But I don't remember for sure.
Anyhoo, that opening ceremony was pretty much the coolest thing I've seen in a long time.
Two points:
-The little boy that walked out with Yao Ming that had saved some of his classmates during the earthquake was adorable. And his story came very close to making me cry.
-I kept yelling at the TV every time they showed George and Laura. Especially when they showed the two of them applauding the Iraqi athletes. I started yelling "you do NOT get to clap for them!" over and over. I really wanted a collective bird-flipping at them from the Iraqi team. But apparently they have more class and decorum than I do.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, August 9, 2008
I Think They Were Building the Bird's Nest When I Was In China...
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
I Need To Do Some Shopping.
First off, I am going to pay tribute to George Carlin soon. But I want to actually take some time to write something about him, because he deserves more than a quick mention.
Anyhoo, via an ad on Feministing, I have discovered Dogs 4 Democrats. I now feel I need to buy things for Zelda. Like an Obama collar (maybe after the convention)? Or how about some poop bags with Bush and Cheney's faces one them? They say "Mission Accomplished," which is as full of crap as the bags will be. Probably more so if you have a small dog with small poop.
And for cat people, there is "DemoCats" merchandise as well.
I guess I need money.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Glaring Results Of Cultural Brainwashing.
Hey guess what, if two people who supported Clinton are quoted in a article, they represent the exact sentiments of every other person who supported Clinton! That's right. Obviously because this one woman felt that the Democratic party treated the candidates unequally and the other plans to vote for McCain over Obama, that must be how we all feel!
Well, that's what this glimmering beacon of political enlightenment seems to think.
Despite the fact that, well, Clinton's campaign was treated differently than Obama's by both Democrats and the mainstream media, if we call anyone out on it we're just whining because we think she was entitled.
Never mind the fact that Clinton herself said weeks ago how stupid it would be for her supporters to vote for McCain over Obama. At some point, some exit poll somewhere said that some Clinton supporters would vote McCain (I notice we failed to mention that nearly as many Obama supporters said the same thing)! And there's one person quoted in that article! zomg it's true for everyone!!!!!11111one
Run your eyes really fast from left to right over my banner. See me roll my eyes? I'm doing it for real, too.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
You've Probably Been Waiting For This.
Since the general assumption has been that I'm obsessed with the Clinton campaign, both of you reading this have probably wondered what my reaction to the final tally is.
First of all, I was never obsessed. I have an opinion and a preference and I'm not afraid to say what it is. But being in the minority in a lot of areas of my life, I was sought out as the go-to Clinton supporter and subsequently seen as a bastion of all knowledge and facts relating to her campaign. But obsessed? Not so much. Opinionated and obnoxious maybe.
Secondly, I have been saying since day one that I have no particular qualms with Barack Obama. In fact, come August (once the convention is over and his nomination is official) I will probably be sporting Obama campaign swag of some sort.
Trois, John Kerry wasn't my first choice in 2004 but I still voted for him. Of course, I voted by absentee ballot in Georgia so it probably wasn't counted anyway. But that's not the point.
I am, however, going to paste here something I just posted as a comment on Feministing. Basically I wrote about what the Clinton campaign (and the whole primary circus) taught me about this country.
It showed my how horrifyingly sexist our country still is. Even people I wouldn't have thought of as in any way misogynistic made comments about Clinton being "too political" or "too aggressive" and things of the same ilk, characteristics shared by all politicians but only lambasted in females.
It showed me that a woman can be the more experienced candidate but her career is taken far less seriously than a male competitor's is.
It showed me that a smart, strong, independent, qualified woman in a position of power still terrifies the American people at large.
I learned a woman can make a brilliant and intelligent speech or kick serious ass in a debate but the next day we will only her about her hairstyle, her pantsuit or her cleavage.
I learned you are either stony and emotionless or a hysterical woman; there is no middle ground.
I learned that if your husband cheats on you and you don't leave him, you are, by default, abusive to women and a sexual harasser. However, had you left him, you would be less of a woman or at least less qualified for the presidency for being divorced (that's my own speculation but I doubt anyone would disagree here).
I learned if your daughter helps you campaign, you are "pimping her out." Because there's no way that the daughter of a smart, strong woman would grow up to also be a smart, strong woman and be able to make her own decisions about politics.
I learned that the media's collective soft-kissing of a particular candidate can secure his future long before he ACTUALLY secures his future.
I learned that a female president will automatically attract terrorists, despite the fact that several countries we are allegedly fighting against have had women in positions of power, as have friendlier nations who have yet to be blown up for it.
I learned that people automatically assume that if you happen to choose the candidate that matches your sex or race (when there's actually an option other than white male) that is the only reason you are voting for them. It's not possible that you just prefer the candidate.
I learned that it's still OK to use derogatory sexist names and slurs while using parallel racial terms would earn you a one way trip to bloody-pulp-ville. Or banned-from-the-media-ville. Etc.
Mostly I learned that since the general public is still intimidated by smart, strong women, I should stand up and be one, not shut my mouth, not be a good little girl, and not take any of this sexist BS laying down, because if we just roll over and let it happen nothing will never change.
(I also decided that if Obama has any political savvy in him he'll pick Clinton for his veep, they would be completely unstoppable as a joint ticket in my opinion)
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
My Take On The Edwards Endorsement
He endorsed Obama, in case you didn't know.
How deliciously safe it is. He waited until it started to look like Obama was really going to win, then he pounced. But he did it while the race was still technically on, so it would look genuine. How deliberate, calculating and convenient to wait until now.
It's kind of like how Bush waited until all the Republicans had dropped out, then endorsed McCain. Except Bush isn't smart enough to calculate when to do it so it still looked real.
How glaringly obvious, Johnny.
And very interesting that NARAL Pro-Choice America made the same slick move. Of course it's especially stupid for them because of the possibility of alienating a lot of their donors.
And yes, if Clinton were ahead and he'd picked her I'd say the exact same thing.
That's Exactly What I've Been Saying
While talking about the campaign, Hillary Clinton said precisely what I've been saying this whole time: it would be ridiculously stupid for her supporters to vote for McCain over Obama. And vice versa, it would be stupid for Obama's supporters to vote for McCain over her.
Because WHY would you vote for someone who's beliefs are 180 degrees away from yours when there is someone with a very similar platform to what you agree with right there just waiting for you to vote for them? Because isn't looking past someone's lack of experience or a minor deviation from your exact beliefs a better choice than someone with whom you have nothing in common?
I also agree with something else she said, which was that the Democrats will have a unified party once they have a nominee. I'm taking that to support my theory that the people who claim they would vote for McCain over their favorite are doing it out of some sort of hissy fit, or that they say that now but come November there's no way they'd pull the lever for a (pro-war, anti-choice, freedom-hating, Bush-imitating) Republican.
Also, I'm resigning myself to the idea that Obama will probably be the nominee. I know people out there think I'm obsessed with having Clinton win because I am not shy about the fact that I support and prefer her. Obama isn't a terrible candidate, he's just not my first choice. But hell, John Kerry wasn't my first choice in 2004 and I still voted and campaigned for him. Though I'm pretty sure my property won't be vandalized this time.
Having said that, I feel I should add a *woot* to West Virginia.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
On Being Ten Feet From Howard Dean
This is a little late, I apologize. But last week I went to a taping of The Daily Show. It was last Thursday, the episode that had Howard Dean as the guest. I thought that I'd walk you through the process.
First, you arrive and stand in line. You have to make reservations at the Daily Show Tickets page. Those come with the disclaimer that not every who makes a reservation will get in. It also suggest you arrive between 3:30 and 4:00. That's crap. On my first attempt to get in I arrived somewhere around 3:15 and was at the back of the line around the corner. They cut the line off about 10 or 15 people in front of me (*grumble*). That, however, worked out for the better, because if you get denied the first time you can e-mail them for VIP tickets that guarantee you a spot in the audience. Which is what I had last week.
With VIP tickets you don't have to get there quite as early. I believe 4:30 is the latest you can arrive and still be guaranteed a spot. I got there a little before 4:00 and stood and waited. At 4:30 (or 4:35 or 4:40...) they come down the VIP line and check your name off their list and give you a numbered ticket. I was #9. Yes, I made "Client 9" jokes. It was the right thing to do. Then you go through a security checkpoint. Metal detector and someone searching your bag. Like the airport without the condescension or attitude. Then you are corralled into a holding area while all 200 audience members go through security, and you stand there for about an hour total. Then they finally let you into the audience area (after making 2 or 3 announcements reminding you not to use electronic devices or take pictures, or to shout anything out during taping, etc) by your ticket number.
My party had really good seats. If you're facing the desk Jon Stewart sits at, we would be to the left (so, his right) in the second row. Pretty much as close as you can get without giving him a lapdance.
You sit there for another half-hour or so. There's a warm-up guy who comes out and makes fun of people in the audience and gives instructions about applause and all that. See, they don't use a laugh track. The audience is mic'd at half the volume Stewart is, so your reactions are what is used on the show. And you have to clap and cheer loud because of the half-volume thing.
So Jon Stewart comes out (woo) and talks/answers audience questions for a few minutes.
The taping starts. Little did I know, they do the entire show in a straight shot. They even have monitors hanging that play the pre-taped segments. It's exactly what you see on TV, only live. I was surprised by that initially, but I guess it makes sense for this particular show. It's scripted, but there's a little bit of ad-libbing and audience reaction that feeds it and is what makes it good.
So, on to Howard Dean. I was interested but not completely thrilled when I learned he was the guest. See, I don't agree with his decision to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. Though I will say with his appearance I can sort of see where he's coming from, but I still think it's a huge mistake and very much smacks of what happened to Florida in 2000. Which I hate because he was one of my top choices in 2004, I think Edwards-Dean or Dean-Edwards would have been a better choice than Kerry-Edwards. Certainly more charismatic.
When he left (during the commercial break) Jon Stewart said a little something to the audience that to me sounded like he was pretty much thanking us for not booing Dean off the set. So that acknowledges the fact that I'm not the only liberal irked by his decision. Which I sort of already knew.
Anyway, after that, it was just like the end of the show. Wrap it up, Moment of Zen, out of there. Then the audience was ushered out.
It's a really cool experience. From a nerdy, "I love that show and anything that comes out of Jon Stewart's mouth" place as well as being interested in seeing how these things work behind the scenes.
Have some clips from that day's show (which, put together, are pretty much the entire show):
(I decided that John Oliver is by far my favorite of their current correspondents)
(I though this segent was kind of stupid, except when he asked if Clinton wore pantsuits when she was 3)
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
I Celebrate My Return To Blogging By Inundating You With Music Videos
Don't worry, I only inundate people with incredibly badass music videos. I wouldn't want to disappoint either of my readers.
Also, in order to keep up with the grain of this blog, they are politically motivated incredibly badass music videos. W00t.
(This isn't NOFX's video, it's some random YouTube person's...but it's more about the song anyway)
(swoon.)
And one more, for funsies:
(meaning it's not political, I just like the song - though I swear it's been sped up for the video, compared to the album)
Enjoy.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Clinton Wins Pennsylvania!
It's been called by multiple sources. CNN, The New York Times, and Reuters.
Woo hoo!
See, here's the thing. People keep saying she's going to drop out any day now. They say it's coming; she hasn't got a prayer.
WRONG.
She's behind by less than 130 delegates. Know what that is? NOTHING. Pennsylvania alone has 188. And there are more primaries to go. Seven states, Puerto Rico and Guam still remain. That's 501 more delegates. And if you add in PA it's 689 (since we don't know exactly how the delegates will be divided yet). Say they split the remaining races exactly down the middle. If you take their current delegate standings (Clinton 1541 and Obama 1679) and added half (344) to either of them, it's still a razor thin margin. If that were the case, Obama would have 2023 and Clinton would have 1885.
Obama would be ahead, but that's still 2 delegates shy of sealing the deal*.
Basically, what I'm saying is, at this point it would be beyond stupid for her to drop out of the race. Especially with tonight's Pennsylvania victory, the margin between them is so tight there's no telling who's going to come out the winner.
We aren't going to know for sure until August, people (person?). We may have an idea when all the primaries are over in June, but I'm not taking anything to heart until the actual convention and official nomination.
*I realize I am not addressing any remaining superdelegates with this. But my point would stay the same. It's still too close to know, and it would be insane to drop out at this point. No superdelegates were harmed in the making of this post.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Feminism and the Clinton Campaign
New York Magazine has a great article this week about the effects of Clinton's campaign on modern feminism. It makes a lot of good points, the most notable of which is that, even if Clinton doesn't get the nomination and become the first woman president, she has started a national dialog and opened up a lot of people's eyes to how sexist our society really is.
Too many people thought that past waves of feminism had cured the U.S. of it's misogynistic ways, but they didn't realize that just because they didn't experience anything overt in their daily lives doesn't mean it isn't happening elsewhere. Besides, what they perceive as equal is still sexist because differences between genders are still noted. Women's successes and failures are still seen as successes or failures of their gender as opposed to the individual. Sexist and derogatory remarks are still made around the office, and covered up as "jokes." Women are still judged for their appearance hundreds of times more than men are. Pay is still unequal. Etc. I don't think I need to continue.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
I Hate Florida, And It's Not Just Because The Gators Suck
In an attempt thinly veiled as "safe health care," Florida legislature has voted to require a woman to have an ultrasound before having an abortion. This is terrible on so many levels.
Uno, this implies that women don't think about what pregnancy and abortion mean and that we need to have a medical test to teach us about our own bodies.
B, any responsible doctor or clinic will perform an ultrasound before an abortion for several (legitimate) reasons. They need to confirm that the woman is, in fact, pregnant and that her pregnancy is not ectopic (occurring outside the uterus). I know that at PP-NYC they will perform an ultrasound and if your pregnancy is ectopic they will escort you to the emergency room right away.
Three, we know their reasoning behind this isn't really promoting quality medical care, it's encouraging doctors to show women the ultrasound and point out the embryo in an appeal to them not to terminate. Which as we all know is a disgusting invasion of a woman's agency over her own body.
Oh, and apparently this bill also adds that causing a miscarriage through violence against a pregnant woman will result in a murder charge, no matter how far along the pregnancy is. It defines life as beginning at conception for criminal proceedings.
Now, if a woman is pregnant and you commit a violent act against her, yes, there is something wrong with you. But the crime is against the woman, and that is where we should focus our energy.
Defining life at conception is a serious attack on our right to make decisions over our own bodies. This is a step in a slippery slope toward completely taking away our freedom of choice. They have disguised it as only taking place during a violent act, but all this bill does is get it into the law that life is at conception, which means the anti-choice woman-hating right wing can point at that in the future and say "see, it says here life is at conception, so we should take away abortions!" They are sneaky and crafty like that.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Yeah, I'm *Totes* Not Buying This One.
Allegedly, the results of a Gallup poll indicate that if Obama were the Democratic nominee, 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain. And 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Clinton.
So yeah, I really doubt that.
I mean let's think about this logically. Clinton and Obama are ideologically very similar if you look at their voting records and platforms. Focusing on issues that are important to me, both would be fine. Both are pro-choice and earned a 100% rating from NARAL, both have plans to get us out of Iraq, both have a idea for healthcare, etc. McCain's record on all of these things (which I'm not going to link to, because I don't want to be the reason anyone pukes up their dinner) is abysmal. He's anti-choice (and anti-woman, essentially), pro-war (he's said staying in Iraq for a century would be fine by him), and panders to the wealthy (which means healthcare reform is right out).
You'd have to be ridiculously stupid to vote for a candidate with a 180 degree difference from yourself because your favorite wasn't nominated. Especially when there's a candidate with a nearly identical ideology to your favorite just waiting to be voted for.
This kind of poll is incredibly fallible anyway. There's also the fact that people may say those things NOW, but come Election Day there's no way they'd actually pull the lever for McCain.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Gubernatorial Sex > People Losing Their Homes
David Paterson admitted today that both he and his wife have had extramarital affairs, both at the same time when they were going through a rough time in their relationship.
I understand why he would come forward and say this. He's a politician, so at some point someone would probably drag this into the spotlight, and by being forthright with the information he sets an example of honesty that, after recent events, the state of New York sorely needs. So as not to be the butt of too many jokes.
But seriously, why do we even need to know? As long as he does a good job as Governor, I genuinely don't care what he does in his own time. It's not illegal, it doesn't put anyone's life in danger, and it has no bearing on his job! Who are we to judge someone else's private life? Who are we to look into someone else's relationship and use it to determine their fitness for a given profession?
There was a comment left on the New York Times website that was great. It was written by Vivek Chandran and is as follows:
"If say my wife and kid got run by a car .. and I rushed them to hospital.. I’m looking for the best doctor to ensure that my wife and kid get the best medical care possible. Once I find the best doctor .. I do not ask him for his credit history, whether he is gay or straight or whether he has had an extra marital affair. I only look for competence. Similarly I expect only competence from my janitor, my garbage collection person, the baggage handler at the airport, the grocery clerk. When all of us as people do not look for morality but competence in all our transactions with other people .. why do we looks for morality just in the Governor .. who is a provide of another service for all of us."
I literally copied and pasted that, so all errors, grammatical or otherwise, were made by the original poster.
Also, some infidelity statistics for you (taken from various internet sites via Google):
-22 percent of married men have strayed at least once during their married lives.
-14 percent of married women have had affairs at least once during their married lives.
-50 percent of Americans say President Clinton's adultery makes his moral standard "about the same as the average married man," according to a Time-CNN poll.
-17 percent of divorces in the United States are caused by infidelity.
-Affairs affect one of every 2.7 couples
-Ten percent of extramarital affairs last one day, 10 percent last more than one day but less than a month, 50 percent last more than a month but less than a year, but 40 percent last two or more years. Few extramarital affairs last more than four years.
-75% of men and 65% of women admit to having sex with people they work with. (I include this because Paterson admits to having an affair with someone who worked in a different department at the NY Capitol)
-Percentage of marriages that last after an affair has been admitted to or discovered: 31%
Bottom line, someone's private life and relationships have nothing to do with their ability to do their job.
I think we should pay attention to how many people lost money because of the collapse of Bear Stearns. Or how when we were concerned about Spitzer's little whore problem, one of Bush's cronies was spending over $200 billion to bail out predatory banks and lenders?
But no. We are much more concerned about what's happening in someone's pants.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Candidates and Choice
Hillary Clinton: good, pro-choice. NARAL rating: 100% (rated since 2001)
Barack Obama: good, pro-choice. NARAL rating: 100% (rated since 2005)
John McCain: you probably don't want to know. *runs screaming into the night...or Canada* NARAL rating: 0% (rated since 1987, there were 4 years he did not score zero: 1992, 1993, 1997, 1998, where he was either 5% or 10%)
We need a pro-choice President. There is no question about it.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Where Spitzer Was SUPPOSED to be on Monday
So on Monday, I attended the 31st FPA Conference in Albany. FPA is the Family Planning Advocates of NYS. It was held at the Empire Plaza in Albany. I got to go because I'm a member of the Planned Parenthood of NYC Activist Council.
So I had to be at Planned Parenthood in Manhattan at 6:30 AM. Anyone who knows me can probably guess how much I enjoyed that. When we arrived in Albany we registered and went into a brunch, where there were several notable speakers scheduled. Future former Governor Eliot Spitzer was one of them (actually, the one I had been most looking forward to seeing) but he was, ahem, "called away." I did get to hear a speech from Governor-to-be David Paterson. He was a really good speaker, and thanks in part to that I'm confident in him as Governor.
Anyhoo, Paterson spoke, as did some other people whose names I have written down somewhere but am too lazy to go get, then they handed out the Margaret Sanger Award to Sen. Velmanette Montgomery and Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava. Interestingly enough, Scozzafava is a republican. Who'da thunk it?
The keynote speaker was Amy Goodman from the Democracy Now radio show/podcast. She was excellent, and I bought one of her books, Static (and had it signed).
In the afternoon we had lobby appointments with our Senators. Mine is Martin Conner, who is very pro-choice and pro-reproductive health, so he was already in support of RHPPA and the Healthy Teens Act. Easy meeting.
We actually met with one of his aides, and that's where we were when the Spitzer story broke. In the middle of the meeting, the aide answered the phone and all we heard was "what? prostitution? I'm in a meeting, I'll have to call you back" then she sat down and said "there's something about Spitzer and prostitutes." And after the meeting everyone with an internet phone was glued to it (that is to say, NOT me, though if I pay $1 a day and hold my phone in just the right position I can get a text only version of CNN.com). Rumors were flying. One minute he was a john, the next he was the pimp, the next he had already resigned, etc. And the murmurs between government workers in the elevators was constant. It was a very interesting day to be in Albany.
We also watched a performance by the group The Capitol Steps. They were hilarious. They made fun of politicians. I would love to see them again once they've incorporated this Spitzer thing into their act.
So the main reason I was disappointed to hear about Spitzer was the fact that he has been such a friend and ally to the reproductive health movement. RHPPA is his bill. He initiated it in response to Gonzales v. Carhart, which as we all remember is the late-term abortion ban that doesn't take womens' health into account.
Tangent: "Partial birth" is a lie. It is a phrase made up by the radical anti-choice, anti-woman right to make late-term abortions sound icky and evil. Women who have late-term abortions generally have a very good reason for it.
Tangent 2: The actual procedure of having a surgical abortion takes three minutes.
Here's a picture I took of David Paterson:
Woot.
SPITZER RESIGNS
It's official. Eliot Spitzer has just resigned from the office of Governor of New York. Effective Monday, David Paterson will take over. He will be the first black Governor of New York and only the fourth black Governor in the country.
This may seem hard to believe, but I don't know what else to say. I don't even have any sarcasm for this. I'm snark-less.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Some Good Out of the Spitzer Fiasco
So, Spitzer is probably going to resign. We all pretty much figured, right?
I was thinking about it. It may actually do some good for the state. Not that Spitzer was bad for the state, from my point of view and with what I care about he actually was very good. But, with him leaving there is allowance for some shuffling that may be beneficial. According to the New York Times, if/when he steps down, David Paterson would become Governor. And as I said yesterday, I believe he will do a fine job. I think that ideologically he's very similar to Spitzer. He also gave an incredible speech at the FPA Conference I attended yesterday. Also, as an interesting tidbit, he would be New York's first black (and legally blind) governor.
So then Senator Joseph Bruno would become Lt. Governor. This is where I think I may have found some silver lining. He's the current majority leader of the state senate. He's also a republican. Very anti-reproductive freedom. Which means he has consistently blocked the Healthy Teens Act and RHPPA from getting to a floor vote and, ultimately, getting passed. So in theory with him in the Lt. Gov. seat, there is a chance that his successor will be friendly to women and possibly get these laws passed. I guess that depends on who succeeds him as majority leader. I don't know how this sort of thing is handled. Will there be a special election in his district? Will the republicans still be a majority in the state senate? I think it was only a one seat difference. So without him there, there is a tie until his seat is filled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
