American Princess's blog

Don't Cry For Mark, Argentina

2009-06-26T09:56:12-05:00

The governor of South Carolina went missing this week, has been recovered, and then, once recovered, managed to totally make up a story about where he'd been, a story which was quickly disputed by those nasty things: facts. It turns out that he wasn't so much hiking on the Appalachian Trail by himself as he was visiting a mistress he's had in Argentina for some time, that his wife recently discovered and kicked him out of the house over. Now, it seems that he may be in danger of losing what little remains of his political career.

Republican Gov. Mark Sanford struggled to maintain political support Thursday, after acknowledging that he used state funds in 2008 to pay for an extramarital tryst with a woman in Argentina.

The governor's spokesman, Joel Sawyer, said Mr. Sanford had no plans to resign. The governor called the meeting to "obviously discuss recent events, and will get updates from some cabinet officials on various news at their agencies," Mr. Sawyer said.

"The purpose of this trip was an entirely professional and appropriate business development trip," Mr. Sanford said in his statement about the 2008 encounter in Buenos Aires. "I made a mistake while I was there in meeting with the woman who I was unfaithful to my wife with." He went on to say he planned to repay the "full cost of the Argentina leg of this trip."

Not that I'm a geography expert, but I remember that Family Channel show, Christie about a young, privileged, New England woman who moved to Cutter Gap to teach the hapless residents of that godforsaken mountain town how to read and how to love, and from my understanding of that fictitious historical account, neither Atlanta Airport nor his apparent destination, Argentina, is really anywhere near the Appalachian trail. But hey, who am I to judge, right? Well, except when taxpayer funds are used to pay for the trip drawing judgment, of course. And when Mark Sanford is an outspoken supporter of "traditional marriage," yet doesn't practice what he preaches.

There were few people who insist that Mark Sanford is the Future of the Republican Party. The REAL Future of the Republican Party is someone who would probably rather try to eat a live weasel than take the reigns of what amounts to being the last, sputtering death whistle of a sliver of a glimmer of a political party. Mark Sanford is not that man, and I can say that comfortably, as I really never thought of him as that man before. Being a jerk isn't an impeachable offense, but such a breach of ethics has to be punished somehow. 2012 fading off into the distance has to be painful.

I mentioned the outspoken support for "traditional marriage" (quotes, yes, since the definition never seems consistent) because the subject has been particularly touchy recently. Sanford spent the last several weeks loudly voicing his opposition to President Obama's decision to extend certain benefits to the same-sex partners of Federal employees, preaching that the sanctity of marriage had to be preserved, and that every health insurance benefit extended was one step closer to the degradation of a sacred religious institution. You may or may not agree, but it seems fairly clear from the last several weeks -- this jaunt to Latin America, the selfish antics of Jon + Kate, whose viewed their marriage (and their children) as speedbumps on their road to stardom, and the countless divorces, adulterous relationships and philanderings of public officials we witness on a daily basis -- that same-sex partnerships are not the biggest threat to the institution of marriage in America.

It does seem, though, that our political leaders are having a difficult time admitting that. Even President Obama, who took steps to challenge the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA), seems to be willing to do nothing more than stick a toe in the pond to test the water, to the dismay of some of his supporters.

President Barack Obama's announcement Wednesday offering limited benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees failed to quell growing anger in the gay community that gay rights issues were getting short shrift at the White House.

In fact, Obama's promise to offer ancillary employee benefits - such as long-term-care insurance and the right to use sick leave to care for domestic partners - while still denying more valuable benefits, such as health insurance and retirement funds, may have further agitated gay and lesbian activists who were already fuming over other perceived snubs.

"Are they kidding us? Domestic partnership benefits WITHOUT health insurance because of DOMA?" gay fundraiser and activist David Mixner told POLITICO in an e-mail. "It is like rubbing salt in the wound."

It seems strange, right? If you're going to challenge DOMA, and that is what this action clearly intends to do, why only take a baby step? The ensuing litigation will no doubt be the same whether some benefits were extended or all benefits were extended, and in this case, the benefits are not even "some:" they were already available with special approval from the government. For someone marketed as strongly progressive, and moreso as a card-carrying member of a new generation, raised more tolerant and worldly then their parents, President Obama is showing political leanings that are surprisingly like...his predecessor.

Mark Sanford, as Emptywheel at Firedoglake notes, signed his own death warrant by knowingly violating the vows he sought to protect politically. He signed his own death warrant by forgetting that his actions have an impact on the believability of his words and the integrity of the entire anti-same-sex marriage movement.

Obama has an option to avoid the same image problem; he has an opportunity to engage culture, take a large step in a direction he believes is the right one, and fulfill the promises he made during his campaign.

You can read more about Mark Sanford's history on the subject of gay marriage and find a comprehensive collection of his public statements over at Pam's House Blend, where Pam Spaulding has been cataloging the incident and its larger political impact.

Rebecca at OUPBlog has a convincing argument as to why Obama should treat DOMA with care rather than take an all-or-nothing approach, stating that he must step with care or risk losing all of his capital with more conservative members of his own party who are still concerned about repealing the law.

The Sad State Of Playboy

2009-06-02T08:13:58-05:00

Oh, Playboy. You're about to be sold, just got a new CEO, and are considering embracing the under 35 crowd in a vain effort to remain relevant. You almost make me weep.

There was a time when Playboy was one of the most relevant social commentaries on the market, and its underlying philosophy -- which advocated and championed the radical individual rights that define American democracy and led the way for the sexual revolution -- a force in the American mind. Even simple, little me, the quintessential midwestern girl-next-door, couldn't hope to escape its influence; it was Hefner's carefully crafted Playboy Philosophy, which was molded after the Classical Liberal/modern libertarian ideals of Locke, Hobbes and Mill, that defines even the modern limitations of my own libertarian ideology.

But in recent years, Playboy has responded to culture in a way that is antithetical to its own original ideal, hiring models that are increasingly plasticized, celebrating the seedy and pushing the envelope further and further and further. Little did I expect, though, to find Playboy, long the more moderate of the adult publications, indulging in thinly-veiled rape fantasies, but then...there's Guy Cimbalo:

But there is a way to reach across the aisle without letting principles fall by the wayside. We speak, naturally, of the hate f*ck. We may despise everything these women represent, but godd*mmit they're hot. Let the healing begin.

I get the sense that Guy woke up one morning, or was desperate one evening, and realized that he's sexually attracted to women who he does not agree with politically. And not in any small way. Had he felt superior to any of the women, he might have listed them as "pity f***s, or "maybes." But instead, he apparently decided to describe them with significant emotion, covering his bases by couching it in his own hatred of conservative ideals. I'll use the word "apparently" a lot here, as I have no real idea of what went through Guy's mind as he penned this piece, nor what emotion would drive him to so thoroughly flout the boundaries of decency.

Instead of celebrating the fact that his libido reached "across the aisle," with, say, an only-midly sexist "run-down" of attractive, Republican women, Guy apparently decided to express his love in the only way he found acceptable: degrading them, demeaning them, and ignorantly labeling them as objects of hate and derision (he couldn't even bother to get Amanda Carpenters employer right). The misogyny that oozes from his every word is palpable: if these women only had the decency to stay silent, they'd pass the "looks test" necessary to sleep with the author, but as they have opinions different from his own, he's "forced" to still have sex with them in his imagination, but with the caveat that he's the one wielding hateful power through sexual abuse.

Classy.

I almost feel sorry for him, particularly since Playboy, in a move that has massive metaphorical connotations, shrunk from Guy's piece, removing it after it garnered almost 60,000 views.

I almost feel sorry for him.

At what point will this kind of flagrant, almost violent sexism reach its saturation point? At what point will society finally understand that it is not funny, nor ironic, nor even remotely acceptable to degrade women, to turn them into sexual objects and treat them as though their accomplishments, their personalities and their mere personhood are of no consequence?

I am not shying away from the fact that conservatives are just as guilty of this exploitation as liberals, though the methods are much different (it seems liberal men have a habit of connecting political ideology to the victims of their attitude); I am merely saying that forty years after the liberation movement began, prominent members of our society who express progressive values, and who write for reputable publications cannot even manage to self-censor their own misguided feelings before they become available for public consumption? What will it take? It seems even the outermost limits -- the ones that proscribe the kind of angry hatred for women that drives this "dangerously-close-to-rape" fantasy piece -- are not clearly marked or even routinely acknowledged. And that Playboy, which has always claimed to celebrate women, would publish it, speaks volumes about their editorial board, and the dramatic absence of any remaining real philosophy.

These women are all strong, incredible, intelligent women. I know many of them, and respect all of them. They don't deserve to be treated in this manner. No woman does. And this attempt to denigrate the women on this list is an implicit attempt to denigrate women everywhere who choose to speak up in public.

Also talking about this:

Media Lizzy is following the story with updates and reactions.

Emily Kaiser of the Blotter believes that outrage over this article should cross the political aisle in ways Guy wasn't willing to.

Jenn Q. Public of the New Agenda delves deeper into the term "hate f***" as an apparently euphemism for rape.

What a Difference 100 Days Make

2009-04-28T20:52:16-05:00

Before I begin, let me admit that I shamelessly stole that title from another conservative blogger, who used it first and most likely better. I'm not that creative, but at the same time, I didn't want to be negative. Its only been 100 days. I can't be totally disenfranchised and angry yet. Not when Arlen Specter keeps bringing his special kind of joy to my life.

But yet, here we are. 100 days after Obama was sworn into office.

It started, as so many things do, with the French. The first 'Hundred Days' of modern times does not involve an American president – not even Barack Obama who is about to complete the most closely scrutinised 'First 100 Days' since Franklin D. Roosevelt set the standard back in 1933, in the depths of the Great Depression.

When considering the first 100 days of a President, the first thing to consider is whether they've been successful. In the case of Barack Obama, I honestly have no idea. I could side with the people who claim that Obama has successfully brought Chicago politics to Washington, but living in Chicago, I can honestly say he's eons away from being counted among our finest. I could side with people who say he's successfully implemented his own agenda, but I'm not sure I know of anyone who can claim that. And to be honest, I can't even side with the large, unreported chunk of the American public who seem to disapprove of his job performance. In essence, I'm not sure he's screwed up the country yet, and I'm not sure, based on the first 100 days of his Presidency, that's he's actually able to.

Like Rich Lowry of National Review, I'm willing to concede that, as far as Presidents go, Obama's been moderately, if not wholly successful. He's been abroad, wowed crowds across the globe, moved elegantly through a few minor mishaps, braved a pirate attack, and withstood scrutiny of his clearly inept subordinates. Had it not been for that dastardly teleprompter's foibles, he would still be known as a great and inspiring speechgiver. By the lack of glowing reviews and, instead, the proliferation of liberal-slanted websites complaining that 100 days is too short a period to evaluate a President, I can see that "moderately successful" is probably an apt description. He's at about George W. Bush-level right now (in his own smashing first 100 days).

Its what he's been moderately successful at that worries me. Within the first couple of weeks, he hired two people who were delinquent on their taxes, Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle. By day 16, Obama had signed into law an impressive tax increase on tobacco products ($.61 per pack), punishing the 55 percent of smokers who are "working poor." On day 21, we had the stimulus, which didn't work when George W. Bush passed it, and which quickly became one of the most massive government spending bills in history. Shortly thereafter, Obama figured out what the rest of us already knew: people who get government checks don't always use their proceeds for the common good, especially when those people are corporate CEOs not used to living on a budget. The stimulus passed on day 25, after being posted online for only a few hours. Not exactly the "transparency" that was promised in the campaign.

And then, there's the budget. That came on day 63 and promises to increase spending by more than $3 trillion over ten years. On day 91, Obama calls for spending cuts, but doesn't really seem to notice that only about $100 million is trimmed off the top.

So yeah, successful. Yikes. If I were Glenn Beck, I'd be screaming for the hills. Luckily, I saw the X-Files movie and know that FEMA needs to fully refine the black-oil-spreading bees before moving us into the emergency camps, so I am confident I don't need to start packing my canned goods and building my fallout shelter for a little while yet. Not that I would. But my timeline is extended.

The challenge for Obama will be living up to this success over the next 1500 or so days of his presidency -- not a particularly easy task considering the pace he's set. He's set himself up for an ambitious agenda, and he's promised significant change. There's a lot of room to fail. But I tend to think he can do it.

Which is why I'm stocking up on those mid-century nickles with the silver in them. I hear you can use those for currency after a nuclear apocalypse.

Just kidding.

I think.

If you don't think I'm right, Jill will be back later this week with the first 100 days from a less conservative perspective, but if by chance you do, well, besides thanking you, I'd love to direct you to these three lovely ladies: the aforementioned E!! of E!!! The True Conservative Story who talks about the same statistics I do and places them into context, Crystal Clear Conservative who talks about Obama's first 100 days of spending and increase in government, and finally, Brigette Russell of the New Mexico Independent, who talks about a first 100 days full of disappointment.

Hate To Say I Told You So, Alright

2009-03-16T15:06:34-05:00

Politics is not the hardest subject to analyze or, really, predict. Most of the time, you can see developments come a mile off, and sometimes, its not even necessary to squint.

The Obama administration is increasingly concerned about a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street, worried that anger at financial institutions could also end up being directed at Congress and the White House and could complicate President Obama’s agenda.

The administration’s sharp rebuke of the American International Group on Sunday for handing out $165 million in executive bonuses — Lawrence H. Summers, director of the president’s National Economic Council, described it as “outrageous” on “This Week” on ABC — marks the latest effort by the White House to distance itself from abuses that could feed potentially disruptive public anger.

I really enjoy how that particular passage is worded: we're "increasingly concerned" that the taxpayers will discover that, when we gave their money to people who drove their businesses to within inches of utter extinction, expecting such businesses to automatically improve their management systems on the premise that such a bailout was necessary to save the entire American economy, the companies exercised their reputation for poor management and flitted the money away on bonuses and spa vacations. Such a discovery could prove detrimental to the public's long-term trust in the administration's aptitude for handling economic affairs.

Shocker.

SVB of The Digierati Life has even more details:

With untold billions of dollars having gone to shore up the insurance giant AIG (American International Group), we taxpayers have the right to know what was done with that money and who it benefited the most. Tens of billions of those dollars have already passed through AIG to its derivatives trading partners, shielding them from losses as per news reports.

When asked to identify the beneficiaries of the bailout, the Fed wouldn’t give out names, saying in effect that nobody would do business with AIG if any names were revealed. Hogwash! If the business is above board and ethical, then what’s the problem? Well, AIG finally caved under pressure and has produced the list of recipients of their bailout money.

Its even worse when the administrations response is the kind of strongly worded rebuke favored by international governmental organizations, with the administration fully expecting AIG to retreat into a corner, tail between its legs, and while there, magically develop management practices that were not forged in the foregone era of corporate greed.

You almost feel for them, really. Its a bit like this administration (and for that matter, the one before it) is a lost puppy who was accidentally pushed out of the family moving van and must now travel long distance to see his family. Alone in the wilderness, too kind to succeed, with no prior knowledge of the pitfalls of the wilderness or the cruelties of nature.

Debbie Reynolds used to play Grace's mother on Will & Grace, and her character had this little dance she'd do whenever she was right about something another character denied. It was called the "Told Ya So" dance. I kind of feel it coming on, but since this is the economy, I won't even move a toe.

With bank bailouts, we really are in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't sort of situation, or so we were repeatedly told. AIG and others were "too big to fail" (though, as Nordette observes, exactly how they managed to get that big still remains a mystery to most of us unschooled in these delicate matters), and despite their obvious problems, we as taxpayers would have to step in and float them a loan so that they could restructure, thus sparing our fragile situation any further damage. From the beginning, the major problem inherent in this "solution" should have been obvious -- it was neither here, nor there, neither free market nor nationalization.

What happened to AIG and others is a risk of free market capitalism. Although the system has the capacity to create great wealth, there are a great many risks involved. Where there is great wealth, there is the potential for great poverty, a result of great failure. When companies that play on the free market choose to take risks, they gamble with their own futures, which is exactly what happened here. AIG lost. Any true free markeeter would tell you that the only way to recover from this kind of failure is to let the market even out; let the system weed out the bad and encourage the good, and eventually, the country will return to growth and prosperity.

This is a scary thought, of course, and if you aren't willing to deal with such scary thoughts, there's really only one alternative solution: nationalize the systems that you don't want to be frightened by. It seems odd for a libertarian to say this, I know, but I'm being honest: if you want a system that will bring you very little risk you have to allow a government to run it. Granted, you will have very little wealth, as the industry will then be run by a management structure so overfed, bloated, corrupt and slow that it can't, in any sense, do any real damage or make any real money, but you'll at least be save from the dangers of the extremes. Cars that the Soviet government made weren't pretty, they weren't fast, they weren't even fuel efficient, and but hell if they got you from one place to another with a general degree of reliability.

When the idea of a bailout was floated, it was, instead of being the best of each of these worlds, the worst of both. Corporate management structures that don't work should be allowed to fail, but we didn't want to go "whole hog" and put the government in charge, so instead, we allowed the same corporate management structures to remain in power with "oversight" from corporate cronies in DC. We didn't, however want the corporations playing with the market's money, so we gave the corporations an endless supply of taxpayer money to lose. The markets can't influence this wealth, and the government can't influence this regulation.

So, now, even though we own a full 80% of AIG, and have created what amounts to a huge Frankenstein, the government is totally impotent in dictating AIG's policies. As Jane Hamsher put it at Firedoglake:

Yesterday we found out that Geithner made a $27 billion dollar gift to AIG counterparties, paying off credit default swaps at 100% of their value. Gretchen Morgenson in the NYT asks why these insurance claims "were paid off in full, even though widespread defaults on the underlying debt have not occurred?" Geithner has now reached a "deal" whereby AIG executives get millions more in bonuses by March 15, then more in July, and then September, but AIG has to show that they've made progress "selling off business units and repaying the government."

American taxpayers now own 80% of AIG. They'll be paying back the government, and paying off the bonuses, with our money. There is no reason to be tiptoeing around these people.

Are Geithner and Summers are just too aligned with Wall Street interests to do what needs to be done?

(And lets not even get started with the excuse that, despite that same 80% interest -- and the experience of other bailout recipients -- the government has decided that it "can't force AIG to break its contracts" that specified the bonuses in question...PunditMom has the details on that little...problem)

I'm not much for advocating that the government get involved in the private affairs of corporations -- and I'm really not a fan of its nosiness lately -- but at some point it becomes necessary to call shenanigans on both the corporation and the government we've charged to handle them.

My advice to President Obama and his legion of advisers? Stop sitting the fence. Naturally, I would suggest that government is not the solution -- and a quick survey of the Post Office and Department of Motor Vehicles should tell you how adept the government is at running, well, anything -- but this solution -- merely throwing our hard-earned money at feckless corporations willing to waste it all -- isn't working and its time to address it head on.

Free To Be...A Female Candidate

2009-02-10T11:05:00-06:00

What we need is more women in government.

I realize this is a weird proposition, and always followed by a million misogynistic reasons for women to avoid government leadership altogether, but the last couple of days exhibit perfectly why men alone cannot handle the complexities of legislative activities. While these guys toil in creating an economic stimulus package that provides a reasonable balance of pork, kickbacks to lobbyists, kickbacks to the organizations that assisted them in getting elected, handouts to others in the political class and real economic plans, moms across the country are making (and sticking to) household budgets and caring for what Ronald Reagan believed to be the perfect metaphor for the American government: helpless children.

But beyond such metaphors, there's a real need for more women in government, and it seems like we might be starting to see a feminine revolution, prompted by this past Presidential election, on both sides of the aisle.

What I'm most proud of, though, is the sudden appearance on the scene of strong women candidates in the GOP. They're not known for their bi-partisanship when it comes to gender, and for a long while, women like me, with strong political opinions and a drive for success, have looked like the outsiders we were in the GOP Establishment. While they were content to have women running their campaigns, Republicans almost inevitably embraced the (unfair) stereotypical portrayal of the conservative woman.

Sarah Palin chose to challenge that stereotype by embodying it and adding to it with her list of accomplishments, her drive and ambition and her willingness to engage the GOP on their home turf. Say what you want about the woman, but Palin brought to the GOP and to the country a new image of a political woman.

And perhaps she opened the door.

It seems there are other political women in the GOP looking to take charge, and take their seat in high places. Enter: Meg Whitman.

Former eBay chief Meg Whitman on Monday edged toward an almost certain run for California governor in 2010, setting up a likely clash for the Republican nomination between two wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.

Whitman, who retired as eBay's chief executive in March and spent much of the past year campaigning for Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain, signaled that she will play up her business bona fides in the race to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2011. Whitman, 52, joined eBay in 1998 when it had just 30 employees and helped transform the startup online auctioneer into an Internet powerhouse.

"California faces challenges unlike any other time in its history — a weak and faltering economy, massive job losses, and an exploding state budget deficit," Whitman said in a statement announcing that she has formed an exploratory committee for governor. "California is better than this, and I refuse to stand by and watch it fail."

Saying that Meg Whitman was the CEO of eBay is selling her short, if you can believe it. That is just her most recent accomplishment (one she did while raising two young kids), and its last in a long line. She started with Proctor & Gamble, Walt Disney Corp., Stride Rite and with the floral delivery service, FTD, all huge corporations that make products that Americans use on a daily basis. When she started with eBay (after working at Hasbro in the Mr. Potato Head department), there were only 20 employees. Under her guidance, eBay's numbers nearly quadrupled its customer base grew from 750,000 to 7 million...within a year.

Its an impressive resume. And she's running on the Republican ticket.

I'm pretty glad. Maybe there's hope for the GOP yet.

Don't just take my word for it, though. There are other fine ladies writing about this same subject:

Sharon Otterman at the NYT Bits Blog, talks about Meg Whitman's chances and challenges in running for the seat currently held by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is term limited out. Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend discusses how Californians who opposed Proposition 8 feel about Meg Whitman's decision to run. And Jane Genova at Law and More asks, is Meg Whitman the right woman to save the "Left Coast."

Leave Jessica Simpson Alone!

2009-02-02T20:38:43-06:00

I thought, at some point, the night that Obama was elected, that I would love blogging in the new year because his Presidency would provide ample fodder for someone as keen as I am to point out foibles. Initially, I was disappointed because, as it turns out, there are seventy kabillion other conservative bloggers all of whom tend to latch on to Obama's foreign policy naivete (I'm using the French word so as to avoid using the more complex, slightly more dangerous in terms of censorship American four-letter ones), lack of foresight, resemblance to Jimmy Carter (I even suspect we've found this President's Billy, though somehow I doubt his product would be beer)...you name it, its been covered. By a cacaphony.

But see, there's some things others just aren't qualified to cover. And when Obama decides to wade knee-deep into celebrity culture and criticize a mainstay of gossip pages and sports superstition enthusiasts alike, The Sun will be there, and so will I.

Lauer: Yeah, well -- let -- let me show you. This is the -- the current issue of -- of Us Weekly.

Obama: Right.

Lauer: And here’s a great picture

Obama: Oh, it’s beautiful.

Lauer: -- of -- of you and -- and Michelle and -- and your daughters. Now, the -- the reason I bring this up I think is funny. It’s a great picture.

Obama: Yeah.

Lauer: But I wanna show you the cover. Look what they did. They -- they took you off the cover.

Obama: Yeah.

Lauer: They took you out of it.

Obama: It -- it’s -- it’s a little hurtful.

Lauer: You got replaced by Jessica Simpson.

Obama: Yeah, who’s in a weight battle apparently. (LAUGHTER) Yeah. Oh, well.

Yes, its true, the cover of Us Weekly does call what Jessica Simpson is going through a "weight battle," so if he's just reading the cover verbatim, he's going to come up with some interesting results, namely that his wife is using Pottery Barn to decorate the White House, which is not only totally lame, its going way over budget for furnishings, as Pottery Barn routinely takes their design cues from the much cheaper and recession-friendly Ikea, retools the components and makes expensive versions of furniture you can buy for under $100 with no payments due for a year if you buy all of your furniture and accessories at once ($399 or more worth). But still, you're the President. Its time to learn what's appropriate to comment on and what you should be aware is over the top.

For example, talking about things that are relevant to your job? Always appropriate, even if you are discussing passing notes to Mahmoud "Skippy" Ahmadenijad in study hall asking to borrow his Members Only jacket and handbook on being a dictator. Talking about conservative talk show hosts? Unless they are somehow involved with things relevant to your job, be aware that all you are doing is making them more famous. Rush was about currently as relevant to my life as POGs; the era of manufactured outrage and good-ol'-boy political incorrectness went out around the same time Ann Coulter's Adam's apple started appearing again. Talking about celebrities? Also inappropriate. Jessica Simpson may or may not be engaged in a "weight battle" and she may or may not have gotten the memo that pants, particularly jeans, belted at the waist will always, without fail, make your rear end look huge. Maybe she needs a visit from Trinny and Susanna. Maybe she needs her shopping privileges taken away. Maybe she needs to lay off the doughnuts. Or maybe, just maybe, Jessica Simpson is happy exactly how she is. Only she knows for sure. Personally speaking, I don't really care as long as she fires whoever the hell bought her that belt and told her that she could wear a bra three sizes too small.

Frankly, I'm just happy she's wearing pants as opposed to leggings/tights/rompers, as that is more than I can say for about 97.5% of celebrities and 99.5% of the drag performers who live in my neighborhood.

But see, that's even beyond the point. Where is the outrage that Lauer and Obama bothered to go...there? What was the necessity of dragging Jessica Simpson into the mix at all? And -- let's be honest here -- had any politician, celebrity, news personality or random person on the street other than Obama said something so degrading, so insensitive, they would not have gotten away with nary a mention of the transgression. Hell, if it were Hillary Clinton, I would expect that the usual suspects -- feminist organizations, high powered women, talking heads and empowered ladies the States through -- would be condemning, questioning and deriding the display. But instead...silence.

And its not as though Obama doesn't have a bit of a history documented on some of his friendliest sites. A year ago, a diarist on MyDD discussed Obama's "women problems, and who could forget his response to a female reporter in Detroit who got in his way on a campaign stop. These may have all been innocent transgressions, but at the same time, all of them, including this particular one, aren't really acceptable. They certainly wouldn't be from a Republican, and they shouldn't be from the President and a respected news anchor.

Leave the gossip to Perez, gentlemen. It can only end badly.

But of course, this isn't the only take on the Jessica Simpson affair. Laura at A Weight Lifted talks about the newsworthiness of Jessica's weight and whether its even appropriate for the news media to be picking on her. Kim Stolz, over at MTV's Newsroom Blog defends President Obama, but also makes a point about the propriety of the story.

The Women Factor

2009-01-22T12:46:05-06:00

Today is the anniversary of the decision in Roe v. Wade, and one of BlogHer's resident pro-lifers, I was asked to weigh in on the abortion debate from my perspective. I suspect to rehash the traditional arguments about the legality and morality of abortion, at this stage of the game -- thirty-plus years after the original decision -- would just be repeating the obvious. If you want the pro-life side of the argument spelled out so that it can be ratified or ridiculed depending on your own position, there are a quarter-million-plus pro-lifers marching on Washington DC who will give you the God's honest Truth.

And on that, I'm actually not kidding. Well, sort of. But you get what I mean.

As a libertarian, I understand the concept of loss of rights. My thoughts on legislation that has to do with morality are pretty clear. The Federal government, and least of all the judicial branch of the federal government have no business poking around where they don't belong. For me, Roe v. Wade was more than a legal travesty, it was an impermissible interjection of the law into a place where democracy should have been king. Taking rights away -- explicit rights, not merely implicit rights like those elucidated int he decision itself -- from US citizens is never a "good" and by making abortion a federal question, the Supreme Court deprived American citizens of their ability to speak on a matter that was not only primarily important to them, it was tied to their most precious valuable: their future. So lets leave my thoughts (and yours) on legality and rights behind. We can't win by arguing those points, because neither will convince the other and both of us will leave angry.

And here's where it gets really tough. By miring abortion in the political world, abortion has somehow managed to become a sterile political issue. You're either in favor of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, or you're opposed. For the most part, those on the front lines of both sides are there to represent hardened beliefs forged in the same kilns as their core ideology, and abortion is inextricably linked to the nature of their entire belief system. It has become a cause, a flag, a rallying cry for pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. It has been reduced to an argument on paper, full of sterile words like "right," and "law," and "Constitution."

Women, the people at the core of this battle, are often mentioned only in passing. And that is the real tragedy of this war.

Certainly, both sides claim to have the interests of women at heart: their freedom, their rights, their very souls. Both sides believe that the law itself is central to preserving these precious gifts. But in the background, its not the lawmakers or the non-profit workers or the theologians making the choice that is abortion.

Coming from the hardcore right of the pro-life debate, it has been difficult for me to see the debate with any emotional clarity beyond the emotional clarity handed to me in talking points by the various self-interested organizations involved. Women are this, women are that. Women do this, women do that. I imagine, somehow, its the same on the other side. But when you stop and think about it, neither side really embraces the people they claim to be assisting.

It is my belief (and you are free not to share this belief, and yes, I intend to be simplistic), that no woman ever walks into an abortion clinic looking to kill a child. No woman who walks into an abortion clinic is a murderer with one thing on her mind: the destruction of human life within her womb. It is also my belief that no women ever walk into an abortion clinic with their held held high, a copy of the decision in their hands, looking merely to exercise their Constitutional right. They don't get abortions for political reasons. They don't get them callously.

Women get abortions because they are faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

The process itself is the focus of the political debate, but you would think, if women don't get abortions for all of these reasons so often thrown out by either side, then why do they get abortions? We seem to forget that before the action itself, there are so many considerations, so many sleepless nights, so many financial calculations and relationship analysis. There are worries, tears, concerns about medical bills and educational opportunities; concerns about raising a child as a single mother, concerns about raising a child and not being able to pursue higher education, concerns about raising a child without the help of a father or a family. And similarly, there are concerns about the long-term impact of the abortion itself. What will people think? How will I feel? What if something goes wrong? What if I have long term emotional pain? What if those outside possibilities come true? What will my family think?

Women make the choice based on more than just a feeling or a compulsion or a political belief. They make the choice because, often, they feel they have no other choice.

Coming from the background I do, I believe that, if these really are the considerations, then society has failed women. Why are we not the kind of society that actively supports single mothers? Why are our colleges not offering more in the way of assistance to single parents? Why are there not more people out there looking to offer low-cost prenatal care (not just family planning) and postnatal care to women who are in financial need? Why is the process of adoption presented as so frightening, and why are we so limiting in who can become an adoptive parent? Why are we not addressing these issues on a national scale?

Why are we still fighting about abortion as a political reality, and not joining together to care for women facing abortion as a personal reality?

I know that even given extra support, women will still choose to have abortions, but if our common goal is for abortion to be rare if not extinct, then it makes sense to come together as a community (no, you don't need to rely on the government to provide any of this...I'm a libertarian, remember?), and create these support systems, lobby for these considerations and acknowledge that women are being failed at the most basic level by our current situation. We, as individual sides in this debate, are already each doing our part. Pro-lifers have set up hundreds, if not thousands of crisis pregnancy centers across the country (and no, they aren't the hives of Evangelism and deception that they are so often made out to be by pro-choicers), and pro-choicers have begun numerous projects across the country to address the emotional and physical needs of women facing abortion, as well as thousand of comprehensive family planning programs. But neither initiative includes the other side.

And that's a failure.

I know that this kind of collaboration may never happen. In order for there to be progress sides of this debate would, essentially, have to admit that the other side had something right all along: that women may be harmed by abortion, and that abortion isn't solved wholesale by making it illegal. And while I can't speak for the pro-choice side, I know that thirty years of arguing is a long investment to throw away on a simple admission.

But here we are, in a new era of good feelings, with a President who has committed to changing the way that business is done in Washington, and who has committed to ushering in a new era of collaboration, bi-partisanship and congeniality, three things which he recognizes must be embraced for change to happen. If that is to be believed -- and I think it is -- then there's a possibility that this could be the year where we stop focusing on each other in this debate and start focusing on women. Maybe next year the March for Women's Lives and the March for Life can be slightly less contentious.

I suppose my dream is that one day, the political argument is totally moot; that one day, society will embrace the needs of women on such a scale in our communities that abortion, while most likely still available, won't be necessary. And I think that's an achievement for us all.

For more from the pro-life perspective, I encourage you to read blogs from some very fine ladies. There's Andrea and Brigette who blog on womens issues and abortion over at Pro Woman, Pro Life, the must-read prose over at The Anchoress, and Jean at Catholic Fire, who has more details about the 2009 March for Life.

At Least Its Not Blago Himself

2009-01-06T21:17:27-06:00

You know, Chicago is a really nice city. Illinois, in fact, is a really nice state. Not all of our citizens look like Cabbage Patch dolls, and only 7 of the last 13 or so governors are in jail. We don't call that a problem. We call that...tradition.

Rod Blagojevich kind of embarrasses us, but not for the reasons you'd immediately expect. Although Chicago is a hotbed of corruption (hahah...its going to Washington), the corruption, for the most part, works; unlike the corruption in, say, Detroit, the system runs so well that most Illinois citizens fail to question it for the sole reason that they're concerned such questions would lead to such travesties as once-weekly garbage pickup, uninteresting mayoral press conferences, governmental harmony, and San Francisco-like ineffective politicians. Rod Blagojevich embarrasses us primarily because, despite his firm commitment to practices that are less than ethical, he could not manage to accomplish a single thing of any worth in his tenure as governor. In fact, his legacy includes a massive transit fare hike, budget deficits, and a national scandal that threatens to take Greta Van Sustern's attention away from the Missing Child of the Day almost inevitably.

This time, Rod managed to get himself into hot water, possibly get himself indicted, and, by trying to force people to pay for the privilege of holding Barack Obama's Senate seat, get himself kicked off the one-man committee in charge of filling said Senate seat. Before anyone had a chance to officially remove Rod from that position, however, he took it upon himself to appoint Chicago's most notorious Legend in His Own Mind, Roland Burris, who, wasting no time, proceeded to prove to Chicago and the rest of America that there has never been a camera created that he does not absolutely, unquestionably, love.

Technically speaking, Rod still has the right to appoint Roland to the Senate seat, and until the Illinois legislature manages to successfully impeach him (looking less and less likely to happen before the arrival of the next national holiday), or Patrick Fitzgerald convicts the man (which has, actually, never stopped an Illinois governor before). In order for Roland to take his seat, however, the process is somewhat more complicated: he has to be approved by the IL Secretary of State (didn't happen), and he has to be allowed to sit as Senator by the Democrats already there.

Also, did not happen.

Roland Burris was denied entry to the U.S. Senate Tuesday morning, when the Secretary of the Senate said his credentials were not in order.

But as CBS 2's Joanie Lum reports, Burris' attorneys say he is still looking for ways to take the seat.

Burris, who introduced himself as the "junior Senator from the State of Illinois," told reporters outside the Capitol in Washington: "I presented my credentials to the Secretary of the Senate and was advised that my credentials are not are in order, and I will not be accepted, and will not be seated, and will not be permitted on the floor," Burris said. "Therefore, I am not seeking to have any kind of confrontation. I will consult with my attorneys on what my next step will be."

Currently, the decision of the Secretary of State is under appeal to the IL Supreme Court, and the decision of the Senate Dems (who impressed me today with their sudden decision to grow a pair) is being appealed to Dianne Feinstein. In reality, the Democrats will probably have no choice: Blago was within his rights to appoint someone to the seat, and although he probably possesses an incredible arrogance leading him to make such a remarkable decision to appoint someone while struggling with his own ethics "problems," Roland still manages to be a legitimate nominee. He's probably going to have to be seated.

Sorry, America.

The Senate and the Supreme Court should bear in mind that this menace to America -- the attention-grubbing politician with camera presence -- will not tire in his endless quest to ascend what he feels is his throne. Here in Chicago, this species has been known to go for days without sleep, desperately seeking and sometimes finding any kind of media transmission device: television camera, cell phone camera, Polaroid or impressionable children with a tendency to repeat things they hear. America will not be free of Roland Burris until someone figures out what to do.

Of course, there are other Democratic governors who are facing the same fate as Blago, most notably, Arizona Governor and former almost Commerce Secretary Bill Richardson. Lets just hope and pray that he never is given the opportunity to appoint someone to a Senate seat. Arizona already has it bad enough with John McCain.

Don't just listen to me, though. Here are some other ladies writing about Roland Burris and his decision to bring his local show to a national stage.

Tami at What Tami Said agrees that Blago has a ways to go in the ethics category, but that Roland Burris should be seated now;

Harriet of I Am Harriet suggests that what the Senate Democrats did today was exactly what was needed according to the rule book;

And Sister Toldjah covers the entire saga from beginning to end.

Whats The Matter With Iowa?

2008-12-01T22:01:13-06:00

Dear American Electorate,

There are less than 700 days until the next election.

Yes, I know. I can't believe it either. It seems like just yesterday the partisan rancor died down so that we could officially begin sniping at each other using each others' legitimate positions rather than merely hypothetical ones, and here I am telling you that we're actually starting the election process late for the 2010 midterms. Frankly, I'd like to spend the next three months holed up on the couch with Ben & Jerrys watching reruns of Bridezillas, but reality dictates that I accept the endlessly repeating political cycle for what it is: endlessly repeating.

Republicans in even the most "red" of "red states," like Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma, are having a difficult time coming to grips with the Obama Presidency and the nearly incomprehensible loss that came along with it, and the soul of the party is the subject of a fierce civil war. Right now, it seems that the party is divided between social conservatives, who have been essential to past successes but seem to have suddenly become a liability, and fiscal conservatives, who see themselves as the ideological soul of the party. Although both are necessary to the future of the party itself, learning to work together, finding common ground and forming a cohesive movement maybe be out of the question, at least for the time being. The Republican party must rebuild itself from the grassroots up: find a coherent message that appeals to Americans on an intellectual level, while staying true to the limited-government principles and traditional values that define the conservative ideal.

But that's really for another day. Whether we're thinking about the heart, soul and mind of the Republican party seems inconsequential when there's another Presidential election looming on the horizon, and the race for who represents the Republican Party in 2012 is heating up.

You read that right.

The race for RNC chair, taking place right now, largely determines who will be the selected nominee, and the race itself is really about putting the right contender into position for the end of Obama's first term. There are a few obvious contenders: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, etc., but both of those gentlemen may have signed their own dismissals with their actions over the last several months. Romney's staffers were rumored to be deliberately leaking faulty information on Sarah Palin to the press to ensure that her chances at the Presidency ended with an abortive Vice Presidential campaign, and Mike Huckabee is working hard at alienating the base of the Republican party that produced Ronald Reagan. There are a few that conservatives seem to favor, however.

Some Republicans are still reeling from the 1996 ouster of Newt Gingrich, who has made a name for himself recently representing the conservative line on energy. Some bloggers, like Conservative Belle are already on board with him for RNC...at least.

I have been reading some of his books, subscribe to his emails and think he knows exactly how to unify the party with a strong message. One of the strongest points in his book Real Change is that the GOP is not reaching out to people who are not in our "big tent" now by better explaining why our party is better. And we need to stop dodging issues that new voters want to address (climate change, education choices, Sudan, health care choice, etc...). It isn't about compromising party principles on issues which are controversial or previously 'off limits.' Instead it is understanding the concerns of a nation and addressing them using our long-held views and convincing people we can make it happen. But first we have to earn their trust.

And of course, she's already been mentioned, but Sarah Palin is being looked at for 2012 as well. There's already a blog devoted to recruiting her for a Presidential run in four years. It might be a bit too soon, but despite McCain's best efforts at laying the blame on her for the 2008 loss, a recent poll found that 67% of Americans would want to see her run for President in the future, and nearly 90% of Republicans were satisfied with her position on the ticket. It was McCain they were unhappy with.

And there's one more you've probably overlooked. Despite his relative inexperience, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is largely viewed as exemplary of the future of the GOP. He was in Iowa this past week speaking to a conference of social conservatives. Back home in Louisiana, he's managed to square his social conservative beliefs with a strong limited-government outlook, and he's even managed to clean up one of the most corrupt states in the union.

Whatever the present looks like for the GOP, the future looks as though it could be bright. Yes, even in Iowa.

What The "Right" Has To Be Thankful For

2008-11-24T22:09:11-06:00

I don't particularly like Thanksgiving. As a vegetarian, I'm about as excited for Turducken as most people are about vegetarians (although that whole vegan pumpkin pie from Bleeding Heart Bakery is all mine), have little to no tolerance for my extended family and I have to travel by Amtrak, which I tend to believe is a driving force behind my distaste for all things government-run. Last Thanksgiving, it hit a cow and my two ideological worlds collided.

Fantastic. I am so thrilled.

But that doesn't change that Thanksgiving is a fantastic time to sit back, watch the big lake-effect snowflakes come floating down out of the sky for hours and count the many blessings of the last year. Heck, we all wake up every morning. Starbucks is still (somewhat) in business. Even though the years of expensive gifts are over, we're all getting brand new socks and underwear for Christmas.

Life could be worse.

Which is what I've been telling my fellow conservatives and libertarians: life could be worse. Sure, we'll have four years of Barack Obama, but we'll also have four years of endless material. Sure, we're about to enter a second New Deal, but swing dancing and pin curls came out of the first one, and I've never had the chance to grow a turnip and I'd love to learn. I also hear olive drab is so in for next year, so the sudden onset of Communism should fall right on time.

I kid. Seriously. Listen, I don't have a lot to hang on to right now, okaaaaay? But here are a few things conservatives have to be thankful for this Thanksgiving:

1. After this season, we'll no longer have to contemplate counterarguments and consider our position while watching Fox News during the entire span of its prime time lineup

2. A principled stand for against bailing out banks like AIG may, in fact, bring us one step closer to naked soccer players!

3. We finally have that excuse we needed to do some world traveling and/or world relocation.

4. The decision to no longer mandate fiscal (or any) responsibility in any situation may lead to student debt forgiveness.

And

5. We might finally have an excuse to get rid of Mike Huckabee once and for all.

In a not so tongue-in-cheek manner, let me say what we actually do have to be thankful for. We should be thankful that we live in a country that still holds tight to the principles on which it was built: freedom, liberty, opportunity, and for the most part, tolerance. We still live in the greatest country on Earth, where we are free to disagree or agree with each other without fear of repercussion, also for the most part. Although the election did not turn out the way we wanted, we now have an opportunity to step back, reassess, purge the movement of people who we've been looking to dump for a long time but needed to fully understand their problematic ways, return to our roots, re-examine our principles, and pick up and move on. We have an opportunity to adapt to the times and to be part of the future and not part of the past. Over the next few years, we'll fight each other for the soul of conservatism, but we should be thankful that we have a soul to fight over.

In the end, conservatives should be thankful for the thing that all Americans should be thankful for: we're here.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! And God Bless.

I can still say that.

Opposites Attract!

2008-11-17T21:38:29-06:00

So there's a dirty little secret in my life that I've been unwilling to admit until right now. Despite being a dedicated conservative, a serious libertarian, someone who occasionally refers to "liberal" as a "four letter word," I...well...I only date Democrats.

Okay, so it isn't exactly a policy as much as it is fate. Back in high school, my boyfriend was a football player who wrote for the school paper and we used to do op-eds together where he'd take one side and I'd take the other. It was cool at the time because it felt so anti-Establishment.

Then in college, my boyfriend was an outspoken opponent of the Iraq war who wore a big pin on his coat, and although he ended up being a jerk for other reasons, I never held the disagreement against him; in fact, it helped me build up my argument (he was a pretty easy pushover, though, so it didn't end up being such a big deal).

And then there's the man in my life now -- the serious one. He's...um...a registered Chicago Democrat who backed Joe Biden in the primaries.

I have to admit it, the political differences are kind of attractive.

I'm not alone, apparently. Right before the election, Christian Science Monitor columnist Anita Bhorjee Delahay revealed that her marriage was actually an holy union across the red-blue divide, something that started out contentious, but ended up giving both of them a handle on each others ideology that led to greater cross-party understanding...

I thought I knew about cross-cultural relationships when I entered into one of my own: I married a Republican. I soon found the culture clash between a red and a blue voter rivaled that of my parents...I would sit in my car after work listening to NPR, and Mike would stay up late to watch Fox News. This was about the same time that many of my friends abandoned me for dating a "fascist" and began guessing how long it would be before I started voting like Mike...

Through time, a wedding, and a looming addition to the family, Mike and I found that our different strengths and backgrounds generally worked to our advantage, so we revisited politics.

As we discussed the Second Amendment, this time in a face-to-face conversation, I realized that his support for gun access was not based on vigilantism or misplaced aggression, but rather on his desire for protection and his concept of freedom. I began to see how our political views grew out of our personal histories.

In a sense, it was very similar for me. I met my significant other in a very conservative environment, so I immediately assumed that he shared my exact philosophy to a tee, only to find out that he was probably the most liberal person I'd ever met (at least at first blush). He opposed the Iraq War, hated George W. Bush, railed against Republicans (though he admitted to being one at one time), and had a commitment to social justice that would practically give me or any libertarian a rash. But I liked him and he liked James Bond movies, so we kept going out.

And like Anita, I found something very interesting out about myself. Instead of ignoring politics and assuming we always knew what the other was thinking, we got into deep discussions, talked about our own philosophies and came to find that our beliefs both stemmed from a shared commitment to humanity that had been instilled in us by our parents. Through our discussions we both became more tolerant, more moderate, and more willing to see the opposite side as a set of ideals and reasons rather than a pile of bumper-sticker logic wrapped in a stereotypically prickly personality. As Anita found out about her husband, we discovered that "Although [we] want the same basic things, our perspectives cause us to prioritize national issues in very different ways."

It also caused me to see my opposition as human, because if I wrote off my opposition as nothing more than "stupid," "wrong," or "Communist," I had to admit to myself that I was writing off the person I loved as all of those things. I know in my heart that he's not stupid, certainly not Communist, and while he's wrong on a lot of things (like whether he should wear sweater vests, clean his car regularly and the entire subject of home decorating), I can't bring myself to say that he's completely wrong on....everything.

Earlier this year, six conservative women who I know and love were interviewed about dating and politics, and a few of them were asked if they'd ever date a liberal. For the most part, they had trouble with liberals, and seemed convinced that although it would be fun to date a liberal for a while, there was no chance of shared morals and values which would inevitably lead to a break-up. To me, with my significant other, it has always been the opposite. Even if we were on an opposite side of an issue, both of us value family and faith (we're both devout Catholics), and we're often, if not always, on the same side of the basic principles even if we don't always agree on how to address issues and put those principles into practice.

Politics goes to the heart of a relationship, because, ultimately, your politics are merely the most prominent manifestation of your core beliefs about life, love, faith and family. Its also a manifestation of your basic beliefs of humanity and society. Your politics are often definitive; they are an integral part of who you are. But they aren't you. They cannot and do not define you as a person, and in the end, its the person and not the politics you love.

I can't really give anyone advice about who to love or who to marry, but I have to say, in the end, I've learned a lot about myself and about my world by exploring my options across the aisle.

I don't think I'm alone either. In fact, I know I'm not. There are plenty of you out there who know exactly how I feel.

Tomorrow the World Changes

2008-11-03T22:28:56-06:00

So at this point, there's precious little I can do or say that will change your vote. In fact, to be truthful, it doesn't really matter to me who or what you vote for, so long as you vote for the person who best represents your interests and not for an empty suit with a modified personality. In other words, please don't vote for robots.

So what CAN I do? Well, Erin did this incredible post sometime last week and it got me thinking: the last few weeks of this election have taken a sweet Midwestern girl (me) and turned her into an angry, insane, crazy "ball of mess" as Erin says. If one more person tells me they're undecided, I'm going to kick them repeatedly in their shins and run screaming incoherently into the bushes. That's a promise. I have a habit of doing it.

Its no longer possible for me to engage in rational discussion. I will fight you. There will be tears.

So like Erin, I decided to go looking for some last-minute items that are lacking in substance just enough to reinforce my decision not to throw away my vote on a third party, yet allows me to maintain my happy cynicism, which I've spent the last two years cultivating.

So without further ado, your pre-election day links.

First up, we have a slide show selection of John McCain holding screaming babies, which either proves the point that his soul is inhabited by demons, or that photographers are very selective about which babies they take pictures of. McCain makes a lot of people cry, but babies? Seems like it could really be a toss-up with babies. Yes, they're natural liberals based on their outlined needs alone, but there had to be some child delighted at being held by John McCain.

But never mind. I know something that might really delight a few people who could care less about politics but still want to participate at this late date...cupcakes decorated like Sarah Palin.

Okay, okay.

Now for the serious part.

This country was built on democracy. Its a powerful tool and something that should be exercised with more responsibility than we normally reserve for it. Like it or not, the vote you will cast tomorrow is more important than the vote you cast for American Idol; its more important than the one you cast for Dancing With the Stars, but only marginally (you have to admit, that's pretty serious). You can't do it because its cool and you shouldn't do it just because everyone else is doing it. Think long and hard tonight, because if you don't, and the person you voted for ends up being a schmuck, you'll live with that guilt. It will haunt you. Trust me. I voted for George W. Bush.

Twice.

But whatever you do, exercise your civic responsibility. Because if you don't vote, you can't complain tomorrow.

And to end on a good note, I will leave you with this.

Otters holding hands.

Good luck tomorrow, everyone. And may the best man who is running with a woman win. And Joe Biden counts.

Totally.

Sexism, Sarah, and the Future of Conservatism

2008-10-27T22:09:01-05:00

I saw it mentioned earlier and thought...hmm...this is something that I'm uniquely qualified to comment on that I'm not commenting on. What is this? Who is better to address the supposed $150K Saks bill than the woman who only wishes she could spend enough time in Saks to rack up $150K? Believe you me, its not easy. To get to that amount of money, you'd have to spend a lot of time on the selling floor, or at least an hour in the Marc Jacobs purse boutique, or...and this is a pipe dream so I'll just be out with it...ten minutes with an Hermes Birkin bag.

Which is why when I read this story, I thought to myself, how did they get to $150K dressing one chick who would look good if you put her in a pair of Paper Denim Cloth jeans and a University of Alaska sweatshirt and whose photo-shopped bikini shot, were it real, would have won the Republicans the election.

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

Now, call me a shopaholic or a total flake or what have you, but I'm not impressed by these numbers. Maybe its just me, but I've noticed, over the last few election cycles, Supreme Court nominations, Academy Awards red carpet shows, ten years worth of US Weekly, most of the life of E!: Entertainment Television and the whole of Joan Rivers career, that women enjoy nitpicking what other women wear, and most importantly, the media and entertainment media enjoy nitpicking about what other political women wear. If you want to hear horror stories about fashion journalism, just read through the archives we have around here that touch on the sensitive issue of the pantsuit. We're brutal. If Sarah Palin walked out of her motorcade dressed in an ill-fitting shantung pant-suit with a too-short jacket and a pair of Payless heels, we'd have eaten her alive. And I'm nice to her, and here I am admitting to you, my loyal audience of five, that I, personally, would have taken her, brutally, to task for her choice of campaign finery. And I'm not even close to Perez Hilton.

Using Perez as a case study, and basing my opinion of the entertainment media solely on the fifteen seconds of his site that I can stand, let me just say that between the commentary on Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, I've learned that sexism is not only alive and well in this country, but its cleverly disguised as political humor. Yes, I'm cynical, but there's no mistaking that calling someone "hot" in a condescending manner is a newly discovered way of putting someone down politically. Just think what would have happened if she'd been hot and poorly dressed?

That brings me, of course, to the choice of store. Neimans and Saks may be pricey, but there's nowhere better to get quality clothes with designer or pseudo-designer labels. If you want the best and you don't want to get picked apart mercilessly by a television anchor whom plastic surgery has kept in relative stasis for the last fifteen years, you're going to have to pick from the cream of the crop. My guess is that they went with Oscar de la Renta, possibly some higher end Michael Kors, maybe some Christian Dior and Chanel if they needed some really nice stuff, or some good travel clothes, like the St. Johns that Cindy McCain often sports. Beyond that, she probably needed some travel wear (Eileen Fisher, Ellen Tracy and Elie Tahari come to mind), as well as good solid hosiery, a few pairs of those Cole Haan shoes with the Nike soles as well as a few pair of designer shoes for when her feet get photographed as they seem to do often. Add to that expensive makeup (because the best stuff is expensive), hair products, coats, gloves, bags, cases, brushes, and jewelry. Then add to that several tailored suits for her husband, who doesn't seem like the type to own many, tailored suits for her son, lots of new clothes and accessories for her five children, and then some lower-end material for talk shows.

You're at a serious bill right there. Add to that the salaries of full time stylists, hair and make up people, and a colorist.

Now, I don't know if that quite makes it to $150K or whether the $150K is necessary, but you see, that's the RNC's problem.

Not Sarah's.

I've long said that the RNC is out of touch with the Republican base and if you've suddenly discovered that, oh American media and great legions of Sarah-watchers, well then you've just stumbled upon something we've known for years. If they think $150K is enough to dress a candidate, and they feel they want to shell that out in the interest of public relations, then I guess that's their decision, but its representative of a fault we've been conditioned to ignore for a long time, assuming that the only choices we had in candidates were people who were hand-plucked from the Washington cocktail circuit or the local political machine: the people who are used to dishing out $2500-$5000 for a tailored suit from an exclusive Chicago retailer like Hartmarx (Obama, if you hadn't guessed), and assuming that the only people who would ever be welcomed in government were people who flowed with the system, not against it. Sarah Palin represents, to so many, the idea that the Everyman Candidate who goes to Washington to deliver remarkable, Jimmy Stewart speeches at the end of 18-hour filibusters with the intent of changing the way that business is done in the city that represents everything we hate about government, is not lost in the archives of an out-of-business movie studio. If the RNC wants to screw that up by painting her with Guerlain and stuffing her into the $5K suits we all complain about, they're creating their own monster. Sarah is the woman who stops at Wal-Mart for diapers. Its the RNC that hires $10K makeup artists.

Plus, I could probably do it for half or less with a few days and a Nordstrom Rack. Maybe I should contract out for her inevitable run at the Presidency or, if she loses, the Senate.

Don't take my word for it. See the rest of these ladies and their thoughts:

Tammi at Moms for Sarah Palin tackles the legitimacy of the original claim that it was $150K.

Linda Hanses of the Huffington Post's Off the Bus Blog says, "you can dress her up, but you can't take her out." In this case, fancy clothes aren't adding anything to a less-than-spectacular candidate.

And Susan Wagner of ParentDish takes a look at some of the OTHER campaign expenditures that are related to Sarah Palin's looks.

And by the way, BlogHer is non-partisan, but I'm not! Pin it on me! And don't forget to tune in here for all the election coverage you'll ever need!

That's Not Nonsense, Its Environmental Policy

2008-10-13T21:46:11-05:00

Okay, I have to be honest. I went in depth to research John McCain's environmental policy and was quickly thwarted by his website, which played a commercial over and over again until I wanted to throw my computer against a wall. I was swayed only by the fact that I need to keep the computer intact in order to get a tax credit.

But back to the point. John McCain, contrary to popular belief, DOES have a policy on the environment. Unlike most Republicans, John McCain has been staunch in his acceptance of the theory of global climate change, and embraces the notion -- and you can tell this bothers me for a reason I'll talk about in a second -- that government and not private enterprise should take responsibility in encouraging environmental stewardship. And yes, the reason I don't like that has nothing to do with my feelings on global climate change, but rather with my views on whether we should ever rely on government to set the standard for anything. But thats another post for another day. Right now, we're talking John McCain.

For McCain, environmental policy is inextricably linked to energy policy. According to McCain, it is absolutely necessary to lift the ban on offshore drilling and drilling in protected areas of the continental United States. Sure, while this would not produce a marked effect immediately, drilling for oil in places we've refused to drill for decades (thus impairing our ability to produce crude oil for ourselves and increasing our reliance on foreign oil that generally comes from less-than-sympathetic regions) would decrease the price of oil over time, and in twenty years or so -- if we're still lumbering around in fossil fuel vehicles instead of, say, flying cars -- would produce a workable, domestic source of that fuel.

But, of course, according to McCain, those flying cars shouldn't be reliant on fossil fuels at all. John McCain, in his energy platform, calls for American automakers to embrace a Clean Car standard, offering up to a $5K tax credit for each customer who purchases a green vehicle. A $300 million dollar prize would go to an automaker who could produce the the first full commercial development of a hybrid fuel-cell vehicle -- or any vehicle which "leapfrogs" into the automotive future. He's also willing to embrace and enforce increased CAFE (fuel emission standards), support the production of flex-fuel vehicles.

One thing I do like about John McCain's energy and environmental policy is that it supports workable alternative fuels. Lets face it, we can pump all sorts of cash into solar energy, wind power and the variety of high-cost, low-output alternatives to fossil fuel that we want -- the market will never support them until they are cheaper and more efficient to use than current options. Wind power and solar power initiatives, while adorable and easily marketable options that sell well to environmentally conscious grade-schoolers, will likely never produce enough energy to justify their high cost. In other words, if we chose to support these initiatives with our tax dollars, we'd be barking up the wrong tree. John McCain, instead, has said that he will support those alternative energy sources that hold real promise -- those energy sources that are already rising to the top in the commercial markets and those energy sources that have a real future in American life.

These aren't random sources. They include alternative vehicle fuels made from alcohol bases, clean coal technology (efficient technology which could be possible in the next several years with the correct encouragement), and most of all, nuclear power. While he'd still pressure the market to embrace wind and solar technologies, he recognizes that if these technologies turn out to be unworkable, as many think, he would discontinue support in favor of solutions that the market supports. In addition, McCain would pledge a permanent tax credit for companies seeking out alternative fuels -- a tax credit which would be equal to the wages of the entire research and development department for each company.

Sure, green jobs are very important, but McCain recognizes that merely funding something and subsidizing an industry does not guarantee that industry's long-term survival. Mere "creation" of jobs out of thin air, funded completely by the government and therefore into eternity, would do little except provide employment to a new generation of government hacks, content to while away the hours in a dank laboratory and collect their pension checks at the end of their tenure. To truly move into the future, private enterprise -- not government enterprise -- must be encouraged. Support of private enterprise and encouraging privately-owned corporations to engage in research and development of alternative fuels is McCain's plan.

So what about cleaning up the mess that's in the air right now? John McCain would put into place a "cap-and-trade" emissions program, that would allow corporations to buy and sell the right to emit greenhouse gases, while capping the emissions overall. Sounds complicated? Its really not, and it worked to curb acid rain back in the 1990s under Bill Clinton. The market, not the government, decides where and when to use their emissions "credits," giving them an indication of where they need to improve, and helps corporations know where to invest money to improve their emissions. Why would they do this? Well, the permits that corporations don't use can be "traded" back to the government for cash or credit. The less emissions, the more credit. Businesses love profit, and if you can maximize profit by minimizing emissions, everyone wins.

Additionally, every few years, the cap on emissions falls, so less and less emissions are allowed until, by 2050, emissions are reduced by 66% from levels present in 2005. Small businesses, of course, would be exempt, letting entrepreneurs get on their feet before they become subject to high government standards.

One of my favorite parts of the environmental policy: finally some recognition that ethanol may not be the best way to go. John McCain is pledging to let up on funding the incredible subsidies that have flowed into production of ethanol over the last few years, and he has also pledged to drop the trade restrictions that drive the cost of corn into the high heights domestically. By reworking this system -- allowing for support for the development of ethanol while eliminating wasteful government spending -- John McCain may do more for the development of corn-based fuels than he thinks.

Am I totally happy with the plan? I guess. Its better than I could have hoped for, but the inner anarchist is just itching to hate it. I suppose, for someone who likes as little interference from the government as possible, this is the only viable option in the presidential race -- and the only one that doesn't make America subject to international emissions standards that no nation can actually meet without farming out its industry to third world countries who aren't Kyoto signers.

Canada, I'm talking to you.

Don't take my word for it. Find out what other lovely ladies are saying about John McCain's environmental policy:

Ginna and Ian take on the comparison between McCain and Obama over at VJWilliamson's Weblog. Patty Henetz of the Salt Lake Tribune's blog takes a look at two candidates who are "together in words, apart in deeds." And finally, Lisa Swan of Piece of Mind pits Barack and John head to head on their environmental policy, green technology and fuel emissions standards.

Nailin Palin...?

2008-10-06T23:19:03-05:00

For some movies, there's no higher honor than earning an adult entertainment counterpart parody. Some of the greatest movies have been remade to star women with impossibly huge breasts, men with impossibly huge private parts, and lots of extras who are impossibly tuned in to the sexual needs of the main characters and who make impossibly bad puns. Its rare that this crosses into the real world, but apparently, Sarah Palin is about to earn adult entertainment's highest honor herself.

Larry Flynt is financing her porn debut. Sort of.

The Hustler founder has made an X-rated movie using an adult-film actress who resembles the governor of Alaska.

Flynt's team had posted an anonymous advert on the website Craigslist just days after Mrs Palin took the Republican convention by storm last month.

The ad read: "Looking for a Sarah Palin look-alike for an adult film to be shot in the next 10 days."

The actress would be paid $3,000 (£1,700) for the part.

Flynt's spokesman confirmed to the New York Daily News that the film had been shot, but he would not yet reveal the title.

Okay, so this article is a little outdated. We now know that the movie will be entitled "Naylin' Palin," will feature her engaging in foreign "relations" with her Russian neighbors, will star adult actress Lisa Ann, and will involve a...ugh...threesome between Palin, Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice.

And its already selling advance copies.

And I'm really trying to hold it in, if you can't tell.

I'm a libertarian. I say that a lot. In fact, I'm what you might consider a pro-porn feminist libertarian. While I define feminism differently, I tend to lean toward the theory that porn is both an art form and possesses the potential to allow women to embrace their sexuality. To be frank, there are some types of porn that I don't find objectionable. In fact, at some point in my early adulthood, I very publicly admitted that I would edit Playboy in a heartbeat if given the chance.

But there's theory and then there's reality. Of course, I'd still love to work at Playboy, but in the grand world of pornography, Playboy is the Cuban cigar to the rest of the industry's Marlboro Lights (odd metaphor, but it works). Pornography is an art form that can be explored, used to make political statements, exist as satire and counterpoint to a stuffy, insular and often puritanical culture. From this perspective, I believe that Larry Flynt has the right to explore the parameters of the political system; if his and his editors idea of commentating on the political climate is to make a porn movie about it, the principles of artistic expression and free speech apply. Anything less would be...conservative.

But there comes a point where anti-puritanical satire borders on exploitation. Certainly, Flynt is making a political point, however, he is also riding a wave: the media, the popular culture, and without a doubt fellow progressives (and many, many others of both sides of the political spectrum) have been taking cheap but funny shots at the shortcomings of Palin's personality over the last week, resulting in ratings -- and message -- gold. For some, its merely a way of spreading the truth, for others, its a way to devalue Palin as a human being, a political candidate, and...as a woman.

There are many reasons to object to Sarah Palin; I can imagine that my co-bloggers here at BlogHer would have no problem issuing me a list at the drop of a hat and every point on the list would be legitimate, but there's no question that for some critics, the thought of a woman ascending to the highest office in the land is terrifying. Hell, they thought a woman with the qualifications, experience and level of respect of Hillary Clinton ascending to the Presidency was terrifying...of course, they'd switch targets to the small-town mayor from the 49th, wilderness state. How better to marginalize a candidate than by appealing to the most animal instincts of her critics? How better to make Sarah Palin nothing more than an object than by reducing her to, well, an object?

Pornography, no matter how empowering, and like any weapon in the free speech arsenal, can be used for evil. Pornography and adult film-making is especially dangerous, since it often deliberately depicts savage sexuality, violence against women, and reduces women to their most basic state: that of a sexual object. Its stars are not helpful in this respect -- most of the women who star in mainstream adult films are not natural women. They are plastic representations of women cleaned from the fantasies of hyper-sexualized, macho males. Not people loved for their intelligence, sophistication and wit, in other words.

Its something feminists have been saying for years; despite supporting the necessary freedom of expression, there are clear lines that should not be crossed. No woman should be depicted as the victim of violence, no woman should be reduced to nothing more than the object of a teenage fantasy. For true equality, women must accept their sexuality and demand respect.

By depicting Sarah Palin as a brainless sex object, by taking advantage of the popular notion that she is a political fantasy, Hustler and Larry Flynt are perpetuating the idea that any woman, no matter how accomplished, can be reduced to the sum of her bedroom prowess. And he's not the only one. Palin, Clinton and other high-powered women have been intentionally and recently attacked, cited as incapable of doing their job because of their gender, and demeaned because of their habit of wearing skirts. In this film, Flynt reinforces even those ideas, making certain to incorporate the other women in high office in this country into a threesome fantasy. It's no secret that the threesome is the most profitable and sought-after scenario in adult entertainment. Marketing to the masses of young men consuming this material by putting three powerful women into that situation makes clear the result of Hustler's art: there's a possibility that the movie's consumers will see the precedent and apply it to all future female candidates.

Of course, Larry Flynt has his rights, and if the movie stimulates (heh) political discussion, then it will have been successful as political parody. He may be on to something and I may be paranoid, but as with all rights, just because you can use it, it doesn't mean you should. In this case, I have to believe the story of Sarah Palin's naked exploits with Russian oilmen should have been left unwritten.

Or at least wait until she's Vice President. Now those scenarios would be kind of hot.

Don't just agree with me. Read more about it at these ladies sites: Echidne of the Snakes discusses the ramifications of both the porn movie and the possibility that Sarah Palin may be exploiting her own sexuality for political gain. Monya of Stupid Celebrities and her readers take a look at the situation from a Hollywood perspective. Tennessee Gureilla Woman delves more in depth into the strain of sexism that has run through this election cycle.