13 posts tagged “politics”

How could you better “green” your life? What’s holding you back?
Sponsored by One Million Acts of Green brought to you by Cisco..

I could be green in my life in a few different ways.  One of the main ways I pollute is actually through smoking.  I pollute the cigarette butts into the environment.  Granted, I could do much worse, however I think of the sheer number of butts I've contributed to the environment and it's horrifying.

Luckily, I've set myself to a quite date of May 1.  I find I'm more able to follow through on challenges in Spring, when the weather is nice and my mood tends to be at its best, so it'll be a good time for me to make this goal again.  I've tried quitting unsuccessfully several times now, but I'm really getting my mind into it as opposed to going "ok, no more" as I've done in the past.

Another way I could do it is by walking/biking more.  Winter has been shitty in this respect because, well, it's been a rough winter here in New England and driving, in a lot of ways, has been safer.  I'm lucky enough to have an apartment complex where it's a short walk to most of the things in life I need - a super market (3 actually), drug store (2 of those), any other supplies I would need (staples, AAA, even Starbucks).  I'm going to be making an effort to walk more because it's good for my physically, I need my vitamin D and I can put less toxins into the air that way.  It's just a good thing all around.

I can also shut down my computer at night and make a recycle box for the apartment with returnables (there's no program in my complex for recycling, sadly).

I also may be in the market soon for a more fuel efficient vehicle, which would also help.  Eating less fast food (a huge contributor to land fills) is also in order.

The changes I'm making in my life for some selfish reasons are really going to have a huge positive effect on the environment.

One thing at a time, right?

So, I decided to plunge headlong back into blogging I guess.  It's time for some politics! woo!

Rick Warren. He's certainly a clusterfuck in the last couple news cycles since the announcement of his being the invocateur at Obama's inauguration.  I have a few different thoughts which, really, move in a progression.

At first, I was pretty annoyed.  I mean, I say that in hindsight, but at the time I was pretty pissed.  I mean, this man supported Proposition 8 and was part of the political hate machine that spread lies about gay people and how they're "detrimental" to the traditional order of society and how letting the gays marry will somehow bring down the whole fabric of society through some pink taffeta, gliterfest orgy of sin.  We'll convert your kids! (speaking of which, anyone need a good conversion?  My numbers are WAY down this year and I need a boost if I'm going to keep my membership card.)

I saw it as a slap in the face because Obama ran on a platform of nationally very LGBT friendly policy speech -- promoting civil unions and domestic partnerships (while simultaneously saying it was a state's issue).  He pandered directly to the gay community in his campaigning by always including us in his speeches on how to bring America together.  And then he brings on this person who, completely openly, compares gay marriage to polygamy, pedophilia and incest.  I see the argument he was trying to make, but on the other hand, it's completely unfounded and wrong of him to phrase his argument in such a divisive way.

And, to be fair, he is completely opposed to gay marriage.  He is not however opposed to all gay rights.  He's actually made significant strides within the Evangelical community to bring more tolerance and acceptance to gay people.  He's stated he's in favor of civil unions, domestic partnerships and an end to the second class citizenship of LGBT Americans.  He's keenly aware of the AIDS crisis both at home and in Africa and is also aware of the link between discrimination and poverty.

For all of this, I think he's actually a pretty good choice.  Symbollically, but starting with Warren, it shows the shifting of the American psyche away from identity politics and into a mind set of personal freedoms.  My generation is more about being able to do what makes you happy so long as it harms no one else than the anti-progressive generation which preceeded us (who were afraid of the Hippies and their counterparts in the Me Generation).  While Warren is an Evangelical pastor, he's not necessarily a poor choice when looked at his stances on issues.

He's also a really great Christian in a big sense (gay hate speech notwithstanding).  He donates more than 3/4 of his salary to charity to improve the lot of people all over the world.  He runs a mega-church with thousands of parishoners and could have very deep pockets (or, rather, much deeper than the ones he already has), but chooses not to.  I think if it weren't for that one sentence in Leviticus ("...for Man to lie with Man is an abomination"), I think he'd actually be far more progressive than he is currently.

Looking beyond that, though, I think putting him first is symbollic of a changing of the guards.  He represents an Evengelically dogmatic past to the last 30 years of politics (almost -- Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush Bush in sequential order) and into the progressive spirit of now.  And, I wouldn't even call it altogether progressive so much as unified.  It's a showing of the education to look beyond race, religion and other divisive factors and see each other as people within the same human context.  We're especially reacting to how that divide that's, by all accounts, exaggerated has really ruined any idealized "melting pot" we think we are.  We're seeing through our own abilities to see beyond our differences to see that we do all have the same common culture as Americans, Westeners really, and really feel how our subtle differences enhances our valued individuality without stealing from the inherent cultural values which bind us all. But, I could be looking at this from a Rose-stained glass perspective.

I'm not going to say I applaud Obama for choosing Warren.  Honestly, I would have rather seen him pick a Civil Rights Era minister from the protests give the sermon, as I think it would be the powerful symbology he seeks to find in his choices and timbre.  He may not have a personal ancestral tie to the ancestry, being the son of a Kenyan national, but his symbology as an African American president should not be under appreciated.

Lest we forget Obama himself is an Evangelical Christian with Progressive ideals, multi-ethnic heritage and varied experience.  I think Obama, whether consciously or not, is pulling the different facets of himself out for this inauguration.

While I'm not as pleased as I could be at the appointment, I'm not going to have an inflamed reaction like many to this.  I'm still waning onto a wait and see.

I've been restraining myself writing about Proposition 8 and the other amendments that passed in other states on Tuesday.  I've been restraining myself because I wanted to bask in the glow of getting a candidate I liked elected at the head position since I've been able to vote.

I feel like now I can finally write about it since I have some distance and thought, as well as because I have some differing views from probably most of the gay community.

I'm disappointed that Prop 8, Amendment 2 (Florida) and the Arizona amendment passed.  Extremely disappointed, but not surprised.

Marriage equality, as the movement's been termed, is a very contentious issue.  With a strong religious following in the US, there's bound to be contention because homosexuality is not accepted in a lot of the religions that are practiced here.  Voters in those states voted in line with their moral values, not even thinking about what it means to those other people who aren't striving to change their religious views -- the government can't really do that anyway -- but just want to have the state be able to recognize their personal relationships as something more than just being roommates who screw.

I definitely support marriage equality because, I believe, that all people should be able to enter into that type of contract no matter what kind or sort of adult, consensual couple they are.  Why can't the state be gender blind?  No one is forcing religious groups to marry anyone outside of their personal doctrine or creed.

However, I think there are bigger fish to fry as to whether Ellen and Portia can get married.  I don't think this issue is as important as things like the continued prevalence of HIV in younger gay Americans or anti-gay hate crimes in the United States.

Over the last 5 years, homophobically driven hate crimes have become the number one type of hate crime committed in the US, out pacing race-based hate crimes.  In some places in the States it is literally unsafe to be an out gay person and not risk your own personal safety. I think this problem is far more important and insipid than the marriage issue.  We need to make sure we have open and supportive communities everywhere before we can impose (as they feel) a massive change in the way society views marriage.  We need to make sure that being gay is "normal" (used from the skepticism of it not being normal) before we can insure that the rights "normal" people have are granted to us.

I feel as if the failures of marriage have come because the movement is too far ahead in its own thinking.  Yes, we have Massachusetts and New Jersey.  Yes, the marriages are recognized in New York and many other states, that's awesome.  But that doesn't mean that the culture that breeds these types of triumphs is the culture that lives everywhere.  California, Florida and Arizona have proven that we need to do more to change the culture and to increase understanding that being gay is not made, a choice or fixable.  It's not something you are and then you can give up whenever you feel like it.  It's something within you that's just as normal and natural as the urge to walk, talk or eat.  It's just something that's a part of you in as inexplicable a way as the make up of your personality.

This is evident by Arkansas's passage of Initiative 2 on adoption law.  The citizens of Arkansas passed a law which bans all single people from adopting children within the state.  This law was designed to ban all gay people from adopting children, which it does.  What is also does is prevents anyone who is not married, gay or straight, from adopting any child.  This blind ignorance to the wide scope of adoption problems this brings up is a result of the marriage-based political Gay Panic that's sinking in in the more conservative parts of the country.  The Right Wing is petrified that all the work they've brought into the country as a result of their dominance in American politics is coming to an end, so their using what many see as their remaining (yet substantial) power to get as much done before the, clearly, more liberal generation which follows goes in and trounces their hate-machine.

From a right here, right now perspective, this is a huge loss to any gay American.  The passage of Proposition 8 has me torn as to whether I actually want to stay in the States at all.  I feel like change is on the way, but don't know if I really have it in me to stick it out when, so close to me, there is a country which has been accepting gay people as full citizens in respect to marriage and other rights.  I'm really at a personal impasse.

However, in the longer term perspective, having a specific law, a specific amendment or a specific ANYTHING to fight only strengthens the movement in the long run.  If you have physical law text to point at and not just intepretation of existing statutes, it builds a more solid argument for their being overturned at a later date.  When you can point at Prop 8, 2 or Initiative 2 and say "this law here is discriminatory" it creates a solid argument from which to build in a court case or before Congress and can force change -- just as it had during the Civil Rights movement.  Pointing at the more air apparent second class treatment of African-Americans and the existence of Jim Crowe Laws was key in turning over those laws and customs with the CRA and other laws passed during the Johnson Administration.

I would like to point out that the Gay Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Movement are analagous and often parallel, but not the same.  We can look to the lessons of the Civil Rights Movement and apply them, but I would not say that they are the same in many ways.  I'm just drawing from lessons of the past with things that are similar.

With all of this being said, my tl;dr is this: it sucks now, but gives us more to work with later.  We'll see how it all plays out in California with three separate entities suing the state over Prop 8's passage.

So, I know I went on and on before about how much I hate Sarah Palin.  And, in a political sense, I do.  I don't support anything she supports as a politician and what she would do in a position of mass influencing power does genuinely frighten me.

However, and this is a big however, I feel bad for her right now.

Her party, which has embraced her with open arms not so long ago, is now trying to derail her entire political career through back-stabbing.  It's got to feel shitty to know that the people who you were just working with are now out on a war path to try to take you down.

I think she's actually handling herself pretty well through it all.  She's more of herself which is someone who I wouldn't mind living next door to, or talking to in a bar.  I can see where her appeal had laid and I think that she is a genuinely good and nice person -- even if I consider her views misguided.

The sniping and all of that bullshit (and it is bullshit) really doesn't do anything to help anyone and I think will propel her to stay in the national spotlight for even longer -- something the snipers are hoping doesn't happen.  I kind of want to see where this plays out because she could become Senator Palin if the troubles in Alaska with the incumbent (and possibly winning) senator is removed from the Senate for the investigations which have happened there.

I definitely think there's more on the horizon for her and I think she could really shape the way politics are played because she represents the core of the American experience in a sort of foil to Obama.  Palin's from a middle class white family from the west and she's risen into national prominence.  There's an appeal there which isn't something to be ignored.  I think with the couple years she has to polish her image and get more briefed on issues (which I find the fault of the McCain campaign) she could become a powerful politician and lobbyist. She's got the gumption and the adherance to a set of ideals which, albeit frightening, is really something the Republican party would need to rebuild.

I find her curious and I'd like to see more of her.  I also want to send her an e-mail or something telling her that I think she's a great woman and I sympathize with the way she's currently being treated.

Still in shock about last night.  So many tears.  I feel like this is very meaningful.  It's the start of something bigger than just one man.

Obama

YES WE CAN.

More on the election later.  I'm too much in shock and emotion to really write about it.

I took the day off to get myself together about the chaos of my life right now.  Emily's coming up in a week; I've got a filling on Friday morning and now I have Wisdom Teeth extraction surgery set to happen on the 16th.  I've been kind of freaking out since I mentally put everything in place and needed to take the time so I wouldn't be a spazmoid in the office.

HOWEVER, this has given me the opportunity to really put some thought into politics as well.  I try to keep a bit apolitical in here -- though it does seep out from time to time.  I do this mostly because I can be pretty radical in some of my beliefs and I would really rather just keep these things to myself most of the time.  Radically Progressive is what I mean, before jaws drop and everything goes hay-wire and I'm on a watch list or something.

So, I'm watching these clips of Sarah Palin who, if you don't know, is running as the VP choice for John "WALNUTS!" McCain.  I had read through her core guiding beliefs when she was first selected as VP however many weeks ago and I knew that she was ultra conservative and all that stuff.  I also knew that she pretty much is the opposite opinion of everything I believe.  I have tremendous respect for her, don't get me wrong.  It's difficult to be a conservative woman because just the idea of you being in politics is somewhat against your own political agenda.

The things I'm going to talk about, I'm going to provide links to.  Now, I read a gay blog every day called Towleroad which is where the links will all be going to.  So, if your workplace is all crazy about hatin' on the gays, then you'll want to exercise caution, however the site itself and these links in particular are very safe for work.

The first one is her talking about homosexuality. I think it's a good place to start because, as a gay man, it's an issue that's very close to my heart. (http://www.towleroad.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-hom.html  [little video on right; full interview below]) She says that she believes being gay is a choice.  I have to say that, by and large, this is a fallacy.

Yes, there are some rare examples of people who chose to be gay because of bad experiences -- those very same people who could be "saved".  The majority of us, though, have absolutely no control over this facet of our lives.  I don't care particularly how it happens, but I know that I would never one day just choose to become something that would limit my rights, limit my ability to be who I am and, in some places, put me in danger to be killed.  Why would I choose that?  Why would I choose to just be outside the norm and endanger myself willingly?  It makes no sense.

The choice about homosexuality is not whether or not you are gay, but whether or not you choose to be open and honest with yourself, your family, your friends and your community.  It's a daunting thing, but the benefits to your life when you decide "you know what, this is who I am."

Sarah Palin is a woman who is completely and utterly opposed to all pregnancy terminations.  This includes risk to the mother, incest and rape.  I am a pro-choice person, very strongly in fact.  When the March for Women's Lives took place in Washington, DC my Freshman (Sophomore?) year of college, I went on the bus with a couple of my friends and protested for the right to choice.  I chanted out my voice for 3 days, yelling over bullhorns because I am very passionate about this issue.

I feel that the question of when life begins, while important to think of intellectually, is not something which should be entirely informing a position in this debate.  It is a strong ethical debate and something which does need to be approached with caution.  I do believe that once the child has reached into the third trimester, the mother should not have the option to terminate since the child may be able to survive on its own outside the womb.  I also believe that a full discussion of options for a questioning, unwilling mother should be given because abortion is not always the best choice for all people.  There is adoption and in some places open adoption where the mother knows the child, but does not raise the child.

Banning all types of abortion puts women more at risk.  Women have and will continue to get abortions even when termination is outlawed.  They will seek options which are not safe and can cause permanent injury, or worse death, all for the sake of terminating their unwanted pregnancy.  The rate for terminations has decreased in this country over the last years and I feel that this is an excellent and heart warming trend.  As with the conservatives, I look forward to the day when all the clinics are closed and all woman have children they want to have.  Forcing women into back alleys and not educating effectively about sexual and reproductive health is not the way to ensure that safety.

Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution.  While macro-evolution can be very much debated (lizards-dinosaurs-birds, for example) because it is very difficult to provide completely free-standing evidence for (structures notwithstanding), evolution on a small scale between generations of a given species is something which has been seen. It's why most people look like a combination of their biological parents, who look like a combination of their biological parents.  That's the gene pool changing and reorganizing which is what evolution, at base, is.  Even if you don't believe it to be as solid of a theory as it is and you believe in absolute creationism (the Intelligent Design Theory), Evolution is just as viable of an option to be taught.  Most Christian scientists, as I understand it, believe that God Intelligently Designed the Universe and then has let it change (this last sentence is completely unsubstantiated, but more an impression mixed with an assumption).

WALNUTS! running mate does not believe global warming as a real, man-made phenomenon.  This is just unacceptable in the face of large amounts of biological, climatological and geological data collected all over the globe on the subject.  It's practically proven by scientific standards at this point. She admits that it exists, but does not believe it's primarily caused by man-made industrial pollutants.

Her answers to the newmedia astonish me in their vapidity.  She doesn't so much answer questions as give a sound bite.  When given the opportunity to answer a question, she makes a face and goes all cute or uses a catch phrase to deflect the question.  She also did this with Charlie Gibson on ABC.  How is anyone supposed to believe someone who can't even answer the question "What news media sources do you get your information from?"can lead the country if McCain -- who looks more and more ill as the campaigning goes on -- dies?  The man is 72 years old and has the old-man sick hobble.  There is a definitely possibility he might die.  If that happens, this woman who came out of a small town to govern a small state with little experience in any policy, let alone foreign policy (sorry, she has International Borders!), is supposed to lead one of the central markets and political centers in the world?  How is this even real?

If anything, keep Palin out of any national office for at least another 4 years.  Obama '08 to stop the nightmare.

I know I've pretty much fallen off of the blogging bandwagon, and I can't say I'm entirely unhappy about it.  Life's been frustrating for various reasons, but I'm pulling through OK.  I just don't feel the pull to put myself out into the world like I used to.  I've come to really value my supreme privacy and I find I'm a lot happier now than I was before -- not that it has anything to do with blogging, just that I'm happier in general.  I've got a much better bent to the world at this juncture in my life.

However, I am blogging for a reason.  I don't know how many of my readers (if there are any of you left, anyway!) have heard of The Amethyst Initiative, but it's caught my attention though probably not for any of the usual reasons.

The quick and dirty version is that a bunch of university presidents at some very prestigious schools have begun signing a petition, essentially, to reopen dialogue on the legal drinking age in the United States, which currently stands at 21 years.

They claim that the substantially high age for drinking in US has led to an increase in binge and problem drinking in America.  They also cite an oft recited observation that an American male can vote, buy cigarettes, porn, and be enlisted in the Army against his will before he can even think about having a legal, celebratory beer.

This charge for a "dispassionate" debate about changing the drinking age, led also by the idea that the Prohibition movement didn't work, should take place.  Nearly equating 19 year old college freshman to the outlaws and gangsters of the '30s in a disrespect of authority born of some sort of oppression.

Naturally, I'm skeptical of their arguments as I'm skeptical of just about everything.  This movement, however, is not without detractors.

MADD (Mothers Against Destructive Decisions) is on the offensive against this movement citing relatively solid socio- and psychological surveys since the laws have changed that drunk driving is down in those 18 to 21 and that overall drink driving fatalities have also fallen, thanks to this higher drinking age.

They're near hawkish screaming about how great it is that 21 is the drinking age also has me skeptical because, to be honest, just because you're not drink driving doesn't mean you're drinking responsibly.

MADD also claims that the university presidents are trying to skert their responsibilities in keeping all students safe by pushing it out of their bounds.  They also claim that they're being caught in the current rhetoric of colleges which is to keep "all students the same".

The university presidents' counter to that is that if you treat adults as adults they will act as such.

I would be remiss if I didn't disclose a bit about my background with this issue.  I went to a "dry" campus for my undergraduate degree.  While there was alcohol a-flowing to be sure, it was all done underground, hoping to not have reprecussions.   I've seen the good a dry campus can have, especially for my own academic career, as well as the harm it can do to foster pre-addictive behaviors by forcing students who wish to drink to do it in a secretive and shameful manner.

I was also a resident assistant at this school and, as such, was charged with enforcing the drinking policy on campus, despite my personal objections to the policy.  It allowed me a perspective on the impact of the drinking age which I think gives me a bit of a platform, as well as a vested interest, into this issue.

What I think is really going on is not a debate about when you should be allowed to legally drink, but really it's a debate about when someone becomes completely responsible for his own actions.

Think about it, at 18 you can do almost anything any other adult can do and yet there are certain things you cannot do -- drink and rent a car.  Car rental is a matter of driving experience.  Drinking is a matter of hawkish drunk driving initiatives by people like MADD.

University presidents do have a point when they say that adults will act as such when treated as such.  When given real responsibilities and real problems, most people will rise to the challenge and not let themselves be let down.  Sure, some will fail, but not everyone can succeed.  It's not a matter of making sure everyone's OK, but people of legal standing to make the choices they want to make with their lives in regards to their legal leisure activities.

As Barney Frank has put it in regards to marijuana legislation before Congress: The Government has no need to regulate what a citizen does in his leisure time.

I tend to agree with him.  So long as it's not destructive to others.  I think the current drinking age is destructive.

By enforcing a culture of shame about drinking, as we've done spectacularly done here in the US, we have the burden of trying to help people who feel ashamed of their behavior constantly.  If an underage drinker has a problem, he's less likely to get help because of stigma, even if just personal.  If someone is fearing for an underage drinker, they are less likely to find help because they don't want their friend to be punished.

However irrational these are, they are the genuine feelings.  In a university environment especially, this is so important.  It actually destroys the feeling of community and destroys a trust in the authorities who want to help the student body (at least, most of the time).

I think this would also be a good time to have MADD reassess the way in which they educate about drinking decisions -- as it is a decision and not a pitfall.  Not everyone who drinks abuses, and not all abusers will abuse all the time.  Abuse can be somewhat prevented with education.

MADD's tactics are similar to PETA and that they use evocative images and strong language to guilt the younger generations into not drinking.  They talk with local school districts to place cars destroyed in drink-driving wrecks in front of high schools on the day of prom and other such scare tactics.  While powerful, they reinforce the culture of shame and hiding which cultivates the very behaviors they're trying to prevent.

I think MADD needs to learn how to educate without fear and shame.  Just as with abstience only sexual education, the approach doesn't work.  Student will have sex just like students will drink -- regardless of what you tell them not to do.  Perhaps an enlightened approach of "if you do, be safe.  Here is how." is in order for the matrons of drink.

I tengented a little, but I think you get my point.

Big changes all in the air around here, though my life on the whole remains the same.

My first big things goes to California.  The SJC in CA ruled today that the state cannot discriminate against same sex couples who wish to be married.  They have issued a 100something page document about their decision which states that they cannot justifiably get rid of the benefits of marriage to the millions of married Californians, nor can they justify discriminating against the  Californians who wish to enter into that contract with their same-sex partner/lover.

This means 2 states with full blown marriage for gay people and about 5 states (CT, VT, NH, NJ, and someone I'm forgetting) with Civil Union options.  Today is a proud day for gay rights and equal treatment.

The other big change is that people are graduating.  Some of you will be moving far away and some of you will be staying close to here, but wherever you land up going, know that I love you and I am always here for you.  I'm not afraid for anything between us and I'm always just a phone call away.

You've all worked hard and been through tough times and great times.  You all deserve this and I really do want to give you all my deepest congratulations.

I'm often amazed at how much the American political system raises itself on being really great at saying nothing -- but in a lot of meaningful sounding words.

I would suppose it's an extension of the American consumerism where we're supposed to know what phrases like "nicely equipped starting at $10,999" means and learning how to "critically think".  We're full of catch phrases and redundancies; we even encounter them in the working world.

I'm not a "Customer Service Represenative" or even something more rudimentary and to the point.  Oh no, I'm an "Information Specialist" where the only information I specialize in is the Attorney General's phone number and writing addresses on envelopes (and identifying scams, but that's a different story entirely).

So, when it filters into American politics, it's really a game of who can say the least in the most amount of space and seem like they're actually saying something worthwhile.  The real candidates who say something (I'm looking at you Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson and the few Republicans who I don't care to watch because I don't like the party) are the ones who're knocked out early.  The ones who know how to say just enough to not tarnish their need for superficial consistency are the ones who win the nomination.

It's much akin to homecoming.  Everyone puts in a ballot: one for king and one for queen.  The popular kids duke it out; maybe some of the other kids start campaigning for them to get voted in.  It's all just a show of who can win over the most people in their popularity pissing contest.  The runner up gets to be "Prince" or "Princess" and paraded around on the same ticket on homecoming day.  After that one football game and school dance, it's all over.  Maybe they'll get drunk together, or maybe they're not even friends, but either way, they're still homecoming king and queen.

I was just watching the Democratic debate.  I only care about the Democrats because I'm so passionate to get a Republican out of office (especially anyone who wants to extend the war on fear, I mean terrorism).  I am always disappointed when I watch Hilary Clinton speak.

I consider myself a feminist and I would love for someone not of the patriarchy to get in office.  I think that shaking things up would be amazing for this country and putting someone of "minority" status would, at least temporarily, shake up and change the thinking of victimization which many people have.  Women can't do this; it's more difficult for me because I'm this race; I got fired because I'm gay.  I personally feel that at this point in the grand scheme of the American landscape, most people are so indifferent to the affairs of other people (a result of Rugged Individualism and Unabashed Egotism) that it doesn't matter what you are -- it only matters what you can do to benefit others.

I said that I consider myself a feminist and then affirmed then denied the patriarchy.  It's not to say I don't think old white men run the country.  They do.  They run, mostly, politics and are disconnected from the greater cultural zeitgeist of our times, which might actually be good.  It insulates us from making laws-as-fads.  The Temperance movement was nearly 100 when the Prohibition Amendment was passed; as it was 100 years post slavery before the Civil Right Amendment.  I think the ERA needs that much time.  It's 100 years of fighting and blood, sweat and tears, but it take government time to react to the state of things.

I'm disappointed when I hear Hilary speak because, I feel, she needs to be a stronger person than she is.  She speaks of her leadership experience in varied fields.  She speaks about how she is the "candidate to make change happen" and all of that, but I feel as if I want someone less polish and more raw.  I want someone who is always a person, and not someone who's going to one day break down and cry like she did in New Hampshire.  I want someone who is real with the people and knows what's it's like to be one of us.  I don't think she conveys that very well.  You can tell me all the stats that you want, but it doesn't mean you understand what that means.  It's very easy to say "I'm sorry" from your Ivory Tower of privilege and try to get something small to give down to the masses.

It's quite another to say "You know what, you ARE poor and you ARE suffering and it IS something I can do something about."  I never got that from either of the Democrats left; I'll be damned if I can get it from a Republican.

As a result, I've really liked Edwards and I'm sad to see him leave the campaign.

I'm not, however, completely sold on Obama.  His speaking style is stronger feeling, but I think it's because he needs to project that he's not only a strong man, but that he's a strong black man (even if his campaign isn't about race).  There's a widely held misconception in this country that black men need always be strong and that it's always in their need to be that masculine guy who's like (and I quote Biggie and P. Diddy here) "I don't wancha to shoot up the place./ why?/ 'cause see some [hunnies?] that should be havin' mah bebe, bebe".  The kind of men who can only be soft when it comes to slow jams and loving women slowly.

I guess I'm looking not for a politician, but for a person.  Someone who is not afraid to leave the ranks and actually be a human being.  Someone who appeals to me on the human level, not on the product-to-market level.

I crave the first candidates of my generation because we care so much but have been so overpowered by our baby boomer parents and/or grandparents that we feel like we've always been somewhat disenfranchised.  We're the first generation to really understand the social implications of the internet and to really use it to mobilize and organize.  We understand that it's stupid to put your personal information online, but putting a picture of your face isn't going to do anything.  We also understand the idea of permanence, though not necessarily seen, as a lesson from the internet (via caching).

I feel like I should care less about who gets the nomination because I'm only going to be voting Democrat anyway.  It doesn't matter who it is because they're better than the Republican by default.

That, I think, is the saddest thing of all.