A Christmas Poem

I haven't attempted poetry in at least 10 years, but I was feeling inspired.



Untitled

It is a day of violence,
of hunger, thirst and chaos.
This is the day that the Lord hath made.
Let us kill and be killed.
Let us erect mountains of shit
and burn them in a blazing sacrifice to Love

The warriors were keeping watch in the fields
and lo, the angels came to them and said
"unto you a beast is born,
and it shall be unto you an abundance of wrath and blood.
And you shall call his name Human"
And they were filled with joy.

And so it was as they had said.
The beast throbbed and writhed
and heaved its raw stinking body on to the hearth of America.

This is the day that the Lord hath made.
Let us commit violence.
Let us eat flesh
and drink blood
and be glad that there is love.

This is the day that the Lord hath made.
Let us poison the ground,
the air and the sky
so the beast will find it to be
a suitable habitat.

I saw the best minds of my generation
consumed by vanity and bloodthirsty greed.

I saw the Christmas tree erupt in maniacal laughter
at the irony of itself

I saw America make wild tortured convulsions
as Chaos was crowned King

Twas the night before Christmas
and the beast was stirring
and waiting
in furious, glorious,
spectacular madness.

As he went once more
to worship at the alter of Love,
Jesus wept.

Bush delivers.

From Charlie Gibson's interview with Dubya last week,

"GIBSON: What were you most unprepared for?

BUSH: Well, I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, "Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack." In other words, I didn't anticipate war. Presidents -- one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen."

Mind-blowing. I mean, shouldn't war be one of those things that you should definitely be prepared for if you seek the Presidency, kinda like, oh I don't know, natural disasters? What the hell is this sorry-I-screwed-it-up-but-I-never-claimed-I-could-handle-it bullshit? I mean, war is something that happens in some form during almost all Presidencies, right?

Just unbelievable.

And what's up with this implication that the "unexpected" is a "modern" phenomenon? Or that the "unexpected" isn't an intrinsic facet of anything in the entire world? Bush's capacity for inane, vacuous assertions may forever remain unmatched.

One more, "BUSH: ...took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President."

Wow.

It's starting to look good for Al Franken

...by something like .001% of the vote in the recount. It's still far from over, but wow!

Election

Grammar

So, was it “an historic”, or “a historic” election? A quick search of the internet yields that “a historic” is correct, but that, for unknown reasons, “an historic” is preferred by many orators and is therefore acceptable.

I’m not sure why the commonness of the phrase’s usage would impact its technical acceptability, but almost universally during and after this election, “an historic” was used in description, even by Barack himself. At any rate, the phrase is much less annoying than the multitude of linguistic abominations committed by Bush, so I’ll not complain.

Voting

The true gravity of this event did escape me until I actually marked the box next to “Barack Obama”. Unexpectedly, in the time it took me to fill in, very precisely, the entirety of the box, a powerful feeling came over me. It took me some moments to realize that this was the sensation of my pride in my country being restored, not because of Barack, per se, but because of what he represents, racially, symbolically, and politically.

In the past 2 elections, I was honestly voting against George Bush, more than for the democratic candidate. This time, there was a candidate I could believe in, and it felt great.

So was I caught up in the “celebrity” of Barack Obama? Perhaps. But that’s what makes him great: his capacity to inspire people to shed their cynicism and apathy and believe that the world can be better, that it matters what we do and how we treat each other, and that we are part of an international community of people to whom we bear a responsibility as the world’s most powerful nation.

Last night, I was watching coverage of reaction from around the world to this election. It would certainly be fair to say that, on the whole, the entire world was desperate for an Obama victory. In the span of a singular spectacular moment, America was completely transformed from being an object of suspicion, fear, and anger, to a symbol of hope for a better future.

That means something. I mean, that means a lot. And if that is due, at least in part, to some superficial ability of Obama to inspire the hope and confidence of people around the world, so be it. Restoring the image of America and repairing our international relations is perhaps singularly enough justification for his election.

The past eight years is a period for which Americans must feel some degree of shame, even if all of them don’t know it. It is time for America to atone, and this is a start.

So maybe (as Bush indicated in 2000) God did want Bush to be President. One thinks that surely there was a better way, but who am I to question?

Voting cont.

It is crazy and inexcusable that people stood in line for over 6 hours to vote. Such a wait constitutes an unreasonable impediment to voting and should not be tolerated by the voting population and must be remedied by the next election. Such a wait affects different voting demographics in a disparate way and therefore represents a failure of the system.

Voting fun facts

White voters slanted toward McCain, but white voters making over $250,000 went significantly for Obama. Obviously, these are the very people whose taxes he wants to raise. Spectacular.

White voters who are college educated went for Obama. In other words, the higher the education level of white voters, the more likely they were to vote for Obama.

In a national ranking of the best educated state populations, nine of the top ten states went for Obama. Seven of the ten lowest ranked states went for McCain.

Aardvarks slanted to McCain, while sloths went overwhelmingly for Obama.

Why did McCain loose?

The short answer is because he betrayed everything that any reasonable person ever liked about him. Even if you ignore the fact that McCain is shadowed by one of the most unpopular Presidents in history, and that his opponent is an unparalleled orator and inspirer, I think his campaign could have done much better.

What people have always liked about McCain is that he has an image of being an independent thinker, a “straight talker”, and someone who stood up for principle even when doing so went against his party or wasn’t popular. That he has legitimately earned this image is a dubious matter, but again, those are his historical strengths. Why then did he run such a typically sleazy and dishonest Republican campaign?

I mean, what were the most notable and memorable facets of his bid? Off the top of my head; Bill Ayers, Acorn, abortion, socialism nonsense, Sarah Palin, lowering taxes for rich people… uh, what else? Oh yeah, Joe the plumber, who wasn’t a licensed plumber, owed back taxes, and would receive a larger tax cut under Obama’s plan. All of those issues were fundamentally dishonest, and McCain knew it, and a big part of the electorate knew it. There perhaps has never been a better example of a person shooting himself in the foot (although there have probably been those who have literally shot themselves in the foot, like, with a gun, in which case, yeah, they might be a better example).

Far from being a “maverick”, he teamed up with elements whom he designated “agents of intolerance” in the 04 election, and signified his unbridled willingness to do so when he appeared in 2006 at Liberty University with Jerry Falwell. The apex of his alliance with these trolls was the tapping of Palin as his running-mate. This moment destroyed any credibility McCain had of being a reasonable guy, and sealed his fate.

Other Winners

California Proposition 2 passed, freeing millions of food animals from the worst kinds of treatment. This, of course, is wonderful news. But it is something of a hollow victory for two reasons: 1) The initiative does very little for most food animals who will still endure unconscionable conditions. Pardon the analogy, but it's kinda like passing a measure that would ban torturing some slaves, but does nothing about the condition of slaves in general; and 2) it’s a bit like the Presidential election popular vote: 52% Obama, 47% McCain. I mean, 47% of people still want to vote republican? How depressing. Prop 2 passed 63% to 37%. So 37% of Californians, given the choice, don’t want to improve conditions for the animals they eat? That is breath taking.

The Republican Party. Maybe this is the wake-up call they need. Maybe 2004 was the last time they can win Presidential elections by fear mongering and pandering to religious wing nuts. I’d love to see a legitimate party emerge from these ashes.

Anti-abortion initiatives were defeated in Colorado and South Dakota, due in part to the fact that they were both completely stupid. The SD provision would ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Insane. The Colorado initiative, the so-called “personhood amendment”, would define a fertilized egg as a legal human being, raising such questions as what to do with the millions of fertilized eggs in labs and fertility clinics, if one can sue a fetus, and various census complications. Absurd.

The US Supreme Court may see as many as three open slots during the next 4-8 years. Souter, Ginsberg, and Kennedy, all considered liberal justices, may soon vacate their positions. Were McCain to fill these positions, it would precipitate a dramatic and dangerous change on the most fundamental level of the way the Constitution is interpreted. Again, even if there is a bumbling buffoon under Obama’s slick exterior, the fact that he will at least nominate reasonable Justices is sufficient to warrant his election.

Loosers

Provisions banning gay marriage were passed in Florida, Arizona, and California. There is no shortage of bigots in America, but I think that the marginal vote that passed these measures has more to do with confusion on the part of voters than pure bigotry. Exhibit A: Same sex civil unions are still legal in California and carry with them virtually the same legal rights as heterosexual marriages. There doesn’t seem to be much traction behind efforts to revoke that right. So the controversy, at least in California, boils down to semantics, doesn’t it? In effect, voters said that same sex couples deserve the same legal rights as heterosexuals, but you can’t call it a “marriage”, because “marriage” is between heterosexuals. I think that some people worry that the state is redefining a religious institution, when in fact, there is nothing religious, in the eyes of the state, about a “marriage”. The easiest solution to all this confusion is for the state to stop granting “marriages” altogether, and instead, grant everyone civil unions. On what grounds could religious conservatives possibly oppose that? “Marriages” would then be recognized, or not recognized, by churches, rotary clubs, or football teams, for example. There, everybody happy?

That being said, failing to endorse equal rights for gay couples is not an excusable offense in my eyes. That gay people enjoy something less than full equality under the law is a travesty that must be erased from the national palette.

I would absolutely love to see Al Franken in the Senate, but I think that chances are slim. There is a recount underway in Minnesota that currently has Franken around 200 votes, or .011%, behind Norm Coleman.

I'm gonna miss him...

Propositions

Next Tuesday, Californians will vote on Proposition 2, an amendment that would ban the cruelest practices involved in food animal production, specifically, those that “do not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.”

It has always seemed strange to me that we have rather stringent laws protecting our pets from cruelty, but virtually none designed to protect our food animals? Why such a profound disparity?

The answer, of course, is very simple. Most people just don’t know what an unconscionably cruel system produces their meat. They’ve never been to a meat factory. They don’t know anyone who works there. Never bothered to sit down and have a chat with a chicken raised in a battery cage, or a veal calf that spent its entire short life immobilized in a crate. They’d rather not think about it.

But most people are not wicked. They’re perfectly willing to pay about 1% more for their meat in order that the animals be raised in slightly more humane conditions.

The meat industry in California has unleashed a multi-million dollar campaign of misinformation opposing Amendment 2. I’d like you to consider helping fund the effort to counter this campaign. Doing so could mean an end to the cruelest kinds of treatment for millions of farm animals.

Even if the amendment passes, we’ve got a very long way to go to get to a point where our meat is produced in a way that can be countenanced with anything other than shame and horror. But this is a start.

While on the subject of California ballot initiatives, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Proposition 8. It's the one that would ban gay marriage. I refuse to link to any of this garbage, but there are prominent nut cases all over the place saying that if the proposition doesn't pass, it will certainly signal the Armageddon, and that life as we know it is over, and other such spectacularly over-blown hyperbole.

I'm sure that none of you need convincing, but allow me to frame the argument in my famously succinct way. Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is an agreement to jointly own property with another person, which carries with it various other legal provisions. The end.

Marriage in any other sense is a religious or spiritual institution that the state has no business in. For historical and unfortunate reasons, the state calls a civil union between two individuals a "marriage", and has no constitutional grounds to distinguish between by which parties such a union is entered into.

What so-inclined religious zealots perhaps should be arguing is that the state should not be involved in the sacred sacrament of "marriage" at all, since doing so moves the sacrament into the secular realm, certainly not a fit domain for a spiritual institution of such profound religious importance.

That certain individuals get so upset about the notion of two members of the same gender jointly owning property is yet another example of making God in one's own image; they don't like gay people and so obviously neither does God. And what an easy way to garner favor with the Almighty! Just speak vitriolically, eat your Wheaties, and click the "Yes" box next to Prop 8. Welcome to Heaven you fucking retard.

But I digress. Please support Proposition 2.

Vote for a better Republican Party

I’ve been tempted to categorize Republican politicians and voters into a few basic groups: 1) Mean and/ or power-hungry, like Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, or Carl Rove; 2) Stupid, like Sarah Palin, or any other snake handling toothless inbred in America; 3) Religious zealot, like Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, or anyone who attends an Assembly of God church; 4) Deranged ideologue, like Sarah Palin, Grover Norquist, or Timothy McVeigh or; 5) Uninformed or Willfully ignorant, like Sarah Palin, or the 31% of Americans who can’t name the Vice president (not to imply that none of those people are Democrats, but ultimately, if you are that ignorant, do you really have a valid political identity?)

But I’ve met enough Republican voters who don’t fit neatly into any of those groups to think that perhaps I ought to rethink my thinking on that, or add at least one new category, or stop putting labels on people (perish the thought!). So here’s the latest entry into The Human Animal Republican Taxonomic Schematic:

6)Well-meaning-but-myopic-and-glassy-eyed-libertarian-leaning-government-mistrusting ideologues, like, well, maybe John McCain, and quite a number of other people I know. These are people who identify themselves as fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and tend to have libertarian ideas about the role of government in economics, business regulations, and tax policy. They are also generally concerned about the preservation of civil liberties and believe that laws should be based in Constitutional principle. They are concerned about the environment. Basically, they like the Republican Party platform.

I do too, kind of. Or at least, it’s not that bad; a valid political philosophy.

The problem is that when you vote for Republicans, you’re not voting for the platform, you’re voting for Republican politicians; you’re voting for what Republicans do, as exemplified by the past eight years of fiscal recklessness, socially regressive policies, disastrous economic policies, the shredding of civil protections and the rule of law, the expansion of culture wars, the ignoring of science and research in shaping environmental and educational policy, the shredding of environmental protections, the widening of the class gap, expanded power of corporations, expanded power of the executive branch, appointment of very dangerous Supreme Court Justices, and the total alienation of America from the rest of the world. If you think the Bush administration was okay, there’s probably nothing I can do for you.

“But McCain isn’t Bush”, you say, “He’s for “Change”, a real “Maverick”? Here’s the thing: we knew those were the sorts of things Bush would do, because we know what Republicans do. Moreover, Republicans knew who George Bush was, and they put him in office anyway, and supported his policies across the board. McCain, the “Maverick”, famously voted with him 95% of the time.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a well-known group of gay Republican supporters, have been roundly criticized for continuing to support a party whose unwritten platform includes keeping them socially repressed and disadvantaged. They, like the aforementioned Human Animal Group 6, want to remain loyal to the party in order to “change it from within”, or get it back to its foundational principles, or whatever. But clearly, such an approach is counterproductive. What these people are doing is enabling the party to pander to fringe elements while still maintaining their blind loyalty, in effect, moving the party away from having to confront the issue of gay equality.

This is what happens when you accept all that crap from the Republican Party, simply because you admire their foundational principles, to which they fail to adhere. You enable them to continue to promote policies with which you disagree and still get your vote.

But it gets much worse.

McCain has not shown any restraint when it comes to pandering to the extremist segments of his party.

Most notably, by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, McCain has squandered an opportunity to move his party away from the worst and most fundamentally un-American elements in our society. The religious and philosophical context which shaped her political and cultural identity, embodied by the Assembly of God church, represent the most intolerant, hateful, and, frankly, looniest agents of right-wing extremity.

But my point is not that a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin, but that in choosing Palin, McCain has spectacularly failed to address his party’s alliance with, and dependence upon, these extremist elements, and has instead embraced and emboldened them.

When the McCain campaign goes around making absurd claims that Obama associates with terrorists, in a post 9/11 environment, they are stirring up hornets and racists, or worse, assassins.

McCain has not been a “Maverick” in this campaign. To the contrary, like Bush, he has failed miserably to run an honest campaign and stand up for everything that is good about America, and instead has embraced the worst elements among us. He therefore does not deserve to be President.

McCain had a historic opportunity, after the failed, corrupt, and wearisome Bush administration, to take the high road and monumentally improve his party by moving it back toward its foundational principles. In a profoundly woeful lack of judgment, he relinquished this opportunity, and he should be held accountable by all reasonable Republican voters.

So a vote for Obama is a vote for a better Republican party. A vote for Obama sends a message that you, as a decent American, are no longer willing to compromise all of your core social, environmental, and cultural values to vote for a party whose platform has been historically, consistently, and systematically violated by the very people who purport to uphold it. A vote for Obama is a vote against the kind of Republicanism that has met with spectacular failure, and must change or come to an end.

Sarah Palin is just awful.

By Cole Wakefield, Special to 365gay.com
10.08.2008 5:30pm EDT
Rev. Howard Bess is not gay. He was not raised by gay parents and does not have gay children. Bess did not grow up with a gay family next door and his best friend was not gay. Rev. Bess might not have had a horse in the GLBT rights race, but that did not stop him from becoming a trailblazer for the issue in the American Baptist church and Christian faith at large.

Rev. Bess has recently enjoyed some time in the spotlight thanks to vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s attempt to ban his book, Pastor, I Am Gay, from the Wasilla Public Library.
The book, published in 1995, was received somewhat coldly in Alaska’s Mat-Su Valley, home to Rev. Bess and the soon to be Mayor of Wasilla Palin.

In fact, for a long time, the only places you could buy the book in Mat-Su were a barber shop and beauty salon. The book was also available at the Wasilla Public Library, a “problem” Palin infamously sought to solve. Wasilla’s librarian stood up to Mayor Palin’s rash and uninformed demands. The librarian was then fired by Palin only to be reinstated after the community objected loudly to the dismissal.

Rev. Bess’ book was just one of at least three books that then-Mayor Palin tried to yank off the shelf.

There has been some confusion regarding exactly what titles Palin sought to ban, but Rev. Bess has been told that Pastor, I Am Gay was among them, and he would be “flabbergasted” to hear otherwise. Pastor, I Am Gay had been openly ridiculed by the pastor of Palin’s church and Rev. Bess was fired from the newspaper column he had written for seven years. The fundamentalist outcry against Bess in Mat-Su was loud and local bookstores were afraid to carry the book. Sarah Palin and her church friends thought the book was obscene and that the public needed to be protected from its contents.

Pastor, I Am Gay is not an obscene book by any stretch.

It is the open and honest story of how Rev. Bess came to the conclusion that GLBT folk are just as blessed as everyone else and deserve to be fully included in the life and traditions of the church.

Rev. Bess admits his ignorance of issues regarding sexuality for much of his life. He discusses the first time a parishioner came out to him and details the personal introspection and experiences that brought him to his current understanding of the gay community and its place in this world.

Finding a copy of Pastor, I Am Gay today can be a chore. Most of the major booksellers are out-of-stock and the popular used book service list astronomical prices. Fireside Books in Palmer, Alaska still had copies as of press time.

Rev. Bess is happy to talk about Pastor, I Am Gay, but he matter-of-factly states that “the book has run its course.” Rev. Bess is most concerned that people learn about the beliefs of Sarah Palin and that her election would be “bad, bad news for the gay population.”

Bess describes Palin as a religious duelist, someone who sees everything as good vs. evil. Bess says that Palin and the churches she attends are “as anti-gay as they come.” He even described Palin, to Salon.com, as “…Jerry Falwell with a pretty face.”

Reverend Bess has been a crusader for GLBT equality in Alaska and his warnings should be heeded. Rev. Bess knows Sarah Palin and has struggled against her on behalf of more than one progressive cause. He has also fought against Palin for the rights of Mat-Su woman to have access to an abortion provider. Rev. Bess knows the GLBT community and its struggles. He has served as a regional director on PFLAG’s national board and has led the pro-gay fight in the American Baptist Church.

Rev. Bess has struggled for years to promoted gay equality and worries that the election of Sarah Palin could erode much of the work he has done. Bess has also expressed frustration and confusion toward members of the GLBT community who continue to support the McCain/Palin ticket. He states he was astounded by the Log Cabin Republican’s endorsement of the pair and that they obviously have little understanding of Sarah Palin and her beliefs.

Bess summarized his feelings towards Sarah Palin while talking to Salon.com, “this person’s election would be a disaster for the country and the world.”

Top 2 Lies from McCain

1) "Obama wants to raise your taxes!" No. If you make more than $250,000 per year, Obama will repeal the Bush tax cuts on your income. Otherwise, you will see no tax increase.

2) "Obama announces that he wants to invade Pakistan!" That McCain won't stop saying this is illustrative of his desperation. Obama said that he would attack top Al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to do it. That is definitely not the same as "invading Pakistan". Good grief.

Bonus: Sarah Palin accuses Obama of "palling around with terrorists". Here is the "terrorist" to whom she refers. Be very afraid. Ayer's association with Obama includes hosting an event during Obama's first senatorial run, and sharing a spot with him on the board of two non-profit organizations. According to the Associated Press, "No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago."

The McCain campaign is grasping at straws. One can not blame them as they slide in polls.

Missouri, by God!

Sarah Palin says "Nucular"

Ugh.

Polls

This makes me very happy.

Why did all the hotels and campgrounds within 50 Miles of Hampton, VA sell out for March 6,7,8 within hours this morning?

What's up with that?

Obama wins round one

Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought so.

The Spectacular Failure of "Conservative" Economic Policies

It is awe inspiring to see McCain scrambling to modify his economic message in response to the market collapse which was caused, in large part, by the very policies that he champions. His response is a bizarre kind of schizophrenia characterized by touting "conservative" economic policies while railing against the "greed" of Wall Street, which he endorsed deregulating.

I don't think you can effect real change to the behavior of Wall Street by calling them names. But McCain has already said that he doesn't understand economics "as well as I should".



Why then does he consider himself capable of setting policy? Well, I guess because his primary economic advisor is Phil Gramm, a veritable wizard who claims that america is in a "mental reccession" and that we've become "a nation of whiners".

So let me get this straight: when financial institutions are doing well, there should be no government oversight, and limited taxation, but when financial institutions fail due to lack of regulation, there should be massive government bailouts funded by taxpayers?

What's wrong with Sarah Palin?

Well, she's a deranged, sadistic lunatic for starters. But you probably already know that if you've been paying attention. Still, I thought it might be helpful to provide a semi-comprehensive compendium of the sheer awefulness of Palin for your convenience.

I really don't say this lightly, but I think she might be worse than George Bush. To his credit, at least Bush was a feckless, stupid, lazy, self-doubting, ineffectual stumblebum. Palin, on the other hand, is a not-very-stupid, politically savy, maniacal rinocerous on a rampage, who possesses wickedness similar in magnitude to Bush.

At least she's stopped claiming that she opposed the "bridge to nowhere" now that that claim has been roundly discredited. Hasn't she heard of the internet?



But Palin is a serial liar. The story she told about selling a jet on ebay that was purchased by the former Governor turned out to be untrue, as was the claim that she fired the Governor's chef. Neither of these minor fibs really matter, except that they demonstrate a troubling lack of judgement or forsight, a lack of a record substantial enough to stand on without embelishing, a proclivity to stretch the truth, and a base who will dumbly swallow that kind of crap without blinking. What if Obmama had committed such misrepresentations of fact? They wouldn't shut up about it from now until the election. (Instead, they have to completely invent controversies concerning pig lipstick, and the liberal media falls gleefully in step)


Then there's the abuse of power stuff. McCain's judgement must certainly be questioned after picking her in the midst of the troopergate
investigation in which Palin is credibly charged with firing her chief-of-police after he refused to fire her ex brother-in-law while he was involved in a fierce divorce and custody battle with her sister. Report coming in October... just in time.

And of course, there's the story about her trying to fire the Wasilla Librarian after she refused to ban books.

Book banning. It's 2008, folks.

Obviously, in keeping with her party's unwritten platform, she has an abysmal environmental record; opposing the protection of endangered species, and saying of global warming, "I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."
We really don't need another anti-science administration.

Of course, I'm not going to mention her pregnant teenage daughter. Oops... I just did. So since the subject has been broached, the fact doesn't bother me. The only teenagers I knew who didn't have sex were the ones who couldn't; it's hardly a parenting issue. (But what might represent a parental short-coming is raising a daughter whose baby-daddy's myspace page says (said), "I'm a fuckin' redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some shit and just fuckin' chillin' I guess. Ya fuck with me I'll kick ass,") But study after study has shown that abstinance-only sex ed programs, which Palin favors, don't work, and moreover, that abstinence-only programs may increase the spread of STDs and teen pregancy. So could it be possible that Sarah Palin is actually responsible for her daughter's pregnancy in that way? It's worth contemplating.

While we're on the subject, check out this gem from McCain, from salon.com:

Would he support taxpayer funding for contraception in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS? McCain initially replied that he preferred a program of abstinence education but would provide condoms in places where abstinence "was not being followed," that is, where sex is happening, which is everywhere. That was a stupid answer, which he credited to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., his ultraright mentor on issues of reproductive rights and health.

Moments later, he wanted to amend his answer. "Let me think about it a little bit ... I don't know if I would use taxpayers' money ... I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out ... I'm sure I have taken a position on it in the past ... I have to find out my position on it ... I am sure I am opposed to government funding. I am sure I support the president's policy on it." (Whatever! -- as his bottle-blond, Tupac-listening teenage daughter might crack on her campaign blog.)

A reporter followed up by inquiring whether McCain supports sex education that candidly discusses contraception and preventing the spread of AIDS and other disease, or whether he backs President Bush's abstinence-only education program. After a long pause, he said, "I think I support the president's policy." Does he believe that contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV? After another long pause, he replied, "You've stumped me."

That was too bizarre for the startled journalist. "I mean, I think you'd probably agree it probably does help stop it?" Realizing how foolish he sounded, the senator had a ready quip. "Are we on the Straight Talk Express?" Still, he stuck to his muddled answer: "I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I'm sure I've taken a position on it in the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception -- I'm sure I'm opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president's policies on it."

Wow! McCain's capacity to pander is just incredible. He doesn't know if condoms help prevent STDs? Of course he does. Liar.

But I digress.

Definitely, the most troubling thing about Palin is her kooky religious orientation. She is obviously entitled to her private religious beliefs, but I think that she crosses a line over which the country really needs to question how her religious beliefs would inform her governance. Palin spent most of her life at the Wasilla Church of God, a Pentacostal Church whose members engage in speaking-in-tounges and other such antics. That's fine, I guess. I do some strange things in my spare time too. But the troubling thing about the religious context which formed Palin's belief system is that they believe that the "End Times" are at hand: that a period of great calamity is imminent in which Jesus shows up and rescues all his "Chosen People" (read: white, American, Evangelical Christians) while relegating everyone else to Hell. Sarah Palin believes this will happen in her lifetime. Is it not fair, then, to question how that belief might inform her thinking on things like energy policy, global warming, environmental protection, or policy related to the, shall we say, "non-saved" citizenry? I mean, they're screwed anyway, right?

Then there are Palin's widely-circulated statements at the Wasilla Church of God when she spoke to a group of graduating students.

Video:




"I am do my part in doing things like working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline; about a 30 billion dollar project that's going to create a lot of jobs for Alaskans because it will have a lot of energy flowing through here. And pray about that also. I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies, so pray for that." -Sarah Palin

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies " ... to build a gas pipeline. Hmm. So God is working for the oil companies now? What that actually means is that Palin is one of those people who feels that what she wants is what God wants, a frightening trait she shares with George "I think God wants me to be President" Bush. I mean, if God is telling you what to do, you can't be wrong, right? This thinking leads to a kind of knee-jerk confidence in one's gut feelings at the expense of considering nuance, reading, or listening to experts. We've seen how such an approach worked out for Bush.

During the same speech, she said, "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Iraq was "God's plan"? Surely he could have come up with a better idea.

I just can't end this post without mentioning Palin's stance on abortion, saying that she would oppose it even if her own daughter was raped. She would force her daughter to carry a baby that was the result of a violent rape. If that doesn't make her a deranged idealogue, I'm not sure what would.



Finally, what's up with Palin and other Republicans at the RNC making fun of Obama for being a Community Organizer, as if it were shameful or deficient to want to help disadvantaged members of one's community in one's early 20's? Maybe, to Republicans, that is incomprehensible.

Impeachment

I really have no idea why the Democrats don't want to initiate impeachment hearings for Bush and Cheney. As I've said before, it's not a political question, but one of constitutional imperative; if crimes were committed (and there were myriad), there is a course of action that is constitutionally prescribed. It is not optional. Please sign the petition.

Here's a fun video...

John McCain is a Schmuck

John McCain is a schmuck. John McCain is a sniveling weenie. John McCain is a bumbling buffoon of a fuddleduck. John McCain is a sleazy, pandering, deranged, and insufferably vapid goon. John McCain is, let there be no doubt, a right-wing extremist. But lest I be accused of hyperbole, for a republican candidate, he’s not so bad. After all, he got tortured in Vietnam, which apparently imparts upon one a higher degree of wisdom or morality, or something. It probably tends to engender a diminished proclivity to torture other people, as in McCain’s case. I guess that explains why he is nearly unique among his extremist comrades in that regard.

Besides his opposition to torture, there are a couple of other ways in which McCain is not so bad. But I can’t think of any right now. Suffice it to say that McCain is no George W. I sincerely believe that he isn’t an evil bastard, as opposed to the shrub, though he obviously lacks the degree of integrity or personal fortitude which would be required to counterbalance the seething tide of wickedness promulgated by his cohorts, and indeed, he seems to keep blissfully in step with their sinister ploys, except when doing so gives him nightmares that make him pee his bed, apparently.

Let me make my case.

First, he hardly ever makes any sense. For example, one of his keystone issues is domestic drilling. He talks about it everywhere he goes and acts like it’s some kind of “magic bullet” that will solve all of our energy problems, saying that it would “be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis." Hmm. That puts him at odds with virtually every analyst in the country, including the Federal Energy Information Administration, whose 2007 study concluded that domestic drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030”. Other analysts put the return on investment even further out. The FEIA study also says that “Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” THAT MEANS THAT THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT ON DOMESTIC GAS PRICES FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS, and then, the impact on prices will be “insignificant”.

Shut up, already.

Why does he get away with spouting that nonsense all the time? The reason, of course, is that his followers either don’t bother to listen to objective analysis, or they get all their news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh. The effect in the mind of the uneducated voter becomes, “well, at least McCain is going to do something to make my gas cheaper”. The fact that the Republican party so uniformly supports domestic drilling in the face of it’s total purposelessness is, of course, simply an illustration of the extent to which they are in the pocket of the world’s largest and most powerful corporations. We might as well call them the Exxon-Mobilicans.

Another of my favorite inane statements from McCain came forward a couple of weeks ago in the form of a major policy statement, “What we need today is an economic surge. The surge has succeeded in Iraq militarily -- now we need an economic surge to keep jobs here at home and create new ones.”

Of course! A surge! It worked so well in Iraq, so obviously it’ll work in when implemented in a totally unrelated way, in a totally unrelated arena. The details of this “surge” remain undefined, except for massive tax breaks for the largest corporations, of course, as well as a continuation of Bush policies. But hey, who needs sound economic policy when you can just, “surge!”? Sounds good to me.

But perhaps the scariest thing about McCain is his apparent inclinations when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. When asked by Rick Warren, “What Supreme Court justices would you not have nominated?” McCain responded, “…Justice Ginsberg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter and Justice Stevens” accusing them of “legislating from the bench”, a charge I’ve never quite understood. Clearly then, he has no problem with Scalia the Evil, or Clarence “The Government derives it’s right to rule from God” Thomas the Stupid (or as Obama put it, “He’s not a strong enough legal thinker”). If McCain wins the presidency, we are headed for a true disaster in the Judicial branch.

Please don’t let anyone you know vote for that schmuck.

Happy 4th of July!

New baby/ end of semester hiatus

posting will resume on 6/1... or whenever I feel like it.

I had to. I couldn't help it!

What can I say? I love Marx and I love Bama!

And yes, that is THE Red Army Choir, comrade.

Olympic boycott?

Calls for a boycott of the 2008 Olympics have increased lately as a result of the humanitarian disaster occurring right now in Tibet.

I'm not sure I favor anything more than a Diplomatic boycott, and/or a boycott of Olympic sponsors. A full boycott would likely not accomplish much. Opponents of a boycott point to the fact that the Olympics have served to shine light on human rights abuses committed by China, and that China has vowed to improved its human rights record as a condition of hosting the games.

None of that has amounted to anything meaningful yet. Now that the inevitability of the Beijing Olympics has been solidified, China is certainly moderating its promises of improvement. On the contrary, China's behavior seems to have become even more brazenly anti-humanitarian, i.e., the brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters in Tibet, the arrest of political dissidents, and hyped-up rhetoric justifying its support of the genocidal government in Darfur, Sudan.

But what I'd like to know is, Why was China considered as a host in the first place? China's human rights abuses certainly don't seem to be in line with the IOC's official Charter stating, "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity." China continues to routinely torture its people, arrest and jail dissidents, and generally behave as autocratic dictatorships are inclined to.

And the situation in Tibet is particularly nasty. The Chinese Government is killing people for peacefully protesting, and the IOC is lending them prestige and international legitimacy. The USOC is complicit in this, of course.

But, all that aside, the over-riding reason that the Olympic games should NOT be hosted by China is their support of the Sudanese government. China is supporting the genocide in Sudan, the biggest humanitarian crisis of this century, with weapons and money. That fact led Steven Spielberg to resign as artistic advisor to the 2008 Olympics, saying, "At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur."

Way to go Steve! But I'd really like to see the International community step up and refuse to condone the legitimization of genocide. Is that too much to ask in 2008?

So no, there should not be a boycott of the 08 Olympics. The Olympics should be moved to another city. Or at least that threat should be firmly on the table. The leverage that could be exacted by such a threat should absolutely be exploited to its fullest potential. It is a moral imperative.

And let's be clear; the IOC, as one of the sleaziest organizations around, will do nothing on its own. The threat of a full pull-out must come from, oh, I don't know, maybe the U.N.? Why not? Using the threat of a pull-out to compell China to make human rights improvements, on several fronts, represents the easiest, least costly, and perhaps most effective means of effecting change in the world today.

It is an opportunity that must not be squandered. But, of course, it will be.

McCain: A man of principle

In his 2000 campaign, McCain famously said that he would "openly condemn agents of intolerance", refering specifically to the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Recently though, he has been buddying-up with such unsavories as John Hagee who blamed Hurricane Katrina on gay parades in New Orleans.

I suppose that "condemning agents of intolerance" has become too much of a political liability for McCain. Though I wonder if that is wise on his part.

Principle indeed.

A Cowboy President I Could Handle

"Thank ya ma'am. Much obliged."
Hellz yeah! Now, that is f-in' sharp!

The Rare Bush Veto

Today, Bush has used one of the rare presidential powers he doesn't like to abuse, the veto. Unfortunately, the veto was used to keep the congress from limiting executive powers in other ways. This bill would have specifically, and by name, forbidden the Central Intelligence Agency from using waterboarding, along with other forms of tortu.....ahhhhum...excuse me......I mean interrogation. I believe that this is his fifth veto while president. Two of them, I can not recall, but let's look at the other three.

First, there is this one. He actually vetoed a bill that would say we can not torture people. It is bad enough that our Congress feels it necessary to pass this bill in the first place, but then the President goes and vetoes it. You know, this has actually gotten to me so much that I am out of snark. My snark has left the building. But, maybe this will help people to understand why hoodie wearing, anarchist bicyclers are blowing up military recruitment centers.

Next, Bush hates for poor children to be healthy. Yes, he vetoed a bill giving children health care. He apperently loves poor kids while they're in the womb, but could give a flying fuck about them once they've cleared the vagina.

The third one I can recall off the top of my head is his first. Yup, this is slut he popped his veto cherry on. This whore of ethics was none other than the evil that is stem cell research. In Bush's own word's stem cell research, "crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." So, let me get this straight; using an unwanted grouping of cells, that have not even attached themselves to a woman's uterus yet, for medical research that could save the lives and decrease the suffering of innumerable people, crosses a moral boundary that torture is safely behind. And, we have come full circle in the travels through Bush's logic.

I need a drink...

Another Bush assault on the Constitution

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

- The Fourth Ammendment to the Constitution (just a reminder)

After the House failed to pass the "Protect America Act" last Saturday, Bush had this to say, "House leaders are blocking this legislation, and the reason can be summed up in three words: class action lawsuits." That, of course, is complete bullshit. But there is at least a modicum of relevance to the statement. If telephone companies broke the law by cooperating with the government in illegal surveilance activities, shouldn't they be sued?

But that's really beside the point. The real reason the House declined to pass the bill might more accurately be summed in in these 6 words: IT EFFECTIVELY REPEALS THE FOURTH AMMENDMENT. It is crucial to understand that the Protect America Act does not allow the government to do anything they wouldn't be able to do under original FISA provisions. Again, the only effective thing the legislation accomplishes, other than allowing the Government to spy without judicial over-sight, is protecting phone companies from lawsuits. In the words of Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, "There should be no question in anyone's mind that the United States intelligence agencies have the legal ability to take all actions necessary to protect the security of the American people. For anyone to suggest otherwise is irresponsible and totally inaccurate." The administration's arguments to the contrary are just pathetic, and may be summed up as follows, "It's way too much of a hassle to get a warrant to spy on people, dude." How does Bush get away with spouting such utter garbage on a daily basis?

In this previous post, I implied that the reason Bush is so desperate to pass legislation which includes retroactive imunity from lawsuits for phone companies, is that he is trying to protect his corporate friends. I'm sure that's part of it. But perhaps more importantly, blocking lawsuits against phone companies would prevent details about the illegal spying program from coming out in legal proceedings. Details which are, no doubt, breath-taking in their breadth of illegality.

It really does appear to be quite that simple.

On another note, why did phone companies cooperate with the government in illegal spying activities, at their legal peril? That turns out to be pretty simple as well. Quest Communications is one company that declined to cooperate with the government. Shortly therafter, the Government withdrew pending lucrative contracts they made with Quest. No doubt the Government has other means of applying pressure.

Bonus post

Obama took a break from his campaign activities last week to visit none other than John Edwards, for undisclosed reasons.

I like it.

Bush's Africa Aids Package... Uh, okay.

Friday, in the latest example of increasingly, and spectacularly pathetic PR antics, Bush argued fervently before Congress in support of continuing financial aid for HIV relief in Africa.

It was a valiant and courageous message of hope and conviction.

I can't find a transcript, but in his address to Congress, Bush continually used language like, "We don't want people guessing on the continent of Africa whether the generosity of the American people will continue" in his standard idiotic, tough guy cowboy demeanor. By listening to the tone of the speech, one would have assumed that there was a vast controversy surrounding the aid package. Indeed, there are a few who have some quible with some of the provisions of the plan... Republicans who want more of the funds to go toward abstinance education, to be precise. However, there is near-unanimous support for the Africa/AIDS package among Democrats in the House.

I'll say that again: There is near-unanimous support for the Africa/AIDS package among Democrats in the House.

Over all, the aid package enjoys solid bi-partisan support.

What is wrong with that guy?

Stupid, absurd, baseless, and pathetic grandstanding on the part of the President. And nothing more.

But moreover, why is Bush pretending to be concerned with AIDS in Africa when he obviously doesn't give a shit about the health of his own citizens, for example?

Scoring political points is an obvious answer. And it doesn't hurt that much of the aid money goes directly into the pockets of American drug companies.

Double whammy.

Here's an example of the brilliant defense the President offered of the Aids package, "My attitude toward Congress is, see what works, PEPFAR [The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] is working. It is a balanced program. It is an ABC program abstinence, be faithful and condoms. It is a program that's been proven effective."

Besides the stunning incoherence of the statement, it should be noted that PEPFAR has, in fact, not been shown to be more effective than more comprehensive programs.

Kahones? Perhaps, but small.

So let me get this straight: Bush says that it is essential that the House pass the Senate FISA bill (the dubiously titled, "Protect America Act"), which would allow the Government to continue to spy on Americans without a warrant. However, he says that he will veto any form of the bill that does not contain retroactive immunity for phone companies that have, in the past, cooperated with the government in eavesdropping activities.

Doesn't that mean that Bush thinks that its more important to protect phone companies from lawsuits than to, in his words, "protect the American people"?

Seems pretty clear to me. And that certainly shouldn't surprise anyone. Since day one of this Presidency, protecting and enriching corporations has been Job One.

Let's be clear, the government can, under original FISA provisions, listen to anyone they want to at any time, assuming they have even a minimally good reason to do so. Their sole complaint with the FISA rules is that it creates too much red tape. So in essence, what they are saying is that they want to be able to spy on people without telling any one about it, because, of course, they simply can't be bothered with going to a judge every single time. It would just be a huge hassle.

Isn't that just chillingly creepy? Basic civil rights are trumped by excess paper work?

But, in stark contrast to their performance in recent history, House members declined to pass the "Protect America Act" by the deadline on Saturday.

Bravo! Did Democratic members of the house finally grow some kahones?

Perhaps they did, albeit abysmally small ones.

Crucial to comprehensive interpretation of this matter is the fact that Bush did have the option of extending the provisions of the existing FISA ammendments, which he declined to do. In other words, the ONLY effective difference between the "Protect America Act" and a Presidential extention of the current FISA ammendments, is the controversial retroactive protection for phone companies included in the Senate FISA bill. Hence, if one may extrapolate from the administration's own analysis of the situation, they have made us less safe by refusing to enact provisions that did not offer protection for phone companies.

That isn't hard to figure out. WHERE IS THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA ON THIS ONE?

But the obvious question is, Why is the Bush administration so reticent to go the the FISA court (which has rejected a small handfull of warrant requests out of TENS OF THOUSANDS) to get a warrant? Several explanations come to mind, each more sinister than the last.

Kucinich, 2002:

Valentine's day

The history is certainly murky and disputed. The most prominent theory concerning the origins of Valentine's day involves a 3rd century priest who continued to marry couples in defiance of a decree by Emporor Claudius II of Rome, outlawing marriage for the purpose of preserving his supply of willing soldiers. According to the legend, Claudius had Valentine killed when he learned of the defiance.

Charming.

Valentine would likely think odd what his martyrdom has inspired: hyper-commercialized commodification of the most sacred of human emotions, in the most perversely cheesy way possible, surpassed in tragic irony perhaps only by Christmas. I'm very fortunate that my wife shares my views on this holiday.

I heard a commercial on the radio that began, "Your loved one wants to know that you to put time and thought into your Valentine gift". The commercial was for a "Lobstergram", live lobsters sent through the mail. Fucking lobsters! Time and thought?? Jesus. "Hey honey, I love you so much that I got this arthropod that we can now kill via boiling alive!" Unbeleivably ridiculous.

If a lobster's not your thing, how about chocolate, or even better, a diamond? Yeah! Celebrate your love by supporting two of the most exploitative industries in the world. "Hey Honey, I love you so much that I financially supported genocide, child-labor, and brutal dictatorships in order to give you this useless shit!"

How about showing your love by doing something truley romantic, like writing a rambling, incoherent rant about how much Valentine's day sucks in your blog? That's what I did. Heather's gonna love it, I swear.

Leaves

I have an article in The Western Tribune today, copied below. They don't let me write about anything exciting, but enjoy anyway.



It’s nearing the end of January, and piles of leaves, fallen months ago, are still appearing in plastic bags on the curb. As a Horticulturist and someone concerned about the environment, this has always bothered me a bit.

In an undisturbed forest, leaves fall from trees in autumn and gradually decay, releasing their nutrients back into the soil, and replenishing the soil’s organic matter content. In this process, the forest soil stays rich, fertile, and pliable.

The annual removal of leaves disrupts this natural process, and over time, renders the soil in our home landscapes dense, infertile, compacted, and less able to retain water during droughts.

Additionally, picking up leaves from the curbside usurps a considerable amount of our public financial resources. Organic refuse also occupies substantial space in our limited landfills. As large trucks drive around picking up piles of leaves, they release tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.

But are there alternatives to this? Won’t our landscapes turn into vast leaf piles if we don’t remove the leaves?

Consider the natural forest that I mention above. Do leaves build up to problematic proportions in forests? Thankfully, nature has ways of keeping things in balance.

All good gardeners recognize the water-conserving and weed-suppressing value of a good layer of organic mulch. While leaves make a perfectly good mulch, some home-owners may find their appearance a bit untidy. Try placing the leaves behind your landscape plants where they will be unseen or less noticeable. If your landscape contains natural areas under trees, put leaves removed from your lawn there, where they will appear quite natural. You may be a bit dismayed by the initial “puffiness” of the leaves, but they will settle to a small fraction of their original volume over the winter.

Another option is to establish a compost pile where leaves will rapidly degrade into a useful garden soil amendment. Composting is a simple science, but it pays to learn to do it right. Your County Extension Service has some good publications on composting. Also look for information in books on natural gardening at the library.

It may be true that the size of many modern properties necessitates the removal of some leaves. But even so, bagging them is unnecessary, and prevents the leaves from decaying naturally.

A leaf is an amazing invention of the natural world, representing the base of the food chain by transforming light, air and water into sugars. Let’s consider recognizing their importance by allowing them to remain a part of the natural cycle in our home landscapes.

Story: The birth of Stella

So Heather has been after me for 2 and a half years now to write down my birth story. I remember very few details as it was 35 years ago and all my memory synapses had yet to fully form. Also, my mother had been drinking heavily that day so I kinda had a "contact buzz".

ha ha.

All kidding aside, writing down one's experience with childbirth is apparently something these new-agey baby-having types feel is useful. I figured my blog would be a fine forum for such a literary endeavor. In this case, the birth in question would be that of Stella, our 2.5 year old.

I suppose I'll start from the beginning. It was Halloween. Heather was dressed up as a roller skater girl, and I as some kind of goofball. That's what all my costumes turn out to be: I just find the goofiest clothes I have lying around, do something strange with my hair involving spray paint and crisco, and there you have it. But I digress. We were planning to go to a couple of parties that night and consume copious quantities of alcohol. I was aware that Heather had purchased a pregnancy test earlier that day. A few folks came over, and just as we were heading out the door, Heather says to me with a smile on her face, "By the way, I'm not drinking tonight." Her meaning was clear. Needless to say, I was in a funny mood that night: excited, but also acutely aware that life would never be the same.

Some period of time later, Heather informs me that she intends to have a natural childbirth.

"Uh, like without drugs?", I ask.
"Yeah."
"Why?"
"Because its safer for the baby."
"Whatever you say."

I didn't have an immediate aversion to the idea, but like most people, I thought of pain as something to be avoided if possible. I had also heard that, on the pain charts, childbirth was way up there too. But over time, I found myself intrigued by the idea, though I wasn't sure why at the time.

So we take a natural childbirth class, which, besides preparing us for the experience, made me realize how completely ignorant I was on the subject, not only biologically, but also on how screwed up the way our society deals with pregnancy and childbirth is. I'm not going to get into that here, but I would very strongly urge anyone considering downloading a kid to become as informed as possible on the matter. And while I'm on the subject, DO NOT read "She's Having a Baby and I'm Having a Breakdown" if you are a father-to-be. All that book did was freak me out. It treated the whole pregnancy/childbirth experience as some kind of horrible ordeal fraught with all kinds of pitfalls, disasters, hyper-emotional wives, etc. Thankfully, the actual experience was wholly positive.

Heather went into labor as we were watching the last DVD of "The Lord of the Rings". So we just finished the movie and started to get ready to go to the hospital. I didn't intend for this to be full of advice for expecting parents, but this one is pretty important: Don't go to the hospital until you are really not comfortable at home. This could be as short a time as an hour, to more than a day. Hospitals are boring, lame, uncomfortable places to be. They're a real drag compared to your home. Go too early and they'll send you home. Worse yet, they may get tired of you being there so long and start to invent reasons for you to have a C-section.

Heather had a strange ability to not have a contraction when someone was around. When she first went into labor, we called my mom to bring us a camera because ours was broken. We chatted with her for a while after she got here, and she seemed puzzled by Heather's calm demeanor. Just as she left, Heather had another big contraction. On a side note, the only time Heather ever snapped at me during the whole process was when I turned on the stereo and put in what was apparently the WRONG cd. That was quickly rectified.

We left for the hospital at about 2 AM or so. On the way, we stop to pick up our doula, Cynthia Mwenja. Having Cynthia at the birth was great. Her presence was unobtrusive, but she was very instrumental in keeping me focused and encouraging Heather. She hadn't answered our phone calls, so we just went to her house and banged on the door. Down she came in a few minutes. We drove to the hospital and walked in.

"Hi. We're here to have a baby."
"okay, first door on the left"
Or something like that.

Our first room was a small, typical doctor office-type room. A nurse came in right after Heather had a contraction. Heather was very calm. The nurse was obviously unconvinced that she was in labor (can't blame her since everybody comes in too early).

"Do you know what Braxton-Hicks contractions are?"
"Yes" says Heather, when what she probably wanted to say was, "Yes, I know at least as much about them as you do." (Heather was a voracious reader of literature on the subject of childbirth during her pregnancy)

They conduct a test to confirm that Heather was in labor, and decide that yes, she was. Ah, the wonders of modern medicine.

We were taken to a birthing room, which resembled a spacious hotel room, with low lights and decent decor: not what I was expecting at all. I was glad.

Heather began having strong contractions for the next two hours or so. My role was to support her body during the contractions so she could relax as much as possible. I don't remember when I first noticed it, but when I would hold Heather during a contraction, which she seemed to really need, I would feel an incredible rush of energy run through me that would make me almost hyperventilate. The sensation was unlike anything I've experienced. I felt like we were one thing, fused together by this powerful energy. I also remember feeling a kind of connectedness to mankind in general, and to my ancient ancestors or something. That's quite difficult to describe. I remember thinking, "Is this really happening?" And then, "Yeah... it is. Wow." That went on for some time. I'd have to say that it was the most intense thing I've experienced. It's one of those things that convinces me that there is much about the nature of our existence that we don't understand. Until science figures it out, I'll call it magic.

I suppose it may seem odd that I was having such a powerful, and indeed, profoundly positive experience while my wife was in considerable pain. I'll let her address that, HEATHER: "I had no idea at the time that what Trey was experiencing was so intense. I was vaguely aware through my laborland haze that Trey was very emotional in the late part of my labor (but what's new?). I did know that it was absolutely essential that he be there and hold me during each contraction so I could focus on relaxing and opening up. Although labor was painful, I think of my birth experience in a totally positive light and am glad that Trey was able to be there and get something positive out of it as well."

Since that time, I've read a little more about natural child birth. Apparently, its not that uncommon for fathers to have experiences similar to mine.

When Heather was in transition (the period just before pushing, as the baby is going through the cervix) someone said something funny and Heather laughed. Our doula commented that she had never seen anyone laugh during transition. At some point, a group of medical students came by outside our room. They wanted to come in to see what a natural birth was like. Heather forbade them entrance on the grounds that it would distract her and diminish her contractions. She said that next time, she'll consider it.

Then the hard part. Most women push for less than an hour. Stella was in a twisted position that made her difficult to get out. Heather pushed for a few hours. Our cool, telepathic rush thing stopped happening after she was lying on the table. It was amazing seeing someone exert so much energy for that long. I couldn't believe she could keep going. Our doctor, who was present at this point, kept saying things like, "Okay, we really need to get this baby out", which at the time, I didn't question. In retrospect, I think she was trying to make Heather work harder, which obviously wasn't possible. The comments served only to induce a level of despair. Whatever. Doctors aren't psychologists, or even necessarily very empathetic or insightful people. They should be left out of the process as much as possible. Anyway, eventually, out popped Stella. My brain ceased to function within the normal parameters of logic or cohesive thought. I honestly had to gather my concentration to remember where to look to determine the sex. I'm not kidding. She was immediately taken to an adjacent room to be weighed and cleaned. WHY??? Anyway, I go to Heather's side and smile and cry and kiss her. She makes a sharp motion for me to go to attend the baby, which I do, as I slowly regain my facilities.

I went outside for air and to make a couple of phone calls. There was another guy out there smoking a cigarette, and we started to chat a bit. He had just had a baby too. "I heard there was a lady in there having a natural birth!", he said to me.
"Yeah, that was my wife"
"Really? How was it?"
"Pretty cool."
I think we were kinda the talk of the maternity ward that day. Natural births are very rare in Alabama. When we first brought it up to our doctor, she said, "Yeah, I've heard of that" ...or something to that effect.

We were moved to another room. For reasons that are still entirely unclear to me, babies are kept away from the mother for a period after birth. It was then determined that Stella was a bit jaundiced, which was obvious from her yellowish skin. This is not uncommon in newborns. The treatment for this condition is to be placed under fluorescent lights, on a constant basis. I didn't understand it at the time, but Heather was very upset that she couldn't hold the baby all the time.

"It's cool," I said, "She's healthy. What's the problem?"

This did not earn me sensitivity points. Apparently, many women have a real physical need to touch and be close to their babies. Now I know.

Any day now, we'll go for round 2. I think that, the first time, we approached childbirth as something to get through. I think this time we're both better prepared to see the beauty in the experience. But I am consciously refraining from forming preconceptions or lofty expectations. I'm mainly looking foward to all the good food and having a few days off work.

Clinton and corporate lobbyists

We'll miss you Dennis (America doesn't deserve you)

Obama

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=5983883c26e8eaf31f83a20eb693f255

We'll miss you Fred

Fred Thomson is out. Before the primaries, I predicted he would win, based solely on his credentials as a TV actor. I still think he would have gotten the nomination if he pretended to give a rat's ass about it.

A historical occasion

Mike Huckabee: "I have opponents in this race who do not want to
change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the
Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God.
And that's what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in
God's standards rather than trying to change God's standards so it
lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and
how we treat the family."

As far as I know, this is a historic occasion: our first openly theocratic candidate for president. Sure, there have been others who have advocated policies which clearly violate the church/state separation. But this is the first time we've had a candidate who advocates completely redefining the very philosophical and legal foundations of this country. Fortunately, Huckabee has no chance. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the strict constructionists?

I'm not surprised

In this post, I wrote the following, " Trent Lott, Senator from Mississippi and notable scumbag racist, announced his resignation from the senate this week. It is widely speculated that Lott is resigning now to avoid the new law that bans senators from entering the lobbying business within 2 years of resigning. It is estimated that lobbying would secure a multi-million dollar income for Lott. When asked at a news conference yesterday whether the new law had anything to do with his decision, he replied that it "didn't have a big role". I call bullshit. We'll see."

In the news this week, Trent Lott is open for business.

I'm not claiming to have any sort of remarkable insight in this situation. I just think its amazing how greedy that guy is, and how willing he is to put forth such a shameless lie.

5 worst problems in America today

I'm in a reflective mood, here at the beginning of 2008. I thought this would be an appropriate post. Here are the top 5 problems that I think face America today... other than the lack of sufficient tzatziki sauce on falafels, but that's obvious.

1. Corporate control of national policy.

Facilitated by a zombified, media-obsessed populous, American politics have become completely dominated by corporate interests. The reason for this is simple: Money wins elections, corporations have the most money, so politicians who are hostile to corporate interests are at a distinct disadvantage. In a sense, America can now be described as an entity whose purpose and goal is is make the rich richer, at whatever cost. We have achieved this state slowly since around the 1950s, but it has been dramatically accelerated as a result of the elections of 2000 and 2004. We have become a nation by the People, of the People, and for Corporate Interests. Our national policy is defined by the profit motive, rather than the common good. Subsequently, we've managed to alienate ourselves from the entire world. It would be nice to be able to blame this squarely on the Republicans, whose virtual platform has been to hand over control of America to corporations. Not only that, but somehow they have managed to convince people that it is in their own interests, or weirder, that it is somehow moral to promote such policies. But Democrats have been utterly complicit. Hillary Clinton has been defensive about her cozy relationship with corporations, saying recently, "Corporations are people too". No, Hillary, they are not. They are perhaps necessary, yet intrinsically evil, artificial entities. If I am forced to vote for her, it will be with nose held tight. Reducing corporate influence in politics has been the virtual cornerstone of John Edwards' campaign. Very cool. And very cool that that message apparently resonates with so many people. I'm just not sure I believe him (EDIT: From the latest email from the Kucinich campaign: "He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty" I thought I smelled a rat). Barach's anti-corporate message is a bit more toned down. But I doubt there would be that much difference between the two, policy-wise. The only reason I'd rather have Obama is because he's black. How's that for reverse racism? But also because he was Kucinich's 2nd choice in Iowa. If I can't have Kucinich, I'm hoping for Obama/ Edwards in 08.
Here and here are two books about American policies whose only purposes are to enrich the super-rich at the expense of the middle class.

2. Industrial meat animals

We can never call ourselves a moral people while factory farms exist in our country.

3. Environmental Destruction

All of the plastic we have ever manufactured is still here. All of the plastic we have ever manufactured will be here for about 100,000 years. Our water is full of plastic. There are entire species of sea birds that are threatened with extinction from eating plastic. Plastic does not degrade. It just disintegrates into smaller and smaller particles. In the Future, Earth will be coated in a film of it. It will pervade and infiltrate everything. I chose that example because few people even know about it. And it freaks me out. I mean, what are we doing? There are indigenous peoples whose way of life is threatened by mercury in the fish that they have eaten for centuries. The mercury is discharged from coal-fired electrical plants in America. We're still doing that. I have to get goofed out every time I decide to eat a fish because I know its full of metal? We need to stop. IN the news today: Naples Italy is out of places to put its trash. As a result, people are burning it, thereby releasing dioxins that end up in the grass, and therefore in the cows, and therefore in Naples' famed mozzarella cheese. The cheese is unsaleable, and is being trashed. We can't keep living like this. There are only so many places to put trash. Every facet of our lives is unsustainable. From brushing our teeth, to driving to work, to coming home for dinner, we leave a path of destruction.

4. Apathetic, TV obsessed populous

Every time I hear a seemingly intelligent adult talking about Brittney Spears as if she matters, I'm just blown away. I don't think this country can improve until people wake up a bit.

5. This one's a little harder to define. Let's call it: Alienation from our roots in nature, or from our spiritual foundations.

Regrettably, I'm teaching a high school class right now, and I'm trying to teach them something about native flora. So, the topic of native forests tends to come up frequently. It didn't take me long to realize that many of them had apparently never set foot in an unspoiled natural setting. I think that such a way of living is much more prevalent in their generation, but it pervades our culture in general. Most people spend their lives in a kind of virtual saran wrap, squeezing their food from plastic tubes while flopped down in front of the tube. They have no connection to their foundations. I think that makes people kinda crazy on a really fundamental level. Virtually everything we touch is synthetic. We don't see the plants or animals that our food comes from. We birth our children while drugged and separated from the experience of it. We have no time to reflect, to consider our existence and the meaning of it, and hence we are unable to fully realize our own humanity. I think most people in my generation or older at least began life with some kind of connection with the natural world. Kids today mostly lack that foundation. That worries me.

Not-So-Honorable-Mention: Rhythm clappers