You know, if we're going pick a president based on how they eat (or don't eat) a cheesesteak or their bowling score, we really don't deserve democracy.

Sigh.

And this is why I'm an Obama Girl.

It so refreshing to have someone so articulate and intelligent running for president, instead of a rush to the lowest common denominator. Obama isn't trying to convince us that we want to have a beer with him, he's trying to convince us that he has the intelligence and conviction to help solve the deep problems of our country -- problems beyond "oooh, brown people are going to hurt us! -- problems that don't get addressed in a serious way by politicians, like racism and homophobia and religious bigotry.

I don't agree with Obama on every issue -- his position on gay marriage, for one, infuriates me -- but I do believe that his stance on issues is thoughtfully considered, rational, and open to change with new information.

I do think it's sad, though, that I'm looking at this video going, "Oh my God! We could have a president who can speak intelligently," and that's, like, not a given. Sigh.

So 1 in 5 NYU students would trade their vote in the next presidential election for an iPod Touch. I am a terrible person, because my first thought was not, "Oh, that's terrible!" but rather, "Oh, hell yeah." Sigh.

I know, I know, voting is Very Important, but I am also Very Cynical, and while I'll continue to vote because I'm subject to terrible guilt (I just know that if, say, Mitt Romney gets elected the one time I don't vote, I will totally blame myself).

An iPod Touch would be totally kick-ass, though. (And an iPhone? Don't get me started, I would give up citizenship for a fucking iPhone. Or, maybe not, but there would definitely be some hesitation before I said no.)

So I'm really not a fan of Ron Paul, at all. I mean, the guy wants to get rid of Roe v. Wade, welfare, medicare, income tax, and the UN. I certainly wouldn't be happy if he was elected.

But that said, how sad is it that he was the only person making sense at the Republican debate? As I was listening to Romney speak, I was literally jumping up and down and yelling at the TV, "OMG HAVEN'T YOU READ THE CONSTITUTION? THAT THING THAT AS PRESIDENT YOU SWEAR TO UPHOLD? WTF????" And then Ron Paul had his turn to talk and pretty much did the exact same thing (only without the cussing).

So, yeah, not a fan, but it was refreshing.

(Link if you want.)

There's so much drama over the various Republican candidates and their religion. While on one hand, it's kind of fun to watch the Republican party implode, it's also incredibly annoying, as both a citizen and a Christian.

Take Fred Thompson.

James Dobson says that Fred Thompson is not a Christian. (That's okay, Fred, Dobson doesn't think I'm a Christian, either, and I've learned to live with the disappointment.) Thompson insists that he is a Christian, and is in fact a member of the Churches of Christ denomination. Of course, Dobson is all het up Mitt Romney being Mormon, and Rudy Giuliani being gay-loving (although Guiliani certianly didn't waste anytime selling out the gays for the conservative vote) and abortion supporting. Someone needs to fill Jerry Fallwell's crazy shoes, right?

So here is my dilemma. One one hand, I don't think faith should matter when it comes to electing someone. Like, Jimmy Carter, who is a wonderful person and an amazing Christian man, was (IMHO) a terrible president. And we won't even go into our current president. There are good politicians who aren't necessarily religious. Duh.

But on the other hand, sometimes I think that a person's faith does matter. Going back to Fred Thompson again, he's a member of a church with some really scary views on women (see here for a taste). How would that play out in Thompson's presidency? Shouldn't I be concerned that he gives his allegiance to an organization that believes women should be completely subservient to men?

How much of a role does a candidate's religion play in your decision to support him/her?

You ever have a conversation with someone, only to realize partway through that you're so ideologically opposed to the other person's point of view that you can barely understand him, nevermind try to come to some sort of common ground?

This morning at church, I started talking to a man that I respect(ed) about the war in Iraq. He made the very cliche argument, "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," to which I responded, "I really hate that argument, because even if it's true, it sounds like you think innocent Iraqi kids should suffer so we don't have to."

He looked at me with a kinda shocked expression, and I looked back at him, and I said, "Uh...you don't think American lives are worth more than Iraqi lives, do you?"

At which point he began to talk a lot (and loudly) about a bunch of stuff, but it all boiled down to, "If you don't love this country you should leave." So I quickly ended the discussion, because what the fuck. I mean, where do go from there? He thinks that American lives are worth more than people from other countries, and it's okay if a bunch of Iraqis die, as long as it might make Americans safer.

Bleagh. And even more stomach-turning, he's a leader in the church. Way to live Christ's teachings there, dude.

Forgot to share my favorite story from over the holidays!

I bought a shirt that reads: "those who choose safety over liberty deserve neither" after the Patriot Act passed for the first time. I wore it this week. My uncle saw it and started in on how horrible it was that people "bash our President" and that I should thank God Bush was in charge instead of Gore because we'd all be Muslims by now, and on and on. Which just made me laugh, because there was nothing about Bush on the t-shirt.

Just a wee bit defensive. And the fact that even my conservative Uncle associated loss of liberty with President Bush is funny.

PS Is it wrong that my little brother wants to see Brokeback Mountain because he found out there were boobies? Trying to decide whether to take him or not, because it can't hurt for him to see decent gay characters...but I don't really want to encourage objectification and his "heh boobies" attitude.

Wil Wheaton wrote a super good essay at Salon.com. You have to watch a quick ad to get to it, but it's well worth it.

Wal Mart sucks, yes. Wal Mart cheats their workers, destroys small businesses, uses sweatshops, and probably sacrifices small infants to further their plan of world domination. I get that. But I just have to say something that will probably get my liberal card taken away:

Wal Mart is necessary.

Case one: I used to live in a very small town (under 400 people) up in the central coast mountains. Army people might know of Ft. Hunter Ligget, a large training base in the mountain desert--that's where I was. Anyway, the nearest town with shopping (and by shopping, I mean Wal Mart, not Rite Aid)was 45 minutes away. Now, we could have driven two hours to San Louis for something not Wal Mart, or an hour and a half to Salinas, but generally we stuck with what was closest. For people even farther out, Paso (and Wal Mart) was really the only option if you didn't want to drive forever.

Case two: Several years ago, my father lost his job. My mother had to support a family of six on her (small) salary, in the SF bay area. At that point, did my mom care about low worker wages, women's rights, or kids in China? Well, yeah, but she cared more about making sure her kids had clothes to wear to school. And, lets face it, there aren't a whole lot of places where you can buy new pants for five dollars, and outfit a kid for a year for under forty dollars (if there is, please let me know).

Wal Mart is the behemoth it is because a) prices are low and b) location, location, location. Are the people running the company scum who care only about the bottom line? Probably. Should people work on bringing reform? Absolutely. Is Wal Mart evil incarnate, and anyone who uses it a cheap, indifferent, unfeeling opportunist? Um, no.

So before people start in on how horrible Wal Mart is, they should really check their privilege (hate that term, but it fits here) and realize that not everyone has a choice.

There's been a lot of talk about Lewis "Scooter" Libby's novel. It's mostly horrified pointing..."Look what nasty, deviant things the conservative wrote about!" I understand people getting disgusted. I'm disgusted, and I read Harry Potter fanfiction. Bestiality, rape, pedophilia...I get it. Gross, horrible, yadda yadda yadda. You're totally entitled to your opinion, and "dont' like, don't read" applies in the real world, too. (And seriously, when the book costs $89.00, I'm going with "dont' read".)

People are talking like this book proves what a disgusting human being he is. No, the fact that he betrayed the identity of an undercover CIA operative makes him a shitty person, not his sex fantasies. "Oh my God!" Randi Rhodes cried. "The dehumanization! The child rape! This shows how sick this man is." And people said the same thing about the Bill O'Riley novel.

I understand the issue people have with Bill and Scooter making money off books with sex and homoeroticism when they work so hard to demonize gay people and "immorality." I'll point you to thebratqueen's excellent essay on the subject, as she states my feelings far better than I can.

Here's my issue, though. Scooter wrote a book. Fiction. He doesn't want little girls to get rapped by bears. I've written chan. I've written non-con. That doesn't make me a bad person. Personally, I don't get off on the eroticization of rape or child sex, so it was a plot device and not porn. But people who do like rape fiction aren't bad people, either. It's not real. Reading (and liking) chan or non-con doesn't mean you think it's okay in real life, or that you de-value human life, women, children, America, or apple pie. If you like the fic where Harry fucks Hedwig until she explodes...okay. Not my thing, but whatever. If you like the Tea Series, for heaven's sake, it doesn't mean you think that a teacher should sleep with his underage pupil.

Honestly, I'm more offended by the poor writing than anything else.

I get email from several conservative organizations, because a) I like to keep an eye on the enemy and b) it's fun. ( This gem came to me curtesy of Townhall.com )

Yet these people are militantly pro-life. What the fuckity fuck.

I'm not going to discuss the faulty history, but I will say this: I guess it comes down to a simple question. How much is your life worth? 1,000 people? 10,000 people? 100,000? 1,000,000? How many people do you think it's okay for us to maim, torture, abuse, and kill for YOU to feel safe? And why is the life of an adult human being with emotions, thoughts, family, and physical feelings worth less than a collection of cells that can't feel or think? It's okay to destroy adults to feel safe, but it's not okay for a teenage girl to terminate a pregnancy that might ruin her life?

The hypocrisy makes me cry.

EDIT: After re-reading, I realized I shouldn't use "conservatives" intergchangedly with "batshit insane". Sorry, all.

You see, the problem with spouting off b.s. all the time is that you lose perspective on what's okay to say in a public forum and what's not. And now Dobson's inability to filter his speech has come back to bite him in the ass.

New York Times article on the subject.

Quote from the article: On his radio program last Wednesday, Mr. Dobson said, "When you know some of the things that I know - that I probably shouldn't know - you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice." He added, in a reference to aborted fetuses, "if I have made a mistake here, I will never forget the blood of those babies that will die will be on my hands to some degree."

Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the White House, said Sunday that Mr. Rove did not provide Mr. Dobson "any insight into how Ms. Miers may rule on any particular case." But the attention to the private reasons for Mr. Dobson's endorsement underscores the delicate problem the White House faces in trying to quell conservative dissatisfaction with Ms. Miers without arousing the ire of liberals or, for that matter, the handful of Senate Republicans like Mr. Specter who support abortion rights.

Dobson's reaction

We have to wait until tomorrow to find out how Dobson will spin this. I'm sure MediaMatters.org will cover it, but I'll listen if I can.

For a completely unrelated story, though it illustrates the amount of ignorant hate the man spews on a daily basis, go here.

( EDIT: Dobson's remarks under the cut. )

x-posted to dobson_survivor

I would love to be shocked by this. But I knew it was coming. I don't know how he's able to go out and smirk like that with all the slime dripping off him. But hey, some good has come from it. Mom says she's now "embarrassed to have voted for him." Cool.

I've always thought of myself as a political lesbian. I donate to causes, I write my congresspeople, etc.

And then I read this and I realized I'm not near as active as I should be. Because if this passes in '06, I will be fucked. I love California and I don't want to leave. I've heard people say that if you don't like the laws, move to Mass., and this was just over the gay marriage thing. But I've lived in CA my whole life! I can't think of anywhere in the world I'd rather be than San Francisco. And now I feel like I'm being pushed out of my home.

I did something I've never done before, something I promised I would never do. I told my family and friends that if they voted for this, I would no longer associate with them. Because I'm sorry, this is a law of hate. It is. It is saying, "You are not worthy of loving, you are not worthy of protection, you are less than. We dont' want you here." And I begged, literally begged, them to get the word out, to tell people that this is a horrible, horrible amendment. Remember, my parents are both very conservative (a police officer and pastor, respectively), and come in contact with the sort of people who will vote for this.

Both mom and dad assure me that this will never pass. I want to believe that, I do, but I'm still scared to death. And mad as hell.

You Are a Liberal for Life

You've got a bleeding heart - and you're proud of it. For you, liberal means being compassionate, pro-government, and anti-business. You believe in equality for every person, and you consider yourself universally empathetic. Helping others is not just political for you ... it's very personal too.

*GASP* How does it know???

So the election is over. I don't think I ever realized how out of touch I am with the rest of America. Living in a liberal area (San Francisco) hanging out online with fen who are, for the most part, very liberal...I was under a terribly mistaken impression that Kerry was sure to win.

Yet the republicans have certainly taken over. Another four years of hell. It's not healthy, really, to have one party control all of the government.

And all the anti-gay legislation that passed? WTF? It's legitimized hate. Why do people care? Why must you legislate your own morality for someone else? WHO THE FUCK DIED AND MADE YOU GOD???

::rips hair out::

I'm going to go read gay smut, now. Fuck you, President Bush.