everything but the girl

Political ad from Michigan. ( Awesome West Wing minifilm.  )
Early voting may start in your state next week! Are you ready?

I know everyone has their own personalized definition of mysogyny and of course hatred of women because they're women is horrible.

But something in today's NY Times really struck me as bizarre.

Kate Zernike wrote a piece in the Week in Review section entitled "Can you cross out 'Hillary' and write 'Sarah'?"

And the print version highlighted the following:

To vote pro-choice or anti-misogyny. It's, um, complicated.

Oh, is it really? Basically, she's saying that the options in the presidential election are: vote for the pair that's pro-choice, or vote for the pair that's anti-misogyny.

In other words, McCain/Palin is anti-pro-choice, or anti-choice, and Obama/Biden is anti-anti-misogyny, or pro-misogyny.

What?

Obama/Biden is pro-misogyny because there's no woman on the ticket? Despite their long record of support for women's rights including equal pay for equal work, child-care support and a woman's right to control her body? And somehow, the McCain/Palin support of a platform that says that their goal is to make all abortion illegal even in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother is "anti-misogynistic."

Um, that's bizarre.

The choice is definitely not pro-choice or anti-misogyny, and any woman who votes for McCain/Palin because she believes they are anti-misogyny clearly has not read their position papers or analysis of same, because they'd learn that McCain has opposed legislation that would ensure equal pay for equal work, as explained here. Hell, how hard would it be for the Republicans to reinstate something from their 1896 platform in which they espoused support for equal pay for equal work. It's only been 112 years, guys - let's try and get it back in there next time, please.

I am off to ask the NY Times Public Editor why those sentences - "pro-choice or anti-misogyny" - made it into the paper, but never made it online.

I'd also love to hear Ms Zernike's explanation of why she thinks a website showing photos of Governor Palin as a Miss Alaska contestent hints of misogyny. Personally, although I am sure others would disagree with me, there's nothing misogynistic about saying "Sarah Palin ... Kind of a Babe." I think Barack is kind of hot. I also think my own governor, Charlie Crist, is kind of cute (I know, I'm weird. And I'm also wondering if his engagement is off but that's a topic for another day). And I think Sarah is very pretty and Tina Fey-ish, and I definitely do not hate women. But I'm not going to support her because I like her hair and smile, and I don't think it's reasonable to define misogyny as including any positive commentary about a woman's looks. Calling someone ugly, or saying "she's too sexy to be VP" could, of course, cross that line, but simply admiring someone's looks, even in the bare-shouldered photos she took when she was in a beauty pagent scholarship program is weird.

ETA: Damn, dailykos has a block on diaries by new registrants for a week. hedwig_snowy, I know you have an account there, and I would guess others of you do, too. Does anyone want to take this topic onto a diary there? Off to create an account there, finally, anyway... Will use it eventually.


I know, I have catch-up posts on how much fun I had at Dragon*Con and how terrific it was to see so many friends and just bump into people at random, and why I ended up teaching Nathan Fillion how to make Doctor Horrible ringtones for his iphone but that will have to wait for another day. We have to stock in water and other non-perishables in case Hannah comes towards us in hurricane mode, and also send good thoughts and prayers to everyone along the gulf coast, especially New Orleans. Maybe later today, maybe tomorrow... Hugs and "I miss you!" to everyone still in Atlanta!

But there's been various bits of news, so...

Gacked from Americablog:

The Senate approved the Kennedy amendment which adds sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to the existing hate crimes legislation.

Roll Call's list of who voted what way is here if you want to call your senator and thank him or her, or register a complaint, whichever is appropriate given how your senator voted.

You make me sick.


But I think you already knew that.

My God, you're worse than Nixon.

Here's what Shrub said:

But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

If it's *excessive* then you wait until he's served three or six or twelve months, and you commute it *then*.

You don't say that the fines and "damage" to his reputation are sufficient punishment if you think it's excessive.

He should serve *something*.

And he won't serve a day.

Mockery, Mr Bush. You've made a mockery of this country. And you make me sick.

ETA

I do not believe in exit polls. I do not believe in exit polls. I do not believe in exit polls.

Er. ( Cut for spoilers? )

I had hoped that today would be my first chance since moving to Florida to vote for a Democrat for Congress who was going to win, but alas, since Debbie Wasserman Schultz had nobody running against her, she wasn't on the ballot in the first place. Instead, I helped my grandmother vote (she's legally blind) against Ileana Ros-Leitenan, who I've hated since she beat Gerry Richman for Claude Pepper's old seat back in the 80s by running a campaign tinged with anti-semitism. Bitch. Hope the guy running against her wins, but I doubt it.

I also voted for Jim Davis for governor - he was a partner at my old law firm and I like him - but I think the state won't be terribly damaged if Charlie Crist does win, although I wonder if he'll come out of the closet during his term. Could be interesting.

There's a round-up of interesting links and videos on political issues today. In case you weren't reading this LJ back in 2004, around this time of year I tend to get somewhat political in my LJ. Personally, I try to vote for the person, not the party, but this year, on a national level, it's party all the way, because I strongly believe that some oversight is required, given the huge number of probably-criminal actions by the current administration and their congressional enablers. I posted earlier today about waterboarding and the praise for that practice by Cheney. Of course, we've all more or less known for a long time that the government has supported torture, but in a way, it's almost hard to believe that the vice-president went on a talk show and praised torture. He admitted that we torture people. We - my country that I love - we torture?

I really, really don't want us to do that. And believe me, I understand the impulse to hit and kick and even shoot in the knee, when someone has killed your countrymen. That impulse is understandable and not irrational - but acting on it? I thought we were better than that. I thought we weren't so base, or so debased.

On the radio today, Sam Seder was talking about the Republicans appealing to their "base" with ads like the Crocker one against my friend Harold Ford (no, I don't agree with him on everything, but I truly hope he wins). And it's an interesting word to use, linguistically. They mean their base - their base of support, those who will vote Republican no matter what. That's the noun. But it's also an appeal to their "base" - the adjective. As Merriam-Webster says,

7 a : lacking or indicating the lack of higher qualities of mind or spirit : IGNOBLE b : lacking higher values : DEGRADING

twistedchick has a wonderful collection of information in her LJ today, including a link to her Congressional Evaluation Project which compiled evaluations of everyone up for reelection two years ago - it's a little out of date, but it's an interestin starting point for looking at records of people who may be up for reelection again.
She also has a recommendation of What To Bring to the Polls:

When you go to vote, take with you:

-- the phone number and names of the leadership of your local Democratic party, who have a vested interest in making sure all votes are counted, so you can call them if you see something fishy or illegal going on, especially if the local election judges are unsympathetic.

-- the phone number for the local branch of the ACLU. It's not a bad idea to contact them *now* and ask what they will be doing in your area on Election Day; it's possible that they may have a different number for you to contact than the usual one.

-- the name and campaign phone number for the candidates you plan to support. If you see something wrong going on at the polls, you may want to call them and tell them that your vote for them is in jeopardy, so they can get someone over there and start filing the paperwork to contest the election if necessary.

I didn't have Debbie Wasserman Schultz's number with me when I went to vote today, so while I thought I remembered that she had no opponent, I couldn't check and see if she was supposed to be on the ballot before I actually hit the VOTE button. Instead, I took a photo with my camphone of the page where she should have been listed, so I could send it to her office, or the press, if there had actually been an error.

---

Of course, everyone's been talking and reading about the horrible things Rush said about Michael J Fox this week - but I'm not sure how many people saw him interviewed by Katie Couric last night. Think Progress has the video here ( and, courtesy of CBS, YouTube has it so I've embedded it behind the cut )
If you can't see the video, you can read the transcript here.

Michael was my first fangirling experience. I was 11 when Family Ties went on the air at 9 or 9:30 at night, but once it moved earlier, I think halfway into its first year, I started watching, and I fell terribly hard. I even went and got Midnight Madness on videotape, collected magazines, h8ted on Nancy McKeon, etc. I had a giant standee from TeenWolf in my bedroom and I saw Back to the Future the day it hit theaters, and I even went to see Bright Lights Big City.

Some Republicans are terrified by his ad, possibly because, as an article said earlier this week:

A new national study revealed that American voters' support for stem cell research increased after they viewed an ad featuring Michael J. Fox in which he expresses his support for candidates who are in favor of stem cell research.
Among the study findings:

* Among all respondents, support for stem cell research increased from 78% prior to viewing the ad, to 83% after viewing the ad. Support among Democrats increased from 89% to 93%, support among Republicans increased from 66% to 68% and support among Independents increased from 80% to 87% after viewing the ad.

* The level of concern regarding a candidate's view on stem cell research increased among all respondents from 57% prior to viewing the ad to 70% after viewing the ad. Among Democrats, the level of concern increased from 66% to 83% and Republicans' level of concern increased from 50% to 60%. Independents' level of concern increased from 58% to 69%.

* The perception that the November election is relevant to the U.S. policy on stem cell research increased across all voter segments, with an increase of 9% among all respondents pre- and post-viewing from 62% to 71%. The Democrats' perception increased from 75% to 83%, Republicans' perception increased from 55% to 62% and Independents' perception increased from 60% to 68% pre- and post-viewing.

* The advertisement elicited similar emotional responses from all responders with all voter segments indicating that they were "not bored and attentive" followed by "sorrowful, thankful, afraid and regretful."

* The vast majority of responders indicated that the advertisement was believable with 76% of all responders reporting that it was "extremely believable" or "believable." Among party affiliation, 93% of Democrats 57% of Republicans and 78% of Independents indicated it "extremely believable" or "believable."

So in times like this, I sometimes fall back on movie quotes. In this case, I'll go to some lines said by Michael J Fox and Michael Douglas, written by Aaron Sorkin for The American President:

Lewis: People want leadership. And in the absence of genuine leadership, they will listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership, Mr. President. They're so thirsty for it, they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
Sheperd: Lewis, we've had Presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty, Lewis. They drink it because they don't know the difference.

I don't know why it took two years for another two per cent of the country - or some larger percentage - to finally see what so many saw in 2004, or even before.

This administration needs someone in opposition doing oversight before the country falls off a cliff. If enough seats in the House turn over, that will finally happen. We'll have an enactment of the recommendations by the 9/11 commission. We'll have the strings on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research loosened enough so that uncontaminated lines can be created and used. Rules will be put in place to break the link between lobbyists and legislation. The interest rate on student loans will be halved.

And there will be investigations of the extent to which Enron was involved in crafting energy policy with Dick Cheney, and the extent to which waterboarding and other forms of torture akin to what we prosecuted in WWII have been engaged in by the US and why the administration lied about connections between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Maybe. Just maybe, next month.

Generally, I think my congresswoman is an utter git and an idiot. But sometimes, she does things like this ( also see behind the cut ) and I have to give her props. So tonight, I do. Good show, Ileana, and good luck.

Andrew Sullivan gives some context for Zell Miller:

Andrew Sullivan summons up his righteous indignation:

Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift.

Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats.

Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude. . . .

Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry bigots like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day."

Barak Obama is the most dynamic speaker I've seen since I (finally) watched Clinton via the net this morning.

Amazing man, he is.

: writes his name on my keds in red ink, the way I did with Clinton's name in 1988