Zero Dark Thirty's Real Message is Anti-Torture

Zero Dark Thirty is quite possibly one of the most misunderstood movies ever. I'm a huge fan. It's one of those movies people will watch in the future to get a sense of what the militarized American empire was like from 2001-2011. It is also one of the strongest feminist and anti-torture messages I have ever seen in a major Hollywood film. Yet people are accusing it of being the exact opposite.

There's been a lot of criticism from people on the left that makes me wonder, "Are we even talking about the same movie here?" The praise from certain people on the right also leaves me scratching my head.

So when I came across this HuffPost Live interview of filmmaker Michael Moore by Marc Lamont Hill, I said to myself - finally, someone gets it! Thank you, Michael Moore:

"Does the artist have a responsibility for the ignorance of the person watching the art? I don't want to have to dumb down my work for the people who won't get it.  I want to put it out there and the people who get it, get it."

I encourage you to watch Marc Lamont Hill's interviews of Michael Moore in their entirety. They're posted in 4-6 minute increments with a short commercial in-between. Don't miss the part where Michael Moore calls out the workplace sexism in the CIA. Fantastic.

The Petraeus Scandal

Never ceases to amaze me how stupid powerful men can be. I just can't ignore the coverage of the truly bizarre, oddly compelling Petraeus Affair. Such a perfect case of the truth being stranger than fiction.

Even though this is all arguably about lawful sex between two consenting adults, I'm convinced Petraeus still should have been automatically disqualified as head of the CIA - not for his failure to keep it in his pants though - but for lacking the basic common sense to avoid conducting his affair over Gmail. Holy hell. I get that old guys might not be particularly tech savvy, but come on! Blackmail could have happened. State secrets could have fallen into the wrong hands (insert plot of most recent Bond film here. And since we're on the topic of Bond, I'd like to award Tweet of the Year to @feMOMhist for this one: "Daniel Craig's face looks like a hide.  If a female star had that skin she'd be peeled & lasered until her face looked like a newborn's ass").

As for the "real" Petraeus scandal? I absolutely loved Glenn Greenwald's piece in The Guardian: "FBI's abuse of the surveillance state is the real scandal needing investigation":

So all based on a handful of rather unremarkable emails sent to a woman fortunate enough to have a friend at the FBI, the FBI traced all of [Petraeus paramour Paula] Broadwell's physical locations, learned of all the accounts she uses, ended up reading all of her emails, investigated the identity of her anonymous lover (who turned out to be Petraeus), and then possibly read his emails as well. They dug around in all of this without any evidence of any real crime - at most, they had a case of "cyber-harassment" more benign than what regularly appears in my email inbox and that of countless of other people - and, in large part, without the need for any warrant from a court... 

But, as unwarranted and invasive as this all is, there is some sweet justice in having the stars of America's national security state destroyed by the very surveillance system which they implemented and over which they preside. As Trevor Timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation put it this morning: "Who knew the key to stopping the Surveillance State was to just wait until it got so big that it ate itself?"

Exactly. Though the most recent brouhaha this week suggests that Broadwell's emails were overtly threatening of Kelley's life... who (besides that jokey, shirtless FBI agent) really knows anyway?

Two other aspects of this scandal are pushing some buttons for me.

First, seeing pictures of Mrs. Holly Petraeus just breaks my heart a little bit. Maybe it's her vulnerability as an older, cheated upon, career-less wife that I'm feeling. I just hate how folks are taking this opportunity to critique her appearance, which, to my eyes, frankly, she appears dignified, refreshingly surgically un-altered, and perfectly age-appropriate. I find the obvious victim-blaming and ageism damn depressing. Nice reminder that women are too often valued only for their sexual attractiveness to men.

Secondly, it disturbed me to see this creepy picture of Ms. Broadwell, presumably taken by the paparazzi from outside, clearly showing her inside the private home of her brother. The obvious invasion of privacy is totally jarring.

Your thoughts?

Waiting for Election Results

I just want to say that I cannot wait until we're older and someday the election results are instantaneous.

That, and it is so strange how FoxNews of all places has reported Obama ahead for over the last hour, while CNN of all places has had Romney ahead.

At this point, I don't see how Romney can win Florida, and so goes the election.

That is all.

Mitt Romney's "Binders Full of Women"

Last night's Town Hall Debate was Romney's to lose. And he totally blew it. (Happy dance). One key difference between this debate post mortem and the prior two - liberals can admit it when their guy loses. Conservatives still won't admit that Ryan lost the VP debate, and that Romney lost this one.

I loved that Obama finally brought his A-game. One of the most privotal moments, probably of Obama's whole presidency actually, was when he called Romney's accusations that Obama has been politicizing Libya "offensive." It must have been horribly galling to our President to be chastised by the right for an absurd, imagined non-offense in the context of such an amazing foreign policy victory. It was a powerful moment, one that took me by surprise, reinforcing for me something about Obama that I suspect many of us feel, even despite all of our complaints. That is, that Obama is a decent man, and a thoughtful, patient, intellectual, practical, principled, careful decision-maker who, when all is said and done, trusts the people on their own to understand and to unpack what he's accomplished, without feeling the need to fly a crass "mission accomplished" banner. He quietly gets results, and he reminds me every time I see him speak that real character does count.

The best question of the night was - what will you do to bring about pay equity in the American workplace?

Romney's answer that he hired women for his Massachusetts cabinet was just plain idiotic. Nice reminder that smart, qualified women aren't a substantial part of the GOP power structure.  (Good fact-checking on Romney's hiring claims today over at FEMINISTE.) What a sad, sad demonstration of the fact that he doesn't understand what tokenism is. What he utterly fails to comprehend is that sexism will not be dismantled by the one-off addition of 14 temporary female State Secretaries of Bunny Rabbits with no real authority and tenure. What we really need is what we've been saying since the 70s: equal pay for equal work for all women, and real anti-employment discrimination laws without statutes of limitations (yes, the Lily Ledbetter Act is a start) - because it can literally take years to discover what we all suspect deep down, we're still not making as much as our male coworkers.

Romney's answer was both offensive and inaccurate. He's been running on his business record at Bain Capital - but he says didn't become aware of "women's issues" until he became Governor. Nobody on his campaign, nobody from his HBS alumni network, nobody from the LDS Church, none of his private equity networking contacts knew any qualified women! But not because none existed, he admits there is a "binder full of women" - but because neither he nor his friends nor his advisors knew any.

Think about that for a minute. To find some women, Romney's men had to go outside their circles because they simply did not know any. They had to turn to "women's groups" where they surmised those types of women must congregate.

Now try substituting "African American" into Romney's statements instead of women, and the insult suddenly becomes crystal clear. Imagine saying "I couldn't find any qualified blacks, so I called up the NAACP."

I could say a lot more about what is So Very Wrong about the way Romney automatically equated mothers women (but not men) in the workplace with a need for "flexibility," so that mothers women (but not men) can get home to their kids and cook some dinner. He's basically saying all women have kids, no real mother can ever put in a 70-80 work week, and therefore being a mother disqualifies any woman from a Romney appointment.

It came off as coming from a place of extreme male privilege - here's a rich man who honestly has never given a thought to any of these real world family issues. Despite having fathered five sons, Romney has clearly never had to concern his pretty little head with any of the actual work and logistics involved. Here he hoped to sell himself as someone who cares about women by imagining the bullet-points of what middle class women must discuss at those corporate work/life balance presentations he's never attended. Yes, this is the drivel that one spews when one honestly don't know or care to know any members of a group.

Obama's answer schooled Romney and his ivory tower ilk as to the realities that women are increasingly the family breadwinners in this country, that female-headed single-parent families remain a significant presence, and that there's still a glass ceiling. I actually teared up when Obama talked about the sexism his grandmother faced at work.

I'm kind of in love with the meme that's going around the internets. The one with the Dos Equis beer ad guy is my current fave. Ah, gotta love those precious gems of political theatre we were treated to last night --

ROMNEY: "Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension? Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?"

OBAMA: "You know I don't look at my pension, it's not as big as yours so it doesn't take as long."

LOL!!! I can't be the only one who was thinking of another word that begins with the letter P during that little exchange.

We haven't had this much fun during a debate season since Al Gore and his lock box, hell, probably since Nixon/Kennedy if you believe our elders.

Your thoughts??

p.s. By the way, Saturday Night Live is knocking it out of the park - if you haven't watched in years, you'd better get on it quick before the election's over.

The First Presidential Debate

WTF, President Obama?

Wow, that was painful to watch.

Please tell me that was deliberate. You deliberately let Massachusetts Mitt win the first debate, right?

Please tell me your super secret strategy was calculated in advance to make the Big Rich GOP donors, who had previously written Mitt off as having no chance of possibly winning the White House, suddenly want to start donating to his campaign again - instead of funding those key GOP Senate and House races.

Mitt Romney's debate performance reminds me of why I hated working in business with people who act just like him - with that shady sales-yness, that bogus 5 minute elevator pitch-speak, that rude Alpha Male bullshit. Ugh.

And Mitt totally lied, and did a complete 180 on his entire position. I think Obama is a decent man, and when Mitt's duplicity completely took him by surprise, it showed.

Where was the press to call him out? I mean these are verifiable, prior public statements people!

Was it the altitude, President Obama? Was it that you'd have rather been wining and dining Michelle on your 20th Anniversary? Did you just need a nap?

I still think (and hope) you'll be re-elected, even though you've let me down on some issues (like pretty much all Democratic presidents who move to the middle to woo the median voter).

When the next debate is in the Town Hall format, we'll get to see Mitt (awkwardly) interact with his dreaded 47%-ers. I hope you'll sock it to him in your classy, unflappable, above-the-fray style. In the meantime, put Bill Clinton on the talk circuit to do some fact-checking.

I know, I know, you're saying "Don't worry, people. I got this."

I know you do.

Don't hate the Mayer, hate the Game, plus the odd Butterly Effect

I've left a lot of comments in a lot of places (most notably here, here, and here) this week about what I'm now utterly convinced is great news for women everywhere: Marissa Mayer, a 37-year-old pregnant woman, has been named CEO of Yahoo.

As @mom2boy put it so well in my comments section: "Take that glass ceiling." Yes, it really and truly is fantastic news. Full stop.

Of course, the response hasn't been all unicorns and rainbows though. I've learned a lot about certain corners of Corporate America this week, and about what's possible, and about what the costs might be.

At first, I'll admit, I was (and am) disappointed by Mayer's seemingly anti-feminist statements that could have been cribbed from Rush Limbaugh (feminists are "militant" and "have chips on their shoulder"... holy hell, I can't even defend that shizz), but upon further reflection I finally have begun to understand the social meaning of her words within the very specific, boundaried space of American tech culture. Now that I have a better handle on the relevant background assumptions of this culture, I think I can read her statements in their proper context, and see her remarks for the kind of coded language they probably are.

She's a master player of the game, no question. One of the unbreakable rules of this game might be don't you dare undermine the meritocracy myth cherished by the male tech geeks who actually control the system, or else they will fuck you up, apparently even if you're their boss. In 2012, it seems there is still no magical pinnacle you can ever reach in a large American tech career where it is safe to let your feminist flag fly if you wanted to. Can this really be so?

If true, what a sobering reality. And one I am, alas, in no position to refute. I simply note that if you take Mayer's words at face value, it's easy to conclude one can really get ahead by vocally distancing oneself from feminism. What Mayer actually believes in her heart is an open and probably irrelevant question. This all reminds me a bit too much of the progressive community's response to the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. He also played the game extremely well. [Insert disclaimer here: not all members of underprivileged groups must vocally and at all times support the liberation movements for those same groups. Duh.]

Against this backdrop I say: Don't hate the player, hate the game. The game sucks. And by game I, of course, mean patriarchy. Don't hate on Mayer for making it despite the odds being stacked against her. Be happy for her. Be happy for the hope her promotion to the CEO title gives to women, that yes, it is possible. It may not be terribly likely if you're an outspoken feminist who won't hide your true feelings at work, but nevertheless it is possible, and she proved it.

There's one other aspect raised by all of this that's been on my mind this week. There's this false and troubling Butterfly Effect-esque idea out there that whenever a woman becomes a mother, her work choices can start messing things up for all of these other people - many of whom she is not even related to, nor has ever met before.

Walk this through with me and tell me if I'm wrong.

Odd Butterfly Effect argument, Example #1 - If a mother stays home, and lets her husband be the family breadwinner, according to believers of the Butterfly Effect-esque idea, she's messing things up for his natural competitors at work by giving him unfair time and resource advantages against them. If he's somebody's boss, it's constructed as her choice to stay home that's responsible for making him choose to penalize those of his employees who would rather not work long hours and to favor those employees who do work the longer hours. The fact that he's an asshole is not assigned any responsibility. (My, what power this mother has.)

Odd Butterfly Effect argument, Example #2 - If a mother works outside the home in a corporate setting, she's got to return from maternity leave at the socially correct time, instead of the time that might feel right for her personally, or else - Butterfly Effect! Other parents she doesn't even work with are going to be harmed! Her choice to resume work before using all of her paid time is constructed as undermining the work/life balance opportunities for other people, even those of people who work at some other random company. Which brings us to Mayer's situation.

Mayer says she plans to take a 2-week-long maternity leave, which has some folks concerned because they feel it's too short. (Ironically, two weeks is still far longer than the vast majority of working mothers in America can hope to enjoy.) The most common iterations of this reaction are "she's a clueless first time mom who is just fooling herself" or "she's acting too 'macho' if she honestly thinks she can pull it off" (see the original Anne-Marie Slaughter fallacy: "Because I wouldn't do it therefore no one can"). I actually believe this is still yet more coded language from Mayer - the CEO of a public company would rather not see her company's stock go right into the shitter because she was foolish enough to make an in-stone proclamation 3 months in advance when she can, of course, change her mind if her postpartum reality differs from her initial estimate. Also, I haven't heard anyone mention this possibility yet, but often the full leave benefits only accrue after working at company for at least a year - I'm even talking about professional jobs where 12 weeks might be the norm, you still might not be guaranteed to get it if you've only been working there for a few months.

Does a choice that, by the way, Mayer hasn't even technically made yet, really and truly harm any other employees? Inside or outside of Yahoo? I don't necessarily think so, given that the real harm is being done by the people who are in the actual positions to say yes or no to a leave request, as well as those who have been running the places with the policies that have sucked for so long. Possibly I'm wrong though. Many who are critical of Mayer's two week maternity leave announcement are citing the supposed Zoe Cruz precedent (who didn't take the full time off herself then was apparently hostile to folks at Morgan Stanley who wanted flex time).

Can't we at least wait until Mayer's leave is over before we assess what the verdict is for folks at Yahoo? In the meantime, let's blame the actual people in charge for the issues that continue to plague us elsewhere. You know what kids say - "You're not the boss of me!" Blame the actual boss of you. That said, I get it though - Mayer is an easy scapegoat; she's been all over the news lately, so she's a convenient person to blame for the fact that the corporate game too often just plain sucks. Hate the game, not the player. Hate the game, learn to play it better. Or stop playing (full disclosure: that's what I did). Or start your own game (also what I did).

That's all I've got. Sock it to me now.

Elizabeth Warren: I believe you

I've been following the Elizabeth Warren brouhaha and now that I've finally collected my thoughts, it's time to blog about it.

Long controversy short: Warren is a biracial and phenotypically White woman who is running for the Senate. She is also a tenured Harvard Law professor who became famous in recent years for her role as a kickass consumer rights advocate with the Obama Administration. In the 90s, she once elected to self-identify as an American Indian while applying for a faculty job at HLS. Based upon her family oral history while growing up in Oklahoma, she self-identifies as 1/32nd Cherokee Indian, which incidentally happens to be the same blood quantum as that of Bill John Baker, the current head of the Cherokee Nation.

Now that she's in Politics, the Identity Police are gunning for her because she apparently looks too White to be a "real" Indian. Folks in respectable publications are saying she has "claimed in error to be a member of a minority group." People are accusing Warren of having benefited from being a minority on paper without having to suffer any of the burdens in her real life - an argument I understand but absolutely do not agree with.

Here are my thoughts: Elizabeth, I believe you.

1. This debate would be non-existent if Warren did not look White, but instead "looked Indian" or at least "looked like a minority" (apart from having high cheekbones) according to our larger society (i.e. more like the Cleveland Indians' racist mascot?)

2. I see nothing wrong with Elizabeth Warren saying she's an American Indian. Or not. Or with her choice to self-identify differently in different contexts. One need not be an enrolled member of a federally-recognized tribe, nor meet the supposed "Indian" looks criteria of Central Casting to be able to legitimately identify as a "real" American Indian. There are plenty of "real" Indians who have been kicked out of their tribes, not to mention the sad history of forced assimilations. And yes, folks can pass for White and still be Indians. Period. End of story.

3. It may be there are folks out there who "check the box" for whom active racial discrimination is not their lived reality. This does not mean that affirmative action serves no purpose, or is not working, it merely means it is imperfect tool. But so far no one has a better, more cost-effective tool for dismantling White supremacy (short of ending Legacy preferences in higher ed admissions, but I digress).

4. We all get to choose how we racially self-identify. If we throw Warren under the bus, we'll have to ask ourselves: Are we prepared to start telling people when they may or may not identify as a member of a racial group? Do we really want to go back to the One Drop Rule?

5. The suggestion that Warren was either lying or unethical when she self-identified as American Indian because she supposedly has not suffered the prejudice common to the group suggests an exercise in Identity Policing I am not at all comfortable with.

6. What's next - make everyone submit to genealogical DNA testing a la Henry Louis Gates's delightful TV program? My own test results would be a mix of Caucasian, Asian, and American Indian. I look like a less attractive Mariah Carey - Whites generally think I'm Caucasian, sometimes Asians see me as Asian. My kids can claim membership in all those racial groups plus Latino. I don't want anyone but them choosing how they themselves get to self-identify.

That's all.

Your thoughts?

Dear Arizona, You suck.

Oh Arizona, are you fucking kidding me with this? After we've already been through the first 8 circles of hell with all of this nonsense, thanks to your elected officials? Not to mention the fact that one of them could have been our current president.

By late July, within your state borders, life officially begins on the last day of a woman's menstrual period. As in over a week before sperm meets egg. As in even before some subset of future parents will have met each another. As in a virgin could be pregnant.

I need a drink.

Somebody please tell me why crazy ass legislation like this is not front page news, but the current national parenting non-versation Just. Won't. Go. Away. No, actually, don't. Just pass me that drink please.

Wear Blue This Saturday

TRIGGER WARNING: CHILD ABUSE, RAPE

The Board of Trustees of Penn State has fired head football coach Joe Paterno. Having read the grand jury report (and by the way, I suggest you don't - it is truly horrific) it was the least they could do. Paterno knew, and he did nothing.

Here's how some members of the student body responded:

"Demonstrators tore down two lamp posts, one falling into a crowd. They also threw rocks and fireworks at the police, who responded with pepper spray. The crowd undulated like an accordion, with the students crowding the police and the officers pushing them back. “We got rowdy, and we got maced,” Jeff Heim, 19, said rubbing his red, teary eyes. “But make no mistake, the board started this riot by firing our coach. They tarnished a legend.”

When I read accounts like the above, it makes me want to cry. What the fuck is wrong with our culture?

How is it that so many people can know that children are being abused, but not one of them can pick up the phone and dial 911 to report the crime?

As a parent, I am grappling with how to process this. My son will probably play baseball, though a small part of me hopes he does not. He'll encounter this fucked up male sports culture bullshit someday. Even if he chooses not to play - it's in the American culture.

I know I'm not sounding terribly articulate here. This is really bothering me, and I don't really have the words.

A therapist I respect has said that after about age 5, too many boys stop getting physical affection from their parents. As if at some point their parents deem them too big to hug and kiss. I've seen it all around me. Sometimes boys look to athletics and their coaches to fill this need for affection and physical contact and belonging in a group. This is also the point where predators know boys are particularly vulnerable.

I need to go hug my children now.

Wear blue on Saturday - the color of child abuse awareness.

Remember when "birther" used to mean something else?

In 2007, when I was pregnant with DS, I remember coming across the word "birther" for the first time. The basic meaning at the time was "a well-to-do, urban parent" and it was used in the counterculture to rail against people who lived, conspicuously, with children in a gentrifying urban American setting, and did obnoxious things like takeover an entire city sidewalk with a ginormous $700 Danish stroller, while yelling at everyone else to get out of their way. (While I've been guilty of many things, that's one offense nobody has ever accused me of. Kid never liked the stroller. And I'm too cheap to spend more than $50 on one.)

The old meaning of "birther" has now been completely overshadowed and lost (which in theory isn't such a bad thing, now I hear they call them "breeders,") and "birther" means something entirely different today. See here for a synopsis of right-wing birtherism directed at President Obama. There are also some birther conspiracy theories of a different stripe directed at former VP candidate/former Alaka governor Sarah Palin, surrounding the circumstances of her 5th child's birth, outlined and debunked here.

And I ask you: what is wrong with people?

Seriously.

My take on it? Life is too much like junior high. Back in junior high, there were a lot of silly rumors that went around about other kids, about certain members of boy bands getting their stomachs pumped, about certain celebrities and their penchant for gerbils, etc. Somehow these stories started taking on lives of their own. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now.

Anyone got any good explanations?

"Partisanship is the new Racism" ??

As quoted in the February 4, 2011 issue of "The Week" Magazine:

"Partisanship is the new racism. We love to criticize it, and we love to claim we've transcended it. We recognize it in our enemies but not in ourselves. When partisanship is seen as a form of social identity -- I'm a Democrat because people like me are Democrats, or I'm a Republican because people like me are Republicans -- we can understand why so many blue-collar Kansans are Republicans and why so many Silicon Valley billionaires are Democrats, even though each group's rational interests might be better served by the other party. Any liberal who supported George W. Bush's adventure in Iraq would have been ostracized by his friends. A conservative who feels Barack Obama is a cool president will be made to feel like a traitor at church."

-- Shankar Vendantam in Slate.com (read the full piece here.)

Two and a half years ago, we moved from a Big Blue City in a Red State, to a Small Red Town in a Blue State. DH and I bizarrely, and without much discussion, agree on nearly everything when it comes to politics. So much so, that we never really ever need to actually talk about it. We just send each other quotes and articles like the above, and nothing needs to be said because we are so much on the same page.

Sometimes I even forget that there really are people out here in Podunkville and elsewhere in the world who have Strong Opinions on Such Matters. And even an unfortunate few who need everyone else to agree with them... or else! I'd really like to think I'm not one of those people. I have friends of all political and apolitical stripes. My mom is a Democrat and my dad is a an ex-GOP-er, now Tea Partier, so I think, in a way, being raised without a single, dominant political viewpoint in my family-of-origin has made me relatively flexible in my political thinking.

I don't think any party has a monopoly on good ideas, and I tend not to be very One True Way about much anything. Except for Etiquette, that is. You wouldn't know it by all of the swearing I do, but I was raised with a few pretty hard-core rules of manners that to this day I find myself really believing in. Hand-written thank-you notes. Respect for elders: It's always Mr. or Ms. So-and-so. Ma'am and Sir. May I, Please, Excuse Me, and Thank you. Generally, it isn't proper to discuss sex, politics, or religion... (unless you have felt someone out thoroughly and know them very well... and/or perhaps live somewhere like DC or work in politics where it is a cultural norm).

One of the reasons I knew I had to leave El Shitty Book Club o' 23 Podunk Princesses was the time when the organizer affectionately quoted one of the other members who was missing that night, as having said about some other woman they knew: "Then M said 'She seems nice, but I'm really afraid she's a Democrat!!'" Everyone laughed. And no one except me even blinked an eye. And I wondered if I would pass this person's simple enough litmus test. I don't fit neatly into any of the usual categories. But then I thought about her overall demonstrated level of comprehension of some of the current political issues today, and realized that there were certain words I probably shouldn't use because she might not fully grasp their meaning, and I thought to myself, eh, fuck it. It isn't my job. I live in a small town now, just stay below the fray. Glad I took my own advice on that one.

Anyway, back to the quote at hand - when I first read it, part of me thought, um, actually isn't Racism still the same old Racism? We're just a lot more coded and careful about expressing it these days, but it's obviously still there. One of the comments to the original article suggested that Vendantam's analogy should have been to bigotry instead of racism, and I tend to agree.

Your thoughts?

Median Voter Theory

Democrats, Health Care Reform, And The Center | The New Republic

The above link is to a really interesting piece critiquing "median voter theory" vis-a-vis health care reform. One of the best comments was by @blackton: "I hope the Democrats label [the next bill attempting to get a public option] the "No abortion on demand Public option," since the Hyde amendment would prohibit it anyway it will be the truth, and let the Republicans stand up and be forced to vote no for it."

That would be genius.

Then they should repeal the Hyde Amendment. The fact that it is good law today is so effed up I can't even fully express it.

Historic Vote

The House votes on health care reform today. I can hardly believe the day has finally come. Maybe that's why I am awake before 6 am on a Sunday. It is a rare thing that I wake up before my kids.

On these issues, I am 100% for everything the liberals want to do. In fact, I'm even for many of the things the liberals never said they wanted to do, but Fox News warned us they wanted to do. I don't think the current bill goes far enough to reign in the powerful insurance industry. Call me a Socialist.

I have an ethical problem with the existence of for-profit health insurance companies. They incentivize ripping people off and sending sick people to an early grave, all because it benefits the bottom line.

For those of you who get HBO, (and I don't mean 'human body odor' heh heh... I kill me) and feel like I do, I recommended watching this past Friday night's episode of "Real Time With Bill Maher." It has nice Gavin Newsom eye candy to boot. Note: the non-sleep habits of my kids make it so I have to tivo all of the tv I watch, and don't always get to it before the tivo runs out of room and starts deleting shit. But the gods were on my side on Friday night, when the kids actually fell asleep around 8pm, so DH and I got to watch Bill Maher together. First and last time that will ever happen!

In other political news, have any of you read "Game Change"? I hear it rips Elizabeth Edwards a new one for being abusive to campaign staff. She can't catch a break at all, can she?

Oh, by the way, I totally won't be offended if you disagree with me. Some people don't think Gavin Newsom is very attractive. Everyone here is entitled to their incorrect opinions, I promise!