Happy Birthday Mr. President

I am an election baby. Every year my birthday is on or near election day.

But no cards, gifts, or cake please. JUST VOTE. That would be the best birthday gift ever.

Feminist extremism

Am I the only person who was bothered by McCain in the debates labeling women's health as an "extremist" position? Regardless of how one feels about abortion (and I think most reasonable people on both sides have mixed feelings), most feel that abortion should be permitted when the mother's health is in danger. For McCain to call this "extremist" is deeply troubling.

Sarah Palin destroyed my sofa, or, you call THAT empathic?!

This morning I woke up to find that Teh N00b had opened three cartons of yogurt, eaten half of each one without mixing them, then dunked two wooden cars into one and run them all over the back of the sofa and the coffee table, leaving yogurt tracks everywhere.

It was like the Palin-Biden debates.

She avoided any substance by leaving it untouched at the bottom of the yogurt carton, then smeared sweet goop everywhere, making a mess.

I don't understand anyone who thinks that Palin is charismatic, charming, or likeable. Because at the moment that Biden was recalling what must have been one of the most painful moments of his life -- the death of his first wife and young daughter in a car accident -- she failed to respond. At all. A simple, "I imagine that must have been a difficult time for you" -- anything -- would have done. But she just launched into blathering about McCain. (See the video here, it happens at 2:45).

Was she not listening? Did she not know how to respond to another's suffering? Does she not care?

DG thinks that this was a planned slip on Biden's part, an attempt to show his human side. Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't matter. Biden's suffering was and is real, even if it happened a long time ago. If Palin can't respond to the suffering of someone standing in front of her, then how the hell can she empathize with the American public?!

A Loving Mother? Take Two

Well, turns out Marion might be right (see the comments) -- Trig is probably Palin's kid. Even Daily Kos has taken down the article, and shame on them if they published photos with incorrect dates.

But it's too bad, because I really liked that story about Palin far better than the one she is actually telling.

If the rumors had been true that Trig was her grandchild, I would have had far more respect for Palin. It's true she would have used her influence to cover up the truth, which shows questionable judgment. But it would have shown someone who was willing to take a fall for the love of her child. That as a mother, Palin was willing to sacrifice for her daughter's mistake.

Instead, we have Palin using her daughter -- and her daughter's shotgun fiance -- as a political pawn. She wants her daughter to make the sacrifice -- both a too-soon baby and a too-early marriage -- for her mother's political career. Palin knows that a divorce would come after the election, so what does she care if it doesn't work out?

In my book, that's selfish. So you have a pregnant daughter, ok. But parading her around as evidence for your conservative viewpoint? Dragging the 17-year-old boyfriend to MN so he can prove to conservatives that he'll do the "right thing"? What do his parents think?

They are both just kids and Palin should keep them out of the spotlight.

Meanwhile, curiouser and curiouser about Palin's own youth. Five colleges in six years?! That's just weird.

A Loving Mother?

Hmmmm.

Rumors are circulating that VP nominee Palin's last child is biologically her grandchild. The evidence, if true and undoctored, raises the question -- but in the photoshop era, can photos be believed?

Far be it for me to criticize someone "not looking pregnant," since some guy tried to pick me up for a date when I was at seven months. Sitting with legs crossed, it's amazing how many people won't notice that belly. (I was so swollen at that point I had to stop wearing my wedding ring, so you can't fault him on that point.)

I'm pro-choice, and I wouldn't vote for McCain/Palin in a million years on that and many other reasons. But I will give her credit -- assuming any of this is true -- for not being a hypocrite. If one is pro-life, then that means one should support women having children under difficult situations. In this case (if true) she took the burden (emotional and financial) off her daughter so that the latter can continue with her education and life.

Of course, it would be better for all of us to avoid these cases altogether. That means supporting BIRTH CONTROL -- in high schools, for starters. Sex ed in junior high schools. Condoms everywhere, free and accessible so that my local drug store doesn't have to keep them under lock and key to stop kids for stealing them.

But even then, there will be some teenage pregnancies. They happen. Should Palin be lying about it? Should her daughter? No. But lots of other parents -- pro-life parents -- would have turned a blind eye to an abortion. Or forced an adoption, a marriage, or thrown the daughter out of the house.

Palin may have done the old-fashioned thing of taking on her grandchild as her own. Maybe that proves she is the kind of mother she claims to be.

(That still isn't enough to make her VP, in my book, but hey, credit where credit is due.)

Scientologist Pharmacists, Unite!

Bush and Friends (TM) is once again trying to make it acceptable for pharmacists to "object" (read: not do their jobs) to dispensing birth control and emergency contraception to women.

Let's not mince words: this is stupid and immoral. The vast majority of American women want (and exercise) the right to birth control, and pharmacists do not (IMHO) have the right to interfere in any decisions between doctors and patients of either gender. It is their job to dispense medications correctly, not make judgments or diagnoses. If they can't do that, they should find another job.

But if this passes, it raises a serious question. Can a Scientologist pharmacist who does not believe in chemical treatments for depression and other mental illnesses refuse to dispense Prozac?

Unfortunately, conservative Christian backers of these kinds of things often don't think through these kinds of legal consequences. Laws, after all, apply to everyone, not just (one definition of) the Chosen Few.

Guilty as Charged

The results of PMS's poll (see the comments section) are in:

Why did Hillary say "Burma" instead of "Myanmar"?

25% "Burma" is easier to say when you're under sniper fire.

25% "Myanmar" is harder to say in a fake folksy accent.

50%	Knowing things is "elitist."

0% Stop making fun of Hillary. She's making a serious political statement here.

Because Hillary didn't learn anything at Wellesley. Or Yale Law School. Which is not elitist.

On a more general note, I don't know why people with perfectly cromulent educations feel the need to act "dumb".

The Five Second Prayer

I've been giving a lot of thought to this article, that Ducks pointed me towards earlier (thanks!). The summary:

An MIT class has estimated the carbon emissions of Americans in a wide variety of lifestyles -- from the homeless to multimillionaires, from Buddhist monks to soccer moms -- and compared them to those of other nations. The somewhat disquieting bottom line is that in the United States, even the people with the lowest usage of energy are still producing, on average, more than double the global per-capita average.

This is because they are assuming that even the homeless are responsible for the CO2 produced by their share of streetlights, police services, transportation infrastructure, and other "public goods." That's not a bad way to calculate things. I do believe if we want to make a serious effort to curb our impact on the environment, then we have to make that decision as a society for it to have any real results. This study just confirms that, in my mind -- our society is wasteful on a truly grand scale.

Now, this begs the question, of course: Sam, aren't you just another damn eco-zombie, so concerned with your stupid worms and recycling and taking the CTA when all those things don't make any difference? Why not just eat, drink and be merry until the government taxes the hell out of gas, hamburgers, and the American way? Or until we destroy our planet (or at least our place in it) because we can't reach a consensus about how to curb ourselves?

But there is something to all this that goes beyond quantitative measures of CO2 (although yes, I care about that too). For me, this is not just about footprints and carbon sinks. When I sort paper or dig through dark, rich compost mulch or try to find ways to use a little less plastic, I feel connected to something larger than myself. Something big and eternal and maybe a little scary. Something one can't truly escape and can't fully confront.

This is prayer.

Prayer, for many, is quiet and powerful. They can sit silently, quietly thinking, communing with higher powers. For them, prayer is done with hands clasped, hands raised, quietly or singing, standing or sitting, alone or in church.

I have occasionally felt something in those contexts, but my daily prayers are very different. Often less than five seconds, these are silent -- not just unvoiced, but unarticulated. Certainly they would go unrecognized for what they are. This is not about words, but about action. Ritual action, perhaps (Victor Turner, anyone?).

I describe myself as a deist (no, I don't agree with everything or everyone associated with that philosophy, but isn't that normal for any religious community?). I believe seriously in the mystery of Creation as something ever-changing, ever evolving. Considering the diversity on this planet -- how many beetles? what is living on the bottom of the ocean? -- let alone other planets in the universe, I cannot believe God is confined by gender, language, culture -- or humanity. Or that It cares more about humans than about mosquitoes, or bacteria, or octopuses. One day Creation will not include me, or you, or humans at all. I don't buy that we are the end-product of Creation, the masterpiece of the universe, God's only children.

I also don't believe that God (or whatever you want to call it) explains Itself primarily in books or words. I don't have a problem with other religions, mind you (not even the one I left). We don't all have the same hobbies, the same passions; I can't see any evidence that God wants us all to join the same religion. But God did create a "text," if you will. It is all around us -- not confined the page -- even if our experience of it is akin to the blind men and the elephant.

If God doesn't speak to us in words alone, then why do we think that our prayers need to be limited to that genre? My prayers are actions. Like turning off the lights. Like turning off my computer power cord. Like composting. Like planting native plants that feed butterflies. Little actions premised on the idea that little things matter, and maybe, eventually, can lead to bigger things.

Flip the switch. Amen.

Burma vs. Myanmar: What is Hillary really saying?

I watched Hillary Clinton's speech last night -- before the Indiana results were final, she was claiming victory anyway. Guess she figured it didn't matter. She wanted to rally her supporters before everyone went to bed, and if Obama had actually managed to win Indiana she would be out of the race despite the faux-pas.

Anyway, others will no doubt analyze to death her comments, since TV commentators have to fill hours and hours of time with speculations about what would happen if X, Y, or Z. What interests me here is her throwaway comment about the recent cyclone that killed tens of thousands in a southeast Asian country.

Now, the Chicago Tribune calls this nation Myanmar. But Clinton follows the lead of the Brits, and calls it Burma. And she did so twice; it clearly wasn't a mistake.

Now, I'm not rushing to the defense of Myanmar's military dictatorship here. But let's be honest about American realpolitik -- our nation routinely deals with state and nonstate governments that make me queasy without questioning their right to name themselves.

It seems strange (and possibly embarrassing) for our potential future President to use the non-official name for a nation. But clearly she is not alone in preferring to use the name of "Burma". Turns out the U.S. State Department also calls the nation Burma. Even the title of the nation's entry on Wikipedia is disputed. The name of Myanmar was adopted in 1989 (nearly 20 years ago), and is still contested by many. Still, it seems strange for someone aiming for our top diplomatic post to not use the official name for a nation-state.

Adding to the insult, Laura Bush criticized Myanmar's response to the tragedy. I think the only reasonable response by Maynmar to that would be, "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie."

Open Letter to Mayor Daley

Dear Mr. Daley,

I am appalled that you would allow part of Lincoln Park to be sold for the exclusive use of an elite private school. As a resident of Chicago who spends time in Lincoln Park, this affects me and my young son directly. As an environmentalist, it is simply shocking.

Our city has very little open space. What we have should be protected for everyone to use -- whether or not they can afford to send their children to elite private schools such as the Latin School. Closing this space off to the majority of the city's residents, not to mention allowing it be turned into a soccer field, calls into serious question your claims to be an environmentalist.

Being "green" is not about mere tulips. It is realizing that we are all dependent on the earth and have both the right to share in its beauty and bounty, and the responsibility to protect and promote other forms of life on the planet -- even when we have the money, power, and technology to do what is merely convenient for ourselves.

Please reconsider this disastrous decision.

cc: Mayor Daley, directly via his website.

Obama's Pastor vs. Your Crazy Uncle

I really don't understand why so many people are concerned about what Obama's pastor said, or why he didn't rush to leave his church over it, or (in the words of Eric Zorn at the Trib) wondering "why Obama didn’t act years ago to defuse the obvious political time bomb contained in the rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright."

Ok, am I the ONLY person who is related to crazy people?

Come on, admit it. You have a crazy relative. Cra-zy. Someone whose ideas are so beyond the pale that they are simply embarrassing to hear, but in the name of family peace everyone just looks uncomfortable over family dinners and tries to change the subject. Someone you used to argue with when you were younger, until you realized there was no point, because they thought that way long before you were born and would continue to think that way until they left this earth, so you might as well save your breath.

And yet, you love them.

Why?

Loyalty to family? The fact that he is the crazy uncle who writes to you? That's the aunt who remembers your birthday? The cousin who would drive 2000 miles to watch your cat for a week? She's the life of the party? A great confidant? Because he's willing to step in to point out that love trumps everything? Or just because?

Now, people will say that Obama and Rev. Wright are not related. Coming from a very small family (like Obama does) I realize that for many people, family are where you make it. Some people are blessed with large families. I'm not. Instead, I have friends (some of whom are reading this) that I consider family. I would do anything for them if the chips were down. (I hope they know that, too.)

And some of my friends are a little crazy (in a good way!). But even if they became more crazy, I would still stick by them. Because I love them. Because they are family.

Family means that sometimes you ignore the crazy and focus on the good. And this country needs someone who can do that, not cynically for the sake of politics, but honestly. We need someone who can be generous. Being generous is not the same thing as agreeing.

Obama has forgiven his pastor, even as he rejected some of his philosophies. Most of us would have no family at all if we weren't willing to do that once in a while. I think all this is to Obama's credit, not his detriment.

Buckle your seatbelts...

I share Duck's concern about Ralph Nader entering the Presidential election, but I have a more basic question: what is he hoping to accomplish?! He knows he can't win, right? Heck, even in 2000 he didn't have a chance, and I am only just now learning that he ran in 2004.

If Nader really wants to show that people who feel marginalized can influence their government, what better way than to demonstrate that than to show that he himself can have a positive impact on our nation without running for President? I mean, let's face it, most of us will never have the chance to seriously run for any public office, let alone President. And Nader has done a lot of great things -- like advocating for consumer safety -- without being elected for the job. He can influence this election without running himself.

I agree with Nader that we need to break out of the two party system. But the way to do that is for viable third parties -- like the Greens -- to run serious candidates to win less glamorous offices. There are Greens on city councils and other local offices, and that's where they should be building support for their party. We need Greens at local levels: school boards, water reclamation districts, state representatives.

I guess the Republicans must be happy, though. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, they'll be 2 for 2!