A Foo Fighter in the White House?
I want to present a different kind of change, though. I want to change change. If you continue to change change then it truly becomes change whether it’s technology, society, the economy, or the spreading of democracy. I want to be the president that takes change and changes it over and over again.
How about presidental pardons?
Well, Foxy Brown has been in the clink for a while now. I know she has a temper, but come on! And what about Boy George? Is he still doing community service?
On Dennis Kucinich's wife:
In my America—the America that I can help create—somebody who looks like Angie Everhart can date or marry a politician who looks like Tattoo without a second thought.
A good role model for girls?
Natalie Portman. She’s obviously an incredibly gifted actor, a beautiful woman who decided to focus on her mind rather than the superficial world of pop culture. I hope that my daughter does the same thing because I know that a lot of girls—young girls—have this new idea of celebrity that’s been presented to them by people like Paris Hilton or Britney.
I'm sold. Bring on the Grohl Administration.
The first time I've heard suggested that you can pick a presidential candidate based on his or her chosen typeface. Maybe there's something to it - my favorite font is my previously approved candidate. (And yes, the candidate is in that shortlist, which may come as a surprise to those even somewhat familiar with my radical politics.)
RU Sirius brings open source to politics:
We imagine that this in-group, Open Source, participatory democratic process could be a way in which people who have been more or less on the fringe of American politics can encourage one another to think clearly in terms of actually making policy. It's very easy to stand outside the system and protest or call for some absolutist ideological solution ("Anarchy, dudes!"), but it's more interesting and valuable to try to realistically envision the consequences of policy. We also want to emphasize again the ample potential to keep this playful — to create dynamic virtual worlds (in Second Life, or wherever), games, fanciful as well as serious candidacies, videos and podcasts, songs, etc. Such media can now be created by a large proportion of the general internet public, so why not do it?
Ars Technica provides some more commentary.
Not even a week after my rant about women being too smart for science, another brilliant version of the same argument comes along, via Feministing: women are also apparently too good for politics. Tucker Carlson says, in response to the low numbers of women in politics:
You could make the counter case that most women are so sensible, they don't want to get involved in something as stupid as politics. ...They've got real things to do.
So, just to recap: women are too smart for science, and too sensible for politics. Aren't we lucky we have dumb men around to take care of all the dirty, unpleasant work for us so we can do "real" things. I don't even want to hear the suggested list of pre-approved real activities women are designated to do.
You know what, if you're going to be a narrow-minded misogynist, then be a narrow-minded misogynist. Don't try to sugar-coat your offensive opinions in a layer of "women are just too good to do what I do" bullshit. At the very least, we can then respect your honesty.
For the record, going back to the original article's statements, we should all be embarrassed at the low numbers of women in American politics, if for no other reason than that the majority of the rest of the world is totally kicking our asses in that department. I'll say it again - instead of passive-agressively rationalizing why the imbalance exists, let's focus on taking positive steps to eliminate it, okay?
The never-boring Kinky Friedman chats with Truthdig. Weed out the humor and the crazy and find some very good ideas in there, especially about voting reform.
Might I suggest you start your morning with Stephen Colbert's guest column via Maureen Dowd's column in the NY Times?
Reason magazine's blog recently posted an item about gender reassignment not being accepted by the IRS as legitmate medical expenses, which also led them to link to selections from contributing editor Deirdre McClosky 's 1999's memoir about her life and her own reassignment. It's an interesting account, and points out the double standard to which those seeking reassignment were often subjected:
Donald had complained to Blue Cross: "The DSM-IV [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] you rely on calls transsexuality a 'disorder,' and, unusually among such 'disorders,' this one has a cure--surgical, including facial surgery. But then you won't pay for it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's a personal choice, in which case the psychiatrists should butt out, or it's a disorder, in which case medical insurance should pay for the cure."
Priceless. I only wish they could have expanded it.
It's a question that deserves a good parody. I wonder if any of these women have anything to say about it?
So lately there's been some buzz about two political prospectives who each are quickly rising from the bottom of their respective party's pile of presidential contenders: Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. The faithful underdog champions of the internets are all up in arms over the traditional media's neglect (and sometimes outright censorship) of these lesser-known candidates. I've read both some impassioned clamoring on each of their behalves and some just as determined dismissing. At the very least, however, they seem to be two of the most interesting of the whole bunch. Probably because they're willing to gamble with their convictions rather than dance around the issues to the tune of the latest poll results in order to grab the majority vote. After all, when you're already at the bottom, what do you have to lose by being honest?
I have yet to see either one of these men in action, even on television or YouTube, so my judgment of them is based entirely on their stated (via their personal websites) stances. Which reflects both of them in a positive light. If these were the final two choices left to us, I might actually be compelled to seriously consider a main party candidate for the first time in eight years.
Mike Gravel comes out a bit ahead in my estimation. The democratic points I tend to take issue with the most - gun control, federalized health care - he takes a reasonable approach to, even offers reasonable solutions to, and the rest of his key platform planks I either suit me fine, or I feel I could deal with them with a minimum of fuss. Someone in his camp knows how to hire website designers, too. The campaign may be hurting for funds, but it still found a way to maintain a pretty, well-organized website. I bet that's demographic no one's tapped yet - the crowd who will vote for whomever seems to respect their web designers the most.
Ron Paul I have a great deal of respect for, but less genuine appreciation. He is being touted as essentially a libertarian up for the Republican nomination, and for all intents and purposes, that's true. He has all the right fiscal moves, and a strong anti-war stance. He also has a longtime reputation for not compromising his ideals on personal and private liberty. The biggest stumbling block for me? His strict anti-immigration policy. I dislike that in the first place, and also happen to think that offering a border wall as a viable solution is particularly lame.
I suppose historically people generally chose the recipient of their votes based upon the information they gained from the written word, rather than sight and sound. But the media-savvy, information age child that I am feels nervous making judgments without seeing what I'm judging. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, but I also suppose that's what YouTube is for.
In the end, though, the entire discussion, at least in my case, is moot. I strongly doubt either one of these men, however much the internet rallies in their causes, will secure their party's nominations. And, as a registered independent, I'm barred from helping to make a decision on either side. So - everyone choose wisely, so that I have a chance to do the same.