out. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were Democrats. ;)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
What the world thinks
One of the reasons I supported Barack Obama was the potential he has as president to restore America's standing in the world. I have so much to say about what happened tonight, but for now let's just look at the reactions of the world:
BBC (Great Britain)
The Times of India (the world's largest English-language daily newspaper)
Al-Jazeera (Arab world) (Warning: slowest Web site in the world - can't even link to them because the connection keeps timing out...)
Haaretz Daily (Israel)
BBC (Great Britain)
The Times of India (the world's largest English-language daily newspaper)
Al-Jazeera (Arab world) (Warning: slowest Web site in the world - can't even link to them because the connection keeps timing out...)
Haaretz Daily (Israel)
Monday, November 3, 2008
KO'd
Ben Affleck does my favorite blowhard, Keith Olbermann, on SNL:
I love it almost as much as I really, really can't stand Olbermann.
I love it almost as much as I really, really can't stand Olbermann.
Breaking out my crystal ball
I'm the least psychic person on the planet, but sometimes inspiration strikes:
It bugs me that everyone from the national press to "Saturday Night Live" have Gov. Sarah Palin running for the REpublican nomination for president in 2012, like they think she's going to quietly go back to Alaska and hunt moose for the next four years. No one's pointed out the obvious: Alaska's Senator Ted Stevens was convicted on corruption charges last week, but the ennormously popular Stevens might still win tomorrow. This is what I see happening: Stevens wins, and sometime in the next few months bows to pressure to resign his seat. Guess who Alaska's governor appoints to complete his term? Now Palin gets a few years of national experience and exposure under her belt before trying to climb Mount White House again. Hey, it (almost) worked for Hillary Clinton...
Last week when I went to the Panthers-Cardinals game with my step-dad, we had to have a talk about how sports jinxes work. Basically, he was going down the Panthers' remaining schedule trying to figure out who could possibly beat us, other than maybe Denver - who lost to Kansas City, who then got crushed by the Panthers. He specifically mentioned the upcoming game against the Detroit Lions as a "gimme." Now, setting aside my cats' nasty habit of losing horribly to teams that my nephew's peewee team could beat, there's this. So here's my prediction: Culpepper will indeed start in the Panthers-Lions game Nov. 16, and given both Culpepper's revenge motive (it was the Panthers who killed his knee, and therefore his career) and the Panthers historically bad luck in drawing new QBs on which our defense has no film (see Romo, Tony, and Garcia, Jeff about 14 different times), I don't think that's a gimme.
But the good news is that the Panthers almost never lose to the same team twice in one season (including playoffs). So that means when Tampa Bay comes to town in December, we should get an exact opposite version of the pathetic show the Panthers put in a few weeks ago. The Falcons might be a little friskier, but I still think the cats will win the division.
It bugs me that everyone from the national press to "Saturday Night Live" have Gov. Sarah Palin running for the REpublican nomination for president in 2012, like they think she's going to quietly go back to Alaska and hunt moose for the next four years. No one's pointed out the obvious: Alaska's Senator Ted Stevens was convicted on corruption charges last week, but the ennormously popular Stevens might still win tomorrow. This is what I see happening: Stevens wins, and sometime in the next few months bows to pressure to resign his seat. Guess who Alaska's governor appoints to complete his term? Now Palin gets a few years of national experience and exposure under her belt before trying to climb Mount White House again. Hey, it (almost) worked for Hillary Clinton...
Last week when I went to the Panthers-Cardinals game with my step-dad, we had to have a talk about how sports jinxes work. Basically, he was going down the Panthers' remaining schedule trying to figure out who could possibly beat us, other than maybe Denver - who lost to Kansas City, who then got crushed by the Panthers. He specifically mentioned the upcoming game against the Detroit Lions as a "gimme." Now, setting aside my cats' nasty habit of losing horribly to teams that my nephew's peewee team could beat, there's this. So here's my prediction: Culpepper will indeed start in the Panthers-Lions game Nov. 16, and given both Culpepper's revenge motive (it was the Panthers who killed his knee, and therefore his career) and the Panthers historically bad luck in drawing new QBs on which our defense has no film (see Romo, Tony, and Garcia, Jeff about 14 different times), I don't think that's a gimme.
But the good news is that the Panthers almost never lose to the same team twice in one season (including playoffs). So that means when Tampa Bay comes to town in December, we should get an exact opposite version of the pathetic show the Panthers put in a few weeks ago. The Falcons might be a little friskier, but I still think the cats will win the division.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
If Sheriff Taylor says it, it must be true
I watch this video and I think to myself...Boy, I'm ready for this election to be over.
If you're one of the millions of Americans who couldn't manage to decide who to vote for until you heard from a couple of iconic fictional characters - you're welcome.
See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die
If you're one of the millions of Americans who couldn't manage to decide who to vote for until you heard from a couple of iconic fictional characters - you're welcome.
New Roy Carter ad
Check out Roy Carter's latest ad, which highlight's Rep. Virginia Foxx's dismal track record on supporting military families and veterans:
When I'm talking about why I vote for this candidate and not that one, I try not to get personal. But when it comes to Rep. Foxx I just can't help it. I don't know what she's been up to in Washington all this time, but apparently representing the people of the 5th District isn't on her to-do list. She'd rather suck up to President Bush than respond to requests from her constituents - which is, you know, her job.
On a related note, back in September my family and I went to see Kay Hagan speak at the local VFW hall with former Senator and Vietnam vet Max Cleland, who's a personal hero of my step-father's. As long as I live, I will never forget hearing veteran after veteran - some of them in their 80s - tell horror stories about writing Senator Elizabeth Dole's office for help navigating the VA, and not getting so much as a form letter in reply. As the daughter of a combat veteran, this seriously pisses me off. And yet it's Dole, Foxx and others who want you to believe that they're the ones who have our military's best interests at heart.
When we send someone to Congress, it's that person's job to be our voice in Washington. Not just on legislation, but on what they call "constituent services" - everything from service academy appointments to tours of the Capitol. Foxx hasn't done her job. Neither has Dole. We can do better.
When I'm talking about why I vote for this candidate and not that one, I try not to get personal. But when it comes to Rep. Foxx I just can't help it. I don't know what she's been up to in Washington all this time, but apparently representing the people of the 5th District isn't on her to-do list. She'd rather suck up to President Bush than respond to requests from her constituents - which is, you know, her job.
On a related note, back in September my family and I went to see Kay Hagan speak at the local VFW hall with former Senator and Vietnam vet Max Cleland, who's a personal hero of my step-father's. As long as I live, I will never forget hearing veteran after veteran - some of them in their 80s - tell horror stories about writing Senator Elizabeth Dole's office for help navigating the VA, and not getting so much as a form letter in reply. As the daughter of a combat veteran, this seriously pisses me off. And yet it's Dole, Foxx and others who want you to believe that they're the ones who have our military's best interests at heart.
When we send someone to Congress, it's that person's job to be our voice in Washington. Not just on legislation, but on what they call "constituent services" - everything from service academy appointments to tours of the Capitol. Foxx hasn't done her job. Neither has Dole. We can do better.
How anti-reproductive choice laws hurt ALL women
In response to several state ballot initiatives that would restrict reproductive freedom, the National Advocates for Pregnant Women have put together this video with the stories of real women - many of them profoundly anti-abortion - whose rights and health were jeopardized by similar laws.
Laws that "protect" a fetus from the moment of conception on may sound good, but they're short-sighted and have no basis in reality. How exactly is a law that would send a woman to prison for having a miscarriage "pro-life"?
Today the Winston-Salem Journal endorsed Senator McCain for president, in part because McCain's philosophy frowns on government intrusion into people's private affairs. Um...? What could be more personal than conceiving, bearing and having a child? Yet it's the conservative lawmakers like McCain who are leading the charge to put hospitals, anti-choice groups, some random guy in Congress - anyone other than the mother herself - in charge of her health. Or, as McCain put it, "health."
I'll say it until I'm blue in the face - reproductive freedom is about so much more than abortion. Laws that supposedly protect children have been used to strip childbearing women of their most basic rights and even their lives, and they will be used that way again. As I wrote in my letter to the Journal this morning, is it crazy to think that women deserve at least a portion of the autonomy McCain would grant to, say, oil company executives? I think we're capable enough to handle ourselves, personally.
Laws that "protect" a fetus from the moment of conception on may sound good, but they're short-sighted and have no basis in reality. How exactly is a law that would send a woman to prison for having a miscarriage "pro-life"?
Today the Winston-Salem Journal endorsed Senator McCain for president, in part because McCain's philosophy frowns on government intrusion into people's private affairs. Um...? What could be more personal than conceiving, bearing and having a child? Yet it's the conservative lawmakers like McCain who are leading the charge to put hospitals, anti-choice groups, some random guy in Congress - anyone other than the mother herself - in charge of her health. Or, as McCain put it, "health."
I'll say it until I'm blue in the face - reproductive freedom is about so much more than abortion. Laws that supposedly protect children have been used to strip childbearing women of their most basic rights and even their lives, and they will be used that way again. As I wrote in my letter to the Journal this morning, is it crazy to think that women deserve at least a portion of the autonomy McCain would grant to, say, oil company executives? I think we're capable enough to handle ourselves, personally.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
"Godless"
I was just defending Senator Elizabeth Dole the other day, comparing her favorably to her predecessor Jesse Helms. I said that I could never imagine Dole using the kind of sleazy campaign tactics for which Helms was famous.
I guess I was wrong.
In her latest ad, Dole tries to tie her opponent, state senator Kay Hagan, to a group that advocates for the rights of athiests and agnostics. The ad goes as far as having a Hagan sound-alike saying "There is no God" at the end. I saw it fot the first time last night, and I thought I was losing my mind. I couldn't believe that anyone would stoop quite that low - first of all, vastly overinflating the role of this group in the fundraiser in question (Obama-Ayers style), but, even MORE disturbingly, suggesting somehow that people who don't believe in God are unAmerican. Look, I think they're wrong and are seriously missing out, but they have civil rights, too. (There's that pesky First Amendment again!)
Dole should be ashamed of herself. And she shouldn't ever get to call herself a Christian again, at least not with a straight face.
I guess I was wrong.
In her latest ad, Dole tries to tie her opponent, state senator Kay Hagan, to a group that advocates for the rights of athiests and agnostics. The ad goes as far as having a Hagan sound-alike saying "There is no God" at the end. I saw it fot the first time last night, and I thought I was losing my mind. I couldn't believe that anyone would stoop quite that low - first of all, vastly overinflating the role of this group in the fundraiser in question (Obama-Ayers style), but, even MORE disturbingly, suggesting somehow that people who don't believe in God are unAmerican. Look, I think they're wrong and are seriously missing out, but they have civil rights, too. (There's that pesky First Amendment again!)
Dole should be ashamed of herself. And she shouldn't ever get to call herself a Christian again, at least not with a straight face.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
That all-important Village People endorsement
Is anyone more than a little annoyed at all this "Joe the Plumber" crap? I'm not talking about the man himself - Mr. Wurzelbacher can ride his 15 minutes of fame as far as it will take him, and that's the American way. (Memo to those of you who live in the future Rep. Wurzelbacher's district...Really?) I'm talking about McCain/Palin's incessant compulsion to identify voters by their professions.
First, there was Joe the Plumber. Today, Palin appeared again with someone named Tito the Builder. Who's next, Marco the Pre-Op Tranny Hustler? What, is McCain running for the mayor of Busytown?
By dragging these apparently hard-working Americans out on the campaign trail with them, McCain/Palin imply that their administration would be better for working people. Which is total BS, but most of us know that. At first the whole Joe thing was amusing - watching McCain attempt to channel Bill Clinton by mentioning Joe 47 million times during the last debate. But now it's just weird, and kind of creepy. Every time one of them call Obama a socialist, I want to say, "Oh yeah? At least he's not reducing people to their method of earning a paycheck."
And another thing. I'm sure Obama/Biden would just love to break me out in the middle o f a campaign rally. ("And here with me is Sara the Associatedirectorofcommunicationsandmarketingslasheditorial...") But they can't. Do you know why I can't run off to a political appearance in the middle of the day? Because I have a job. I'm at work, motherf*ckers. Hear, that, Joe and Tito? Just because I sit in an office all day instead of picking at my plumber's crack doesn't mean I'm less "American" than you, it doesn't mean my opinions matter less than yours and sure as hell doesn't mean that I contribute less to this country and its economy than you. If your job is such a massive part of your identity, than maybe you should get your ass off that podium and go the f*ck back to it. Sheesh.
In the meantime, I think McCain needs to get a new campaign song...
UPDATE: Joe the Plumber can see a synagogue from his house!
First, there was Joe the Plumber. Today, Palin appeared again with someone named Tito the Builder. Who's next, Marco the Pre-Op Tranny Hustler? What, is McCain running for the mayor of Busytown?
By dragging these apparently hard-working Americans out on the campaign trail with them, McCain/Palin imply that their administration would be better for working people. Which is total BS, but most of us know that. At first the whole Joe thing was amusing - watching McCain attempt to channel Bill Clinton by mentioning Joe 47 million times during the last debate. But now it's just weird, and kind of creepy. Every time one of them call Obama a socialist, I want to say, "Oh yeah? At least he's not reducing people to their method of earning a paycheck."
And another thing. I'm sure Obama/Biden would just love to break me out in the middle o f a campaign rally. ("And here with me is Sara the Associatedirectorofcommunicationsandmarketingslasheditorial...") But they can't. Do you know why I can't run off to a political appearance in the middle of the day? Because I have a job. I'm at work, motherf*ckers. Hear, that, Joe and Tito? Just because I sit in an office all day instead of picking at my plumber's crack doesn't mean I'm less "American" than you, it doesn't mean my opinions matter less than yours and sure as hell doesn't mean that I contribute less to this country and its economy than you. If your job is such a massive part of your identity, than maybe you should get your ass off that podium and go the f*ck back to it. Sheesh.
In the meantime, I think McCain needs to get a new campaign song...
UPDATE: Joe the Plumber can see a synagogue from his house!
Everywhere the signs
More about stolen campaign yard signs...the newspaper in Southern Pines reports that Obama-Biden signs are more likely to be stolen, while one area of Wisconsin has seen more targeting of McCain-Palin signs. Either way, it's sad, and in my opinion is the logical result of this bullying, hyper-partisan campaigning style that we've seen for years now.
Yesterday one of my Facebook friends mentioned on a thread that "they" come through one particular neighborhood here in Winston-Salem about once a week and clear out all the Obama signs. The signs are promptly replaced. That got me thinking...Obama headquarters here sells those yard signs for $5 each. I don't know how many they've distributed total, but I know they did sell out of almost 5,000 in a little over a week earlier in October.
At $5 each, that's $25,000 raised just from signs - not counting bumper sticker or button sales, or other donations - from one field office. And that's just in one week. Imagine how many yard signs they've sold over the course of the whole campaign. So, the next time you read about Obama raising $150 million in one month, thank your friendly local Obama hater for all his or her hard work.
(Stealing signs is also counterproductive in that the quickest way to motivate a liberal is to piss him/her off. And then there's that whole First Amendment thing.)
Yesterday one of my Facebook friends mentioned on a thread that "they" come through one particular neighborhood here in Winston-Salem about once a week and clear out all the Obama signs. The signs are promptly replaced. That got me thinking...Obama headquarters here sells those yard signs for $5 each. I don't know how many they've distributed total, but I know they did sell out of almost 5,000 in a little over a week earlier in October.
At $5 each, that's $25,000 raised just from signs - not counting bumper sticker or button sales, or other donations - from one field office. And that's just in one week. Imagine how many yard signs they've sold over the course of the whole campaign. So, the next time you read about Obama raising $150 million in one month, thank your friendly local Obama hater for all his or her hard work.
(Stealing signs is also counterproductive in that the quickest way to motivate a liberal is to piss him/her off. And then there's that whole First Amendment thing.)
Friday, October 24, 2008
What Sarah Palin means for feminists (really)
A few years ago, feminist scholar bell hooks spoke at my alma mater. In the afternoon, several hours before her public speech, hooks did a more casual Q&A with students. Inevitably, the issue came up – isn’t it shameful that our country has never had a female president, and shouldn’t putting a vagina in the White House be the top priority of every good feminist?
To paraphrase hooks’ response: Um, no, not really. She mentioned a few women that she personally would actively work against, should they ever run, including Secretary of State Condi Rice. hooks’ point was this: the assumption that any woman is inherently better for human rights than any man is grossly sexist.
I’ve been thinking a lot about that little exchange lately, as I’ve been watching the commentary from many right wing TV analysts and bloggers following Sen. McCain’s selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. The consensus seems to be that Palin’s nomination has rocked American feminists. The Washington Post reiterated it today. She supports a ticket that’s profoundly in opposition to our political goals, but…She’s a woman! Must…have…woman…president…My little woman-brain’s circuits are overloaded!
Except that…um, no, not really. Most feminists over the age of 12 managed to work past the reductive “vagina=GOOD” logic quite some time ago. But that didn’t stop the pundits from setting up straw (wo)men left and right, asking how feminists who push for the advancement of women could possibly not support a woman candidate. (I’ve already answered that question. Not supporting fair pay legislation and casting rape as a second-class crime might have a little something to do with it...)
We’ve heard a lot of talk about how Palin’s candidacy has forced progressives to challenge certain assumptions. But I don’t think there’s been enough said about how her very existence forces conservatives to re-evaluate their own dogma.
What if I told you that there was a family where the wife/mom had a high-powered, demanding job, and she wasn’t depicted as a ball-busting shrew? What if I told you that her husband managed to be both a super-masculine athlete with a blue-collar job and a loving father engaged in the raising of his children? What if I told you that this decent, apparently deeply religious family wasn’t immune to things like domestic abuse or premarital sex?
It’s interesting to me that conservatives in this country have, for at least a generation now, been holding up this Eisenhower-era “Donna Reed” fantasy of what the world should be like, only to now line up behind a woman whose family shatters most of those stereotypes. (One hopes that her politics will catch up…) It’s the same with McCain – adulterer, divorcee – and yet he somehow miraculously manages to be a person and a leader with integrity.
Understand that none of this will stop the Limbaughs of the world from spewing their BS about “family values” – as if they had any themselves – but it means they’ve been defanged. It’s a small sign to me that the wind is shifting. They'll never be able to spout that "a woman's place is in the home" crap ever again, at least not with a straight face.
I wouldn’t expect the aforementioned pundits to know this, but feminists are actually pretty comfortable with the Palins as people. (Again, politics are a whole ‘nother thing.) They seem like they’re a tight, loving family, who embody the long-held feminist position that in a post-patriarchal society families will have the freedom to do whatever’s best for them. (I think bell hooks wrote a book about it…) If someone here feels threatened by the Palins and what they represent, I can assure you – it isn’t the feminists.
To paraphrase hooks’ response: Um, no, not really. She mentioned a few women that she personally would actively work against, should they ever run, including Secretary of State Condi Rice. hooks’ point was this: the assumption that any woman is inherently better for human rights than any man is grossly sexist.
I’ve been thinking a lot about that little exchange lately, as I’ve been watching the commentary from many right wing TV analysts and bloggers following Sen. McCain’s selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. The consensus seems to be that Palin’s nomination has rocked American feminists. The Washington Post reiterated it today. She supports a ticket that’s profoundly in opposition to our political goals, but…She’s a woman! Must…have…woman…president…My little woman-brain’s circuits are overloaded!
Except that…um, no, not really. Most feminists over the age of 12 managed to work past the reductive “vagina=GOOD” logic quite some time ago. But that didn’t stop the pundits from setting up straw (wo)men left and right, asking how feminists who push for the advancement of women could possibly not support a woman candidate. (I’ve already answered that question. Not supporting fair pay legislation and casting rape as a second-class crime might have a little something to do with it...)
We’ve heard a lot of talk about how Palin’s candidacy has forced progressives to challenge certain assumptions. But I don’t think there’s been enough said about how her very existence forces conservatives to re-evaluate their own dogma.
What if I told you that there was a family where the wife/mom had a high-powered, demanding job, and she wasn’t depicted as a ball-busting shrew? What if I told you that her husband managed to be both a super-masculine athlete with a blue-collar job and a loving father engaged in the raising of his children? What if I told you that this decent, apparently deeply religious family wasn’t immune to things like domestic abuse or premarital sex?
It’s interesting to me that conservatives in this country have, for at least a generation now, been holding up this Eisenhower-era “Donna Reed” fantasy of what the world should be like, only to now line up behind a woman whose family shatters most of those stereotypes. (One hopes that her politics will catch up…) It’s the same with McCain – adulterer, divorcee – and yet he somehow miraculously manages to be a person and a leader with integrity.
Understand that none of this will stop the Limbaughs of the world from spewing their BS about “family values” – as if they had any themselves – but it means they’ve been defanged. It’s a small sign to me that the wind is shifting. They'll never be able to spout that "a woman's place is in the home" crap ever again, at least not with a straight face.
I wouldn’t expect the aforementioned pundits to know this, but feminists are actually pretty comfortable with the Palins as people. (Again, politics are a whole ‘nother thing.) They seem like they’re a tight, loving family, who embody the long-held feminist position that in a post-patriarchal society families will have the freedom to do whatever’s best for them. (I think bell hooks wrote a book about it…) If someone here feels threatened by the Palins and what they represent, I can assure you – it isn’t the feminists.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Robin Hayes: Asshat (and other observations)
The closer we get to the election, the more desperate and stupid some people get, and the more impatient I get with their desperation and stupidity. First, it was Gov. Sarah Palin campaigning in Greensboro last week, saying how much she enjoyed visiting the "pro-America" parts of the country (which is pretty frakking hilarious considering that Greensboro is one of the few reliably Democrat-voting areas in the state). Then some idiot Stepford Congressperson from Minnesota tells Chris Matthews on national TV that she thinks someone should have a full-scale investigation of every member of Congress to see which of them are "anti-American."
Then, Rep. Robin Hayes (NC-8), when opening for a McCain rally a few days ago, says that liberals "hate real Americans." (You can donate to the campaign of his opponent, Larry Kissell, here. I just did.)
What bothers me most isn't the blatant hate speech and demonizing of one's opponent - the antithesis of this mythic "reaching across the aisle" stuff that's supposed to be McCain's specialty. What bothers me is that not a single one of these frakking asshats are willing to articulate what any of it means - "pro-America," "anti-America" and my personal favorite, "real Americans." It's the use of a code the type of which has always been deeply dangerous in our country's history. Using such incredibly damaging language to win an election, of all things, is just obscene.
Gov. Palin had the grace to apologize for her comment. Rep. Hayes doesn't seem to understand the problem. Though the "progressive = unAmerican" BS has still got to go, I'm glad to see Palin apparently distance herself from the blatant racist-coded language that her campaign's been rolling out lately.
Speaking of racism...In his appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Colin Powell beautifully laid out the reasons he decided to support Barack Obama over John McCain. He specifically mentioned the apparent drift of his party toward exclusivity - concepts like "real" Americans - as a reason he's not voting for McCain/Palin. I expected to hear Rush Limbaugh break out the "all black people stick together" line, but it was downright disappointing to hear George Will go there.
The irony escaped them - Limbaugh, Will, et al, in dismissing Powell's decision-making process an chalking his support up to racial loyalty, only proved his point that the conservative movement in this country has become obsessed with divisive identity. Powell is no longer a war hero, former head of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State. He's just another black man who put race above country, according to them. So, one question.........If you had a moderate Democrat, who votes with the other Congressional Democrats on most issues, but yet he actively supports the Republican presidential candidate - even going as far as to speak at the Republican convention - and by coincidence the two men share the same race? By Limbaugh's logic, Joe Lieberman is a bleeding racist, too.
I have a wonderful idea. Let's talk about ideas, voting records, judgment and leadership qualities. Let's agree to give two purple shits about the color of someone's skin, because by 2008 we should've learned by now that skin color has about as much effect on someone's personality as eye colors. And most importantly, can we PLEASE stop throwing around words like "anti-American" or "fascist" or "Nazi" as if they don't have real meanings. It's not going to help us solve our problems.
Then, Rep. Robin Hayes (NC-8), when opening for a McCain rally a few days ago, says that liberals "hate real Americans." (You can donate to the campaign of his opponent, Larry Kissell, here. I just did.)
What bothers me most isn't the blatant hate speech and demonizing of one's opponent - the antithesis of this mythic "reaching across the aisle" stuff that's supposed to be McCain's specialty. What bothers me is that not a single one of these frakking asshats are willing to articulate what any of it means - "pro-America," "anti-America" and my personal favorite, "real Americans." It's the use of a code the type of which has always been deeply dangerous in our country's history. Using such incredibly damaging language to win an election, of all things, is just obscene.
Gov. Palin had the grace to apologize for her comment. Rep. Hayes doesn't seem to understand the problem. Though the "progressive = unAmerican" BS has still got to go, I'm glad to see Palin apparently distance herself from the blatant racist-coded language that her campaign's been rolling out lately.
Speaking of racism...In his appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Colin Powell beautifully laid out the reasons he decided to support Barack Obama over John McCain. He specifically mentioned the apparent drift of his party toward exclusivity - concepts like "real" Americans - as a reason he's not voting for McCain/Palin. I expected to hear Rush Limbaugh break out the "all black people stick together" line, but it was downright disappointing to hear George Will go there.
The irony escaped them - Limbaugh, Will, et al, in dismissing Powell's decision-making process an chalking his support up to racial loyalty, only proved his point that the conservative movement in this country has become obsessed with divisive identity. Powell is no longer a war hero, former head of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State. He's just another black man who put race above country, according to them. So, one question.........If you had a moderate Democrat, who votes with the other Congressional Democrats on most issues, but yet he actively supports the Republican presidential candidate - even going as far as to speak at the Republican convention - and by coincidence the two men share the same race? By Limbaugh's logic, Joe Lieberman is a bleeding racist, too.
I have a wonderful idea. Let's talk about ideas, voting records, judgment and leadership qualities. Let's agree to give two purple shits about the color of someone's skin, because by 2008 we should've learned by now that skin color has about as much effect on someone's personality as eye colors. And most importantly, can we PLEASE stop throwing around words like "anti-American" or "fascist" or "Nazi" as if they don't have real meanings. It's not going to help us solve our problems.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Flashback! Fun with deficits
It really is fun, I promise! OK, so in my last post I referred to something I wrote on my old blog about how, in modern times, Democratic presidential administrations have actually been more fiscally responsible than Republican ones. Found it! [Here's hoping the links still work...]
...There's this myth that the Republican administrations are better with money than the Democratic ones. Interesting, because the breakdown of budget revenues, debts and surpluses going back to 1962 would appear to show otherwise...you can download it from the Congressional Budget Office here.
If you're not into long columns of numbers, there's always the summary of historical trends in the "Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government (Fiscal Year 2007)." You can download the whole 329-page document, but here's my favorite part:"The traditional pattern of running large deficits deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982, partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.
After peaking at $290 billion in 1992, deficits declined each year, dropping to a level of $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, the Nation recorded its first budget surplus ($69.3 billion) since 1969. As a percent of GDP, the budget bottom line went from a deficit of 4.7% in 1992 to a surplus of 0.8% in 1998, increasing to a 2.4% surplus in 2000. An economic slowdown began in 2001 and was exacerbated by the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001. The deterioration in the performance of the economy together with income tax relief provided to help offset the economic slowdown and additional spending in response to the terrorist attacks produced a drop in the surplus to $128.2 billion (1.3% of GDP) and a return to deficits ($157.8 billion, 1.5% of GDP) in 2002. These factors also contributed to the increase in the deficit in the following two years to $413 billion and 3.6% of GDP in 2004, falling to $318 billion and 2.6% of GDP in 2005. Debt held by the public, which peaked at 49.4% of GDP in 1993, fell to 33.0% in 2001 and increased to 37.4% in 2005." (www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf)
Then there's a more partisan interpretation here, which is pretty succint. Interesting how it dovetails with the government's own analysis.
...There's this myth that the Republican administrations are better with money than the Democratic ones. Interesting, because the breakdown of budget revenues, debts and surpluses going back to 1962 would appear to show otherwise...you can download it from the Congressional Budget Office here.
If you're not into long columns of numbers, there's always the summary of historical trends in the "Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government (Fiscal Year 2007)." You can download the whole 329-page document, but here's my favorite part:"The traditional pattern of running large deficits deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982, partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.
After peaking at $290 billion in 1992, deficits declined each year, dropping to a level of $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, the Nation recorded its first budget surplus ($69.3 billion) since 1969. As a percent of GDP, the budget bottom line went from a deficit of 4.7% in 1992 to a surplus of 0.8% in 1998, increasing to a 2.4% surplus in 2000. An economic slowdown began in 2001 and was exacerbated by the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001. The deterioration in the performance of the economy together with income tax relief provided to help offset the economic slowdown and additional spending in response to the terrorist attacks produced a drop in the surplus to $128.2 billion (1.3% of GDP) and a return to deficits ($157.8 billion, 1.5% of GDP) in 2002. These factors also contributed to the increase in the deficit in the following two years to $413 billion and 3.6% of GDP in 2004, falling to $318 billion and 2.6% of GDP in 2005. Debt held by the public, which peaked at 49.4% of GDP in 1993, fell to 33.0% in 2001 and increased to 37.4% in 2005." (www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf)
Then there's a more partisan interpretation here, which is pretty succint. Interesting how it dovetails with the government's own analysis.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Food for thought
Imagine if you'd invested $10,000 in the stock market during the 40 years that Republicans have been in the White House since the Great Depression. Now invest the same $10,000 in the 40 years that we've had a Democrat president. Which party's leadership gives you a better return?
*Sara laughs like a maniac, screaming "I told you so!!!"*
Of course, this study just looks at presidents, not which party controlled Congress. But it's still interesting for those of us who are really sick and tired of hearing about how Democrats will screw the economy, despite all factual evidence to the contrary.
On my old blog, I did a post about federal budgets, overruns and surpluses during different presidencies, with the same results - Democrats have historically been better at managing money than Republicans. (I'll try and find it for you...)
*Sara laughs like a maniac, screaming "I told you so!!!"*
Of course, this study just looks at presidents, not which party controlled Congress. But it's still interesting for those of us who are really sick and tired of hearing about how Democrats will screw the economy, despite all factual evidence to the contrary.
On my old blog, I did a post about federal budgets, overruns and surpluses during different presidencies, with the same results - Democrats have historically been better at managing money than Republicans. (I'll try and find it for you...)
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Stop the insanity!
People, people, people. In the immortal words of John McCain, my friends. Maybe we're all just a little frazzled by the extraordinary length of this presidential campaign and its importance. That's understandable. But I feel like things are getting ugly, and sadly, they really don't have to.
A week ago, Senator McCain's campaign indicated that they were taking the gloves off, which apparently means attacking Barack Obama's so-called "associations." At McCain/Palin rallies this week, we've seen people screaming "kill him!" (referring to Obama). Obama HQ here in Winston-Salem advises people to take their yard signs in at night, because so many of them are being stolen or defaced. At least in this area, there have been reports of McCain signs going missing, too. Today when Gov. Palin appeared at a Philadelphia Flyers game, fans booed her and her daughters, despite a scoreboard message urging them to "show Philadelphia's class" (well there's your mistake, right there). Yesterday, when McCain said nice things about Obama, his own fans booed him. Obama returned the favor to McCain, and - you guessed it - booed.
I can't help but see this as the inevitable product of an election process that puts so much emphasis on personalities, rather than policy ideas. At one time I felt really optimistic about this campaign, both because of the mood of the country that's sick and tired of partisan BS and because of the people we nominated, who I believed would be above playing to the worst instincts of their supporters.
The thing is, on Nov. 5 we're all going to have to work together to find the best solutions for our country. We don't have the luxury anymore of dismissing ideas because we don't like the person who proposed them. Get OVER it.
But I do feel better having volunteered this evening at the Democratic Party's booth at the Dixie Classic Fair. Sure, it felt good to sell out of Obama buttons and tell hundreds of people about early voting. But it also felt good to joke good-naturedly with the folks around the corner at the Republican booth, and down the aisle at the Libertarian Party booth. Apparently we here on the ground are a little more mature than some of our leaders.
(Except for the yard sign-stealing people. Let me introduce you to my good friend, the First Amendment.)
(Oh yeah, one more thing. My aunt's a Secret Service agent. Say one thing to my face that I think is remotely threatening to Obama and I'll put your ass on every mf-ing watch list on the planet.)
A week ago, Senator McCain's campaign indicated that they were taking the gloves off, which apparently means attacking Barack Obama's so-called "associations." At McCain/Palin rallies this week, we've seen people screaming "kill him!" (referring to Obama). Obama HQ here in Winston-Salem advises people to take their yard signs in at night, because so many of them are being stolen or defaced. At least in this area, there have been reports of McCain signs going missing, too. Today when Gov. Palin appeared at a Philadelphia Flyers game, fans booed her and her daughters, despite a scoreboard message urging them to "show Philadelphia's class" (well there's your mistake, right there). Yesterday, when McCain said nice things about Obama, his own fans booed him. Obama returned the favor to McCain, and - you guessed it - booed.
I can't help but see this as the inevitable product of an election process that puts so much emphasis on personalities, rather than policy ideas. At one time I felt really optimistic about this campaign, both because of the mood of the country that's sick and tired of partisan BS and because of the people we nominated, who I believed would be above playing to the worst instincts of their supporters.
The thing is, on Nov. 5 we're all going to have to work together to find the best solutions for our country. We don't have the luxury anymore of dismissing ideas because we don't like the person who proposed them. Get OVER it.
But I do feel better having volunteered this evening at the Democratic Party's booth at the Dixie Classic Fair. Sure, it felt good to sell out of Obama buttons and tell hundreds of people about early voting. But it also felt good to joke good-naturedly with the folks around the corner at the Republican booth, and down the aisle at the Libertarian Party booth. Apparently we here on the ground are a little more mature than some of our leaders.
(Except for the yard sign-stealing people. Let me introduce you to my good friend, the First Amendment.)
(Oh yeah, one more thing. My aunt's a Secret Service agent. Say one thing to my face that I think is remotely threatening to Obama and I'll put your ass on every mf-ing watch list on the planet.)
Friday, October 10, 2008
I'm Mortified, Horrified and all that.
Fox News: being 44-year-old woman is "mortifying." And the governor of Alaska is a supermodel, and should be treated as such.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YInuTc3C3jM
I say again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YInuTc3C3jM
I say again...
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Live Presidential Text Dialogue: Mom Edition
‘Cause my Mom’s just this cool…
In response to a question about bipartisanship, McCain cites his hero Ronald Reagan, who worked with Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill to “fix” Social Security.
Mom: If Reagan and tip fixed ss then why r we still screwed?
Me: I like the hoover shout-out myself.
Mom: Drinking on “my friends.” Hic!
Me: i was thinking the same thing! He’s making me think of that red hot chili peppers song that i hate…
Mom: BTW keith olbermann tonight: mcliar voted for the 3million $ bear dna earmark he invoked in the last debate
Me: is he going for the jewish vote with all the anti-pork?
Mom: lmao
Mom: Wasn’t the online records thing either hillary or obama’s idea first? And is it just me or does mcpain look really, REALLY old?
McCain outlines his plan to deregulate health care shopping so you can buy a policy from a company in another state if you want. Sounds great on paper, but it’s already hard enough to find a local doctor who accepts every insurance in our own state, let alone having to deal with companies in the other 49…And Obama counters that insurance companies will just gravitate to states with lax regulations, like banks did. Does anyone want our health care system to someday do what our banking industry’s been doing lately?
Me: I’m wondering how much the out-of-state thing will cost my doctor…
Mom: Yeah, that ‘across state lines’ thing is where they started with the banking industry.
Obama specifically names Delaware as a veritable Dodge City for bankers. The same Delaware that Joe Biden’s from. The Joe Biden whose son works for one of those banks. Um.
Me: Obama needs to lay off Delaware though. HELLO, Biden!
Mom: True that.
McCain says that Russia’s coming for the Ukraine. I’m confused, because his running mate assured us that “As Putin rears his head,” he’d have another target in mind.
Me: Ukraine??? i thought it was alaska…
Mom: All I know is I can see it from my house
Brokaw asks if Russia is evil, and McCain gives a refreshingly un-Bushlike answer.
Mom: Whoa---nuance from mcsoundbite!
Me: I know, right? who knew?
McCain: I know what it's like in dark times. I know what it's like to have to fight to keep one's hope going through difficult times. I know what it's like to rely on others for support and courage and love in tough times.
Mom: Like the love and support of his wife Carol?
Me: Carol? What Carol? There is no Carol. You will be submitted for reeducation.
Mom: Not when I move to mexico
Me: pop quiz. What’s mccain’s fave 60s tv series? Hint: james garner.
Mom: According to mudflats blog he said my friends 12 times. Felt like more. Andrew Sullivan says Obama mauled mcgrumpy.
Mom: Chris Matthews just said mcgrumpy used ‘my friends’ 22 times last night. I thought mudflats count was too low –the drinkin’ game musta got ouuta hand up there
Read the full debate transcript here.
In response to a question about bipartisanship, McCain cites his hero Ronald Reagan, who worked with Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill to “fix” Social Security.
Mom: If Reagan and tip fixed ss then why r we still screwed?
Me: I like the hoover shout-out myself.
Mom: Drinking on “my friends.” Hic!
Me: i was thinking the same thing! He’s making me think of that red hot chili peppers song that i hate…
Mom: BTW keith olbermann tonight: mcliar voted for the 3million $ bear dna earmark he invoked in the last debate
Me: is he going for the jewish vote with all the anti-pork?
Mom: lmao
Mom: Wasn’t the online records thing either hillary or obama’s idea first? And is it just me or does mcpain look really, REALLY old?
McCain outlines his plan to deregulate health care shopping so you can buy a policy from a company in another state if you want. Sounds great on paper, but it’s already hard enough to find a local doctor who accepts every insurance in our own state, let alone having to deal with companies in the other 49…And Obama counters that insurance companies will just gravitate to states with lax regulations, like banks did. Does anyone want our health care system to someday do what our banking industry’s been doing lately?
Me: I’m wondering how much the out-of-state thing will cost my doctor…
Mom: Yeah, that ‘across state lines’ thing is where they started with the banking industry.
Obama specifically names Delaware as a veritable Dodge City for bankers. The same Delaware that Joe Biden’s from. The Joe Biden whose son works for one of those banks. Um.
Me: Obama needs to lay off Delaware though. HELLO, Biden!
Mom: True that.
McCain says that Russia’s coming for the Ukraine. I’m confused, because his running mate assured us that “As Putin rears his head,” he’d have another target in mind.
Me: Ukraine??? i thought it was alaska…
Mom: All I know is I can see it from my house
Brokaw asks if Russia is evil, and McCain gives a refreshingly un-Bushlike answer.
Mom: Whoa---nuance from mcsoundbite!
Me: I know, right? who knew?
McCain: I know what it's like in dark times. I know what it's like to have to fight to keep one's hope going through difficult times. I know what it's like to rely on others for support and courage and love in tough times.
Mom: Like the love and support of his wife Carol?
Me: Carol? What Carol? There is no Carol. You will be submitted for reeducation.
Mom: Not when I move to mexico
Me: pop quiz. What’s mccain’s fave 60s tv series? Hint: james garner.
Mom: According to mudflats blog he said my friends 12 times. Felt like more. Andrew Sullivan says Obama mauled mcgrumpy.
Mom: Chris Matthews just said mcgrumpy used ‘my friends’ 22 times last night. I thought mudflats count was too low –the drinkin’ game musta got ouuta hand up there
Read the full debate transcript here.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
I have a lot to say about tonight's second presidential debate, but first I wanted to get this in.
I keep reading polls that indicate Republican Pat McCrory is pulling Democrat and Independent voters away from Democrat Lt. Gov Bev Perdue in the governor's race. I don't know if that's true, but just in case anyone thinks McCrory will be a moderate, "maverick" centrist governor, I think it's worth pointing out that today he appeared in Greenville with the person who thinks Vladimir Putin is all ready to jump Alaska.
In other Charlotte-related news, the CEO of Bank of America endorsed Barack Obama yesterday.
I keep reading polls that indicate Republican Pat McCrory is pulling Democrat and Independent voters away from Democrat Lt. Gov Bev Perdue in the governor's race. I don't know if that's true, but just in case anyone thinks McCrory will be a moderate, "maverick" centrist governor, I think it's worth pointing out that today he appeared in Greenville with the person who thinks Vladimir Putin is all ready to jump Alaska.
In other Charlotte-related news, the CEO of Bank of America endorsed Barack Obama yesterday.
Monday, October 6, 2008
I'm going straight to Hell
You've got to love the Pavlovian instincts of the crowds at Sarah Palin's recent speeches. So, the other day when she (mis)quoted from a New York Times article about Barack Obama's tenuous ties to Weatherman founder Bill Ayers, the crowd reaction went something like this:
"New York Times! Elite liberal media, boo! Rubish, filth, slime, muck! Boo! Booooo! BOOOOOO! Oh, wait, they said something bad about Obama.....Yay! New York Times! Woo-hoo!"
The same kind of thing happened today when Palin (mis)quoted former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, telling a crowd in California that "there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women." Aside from more reflexive booing ("Clinton appointee! Boo! Oh, wait..."), I have to wonder...is Palin stupid, or does she just think we are?
Now, for the record, I don't think Palin is stupid. Like her references to Hillary Clinton the day she was announced as John McCain's running mate, I think this was yet another calculated attempt to tie her candidacy to the feminists who've done the real work of advancing women, despite the people like Palin's running mate and many of his supporters, who've done everything they can to undermine that work. It's a cheap way for conservatives to pretend that they're feminists without the inconvenience of having to support anything that's good for women.
Unfortunately, what Albright actually said was "help" women, not "support." And I find it hard to believe that the first woman Secretary of State would ever advise anyone to cast a knee-jerk vote for someone based solely on that person's gender. As I said many times earlier this year when explaining why I wasn't voting for Clinton, voting for someone just because she's a woman is just as sexist as not voting for her because she's a woman. Whether you want to "help," "support" or both, I'd urge you to remember one thing: one of our future vice presidents wrote the Violence Against Women Act; the other one thought that taxpayers shouldn't have to have the "burden" of collecting evidence in crimes against women. Just sayin'.
And I have to say that Palin's anti-intellectualism is really starting to piss me off. She read the Albright quote on the side of a Starbucks cup? Really? God forbid she had read it in, I dunno, a newspaper or something. And I'm sorry, I grew up in a small, rural town, too. My parents couldn't afford to send me traveling all over the world, either. But I still manage to learn things about other places, people and their points of view. Just because you're "Joe Sixpack" doesn't mean you have an excuse to be unengaged.
"New York Times! Elite liberal media, boo! Rubish, filth, slime, muck! Boo! Booooo! BOOOOOO! Oh, wait, they said something bad about Obama.....Yay! New York Times! Woo-hoo!"
The same kind of thing happened today when Palin (mis)quoted former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, telling a crowd in California that "there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women." Aside from more reflexive booing ("Clinton appointee! Boo! Oh, wait..."), I have to wonder...is Palin stupid, or does she just think we are?
Now, for the record, I don't think Palin is stupid. Like her references to Hillary Clinton the day she was announced as John McCain's running mate, I think this was yet another calculated attempt to tie her candidacy to the feminists who've done the real work of advancing women, despite the people like Palin's running mate and many of his supporters, who've done everything they can to undermine that work. It's a cheap way for conservatives to pretend that they're feminists without the inconvenience of having to support anything that's good for women.
Unfortunately, what Albright actually said was "help" women, not "support." And I find it hard to believe that the first woman Secretary of State would ever advise anyone to cast a knee-jerk vote for someone based solely on that person's gender. As I said many times earlier this year when explaining why I wasn't voting for Clinton, voting for someone just because she's a woman is just as sexist as not voting for her because she's a woman. Whether you want to "help," "support" or both, I'd urge you to remember one thing: one of our future vice presidents wrote the Violence Against Women Act; the other one thought that taxpayers shouldn't have to have the "burden" of collecting evidence in crimes against women. Just sayin'.
And I have to say that Palin's anti-intellectualism is really starting to piss me off. She read the Albright quote on the side of a Starbucks cup? Really? God forbid she had read it in, I dunno, a newspaper or something. And I'm sorry, I grew up in a small, rural town, too. My parents couldn't afford to send me traveling all over the world, either. But I still manage to learn things about other places, people and their points of view. Just because you're "Joe Sixpack" doesn't mean you have an excuse to be unengaged.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
What you do when you have nothing real to offer
In an interview this week, Senator John McCain's campaign indicated that they would "have to get a little tougher" on Senator Barack Obama in response to Obama's recent gains in several state polls. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here." "The subject" being the sh*tty economy and how to fix it, energy policy and foreign policy, or anything else that voters actually care about. So here we have McCain's people admitting that their policy ideas are out of the mainstream, so they're just going to have to rely on pure distraction to win at this point. Right.
So in the coming weeks, get ready to hear a lot about someone named William Ayers, who founded the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground back when our parents were still in middle school. Yes, I called them terrorists. As much as I agree with WU's founding position that American strategies in Vietnam were wrong, there's no arguing with the fact that they killed people. I don't care how noble your cause, the moment you rig a bomb or shoot a cop, you're dead to me. Okay, do we have that clear now? Good.
Okay, so Ayers gets off on procedural technicalities in 1970-something, gets his Ph.D. and starts teaching college in Chicago. Twenty-odd years later, he's brought in to consult with a group that's reforming Chicago's public schools - a group which happens to include an ambitious local attorney named Barack Obama. Though their paths cross publicly from time to time, the two meet "sporadically," to quote an article in today's New York Times. At no point does Ayers ever advise Obama or work for any of his campaigns.
But why let the facts get in the way of a good story? Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, is already at it, telling a fund-raiser in Colorado that Obama "is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," no doubt reading off her color-coded cheat cards.
This is horsesh*t on about 15 different levels. Haven't we heard (until our ears are ready to bleed) how McCain and Palin are these mythic "mavericks" with a track record of "reaching across the aisle" to people who are on the other side of that aisle because they disagree with you in order to find solutions? But when Obama so much as meets a few times in several years to talk about education with - get this now - an education professor - oh, my hell, he obviously wants to blow up the damn Pentagon. *LOUD NOISES*
And does anyone else call mild BS on the fact that Palin quoted from the Times article in criticizing Obama? Yes, I do believe that would be the same NY Times that McCain/Palin have been ripping for some time as a "house organ" for the Democrats - but now all of a sudden they're cool? (I'm so f*cking tired of these people. Are they stupid, or do they just think we are?) By the way, the Times wrote: "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' " Doggone it, my friends, there you go again, with your poor reading comprehension skills. *wink*
From the beginning, this has smelled like a gang of operatives combing through Obama's press clippings to find anyone remotely controversial. I mean seriously? The guy that he met that one time at that thing? Really? I gotta tell you, I meet a lot of people at a lot of things, and I don't usually vet them too seriously. Nor do they vet me. (Please, oh please, let one of my right-wing friends run for president someday and get reverse swift-boated just 'cause they met me that one time!)
The McCain campaign thinks this is a viable strategy. I guess since their only other options are taxing our automatic employee benefits and winking, they don't have much else to go on. I think we're smarter than that. I think we're more concerned about what the prospective presidents will do tomorrow than what people they barely know did 40 years ago. But you know, I'm just Sara Sixpack out here in small-town America, watching football and trying to get a good interest rate. "Weather Underground" is the Web site I visit to check the forecast every day. And that's it.
So in the coming weeks, get ready to hear a lot about someone named William Ayers, who founded the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground back when our parents were still in middle school. Yes, I called them terrorists. As much as I agree with WU's founding position that American strategies in Vietnam were wrong, there's no arguing with the fact that they killed people. I don't care how noble your cause, the moment you rig a bomb or shoot a cop, you're dead to me. Okay, do we have that clear now? Good.
Okay, so Ayers gets off on procedural technicalities in 1970-something, gets his Ph.D. and starts teaching college in Chicago. Twenty-odd years later, he's brought in to consult with a group that's reforming Chicago's public schools - a group which happens to include an ambitious local attorney named Barack Obama. Though their paths cross publicly from time to time, the two meet "sporadically," to quote an article in today's New York Times. At no point does Ayers ever advise Obama or work for any of his campaigns.
But why let the facts get in the way of a good story? Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, is already at it, telling a fund-raiser in Colorado that Obama "is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," no doubt reading off her color-coded cheat cards.
This is horsesh*t on about 15 different levels. Haven't we heard (until our ears are ready to bleed) how McCain and Palin are these mythic "mavericks" with a track record of "reaching across the aisle" to people who are on the other side of that aisle because they disagree with you in order to find solutions? But when Obama so much as meets a few times in several years to talk about education with - get this now - an education professor - oh, my hell, he obviously wants to blow up the damn Pentagon. *LOUD NOISES*
And does anyone else call mild BS on the fact that Palin quoted from the Times article in criticizing Obama? Yes, I do believe that would be the same NY Times that McCain/Palin have been ripping for some time as a "house organ" for the Democrats - but now all of a sudden they're cool? (I'm so f*cking tired of these people. Are they stupid, or do they just think we are?) By the way, the Times wrote: "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' " Doggone it, my friends, there you go again, with your poor reading comprehension skills. *wink*
From the beginning, this has smelled like a gang of operatives combing through Obama's press clippings to find anyone remotely controversial. I mean seriously? The guy that he met that one time at that thing? Really? I gotta tell you, I meet a lot of people at a lot of things, and I don't usually vet them too seriously. Nor do they vet me. (Please, oh please, let one of my right-wing friends run for president someday and get reverse swift-boated just 'cause they met me that one time!)
The McCain campaign thinks this is a viable strategy. I guess since their only other options are taxing our automatic employee benefits and winking, they don't have much else to go on. I think we're smarter than that. I think we're more concerned about what the prospective presidents will do tomorrow than what people they barely know did 40 years ago. But you know, I'm just Sara Sixpack out here in small-town America, watching football and trying to get a good interest rate. "Weather Underground" is the Web site I visit to check the forecast every day. And that's it.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
I have no words.
I really hope this is like that episode of "The West Wing," when a candidate pretended to be clueless and uninformed, just so he would look better in an upcoming debate. Because, honestly, I refuse to believe that a candidate for the vice presidency of the United States can't name a single Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade.
Of course, she couldn't name any newspaper that she read, either.
The McCain campaign made a brilliant political move choosing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, so I don't understand how they could botch Palin's public roll-out so royally. When you keep someone totally cloistered from a press that is starved for information about her (if for no other reason than to sell newspapers), then you risk having too much attention focused on every interview. If the campaign had Palin doing interviews five times a day, this would've been news for 30 seconds.
Of course, she couldn't name any newspaper that she read, either.
The McCain campaign made a brilliant political move choosing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, so I don't understand how they could botch Palin's public roll-out so royally. When you keep someone totally cloistered from a press that is starved for information about her (if for no other reason than to sell newspapers), then you risk having too much attention focused on every interview. If the campaign had Palin doing interviews five times a day, this would've been news for 30 seconds.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Nice of you to stop by...
I haven't had much to say about the N.C. governor's race, but this caught my eye. In his ubiquitous TV ads, Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory is fond of repeating the slogan "The difference is leadership." The ads have always bugged me because (among other reasons), McCrory never says what he thinks "leadership" is.
From what I can tell, a graduate of the Pat McCrory Leadership Academy knows how to make the hard choices. "Huh. My city's been out of gas for two weeks and one of our largest employers just sold itself like a consumptive chick in a Verdi opera. Maybe I should put down the barbecue and go the f*ck home."
Sure, you can't control natural disasters like hurricanes and idiot bankers. But what you can do is at least pretend that you understand and care about what the people you represent are going through. As lieutenant governor, McCrory's opponent Bev Perdue has had to clean up after hurricanes on a fairly regular basis. (There may or may not have been barbecue involved.) Seriously, what's up with these Republicans who can't walk and chew gum at the same time? That's supposed to be leadership?
From what I can tell, a graduate of the Pat McCrory Leadership Academy knows how to make the hard choices. "Huh. My city's been out of gas for two weeks and one of our largest employers just sold itself like a consumptive chick in a Verdi opera. Maybe I should put down the barbecue and go the f*ck home."
Sure, you can't control natural disasters like hurricanes and idiot bankers. But what you can do is at least pretend that you understand and care about what the people you represent are going through. As lieutenant governor, McCrory's opponent Bev Perdue has had to clean up after hurricanes on a fairly regular basis. (There may or may not have been barbecue involved.) Seriously, what's up with these Republicans who can't walk and chew gum at the same time? That's supposed to be leadership?
Faux Hawks
Remember that episode of Soth Park when the kids went to Mel Gibson's house to get a refund for "The Passion of Christ," and found Gibson to be a freaky torture fetishist who literally chased them down, begging them to poke fiery metal pointy things into his body? Pay close attention. See? That's so totally Fox News.
Fox News, and the conservatives who love them, have taken this whole "the liberal media is OUT TO GET US!!!" paranoia to a whole new extreme. They're feeding off the over-the-top feigned outrage that's become the normal defensive response during this presidential campaign. Now, paranoia can be convincing if there's a grain of truth to it. But by searching out things over which to melt down, Fox & Co. are starting to look like the proverbial boy who cried wolf.
This, for instance, just made me laugh out loud. PBS's Gwen Ifill, who will moderate the VP debate on Thursday, has written a book. That book contains the line, "the black political structure of the civil rights movement has cleared the way for post-racial politicians to ascend to new heights." Fox sees something incredibly threatening in this factual observation, and proceeds to flip the hell out.
Now, Ifill may be the most middle-of-the-road reporter in the blandest news organization in the country. There's a reason you don't see her often on prime time, or scoring big bucks on the lecture circuit - she's not the partisan analyst that cable news loves. She's the furthest thing possible from an Olbermann, a Matthews or an O'Reilly. Gwen frakking Ifill? You're attacking Gwen frakking Ifill???
To me, this looks like a preemptive strike to go ahead and paint Ifill as biased toward the Democrats, so that if Gov. Sarah Palin does poorly in the debate, there's already a built-in scapegoat. It's Fox's bad luck that the person they sought to demonize is - I don't know if I mentioned this already - Gwen frakking Ifill. That dog just won't hunt.
And I'm getting pretty aggravated at the conservatives' war on the media. I'm as critical of the corporate press as anyone, but please spare me this "liberal media bias" bullsh*t. The press has one bias, and one bias only: the "what will get us the most readers/highest ratings?" bias. Never in modern times as an administration gotten such a free pass from the press, and they've had such man-love for John McCain it's not even funny (until he kicked them off his bus over the summer, that is). And we can please stop saying "in the tank?" What, was that the phrase of the week in your right-wing propganda memo?
UPDATE: Here's the full version. Can't you just see O'Reilly chasing Obama down in a bus?
Fox News, and the conservatives who love them, have taken this whole "the liberal media is OUT TO GET US!!!" paranoia to a whole new extreme. They're feeding off the over-the-top feigned outrage that's become the normal defensive response during this presidential campaign. Now, paranoia can be convincing if there's a grain of truth to it. But by searching out things over which to melt down, Fox & Co. are starting to look like the proverbial boy who cried wolf.
This, for instance, just made me laugh out loud. PBS's Gwen Ifill, who will moderate the VP debate on Thursday, has written a book. That book contains the line, "the black political structure of the civil rights movement has cleared the way for post-racial politicians to ascend to new heights." Fox sees something incredibly threatening in this factual observation, and proceeds to flip the hell out.
Now, Ifill may be the most middle-of-the-road reporter in the blandest news organization in the country. There's a reason you don't see her often on prime time, or scoring big bucks on the lecture circuit - she's not the partisan analyst that cable news loves. She's the furthest thing possible from an Olbermann, a Matthews or an O'Reilly. Gwen frakking Ifill? You're attacking Gwen frakking Ifill???
To me, this looks like a preemptive strike to go ahead and paint Ifill as biased toward the Democrats, so that if Gov. Sarah Palin does poorly in the debate, there's already a built-in scapegoat. It's Fox's bad luck that the person they sought to demonize is - I don't know if I mentioned this already - Gwen frakking Ifill. That dog just won't hunt.
And I'm getting pretty aggravated at the conservatives' war on the media. I'm as critical of the corporate press as anyone, but please spare me this "liberal media bias" bullsh*t. The press has one bias, and one bias only: the "what will get us the most readers/highest ratings?" bias. Never in modern times as an administration gotten such a free pass from the press, and they've had such man-love for John McCain it's not even funny (until he kicked them off his bus over the summer, that is). And we can please stop saying "in the tank?" What, was that the phrase of the week in your right-wing propganda memo?
UPDATE: Here's the full version. Can't you just see O'Reilly chasing Obama down in a bus?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
G-L-O-R-I-A
Gloria Steinem is so completely hot. I mean, she was always physically attractive, but now that she's older she's attained that glow that women over the age of 50 or so seem to acquire of which I, as a relative toddler, am so completely jealous.
I got to see her speak tonight at my alma mater, got to talk to her, take a picture with her and all that good stuff. She's just so - freaking - brilliant.
Ironically, if the people who throw Steinem's name around as a pejorative - as if she's the ultimate stereotypical man-hating, fuzzy-armpitted "feminazi" - ever listened to her speak, I think they'd be surprised. For instance, tonight she spoke movingly of the relationships between feminism - a word she barely used - and other movements for equality, placing everything in historical context. She pointed out how the scary stats about violence against women actually "exonerate" (her word) the vast majority of men - one in three women will be a victim of sexual assault in her lifetime, but the average rapist rapes 14 different women, meaning that a very small number of men are violent predators, and the rest are decent, loving men. Most of all, she outlined again and again how activism for women has benefitted all under-privileged groups, including working class men. She spoke of how veterans of war with what they called "shell shock" or "battle fatigue" (um, PTSD) were once belittled as the female victims of violence still are. She refused to denigrate women who dress in what some would call a "slutty" way, saying that you can't always infer a person's intent from their appearance - you might see someone hungry for male approval, when the woman is actually body-positive and could give a rat's ass what the dreaded male gaze thinks of her.
I asked her how to deal with the standard shut-down that feminists are scary, serious, no fun and hate men (um, have you MET me???). I was especially interested in hearing the perspective of someone who's simultaneously been painted as the bogeyman by anti-feminists and as too tarty with her mini-skirts by some feminists. Her answer: tell the truth. Point out to the person calling you names how, say, tax credits for caregiving would benefit them. And as always, be yourself.
For Steinem - and I think I understand this so much more having seen her in person, rather than just reading her - it's about agency. Whether a woman wears a burqa or a minidress, works in Hooters or works in her home, is not the issue. What matters is that the individual is doing so of her own accord, after deciding what's best for her and her family. Arbitrarily labelling conduct right or wrong doesn't get us anywhere.
I've always been fascinated with Steinem for her intellect, even when I haven't always agreed with her (for instance, what I consider her overly subjective delineation of pornography and erotica). But I admire the hell out her for proving with her very existence that feminists - all people - can be serious, life-loving, sex-positive beings, and all at the same time.
She's firmly on my People I Want to Have a Beer With list. I think it would take a couple for me to work up the courage to ask her what she thought of "American Psycho," a movie with which I have a love-hate relationship...and which was the breakout film for her step-son, Christian Bale. (Seriously, you can't tell me that never came up at Thanksgiving dinner...) That was really my only complaint about tonight. She totally needs to bring him along next time. In the Batsuit, preferably. ;)
I got to see her speak tonight at my alma mater, got to talk to her, take a picture with her and all that good stuff. She's just so - freaking - brilliant.
Ironically, if the people who throw Steinem's name around as a pejorative - as if she's the ultimate stereotypical man-hating, fuzzy-armpitted "feminazi" - ever listened to her speak, I think they'd be surprised. For instance, tonight she spoke movingly of the relationships between feminism - a word she barely used - and other movements for equality, placing everything in historical context. She pointed out how the scary stats about violence against women actually "exonerate" (her word) the vast majority of men - one in three women will be a victim of sexual assault in her lifetime, but the average rapist rapes 14 different women, meaning that a very small number of men are violent predators, and the rest are decent, loving men. Most of all, she outlined again and again how activism for women has benefitted all under-privileged groups, including working class men. She spoke of how veterans of war with what they called "shell shock" or "battle fatigue" (um, PTSD) were once belittled as the female victims of violence still are. She refused to denigrate women who dress in what some would call a "slutty" way, saying that you can't always infer a person's intent from their appearance - you might see someone hungry for male approval, when the woman is actually body-positive and could give a rat's ass what the dreaded male gaze thinks of her.
I asked her how to deal with the standard shut-down that feminists are scary, serious, no fun and hate men (um, have you MET me???). I was especially interested in hearing the perspective of someone who's simultaneously been painted as the bogeyman by anti-feminists and as too tarty with her mini-skirts by some feminists. Her answer: tell the truth. Point out to the person calling you names how, say, tax credits for caregiving would benefit them. And as always, be yourself.
For Steinem - and I think I understand this so much more having seen her in person, rather than just reading her - it's about agency. Whether a woman wears a burqa or a minidress, works in Hooters or works in her home, is not the issue. What matters is that the individual is doing so of her own accord, after deciding what's best for her and her family. Arbitrarily labelling conduct right or wrong doesn't get us anywhere.
I've always been fascinated with Steinem for her intellect, even when I haven't always agreed with her (for instance, what I consider her overly subjective delineation of pornography and erotica). But I admire the hell out her for proving with her very existence that feminists - all people - can be serious, life-loving, sex-positive beings, and all at the same time.
She's firmly on my People I Want to Have a Beer With list. I think it would take a couple for me to work up the courage to ask her what she thought of "American Psycho," a movie with which I have a love-hate relationship...and which was the breakout film for her step-son, Christian Bale. (Seriously, you can't tell me that never came up at Thanksgiving dinner...) That was really my only complaint about tonight. She totally needs to bring him along next time. In the Batsuit, preferably. ;)
Monday, September 29, 2008
WHAT. THE. PURPLE. HELL.
I've got good news and bad news. The bad news is that the House of Representatives just voted down the $700 billion bailout plan that the White House and Senate wrestled to produce late last week. The good news is that all 435 House members (including North Carolina's entire Republican delegation, all of which voted no) are up for job performance review in a little over a month.
And Congress wonders why they have a single-digit approval rating. Seriously, they picked a hell of a time to crawl out of President Bush's ass.
Look, no one actually thinks this is a swell idea. (Except for treasury secretary Henry Paulson.) No one is just thrilled to death at the prospect of the taxpayers shelling out billions that should rightly go to our roads and schools just because a bunch of a-hole mortgage lenders got greedy. Like many, I resent that Americans have been struggling for years with rising energy prices, credit debt and health care costs, with Congress and the president showing zero urgency for our economic issues.
But the fact is that if we don't do something, our entire economy will collapse. Look at that, I agree with President Bush on something. I think we can do this in such a way that protects taxpayers - rather than just handing Paulson $700 billion with no strings - and I think the plan that the House just pissed on is as close as we might come to that. Meanwhile, the stock market keeps falling, the rest of the world is getting nervous and some idiot running for Senate in Colorado actually thinks the Treasury's going to print more money.
Any version of the bailout violates so many principles that I don't know where to begin. But the thing is, when grown-ups are faced with an impossible situation, they do what they have to do to get out of it. They make the hard choices. They do not, however, fall to the floor of the House chamber kicking and screaming like toddlers. "Waaah! Socialism! Waaaaaaaaah!!!"
So, to Virginia Foxx and Company - grow. the hell. up. And fix this sh*t, NOW.
And Congress wonders why they have a single-digit approval rating. Seriously, they picked a hell of a time to crawl out of President Bush's ass.
Look, no one actually thinks this is a swell idea. (Except for treasury secretary Henry Paulson.) No one is just thrilled to death at the prospect of the taxpayers shelling out billions that should rightly go to our roads and schools just because a bunch of a-hole mortgage lenders got greedy. Like many, I resent that Americans have been struggling for years with rising energy prices, credit debt and health care costs, with Congress and the president showing zero urgency for our economic issues.
But the fact is that if we don't do something, our entire economy will collapse. Look at that, I agree with President Bush on something. I think we can do this in such a way that protects taxpayers - rather than just handing Paulson $700 billion with no strings - and I think the plan that the House just pissed on is as close as we might come to that. Meanwhile, the stock market keeps falling, the rest of the world is getting nervous and some idiot running for Senate in Colorado actually thinks the Treasury's going to print more money.
Any version of the bailout violates so many principles that I don't know where to begin. But the thing is, when grown-ups are faced with an impossible situation, they do what they have to do to get out of it. They make the hard choices. They do not, however, fall to the floor of the House chamber kicking and screaming like toddlers. "Waaah! Socialism! Waaaaaaaaah!!!"
So, to Virginia Foxx and Company - grow. the hell. up. And fix this sh*t, NOW.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
The 10 people you meet in every living history museum
When I go to museums, this is me. The Looker already knows all the basics because The Looker did her graduate thesis on whatever it is your museum specializes in, or at the very least read the guidebook. The Looker's feet hurt, or she's not an auditory processor, or he just doesn't feel like wading through Floorboard Guy, Quilt Lady and/or Susie Homeschool to listen to your standard Historical Disney spiel. It's nothing personal. It's just that The Looker has been through many, many museums, and as such already knows that she won't see a TV in the parlor. The Looker is above these things. Fortunately, The Looker is usually courteous enough to tell you that he/she's "just looking" as soon as he/she comes in the door. Do the both of you a favor, and let The Looker roam free. If The Looker should have a question, The Looker typically is capable of determining that the person in the costume/Park Ranger outfit might be able to answer it.
Floorboard Guy
Floorboard Guy is fascinated with the wider-than-he’s-used-to-seeing floorboards to the exclusion of everything else in the entire museum. Moreso than the clothes, the hearth cooking demos and your attempts to describe documented facts of life in 1788, it’s this 18-inch wide slab of pine under his feet that really brings it home that, holy sh*t! Life was different back then! [RANT: floorboards in backwoods houses were big because the trees from which they were cut were big. Until recently, skinny floorboards meant more cuts at the sawmill. Lots of cuts = expensive. So, even in the 1780s, super-rich people sometimes had fancy “modern” skinny boards. To a 1780s person, big floorboards weren’t all that cool. Kind of the reverse of quilts…I won’t go there, the rant’s too long as it is. End rant.] Floorboard Guy typically comes in two varieties. Most common, and generally harmless, is the golly-gee type, who just wants to marvel at the giant boards and the square nails holding them together. (Don’t get him started on the nails.) Ignoring the dozens of other paying customers streaming past, he’ll cheerfully monopolize you with tales of his great-grandmother’s farmhouse that had boards just like this! With square nails, too! Far more obnoxious is the second type, who’s deeply skeptical of your claim that the floorboards are original. In his mind, there’s just no way that a floor could’ve survived 200-odd years under any circumstances, even if the building was in use up until the point when it became a museum, and you can introduce him to the person who did the restoration. His laser eyes will spot every two-square-inch patch or uneven spot in order to bolster his claim. Floorboard Guy is often married to Quilt Lady.
Quilt Lady knows more about fabric than you ever will. So you’ve devoted years to researching 18th Century garments and construction techniques, practiced them yourself and maybe even have an advanced degree in history/anthropology/textile studies. Well, Quilt Lady will have you know that she personally earned an Honorable Mention in the Harnett County Fair Craft Show (adorable kitten division) so you can f*ck off. Quilt Lady doesn’t care that the pieced Becky Home Ecky “patchwork” quilts she’s used to seeing didn’t show up until around the Civil War, when cheap fabric and sewing machines came along. She’s blissfully unaware of the whole-cloth and appliquéd quilts that rich people paid other people to make for them back when quilts were a pain in the keister to make. She’s deeply committed to the prairie fantasy of her foremothers saving scraps of their wedding dresses to painstakingly cobble together quilts so they wouldn’t freeze to death. (Why her idiot foremothers didn’t just walk to the dry goods store and buy a damn blanket, I don’t know.) Quilt Lady has trouble distinguishing “Little House on the Prairie” and the Harnett County Fair from life in 18th Century
The Super Darwinist
The Super Darwinist is so passionately devoted to the concept of biological evolution that he or she fervently believes that human beings grew two feet within a single century. Oh yes, it’s true. Just look at those low doorways, it’s all the proof anyone needs that the average man in 1780 was no more than five feet tall. No wonder they looked up to Washington and Jefferson so much! (Ha, ha, I kill me.) Okay, really. The issue here is that it’s natural to look at things through your own life perspective, ignoring the fact that “back then” was a foreign culture. So you’re used to doorways that come a good foot or so above your head. But Joe Blow the Colonist didn’t go down to Home Depot when he was throwing up his cabin. He didn’t worry about building codes. He worried about keeping heat in the rooms every winter. Joe Blow the Colonist might’ve bumped his head every time he walked into his house, but at least he saved on the firewood. And that was really all that mattered to Joe. My advice: stop obsessing over the doorways and look at the 14-foot ceilings for a change. In truth, of course “they” were smaller “back then.” They had sh*tty health care and nutrition compared to modern Americans, for one thing. But the average American man today is only about five-foot-seven. Collectively, we’ve grown two or three inches in the last 200 years. Inches. Inches.
Little Susie Homeschool
Unlike Quilt Lady, Little Susie Homeschool really does know more than you about pretty much everything. That’s because, while you’re at your second job delivering pizza because you work at a living history museum, Susie is reading. Everything. She blew through Howard Zinn and James Loewen at an age when you were still rushing to finish your homework in time for “You Can’t do That on Television.” The demo interpretation you’ve worked so hard to dumb down for Floorboard Guy won’t cut it with Susie, because she’s already mastered whatever it is you’re demonstrating. You really hope that Susie and her parents visit on a slow day, because she’ll either be A) someone cool you want to talk to all day, or B) a floor-hog who’ll expect to get to talk to you all day. She tends to either touch nothing or want to touch everything.
Captain Ritalin & Family
Remember those myths you’ve heard about kids whose parents died horribly on the frontier, and so they were raised by wolves? Captain Ritalin’s parents didn’t get dysentery on Oregon Trail or anything; they’re just deeply engrossed reading every word of the displays in the front room of the museum…which would be awesome, if their energetic offspring weren’t climbing the priceless 18th Century furniture three rooms over. Instead of wolves, Captain Ritalin’s caregivers rely on modern pharmaceuticals to do the dirty work for them. And you, of course. (Not that you will be permitted to discipline, or even directly address, the Captain.) If you don’t want Captain Ritalin to crawl into that restricted room, then you should’ve just used barbed wire and armed guards instead of that too-subtle chain across the door, shouldn’t you have? Another variant of this type sees Captain Ritalin’s keepers not ignoring him, but rather chasing him at full speed through the entire house. While this can be hazardous to other visitors and/or priceless 18th Century artifacts, the plus side is that they usually breeze through in 2.7 seconds, and then they’re out of your hair.
The Toucher
Clearly a tactile learner, The Toucher is incapable of gleaning anything from the museum experience without being able to handle everything in his or her path, including you. Fragile glasswear, ancient books, actual food, real live interpretive staff and their personal belongings – nothing is off-limits. If it’s in the physical space of the museum, The Toucher will feel it. I once had a guy cross the barrier and climb into a fireplace – which, by the way, contained an actual roaring fire at the time – in order to ascertain for himself that the chimney was real. Seriously.
At the museum where I worked, our daily schedule showed not only how many school children were visiting that day, but where they were from. One thing I learned very quickly – while public school kids from major metro areas may have an advantage over their rural counterparts in many areas, when it comes to the museum experience, they’re dumber than buttered toast. Don’t bother asking City Kid where in her kitchen he thinks Mrs. Tavern Keeper cooked dinner. City Kid has never even seen a fireplace in person. Don’t expect City Kid to know where Mrs. Tavern Keeper would’ve gotten the chicken she’s cooking. City Kid knows that chicken only comes from KFC, or the poultry section at Food Lion, if it’s a special occasion. City Kid is so completely, utterly, unfathomably ignorant of anything outside the sphere of “TRL” and “CSI” that it’s not even funny. Don’t even bring up the spinning wheel. You will frakking blow City Kid’s jaded little mind. (For awhile we had a live chicken at our museum. One of my favorite memories is watching 8th graders from Paisley Middle – the city school to end all city schools – giggling while this rooster ate feed out of their hands. They’d never seen a live animal other than cats or dogs.) On the plus side, City Kid is apt to think that fetching firewood for you is insanely cool. Whereas Country Kid knows you’re just using him for free labor.
Country Kid
Generally more polite than his city counterpart, Country Kid is also likely to be a little less impressed with whatever it is you're doing. That's mainly because Country Kid's life and culture are a little closer to the life you're interpreting. Country Kid has livestock, chops wood on a regular basis and has actually personally witnessed the sewing of clothing. Unfortunately, Country Kid also got up at 4 a.m. to start the 50 m.p.h. bus ride to your museum, so he's getting a mite crabby. Also, his chaperones are trying to squeeze in enough time to hit the mall this afternoon, since they're here in the city and all, so they may not be as attentive as you would like.
The Guy You Really Really Wish You Could Hang Out With All Day
He may be an expert in the production of 18th Century backwoods floorboards, cooking, shoemaking, etc. She might be a descendant of the family whose house you’re interpreting. Or maybe an exchange student from
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)