Palin and Katie Couric

A very funny parody of the actual interview.

Election Drama Betties and Bobs

Am I watching the news or have I inadvertently switched to a soap opera? There is no way to tell for sure. I see lots of white men wearing suits and sounding serious. Looks likes the news...maybe they are covering a soap opera? Hmmmm.

Lets see...one of the presidential candidates picked a VP candidate whose teenage daughter is pregnant (and who despite being anti-choice, thinks that in the case of her daughter, the family should have a private choice), is under investigation for abuse of power (as a governor) and is refusing to cooperate with investigators. In case that was not enough drama for one politician's family, she has a preacher who is an avowed modern day witch-hunter. No, I am not making this up!

In recent news, much buzz has been made of her apparent cluelessness regarding foreign policy, after failing in an interview to be able to answer a question about the Bush Doctrine because she had no idea what it was. Now, she actually thinks that running the executive branch of a state that shares a border (land or maritime) with a foreign country gives her foreign policy experience. This may sound like old news but believe it or not she is still repeating this foolishness even after all the laughter had died down after the first three times she said it. Check out the Katie Couric interview (linked above).

According to this logic, the governors of: Washington, Montana, North dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Maine, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California all also have foreign policy experience. In fact, according to this logic, Alaska is a lot like a third of all the states in the US. They all share a border with another country.

But she shouldn't feel bad. Her running mate thinks Spain is a Latin American country. He also thinks, "the fundamentals" of an economy that is currently crumbling before our eyes, are strong.

In recent drama, presidential hopeful John McCain decided to "suspend " his campaign so he could rush to Washington to solve the nation's financial crisis. By suspend, he did not mean close his election offices, stop running election ads, or stop giving interviews. It seems he did not even mean that he would literally fly to Washington. Although he eventually (two days later) did end up in Washington, he did not bother to actually read the Paulson proposal being debated before he arrived and was unable to contribute any substance at the photo-op presidential meeting.

He vowed not to debate Barack Obama in Mississiippi until a "deal was brokered." Then, after various senators went on camera to report that his arrival in Washington not only did NOT help the process but that in fact it hindered it, he continued to claim he was busy helping to get his party behind the proposal and would stay until the job was done. Then without a deal being made, without the job being done, he changed his mind and said OK I will debate Obama after all.

But his inability to make a decision and stick to it is nothing new. Despite a long career of being a deregulator of Wall Street, he now claims he supports the regulation of the economy by the government. Really?

But reversing his positions on major political issues is nothing new to McCain. He has been doing it for years. He has flip-flopped on his positions on Immigration, gay marriage, abortion, terrorism, torture, the Iraq war, tax breaks for the rich, windfall profits tax, offshore drilling, MLK day, South African disinvestment, the confederate flag, and teaching creationism in schools, among others.

Isnt there a drug for that kind of moodiness? Is the man addicted to drama?

Sarah Palin and Rape: I Say Vote for Your Vagina

In case anyone is still confused, more information has come out about Palin's anti-woman record. Even Republican women have to pause when they learn that when Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasila, Texas she required women who had been raped to pay for their own rape kits in order for their rapes to be investigated.

I am not making this up!!!!!! It seems too horrid to be true but unfortunately it IS true! And no, its not an Alaskan tradition. Wasila was the only city in the state who did this.

What kind of a person asks the victims of a horrible crime of any kind to pay for their own investigation? What kind of woman subjects rape victims to further humiliation by asking them to come up with some cold hard cash for a painful and humiliating pelvic exam in the hopes that some evidence will be found? What was she thinking? Don't all women know that rape is always a threat? How many women don't have friends, sisters, mothers who have been raped? In a country where one in four women will be raped in her lifetime how did she manage to remain immune from compassion for the victims of sexual assault?

But, hey, it gets worse! She didn't stay a mayor! She became a governor and with all that power, did she do anything to protect rape victims? NO, but she had enough power to fire someone who did try to help rape victims. By her own account, her excuse for firing the man who refused to fire her trooper brother in law, was her anger about his intention to obtain federal funding for pursuing the most serious sex offenders, including violent child molesters. Thats right, she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan for seeking to taking action against rape when she did told him not to.

According to the Huffington Post, Campaign officials claim to have fired Monegan because of insubordination and that "the last straw was a trip Monegan planned to Washington in July to seek federal money for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases."

Really? What exactly does she have against pursuing rapists?

Maybe, one might wonder, rape really isn't a big issue up in the hinterland? Maybe its too cold for women to get raped that far north? Maybe Palin was just prioritizing other issues more pressing in Alaska?

Think again. According to the FBI, Alaska has the highest rate of rape in the country. That's right, of all the states in the US, Alaska is the last place to go if you have a vagina. They have the HIGHEST RATE OF RAPE of all states.

And its not a new problem. According to the Alaska Family Violence Prevention Project, "since 1976, Alaska has ranked in the top five states in the nation for the highest rate of reported rape per capita." and " Alaska has 6 times the national average of reported child sexual assault." Sexual assault is even more of an issue in Alaska than anywhere else.

Palin may have a vagina but she won't protect yours. Or mine. Or my child's. Or anyone elses. Oh, and if you get raped in Palin's America, not only might you be required to pay for your own rape kit, but you will also be required to give birth to your rapist's child.

Having a Vagina Doesn't make You a Feminist

Having a Vagina doesn't make you a feminist, thought admittedly, it ought to.

The mere possession of a vagina goes a long way in determining what kind of life you are allowed to live in today's world.
First of all, if you have a vagina in the United States you will only earn 72 cents on every dollar persons possessing a penis will earn. Since the only jobs that actually require the use of a particular sex member are all illegal, its not at all clear how one's genitalia explains the unequal pay problem in the United States.

But it may make sense for those in possession of a a vagina to band together and fight for equal pay for equal work.

Obama and Biden, both lacking the essential female member ( and no doubt envying those of us who do possess it) will fight for equal pay for women.

Palin, though possessing a vagina, will not.

Having a vagina means that regardless of your politics, you are at risk for being raped, getting pregnant without intending to, and being forced to give birth to children you may not be physically, psychologically, or economically prepared to care for.

Sarah Palin's running mate, Mccain, voted against the Violence Against Women Act. Palin herself has dne nothing to address the epidemic rape and violence against women rates in this country

One in four women in the United States will be raped in their lifetime, regardless of age, color, class, size, religion, beauty, activities engaged in, clothing worn, amount of alcohol consumed.

Distinguishing features of your average rape victim? Possession of a vagina. Other distinguishing features? None.

Palin thinks that if you get raped you should be required by law to give birth to your rapist's child. But don't expect any help from a McCain/Palin government while you are struggling to afford your pregnancy. Palin voted against Alaska funding for teen mother housing just this year.

A person possessing a vagina can also count on a lifetime of having strange men and women in white coats probe the inner most regions of their body in the interest of health. Women are expected to get annual gynecological exams and can be subjected to gynecological exams anytime they go to the hospital. If you are a working class or poor woman (which includes the majority of women of color), and you have less than adequate health insurance you can count on fewer choices in whose hands end up in your vagina. You can also count on being subject to rushed, less qualified hands.

Number of times a person possessing a penis can expect to have his genitalia probed during his lifetime by a stranger? Zero times.


If you have a vagina, your vagina is not a private matter. It is a part of the public domain.

But, according to Sarah Palin, health care is a private matter and a capitalist concern. Let healthcare companies fight for your business in a fair market, she says. And besides, according to Palin, we are not women in need of compassionate medical care but are "consumers [who] should take more responsibility for their own health." (New York Times, 8/30)

A person possessing a vagina is also required to sacrifice her sexuality and to risk her life when her government deems it necessary. She does not have a right to use her vagina for pleasure without paying a price.

Chances that a person with a penis will be required to undergo excessive pain, give up his job, quit school, lose a scholarship, be kicked out of his home, or be labeled a whore, as a result of having sex? None.

If at any time in this person's life, a person with a vagina opts to have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, she is at risk of getting pregnant and in a no-choice world, being required to carry to term the fetus, despite the risks involved. Pregnancy can kill you, it can disable you for life, and it is one of the most intensely painful events the human body can go through.

Circumstances where a person with a penis will be forced to undergo excessive pain, risk to life and limb, and possible permanent disability without their consent? Only one: a draft.

Sarah Palin thinks no pregnancy should be terminated no matter the circumstances and no matter the risk to women's health.

Having a vagina doesn't make you a feminist but it ought to. Caring about the rights of people regardless of what genitalia they are born with may not make you a feminist either but it will make you a supporter of human rights.

Whether or not you possess a vagina, please remember to protect the rights of persons with vaginas when you vote in this election.

Some Good Done

Biologically I am
A mixture More and less
Complicated than I claim to be
Culturally

My mother my father they
Have their own identities
My phenotype is another story
Entirely

Where I grew up and how
Who my ancestors were
And why they died
All conspire to define me
In ways that are beyond even me.

Ambiguity is my home
Either/or does not apply
And my existence defies
So many names and claims
Of place
It would be a lie to check a race

All I know for certain
Is that it matters
That my existence
Confounds you
That your inability to classify me
Bewilders you
And there is some good done
Each time I cause confusion
There is some good done

Why Ranking Oppressions Never Works

This election has brought out the ugly in many people. At the heart of this ugliness is a mistake. A mistaken belief that we can rank the oppressions we face in order of severity and make decisions about how and when to address different forms of injustice accordingly. This belief is misguided.

We don't need a woman in the white house before a black man because women are more oppressed than blacks. We don't need a black man in the white house first because blacks are more oppressed than women. These are the kinds of arguments that only make sense in a world where Black women don't exist. Blacks are not men. Women are not white. And none of us is class neutral. Some of us are gay, some of us are immigrants, some of us are disabled. There are no pure categories.

And there is no hierarchy of oppression we can chart which will resolve this. White woman benefit from white skin privilege. Black men benefit from male privilege. Straight people benefit from heterosexual privilege. Able-bodied people benefit from abelist privilege. Middle class people benefit from class privilege. Skinny people benefit from size privilege. There are not pure categories of people and there are very few people who do not simultaneouly benefit from some form of privilege while being oppressed as a result of their membership in some group. (The obvious exception is middle class, heterosexual, able-bodied white men. They are not oppressed and they are very privileged).

So can white women claim to be more oppressed than black men? Can Black men claim to be more oppressed than white women? No, of course not. They are privileged and oppressed in different ways. And their maleness is qualified by their blackness, their femaleness is qualified by their whiteness.

Sexism is raced. Racism is gendered. Oppression is complicated.

So it is absurd to say that it would be worse for Obama if he were a woman or worse for Clinton if she were black unless you are willing to recognize that they would both have to turn into black women for the claim to make sense. Would a black women have a harder time in this election than either a black man or a white woman? Probably she would since currently most people appear to consider the possibility unthinkable. Black women don't exist for most of the commentators. Otherwise they would not consistently overlook the fact that Obama and Clinton differ in both race AND gender.

Their race/gender analogies only work in the absence of Black women. Can a woman who does not exist run for office? Probably not. But if a Black woman ran we would have to take into account her class, her sexuality, her able-bodiedness in addition to her race and gender.

Maybe this country is ready for a black man or a white woman but not both. Maybe the outcome of the election will be a result of whether the electorate is more racist or more sexist but we can never truly know since we don't have a white man running against a white woman or a black man running against a black woman. Race and gender are tangled up in these two candidates and other factors are also playing an important role.

Oppression is complicated. Too complicated to be ranked and addressed in serial order. Addressing racism won't eliminate sexism. Addressing sexism won't end racism. Gay people are not going to stop being bashed to death when a straight white woman or a straight Black man get into office.

One form of oppression is not more important than another. Some forms of oppression are not more egregious than others. Anytime we deny the humanity of an individual on the basis of his or her inclusion (perceived or actual) in a group , we are enacting oppression. Oppression is always unjust and unearned privilege always aids oppression. Until we are both willing to fight oppression and to give up privilege, we will be plagued with social injustice.

What About Darfur?

What about Darfur?


What happened in Nazi Germany in
The 1940s
Was a terrible terrible thing
A crime against humanity
6 million killed
Waiting and waiting while
The United States did nothing

What happened in Rwanda
In the 1990s
Was a terrible terrible thing
A crime against humanity
800,000 dead in 100 days while
The United States did nothing

Now it is a new century
A new country
400,000 humans dead
People dying daily
In a land called Darfur
It is a crime against humanity
How can we do nothing?