Our affable captors.

I listened to Sam Seder’s interview with Jill Stein. And while I think she sidestepped his questions about the strategic reasons a person might hesitate to vote Green, what jumped out at me was that she said the Democratic party is unsalvageable. Even though I have a lot of ambivalence about President Obama, it makes me uneasy to say the the Democratic party as a whole is beyond repair.

A friend of mine involved in Occupy once suggested that the reason I feel this way is because of my efforts in local Democratic politics. That might be true. I have spent a lot of time, money and shoeleather volunteering for Democrats. I’ve made some great friends and learned a lot. To abandon the party now, when it includes people like Tony Avella, and Sandra Fluke feels wrong.

If I did leave, where would I go? The Green Party seems like the obvious answer. I did vote Green for NYC Mayor in 2009, and I was voting for Bill Talen, not against Thompson or Bloomberg. Listening to Jill Stein was kind of anticlimactic. She couldn’t answer Sam Seder’s questions about his concerns that promoting the Green Party would elevate the Republican Party. She said that Obama is a hypnotic orator, which has weird and racist undertones. I think that Sam Seder was right when he said that the liberals were co-opted by anti-Bush organizing during the Bush administration, and that we only have the Occupy Movement because we now have Democrats in office who we can try to persuade. Voting for her would seem more like a vote against Obama than one for her.

Yes, she voted for the Iraq War and he signed DOMA and made life shittier for poor people and called it “Welfare Reform” (which included the beginning of federally funded abstinence only sex education, btw) but they are so DAMN ADORABLE!!

I was mulling this over in my head and I thought about groups like the Sierra Club and the AFL-CIO. They have even less of a choice than individual voters. Obama hasn’t delivered much of anything on environmental policy, and has failed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. But environmental and labor groups must continue to endorse Democrats. Republicans would be actively destructive to those causes, and these groups would lose access and power if they endorsed a 3rd party candidate.

This was underscored when the Sierra Club tweeted the praises of Obama’s speech to the DNC, even though he was talking about “clean coal” and making what some say were references to increasing fracking (he said we should use more natural gas).

Obama at DNC: We’ve doubled our use of renewable energy & 1000s of Americans have jobs today building wind turbines & long-lasting batteries

— Sierra Club (@Sierra_Club) September 7, 2012

But as I tweeted, I know why they said this. President Obama needs to win Pennsylvania and Ohio, so he must speak favorably of coal. He uses the false frame of “clean coal” because most Americans don’t know that that’s greenwashing. The Sierra Club has no choice but to ignore what they clearly know to be bad policy. They either fall in line and endorse him or get left behind.

This weighed heavily on me as I watched the rest of his speech. As soon as I saw through what was behind the President’s mention of clean coal, it was difficult for me to focus. I did appreciate his vision of an America where everyone is equal and free:

If you reject the notion that this nation’s promise is reserved for the few, your voice must be heard in this election.

If you reject the notion that our government is forever beholden to the highest bidder, you need to stand up in this election.

If you believe that new plants and factories can dot our landscape; that new energy can power our future; that new schools can provide ladders of opportunity to this nation of dreamers; if you believe in a country where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules, then I need you to vote this November.

America, I never said this journey would be easy, and I won’t promise that now. Yes, our path is harder – but it leads to a better place. Yes our road is longer – but we travel it together. We don’t turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up. We draw strength from our victories, and we learn from our mistakes, but we keep our eyes fixed on that distant horizon, knowing that Providence is with us, and that we are surely blessed to be citizens of the greatest nation on Earth.

It was as if he was drawing a line in the sand, and I resent that. President Obama expects us to believe in the facade of “clean coal” even though he must know that a pursuit of it would be counterproductive to his stated desire to combat climate change. And yet, here he was saying really moving things about freedom, justice and equality. It’s quite disorienting.

I have long said that I am not disappointed with President Obama because when I voted for him I knew that I was voting for a centrist and not a Liberal. I thought that I could deal with his pie in the sky bipartisan ideas, and I am glad to see that much of this year’s DNC was about drawing contrasts between the parties and calling out obstructionism. I’m not the only Liberal with a deep ambivalence for President Obama. But politics is as they say, the art of the possible.

There are those who wear their self righteous indignation with President Obama and the Democratic party like a badge of honor. I think that we should ask questions of our leaders. But we won’t get answers if we play games and grandstand. There are outlets other than politics for people enraged by the United States human rights violations of the 21st century. The prison reform movement and Amnesty International come to mind. But while the tactics used in the video did get a lot of page-views, did they effect policy? Did they inspire anyone to run for office or make a donation or write a letter? Was anything changed, even to the level of an individual’s opinion?

What it comes down to is that the Obama Administration has a tangible list of accomplishments that have real positive impacts on the lives of people. This cannot be ignored.

It’s easy to resent the Democrats for not doing what I want them to do. It’s even easier to resent them for being what I believe to be my only option. But I take full responsibility for my own role in the process. I write to my representatives, and I support candidates who really, really get it. There are two ways out of this hostage crisis. One is to work harder. The other is to give up.

Congressman Gary Ackerman sent me the following response to my letter about the End Polluter Welfare Act, and/or possibly The Safe Chemicals Act.

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for strong environmental standards and federal environmental protection and conservation programs. I believe that our natural environment is one of our nation’s greatest treasures, and it is imperative that we reaffirm and strengthen our commitment to safeguarding its future.

While our country has made significant gains in cutting back pollution point sources, many of our lakes, rivers and streams still fail to meet our drinking water, recreation, or wildlife needs. It is unacceptable that, over 30 years after the passage of the Clean Water Act, so many of our nation’s waters remain contaminated. I am committed to maintaining and strengthening the Clean Water Act and building on its record of success in improving environmentally-sound planning and regulation. In my view, more needs to be done to maintain the progress achieved to date and to address remaining water safety and quality concerns.

I would also note that, over the past 35 years, the Clean Air Act has produced some significant environmental gains. This law has greatly reduced the amount of air pollution around the country, resulting in substantial improvements to our air quality. But the Clean Air Act alone is not enough. As the body of evidence continues to grow that human activity has significantly contributed to global climate change, the United States must adopt limitations on carbon emissions so that our environment will be preserved for the enjoyment of future generations. I am proud to have consistently supported so-called “carbon capping” legislation throughout my tenure in Congress, such as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and I will continue to support any measure that seriously addresses the root causes of climate change.

Of course, we must also address America’s reliance on fossil fuels. An obvious place to begin is by investing more in programs that will promote energy efficiency and conservation. Renewable energy sources are essential for protecting our environment as well as ensuring our nation’s energy security. I believe that energy production and environmental protection do not have to be competing priorities. I support an energy plan that has a balanced approach, one that helps consumers now, boosts production of energy from alternative sources, stresses conservation, and protects the environment. As part of this goal, I am proud to support legislation that encourages the use of cleaner fuels and helps to facilitate a switch to cleaner forms of energy.

In addition to fighting to reduce pollution, I have also been a strong supporter of the protection and the preservation of our nation’s wilderness. Many of our nation’s old-growth forests provide vital habitats for rare and endangered species. They also constitute the last vestiges of an ever-diminishing national treasure. That is why I support legislative efforts that would codify the Roadless Rule to help protect our last wild forests. By preserving these areas, we can ensure that these pristine forests provide sources of public drinking water, undisturbed habitats for fish and wildlife, and barriers against invasive plant and animal species.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my views with you on this very important topic. Please be assured that I will continue my support for environmental protection initiatives throughout the 112th Congress.

I will give him points for content even if it’s not specifically related to the legislation I asked about, particularly because he’s retiring at the end of the year. Especially in comparison to Senator Gillibrand, who (accidentally?) sent me a letter about her views on gun control “in response to your recent communication.”

We all know how Dan Savage turned Rick Santorum’s name into a profanity. I would like to do something similar to Newton Leroy Gingrich, but not a profanity. I would like to see the word “Gingrich” become an adjective.

Gingrich /ghin-grich/ adj. Wealthy as a result of exploiting the gullible. (Pejorative)

Newt Gingrich sure sold a lot of books on the campaign trail this year, didn’t he? Lots of people wanted to see the big man on his way to the White House. What Mr. Gingrich didn’t get were a lot of states in the GOP Primaries. What we do see is Newt Gingrich sabotage his campaign, again and again

This sounds a lot like the plot to The Producers. Gingrich evidently doesn’t manage his money very well, perhaps he saw this financial difficulty coming, and decided he could use his presidential race to raise his personal capital, even if it meant screwing over his campaign staff.

Newton Leroy Gingrich may be full of himself, but he knows he could never be President. It’s much too hard. It’s much easier to write books and piss and moan and mock anyone crazy enough to become president. Gingrich treated the campaign trail as a book tour.

Lawrence O’Donnell figured out Sarah Palin was trying something similar back in May 2011, deducing that she and Donald Trump were just publicity hounds that had no intention of actually running for office. Gingrich managed to get away with it a little longer.

He’s not the only one who got filthy gingrich, and he won’t be the last. It would seem many politicians decided to use the campaign year as a means of selling books and collecting appearance fees. I expect we shall see even more of this in the future. In the United States of America, we crave money, and fear responsibility -we get the government we deserve.

I’ve been running for a few years, on and off and I have only used the ubiquitous Couch-to-5K app to keep track of my runs. But when I heard about Zombies, Run! last year, I knew I had to have it. (Not to be confused with “Run for your lives!” a series of 5K obstacle races where people in zombie costumes chase runners.) It’s currently available for the iPhone, Android and Windows Phone.

The way that it works is simple. You turn on the app, select a mission, and start running (or walking, skating, cycling, elliptical-ing, whatever). Each mission is an episode in the story, and separated into several 2 – 3 minute segments which play in between songs on your playlist. Additionally, while you are listening to your music, you will occasionally hear a voice over telling you that you have collected supplies. If you have GPS turned on, you will get voice overs telling you that zombies are chasing you and you have to increase your speed. If you don’t sprint far or fast enough, you lose all the supplies you are carrying. At the end of each mission you can use your supplies to further build Able Township – the base where your character lives in a mini-Sim City-esque game.

There are story missions, which advance the plot, and supply missions where not much happens but are good for collecting supplies. At the end of either kind of mission, if you keep the app on, you will hear brief segments of a radio show broadcast by characters who live in Able Township.

I am so surprised at how wrapped up I have gotten in the story and how attached I am to the characters. I feel like it’s a tv show or book series I have been a fan of for a long time. I highly recommend this app. Wanting to know what happens next will encourage you to work out more often. People have complained about the price ($8 for iPhone). It’s not more than the price of a movie ticket, new book, or more traditional video game, and you will get a lot of entertainment for your money. There are 30 missions plus radio content and the mini-city building game, also an extensive glossary and character guide that expands as the plot advances in case you want to refresh your memory if you haven’t worked out in a while.

The story is told in the second person perspective, and the listener is referred to as “Runner 5.” The creators have done an excellent job of immersing the listener into the story seamlessly. The plot begins when your helicopter crashes outside Able Township, and you join up with the people who live there, running missions to support operations of the base. But you soon discover that there’s a lot more going on than just survival. The characters are vibrant, and the voice acting is superb. I may or may not have been wiping more than sweat out of my eyes on a few occasions. The quality of the radio drama combined with the adrenaline rush of going for a run create a fantastic experience.

In the aftermath of a getting banned from speaking because she used the word vagina in defense of abortion rights, I made a donation to Lisa Brown’s campaign. Term limits prevent her from running for the Michigan State Assembly again, but I am glad to support her campaign for county clerk.

During the controversy some claimed that she was not punished just for saying the word vagina, but for the content of the entire statement,

I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no.'”

A powerful woman like Brown’s confident smack-down of Republican talking points probably stings rather harshly. It’s not just an awesomely snarky end to a political speech, but she is blatantly calling the bluff that this isn’t about controlling women’s sexuality, and in using the words that she did, she is refusing to acknowledge the illusion that this is not about sex. It makes sense that it would feel all the more humiliating to be talked to that way, which is why they lashed out like they did. However, the expectation that women will sit quietly while their rights are being taken away has no basis in reality, so I find it humorous how shocked many Republicans appeared.

Brown’s thank you note below.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the comments I received on my post on Leah Liberesco’s conversion. On Reddit, I was engaged by someone who said,

I feel that tolerance and respect for the positions of others outweighs the need to be right. That is how we deal with other UUs who have a different perspective such as theist vs atheist vs agnostic. Why would it be any different with people outside the UU faith?

This sounds really wise. Because it’s restrained. It’s submitting your ego to a higher priority of tolerance. But tolerance doesn’t mean tolerating intolerance. Respect does not mean ignoring your own capacity for critical thinking.

I’m treading on dangerous ground here. I know that my need to be right is something that can consume me. But I also know that I am a liberal because I believe words have meanings. I’m a liberal and a pragmatist because I really care about how my actions impact people around me. I have a desperate need to know I’m not hurting anyone else.

So when I read Adam’s post, “Today’s Reasons to Quit The Catholic Church” I couldn’t help but feel relief and pride that I have made that decision already and that it’s behind me. And I won’t apologize for that.

What’s the point in having a religion if you don’t believe it’s the right one? When Unitarian Universalists gather, we state that

We covenant to affirm and promote

The inherent worth and dignity of every person,
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations,
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations,
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning,
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large,
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all,
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Our principles mean something. That’s why we begin with a covenant, a solemn promise we make publicly to ourselves and each other. Stating that we affrim them means we believe in them.

There are others who don’t believe in our principles. And that our principles are not self evident to all people, is what marks us as a group when we say we covenant to affirm them. When we affirm our principles, we are by definition saying that we think that we are right and that people who disagree are wrong.

Disagreement need not be intolerant or disrespectful. But we can’t deny that we hold these disagreements. And we shouldn’t be ashamed to hold views that others don’t or back down from our belief that they are true.

The second part is that we are saying we will promote these principles. We will spread these values, talk about them and explain them when applicable. This doesn’t necessarily mean evangelize or argue when it’s inappropriate to argue. Just that we will speak up for our values when the time is right.

Now, “when the time is right” is open for debate, and that was the point of my previous post on this subject. But stating that you believe your beliefs are correct is not disrespectful or intolerant. If we don’t stand up for our principles, no one else will.

Nora Ephron has died. She is best known for writing When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle and You’ve Got Mail. While I love WHMS, My Blue Heaven has always been a favorite of mine.

Steve Martin chews the scenery as Vinny, New York mobster taken to a suburb of San Diego as a part of the Witness Protection Program. Rick Moranis plays Barney, the FBI agent trying to keep him out of trouble, and Joan Cusack is Hannah, the small town District Attorney fed up with Vinny’s criminal mischief.

It’s overly silly at times, with a sanitized and cartoonish view of organized crime, but the movie doesn’t take itself too seriously so that’s okay.

What keeps this movie on my DVD shelf is the character of Hannah Stubbs. She’s a geek, and a socially awkward one at that. Overzealous but vulnerable, it might seem like she falls into the “women are killjoys” trope, but she has reasons for acting the way she does. Hannah doesn’t always make the best decisions, but she gets a in few good jokes and her actions definitely impact the plot. My favorite part of the movie is when a policewoman mentions that Vinny makes the hairs on the back of her neck stand up. Hannah bristles that this has never happened to her before. Barney makes his entrance, waves his badge around, and Hannah pauses and touches her neck quizzically before calling him out for stepping on her turf.

Their courtship is sweet, and it’s nice to see a geek girl get the guy. At the end of the film there’s a moment where Barney lies to her, and she believes him. I’ve never been sure what to make of it. She isn’t stupid, but she wants to be rid of Vinny and the problems he’s made for her relationship with Barney. So my interpretation is that this is a conscious choice. She’d rather be happy with her guy than miserable fighting a criminal she’s realized she will never have the resources to catch. And Barney actually took a much bigger risk in lying than Hannah did in choosing to believe him. Hannah has everything to gain, but Barney could have lost his career and his relationship, while she retains plausible deniability.

My Blue Heaven is cheesy as hell, but worth checking out if you haven’t seen before. The characters are fun and will make you smile.

I’ve been a fan of the comedy musical duo Garfunkel and Oates since discovering “Pregnant Women Are Smug” on Cracked.com in 2009. I follow them on social media and went to see them perform live in New York City. I think they are hilarious and I really like the way they talk openly about sexuality, (See: Go Kart Racing – Accidentally Masturbating, and I Don’t Understand Job) and I think that “This Party Just Took A Turn For The Douche” is brilliant. They’ve addressed medical marijuana, the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the absurdity of opposition to same sex marriage. So I was disappointed that their latest song “29/31” is really retrograde and sexist. I wouldn’t mind Ricki’s ear-bleeding shrieks if it was at lest either funny or not degrading to women.

To preempt the criticism that I can’t critique this because I’m happily married, and my wedding occurred when I was 27, that’s missing the point. I love my husband, but being married isn’t the total of my identity or my life. My relationship is important, but I reject the idea that it’s the only thing important or special about me – which is exactly the point of this song – that a woman’s marital status defines her, that being single is cause for despair. and being married is true happiness and contentment. Neither is correct.

I could understand a song about “the one that got away.” There are people that live with regret about ending or sabotaging a relationship they wish they were still in, and that’s genuinely sad. But the point of 29/31 is that you should get married to a man – any man, because otherwise you will be all alone and your life will be over at 31. Getting married just for the sake of not being single is not a wise decision. Basing a relationship on fear of being alone isn’t healthy and is insulting to your partner. I don’t think any man would want to hear his wife say that she married him just because he was there. In fact, that exact sentiment was something Kate parodied in 2008:

So which is it? Marriage as an only goal is depressing and empty? Or marriage is your only goal or else you are worthless?

The other insulting thing about “29/31”, was that it assumes a man cannot love a woman once she is over the age of 33/34. Ricki sings,

In two short years I’m gonna be 33. Who the hell will want me then? I’m disgusting.

If a 33 year old woman is disgusting and unlovable, why get married at 29? Won’t your husband divorce you when you are 33 anyway? Because you are so “disgusting“?

I understand that women are fertile for fewer years than men are, but I think that women who want to have children are aware of this fact and plan accordingly. Women aren’t stupid. That’s why “Oops! I forgot to have children” is a joke. No one actually thinks like that.

I don’t know if I should be bemused of angry that Men’s Rights Activists are using this video as “proof” that feminism is “wrong.” When I put this question to Amanda Marcotte, she said,

That they’re pinning all their hopes on convincing women that they’re a slightly better option than never having sex again tells you a lot. MRAs see themselves as the McDonald’s you resort to when the restaurant is closed. Doesn’t sound like women are desperate ones here, I have to say.

On the positive side, Garfunkel and Oates recently performed at Dan Savage’s fundraiser for Washington United for Marriage. I’m going to make a donation, go reread, “How to be a fan of problematic things” and hope that their next song is better.

Darcy Burner said at Netroots Nation,

“I have exactly one ask for you between now and November, and that is: get women to vote.”

I got goosebumps because I knew I was being tasked with an awesome quest. But it’s also an incredibly difficult one. There are women in my life, intelligent, compassionate women who truly believe in progressive values. But whether or not they call themselves feminists or liberals, they also have the incorrect belief that everyone else thinks the way they do. A great example of this is Chelsea Handler’s “sexism is bullshit” comments. But I also see it in women with a lot less money and power than Handler.

A friend asks where I was on Saturday morning when the rest of the group had met for coffee. I explain that I was clinic escorting.

“What’s that?”

“Well, there are a lot of protesters at Planned Parenthood and I volunteer to be a part of a program to keep an eye on them, call security or the police if they break any laws, welcome the patients, and not let them get harassed or stopped from entering.”

“Oh…. Wait. People protest outside Planned Parenthood?”

“Yup. Sometimes they just quietly pray, but sometimes they are really obnoxious and nasty.”

“Huh… That’s so weird!”

And we will never speak of this again. Not because she’s lazy or wasn’t listening. It’s because in her worldview, what I just said was that I was trying to stop martians or microfungi from destroying the earth. The kind of misogyny that exists in our own community, or the power that Citizens United gave to the wealthy is something she doesn’t perceive or think about.

I have another friend, really caring and funny and ambitious as hell. But she doesn’t vote. She says that whoever wins or loses has no influence on her life. I tried to change her mind during the contraception debate.

Elizabeth: So here’s a great example of how the government impacts your life – right now Congress is having hearing about whether or not health insurance must cover contraception, but they aren’t allowing any women to testify

Friend: Isn’t that illegal, not allowing women to testify?

Elizabeth: No.The chairman of the committee can decide who will testify at the hearing.

Friend: Oh. But men should care about contraception too. So…

Elizabeth: Well, I don’t think the consequences of not using contraception are in any way equal

Friend: Maybe a decision like that will change social norms. If it’s not covered by insurance then maybe more women will start actually asking for money from their partners to cover half. That would probably be a good thing.

Elizabeth: Right now the law is that insurance must cover the pill in 28 states. In the other states, women are shit out of luck, and this is a response to that

Friend: Men too, indirectly. I think a law like that would be nice but I don’t expect it to be passed.

Elizabeth: That’s why you should vote!

Friend: If I got involved with politics it would take up too much of my life. I’d rather just not be bothered. It’s a lot of hassle/stress that you are inviting into your life.

Elizabeth: But the money you pay for birth control pill co-pay is a real impact on your life.

Friend: Yes but you choose your battles. If it cost like $1000 then yes it would be a problem but by the time it gets that far, many other people get involved anyway.

She pretty much quoted Ever After. “I used to think that if I cared about anything I’d have to care about everything and then I’d go stark raving mad!”

Why do I care about this? Because 39% of single women don’t vote.

I know that a record number of women voted in 2008, and we might break another record this year. But women did not vote in 2010, and that’s one of the reasons why our Congress and State Legislatures have been taken over by anti choice radicals. Even if women come out to vote in 2012, they must do so every year for real progress to be made.

It’s the reason Kirsten Gillibrand’s campaign created an entire project around getting women to vote. And it’s the reason Darcy Burner made it the point of her speech at Netroots Nation.

So how do we do it? How do we reach women who don’t read feminist blogs? PSAs during Major League Baseball and True Blood? Pamphlets in locker rooms and ladies bathrooms? Cocktail napkins at bars and coffee shops? And what should these messages say? How do we explain to women why they should do something they never do?

I’m not as discouraged about this as Adam is. I’m just completely baffled.

At Netroots Nation, Bill McKibben spoke about the End Polluter Welfare Act. It was introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT) as S 3080 and Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) as HR 5745.

According to a press release from Senator Sanders,

The measure would do away with tax breaks, financial assistance, royalty relief, direct federal research and development and many loopholes that benefit the fossil fuel industry. Under current law, more than $113 billion in federal subsidies would go to oil, coal and gas industries in the coming decade.

The five largest oil companies in the United States earned about $1 trillion in profits over the past decade. Meanwhile, in recent years, some of the very largest oil companies in America like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, paid absolutely nothing in federal income taxes.

The bill is supported by 350.org, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife, Oil Change International and Earth Justice.

350.org has a lot of great resources on this bill, and they are keeping a scoreboard of which members of Congress have gone on the record and which have not.

I am going to send the following letter to my Congressional Representative and my Senators.

How to find your Member of Congress’ contact information.

How to find your Senator’s contact information.

I am writing to ask that you please support S 3080/HR 5745, the End Polluter Welfare Act. We cannot afford to subsidize the fossil fuel industry that does so much harm to our health and environment while simultaneously making record profits.