Debate Night
Here's a new one: watching political TV with people who actually disagree with you! I've been surrounded by left-leaning but mostly pragmatic Democrats most of my life, if you exclude the far-left extremists in SF whose rhetoric I generally tuned out. So it's unusual for me to run into people who aren't voting for Obama.
I watched last night's debate with a couple of radical pinko Trotskyites and we proceeded to argue for two hours about Obama and whether there is any point to them voting for perennial write-in candidate "Skinner Sucks" when we are operating in a TWO-PARTY SYSTEM, oh, sorry, kids. I feel no need to explain here why I support Obama, but even if I was not a fan, we only have two choices here. The candidates are not going to be your perfect ideal human beings and you shouldn't expect them to. These are two men charged with the challenge of appealing to an impossibly diverse population. That requires just a touch of compromise and centrism.
The third roommate eventually came home and said he was undecided but leaning toward McCain, and we had at it for a while. It was all an exciting evening since we all actively listened to each other and I thought I was holding my own pretty well for someone confronted by Obama detractors for the first time (three at once), and they were respecting my ideas after I pushed back against the inevitable "you just blindly vote Democrat every time, don't you?" (Repeat: Two. Party. System.)
But it was a Friday night, and we were drinking some beer, and two of them suddenly started flirting with me and asking about things like my ballet habits and my little red hat. I'm so glad we could hold off on that nonsense until after hearing each other out about more interesting things. That's the way it should be.
Let's hear it for Obama, everybody.
Labels: politics
It's not like the old days.
As someone who keeps up on the news about the news, I have to say I'm bored comatose by the whole debate on whether new media and blogging are destroying journalism and sinking the print industry, or merely changing the way people experience media. You know, the way the introduction of television was expected to destroy the film industry. Technological trends happen. The world continues to spin.
So you won't hear me waxing nostalgic for the glory days when journalists had to be trained professionals instead of anonymous internet hacks. Don't get me wrong: I would
love it if it was still a viable option to hire full-time staff writers instead of relegating us writers to freelance bit work with no benefits and hardly any pay.
Love. It. But my real beef with the state of media today stems from its content. We're better informed on the whereabouts of Lindsay Lohan than those of our military.
The perfect example that things have gone overboard: the photographer who won the Pulitzer for that famous shot of the Vietnamese girl covered in napalm in 1972 is now a common paparazzo. That photo of Paris Hilton crying in the police car?
He shot it. I have a question for anyone who was old enough to watch the news back when the former photo was taken. Was news coverage of Watergate and the Vietnam War ever eclipsed by pointless entertainment blitzes? Given a choice between serious news and fluff, did people tend to opt out like they do now? Would you catch more people reading
People or the
Times?
This month's
Harper's says that the worldwide demand for newsprint has increased 18% since 1990, while the North American demand has decreased 27%. Something tells me that we aren't all merely switching to reading CNN online. If that was the cause of the change, then it would be a worldwide trend, not a North American one. Those castles and whatnot across the Atlantic are definitely wired for DSL.
So. What's in the headlines? Do you feel informed?
Labels: entertainment, politics
Truthiness
Here's an interesting article debating whether parody has become truer than traditional news. (G33kgrrl, this is mostly for you).
What the Mainstream Media Can Learn from Jon Stewart by Rachel Smolkin,
American Journalism Review Labels: politics
Welcome to America
So, my state just issued a gun permit to a
ten-month-old baby.
Labels: politics
When nerds dream
Oh jeez. You know when you dream that you have superpowers, and crazy adventures ensue? Last night my mother showed up in the middle of the adventures and dragged me to a Bush rally so I could use my mind control power to make him more compassionate.
Labels: politics
Hijab Kitty
I confiscated this little gem from a coloring book so I won't expose my niece to a romanticized image of women's oppression. What the hell, Sanrio? First she never had a mouth, now this? Gonna throw a chastity belt on her next?
Labels: politics
Standing on the side of life
I feel a need to preface this little outburst with the warning that I tend to overreact a touch when women's rights are threatened.
Ready? Commence the yelling.
First, I'd just like to say, John McCain? You scare me.
Here's his reaction to the Supreme Court's new victory against women's rights:
"I'm very happy about the decision given my position on abortion. Partial birth is one of the most odious aspects of abortion," Arizona Sen. John McCain said while campaigning in South Carolina.
In a separate statement issued by his campaign, McCain said, "It is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."
Now
here's how he reacted to Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech:
LAREDO, Texas -- Sen. John McCain said Monday the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech does not change his view that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to carry a weapon.
Wait, what? I thought he said he valued "life."
- - -In case you haven't yet heard what the Supreme Court has been up to today,
here's a link to the anti-choice ruling they made, which opens the gate for a great many future restrictions on women's rights.
I couldn't help myself. Here's an open letter to the Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of this decision.
- - - Sirs,
Thank you for making this tough moral decision for us women so we don't have to break any nails or risk fits of hysteria as we worry about managing our own bodies. Kudos to you for going against the well-being of those thoughtless mothers who would terminate their pregnancies. You care only about the welfare of those innocent children. You must love them very much.
Naturally, I'm assuming you intend to
raise all those whose births you fight so hard to ensure. Let's face it, that fourteen-year-old rape victim who wants to abort the child her father conceived on her isn't going to shell out for diapers and tuition. She doesn't have, say, a judge's salary to work with. But you do! And you LOVE babies!
Please put me on your Christmas list. I'd love to see a photo of your big, colorful adoptive family as it grows. Do also let me know if you prefer UPS or DHL, as I intend to mail you my (sorry, sorry,
your) uterus. I'm not doing anything with it right now, so you might as well put it to use for yourself.
Regards,
Leah
Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them."-Mark Sherman, AP
Labels: politics
Science Friday!
So, it's Friday at last. It's been a chore of a week for me and I'm about ready to go home, host that Heroes vs. Villains shindig, sleep in...and learn about science! Woo! Friday niiight!
In honor of tonight's party theme, here are a couple of interesting articles that touch on a couple of old rivalries: men vs women and science vs religion. This isn't to say that either side in said conflict is necessarily a hero or villain in my opinion.
Well.
Okay.
*cough*
On to the educational content...
An article in
The Independent says us girls might soon be able to conceive babies with each other:
Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.
Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue.
The researchers said they had already produced early sperm cells from bone-marrow tissue taken from men. They believe the findings show that it may be possible to restore fertility to men who cannot naturally produce their own sperm.Read science editor Steve Connor's full article here.- - -And on a more theoretical note, here's an interesting one about the problem of attempting to reconcile science and religion.
Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and author of
The God Delusion:
I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my) ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible. "Ah," he smiled, "now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain." But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions. But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims seriously? Here's the full text of one of his essays on religion, pseudoscience, actual science, and the irreconcilability of the three. (Originally published in FORBES ASAP, October 4th, 1999) "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Labels: politics, science
What is that place, the new HJ?
You know you've vastly misjudged the function of the Boys' and Girls' Club when you pass by on your way home and see a small crowd of people outside holding up signs that read "STOP KILLING PEOPLE."
Labels: politics
Reasons to feel hopeful
Let's hear it for checks and balances.
I can't help but think that things are starting to turn around, what with Nancy Pelosi going against Bush's "I'm-not-talking-to-him" policy and
meeting with the president of Syria. And then there are the
Iraq withdrawal bills. Even if Bush vetoes them, he's bound to be forced to negotiate sooner or later, right? They're even phasing out
the creepy buzzwords.
I like listening to the President whine about Congress ganging up on him. It sounds like they're throwing water balloons at him from a treehouse.
Labels: politics
