What’s Your Transportation Plan for Tonight?

As we all get ready for New Year’s Eve, there’s an important question we should all be asking ourselves: “what’s my transportation plan? Is that really feasible?”

A few things to ask yourself and keep in mind:

• Getting a taxi, especially in cities like Vancouver — which is suffering a cab shortage — might be extremely difficult. So have a backup plan.
• Where will you park your car so that it can be safe overnight if you end up having more than you planned to drink?
• Who is your designated driver? What will you do if that person winds up drinking?
• Ladies, do you have something warm to throw on over your cute little clubbing outfit?

Everyone be safe. Don’t drive drunk. Don’t drive with anyone who is drunk. Don’t let your friends drive drunk.

Have Fun.

Happy 2008!

Ron Paul Doesn’t Believe In Evolution

Ron Paul has received a lot of attention on the internet this election season, even though he probably doesn’t even have dial-up. This is due to the tremendous support he has seen by web-savvy libertarians who like his no BS attitude, support of free-markets, and votes against the Iraq War.

However, after seeing Ron Paul explain that he doesn’t believe in EVOLUTION, I wonder if that support will continue. Paul WAS my top choice among Republicans, but if there is one single issue that will make me vote against a candidate, it is a denial of evolution. At this point in time, evolution is backed up by science to pretty the same extent as electricity and magnetism. If you don’t believe in evolution, then I don’t trust you with nuclear warheads. Period.

Do Men Want Women to Play Dumb? Not in My Experience.

In her latest article, Guardian writer Tanya Gold wrote:

Like every single woman, I walk through life asking: what do men want? Why are my beautiful, clever female friends living alone, watching DVDs and eating cupcakes, like a gaggle of rancid Bridget Joneses? Why does the loneliness never end (© Charlotte Bronte 1855)? A month ago, as moonlight splashed across my pillow, I devised an experiment to find the definitive answer. I decided to attend a speed-dating night as a fabulously successful, dazzlingly literate human rights lawyer, and then another as a gibbering idiot who works as a florist. Who would the men fall for?

This sounded suspiciously like Miranda’s experience on Sex and the City when she had a lot of success at a speed dating event by pretending to be a stewardess instead of a corporate lawyer. So I read on to find out whether Gold’s experience was a little closer to the world I know. It wasn’t. Then men loved her as a florist, not so much as a brilliant lawyer. At the end of the article, she writes:

Everything my mother has ever told me about men is true. They didn’t care that the florist couldn’t recognise a chair. They liked it. The feminist revolution didn’t pierce their hearts; it only made it into human resources. If you want to be loved, just scoop out your brain and act like a child. After 40 years of feminism we shouldn’t really burn our bras. We should burn our men. Love may be dissembled but statistics never lie. Reader, let me tell you: men want me - and you - to be lobotomised.

I can tell you one thing, I’ll never attend a speed dating event. It seems like all those men are complete and utter losers. They couldn’t be more different from the guys I know.

The guys I know like music, art, fine wine, literature, politics and science fiction — and they love that I do too. I make no bones about the fact that I’m a feminist, work in computers, speak Klingon and have an obsession with politics. Men find all of this fascinating.

Why was Ms. Gold’s experience was so different from mine? I boil it down to two major points: Read more

Am I a Feminist? That Depends on What “Feminism” Means

Most of the women profiled in Elinor Burkett’s The Right Women are the product of a post-feminist age. They argue that feminism is no longer necessary because women have already achieved legal parity with men. Now, they say, is the time for feminists to stop (a) perpetuating the victimhood of women and (b) purporting to speak for all women.

In short, they argue that feminism is no longer necessary because all the advances that women need to make, we have made. They’re right. There is very little that can be done at the government level to further women’s needs. But I think too often, we confuse government with society. And there is still a lot that a feminist perspective can do for women in our society today.

To me, feminism is the idea that:

• Women are complex, flawed human beings who can contribute to society in a number of ways.
• Women deserve to be paid commensurate with our expertise, experience and talent on a scale equal to that of our male peers.
• Women have an inalienable right to control our reproductivity and we deserve society’s trust and support in making decisions related to it.

This last point is especially important, because it’s the right most directly under attack. Many conservatives argue that to free a woman’s sexuality from the inevitability of childbirth is to divorce a woman from the profound contribution she can make by becoming a mother.

The fundamental problem with this attitude is that it does not trust women to make those decisions for themselves.

Perhaps we can make our own choices and walk our own tightropes without the feminists or the conservatives getting in the middle.

Is the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as Bad as Scoble Says it is?

A bunch of bloggers have taken Robert Scoble to task for not speaking out against S. 1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. The problem is that until they took him to task, Robert wasn’t aware of the legislation.

After looking through information on the subject, Scoble writes that it’s “really horrible stuff.” But is it?

After reading the text of the legislation I understand it to be a call for a commission — much like the one that issued recommendations in the wake of 9-11 — to investigate the issue of homegrown ideology-driven violence in America. Some people are calling it “thought crime” legislation, but the bill does not make it illegal to do anything, it simply appropriates funds and resources for a study group.

The only thing that struck me as odd about the legislation is that it singles out Islam as a particular area of expertise required for committee members. But it is also very careful to mention that neither race nor religion are a factor in the study group’s inquiry. Extremism knows no racial or religious bounds. This group will focus on people who bomb abortion clinics just as much as it will on Islamic militancy.

I’m as skeptical of this administration’s intentions as the next person. But if we cry fascism every time something like this comes up, nobody will listen to us when our government does real fascist things — as I’m sure they’ll continue to do under Christian Nationalist influence.

We have to pick our battles, and unless someone can explain to me why a study group is “thought crime legislation,” I don’t think this is one of them.

Making Sense of Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination

Today’s appalling news of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination was quite a blow. I’ve been following the news on and off all day through my RSS reader, my Twitter Feed and through conversations with friends abroad.

Let’s get one thing straight: Bhutto was no angel. By many accounts, she was one of the most corrupt leaders ever to rule a South Asian nation. In the National Review’s excellent symposium on the topic, Mansoor Ijaz wrote:

She was a terribly conflicted person who deep in her heart wanted to save Pakistan from its evils, but was unable to put her personal lifestyle choices aside in doing so. And she — God Bless her — married the wrong man.

But despite her personal foibles, her renewed role in Pakistan’s leadership would have been a boon to the interests of the United States and our allies. She was openly pro-Westernization. She promised to allow American troops to look for Bin Laden and his cohorts throughout Pakistan and vowed to combat nuclear proliferation.

When it comes down to it, I think Andrew Sullivan has the best analysis:

Al Qaeda is taking responsibility and they have every reason to hate her, but a little skepticism is always in order, when it comes to their pronouncements. The assassin was a suicide bomber, but he shot her first, and shot her in the neck. If you were part of the military or ISI, it would be in your interest to shoot Bhutto to ensure she was killed and then blow yourself up both to associate the murder with Jihadists outside the military and to destroy the evidence.

Until we know more, it seems to me that al Qaeda’s responsibility is actually the more optimistic scenario. If Islamists within the military or ISI did this, then we have the possibility that this is the beginning of something more ominous than the surface event. The collapse of Pakistan into a Jihadist nuclear power is the great nightmare. Here’s hoping that however grim this news, the worst isn’t yet to come.

Here are some other excellent resources and background on the subject:

• Pakinstani bloggers react
• A great pre-assassination rundown of the situation in Pakistan

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

One of the most unstable countries in the world became a lot less stable today, as Benazir Bhutto, the brave female opposition leader who had dedicated her life to the promotion of Democracy and the defeat of Al-Qaeda was assassinated today.

Bhutto was gunned down by a suicide bomber who blew himself up shortly after shooting her, killing 32 others. This was the second attempt on Bhutto’s life since her return to Pakistan. A sad event in the struggle for freedom, democracy, equal rights, and liberty. I can only hope her death inspires Pakistani’s and others in the world to fight for the strong, free, stable, democratic Pakistan that Bhutto worked for and died for.

Civil Unions for All! A Compromise on Gay Marriage?

I have a lot in common with a dear auntie of mine. We share a love of animals, music, good food and the warm sun of Mexico. I even look like her. People have been known to mistake photos of her in her twenties for photos of me.

But one thing we disagree about is gay marriage. I won’t presume to articulate her positions here, but they are based in her Christian faith. My aunt supports civil unions for gays and lesbians, but not marriage.

I respect my aunt’s right to her opinion, and I know that a lot of others share it. They see marriage — which is a fundamental component of our society — as under attack from those who would radically change its definition.

The truth is that we’ve already changed marriage a great deal in the past couple of centuries. It used to be that a father owned his daughter until she was married, at which point she would belong to her husband. Widows had some measure of power, but were often controlled by their sons or other male relatives. Women could not own property or vote.

Nowadays, marriage is viewed by the state as the merging and protection of assets between equal partners in a joint venture. It grants special rights to married couples, including the right to pension benefits, shared health care, and tax benefits.

Some compassionate social conservatives have put forth the idea that gays and lesbians could be given civil unions, a separate but equal institution under the law. Their only qualm is with calling a legal relationship between two men or two women, “marriage.”

The problem with this is that nothing guarantees that separate but equal institutions remain equal. If public opinion were ever to radically shift against gays and lesbians, the civil unions they enjoy could be dissolved, re-tooled, or even turned against them. This is unacceptable to LBGT activists just as using the term “marriage” to describe Adam and Steve — rather than Adam and Eve — is unacceptable to Christian conservatives.

So, since we all share this country, how about some common ground? What if the state got out of the marriage business altogether and gave civil unions to everyone instead? Then churches and religious groups could determine for themselves what kinds of relationships constitute marriages. They could agree to marry only heterosexual couples, or let gays and lesbians be married as well.

In other words, a civil union is a merging and protection of assets between equals. A marriage happens in the eyes of God. Nobody would force any church to marry any couple whose relationship did not meet with the dictates of their beliefs, and everyone would have equal rights under the law.

What do you guys think?

[Many thanks to my good friend Emmett for helping me think this issue through.]

How Things Would Be in My America

I’ve been reading about conservatism — social, fiscal and otherwise — lately. At the moment, I’m working on Elinor Burket’s The Right Women. As I first realized when I read Andrew Sullivan’s The Conservative Soul, I agree with much of what American conservatives have to say:

• The government cannot solve everyone’s problems, nor should it try.
• Families and communities are often the best agents of change for troubled individuals, not the state.
• Equality of opportunity — education, exposure to a powerful work ethic, etc. — is the best way to ensure that our society functions.
• Our values matter in the way we govern our society.

In short, I believe that the role of government is to define the parameters of a successful society. Where it cannot do any good, it should eschew involvement. Where it can alleviate suffering and protect the rights of the individual, it should act. Where it can encourage long-term planning for the good of society and the planet, it is obligated to lead.

Good government balances this complicated and dynamic public trust with the full knowledge that no set of policies will ever create an ideal society. We can only do the best we can with what we are given.

This kind of government has moved tragically out of reach in today’s America because of the deep and acrimonious divisions of our society. We bicker over petty issues like abortion while our president goads us into unilateral preemptive war without a plan to win the peace.

In my America, we would encourage a culture of understanding. We would reach across the liberal-conservative divide to find that we have a great deal in common. We all value pretty much the same things: our families, our livelihoods, our right to self-determination.

My friend Emmett asked me today why I spend so much time studying contemporary American Christian Nationalism — a movement that frightens me deeply — when I already know that I disagree with them. “How much more do you really need to know?” he wondered.

I need to know much, much more. Because we must understand one another’s hopes and dreams if we are ever to end the culture war that is brewing. I’m not talking about Clintonian triangulation here. That is a strategy that wins elections, but it doesn’t bring about real change. Real understanding takes time and hard work. It takes acknowledging that we are all patriots here.

In my America, the most conservative Southern Baptist preacher would work toward economic development and social justice with the most liberal, flaming gay man in America. They would not do this because they agree with one another, but because they are Americans.

Is Hillary Clinton Selling Progressives Upriver?

Hillary Clinton appears to be following in her husband’s footsteps by triangulating the most centrist position on every issue. Most Americans think this means she’ll say anything to win, even if the position is far to the right of what she actually believes.

What do you think, is Hillary selling out her progressive base to get ahead with mainstream America?
Read more

Christmas In Iraq

I saw a really great music video dedicated to the troops serving in Iraq. It must be very difficult to be so far away from home during the holidays, and we appreciate them being there, no matter what we think of the Commander in Chief.

Merry Christmas

I hope everyone out there enjoys today, either as a religious and spiritual holiday, or simply as a day where they don’t have to go to work.

In the spirit of the day I thought I’d share a news story I saw on ABC, about a very selective club, called the Fifty Percent League. The group has about 100 members, all of whom claim that this is the most rewarding club anyone could be in. All of you have to do to join is give away fifty percent of your income.

Collectively, the group has given away over one billion dollars in the past decade. Obviously the group is not for everyone (I think if I gave away half my teacher’s salary I’d qualify for welfare). But it is very cool that there are people out there doing this.

The Twelve Days Of Christmas

On the twelfth day of Christmas my true love gave to me,
Twelve Presidential Candidates,
Eleven pandering flip-floppers,
Ten deeply religious protestants,
Nine initial supporters of the Iraqi invasion,
Eight slaves to corporate America,
Seven white evangelical male Christians,
Six bickering Republicans,
Five beltway insiders,
Four Republicans who still support Bush,
Three candidates I like (Obama, Biden and Kucinich),
An outdated two-party system,
And a guaranteed better President in 2008 than Bush.

The Waiting Is The Hardest Part

It is 2007, two days before Christmas. The season of giving is upon, as is the spirit of over-indulgence and unnecessary gratification.

So given that it is 2007, and it is 12:15AM, why is it that I cannot watch Walk Hard while I am sitting in bed drinking wine. I’ll pay freaking 10 bucks right now. I just really want to watch that movie and I don’t want to drive to a theatre and listen to junior high kids flip out. There is no reason that Paramount or whatever company produced that movie can’t make it available to stream off their website. Hell, right now, I’ll pay twenty bucks. I just don’t want to put on pants.

So instead, I’m going to scour the web until I find a site where I can view it for free, illegally. Surfthechannel.com doesn’t have it unfortunately, nor does Megavideo or Tudou. Nor does free-live-tv-project. Although those sites do have tons of copyrighted material available. I’m personally not a fan of copyright violations. I think it is very harmful to the enterprenurial spirit that makes our country so great.

On the other hand, if the movie and tv company refuse to innovate and provide this service to me simply because they are unwilling to try something new, then I will spend tonight watching things illegally. And until they do, I suggest you check out Surfthechannel.com, unless you are watching a show off of NBC, in which case you should go to nbc.com, because they are providing this service both legally and free.

Romney Takes Brutal Hit In New Hampshire

The Concord Monitor came out very strongly against Mitt Romney today, dedicating 13 paragraphs to calling Romney a “phony” who must be defeated at all costs.

This is particularly bad news for Romney, as McCain has closed the gap to only 3 points in New Hampshire, and Huckabee has overtaken Romney in Iowa and South Carolina, and Guiliani is the leader in Florida. If Romney can’t pull a victory out of any of those states, he will essentially be dead in the water, even if he ends up getting second place in every single one.

What is extremely interesting about this to me though, is it appears very likely that the early primary states could be end up split rather evenly between Huckabee, Romney, McCain, and Guiliani, allowing the primary game to last a lot longer and remain a lot more interesting.

Congress Doesn’t Take A Vacation

Congress will be in session this Christmas for the first time in years. In fact, the Democratic leadership has decided not to close Congress for a single day this holiday season.

They won’t be doing any work. In fact, Congress held session today for only nine seconds. However, if Congress meets, then President Bush cannot make any of his usual egregious “recess appointments” while they are gone. Merry Christmas Mr. President, you can’t sneak any psychopathic neo-cons into office this season.

Democrats Cave On Iraq, Again

The Democrats passed a $516 billion spending bill today, which include President Bush’s $70 billion dollar request for additional funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democratic leadership tried to add withdrawl plans to the bill, but ultimately failed and granted Bush the money with no strings attached.

So Congress continues to give Bush whatever funds he needs for his failing wars. By the way, Bush initially “estimated” the cost of this war at $50 billion. Some estimates currently have it running at over 20 times that much.

Next Page »