Oh Kermie

The Recession and Housewivery? Um, no.

2009-03-10T13:57:00.000-07:00

It's no secret that the recession continues to take its toll on working Americans, with unemployment numbers climbing by the thousands every day. The media have been wild with stories about long lines of people seeking work at career fairs, applicants numbering in the thousands for single janitorial jobs, and major impending layoffs at some of the nation's largest corporations. However, this AP article on layoffs affecting working moms rubbed - no, chaffed - me in absolutely the wrong way. The article carries a subtle stench of discrimination towards working women - and a not so subtle matrix of gender bias which reinforces age old expectations for mother/father family roles:

Lucas and other laid-off women like her are involuntarily experiencing the life of a stay-at-home mom, and they are getting to know a lot more about the details of their children's daily existence. They are also discovering some of the things they have been missing.

Though the mass layoffs of this recession have so far affected mostly men, more than 800,000 women have lost their jobs since the end of 2007. For the mothers among them, it means that, suddenly, Mommy's home, often for the first time in many years.

For many of these women, unemployment has no doubt been terrifying. But for some — particularly those who have the financial resources to ride out the storm — it has been a precious opportunity to get to know their children a little better.

Ummm - excuse me? If the "mass layoffs of this recession have so far affected mostly men," then why don't you do a feature about laid-off fathers who are "discovering some of the things they have been missing"? I can't help but take offence at the tone of this piece and the way it frames once-working moms as "discovering things they've been missing" during a "precious opportunity to get to know their children," without ANY mention of laid-off fathers getting the same so-called "opportunities." So, are we to think that laid-off fathers wouldn't relish at the "opportunity" to get to know their kids better? I'm similarly disgusted with how the writer described newly-jobless mothers' day-to-day routines: "art projects and cooking, baking and yoga class together [with the kids]... taking them to a pizza lunch, listening to all the school gossip and spoiling them with a trip to buy candy." This positively reeks of 1950-era sexism and the once-glorified, stereotypical housewife of that time. To be fair, the article mentions the "anxiety" and "confusion" lay offs are producing for mothers in the unemployment line. But ultimately its message is one that seems to glorify the "opportunity" produced by this recession for mothers to "reconnect" with their kids, and the message speaks only to mothers. Recently laid-off fathers? Of course they're not "reconnecting" with the kids - they've got to worry about finding another job.

Partisanship Smartisanship

2008-10-08T16:45:00.000-07:00

Wouldn't this be nice!?

In the face of an economy in crisis and a deeply unpopular president, some analysts believe the situation is ripe to give Democrats a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in November... The last time either party had this ability was in the 95th Congress of 1977-1979, when Democrats held 61 seats during President Jimmy Carter's administration... "The fundamentals of this election year could not be more Democratic...You've got a terrible economy, a deeply unpopular president and an unpopular war. You put those elements together and it's going to produce a Democratic victory. ... The only question is, what size?"

What a wonderful prospect!

Let me take a moment to make a radical statement that any self-respecting person with a poli-sci background or even a lukewarm interest in politics would be crazy not to refute (but which I feel down to the core of my "soul" anyway): I do not believe in bi-partisanship.

Sure, it's a warm-fuzzy ideal that conjures up images of sweaty, cooperatin' hands joined together in lusty commitment to the public good - and as someone who ultimately wants "the greatest good for the greatest number," I feel that dream... really I do.

The problem is that I don't believe bi-partisanship works for those issues I hold nearest and dearest to my heart, such as abortion/reproductive freedom in general, secularism, equal-pay for equal work, discrimination in all its nasty forms, climate change, equal access to education and health care... you get the point. Namely, I'm talking about those societal problems which require truly progressive, liberal policies to achieve what I (and NOW, the ACLU, Green Peace, insert liberal organization name here) believe is the greatest good.

In fact, I think this attitude can be captured by a short and sweet bumper-sticker phrase I'm going to coin - I don't brake for bigots! - in the sense that bigoted (re: conservative) positions on social issues should not be accommodated as part of some "give and take"/compromise/bullshit method of fashioning critical policy.

That is all.

Nobel Laureates Choose Obama

2008-10-05T17:44:00.000-07:00

I'm so glad I checked out Daily Kos today and saw this open letter from 61 Nobel Laureates endorsing Barack Obama for president.

This year's presidential election is among the most significant in our nation's history. The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.

We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.

During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country's scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government's scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.

We have watched Senator Obama's approach to these issues with admiration. We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation's competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research – to meet the nation's and the world's most urgent needs.

Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world's leading country. We hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.

And yes, I too am fascinated at how I've been able to come full circle during this election season... From outspoken anti-Obamite to full-fledged supporter of his campaign. It's truly amazing what hatred for the GOP can inspire.

SNL Fun with the VP Debate

2008-10-05T14:33:00.001-07:00

Super-Atheist Sam Harris Attacks Palin

2008-09-28T17:35:00.000-07:00

Stumbling upon Sam Harris' extraordinary op-ed on Sarah Plain ("When Atheists Attack") in the current edition of Newsweek has revived my resolve to finish reading his Letter to a Christian Nation (which I started last year but shelved indefinitely for lack of time during student-hood).

In his absolutely scathing critique of her qualifications (or lack thereof) for the "second most important job in the world," Harris comes down hard on Palin's fundamentalist Christian ideology and highlights the ramifications her beliefs may have on American policy. Although I strongly recommend you read the entire article for yourself, here are some prime excerpts:

"I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events. Needless to say, she shares this belief with mil-lions of Americans—but we shouldn't be eager to give these people our nuclear codes, either. There is no question that if President McCain chokes on a spare rib and Palin becomes the first woman president, she and her supporters will believe that God, in all his majesty and wisdom, has brought it to pass. Why would God give Sarah Palin a job she isn't ready for? He wouldn't. Everything happens for a reason. Palin seems perfectly willing to stake the welfare of our country—even the welfare of our species—as collateral in her own personal journey of faith. Of course, McCain has made the same unconscionable wager on his personal journey to the White House."

"Every detail that has emerged about Palin's life in Alaska suggests that she is as devout and literal-minded in her Christian dogmatism as any man or woman in the land. Given her long affiliation with the Assemblies of God church, Palin very likely believes that Biblical prophecy is an infallible guide to future events and that we are living in the "end times." Which is to say she very likely thinks that human history will soon unravel in a foreordained cataclysm of war and bad weather. Undoubtedly Palin believes that this will be a good thing—as all true Christians will be lifted bodily into the sky to make merry with Jesus, while all nonbelievers, Jews, Methodists and other rabble will be punished for eternity in a lake of fire. Like many Pentecostals, Palin may even imagine that she and her fellow parishioners enjoy the power of prophecy themselves."

"Palin has spent her entire adult life immersed in this apocalyptic hysteria. Ask yourself: Is it a good idea to place the most powerful military on earth at her disposal? Do we actually want our leaders thinking about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy when it comes time to say to the Iranians, or to the North Koreans, or to the Pakistanis, or to the Russians or to the Chinese: "All options remain on the table"?"

This one includes yet another reference to that point I've been harping on and on about (hypocritical treatment of Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin):

"It is easy to see what many people, women especially, admire about Sarah Palin. Here is a mother of five who can see the bright side of having a child with Down syndrome and still find the time and energy to govern the state of Alaska. But we cannot ignore the fact that Palin's impressive family further testifies to her dogmatic religious beliefs. Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin's daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity. And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community."

And of course, my personal favorite:

"What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"
"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."
"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."
"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical
decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."

Wiping off the Lip-sctick

2008-09-25T21:47:00.000-07:00

Tell 'em, NOW!

Dear Kelly,
"Sarah Palin represents a new feminism. . ."
conservative commentator Laura Ingraham, quoted in the Los Angeles Times

It has been a long time since we've heard the word "feminist" spoken in public so many times a day. Like me, I'm sure you find it a bit ironic.

According to The Washington Post, Republicans think "Palin's burst onto the national scene could be a chance to redefine the nature of feminism in politics," and prominent media suggest her as "a feminist dream" or even the new "face of feminism."

That's where we come in. NOW is working hard to make sure that, despite some media pundits' apparent confusion, every woman in the country understands what is really at stake on November 4. For us, the spotlight on feminism in the 2008 elections should be about real change -- change that will help secure and advance true equality for women -- not just lip service or lipstick. We're putting all possible resources into educating voters and turning out the feminist vote on Election Day.

With less than forty days left before Nov. 4, time is short. Voter registration in most states will close in just a few days. And we need your help to mobilize and get the word out. Our activists are going the extra mile, but our resources are stretched thin as we work against the clock.

I won't go through the laundry list, but you know that from equal pay to abortion and birth control, we have a lot to lose in November. We need you to help us alter the course this country has been on for the past eight years as we work for the change WOMEN need on election day and beyond.

NOW will be working hard to get out the vote and highlight critical women's issues, including dangerous state ballot measures. And the NOW Political Action Committee has endorsed the Obama/Biden ticket, as well as solid women's rights candidates in critical congressional races across the country.

Please consider what you can do to help in our final push. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kim A. Gandy
NOW President

Lynn Spears > Sarah Palin

2008-09-24T13:25:00.000-07:00

I'm glad to see that Lynne Spears noticed the double-standard in the way the media (and conservative consumers of media, in general) responded to teenage daughter Jamie Lynn's pregnancy earlier this year, as compared to the public response to the Palin family's teen pregnancy scandal.

As I mentioned in a recent post, the Spears family was crucified for Jamie Lynn's pregnancy (and grandmama Lynn Spears was ubiquitously ruled a "bad mother") while the Palins were sanctified for "choosing life" and displaying strength during the typical "ups and downs" of your Average American Family.... puh-lease! Good for you, Lynn Spears, for speaking out about this in Newsweek:

You and Jamie Lynn got some negative press when she got pregnant so young. But more recently, 17-year-old Bristol Palin, and her mother, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, found themselves in a similar situation. And the publ ic reaction has been different.

It's a totally different reaction. It's as if [Sarah Palin] became celebrated. I mean, the mother, Palin, was celebrated for this. Every woman in the world has applauded her strength and her convictions and poor little old Jamie Lynn—you saw how she was crucified. Everybody did, firsthand ... I just feel like it's been a very hypocritical situation.

If the baby-mama-drama plaguing the Palins were to curse a democrat in a similar position, the Republicans would be screaming about the liberal degeneration of family values. When it's one of their own, the GOP is all about the "strength and resolve of a loving family in turmoil." Bull. Shit.

Help Victims of Domestic Violence Get Access to Legal Resources

2008-09-10T06:26:00.000-07:00

From NOW:

Put Volunteer Attorneys to Work for Domestic Violence Survivors
Write Your Senators
Survivors of domestic abuse face enough adversity. With legal assistance often beyond their reach, abused women may experience the justice system as yet another hurdle to overcome.
Tell Congress you agree that survivors of domestic abuse should have access to the same legal resources so readily available to more fortunate and affluent members of society.
The National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act (S.1515), introduced by Senator Joe Biden (D-Del), meets this demand for legal assistance by setting in motion an effort to mobilize 100,000 volunteer attorneys willing to work on behalf of survivors of abuse.
Take Action: Ask your senators to sponsor S.1515!
Studies estimate that fewer than one in five low-income survivors of domestic violence ever even see a lawyer. Yet legal advice is key for these women as they seek help from the police or court system. Often, stopping the violence hinges on the ability to obtain effective protection orders, initiate separation proceedings, or design safe child custody arrangements. Without legal knowledge, these options are not accessible.
Existing programs, like the Violence Against Women Act, assist women suffering domestic abuse but do not specifically address access to legal services. This network aims to fill that gap by working mostly with resources already in place. There are thousands of lawyers willing to volunteer to assist in domestic violence situations, but the mechanisms are not in place in most areas. S.1515 will allocate federal funds to create a network of those lawyers and match them to clients. The act will also give the National Domestic Violence Hotline $500,000 so it can provide legal referrals to victims who call in requesting help.
Passage of the National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act will place adequate legal aid within reach of the people who need it most, proving that the justice system works for-not against-victims of domestic abuse.
Thank your senators if they are already sponsors and urge others to sign on right away! Our automated system will provide the appropriate sample message, which you can edit if you wish.
The bill needs more legislative support! Tell your senator that ending violence against women is a priority.

And can I say that I just love that this was introduced by Senator Biden?

Two Problems with this Statement

2008-09-08T15:12:00.001-07:00

"But her son has given Ms. Palin, 44, a powerful message. Other candidates kiss strangers’ babies; Ms. Palin has one of her own. [Trig] is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions, which have rallied social conservatives, and her belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers." -NYTimes

The first: Raise your hand if you think calling Governor Palin's Down syndrome infant "tangible proof of anti-abortion convictions" is immoral and demeaning... The idea that a living, breathing child is being touted by the conservative right as a proof of ideology doesn't sit well with me. In fact, it makes me want to vomit in my mouth a little. Maybe it's because all this talk of Palin's choice to sanction Trig's existence, despite his disability, makes me think of eugenics in a Brave New World /Gattaca sort of way. Or maybe it's because even I (zealous advocate of reproductive choice) distinguish between an embryo and... oh... a 4 month old child.

The second: I don't know what to make of all the talk about Sarah Palin's "balancing act" between family and career. This issue in general is one on which I am deeply conflicted. On one hand, I am supremely pleased that the media is making average Americans consider the compatibility of motherhood and public power/leadership. Indeed, it warms my heart (at least least in the sense that indigestion warms the heart) that the hillbilly-bigot set is actually able to support a woman candidate, period. [The downside to that? Refer to string of anti-Palin posts below]. On the other hand, I can't help but experience periodic moments of disgust when I think about how much the GOP is exploiting Plain's almost-exploding femininity. Although the McCain campaign has yet to say it outright, the message seems to be: "See, OUR token female candidate is beautiful (a "VILP"), nurturing, soft-spoken, and not a bit like that OTHER female politician and her Sisterhood of Traveling Pantsuits." Has anyone else noticed this? I will return to this topic again soon....

Response to Tonight's RNC / Sarah Palin Spectacle

2008-09-03T20:19:00.000-07:00

Rudy Giuliani - you suck. Be quiet.
If Sarah Palin were a) Democrat, b) pro-choice, c) anti-gun, d) had reasonable views on prevention-based sex education, e) not homophobic, f) not cozy with big oil companies, g) had national political experience, h) had any kind of foreign policy experience, i) had gotten her passport in 1977 rather than 2007, i) understood that public resources for her special needs child require taxes that she and McCain want to cut, j) didn't continue to call herself a freaking hockey mom, or k).... I'll add more to this list later.... If, if, if, if, if - then I would really like her. She is a strong political figure and - yes - a great speaker.... but her beliefs sit at the polar opposite end of the political spectrum on almost every issue I can think of. I will not go so far as to that say I respect her politics (because I don't), but I can see why conservative women and men could rally around her. And yes, it scares me a little. But she's no Hillary; her policy positions are downright scary; and I still think Barack and Joe will win the election. So there.
I love (and when I say love I mean that I was really freaking annoyed) how Bristol Palin brought her baby-daddy on stage "in solidary" with the rest of the Palin family. I'm sure this will be sanctified by evangelicals and conservative pundits in the coming days, despite the fact that the same base of bigots crucified Jamie Lynn Spears over the last few months for her pregnancy... even though the younger Spears handled the situation exactly the same way as Bristol ("choosing" to keep her baby - again the language of choice - and settling down with the man who put the bun in the oven). F-you Sarah Palin, and all the small-minded GOPers, who believe in abstinence-only sex education.
When McCain came out to greet Palin and family, I couldn't help but think that the crowd's excitement would be too much for him and all that "heartbeat away" talk would become.... well, you know. I know! I'm a horrible person. But the man is a fossil. I can't believe he's being considered a stable choice for president.
Again, CNN demeans its reputation by interrupting political analysis after a historic speech to air some country creep's "Raisin' McCain" song in its entirety. Crass.
Juxtaposing the national anthem with the Pledge of Allegiance... was weird. I say it didn't work.

Arithmetic

2008-09-03T14:57:00.000-07:00

I'm often made fun of for my skills (or lack thereof) in... yes, addition and subtraction. I was recently out with a group of friends having a little tapas in Wicker Park, when I was heavily taunted after a little gaff following my attempt to figure out how to make my write-in tip "even." After settling on the idea that adding $4.22 to $21.88 would make it an "even" $26.00... well, you get the picture... I'm bad at math.

Which is why I've added an official visitor counter to the bottom of my blog, thus eliminating any guesswork needed to keep track of the statistical popularity of this blog of mine. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

NKOTB is back!

2008-09-03T13:41:00.001-07:00

Go ahead and smile about this :)

From Rolling Stone:

Last night the reunited New Kids on the Block were in a playful mood as they celebrated their first new LP in 14 years at New York’s Marquee. “Do you think this song was better then, or now?” Joey McIntyre wondered aloud as “The Right Stuff” came blaring through the speakers. The DJ’s playlist included several NKOTB hits including “Hangin’ Tough,” the new “Single” (from The Block, out this week) and a track featuring Akon called “Put It on My Tab.” Swarms of die-hard fans were thrilled to party with their favorite childhood group, shamelessly tossing business cards and attempting to brush up against the five singers.

Coming back onto the scene after a decade and a half, it was clear that the band are still trying to figure out who their fanbase is. “We hear a 15-year-old’s ringtone blasting ‘Summertime’ and we’re thinking, ‘Is this our demographic?” McIntyre said. “Working with Ne-Yo was amazing,” he added, of the R&B star who worked on “Single.” “He’s a class act through and through — a singer, writer and performer, a triple-threat.” The album also features Lady GaGa, the Pussycat Dolls and production by Polow da Don (Fergie’s “London Bridge,” Usher’s “Love in This Club”).

The group will kick off their tour on September 18th in Toronto and remain on the road through late November. “We’re most excited about the Boston shows,” said Danny Wood of the group’s September 26th and 28th hometown gigs. Wood also revealed that VH1 will be airing three songs live from the second Boston show.

I already missed out on the Spice Girls reunion tour... I'm definitely going to rock it at NKOTB in a city near me.

Jesus hates your wrinkly skin-tight dress, Rachel Lampa

2008-09-03T12:12:00.000-07:00

As if my normal level of exposure to evangelical drivel isn't bad enough...

Last night I was horrified to bear witness to Christian-pop princess Rachel Lampa's savior-worshiping during CNN's coverage of the Republican National Convention. I guess the GOP wants to set the record straight for any Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc who might subscribe to its openly homophobic, anti-women agenda: "Christ loves you! Good Republicans - nay, good Americans - are Christian! Praise the Lord - and wear cute lip gloss and chunky belts while doing it!"

UGGGH. Really, CNN? You couldn't find anything else worthy to cover last night but Republican celebration of the ever-expanding assault on American secularism? Come on!

It's one thing to have to sit through politicians making requisite references to God (e.g., ending a speech with "God bless America" or "God speed," like Hillary did last week at the DNC to my chagrin). Such statements are almost ubiquitously included in every candidates' stump speeches as a standard of practice. Indeed, I am constantly frustrated by the inclusion of such comments by all politicians (especially Republicans!), though I recognize they're not going away any time soon and thus I forge on. (See any of the polls on Americans' willingness to vote for atheists versus other minority groups for insight on another topic for another post.)

What I can't understand is why the evangelical pop-industry's proselytizing should get to monopolize precious airtime on a network that touts itself as being one of the world's leaders in news and information delivery, with its pulse on all the important headlines of the moment. The coverage of Rachel Lampa's performance I watched last night was not quality coverage of the political highlights of a major party's election-year convention... It was barely distinguishable from a Michelle Branch concert. This does not belong on CNN, people.

Yuck.

WTF Texas?

2008-09-02T22:30:00.000-07:00

Teachers carrying guns in rural Texas schools? This is a disaster waiting to happen, y'all.

Read more about the redneck insanity here.

Absolutely Appalling

2008-09-02T20:18:00.000-07:00

This makes me sick to my stomach.

Palin? Ha!

2008-08-29T15:49:00.000-07:00

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." -Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign

Thanks, McCain, for a shockingly bone-headed choice for your VP candidate. Dems, it's time to capitalize on the obvious: the GOP has irresponsibly hedged its bets on a grossly inexperienced candidate for the vice presidency, in an act of sorely misguided scheming. McCain is trying to sell such a clear novice as being "ready for the presidency"... putting her literally a heartbeat away from the nation’s highest office. Keyword there being "heartbeat" - what's the chance that at 72 years old, those beats will putter out while in office? I'm just saying....

I really, really liked Linda Bergthold's reaction, so I'm putting it in full below. Enjoy:

I think we will look back at today as the day when the Republicans most certainly lost the Presidency. In choosing Sarah Palin of Alaska for Vice President, the Republicans have made a cynical but clever choice. At least they think it is clever. She is a woman, young (44 years old), a Governor (only two years), a mother (five children), pro-life, and pro-gun. But what is she not? She is NOT pro-choice. She has NO national experience. She has never been under the intense scrutiny of a national campaign. She is under investigation for some incident in Alaska that is messy and personal. She has no international experience. Her experience governing is in a very small state, famous for its "Bridge to Nowhere" kind of political graft. Her Republican colleague in that state, Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted for corruption.

When Republicans and independents go into the voting booth, will they have the confidence to vote for a McCain-Palin ticket, knowing that John McCain has had several recurrences of his skin cancer, and will be the oldest President ever? Can they imagine Sarah Palin stepping into the Oval Office and dealing with all the problems we face right now? The Russians and the terrorists must be quaking in their boots.

It's a slap in the face of other Republican women like Kay Bailey Hutchison, bless her heart, who was forced to stumble through an interview on TV trying to make the case for Palin whom she has never met. There are certainly women in the Republican party who were "in line" for this before Palin. Did the Rovian type advisors to McCain just cynically think that throwing a young attractive inexperienced woman into the mix would satisfy women who long to see a woman president? Women, and Republican women, are not so stupid as to fall for that! It is reminiscent of the Republicans putting up Alan Keyes to run against Barack Obama for the Illinois Senate just because he was black. Voters saw through that pretty quickly.

It's also a slap in the face of Democratic women voters. They don't get Hillary but they get Sarah as the first potential woman President? In fact, I can just hear Biden saying, "Sarah Palin, you are NO Hillary Clinton!" I would imagine that the few remaining Clinton supporters who are wondering if they should support John McCain are even more leery now. There is absolutely no overlap between the positions Hillary Clinton has fought her entire life for and Sarah Palin. The two women are not remotely substitutable. They are as different as they can be.

How will this cynicism play with American voters? It is insulting to women to suggest that just "any" woman will do!

This really is a ridiculous move.

The Sexual Politics of Punctuation: Rules for Text Messaging

2008-08-29T15:25:00.000-07:00

...how's that for the title of a white paper on dating? Or maybe a book chapter, or perhaps a book in its own right. Based on my completely unscientific study of approximately N=30 text messages exchanged between myself and [wouldn't you like to know] #1 and #2, I think there is enough for quite the rant. Exclamation points, emoticons, and interchanging abbreviations can be horribly frustrating. And can make me doubt your intelligence.

More on this later.

OCD Poll Checking

2008-08-26T08:14:00.000-07:00

I'm very excited about Pollster's homepage, which features a beautifully interactive map of mean poll results for all 50 states, including a breakdown of what that poll data means for estimated electoral votes. Although there's waaay too much red on that map for my taste, I really like the current estimate of electoral votes - Obama currently gets 260 while McCain gets 176.

Unfortunately, the site estimates that 102 votes are "Toss Ups." So Obama's "lead" essentially means nothing. Eh, this will be fun to watch in the coming months.

Thoughts on Biden

2008-08-25T20:45:00.000-07:00

So now that any glimmer of hope that Senator Clinton might be named the democratic Veep candidate has been cruelly extinguished, it's time to offer some thoughts on Senator Biden.

I received the much anticipated text message announcing Biden as Obama's Veep choice at 3:08 AM CST this Saturday. Was that really necessary? No. Thanks for prompting a night of drunken restlessness.
I genuinely liked Biden in the debates of last summer. He's a "straight shooter" and one can't deny that he has solid expertise in foreign policy, especially. However, the "Introduction" video featured on the campaign's website is really lacking in sincerity. I was surprised at how poorly he comes off here. This is one of those moments that I can appreciate Barack's smooth, polished oratory.
Biden cost me four drinks due to unwise betting on my part. Technically not his fault, but I have given myself permission to be upset with him about it. It should have been Hill!!

NARAL Records

2008-08-25T20:01:00.000-07:00

Senator Obama's voting and statement record on freedom of choice gets a 100% from NARAL Pro-choice America. Senator McCain? 0%.

Shiny happy highlight from Obama's statements:

"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose... Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America... I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies... As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy."
[From a statement by Sen. Obama on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 2008. Full statement is available here]

Absolutely abysmal lowlight from McCain's musings on sexual health:

When asked about whether he supported supplying condoms to Africa to assist in the fight against HIV/AIDS, McCain had the following exchange with a reporter:
Reporter: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.
Reporter: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."
[Adam Nagourney, McCain Stumbles on H.I.V. Prevention, The New York Times, March 16, 2007.]

The Anti-Christ

2008-08-04T20:59:00.000-07:00

I chuckle (or seethe, depending on the source) every time I hear someone speak with any degree of sincerity about the coming of the "anti-Christ" with respect to modern political figures. So you can imagine my response when I stumbled upon The Colonic's jump to this disgusting attack ad, perpetrated by none other than the anti-Christ himself... I mean, John McCain. (Click on "Web Ad: The One" to view the trash.)

The explicit Biblical reference (Moses parting the Red Sea) coupled with gratuitous religious imagery (shining rays of light hitting a cloud, a staircase; "god's Eye View" of planet Earth) are completely uncalled for and signal (as I suggested in response to Vanessa's post) an attempt by the McCain campaign to tap in to right-wing, extremist rumors that Obama is - literally - the anti-Christ.

As someone who works under the umbrella of strategic research and consulting, it takes very little energy to imagine the focus group(s) that inspired this ad... Or perhaps it was all the internet message-board chatter which convinced McCain's team that a solid group of Evangelicals subscribe to the notion that Obama is fulfilling prophesies of the Book of Revelations. (Just google "Obama anti-Christ" for 747,000 relevant - or shall I say irreverent - links to bullshit!)

I openly and willingly admit that I have criticized Senator Obama (harshly) in the past. But if there's one thing that can win a disgruntled Hillary supporter over to Barack's team, I'd say mutual disgust with the Republican opponent is a great start.

So cheers to you, Johnny Boy, for helping inspire some warm-happy-feelings for my friends on the other side of the Blue Line! And even more, for pissing me off enough to revive my dear Oh Kermie rants. god Speed.

NO-bama

2007-12-10T10:40:00.000-08:00

I'm a few days late posting a link to this op-ed about Senator Obama's largely unfounded attacks on my gal Hill, but here it is anyway.

My favorite points?

Your position on the Iran Resolution. You criticized Sen. Clinton's vote in September supporting a Senate resolution asking the U.S. government to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) as a "foreign terrorist organization," …. Yet you failed to disclose that you had co-sponsored a Senate Resolution (S. 970) in March 2007 that used exactly the same language to designate the IRG a "foreign terrorist organization."

And...

Your position on the Iraq war. You have criticized Sen. Clinton for supporting the October 2002 Iraq war resolution (just as the governor of your state, Rod R. Blagojevich, did when he was in the House of Representatives, as did former Sen. Max Cleland, who lost two arms and a leg in the Vietnam War, and 29 Democratic senators). You claim to have been opposed to that resolution before you became a U.S. senator.

Yet when you were asked in the fall of 2004, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, how you would have voted on that resolution had you been a U.S. senator, you were quoted in The Chicago Tribune answering, “I don’t know.” Then in March 2007, your press secretary refused “eight times” to answer a New York Times reporter’s question as to why you couldn’t answer that question back in 2004. When pressed again, he said you refused to answer such a “hypothetical” question. So how can you accurately say that you opposed the war resolution when you said “I don’t know” — and how is it fair to criticize Sen. Clinton’s (and Gov. Blagojevich’s) judgment for doing so at that time — when she says today, “Had I known then what I know now [that there were no WMDs in Iraq], I would not have voted for that resolution”?

You also voted against Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) amendment in the summer of 2006 to set a deadline on withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq (as did Sen. Clinton and most Senate Democrats). Yet I don’t think you have ever reminded voters about that vote since you began your presidential campaign.

More OhKermie posting to come in the weeks ahead... sorry for being MIA!

Sex Matters in '08

2007-10-19T00:11:00.000-07:00

Like it or not, sex matters in this election. Even Texas Republicans say so!

Independent evidence indicates that her sex is a strong asset in seeking the Democratic nomination. And while it would be premature to say for sure that it will help in the general election, initial signs are that it will be a plus, something a prominent Texas Republican pollster says his party has failed to recognize.

"Republicans underestimate the very powerful symbolism and feel-good emotions that would accompany electing the first woman president," said Dr. David Hill of Houston, director of Hill Research Consultants. "It's a big deal."

And remember yesterday's post?

"Before this is over, Hillary's candidacy will have more in common with Amelia Earhart's first trans-Atlantic flight or Sally K. Ride's first trip into space than Helmsley's heartlessness," he wrote.

...Mark today on your calendar - it's the one time this year I'll agree with a Texan.

And in case the cowboy rhetoric isn't enough to convince you, some empirical evidence that the "uterus vote" makes a critical difference:

Andrew Kohut of the independent Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, said a study of 40 statewide elections showed that female Democrats did better against male Republicans, largely because they did better among women and no worse among men.

Though conceding that some find Mrs. Clinton "more polarizing" than some other female candidates, Mr. Kohut suggested she would enjoy a similar advantage. He said the Pew study showed that "the gender differences in support for Clinton at this early stage in the campaign are, on average, typical for Democratic women who run for statewide office."
Her advantage is most obvious in polls of prospective Democratic primary and caucus voters. The latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows that she attracts 55 percent of women, compared with 44 percent of men. By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama gets 23 percent of women and 20 percent of men.

2008 will be so fun :)

A Note on that Glass Ceiling

2007-10-16T23:56:00.000-07:00

... it's coming down.

Early this spring I wrote a hopeful piece about Clinton's bid for the presidency, her showing in the polls, and how the tradition of public opinion research supports her electability as a candidate. Since that time, Hillary's numbers and my support for the nation's first viable female presidential candidate have continued to soar (and yes, I recognize that I'm using biased and flamboyant language right now... I'm emotional).

Today especially, my support for Hillary was reaffirmed after watching footage from her Monday appearance The View. (Before you rush to say that I'm 2 days late, remember that I'm a full-time student with a 20-hour/week job and a campaign internship, so my View-watching is limited to late-night clip hunting on YouTube).

There still is a tougher standard for women, especially running for president. We’ve all been through it, in some way or another – where you go and you try to break a barrier, you do the best you can, and people are saying “I don’t like her clothes,” or “I don’t like her hair.” But I think we’re getting beyond that. One of the exciting parts of my campaign is how many people are so personally invested in this.

Everywhere I go around the country, there are two groups of people that I am particularly touched by. All these women in their nineties come to my events, and they come – they wait – sometimes they’re in wheelchairs or walkers, and they have their daughter or granddaughter bring them – and then when I’m going around shaking hands, they’ll say: ‘I’m 95 years old and I was born before women could vote. I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House.’

The other group are parents who bring their children, particularly their daughters. After I make a speech, I go out and shake hands with everybody… I’ll hear a father or a mother lean over and say to their little girl, ‘See honey, you can be anything you want to be.’ I makes me get a welled-up sort of feeling, because my parents told me that. Not that it was true back then, but, we’ve broken a lot of barriers.

Say what you want about the relevance of political rhetoric espoused on a daytime talk show. Go ahead and question the Senator's anecdotes for their historical validity and criticize her for coming on to a women's program with a poignant message tailored specifically to that audience. I am already aware that the pundits are having a field day with Clinton's anecdotes. None of that changes the fact that I am incredibly touched by her statements.

Do I recognize that expensive message-testing and focus groups likely contributed to the poignancy of Clinton's words? Yes. Do I recognize that sex alone is not a reason to vote for a candidate? Absolutely. My support for Hillary runs deeper than her XX chromosomes, to those practical, "every day" affiliations that are so fundamental to identifying with a candidate. But Hillary's sex does make a difference to me, at least in distinguishing between the major Democratic contenders, and that's not something I can hide. Cheesey or naive as it sounds, I am proud to be a woman supporting a woman for president.

:(

2007-10-03T23:15:00.000-07:00

Iran, Iran, I ran to post this blog

2007-09-26T18:26:00.000-07:00

There's been quite a flury in the blogosphere today regarding the controversial Senate vote on Iran's Revolutionary Guard. One worried volunteer calling into Hillary's LA headquarters summarized the hysteria by frantically asking, "Is it true that Hillary Clinton voted to go to war with Iran today!?"

No, people. No. Senator Clinton did not vote to go to war with Iran. But her vote today was indeed a monumental move that I know will need to think about for a while before truly understanding the implications.

In a nutshell: Clinton voted in the majority today for the Kyl-Lideberman Amndment, which designates Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization under Executive Order 13224. In effect, this:

...provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism...
To block the assets of individuals and entities that provide support, services, or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists and terrorist organizations designated under the Order, as well as their subsidiaries, front organizations, agents, and associates. (Wiki)

In short, the Revolutionary Guard is now included on the list of individuals and organizations indentified by Executive Order 13224. Of course, what makes this a flaming ball of controversy is the fact that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is now the first and only official armed unit of a sovereign state to be included on the list of banned terrorist groups. Quite obviously, this complicates diplomacy. (Understatement?)

Beyond that, I don't have much to say. I'm not informed enough on the issue and potential implications. But at the very least I thought this would be an important item to mention on the blog and hopefully get some input/debate/stream-of-consciousness-type discussion on the issue. Let me know what you think.

Frustrations of a Capable Woman

2007-09-17T18:03:00.000-07:00

A certain Dr. Mack recently brought to my attention the fact that my current legacy in the blogosphere is a criticism of Dennis Kucinich’s eyebrows (albeit a poignant one). So after much soul-searching and grave, meditative reflection, I have decided that this is not the mark Oh Kermie is destined to make on the internet. Au contraire, mes amies (note the use of the feminine). I have far greater designs for this dear little blog of mine.

For today, that design shall include a much-overdue condemnation of the systematic use and abuse of gender-specific pro-nouns and nouns. Mind you – this is not a topic that is new to Oh Kermie (or my prolific friends The Colonic and On a Diner Napkin). What is more, the general point I am trying to make has been expressed time and again by feminists everywhere. But regardless, in the last few months I have become increasingly sensitive to the specific injuries that I am about to discuss – especially since the perpetrators of these crimes are often my would-be mentors.

Yeah, I’m talking to you: USC Political Science professors.

It is one thing for a professor to verbally acknowledge an anatomical difference between male and female students. For example: “Where is Jane? She did not show up for her paper conference today” vs. “Where is Dick? He did not show up for his paper conference today.” Similarly, the gendered use of pronouns and nouns is acceptable when describing the actions of political leaders, figures in history, or pertinent others who happened to identify as a woman or a man (i.e., “We should remember the women who championed the nineteenth amendment and be thankful for all they did for American daughters of the twentieth century and beyond”). I am not even offended (feel free to take issue here) by references to the “Founding Fathers” instead of the rather new alternative of the “Framers,” given that the names signed to the Declaration of Independence belonged to men. (The fact that it’s a timeless alliterative device also helps…As many of you know, I’m a sucker for alliteration.)

However, I am absolutely outraged to hear my supposedly distinguished and learned political science professors automatically revert to the masculine when speaking about unspecified or hypothetical political leaders. As a senior who is now completely immersed in upper division Poli-Sci courses, I would expect to find my esteemed educators more sensitive to the myriad stereotypes and implied social expectations embedded in the continual use of “he” when describing any situation in which an undefined political actor may operate. I am sick of hearing about how the ambiguous “he,” a member of California congress, would react to proposed amendments to “his” legislation from the Appropriations Committee… or how “he,” the as-yet-undetermined Democratic presidential nominee, will fare against Republican opponents in 2008.

In case you’ve been living under a rock, you should know that women make up a quarter of the seats in state legislatures across the nation, and the Democrat leading in national primary polls by about 20 points is Hillary Clinton – the proud owner of a uterus. Assuming that the professors leading my political science courses had to abandon the cover of their respective rocks to earn their PhD’s, I am profoundly upset that this discriminatory lexicon continues.

When half of the students (or more) sitting before you are ambitious women yearning for a quality education that will help propel them to careers in politics, law, and a host of other fields, you should be careful that your words do not reinforce limiting stereotypes of who may or may not participate in American law and government. While I am certainly not accusing any of my professors (male and female!) of utilizing such discriminatory language intentionally, I am disappointed that they routinely overlook verbal equality in the name of convenience or acquiescence to society’s default pronoun (“he”).

Furthermore, I am profoundly disturbed by a professor’s recent reference to the number of hours “girls” in his class presumably spend getting ready before coming to lecture (he pegged it at three – my, what use we Trojan women make of our time). It is truly unacceptable to belittle the exceptional women of USC by calling them as you would your ten year old “little girl.” If you must pick a term to counter references to the “guys” in your class, try to use the correct equivalent of “gals.” Don’t insult my age and maturity with a noun meant for school children.

Respect the capable minds of those you should teach and inspire; don’t disappoint us with limiting terminology and reveal your willingness to reinforce gender stereotypes.

(For more on this topic, read this 2005 piece from CampusProgress.org.)

Criterion for Kucinich

2007-07-30T22:49:00.000-07:00

I finally finished watching last week's YouTube Democratic debate, and it brought me to a very important conclusion...

THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MUST HAVE EYEBROWS.

Obama Gives New Meaning to "Substance Free"

2007-07-06T19:23:00.000-07:00

Back in February I complained about Obama's dramatic, long-winded way with language and his fuzzy plans (if you can call them that) for the presidency. Now with five more months on the campaign trail and ample time to develop specific platforms on key issues, critics' claims that the Senator is "all style, no substance" ring true.

Obama's embarrassingly vague essay in the current issue of Foreign Affairs should have been a veritable ribbon-cutting on his agenda for American foreign policy. Instead, the Senator gave us very little by the way of concrete plans and opted once again to ride the waves of rhetoric, highlighting the issues we all know should be addressed with what might as well be an invisible pen. Amitai Etzioni at the Huffington Post is right on in his criticism of the lackluster piece:

Obama's favorite term, repeated ad nauseum, ad infinitum, is vision. What we need, the Senator writes, is "vision." We need a "visionary leadership" and "a new vision of leadership." This is, of course, all too true but also tells us very little as to which vision of foreign policy this new leader would ask us to follow. Obama, like most political candidates without a clear agenda, still manages to be quite clear as to what we are not to do. We should not retreat into Fortress America. We should not get out of Iraq in an "irresponsible" way. And we cannot stop fighting terrorism. So far so good. So far so little.

Now read Obama. He calls for the United States to provide "global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity." These lines are about as vacuous as they come. Such far-from-inspirational prose ("grounded leadership," "share a common security") does not set Obama aside from most if not all other candidates. They lack a substantive vision that one can get one's hands around and draw on to guide a foreign policy.

Obama has charisma. Obama has style. Obama has a vision. But - like a person afflicted with cataracts vainly attemting to obtain a driver's license - that vision is grossly insufficient to inspire a Democratic nomination for the presidency.

Spielberg Endorses Clinton!

2007-06-13T21:38:00.000-07:00

Steven Spielberg jumped on Hillary's official bandwagon today:

"I've taken the time to familiarize myself with the impressive field of Democratic candidates and am convinced that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House."

Great words from a great man. This just made my day :)

I Am Woman, Hear Me Vote... For Hillary Clinton

2007-06-12T11:14:00.000-07:00

Over the past few months I've engaged in ongoing debate with multiple individuals regarding Hillary's popularity among American women. I've consistently maintained that many women will be moved to vote for Hillary simply for the fact that she is a woman. Because the U.S. has never seen a truly viable female candidate for the presidency, I believe that many women are excited by Clinton's presence in the race and will favor her as a candidate because they identify with her gender identity. Of course, there will be women (I know a few of them) who completely reject Hillary for reasons other than her gender, and who disregard such a (trivial?) trait as gender in choosing to favor one candidate over another. But I contend that the gender issue is extremely relevant to the election, and that Hillary's femininity might even be a mobilizing factor for women who otherwise might not make it out to the polls.

Today an article in the Washington Post supports my theory, based on some fabulously fun polling data:

The consistent lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and others in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women.
In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton led Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin. Clinton drew support from 51 percent of the women surveyed, compared with 24 percent who said they supported Obama and 11 percent who said they backed former senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Clinton is drawing especially strong support from lower-income, lesser-educated women -- voters her campaign strategists describe as "women with needs." Obama, by contrast, is faring better among highly educated women, who his campaign says are interested in elevating the political discourse.
Campaign advisers say they expect Obama to pick up support from all categories of voters once they get to know him better, and that could change the structure of the race. But for now, women appear to be playing an outsized role in shaping it and could tip the scale toward the winner.

Let's hope we can help tip the scales, ladies!

More Second Amendment Insanity

2007-05-25T16:32:00.000-07:00

South Carolina law makers have got to be kidding, right?

Catch This Phrase, Trump

2007-05-19T17:08:00.000-07:00

I'm sure everyone who reads this blog is just as indifferent as I am to the fact that NBC decided not to renew Donald Trump's once-popular-but-now-tired-out reality show, The Apprentice. But perhaps someone out there in the blogosphere shares my frustration with the media's overly generous assessment of the Trump's contributions to the English language. In MSNBC's article on the now-canceled show:

His announcement appeared to end any lingering doubt that “The Apprentice,” which turned the self-styled tycoon into a television star and popularized the catch phrase, “You’re fired,” would be banished from NBC’s airwaves next season.

Um, please excuse me, but "You're fired" is no catch phrase! Those two little words signaled doom for less-than-stellar employees everywhere long before The Apprentice hit the airwaves; and last time I checked, Trump's attempt to copyright the phrase failed miserably because of its already ubiquitous meaning and common usage. And just to support my critique, Dictionary.com defines a "catchphrase" as thus:

1. a phrase that attracts or is meant to attract attention.
2. a phrase, as a slogan, that comes to be widely and repeatedly used, often with little of the original meaning remaining.

I'm sure I don't need to enthusiastically explain why "You're fired" doesn't live up to either of these definitions, but please - if you have any questions - consult me and I'll do my best. And please, MSNBC, the last thing The Donald needs is another stroke of his - er - pat on his back. Don't encourage him further!

A Poor Take On The Fire Drill

2007-05-13T20:35:00.000-07:00

In a completely and utterly disgusting move by a group of Tennessee teachers (which I'd like to think could only happen in the Black Hills, but unfortunately believe this may become a trend), 69 terrified sixth graders were subjects of a staged gunman attack during a week-long educational class trip to a national park. According to the MSNBC article, teachers and the school's assistant principal decided to fake an attack after discussing amongst staff how they would react in a real situation. The students were not warned that there would be a "drill" of this nature, and believed whole heartedly that the teacher disguised in a hooded-sweatshirt with a fake gun was on a rampage out to kill them.

Understandably, parents of the children exposed to the simulated assault are outraged. The responsible administration and teachers offered absolutely no justification for the "drill," nor did they indicate that the students were supposed to take any particular lesson or message from the simulation (20 of whom reportedly sobbed in the dark, begging for their lives whilst hiding under tables and chairs during the attack).

I am sickened to think that our nation has reached such a boiling point in the hysteria of gun-culture that shooting-rampage drills are even a remote possibility on the horizon. We should not be preparing school children for gun attacks á la fire & earthquake drills!!! Fires and earthquakes are natural disasters which occur unpredictably by the forces of nature, and thus we should reasonably prepare students to respond appropriately to such phenomena. SHOOTING ATTACKS, on the other hand, are the very specific actions of psychotic individuals armed with GUNS, which are often legally-obtained by violence perpetrators and which are MOST CERTAINLY not natural extensions of the human body creating natural disastrous phenomena. On the contrary, guns are decisively unnatural tools of violence - available only in very recent human history - and integrated haphazardly into a nation where guns morphed from tools for the protection of cattle on homesteads to concealed semiautomatic weapons for use in gang, school, and domestic violence in less than a century. It seems that sanctioning shooting attack drills in schools signals our society's acceptance of, or acquiescence to, its own pitiful ability to control firearms possession.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Guns do not belong in American society. Get rid of the god damn Second Amendment.

Bye, Bye Blair

2007-05-10T17:01:00.000-07:00

Prime Minister Tony Blair announced his long-anticipated resignation today, prompted in part by free-falling public approval ratings due to his partnership with President Bush in Iraq. But although there are cheers for change in Britain, I am sad to see a largely successful world leader step down. As Blair reminds us in today's speech, he has made a remarkable difference for the UK domestically (in terms of education, health, and gay rights) and has helped made Britain's economy stronger than ever (a fact I know ALLLLLL too well from living abroad there for the Fall semester... screw that damned exchange rate!!). So Blair, I kiss you goodbye, wish you the best of luck, and I do indeed hope that speculation about an active Clinton-esque foundation in your name is soon to come!

See the resignation announcement here:

Shattering the Glass or Wiping it Down? The History of Public Opinion Research on Female Presidential Candidates & Implications for Clinton's Campaign

2007-04-30T10:44:00.000-07:00

At the height of her short-lived bid for the American presidency in 1988, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder famously told the press: “When people ask me why I am running as a woman, I always answer, ‘What choice do I have?’” Although her ironic response successfully called attention to the inherent gender-bias associated with such a question, Schroeder was ultimately unable to shake public skepticism at the notion of a female front-runner in the Democratic primary. When the excited buzz surrounding her candidacy failed to produce significant funds to support a competitive campaign, Schroeder’s quest for a seat in the Oval Office ended abruptly with a tearful press conference that was endlessly mocked by critics of the day (Tickner, 1992). Twenty years later, a new woman has emerged from the political landscape with an eye on capturing the highest office in the land. But unlike Schroeder, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is generating both the buzz and the bucks needed to mount a bold campaign for the presidency. As analysts continue to place Clinton’s campaign finances at the top of the list for the 2008 frontrunners, stereotypes of female domesticity, submission, and apathy seem dusty vestiges of great grand-pappy’s political dogma. Yet despite the unprecedented optimism with which Clinton-enthusiasts regard her gendered presidential campaign, a vast and complex body of public opinion research prompts continued questions about gender discrimination in the minds of voters and the true elect-ability of a presidential hopeful such as Hillary Clinton. An analysis of the evolution of gender bias in public opinion studies and the recent profusion of polling data for Clinton and her fellow presidential hopefuls will reveal that Americans finally seem primed to elect a woman president – as long as they find that her positions on national and foreign policy are superior to her opponents’.

Social scientists have long been fascinated with American attitudes toward female politicians, with inquiry into the public’s willingness to vote for a woman president fundamental in their historic investigations. Although significant numbers of female representatives in senatorial and gubernatorial offices were a dream until the early 1990s, questions probing the willingness of citizens to elect a woman president first appeared in national opinion surveys as early as 1937 (Carpini & Fuchs, 1993). In a survey that would become the first in a long series of investigations into national gender biases, the Gallup Organization asked respondents whether they would “vote for a woman for president if she were qualified in every other respect” (1937). Indeed, the blatantly discriminatory language of this question reflected the cynical public sentiment at the time, with 64% of respondents saying they would not vote for a woman. In hindsight public opinion scholars have been deeply critical of the leading language of this first question, noting that “the use of the word ‘other’ clearly suggests to the respondent that simply being a woman makes one unqualified for the job” (Falk & Kenski, 2006, p. 414). Future researchers were more careful in framing questions about women candidates, and the word “other” was dropped from survey lexicon completely in 1939 (Falk & Kenski, 2006).

Yet despite long running researcher-recognition of problems in framing questions about women presidential candidates, modern opinion surveys persist in using loaded language to ask respondents if they would vote for a female president. Recent surveys from the most respected polling agencies in the United States continue to ask questions such as: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a woman, would you vote for that person?” or “If your party nominated a woman for president, would you vote for her if she were qualified for the job?” (USA Today & Gallup Poll, 2007; Newsweek & Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2006). Although such wording is by and large an improvement on the 1937 prototype, the underlying assumption in each of these examples is that being a woman is an inherent disadvantage to any individual seeking office, “clearly prim[ing] questions about a woman’s qualifications” (Falk & Kenski, 2006, p. 414). Of course, our country has never had a female president or an official female nominee for the office, so pollsters may make a case for the necessity of such wording; but ultimately this persistence of biased language seems indicative of enduring social norms regarding women leaders.

This is not to say, however, that public sentiment has lain stagnate on the issue of willingness to vote for a woman president. In her acclaimed analysis of Americans’ changing responses to the question, Myra Ferree found that public opinion moved significantly in favor of a woman president between 1958 and 1972, with the most noticeable change occurring between 1969 and 1972 (Feree, 1974, p. 392):

Change over time in percentage of respondents willing to vote for a female presidential candidate
Year of Survey	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”
1958	55%	39%
1959	58	38
1963	56	40
1967	57	38
1969	55	38
1972	70	25

In that final period, the number of respondents willing to vote for a woman candidate for president jumped 15% (from a slim majority of 55% to almost two-thirds of the sample population), and the number of those unreceptive to a female president declined at a comparable rate. As may be logically inferred, “the increase in positive attitudes toward a woman for president coincides with the impact of the feminist movement… beginning in the 1970s” (Mandel, 2006, p.5). Since the late 1990s (and the many monumental advances women have made into the public sphere), positive response rates to the woman-candidate question have remained steady at above 90% of most samples.

Indeed, these numbers paint a promising picture for a candidate like Hillary Clinton – with deep running campaign funds and a prominent name among the American people to boot – but not all public opinion research paints U.S. voters as so accepting of the prospect of a woman’s leadership. A significant number of social scientists believe that the social desirability effect (whereby individuals feel the need to conform to perceived expectations of interviewers) may be accountable for the large percentage of survey respondents who say they are willing to vote for a female presidential candidate (Falk & Kenski, 2006; Streb et al., 2006). Although this effect is extremely difficult to examine or manipulate in a research setting, those who believe that social desirability has an impact on modern survey respondents wary of being labeled as “sexist” would agree that the effect may explain significantly lower positive responses to survey questions regarding the nation’s overall readiness for a woman president. Carole Kennedy writes: “While most Americans report that they personally would be willing to vote for a woman president, other polls show that a majority of Americans still believe that the country is not ready to elect a woman president” (Kennedy, 2001). Kennedy’s findings reflect those in a February 2007 poll conducted by the Gallup Organization, in which only 60% of respondents felt that America is actually ready for a woman president (CNN & Opinion Research Corporation, 2006). Such a narrow majority of individuals who believe the country is ready to elect a woman to the Oval Office suggests the existence of very real reservations among American voters about the capability of a woman to serve as president.

But if this pessimistic view of America’s willingness to elect a woman president is truly the case, then why has Hillary Clinton come out with such strong numbers in poll after poll measuring voter attitudes toward the 2008 presidential election? Since the field of both Democratic and Republican 2008 presidential hopefuls has been solidly defined in recent months, Senator Clinton has maintained a strong presence in polls and is often ranked by respondents as the top Democratic candidate for president. Recent studies of Democrat-leaning adults conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post consistently place Clinton as the number one contender in the Democratic primary, with a 17% lead over her nearest opponent (Barack Obama) as of mid-April (2007). And while it is certainly true that a fair amount of variation in these results exists (one April poll gives Clinton a mere 5% lead over Obama) the salient piece of information here is that a woman is actually topping the presidential polls against real, live male opponents (NBC News & Wall Street Journal, 2007). Hillary’s continued success (some might say domination) in these polls suggest that speculation about the social desirability effect in studies about women’s general elect-ability are irrelevant to Senator Clinton’s campaign. While one may argue that an anti-sexist social desirability effect might influence individuals’ answers about their theoretical willingness to vote for a woman, it is quite a stretch to say that respondents would let this effect influence their self-identified preferences for actual candidates in the 2008 primaries.

Furthermore, Clinton’s leadership among other Democratic nomination candidates is consistent in most of the measured sub-group populations in national polls. Where Hillary falters (with Democratic-leaning: men aged 18 to 49, college graduates, 18 to 29 year olds, Midwesterners, and $100,000+ income earners; who prefer Obama), she maintains a significant share of preference votes with arguably more numerous and hence influential voting populations (Pew Research, 2007). In light of her truly stellar showing in current polls, it seems that Clinton’s gender will be much less of an issue (if an issue, at all) than her specific positions on national and foreign policy. With polling numbers that are virtually indistinguishable from all-male presidential races in the past, Hillary’s femininity seems immaterial to her viability as a leader among potential voters who continue to positively rank her alongside male candidates. As Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter cleverly explains, Clinton’s “hair and hemline wont be issues [for 2008 voters]; her muscular national-security approach and her famous husband will” (2006). This dynamic is easily observed in the general election trial heats where variations in Clinton’s performance against prominent Republican candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney may be logically explained by partisan preference and policy standpoints. Indeed, her 1% margin of loss to Giuliani, 1% victory over McCain, and 15% winning margin over Romney indicate that Hillary has as good a chance as any historic Democratic presidential hopeful in winning the race for the Oval Office, provided she gets the nomination (Princeton Survey Research and Newsweek, 2007).

So although the age-old question of whether Americans would vote for a female presidential candidate has elicited confusing and contradictory responses from voters over time, recent studies of the 2008 presidential hopefuls suggest that the United States is indeed ready to elect a woman president – given that her stances on major issues are in line with the ideologies of a majority of voters. In an age where Hillary Clinton is the current favored Democratic presidential nominee, public opinion research into American’s willingness to vote for a woman for president has evolved from the theoretical to the specific and influential. As the first-ever female presidential candidate to possess substantial financial resources, national visibility, and respected political credentials all at once, Hillary Clinton has already demonstrated that she is an attractive candidate to many likely 2008 election voters. Now, Clinton must merely prove to voters that her policy positions and leadership experience are superior to her opponents – a task that is similarly required of any other presidential candidate, regardless of gender.

Fun New Ideology Rankings

2007-04-30T08:45:00.000-07:00

Straight from Pew Research (use link to view enlarged version of scale):

Republican and Democratic voters express very different views of the ideologies of the leading Democratic candidates. Asked to rate each candidate's ideology on a scale from one to six, where one represents a very conservative position and six very liberal, Hillary Clinton gets an overall score of 4.4. But Republican voters, on average, rate Clinton as 5.0, compared with Democratic voters who score Clinton as a 4.2. Fully 58% of Republican voters give Sen. Clinton the most liberal score possible - a six on the six-point scale - compared with just 22% of Democratic voters.

Question mark: Why is an ideology scale of the primary field including data on Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and "Dubya"? And is anyone else (i.e., Dr. Mack) surprised that the mean ideology self ranking for Democrats is exactly the same as the mean ideology ranking for John Edwards? Does this mean anything for the Edwards campaign and '08 primaries?

I'd Watch "Celebrity Fit Club" if Shrek Were On It

2007-04-26T22:09:00.000-07:00

Ever since the Shrek franchise of films hit the big screen in 2001 I’ve been a big fan of the giant green ogre and his pals. The narratives in both the first and second Shrek films have held undeniably positive messages for both youth and adults – and I’m sure that if I were fifteen years younger the series would not be subject to my mother’s Princess Ban. But even in my adoration and enjoyment of DreamWorks’ most popular character, I am deeply disturbed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to appoint him the official spokesperson for the new childhood obesity prevention campaign.

Why, you ask? How could anyone want to oust America’s favorite swamp beast from a campaign aimed at the impressionable minds who adore him so? I’ll give you two great reasons:

1) With current endorsement deals with McDonalds, Sierra Mist, Cheez-Its, Snickers, M&M’s, Fruit Loops, Frosted Flakes, and Keebler cookies, Shrek is hardly a poster-child (or poster-ogre) for healthy dietary choices. As one Harvard Medical School faculty member puts it, “Surely DHHS can find a better spokesperson for healthy living than a character who is [simultaneously!!!!] a walking advertisement for McDonald’s, sugary cereals, cookies, and candy.” It doesn’t take a brilliant critical mind to determine that Shrek’s very public relationships with some of the unhealthiest brands around are ill-matched with the government’s aim of promoting healthy lifestyles to America’s increasingly plump generation of children.

2) Shrek is overweight. And I don’t mean some-unsightly-love-handles- and-a-badonk-a-donk-butt-but-still-in-the-healthy-body-mass-index- range overweight… The creature is decisively large, and his BMI would undoubtedly be sky high if we could indeed calculate such figures for digitally animated beings. I will be the first to reject the DHSS’s official statement that Shrek is being used to promote exercise (not foods), and that “he doesn’t have a perfect physique… We hope children will understand that being physically fit doesn’t require being a great athlete.” Um, excuse me, but last time I checked, exercising and eating right go hand in hand. And while we should certainly steer clear of the often emaciated media images of models/celebrities that some argue are a major catalyst for eating disorders, it is ludicrous to say that Shrek’s blubber is merely the mark of a “non-athlete” with an otherwise healthy lifestyle. If you ask me, this swamp-man needs to cut back on the “Swamp Rat au Jus, Big Green Slugs, and anything with a face, feet, and hands.” (Yeah, that was from the official website.)

The bottom line – Shrek is truly loveable guy, and the television-campaign-in-question is really quite cute. But the ogre’s dirty marketing deals and his distinctly unhealthy lifestyle choices (and physical manifestations) send the wrong message to youth. Instead, let’s get Shrek on Celebrity Fit Club, or have him start a cooking show with “Healthy Swamp Treats of the Week.” At least then we wouldn’t have to deal with this ideological struggle… And I wouldn’t have to rant about my favorite green man!

Intellectual "Ugh"

2007-04-25T18:10:00.000-07:00

I don't mean to seem like an intellectual elitist here, but I am disturbed at how this article seems to celebrate (or at least excuse) those individuals who are born with below-average IQs. And it's reminiscent of that season of The Apprentice, where they put the college grads up against those who never went after degrees. I don't know, it just bugs me.

Pick Up Your Phone! Now!

2007-04-25T09:20:00.000-07:00

...In support of the Freedom of Choice Act. Here is the alert I received from the Feminist Majority Foundation:

NATIONAL CALL IN DAY

CALL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
ON APRIL 25
(202) 224-3121

FOCA House Bill Number:
H.R. 1964

FOCA Senate Bill Number:
S. 1173

On April 18, the Supreme Court turned back the clock on women's health. Every American who values freedom and privacy should be troubled by the Court's decision to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, an abortion ban with no protection for a woman's health.

You can fight back. The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would guarantee reproductive freedom for future generations of American women. With the Court's decision, we need the protection of FOCA now more than ever before.

Join us for the national call-in day on April 25, the third anniversary of the historic March for Women's Lives. We will flood the phone lines of the U.S. House and Senate.

Don't let this attack on women's freedom and privacy go unanswered. Urge your members of Congress to co-sponsor the Freedom of Choice Act.

Not My Favorite Colbert

2007-04-23T23:38:00.000-07:00

I don’t pretend to fully understand why there are such complexities to urban musical slang versus hateful, bigoted slurs, or why it is appropriate for a person to sing “nigga” in a rap song while the same word is reprehensible in common conversation. I also don’t pretend that the lines of reasoning people use to defend such distinctions aren’t often circular or inherently flawed in their construction. (Can such words really be empowering and familial in one context while xenophobic and vile in another?)

I can, however, say with cautious certainty that a tangible distinction between the contexts of such controversial language indeed exists, and it’s a futile exercise to universally condemn those individuals who employ such loaded language in the friendlier sense. While I may be confused at why Timbaland wishes to croon “All the hoes love a nigga, they be backing it up,” I cannot reasonably respond to his lyrics with the same anger I direct at the distasteful comments of Don Imus (official understatement of the year on Oh Kermie). Which is why I am so irritated with Colbert I. King’s rant on Senator Clinton’s recent $800,000 fundraiser hosted at Timbaland’s Florida home, featured this weekend in the Washington Post:

“This much I do know: If Hillary Clinton wasn't playing a hypocrite in the Don Imus episode and is, in fact, a leader who matches her lofty ideals with stand-up behavior, she should return the $800,000 Timbaland raised for her at his swank affair.”

Can I get a what? I’m not going to try to avoid King’s “duh” finger-pointing at the society’s obvious double standard for racially and sexually loaded language. Good job, man, you found it, let me find a cookie for your sleuthing! But without any suggestions for rhetorical reform or an explanation as to why this language is tolerated in the largely ethnic hip-hop community, his criticisms are disingenuous and cheapen the significance of this unique union for political gain.

Clinton’s successful appearance in the hip-hop community should be celebrated for engaging a demographic that doesn’t historically storm the polls with all its potential might, and should be seen as a start of an electorate-candidate conversation (Hillary’s good at those) with big possibilities for 2008. And while King can argue that this target demographic was excluded from the $1,000-per-plate benefit last month, there is no denying that the stamp of a prominent rap mogul on partisan politics might have great implications for the mobilization of hip-hop generation voters.

My advice to King? If you really want the authority to launch a polemic against a popular candidate for the presidency (whose “lofty ideals” are proving a hit with key demographics), figure out why such a significant portion of society indulges the language you happily condemn. Until we can take this controversial lexicon out of our mainstream social dialogue, candidates cannot hope to bridge the incredible gap between their elite political camps and Timbaland-bumping citizens without waltzing into at least a bit of moral mud. And let’s be honest – there’s quite a bit of murky area out there for sludging through.

Way to go, Washington!

2007-04-22T18:08:00.000-07:00

A small victory for the LGBT community in Washington state: The LA Times reports that Governor Chris Gregoire signed a law recognizing domestic partnerships between gay and lesian couples. Under the legislation, registered same-sex couples have "hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will."

Now if only the state recognized ALL legal partnerships this way and dropped the ideologically and religiously loaded word "marriage" from the books... Baby steps, baby steps...

Commending the Hokies

2007-04-21T19:28:00.000-07:00

I think one of the reasons the Virginia Tech Massacre is so terrifying is that it happened on a well-known and respected university campus, one of the last places Americans typically fear for their lives. After reading article after article about the shootings on Monday evening, I found myself looking around from my cubicle in the library and wondering how I would react if a madman with a gun barged in with an intent to kill.

It is so sad and horrifying to think that we can't even feel safe at an institution of higher learning, where diverse opinions and peoples are supposed to be respected and nurtured. In the past few days, my thoughts have of course been with the victims and their families, but I've also wondered how the university plans to continue with the semester. With final exams and commencement rapidly approaching, the work of an entire semester (or rather, an entire college career) seems irreversibly damaged to such a disgusting extreme... I don't know how my school would even think of reacting to such an event.

Which is why I was so incredibly impressed with Virginia Tech's response to the tragedy, in terms of the completion of the semester and evaluating grades in the face of such a crisis. The university's website indicates:

Students will have the option of requesting, on a course by course basis, that the semester grade be based on the faculty evaluation of:

- Materials which have already been submitted for grade prior to April 16, or

- The already submitted material plus any other assigned material which the student wishes to submit for grade, or

- The material that would have been submitted for grade upon regular completion of the course.

Implementation of this procedure will be accomplished in a manner consistent with university academic policy. Existing policies related to other academic issues remain in effect. Flexibility and attention to the needs of the students is a high priority. The deans fully support the implementation and will be supported by the Office of the Provost.

In support of their emotional well-being, it is recommended that students continue to participate in class activities as part of the Virginia Tech community. We encourage students to continue to take advantage of all learning opportunities. Students will be permitted to defer a decision on which option to exercise until the last day of classes. The Course Withdrawal Policy is also extended until the last day of classes. The options for completing course work allow for students to remove themselves from the campus for all or part of the remainder of the semester without penalty to their course completion, or academic eligibility.

The university has decided that those students whose lives were taken will be awarded posthumously the academic degree for which they were enrolled effective Spring 2007. These degrees will be awarded during the college, graduate school, or departmental commencement exercises, where such degrees are usually awarded.

I absolutely commend the administrators at Virginia Tech for responding in such a sensitive, flexible manner to a truly incomprehensible and seemingly impossible challenge. I am also incredibly touched that the university decided to award degrees to the students whose lives were taken on Monday. In the face of disaster, I think Virginia Tech is showing true excellence and poise.

The Ten Commandments of the Ethical Atheist

2007-04-18T20:04:00.000-07:00

While I certainly embrace being called an "atheist" (for, in fact, that is precisely what I am), I am often disgruntled with the condescending attitude my more spirited non-secular peers adopt in discussions about morality. "Where do you think your morals come from?" "If we were all atheists there would only be chaos." "Religion provides humanity with a necessary moral code." Although I do not believe that humans have an innate and absolute moral code from which they can determine what is right and wrong in virtually any complex ethical dilemma, I do believe that all rational humans (read: those without mental illnesses) are equipped with a definitive sense of morality on the major issues.

The order of "Thou shalt not kill" from the Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian faiths was not revolutionary at its canonization; Murderous crimes were punished with vigor by civilizations predating Moses, and the evolution of human societies and social norms suggest that moral codes dealing with such fundamental issues of order in free societies are here to stay - regardless of whether or not the majority continues to cling to religious codes. Yet despite these self-evident truths about humanity, atheists are often branded as amoral and unconditionally self-interested by the religious right (and my really annoying, evangelical neighbor from spring 2006). For this reason, I like to frame my atheism in the context of secular humanism.

Today, I came across a nice set of "Commandments" for ethical non-believers, straight from the Ethical Atheist Foundation. Click on each commandment to find a more detailed explanation of each moral tenet. And so, let it be known:

1. Thou shalt not believe all thou art told.

2. Thou shalt seek knowledge and truth constantly.

3. Thou shalt educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science.

4. Thou shalt NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of god.

5. Thou shalt leave valuable contributions for future generations.

6. Thou shalt live in peace with thy fellow man.

7. Thou shalt live this one life thou hast to its fullest.

8. Thou shalt follow a Personal Code of Ethics.

9. Thou shalt maintain a strict separation between Church and State.

10. Thou shalt support those who follow these commandments.

A Lesson from the Tragedy at Virginia Tech

2007-04-17T23:43:00.000-07:00

Government-issued photo ID. (X). Ninety-day residency in desired state of purchase. (X). Basic criminal background check. (X).

And just like that, 32 innocent lives are lost.

Armed with two handguns that were legally and easily purchased from licensed vendors, 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui stormed his alma mater in Blacksburg, Virginia and brutally attacked students and professors in the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. Today and for countless days to come we must mourn the deaths of those who periled at the hands of such a merciless killer. Yet we must also live with the pungent scent of shame that continues to linger over our nation’s outrageous “right to bear arms.”

Yesterday’s horrific and tragic massacre at Virginia Tech is yet another agonizing reminder that Second Amendment should have no place in our twenty-first century society.

When the Framers embarked on their noble quest to endow the American people with a set of inalienable rights, they had no intention of guaranteeing to civilians the unrestricted or even consciously regulated right to own handguns, rifles, or semiautomatic weapons (all of which have been used with sickening frequency to attack innocents around the country in recent years).

At the time the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was a purely practical consideration to ensure the nascent government would have a ready and able militia if the mighty Brits ever tried to reclaim their rogue colonies. The wording of the NRA’s favorite sentence of all time is crystal clear: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Virtually no part of the Constitution explicitly indicates or even subtly implies that any other reason for bearing arms is a sound interpretation of the Second Amendment. Not self-defense. Not game hunting for leisure. Not to “even the playing field” with “bad guys” who “don’t play by the rules.” There is absolutely no reason that anyone outside of the military or law enforcement – those modern day militia-men who keep the free State secure – should be able to own a firearm.

In the aftermath of such a devastating utilization of legally-obtained and registered guns (purchased by a man who seemed “cordial” and “clean-cut” to the responsible store clerk), it is mind-numbing to listen to otherwise-rational Americans cite our nation’s so-called anger problems as the force behind gun violence. Even some parents of Columbine shooting victims are blaming school shootings on an angry American society that tolerates violence.

We do not need to wake Sigmund Freud from his grave to analyze the psychological complexities of Americans and determine why so many people resort to gun violence. People resort to gun violence because they have access to guns.

There is no doubt that the number of American deaths by firearms would be greatly reduced if we outlawed the legal sale of guns in our country. If people do not have sophisticated, efficient, mechanical means to murder, they resort to more primitive and ineffective methods when callously tempted to harm others. And such methods are simply not as successful as guns at bringing innocent victims to death. Most of the developed, democratized world acknowledges the crucial and obvious link between guns and violence, and they enjoy drastically lower homicide rates (specifically, gun deaths) per year because of their much stricter policies on firearms.

Of course, we can never totally prevent renegade individuals from breaking gun control laws and obtaining firearms illegally. Not even the United Kingdom (which outlaws guns completely) was able to prevent a total of 46 gun-homicides last year, compared to America’s 10,105 firearm murders in 2005.

But if we can pass legislation that outlaws the sale of guns and establishes some systematic plan to recall those already in American homes, we can show true respect to the victims at Virginia Tech by reducing the risk of history repeating itself, again. The sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, students, and teachers who were savagely slaughtered by legally-obtained firearms this week should serve as somber reminders that America’s permissive stance on guns is poisonous. Only serious reevaluation of the Second Amendment and new steps to outlaw guns in our country are appropriate cures for America’s perverted gun culture (of which I guarantee the Framers would not approve).

The Way of the Gigolo

2007-04-16T19:28:00.000-07:00

In what seems to be a never-ending quest for information on McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry, I stumbled upon a gem of a quote on none other than THE DASH - that fun little guy I know and love so well!

“The dash, the gigolo of the punctuation world, has its uses and its dangers. It intrigues the writer with its drama and its convenient ambiguity. Like a gigolo, however, its effectiveness is determined by the user's savoir faire and restraint. If you overuse the dash in legal writing, you run the risk of looking desperate.”

...and yes, I promise that there is more to come from El Kermie (Oh, I mean Oh Kermie) like, yesterday.

Turtle Power!

2007-02-28T21:51:00.001-08:00

Everybody please drop everything and get excited... there's a new TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES movie coming out! Cowabungaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shattering the Glass or Wiping it Down?: Issues in Public Opinion Research on Female Presidential Candidates in the Age of Hillary Clinton

2007-02-21T02:48:00.000-08:00

At the height of her short-lived bid for the American presidency in 1988, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder famously told the press: “When people ask me why I am running as a woman, I always answer, ‘What choice do I have?’” Although her ironic response successfully called attention to the inherent gender-bias associated with such a question, Schroeder was ultimately unable to shake public skepticism at the notion of a female front-runner in the Democratic primary. When the excited buzz surrounding her candidacy failed to produce significant funds to support a competitive campaign, Schroeder’s quest for a seat in the Oval Office ended abruptly with a tearful press conference that was endlessly mocked by critics of the day (Tickner, 1992). Twenty years later, a new woman has emerged from the political landscape with an eye on capturing the highest office in the land. But unlike Schroeder, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is generating both the buzz and the bucks needed to mount a bold campaign for the presidency. As analysts continue to place Clinton’s campaign finances at the top of the list for the 2008 frontrunners, stereotypes of female domesticity, submission, and apathy seem dusty vestiges of great grand-pappy’s political dogma. Yet despite the unprecedented optimism with which Clinton-enthusiasts regard her gendered presidential campaign, a vast and complex body of public opinion research suggests that Hillary’s attempted return to the White House may not be as free from the throes of gender discrimination as the civic-minded, ambitious women of our generation would happily believe. An analysis of the evolution of gender bias in public opinion studies and the attribution of leadership qualities to female political candidates will show that the American public’s readiness to elect a female president remains an elusive question – with Hillary Clinton’s upcoming run in the Democratic primary the nearest thing to an answer on the horizon.

Change over time in percentage of respondents willing to vote for a female presidential candidate
Year of Survey	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”
1958	55%	39%
1959	58	38
1963	56	40
1967	57	38
1969	55	38
1972	70	25

Indeed, these numbers paint a promising picture for a candidate like Clinton – with deep running campaign funds and a prominent name among the American people to boot – but not all public opinion research paints U.S. voters as so accepting of the prospect of a woman’s leadership. A significant number of social scientists believe that the social desirability effect (whereby individuals feel the need to conform to perceived expectations of interviewers) may be accountable for the large percentage of survey respondents who say they are willing to vote for a female presidential candidate (Falk & Kenski, 2006; Streb et al., 2006). Although this effect is extremely difficult to examine or manipulate in a research setting, those who believe that social desirability has an impact on modern survey respondents wary of being labeled as “sexist” would agree that the effect may explain significantly lower positive responses to survey questions regarding the nation’s overall readiness for a woman president. Carole Kennedy writes: “While most Americans report that they personally would be willing to vote for a woman president, other polls show that a majority of Americans still believe that the country is not ready to elect a woman president” (Kennedy, 2001). Kennedy’s findings reflect those in a February 2007 poll conducted by the Gallup Organization, in which only 60% of respondents felt that America is actually ready for a woman president (CNN & Opinion Research Corporation, 2006). Such a narrow majority of individuals who believe the country is ready to elect a woman to the Oval Office suggests the existence of very real reservations among American voters about the capability of a woman to serve as president.

Researchers have attempted to determine how voters evaluate this presidential capability by examining respondents’ attribution of leadership traits to both male and female candidates; yet perhaps unsurprisingly, the studies have produced unclear results for interpreting the elective power of a woman like Hillary Clinton in today’s political climate. In a 1993 experiment, Alexander and Andersen found that:

…gender role beliefs may predispose people to a more or less favorable view of women politicians, and in particular that those who profess an egalitarian ideology see female candidates in a positive light both in traditional “female” terms and in their possession of more “masculine” attributes (Alexander & Andersen, 1993, p. 541).

But while such a finding is promising for female presidential aspirants counting on votes from so-called egalitarian ideologues, the option of a less favorable view of women politicians remains, with the unfavorable set of biases presumably originating from voters in the conservative heartland of America that has often proved important to presidential hopefuls.

Ultimately, the things that influence individuals to attribute leadership characteristics to political candidates – regardless of gender – are dependent upon multiple factors outside of mere gender stereotypes. Kenski and Falk believe that political partisanship is the most important indicator of voter preference for a female or male presidential candidate, when information regarding their respective policy backgrounds and party identification is readily available (Kenski & Falk, 2006). Yet these scientists also find that “gender, education, and ideology [of respondents] are strong predictors of presidential gender preference,” though it remains unclear how each of these traits may influence an individual’s liking of female (or male) politicians (Kenski & Falk, 2004, p. 58). In short, the effect of voter gender, party identification, ideology, and other demographic characteristics on voter preference for female (or male) political candidates is unknown.

So although we can be confident that the American public is more receptive to a female president now than in 1937, the critical mass of public opinion research on political gender biases has left much to be desired in terms of definitive answers regarding the nation’s true readiness to elect a woman president. But in the absence of any serious female candidates in the United States’ long history of presidential elections, this shortage of conclusive data is not entirely unexpected. Indeed, steadily increasing numbers of female senatorial and gubernatorial representatives indicate that the public is both ready and willing to elect women leaders (in spite of that cursed uterus early Gallup Pollsters once considered damning for a politician). The question remains, however, whether these “uterus votes” can be extended to the Oval Office, the virtual no-woman’s land of presidential power and influence. As the first-ever female candidate to possess substantial financial resources, national visibility, and respected political credentials all at once, Hillary Clinton will doubtless be a crucial figure in public opinion research for her upcoming leading role in the 2008 presidential elections – when we will finally have a chance to determine if America is willing to vote for a woman president.

Chew on this

2007-02-10T18:03:00.000-08:00

Why religious institutions should not be responsible for sex education.

My "Hope" for Obama's Campaign 2.0

2007-02-05T12:54:00.000-08:00

In the wake of Time’s decision to select You as Person of the Year (as in we the brave warriors against corporate imperialism on the user-ruled internet terrain), it appears that 2008’s presidential candidates are gearing up for guerilla combat in the digital trenches. At least, that’s what Barack Obama’s campaign advisers are counting on.

Already drawing crowds of Facebookers to dazzling speeches about “the audacity of hope” in modern politics, Obama is banking on a “campaign whose support continues to expand even faster than you can put a fence around it” (adviser Robert Gibbs, in today’s WP).

…the challenge for Obama is not just assembling the nuts and bolts of a national campaign on the fly. He must, his advisers believe, do so in a way that reflects the distinct, next-generation message of his candidacy, or at least avoids making him look like every other politician in the race. "I would sooner lose the race than lose having him the way he is," said David Axelrod, his chief media strategist.

Few will argue that Obama possesses a certain je ne sais quoi that has yet to be tainted by the pressures of traditional campaign warfare. But as much as I am drawn to this charisma, I’d like to think that the American public – specifically the Google mailing, instant messaging, YouTube watching variety – can see through the increasing amount of idealistic rhetoric about Obama’s supposedly noble efforts to reach voters through the net. As critics of the Time tribute were quick to note, the “digital democracy” is anything but; corporations increasingly have a hand in shaping or limiting the content of sites like YouTube and MySpace, and the same strategic conniving that goes to shaping every other candidate’s image will go (and has gone) into making Obama the “next-generation” candidate. And while it is certainly early in the game and there is (some) time left to develop a distinctive agenda, I am extremely skeptical of statements like this:

"There are those who don't believe in talking about hope… They say, 'Well, we want specifics, we want details, and we want white papers, and we want plans.' We've had a lot of plans, Democrats. What we've had is a shortage of hope. And over the next year, over the next two years, that will be my call to you."

Well, Mr. Senator, I certainly hope you can give me some specifics, some details – soon. Nevermind that we’ve already had a lot of plans… how about focusing on drafting some plans that actually work for the American people?

He already possesses charisma and an apparent grasp on whatever potential lies in the digital forum. But in order to inspire confidence in his abilities as the leader and decision maker for our nation – and to combat accusations of having all style, no substance – Obama should focus on developing a specific platform with answers for the pressing questions of today.

Actually, I quite like cookies

2007-02-04T16:17:00.000-08:00

Since gender identity and socialization issues are so often discussed/mentioned/debated in the blogosphere, I would like to make a brief point regarding my attitude towards stereotypical femininity and intelligence:

I caution all my readers not to automatically revert to a confrontational or condescending stance against those of us who ride “super cute” beach cruisers or choose to indulge in other outward displays of socialized femininity. The participation in (or enjoyment of) such ritual is not indicative of vapidity, a shallow demeanor, or a somehow inferior sense of identity and individuality. If you believe that such is the case, then you are simply reinforcing those stereotypes which (I agree) are extremely limiting and frustrating in their assumptions.

I absolutely commend those with the inspiration and innovation to go against the grain of conventional society and challenge traditional social roles (whether based in gender, race, class, or some other ideologically-loaded characteristic). I simply ask that you do not assume that everyone (or anyone, for that matter) who has a more outwardly conventional lifestyle is a mere “social cookie-cutter.” While it is true that we may endlessly scrutinize the sociological implications of such “boring” individuals, we may also scrutinize the persistent need for distinction, recognition, or divergence that seems so common to individuals who actively refute traditional norms and declare their independence from/superiority over said counterparts.

Now I’m off to watch the Superbowl in my sorority’s TV room…

Self criticism does not an anti-Semite make

2007-02-04T02:02:00.000-08:00

A recent article by Alvin Rosenfeld on the growth of anti-Zionist sympathies among liberal Jews (‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism) is creating quite a clamor in the already deafening debate surrounding Israel and its policies today. Rosenfeld and David A. Harris of the American Jewish Committee vigorously contend that the leftist Jewish critics who challenge Israel’s policies are contributing to a global force of “new Anti-Semitism,” typified especially by Jewish anti-Zionist expression (p9).

Throughout the article (which has garnered both acclaim and criticism from prominent Jewish minds) Rosenfeld attacks the individuals who dare to “go against” their religion and their people and actively condemn the decidedly violent policies of Israel’s reigning regime. In particular, Rosenfeld takes on Jacqueline Rose for the “overwhelmingly negative” language she chooses to use in critiquing the actions of the Israeli state.

She is fond of using the language of “tragedy” to describe the sins of Zionism… her lexicon of descriptive terms for Zionism and its errant ways is overwhelmingly negative: “agony,” “anguished,” “belligerent,” “bloody,” “brutal,” “cataclysmic,” “corrupt,” “cruel,” “dangerous,” “deadly,” and “militaristic”

While I certainly agree that the language of such a critique succeeds in painting a completely grim picture of Israeli action in the Middle East, I find it supremely offensive (and indicative of an incapacity for constructive critical dialogue) that Rosenfeld has been so moved to find fault in the mere semantics of criticism, yet completely ignores the substantive issues brought to the table with such illustrative language. And while Rosenfeld acknowledges that “Criticizing policies and actions is, in itself, not anti-Semitic” (p8), he accuses Rose of being exactly that, and of helping to fortify global anti-Semitism by criticizing the Zionist state. He continues,

As if to head off a more obvious explanation, Rose more than once feels compelled to declare that criticism of Israel is not tantamount to anti-Semitism, and, of course, she is right. But then how do we account for her constant references to “the injustice of Israel,” to its “capacity for evil,” to its fundamental “belligerence” and inherent “violence,” to its being “mad” and “crazy,” while no such damning qualities are ascribed to any of Israel’s neighbors, who are not generally known for their tolerant and peaceful ways?

Rosenfeld’s eagerness – nay, fervor – to equate Rose’s descriptive criticism with anti-Semitism fails miserably because he lacks an elementary understanding of the vocabulary relevant to this issue.

Anti-Semitism is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution.

Anti-Zionism is a term used to describe opposition to Zionism, the movement supporting the right of the State of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Anti-Zionism takes many forms, from the refusal to recognize Israel's existence to religious opposition to the idea of a Jewish state. (Thanks again, Wiki)

Of course, Rosenfeld and his like-minded contemporaries would be quick to suggest that anti-Zionism is closely (if not inextricably) linked to anti-Semitism (a point which may be well-expanded upon, with some measure of accuracy, in another debate). But to suggest that criticism of Israel by Jews constitutes anti-Semitism (even when that criticism includes the questioning of its fundamental right to exist) reveals a keen willingness to confuse the meanings of two separate phenomena and a stubborn unwillingness to accept criticism of the Zionist state – even when it comes from those who are most disinclined to be analytical. (Not to mention that it makes the unfair assumption that such critics are masochists.)

I am reminded of the wise words of Rabbi David Rosen, who drew much applause at a session on multiculturalism and global governance at the World Economic Forum on January 25 (Clip about 4 minutes in):

“Religious leaders, like political leaders, are not honest. They are not facing themselves with integrity and with auto-critique, self criticism. Self criticism is the most important component to facilitate authentic dialogue. Until we recognize what’s wrong within our own community as well as praising it up to the heavens, we are not going to be able to proceed any further… We have to have the courage and integrity to look ourselves in the mirror and say not what’s wrong with him, but what’s wrong with me and what can I do about it?”

What Happens in Davos (Does Not Really Stay) in Davos

2007-01-28T00:13:00.000-08:00

~Lakshmi Mittal telling everyone in sight to get the dancing started at a Bollywood night cap
~Shaukat Aziz asking his press delegation if it's really necessary that they film him on the way to the bathroom
~The fresh faced co-founder of Facebook opting out of a fancy evening with the world's political and economic elite in exchange for a dinner with the sweaty and exhausted media team
~Steve Forbes asking the media peons if we need him to get us into the Google party
~Bono changing his sunglasses three times in the course of one afternoon (rose to peach and back to rose)

...For the last week I have been huffing and puffing away at a certain "Major Global Conference on Economic Issues" in the Swiss Alps (name withheld for fear that my renegade staff-blogging will be detected by our omniscient media monitoring team... it doesn't take a genius to figure it out). Although I originally intended to keep a running account of my second year of press delegations management at the Forum (oops!), my schedule this year did not allow for such catharsis. Instead I've been chasing around angry government journalists from 21 countries whilst fielding repeated unwanted dinner invitations from a certain 60-year old Pakistani cameraman.

So fear not, oh blogosphere - I will return to my infant digital diary in haste once I find myelf back on American soil (and fortunately many thousands of miles away from said cameraman) tomorrow evening. Until then, ponder the issues that were brought up here and here.

Christian: [to Gina] "You're like herpes. Every time I feel like I'm getting my life back, I have a Gina outbreak”

2007-01-19T00:17:00.000-08:00

Season two of the fabulously salacious Nip/Tuck included a particularly gruesome story line in which former McNamara/Troy classmate Merrill Bobolit

is found to be doing cheap, illegal surgeries in the back of a Korean nail salon. Not only is he performing these surgeries in a non-sterile environment, he's addicted to the anesthetic gas. Christian gets him to go to Narcotics Anonymous, even volunteering to be his sponsor. When Christian can't make it to a meeting, Merrill loses his mind and accidentally kills a woman who Sean and Christian refuse to perform unnecessary liposuction on. The salon owner and Merrill then cut the girl into pieces to dispose of her.

This week, life has imitated art.

Don’t get me wrong – I fully understand the often-crunching social pressure to join the Waifs in Wonderbras brigades. In the age of an image-obsessed media and ample, affordable cosmetic surgery options, a little Botox injection here or a saline implant there (and there) doesn’t really sound all that bad! But the obsession has to stop somewhere, and I think it’s safe to say that the red light is here. As cases like these appear with increasing frequency, I pity those who feel so uncomfortable in their own skin that they would resort to such sordid measures.

No corn oil ass-injections for me, thanks.

Deprivation and Karate Chops

2007-01-17T00:34:00.000-08:00

Whether you believe it was a) cruel and unusual denial of formative female fiction or b) visionary feminist parenting on the part of my (innovative?) - (progressive?) - (nut-job?) mother, there is no denying the fact that the “Cinderella Ban” left an indelible mark on my psyche. Not, perhaps, the mark my mother had hoped for when she outlawed Disney’s Terrible Triptych (Snow White,Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella); but her repeated vetoes of these classic feminine narratives did indeed have some kind of lasting effect on my world view.

Early on I learned the importance of tenacity in achieving one’s innermost desires… “If mommy won’t let me enjoy cartoon versions of outdated domestic stereotypes, then by golly, I’ll find someone who will!” My Aunt Christine was very helpful in establishing an efficient Black Market Princess Trade when I was still a tender age of six or seven. In hindsight I believe my mother knew about these underground exchanges (I did, after all, know all the words to “Once Upon a Dream”), but I think she was satisfied knowing that I understood her reasoning behind the ban - that she did not want her impressionable daughter to think that the Prince-Will-Rescue-Me model of womanhood was in any way empowering.

And she liked the Muppets. So mom and I could happily enjoy the exploits of Kermit the Frog, Gonzo, Fozzie Bear, and of course the powerful Miss Piggy with limited ideological struggle. Over time my respect and admiration for the feminine and forceful Muppet has grown, and I find myself increasingly able to identify with the character. Wikipedia’s bio on the Pig says it all:

She is absolutely convinced that she's destined for stardom, and nothing is going to stand in her way. Her public face tries to be the soul of feminine charm, but she can instantly fly into a violent rage whenever she thinks she's insulted or thwarted. Kermit the Frog has learned this all too well, since he's the usual target for her karate chops.

To be fair, I am no loose cannon. In recent years, especially, I’ve started to hone the delicate skill of “thinking before one speaks” (who knew I could be so patient??). But I still identify with the Pig on many levels. (And interestingly, my last boyfriend can vouch for my ability to quickly juxtapose angry karate chops with “Oh Kermie!” affection and wiles…)

So, Miss Piggy, I salute you, and thank you dearly for the alternative cultural norms you represented in my years of (marginally successful) Princess deprivation. May your spirit guide me and my nascent blog through many fun, fanatical, and fearless posts to come.