London Burning

I'm torn about the riots in the UK, on one hand I wholeheartedly believe that they have a lot to be mad as hell about (and so do we in the UK). With the rates of unemployment and high cost of living, I'm honestly surprised that there wasn't rioting during the ridiculous spectacle/waste of taxpayer money that was the royal wedding. And much like the Sean Bell case in New York (which there surprisingly wasn't massive riots over), police shootings or possible police misconduct can be a tipping point especially if there's a larger unrest.

And while it's hard to know what's really going on from 3,000 miles away, it seems that the looting and protests aren't necessarily about government or police mismanagement or crimes, or even bread necessarily from the hopelessness of prolonged unemployment and poverty. While the may have been the catalyst, it seems more like it just about destruction which gets the entire lot labeled as thugs and discredits the real reasons for uprising in the first place.

Two opposing views that both have validity:

Potatoes, Racism, Mad Men and the “Ground Zero Mosque”

It’s amazing how many forms a thing can take. Potatoes can be al gratin, baked, boiled, fried, mashed. The versatility of this starchy wonder is what makes them such a dietary staple. Potatoes are delicious, but their versatility and staying power is a trait that they share with something not so tasty—racism.

I’m in the middle of reading a book of historical fiction about the South in the 60s, filled with “respectable” white people who degrade their black help in ways both conscious and unconscious. And even though people of my generation and younger are aware of the kind of violent, overt, disgusting, senseless racism that prevailed during that time, it’s still chilling to be reminded of, even if it’s something we didn’t live though and will never be able to fully comprehend. And it’s easy and comforting to be self-congratulatory and view racism as a thing of the past. But that’s so far from the truth -- it’s here, it’s widely accepted, its just taking different forms.

Take for example the new view of “separate but equal” that is being debated in New York right now, and even the language used to describe the controversy conveys the bias: “The Ground Zero Mosque.”

First, the flaws in the argument:
1) It’s not a Mosque; it’s an Islamic Cultural center.
2) It’s not on “ground zero” (which is an odd term to begin with) it’s two blocks from where the world trade center used to be on the “hallowed ground” of a closed Burlington Coat Factory store one block from a strip club. (Although the WTC itself was built on a slave grave site, so hallowed ground argument has some weight just not the weight the argument makes)
3) There is absolutely no correlation to this building, or these people to 9/11.
4) There is a similar prayer room at the Pentagon (one of the other 9/11 sights) that no one seems to care to protest.


Those protesting the building aren’t simply wrapping themselves in the flag to justify their racist inclinations, they are helping to set a dangerous precedent: politicians (both democrat and republican) are fanning the bigotry for their own ends (many of them are the same people who voted against health care benefits for 9/11 first responders, btw). And everyone is leaving Muslims out of the conversation.

Whether the controversy has been manufactured as an election year tactic or not, the visceral hate and bigotry was all too easy to whip up. We’d like to think that we are a cosmopolitan and progressive city far from the backwoods lynching mentality of the South in the 60s (many comments on recent stories about the 51Park project have tried to dismiss protesters as being from “out of town”), but when you hear of cab drivers getting stabbed because they are Muslim , and a deluge of hate crimes all over the city it’s hard to maintain that bigotry is either a thing or the past or a practice exclusive to those in “fly over states.”

Viewing this community center’s construction as an affront to 9/11 victims (some of whom were of course Muslim themselves) is the equivalent to labeling all black men as criminals after one steals your purse. And proposing that it be built further away is equivalent to building a separate bathroom for the help.

On Sunday night’s episode of Mad Men, cosmopolitan Roger Sterling used his role in WWII to justify his unwillingness to work with the Japanese. He asked, “Since when is forgiveness a better quality than loyalty?” Of course, his internal conflict, just like this one isn’t one of forgiveness, or loyalty. It’s a matter of perspective. Because a country filled with this kind of hate, violence and bigotry is a huge terrorism threat.

Another Victim of the BP Oil Leak

The ongoing BP oil leak has many victims—the hundreds of dead animals, the lost of business for the already hard-hit Gulf Coast, the destroyed and polluted beaches, the devastating environmental toll. Add to the list BP gas station owners.

BP sold off its retail gas business, which means the people who own the 13,000 BP gas stations are generally independent franchisees. So the calls for BP boycotts and demonstrations outside of BP gas stations are misguided and end up hurting independent business owners who are locked into contacts with BP. Besides, as Consumerist points out when you choose another gas station over BP you may be giving your money to a wholly-owned BP subsidiary.

But what to do to show your disgust? It’s difficult as a consumer to take an action that will have an impact on the evils of the corporation and not the employees who are likely getting screwed over already. A single person’s boycott is just a drop in the bucket (I refuse to shop at both Wal-Mart and American Apparel because of their business practices as I’m sure many people do—yet not enough to make a noticeable difference in their bottom line).

A huge shift in public sentiment however (like seeing constant footage of spewing oil and sad dying animals) tends to motivate a more urgent need to take action. It’s a difficult line to toe, by no means should we sit idly by when corporations make huge mistakes and act poorly. Consumer boycotts sometimes do make a huge difference and force corporations into action. And voting with your wallet is often the best and easiest way to make an impact to a company, but we’d all be wise to use a more thoughtful approach to who is going to be most impacted by our actions and what better ways there might be.

This kind of limited thinking can be found at work in overtly brainless ways like boycotting Arizona Iced Tea (which is produced in New York) over Arizona’s eff-ed up immigration law. Or in misplaced good intentions like Michael Moore’s approach to shaming corporate criminals and fat cats.

The cornering and public/on camera dressing down of men like GM’s CEO Roger Smith would provide audiences with satisfying schadenfreude. Instead too often Moore goes for the easy showiness of storming the security guards at corporate headquarters (blue collar working dudes) These guys would probably be on his side of the issues, but a job’s a job and they don’t want to lose theirs so they follow orders and turn Mike and his cameras away and look like the bad guys while the criminals never have to leave their offices. Not that mid or entry level employees at evil places are without responsibility, it does raise questions about personal integrity, choices, and selling out, but these days it’s difficult to criticize someone who likely is grateful to have a job at all.

But like the ending to most of Moore’s movies, I don’t have the answer. Doing nothing isn’t good advice, boycotting BP and putting more small business owners out of work will hurt the wrong people, and pressuring law makers to regulate and penalize companies like BP seems like the best if not most frustrating means of action. That, and giving time and money to companies who are doing good and demanding more transparency and asking the right questions about the places you spend your money are probably the best actions we can take.

Food for Change

It’s a topic I’ve been a-blogging about frequently in the last couple of months, so it’s only appropriate that I follow up with these recent more hopeful stories on the topic of making healthy food more available in food desert areas of the city and country.

Yesterday New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand proposed $1 billion in loans and grants Monday to help build 2,100 grocery stores in areas around the nation that lack access to fresh food.

It’s estimated that the proposal would help about four million New Yorkers who live in areas like the Bronx and East New York, where grocery stores are few and far between by providing the funding for more than 350 stores statewide. This proposal has the potential to solve the problem of access to healthy food in low-income areas and that’s the first step, but as I’ve said before, the second (and perhaps most important) step is making those healthy foods affordable—more affordable than junk food. That’s a more complex step that involves our entire industrial food system, but no measure of availability or education/awareness will have complete results until people can afford to buy the food.

There’s been some good news (not necessarily NEW news, but more new-to-me news) in the education/awareness area of healthy eating and cooking. On the heels of the after school cooking program I volunteered at last week, I found this story about a professional chef teaching kids about healthy cooking. I know firsthand how engrained poor eating habits can be in kids, how reluctant they can be to try foods they think are “weird” or “gross” but I’ve also seen how much (boy and girls, small kids, teens) really get into cooking, creating, and learning about new foods. It’s not going to fix the problem or change the world, but it does give you hope.

Thank you for Pot Smoking

I used to kind of roll my eyes at the “Legalize It” rastas and hippies. I viewed legalizing marijuana as a self-severing “never going to happen” non-political issue. But over the last couple of years I’ve learned more about why this maybe the single more obvious (and bipartisan) issue that if passed could have some of the largest and most wide spread effects.

The medical benefits: while there are lots of jokes about stoners faking glaucoma to get high, there are legit medical benefits to pot and 14 states have legalized medical marijuana, approved to treat a (yes a little suspiciously) long list of ailments including anorexia (it gives you the munchies), anxiety (it mellows you out) and even recently (albeit a little controversy) for ADD in kids. Yet this is an illegal drug. What would legal highs like booze or cigarettes ever be used to treat? Nothing, because they are actually harmful to health, yet still legal because the government has realized the tax potential. The other perhaps more compelling medical benefit of legalized pot is that it would loosen our growing dependence on pharmaceuticals. Legal pot would be cheaper and less toxic than pharmaceutical drugs, and would mean less pharmaceutical waste and residue in water and soil (good for the environment and for every living thing).

The fiscal benefit: I don’t know if you’ve noticed or not, but in the midst of the recession and huge state budget deficits, lawmakers have been looking high and low for things to tax (sugary drinks while misguided was one of the more logical suggestions). In California, where legal (non medical) pot is on the ballot for November, State-run studies have found that taxes on marijuana could raise as much as $1.4 billion in annual revenue (much needed in a state with a failing economy like CA’s). Legalizing pot and regulating it’s production, and taxing it like cigarettes and booze would not only bring new revenue streams (much larger than proposed taxes on other lifestyle choices or vices), but would save billions in arrests, court costs, and jailing minor "criminals" for pot possession and sales.

We spend $68 billion per year on corrections, and one-third of those being corrected are serving time for nonviolent drug crimes. We spend about $150 billion on policing and courts, and 47.5% of all drug arrests are marijuana-related. Cutting those criminals out of the system and giving them legit “green” jobs would not only save billions in the legal system, but help eliminate deadly drug wars with countries like Mexico. You want to help build American jobs? Why not pot farmers (unlike corn, it’s a crop that can be grown in even small urban spaces) or sellers (like the “coffee” shops in Amsterdam).

Why it’s not a liberal issue: As a political issue legal pot is not at all a liberal one, California voters don’t have a recent history of liberal voting (we all know they voted against gay marriage and elected a republican governor). The Netherlands, famous of their tulips, and legal pot and prostitution, has a very conservative government.

As for fears about a dangerous high nation of stoned kids and soccer moms, if the content of weed is monitored in the same way the content of other substances are and the laws in place are similar to the laws around alcohol consumption (age restrictions, intoxication limits and repercussions) then there is no longer an issue, so chill dude.

Now that Bees are legal (L magazine)

14 States with Legal Medical Marijuana

Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense (Time magazine)

Marijuana on the CA Ballot

Health Care and Killing Babies

Much talk about the health care reform bill, the comprise that’s left the country more divided and neither side getting what it really wants. For “liberals,” it’s a “something is better than nothing” reform that will still leave many uninsured, might not take care of the struggling working class enough and will take years to take effect.

For the tea party republicans it makes us a communist baby-killing country. The whole thing makes for an interesting case study in argument tactics. BBC World News put forth the idea that those opposed to the health care reform aren’t so worried about what the bill contains as they are about the implications that it threatens the idea of American Exceptionalism —that we are above the rest of the world and don’t need the same sorts of systems that other countries do.

After all, this new law is far from radical, and leaves a lot of payment on individuals. And as noted on NPR this morning, the first benefits of the bill even go to the groups that have been complaining the most: seniors with Medicare, will get $250 rebate this year to help fill in the gap in the prescription drug coverage, and small business owners will get tax credit starting this year to encourage them to provide insurance to their employees (which they are still not even required to do).

The other major sticking point is a “moral” one of course—abortion. The irony in the pro-life panic about tax money funding abortions is that the “baby killer” screamers aren’t prolife at all, they are pro-moral agenda pushing.

As George Carlin famously said, “Conservatives are all in favor of the unborn, but once you’re born, you’re on your own, they are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months, after that they don’t want to know about you—no daycare, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare —if you’re pre-born you’re fine, if you’re preschool, you’re fucked. They are not pro-life, they are anti-woman.”

But the bill passed and it’s a law now, and I’m glad for some progress, even if it’s at the cost of a more divided country with knee-jerk flawed logic. As Joe Biden said, it’s still “A Big Fucking Deal”

Summary of Health Care Reform

Sex with Ducks and Health Care

So the health care bill has passed and that's huge and all, but at the moment I don't really have anything insightful to add to the chorus of voices on the subject. However Mark and I went to see the very awesome Garfunkel and Oates this weekend. And I've have this song stuck in my head for two days. It's political and funny...you know like I try to be.

The Obesity –Hunger Paradox

Along the same lines as my recent posts about poverty and obesity, is this recent New York Times article, The Obesity-Hunger Paradox which points to poverty riddled South Bronx (the most overweight and least healthy part of New York City) as one of the areas in America with the biggest hunger problems. Hunger defined not by starving, but by the lack of access to nutritious food, and an inability to afford the basics, being referred to as “food insecure.”

Families with not enough money to get an actual meal, and no grocery stores to buy real food at anyways, so they fill up on calorie-filled food from bodegas (check out this video)

In fact a recent survey by the Food Research and Action Center, found that nearly 37 percent of residents in the South Bronx, said they lacked money to buy food at some point in the past 12 months. The article points to some incentives that sound like really good ideas (encouraging farmers’ market patronage through food stamps incentives and attempts to lure grocery stores to poor areas with tax breaks.

The figures are showing that the programs aren’t working, most likely because they aren’t wide spread enough, and the healthy options still aren’t cheap enough. Even if it’s the difference of a dollar between a filling and tasty healthy meal that you have to prepare and a filling and tasty junk food meal that you don’t have to cook, the choice is obvious when you’re poor, stressed, and busy. These programs are good steps but their clearly not enough, the structure of the neighborhood, the structure of minimum wage, and the structure of the industrial food system all need to be changed.

Fizzing Out

Related to my previous posts on the misguided fight against fatties, The New York soda tax has “fallen flat” and “fizzled out” some may even say it’s “evaporated.” Aside from being ripe for puns for headlines, the soda tax was another government idea that seems to have been thought up by a 7^th grader (an oversimplified, not thoroughly thought through solution to a complex problem). Sure the money from adding a penny onto the price of every ounce of soda would get a lot of money and that money could be used for health care.

But therein lies the first major failing of the idea: you are taxing soda to discourage people from drinking it because it’s bad for them, but you’re making it low enough that you can still count on people drinking it. Adding a one cent tax to soda doesn’t make healthier options any more affordable, it doesn’t even close the gap in any noticeable way between a 99 cent two litter of soda and a $5 bottle of organic juice.

The other major problem with these and other similar “sin taxes” is the people that you are taking the money from are usually those who can least afford to pay it. Smoking, drinking and eating crappy food are vices enjoyed by all classes but are about the only luxuries the poor can afford. Similarly, if you are admitting that a product is bad for it’s consumers, simply charging them more money to kill themselves seems more like a way to capitalize on it rather than help fix the problem. In short, the argument just falls flat.

Soda Tax Plan Evaporates

Can’t Complain

“Due to the difficult economic times” I have lost two jobs in the past six months. But even this, to people who have been unemployed for a year or more sounds enviable. Which is part of the problem. With unemployment at 10% and people in dire straits, the prevailing attitude seems to be one of “you think you have it bad, at least you aren’t XYZ.”

And it’s true, it’s hard to muster sympathy for someone’s small raise or lack of bonus when you’ve had your pay cut or lost your job (something I’ve been guilty of over the past year). But there in lies the problem. The job situation is so bad that no one can complain; if you have a job at all you should be grateful.

But it seems that companies are using the poor economy as an excuse to screw over workers who feel trapped and turn bigger profits. It’s no surprise then that more Americans hate their jobs now than at any other point in the past 20 years, with fewer than half saying they are satisfied.

Here, a few semi-personal* examples of employers taking advantage of the recession:

1. A large publisher continues to make profits in a recession. Using the rough economy as an excuse and undoubtedly safe in the knowledge that talented people are going to be hard pressed to find similar positions elsewhere, the publisher cuts salaries by 6% across the board, taking many who have been with the company less than three years the a wage less then when they started. Even if the standard “cost of living” raise of 3% is reinstated the next year, it will take two years to reach the rate that the employee was at when they started at the company (which at that point would have been five years prior).
   
   
2. A large entertainment company is bought by another large entertainment company both with huge profits. The employees raises and bonuses are held or cut.
   
   

3. A selective top public university continues to profit and expand during the recession due to increased applicants, yet uses the economy as an excuse to cut all employees wages by a mere 1.8% as well as cut back on benefits like comp tuition.
   
   

In all of these scenarios, the employers haven’t needed the money, they were all still profitable, and doing better even than in years past, but saw the recession as an excuse to profit from their employees who faced little other options to seek something better. Which is exactly why so many people are dissatisfied in their jobs—they are being screwed over and they just have to take it and not complain, because “at least they have a job.” The same excuse has been used to cut costs by laying off employees and making the ones that remain work longer hours without complaint out of fear of being the next to go.

Of course this environment of fear isn’t a sustainable work model, yet it’s working pretty well right now and the lack of job growth and increased job dissatisfaction are proof.

President Obama’s proposed plan to increase job growth would give companies a $5,000 tax credit for each new worker they hire in 2010, while businesses that increase wages or hours for their current workers in 2010 would be reimbursed for the extra Social Security payroll taxes they would pay. Incentives to increase jobs and boost stagnant wages or inadequate hours are ideas that I’m mostly behind, but I wonder how many larger employers would take Obama up on the offer.

A $5,000 tax credit may sound like a decent incentive to a small business owner, but to larger companies, it’s a drop in the bucket to what they can save by simply enlisting cheap labor. And these days, with so many so desperate for work, the labor is cheaper and more experienced. Many will work for free just to keep something on their resume, and those who won’t will take positions below their skill level or as “ permant freelance” or “long-term temps,” the financial benefit for employers (aside from paying lower hourly rates) is huge cost savings in relation to benefits like health care and paid time off—a savings of well over $5,000 per employee.

It’s not that I think Obama’s plan is bad, it makes sense, I’m just skeptical that it will work. And I honestly don’t know what will aside from employees and job seekers revolting and refusing to be taken advantage of, but we aren’t really in the position of financial power to do so.

*These three stories are accounts of employers of people in my life, and I’m sure are kind of easy to figure out.

Hypocrisy Now!

I became a vegetarian over 16 years ago, and it remains a decision I’m proud of and that I’ll stand by for the rest of my life. And while in recent years I’ve become more concerned with human rights, I will always think that animal rights are an important issue; far to often over looked.

However I think I officially hate PETA. I don’t want to, but they really make it difficult for anyone at all to take them seriously. Their ridiculous “Sea Kitten” campaign is just the tip of the wasted money and effort-iceberg that gives vegetarians and animal right supports a bad name. Last week was doubly embarrassing: first the most ridiculous non-story (the president kills a fly) becomes the most pointless offense PETA has ever railed behind.

Then the announcement that Che Guevara's granddaughter Lydia has decided to start a "vegetarian revolution" by posing for PETA with "the torso naked, covered only by a sling loaded with carrots as bullets."



Because nothing says a respect for the life of all creatures like a half naked lady co-opting the image of a man who led a very bloody revolution. (A man who said: “I don't care if I fall as long as someone else picks up my gun and keeps on shooting.” And “In fact, if Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Nietzsche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm”)

It all just so woefully misses the point, especially when you add on the reports that since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued.

I’d like to see an animal rights organization that can maintain a profile as high as PETA and put their resources to good use: finding homes for stray animals, aiding with controlling the pet population in humane ways, improving the conditions and treatment of animals used for food (as well as the industry’s impact on the environment) and encouraging people to choose vegetarianism in a more realistic way.

Just saying.

PS. Best thing I’ve read about the whole trend of hipsters (and their babies!!) wearing shit with Che’s face on it without knowing what they are saying:

“If you believe in the freedom of the press, the right to belong to a political party of your choice, the due process of law, and/or private property, then Che Guevara was a monster, plain and simple. These T-shirts send a message, which effectively boils down to this: I have vague left-wing sympathies but don't read history. I am educated enough to want nonconformity but not intelligent enough to avoid conformity. I believe in supporting the wretched of the earth but happily purchase products from multinational corporations.”

And dressing a child who can't even go to the bathroom on his or her own to align with your vague uninformed political leanings is even more offensive forcing them to wear your favorite band's shirt.

Taming of the Shrewd

So, Obama is trying to hold back the release of photos of U.S. service members abusing Iraqi and Afghan detainees. Which, according to the “media” is either: A) a brave fuck-you to the left or B) another shrewd Obama rope-a-dope. Well I say it’s C) An attempt to not remind anyone of Bush.

Photos of the US torturing people are scary and awful and regardless of if the events took place before he was in office, it won’t exactly give people warm fuzzy feelings, something the administration thrives on (seriously? Did you see the press correspondent’s dinner? That shit was flat out charming!)

Calling this move shrewd and calculated is a clever spin, isn't really accurate. No matter what he does the Right isn’t going to think of him as “a judicious, troop-protecting president,” so if it’s true that with the Freedom of Information Act the ACLU will have the photos released anyways, than this is in fact not a cunning political move after all.

I do believe that the photos will be released, because the argument that they can be withheld because they "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual," has way too many holes in it.

Bad policy and bad move, especially for a presidency that claims to be all about transparency.

Mission Accomplished!

I know America will come down from this high, I know in the next eight years (that’s right I’m going to just assume) there will be times when I disagree with and get annoyed with our president. But right now, and certainly last night, I am so happy and so proud of my country for the first time is such a long time.

My night last night was surreal, I traveled to different parts of Manhattan and the crowds and feelings in the streets and wide spread good will was like nothing I’ve ever experienced.

Aside from the tears and dancing (there was A LOT of dancing) and shouts, here are a few things I am thinking about today:

• It is an amazing feeling that we got together and elected a black president, but I’m really wary of all this “there’s no racism in America anymore” thing. Yes there is, there’s a lot of it both blatant and institutionalized, and the implication that with a black president, we’ve “made up for it” and no one should be concerned anymore is very dangerous.

Which brings me to…

• I am so so scared about someone shooting this man; even last night as he was giving his acceptance speech, I kept thinking, “watch out!” I think they should get him a bulletproof bubble for public appearances.

• Did you all hear the pocket of McCain peeps booing when he mentioned Sarah Palin? I think he would have lost without her, but you know everyone on his side is just kicking themselves about the stupid lady-pandering choice.


• California voted to discriminate against gay people. I really don’t get it, I don’t see why anyone would care, how people in love could be a threat to anyone. And in CA of all places, it’s just sad.

• Also a good day for newspapers finally!


• It must really suck to be a McCain supporter, especially in New York City, I guess they mostly stayed indoors. Still, I think there's one thing we can all agree on, thank God, this f-ing election is FINALLY over!

• I wish the new President started the day after he was elected and not in a couple of months...speaking of which, remember that fuckwit that's still in office? He called Obama last night, and called Michelle Obama a "good bride" WTF!?!

You got a lot of work ahead of you Mr. Obama, but you’ve given a lot of people a lot of hope, not an easy thing.

Baracking My Vote!

Of course I voted today, no points for guessing whom I voted for. I only waited in line for about a half hour (compared to the 2-3 hour waits some of my friends have reported). Now I’m only a mild conspiracy theorist, but I think it’s clear that I’m on some sort of government list. I’ve been registered at my current address for well over two years, but this is the second time that I’ve voted that my name is mysteriously not on the books (despite having a voter registration card with all the correct info). So again I had to vote on the paper write-in sheets that I’m pretty sure they don’t count, and didn’t get to use the fun machines from the 1950’s that I’m also dubious about… oh well at least I get free coffee and free ice cream…

Undecided “Real” Americans

Two things baffle me in these days so close to election.

1) The fact that McCain’s campaign seems to think it’s a good idea to insult and alienate possible voters by saying that they aren’t American or aren’t “real” if they live in an non-rural area (note to McCain: there’s lots of peeps in the rural areas think you are full of shit too, so your “real America” perspective has a few holes in it).

2) That anyone is actually authentically undecided, or can be swayed by anything that either one says or does at this point. I think that “undecided” people just don’t want to tell you that they are voting for McCain because they don’t want to have to defend a choice that makes such little sense. That or they really want the poo poo platter.

Lady Issues

From www.katiehalper.com, f-ing brilliant!

Election..blah, blah, blah…

So I watched the last debate last night, and like the ones before it, it had a lot of not talking about the topics, saying wrong shit, and being petty. And really I feel like everyone is kind of just ready to get this over with. I mean, are people seriously still undecided? This effing thing has gone on for longer than most of my relationships. I’m ready to forget (affront to all women) Sara Pailn exists. I’m ready to stop hearing about Joe the Plumber. But just for the hell of it, here are a few notes to McCain or anyone misguided enough to think about voting for him:

1) $5,000 will buy no one health insurance any more than those $600 checks fixed the economy.

2) Not only does saying “drill, baby, drill make you sound like more of a douche than referring to yourself as a “maverick,” but offshore drilling will lower gas prices (at best) by a few cents a gallon for a very short time, and then we’ll be screwed again, not exactly a good solution.

3) As Hilary (Stratton not Clinton) pointed out, Autism does not equal Down Syndrome, and your pandering is so transparent that I can’t believe anyone would fall for it.

4) Nobody is pro abortion, people are pro choice. And for all the talk about the “rights of the unborn” maybe you should do a little more for them once they are born. Anyways, it (like most things in life) reminds me of the Simpsons…

Best Come Back Ever

John McCain's suggestion that tomorrow night's debates are postponed due to the financial crisis that he will barely acknowledge exists is kind of beyond senseless. Barack Obama’s response however is kind of the best thing I’ve heard out of all of the crazy talk of this election.

“The future President will need to be able to handle more than one thing at a time.”

Damn Straight!

Things I’ve thought about this Week

I’ve thought about writing about several things this week, but didn’t have enough to say about any of them to warrant their own post. So here they are in a convenient “listicle”:

• As if people needed more forums on the internets to whine, there is a site called angryjournalist.com. Sometimes though, they make a point…the best I saw: “If you got a journalism degree, you probably don’t even know how to spell obituary nevermind write one.”

• Speaking of spelling, to know me is to know my spelling anxieties, and my creative methods of getting around my dyslexic shortcomings (i.e. looking up synonyms of words I want to use in order to find how to spell them because even spell-check doesn’t know what I’m trying to say.) Truly, my poor spelling is one of the things I am most self-conscious about. Imagine then my horror last Saturday night when I was forced on stage during 30 plays in 60 minutes to participate in a Spelling Bee! I lost of course. And was told “ You have to decide if losing this means that you are a loser for this moment, or if you will be a loser for life.” How about a little from A and a little from B?

• I have found pretty much everyone to be mildly to highly annoying in recent weeks. Top honors to these “anti-sprawl arsonists/activists” though, way take a worthy cause (anti-sprawl and environmentalism) and get it completely f-ing wrong. Burning “green” houses to make a point about conservation? Well done.

• I am completely over Obama-fever. In fact, I am over the presidential primaries all together, they reached the oversaturation point a month or two ago, yet still managed to hold my attention. Until now. Seriously, I don’t care if Bill and Hillary took a walk in the park or if Obama is now using the word “transformative” instead of “change”. I’m just over it. For now. At this point, I’m voting for Nader. Also, wil.i.am? The first video was cheesy, but sure, inspiring. The second video? the chanting is kind of creepy, and um, really why don’t you just sleep with him and get it over with already, he’s going to need a restraining order if you keep up this kind of fawning.

• Despite myself, I don’t hate Ellen Page as much anymore. I watched Hard Candy last weekend and was quite impressed with her performance. I think that maybe all the hype about her in Juno was because people wished they made bigger deal out of her in Hard Candy, but torturing a pedophile isn’t as mass market friendly as an emotionally unconvincing poorly written pregnant high schooler. Plus she made fun of the lame Juno dialog during her SNL monologue, and for that I am grateful.


• And finally, this week I’ve been mildly obsessed with Songza

The Poison of Poverty

Paul Krugman’s editorial does a lot of stating the glaringly obvious. And while it could serve as a primer for “Social Inequality 101,” it perhaps simplifies things a bit too dangerously.

I mean revelations like this “in modern America parental status trumps ability: students who did very well on a standardized test but came from low-status families were slightly less likely to get through college than students who tested poorly but had well-off parents.”

Uh, duh. You needed a study to realize this? Poor people can’t pay for college like rich people can regardless of how smart you are, the whole “free ride” thing doesn’t really happen, and dumb rich people end up going to Yale and becoming President, not exactly a news flash.

Most of the article is like that, totally true, but painfully obvious.

Here however, are my two problems with it:

1) “Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are proposing new initiatives against poverty. But their proposals are modest in scope and far from central to their campaigns. I’m not blaming them for that; if a progressive wins this election, it will be by promising to ease the anxiety of the middle class rather than aiding the poor.”

Why? Aren’t there poor democrats and republicans, and don’t they vote? And if poor people don’t vote, wouldn’t a candidate who doesn’t deny their existence stir them to vote? Am I being naive to assume that a “progressive” candidate who actually acts progressive and don’t play to the middle of the road would win more admiration than a panderer? And that this kind of settling, excusing, and letting off the hook-ness is what has got us in such a mess? Krugman says that health care not poverty should be the #1 priority, but aren’t the two hugely linked?

2)The ills and burdens of poverty, in childhood, in rich countries, in the world in general can’t be emphasized enough, but lines like “Poverty in early childhood poisons the brain.” Make me a little itchy, it seems like a statement that could be misused to say things like “Poor people aren’t as bright as rich people, because they are poor and because they aren’t so smart, that’s why they stay poor.” Which I realize is not at all what they are saying, but sound-byte able quotes like that often get co-opted by the enemy.