Rage

Jun. 4th, 2010 08:48 pm
laceblade: (Default)
Elsewhere on the Internet, in a post that is unfortunately locked, various things have been purported. The post is here, now unlocked.

I am sick to death of motherfuckers telling me that entire aspects of my identity do not exist because of the labels they ascribe to me.
Because I am Catholic, there is no way that I could hate my bishop, want women to be priests, or be adamantly supportive of the separation of church and state.
Because I am religious, I must have never given any serious thought to politics (even in spite of my major in Political Science), why rituals are performed, or what the Bible actually says. Clearly, I am a sheep - right?
Because I spent two summers working as an unpaid intern for a Republican, there is no way that I could be a Democrat (at least, not according to nearly every Democratic office in the Wisconsin State Legislature).
Because I am a 24-year-old woman, I must want to get married as soon as possible.
Because I am pro-life, I must not be a feminist.

Extremism in any form is dangerous. And taking away someone's ability to construct their own identity is harmful - even moreso when we are all potential allies.

We are all angry about something. What I'm angry about is everyone buying into the soundbytes created from false dichotomies that assure us that our goals are not common, that our enemies are each other. And that we must stay busy fighting one another, so that we are incapable of waking up, banding together, and doing something.

In the end, I think that everyone wants to make the world less fucked up than it is now.

The way to start is to think, to dialogue, and most importantly, to challenge people around you every day to analyze and deconstruct their own lives.

And to stop acting like jackasses.
laceblade: (Catholic)
A friend directed me to Maureen Dowd's article in The New York Times, which discusses the divide between Catholic nuns and Catholic bishops on the health care reform bill. (You should be able to read the article for free; The New York Times allows anyone to read a NYT article when it is linked to from a blog.)

On Friday, Tim Ryan, an antiabortion Democrat from Ohio, took to the House floor to say he had been influenced by the nuns to vote for the bill.

“You say this is pro-abortion,” he said to Republicans, and yet “you have 59,000 Catholic nuns from across the country endorsing this bill, 600 Catholic hospitals, 1,400 Catholic nursing homes endorsing this bill.”

For decades, the nuns did the bidding of the priests, cleaned up their messes, and watched as their male superiors let a perverted stain spread over the entire church, a stain that has now even reached the Holy See. It seemed that the nuns were strangely silent, either because they suspected but had no proof — the “Doubt” syndrome — or because they had no one to tell but male bosses protecting one another in that repugnant and hypocritical old-boys’ network.

Their goodness was rewarded with a stunning slap from the über-conservative Pope Benedict XVI. The Vatican is conducting two inquisitions into the “quality of life” of American nuns, trying to knock any independence or modernity out of them.

The witch hunt has sparked the nuns to have a voice at last. Vulnerable children were not protected by the male hierarchy of the church, which treated sexual abuse as a failure of character rather than a crime. The men were so arrogant it never occurred to them that they should be accountable to the secular world. In their warped thinking, it was better to let children suffer than to call the authorities, embarrass the church and risk diminished power.

Now the bishops think that it’s better to deprive poor people of good health care than to let the church look like it’s going soft on abortion.

Under the semantic dodge of ideological purity, the bishops also are doing the bidding of the Republicans, trying to kill the bill and weaken the president. But the nuns are right when they say that “the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions” and that its protection of pregnant women is the “real pro-life stance.”

The nuns stepped up to support true Catholic dogma, making sure poor people get proper health care. (Which would lead to fewer abortions anyway.)


I feel Maureen Dowd's sentiment in feeling fan-fucking-tastic that the Pope would rather bully American nuns with his heinous "investigations" instead of the pedophiliac exploits of his good old boys.

I think that a lot of people allow Catholicism to be defined by its most vocal and powerful members. But they do not speak for all Catholics.
laceblade: (Default)
It's getting to the point that I can't stand watching coverage of Haiti any more. Watching a well-fed white man in a clean polo talk about the hunger of Haitians while standing right next to them, and then switching to another camera showing how these Haitians were much nicer when getting their rations of food and water, and that's how things ought to be, makes me sick.



On a more shallow note, but related to the broadcast company responsible for the aforementioned coverage:
Peter Jennings, it's getting harder to stay loyal to ABC! My love for George Stephanopoulus is great, but so is my loathing for Jake Tapper.


I think it's telling when my favorite, most honest news coverage comes from The Daily Show: I loved Jon Stewart biting his knuckle last night while talking about the recent Epic Supreme Court decision: "A nation in which corporations spend money to control political elections.......what would THAT be like?!"
laceblade: (Default)
But he's "really sorry" about being racist!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologized Saturday following reports he had privately described then-candidate Barack Obama during the presidential campaign as a black candidate who could be successful thanks in part to his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

D:

Jan. 4th, 2010 07:47 pm
laceblade: (Default)
I'm sick of reading about Yuletide/AO3, so I decided to start a controversy of my own!

I've been reading a lot about full-body scanners this last week. I was also appreciative of the points brought up in this post at FWD.

And I thought that the Patriot Act was pretty stupid.

BUT.

I have no qualms about the use of full-body scanners in airports for the purpose of providing better security.
At least, unlike racial profiling, this measure would actually have utility.
laceblade: (Default)
I found a nice article this morning reiterating the similarities between the Obama campaign and presidency to the the fictional presidencies portrayed on The West Wing.

Most of the comparisons can be made to a character who appears in the latter part of the series, Matthew Santos. Santos was actually modeled after Obama, after he delivered his speech to the 2004 Democratic Convention.

But the similarities that occurred throughout the campaign and up to the present are almost startling.

In this morning's article, however, the comparison is not between Obama and the Obama-modeled Santos, but between Obama and Jed Bartlet, the man who is president throughout most of the series. The articles note that both men won with a lot of powerful rhetoric and tightly-won campaigns. But once in office, the Bartlet (and Obama) Administrations started out slow, running into roadblocks and an unrelenting media, and seeming afraid to really lay the smack down. The author of the article hopes for an Obama breakthrough that leads to a monumental presidency, and I hope for the same.

His first term in office, after the euphoria of the election win, had seemingly run aground, taking on water from turning the other cheek. They had sought a warmer, gentler path but the conservative forces - unleashing their attack dogs from the lunatic fringe - repeatedly pounded the new president, a sustained attack that cleaved his approval rating.

Then the White House sent out its communications warrior woman to set the media straight. Now, the White House was fighting back: it was going to ''let Bartlet be Bartlet''.

This was the turning point in season one of The West Wing - and it was a defining moment for Josiah Bartlet's presidency.

....

The start for the Obama team hasn't been particularly inspiring, beyond the soaring rhetoric. (Ditto for his fictional counterpart.) But here's hoping the real-life protagonists can be as successful in overcoming their obstacles as team Bartlet, which even managed to pull together a comprehensive Middle East peace plan in its second term - one that had the approval of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Now that would be worth imitating.
laceblade: (Default)
Just e-mailed the man mentioned in this article with a subject heading, "Your Poor Decision."

My favorite parts of my e-mail to him include:

The text of the speech is being released on Monday (one day before it is aired), so your ultimatum of "It would be irresponsible of any teacher to introduce to her/his students material that the teacher has not screened, evaluated, found to be educationally sound" is erroneous.

I am sick and tired of people like you using the Church as a platform on which you can make your political statements, and which you use as an instrument to make other people conform to your own political beliefs (in this case, by using your power as a superintendent to censor information that is being offered to children in public schools).

and

As a superintendent, I would certainly hope that you have better things to do - as both a Catholic and as an educator - than come up with useless rules. The showing is not mandatory - schools are supposed to decide for themselves whether or not to show the address. You have taken that power away from individual schools needlessly.

I would soften my reproach if I could think of a single reason for you to ban the showing of the President's speech to students, but the truth is that no such reason exists. The only explanation is that you are personally politically opposed to President Obama, and you are abusing your position to manipulate the children who happen to be in your charge by denying them information to which they have a right.


I AM SO SICK OF THIS POLITICAL BULLSHIT IN MY CHURCH. Go feed the hungry! Help poor people! Stop sitting on your asses in offices figuring out ways to manipulate your herd of sheep, and instead learn how to tend to them. What a pathetic and useless waste of precious time.

But hey, considering the fact that our bishop made everyone watch his pre-recorded message on abortion, marriage, and stem-cell research IN AN ELECTION YEAR, and oh yeah, fired a woman because of her graduate thesis, I can't say that I'm surprised that this happened.

Bishop Morlino also serves on the board for School of the Americas. Classy.
laceblade: (Grindeldore)
I've felt sad about the death of Senator Ted Kennedy all day long.

[livejournal.com profile] cofax7's post made me laugh: You did a lot of good work, but I kind of hope Mary-Jo Kopechne is there to kick your ass, wherever you find yourself.

The man got away with more than he should have, and all of the Kennedys have their faults.

But everyone has their faults, and the Kennedys did more than most ever do to try and lift up those around them who are less fortunate.

They are liberal, yes, but their consistent championship over the decades of those otherwise left behind in this country is, to me, a very Catholic way to approach politics.


When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in the 1960s, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1964. Many people credit his death as the galvanizing force behind this vote.

I can hope that the death of Ted Kennedy will serve as a call to action for people who have been smearing bullshit all over the place about healthcare reform. I can hope that his death will call people to their senses, and pass a law that will accomplish a goal that Ted Kennedy had for decades.

I can hope for that, but my fear is that the death of Ted Kennedy means that Congress will sink further into its cesspool of arrogant bastards who care more about re-election than they do about reaching across the aisle and getting shit done.

Linkspam

Aug. 17th, 2009 08:28 pm
laceblade: (Default)
Jim Doyle will not seek a third term.
I think everyone who reads my blog is aware of my political leanings, despite the fact that people who are actually affiliated with my party refused to hire me because at one point, I was an unpaid intern for the other party. I'm pretty much over that (except that I still think those people are stupid), and I still don't regret what I did, because I've never been a fan of Doyle. I basically agree with everything in the RPW's press release.
No matter how it relates to me, this gubernatorial race is going to be a shit show.

A blogger calls for more manga by Ai Yazawa to be licensed in English, and I can't agree more!

For anyone looking for the best Terminator fanvid ever, watch this one, which debuted at VividCon a couple of days ago.

An interesting post about an East/West difference in expressing emotions through the face in comics. In manga, the eyes are used to express emotion, whereas in U.S. comics, it's the mouth. The article even points out the difference in emoticons used on the Internet, with American teenagers using :) and :( while Asian teenagers use ^_^ and ;_;

In disturbing historical notes, a link via [livejournal.com profile] badgerbag: Rosemary Kennedy's Lobotomy. If you don't believe the blog, check Wikipedia! That shit is for real.


OMF, the SyFy SciFi Channel is going to air the anime version of Naoki Urasaw's Monster. Link! SUCH A GOOD PLOT. PLEASE WATCH IT, MONDAY NIGHTS.*

*Hopefully the dub is good, and hopefully SciFi won't edit it down so they can insert 10 minutes of commercials per 30 minute programming slot, and I'm not 100% sure why the SciFi Channel chose Monster, as it is not actually science fiction, BUT I'LL TAKE IT.
laceblade: (Default)
The last couple of days have been filled with anger, for me.

One involves a situation beyond my control, but leaves me feeling vulnerable and cheated by a faceless bureaucracy. Of course it will get sorted out for my personal situation, but it only reinforces my adamant belief that health care should be a right for every single person, and not a classist privilege accessible only to those who manage to find a full-time job or can afford to pay for their own health care out of pocket. What does it say about our society, if you can only gain access to medicine and technology that will make/keep you healthy if you have the money to pay for it? Isn't it bad enough for the unemployed or under-employed that they make very little money? Must we punish them further, by telling them that they don't deserve to be healthy? That, in some cases, they deserve to die?

And people truly argue about this? Fail.


I've also been thinking a lot about people in positions of power.

If you are in a position of power, and you see that the people over whom you exert power - the sheep of your flock, if you will - are not doing what they're supposed to be doing, which of the following do you think is the proper response to make your flock more functional?

A) Blame them for not knowing better (and be sure to blame other people for not teaching them better, willfully ignoring your own position of power at the moment).

B) Mock them while surrounding yourself with people who agree with you.

C) Ostracize them by making them feel ashamed or guilty, so as not to taint your tiny Type A flock of "true sheep."

D) Complain about them and how they are the reason that the group is failing as a whole. Make sure to not actually speak to them, tell them what you think what went wrong, or perform any action items to rectify what went wrong.

E) Point out to them what went wrong, and ask them what you can do with your position of power to ensure that it does not happen again.



On a lighter note, a friend of mine recently told me that she thought my Internet alias was "My Stick Eeper." I've had this alias for 8 years, and I never thought about it that way. It's supposed to be "Mystic Keeper," by the way; huzzah for aliases created at age 14.

If people want to start calling me "The Stick," though, I am okay with that.
laceblade: (Default)
I've seen and heard some people saying that the reason Proposition 8 passed in California is because people of color turned out to vote for Barack Obama, and then voted against gay marriage. Some people have some things to say about that. Please go read their entire posts. Some of them include detailed demographic maps, and are important to proving their points.

[livejournal.com profile] sparkymonster wrote this post.
Blaming people of color for Prop. 8 passing in California is racist. So cut it the fuck out. Ditto for veiling your racism with "this is because of turnout for Obama" or "you know how conservative those immigrants can be."

California is 43.1% white, 35.9% latino or hispanic, and 6.7% black (source). So even if every single black and latino person in the state voted Yes on 8, that doesn't actually equal the 52% who voted for it. And since people of color are not the borg, you know how Prop. 8 passed? White people voted for it. True story!

Saying "well the black community is homophobic" is bullshit. First, are you trying to say white people aren't homophobic? Really? What is the race of the people who killed Matthew Sheppard and who assassinated Harvey Milk? What was the race of the person who signed DOMA? Second, you're ignoring all the queer people of color out there (and their allies). Third, you're being racist. Racism is what happens when you assign as stereotype to a race of people.


[livejournal.com profile] ladyjax said many things, among them, this:
If anyone saw the commercials for the No on 8 campaign here in California, then you know that the few times when they did show people in them, they were overwhelmingly white. The Yes on 8 campaign? Busted out with a clever commercial (and I'm gonna call it clever because it sure as hell was), that showed a Black preacher, a Latino gentleman (you couldn't tell what he was doing but he was positioned Joe Regular) and then a white woman with a child. They hit the high notes: church, San Francisco judges (boo, bad!) , and 'what do we tell the kids?'

Yes on 8 did massive organizing in POC communities. No on 8? barely a blip on the radar screen.

....When white people roll up on Black folks about being oppressors, there's some truth to it but that gets lost when people start to remember: "Hmm, that rally for (immigration rights, education, housing, etc. etc.). I didn't see you there." In some areas, if you throw in gentrification and how it plays out when white gays and communities of color collide (as evidenced by the movie, Flag Wars, then you get some idea of how easy it was for the Yes on 8 people to make the inroads that they did.

Sometimes the fight isn't always about what you want but about reciprocation. It's also about fighting like your life depended on it. One thing I wish the No on 8 campaign had done from the beginning - hammer home the message about discrimination. Emphasize how easy it is for a group of people to have their rights taken away by the popular vote of the people. Skip the oh so gentle assimilationist approach ('oh, but we're just like you. Really') and go straight for scorched earth - "You don't have to like us but if our rights can be taken away, it can happen to you. This is a constitutional change not a Sunday picnic. Think about it."


I wanted to quote the entirety of [livejournal.com profile] darkrosetiger's post, so instead, just go here.
laceblade: (Default)
Sick of election posts? Too bad.

I'm a little disturbed by all of my friends on Facebook and LiveJournal saying that this is the first time in eight years that they feel proud to be an American. Being American is about a hell of a lot more than who the president is. We have a lot to be proud of, every day, no matter who gets elected.

I don't want to make a post full of gloating glee, because I remember pretty vividly what it feels like to lose. I hope that, at the very least, everyone can be excited about the fact that we are witnessing the first black man becoming President. Because that's pretty sweet, guys, even if you didn't vote for him.

McCain had a classy concession speech, and it's a shame that he felt the need to sell out for the entire election. If the actual John McCain had run for President, I think this would have been a different race indeed.

I also think that Obama gave a pretty humble acceptance speech. It's very clear to me that he's reaching out to the people who didn't vote for him ("I hear you, too"). I hope that everyone can accept him with a little more grace than the way Democrats could not accept reality in 2000 or 2004. (I really can't stand buttons like "Not my president." Sorry, but Bush is your president!) ALSO, Obama promised a puppy for the White House. If that doesn't melt your heart the tiniest bit, then there is just no talking to you.



Message I left on my parents' answering machine earlier today:
Hey, it's me....just wondering if you guys voted yet and canceled each other out. Later!

Then my mom called me back and left her own message:
Yes, I voted it! But your father's still at work. So don't call back later! Maybe he'll forget or be too tired, and my vote will count more then!

Later in the evening, I called back anyway.
MOM: *disgusted sigh* He voted.
ME: Well, that'll happen. Is Dad upset?
MOM: I don't know! He's upstairs.
ME: Wait, you're watching the results on separate TVs?
MOM: Yes!


My sister, in a hushed whisper: "Jackie?"
ME: What?
SISTER, laughing: What is the electoral college? [My sister is 37, by the way]
ME: Are you kidding me? Are you trying to argue with Kevin?
SISTER: No. Just....tell me.
ME: Okay. So...each state's popular vote doesn't actually matter...they have representatives who decide where the state's influence will go.
SISTER: I know! I know that!
ME: ....And the amount of votes they get is based on population size.
SISTER: I know that!
ME: Then what is your problem?!
SISTER, still whispering: That....doesn't make any sense.
ME: It's....in the Constitution. I don't know what to tell you.



Even though I live a few blocks away, I could hear a dull roar of cheering from State Street when I got home last night, and that was over an hour after the election had been called.

Also, if you haven't done so yet, you should really read about the parallels between this election and the last two seasons of The West Wing, because the similarities are uncanny, down to the Phillies playing for the World Cup.

I was pretty tired yesterday, and I watched the election results on ABC at Antoine's place, with Creighton and Carolyn, and The Hammer. I like being on my laptop when election results are reported so that I can check more local results. I was also able to type up sections of my NanoWrimo story that I had written out longhand at work. And, of course, I could hang out at my favorite political news place: [livejournal.com profile] ontd_political. My favorite comment there from today thus far is this reaction to Obama naming his Chief of Staff: Oh man, this is gonna be THE HOTTEST CABINET EVAR!!! Of course, I also have a lot of love for this post, discussing what kind of dog the families Obama and Biden should get.

Moar Palin

Oct. 2nd, 2008 05:43 pm
laceblade: (Default)
It's really easy to go for the lulz when it comes to Sarah Palin, and even though I become more horrified with every YouTube clip I watch, I'm also becoming increasingly bored with the same links being re-posted all over LiveJournal (including my own!).

And that's why I was so interested in Ann Althouse's posts analyzing the ways in which both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were treated by Katie Couric in the mini-interview about Roe v. Wade. A lot of people say that Couric asked each of them the same questions, but she really didn't. Her interviewing style for each candidate was very different (interrupt one, and let the other have free reign). Also, because Althouse is a Constitutional Law professor, her analysis is an extremely intelligent one. Althouse has also taken an oath of neutrality for this year's presidential election coverage, which I appreciate.


Her post on Joe Biden: "Katie Couric invites viewers to admire the impressive constitutional expertise of Joe Biden."

Questions! Questions! Katie, where are your questions?

Let me suggest a few: Why is that a consensus? And should the Supreme Court be serving up consensus and calling it constitutional law? If you say the case is good because it is consensus, then why would it not have been preferable to allow the democratic processes to play out and produce consensus? Why should courts impose consensus? And why are you praising the lines drawn in Roe, when the Court redrew the lines in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? "It says in the first three months that decision should be left to the woman"... ahem... that hasn't been the doctrine since 1992!

...

Why didn't Couric press him on his expansive view of his own power and disregard for the role of the states? Will he bring similar expansive theories of constitutional power to the executive branch?

Absolute deafening silence from Katie Couric. She gave him a free pass. The viewer is invited to sit back and admire Joe Biden as an impressive authority on constitutional law... not like that ignoramus Sarah Palin. Very few viewers will perceive what has been done here.


And her post on Sarah Palin: "Sarah Palin was absolutely right to decline to name Supreme Court cases -- other than Roe v. Wade -- that she disagrees with."

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?
...
Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ....

Translation: I'm not going to answer the question, so I'll just repeat myself about how wonderful federalism and add that American history is great.

When you're talking about bad Supreme Court cases, it's not a good time to call American history "great," since the worst decisions entail slavery and segregation, which were, to say the least, not great.

Couric: Can you think of any?

The gotcha is dripping from her lips.

Palin: Well, I could think of ... any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

Now, it would have been better to go back into history -- Palin brought up history -- and name a couple of the notorious cases that everyone acknowledges were bad. I suspect that Palin worried that she might get a case name wrong or that she'd be quizzed about exactly what happened in those cases and that she had a risk-avoidance strategy. Stalling for time, she began to repeat the old federalism point -- "best dealt with on a more local level" -- and then she shifted to a perfectly good excuse for not accepting the invitation to discuss Supreme Court cases: An executive official -- a mayor, governor, or vice president -- should respect the authority of the Supreme Court as it has articulated the meaning of the law.

If Palin had named some current cases -- as opposed to the historical cases that the Court itself has already disavowed -- that she disagrees with she would be claiming greater expertise in legal analysis than the Court itself or, alternatively, she would be saying that the Supreme Court's interpretation of constitutional law is not final.

Either proposition would be difficult to maintain and should not be attempted in an impromptu style in a high-stakes situation. This is the sort of thing a Supreme Court nominee facing confirmation hearings would prepare for intensely and face with trepidation. Palin deserves credit for seeing the situation for what is was and opting out.

It is difficult enough to maintain that one Supreme Court case is wrong, and Roe is that one case. The decision to oppose that case has been carefully thought out and is exceedingly important to Palin and others. (Note: I support abortion rights.) Roe stands apart from everything else because it entails what Palin, I presume, sees as a profound moral wrong: the continuing widespread murder of innocent babies. There are not some additional cases to toss in alongside Roe. The general rule, to which Roe is a unique exception, is that the Supreme Court is the authority on the meaning of constitutional law. And that is exactly what Palin said.



If nothing else, it's much more thought-provoking than most of the Internet commentary I've been seeing.
laceblade: (Default)
Earlier today, a meme was going around on my LJ friends list, where people posted their favorite Supreme Court case, because Sarah Palin was unable to name a single one in an interview.

Guys? She can't even name a newspaper. Wasn't Sarah Palin a journalism major?



The only explanation I can come up with for this is that she couldn't remember which ones had liberal biases, or somehow thought it was a trick question. Surely, she must be able to name newspapers, right? RIGHT?



I know that some people think Katie Couric is being a total bitch in these interviews, but I really don't understand how you couldn't be. When she gives a heinous answer, how can you NOT ask the immediate follow-up to make her look like an idiot?

I feel like, if nothing else, all English majors in America should vote against Sarah Palin.

I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate.

I keep wondering if I'm watching a horrible sci-fi movie, but Sarah Palin is real.

You can watch her entire interview about social issues here (the second video). Probably my "favorite" part is where says that homosexuality is a choice.

Get ready for Thursday's debate. It will be nothing short of magical, I'm sure.
laceblade: (Default)
I'm sorry, because I know that a lot of people are "sick of" talking about politics. But I at least try to make my posts more interesting than "Gosh, Candidate B sucks so much!" Posts like that annoy me as well, but I love getting meta about politics just as much as I do about books.



The Anonymous Liberal posits a theory that John McCain purposely said he wasn't going to attend the debate with Barack Obama in order to draw attention away from Sarah Palin's disastrous interview with Katie Couric (if you haven't watched it, it's all over YouTube).

In that interview, Palin did two things that hurt the McCain campaign and, but for McCain's late afternoon shenanigans, would have garnered much more attention. First, buying into the premise of one of Couric's questions, she all but stated that if no bailout legislation is passed, we'll be headed into the next Great Depression. Even if true, that's not a very smart thing for a politician to say and, importantly, it all but foreclosed any possibility of McCain voting against the bailout.

As for the second, it's Palin's response to Couric's asking for examples in John McCain's 26 years as senator for pushing for more regulation on banks. ("I'll try to find you some, and bring 'em to ya.")

That is not a good soundbite. Not only does it confirm that Palin is in way over her head, but every time the clip is played, viewers get to hear Couric point out that McCain has a 26 year record of not favoring regulations.

...

I think the McCain campaign knew the Couric interview would be a disaster as soon as it was done taping and spent much of the day frantically trying to think of a way to push it out of the headlines. The clincher for me is the fact that McCain cancelled his Letterman appearance at the last second and instead sat down for an impromptu interview with, of all people, Katie Couric. The hope was to bump the Palin interview even on the CBS Evening News, which otherwise would have hyped and teased the Palin interview all afternoon and used it to lead the broadcast. Instead, CBS devoted most of its coverage to McCain and played segments of the Palin interview almost as an afterthought. Mission accomplished.

Obviously, none of us know what McCain's strategists are thinking, but it seems like the smartest thing they could have done to cover their asses.

It also makes sense given the Obama quotes in various news articles where he's like, "Yeah, I don't know WTF is going on; I just talked to McCain on the phone and everything was cool, and now I guess he's not coming to the debate."

Of course, McCain has now agreed to do the debate this evening, but the Palin interview seems to have gone by relatively unnoticed....except on the Internet, of course. Where we never let things go, and, in this case, rightly so.
laceblade: (Default)
If you haven't heard yet, John McCain wants this Friday's presidential debate pushed back so that he and Obama can go to Washington to "work on the economy."

Oh, and he would like to also push back the Biden/Palin debate.


But, you know, I can see why.




O HAI, how much money will McCain be costing Ole Miss if he cancels this debate? $5.5 million. Let us pause and reflect on this for a moment. To fix the economy, McCain will cost Batesville, Mississippi 5.5 million dollars.

“I feel like sending a text message to Barack Obama,” said Ruth Schiele-Moore, the manager of a 50-unit hotel in Batesville, half an hour from Oxford, where the debate will be held.

Her hotel is booked solid for the weekend, as are most hotels and motels in the area. She said she would like to send Obama a text message that reads:

“Come on down here. You just may win Mississippi.” [Source]



And what how does Senate President Harry Reid feel about the senators coming back to Washington for the weekend to fix the economy?

This is a critical time for our country. While I appreciate that both candidates have signaled their willingness to help, Congress and the Administration have a process in place to reach a solution to this unprecedented financial crisis.

I understand that the candidates are putting together a joint statement at Senator Obama’s suggestion. But it would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation’s economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.

If there were ever a time for both candidates to hold a debate before the American people about this serious challenge, it is now. [Source.]


GO HARRY REID. PWN THOSE N00BS.

BUT THE BEST PART? Obama has been called to the doghouse, and will be meeting with President Bush, tomorrow. Probably so Bush can ask him to call off this debate. HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU PAY TO SEE A PRIVATE MEETING BETWEEN THESE TWO MEN? Obama Campaign's post on the subject.


He could so easily "win" Friday's debate by simply showing up. Standing at the podium. Gesturing to the empty one next to him.

It's time for America to decide who it wants to lead this nation. Friday supposed to be a night for debate. An open discourse between Obama and Senator McCain. The topics would center not only on the economy, but each and every issue that is so intricately entwined with it: the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abortion. Campaign finance. Civil rights. Military defense. The education of our youth. Taking care of those Americans who live in poverty every day, for whom worrying about their financial situation is not a new concept. Social Security. Immigration.

Becoming president is not a job you slide into. It's not about grandstanding. It's not about laying blame. It's not about picking a vice presidential candidate who will deliver you your party's base, but in reality has nothing to offer the nation.


TAKE THOSE GLOVES OFF.

Seriously, this is like Christmas for the Obama campaign. If they play this right, all he's going to have to do to win this election is giggle.
laceblade: (Default)
It is no secret that The West Wing is my favorite TV show of all time. And I could explain it with the brilliant characterization, the pretty men in suits, the setting, and the funny.

But really, what makes The West Wing my favorite show of all time is the superior writing style of Aaron Sorkin. The man makes my heart soar in a way that few writers can.

So you can imagine my excitement with Maureen Dowd's most recent New York Times article. In it, she asked Aaron Sorkin to write a script of what would happen if Obama were to meet with fictional president Jed Bartlet. And the result is nothing short of amazing.

OBAMA The problem is we can’t appear angry. Bush called us the angry left. Did you see anyone in Denver who was angry?

BARTLET Well ... let me think. ...We went to war against the wrong country, Osama bin Laden just celebrated his seventh anniversary of not being caught either dead or alive, my family’s less safe than it was eight years ago, we’ve lost trillions of dollars, millions of jobs, thousands of lives and we lost an entire city due to bad weather. So, you know ... I’m a little angry.

OBAMA What would you do?

BARTLET GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush Doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!

I want Obama to take the gloves off.

And also? Internet, I can't even tell you how much I am looking forward to watching a debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. The pwnage will be of such epic proportions that I'm afraid of having a hernia from laughing.
laceblade: (Default)
What the hell, did Heroes premiere last week? Shows how little I care about the show, I guess. Did anybody watch it? Did it stop being a suck-fest?


I like this article on white privilege and the 2008 presidential election, by Tim Wise. Source.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

...

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.



Also, I really liked this entry in Emma Bull's LiveJournal, which relates to the comments people leave on the Internet, or even things that are said in normal conversation.

I understand the impulse to reply to everything you ever read, but if all you ever have to say is something cynical and that smacks of "Well, clearly you should have seen this coming....like I did!", then it gets pretty old. Read it, people! Conversational etiquette, both online and offline, FTW. In fact, I think I'll just quote her entire post, because you should read it.

"Why are you surprised?"

"Did you really think that...?"

"This is old news."

"It's just business as usual."

I've been hearing and reading these lines, and others like them, a lot lately. They show up when someone--sometimes me, sometimes someone else--gets angry about the election, about FEMA, about law enforcement, about politicians, about a government agency, and says so. When they do, someone will almost always respond with a variation on one of those lines.

I'd just like to say this to the people who are responding that way:

You're seriously pissing me off. Shut the fuck up.

Because here's the implied message of those lines: "You're cute when you're naive and ill-informed. I, however, am too smart and experienced to believe that what's upsetting you can be changed. I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly ridicule you for your embarrassing lack of knowledge and world-weary sophistication."

Do you think you can consider yourself one of the good guys when you ridicule someone for speaking out against things that harm others? Does your ego need so much public propping-up that you'll scorn someone else's distress and anger, if it gives you an excuse to declare yourself smart?

Maybe you really do believe there's nothing we can do about cruelty, injustice, corruption. Maybe you really are shrugging off the world's problems. Okay, you're allowed. It's exhausting work, trying to fix the broken shit, and not everyone can do it all the time every day. I sure can't.

But when you try to make yourself feel better about it by denigrating other people's outrage, you don't get a pass. That goes beyond sitting this one out; it makes you part of the problem.

So if you're all world-weary and wiser than me, I don't want to hear about it. Because those lines up there and their little friends are just an attempt to make you feel big and me feel small. They don't do one damned thing to make the world a better place.
laceblade: (Default)
“Let me just say from the outset that I don’t consider Bolton credible,” the president said bitterly. Bush had brought Bolton into the top ranks of his administration, fought for Senate confirmation and, when lawmakers balked, defied critics to give the hawkish aide a recess appointment. “I spent political capital for him,” Bush said, and look what he got in return.


Okay, I seriously try to give Bush the benefit of the doubt as a human being, but WHAT THE FLIPPING EFF?! What a dick. The end.

Source.
Also, because I am narcissistic, o hai, I disliked this guy when he got appointed, too.


On a lighter note, many fans of Battlestar Galactica fans have noted the particular resemblance that Colonel Tigh and Laura Roslin bear to John McCain and Sarah Palin. Someone in the comments has also pointed out Cindy McCain's likeness to Ellen Tigh.

I am Saul Tigh, and you'd frakkin'-well-better believe that I approve this message.

Profile

laceblade: (Default)
laceblade

November 2023

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 10th, 2025 06:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios