"Real" ID (because, apparently, every ID you already own is a figment of your imagination, i.e. not real.)

I've avoided a whole lot of Current Events postings for about the last year, treading carefully when and how I write about the news and my favorite news programs. My reasons are my own, but since I've written about the Real ID program before, I feel I'm justified in revisiting the issue. Granted, that post was a year and change ago, but the proposal didn't die just because the administration changed.

According to the story I heard the other day, in the end, many states passed laws and resolutions specifically refusing to implement the changes that Real ID was supposed to bring. Good on ya', mate, I think the rights of the individual states are very important and at times supersede the rights of the federal government. But I digress.

Since so many states refused point-blank to make the changes to their drivers' licences, and Uncle Sam never funded the mandate, Real ID is sort of DOA. But wait! There's more! There are people (read: lobbyists) that want Real ID completely funded, left as is, and forced down the throat of every state. Then there is a group of legislators who have gotten together and come up with another version, called Pass ID.

Now, since we all fall for the marketing gimmick of New! Improved! Shiny! New! Better! it would appear that all the legislators are doing is re-packaging Real ID, giving it another name, et volia, new legislation! Allow me to use a phrase from my teen years in response: NOT!

One of the many things about Real ID that got my dander up was that this was supposed to make your state driver's license proof of citizenship, among other things. (Like making driver's licenses immune to faking and tampering, to which I say what-ever!) We already have identification that is proof of citizenship. It is called a passport. You are required to present rock-solid proof of citizenship to get a passport, and worldwide, passports are the standard for proof of citizenship.

Why didn't Congress just require everyone to get a passport and be done with it?

Well, firstly, because that's too expensive, for one. After September 11, the gub'mint raised the fees for passports, and although it was never "cheap" to get a passport, it is costly. Besides the processing fees, you have to go and have a picture taken, fill in a bunch of paperwork, blah, blah, bureaucratic process, blah, blah. It is time consuming, too. If you live in a big city, you can go and get a passport in person, but if you're a country mouse, you have to mail the stuff away, and wait patiently for it to come back to you. Want a delivery confirmation, or to have it shipped more expediently than the US Postal Service? That'll be an additional fee, thankyouverymuch.

So passports for everyone isn't the answer. But Real ID isn't the answer either. Thankfully, figuring out what the answer actually IS - well, that ain't my problem.

Yes. This.

Exactly.

It is my humble opinion that these two teenagers are not the exception to the rule, rather there are more of them out there than we know about. I found this story particularly inspirational.

Not as you think.

A few years ago, when my nephew made his First Communion, I sat at my sister-in-law's house and talked to her in-laws. They're conservative Catholic folk, and therefore in general, we don't see eye-to-eye. I try, really, I do, to keep my liberal lefty opinions to myself, but I don't always succeed.

As I talked to her brother-in-law about politics and public policy, the conversation turned towards some of my pet issues; the death penalty, among other things.  Eventually, he sat back, laughed, and said to me, "You are NOT as liberal as you think you are."

I told him we'd have to agree to disagree on that.  But.....

Last night, as I was driving home, I heard just a portion of this story, enough to make me remember to seek out the full audio and listen later.  It is about the drug problem in Mexico, and the official response of the United States' government to the same.

My gut reaction to this was annoyance, and I surprised myself by saying to the radio, "and this is MY problem, as a US taxpayer, how exactly?"  No, me talking to the radio was not the surprise. I do that all the time.

I don't take illegal drugs.  (Nope, I save my money for the legal ones, eyeroll.)  The drug cartels in Mexico aren't what we need to be spending taxpayer money on right now, people.  It annoys me that Mexico has its hand out, looking for money from the United States to solve problems in Mexico, of Mexican creation.  Their police force is corrupt.  Their jails are apparently a sham.  The cartels run things any way they see fit, committing murder, kidnappings, extortion....and they want the United States to fix this?  Buh?

And wow, that is about the most conservative right-leaning thing I've ever typed OR said.

I understand the argument that without the United States and the voracious appetite on this side of the border for cocaine and weed, there wouldn't be a drug problem in Mexico, but with respect, I disagree.  There's a market for illegal drugs the world over, and it was a very long time ago that the US had the largest population in the world.  After China, and India, the United States ranks third in population size, and somewhere, someone besides Americans on American soil, are buying Mexican product.

When did the US become the world's ATM?  Why does the perception that we have oodles of money to be handing out over every third-world nation conundrum persist?  GLOBAL Financial Crisis, anyone?

This all makes me wonder, too, if I would feel differently (i.e. more leftist) about this issue if the US economy were not hemorrhaging jobs at an alarming rate and several of our biggest industries - financial, automobile manufacturing - weren't on the precipice of complete disaster. 

I'd like to think so.

Justice Delayed

It isn't often that I post more than once a day. I wrote the post below yesterday, so technically, I guess I'm not writing two posts today. Something pretty important has to happen for two posts.

And important this is. I am both happy and relieved by the news this morning that Radovan Karadzic is under arrest. Need a history lesson? I'm happy to oblige.

During the Balkan Wars, Karadzic was one of the Serbian generals, he orchestrated the siege of Sarajevo. But don't take my word for it. From NPR:

Karadzic has been twice indicted for genocide. He is accused of playing a key role in the 43-month siege of Sarajevo, which claimed 12,000 lives, and of orchestrating the 1995 massacre of some 8,000 Muslims at Srebrenica, the worst atrocity in Europe since World War II.

I lived in Sweden during the start of the Balkan Wars, with a Croatian family. So yeah, this hits kind of close to home. I watched the news from Zagreb (Croatia's capital) with my host family, learned the words in Croatian that explained the numbers of people killed each day, listened as my host mother talked to her mother in one of the seaside provinces of Croatia and heard the news that her nephew had been drafted, cried with her over her terror that he might not make it home. I was there when they heard about the deaths of old friends, and helped them bid farewell to a fellow expatriate who went home to Croatia to defend his hometown.

Both the nephew and the expat made it home safely, but so many others did not. One of my most treasured possessions from my exchange year is a patch from the expat's army uniform, that he pulled off of the sleeve of his fatigues and gave to me. He handed it to me and said, "This is so you never forget. I want you to remember how ugly and stupid war is, how useless the divisions betweens Croats and Serbs, Christian and Muslim truly are. We're all human. The ethnic divisions are meaningless"

I have never forgotten. The violence escalated in the years after I left Sweden, the horrible tragedy in Sarajevo was several years after I came home. I was always disappointed and confused by what I perceived as apathy in America about the situation in the former Yugoslavia. When I came home in 1992, my friends mostly didn't know what I was talking about when I talked about Croatia. I learned to just keep my thoughts about the genocides to myself.

I still have harsh words about it; there's no oil in the Balkans, and therefore, the US didn't get involved until things were really bad. IMESHO, anyway.

Karadzic's arrest is NOT a case of too little, too late. It is a case of better late than never. Some of those families might have a bit of closure and peace now that he is in custody.

Now it is time for the Serbian government to track down Ratko Mladic, and hold him accountable, too.

Fear-Mongering

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
~George Orwell, Animal Farm, published in 1945

On Thursday last week, I was listening to NPR and marveling, yet again, at President Idiot's latest crisis-mongering tactics. Will it ever end? *Sigh* Not until he's out of office, at any rate.

Here's the scoop:
Congress and the pres are facing off over a continuation of a bill that allows Uncle Sam to place wiretaps on foreign citizens, in foreign countries. Yep, you read that right. If you, living your life in Italy, as an Italian-born citizen, are doing something that brings you under Uncle Sam's suspicions, Uncle Sam seems to think that he ought to be able to tap your phone. Regardless of Italian law, apparently. Now I'm using Italy as an example here, but as I understand it, we're talking about hush-hush wiretaps all over the world.

This irks me for a couple of reasons, not least of which is that I value my own privacy highly. Very highly. So I think that everyone is entitled to protection of their privacy. Additionally, we get all up in arms when OUR civil rights might potentially be violated, but furiners? Damn, who cares about that, anyway? No one, apparently. Urgh.

No one is above the law; if you believe in democracy, freedom, and the rule of law, then this is wrong. Going outside of legal systems in other countries, in my ever-so-humble, is a violation of their sovereignty, plain and simple, no ifs, ands, or buts.

To play my own devil's advocate for a minute, I do understand why the intelligence services (oh, and I use that term loosely) would want this ability. Easily. You'd probably worry that if you informed the foreign government of your intentions that they might tip off their citizen, or forbid it entirely. I'm sure that the spy agencies place taps all the time anyway, with or without legal consent. At least, that's what the movies would have you believe.

I should note that I'm also hotly opposed to the feds listening in on MY calls overseas, which has been in the news previously. If someone wants to listen in while I bitch about my job to my Mama, firstly they're going to be bored witless, and secondly, I want to know who is listening and why.

Ah, your tax dollars at work. Joy.

"Real" ID

Because anything you're already carrying as identification is apparently fantasy ID.

I'd be laughing if I wasn't so worried about my own personal privacy.

The Department of the Fatherland, also known as the dep't of homeland security, I just can't help it, the name and their activities just remind me too much of the Third Reich, announced on Friday that they're moving ahead with the "Real ID" program.

They want the states to make changes to their driver's registration processes so that illegal immigrants can't get a driver's license, so that a license is nearly "proof" of citizenship.

Hello? We've ALREADY got a document that does that...called a passport, federally issued ID that proves that you're a citizen, is fucking expensive AND a pain in the ass to obtain. You need to prove citizenship in order to get one.

DH has a brand-spanking-new passport, issued last year, that has a computer chip inside it. Now I know that counterfeiters still exist, and a truly talented one could conceivably produce an acceptable facsimile, but what's to say that this "Real ID" program is any less prone to subversion? Nothing.

And then there's the privacy concerns. My Oh-hia-ia driver's license has a magnetic swipe stripe on the back, just like a credit card, which contains all of the information that is printed on the front of the license. When I got pulled over a few weeks ago for speeding, the cop didn't want my car's registration information or anything else, because, he said, "that'll all be on your license." Ulk. There's a scary thought; what else is encoded on there? Who else can access it?

Here's why this worries me:

I guess I hadn't realized that so much info was encoded on that stripe; when I worked as a teller for ye evile bank years and years ago, we could swipe someone's license and print the encoded information on a check as verification of identification. If the check was bad and came back to us, and you had that license info printed on it, you weren't in as much trouble as you would be if you hadn't gotten that information. But what it printed was a string of letters and numbers that was so much mumbo-jumbo. I never had any idea how to translate any of it into information that would actually be useful. But then again, I never needed to. I was only a teller for 6 months (because I hated, despised, and detested being a teller) and I was lucky enough to not ever have the problem of a 'bad' check coming back to me.

Now, I can envision bars, and restaurants carding you and gathering information not just about your age; you can very easily tell by looking at the printed information on an Ohio driver's license if someone is of legal age to drink or not. Minor's licenses are printed with the information vertically, with a red background to the photo. Those of legal age have their information printed horizontally, with a blue background for the photo. So there is no need to swipe the license to verify age.

Department stores, or other places where you write checks could also have the technology needed to swipe that license and gather goddess-only-knows what data about you. Not cool.

Just 17 states have passed legislation opposing the Fatherland's new program. It is very unclear what changes might take place in each state; I'm guessing that Oh-hia-ia, with its existing magnetic stripe, digitized pictures, and holograms that print over top of the address/city/state information, already meets the criteria for the "Real ID" program, and thus there won't be many changes for the state to make. But I'm guessing, and I have absolutely no intention of reading the thousands of pages of guidelines that the Fatherland's secretary issued on Friday.

Sigh. Makes me want to flee north and start singing "Oh Canada."

And here's a problem that they have apparently NOT considered; forcing you to prove citizenship to get a license will only have illegals walking away from the whole licensing procedure; then we'll have a horde of unlicensed, uninsured drivers on the road. Fan-tab-u-los.

Tolerance

The stories swirling about in the news media regarding Senator Larry Craig have me thinking about the gross lack of tolerance here in America for the homosexual community. It makes me ill, realizing yet all over again how "land of the free, home of the brave" seems to apply to only a privileged few.

What the hell do you care if someone is gay, straight, bi? Why on earth would it matter? Does it affect whether they're a good person or not? Does it change the fact that they're human? Nope. Sure doesn't. It isn't any of your business what goes on in someone else's bedroom. Ever.

I understand curiosity; I have more than a generous dose of it myself and asking respectful questions has rarely gotten me into trouble. I'm also a gossip queen out there in the real world and have had more than my share of giggling conversations about other people's sex lives, but I'm not interested in being angry at someone because they're gay. That's exhausting, frankly, and a waste of time.

NPR has a story about an Idaho paper that had been investigating Senator Craig's sexuality. Here's why I must be crazy; I don't understand why that should be newsworthy. I understand completely that it is newsworthy due to the salaciousness of the news and the basic marketing rule that "sex sells." But much like Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs, I just don't think it is our business.

Am I so far out of the mainstream? Or should we finally simply live and let live and focus on real issues instead of someone's orientation?

Thumbing their noses at the Vatican (and I'm downright gleeful!)

I took a small road trip yesterday to visit a friend and had some time alone in the car. On Saturdays, my local NPR affiliate plays a whole bunch of interesting programs, among them Car Talk, Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, and Weekend America. I don't get to listen to all of them, usually, but that does not mean that I don't enjoy them.

Weekend America had a story about a movement in the Catholic Church to ordain women. I'm thrilled to my fingertips about this. The fact that the Church does not recognize the ordinations matters little to me.

Change within the Catholic Church could be best categorized as having a glacial pace, so I'm unsurprised that the Vatican excommunicated the first women to be ordained. For heaven's sake, the Church only admitted in 1992 that maybe they ought not to have excommunicated Galileo in 1633. "Glacial" is perhaps too kind a word for the pace of change.

Pope John Paul II had plenty to say about female ordination in letters dated 1988 and 1995. Through all that woman-hating waffle (should you bother to read it, as I did) the basic message is: "Hey, ladies. We hear you. Be patient. Be faithful. Listen to the priests and bishops. Be a nun if you want to serve. Obedience to cannon law is paramount. Barefoot and pregnant is the best condition for you."

Here's a couple of direct quotes from the 1988 letter, offensive in the extreme: We must now focus our meditation on virginity and motherhood as two particular dimensions of the fulfillment of the female personality." How's THAT for a gem? Add it to this piece of nonsense: "In the name of liberation from male "domination", women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine "originality". There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not "reach fulfilment", but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness."

The bold emphasis is mine, of course.

Being a feminist, you see, is inherently evil in the eyes of the Church. Women should be wives, fulfilling their 'duty' to be fruitful and multiply, or they should be nuns. It is that whole virgin/whore debate all over again; either you are a virgin, pure, holy, obedient, or you're a whore, plain and simple. What a load of sanctimonious bullshit.

I'm sure that Pope Pious XII will have plenty to say on this issue as well, since women continue to defy Vatican prescriptions for their behavior. Especially since Pious is even more conservative, more of a right-wing nut job than his predecessor was.

By not behaving, being disobedient, the women who have been ordained are taking their place in history as feminists, ground-breakers, and leaders.

I had a conversation with my father about this whole issue; he himself was excommunicated for marrying my mother, a Protestant. The fact that Mum converted to Catholicism and raised the sibs and I Catholic has no bearing whatsoever on Dad's excommunication. And yes, this happened in America in the 1960s, amazing enough in itself. So he's got his own axe to grind with the Church, but by and large he and I disagree about almost the whole religion issue. He still believes in much of his childhood teachings, whereas I do not.

"Why would the Church's stance on this surprise you?" He asked me, in all seriousness.

"Well," I said, "Because I was raised as a red-blooded American woman, who believes that she's got the same rights as any man...remember 'we hold these truths to be self-evident?' and the whole feminist stance I have?"

"But the Church has never played by the same rules as the government," he reminded me, "and the chances of the Church changing anytime soon are slim and none."

This issue for me is more about equality than religion, in the end. So perhaps he's right. But I refuse to accept that just because we don't have penises that we can't be priests.

Malcontent.

I want to complain about the government today. This is hardly something new for me, but the several disjointed stories that bred this morning's discontent cover a wide array of issues.

First, on NPR's website, I noticed a story about xeriscaping, and when I clicked on the link it took me to Ketzel Levine's blog. Levine hosts an NPR program called "Talking Plants," and I consider her an expert in matters gardening. The city of Tempe, Arizona, took exception to one couple's dry and dead lawn. Now, let's think a minute. Tempe, Arizona is in the middle of a desert, right? Does grass, green, verdant, golf-course grass grow in the desert? No? Why, then, would you waste an extreme amount of water to grow a green lawn?

It would seem to me that the City of Tempe passed regs about having nice yards to avoid people having six junker cars on their front lawns up on cinderblocks. Not to bitch at people who don't want to waste water. It irks me that government gets involved in cases like this. What's next, the city fathers telling you what color you can paint your front door? Yeesh.

Next I saw a bit on Headline News about President Idiot. He was treated for Lyme disease in 2006; this information was only released today. This administration has never met a delaying tactic, a manner of stonewalling the free press that they didn't like. See my "Backwards Bush" counter over there in the sidebar? Thank whatever you hold holy that he's NOT eligible for a third term, I might lose my mind. Some more.

Then there's the fella who is an American citizen but was "mistakenly" deported to Mexico. Fan-tas-tique job there. I've said before that the Department of Homeland Security just smacks too much of Nazi Germany for my tastes. What's next, a department of the Fatherland? We needed another large governmental agency? Riiiiiight. Seems to me that all they do is stir up unnecessary hysteria. What's the terror alert level today? Who the hell cares?

Finally, in the roundup of all the news that's fit to make you ill is the FEMA trailers that some Katrina victims are still living in. The folks still stuck in them are suicidal and extraordinarily depressed. Gee, I wonder why.

Add to all of this the fact that it is 94 bazillion degrees outside (yes, that's a real number, it IS 94 bazillion!) overcast, cloudy and muggy enough to take your breath away, and it isn't any surprise that I'm feeling a bit malcontent today.

Probably because I've been at home for most of this summer, it seems to me that I can't remember a nicer summer, weather-wise, in recent history. I attribute that mostly to the fact that I'm noticing more since I have more free time. Until about a week ago, it was sunny, warm but not too hot, and dry. Perfect for lying by the pool and reading Harry Potter. But in the last week, the humidity has shot through the roof and it has rained every day. We desperately needed the rain, but I sure could do without the gloomy skies that are usually more typical of say, November, here in Ohio.

How cool is Bono?

Way cool! NPR had an interview with the man himself on Morning Edition today. I am a huge U2 fan, but more than that, Bono's activism is so inspiring. Sure, he can make a greater impact than the average Joe, being a rock star and all, but the One.org organization that he's involved in touches millions. Even one of the J-man fan sites that I participate in has a "Make Poverty History" banner. I added one today, as I am finally beginning to understand HTML coding and was able to get it to work. I'm adding it to my MySpace, too. When we come together to work for a common cause, we can accomplish amazing things.

Once upon a time, I even saw that in my own community. It is a long and involved story, too personal for an anonymous blogger to share, even for me. That must seem strange, that I'm perfectly willing to share with the world my struggles with mental illness but not an inspiring tale of a community coming together. Sorry. You'll just have to take my word for it, that I've seen when people come together for a common cause, even here in the rustbelt, great things can happen.

I find it amazing and even a little awe-inspiring that even President Idiot and Condee listen to Bono. The interview on Morning Edition talked about a slight problem with Italy, and how the Italian Prime Minister also listens to him.

When you go to a U2 concert, as I did about 2 years ago, Bono spends no small amount of time talking to the crowd about his political issues. I went to see them with a close friend in Cleveland, at an arena that is now called "The Q," which holds 20,500 people. The concert was sold out. So every night that U2 is on stage somewhere, you can assume that they've got an audience of between 15,000 and 25,000 people. That's a lot of ears that Bono gets to bend. U2 live is one of the greatest shows I've ever seen.

Interesting, isn't it, that only a select few of rock royalty or megastars in the other entertainment genres get involved in things like this?

I just don't get it.

And I probably never will.

The constitution of the United States sets up the doctrine of separation of CHURCH and STATE. To quote the founding fathers:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (United States Constitution, Article VI)

Therefore it is with great dismay that I listened to a report on NPR's Morning Edition on Tuesday morning, about the Democratic presidential hopefuls coming together in a "debate" of sorts which was moderated by CNN's Soledad O'Brien. The focus of the debate? The faith of each candidate.

Personally, I don't give a crap what religion my political leaders are. I care about their stance on abortion and on women's rights, and I will vote for a pro-choice candidate every single time, all other things being equal about two candidates.

But after nearly eight years with President Idiot (who takes every opportunity to mention his own faith) at the helm, it seems to me that the line is blurred more than ever before between church and state. Certainly you hear lots more religion talk, what with those "faith-based" initiatives; and usually when we're talking religion in the media, we're talking Christianity and ignoring every other faith that exists. Don't get me started on that.

What I truly do not understand is why a politician's faith is at issue at all. Who cares? Tell me what you're going to do about poverty, about the fiasco in Iraq, about equal rights for women, about how you're going to protect a woman's right to choose, what you plan to do about America's dependence on oil, what you're going to do about the environment, if you're elected. Don't tell me about your faith, because not only do I not care if you're Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, whatever, I am not interested in hearing about it.

I know that the freedom of religion is not at all the same thing as freedom from religion. I'd like to live in a fully secular society, but even our money says, "In God We Trust" so I'm pretty sure that isn't going to happen anytime soon. But can we PLEASE stick to the issues for the coming presidential election and leave the personal stuff about each candidate out? Please?

About time, doncha think?

NPR reported on All Things Considered yesterday afternoon that the Idiot Administration has finally seen fit to impose some sanctions on Sudan for the conflict and slaughter of civilians in the Darfur region. Way to step up to the plate, there, Mr. President!! This has been going on for only four years before you decided to make some tougher regulations.

NPR's piece made the very interesting point that the Idiot Admin has been talking about doing something in Darfur for a long time, but not suiting the deeds to the words. Miss Condee has given speeches, W has said a thing or two, but not until NOW have they decided that they ought to do something more? And is it enough? Hardly, in my ever so humble.

Cynical girl inside my head would like to take a moment to note that the administration probably needs to distract the public yet again from the fact that they can't find Osama and that the wars on both fronts, in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going so well. (How many more people need to die in Iraq before there are some policy changes?) Or p'haps because W's poll numbers are down again and they think they're going to get points from a target demographic by looking like they're doing something.

Three other things I'd like to mention, all not remotely connected to this topic.

NPR has also been doing a series about soldiers and post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, which has made for RIVETING listening. Daniel Zwerdling, the reporter, has a wonderful voice that only adds to the experience. Give it a listen.

Not from NPR, but PRI (public radio international) comes This American Life, which is a amazing radio program. I spent some time in the car yesterday and since I've subscribed to the podcasts, I have about 4 that I haven't listened to. Rather than try to explain the amazing thing that TAL is, I'm just going to have to write a whole post about it another day. Stay tuned for that.

Finally, I'm very pleased to say that yesterday I ran 1.2 miles in 13 minutes, 47 seconds. Which was awesome. A bit painful. Considering when I started working out in October that the two flights of stairs to the cardio studio at the gym made me winded, this is most excellent.

American citizen held in Iranian jail

NPR had a story this morning about an American woman who is being held in an Iranian jail, accused of being a spy. She's been prevented from leaving Iran for four months.

Considering the fuss that was made over the Brits who were held by Iran earlier this year, I am surprised that this is the first time that I've heard about this.

My disparaging thought is that because this is one woman, female, that they're not going to make a fuss over it, but I honestly think it far more likely that there hasn't been a huge fuss because this woman was born in Iran and became a naturalized American citizen. Which admittedly, isn't all that much less disparaging, really.

Haleh Esfandiari is the director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, which without Googling I'm guessing is a Washington DC think-tank. Lemme check. Wow, my own powers of intellect amaze me sometimes. From their own website:

The Center is the living, national memorial to President Wilson established by Congress in 1968 and headquartered in Washington, D.C. It is a nonpartisan institution, supported by public and private funds, engaged in the study of national and world affairs. The Center establishes and maintains a lively, neutral forum for free and informed dialogue. (Source)


Living under a totalitarian regime must be terrifying. While I joke quite a bit about President Idiot being a dictator, truth is that even with the erosions of personal freedoms we've endured under his tenure in Washington we still have due process. Ms. Esfandiari's attorneys have yet to be able to speak with her, and the news today was that the Iranian government fully intends to charge her with espionage. Unreal.

Treading into personal opinion here, it seems to me that the religious leaders who make up Iran's de facto government can't handle a successful and well-educated woman, which is why they've arrested her.

I hope sincerely that the Idiot Administration gets involved here to negotiate her release. I'm thinking positive thoughts for her and her family.

French Elections

I am interested in politics all over the world, not just here at home. I listen with interest when NPR covers international elections, which they often do for many nations. Rarely Sweden, which disappoints me, but I'm kind of biased when it comes to all things Swedish.

The French election cycle has been in the news lately, and I've listened, fascinated, about how France handles elections. There are a few great lessons we could take from them. In the days leading up the election, for example, there is a complete media blackout on political advertisement and rhetoric. According to NPR, they do that so the French voters may have some peace and quiet to make up their minds. Isn't that an interesting idea.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, I worked for John Kerry's 'organization'. I use that term very loosely...they were so disorganized that I thought weeks before the election that it'd be a miracle if he did win. I volunteered to be a poll observer, to watch at a polling station for the majority of the day to ensure that no one was disenfranchised. I thought it would be really interesting. In the days leading up to the elections, when I already had my assignment for my polling station and had been through the training, I got countless phone calls from the Kerry campaign, asking if I would volunteer to drive people to the polls, asking if I would do this or do that on election day. By the third phone call, I was no longer nice when I explained that I already had an assignment for election day. By the tenth, I was no longer civil.

I remember how badly that "Swift Boat" advertising campaign hurt the Kerry effort, and how it started shortly before the election. I wonder, first how we could enforce a media blackout when there are so very many media outlets, and also if that would work here. It is an interesting idea, especially when held up before the freedom of speech in the first amendment. Does that inhibit free speech to have a media blackout? Yeah, maybe it does. I still think it might be a good idea.

Each election cycle here in the States seems to get dirtier and dirtier. Attack ads, run by special interests, which twist the truth. (On both sides, liberal and conservative.) Debates which don't hold true to the spirit of Lincoln-Douglas. The amount of money that it takes to be elected President of the United States is obscene, and disgusting.

So I wonder if we shouldn't take some lessons away from France. I'm not crazy about the runoff system that they're using, but really, it isn't much different from the primary election system we use here, just closer together.

I don't have much to say about the two candidates, Royal and Sarkozy. I've written about Sarkozy before, when he was interior minister of France. He said some things that I thought were unfortunate and very anti-immigrant. Some horribly racist things. How quickly we forget! American media has been reporting that he's the most pro-American candidate of all of them, but since most of Europe is anti-Bush at the moment, I imagine that what they mean when they say pro-American is pro-Bush. Which is an automatic strike against him from my point of view. And the anti-immigrant rhetoric he was spouting back in 2006 would have been offensive to anyone descended from immigrants, i.e. most Americans.

Royal I know very little about, other that she's female, in her 50s, and a socialist. I lived in a socialist country, so I can tell you that no, socialist is not communist. There's a big difference. Mostly, I think it would be cool for France to have a female president. And I like socialism.

Interesting, isn't it, that if she is elected, we'd have yet another country beat us in the race to have a female leader. Even Bangladesh had a female head of state before us.

If Sarkozy is elected, immigrants in France will have an interesting road ahead of them. At least Jean-Marie LePen was forced out during the first round of elections, he is quite the nationalist, with his "France for the French" campaign. Scary.

Hef

NPR's Morning Edition is doing a series called "The Long View" and since I missed the intro to the piece I'm going to talk about, I'm not sure yet if it is specifically about sex and sexuality, but that's part of what Renee Montagne and Hugh Hefner talked about in the interview that aired this morning. Tomorrow they're talking to Dr. Ruth (Westhenimer), so perhaps I'm correct that it is a series about sexuality. Or maybe it is about folks who have reached a certain age. Whichever, I listened with interest as they talked about the bad relationship between the women's movement and Playboy.

Hef said that when the women's movement first started squalling about him and Playboy, he was astonished, that he thought Playboy was all about women's rights. Which is soooooo typical male bewildered behavior that I'm not even going to comment on it. But he went on to say that he thought the women's movement had partially grown out of the sexual revolution that Playboy was a big part of, and guess what, he's not wrong.

Mainstream availability of blue magazines and films allowed women to speak up and speak out about things that had long been taboo. A more open society allows debate of a wider range of issues, leading to public conversations about topics that were once the subject of whispers, out there on the edge.

Pornography has always been a tricky subject for me. On the one hand, you have freedom of speech, of expressing yourself, that everyone has the right to produce whatever they like, say whatever they like. A sacred right, one that I hold very dear. You must protect the speech that you don't like as vociferously, or more so, than the speech that you do like, lest the evil persons unknown censor anything. Censorship is wrong, plain and simple. On the other hand, you have the fact that porn IS degrading to women, most of it catering to ridiculous male fantasies, perpetuating the myth that to be sexy you must be blonde, tall, leggy, white, and have huge, basketball sized breasts.

Please note that when I'm saying pornography, I am referring to what could be called 'mainstream porn', not child pornography, not snuff films. I'm talking about the things that can easily be purchased at any newsstand, or rented from the back room of your neighborhood video store.

I've heard the argument that getting rid of porn would solve many of the world's evils. I don't buy it. If you make it illegal, you simply force it to the further edges of society. Or, rather, out even further than it currently is, which would make it more dangerous. Porn is always going to be there. Even the Greeks and Romans had their own versions of pornography, you can easily find examples of Grecian urns with pornographic imagery. I first heard about that aspect of porn's long history in a college class, where Reign of the Phallus; Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens was required reading. So outlawing it isn't the answer, because there will always be a market for it, and there will always be those that produce it for the pull of the money.

Does pornography offend me? Not really. Am I fan? No. So what do I do about it? I don't purchase it, for one. Remember Salt-n-Pepa? Some of the first female rappers? They had a song in the early 90s called "Let's Talk About Sex" which caused a huge stir when it was released. The song is really about safer sex, talking with your potential partners ahead of time about using protection, keeping the lines of communication about sex open. But there's a line in that song that I'll point to as what I think is a good way to think about pornography.

Those who think its dirty have a choice;

Pick up the needle

Press pause


Or turn the radio off

Will that stop us, Pep?

I doubt it.

If it offends you, don't buy it. Don't look at it. But know that someone, somewhere is going to produce it and someone else is going to buy it. Live and let live, essentially. Lobby to keep it out of your kid's face, absolutely. However, what happens between consenting adults shouldn't be the subject of the debate.

When I posted a diatribe a few weeks ago about rude public behavior, a comment from another blogger got me thinking about the rise of female raunch culture, which is a topic far afield from where I started today. While I agree with the premise that women who star in pornographic publications are objectifying themselves, allowing the objectification of women to continue, I also think that it certainly is within each woman's rights to choose to be in a porn film or racy magazine.

And then turn it around to another angle; women are certainly no less guilty of objectifying men, but that's a much more recent development. Not until long after the sexual revolution did you find PlayGIRL. There's a much, much smaller segment of the porn industry that produces porn for women. I don't purchase that, either. My non-support of the industry extends over the whole of the industry.

I'd like to say that when men are objectified that they ought to be flattered, but realize how incredibly chauvinist that is of me. How horrified I would be if a man suggested that to me. I don't know if men could ever understand why being objectified is such a problem for women. Why we aren't flattered. Being looked at as purely a sexual object can indeed be a thrill, but you can also end up feeling like you're worthless, because no one cares about who you are outside the fantastic body. I think that's the piece that's missing from Hef's brain when he talks about how crazy he thinks the feminists are.

I don't think that Hugh Hefner is the devil incarnate. I think he's a pretty clever fella who figured out how to make millions off of taking pictures of naked people. And I know about 3 million men who wish they were in his shoes. He's going to be 81 soon. Should I live that long (and I'm not at all certain that I wish to), I hope that I'm as healthy and active as he is at that age. He certainly is proof that there's some truth to the saying that growing older is inevitable, growing UP is optional.

Listening to: Anna Molly, Incubus

Running Down A Dream

Before I get to my usual Tuesday Brain Dump, I need to point your attention to this piece on NPR, heartbreaking in its simplicity, about the shootings yesterday at Virginia Tech. Audio isn't available as I am writing this post, but will be later today. Judith Miller says so eloquently what I struggle to put into words. Give it a listen.





I'm thinking today about running, and the 'runner's high'

I'm still only able to run for 10 minutes out of the 35 that I'm on the treadmill. Some days are easier than others. I don't know why. My routine varies only by a small amount each day; get up, get dressed, go to the gym, come home, shower, get dressed for work, work, drive home, dinner, write, bed. Tuesdays and Thursdays there's an exercise class in between dinner and writing. That's about it. I drink a ton of water each day. I'm watching my portions and eating healthy. So why is it that some days are super easy and some so incredibly tough? I wish I understood.

I have been a runner for a very long time, but taken very long breaks in between times when I run and times when I don't. I was on the track team in junior high school, 7th grade? Or was it 8th? Too long ago to remember now. The junior high school in my hometown was on a tree-lined street, which has about 10 century houses on it, and in fact the original portion of the school is a historic building as well, was at one time a private college. A very, very, very small one. At the end of the school's street is a forest preserve, 243 acres of wild lands. I spent a lot of time there as a kid, and for conditioning for track, they'd have us run from the school, to the preserve, around the loop trail in the preserve, and back up to school. Then we'd have practice. I'm not really sure of the distance. Maybe 3 total miles, maybe less. It was tough, I'd get to the practice field dead tired, panting, and in no mood to do time trials or sprints. I hated it, but kept pushing myself because I wanted desperately to fit in somewhere, and since one of my closest friends at the time was a track star, I thought that this might be my niche. It wasn't.

I'm not a good runner, or a fast one. They stuck me with running the 400, and I never won. I did it for only one season of track, I remember saying frequently at the time that "The only GOOD thing about running is when you stop." I never felt that endorphin high that everyone talked about.

In the spring of the year I lived in Sweden, my best friend and I looked at ourselves and realized we'd gained some weight over the winter. Which is really ridiculous, she was 5'7" and weighed maybe 140 and I was 5'2" and didn't weigh over 100, but I was 17 and she was 19 and we thought we were 'fat'. We embarked on a very ambitious journey, swimming 2 kilometers in the community pool after school on Mondays and Wednesdays, and running between 2 and 5 kilometers on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Fridays and Saturdays we drank. Sundays we recovered.

We made a list, that I still have, of things we agreed to not eat. Nothing fried. No more stopping for something to eat on the way home from the clubs on Saturday nights. The town's cafe/bakery made these donut sort of things called munkar, which were square, filled with a wonderful apple/sugar/cinnamon blend, and I agreed to stop buying them when I got out of school every afternoon. No ice cream.

We did get into better shape, but what I remember most is coming to the back door of my host family's house, panting, opening the door and calling out to my host-mum, Snalla, kan vi har lite vatern? (Please, can we get some water?) We weren't allowed into the house without taking off shoes, and we'd stretch in the backyard before going inside. The route that we ran took us though farm country, and I had to really work to get the mud off of those running shoes. I still hated it, and I remember mamman asking me why we didn't just walk if we hated it so much. I would tell her how we'd look so cute in our bathing suits during the coming summer and she would roll her eyes at me. She ought to have smacked me one, considering what I weighed and my body image at the time. Not that it would have smacked some sense into me, but still, I wince when thinking about how I used to whine about being fat at 17. Someone really should have given me a beat-down.

Through most of my college years, I lifted weights, but did very little cardio, and my weight gain really escalated after I got married. Sure, I walked in our old neighborhood from time to time. I exercised never, though. I joined a series of gyms, but never really got off the couch. The thing that's different this time around is that I now recognize and understand that the working out has to be part of my life every day for the rest of my life, that once I've gotten to the goal, I can't just stop doing whatever finally works to get the rest of the weight off. I might be able to do 3 days a week at the gym instead of 6, but it has to be a part of who I am and what I do for the rest of the time I'm on this earth.

And I finally get that runner's high. Each day, when I manage to get to the ten full minutes running, I feel like raising my hands over my head and cheering. I want to jump up and down and shout "LOOK!! I did it! Ten minutes!!! GO ME!" I restrain the impulse, but it is there.

I'm still having trouble with cramping in the tibia muscles, and it hurts when I stop running. Which is a complete 180 degree turn from where I was, that it was good to stop. I have been trying for about a week to get up over ten minutes (woot! 11 whole minutes!!) but I can't quite get there. It will come, I know. Patience has NEVER been my strong suit.

What I love about running is that it is now very meditative for me. I can't focus on anything else but breathing and putting one foot in front of the other. I can't think about anything else, and considering the craziness that is going on in my life right now, a blank slate, a clear head, is a wonderful thing. It doesn't last for but a few minutes after I get off the treadmill, but it is nice to experience while it does last.

I was out of bed at 4 this morning, giving up the battle to sleep even a few minutes longer after watching the clock from 3:17 AM on. Can't sleep, can't focus, don't want to do anything, endless circles of the same thoughts chasing around and around in my head. I was at Dr. Hottie's office last week, and he encouraged me to continue to use the Ambien to get the sleep I need. Muscle repair and your body's regeneration happens in stage 4 sleep, and I'm not getting even a minute of that. Dreams occur during REM sleep, stage two. I have very little of those, either. The sleeping pill gives me exceedingly weird, disjointed dreams, but also about 5 hours of sleep as opposed to the three or so I get without help.

So I'm continuing to chase after that elusive fitness goal, and a good night's sleep. But looking in the mirror this morning, I can finally see some muscle definition in my shoulders, and when I turn around and look at my back, there are two fewer rolls of fat. Twenty-two pounds lighter, and that's all the difference I can see. Guess my self-image still needs some work.

Finally, I'm jumping on a bandwagon that I've just discovered. Searching for new music to run to on iTunes the other day, I found Podrunner, produced by LA's DJ Steveboy. Once upon a time, dance hall and trip-hop was all I listened to. And then I figured out that it can get pretty damn annoying. But I'm in love with the mixes that Steveboy produces. I'm gooving to Paintshaker, which was featured the week that Podrunner had its four MILLIONTH download. So yeah, I'm behind the times a wee bit. I haven't subscribed to the podcast yet because I'm running out of space on my iPod, a project for the coming weekend is to delete everything that I haven't listened to since uploading most of my music library in January.

I hope your Tuesday doesn't suck out loud.

More Stonewalling from the Idiot Administration

The Bush Administration was trying to prevent a federal prisoner from testifying at a Senate committee hearing. Why? Oh, of course, it is a matter of national security. One of the objections the Idiot Administration really had was that this white-collar criminal might somehow kill or injure senators. Which is patently ridiculous. NPR broadcast this story yesterday. Unfortunately, it only raises more questions than it answers. Mystifying. Was it flexing of muscles? Is this identity thief more than meets the eye? An attempt to distract attention from the Justice Department's troubles?

Most likely it is the last one. By misdirection, they're hoping to move attention away from the firing of the US Attorneys.

Cynical? Me? Naaa.

Just can't resist.

News news news news that I can't resist sticking my nose into.

Let's start with Don Imus. I don't like him, never have. When MSNBC started simulcasting him years ago, I remember stumbling across him there at some point and I couldn't reconcile the voice with the picture of the man. That was almost enough to turn it off right there, but then I listened for a few minutes and he was talking sports and THEN I was done. I'm not a big sports fan.

This isn't a first for him, by a long shot. The guy isn't a shock jock like Howard Stern or anything, but he's said more offensive things than just this. Let us not forget, either, that it is hardly the most offensive thing said on the airwaves.

That said, I think the casual observer could remark that it might be a freedom of speech issue, but it isn't. In the early days of this country's history, the Supreme Court made a clear distinction between freedom of speech and slander. This is a case of hate speech.

NPR had a story a few days ago where the reporter talked about Imus's listeners as being white, well educated, and upper class. Well educated? Really? Guess I just don't have enough education, then, because I can't listen to him for more than a minute.


The mess with Anna Nicole, I can't really even comment too much about that. 'Sordid' might be the best word to describe the whole thing. Just because I'm not going to ruminate about it for long does not mean I haven't been watching with interest. Poor Anna. And her poor daughter.

Next I heard more disturbing stuff on NPR about the escalation of violence in Baghdad. When, oh, when, can we be done with The Most Meaningless War Ever (TM)? Interesting, and sad, too, that the news is all Larry what's-his-name, Don Imus, and not much else. I had to go hunting for news on Iraq.

Two more things before I get on with the rest of my day.

I haven't done the fangirl thing for about a week, so I need to get that out of my system. I got some new Jensen Ackles pictures, isn't this cute? What about this one? Oh, one more. They aren't new pictures, just new for me.

Finally, Thesister is coming to Oh-hia-ia from NYC for a visit, she will be here tomorrow! Can't wait! Picture me bouncing around like a hyperactive kid, because I'm so excited to see her. I may be off-line while she's here.

Are you kidding me?

I was watching CNN at the gym yesterday evening, while running on the treadmill, without sound. So what I'm about to say may be completely wrong, but here goes.

It looked like they were talking about the British sailors who got to go back home....and the news story was more about what they were WEARING than the homecoming? Seriously. Dude. WTF? Let's talk about if they were injured, how lucky they are to be home, not about what they've got on. Don't ask me why that disgusted me so much, because I don't have an answer. Next!

And then I heard this on NPR. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is burning, bombing, destroying girl's schools. Why? Well, women aren't worth educating, according to these extremists. I'm beyond distressed about it. They're killing teachers, harassing students, forcing the closure of more than 200 schools nationwide.

I'm pretty sure I've told this story before, but it bears repeating. On September 11, 2001, I worked in one of the tallest buildings in a small city in Ohio. The plane that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, was in contact for a brief while with a traffic control center near us. The powers that be evacuated our building that day, sending us home around 11 am. I began making phone calls to friends and family across the country to ensure that they were safe. Towards the end of the day, I called over to Europe, to talk to family there as well. Since I don't talk to them every day, they never know from one day to the next if I'm traveling or not, so I wanted to reassure them that I was OK, my family was OK.

When I got my mamman on the phone, she asked me, "Lucy, do you think it will come to war?" Her voice was so sad, so forlorn, so disheartened. The Swedes have been a neutral country for so long that it is a deeply ingrained part of their psyche, the radical idea that violence ought to be the last answer.

And I responded, "Mama, 'we', the United States, can not just 'do nothing'. You know that." It made me sad, too, but I knew even on that day that our government would want to do something, no matter what it was, as an answer for so many deaths. And if you'll recall, even in the confusion that was that actual day, the talking heads on the news were already blathering on about striking Afghanistan.

I'll never forget what she said to me next. "But it won't solve anything. It won't bring back the people who died today. It won't change the people who hate."

She's so right. It hasn't changed or solved anything. Is the world a less dangerous place without Saddam Hussein leading Iraq? Sure. Has life improved for the average Afghani? I wouldn't give that a resounding yes. Are we foolish for being involved in wars on two fronts? Uh. Yeah.

Before the US began bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, I remember getting e-mails from various feminist listservs about life in Afghanistan for women, about the no education rule, the wearing of the burka, the way that they couldn't travel without the permission of a male relative. There was also fuss and complaining from other quarters, about the Taliban not allowing the practice of other religions, and the fact that opium poppies were/are a huge part of the agricultural infrastructure. Do you remember the worldwide uproar over this, when the Taliban blew up a sacred Buddhist statue in early 2001?

So did the Taliban need replacing? That I'll give a resounding YES to, but it seems to me that strides forward are not so quick in coming.

I don't understand why a body politic would want fully half of the population illiterate. Nor do I understand why on earth you would follow anyone who would suggest that women are less, simply for being female. But then, I am very fond of the bumper sticker that says, "Hate is not a family value." Which is usually a reference the deeply offensive idiots who claim that 'God hates f**s', but it works well here too.

So, what to do about the problems with the schools in Afghanistan? There are several organizations that could use your support. HASCO, Help Afghan School Children.Org, Help Afghan Women. Com, Women for Afghan Women.

Activism, in my ever so humble, is the best thing that we can do. Remember this quote...

"Never doubt that a small goup of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

~Margaret Mead

You Know...

that you're a hopeless addict of NPR when you continue to listen during the fund drives.
My local NPR affiliate is doing their spring fund raiser and oy. They interrupt the news, y'all! How dare they? Makes me nuts. But I continue to listen, even with all the filler they throw in during fund drives because I can't. turn. it. off.

that your sanity is slipping when you're seriously thinking about getting a tattoo.
My mother? Would kill me. My DH? Would probably not be impressed. I'm feeling like this is a further sign of my hold on sanity slipping because the last time I wanted a tat? I was 17. I told someone the other day, "I've always been precocious. Perhaps I'm doing a mid-life crisis a few years early?"

that you're getting OLD when you need your glasses on when you're on the computer; if you don't have them, you can't see the screen, so 'good idea'? Try necessary.
I need the glasses on the computer now. Sigh. I remember when my dad started to need glasses...he was 40. And it was for the newspaper, not the computer. He wears them all the time now, so I know that's coming for me. Can I just be 24 forever? Please?

that spring might actually be coming when you drive home from the gym at 8 pm and it is twilight, rather than full dark.
Initially, I was opposed to the moving of the time change. Because it just seemed stupid to me. But I forgot how much I like it when it doesn't get dark until nine or so.

that you spend way, way, way too much time on the forums when you realize that you've been posting messages for three hours without moving, but can't bring yourself to log off.
Seems like I think I'll 'miss' something if I sign off....