pundits have no sense

In watching the returns from the Pennsylvania primary last night, and in reading some of the news stories today, I'm a bit irritated by the response to Obama's "loss" in Pennsylvania. There's been a heavy focus on the fact that Obama spent a lot of money in Pennsylvania, but couldn't win it.

Clinton was always expected to win Pennsylvania. But a few weeks ago, Obama was down 20 points in Pennsylvania. Last night, the spread was only 10 points. That's a pretty large gain for only a few weeks.

And the pundits keep making some sort of connection between who wins a state in the Democratic primaries, and who could win a state against McCain in the general election. As if the fact that Clinton won Pennsylvania means that Obama couldn't win that state in the general election. As if 95% of the Democrats who voted for Clinton wouldn't choose Obama over McCain.

These pundits claim that if their candidate were to lose the nomination, a large number of people would vote for McCain or else would just stay home. This seems absurd to me - this has been one of the largest primaries in history, and after that, I can't imaging that many people would sit out the general election. Even if some did, the numbers of people voting in the Democratic primaries, versus the Republican primaries, has been almost 2 to 1 - even before McCain cinched the nomination.

The argument that when either Clinton or Obama takes the nomination, the other's voters are going to sit out or vote REPUBLICAN is ludicrous.

the idealist confesses

i am an idealist.

This past weekend, H. and I were discussing the Democratic presidential candidates over breakfast, debating whether Obama is all flash, and why Clinton doesn't inspire. Who could really get more done? Who could actually win the election?

It's made me think, more and more, about why Obama really appeals to me. And what I have to accept is that I am more of an idealist than a pragmatist. I believe in an ideal world where people actually consider the common good. Where we all agree that of course everyone should have health care and a good education and at least make enough money to feed their family without working a 15 hour day. I'm not so much of an idealist that I favor communism - I don't think everyone should live at the same level. But I also don't think that luck of the draw means that you should automatically have a much greater advantage, or if you do, you should share a little of it with those who were forced to start out a few rungs farther down the ladder. (In the form of taxes to pay for services you don't need, or CEOs who invest in better health care for their employees, rather than taking a multi-million dollar bonus).

I recognize that many (most?) people don't think this way. In the US, you take your advantages where you get them, and get as much as you can for yourself. If someone else has fewer advantages than you, well, that's their fault and their problem.

I recognize that most people think this way, but I don't stop hoping that it will change, that the inherent goodness that I believe exists in most people will override the inherent selfishness that also exists in most people. And it's that part of me that Obama appeals to. The part that makes me think that all we need as a country is someone to inspire us towards that inherent goodness.

The small part of me that is pragmatic knows this is unlikely, and knows that deeds are stronger than ideals. But the battered idealist who has seen the inherent selfishness take centerstage these last few years wants to hope, wants it so badly. I NEED to hope, as I've been disillusioned and defeated for too long. I have to believe that someone who inspires that hope, while maybe not meeting our grossly inflated standards, at least will be able to do a little good, and make us stand a little taller.

shopping makes me ill

I went to Macy's on my lunch break, to see if I could find a suit. I'm STILL trying to get myself a suit to wear for job fairs, interviews, etc. Shopping is hard, and I have a strange body shape (anyone know where to get a good selection of suit separates?)

While in Macy's, I remembered why I hate high-end department stores. It's not just the outrageous prices. It's the fact that their "organization" of women's clothes is ridiculous. According to their organizational style, I'm supposed to care more about who MAKES my clothes, than what the clothes actually are.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm the only person in the world who goes shopping thinking "I really need some black dress pants." Maybe everyone else goes shopping thinking "I really need to pick up some John St. John today."

In this particular Macy's, women's clothes are spread over THREE FLOORS. And organized by designer. So, if I want a suit, I go to the area for one designer, examine the one or two suits being offered, then go to another area, and look at a few more suits, and before you know it, I've walked a 3K and by the time I finally try something on, I'm not longer the same size I was when I picked up the first thing. Good for losing weight, bad for efficiency and bad for my patience.

Why do they have to make this difficult? Put all the suits together in one section. Put all the dress pants and dress shirts together, put all the casual wear together. I don't want to have weave through racks of shorts or blouses or sweaters looking for the one rack of suits in each of the 15 different designers sections. I just want to see all the goddamn suits.

ok, so explain this to me

I'm currently watching Saving Private Ryan on TNT. It's a amazing movie, don't get me wrong. I think everyone should see it.

But each time it comes back from commercial, there is a warning that the movie contains "extreme graphic violence and intense adult language, viewer discretion is strongly advised."

Through out the movie, most of the bad language is dubbed out. "Fucked up" is replaced with "fouled up." When it can't be easily dubbed over, it's just blanked out, or cut away from. There's no more "intense adult language" than your average episode of CSI.

Violence, however? There's plenty of that. Men are shot, blown up. Two soldiers without guns fight hand-to-hand for their lives. One bites the other in the hand, the blood welling out of his mouth. One is finally, slowly, stabbed in the heart to end the battle. Another man is gut-shot and dies, slow and bloody, crying for his mother.

Is the violence realistic, necessary to the story? Absolutely. But so is the language. Both are integral parts of the reality of the film. How is it damaging for a child to hear "fuck" or "asshole," but not damaging to watch a man get blown up or stabbed in the heart? Which are they more likely to remember later? Why does the FCC regulate one and not the other?

It's the same thing with television shows. They're filled with violence, sexual situations, but heaven forbid someone says "fuck."

I don't particularly advocate filling TV shows with profanity, but I certainly don't advocate violence either. I believe parents should be responsible for what their children watch. The double standard just irritates the hell out of me (yeah, I said hell).

We imbibe language with a power out of fear, while consuming untold amounts of visual images of violence and sex that desensitizes us to its ugliness, ignoring the fact that it has much more power, whether we recognize it or not, than language has.

superdelegates supersuck

Currently, Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, 635-630 (out of a possible 3200+).

Democrats need 2025 delegates to cinch the nomination. If you've seen many of the charts of delegates, you've seen that Clinton is currently leading Obama 823-741. What's the deal?

The problem on the Democratic side are the Superdelegates. Dems have two kinds of delegates - pledged, and super.

Pledged delegates are the ones that you vote for in your state elections. They're basically like the electoral college, except they are proportionate instead of winner-takes-all. (If you didn't vote, the ballot has you vote for a candidate, but you also have to vote for delegates in your district, who have pledged to vote for a certain candidate.) Pledged delegates are divided up per district based on the proportion of votes for each candidate in that district. In this type of delegate, Obama is currently leading, but barely.

However, there are almost 800 "superdelegates" (almost 40% of total delegates) - these are Congressmen, Senators, Governors, past Presidents, and other Democratic party bigwigs (including Mayor Daley). These delegates are not pledged to vote for a certain candidate. They are officially "unpledged" until the convention, where they vote for whomever they wish, but they are free to pledge themselves to a candidate before the convention, if they choose.

Let's make this clear. Who the Superdelegates vote for has nothing to do with how the "people" vote. Just because Chicagoians mostly voted for Obama doesn't mean that Daley has to use his superdelegate vote for Obama.

So far, of the 797 superdelegates, 193 have pledged to Clinton and 106 to Obama. There are almost 500 left who have not pledged either way.

In a race this close, the superdelegates make a huge difference. Once the primaries are over, the unpledged superdelegates can look at the situtation, and decide who they want to vote for at the Nominating Convention, and possibly, change the outcome.

Essentially, the democratic members of Congress CAN OVERRIDE THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, and nominate someone that didn't win the majority in the primaries. (Thanks to Americablog.com for the wake-up call).

Why is this the case? The party boss system of nominations was revised to the delegate system in the 1960s. People came out in droves in 1972 to nominate McGovern, who got trounced by Nixon. So the Democratic Party decided not to let the will of the people get too out of control, and created the superdelegate system, to prevent us from nominating someone "unelectable" who was "out of sync with the rest of the party."

So the question becomes, can a non-establishment candidate even get the Democratic nomination? If Clinton and Obama stay neck-in-neck through it all, then our right to choose our candidate is lost. Who are our superdelegates going to pick?

huckabee and the constitution

hey there my friends and readers! Sorry I've been away so long. I was gone for about a week, in Philadelphia, for a work conference, which didn't really leave any time for blogging - or anything interesting to write about, since I spent 9+ hours a day in a convention center.

I've said many times that Mike Huckabee scares me to death, and numerous people have told me not to worry, that just because he has far out religious views, doesn't mean he'll use those views to make policy.

let me be the first to say, I was right - here's a quote from Huckabee at the Michigan debates:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

I trust that I don't need to interpret that for you? It's pretty clear. This is what we have to fear from one of the Republican front-runners - making the Constitution fit to God's standards. Who wants to live in a facsist religious state?!?! All aboard for the train to Crazy Town!

Weight loss +/- 0 (this is good, considering the crazy amount of free food at our conference)

Why I Support Barack Obama

With Presidential Primary season less than a month away, debate over candidates is launching into high gear.

Personally, I am supporting Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Many people have told me that he won't win, or that he's inexperienced. Here's why I'm supporting Obama:

1. His work as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer, before running for public office, and the 11 years he spent lecturing on constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

2. Iraq War: Obama has always been against our invasion of Iraq, and accurately saw what was going to happen. In 2002 he said, the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences."

3. Education: Obama has many strong plans for education that I agree with and support.

4. Environment: Obama has specific plans to reduce emissions, increase energy effiency, and most importantly, recognizes the importance of this problem and how many different things need to be fixed.

5. Optional National Healthcare: Obama has a plan that would allow uninsured Americans the option of joining a national healthcare plan, similar to the one used by Congress, that has guaranteed eligibility. This plan would not be required - individals can still purchase private insurance (now with gov't assistance) or receive insurance through their employer as they do now.

The only weakness in Obama's record would be his lack of experience. Most presidents lack foreign policy experience when they come to office, and any President who began as a senator lacks the "administrative" experience a governor might have (though we've seen what good that can do.) In my opinion, this type of experience is provided by the cabinet the President selects. A smart President chooses a good cabinet, and there are plenty of available Democrats for Obama to choose for his cabinet (Bill Clinton for Secretary of State! Gore for Secretary of the Interior!). A smart President knows how to choose smart people who aren't going to just tell him what he wants to hear, and knows how to use the council of the people around him. I truly believe that Obama is a highly intelligent, morally grounded man. With a strong Cabinet backing him, the experience will come.

Who do you support? And why?

swinging a fist

There's a saying that goes something like "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

My high school government teacher used that quote in regards to the Bill of Rights. Your rights are only good until they begin to impenge on someone else's rights.

In the ongoing saga of Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church, the question that inevitably comes up is, "Are we restricting their First Amendment Rights?"

I'm a big fan of the First Amendment. I'm willing to lean pretty far to protect it. Porn, the internet, paparrazi, tabloids, even some hate speech (general hate speech vs. directing, threatening hate speech).

But I also believe in a right to privacy, and a difference between public and private figures. The privacy rights of a public figure, when it comes to people protesting against them, are less than those of a private figure.

First Amendment advocates argue:

"I think when speech is a matter of public concern it still has to be protected, even when by social standards it is extraordinarily rude and outrageous," said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh.

University of Maryland law professor Mark Graber said the size of the award -- which included $8 million in punitive damages -- could have a chilling effect on speech.

"This was in a public space," Graber said. "While the actions are reprehensible, the 1st Amendment protects a lot that's reprehensible."

While on the flip side:

For Snyder's claim of invasion of privacy to have succeeded, the jury needed to conclude that the church's actions at the funeral -- and later in a Web posting about Matthew Snyder on its site -- were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," according to the jury instructions.

Albert Snyder also claimed that the church's actions were an intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under the law, to find in favor of Snyder, the jury needed to find that the church's conduct was "intentional or reckless."

What was Westboro's intention, if not an "intentional infliction of emotional distress"? If they didn't intend to upset this Marine's family, what were they doing? Essentially, it's an emotional attack, and that's where Westboro's right to swing their fist ends.

If Westboro wants to protest in front of Congress or the White House, protest against public government figures who are actually to blame, that's the First Amendment. But I don't believe that emotionally devestating a grieving family, who have no ties to or control over the issue being protested, is the First Amendment. It's just a fist to the nose.

phelped up

You may remember my rant on Fred Phelps from a few months ago. If not, the good reverend Phelps is the leader of a "church" in Kansas that goes to the funerals of military men and women who have died in Iraq, to jeer and protest. Their reasoning - the deaths of these people are God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality. Phelps' church has also praised such natural disasters as the bridge collapse in Minnesota, Hurricane Katrina, and the Utah Mine Collapse. Just so we're all clear - the people whose funnerals Phelps' church was protesting weren't gay - apparently their deaths were just a general warning/punishment to America.

However, I'm happy to report:

A jury on Wednesday ordered an anti-gay Kansas church to pay $2.9 million in compensatory damages to relatives of a U.S. Marine after church members cheered his death at his funeral.

I went to Westboro Baptist Church's website as I was writing the above list of disasters praised by the church, to see if the California wildfires were on the list. To my delight, I discovered that http://www.godhatesfags.com no longer exists! Now, it could be that due to the publicity of the awarding of the damages, the website has been inudated with hits and crashed. I can only hope that the loss of $2.9 million, instead means the church can no longer afford to maintain the most horrifically offensive website I've ever seen.

I'll be keeping an eye on this story as it develops.

ETA: Looks like the $2.9 million was just the start. The judge has awarded another $8 million in punative damages.

This judgement (which they likely can't pay anyway) doesn't appear to have fazed them:

Members of a fundamentalist Kansas church ordered to pay nearly $11 million in damages to a grieving father smiled as they walked out of the courtroom, vowing that the verdict would not deter them from protesting at military funerals.

Members promised to picket future funerals with placards bearing such slogans as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."

"Absolutely, don't you understand this was an act in futility?" said Shirley Phelps-Roper, whose father founded the Westboro Baptist Church.

The father who brought the lawsuit is absolutely right:

Appearing on NBC's "Today" show Thursday, Sndyer said that while his son was fighting for freedom for Iraqis, "my son did not fight for hate speech.

"And that's basically what it is," he said of the church's protest. "Everybody's under the impression that the First Amendment gives them the right to do anything, say anything any where, any time. And along with the First Amendment also comes responsibility."

waste not, want not

It seems like "global warming" is the phrase on the air lately. I keep getting involved in discussions on various blogs and message boards about it.

The thing that keeps driving me batty is that so many people talk about cliamte change as if it's EITHER natural cycles, OR it's man-made change. Like the two things can't both be happening. Of course they're both happening. Our interdependent global climate system is so complex, that trying to identify what affects what, and how everything is related, is enough to make your eyes bleed. It's not just one thing, or even two or three things. There's dozens of things, all "chicken-and-the-egg" with each other.

Some things we as humans have done wouldn't be too bad, except that the problems are being exacerbated by changes in the natural cycles. If people are using their land to its fullest extent during a "good" period, and then the natural cycle changes even a little, suddenly that land can no longer support the number of people it once did. In desperation, people being misusing resources or running out of things, and if the natural cycle gets better, they might make it okay, but if the natural cycle goes in a worse way, they may be doomed.

The way to survive is to 1) identify what kinds of changes are happening, and identify how they are affecting us. And 2) to look at our resources, and figure out how we can get the most out of them. Are we cutting forests at a sustainable rate, or are we destroying them? Are we using more oil than we need to? Are we fishing to extinction, or are we fishing at a rate and in a way that allows the fish to sustain?

We've become used to using the land and throwing it away. The cycle of the Earth in which man has risen has been a good one, but looking at the history of the Earth, we're likely just in a short warm period between ice ages. This warming is probably only temporary (maybe a few thousand years more at most) before we dip back toward an ice age.

We've been able to waste our resources because we're in a good climate cycle, and previously we've mostly not had too many people (population grows almost exponentially). But if we start to dip into a bad cycle, or our population continues to grow rapidly (or likely both), our current ways of using will no longer work. We won't be able to keep wasting the way we have. We need to recognize that and be ready.

a rant

The next person who says to me, "This weather is crazy. Must be global warming!" is getting a punch in the mouth.

One weird weather pattern does not equal global warming. The number of different factors that lead to localized or global climate change are numerous and complex, and have to be tracked over many years, decades or centuries.

The thing that makes me the angriest about this whole climate change debate is that so many people see it as an "either/or." Either humans are entirely to blame and have screwed up the earth, or it's just natural cycles that repeat in Earth's history, and we don't need to change what we're doing.

It's much, much more complicated than that.

I'm currently reading "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. He does a great job of laying out how past civilizations have collapsed due to a combination of natural climate fluxuation and the civilization's own effect on their environment.

Let's say we have an area of land that is 50 square miles. A third of the area is fertile soil and pasture land in a flood plain. Another third is uphill of the floodplain, but still good soil and lots of timber. The other third is rocky and mountainous, with a lot of trees. The weather is mild and temperate, and there's a decent amount of rainfall. In an ideal climate condition and with efficient farming, the floodplain can support 200 people per square mile, with farming and cattle, etc. A small band of settlers (say 100 people) moves into the area, and they set up farms in the floodplain. The farming is good, game is abundent in the forests uphill, and so the population grows rapidly. Say maybe 200 years go by, and the population has grown dramatically, to the point that the floodplain is getting near the amount of people it can support. There have been a few years of drought here and there, but they were able to get through it, building irrigation ditches and with hunting. They've been cutting down the trees uphill for building, for firewood, for heating iron, etc.

As time goes on, maybe another 150 years, the population continues to grow, exceeding what the floodplain can support. They expand to the hills, cutting down or burning the remaining trees to create land for farming, or letting cattle and sheep eat vegetation, and the mountain trees are still being cut down for timber and firewood faster than they can regrow in the poor soil and higher elevation. What begins happening as the vegetation is removed is that the topsoil on the hills starts washing or blowing away, making the hills less suitable for growing. The irrigation ditches are diverting water from the river. But the population is still growing, so the farms expand up the hillsides and mountain sides to higher elevations where things don't grow as well, because the growing population needs to be fed. It's been over 200 years since a major drought, and the population has more than doubled since that time, and this society is at a cultural highpoint. A dry, cold winter occurs. The growing season is shorter, and there is little rain. The farms in the higher elevations can't produce much food with the limited rainfall and the shorter summer and the lack of good topsoil. This change in weather patterns occurs periodically for the next 20 years - several bad years followed by several good ones. Its similar to the pattern that occured 200 years ago, but this time there are many, many more people to feed, and the land is much less able to support them - almost no trees, large soil erosion, and the river level has dropped dramatically due to the irrigation runoff and limited rain. Fights begin over resources, the limited water and timber and food. Other civilizations have grown up around this one, and they are all in similar situations - there is nowhere to go. Starvation is rampant, and birth rates decline rapidly, as well as many deaths from warfare among the civilization and their neighbors. The civilization collapses.

What I've just described is a basic version of what happened to the Maya in southern Mexico. They moved into a perfect area, grew to over-utilize it during a period of favorable climate, and damaged the area in such a way that during a less favorable climate, the land could no longer support them. The evidence there shows that a few small periods of drought and less favorable weather occured about every 200 years, with bad and good years alternating within a decade or so. The Maya got through the first couple of these 200 year cycles, but another hit right after their civilization reached its peak, and the various Mayan civilizations collapsed during the drought years of the next cycle, unable to support themselves.

On a larger scale, this is what is happening to the Earth as a whole. We are already seeing signs of collapse in areas like Haiti and Rwanda. The societal tensions that already existed in Rwanda were pushed to the breaking point by resources, especially water, disappearing in a fragile environement where weather changes (either natural or due to changes in other parts of the globe) made the land even less suitable.

We as humans are making changes that, during this period of ideal climate, don't seem to be causing much harm. But when the natural cycle makes another change, and it will, those changes we've made, the overutilization that we've done, will mean that the Earth cannot continue to support us as it has. The 1400s-1800s were a Little Ice Age, with a large overall temperature drop in Europe and North America. The Norse colony in Greenland had existed for 450 years during the favorable climate, but as soon as the Little Ice Age started, the damage they had done to the fragile climate (over-cutting trees, loss of topsoil, over harvesting of vegetation and wild animals) led to their rapid demise. The local Inuit, who made different choices, survived in the same area during the Little Ice Age, where the Norse died out.

All evidence shows that we are only in a break between Ice Ages right now. We as a planet survived the Little Ice Age the first time around, but with our hugely increased population and the environmental damage we've done, will we survive the next one? What will we have to sacrifice to make it?

you asked for my opinion...

I just got home and checked my mail, and I was excited to see a strategy survey from the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) in my mailbox. "At last, I can express my voice!" I thought.

Fat chance. It appears the survey is really nothing more than a way to get people to send money (Part I - who would you vote for? Part II - Make a contribution. Parts III-XI are the rest of the questions). Most of the questions are so hopelessly biased, that no real information will be pulled from the responses. The only question that might provide any information at all was a list of 12 issues, to be ranked according to importance.

Here are some samples of the actual wording of some of the questions.

"Which of the following would strength our nation's economy?"
a: More big tax breaks for wealthiest Americans
b: Targeted-middle class tax relief
c: Both
d: Neither

"Is protecting the Social Security retirement benefits promised to America's seniors more important than more big tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?"
yes
No
not sure

"Should the Medicare prescription drug benefit plan be reformed to make it less confusing for seniors?"
yes
no
not sure

"How seriously will the Republican failure to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act impact our children's future?"
Very
Somewhat
Not Very
Not at all

"Should Congress eliminate the GOP's multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil?"
Yes
No
Not sure

The wording on these questions is purposefully pushing an answer in one direction. "Seniors are confused? Of course we should fix it!" "Tax cuts or social security? Tough one!"

I'm sending the survey back, but I'm attaching a note to tell them what dunderheads they are.

opting out

I ended up in a political discussion last night (surprise!) with a couple of my friends. One had the very understandable plan to choose not to vote for any of the candiates in the Presidential election, because she doesn't feel that any of them are qualified enough, or that she agrees with them enough. She's frustrated with the two-party system, and said that she'd rather not vote at all than vote for a candidate she doesn't like.

This basic led to a discussion of what we're actually voting for when we vote. Are we voting for a single person? Voting for a set of ideals? Voting for a possible Supreme Court nomination? Voting for foreign policy experience?

The more I think about it, the more I think that we're voting for judgement.

No one has the experience to be president. There's no job that really gets you ready. Even twenty years in the Senate, or 8 years as a governor, doesn't mean that you'll be able to broker a deal between India and Pakistan, or understand the intricacies of trade negotioans with China, or the thousands of other issues that come across the President's desk every day. The complexity of being President is something that only 43 men in history (ok, maybe just 42) have ever understood.

What you vote for is a candidate whose judgement you trust the most. A candidate who will choose advisors that each understand different issues, and a candidate who knows how to listen to what he's told and weigh the pros and cons and use his best judgement. When you vote for a candidate, you aren't voting for one person. You're voting for the hundreds of people that candidate will appoint as advisors and Cabinet heads and department heads. What kind of judgement does that candidate have? What kind of people is the candidate going to surround himself with? Does he just want "yes men," or does he want smart people who disagree with him, who will help him to question until he finds the answer?

It's actually a harder question. It's much easier to say "Obama lacks experience" or "Clinton is unlikable" and make the decision (or choose to make no decision) based on something so black-and-white. It's much more difficult to determine how that candidate is going to use their judgement.

But that's just voting in the primary. When it comes to voting in the actual election, the decision is more elemental - it's less about a person and more about a set of ideals and beliefs, in the form of a political party.

Will putting this party, with this person at the head, in power, help to forward or reverse the things I care about, that affect my life and the lives of my children? What kind of Supreme Court nominations could we expect? Will this person and this party move in the right directions on education, climate change, renewable energy, healthcare, immigration, global trade - whatever issues impact your life.

I feel like this is the problem with many who are voting Republican - that 30% that still thinks Bush is doing a good job. They vote on moral issues that don't really affect their lives. They vote Republican because they want abortion to be illegal and gays not to get married. Do those things affect their lives? Doubtful. But the budget deficit of $9 trillion, the jobs being lost to globalization, the war in Iraq, the rollbacks of environmental pollution laws - these are things that do or will have an actual impact on their lives, yet they ignore the fact that the Republicans they vote for are acting against their interets on all these issues.

Yes, the two-party system has many flaws. But opting out only gives more power to those who use the flaws in the system to manipulate the voters into apathy and complacence. Those people WANT us to be apathetic and give up. I feel like that last 7 years have driven young people into that apathy towards elected government. In the '60s, young people were rioting in the streets for less than our government is doing to us now. The corruption is pushing us into giving up, rather than into fighting.

It seems easier to give up now, as we middle class white kids are doing okay so far, but so many of the issues that we need to worry about are long-term effectors - climate change and environmental laws, globalization and trade, the budget deficit - problems that aren't that big now, but unchecked will loom large in years to come. Many of the more immediate problems aren't affecting us middle-class white kids yet, and so we don't think about them, like healthcare and welfare and education. We aren't putting our voices together with the voices of the people who are affected, fighting for the change that we all deserve.

No matter what you choose, just don't choose to opt out.

Social Security Fairness Act

This stuff just gets sneaked into law all the time. Thank god people who can actually read legislation are paying attention.

Did you know that the current Social Security Law is structured so that if you were eligible for both Social Security benefits, and certain kinds of pensions, your Social Security benefits would be canceled or reduced?

Let's take me, for example. I've worked for the last 13 years in various jobs, and I've paid into Social Security for those 13 years. Next year, I'll become a teacher. Rather than paying into Social Security, I'll be paying into a teacher's pension fund.

According to the current Social Security laws, that teacher's pension fund means that my Social Security benefits - the ones I've already earned - can be reduced "by an amount equal to two-thirds of the amount of any monthly periodic benefit payable to such individual for such month which is based upon such individual's earnings while in the service of the Federal Government or any State." (section 202, paragraph 5). This is known as the Government Pension Offset (GPO).

This applies to teachers, police, fire fighters, etc.

There's another part that I can't really quote because it's written in unintelligable legalise, but which breaks down to a similar thing - reducing earned Social Security benefits for those receiving other benefits or pensions (section 215) - known as the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). This includes pensions from spouses, not just personal pensions. Two men can pay into Social Security for 30 years and die in the same year. The one whose wife was a secretary in a corporation would receive all his Social Security benefits, plus her own. The one whose wife was a teacher would have the percentage of her husband's benefits reduced due to her teacher's pension.

Why do I bring this up? There is a bill, HR 82 and S 206, known as the Social Security Fairness Act, which will repeal these laws, so that we get all the benefits we have earned. The bill is currently sitting in committee, but support is starting to build up on it and Congress is hopefully going to bring it to a vote this fall.

The NEA has an online petition that you can sign to encourage your Congressional representatives to move on this bill. Please, please sign it, and if you could post it on your blog as well, that would be awesome.

phelped off

I like to think that I'm a fairly tolerant individual. There are lot of beliefs that I don't get, and maybe I'll even mock a little, but as long as you're not stuffing them down anyone else's throat or hurting anyone, I think you're pretty much free to think whatever you want. I may not agree with you, but I can usually see how you got there, and I'll let you slide.

Then there are those beliefs that are both fuckin' insane, and ALSO being shoved enthusiastically down as many throats as possible.

We're talking about the Reverend Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist Church. We're talking about a man whose actions are so vile that GEORGE W. BUSH signed a law against them (and that's a man who knows vile actions!).

If you aren't familar with the name Fred Phelps, oh please, let me enlighten you. Some of this might become familar as we go along.

As way of introduction, let me provide the website for the Westboro Baptist Church - http://www.godhatesfags.com/. Beware clicking on the link - seriously. This website is more offensive than pretty much anything else I've seen on the internet, and I once had someone show me German scat porn.

Basically, Phelps and Friends believe that God hates fags. I mean seriously. And not just fags - anyone in any country who remotely "tolerates" fags. According to an article I read on Phelps, this hatred was born when his grandson, as a toddler, was supposedly proposition by a gay man in a park. And Phelps and his Family decided to take revenge on everyone who has ever had the passing thought of "those gays aren't so bad!" Phelps and Friends have been warning America, and America has not listened. And so revenge cometh.

How do they take this revenge? Oh, I'm so glad you asked. One of the primary ways is that Phelps and his followers picket the funerals of soldiers who have died in Iraq. I see you looking confused, so let me clarify. These soldiers are not picketed because they were gay. They didn't have a gay family member, didn't save a gay from a burning building, didn't really have anything to do with being gay at all. So why does Phelps target their funerals? Because God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality, and the deaths of these soldiers are the evidence.

Did you get that? Did you follow that twisted logic? Let me direct you to a flyer advertising the latest picketing. These pickets are intended as a warning, a punishment, or an "I told you so" - I'm not sure. As I read more around the site, it appears that at some point someone bombed Westboro Baptist Church (I wonder why!), and Phelps attributes this not the action of one person, but as sanctioned by America, as this person was never caught and therefore that means "he knew full well he had complete safety in his attack." So now Americans are being killed by bombs in retaliation by God. I think...

Oh, but it's not just through the war in Iraq that God is punishing America. Links to other pages on Phelps's site have titles that include "Thank God for the Utah Mine Disaster" and "Thank God for Katrina" and "America. A sodomite nation of flag-worshipping idolaters." Most recently, Phelps announced that they would picket the funerals of those who died in the bridge collapse in Minnesota, as the bridge collapsing was an example of God's wrath against Minnesota's tolerance of gays.

Apparently, they didn't show - they were picketing a military funeral instead. At the end of the article, there is a quote from Phelps' daughter - "We've got all the time in the world. You're going to be fishing bodies out of there for weeks. There will be more memorial services and there will be more funerals, and along the way we will pick some of them off."

What a good Christian.

In 2006 Congress passed, and Bush signed, the "Respect for Fallen Heroes" Act, which limits picketing around federally controlled cemetaries. It's pretty rare that one groups actions are so vile, that legislation has to be passed specifically to try to stop them. Westboro Baptist Church issued a "statement" in response. Read through it - it gives Phelps' "story" better than I can possibly sum up, since summing up insane ravings is like trying to get cats to walk in a parade.

I was talking with a friend about Phelps, and trying to come up with a new ephithet to describe him - because there's nothing currently in the English language vile enough. At that point I remembered Dan Savage, and got another, better idea. He and the readers of "Savage Love" gave legislative gay basher Rick Santorum's last name a new definition.

The other night, I emailed Dan Savage to ask him to mobilize his readers to come up with a suitable definition for the verb "to phelp"? It makes such a great verb. "phelp, phelping, phelped." I hope that he accepts the challenge, and comes up with something appropriately and totally gay.

why evolution matters

During last week's Republican Presidential debate, the candidates were asked about their belief in evolution. Several, most notably Mike Huckabee and John McCain, believe in creationism over evolution. That man was created by God and put on Earth.

What I found most interesting, though, was Huckabee's comment, quoted at the end of the CNN article:

"It's interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president," Huckabee said. "I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States."

It disturbs me that he's unable to see the link between understanding and respecting science, and being President. The debate between science and faith, science and religious morals, continues to become more entrenched as scientific discoveries grow.

A Presidential candidate's belief in creationism over evolution is a signpost for their beliefs on other things that are at odds between science and faith, such as stem cell research and cloning, abortion, global warming and climate change, and a host of other issues, not to mention things like school prayer.

A mind that is so entrenched in faith, that it can't rationally examine or accept scientific evidence to the contrary, has no place in the most important position in America. The Presidency requires extreme mental flexibility, and an ability to examine a wide range issues using logic and reason and a respect for evidence, not using emotion or faith.

the cause for rebels

Don Hall blogged this morning about the "blandization" of theater, asking where the outlaws willing to push the envelope have gone.

Try and name one "cool" character in history who was conformist and law abiding. Even Jesus Christ was a complete fringe rebel fighting the conformist dogma of the day, so don't hand me some right wing conservative nonsense about being a good, obedient Christian.

Where did that kid with all the self-respect and independence go?

The common picture is that he grew up and out of his child-like ways. That today's liberal progressive anti-government long hair just needs to get a job, make some money, have some kids and he will naturally become conservative in his thinking. This equates conformism and materialism with adulthood and wisdom but does not bear out empirically. Mahatma Gandhi was a rule-breaker; Churchill was a rebel; John Brown might have been insane but he was right.

Where DID they all go? Is the rebel slowly fading out of existance? Not just in theater, but everywhere? Why? What's happening?

Is our process of education to blame? It makes me think about what I've seen in CPS schools. Kids required to walk everywhere in striaght, silent lines. Teachers who work and work to break the rebels into compliance, forcing them to sit in corners and stare at walls, sending them to the principal instead of finding a way to challenge them or engage them.

Is our prescription drug culture to blame? Are all the rebels being Prozaced out of existance? Most of the artists and thinkers and rebels were a little crazy. Are we stunting that creativity and those outlaw personalities with drugs so that our children can "do well" in school and "fit in" and get a "good job"? (according to whose standards?)

Is the American Dream to blame? America is one of the few countries where we believe that everyone can "make it" if only they work hard enough. Nothing is ever good enough, and we're sold this idea that we have to work harder and get more, achieve some success that is always just out of reach. But that "success" that we're being sold - it's someone else's ideal, not our own. The skinny models, the muscular bodies, the yacht, the mansion, the corner office - it's a manufactured want, and for so many, it drowns out their real wants, and worse, causes them to judge the wants of others. People who want the simple, or the fringe, are made to feel like failures by friends and family and society, for not wanting what the masses can understand. Many give up, and they join in mocking the rebels, maybe partially out of jealousy that they aren't one any longer.

Putting on a good show isn't "success" in the eyes of the masses. It's not "how good was the show?" but "how much did you make?" that is the question on everyone's lips. It's not "how many students did you help this year?" but "how many days of vacation do you get?"

I can blame myself a little. I'm not much of a rebel. I chose not to pursue theater because I wanted health insurance and a steady paycheck. I wish I had more of Don's rebelliousness in me, didn't have this need for security. Instead, I rebel in small ways, I cheer for the rebels, do my best to make them feel less alone in a world that wants to put them in the corner and break them into compliance.

a rant a month late

So, yesterday morning before I left for work, I was watching the Weather Channel. And they had a little story called "Ground-Hog Wash" (that's how they spelled it), in which they talked about the fact that after Punxsutawney Phil predicted an early spring, we had some of the worst weather of the winter, and how some people were complaining about the groundhog getting it wrong.

Ok, I know that talking about the weather 24/7 probably can't always be exciting. But seriously, if there are people that actually expect a giant rodent to correctly predict the changing of the seasons, they have bigger problems than a late spring.

Nevermind the fact that the groundhog seeing his shadow meaning a longer winter doesn't even make sense. If the groundhog sees his shadow, that means it's sunny. You can't have a shadow without sun. And wouldn't it being sunny seem to indicate good weather - ie an early spring?

I think the whole groundhog thing has something to do with whether or not it's a good time to find a mate. He comes out, checks out the conditions, and if it's time for lovin', he goes out clubbin' and if not, he goes back to his hole to smoke a bong and take a nap. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say (provided the Colbert Nation hasn't fucked with the groundhog like they fucked with African elephants, that is).

From Wikipedia:

In traditional weather lore, if a groundhog emerges from its burrow on this day and fails to see its shadow because the weather is cloudy, winter will soon end. If the groundhog sees its shadow because the weather is bright and clear, it will be frightened and run back into its hole, and the winter will continue for six more weeks.

Ok, so I do have it right. Does that even make sense? Cloudy weather equals early spring? What is that? It goes on to quote some old poems from Europe, and something about Native American sacrifices that doesn't make much sense, possibly being the cause. Nothing about actual NATURE, heaven forbid.

And anyway - from February 2, isn't 6 more weeks of winter, and an early spring, pretty much the same thing? A mid-March spring is pretty good, at least up north here.

The point of this rant - don't take weather predictions from something that can't read a radar.