Monday, September 29, 2008

Women at Tufts

The following article appeared in the Wall Street Journal; it was written by a Tufts graduate about her experiences as a student. Would some Tufts women please think about responding?


Lipstick Jungle
By ASHLEY SAMELSON
A few weeks ago, I helped my 18-year-old sister move into her freshman dorm at Hillsdale College in Michigan. I was anxious for her -- I worried that the female culture at her school would be similar to that at my own alma mater, Tufts University in Medford, Mass.

As a reserved evangelical from Colorado Springs, Colo., I was shocked by a lot of things at Tufts when I entered in the fall of 2003. What shocked me more than anything, however, was the way women treated other women. I regularly heard young women refer to each other using the most obscene and degrading insults. I observed females encouraging others to binge drink and then berating those who couldn't hold their liquor. At breakfast on the weekends, I often overheard young women discussing their shame after feeling pressured by their girlfriends to participate in a degrading activity, such as a lingerie-themed or "secretaries and bosses" party. One year, a sorority actually commanded its pledges to strip to their underwear and allow fraternity brothers to mark the physical flaws on their bodies with permanent ink.

Contrary to the feminist narrative about men being responsible for the oppression of women, nearly every instance of female misery I encountered at Tufts seemed to be instigated initially by another woman. My junior year, a controversial joke about rape was published in the student humor journal while a woman was editor in chief.

Such a hostile environment is not unique to Tufts. The Delta Zeta women at DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind., last year asked unattractive and unpopular sisters to leave the sorority. In her memoir, "Smashed: Story of a Drunken Girlhood" (2005), Koren Zailckas, a recent graduate of Syracuse University and a recovering alcoholic, sets a scene of young women at that upstate school not only encouraging one another to drink to the point of illness or blackout as a way to forge friendships but also competing with one another to be the most sexually adventurous.

Ms. Zailckas's bitter experiences and those of countless others should dispel the notion that binge drinking on college campuses -- which inarguably leaves women more vulnerable to sexual assault -- is spurred on solely by frat boys. Step onto just about any college campus on a Saturday night and you will see that women are just as much the culprits.

Ask Ariel Levy, a graduate of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., and the author of "Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture" (2005). She details the emergence of what she terms the "nouvelle raunch feminist," a woman who gleefully participates in group sex and attends hook-up parties. Such degradation, Ms. Levy argues, is something that young women are learning in school and are forcing on one another. She writes: "If Male Chauvinist Pigs were men who regarded women as pieces of meat, we would outdo them and be Female Chauvinist Pigs: women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves."

Meanwhile, college men are watching and taking notes. A male friend who attended the University of Michigan wrote to me in an email last month: "I, perhaps unconsciously, observe women to try and determine how they want to be treated. When I see girls at a party who seemingly have no self-control, I'll admit that it's really tough to visualize them as 'ladies.' It's as if they, solely through their own actions, have lowered my expectations, lowered my standards of behavior."

Upon arriving with my sister at Hillsdale, a school known for attracting conservative and religious students, I noticed a contrast immediately. I began chatting with a rising senior, and she and I quickly discovered an acquaintance in common. Referring to this woman, the Hillsdale student said: "She is such an amazing woman. I just have so much respect for her." I was speechless. I was simply not used to hearing college women speak about their peers with such esteem.

A walk around the Hillsdale freshman girls' dorm confirmed my suspicion that young women at the Michigan college had more respect for one another and lived in a happier and healthier environment than what I had experienced at Tufts. The posters on the walls in my all-female freshman dorm at Tufts offered information about eating disorders, what to do if you think you have been sexually assaulted, and suicide and depression hotlines. The Hillsdale walls that I saw were covered with advertisements for quilting clubs, charity opportunities and a listing of local churches.

My female friends who have gone to schools similar to Hillsdale fondly recall their campus culture. A friend who attended Wheaton College, an evangelical school just outside of Chicago, wrote to me that "there were times when my girlfriends and I banded together at the expense of guys. We knew that our real support came from one another." She still gets together with those friends for a support group in which they pray for one another and sustain each other through struggles.

At Patrick Henry College, a Purcellville, Va., school where traditional marriage and family roles are emphasized, the culture is similar. A graduate told me: "My wing of girls made a 'gossip pact' to refrain from slandering others and to encourage others to do the same. We're working hard to create a culture of honor that stands above the fray of cattiness and competition." The institutions of higher education that endorse the vision of "modern" feminism as the key to women's happiness -- namely, the sexually aggressive female -- could learn a lesson from these more conservative schools.

There are some who will say "girls will be girls," regardless of a school's culture. Two years ago, I might have agreed, however sadly. But college girls and the high-school students who will soon join them should know that there are alternatives.

Ms. Samelson is director of development at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Be Careful What you Wish For Because It Might Not Come True

With this election looming on the minds of many Americans, it is becoming more and more apparent that environmental policy is on the top of the list of hot issues to tackle. Both McCain and Obama have laid out ambitious energy plans to wean Americans off of our addiction to foreign oil as well as ideas of curbing the effects of global warming. However, are their plans really enough?

Although these energy initiatives seem fine and dandy, I want to remind you all that there is always an expectation gap between what is proposed and what actually happens. I don't mean to sound skeptical, and I do appreciate that McCain has finally acknowledged that global warming is an issue, despite the sentiments of the Republican party, but some how I can't shake the feeling that the policies and actions that are executed won't live up to what's been promised.

Regarding escalating carbon emissions, Obama has discussed his plan to reduce them by 80% by the year 2050 through enacting a cap and trade plan. McCain, on the other hand, proposes a market based system to fund the research of innovative technologies. And as for the issue of American dependency on foreign oil, Obama wants to raise gas mileage standard on new hybrid cars while McCain is advocating off-shore drilling in environmentally sensitive areas. Both these proposals briefly address the funding of innovative technologies but neither really delve into how the government is going to fund these research and development initiatives.

Before we completely trust all that is promised by either candidate we should ask these questions in order to understand and critique the nuts and bolts of their plans:
  • Will the proposed energy plans have the stamina to withstand the constant gnawing of the legislative/bureaucratic system?
  • How large is the expectation gap?
  • Who will benefit from it and who will be harmed both domestically and abroad?
  • What can we do to make sure our president fullfills his promises?
Let's keep in mind our civil responsibilities and try think of what we can do to help out with the right energy plan (one that does not involve building an imaginary pipeline).

Friday, September 26, 2008

Face the Nation

Given Republicans portray themselves as the party of strength and courage, it is time for them to walk the talk and answer questions from the press and the American people.

President Bush just delivered an address to the White House Press Corps. I walked across the room to get a pen, and by the time I returned to my seat the president was concluding. The last word was not out of his mouth before he spun quickly on his heel and practically sprinted back into the safety of the White House.

John McCain is threatening to not participate in tonight's debate if the bailout negotiations have not been settled. Sarah Palin poses for photographs with world leaders, and refuses to answer questions from the press. The Republican leadership has put on their invisible cloak.

In contrast, Senators Harry Reid and Chris Dodd just gave a joint press conference. They made statements, then took questions from the press. Barack Obama has filed his air travel papers, and stated he will be at Ole Miss tonight. Nancy Pelosi was on television yesterday discussing the economic summit at the White House.

Why won't the Republicans face the nation?

Regardless of one's perspective, it is crucial in a crisis like this for leaders to be both visible and accountable to the American people. Nothing stirs panic like an absence of leadership. Imagine if in a school the fire alarm sounded and the teachers sprinted to the principal's office for a "summit"; what would the students do?

If the Republican leadership would like to be taken seriously, they must be able to manage both bailout negotiations and press time. The electorate must be kept informed about the issues at stake.

If the American public is to have faith in Wall Street, the negotiations must be transparent and its stewards must be in constant contact with the people. The Republicans have gotten away with eight years of minimal presidential visibility, and set the tone for the current acceptance of leaders who operate behind closed doors.

John McCain and Sarah Palin have demonstrated in this campaign they subscribe to the same theory of privileged power, whereby they do what they want behind mahogany doors, and will let us know what's happening when they feel like it. But now the stakes are too high for this to continue. The press is reporting one of the sticking points in the bailout negotiations is capital-gains taxes; in the worst economic crisis in most of our lifetimes, the Republican party would like to make sure those who have profited from this crisis won't have to pay taxes on their gains. Is this ridiculousness true? It's hard to know, given they're not saying anything to the press.

The Republican party loves slogans. "Mission accomplished", "country first", "smoke 'em out", "cowboy up", and "united we stand" are some of their greatest hits. Here's a new one for them: grow a pair and answer some questions.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Sending girls to school benefits everyone!

Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter published a story this week arguing when a society educates its girls, the entire society reaps the rewards.

In "Education: Its Not Just About the Boys. Get Girls Into School", Alter cites research in the new book What Works in Girls' Education, showing when girls are educated they increase their support of their families; wait an average of five years longer to have children; and earn more money, which they share with their families at significantly higher rates than men, who tend to keep up to half for themselves.

Social problems on local, national, and international levels often evoke debate about what kind of aid is most useful. Need-based aid, like food aid in famines, is important as a response mechanism in emergencies, but does not create the structural change necessary to eliminate the factors which led to the crisis in the first place. Sustainable change occurs when systemic inequality is addressed; such as when girls are sent to school.

The United Nations' Millennium Development Goals list eight objectives for development and poverty alleviation. Goal three declares that member states should seek to "eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015".

Alter's article shows how investment in girls' education does not just benefit girls; it benefits all of society. Educated girls are not only equipped to raise themselves out of poverty, they are more likely to help raise their families and communities out of poverty as well. IFAD, the United Nations International Fund for Agricultural Development has found that women, in particular, benefit from micro-credit and micro-finance programs:

"Women's status, both in their homes and in their communities, is elevated when they are responsible for managing loans and savings. The ability to generate and control their own income can further empower poor women. Research shows that credit extended to women has a significant impact on their families' quality of life, especially their children. Poor women also tend to have the best credit ratings. In Bangladesh, for example, women have shown to default on loans far less often than men."

Investment in women and girls is an investment in society as a whole. Alter's article gives us the latest evidence women are our most powerful agents of positive change.

Monday, September 22, 2008

No More Downed Cattle Slaughter

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) recently did an undercover investigation at the Westland/Hallmark slaughter plant in which they found that cows too sick or injured to stand or walk (downers) were being put through incredibly cruel methods to deliver the cows to slaughter. Cows were dragged with chains, shoved with forklifts, shocked, and tormented to force them to stand. Not only is this highly inhumane, but calls into question the quality of food being introduced into the meat market. Shortly after the HSUS investigation, there was a huge meat recall and the USDA promised to close a legal loophole allowing downed cows to be slaughtered for consumption. They have yet to do so, and the HSUS is urging people to let the USDA know how important it is to close this loophole. Please go to the following website to send a letter to the USDA: https://community.hsus.org/campaign/US_2008_usda_close_downer_loophole/id7is67427et7jnw?

Join The White House Project!


View my page on The White House Project

Friday, September 19, 2008

What McCain needs to learn from a kindergarten teacher

“I will meet with any leader who has the same principles and philosophy that we do: human rights, democracy, and liberty. And I will confront those that don’t.”

John McCain made this statement yesterday in an interview with Radio Caracol in Miami. The Boston Globe reported today:

After discussing [Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia], the interviewer asked whether McCain would meet with Zapatero, the first modern Spanish leader not to have visited the United States during his term of office and who has not spoken to President Bush since he ordered 1,300 troops out of Iraq soon after he was elected. “I will meet with those leaders who are our friends and who want to work with us cooperatively,” McCain replied.

After eight splendid years of George W. Bush, the president who brought us such niceties as suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, tax cuts for those making over $250,000 per year, the collapse of Wall Street, interminable war in Iraq, and this week, the explosion of tent cities in parking lots around America, John McCain is plagiarizing Bush’s foreign policy strategy: only talk to your buddies, and show your enemies who’s boss by refusing to learn anything about them or engage with them. We’re number one!

If John McCain wanted to teach a child to read, would he declare the child was dead to him until it learned?

Thinking like this is what has embroiled us in perpetual warfare first in Vietnam, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. When will politicians learn the lesson our kindergarten teachers try to instill in us---that when we have a disagreement, we must sit down and discuss the problem calmly, try to find some common ground, and maybe share some cookies: child’s play. And yet, the Republican candidate is holding fast to the posture cemented by George W. Bush.

The concepts of human rights, democracy, and liberty are examples of humankind at its best. But they were not developed by one person in an isolation chamber; they have evolved over time, and have been improved by the addition of voices from diverse backgrounds, races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, religions, and nationalities.

The Republican party has loudly criticized Barack Obama for stating he would meet with the leaders of all nations without preconditions. This has been lauded in the international press, which doesn’t normally trip over itself rushing to praise American politicians. The American political establishment, however, has called Obama everything from incautious to naïve. But his position is the only one with the potential to improve America’s image in the world; an image that is now tarnished by eight years of George Dubya Bush-style arrogance. McCain’s statement is arrogant, uninformed, insular, and smugly stupid. Most importantly, it won't work; regardless of your political party, ignoring problems, be they on Wall Street, in Washington, or in a foreign country, won't make them go away. Sticking our collective heads in the sand doesn't work.

The next president should send his foreign policy team to an elementary school to test their strategy. When a student throws a fit, as one will inevitably do, the policy team should try two approaches. The first test should involve stepping forward and saying, “We disagree with you, therefore we do not hear you, and will not acknowledge your existence on this earth.” And when that fails, and the student continues screaming, they should move on to the next step; pulling up a chair, looking the student in the eyes, and saying “We disagree with your actions and your position. But as soon as you are ready to discuss this matter, we are ready to sit down and hear what you have to say.”

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Corporate arrogance: Carly Fiorina's Narcissus moment

Carly Fiorina, the former head of Hewlett-Packard, and McCain economic policy adviser/fund raiser extraordinaire has canceled a string of interviews following her remarks that none of the candidates for president or vice-president could run a company like HP.

The controversy began when Fiorina was asked if she thought Palin had the experience to run a company like HP. MSNBC reported Fiorina replied, "No, I don't, but you know what? That's not what she's running for." Later, in an attempt to defend her remarks in an MSNBC interview she said she did not believe John McCain, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden could run HP either, but added Palin has more executive experience than all of them.

Carly Fiorina's comments come across as incredible arrogance, and are relevant not only because of the election, but because of the crisis unfolding on Wall Street. In the past two weeks, the Fed took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; let Lehman Brothers collapse; approved the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, already a banking behemoth; and is in the process of structuring a bailout for AIG. Such internal collapse has not occurred since the Depression. It could be argued this happened, in part, because executives were not doing their job. I have heard pundits ask repeatedly, "Who was asleep at the switch?", implying someone , or many someones, were distracted and not doing their real jobs. Fiorina, who is a chief economic adviser to the McCain campaign was also distracted and let that distraction get in the way of her job: her ego got in the way of her politics.

Fiorina refused to backtrack on her initial comment, and when asked to clarify her comment by Andrea Mitchell, said "[Running] a major corporation is not like being the president or the vice-president of the United States. It's a fallacy to suggest that the country is like a company."

So Carly Fiorina doesn't feel any of the candidates could be the Chief Executive Officer of a corporation like HP; but thinks being the Chief Executive of the United States of America is not anything like being the Chief Executive of a company. Hmmmm.....

The McCain campaign's entire response to charges Sarah Palin is unqualified consists of variations on the theme, "But she's the only one with executive experience!" They have made executive experience central to their argument a McCain-Palin ticket is more qualified to run the country. Fiorina said, "Of course, to run a business you have to have a lifetime of experience in business, but that's not what Sarah Palin, John McCain, Joe Biden or Barack Obama are doing."

The president of the United States is the Chief of the Executive branch; the Chief Executive, if you will. Fiorina said none of the candidates could be CEO of HP; after all, one needs a lifetime of experience to run a business!

Fiorina's comment does not speak to how well prepared any of the candidates is to run the country; but it does speak to the arrogance of a major CEO. In 2005, Carly Fiorina was forced out of her position at Hewlett-Packard by the board. Fiorina's push to merge with Compaq in 2002 was controversial, and never delivered the profits Fiorina predicted. Nonetheless, she was sent packing with a $21 million severance package. That is how the cookie crumbles when you're found to be an incompetent CEO; they send you home with millions of placating dollars. How many people laid off in the past few months of economic downslide have received severance packages at all, much less severance packages worth many millions of dollars?

The irony of Carly Fiorina suggesting that none of the candidates has what it takes to run a company like HP is that her board didn't feel she was competent either! And yet, John McCain decided she was qualified to be a chief economic adviser to his campaign. Could it be that her extraordinary fundraising talents overshadowed the real quality of her policy expertise?

What is happening on Wall Street right now is the result of too much power in the hands of too few egomaniacs: egomaniacs like Carly Fiorina, who can't see far enough beyond their beautiful, glorious, deserving selves to focus on sound, responsible policy. Fiorina got caught in a simple trap; she lost sight of the bigger question, and let her ego do the talking. But she was right about one thing: John McCain is clearly not ready to be CEO of a for-profit company like HP, or Chief Executive of the United States of America.

The job of Chief Executive is given to the person the electorate most trusts to staff the upper echelons of government: the Cabinet, offices and agencies of the Executive branch, and, most importantly, the Supreme Court. John McCain has now proven, with two of his first selections, he is unfit to be staffing corporations or our country. He chose Carly Fiorina to advise him on economic policy---a deposed CEO incapable of focusing on policy when her ego is involved; and Sarah Palin, a charismatic, conservative extremist, with an interesting life story, who said herself about being mayor of Wasilla: "It's not brain surgery, it's six million dollars and 53 employees."

Thank you, Carly Fiorina, for driving home the point that John McCain is incompetent at one of the president's primary tasks: choosing advisers and staffing his Cabinet.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Ignorance is Strength: sex-ed, Republican style

Rudy Giuliani was on "Meet the Press" this morning responding to questions about whether John McCain's new ad, attacking Barack Obama for supporting a comprehensive sex education bill in the Illinois Senate. Republicans are charging Obama wants children to learn about sex before they learn how to read; this is an outright lie. What is amazing is how Republicans continue to sell their abstinence-only plan (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) as the moral choice, and paint Democrats as intent on sexualizing American children.

The bill Obama voted for, but did not write or sponsor, says in the very first section:

Sec. 27-9.1.  Sex Education.
8 (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil.


It goes on to specify:

  (1)  Factual   information   presented   in   course
10 material and instruction shall be medically accurate and
11 objective.
12 (2) All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate.


Finally, it states the purpose of the plan for comprehensive sex education:

(c)  Notwithstanding  the  above  educational  areas, the
17 following areas may also be included as a basis for curricula
18 in all elementary and secondary schools in this State: basic
19 first aid (including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary
20 resuscitation and the Heimlich maneuver), early prevention
21 and detection of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and
22 the prevention of child abuse, neglect, and suicide.


The bill states repeatedly the curriculum must be "age and developmentally appropriate" and explicitly allows for parents to pull their children out of health seminars. McCain's ad is simply the freshest example of Republican smear tactics; another attempt to scare the American people into submission.

There is nothing wrong with discouraging kids from having sex; however, simply saying "Don't do it!" is obviously not the answer. A 2005 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics advocated for comprehensive sex education in schools, citing a rise in teenage pregnancies as abstinence-only education was reinstated during the Bush administration. Dr. S. Paige Hertwick, who consulted on the report, said in an interview with MSNBC, "Teaching abstinence but not birth control makes it more likely that once teenagers initiate sexual activity, they will have unsafe sex and contract sexually transmitted diseases." While the Academy stressed the
importance of emphasizing abstinence as the only truly safe choice, it acknowledged 2003 US government data showing almost 50% of high school students admitting to being sexually active.

Whether Republicans wish to acknowledge reality or not, teenagers have sex and will continue to do so. John McCain has called Barack Obama naive and idealistic; I think Obama's position shows that he is the candidate grounded in reality, advocating for policies based on how the world really works, while John McCain supports a policy based on how he would like the world to be. The reality is teenagers will have sex; we can either teach them to be responsible or shut our eyes, put our hands over our ears, and pretend it isn't happening.

The real shame is ads like this work; how many people will take the time to read the actual text of the bill and understand what it means? Republicans stole their script from George Orwell, and are hoping the American people have become too mindless to notice: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. Oh yeah, and babies come from the Ministry of ARTSEM, but we'll tell you about that when we decide you're ready to know.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

8000 people in the park...



Over 8000 people crowded into Veterans' Park this morning in Manchester, New Hampshire. The draw was Barack Obama, scheduled to speak at 10:30am. By 8am, the line to get in already stretched for many blocks.

Saturday is a day for lots of people to sleep in, recover from Friday night festivities, and enjoy some free time. There is no way to know how many people set their alarms voluntarily, rise, and participate in something bigger than their own lives; today, at least 8000 people descended upon Veterans' Park to be part of just such a thing.

I was collecting signatures for Women for Obama; today, we were asking New Hampshire women to publicly endorse Barack Obama by signing on to an ad which will run in local papers. This task gave me the opportunity to talk to many of the attendees. I met a group of women who drove up from Rhode Island; they left home at 5am, and were planning to stay after the rally and volunteer to canvass. I met a group of UNH students, not originally from New Hampshire, who got up early on Saturday morning to hear Barack speak. I saw families, couples, individuals, school groups, young, old, gay, straight, you name it---people were there. I met a woman who told me she was actually a Republican, but she brought her son because she wanted him to hear Obama speak, as a counter to the negative images of black men he sees in the media. I met dozens of people from Massachusetts, who came north to spend their time volunteering in an important swing state.

Barack gave a great speech; the crowd was energized, positive, and genuinely excited about his message. He was very clear he did not intend to engage in the kind of cynical, sarcastic character attacks central to the McCain-Palin message. He said the Republicans needed to make the race about personality, because if they were to debate the issues, they would lose. He said their attacks are irrelevant, because he has something they don't; "I have you," he told the crowd, which roared in response.

After the rally, the office was flooded with people wanting to volunteer. It was incredible to see how many people were inspired to get involved. Some people said they'd never even voted before, and many said it was their first time volunteering for a campaign. Everyone was hopeful and uplifted and positive.

Beyond the issues, this election is about the mood of our democracy. The McCain-Palin message is about war, evil, fear, terrorism, and money. The Obama-Biden message is one of positivity, engagement, respect, and yes, hope and change. The Republicans have spent an inordinate amount of time deriding this message, saying "hope" and "change" are not policies. I disagree; as esoteric as these terms may be, they have moved people to rediscover the beauty of our democracy. They have made people feel dignified, instead of condescended to.

John McCain and Sarah Palin are wise to spend so much time attacking the message of hope and change---it is unbelievably powerful, the biggest threat to them. They can't tell the American people their real agenda; after all, very few of us are executives at oil or health insurance companies, or hold vast amounts of stock in weapons manufacturers. The best they can do is behave like the kids at the popular table in high school, snark on the people lining up to hear Obama speak, try to belittle them, and hope to herd enough sheep over to their side.

Friday, September 12, 2008

If Bristol Palin were black

The Republican Party has circled the wagons around Sarah Palin and her pregnant daughter, Bristol. There are so many directions to go in here: a discussion of the merits of abstinence only sex education; why I think condoms should be made available in public school bathrooms; the hypocrisy of a woman clamoring to revive the concept of privacy, when she would like to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot do with our bodies; the sympathy I feel for Bristol, presumably not the driving force behind her upcoming wedding to Levi Johnston, a self-professed hockey playing redneck who never wants kids; and the general invalidity of the Republican party's privacy rubric---i.e. we can tell you what your options are if you become pregnant, as well as who you are allowed to marry, but you may not ask us questions about whether Bristol Palin's pregnancy reflects on her mother's politics. 

I'd like to know if Republicans would be so smitten with Bristol and her situation if she were a pregnant black teenager?

There exists, of course, no historical precedent for comparison. 2008 is the first year either party has nominated a black member for president or vice-president. But I think it is safe to say that if a black politician's teenage daughter found herself pregnant and unmarried, neither party would parade the girl around on the convention floor. She would be the unravelling of her parent's political career, proof that unmarried, pregnant teenagers are usually black. 

Barack Obama has taken the high-road on this issue; he pointed out that his own mother gave birth to him at 18, and adamantly insisted that families are off-limits. Good, that's what he should do. The candidates should not drag each other's families into the debating arena. But the rest of us not running for president have every right to discuss what it means when the Republican party introduces Bristol to the world as one of the five reasons Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, should John McCain only reach his life expectancy. 

I feel sorry for Bristol that her fate is inextricably bound to her mother's. It is unfair she has to live out what is likely the most difficult period of her young life in the media spotlight. But the blame for that rests with the Republican party for choosing a candidate they thought would appeal to the "soccer moms" credited with sweeping Bill Clinton into office***, and then placing the candidate and her children on the world's largest stage, all for the purpose of making ornery, distant John McCain's candidacy seem family-friendly and relatable. 

They chose fertile Sarah Palin, a "pistol packin' mama with five children", and then she proceeded to devote a significant portion of her acceptance speech to talking about her kids. Which is fine, if that's what she chooses to do; but she can't have it both ways. The kids are either in or they're out, and she should be the one to decide. But she cannot be allowed to say "These are my children: Trig, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Track. Track enlisted in the army last year on September 11th, and he will deploy to Iraq this year on September 11th." Wait a second...does it sound like Sarah Palin wants to garner favor by using her son's military service to remind us of September 11th? Maybe Rudy helped her write her speech. 

Sarah Palin's dearth of qualifications to be president is what led John McCain to wax poetic about her PTA involvement, her basketball stats, and how, like many a lady before her, she popped out some kids. Which makes her an interesting, politically active, ambitious person, though not qualified to be president. 

If Palin is such a huge hockey fan, she should note: nobody respects a player who goes around antagonizing everyone, only to throw herself on the ice screaming PENALTY the second the other team looks her way. If she wants to be an agitator, she better be prepared to fight. 

***Republicans found "soccer moms" too effeminate, and decided "hockey moms" are really the image America wants for its mothers: ass-kicking, cross-checking, high-sticking pitbulls with lipstick.

Can a beauty queen be a feminist?

Sarah Palin was a beauty queen. And she has called herself a feminist. I say no way: beauty queen and feminist are mutually exclusive.

Beauty competitors, as I prefer to call them, love to say that pageants are opportunities for young women to get scholarships, and showcase their talents (also their "talents"). Maybe in 1950; today, any competition that is based on one's physical appearance is a beauty contest, and nothing more. Pageants might occasionally select the smartest pretty girl, but if the president of her college's Mensa organization enters a pageant, she won't get far if she doesn't look cute in a bikini.

Beauty pageants are anti-feminist: they maintain the fallacy that all of a woman's achievements are secondary to her physical appearance. Sarah Palin has said, since accepting the nomination for vice-president, that while she is proud of her accomplishments as Miss Wasilla, and her attempt at Miss Alaska, she doesn't think these competitions should continue to include a swimsuit event. This feminist thinks the swimsuit competition is just fine; after all, the point of a beauty competition is to decide who best fits the standard definition of beauty.

The portion of the event which really needs to be eliminated is the talent competition; let's stop pretending the competitors' various talents are even relevant. Feminists come in all shapes, colors, and sizes. Some fit popular beauty standards, and others do not. But a feminist entering herself in a competition where her physical appearance and talent are given equal stature? That makes as much sense as a pig working in a slaughterhouse.

The Beverly Hills Zoo

Technically speaking, it is probably necessary to watch more than two episodes of a television show before critiquing it. Judgment hit me fast and hard on this one.

I don't know how long "The Hills" has been in existence. I don't know what blessed season has just commenced. What I do know is that it bores me to tears, when it's not inspiring rage.

When did the networks decide that a bunch of rich, idiot children-of-celebrities deserve our attention? And who are the millions of people tuning in, making it worth MTV's money to have camera operators follow around useless wastes of space, food, and oxygen for our viewing pleasure?

I have had the great honor of meeting intelligent, active, hardworking, humble, politically knowledgeable, gracious young people from all walks of life; they don't have TV cameras following them around, showing eager viewers what one can accomplish in a day besides fight with one's boyfriend; go shopping; cry about a dress not fitting correctly; crash one's BMW, or get wasted and act like an asshole.

Here's why "The Hills", and all the other inane shows like it are political. First, because these shows are shown abroad; never in history have Americans been held in lower regard than they are now---televised glorification of entitlement and stupidity aren't helping. Second, because kids in this country are watching, too; they are internalizing images of vapid young millionaires, and their concept of what it means to be a good citizen, a hard worker, successful, smart, and respectable is swirling down the toilet. These shows have, quite literally, lowered the standards for all of us.

So the next time you find yourself flipping through the channels, don't stop for "The Hills"; pick something that makes you think. Whether it's the news, a cooking show, something scientific, or even a show like "Project Runway", which won't tax your intellect, but at least shows some folks working to earn something; remember that paying attention to the kids on "The Hills" is like laughing when the class bully picks on the new kid---you're only encouraging them. "The Hills" is nothing more than a televised zoo; please stop feeding the idiots.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Sarah Palin: is that feeling in your gut pride or vomit?

On Wednesday night, Sarah Palin stood before the RNC, looked into the camera, and told us with a smile that she's just like us. She's a hockey mom. Yay! Barack Obama has an Ivy League education. Boo! Her teenage daughter is pregnant. Yay! Liberal elites want your kids to learn about contraception. Boo!

The introduction of the Republican nominee for vice-president was hailed by the party as historic. A lady read the speech! But it wasn't historic; in fact, it was classic, go-to Republican, and demonstrates that the political theory of Karl Rove is driving the machine in 2008. The mainstream media seems not to have noticed they're running the same play they ran in the 2000 election. That was the year they took George Dubya Bush, polished his cowboy boots, told him to let fly his down-home country twang, patted him on the head and sent him out to win the hearts of the good folks of the USA. And he did! He was affable and rumpled and mispronounced the ten-dollar words that liberals like to use when they talk all intellectual-like. He was like us! Never mind the old, white, warmongering man behind the (Halliburton) curtain. That's just Grandpa. Ha-ha, look, your funny uncle just tripped on his way to the podium!

Eight years later, Uncle George's antics aren't as funny, and we want change! And the Republicans are going to give it to us, because they love you and me. They have found us the prettiest lady; the "hottest VP from the coolest state!" cry their buttons. And she is LIKE US! She's a mom! Her husband is a champion snowmobile racer, and they met in high school. As did her daughter, Bristol, and soon-to-be son-in-law (is it a requirement that NRA members have shot-gun weddings?). And the pretty lady walked onto the stage and made us laugh and cry. She reminded us of how goofy that Democratic fellow is, that elite liberal who tried to say that, perhaps, lower-class Americans have something to be bitter about. Some nerve he has! He is out of touch with you and me. He is fancy and educated; he worked for his community; he asks for the opinions of 300 people when he thinks about policy issues; he lived in some weird country when he was a kid; he's never run anything; he was in the state legislature and the US Senate, and did nothing but preen and marinate in his liberal elite smugness. And she is a hockey mom! Yaaaaay!

At the end of the pretty lady's speech, Grandpa strode onto stage to hug the pregnant teen and remind her we all make mistakes, and he loves her anyway, because his is the party of Acceptance and Tolerance and Love. And the pretty lady smiled bright, like Uncle George did eight years ago, because she saw what had happened; the delegates were on their feet, flags waving, tears streaming down other ladies' cheeks, men hollering, children smiling, and broadcast journalists powdering their faces, minimizing shine and getting ready for their moment in the sun. The pretty lady did exactly what she was meant to do: she wasn't meant to bring foreign policy experience to the table; no one was interested in her black book of Washington lobbyists; they didn't want to circulate articles she wrote as editor of some fancy pants law review. Sarah Palin was sent out to deliver the speech a candidate for Homecoming Queen might give: I'm just like you! I'm pretty, but completely normal! Look, I have kids, and one of them is going to have a kid. I'm smart enough to run Alaska, but I don't think I'm smarter than you are. And I'm a lady!

John McCain is not the new George Bush: Sarah Palin is. The change Republicans are offering is a role-reversal: the Grandpa character who makes you uneasy, but sure knows a lot about Washington, he will be president. And the one you can relate to, who makes you smile and goes running, and whose rascally kids make trouble, she will be vice-president. And here's the change: she has wears lipstick and has boobies!

So before we let the Republicans co-opt "change", just as they have co-opted "work", "liberty", "freedom", "strength", "tolerance", and "maverick", let's ask ourselves why they think they have to work so hard to convince us Democrats are the ones sitting in board rooms having a chuckle about how much better they are than us. Doth the pretty lady protest too much?

How is it possible for Republicans to be the party for regular folks when, after eight years running the executive branch (the only branch which counts when discussing experience, according to them), the gap between rich and poor is wider than it's been since the Great Depression? Are the American people really going to allow them to excommunicate Dubya, now that he's served his purpose, whitewash the whole thing, and present us with McCain-Palin, the "change" ticket?

Here's why you should vote for McCain-Palin: if you're better off than you were eight years ago. And if you're one of us regular folks, and you're less secure; have less health care; more debt; higher heating bills; can't afford college; can't afford to retire; can't pay your mortgage; and you worry about caring for your children, your parents, and maybe even yourself---then maybe you should say what the hockey moms I know say when someone tries to sell them a load of garbage: thanks, but we're not interested in your shit.