Gaffe Update

Now that the campaign season is at its end, it's the last opportunity for each candidate to unleash attacks on his opponent. McCain's attack was an attempt to build on Obama's connections to despised men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. This time, the McCain campaign is shifting its focus to an alleged connection between Obama and Rashid Khalidi. So, who is Rashid Khalidi? Khalidi is a modern Arab studies professor at Columbia who has been accused of having connections to the PLO. The allegation relating to Obama is that McCain is accusing the L.A. Times of withholding a videotape of Obama speaking at a banquet for Khalidi. Such a tape, McCain hopes, would suggest that Obama is either anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, or related to a terrorist organization. But there's a huge flaw in the plan: McCain has done more for Khalidi than Obama has done. As it turns out, in the late 90's, the International Republican Institute, a group chaired by McCain, gave thousands of dollars in donations to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, a group founded by Khalidi. I guess campaigning is easier when you don't let pesky little things like facts and reality get in the way.

If you would like to see the tax form proving that McCain's organization made this donation, a copy is available here.

A spokesman for McCain appeared on CNN to defend the Republican candidate's actions, but he ended up getting pwned by Rick Sanchez. Here's the clip. (It gets funny at about 5 minutes in.)

Sarah Palin made her gaffe earlier today. While giving a speech in Pennsylvania, she said, "...And I am thrilled to be here in the home state of the world champion Philadelphia Phillies." I'll admit that this doesn't look like a gaffe upon first glance. After all, the Phillies just won the World Series. It's not like she mistakenly said that the Tampa Bay Rays won. However, she did make a mistake that caused the audience to boo her following her comment, specifically that she said it in Erie, Pennsylvania, a city located in western Pennsylvania. Unbeknownst to Palin, the region with the most Phillies fans is eastern Pennsylvania. In the western part of the state, more people are fans of the Pittsburgh Pirates. And in some areas, the team of choice is the Cleveland Indians. Not only that, but Erie itself is home to the Erie Seawolves, a minor league affiliate of the Detroit Tigers. With this in mind, mentioning how proud she was of a rival team was not a great idea. I know that this won't affect the election, but that doesn't mean that Palin knew what she was talking about. Read More......

Sarah and the Clinic Bombers

(Sounds like a band name.)

Quick hit: Sarah Palin refuses to characterize abortion clinic bombers as terrorists in an interview.

This is the same sort of thing that I talked about at the end of my post on the "pro-America" meme. The obvious response would be "yes, of course they're terrorists." But the bombers are her base. They, and people who support clinic bombing, are actually an important enough part of her safe constituency that she can't repudiate terrorism against doctors and women.

(There is, of course, the alternative that she actually doesn't think they're terrorists. That says enough on its own.)

Via Feministe.

(Another quick hit: Two white supremacists planned an assassination attempt on Barack Obama (+87 others) the other day. Unsurprisingly, they're not getting labeled terrorists either, because we know someone's only a terrorist when they're not white or when they're liberal.)

Unrelated: John McCain called Barack Obama "Barack the Redistributor." There is also now a "Tito the Builder." This has caught on a little too much. Read More......

Pre-Election Predictions

As we enter the final week of the presidential race, I think it would be cromulent to produce a compendium of my weltenschauung as it fits into the pre-election zeitgeist.

On second thought, I'll admit that I don't intend to do anything that serious or even that well-worded. Really, I just want to reveal my predictions and save them in a format that would allow me to access them later and rub it in other people's faces if any of them come true.

Here's what I predict:

1. Barack Obama will win the election. At this point, that's not a very bold assertion since he's so far ahead in the polls. Even if McCain were to win all of the toss-up states, Obama could still be the victor. Even more startling for the McCain campaign, Obama currently has more support in the polls in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Based on current data, Obama should win 338-200. (I gave Missouri, North Dakota, and North Carolina to McCain in this prediction, but the candidates are essentially deadlocked in those states.)

2. The Bradley Effect will not have a noticeable impact. Although there are plenty of people who won't vote for Obama because of his race, there are plenty of racists who are open about their choice not to vote for Obama. Furthermore, chances are that many racists wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway for non-racial reasons. However, the biggest counter to the Bradley Effect is that Obama will garner plenty of support purely because he is black. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who want to see a black man in the White House and that having a black candidate will increase voter turnout within the black community, a group that has historically been very supportive of the Democratic Party.

3. The Democrats will take control of the house, the senate, and the presidency, an arrangement that will come back to bite them in the ass. In 8 years, Republicans will be dominant. Iraq will be a mess (regardless of whether or not we withdraw). As for the economy, that will recover in a few years. (The business cycle, as you could probably guess, is cyclical.) But neither of these problems will be in great shape by the next congressional election, so within 2 years, the Democrat's edge will be reduced. Democrats may take credit for economic recovery, but people will forget soon. Besides, people always find new ways to get dissatisfied with the government. With only one party in charge, all the blame will be focused on single party, leading to a shift in power favoring the Republicans, temporarily allowing them to dominate the government.

4. Sarah Palin will not be able to increase her political power by becoming the vice president. As a result, she will not become more influential in her attempts to produce anti-environmental legislation. Animals will rejoice:

Read More......

Don't Hate, Appreciate

A preface to Brian, and any other male (or female) readers that might find this a bit uncomfortable: in this post I'm going to talk about vaginas.

Cosmetic surgeries such as "labioplasties" (which reduce the labia) are becoming increasingly popular among women today. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, performances of such procedures have risen from about 800 in 2005 to about 1,000 in 2007, thanks to advertisements in beloved media such as New York magazine that promise “sexual satisfaction, cosmetic appearance, and self-esteem.”

But whose "sexual satisfaction" is being promised here exactly?

For those who need a translation, "reduce the labia" actually means "hack off the inner labia so they don't 'hang below' the outer labia." Ummmmmmm, OW. Aside from the initial pain, safetiness and effectiveness of these procedures have not been documented. Doctors believe that side effects may include infection, scarring and sexual pain. And if you're lucky enough to skip the infection, scarring, or sexual pain, you will still find a lessening of all sexual pleasure. Despite what the ad in New York magazine assures, the inner labia are highly sexually sensitive, and removing them reduces a woman's sexual sensitivity, and this definitely does not contribute to "sexual satisfaction" - well, at least not for the woman undergoing the operation.

Many will say that the porn industry funds the labioplasty industry. The reasoning is simple enough and rational: Porn stars are fake everywhere, including down under, but they constitute the unattainable physical ideal that women strive to attain. However, I do not believe that women who choose to go through with something as drastic as a labioplasty do so just for a "prettier" or "designer" vagina (a bikini wax, maybe). The promise of a "cosmetic appearance" doesn't seem to be the clincher here. The motivation must be more urgent, the desire must be deeper.

In the UK, labioplasty performances have increased by 300% in the last 5 years, and are gaining so much attention that British TV personality Lisa Rogers decided to make a documentary about the hype, entitled "The Perfect Vagina." In the film, Rogers asks two male builders working on her house for their opinions on labioplasties. In their responses, they referred to vaginas as "squashed hedgehogs" and "beef curtains." One of them even said "If she’s got an ugly fanny, then sorry mate.”

This interaction begins to shed some light on the real issue at hand: society at large hates the female anatomy, especially the vagina, and as long as this continues, so will women hate themselves. Women subconsciously begin to loathe their bodies as others show them daily hate. Evidence of this can be found everywhere, from People magazine's reassurance that even though Eva Longoria rose from a size 00 to a 0, she isn't pregnant, "just fat", to Soujin's earlier post on beauty, to statistics proving that most self-harmers are female or that most abused women feel they "deserve it". Slang is perhaps most directly harmful, as females will hear words that reduce their bodies to nothingness on a casual, frequent basis. In a world where "pussy" refers to a vagina or a cowardly person, in a world that has undergone a recent "cunt" renaissance - an insult that literally refers to the vagina as a landfill for semen - how can a woman go on loving her body, especially her most feminine part? The "sexual satisfaction" promised in the ad is mental satisfaction, "self esteem", that a woman will feel knowing she has satisfied her sexual partner with her vagina's "cosmetic appearance", despite the fact that she is in physical pain. Female sexuality and sexual pleasure is so despised in our society that a woman will pay hundreds of dollars for genital mutilation that will sanitize her sexual experience, in order to fulfill a man's desires, because she believes she should. That's how much she hates herself.

To anyone who has ever scoffed at the idea that the increase in plastic surgery is a sure sign that women deeply, and seemingly, innately, loathe their bodies, claiming that botox and breast implants/reduction surgeries are harmless and superficial, or that women tend to be more depressed than men due to hormones, this is the ultimate rebuttal. Read More......

"Pro-America"

A little timeline.

16 October: Sarah Palin states, at a rally in North Carolina, that she likes to visit "pro-America" parts of the country, apparently forgetting that blue states are also part of America. (And that her husband is a member of a secessionist party, but let us overlook that for now.)
(Mini-rant: Shut up, you! Dissent is the oldest American tradition!)

17 October: Joe Biden responds. (The Obama campaign also asks, in an e-mail to the press, what parts of America are not pro-America.)

18 October: Chris Matthews is on Hardball with Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN). They talk about Barack Obama and other Democrats with respect to Ms. Palin's comments of the other day. To quote Crooks and Liars, he "[gives her] all the rope she [wants] and [lets] her hang herself with it." It's wonderful, if watching someone make a fool of herself by displaying all her ignorance and hate can be considered wonderful.

"I would say, what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look -- I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think the people would love to see an expose like that."

Why hello, Joe McCarthy! How's the alcoholism?

Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), after reminding his crowd of the importance of "[making] sure we don't say something stupid, [making] sure we don't say something we don't mean," nevertheless affirms that "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God." Guess he means it.

20 October: Ms. Bachmann denies that she called liberals anti-American, evidently forgetting that there's this thing called a video camera. No, it's not just for making porn. It will prove that she did, in fact, go off on a McCarthy fantasy. (Meanwhile, there's a petition asking Congress to censure her, and her opponent has received almost a hundred thousand dollars in donations.)

21 October: Ms. Palin apologizes. Sort of. It's that kind of apology where the person's really saying "It's not my fault for saying something dumb, it's your fault for misunderstanding." Which is rude to begin with, but it's just stupid when you're implying that saying small towns in red states were the "pro-America" ones was misunderstood. (Note that she did make a retraction of sorts earlier, terribly ungrammatical as is her fashion, and said that all parts of the country are pro-America.)

Mr. Hayes, after his campaign unsuccessfully tries to totally deny it although there are audio recordings, explains that he just doesn't remember saying that liberals hate America, and that if he did, it came out the wrong way. (And here I thought people on alcohol blackouts weren't nearly that coherent.)

Ms. Bachmann now says that Mr. Matthews tricked her into saying the things she said, and continues to deny that she called for media investigation into un-American activities. Putting aside the fact that she's all over Youtube saying that, if she's tricked so easily into saying dumb things, should she really be in Congress?

(The answer is no. Of course. But not because she's easily tricked.)

23 October (edit): Gail Collins has an op-ed on this exact thing in today's NYT. I'm reading Gail Collins's mind! This is so exciting.

On the other hand, Ms. Bachmann went on the Hugh Hewitt radio show yesterday and called Mr. Obama's views anti-American again! And the fundraising letter she sent out to try to compete with her opponent continues to deny that she called liberals anti-American or asked for a witch hunt. This would be funny if it weren't at the same time so utterly pathetic and so worrying.

The bizarre part, actually, is why they keep denying it.

More and more, we're seeing from the Republican side this identification of the country with the party. (Yeah, "Country First" makes slightly more sense if you imagine that America = Republican Party.) There's no concept of a loyal opposition for these people.

Not only that, we're seeing a severe narrowing of the definition of what is Republican and thus what is American. Look at the conservative reactions to Colin Powell's endorsement of Mr. Obama the other day. He was never a real Republican anyway, he did it because they're both black. On its own, this doesn't necessarily imply "real Republicans aren't black," but with the other instances of racism we've seen from local Republican parties, individual Republican congresspersons, and the mob at McCain/Palin rallies, it's hard not to extrapolate.

In the final presidential debate, "Joe the Plumber" came up a lot. When we hear "Joe the Plumber," we are meant to think of a white, Christian, straight, small-town, conservative male - the ideal Republican and the idealized American. (Blue-collar, too, which he isn't and certainly won't be if he buys that business.) Certainly not any of the types listed in this piece, which I recommend highly.

The narrowing I discussed above is not an effort from the top of the party. Rather, with more and more people going over to the Democrats because the economy is just that sunk, the only demographics left to the Republican Party are the evangelical right, who'd never vote for a Democrat but could stay home on election day, and the racist right, who'd never vote for Barack Obama. And they are a scary lot. (They frequently overlap, of course; see "Obama is a Muslim!") If the Republicans are to survive the next decade or two as a viable party, I've got a feeling it's going to have to be without these groups, because people with that much of a religious agenda work against their own interests in the service of that agenda. People like this woman.

Later in the debate, in the question about the attack campaign, Mr. McCain said, after an unspecific, offhand repudiation of the "fringe peoples" at his ticket's rallies:

"Let me just say categorically I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies...I'm not going to stand for people saying that the people that come to my rallies are anything but the most dedicated, patriotic men and women that are in this nation and they're great citizens. And I'm not going to stand for somebody saying that because someone yelled something at a rally..."

How pathetic is this? Anyone would think the smart thing to do would be to say "yes, it was very wrong of our supporters to shout 'kill him!' and 'Waterboard Barack Obama' and we do not support that in any way." Not to attack Mr. Obama for implying that the people screaming for his head might be anything other than good, patriotic Americans. But he's that desperate. People like Ms. Palin, Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Hayes, and the woman in the video are his base now, and he can't afford to lose them. Read More......

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should" - John the Politician

In his weekly radio address, John McCain asserted that Obama "...believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe [the Plumber], in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism." Really? This is misleading and ridiculous for several reasons:
1. Joe the Plumber never said that. John McCain the Politician said that.
2. There is nothing in Obama's tax plan that is extreme.
3. The president has very little control over economics, so it doesn't matter anyway.

I have seen the video of Joe talking to Obama. Joe said that he wanted to buy a business worth over $250,000. However, Obama only wants to lower taxes for people making below $250,000. Joe said that he didn't like paying more as a result of being financially succesful and Obama replied, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." (This is the quote used in McCain's ad "Joe the Plumber.") That was the closest either of the men got to bringing up socialism, a word which never was used by Joe or Barack. But is this really a socialist idea? If it is, then America is already socialist. After all, taxes pay for government services that affect all citizens. And these services are basically equal for everyone. When the government builds roads, the street will be just as bumpy for me as it will when Bill Gates drives over it. If my house catches on fire, the fire department will do the same thing it would do for Warren Buffet: put out the fire. My point is that taxing rich people more than poor people is not a radical plan for redistributing wealth. Rather, it is a policy currently used by the government to provide equal services and opportunities to people. Besides, it's not like if McCain is elected he's going to make the tax rate equal for everybody, which would eliminate spreading wealth to people who need it the most. This "spreading of wealth" is here to stay, regardless of who the next president is.

Another issue with McCain's claim of socialism is that socialism involves government taking over businesses or highly regulating them. This tactic is used in America today. (America has a mixed economy, not a pure capitalist one.) For instance, post offices, fire departments, police, etc. are government-owned. Not only that, but what about the government's recent $700 billion dollar bailout and takeover of failing banks? Surely Bush's actions were at least as socialist as Obama's plans. Nothing Obama has proposed is even remotely as socialist as that.

Another important aspect of the economy is that the president has little control over it. Economic policy has two parts: monetary and fiscal policy. Monetary policy is completely controlled by the Federal Reserve (aka The Fed) and deals with money supply and interest rates. The Fed is independent of political groups and its leadership will not change based on the president. The other part is fiscal policy, which consists of more familiar stuff, like tax rates and spending. This is controlled mainly by congress, though the president can veto policies. However, the president cannot get his own views into the bill without congressional support. This idea is stated explicitly in Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." In other words, the House of Representatives has the power when it comes to fiscal policy. (Section 7 discusses specific fiscal policies in more detail, but the gist of it is that the House of Representatives is the most influential force regarding fiscal policy.)

So what can the president do to influence the economy? All he can do is ensure consumer confidence and encourage investment. (It sounds silly, but the stock market fluctuates completely based on how people feel about the economy, not necessarily actual data.) And how does the president make people feel confident? By reassuring them with speeches. Now ask yourself, who's the more eloquent speaker, Obama or McCain? Read More......

Senator Government is a Classy Guy

All right, so we know that the third debate was pretty much the first two rehashed. With two notable exceptions: the personal attacks discussion and the Roe discussion. I don't have much to say. We knew that Mr. McCain would have to bring up Bill Ayers after Mr. Obama dared him (though the moderator pre-empted that), but that discussion trailed off. I think Mr. McCain crossed the line with "class warfare," the repeated use of "pro-abortion" and the finger quotes around "health" (what a novel concept!) But what do I know, I'm a liberal elite. (I'm glad Mr. Obama hit him on "Nobody is pro-abortion.") Though the "I am not President Bush," I admit, was good.

But. But.

In the second abortion-related question, on appointing judges with a litmus test -

McCain (paraphrased): I totally wouldn't have a litmus test. Except I wouldn't appoint anyone who supports Roe or abortion rights, and that's not a litmus test because it's about strict interpretation, which is totally not an ideology at all.

Obama:

Now, I would not provide a litmus test, but I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided...

...this is going to be an important issue. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-word -- -world folks are going through.

I'll just give you one quick example. Senator McCain and I disagreed recently when the Supreme Court made it more difficult for a woman named Lilly Ledbetter to press her claim for pay discrimination. For years she had been getting paid less than a man had been paid for doing the exact same job. And when she brought a suit saying, "Equal pay for equal work," the judges said, "Well, you know, it's taken you too long to bring this lawsuit," even though she didn't know about it until fairly recently. We tried to overturn it in the Senate. I supported that effort to provide better guidance to the courts. John McCain opposed it.

I think that it's important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the -- the court has to stand up if nobody else will, and that's the kind of judge that I want.

Man, that's elegant.

Full transcript here. Read More......

How a Single Moose Could Influence the Election

When I volunteered to write for this blog, there were a lot of things I expected to write about and moose were certainly not part of this anticipated group of topics. But politics can be quite strange sometimes, particuarly with Palin's administration and its involvement in Troopergate. In case you haven't heard, on Friday, an official investigation found that Palin did, in fact, violate ethical codes of conduct in this scandal.

If you aren't familiar with Troopergate and how a moose got involved in a tangled web of lies and deceipt, here's what happened: Sarah Palin's sister married state trooper Mike Wooten and the two eventually got divorced. The divorce was incredibly bitter and Palin's sister was given a court order of protection against Wooten. Time passed, and within the first year of her administration, Palin took action to get Wooten fired. An investigation was opened regarding Wooten's behavior. Among his transgressions was killing a moose while hunting with his wife despite the fact that he didn't have a hunting permit. (His wife had one.) An investigation found that the violations were minor, resulting in a suspension of several days. Governor Palin wasn't satisfied by such a light punishment. She contacted Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan and told him to meet with "the first gentleman" a.k.a. Todd Palin. (He has no political power, so this is suspicious in and of itself.) The gist of this and other meetings was that Governor Palin wanted another investigation and would put Monegan's job on the line until she got what she wanted, but Monegan could not comply unless new evidence regarding Wooten was obtained. When no evidence surfaced, Wooten remained a state trooper. Palin was pissed off and fired Monegan.

The ruling of the mostly-Republican legislative commission was that Palin's firing of Monegan was influenced by Monegan's inability to help her get revenge on Wooten, so she violated the state's ethical code of conduct. However, since the Public Safety Commissioner serves at the pleasure of the governor, she can legally fire holders of this post for whatever reason she wants, so she will not face fines or jail time. To repeat this concisely: Palin was acquitted of legal violations, but not ethical ones. When asked to comment on the ruling, Palin responded, "Well, I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing... any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that." Let me repeat the finding again: Palin was found guilty of ethics violations. Despite this, she still had the nerve to deny the verdict was ever made against her. This leads to an obvious question: Is this woman delusional, ill-informed of things she should know, or just a plain ol' liar? She has every right to deny that she committed any wrongdoing. (If O.J. could stay in denial for so long, surely she could too.) But to deny facts that aren't subject to an individual's interpretation is just ridiculous.

What has yet to be seen is whether this will have an impact on the polls. This news could only help Obama, who has been widening his lead as of late, because it further demonstrates the incompetance of the woman who could be a 72 year-old's heartbeat away from the highest office in the land. Unfortunately for the Obama campaign, the effects may be diminished since this scandal most directly affects the people of Alaksa. Alaskans are obviously more fond than most of Palin because she is their representative as governor. Not only that, but since 1960, when the state voted in the general election for the first time, it has supported the Democratic candidate just once, and that was in 1964, when LBJ dominated the electoral map against Barry Goldwater. Furthermore, the solidly-red state of Alaska has only 3 electoral votes. All of this means that the only way Obama could benefit from this scandal would be if voters in swing states are swayed by this story of abuse of power involving the governor's family, a government official, a state trooper, and an unlucky moose.


Osama, not Obama, Running for Election in One County
Here's just a quick update on another story: In Rensselear County, New York, ballots were printed with the name "Barack Osama" as the Democratic candidate. This comes even after the ballot, like all others in the country, was reviewed by members of each party. Neither candidate has suggested that this was intentional, but it still seems very suspicious, particularly since S and B are nowehere near each other on a keyboard. Ovama, Ogama, or even Onama would've been fine, but Osama is a little is tougher to swallow. County representatives have begun to send out replacement ballots, but some of the damage may have already been done. And to make matters even worse, crossing out or otherwise altering a name on the ballot nullifies one's vote, so even Obama-supporters that are undeterred by the typo may still inadvertantly disenfranchise themselves. Read More......

Stormy Weather Ahead For McCain Campaign

Over the past few weeks, McCain has started to fall significantly behind Obama in the polls. When a politician is behind, it is never a surprise to him/her respond by producing ads that are increasingly vicious. This phenomenon is not unique to the current presidential race, but there is one aspect of it that makes McCain's ads especially despicable: He's not just twisting his opponents words; he's flat-out lying.

In the McCain-Palin Campaign's ad entitled "Ambition", a narrator says of Obama: "When convenient, he worked with terrorist Bill Ayers. When discovered, he lied." Although it is true that Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist group, in the past and later worked with Obama on some non-radical community projects, Obama has never lied about the Bill Ayers situation. Rather, he has openly revealed that he has, in fact, worked on multiple projects with Ayers. One can be dissapointed by this association, but the fact is that McCain lied about Obama lying.

In a second ad, "Ayers", a narrator asserts that "Ayers and Obama ran a radical 'education' foundation, together." Radical? The Republican governor of Illinois openly supported the efforts of Ayers and Obama. And according to Education Week, the program reflected "mainstream thinking" regarding reform for schools. Furthermore, a member of the board of the organization in question is reported to have donated $1,500 to McCain's Campaign. Clearly, Obama and Ayers were not working together on anything except attempting to improve education. And by approving the ad, McCain is responsible for the ad's slanderous content.

Misleading attack ads that misinterpret an oppponent's words are nothing new and they are utilized by candidates from both parties, but outright lies are a whole different story. Besides, McCain has been associated with some despicable characters of his own (Charles Keating, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.) Maybe the Republicans should "pal around" with some fact-checkers. Read More......

On the Subject of Depression...

I am a woman with depression.

Here are some things you should know.

If I tell you I have depression, please don't try to fix me. I have had depression for five years. Believe that in those five years I have probably tried every suggestion you can make. Trying to fix me will make me feel guilty and resentful and you feel frustrated and resentful when I don't get better the way you think I should.

What you can do: reassure me that you don't think less of me as a person because of my depression. Tell me you love me (if that is appropriate). Hug me--I love hugs. Sympathise.

What I have is a disease, like cancer, or pneumonia. A woman with cancer is not a bad person because of that disease. She hasn't asked for it. She doesn't want it. These things sound self-explanatory, but the number of people who assume that I choose to be depressed is staggering. It's not a choice. Moreover, if you had cancer, I wouldn't try to fix you; I would know that was something a doctor had to do. It's the same with my depression. It doesn't matter if you've read self-help books or have heard what Oprah has to say about depression. You're my friend, but you're not my doctor. You can't be a doctor for me.

Another, maybe better comparison I can make is with a disability. I may have depression my whole life. In that regard you can think of it like an amputated limb. I will never get back to the way I was before I had depression; an amputee will never have his or her real arm or leg back. In both cases we will find some way to continue with our lives--the amputee will get a prosthesis, and I will take anti-depressants. That doesn't mean that we won't both have days when we feel frustrated, incomplete, unhappy, or unable to cope with that has happened to us. When that happens, just listen. That in itself can make a huge difference.

Understand that I may have triggers. If I tell you what they are, that may mean I really trust you. Please respect that information (and trust!) by not sharing it, and by remembering it. If I tell you something is a trigger, don't bring it up.

There may be times when my functioning is very low. Please don't get angry with me when that happens, or when I practise self-destructive behaviours. Just be patient until I can cope again.

If I'm having a bad day, don't assume that I haven't taken my medication. Meds are not the answer to everything, and even when taking them regularly I will have bad days. On the other hand, if you find out that I have stopped taking my meds, do encourage me to take them or tell an authority who will make me take them. Going off my meds can have physical as well as psychological effects for me.

If, God forbid, you suspect any of the following, contact someone for me: that my therapist/psychiatrist/doctor is abusing me/causing me more harm than good; that I am self-injuring; that I have been low-functioning for more than five days; that I may kill myself. I, personally, am not coping with any of these things any more, but I have dealt with all of them in the past.

On the subject of low-functioning, I am not functioning well if I am engaging in one or more of the following: avoiding people (cancelling dates with my friends, refusing to talk to people); complaing of not feeling well a lot of the time (my head hurts, my limbs ache, I am feeling sick to my stomach) with no noticeable cause; having trouble concentrating all the time, especially on important things; sleeping all the time or not at all; appearing dazed or out of it a lot; skipping meals or overeating noticeably; or crying a lot for no reason or disproportionate reasons, or because of perceived reasons that aren't apparent to anyone else (someone hates me, people are saying things about me, my friends don't actually like me).

Finally, remember that depression does not magically go away. I do have good days; in fact, I frequently have great days. I can feel fine for long periods at a time. I can be a successful mother, student, employee, or business-person. When I exhibit depression again, don't act surprised: don't tell me you thought I was well and you don't understand why I'm sick again. Don't become frustrated or angry with me. Never ask me why I don't decide to be well. Once again, depression is not a choice. If it were a choice, I would never have gotten it.

I'm not just like everyone else, but I have a lot of the same wants and needs as anyone else. I'm a woman. I'm a person. That's the most important thing you can remember. Read More......

Connecticut legalizes same-sex marriage!

Quick hit: The Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the legislature's ban on same-sex marriage.

Justice Richard N. Palmer, majority opinion: "Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice...To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

There will be no appeal, and the legislature is expected to pass a law confirming the decision.

Best wishes to all CT same-sex couples who can now marry!

Via Feministe. Read More......

Societal Standards and Female Beauty

or, One of the Few Things That Can Make Soujin Lose Her Temper. Rant from 22/9, reposted from Livejournal.

---

I am angry. I am really goddamn angry.

Because we live in a world that gets up every morning and says to women, "We've created a standard of beauty. If you don't conform to this standard of beauty, we will make you feel valueless and unlovable. And we will do it at the same time we assure you that it is the cultural norm to feel that you don't conform to this standard of beauty no matter what you do to achieve it." We live in a world that cheerfully fucks you up and tells you it's normal and acceptable.

We do not try to make women feel beautiful. We make them feel insufficient. Women are conditioned to need male validation of their beauty, because the women around you just tell you that you look fine out of "loyalty". And it's wrong to weigh anything, and if you don't, you still need to be thinner. And it doesn't matter how thin you are, you still need to dress right. And if you leave the house without makeup, that's obscene. Not dressing your hair is slovenly. Shave your legs. Pluck your eyebrows. If you don't have large breasts, you're not desirable, but if your breasts are too large, that's also unacceptable.

Maybe most women do not have actual clinical eating disorders, but God knows most of them have the eating disorder mentality. We think with eating disordered brains, because this society encourages that. Does anyone else read the comic strip Cathy? It is designed by this society. It is a perfect example of every single thing wrong with our collective mentality towards female beauty, because it basically validates that mentality as a "normal" one.

And that is just not acceptable. That is not acceptable.

Insurance companies will not pay for inpatient eating disorder treatment unless the woman is physically malnourished. I met a girl to-day who told me that when she went to see a therapist for self-esteem issues, the therapist told her she wouldn't have them if she just lost some weight. I met a girl across campus who was telling me how upset she was because she "broke a hundred". Pounds. This girl is a college student. One of my friends describes herself as "the whale girl". She is only a little bigger than I am. Her roommate, who is otherwise a perfectly nice person, believes that this girl could look better if she just "ate less junk". We don't even support each other to believe in our beauty as women. We don't look for current beauty, we insist that beauty is something we must achieve.

And that is a lie. It is a lie. We are beautiful here and now, in and of ourselves. We are beautiful as the people we are. There is nothing to be achieved. There is absolutely nothing to be attained. Our societal standard is shite, and no one can make me believe that's not true.

And at the same time, no one can make me believe that I'm beautiful. I've been working on this for five years, and I still can't force my brain to believe in myself as a worthy, lovable human being at my current weight. That is insane. That is, I'm sorry, evil, and I believe that it's evil because I know I am years away from being the only woman who feels this way. We have been being told this by the world for so long that it's ingrained, and we can't just make it go away. I can tell women as a whole that they are all beautiful, and not many of them are going to believe me, not truly.

We are so insanely beautiful. Teach that to your children. Tell it to the people around you. Make that the social standard. Beautiful, dammit. So beautiful. Weight loss should never be encouraged as a beauty measure, as a self-acceptance measure. Help all the women around you see themselves as beautiful people and accept themselves as they are. Don't make beauty a goal. Make the realisation of beauty the goal.

For God's sake. Because things are not okay the way they are.

Go and tell that. Read More......

Unborn Mutant Ninja Babies

Those readers who know me in real life are probably aware that I have horrendous cystic acne. I've had acne for the past five years or more, and in the past few it's gotten much worse and gone cystic, and I've been on all sorts of medications (topical and oral) to get rid of it, which haven't worked.

Today I went to a new dermatologist. He wished to prescribe me Accutane, which the doctor I used to go to doesn't prescribe. Now, I'd heard that Accutane is the best thing for acne, and while it mutates fetuses, that isn't likely to become a problem for me. I agreed.

As it turns out, Accutane is, according to the new doctor, "more highly regulated than morphine." I have to pass two pregnancy tests (one urine, one blood) before I can even begin treatment, sign all sorts of pledges (the program is called iPLEDGE - yes, I signed an abstinence pledge today) that I will either use two forms of birth control or remain abstinent until one month after the treatment is finished, let my doctor know right away if I have sex without using two forms of birth control, and - my least favorite bit - go in to the doctor's for a pregnancy test every month, that must come up negative before I will be allowed to receive my dosage for that month. Now I understand why the other dermatologist doesn't prescribe Accutane: because there's exponentially more paperwork and pain for it than for any other drug. There's actually a federal database in which the names of everyone taking Accutane are listed.

I understand that there are problems with women who buy the drug on the Internet or who get it from friends and who aren't aware of its fetus-mutating properties. But I do not think that the way to solve this problem is by regulating the lives of women who really just would like to stop it hurting when they touch their faces. Inform them of the risks of the drug? Yes. Make receiving the drug conditional on their having needles stuck in their arms, and on their taking a lot of time out of their schedules to visit the doctor, and on their paying huge amounts of money for all these extra appointments? No. It is unnecessary. It is invasive. Not to mention that the women who might misuse the drug because they are unaware of its risks are not the ones who are, in fact, affected by this policy.

But why does it matter? If a pregnant woman wishes to clear up her skin, knowing that she could hurt or kill her fetus, that should be her prerogative. After all, a woman cannot receive the drug even if she's only been pregnant for less than a week - well within the legal time frame for an abortion. And I do not think that a woman who is intending to have children and who is aware of the risks would take the drug in any case. Because women aren't stupid. I could understand a federally mandated program of informed consent for the distribution of Accutane, but I do not agree with a policy that denies medicine to women because they are pregnant. This goes beyond protecting women who are trying to have children - this is privileging embryos over women.

We talk about this when discussing "personhood" amendments that would redefine personhood to begin before birth: how they would not only outlaw abortion but would also make it more difficult for pregnant women or women of childbearing age to do little things like drink alcohol or coffee, or exercise, or go on planes. How women are already prosecuted for child abuse or something because they did drugs while pregnant. It's a scary thing to think about. Now, Accutane's only an acne medication, but what about cancer treatments? What if it were illegal for a woman to receive life-saving chemo or radiation because it could harm her fetus?

And I realized, when I was doing the test in the doctor's office - this is the first pregnancy test I'm taking, but it won't be the last. And I'm irrationally afraid that one day it might come up positive, because it scares me to think that there could be something growing inside me. Mutant or not. I don't want to be afraid of my own body.



(Unrelated: I know this has been all over the blogs already, but I thought I'd post since there are probably people who haven't heard.

One week ago yesterday, two unknown attackers sprayed a "chemical irritant" into the nursery room of a mosque in Dayton, OH, where small children and babies were being kept while their parents prayed during a Ramadan service; a ten-year-old girl was sprayed directly in the face. This happens to be the week after DVDs of a film called "Obsession: Radical Islam's War with the West" were distributed around the area.

Why do the police say this was not a hate crime? Why is this not all over the news?

Via Pandagon, first.)



Oh, and regarding "iPLEDGE: Committed to Pregnancy Prevention": so why can't the government be this committed to pregnancy prevention when fetus-mutating drugs are not involved? Read More......

Palin's Impressively Mediocre Performance

As we all know, Sarah Palin has not been that successful on T.V. in the past. Prior to the VP debate earlier tonight, she seemed a little too reluctant to talk to the American people, considering her ambition to become the second most influential person in the lives of the American public. In fact, for a period of time, she did little more than give her VP nomination speech over and over again. This looked really bad for her simply because it failed to show what, if anything, Palin stood for or intended to do.

Next, she gave interviews to Sean Hannity (FOX News), Charlie Gibson (ABC), and Katie Couric (CBS), each more disastrous than the last. The interview with Hannity did not say much about Palin because, quite frankly, Hannity is as conservative of a pundit as they come. Screwing up that interview would have been nearly impossible for someone as far to the right as Palin.

Next came Charlie Gibson, a more professional newscaster, but still not one who drives fear into the hearts of those he talks to. During the interview, Gibson asked the simple question, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" Palin asked for a clarification of the straightforward question and responded simply by saying, "His world view." It became immediately clear to anyone who was watching that interview that Palin had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was.

So after such a disastrous interview, you wouldn't think that she would make another mistake so soon, would you? Well, Palin went back on T.V. for an interview with Katie Couric, during which she looked nervous and constantly had trouble putting words together coherently. During the interview, Couric asked her a question easier than the "tricky" Gibson question. She asked, "...what newspapers and magazines do you regularly read... to stay informed and to understand the world?" At this point, I have to ask, could there be any easier question? All she had to do was say something like "The Wall Street Journal" or "TIME" or anything else along those lines. Instead she gave the most generic answer imaginable: "I've read most of them again with a great appreciation for the media..." When asked again: "All of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years." This is just insane. This woman has consistently blasted the so-called liberal, elitist media for "gotcha journalism". If these are the types of questions that are too tough for Palin, is she really ready for any sort of position of power?

I know that I've had too long of a lead-up to my actual point, but it is important to realize that all of these blunders have shaped the way that Americans, such as myself, view Sarah Palin. After seeing all of these events, I was convinced that Palin had no poise and could not answer a simple question. However, things were completely different in the debate. Palin looked confident and poised. She spoke without stuttering and made as much sense as one would expect from a politician. And most surprisingly, she actually adressed some of the questions that were directly asked to her. But all of this turned out not to make much of a difference. She was simply outmatched. Biden had one of the best performances in a debate that I have ever seen. He too was poised (not that that was a surprise). But the biggest bonus for Biden came when he showed throughout the debate that he understands foreign policy. (I guess you learn more from being the head Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee than you do from living in the vicinity of Russia.) He also proved his knowledge of the government by citing specific actions taken by McCain on healthcare, the economy, and education to show that "He has not been a maverick..." Furthermore, Biden did a great job of connecting with the common man by bringing up the theme of what issues families discuss around the kitchen table and mentioning that he has been a single parent (and as far as I know, none of his kids have had children out of wedlock). Additionally, Palin did a little damage to herself by using the word "maverick" over and over again until it just became obvious that she was trying to mention the word as many times as she could. But I guess she follows the philosophy of Joseph Goebbels, the German Propaganda Minister in WWII, that "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

In short, everyone benefited from the debate. Palin proved that she isn't as unqualified as she originally appeared to be. However, Biden, whose qualifications were solid to begin with, improved his image with an incredible display of knowledge. And most of all, the viewers benefited because they were treated to an intelligent debate that was a hell of a lot more entertatining than last week's snooze-fest between Obama and McCain. Read More......

Pitbull vs. Pitbull

Brief reactions, in no particular order:

1. I think Mr. Biden really only got into it at about halfway through. Pity - he was starting to be good, and then he fell off again. There were a few places where I really wished he'd take her on - when she mentioned saying no to something before saying yes, for example. (That "Bridge to Nowhere" line was great, though.) And "raping the environment," though that might have been too attack-y.

2. And "With all due respect, I didn't hear a plan" !! And on Spain. And on "maverick," that was awesome.

3. I thought Ms. Palin looked terrified until I realized that the look in her eyes wasn't fear but fanaticism.

4. Oh my God, "nucular."
(Only some of the time. Must have practiced to sound more like Mr. Bush. Odd strategy.)

5. That question about climate change is going to be all over the conservablogs, because we all knew that Ms. Palin thinks that climate change is not caused by people, but she digressed on "innergy," so I think it was fair enough.

6. I don't think Mr. Biden meant to say "marriage" when listing necessary equal rights like visitation - I think it was a slip. (But oh...I'm glad he clarified the differences, but ouch.)

7. ...why bring up Mr. Obama's 95% with Democrats when everyone knows that Mr. McCain voted 90% with Mr. Bush? (And why, Ms. Palin, accuse Mr. Biden of talking about the Bush administration on a question that was was actually about the Bush administration?)

8. Likewise, don't talk about how your opponent has been in the Senate for forever when it's your principal who has a reputation for being really really old.

9. "John McCain has already tapped me." You betcha!

10. Politics! Professionalism! Please! No extra credit for you, Ms. Palin!

11. I like that Mr. Biden used specifics, like how we might have to cut foreign aid because of the crisis (a safe answer) and how he borked Bork. Though I'd have said Griswold instead of Roe, because even most anti-abortion independents think contraception is a good thing; there is the problem that it's not as famous. (Whereas Ms. Palin, when asked about differences between her and Mr. McCain, talked and talked about how they were a "team of mavericks" [error: does not compute] and how they have all these different opinions, but didn't actually provide any information.) Good call by Mr. Biden on the issue where he changed.

12. Does she sound more like Marge Gunderson than she used to? (Or actually, as Roger Ebert points out, more like Jerry Lundegaard.)

13. Ms. Palin has nooooooooo idea what the veep actually does in the Senate. Mr. Biden does. Pwnt.

14. Was that bit about budgets supposed to excuse the rape kits and teen mother support? Lame, Ms. Palin.

15. In conclusion, Sarah Palin uses intransitive verbs in inappropriate ways. "Proliferate" =/= transitive verb.

Here's a transcript. Read More......

Landmark Case Rock

What a surprise: one more for the list of areas in which Sarah Palin is absolutely useless. According to Politico, when asked about Supreme Court decisions, Palin was unable to name any decisions other than Roe v. Wade. (Note that the mistake was made in VP Questions, not in the Couric interview as reported.)

So...how many Supreme Court decisions can you name?

How about:

Marbury, Eisenstadt, Fletcher or Scott
Griswold or Bowers, Plessy or Brown
US v. Nixon, McCulloch or Gregg
New York Times, PP (Danforth/Casey)...

Korematsu or Miranda
Or Heller, Lawrence, Morse
Furman, Tinker, TX v. Johnson,
Daubert, Lochner, Mapp, Romer, Engel...

Gideon, Loving, Schenk, Charles River Bridge
Bush versus Gore, or Dartmouth - there's more--
Bakke-UC Davis - all except Roe--
Cases she don't knoooooooooow!

(Sing to the tune of "Jingle Bell Rock," if you didn't pick that up. A large number - the cases, not the arrangement - off the top of my head, with some refreshers from Pandagon commenters or Wikipedia.)

Via Pandagon. (beware spambots)

Edit: Video! And Biden proving himself competent, God love him.


(Unrelated, but it's one of my pet peeves that everyone thinks Mr. McCain is good on foreign policy. He thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border, doesn't know that Czechoslovakia is no longer a country, couldn't recognize the name of the president of Spain and assumed that "Zapatero" was a Latin American leader, doesn't know that Spain is an American ally, and conflated Karzai and Zardari as the president of "the Pakistanians." I propose an information campaign.) Read More......