CNN just reported that Barack Obama has an unusual campaign promise which you probably haven't heard. It has nothing to do with the economy, war, foreign policy, or health care. It has nothing to do with any campaign promises that you've probably ever heard. He promises to adopt a dog. Yes, a dog. This has nothing to do with most anyone in the country, but it was a very important promise to Obama's two young daughters.
And you can help cast your vote through the American Kennel Club at www.presidentialpup.com. Due to the girls' allergy considerations, AKC has compiled an expert list of five breeds that are best suited to the needs of those with allergies. This "election" runs through August 19.
I voted for the Bichon Frise because of the description of a self-assured, friendly, easy-to-train temperament.
Now, isn't that cute?
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Campaign Cola.
I just found Campaign Cola. This is novel and amusing, enough that I almost want to buy some.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
A tribute to Tim Russert.
On Friday, June 13, we unexpectedly lost Tim Russert. Flags were lowered to half-staff in his hometown of Buffalo, New York. On an extended special broadcast on NBC, numerous journalists paid their respects and special comments were given by John McCain, the Clintons, and Barack Obama. The President interrupted a news conference in Paris to pay tribute to Russert. Today, "Tim Russert" is the #1 search on Google.
Think about how many broadcast journalists would be treated as such an American hero, the news of whose death would garner such importance from the President, a person who, while not an elected public official, would receive the honor of flags being lowered. Think about who could garner glowing tributes from such different people as Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh, alike, people who share nothing in common except a respect for Tim Russert.
Tim Russert provided tough but fair journalism which trickled into every aspect of what we, the American people, come to know about our candidates, our elected officials, our politicians. Election debates will not be the same. Meet the Press will not be the same. American politics and even voting will not be the same for any of us.
Think about how many broadcast journalists would be treated as such an American hero, the news of whose death would garner such importance from the President, a person who, while not an elected public official, would receive the honor of flags being lowered. Think about who could garner glowing tributes from such different people as Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh, alike, people who share nothing in common except a respect for Tim Russert.
Tim Russert provided tough but fair journalism which trickled into every aspect of what we, the American people, come to know about our candidates, our elected officials, our politicians. Election debates will not be the same. Meet the Press will not be the same. American politics and even voting will not be the same for any of us.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
It has been a good week.
Major news organizations project that Barack Obama has earned the Democratic nomination for President:
After Obama has won the final primary contest in Montana, he gives a victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota on Tuesday, June 3:
On Saturday, June 7, Hillary Clinton announces her endorsement of Barack Obama for President:
It has been a good week.
After Obama has won the final primary contest in Montana, he gives a victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota on Tuesday, June 3:
On Saturday, June 7, Hillary Clinton announces her endorsement of Barack Obama for President:
It has been a good week.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
If you see a faded sign at the side of the road that says 15 miles to the... audio book...
I didn't watch The Daily Show yesterday, but I'm catching a rerun, right now. I'm so glad that I didn't miss this, altogether. Otherwise, I would have missed the B-52's version of Scott McClellan's audio book!
The end of the Democratic primary elections.
Today - finally - marks the end of the Democratic primary elections. Today, Montana and South Dakota will vote. They are the last remaining primaries. It was starting to seem like it would never end, wasn't it? Sure, we still have some time until the convention and who knows what the news will be between now and then? But there will be no more suspense about vote tallies from the general public. That's one thing that we can put comfortably behind us!
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Puerto Rico results.
Today, Hillary Clinton has won 38 delegates and Barack Obama has won 17 delegates from Puerto Rico. That brings the totals to 2,070 for Obama and 1,915 for Clinton, as of June 1.
Two more primaries to go! Montana and South Dakota will vote on Tuesday. Obama needs 48 more delegates to win; Clinton would need 203 delegates. Montana will award 25 more delegates and South Dakota will award 23 more delegates. And then, it's onward to the convention in Denver!
Two more primaries to go! Montana and South Dakota will vote on Tuesday. Obama needs 48 more delegates to win; Clinton would need 203 delegates. Montana will award 25 more delegates and South Dakota will award 23 more delegates. And then, it's onward to the convention in Denver!
Michigan and Florida rulings.
The Democratic National Committee has reached an agreement regarding seating delegates from Michigan and Florida. Delegates will be awarded half votes.
I disagree with the ruling. While I don't take the disenfranchisement of voters lightly, I still do not believe that the votes should be counted.
The problem that I have is this: Why are the voters of Michigan and Florida taking the DNC to task when they should be holding their state governments accountable? It was, after all, their state governments, their elected representatives, who were responsible for the disenfranchisement of their votes.
According to rules set by the party (well in advance of the 2008 primary season and well in advance of knowing who the choices in candidates would be), no states except Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina were allowed to hold their primaries before February 5. This was not some kind of secret; officials in all states were aware of this. Both Michigan and Florida chose to break this rule, moving their primaries in advance of this deadline, and were warned that if they did so, their delegates would be stripped at the national convention. Yet, both states did so, anyway.
Before the Michigan primary on January 15, the prominent candidates (including Hillary Clinton) pledged to remove their names from the ballots and abstain from campaigning, in order to respect the integrity of party rules. The Michigan ballots ultimately listed four choices: Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, or "uncommitted." With Kucinich and Gravel in relative obscurity, Clinton won, and "uncommitted" came in second. (Kucinich came in third and Gravel came in fourth.) Barack Obama and John Edwards, the other popular choices, weren't even listed on the ballot and had not campaigned.
Two weeks later, Florida held its primary on January 29. Obama and Edwards were listed on the ballot, but had not campaigned in the state, unlike Clinton. Again, Clinton won.
With two candidates remaining in the race, the question is, would the results have been different for Obama, had his name been listed on the Michigan ballot? Would the results have been different in Florida if he had actively campaigned there? You can bet that it would have been, but in hindsight, there is no way to know exactly how the results would have been different if this or that. Reaching an agreement in order to award delegates to Clinton and Obama rings false and renders that voting process fairly meaningless, anyway.
But the answer is not to fault the DNC. If voters want the rules changed, then they should protest their own elected representatives' choices. These representatives need to answer directly to their voters, both because of the moral standard of civic duty and because of the self-centered standard of their own personal political careers (after all, if the people who vote for them to keep their jobs are unhappy, then they won't be keeping their jobs). These representatives are a part of the party and it is then up to them to use their influence to change party rules. And sure, private citizens should absolutely also write letters to party officials in Washington, D.C. to express their dissatisfaction with party rules.
This is the process of political change. We work within the system to expose the flaws of the system. But if rules regarding a specific process can be changed in the midst of that process, then the rules are meaningless. It's like playing a board game and changing the rules as soon as you start to lose. Any elementary schooler can tell you how unfair and how little sense that makes.
I disagree with the ruling. While I don't take the disenfranchisement of voters lightly, I still do not believe that the votes should be counted.
The problem that I have is this: Why are the voters of Michigan and Florida taking the DNC to task when they should be holding their state governments accountable? It was, after all, their state governments, their elected representatives, who were responsible for the disenfranchisement of their votes.
According to rules set by the party (well in advance of the 2008 primary season and well in advance of knowing who the choices in candidates would be), no states except Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina were allowed to hold their primaries before February 5. This was not some kind of secret; officials in all states were aware of this. Both Michigan and Florida chose to break this rule, moving their primaries in advance of this deadline, and were warned that if they did so, their delegates would be stripped at the national convention. Yet, both states did so, anyway.
Before the Michigan primary on January 15, the prominent candidates (including Hillary Clinton) pledged to remove their names from the ballots and abstain from campaigning, in order to respect the integrity of party rules. The Michigan ballots ultimately listed four choices: Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, or "uncommitted." With Kucinich and Gravel in relative obscurity, Clinton won, and "uncommitted" came in second. (Kucinich came in third and Gravel came in fourth.) Barack Obama and John Edwards, the other popular choices, weren't even listed on the ballot and had not campaigned.
Two weeks later, Florida held its primary on January 29. Obama and Edwards were listed on the ballot, but had not campaigned in the state, unlike Clinton. Again, Clinton won.
With two candidates remaining in the race, the question is, would the results have been different for Obama, had his name been listed on the Michigan ballot? Would the results have been different in Florida if he had actively campaigned there? You can bet that it would have been, but in hindsight, there is no way to know exactly how the results would have been different if this or that. Reaching an agreement in order to award delegates to Clinton and Obama rings false and renders that voting process fairly meaningless, anyway.
But the answer is not to fault the DNC. If voters want the rules changed, then they should protest their own elected representatives' choices. These representatives need to answer directly to their voters, both because of the moral standard of civic duty and because of the self-centered standard of their own personal political careers (after all, if the people who vote for them to keep their jobs are unhappy, then they won't be keeping their jobs). These representatives are a part of the party and it is then up to them to use their influence to change party rules. And sure, private citizens should absolutely also write letters to party officials in Washington, D.C. to express their dissatisfaction with party rules.
This is the process of political change. We work within the system to expose the flaws of the system. But if rules regarding a specific process can be changed in the midst of that process, then the rules are meaningless. It's like playing a board game and changing the rules as soon as you start to lose. Any elementary schooler can tell you how unfair and how little sense that makes.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wunderkind mayor of Muskogee.
John Tyler Hammons, the newly elected mayor of Muskogee, Oklahoma, is a freshman and proud to be a gamer. There's something that you don't see every day. Well, good for him!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Voted out of kindergarten.
This Florida kindergarten teacher should be expelled from her job, accompanied by public critiques about what everyone hates about her. That's what she did to a mentally disabled boy in her class.
Since when is a kindergarten classroom successfully run by a democracy of the students, anyway? 5-year-olds don't yet understand disability and this teacher is only sowing the fruits of discrimination in their young minds by encouraging students to state, publicly, what they don't like about this child instead of explaining the nature of disability to them.
Since when is a kindergarten classroom successfully run by a democracy of the students, anyway? 5-year-olds don't yet understand disability and this teacher is only sowing the fruits of discrimination in their young minds by encouraging students to state, publicly, what they don't like about this child instead of explaining the nature of disability to them.
Un amigo presidente!
I keep hearing this rally song, going through my head, ever since I saw this clip of Obama campaigning in Puerto Rico on CNN. I don't speak Spanish, so all I've caught is "O-BA-MA! Un amigo presidente!" I'm sort of amused in that "I have no clue what's going on here, but I appreciate the sentiment" sort of way.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Week in review, May 19 - 23.
It's been an active week in news and I've been busy, not blogging. Here are some things that have caught my attention:
...
It's true that Hillary Clinton won a big victory in Tuesday's Kentucky primary. It's also true that Barack Obama's simultaneous double-digit victory in Oregon is nothing to sneeze at. But even Kentucky could not revive the hopeless Clinton campaign.
In recent weeks, we've been talking about mathematical impossibilities. I'll grant that there was a certain statistical probability factor in what has defined "impossible." Sure, it was theoretically possible that literally no one would vote for Barack Obama. But now, Obama has earned a majority of the total available pledged delegates. So, there are three remaining primaries: Puerto Rico on June 1, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3. Even if Obama gets zero votes and Clinton gets 100% of the votes, she cannot overtake his lead. This is BIG news for the Obama campaign!
...
In related news, Mark McKinnon, a top advisor to John McCain, has stepped down from his post on the campaign. It has nothing to do with a sudden controversy, a poorly chosen remark, or even any negativity toward John McCain. But long ago, before anyone believed that someone other than Hillary Clinton would earn the nomination, McKinnon made a vow; now, he is sticking to it. Last summer, McKinnon refused to work on a campaign against Barack Obama. Now that Obama is the inevitable Democratic nominee, it is also inevitable that there will be negative attacks against him. McKinnon disagrees with Obama on a variety of policy issues, but has great respect for him and refuses to be involved in such negative attacks.
...
In sad news, on Tuesday, Ted Kennedy announced his diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor. He is one of those omnipresent political figures who has served in the Senate for so long that it's just about impossible for me to imagine the Senate without him.
Often called a "lion of the Senate," he has literally been a senior Senator for longer than I've been alive. He seems somehow immortal to me, like a permanent part of the U. S. Government. Maybe it isn't the same for those who are at least in their 50s, at least old enough to remember him being a young guy and possibly old enough to remember him being elected. But for younger political activists, it's one of those symbolic acknowledgments of mortality. I wish him the best.
...
In news relating only to "lions of the Senate," there is Robert Byrd, who has actually served in the Senate for half a century. On Monday, Byrd announced his endorsement of Barack Obama for President.
The amazement here is in the headlines. This opener from Newsweek makes for good news: "Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and a one-time opponent of civil rights legislation, endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday."
It's also fair to say that Byrd has come a long way in more than 90 years of life. I recall, when reading Obama's political memoir, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote warmly of Byrd and of their conversation about the Klan. As a young, white man in the earlier part of the twentieth century in rural West Virginia, membership in the Klan was more like a way of life than an agenda and Byrd called the experience his biggest regret. Byrd was a Democrat from the era when Democrats dominated the politics of rural whites, Appalachians and southerners, before the Democratic party acquired terms such as "social liberalism" and "progressivism." It was the new Democrats of the 1960s who fought on behalf of civil rights legislation, not the elders of Byrd's era.
And for this, I'll embrace the support of a man like Robert Byrd. Whatever his experiences in the past, however elderly he may be, it goes to show that progress lies in the ability to change, to assess and reconsider your thoughts and decisions of the past. Social progressivism is not necessarily a product of the young rebelling against their parents and ushering in a wave of social changes as their elders die, although that certainly plays a role in it. I won't say that Robert Byrd is wholly defined by his prior membership in the KKK or his prior opposition to civil rights legislation, no matter how much it is highlighted in the name of good news reporting. It's just an example to be embraced.
...
On Friday, Hillary Clinton has made some of her most unfortunate remarks yet, citing Robert Kennedy's 1968 assassination as a reason for her to continue her campaign.
The last thing that we need is someone - especially a fellow Democrat - planting ideas in some psychopath's head that it's a good time to take a shot at Barack Obama (literally). No, Clinton did NOT suggest it. But she speculated about it by implication. There are some people in the world who are just mentally imbalanced enough to think that that in itself is a suggestion. And some of them might even direct it at Clinton, herself. This primary has already involved more Secret Service protection than is the norm, due to fears of hate crimes based on race or gender. And there are people out there who are quite literally psychopathic and incapable of thinking rationally.
Furthermore, it was downright insensitive for several reasons. First, with the anniversary of RFK's assassination just around the corner and the Kennedy family already undergoing a stressful week with Ted Kennedy's cancer diagnosis, the casualness was callous. Second, as much as anyone might not like a politician, this is a democracy and they don't deserve to die. That's what activism and voting is for. If Obama were to be assassinated after securing the nomination, we wouldn't suddenly not have a candidate from the Democratic party. The party would assure that we have the opportunity to find a new candidate. Third, we already have enough problems with hate crimes in this country. Fourth, there is a strong connection between RFK's involvement in the civil rights movement in 1968 and Obama being the first formidable black candidate of a major political party. (That isn't to discount the formidability of Clinton as a prominent female candidate of a major political party and in either Obama's or Clinton's case, it should speak volumes about the success of both the civil rights and the women's movements of the 1960s. Better yet, it forces the majority of voters to choose on the basis of qualifications, rather than taking the easy route in the novelty factor of "the black candidate" or "the female candidate.") RFK's legacy is still alive and we can respect the historical impact that he made in his short lifetime. We can also hope that the realization of his legacy - seen today in Obama - does not befall the same fate. There is something to be said for martyrdom, but in theory, martyrdom leads to progress.
Keith Olbermann's special comment on the May 23rd edition of Countdown excellently summarizes why Clinton's latest comment is the culmination of reasons why she should not be President:
...
I just found a blog for Democratic Politics in Indiana, Blue Indiana.
...
It's true that Hillary Clinton won a big victory in Tuesday's Kentucky primary. It's also true that Barack Obama's simultaneous double-digit victory in Oregon is nothing to sneeze at. But even Kentucky could not revive the hopeless Clinton campaign.
In recent weeks, we've been talking about mathematical impossibilities. I'll grant that there was a certain statistical probability factor in what has defined "impossible." Sure, it was theoretically possible that literally no one would vote for Barack Obama. But now, Obama has earned a majority of the total available pledged delegates. So, there are three remaining primaries: Puerto Rico on June 1, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3. Even if Obama gets zero votes and Clinton gets 100% of the votes, she cannot overtake his lead. This is BIG news for the Obama campaign!
...
In related news, Mark McKinnon, a top advisor to John McCain, has stepped down from his post on the campaign. It has nothing to do with a sudden controversy, a poorly chosen remark, or even any negativity toward John McCain. But long ago, before anyone believed that someone other than Hillary Clinton would earn the nomination, McKinnon made a vow; now, he is sticking to it. Last summer, McKinnon refused to work on a campaign against Barack Obama. Now that Obama is the inevitable Democratic nominee, it is also inevitable that there will be negative attacks against him. McKinnon disagrees with Obama on a variety of policy issues, but has great respect for him and refuses to be involved in such negative attacks.
...
In sad news, on Tuesday, Ted Kennedy announced his diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor. He is one of those omnipresent political figures who has served in the Senate for so long that it's just about impossible for me to imagine the Senate without him.
Often called a "lion of the Senate," he has literally been a senior Senator for longer than I've been alive. He seems somehow immortal to me, like a permanent part of the U. S. Government. Maybe it isn't the same for those who are at least in their 50s, at least old enough to remember him being a young guy and possibly old enough to remember him being elected. But for younger political activists, it's one of those symbolic acknowledgments of mortality. I wish him the best.
...
In news relating only to "lions of the Senate," there is Robert Byrd, who has actually served in the Senate for half a century. On Monday, Byrd announced his endorsement of Barack Obama for President.
The amazement here is in the headlines. This opener from Newsweek makes for good news: "Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and a one-time opponent of civil rights legislation, endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday."
It's also fair to say that Byrd has come a long way in more than 90 years of life. I recall, when reading Obama's political memoir, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote warmly of Byrd and of their conversation about the Klan. As a young, white man in the earlier part of the twentieth century in rural West Virginia, membership in the Klan was more like a way of life than an agenda and Byrd called the experience his biggest regret. Byrd was a Democrat from the era when Democrats dominated the politics of rural whites, Appalachians and southerners, before the Democratic party acquired terms such as "social liberalism" and "progressivism." It was the new Democrats of the 1960s who fought on behalf of civil rights legislation, not the elders of Byrd's era.
And for this, I'll embrace the support of a man like Robert Byrd. Whatever his experiences in the past, however elderly he may be, it goes to show that progress lies in the ability to change, to assess and reconsider your thoughts and decisions of the past. Social progressivism is not necessarily a product of the young rebelling against their parents and ushering in a wave of social changes as their elders die, although that certainly plays a role in it. I won't say that Robert Byrd is wholly defined by his prior membership in the KKK or his prior opposition to civil rights legislation, no matter how much it is highlighted in the name of good news reporting. It's just an example to be embraced.
...
On Friday, Hillary Clinton has made some of her most unfortunate remarks yet, citing Robert Kennedy's 1968 assassination as a reason for her to continue her campaign.
The last thing that we need is someone - especially a fellow Democrat - planting ideas in some psychopath's head that it's a good time to take a shot at Barack Obama (literally). No, Clinton did NOT suggest it. But she speculated about it by implication. There are some people in the world who are just mentally imbalanced enough to think that that in itself is a suggestion. And some of them might even direct it at Clinton, herself. This primary has already involved more Secret Service protection than is the norm, due to fears of hate crimes based on race or gender. And there are people out there who are quite literally psychopathic and incapable of thinking rationally.
Furthermore, it was downright insensitive for several reasons. First, with the anniversary of RFK's assassination just around the corner and the Kennedy family already undergoing a stressful week with Ted Kennedy's cancer diagnosis, the casualness was callous. Second, as much as anyone might not like a politician, this is a democracy and they don't deserve to die. That's what activism and voting is for. If Obama were to be assassinated after securing the nomination, we wouldn't suddenly not have a candidate from the Democratic party. The party would assure that we have the opportunity to find a new candidate. Third, we already have enough problems with hate crimes in this country. Fourth, there is a strong connection between RFK's involvement in the civil rights movement in 1968 and Obama being the first formidable black candidate of a major political party. (That isn't to discount the formidability of Clinton as a prominent female candidate of a major political party and in either Obama's or Clinton's case, it should speak volumes about the success of both the civil rights and the women's movements of the 1960s. Better yet, it forces the majority of voters to choose on the basis of qualifications, rather than taking the easy route in the novelty factor of "the black candidate" or "the female candidate.") RFK's legacy is still alive and we can respect the historical impact that he made in his short lifetime. We can also hope that the realization of his legacy - seen today in Obama - does not befall the same fate. There is something to be said for martyrdom, but in theory, martyrdom leads to progress.
Keith Olbermann's special comment on the May 23rd edition of Countdown excellently summarizes why Clinton's latest comment is the culmination of reasons why she should not be President:
...
I just found a blog for Democratic Politics in Indiana, Blue Indiana.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
What would Barack Obama do?
Whenever I'm seeking advice - well, first off, I always go to my parents. But in that gesture, I've acquired a new catch phrase: "What would Barack Obama do?" My mom says this to me often now - because it works.
It's not a sleight against the popular phrase about Jesus and I have no aversion to the concept of admiring and following the example of Jesus as an historical leader of peace.
But my mom says this because there are many qualities to be admired about Barack Obama. Many qualities that I greatly admire. He's only human, so I'm sure that he has his moments when he's cranky or irritable or makes poor choices. As do we all. But think about some of his convictions - convictions which I advocate:
honesty
transparency in government
tolerance for the different walks of life
holding reason to high standards and a principle on which to judge everything
generally trying to be nice to people
prioritizing seeking alternative energy sources so that our social and economic system can continue to function even after our oil supplies are depleted
maintaining freedom of choice and civil liberties
working with and not against governmental parties of opposing beliefs
honoring the service of veterans and assuring their health care; channeling the government into paying more attention and care into our veterans, so that we don't have so many who are ungraciously forgotten and living under bridges
making diplomatic solutions a first priority, talking, and making hostile, military attacks a last resort instead of a preemptive strike; in other words, defending ourselves is important, but defense doesn't mean that we bring out our guns at every first sign of conflict
spending responsibly; keeping a budget instead of constant deficit spending
concentrating efforts and resources into education, which, in the long term, leads to better jobs, a better economy, less crime, less aggression
assuring that our country will care for our seniors, our disabled citizens, our poor, our sick, and our children, that we will not allow these people to go without health care or without the financial support to live
not making manipulation a tenet of your plan for personal success
sometimes, a smile goes a long way (you know you've seen it in the speeches!)
This is a mixture of policy and personal attributes. Obviously, I can't single-handedly assure diplomatic foreign relations or transparency in government. I can't single-handedly fix education, energy, veterans' rights, or responsible fiscal policy.
Here's what I can do:
First, and easiest, I can punctuate things with a smile. I can be honest. I can try not to pass judgment on others for being or thinking differently than I do; I can settle certain differences with a smile, so long as others are willing to do the same. I've met black people who don't care that I'm white. I've met lesbians who don't care that I'm with a man instead of a woman. I've met religious folks who don't care that I'm an atheist. (This is a trickier issue and the best answer I've received from religious folks is something to the effect of, "I'll let God pass judgment on you. It isn't my place." I totally accept this because if it's your conviction that we are controlled by the hand of God [or insert deity/term here], then it is also your conviction that I'm doing something wrong. However, by choosing to pass the right of judgment to your deity of choice instead of taking that responsibility yourself, you accept me and my differences on a human level.)
On the governmental, issues, first, and easiest, I can choose the candidate who gets my vote. I can choose to volunteer for that candidate. I can also look at the principles of those choices and try to apply them to my daily life:
I can't fix social security, but I can honor my parents in their senior years and try to contribute my share to their care. I can't fix foreign policy, but I can thank a veteran for his or her service if I meet one, even if I disagree with the war in which they served, because the policy of that war was not decided by that veteran. I can't fix the energy crisis, but I can drive a fuel-efficient car and I can choose to walk when it's reasonable to do so. I can't fix transparency in government, but I can offer explanations of my actions and plans at work. I can't fix fiscal policy, but I can keep a responsible budget for myself. I can't fix education policy, but I can support education and after school programs and take it seriously. (I work in this field, so I'm doing my part there. If I were a parent, I could provide homework help and support my child's teachers.) I can't fix wars, but when I have a conflict with someone else, I can offer diplomatic solutions and if diplomacy doesn't work, I can try to remove myself, politely, from that situation, and continue striving to channel my efforts into things that are positive and productive. (In a situation that's really bad, I can call the police.) I can't fix health care, but I can try to honor the needs of those who need it most. (For example, one day, I went to the doctor. I was ahead on the wait list of a little girl, about 5 or 6, who was extremely ill. I wasn't nearly as sick as she was, so I asked the assistant to give her my place on the waiting list because I could wait longer.)
These are little things that we can do in our everyday lives to support good policies and to take good examples into account, to let it influence our own, daily lives.
It's not a sleight against the popular phrase about Jesus and I have no aversion to the concept of admiring and following the example of Jesus as an historical leader of peace.
But my mom says this because there are many qualities to be admired about Barack Obama. Many qualities that I greatly admire. He's only human, so I'm sure that he has his moments when he's cranky or irritable or makes poor choices. As do we all. But think about some of his convictions - convictions which I advocate:
This is a mixture of policy and personal attributes. Obviously, I can't single-handedly assure diplomatic foreign relations or transparency in government. I can't single-handedly fix education, energy, veterans' rights, or responsible fiscal policy.
Here's what I can do:
First, and easiest, I can punctuate things with a smile. I can be honest. I can try not to pass judgment on others for being or thinking differently than I do; I can settle certain differences with a smile, so long as others are willing to do the same. I've met black people who don't care that I'm white. I've met lesbians who don't care that I'm with a man instead of a woman. I've met religious folks who don't care that I'm an atheist. (This is a trickier issue and the best answer I've received from religious folks is something to the effect of, "I'll let God pass judgment on you. It isn't my place." I totally accept this because if it's your conviction that we are controlled by the hand of God [or insert deity/term here], then it is also your conviction that I'm doing something wrong. However, by choosing to pass the right of judgment to your deity of choice instead of taking that responsibility yourself, you accept me and my differences on a human level.)
On the governmental, issues, first, and easiest, I can choose the candidate who gets my vote. I can choose to volunteer for that candidate. I can also look at the principles of those choices and try to apply them to my daily life:
I can't fix social security, but I can honor my parents in their senior years and try to contribute my share to their care. I can't fix foreign policy, but I can thank a veteran for his or her service if I meet one, even if I disagree with the war in which they served, because the policy of that war was not decided by that veteran. I can't fix the energy crisis, but I can drive a fuel-efficient car and I can choose to walk when it's reasonable to do so. I can't fix transparency in government, but I can offer explanations of my actions and plans at work. I can't fix fiscal policy, but I can keep a responsible budget for myself. I can't fix education policy, but I can support education and after school programs and take it seriously. (I work in this field, so I'm doing my part there. If I were a parent, I could provide homework help and support my child's teachers.) I can't fix wars, but when I have a conflict with someone else, I can offer diplomatic solutions and if diplomacy doesn't work, I can try to remove myself, politely, from that situation, and continue striving to channel my efforts into things that are positive and productive. (In a situation that's really bad, I can call the police.) I can't fix health care, but I can try to honor the needs of those who need it most. (For example, one day, I went to the doctor. I was ahead on the wait list of a little girl, about 5 or 6, who was extremely ill. I wasn't nearly as sick as she was, so I asked the assistant to give her my place on the waiting list because I could wait longer.)
These are little things that we can do in our everyday lives to support good policies and to take good examples into account, to let it influence our own, daily lives.
Einstein on God.
“...the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” - Albert Einstein
As quoted in this article from The New York Times.
I wholly agree with Einstein that the problem of God is too complex for the limitations of the human mind. I disagree with him on his reasoning that this hereby entails agnosticism and his blanket assertion against atheism, that atheists are as intolerant as religious fanatics.
As quoted in this article from The New York Times.
I wholly agree with Einstein that the problem of God is too complex for the limitations of the human mind. I disagree with him on his reasoning that this hereby entails agnosticism and his blanket assertion against atheism, that atheists are as intolerant as religious fanatics.
Friday, May 16, 2008
California legalizes gay marriage.
California has overturned a ban on gay marriage. I'm very happy for gay couples in California. It's a step in the direction of progress.
The issue is, restricting the rights of gay couples does not help or protect the rights of straight couples. The issue is a matter of human rights. And if we're going to recognize marriage at all, as a definition of the longevity and commitment of a loving relationship, no one has any right to dictate love in regard to other people.
If, on the other hand, we're defining marriage as male property rights of women or as a sanction of the purity of bloodlines and inheritance rights, either of which are byproducts of a patriarchal society - as marriage was once intended - then sure, let's prevent gays from marrying.
And somebody, tell Hillary Clinton to stop running for President - not because she has been defeated in the popular vote or in delegate counts or because it's mathematically impossible for her to win now, but because she has no right, as a woman, to make decisions that would affect men, who are naturally inherently superior to her. It would be absurd to grant her the right to hold higher authority than her husband because she is, of course, his property. And by the way, Bill should be shamed for only having a daughter; his precious bloodline is destroyed unless he can get that damned, pesky marriage to his post-menopausal wife annulled or perhaps have her stoned to death so that he can buy himself a nice, young floozy (officially! legally!) to use up until he gets a son before he dies.
By extension, we should also prevent interracial couples from marrying. Those sullied mulattoes are a waste of flesh, aren't they? Acceptable for slavery, I suppose. Too bad nobody informed Barack Obama's parents of this one. He can march his Harvard law degree right into a good ole fashioned Georgia plantation and pick some cotton!
Is this what most people think marriage still means? People who live in the 21st century in the United States of America?
Oh, right... I forgot:
Oh noes! We might catch a case of the gay!
Straight people, better watch your spouse. Especially if you visit California. You'll leave more than your heart in San Francisco, I guess.
So, in summary: Congratulations to the state of California. You're setting a good example in the case for human rights.
The issue is, restricting the rights of gay couples does not help or protect the rights of straight couples. The issue is a matter of human rights. And if we're going to recognize marriage at all, as a definition of the longevity and commitment of a loving relationship, no one has any right to dictate love in regard to other people.
If, on the other hand, we're defining marriage as male property rights of women or as a sanction of the purity of bloodlines and inheritance rights, either of which are byproducts of a patriarchal society - as marriage was once intended - then sure, let's prevent gays from marrying.
And somebody, tell Hillary Clinton to stop running for President - not because she has been defeated in the popular vote or in delegate counts or because it's mathematically impossible for her to win now, but because she has no right, as a woman, to make decisions that would affect men, who are naturally inherently superior to her. It would be absurd to grant her the right to hold higher authority than her husband because she is, of course, his property. And by the way, Bill should be shamed for only having a daughter; his precious bloodline is destroyed unless he can get that damned, pesky marriage to his post-menopausal wife annulled or perhaps have her stoned to death so that he can buy himself a nice, young floozy (officially! legally!) to use up until he gets a son before he dies.
By extension, we should also prevent interracial couples from marrying. Those sullied mulattoes are a waste of flesh, aren't they? Acceptable for slavery, I suppose. Too bad nobody informed Barack Obama's parents of this one. He can march his Harvard law degree right into a good ole fashioned Georgia plantation and pick some cotton!
Is this what most people think marriage still means? People who live in the 21st century in the United States of America?
Oh, right... I forgot:
Oh noes! We might catch a case of the gay!
Straight people, better watch your spouse. Especially if you visit California. You'll leave more than your heart in San Francisco, I guess.
So, in summary: Congratulations to the state of California. You're setting a good example in the case for human rights.
The West Wing on the Bible.
I was just discussing something with my friend, Mike - selective usage of the Bible to legitimize outdated morality and religiously fueled hatred. It reminded me of one of Jim's favorite clips from The West Wing. This is a good summary of the absurdity of such logic:
Here are some real winners from West Virginia.
Now, I don't want to be like the average kid picking on the one really puny kid in the school yard, because I absolutely hate it when people tell me all kinds of things about people who live in Indiana - how we're all uneducated, how we're all rednecks, how we're all dumb, how nothing but farms exist in Indiana, how we're all uncultured, etc. etc. etc. And while it may be tempting, I don't want to point fingers at West Virginians on a broad scale, pigeonholing all of its residents. But wow, that state sure is home to some real... winners.
I present to you, Jon Stewart's presentation from The Daily Show:
I present to you, Jon Stewart's presentation from The Daily Show:
Thursday, May 15, 2008
John Edwards endorses Obama.
If you watch the news, you already know this, but given the nature of what I write, I absolutely MUST give this a highlight: Barack Obama has finally earned the coveted endorsement of John Edwards! At a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Edwards gave a speech, supporting Obama, and making his official announcement.
In essence, this is no longer a primary campaign, but a general election campaign. Otherwise, this rally would have taken place in either Oregon or Kentucky, yesterday.
Short version (the key moment of Edwards' endorsement statement during his speech):
Full version of Edwards' speech:
In essence, this is no longer a primary campaign, but a general election campaign. Otherwise, this rally would have taken place in either Oregon or Kentucky, yesterday.
Short version (the key moment of Edwards' endorsement statement during his speech):
Full version of Edwards' speech:
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
West Virgina results.
As anticipated, Clinton has won West Virginia with a huge margin of victory. 67%, to be exact. But despite the positive spins that you'll see in news stories - and you will, because suspense is good for the media - it still isn't enough. I posted the calculations earlier; she would have needed a minimum 83% victory to keep her campaign alive. And so, it's onward to Kentucky and Oregon! We're just waiting for the Dems to wrap it up officially, now.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Rep. Joe Donnelly endorses Obama.
Representative Joe Donnelly, my local Congressman in the 2nd District of Indiana, has endorsed Barack Obama today. I'm very pleased!
Monday, May 12, 2008
Clinton & Obama on gun control.
In the '90s, Hillary Clinton, alongside her husband, was a champion of gun control. In fact, in 2003, she said that the Columbine school shootings of 1999 - and her desire to enact greater gun control - inspired her to run for the U.S. Senate. But now that she is desperately seeking big wins in states where hunting guns are commonly owned and in which this is an important issue to voters, she has propelled herself to standing as a champion of gun ownership rights. She is even painting her opponent, Barack Obama, as someone who wishes to take guns away from citizens.
Yet, Barack Obama has declared his respect for the Second Amendment, our right to bear arms. Barack Obama has declared that he believes that gun laws should be decided not at the federal level, but by local communities.
In truth, Clinton and Obama don't have entirely different stances on gun control and both support some measures, but none are measures which would affect - or which would likely even bother - most rural hunters. Both support restrictions on owning handguns, which are not used for hunting. Both support restrictions on owning certain semi-automatic weapons which are not used for hunting. Both support keeping guns away from unsupervised children. Both support a tighter control on knowing who owns what guns, so if you're only planning on using a gun legally (hunting, protection), this will not affect you negatively.
You should, however, be worried if you are planning on murdering someone or if you don't care if your children kill themselves or others. The rest of us won't be affected.
Here's the kicker: Clinton additionally makes vague statements in favor of gun control laws involving looking for early warning signs of potential misuse and keeping guns away from those "who shouldn't have them."
Check ontheissues.org for a summary of positions and quotes from the candidates.
Yet, Barack Obama has declared his respect for the Second Amendment, our right to bear arms. Barack Obama has declared that he believes that gun laws should be decided not at the federal level, but by local communities.
In truth, Clinton and Obama don't have entirely different stances on gun control and both support some measures, but none are measures which would affect - or which would likely even bother - most rural hunters. Both support restrictions on owning handguns, which are not used for hunting. Both support restrictions on owning certain semi-automatic weapons which are not used for hunting. Both support keeping guns away from unsupervised children. Both support a tighter control on knowing who owns what guns, so if you're only planning on using a gun legally (hunting, protection), this will not affect you negatively.
You should, however, be worried if you are planning on murdering someone or if you don't care if your children kill themselves or others. The rest of us won't be affected.
Here's the kicker: Clinton additionally makes vague statements in favor of gun control laws involving looking for early warning signs of potential misuse and keeping guns away from those "who shouldn't have them."
Check ontheissues.org for a summary of positions and quotes from the candidates.
Obama takes superdelegate lead.
Barack Obama has taken the lead over Hillary Clinton in superdelegates! Does this call for a w00t? I think it does. :-P
The time picked Obama, Dick Durbin says.
Just a nice, warm, biographical article about Barack Obama: "Obama rises from obscurity to verge of history"
An excerpt, regarding Dick Durbin's encouragement for Obama to run for President:
An excerpt, regarding Dick Durbin's encouragement for Obama to run for President:
"There are moments in life when you can pick the time," Durbin said he told Obama. "But when it comes to running for president, the time can pick you. You've been picked. This is your moment."
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Jenna Bush's wedding.
Jenna Bush may not be as cute as Sasha Obama, but Jenna has the unfair disadvantage of being 20 years older. She did, however, look tasteful and elegant in her wedding gown.
I'm glad that most protesters gave their cause a rest out of respect for not inflicting on Jenna, their objections to her father. Peace activist Kay Lucas of the Crawford Texas Peace House said that demonstrating would have been "tacky." But the self-righteous will be self-righteous, and members of the Westboro Baptist Church traveled all the way from Kansas to proclaim their anti-gay message, which was obviously relevant, what with Jenna Bush and Henry Hager being a gay couple and the President's staunch policies on helping the gay community. No, seriously, this was basically their point - the President is not anti-gay enough and he raised Jenna not to be anti-gay enough. Peace protesters 1 - homophobic wackos 0.
Anyway, at least Jenna Bush wasn't too bothered by people who were not invited to her wedding.
I'm glad that most protesters gave their cause a rest out of respect for not inflicting on Jenna, their objections to her father. Peace activist Kay Lucas of the Crawford Texas Peace House said that demonstrating would have been "tacky." But the self-righteous will be self-righteous, and members of the Westboro Baptist Church traveled all the way from Kansas to proclaim their anti-gay message, which was obviously relevant, what with Jenna Bush and Henry Hager being a gay couple and the President's staunch policies on helping the gay community. No, seriously, this was basically their point - the President is not anti-gay enough and he raised Jenna not to be anti-gay enough. Peace protesters 1 - homophobic wackos 0.
Anyway, at least Jenna Bush wasn't too bothered by people who were not invited to her wedding.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
What West Virginia means.
"What might West Virginia's primary mean?" by Bill Schneider.
An excerpt:
Gasp! It's not over! The tide is turning, the tide is turning! Maybe Clinton will win the nomination, after all!
Wait a second... It sure sounds like West Virginia could be the miracle cure to take the Clinton campaign off its life support, but let's stop and think about this.
West Virginia, which votes on May 13, has a total of 37 pledged delegates to be awarded. (And yes, Clinton is expected to win most of them.)
Now, let's look at the ones that remain after that:
Kentucky, which votes on May 20, has a total of 55 delegates.
Oregon, which also votes on May 20, has a total of 62 delegates.
Puerto Rico, which votes on June 1, has a total of 63 delegates.
Montana, which votes on June 3, has a total of 23 delegates.
South Dakota, which also votes on June 3, has a total of 22 delegates.
We already know that Clinton is expected to win West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico, and that Obama is expected to win Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. Let's make one flat assumption that they each win those primaries with 65% of the vote. And frankly, Clinton has had an awful lot of difficulty with achieving that kind of margin, while Obama has easily blown past it. In 2004, Kerry won the primary in Oregon with 79% of the vote and Kucinich came in second with 16%, so I would be wholly unsurprised if Obama achieved a margin of victory larger than 65%. But I'll give everybody an even 65% because I'm not Chuck Todd and it's just speculation.
Now, with 65% of the vote awarded to the respective candidates in their respectively anticipated wins, Clinton still doesn't catch Obama's current total - even though the primaries that she'll win are bigger. She has never been able to recuperate from Obama's long string of wins in February, nor will she.
Based on my calculations, Clinton would need to win a minimum grand total of 83% average win of the popular vote of all combined remaining primaries, just to overtake Obama in the narrowest lead possible. It won't happen. West Virginia will likely be at least indicative of her biggest possible margin of victory and she's expected to win at 66%.
Now, the most important segment of this article is buried elusively at the bottom. The real question of West Virginia is whether it could mean an Obama/Clinton ticket in an effort to gain blue collar voters. I think that this is unlikely, after the contentiousness - brought on by Clinton - of this race. And Obama has other choice, powerhouse endorsements who would appeal greatly to the camp of Clinton voters - like Kathleen Sebelius. Now THAT would be a good ticket.
An excerpt:
West Virginia is expected to go for Clinton big time -- and the polls show it. Clinton has a 43-point advantage over Obama, 66 percent to 23 percent, according to a survey from the American Research Group released Friday.
Gasp! It's not over! The tide is turning, the tide is turning! Maybe Clinton will win the nomination, after all!
Wait a second... It sure sounds like West Virginia could be the miracle cure to take the Clinton campaign off its life support, but let's stop and think about this.
West Virginia, which votes on May 13, has a total of 37 pledged delegates to be awarded. (And yes, Clinton is expected to win most of them.)
Now, let's look at the ones that remain after that:
Kentucky, which votes on May 20, has a total of 55 delegates.
Oregon, which also votes on May 20, has a total of 62 delegates.
Puerto Rico, which votes on June 1, has a total of 63 delegates.
Montana, which votes on June 3, has a total of 23 delegates.
South Dakota, which also votes on June 3, has a total of 22 delegates.
We already know that Clinton is expected to win West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico, and that Obama is expected to win Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. Let's make one flat assumption that they each win those primaries with 65% of the vote. And frankly, Clinton has had an awful lot of difficulty with achieving that kind of margin, while Obama has easily blown past it. In 2004, Kerry won the primary in Oregon with 79% of the vote and Kucinich came in second with 16%, so I would be wholly unsurprised if Obama achieved a margin of victory larger than 65%. But I'll give everybody an even 65% because I'm not Chuck Todd and it's just speculation.
Now, with 65% of the vote awarded to the respective candidates in their respectively anticipated wins, Clinton still doesn't catch Obama's current total - even though the primaries that she'll win are bigger. She has never been able to recuperate from Obama's long string of wins in February, nor will she.
Based on my calculations, Clinton would need to win a minimum grand total of 83% average win of the popular vote of all combined remaining primaries, just to overtake Obama in the narrowest lead possible. It won't happen. West Virginia will likely be at least indicative of her biggest possible margin of victory and she's expected to win at 66%.
Now, the most important segment of this article is buried elusively at the bottom. The real question of West Virginia is whether it could mean an Obama/Clinton ticket in an effort to gain blue collar voters. I think that this is unlikely, after the contentiousness - brought on by Clinton - of this race. And Obama has other choice, powerhouse endorsements who would appeal greatly to the camp of Clinton voters - like Kathleen Sebelius. Now THAT would be a good ticket.
Teachers gone wild!
Could this be me?
"When Young Teachers Go Wild on the Web" by Ian Shapira.
An excerpt:
Well, I am a twentysomething teacher. And I do love me some internets. Heh.
Well, let's take a look at myself... I won't dispute that one should not, in fact, smoke crack while pregnant, but you won't see me seducing a bottle of Cuervo, either. If you read my public profiles, you'll discover things like: I like Edgar Allan Poe and Vincent Van Gogh and The X-Files and the famous African American choreographer, Alvin Ailey. Nothing incriminating there.
The problem is, where does a young teacher draw the line between enjoying her private life and allowing her job to take over her entire life? In this blog, I just posted an article about a 10-year-old rape victim giving birth, and then linked it to a pro-choice statement on my behalf. That is certainly more professional behavior than posting raunchy, sexual jokes, but I could easily have parents of students, coworkers, or employers who are staunchly anti-abortion and may find my statement to be offensive. In other words, my opinions on abortion rights are irrelevant to my job, so I don't express them at work. But by making these things public, what if someone holds me accountable at work for these things? I could see its relevance if, on my own time, I chose to bomb a fundamentalist church to make a statement, but a criminal act is a far cry from my freedom of speech, which, frankly, I'd like to remain intact. I don't want to feel stifled in my freedom to express myself, just because I'm a teacher (which would be especially ironic since I teach performing arts and a significant portion of my lessons revolve around self-expression).
Or is the real issue one of perception? The most inappropriate things that you'll find about me on the web are in comments posted by my non-teaching friends, or in pictures of me looking goofy. Note that I usually look goofy in pictures, regardless of whether I've been drinking. But is the problem that people might assume that I'm drunk, just based on looking goofy? Especially because there are pictures of me with a drink in hand (not that I've posted, but that friends have posted). But what the picture often doesn't reveal is that I only had two beers in four hours. And sure, I may be laughing and joking and making funny faces and having a good time, but what the picture doesn't reveal is that it was at a birthday party or a wedding and that I'm lucky if I get to go out once a month with my friends.
There is no perfect answer and my generation is the first of its kind - the first to stumble through the birth and developing omnipresence of the web. My generation has likely enjoyed more online freedom than any who follow ever will; we were teenagers and young college students during the heyday of the dot-com boom in an era when our parents were bewildered over this new email thing. We developed friendships and intricate social networks over the web, experienced the joys of anonymity, then emboldened ourselves as Friendster or Facebook or MySpace told us to post pictures and really be ourselves, publicly. But in many cases, we still behaved as if we were anonymous - until that public strip show came back to bite us in the proverbial ass when we lost job opportunities or were humiliated at work. And no, this doesn't just apply to teachers, except that the patrons and supervisors of our trade are particularly more discriminating, since our job is to influence the young, developing minds of children.
I think that the generation who follows - as the last remaining children who recall the days before the internet forage toward middle age and the first who, for years, were unaware that such a "dark ages" ever existed - will have learned from my generation's mistakes and be more guarded.
The real answer, unfortunately, lies in how much you want to risk and our trusty old friend, common sense. I'm taking some risks, yes, but I'm also utilizing common sense. If, for instance, I lost my job for blogging a personal pro-choice argument, which I never expressed in class, then I'd have a pretty damned good court case. For that matter, in this blog, I even defended the teacher who appeared on The Howard Stern Show in a bikini and made sexual jokes about her husband. But I never claimed that my point of view wasn't more liberal than the average joe, either. And because part of what makes me who I am is my far-left point of view, I'd feel deprived of life (not to mention, very fake) if I made a concerted effort to go through my many off-work hours, painting myself as a go-with-the-flow, blend-in-the-background kind of girl. But I won't be linking professional websites advertising my resume with personal social networking, nor will I prance around in lingerie, shrieking to the Calypso rhythms of teachers gone wild, either.
"When Young Teachers Go Wild on the Web" by Ian Shapira.
An excerpt:
It's almost like Googling someone: Log on to Facebook. Join the Washington, D.C., network. Search the Web site for your favorite school system. And then watch the public profiles of 20-something teachers unfurl like gift wrap on the screen, revealing a sense of humor that can be overtly sarcastic or unintentionally unprofessional -- or both.
Well, I am a twentysomething teacher. And I do love me some internets. Heh.
Well, let's take a look at myself... I won't dispute that one should not, in fact, smoke crack while pregnant, but you won't see me seducing a bottle of Cuervo, either. If you read my public profiles, you'll discover things like: I like Edgar Allan Poe and Vincent Van Gogh and The X-Files and the famous African American choreographer, Alvin Ailey. Nothing incriminating there.
The problem is, where does a young teacher draw the line between enjoying her private life and allowing her job to take over her entire life? In this blog, I just posted an article about a 10-year-old rape victim giving birth, and then linked it to a pro-choice statement on my behalf. That is certainly more professional behavior than posting raunchy, sexual jokes, but I could easily have parents of students, coworkers, or employers who are staunchly anti-abortion and may find my statement to be offensive. In other words, my opinions on abortion rights are irrelevant to my job, so I don't express them at work. But by making these things public, what if someone holds me accountable at work for these things? I could see its relevance if, on my own time, I chose to bomb a fundamentalist church to make a statement, but a criminal act is a far cry from my freedom of speech, which, frankly, I'd like to remain intact. I don't want to feel stifled in my freedom to express myself, just because I'm a teacher (which would be especially ironic since I teach performing arts and a significant portion of my lessons revolve around self-expression).
Or is the real issue one of perception? The most inappropriate things that you'll find about me on the web are in comments posted by my non-teaching friends, or in pictures of me looking goofy. Note that I usually look goofy in pictures, regardless of whether I've been drinking. But is the problem that people might assume that I'm drunk, just based on looking goofy? Especially because there are pictures of me with a drink in hand (not that I've posted, but that friends have posted). But what the picture often doesn't reveal is that I only had two beers in four hours. And sure, I may be laughing and joking and making funny faces and having a good time, but what the picture doesn't reveal is that it was at a birthday party or a wedding and that I'm lucky if I get to go out once a month with my friends.
There is no perfect answer and my generation is the first of its kind - the first to stumble through the birth and developing omnipresence of the web. My generation has likely enjoyed more online freedom than any who follow ever will; we were teenagers and young college students during the heyday of the dot-com boom in an era when our parents were bewildered over this new email thing. We developed friendships and intricate social networks over the web, experienced the joys of anonymity, then emboldened ourselves as Friendster or Facebook or MySpace told us to post pictures and really be ourselves, publicly. But in many cases, we still behaved as if we were anonymous - until that public strip show came back to bite us in the proverbial ass when we lost job opportunities or were humiliated at work. And no, this doesn't just apply to teachers, except that the patrons and supervisors of our trade are particularly more discriminating, since our job is to influence the young, developing minds of children.
I think that the generation who follows - as the last remaining children who recall the days before the internet forage toward middle age and the first who, for years, were unaware that such a "dark ages" ever existed - will have learned from my generation's mistakes and be more guarded.
The real answer, unfortunately, lies in how much you want to risk and our trusty old friend, common sense. I'm taking some risks, yes, but I'm also utilizing common sense. If, for instance, I lost my job for blogging a personal pro-choice argument, which I never expressed in class, then I'd have a pretty damned good court case. For that matter, in this blog, I even defended the teacher who appeared on The Howard Stern Show in a bikini and made sexual jokes about her husband. But I never claimed that my point of view wasn't more liberal than the average joe, either. And because part of what makes me who I am is my far-left point of view, I'd feel deprived of life (not to mention, very fake) if I made a concerted effort to go through my many off-work hours, painting myself as a go-with-the-flow, blend-in-the-background kind of girl. But I won't be linking professional websites advertising my resume with personal social networking, nor will I prance around in lingerie, shrieking to the Calypso rhythms of teachers gone wild, either.
10-year-old rape victim gives birth.
The most disgusting news story I've seen in awhile: a 10-year-old Idaho girl gives birth after being raped.
If you ever needed validation for keeping abortion legal, this is it. If you ever needed a reason to overturn parental consent laws regarding abortion or contraceptives, this is it. If you ever needed a reason to support comprehensive sex education in schools, which would teach young girls to seek immediate help in the event of rape, to seek emergency contraception and STD testing, this is it.
Obviously, details on this girl's story are protected because she is a minor, so I can't speak for the specifics of her story. But it's also telling that the reporter in the CNN video notes that this is actually more common than people might think.
Girls are reaching puberty at ever-younger ages; the reporter mentions the link between early puberty and childhood obesity, which is true, although there are other reasons. Another major reason is the overabundance of hormones given to dairy cows to increase milk production (which is why many vegetarians, vegans, environmentalists, and health conscious folks have switched to organic milk, limited dairy consumption, or outright eliminated it, as is the case with vegans).
But regardless of the age at which girls reach puberty, the main issue here is rape. At best, this girl will have a difficult childhood/motherhood - and so will her daughter. That is a BEST case scenario. It shouldn't be happening at all, but we, as a culture, need to wake up to reality and provide the educational and support resources that girls in this situation NEED.
If you ever needed validation for keeping abortion legal, this is it. If you ever needed a reason to overturn parental consent laws regarding abortion or contraceptives, this is it. If you ever needed a reason to support comprehensive sex education in schools, which would teach young girls to seek immediate help in the event of rape, to seek emergency contraception and STD testing, this is it.
Obviously, details on this girl's story are protected because she is a minor, so I can't speak for the specifics of her story. But it's also telling that the reporter in the CNN video notes that this is actually more common than people might think.
Girls are reaching puberty at ever-younger ages; the reporter mentions the link between early puberty and childhood obesity, which is true, although there are other reasons. Another major reason is the overabundance of hormones given to dairy cows to increase milk production (which is why many vegetarians, vegans, environmentalists, and health conscious folks have switched to organic milk, limited dairy consumption, or outright eliminated it, as is the case with vegans).
But regardless of the age at which girls reach puberty, the main issue here is rape. At best, this girl will have a difficult childhood/motherhood - and so will her daughter. That is a BEST case scenario. It shouldn't be happening at all, but we, as a culture, need to wake up to reality and provide the educational and support resources that girls in this situation NEED.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Obama article on Israel.
I'd like to highlight this article that's currently at the top of the Obama news feed. It isn't about Barack Obama, but written by him:
"At 60, Israel Has Much to Celebrate"
"At 60, Israel Has Much to Celebrate"
Teacher loses job for bikini image.
This image cost Marie Jarry her job:
Jarry, formerly a second grade teacher at Thalberg Elementary School in Southington, Connecticut, participated in an "Ugliest Guy, Hottest Wife" contest on The Howard Stern Show. She donned a bikini, baring her toned body, and her husband, Aaron, removed his shirt to bare his gut. She made a few sexual jokes at her husband's expense while he expressed adoration for his wife's hotness; they won $5,000.
The local media in Connecticut got word of this and soon, Jarry was forced to resign from her job, due to behavior popularly deemed "inappropriate" for a second grade teacher.
I won't argue against the overall tackiness of the contest, but this is enough to cost the teacher her job? Really? When at least one parent otherwise reported his child's satisfaction inside the classroom?
There was no nudity involved (not that it should particularly matter) and the physical image that she conveyed was one that society deems appropriate for families on beaches. I recently published a picture of myself wearing a bikini in the newspaper for which I write and I teach children, too. The hypocrisy is that no one would likely object to my bikini photo because it was part of a narrative article, illustrating my personal experience of climbing a waterfall in Jamaica.
The negativity conveyed by parents in Jarry's case was largely pointed at the crudeness of The Howard Stern Show, itself, so it hardly seems fair to attack the teacher for that. Granted, she appeared on the show of her own free will. Yet, few would argue that this is a show that is appropriate for children. It is intended for ADULT viewing. This is why parental controls exist.
The bottom line is, Jarry chose to participate on this show in her own personal time and it in no way impeded her ability to do her job. If her bikini picture were published in a newspaper and her students asked, the parents should tell them that it's because she won a beauty contest; this should satisfy second graders. Her choice to participate was tasteless, but should not have cost her her job.
Jarry, formerly a second grade teacher at Thalberg Elementary School in Southington, Connecticut, participated in an "Ugliest Guy, Hottest Wife" contest on The Howard Stern Show. She donned a bikini, baring her toned body, and her husband, Aaron, removed his shirt to bare his gut. She made a few sexual jokes at her husband's expense while he expressed adoration for his wife's hotness; they won $5,000.
The local media in Connecticut got word of this and soon, Jarry was forced to resign from her job, due to behavior popularly deemed "inappropriate" for a second grade teacher.
I won't argue against the overall tackiness of the contest, but this is enough to cost the teacher her job? Really? When at least one parent otherwise reported his child's satisfaction inside the classroom?
There was no nudity involved (not that it should particularly matter) and the physical image that she conveyed was one that society deems appropriate for families on beaches. I recently published a picture of myself wearing a bikini in the newspaper for which I write and I teach children, too. The hypocrisy is that no one would likely object to my bikini photo because it was part of a narrative article, illustrating my personal experience of climbing a waterfall in Jamaica.
The negativity conveyed by parents in Jarry's case was largely pointed at the crudeness of The Howard Stern Show, itself, so it hardly seems fair to attack the teacher for that. Granted, she appeared on the show of her own free will. Yet, few would argue that this is a show that is appropriate for children. It is intended for ADULT viewing. This is why parental controls exist.
The bottom line is, Jarry chose to participate on this show in her own personal time and it in no way impeded her ability to do her job. If her bikini picture were published in a newspaper and her students asked, the parents should tell them that it's because she won a beauty contest; this should satisfy second graders. Her choice to participate was tasteless, but should not have cost her her job.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
NY Times predicts Obama nomination.
Well, here you have it: The New York Times reports, "Support for Clinton Wanes as Obama Sees Finish Line."
The article mentions several important points:
Former presidential candidate George McGovern (who endorsed Obama on Wednesday) claims that a Clinton win is mathematically impossible. Furthermore, Clinton's supporters have grown tentative in their optimism and assurance of moving the campaign forward. Superdelegates have been hesitant to meet with Clinton.
(Also, it's worth noting that the exact counts of net gains in delegates are still shifting.)
The article mentions several important points:
Former presidential candidate George McGovern (who endorsed Obama on Wednesday) claims that a Clinton win is mathematically impossible. Furthermore, Clinton's supporters have grown tentative in their optimism and assurance of moving the campaign forward. Superdelegates have been hesitant to meet with Clinton.
(Also, it's worth noting that the exact counts of net gains in delegates are still shifting.)
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
May 6 results are ultimately good for Obama.
Like Michelle Obama says, "He's the hope guy. I'm the cynic." I may be paraphrasing her, so don't repeat that as an exact quote. Anyway, that's true of me, too; I'm the cynic in my house. And although I'm disappointed that Obama ultimately narrowly lost my home state, in which I worked so hard, I cannot deny that the results of what happened on May 6 are very good for Barack Obama. Any disappointment that I feel is an issue of hometown (or state) pride.
And like Jim says, although we may have lost Indiana, last night, it was close - very, very close. And we had a huge victory in North Carolina. We ultimately got what we needed.
As an aside, I think it's telling that I can't help but say "we" instead of saying "Obama." I do feel like we're in this together, that a vote for Obama is a vote for the people.
In total, Hillary Clinton achieved just a two-point victory in Indiana, last night, and fell far short in the overall number of delegates, falling even further behind than she already was. Clinton netted 3 delegates out of Indiana, while Obama netted 19 delegates out of North Carolina, so May 6 resulted in a net gain of 16 delegates for Obama.
Clinton will likely win the upcoming primaries in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico, while Obama will likely win those in Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana. In other words, in the few remaining contests, they will likely break even, leaving Obama in the lead.
Unless the superdelegates throw a coup and overturn the will of the people, Obama will be the nominee. Clinton cannot catch up, so why is she still in the race?
Clinton has run out of arguments as to why she should be the nominee. She has already indicated that your vote doesn't really count if you live in a caucus state, are a political activist, are black, are college educated, or if you believe in the nomination process as agreed upon by the Democratic party (and it's worse if you're all of the above). (I posted a video of Keith Olbermann's breakdown of Clinton excuses.)
Jon Stewart also had a funny satire on this topic after the Pennsylvania primary on The Daily Show:
And like Jim says, although we may have lost Indiana, last night, it was close - very, very close. And we had a huge victory in North Carolina. We ultimately got what we needed.
As an aside, I think it's telling that I can't help but say "we" instead of saying "Obama." I do feel like we're in this together, that a vote for Obama is a vote for the people.
In total, Hillary Clinton achieved just a two-point victory in Indiana, last night, and fell far short in the overall number of delegates, falling even further behind than she already was. Clinton netted 3 delegates out of Indiana, while Obama netted 19 delegates out of North Carolina, so May 6 resulted in a net gain of 16 delegates for Obama.
Clinton will likely win the upcoming primaries in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico, while Obama will likely win those in Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana. In other words, in the few remaining contests, they will likely break even, leaving Obama in the lead.
Unless the superdelegates throw a coup and overturn the will of the people, Obama will be the nominee. Clinton cannot catch up, so why is she still in the race?
Clinton has run out of arguments as to why she should be the nominee. She has already indicated that your vote doesn't really count if you live in a caucus state, are a political activist, are black, are college educated, or if you believe in the nomination process as agreed upon by the Democratic party (and it's worse if you're all of the above). (I posted a video of Keith Olbermann's breakdown of Clinton excuses.)
Jon Stewart also had a funny satire on this topic after the Pennsylvania primary on The Daily Show:
I want to believe.
I'm exhausted and I desperately need sleep, but my head is still spinning a little from being out until 1:00, counting numbers and counties endlessly on the cliffhanger that was Indiana.
The primary is over. We fought a good fight. We registered at least 100,000 new voters. We had hundreds of volunteers working harder than anybody (and that's just in my little local city office), sometimes at the expense of our own health, while the Clinton campaign in my area had almost no one.
We passionately believe in something bigger than ourselves. We believe in the fundamental principles of goodness, justice, truth, and equality for all people; we want to change America for the better. We want to believe that we can achieve our dreams and that our government really will work for us. I have never met a more passionate, devoted, and determined group of people than the Obama volunteers and staffers.
We lost, but we tried our best.
I deeply want to believe that Americans want to, can, and will elect someone who doesn't use fear to repress our freedom, who doesn't lie and manipulate us to garner votes, who treats us, as citizens, with the respect that we deserve. I want to believe in the future.
The primary is over. We fought a good fight. We registered at least 100,000 new voters. We had hundreds of volunteers working harder than anybody (and that's just in my little local city office), sometimes at the expense of our own health, while the Clinton campaign in my area had almost no one.
We passionately believe in something bigger than ourselves. We believe in the fundamental principles of goodness, justice, truth, and equality for all people; we want to change America for the better. We want to believe that we can achieve our dreams and that our government really will work for us. I have never met a more passionate, devoted, and determined group of people than the Obama volunteers and staffers.
We lost, but we tried our best.
I deeply want to believe that Americans want to, can, and will elect someone who doesn't use fear to repress our freedom, who doesn't lie and manipulate us to garner votes, who treats us, as citizens, with the respect that we deserve. I want to believe in the future.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Primary Election Day in Indiana.
It's election day in Indiana! (It's also election day in North Carolina and I'm not trying to neglect them, but I live in the Hoosier state, so I'm very focused here.)
I've seen lots of volunteers who have been working hard to get out the vote. I've met some nice Republicans and some bigoted Democrats. There are Democrats who are voting for Clinton because she's white, or voting for Obama because he isn't white, or voting for Clinton because she's female, or voting for Obama because he's male. There is more at stake than race or gender; there are issues, leadership, motivation, the ability to change our government (and our society) for the better.
I chose Obama because Obama has changed me for the better and I've seen that same positive effect on so many other people. I'm white, so it isn't a racial thing, but seeing his very real chance at becoming President has made me believe that anything is possible. If I were basing that observation on surface-level pigeonholes, I'd probably be voting for Clinton for the belief that it's actually possible for a woman to become President; I am also female, after all. But no, this goes beyond that.
In Obama, I see a great leader who wants our great country to live up to its great potential. I see someone who positively encourages us to fight to get ahead - not in a cutthroat way, not by cutting down our adversaries and adversities, but by never giving up on ourselves, to believe in the American Dream, to insist that our country and our citizens do not have to settle for less than what satisfies us. It has changed me; I have shed a certain cynicism that has shielded me well since grade school. When things aren't going my way - if I've had a bad day, if I'm suffering from any general ennui over the state of my life - I get more determined instead of more guardedly apathetic. I didn't realize this observation about myself; it has radiated and was told to me. It's true.
Barack Obama won't work miracles or solve all of our problems, but he has worked in poor communities, seen the frustrations, hopes, and fears of Americans, seen our desires for better lives and our cynicism that it won't and can't ever happen. He will help bring us to believe that we CAN do better; he will motivate us to try. He will set the spark that lights the fire.
Good luck on this election day...
I've seen lots of volunteers who have been working hard to get out the vote. I've met some nice Republicans and some bigoted Democrats. There are Democrats who are voting for Clinton because she's white, or voting for Obama because he isn't white, or voting for Clinton because she's female, or voting for Obama because he's male. There is more at stake than race or gender; there are issues, leadership, motivation, the ability to change our government (and our society) for the better.
I chose Obama because Obama has changed me for the better and I've seen that same positive effect on so many other people. I'm white, so it isn't a racial thing, but seeing his very real chance at becoming President has made me believe that anything is possible. If I were basing that observation on surface-level pigeonholes, I'd probably be voting for Clinton for the belief that it's actually possible for a woman to become President; I am also female, after all. But no, this goes beyond that.
In Obama, I see a great leader who wants our great country to live up to its great potential. I see someone who positively encourages us to fight to get ahead - not in a cutthroat way, not by cutting down our adversaries and adversities, but by never giving up on ourselves, to believe in the American Dream, to insist that our country and our citizens do not have to settle for less than what satisfies us. It has changed me; I have shed a certain cynicism that has shielded me well since grade school. When things aren't going my way - if I've had a bad day, if I'm suffering from any general ennui over the state of my life - I get more determined instead of more guardedly apathetic. I didn't realize this observation about myself; it has radiated and was told to me. It's true.
Barack Obama won't work miracles or solve all of our problems, but he has worked in poor communities, seen the frustrations, hopes, and fears of Americans, seen our desires for better lives and our cynicism that it won't and can't ever happen. He will help bring us to believe that we CAN do better; he will motivate us to try. He will set the spark that lights the fire.
Good luck on this election day...
Colbert satirizes electability.
And while I'm on a YouTube spree...
Here's one from the Thursday, May 1 edition of The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert satirizes the definition of "electability," which has become such a buzzword frenzy in the Democratic primary process that the satire was already written for him by those who aren't even comedians.
Here's one from the Thursday, May 1 edition of The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert satirizes the definition of "electability," which has become such a buzzword frenzy in the Democratic primary process that the satire was already written for him by those who aren't even comedians.
Olbermann analyzes Clinton's nomination criteria.
On the Monday, May 5 edition of Countdown (the evening before the primaries in Indiana and North Carolina), Keith Olbermann comments on the ridiculous laundry list of exceptions and manipulated parameters by which Hillary Clinton's campaign claims that she has won the popular vote and should therefore be the party's chosen nominee:
Monday, May 5, 2008
Common misconceptions about Barack Obama.
In Indiana, election day is nearly upon us. As you know, I'm an Obama supporter.
Last night, I spoke with a friend about common concerns about Barack Obama. I've decided to post these details here, for anyone who is interested. In no particular order:
1. He is a Muslim.
Barack Obama is a Christian. He has been attending Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for 20 years.
2. He was sworn in on the Koran.
Barack Obama was sworn in to public office on the Bible. He is a Christian.
3. He shares radical, extremist views with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and is racist against white people.
Firstly, Barack Obama is multiracial. He was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. Why would he discriminate against his own family members?
Secondly, Obama has publicly rejected (and denounced) Reverend Wright. He did not reject or denounce sooner because Obama is a person who believes in tolerance and loyalty. Reverend Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama and baptized their two children, so he has played an important role in Senator Obama's life. Obama attempted to give Wright the benefit of the doubt because he had never heard the reverend's radical statements until they received mainstream media attention during this campaign. Trinity United Church of Christ is a very mainstream church which always attracts a long line of people, waiting to get in; it is not known for extremist sermons. When Wright chose to continue making hostile statements, Obama made the difficult decision to reject and denounce Wright.
4. He refuses to wear an American flag lapel pin, so he must be unpatriotic.
It is true that Barack Obama has not always worn an American flag lapel pin. Neither has John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Yet, these three candidates show their patriotism every day by serving their country.
Barack Obama has said that he would prefer to show his patriotism by discussing important issues with the American people. However, he was recently given a gift of a flag lapel pin by a veteran; he promptly thanked the veteran and said that it meant a lot to him, then placed it on his lapel.
5. He refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance, so he must be unpatriotic.
Barack Obama has led the Senate in saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
6. He is an elitist who is out of touch with regular people.
When Barack Obama was born to a black father and a white mother, racial segregation was still enforced in the United States. It wasn't even possible that he could ever become President.
He was raised by a single mother and by his grandparents, who were not wealthy. When he graduated from college with one of the best educations that America has to offer, he could have taken a high-paying job with a major corporation, but instead, he chose to work as a community organizer, helping people in the poor neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago. When he decided to enter politics, he had a hole in his shoe because he could not afford new shoes. He and his wife were only recently able to finish paying their student loan debt.
Barack and Michelle Obama have achieved the American dream; they each came from humble beginnings and through hard work, they have earned a comfortable life for themselves and for their daughters.
He has lived the "regular" life and understands the struggles of regular people. No one else in this race has been so in touch, so recently.
7. He eats arugula instead of regular food, so he must be an elitist.
When asked how he stays healthy, Barack Obama has said that he works out (in fact, he particularly enjoys basketball) and eats healthy foods. (Arugula is a vegetable.) We should all follow this advice! But he indulges every now and then, too; he was recently spotted enjoying a Philly cheese steak while campaigning in Pennsylvania.
8. Obama is less experienced than Clinton.
Barack Obama has more than 11 total years of legislative experience, while Hillary Clinton has just over 7 years. Clinton did not have high level security clearances during her husband's administration, so she cannot claim his presidency as a significant portion of her experiences.
Last night, I spoke with a friend about common concerns about Barack Obama. I've decided to post these details here, for anyone who is interested. In no particular order:
1. He is a Muslim.
2. He was sworn in on the Koran.
3. He shares radical, extremist views with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and is racist against white people.
Firstly, Barack Obama is multiracial. He was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. Why would he discriminate against his own family members?
Secondly, Obama has publicly rejected (and denounced) Reverend Wright. He did not reject or denounce sooner because Obama is a person who believes in tolerance and loyalty. Reverend Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama and baptized their two children, so he has played an important role in Senator Obama's life. Obama attempted to give Wright the benefit of the doubt because he had never heard the reverend's radical statements until they received mainstream media attention during this campaign. Trinity United Church of Christ is a very mainstream church which always attracts a long line of people, waiting to get in; it is not known for extremist sermons. When Wright chose to continue making hostile statements, Obama made the difficult decision to reject and denounce Wright.
4. He refuses to wear an American flag lapel pin, so he must be unpatriotic.
It is true that Barack Obama has not always worn an American flag lapel pin. Neither has John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Yet, these three candidates show their patriotism every day by serving their country.
Barack Obama has said that he would prefer to show his patriotism by discussing important issues with the American people. However, he was recently given a gift of a flag lapel pin by a veteran; he promptly thanked the veteran and said that it meant a lot to him, then placed it on his lapel.
5. He refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance, so he must be unpatriotic.
Barack Obama has led the Senate in saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
6. He is an elitist who is out of touch with regular people.
When Barack Obama was born to a black father and a white mother, racial segregation was still enforced in the United States. It wasn't even possible that he could ever become President.
He was raised by a single mother and by his grandparents, who were not wealthy. When he graduated from college with one of the best educations that America has to offer, he could have taken a high-paying job with a major corporation, but instead, he chose to work as a community organizer, helping people in the poor neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago. When he decided to enter politics, he had a hole in his shoe because he could not afford new shoes. He and his wife were only recently able to finish paying their student loan debt.
Barack and Michelle Obama have achieved the American dream; they each came from humble beginnings and through hard work, they have earned a comfortable life for themselves and for their daughters.
He has lived the "regular" life and understands the struggles of regular people. No one else in this race has been so in touch, so recently.
7. He eats arugula instead of regular food, so he must be an elitist.
When asked how he stays healthy, Barack Obama has said that he works out (in fact, he particularly enjoys basketball) and eats healthy foods. (Arugula is a vegetable.) We should all follow this advice! But he indulges every now and then, too; he was recently spotted enjoying a Philly cheese steak while campaigning in Pennsylvania.
8. Obama is less experienced than Clinton.
Barack Obama has more than 11 total years of legislative experience, while Hillary Clinton has just over 7 years. Clinton did not have high level security clearances during her husband's administration, so she cannot claim his presidency as a significant portion of her experiences.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Obligatory introduction.
Every now and then, I get on this zany tangent and think, "The world needs to hear me!" This usually happens during odd hours of the night when I'm not sleeping, when I'm desperately procrastinating, or both. This is one of those times.
I couldn't think of a good blog title, at the moment, so I visited this title generator site and what I got was "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel." It's fabulous nonsense.
I made a nifty little list in the right-hand column of some of my key interests (trying not to make it too lengthy). My primary occupations are dance education and narrative journalism. That said, I have a plethora of related occupations and hobbies, some of which are related and some of which aren't. For instance, I wound up teaching dance and writing for a newspaper because my first loves were performing dance and writing poetry. ;) I enjoy grassroots political activism, not because I aspire to a life in politics (I'm far too eccentric), but because I care about what happens in my country. I proudly volunteer for Barack Obama. I enjoy singing. I enjoy reading, especially philosophical novels and classic literature. I have a soft spot in my heart for homeless cats and I enjoy helping them. Lately, I've been more into watching television than reading, which makes me a typical American, except that I'm a nerd and my television viewing is almost exclusively comprised of sci-fi shows, political shows, and art programs. In other words, I get hundreds of channels on DirecTV so that I can devote most of my viewing to SciFi, MSNBC, and OvationTV.
That's me in a nutshell. So you'll sort of know what to expect out of my commentary.
I couldn't think of a good blog title, at the moment, so I visited this title generator site and what I got was "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel." It's fabulous nonsense.
I made a nifty little list in the right-hand column of some of my key interests (trying not to make it too lengthy). My primary occupations are dance education and narrative journalism. That said, I have a plethora of related occupations and hobbies, some of which are related and some of which aren't. For instance, I wound up teaching dance and writing for a newspaper because my first loves were performing dance and writing poetry. ;) I enjoy grassroots political activism, not because I aspire to a life in politics (I'm far too eccentric), but because I care about what happens in my country. I proudly volunteer for Barack Obama. I enjoy singing. I enjoy reading, especially philosophical novels and classic literature. I have a soft spot in my heart for homeless cats and I enjoy helping them. Lately, I've been more into watching television than reading, which makes me a typical American, except that I'm a nerd and my television viewing is almost exclusively comprised of sci-fi shows, political shows, and art programs. In other words, I get hundreds of channels on DirecTV so that I can devote most of my viewing to SciFi, MSNBC, and OvationTV.
That's me in a nutshell. So you'll sort of know what to expect out of my commentary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
