Lingual Tremors

The Big Fat Hillary Post You've Been Asking For: I'm Not Ready To Make Nice

I get it.  You want to know what I think about Hillary Clinton conceding the Democratic party's nomination for president to Barack Obama.  You can stop with the "whaddaya think" e-mails already.  Here goes.  I'm angry. I'm not ready to make nice.  And I'll vote for whomever I damn well please.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here is the picture from today's concession speech:

Hillary is smart.  Hillary is tough.  And, Hillary is an inspiration to the generations who follow in her footsteps.  For those of you who cross country ski, you know that breaking a trail for those who follow you is a tough role to have on a trip.  Hillary has created a fine trail for the rest of us to follow.

But as we watched her do so, her struggles mirrored our own struggles.  The sexism she confronted was our own battle for equality, our own battle to be taken seriously, our own battle to break through all of the glass ceilings that lie in our way, our own battle to demand a government that represents us, or own battle to feel truly represented. 

How can you truly say thank you to Hillary for that? 

In her concession speech yesterday, Clinton said:

I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities my mother never dreamed of.  I ran as a mother who worries about my daughter's future and a mother who wants to leave all children brighter tomorrows. To build that future I see, we must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and their mothers. 

The 2008 contest for the Democratic nomination was eye-opening at best, and a horrific testament to our current misogyny as a nation at its worst.  On one level, I feel like I just watched a woman get bitch-slapped by the world for 16 months.  The great "Hillary smack down" took the form of:  the sexist husbandry of the media, the hypocrisy of the rhetoric of "equality" and "change," the farce of a liberal community that fought dirty on-line battles, and the rampant verbal diarrhea that exposed a national fabric built on resentment of women and the gains women have made in the twentieth century.

Moreover, the nomination revealed a deeply fractured feminist community split by race, age, political affiliation, class, sexuality, and relationship to motherhood.  We are not a sisterhood united for a better world.  We are a bitchy sorority willing to sacrifice one of our own to the gods of popular opinion.

And all of the "wow, Hillary's just swell!"  and "Didn't she run a great campaign" news items of the past week aren't going to assuage my anger any time soon.  It's a disingenuous attempt to pander to the angry feminist vote.  Those bloggers and news commentators and fellow candidates who now seek to compliment Hillary on a campaign well run after trashing her in one of the dirtiest election seasons ever can, in my humble opinion, take a long walk off a short cliff, leaping to their own deaths like the bunch of lemmings they are.

I think it's going to take some time to digest the election, but here are some preliminary thoughts:

Whither Goes Roe...New York Need Not Follow

Our good friends, the ivied nonet of justice, in their April 2007 decision to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, paved the way for an assault on reproductive health.  Under the Bush administration, we have seen unprecedented, in a post Roe world, bans and restrictions on abortion. 

New York's Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act, introduced by Governor Spitzer, would guarantee New York's pro-choice stance, regardless of federal restrictions.

Why do we need such legislation?  NARAL New York's fact sheet explains:

"In 1970, New York introduced one of the first laws in the United States decriminalizing abortion. New York modified its penal code and made it legal for doctors to perform abortions.

The law was visionary then, but today it is outdated and confusing. Current law does not contain the foundations upon which Roe was decided, including the fundamental right of women to make private medical decisions, nor does it take into account how abortion care is now provided. Much has changed since the 1970’s, and New York needs an up-to-date law that protects a woman’s fundamental right to abortion. 

The Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection will codify New York’s longstanding support of reproductive freedom, while ensuring that New York State is prepared if the right to choose is threatened by a weakening of Roe or further federal encroachments."

This legislation is critical to ensure continued access to reproductive medicine for New York's women.  This legislation will also ensure that New York would remain a safe haven for women. 

How can you help?
1.  Inform yourself about the act and the protections it would provide.
2.  Talk about it with your friends, family, colleagues.
3.  Volunteer to help NARAL
4.  Give money to NARAL New York
For more information on actions you can take, click here.

Here's a new video about the importance of the act:

ACLU Pizza

Have you seen the ACLU pizza order?  If you haven't you should.  It's old--2005 or so, but really, really great (and accurate). 

Hat tip:  The Quixotic Tremor

Very nice commentary on ACLU pizza

Writer's Strike at Daily Kos: Losing My Election--Divisive Democratic Politics

Just a few months ago, the blogosphere was atwitter with the fact that the election belonged to the Democratic party.   No contest.  While Republicans lamented the poor slate of candidates from which to choose, the Democrats boasted one of the healthiest and most interesting group of candidates in years. 

And now?  The great Obama/Clinton divide emerges.  And smart Democrats everywhere are beginning to fear the "Losing My Election" anthem.  John McCain is probably doing a happy dance everyday in his merry Republican bus.  What more could he ask for?

Here's one small snippet of how nasty things have gotten.  Alegre, formerly of the Daily Kos, is on strike from the famously centric site for all things leftist in the blogosphere.  Alegre asserts that the Daily Kos, in its support of Obama, has become a negative and abusive site to Clinton bloggers.  From Alegre:

I've been posting at DailyKos for nearly 4 years now and started writing diaries in support of Hillary Clinton back in June of last year.  Over the past few months I've noticed that things have become progressively more abusive toward my candidate and her supporters.

I've put up with the abuse and anger because I've always believed in what our on-line community has tried to accomplish in this world.  No more.  DailyKos is not the site it once was thanks to the abusive nature of certain members of our community. 

I've decided to go on "strike" and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution.  I will not be posting at DailyKos effective immediately.  I will not help drive up traffic or page-hits as long as my candidate - a good and fine DEMOCRAT - is attacked in such a horrid and sexist manner not only by other diarists, but by several of those posting to the front page.

                          

Read the full story here.  Update here.  More commentary on The Moderate Voice,  Tom Watson,  Marc Ambinder.  Even if you're not so interested in all things blogospheric, this is yet another indication of bad things to come.  Both Clinton & Obama need to work on their campaigns.  The more they foster negativity against one another, the more the animosity festers among their supporters.  Talk about going viral.  TGW is running a poll right now that shows her pro-Clinton readers are disinclined to vote for Obama if he gets the nod.  Others in the Obama camp are making similar arguments about Clinton.  So, if Democratic voters stay home in November because they are angry, the Republicans win.  Howard Dean needs to step in and get the party together.  Yet again, the Democrats are poised to shoot themselves in the foot.

LEAVE HER ALONE: On American's Bizarre Obsession with Sex Scandals

Like many New Yorkers, I was dismayed by the news that Eliot Spitzer has been caught in a scandal over high-priced prostitutes;  Spitzer is quite possibly the most intelligent, fiercest governor that New York state has ever had (seriously--he got a perfect score on his LSATs).  Granted, his administration had already run into trouble before Monday's announcement, but it would have been interesting to see how he met those challenges.  Now, however, all of his goals for change & reform have gone up in flames.  The tragic fact is that Spitzer no longer has political clout because he compromised his ethics and broke the law.  We can have a longer conversation about whether or not prostitution should be legal, about whether or not sex scandals should even be considered in the public sphere.  However, I have to say that at the moment, Spitzer's own widely public crusades against corruption--including exposing 2 prostitution rings--make his staying in office impossible. 

But, this post isn't about him.  It's about his wife, Silda Wall Spitzer.  Yesterday's news cycle was weirdly misogynist.  (I mean, when isn't it, but yesterday was really bizarre).  Locally, our public radio station's call-in show, "The Brian Lehrer Show" had a segment on why women appear in public with their husbands when the husbands have strayed.  The comments ranged from sane to truly crazy!  Two different list servs that I am on went ballistic in criticizing Wall Spitzer for "standing by her man" and "setting a bad example" to young women.

Here's a little excerpt for "flavor" from Upstream and Downstream:

She looks like an automaton, eyes vacant, and not nearly deep enough to contain the hurt. Women see it. Women feel it. And women think: no way would I stand beside the podium while my husband issued his apology. Why should I? Why should I act supportive when I feel nothing of the sort?

Ignoring a beloved's faults is one thing; standing by the man who just stuck a knife in your back is another.

How about this one from HubDub?

Also, as has become custom with these things, Silda Wall Spitzer fulfilled her duty as the State of New York's first lady by standing silently by her man and allowing herself to be dragged down in the public condemnation. This must have been particularly difficult for two reasons – firstly, to stand stoic and silent while her husband delivered a speech which barely acknowledged his wrongdoing, when the overwhelming, impulsive urge in such a situation would surely have been to give her husband a swift kick in the groin. Secondly, as an attractive woman with a Harvard law degree, the public criticism and humiliation directed at Wall Spitzer has been scathing and debasing. Women defiantly swear that they would never stay with a cheating partner, let alone publicly endorse him.

And this:  "Public Questions Spitzer's Wife's Support During Prostitute Scandal":

When Silda Wall Spitzer stood beside her husband in ashen-faced misery the other day as the governor made his brief apology in the prostitution scandal, she uttered not a word. Yet she launched a thousand conversations

"Why is she standing there?" many women wondered. "Should she be? Would I be?"

And for many, who've seen a long line of wronged political spouses do the same, from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Dina Matos McGreevey to Suzanne Craig, the immediate answer was a resounding, "Hell, no."

Here's my take:  leave Silda Wall Spitzer alone.  As if it isn't enough that she has to endure the private pain and public scrutiny of her husband's infidelity, the public is now going to judge her?  Choices that people make--to forgive or to walk away--from relationships are highly private and highly personal.  And, just because someone is an elected official or the spouse of an elected official, doesn't give the public any right to judge their relationship and the choices they make, including attending a press conference.  I think it's a weird sort of misogyny that makes people want to comment on situations like these because people become very invested in "the right choice", as if there's some Legoland prescription for building the perfect marriage.  All of the blog posts about "standing by her man" and reducing the very real pain of this situation to some cliched country song infuriates me.

Moreover, I think it speaks to a kind of subtle misogyny.  By judging her--and other political wives--for showing up at these kinds of press conferences, people are inadvertently (or sometimes, in the case of the always disgusting Dr. Laura) casting blame on the woman and her role in the marriage.  As if it's a public outing of her inability to be "the good wife."  What alarms me the most is number of women jumping on the bandwagon of bashing the wife.  As if our own romantic relationships are endangered just by this woman's decision to stand next to her husband.  Do you really think her pained face was some kind of tacit endorsement of her husband's behavior?  Her expression was one of the most silent condemnations I've ever seen.

As I said last summer with the Larry Craig "bathroom" affair--I actually have a hard time with people who want to rejoice in other people's pain.  I think there's a very real difference between attacking policies and decisions that people make about public life and their private lives.  Forget the separation of church & state.  Let's have a little separation of private and public life.  What Silda Wall Spitzer decides to do in her own life has no bearing on what we do in our private lives.  That's why the private part should remain private.

I think that many people were troubled by the obvious pain on Silda Wall Spitzer's face at the press conference.  Yeah.  It's uncomfortable to see people in pain.  Yeah.  She could have stayed home.  We don't know why she chose to be there, but she did.  She's a smart, well-educated lawyer.  If she didn't want to be there, she wouldn't have been.  While she and her daughters may be victims in her husband's allegedly "victimless crime", she isn't some pushover cookie cutter politician's Stepford wife.  She has already led interesting initiatives as First Lady, like greening the governor's mansion and hosting the "I Live New York" conference.  Calling her a "human prop" is insulting.

Maybe more of us should think about the fact that what we get everyday are weirdly smiling photos of our politicians while they announce regressive political measures and wars.  In our instantly beautiful society of chemicals and surgery and photoshop, we're unaccustomed to seeing people look like real people.

Silda Wall Spitzer is a real person with real emotions about the situation she faces.  Bottom line?  Leave her alone.  Want to post a funny/satirical/cynical blog post?  Choose your targets wisely and ethically.  Judge Eliot all you want--I may agree or disagree--but he should be the target of the outrage, not her. 

From the misogyny files:

Silda Spitzer, Human Prop
"I'm Keeping the House"
Dr. Laura:  It's the Wife's Fault!
Silda's Song
Why, Silda, why?
Here's My Token Feminist POV
NPRs "Classy" Spouses in Scandal Gallery
Hillary Answers Silda's 3 a.m. Call (Because it's funny to heap even more humiliation on these women)

About Silda Wall Spitzer's initiatives as First Lady of New York
Bio

Other Relevant Reading:

American Street on Spitzer/Resignation
ICKY!  Screen shots and "diamond ratings" for the "models" available from the Emperor's Club

Idiots of the Week: State of Missouri, Authors of H.B. 1625

Birth Control pills do not cause abortions.
Plan B does not cause abortions.
Plan B is not the same thing as RU 486, which does induce an abortion.

However, the great state of Missouri is considering new legislation, H.B. 1625 that would give pharmacists the right not to fill prescriptions based on "conscience"; equates Plan B with RU-486; and essentially argues that access to birth control pills is not a woman's right, but a pharmacist's right to determine who should receive them.

This just frosts my gizzard.  When can we get back to dealing with medical issues in a sane, medically & scientifically based way? 

Grrrr....

Read Missouri NARAL's analysis of the bill here.
Read Feministing's take here.  And, for really cheerful news, read the comment thread, which starts off with a discussion of "what is an abortion?"

From Feministing:

Sumners suggests contacting Representative Robert Wayne Cooper, the Health Care Policy committee chair and a doctor (so he should know better).  Urge him to support sound science and women's legal right to birth control access.

Roe's My Favorite Bitch. I Mean. Blog for Choice, 2008.

So, it's 35 years of Roe v. Wade today.  Here in the feminist blogosphere, we're all thinking about what voting pro-choice means.

And, let's face it.  Nothing brings out the feminist manifesta in me than Blog for Choice Day.  Nothing gets my cervix in a knot more than waking up to NPR's "homage" to Roe (i.e. the latest set of attacks against Roe).  So, grab a cuppa joe and settle in for a little classic LX ranting (yes, mom, this is a rated "R" post...).  'Cause hey:  if I can't say it here, where can I say it?

So, all day today, I've been lightly dreading this post.  Regular readers here at Chez Lingual know that I am, without question, a feminist, pro-choice blogger.  (Newbie visitors!  Welcome!  Regarding the previous sentence:  please see the categories of "Radical Uterus" and "Stepford Wife in Training" to your left for further evidence...)  But, how many more ways can I say it?  Oh, sure, I can lean lightly over to the bookshelf of feminist wisdom and quote everyone from Margaret Sanger to Kate Michelman, but at the end of the day:  who is really listening?  Do you really want me to quote Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale AGAIN?  AGAIN?  AGAIN?

And see, on the very surface of things, this is where I find Barack Obama attractive.  Aren't you sick of the continual clash of the left and the right?  Aren't you sick of FOX News vs. NPR vs. The New York Times vs. The National Review vs. Pacifica vs. NBC?  Wouldn't it be great if we could all get along?  Wouldn't it be great if Obama and McCain brought beer?  A really great beer with bottled beer taste in a can?  (Oh sorry--that's another post...)

But here's the thing:  abortion isn't like an eco-friendly Hummer (okay--we all know that an eco-friendly Hummer isn't really eco-friendly, but you get the point). 

Let me say that again.  Abortion isn't an eco-friendly Hummer. 

There's no real place to meet in the middle.  Taxes?  Maybe.  War?  Possibly.  Health care?  The Economy?  Sure!  We agree that those are serious, vote-worthy issues, even though we don't agree how to address the.  But abortion?  The two sides of the abortion wars are perpetually divided, a political schism the size of the San Andreas fault running through the very foundation of this country.  We can't just all get along.   

Over at Salon.com, Rebecca Traister writes in the introduction to her interviews with feminists on the importance of Roe:

I wish it were possible to raise a glass, give a birthday toast, and claim that Roe didn't look a day over 29, but alas, this is a bittersweet bash. A mere three and half decades after her birth, Roe shows her age: She's been weakened, knocked around, had big bites taken out of her.

Now, I take umbrage at the fact that 35 is old.  Those of us in our 30s know that we're just hitting our stride...  But here's the thing:  America is a cruel and perverted daddy ready to encourage us to show a little skin and then to beat us for having sex.  America is peering through the keyhole of our bedroom, enjoying what he sees, and getting ready to lecture us about it later.

America likes its little girls full of sexual promise.  Think about Jonbenet Ramsey's already sexual pout, hands on hips, full of intent.  Want a poster child for what's wrong with women's roles in the United States?  Look at the Britney Spears debacle of motherhood.  When she was in her naughty school girl uniform, showing just enough skin America drooled in front of the television.  While she was slithering around 3/4 naked on stage with a snake, America licked the screen.  When she graduated to leather, America jacked off in the corner.  And now that she's a mother?  An unfit mother?  She's bitch-slapped with every insult possible.

The fight over choice amounts to this:  America wants you to have sex.  No lap dances.  No titty fucks.  America wants you to have good, old fashioned, full penetration sex.  Lots of it.  And then America wants you to pay for it.  Literally.

It's all well and good that the conservative movement wants to talk about "pro-life" and saving babies.  But at the end of the day, is any compassionate conservatism actually motivated by some real sense of biblical justice?  I ask this, with all sincerity, who would Jesus bomb? 

So, here's my point:  sure, we can talk about patriarchy.  We can talk about women's rights over their own bodies.  We can talk about the woman's body as a public possession.  We can talk about when life begins.  We can talk politics.  We can talk religion.  We can talk philosophy.  Those are all valid points.  Those are all important points.  But, perhaps, we also need to talk about money.  Because really, aren't conservative arguments in the U.S. always about money?  Here's a tagline for you:  Ain't nobody nowhere making Enron-style money off of an abortion clinic.  Ain't no off shore bank accounts accruing "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" kinds of cash from the economics of abortions.

Here's the question:  why vote pro-choice?  For the same reasons that you vote for things like national health care plans or to end the war or to really fund education.  Because no one is going to give you those things.  We live in a capitalist country run by money.  And nothing talks money like a beautiful, bouncing baby.  MSNBC offers helpful tips on "Raising Your Quarter-Million Dollar Baby."  Here's a chilling quote:

For 2004, the newest data available, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that families making $70,200 a year or more will spend a whopping $269,520 to raise a child from birth through age 17. Higher-income families in urban areas in the West spend the most, $284,460.

Though not as steep, the figures for lower-income families are just as unsettling: $184,320 for families earning $41,700 to $70,200 and $134,370 for families making less than that. That breaks down to nearly $15,000 a year from birth to age 2 for families in the $65,800 -plus income bracket. As your child ages, he or she gets even more expensive, topping out at $15,810 from ages 15 to 17. This is no back-of-the-envelope guesstimate. The survey involves visits to, and interviews with, about 5,000 households, four times a year.

That's for 1 kid, to age 18.  Read:  no college.  It's in the conservative best interest to have middle-class families making as many babies as possible.  Think:  bigger houses, more bedrooms!  Health care premiums!  Diapers!  Formula!  Day Care!  Day Care!  Day Care!  Private School Vouchers!  And don't forget about the strollers!  (You will die if you don't buy the best buggy in town...).  Don't even get me started on student loans.  I could go on and on and on...

Now, I'm not actually saying you shouldn't have kids.  If you want kids, go for it.  Do it.  Be a good parent.  Be good parents.  Be intentional.  Be loving.  But, here's the thing:  your government wants you to have a kid only because it's good for the economy.  If we lived under a government that really cared about kids, then kids would have universal health care.  Kids would have great schools.  Parents would have good day care programs or wouldn't have to have two parents working just to scrape by.  Children's services would be functional and well-funded.  Parents would be supported. 

But here's my point:  we don't live in that world.  And in the same way that you can't really have an eco-friendly Hummer, you can't have a world where kids don't have health care, but you have to have a kid. 

When you vote, the issues are all connected.  And, at the end of the day?  It's the poor and the middle class, brandishing their swords against the rich.  We may talk a good game of democracy and hope and change.  But, no one is going to change the world for you.  You're going to have to get up, go to the voting booth, and do it with everyone else who believes what you believe. 

You're going to have to stand and fight because at the end of the day, it's not in America's best interest to let you make your own decisions.  It's much better to dupe you into thinking that, in post 9/11 Bush eloquence, that the single best thing you can do after a horrific terrorist attack literally stops the nation, you should shop.  Or have a baby.  Whatever.  Just keep that money flowing.

Why am I voting pro-choice?  Because I believe that America needs sexual rehab.  America needs a reality check.  I have to fight to make America about more than money.  I want to get America off the couch and into the soup kitchen.  I want to get America into a philosophy course.  An ethics course.  I want America to stop bombing things.  I want a truly changed America.  And for me, that's an America where every kid is a wanted kid.  That's an America where parents want to be parents.  I want an America that really cares about its kids.

You remember your high school self.  You might have had good SAT scores.  Maybe you were a National Merit Scholar.  Maybe you were average.  Maybe you were a band geek.  Maybe you were a prom queen. Maybe you dated the prom queen.  Whatever.  The point is:  we all had our mirror-obsessive moments of "am I cute enough?"  "Will they like me?"  But, that's the stuff of childhood.

The great thing about 30 is that we've all learned a lot.  Men, women.  We're smarter in our 30s than we were in our 20s, in our teens.

So, hey.  Let's rewrite Roe.  Let's make her sassy, with a touch of gray in her hair.  Let's make her old enough to say what's really on her mind.  Let's make Roe the proud mother of 2.  Let's make Roe bold and strong.  Let's make her a leader.  Let's make her a bitch.  Let's help Roe with a new motto:  "Let's fuck shit up."  Let's make Roe a Margaret Thatcher "winner takes all" kind of woman.  Let's take Roe all the way, baby.  Let's make Roe a grandma and great-grandma and great-great-grandma who loves to wear purple and escort women into clinics.  Let's vote Roe president.

Happy birthday Roe.  You're my favorite bitch in town.

Kisses and hugs,

Lingual X

Read on!

New Faces:

• The Curvature
• Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome
• Canned Peaches
• Kittywampus
• Inspired Faith, Effective Action
• Stinky Lulu

The Feminist Faithful:

• Angry Black Bitch
• Feminist Law Profs

Aw, heck.  Just go read them all for yourself!  The WHOLE List of 2008 Blog for Choice bloggers...

And, check out Salon.com's special feature on 35 years...

And, of course, a trip down memory lane:
My 2006 Blog for Choice Post
My 2007 Blog for Choice Post

Huckabee: Your Man for God's Standards... & Lingual Tremor's "Idiot of the Week"

Oh, do go to The Daily Kos for this rewrite of the Constitution.  You know, written according to "God's Standards."  Disturbing.  Disturbing.  Disturbing.

So, are we rewriting the Constitution in Greek?  Aramaic?  Hebrew?  Talk about No Child Left Behind.  The U.S. will need a major curricular rewrite...

Who is behind Facebook?

Tom Hodgkinson at the Guardian has done a really, really interesting piece on the neo-con values underpinning Facebook.  Hodgkinson says that "the real face behind Facebook is the 40-year-old Silicon Valley venture capitalist and futurist philosopher Peter Thiel."  Hodgkinson says that Thiel is a member of a neoconservative group called TheVanguard.org.  So, who is Peter Thiel?  Here's a quote about Vanguard that really disturbed me:

"TheVanguard.Org is an online community of Americans who believe in conservative values, the free market and limited government as the best means to bring hope and ever-increasing opportunity to everyone, especially the poorest among us." Their aim is to promote policies that will "reshape America and the globe". TheVanguard describes its politics as "Reaganite/Thatcherite". The chairman's message says: "Today we'll teach MoveOn [the liberal website], Hillary and the leftwing media some lessons they never imagined."

I have to admit that on-line, I'm much more interested in a "faceless" kind of presence, so I have avoided being "out there" on something like Facebook.  Oh, yeah, and their ads don't work on me.  I hated high school and am currently not in touch with high school people for a reason, you know?  I don't have a real desire to "connect to people I know".  I'm connected, thanks very much.  I don't need a MySpace, Facebook, or Xanga account to do that....

However, given the social networking applications of Web 2.0, I think this article is very insightful about some of the philosophy that guides social networking.  It's very contrary to someone like Siva Vaidhyanatha who theorizes the web as anarchistic.

Go read the article here. 

Stumbling Into Politics: The Seals on Children's Beach

I'm catching up on both blogging & flickering tonight.  This fall has been really crazy & I haven't been my own best friend about taking time to blog.  Part of this is GOOD NEWS because I am actually writing in real life.  As I've written before, blogging came into my life when my other writing wasn't going as well.  The trade off at the moment is a little less blogging, but in general, a whole lot more writing!

So, tonight, glowing in the luxury of a totally relaxed weekend, I'm returning to something I've wanted to write about since this summer:  the seals on Children's Beach at La Jolla.

While we were in San Diego this summer, we faithfully read several travel guides and made lists of our "top to do" sights.  All of our tour books recommended seeing the seals at Children's Beach.  So, we dutifully headed north and found La Jolla, found parking, and found the seals.  As we walked down the sidewalk, the Pacific Ocean stretching to the horizon on our right, we saw our first seals, their heads barely above the water.  It was the first time I had ever seen seals outside of a zoo.

And then we arrived at Children's Beach, where the seals lay on the rocks and the beach to rest.  It's a natural rookery, where the seals rest.  Although they are sea faring, the seals need time out of the water to rest.

Although I'm a city girl, through and through, I love taking respite in nature.  Hiking, walking on the beach, resting in the quiet and beauty of natural splendor gives to me--and, I would argue, all of us--the strength and energy to keep on keeping on.  I was amazed by the boldness of the seals, flocking to a public beach.  I have rarely been so close to wildlife, with the exception of deer in the forest.  It was amazing to see seals outside of a zoo, in their natural habitat.

Little did we know that we were walking into a huge controversy.  We thought we were going to see some seals.

The minute we arrived at the beach and walked out onto the breaker wall to see the seals better, we heard the shouts of people trying to get swimmers away from the seals.  And, the shouts of swimmers that this was a public beach.

Here's a quick and dirty guide to the two sides of the issue:

Side 1 of the controversy:  the Children's Beach is a public beach, open to swimmers and seals alike.  A special breaker wall was constructed to make the swimming area safe for children (and weaker swimmers).  Since the surf is so rough, the Children's Beach is a special place where swimmers are protected from the surf.

Side 2 of the controversy:  there are lots of other places to swim and the swimmers harass the seals and upset them.  As humans and animals find ways to co-inhabit the shoreline of California, sometimes humans need to give way to nature.

My take:  while we were there (about an hour), we observed many, many people swimming right up to the rocks where the seals were sunning themselves.  They openly harassed the seals, trying to get close enough to touch them and to get them to react.  If those on side 1 of the controversy conducted themselves with a little dignity, they'd get more traction for their arguments that humans and seals can co-exist.  Instead, they came off like mean, horrible bullies who were going out of their way to torture the seals.  And in so doing, they made me an immediate supporter of people advocating for the seals.

Let's face it:  the natural world is shrinking, and as it does, animals need somewhere to go.  Here on the east coast, our news is occasionally overtaken by stories of bears in suburban New Jersey venturing into backyards and onto porches, looking for food.  Is it little wonder, when the forests that used to provide shelter and sustenance have been plowed under for tract housing?  It seems to me that the same argument applies to the seals in La Jolla.  They used to have places to go, but as the shoreline has been increasingly developed, there are fewer places for them to go and to find respite from humans.   And so La Jolla finds itself in the midst of a controversy between the seals and the humans.

While I was in La Jolla, I went snorkeling--in La Jolla Cove, a short walk down the road from Children's Beach.  It's a lovely cove, where the water is calm and safe for swimming.  So, it isn't as if the good people of Southern California are lacking in places to sun and swim.  What's the harm in making Children's Beach an animal sanctuary?

Part of the problem definitely lies in the mixed message sent by the local authorities.  The signs at Children's Beach say that people can swim--it's a public beach--but that they shouldn't harass the seals.  Yet while I was there, I saw no intervention by the lifeguards in stopping the harassment towards the seals.  One young boy, 8-10 years of age, repeatedly attempted to poke the seals until they jumped into the water and swam off.

In contrast to this behavior, here's a funny sign from the San Diego Zoo about the panda bears:  "Please do not pester, perturb, provoke, perplex, punch, pick pounce, push, pull, pry, poke, peck, prod, pinch, paw, pop, pluck, plink, plonk, plunk, plaid, paisley or polka-dot the pandas!"

Hmmm... there seems to be a very straight-forward message there.  How about adapting that for the seals?  There's a federal law protecting the seals, but it's not being well-enforced.

As far as I'm concerned, those advocating for a "human takeover" of Children's Beach have no credibility because their arguments are weak & illogical and their behavior is unacceptable.  Their arrogance is appalling.  Simply put, there are other places for them to swim and other places for them to relax on the beach.  As we continue to overdevelop our natural world, wildlife continues to have fewer and fewer places to flourish.  How very sad that our greedy world can't give just a little.

If you're looking for a place to donate some dollars at the end of this fiscal year, I'd suggest "Friends of the Seals." 

I went a little camera-crazy.  You can see the whole set of seal pictures here.

Read On:

• Friends of the Seals
• Save San Diego Seals
• Upwelling
• Whose Beach Is It Anyway?
• Herald Tribune Overview
• Marine Mammals Protection Act (1972)

These three videos capture the controversy.  (They are definitely from the perspective of those who want to protect the beach).  I'll leave the 9th Amendment/"alpha male" analysis to you...

Preserving La Jolla Seals (I couldn't embed the first video--click on this link.  The two below are embedded).

Ban Hummers. Seriously.

Thanks to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, New York city is seeing green this summer.  Posters and billboards pepper the city with suggestions about how to save energy and money.  These ads encourage recycling, replacing regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs, turning off air-conditioners when you're not home, etc.  This poster is part of that ad campaign.  What's great about this poster, however, is the final annotation, "Ban SUVs/Hummers!"

This made me laugh.  I've been on a Hummer rant for a while.  You've seen their ads, featuring the planet Earth and the Hummer--or the images of the Hummer breaking trails in "untouched" wilderness.  That is, the Hummer "conquering the virginal earth."  How very masculine.  How very patriarchal.

When I was in L.A. this spring, I couldn't believe how many Hummers were clogging the highway.  At one point, I just couldn't get a good shot from the car, but in front of me, spread over 4 lanes, were at least 10 Hummers in a rainbow of colors.  They weren't from the same dealership--they seemed to just be random drivers stuck on the same freeway. 

As a new bike rider, I am very aware of Hummers trying to drive down our narrow, car-clogged streets.  If I'm biking on a street where people are parked on both the right and the left and a Hummer comes through, I have to get onto the sidewalk or risk getting hit. 

It really makes me wonder.  As our government seeks to continue to limit choices and to regulate our lives, why don't cars and car owners have to come into line with what's good for the rest of us?  SUVs and Hummers take an extraordinary toll on the environment.  Shouldn't that count? 

Moreover, it's outrageous that Hummer owners get a tax break.  Let me say that again:  Hummer owners get a tax break.  ???? Huh ????  According to Code Pink:

Hummer dealers are snagging new customers by telling them they can get a tax write-off of up to $100,000 as a business expense. How can that be? This tax break was originally designed for farmers and their trucks, but the legislation defines the vehicle by weight, not use, creating a loophole big enough to drive a Hummer through. Many people are furious about this loophole and are pushing for Congress to change the law.

Why does anyone need a car that big?  And why do they need a tax break?

This is cross-posted with my Project 365 blog.

Read more:

Code Pink's Top Ten Reasons Not to Buy a Hummer

The Flipping off Hummers Website

2004 BBC Article on Hummers & Hybrids

New Yorkers: Fax Senator Bruno about Sex Education!

Only 3 days left before a vote on the Healthy Teens Act in New York state.  Here's what this important legislation proposes:

The Healthy Teens Act would enable schools and community-based organizations to apply for funding to teach age-appropriate, medically accurate, sex education. Currently, over 13 million dollars is spent in New York on abstinence-only programs which have been proven ineffective in delaying sexual activity among youth.

Sign the petition:

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/FaxSenatorBruno?rk=u7ADWSp1-tNeW

Accountability: Making People Do Their Jobs

It's about time.  Carolyn Maloney and Frank Lautenberg introduced cutting edge legislation on Wednesday, 6 June 2007-- (was the name, the ABC act, an inspired reference to the ABC (abstinence, be faithful, use condoms) approach to AIDS education?) to ensure women's access to birth control.  You can read the entire Access to Birth Control legislation here.  I'm delighted to see some movement on this key issue for women.  The announcement from Maloney's website says, "In addition to guaranteeing women the ability to fill birth control prescriptions, the “ABC” Bill would make it illegal for a pharmacy to refuse to return a birth control prescription, or for a pharmacist to intimidate, threaten, or harass customers, or intentionally breach, or threaten to breach, medical confidentiality."

What you need to do:

Contact your legislators (click here to check who your representatives are).  This is an election year, folks, let's make that pressure count!

Read more:

NOW's press release.

Common Dreams

National Women's Law Center

NOW's Action Center

Idiot of the Week: Dr. Gary Merrill

Ah yes, it's time for that Lingual Tremors' favorite:  Idiot of the Week. Today, I offer you Dr. Gary Merrill, prejudicial physician.

Look.  Here's what I don't need:  my doctor as judge.  And, it's not what you think (it's non-abortion medical post!).  In the latest case of medical ideology:  your doctor as judge and priest, a "Christian" pediatrician in Bakersfield, California, refused to treat a toddler with an ear infection because her mother had tattoos.  Did you get that?  If you have a tattoo, you don't get medical treatment.  Here's a sound byte from KGET, a local television station:

The doctor said he is just following his beliefs, creating a Christian atmosphere for his patients.

Tasha Childress said it’s discrimination.

She said Dr. Gary Merrill wouldn’t treat her daughter for an ear infection because Tasha, the mother, has tattoos.

The writing is on the wall—literally: “This is a private office. Appearance and behavior standards apply.”

For Dr. Gary Merrill of Christian Medical Services, that means no tattoos, body piercings, and a host of other requirements—all standards Merrill has set based upon his Christian faith.

And the AMA is backing him up.  Doctors, they say, have the right to refuse service to anyone.  Smack of discrimination anyone?  Of course, I don't really want to be treated by a doctor who has some sort of prejudice against me. (And the very title "Christian Medical Services" creeps me out, even though I am a practicing Christian.  In this case, "Christian" means creepy Promise-keeper religious style oppression using bad Biblical interpretation to beat "others" into submission.)

However, I think this is an interesting brewing conflict in American culture.  Academia, for example, is constantly getting attacked for "ideology" in the classroom.  What if a left-wing doctor refused to treat David Horowitz because the physician disagreed with Horowitz's politics?  I would argue, with all due deference to my profession, that medical attention is a little more important than your average Spanish or History class.  So, if faculty have to curb their bias in the classroom, why do doctors get to practice blatant discrimination?

For the record:  there is no legitimate Biblical argument for refusing to treat someone with tattoos.  Oh, only Merrill wasn't asked to treat the mother with tattoos.  It was the BABY, who DIDN'T HAVE ANY tattoos.  Okay, I'm not even going there except to say, this happened in the state that wants to bring heightened and sensitive awareness to child-rearing.  This state has brought you a proposed "anti-spanking" law.  So, you can't spank your kid because that's child abuse.  But denying a baby medical care?  Well, that's just physician's "right of conscience." 

More on the Edwards/Marcotte/McEwan Debaucle...My Big Anti-American Post

Okay, I've been fretting over this one for three days;  this is when I know I still have a lot of growing to do as a blogger.  Sometimes I sit on a post for too long because I'm not totally sure what I want to say and then the moment's passed because everyone else has already said it!

But, for what it's worth, I wanted to weigh in on Amanda and Melissa's resignations from the Edwards' campaign.  I'm really sad that Amanda and Melissa had to make a decision between safety and freedom of speech.  The hate mail and threats they received are inexcusable, no matter whether or not you disagree with them.  I sincerely hope the IP addresses can be traced.  If you want a sample of the range--and outrageousness--of comments, I suggest that you read the entire comment thread at Salon following Amanda's explanation of her resignation.

Of her experiences, Amanda writes:

Blogs are popular because they provide space for everyday citizens to engage in politics, in the language and manner that is comfortable for us, if not for the establishment. To my mind, however, it would be a terrible thing if bloggers did heed the advice to mind our manners and ape our betters if we want in, since this is supposed to be a democratic system that respects the right of everyday, common people to participate in politics. While there's a chance that the crusade to separate McEwan and me from the Edwards campaign was just a singular happening, the possibility lingers that this was just the first sign that the established media and political circles will not be letting the blog-writing rabble into the circle without a fight.

So, we arrive back at "the personal is political," only with an ugly slant.  The reason many of us love blogging is because it allows us to voice our opinions.  But why does "the left" become fodder for the right so easily?  Why is it that FOX news flourishes while Air America struggles for funding?  Why is it that Donohue's ad hominem attacks became news?  How did we arrive at a place where a few women with strong opinions get trashed in the media as the holy Vagina Dentata of Democratic Feminazi Anarchy (VDDFFA, for those of you who care to go anacronym)?  and Bill Donohue gets presented as "rational" and the face of the "real" American public?

(Although not quoted here, you should also read Melissa's piece up on The Guardian)

Finally, I guess I agree with Gary Kamiya at Salon:

From a cultural perspective, the new democracy of voices online is a wonderful thing. But writers have an odd and ambiguous relationship with their readers, and the reader revolution is having massive consequences we can't even foresee. Writers are being pulled, or lured, down from their solitary perches and into the madding throng. This has opened useful debate and made writers accountable. But it has also thrown open the gate to creeps, narcissists and wannabe Byrons who threaten to damage the fragile, half-permeable membrane writers use to keep the world from being too much with them.

Here's to figuring out how to keep the bubble in tact while Donohue and his ilk are out there with pins...

Edwards: Peace at the Okay Corral

So, as of 11:36 a.m. this morning, it seems Amanda and Melissa aren't fired.  Here's from the Edwards' campaign:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

But ya know, if John-boy wants to play in the blogosphere he's going to have to be faster than that.  It took him way tooooo loooooong to release a statement on a story that's already google worthy in the blogosphere.  Plus, he pissed off a whole lot of the "leftosphere."  Oh, yeah, and there's still that question about whether bloggers as paid political campaign bloggers works.  Does this mean no more Virgin Mary popping Plan B from the likes of Amanda in the blogosphere?  Because the loss of that voice would just be a damned shame.

More on this later...

Blogilante Justice: The Blogging Shoot-Out At the Edwards Campaign

So, I'm a little late on this, but for the record, John Edwards sucks.  Salon is reporting that John Edwards fired (and will ??? perhaps ??? rehire ??? how's that for ambiguity?) Amanda Marcotte (Pandagon) and Melissa McEwan (Shakespeare's Sister) after right wing bloggers and conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin, Kathryn Lopez and Bill Donohue raised concerns about Marcotte's "Catholic Bashing," particularly in posts about reproductive rights.  Oh, also because they say "Fuck" when they write.  Right.  Pandagon, and Marcotte's writings, get attention specifically for her in-your-face rhetorical style.  And here is the heart of the matter:

Do blogging and political campaigns really mix?  It's not like Amanda's writing and political stance weren't highly public.  Controversial?  You bet.  Consensus seeking?  No way.  If you want news and commentary that don't raise your blood pressure, then tune into one of those morning news shows where the freakish weather reporters claim that 60 and 70 weather in January in New York City is "waking up to another great day" instead of acknowledging the serious problems with global climate shifts and news programming where the Iraq body count is offered with a "serious look" before they cut to some fluff piece about make-up that makes you look great for the office party.  These are the same people who have been bringing you "Mardi Gras in New Orleans:  A Great Travel Destination" when the ninth ward looks like a suburb of Baghdad, only without the American military presence. For many bloggers on the left, myself included, NPR is too conservative.  Forget CNN, The Today Show and the like.

Amanda and Melissa weren't duplicitous.  They didn't hide their politics and get "discovered" one day with an ugly skeleton in the closet.  Far from it.  The comments Amanda (which are the ones being most quoted) is being criticized for weren't published on the Edwards' blog in the name of Edwards.  They were published on a public blog by a private citizen.  And, they were published, for the blogosphere anyway, a long time ago, before Amanda became an Edwards' employee.  And while we're on it, why is Melissa being fired?  For association with Amanda? 

Pandagon is one of the most widely read liberal political blogs and Shakespeare's Sister isn't far behind.  For me, both Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister are daily must reads to keep up with all the news that counts.  I don't always agree with Amanda or Melissa, nor should I.  In fact, I almost never agree with Amanda about religion.  And you know what?  That's a good thing because the blogosphere is the last bastion of free speech and opinions and analysis that we don't get anywhere else on all sides of every issue.  I like to read Amanda's and Melissa's work because they always push me to think just a little more. 

For the Edwards' campaign, firing Marcotte and McEwan either means they are caving to the right or that they were incredibly stupid and didn't read the blogs to begin with.  In either case, Edwards' stance is inexcusable.  If he's just caving to the right, then I wouldn't vote for him anyway because he's not a candidate I can respect.  If he didn't take time to read Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister, Edwards' decision is the milquetoast problem of the Democrats and I still wouldn't vote for him.  As Victoria at Vortex(t) says, "John Edwards’ borrowed edge of authenticity is now completely gone".

But Edwards' position is a lose-lose situation for a voter like me.  The Salon article indicates that Edwards' campaign ambiguously suggested that they might hire Marcotte and McEwan back.  Unfortunately, that's not going to win my respect either.  Edwards should have released a strong statement of support from the beginning.  Many, many people in comment threads on this issue (see links below) have offered better ways the Edwards' campaign could have responded to this.  So a fire/rehire scenario or a fire/fire scenario loses my respect either way.  Edwards has proven that he's all about the vote, not about a clearly defined platform of values.

The problem with Democratic politics in the United States is that nobody knows what they stand for.  You may have hated freak-of-the-week Rick Santorum, but at least you knew what he stood for.  But with more "centrist" candidates like Edwards, Clinton, Obama and the like, you never quite know what they stand for.  Instead, it's the "what can get me elected" and "how do I get these numbers up" philosophy of American Democratic politics.  And we're never quite sure how any promises they make on the campaign trail will play out once they are elected.

So, I'm not entirely surprised that the blogosphere and campaign politics have met at the Virtual Okay Corral.  When I heard that Amanda and Melissa were hired by the Edwards' campaign, I was intrigued.  I'm sorry that Amanda and Melissa got caught up in the shoot out, but in the end, I'm not entirely sure it's the right place for them to be.  I worry that in blogging for a political campaign they might have lost their political voices, silenced by the stultifying, mind numbing stupidity of winning a political campaign.  Outside of the campaign they can say any damned thing they want.  And we'll all be listening!

And by the way:  give me a break.  Bill Donohue has about as much legitimacy speaking for all Catholics on the topic of religious tolerance as that grilled cheese Virgin Mary auctioned on eBay.  Actually, grilled cheese Mary might have a lot more to say that's interesting about ecumenism.

Read more about it:

Review the whole dust up over at Culture Kitchen, where Liza is cataloging the responses from the best of the left blogosphere.

Pam Spaulding's good response--review and analysis of the right-wing critics

My always favorite, Pinko Feminist Hellcat

Victoria at Vortex(t) on Fuck John Edwards--a nice overall take on the influence of political bloggers

You can let the Edwards' campaign know what you think here.

And, if you're a fellow blogger, how about a little love for Amanda, Melissa, and that whole radical concept of free speech in the U.S.?  If it works for Bill O'Reilly, why not for us?