Pictures of Change

A Story in Pictures from Feministe

I heard a man say recently that he'd been taught since he was a child that if men were capable of getting pregnant, then there would be no question about whether or not abortion should be legal. He then went on to say he'd since come to understand that this would be true most especially if old white guys could get pregnant.

These two pictures really kind of says it all, don't they?

I'm especially fond of the second. Of course those women surrounding Obama were staged there...but that's exactly the point! There is the actual recognition of the way legislation affects women. And it shows the change come to Washington!

The first picture on the other hand...well, it's just old white dudes doing what they do with no recognition of the affects that has.

Thoughts on W's latest "Thoughts"

Last night the president held a press conference about the rising costs of, well, everything. He has once again demonstrated how shallow his knowledge of the issues runs, and the fact that he's completely disconnected.

I'm not sure I even want to get started on ANWR. I can't say that I'm surprised that the president would use the growing fuel crisis as an impetus to (once again) push for the opening of ANWR to exploration and drilling. Either way, peak oil or an increase in drilling/refining, it's a win win situation for the oil companies, and offers no real long term solutions for the rest of the country, or the world. Instead of seeing growing demand as the problem (which it is) he sees lagging production as the problem. That's short term and narrow sighted.

As an Alaskan, I know I'm in the minority of people up here who don't want to see ANWR opened, but I don't. And it certainly is the answer that Bush (+ Ted Stevens and Don Young, amongst others, I'm sure) are trying to imply that it is. It is no less limited by its short term possibilities and lack of sustainability now than it ever was. The solution is not drilling for more oil just because it's there, the solution is finding a way to live comfortably on a lot less of it.

What I really loved from yesterday's speech what the president's implication during Q&A that eating locally was somehow an idea he has recently developed as a novel concept, and something we need congress to legislate in order to make happen! This president, our beloved W, with a horrible record on environmental issues, is now trying to make it sound as though he doesn't stand behind big-ag and commodity crops by impugning congress for the current state of the farm bill (which is abysmal, I will give him that) but in the same breath emphasizing that a solution is more ethanol production! Does he not get the connection between the farm bill, commodity crops, ethanol production and the current world food-fuel crisis? Clearly he must not.

More than that he's trying to pull the wool over our eyes and make us think that buying local was his idea and needs the government's influence to really get off the ground.

" One thing I think that would be -- I know would be very creative policy is if we -- is if we would buy food from local farmers as a way to help deal with scarcity, but also as a way to put in place an infrastructure so that nations can be self-sustaining and self-supporting. It's a proposal I put forth that Congress hasn't responded to yet, and I sincerely hope they do."

I don't deny that a change in the farm bill, and a shift away from huge swaths of land being occupied by commodity crops would do a lot to help farmers cater to locavores. It would help the locavore movement a lot if more crop land in the U.S. was growing more of the sorts of produce that are currently imported en mass because they aren't a one of the commodity crops. Yes, the farm bill needs changing (though I'm not sure I believe that Bush believes this) but legislating local eating is not part of the answer.

Does he really think this is a new and creative idea he has had a part in? Come on W! Eating locally has been a rapidly, nearly exponentially, growing grassroots movement for the better part of the last decade! It's not your idea, and it's not something you need to legislate people into. It's something that people are doing anyway, and are going to continue to do.

I (*gasp*) applaud him for actually suggesting this, more people in the country need to think about such issues, and hearing it on the national nightly news might actually make more people think about it. But he didn't really offer any solutions. He really only offered an increase in the problem by suggesting that more land be diverted to corn (a commodity crop) for ethanol production. Where on earth are farmers going to get the land to produce abundant and variable local crops if they're all producing corn for ethanol (and HFCS and all those other ubiquitous corn derivatives that are everywhere?)

Bush's Peace

This must be the peace for which all those soldiers have given their lives about which GW was speaking a few days ago.

Isn't it reassuring to know that his assessment was right on track? I know I'm more convinced than ever...

Foundation for Peace (my ass)

Bush's assertion that the 4,000 dead in Iraq (and we're talking Americans only here) laid the foundations for peace is load of crap. If that was the case, where's the peace? As far as I'm concerned every person has died in vain, fighting a war of false premises and false promises.

Can November come any sooner?? Please let new and refreshing, and meaningful rhetoric about this war come with it.

response to State of the Union

I have several remarks to make myself, but don't have the time (or motivation) at the moment. Instead, here's what Obama had to say.

Pre-State of the Union News of the Day

I'm getting ready for the State of the Union to start. I imagine that I might have a thing or two to say about that at its completion. However, at the moment I have a few other items from today's news I want to discuss.

1. First Caroline this weekend-- and now Ted Kennedy throwing support toward Barack Obama. This is good news, and it just makes me feel good to hear JFK invoked on behalf of Obama, especially by a Kennedy. (seeing as I've done it once or twice myself.) As Obama himself said, he knows what the Kennedy family means to the heart of many Americans. This endorsement is big, especially for many tried and true Dems, heading into Super Tuesday. This endorsement is big for those of us inspired by his message of change and hope.

What I don't get is this response from NOW. What the hell? Are they really of the mind that if someone stands behind women, and women's issues that they MUST vote for Hillary just because she is a woman? And their insinuation that not voting for her makes you anti-woman. Oh please. I'm once again feeling a little bit perplexed and frustrated with feminism... and again in spite of my strong "feminist" tendencies. I am increasingly feeling I really don't have a whole lot in common with today's feminists. (Or maybe it's yesterday's feminist who are unable to adjust to to the needs and demands and respectable realities of this day and age.)

Kennedy's endorsement of Obama is not a betrayal of women. Talk about over simplifying an issue. I think one of the comments posted to this story said it best: Saying Kennedy is sexist for not endorsing Clinton would be like Jesse Jackson accusing anyone who won't support Obama of being a racist. Yes, it will be monumental when Obama or Hilliary make it into office. Yes, it will be a historical moment. But this election is not about race or gender. I wish people would just get over it already. But, if they had, I suppose these potential presidents wouldn't be holding the power to make history in such a way.

2. TSA, they're trying to further scare us and assuage us with reassurances that they are looking out for us- all at the same time! And the media is just helping them along in this continued manipulation of the American public. In this story CNN explicitly states that they were invited by the TSA to accompany a test in which a TSA "red team" operative managed to sneak a fake bomb into the Tamp airport. CNN explained off this invitation seemed to be offered as a means of explaining away any potential complaints that terrorists might learn new tricks from the story. No mention of why they were invited, now or at any other point.

I don't even know where to start. I guess my first issue with this story is whether or not it has any validity as news. I hate to sound like a crazy left-wing conspiracy theorist, but is it really any coincidence that the Tampa airport failed the test on exactly the day that a major news outlet happened to be along for the ride? That seems unlikely.

"Look! Americans LOOK! We're working really hard to keep you safe, we are conducting these tests across the country and retraining every agent who fails. We are being vigilant to keep you safe. But KEEP IN MIND...AGENTS FAIL! You must be afraid. That guy with a bum back might actually be carrying a bomb. Be vigilant!"

OK. Look. I hate to be cavalier about the the grand specter of terrorism . I don't doubt that it is real....only how real.

I mean, come on, why did the TSA invite CNN along? Has it been too long since TSA has stirred up the psyche of American travelers? Just a little too long since they took away our 4oz toothpastes and full nalgene bottles?

Now we're supposed to be afraid of people with bad backs? TSA is about to start further torturing every American who might be blighted by the aches and pains of middle-age, surgery and athletic injuries? Is that the next step?

The agent in the story indicated that there were "relatively unobtrusive" ways that the garment could have been checked. But he didn't indicate what those methods were. And relative to what? A strip search? Is it really worth harassing millions of disabled travelers more than we are all harassed already with "relatively unobtrusive" measures-- is that really going to fend of the specter of impending attack? Any more than the "relatively" unobtrusive measures of making mothers removing sleeping infants from strollers?

The article also pretty clearly indicates that "cultural sensitivities toward handicaps" inhibit many agents from being too invasive, is a bad thing. Come on people. What is this world coming to?

Isn't harassing hippies with sticker clad, water filled nalgene bottles, harried business travelers who just want to carry their toiletries on board so they don't have to check their bag and mothers with babies strapped into car seats going far enough...too far even? Do we really need to make people start removing their orthopedic garments and aids just to be sure that every single person is not a terrorist looking to exploit the (poorly developed) cultural sensitivities of the average Joe who happens to be a TSA agent.

No offense meant to TSA agents, in my previous statements, or the ones to follow. I've had run ins with a few genuinely nice agents. regardless of the attitude with which they great us I also recognize that they are just doing they're jobs....just like the rest of us. However, if anything, these people need more training toward cultural sensitivities, not to be trained away from them.

Bush Vetos Expansion of SCHIP

Though he is asking congress to authorize another $200 billion to be spent on the war in Iraq, this morning Bush vetoed the expansion in the State Child Health Insurance Program that would have given the program an additional $35 million over the next five years. (This would have resulted in increasing the yearly budget from $5 million to $12 million.)

Bush said he vetoed the bill because it was a step toward "federalizing" medicine and inappropriately expanded the program beyond its focus on helping poor children.
"I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system...." And he did this in spite of wide bi-partisan support of the bill.

He is in favor of private medicine, meaning he is in favor of all the big guys continuing to make bank off of the ill health of millions of Americans, while millions more sit by wallowing in their ill health, unable to do anything about it. What ever happened to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I don't know about you, but having access to quality and affordable health care would do a lot to increase my life and my ability to pursue happiness.

I am at a complete loss as to how vetoing such a bill can be justified in any one's mind. Across the board, whether Americans believe in federalized health care or not, they tend to support the SCHIP programs. (A Washington Post-ABC News poll found 72% of those surveyed support an increase in spending on the program. Margin of error 3 points.) This expansion would have provided health care to more than 10 million children.

The argument is that we as a nation do not currently sit in a place where it would be fiscally sound to support such an expansion (because it would include more than just the "poorest" children) yet we can afford to be spending how many million dollars a month in Iraq?

The program gives coverage to parents who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private insurance for their children. Apparently those opposed to this expansion have said their concern is that parents might be prompted to drop private coverage for their children to get cheaper coverage under the bill.

My question is: what the hell is wrong with that? Just because parents ARE purchasing private insurance for their children doesn't mean they can actually afford it. What other sacrifices are being made in those families to ensure that their children stay covered?

Congress plans to re-convene on this issue next week. I hope the Dems can drum up the 15 additional Republican hands needed to override this veto.