I'm still having trouble talking about this, so please excuse if the language/structure seems... formal? Stilted? I just... this is very hard to talk about, otherwise.
So, about a week after my last post, I got a phone call from my mother, back in Michigan, at about 11:00 at night. I was elbow deep in washing dishes at the moment, so I didn't pick up the phone when it rang or see who it was, but after I'd dried off and saw that it was my mother, I knew that something was wrong. I'm quite used to getting calls from my family, as we're pretty close. I'm not used to getting calls at 11:00 at night, though. That's not how we do.
I immediately called her back, and I could tell by her voice that something very bad had happened. She informed me that my little brother had had another seizure, and had fallen and hit his head. That's all she could say. I knew this meant that he was either in a coma in the hospital, or worse. Finally, I asked, "Is there any chance he's going to be okay?"
"No. No, he isn't going to be okay."
I don't know how long we sat on the phone, and I don't really remember if we said much else. I know I said "I'm coming home" several times, but everything is sort of a haze. I remember feeling really numb, and thinking that I'd literally just talked to him a week or so earlier. We'd been making plans to play a game.
I learned later that it wasn't the fall that killed my brother, but that he probably had two seizures in rapid succession, and his heart stopped. None of us knew you could die from a seizure. I mean, we knew you could get hurt--he'd broken a bone once during a fall from a seizure. But that it could stop your hurt or lungs? I didn't know that.
I have a lot of things to say about the situation, but, like I said, it's really hard to talk about. And, honestly, I don't know how much else I have to say on here about that, anyway.
What I did want to do, openly, is thank everyone who helped me through this really difficult time. When I got that call, I gathered together a handful of clothes, and drove back to Michigan to be with my family, not knowing what I was going to do once I got there. I'm in school, and I was basically living paycheck to paycheck to get by. Originally, I'd been hoping to work full time during the winter break to build up a little bit of a cushion again. But, once I got back to Michigan, I just needed to be with my family.
Had it not been for the amazingly generous donations of a lot of people, I wouldn't have been able to do that. I've tried to thank everyone personally, but I wanted to make a public thank you, too. I don't know if people want their names named, so I won't unless they say otherwise, but I want to say that it meant the world to me that I was able to spend December with my family, and that it was mostly because of the generosity of the online community. People that I've never had the pleasure of meeting offline heard about what happened to my brother, and they sent donations to make sure that I could spend time with my family.
I know that money is really tight for a lot of people right now, and I know that there are probably lots of other ways that people could have spent their money, but... well, thank you all.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
It's good to know that women at *either* extreme can expect shaming...
Well, now... this thread is really interesting. Lauren, over at feministe, posted about a series of photos of female body builders, and how she found them interesting because, in her words:
It’s interesting to me that many female body builders who work on attaining what are considered masculine traits play up their feminine characteristics, perhaps to counteract the kind of physique that is usually culturally marked male, sometimes to an extreme that appears to be a conscious genderfuck. Whatever the case, the human body is so, so cool.
Which, hell yes! The human body is really cool. I'm constantly fascinated by the ways that our bodies move and grow, by the infinite variety of shapes and sizes of our parts and wholes, by the uncountable variations that all of our parts come in. It's really amazing to me.
But, that's not the bit that rocked my brain this morning. The bit that blew my mind was the comments that Lauren's post prompted from a lot of people. The very first comment in response to her post was about how "disgusting" the women look, and how the commenter simply doesn't "find that type of body attractive at all". I'm not going to do a count, but a surprisingly high number out of the 53 responses are echoing that basic sentiment--that each of these women is a "representation of grotesquerie".
There were, thankfully, a number of people who stepped up to point out that criticisms of these women as unattractive misses the point, and that those kinds of comments were, to say the least, not cool. But, that being said, it still seems like one of those times where an awful lot of people engaged in some pretty shitty behavior without really taking the time to analyze it or learn from it.
I don't know why I'm surprised that these sorts of blow-ups still happen. Honestly, I guess I'm not surprised at all. I've written about it too many times and seen it come up too many times for it to really be surprisng.
So, get out your broken records: It doesn't matter if you find those women attractive or not. They're very likely not doing it for you. That you find body building "grotesque" is completely beside, behind, or even miles away from the point. Nobody gives a shit that you find it disgusting. If you find it disgusting? Don't do it. Nobody is trying to make you become or date a body builder--certainly, nobody writing at Feministe is.
When you start talking about women's bodies with terms like "disgusting" "grotesquerie" "disfiguring" or disturbing", you're engaging in exactly the kind of body shaming that a lot of us have been fighting against. So, thanks for that. A woman who can bench 450 lbs without breaking a sweat is no less deserving of respect than a woman who weighs 450 lbs. It's one thing to question the social forces that lead us to view our bodies in various ways. It's quite another to look at pictures of particular women and proclaim them gross.
And the conversation is almost exactly like the typical fat shaming thread. If we remove the specific references, it's practically a MadLib:
"Hey, look at these pictures of women X who break the typical beauty mold. This is interesting."
"Oh my God. Those women are gross. I don't find them attractive."
"Yeah, they're nasty. And also, they're damaging their health because Y."
"You'd have to be dumb to think that these women are attractive or healthy, because Z"
It's the same pattern over and over and over.
And it's completely bunk.
So, here's my advice: If you find yourself on a feminist thread--or, hell, anywhere else, for that matter--about women's bodies, and you're thinking of posting a response that consists of or is related to "Wow, that's gross/ugly/nasty/disgusting", take a moment and
Stop.
Don't do it. Just don't. Because the odds are really good that what you're about to do is make some ignorant, superficial insult about another woman's body. A woman that you probably don't know, will probably never know, and about whom you're probably woefully uneducated about. You're thinking about posting how unhealthy she probably is? And about how your disgust is justified because you're really concerned about the health implications? Yeah, that's bullshit. You're more than likely not her doctor, so you're really not in a position to give her health advice.
Maybe you're actually interested in and concerned about a larger social issue? Maybe you're concerned about ways that the commercial cosmetics market and the entertainment industry push a certain beauty ideal? Maybe you're worried about systemic problems that involve body dismorphic disorders? Maybe you're genuinely concerned about the ways that we view our bodies? That's great! Channel that interest and make a difference. But, remember that slamming and insulting and mocking a particular woman or a group of them is not the way to do that. That's not helping--that's adding to the problem. You want to talk about the larger issues, do that. But don't throw those women under the bus in the process.
If you can't talk about about the ways that our society idealizes unrealistic body types without calling another woman "gross" or "disgusting", then you're doing it wrong, and you should take a minute to figure out why.
It’s interesting to me that many female body builders who work on attaining what are considered masculine traits play up their feminine characteristics, perhaps to counteract the kind of physique that is usually culturally marked male, sometimes to an extreme that appears to be a conscious genderfuck. Whatever the case, the human body is so, so cool.
Which, hell yes! The human body is really cool. I'm constantly fascinated by the ways that our bodies move and grow, by the infinite variety of shapes and sizes of our parts and wholes, by the uncountable variations that all of our parts come in. It's really amazing to me.
But, that's not the bit that rocked my brain this morning. The bit that blew my mind was the comments that Lauren's post prompted from a lot of people. The very first comment in response to her post was about how "disgusting" the women look, and how the commenter simply doesn't "find that type of body attractive at all". I'm not going to do a count, but a surprisingly high number out of the 53 responses are echoing that basic sentiment--that each of these women is a "representation of grotesquerie".
There were, thankfully, a number of people who stepped up to point out that criticisms of these women as unattractive misses the point, and that those kinds of comments were, to say the least, not cool. But, that being said, it still seems like one of those times where an awful lot of people engaged in some pretty shitty behavior without really taking the time to analyze it or learn from it.
I don't know why I'm surprised that these sorts of blow-ups still happen. Honestly, I guess I'm not surprised at all. I've written about it too many times and seen it come up too many times for it to really be surprisng.
So, get out your broken records: It doesn't matter if you find those women attractive or not. They're very likely not doing it for you. That you find body building "grotesque" is completely beside, behind, or even miles away from the point. Nobody gives a shit that you find it disgusting. If you find it disgusting? Don't do it. Nobody is trying to make you become or date a body builder--certainly, nobody writing at Feministe is.
When you start talking about women's bodies with terms like "disgusting" "grotesquerie" "disfiguring" or disturbing", you're engaging in exactly the kind of body shaming that a lot of us have been fighting against. So, thanks for that. A woman who can bench 450 lbs without breaking a sweat is no less deserving of respect than a woman who weighs 450 lbs. It's one thing to question the social forces that lead us to view our bodies in various ways. It's quite another to look at pictures of particular women and proclaim them gross.
And the conversation is almost exactly like the typical fat shaming thread. If we remove the specific references, it's practically a MadLib:
"Hey, look at these pictures of women X who break the typical beauty mold. This is interesting."
"Oh my God. Those women are gross. I don't find them attractive."
"Yeah, they're nasty. And also, they're damaging their health because Y."
"You'd have to be dumb to think that these women are attractive or healthy, because Z"
It's the same pattern over and over and over.
And it's completely bunk.
So, here's my advice: If you find yourself on a feminist thread--or, hell, anywhere else, for that matter--about women's bodies, and you're thinking of posting a response that consists of or is related to "Wow, that's gross/ugly/nasty/disgusting", take a moment and
Stop.
Don't do it. Just don't. Because the odds are really good that what you're about to do is make some ignorant, superficial insult about another woman's body. A woman that you probably don't know, will probably never know, and about whom you're probably woefully uneducated about. You're thinking about posting how unhealthy she probably is? And about how your disgust is justified because you're really concerned about the health implications? Yeah, that's bullshit. You're more than likely not her doctor, so you're really not in a position to give her health advice.
Maybe you're actually interested in and concerned about a larger social issue? Maybe you're concerned about ways that the commercial cosmetics market and the entertainment industry push a certain beauty ideal? Maybe you're worried about systemic problems that involve body dismorphic disorders? Maybe you're genuinely concerned about the ways that we view our bodies? That's great! Channel that interest and make a difference. But, remember that slamming and insulting and mocking a particular woman or a group of them is not the way to do that. That's not helping--that's adding to the problem. You want to talk about the larger issues, do that. But don't throw those women under the bus in the process.
If you can't talk about about the ways that our society idealizes unrealistic body types without calling another woman "gross" or "disgusting", then you're doing it wrong, and you should take a minute to figure out why.
Monday, November 10, 2008
So... what is an adult again?
This story is very sad. Details are still coming out, so it's hard to say what to think of everything, but one thing really strikes me as... well... odd. The story: A child, 8, shot and killed his father and his father's friend on Wednesday. The current report is that this was not a spur-of-the-moment thing, either, but that the child planned the attack out. There's speculation that he might have been abused, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that yet. The part that I'm currently bothered by is the fact that the police want to charge him as an adult.
An eight year old. Charged as an adult.
Now, maybe someone has some insight into this that I'm missing... but if we're at the point where we charge eight-year-olds as adults, what is the point of having a distinction? Why not just make all murder trials "as adult" then?
Because it seems to me that we, as a society, have agreed that there's an important emotional/intellectual difference between adults and children, and we've generally placed the transition at 18. Now, that's sort of arbitrary, and that's why we recognize that there's some leeway, and sometimes we see value in charging, say, a 17-year-old as an adult. But at eight, a child is less than half the age we consider an adult--still a decade away. If that's not firmly in the realm of "child", what is?
And if the argument is that we need to more harshly punish this kid for what he's done? If we don't have a serious enough punishment to fit the crime? The solution isn't to charge him as an adult, but to fix the laws that we think are broken and need to be fixed.
It seems profoundly screwed up to me that someone as young as eight is going to be charged as an adult.
An eight year old. Charged as an adult.
Now, maybe someone has some insight into this that I'm missing... but if we're at the point where we charge eight-year-olds as adults, what is the point of having a distinction? Why not just make all murder trials "as adult" then?
Because it seems to me that we, as a society, have agreed that there's an important emotional/intellectual difference between adults and children, and we've generally placed the transition at 18. Now, that's sort of arbitrary, and that's why we recognize that there's some leeway, and sometimes we see value in charging, say, a 17-year-old as an adult. But at eight, a child is less than half the age we consider an adult--still a decade away. If that's not firmly in the realm of "child", what is?
And if the argument is that we need to more harshly punish this kid for what he's done? If we don't have a serious enough punishment to fit the crime? The solution isn't to charge him as an adult, but to fix the laws that we think are broken and need to be fixed.
It seems profoundly screwed up to me that someone as young as eight is going to be charged as an adult.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Just a reminder of what is at stake.
I know that a lot of people get it, but there are people who don't.
The passing of Prop 8 is a failure on a many levels. It's a failure from start to finish.
That a modern society should even question the right of same-sex couples to enter into a marriage is a failure.
That a modern society should vote to prohibit same-sex marriages is a failure.
That a modern society would even think that it's legitimate to vote on other people's rights is a failure.
Our rights should not be subject to the whims and passing fancy of other people. Our rights should not be up for popular vote. The rights of a minority should not be subjected to tyranny of the majority.
We should have the reasonable expectation that our rights be honored by those around us, whether they like us or agree with us. I'm profoundly disappointed by the fact that Prop 8 and others like it succeeded, but I'm just as profoundly disappointed and saddened that so many people consider it right to have voted on the issue at all. That we, in 2008, still think that popular vote is a fair and right way to determine whether someone should be allowed access to his/her rights... is disturbing.
Would we accept, in this day and age, a ballot initiative to prohibit women from owning property? Would we accept the notion that it is fair and right to vote on whether Asian people should be allowed to register to vote? Would most people just accept it if someone suggested we should vote on a reinstating slavery?
People should not be denied their rights because the majority takes a vote.
Already, on some of the forums I visit, people are saying "but, gays could have civil unions! What's the problem?"
The problem are the over 1,000 benefits that are associated with marriage, most of which do not come with civil unions. The problem is in pretending that seperate is equal. The problem is in telling one group of citizens that their rights and their relationships are less valuable and less "real" than others.
There are over a thousand laws associated with marriage, many of which provide benefits and privileges to married couples. It's a long list, but worth looking at.
Someday, history will vindicate. The best I can do, sometimes, is take solace in the fact that history will prove us right, and we'll eventually recognize that institutional bigotry is wrong. But, I know that doesn't help people in the here-and-now, and that doesn't help the people who are actually hurt by these sorts of laws. I can only hope that history comes soon.
The passing of Prop 8 is a failure on a many levels. It's a failure from start to finish.
That a modern society should even question the right of same-sex couples to enter into a marriage is a failure.
That a modern society should vote to prohibit same-sex marriages is a failure.
That a modern society would even think that it's legitimate to vote on other people's rights is a failure.
Our rights should not be subject to the whims and passing fancy of other people. Our rights should not be up for popular vote. The rights of a minority should not be subjected to tyranny of the majority.
We should have the reasonable expectation that our rights be honored by those around us, whether they like us or agree with us. I'm profoundly disappointed by the fact that Prop 8 and others like it succeeded, but I'm just as profoundly disappointed and saddened that so many people consider it right to have voted on the issue at all. That we, in 2008, still think that popular vote is a fair and right way to determine whether someone should be allowed access to his/her rights... is disturbing.
Would we accept, in this day and age, a ballot initiative to prohibit women from owning property? Would we accept the notion that it is fair and right to vote on whether Asian people should be allowed to register to vote? Would most people just accept it if someone suggested we should vote on a reinstating slavery?
People should not be denied their rights because the majority takes a vote.
Already, on some of the forums I visit, people are saying "but, gays could have civil unions! What's the problem?"
The problem are the over 1,000 benefits that are associated with marriage, most of which do not come with civil unions. The problem is in pretending that seperate is equal. The problem is in telling one group of citizens that their rights and their relationships are less valuable and less "real" than others.
There are over a thousand laws associated with marriage, many of which provide benefits and privileges to married couples. It's a long list, but worth looking at.
Someday, history will vindicate. The best I can do, sometimes, is take solace in the fact that history will prove us right, and we'll eventually recognize that institutional bigotry is wrong. But, I know that doesn't help people in the here-and-now, and that doesn't help the people who are actually hurt by these sorts of laws. I can only hope that history comes soon.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Tonight's Town hall meeting in Cambridge, MA...
This is What Women Want is putting on a town hall meeting tonight, as I mentioned last week. There's been a slight change in venue, however. The meeting will be taking place at Lesley University Ampitheater, at 1815 Mass. Ave in Cambridge. Hope to see you there for this very exciting post-election meeting.
If you can't make it, don't fret, you've got another option. Thanks to the wonderful world of web technologies, you can catch the Town Hall right here!
That's the feed, friends. If you've got questions, send them through the chat function there, because I won't be here to pass them along, but people will be taking questions from the feed and asking them at the event.
Hooray!
If you can't make it, don't fret, you've got another option. Thanks to the wonderful world of web technologies, you can catch the Town Hall right here!
That's the feed, friends. If you've got questions, send them through the chat function there, because I won't be here to pass them along, but people will be taking questions from the feed and asking them at the event.
Hooray!
Monday, November 03, 2008
Support Obama? No candy for you!
Okay, seriously?
What is wrong with people? It's Halloween. You're going to turn kids away from your door because their parents support the other guy? Really? That's some kind of ass-hattery. Little kids are little kids, and there's no way of knowing whether they'll swing towards or away from their parents politics as they grow. And I think it's pretty low to campaign through children, anyway--if you're giving out candy on Halloween, give it out. Don't try to push your politics on kids coming to your door. Disgusting.
What is wrong with people? It's Halloween. You're going to turn kids away from your door because their parents support the other guy? Really? That's some kind of ass-hattery. Little kids are little kids, and there's no way of knowing whether they'll swing towards or away from their parents politics as they grow. And I think it's pretty low to campaign through children, anyway--if you're giving out candy on Halloween, give it out. Don't try to push your politics on kids coming to your door. Disgusting.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Day After: A Feminist Town Forum
Just taking a moment to pass along some info from CNW
The Day After
A Feminist Town Forum
Wednesday, November 5 @ 7:00PM
PARTICIPATE IN PERSON: Cambridge Family YMCA, 820 Mass. Ave., Cambridge
PARTICIPATE ONLINE IN REAL TIME: Participate by logging on 11/5 at 7PM EST to any of our participating blogs, including Feministe, Feministing, Girl with Pen, WIMN's Voices, No Cookies for Me (hey! That's me!), Writes Like She Talks, Heartfeldt Politics, TakePart, or at our mogulus channel.
It's been a long election season, and now it's time to come together to figure out what it all means and what's next.
At this culmination of our This Is What Women Want election project, please join us, our panel of national leaders and the feminist community nationwide to discuss what happened on Election Day, and what we should be thinking about and doing now to fight for equality and justice for all.
This is a first of its kind event convening feminists from around the country live via the blogosphere! Watch live, converse with other audience members around the country and submit your comments and questions in real time.
Panelists will include:
BYLLYE AVERY
Founder of the National Black Women's Health Project and MacArthur Genius Award Recipient
MICHELLE GOLDBERG
Journalist and author of Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism
ANNE ELIZABETH MOORE
Critic, activist, artist, journalist and author
PAULA RAYMAN
Founding Director of the Radcliffe Public Policy Center
LORETTA ROSS
National Coordinator, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective
ANDREA BATISTA SCHLESINGER
Executive Director, Drum Major Institute for Public Policy
Come optimistic, disgruntled, angry, or just exhausted. Come in person or online. But come. We need to hear every voice and idea!
(Facebook users: Click here to RSVP and invite your friends!)
_______________________
Center for New Words
Where Women's Words Matter
The Day After
A Feminist Town Forum
Wednesday, November 5 @ 7:00PM
PARTICIPATE IN PERSON: Cambridge Family YMCA, 820 Mass. Ave., Cambridge
PARTICIPATE ONLINE IN REAL TIME: Participate by logging on 11/5 at 7PM EST to any of our participating blogs, including Feministe, Feministing, Girl with Pen, WIMN's Voices, No Cookies for Me (hey! That's me!), Writes Like She Talks, Heartfeldt Politics, TakePart, or at our mogulus channel.
It's been a long election season, and now it's time to come together to figure out what it all means and what's next.
At this culmination of our This Is What Women Want election project, please join us, our panel of national leaders and the feminist community nationwide to discuss what happened on Election Day, and what we should be thinking about and doing now to fight for equality and justice for all.
This is a first of its kind event convening feminists from around the country live via the blogosphere! Watch live, converse with other audience members around the country and submit your comments and questions in real time.
Panelists will include:
BYLLYE AVERY
Founder of the National Black Women's Health Project and MacArthur Genius Award Recipient
MICHELLE GOLDBERG
Journalist and author of Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism
ANNE ELIZABETH MOORE
Critic, activist, artist, journalist and author
PAULA RAYMAN
Founding Director of the Radcliffe Public Policy Center
LORETTA ROSS
National Coordinator, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective
ANDREA BATISTA SCHLESINGER
Executive Director, Drum Major Institute for Public Policy
Come optimistic, disgruntled, angry, or just exhausted. Come in person or online. But come. We need to hear every voice and idea!
(Facebook users: Click here to RSVP and invite your friends!)
_______________________
Center for New Words
Where Women's Words Matter
This is What Women Want
Check it, people: an online station showcasing highlights from the This is What Women Want speakout tour. Very cool. Remember, it ain't over til it's over--the election is still coming up, and it's important to keep interested and make sure the vote gets out.
**edited**applet removed since it's reposted above
**edited**applet removed since it's reposted above
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Suddenly, it all begins to make sense...
Ever since she was added to the ticket, people have been wondering why Palin was picked. What did she add to the ticket? Now, I know that some of the more cynical amongst us thought that it was a shallow attempt by McCain to try to pick up the woman vote--that he believed that having a woman veep would sway women voters to his side. I can't say I blame that train of thought--it's not like McCain has done much to give the impression that he thinks particularly highly of women, so it wouldn't be a stretch to think that he was trying to pull one over.
But! But!
I'm here to announce that I've finally figured it out. In order to understand the genius of the McCain Election Plan, we need to go back a bit. I'm not the only one, I think, who thinks that McCain has changed in recent years. It wasn't that long ago that many on the left were thinking "You know, a split ticket with McCain on board wouldn't necessarily be terrible." But, in recent years, McCain has made a strong push to get back in line with the values and goals of the conservative right. This change was very disappointing to some of us who saw McCain as being an example of someone from the right that we could respect, even if we didn't agree. Now, some of that might be attributed to the greater attention he's getting now, so we're seeing more about him than we had in the past, but I think there's a deeper plot involved here.
I'm going to come out and say it:
John McCain is secretly a liberal plant, trying to move the nation in the right direction by intentionally sabotaging his run for the presidency and doing everything in his power to make the right look like maniacs and crazies.
A bold claim? Perhaps, but let's consider the evidence.
First of all, he picks a running mate who nobody has ever even heard of. A running mate who disagrees with him on some pretty significant issues. A running mate who can't give a straight interview, who can't answer even the most simple of questions... and we've all seen the SNL skits by now.
Second of all, look at the way he composes himself- he wanders around the stage aimlessly during debates. He gets lost on stage after questions. He goes bug-eyed during interviews. He refuses to apologize when it comes out that he told rape jokes. The angry stares and the bittterness that's practically oozing off of him at all times... He does his best to act like a man on the verge of breaking at every moment--he couldn't act more like a man on the brink if he took LSD before stepping into the bright lights to take questions.
And now this!
A subtle message to voters that the left is right and the right is wrong? An attempt to subliminally influence the vote in favor of the Dems?
...
Or just a really funny--and expensive--fashion faux pas on the part of one of the most ridiculous presidential tickets in modern history?
You be the judge!
But! But!
I'm here to announce that I've finally figured it out. In order to understand the genius of the McCain Election Plan, we need to go back a bit. I'm not the only one, I think, who thinks that McCain has changed in recent years. It wasn't that long ago that many on the left were thinking "You know, a split ticket with McCain on board wouldn't necessarily be terrible." But, in recent years, McCain has made a strong push to get back in line with the values and goals of the conservative right. This change was very disappointing to some of us who saw McCain as being an example of someone from the right that we could respect, even if we didn't agree. Now, some of that might be attributed to the greater attention he's getting now, so we're seeing more about him than we had in the past, but I think there's a deeper plot involved here.
I'm going to come out and say it:
John McCain is secretly a liberal plant, trying to move the nation in the right direction by intentionally sabotaging his run for the presidency and doing everything in his power to make the right look like maniacs and crazies.
A bold claim? Perhaps, but let's consider the evidence.
First of all, he picks a running mate who nobody has ever even heard of. A running mate who disagrees with him on some pretty significant issues. A running mate who can't give a straight interview, who can't answer even the most simple of questions... and we've all seen the SNL skits by now.
Second of all, look at the way he composes himself- he wanders around the stage aimlessly during debates. He gets lost on stage after questions. He goes bug-eyed during interviews. He refuses to apologize when it comes out that he told rape jokes. The angry stares and the bittterness that's practically oozing off of him at all times... He does his best to act like a man on the verge of breaking at every moment--he couldn't act more like a man on the brink if he took LSD before stepping into the bright lights to take questions.
And now this!
A subtle message to voters that the left is right and the right is wrong? An attempt to subliminally influence the vote in favor of the Dems?
...
Or just a really funny--and expensive--fashion faux pas on the part of one of the most ridiculous presidential tickets in modern history?
You be the judge!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sitting in my seat of judgment, judging people.
Sarah Palin recently gave an interview to CBN's David Brodey, and was asked about gay marriage.
So... um... when you say "I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do" you actually mean "I am going to be".
Got it.
This is serious, though. A McCain/Palin ticket is another four years of oppressive policies: of faith based legislation aimed at denying citizens equal rights based on sexuality, of attempting to control women's bodies through increasingly restrictive abortion law, and of doing everything possible to ensure that we, as citizens, live our lives in compliance with Conservative Christian values. Whether we're conservative Christians or not.
But, this interview just keeps making you wonder... why, exactly, was she picked as his running mate? They disagree on so many issues, and she sure seems like she's been nothing but a liability since he announced her. They've got so little faith in her ability to carry on a debate or a real conversation that they've been keeping her protected from interviews as much as possible.
Who wouldn't like to have been a fly on the wall when he picked her?
Brody: On Constitutional marriage amendment, are, are you for something like that?
Palin: I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage. I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.
So... um... when you say "I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do" you actually mean "I am going to be".
Got it.
This is serious, though. A McCain/Palin ticket is another four years of oppressive policies: of faith based legislation aimed at denying citizens equal rights based on sexuality, of attempting to control women's bodies through increasingly restrictive abortion law, and of doing everything possible to ensure that we, as citizens, live our lives in compliance with Conservative Christian values. Whether we're conservative Christians or not.
But, this interview just keeps making you wonder... why, exactly, was she picked as his running mate? They disagree on so many issues, and she sure seems like she's been nothing but a liability since he announced her. They've got so little faith in her ability to carry on a debate or a real conversation that they've been keeping her protected from interviews as much as possible.
Who wouldn't like to have been a fly on the wall when he picked her?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
