But Bootstraps!

From The New York Times, this one hits close to home for me. In an article entitled "Top Colleges, Largely For the Elite," David Leonhart writes:

"Does more economic diversity [in elite universities] necessarily mean lower admissions standards?

No, it does not.

The truth is that many of the most capable low- and middle-income students attend community colleges or less selective four-year colleges close to their home. Doing so makes them less likely to graduate from college at all, research has shown. Incredibly, only 44 percent of low-income high school seniors with high standardized test scores enroll in a four-year college, according to a Century Foundation report —compared with about 50 percent of high-income seniors who have average test scores....

Well-off students often receive SAT coaching and take the test more than once, Mr. Marx notes, and top colleges reward them for doing both. Colleges also reward students for overseas travel and elaborate community service projects. 'Colleges don’t recognize, in the same way, if you work at the neighborhood 7-Eleven to support your family,' he adds.

Several years ago, William Bowen, a former president of Princeton, and two other researchers found that top colleges gave no admissions advantage to low-income students, despite claims to the contrary. Children of alumni received an advantage. Minorities (except Asians) and athletes received an even bigger advantage. But all else equal, a low-income applicant was no more likely to get in than a high-income applicant with the same SAT score. It’s pretty hard to call that meritocracy."

This is one reason why, in general, I tend not to be impressed by those with Ivy League pedigrees. Even though the US has a running narrative that there's something Really Special about people who graduate from the elite universities, the graduates of these schools are remarkably uniform with respect to the economic and class privileges with which they grew up.

As a high school junior in a rural working class town many years ago, I scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT while studying on my own, during my lunch breaks at Fast Food Restaurant. I applied to one elite university and got in, but even with a financial aid package couldn't afford the out-of-pocket costs to attend. Instead, like many of my classmates, I opted for a community college. That's just what people did. Going somewhere "better" wasn't an expectation for most of us. After two years, I then transfered to Pretentious University (PU) with an academic scholarship.

I can't say I fit in very well.

My introduction to PU was overhearing a fellow student say, "I don't understand why people's parents don't just pay the full four years of tuition at once, since it ends up being cheaper that way." One 20-year-old had a sports car with the license plate "CEO 2 B." Another student was dating the offspring of Famous Politician. Because doesn't everyone just hang out in those circles?

Yes, I was surrounded by rich kids who were convinced that their attendance at PU proved that they were the nation's Best and Brightest, the creme de la creme, entitled and blissfully unaware of the fact that for every one of them, there were dozens of other equally bright (or brighter) students at state universities, community colleges, or in the working world who didn't want to incur student loan debt, didn't have parents who could pay their six-figure tuitions, and/or didn't have much guidance or coaching on the whole Going To College Process.

Another interesting point from the Times article that I wanted to delve into a little more was the "Minorities (except Asians) and athletes receive an even bigger advantage" than low-income students as it seems to sloppily assume that minorities and low-income students are two separate (rather than overlapping) categories. I went to the Century Foundation report (PDF) cited in the article for a closer look:

"Many believe that race no longer matters, and that socioeconomic disadvantages, otherwise known as class, have become the universal barrier to equal opportunity. Our analysis of the NELS does not support the notion that we could use income or other socioeconomic characteristics as a substitute for race. Race and ethnicity have effects all their own, and we find that socioeconomic status is no substitute for race or ethnicity in selective college admissions."

That is, class differences don't "explain away" race-based differences in educational attainment. The report found that the "educational disadvantages of low socioeconomic status are more onerous for minorities, especially African-Americans."

Interestingly, gender wasn't examined with respect to educational differences.

Fun With Contradictions

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church #239.

"[God] is neither man nor woman: he is God."

First, note the contradiction contained in that authoritative sentence. In a rational world, that sort of glaring blind spot would make logical folks question the validity of everything else the utterer of such an absurdity says about god.

Two, although the Catholic Church alleges that god is neither man nor woman, Catechism Paragraph 2 "The Father," which contains the above contradiction, refers to god in the unambiguously male gendered terms as follows: "Father" 96 times, "Son" 72 times, and "he" and "him" countless times.

Exactly once within this paragraph, the Catechism concedes "God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood." Not as Mother, mind you. But as an abstract "image of motherhood," lest anyone take the idea of god as an actual female being too literally.

In spite of that one concession, that's still a hell of a lot of translating that women, mothers, and daughters have to do to see themselves reflected in god. Relatedly, that's a hell of a lot of reinforcement to men, fathers, and sons that they are synonmyous with god and uniquely closer to "him" than everybody else.

It's time for the holy males of the Catholic Church to confess. Although god is not a man, they have indeed made man god.

American Apathy?

Writing this post was difficult for me. It is difficult to criticize the war in Iraq without in some way implicitly condemning those who fight in the war. Because I am not (allowed to be) in the military, I have the privilege of saying that the war does not affect my everyday life too much.

Critics of war critics say that Americans must always "support the troops." Patriotism demands one response, they say. No matter what, criticism is prohibited. What goes unsaid is that apathy will suffice.

I am not apathetic.

It is that I feel powerless and irrelevant.

The other day, at the gym, I was listening to a podcast of testimonials from Winter Solider: Iraq and Afghanistan. The testimonials included a family of a soldier who committed suicide while suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. One soldier, a woman, read the testimonial of another woman who was raped and then discharged from the military because she was raped. Another former soldier talked about torturing, abusing, and killing Iraqi civilians. With remorse in his voice, he apologized to the Iraqi people.

After hearing some of the effects of war on the human beings who are sent there, and of the abominable acts of our soldiers and military, again, I feel anything but apathetic.

The more testimonials of veterans I read and listen to, the more I come to believe the famous quote by Hermann Goring at the Nuremburg Trials:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

But I am still left asking "What?" What is it we can do?

Do we watch American Idol because we don't "care" about the atrocity of war, or because we don't think we can do anything about it?

We are all told that we are "responsible" for this war, as citizens. But are we really? Within the bounds of the law, I have trouble thinking of what else I could have done. I marched. I contacted Congress. I donated to Peace Action.

When I think about the war, I feel incredibly sad. I feel guilty for what our government is doing and has done in our name. But at the same time, I am having some difficulty mustering up personal responsibility for it.

A "Concerned" Man Tutorial

Anti-feminists today are up in arms about the advances women have made in society. Because for so long men controlled the public sphere, these anti-feminists decry how women's entry into the public sphere is "ruining everything." Recently, a couple of men have voiced strong concerns about the dangers of feminism. (Yes, there are a few more than two men who are "Concerned" about feminism, but I'm taking two extreme cases). One of them argued that women entering a certain profession would destroy society. The other man was "concerned" that women entering any profession causes depression in women.

I know. These positions aren't popular in our nation today. Even those who preface their arguments with "I'm not a feminist or anything, but [insert feminist argument]" are able to recognize valid feminist points like "women are people too." In fact, it's probably pretty tough being a regressive hater of equality these days.

Where in the world could one look for inspiration, for a guide on how to keep women in their place? Where could we possibly look for a shining model on how to integrate fundamentalist religion with government while using the correct gender-conservative ideals declaring that each gender has a proscribed place in society?

Why, Iraq, of course! Although women in Iraq have more rights than women in some neighboring countries, conservatism, religious fundamentalism, and anti-feminism are still largely responsible for the oppression of women. And then, of course, you add the occupation of our military there and you get a ginormous clusterfuck of female oppression.

Grab your slates and chalk fellas, and let's take a look at how "real men" oppress women.

1. "Education harms women."

In Iraq, the government passed laws in 1979 to eradicate illiteracy. Women were allowed to go "literacy centers." Some conservative sectors, however, did not allow "their" women to go to these centers. Nonetheless, "the literacy gap between males and females narrowed" and women achieved literacy rates of 75% in 1987.

Due to a combination of conservative religious ideals being incorporated into policy and limited family resources that resulted in families only being able to send their boys to school, the number of women in 2000 who were literate dropped to 25%. In other words, gender equality with regard to literacy regressed over time. In addition, since the US invasion of Iraq, Iraqi women report that there is less respect for women than previously as women are thought of as "possessions" who aren't able to attend school. Real men, it seems, invade other countries under the guise of protecting women from oppressive regimes only to foster an environment where women are further oppressed.

Close your eyes and think real hard to your own fundamentalist God, anti-feminists, these "gains" could someday be achieved in the US too! All we have to do is marry your own unique brand of fundamentalist religion and anti-equality principles with our laws. (Although I suppose that would be some sort of polygamy, but as long as two of those three concepts are female you're okay with that right?)

Anyway, like a wise man once said: Give me theocracy or give me death!

Oh, but I bet if someone did a study, these Iraqi women might be depressed too. So let me know, are you at all "concerned" that anti-feminism harms women?


2. "Women don't really want to work."

In Iraq, where women don't have the same education and career options as we do in the US, women whose husbands have died because of the imperial war that "our" men have waged have turned to prostitution in order to feed themselves and their children.

Thanks to the "women belong in the home" argument that doesn't take into account the fact that maybe just maybe a man will die without leaving his wife enough money to support the family, sex is the only thing women can bring to the market when they no longer have husbands.

Just think, anti-feminists, in a world where women "aren't willing to work outside the home," maybe we can have even more women forced into prostitution by their unfortunate economic circumstances than we currently have.

And while we're talking about sex, maybe anti-feminists would be in favor of rape during times of war. Since women are useful as male possessions only as far as they are sexually and reproductively available to men, the rape of a women can be used as weapons of war like in Iraq where the rape of a woman harms the honor of the woman's owner. (Poor guy.) Think of the possibilities for world domination!

Oh, but I bet if someone did a study, these women might be depressed too. But the burning question I have is this: Are you still "concerned"?


3. "Title IX ruins everything for men."

In Iraq, "as the economy constricted, in an effort to ensure employment for men the government pushed women out of the labor force and into more traditional roles in the home." From 1998 to 2000, the government dismissed most females working in governmental agencies and put restrictions on women working outside the home. Women's were no longer free to travel and schools were required to provide single-sex education only, reflecting tribal and religious tradition.

Title IX is the supposed bane of male sports' existence in colleges all across America because sometimes mens' programs are cut "because of women." Some men are now scared that some people will use Title IX to promote equality in male-dominated professions. This too, of course, will lead to the destruction of society.

All men who want to play sports should be guaranteed to be able to play sports, just like every man who wants to be a scientist should get to be one. Such an outcome could easily be produced once our government passes restrictions similar to Iraq's relegating women to the home. With these restrictions in place, women will no longer "want" to go to college, play sports, or have careers.

Just consider it an affirmative-action program for men. And with men completely in charge of everything in the public sphere that matters, what could possibly go wrong? Even though gender integration is vital to marriage because the sexes supposedly "complement each other," gender segregation is completely necessary in the public sphere for... um... some reason.

Oh... but if someone conducted a study, women with only one life option may find that they, too, are depressed. So, one last time, anti-feminists, are you still "concerned" about depression in women? Or is all your "concerned man" blustering really about trying to get your place back at the head of all that matters in the world?



As you can see, I don't think it's quite accurate to say, as some anti-feminists do, that women aren't willing to work, that education harms women, and that the advances women have made in education and career due to feminism has resulted in female depression. Nor do I think that these advances are harming society or will lead to its destruction. The only thing it is harming is (dare I say this word that will, in the eyes of anti-feminists, automatically discredit everything else I say) the patriarchy. (Dun-dun-dun!)

Men have been taking responsibility for society as a whole essentially forever. Doing so means that they have also been restricting women's access to education and work throughout history and culture. In essence, this restriction forces women to cede power to men and then trust men to always do the right thing with this power. It asks women to trust men to not abuse them, to not be controlling with money, to not rape them, to make enough money on his own to support the family (something that is sometimes beyond his control), and to make all the right personal, familial, and occupational decisions.

The "women belong in the home" argument is another way of saying that all women should surrender their power and let men "protect" them. In theory, male protection sounds benign. How noble, some think. In reality, though, we know that not all men are worthy of being entrusted with this power and some (most?) women want more than one life choice. (Blogger BetaCandy articulately discusses the protection myth here.)

In a perfect world, men would be perfect. But that will never happen. And that's why anti-feminists need to stop advocating for policies that treat the world as though all men live up to this noble ideal of manhood and perfection. "Patriarchy does not work as advertised," and anti-feminists should realize that most thinking people see them for the used-car salesmen they are.

Why do some people still think that out of all the billions of human beings that exist in this world, we all need to live exactly the same way- with men holding power over women? In fact, I'd say it's pretty selfish to insist that everyone in the entire universe must live the same way you desire to live.

It is unbelievable to me, in fact, that people in our country are still suggesting otherwise. Okay, it's not. I suppose there will always be people in every society seeking to maintain categorical privileges and telling us that we better regress back to some mythical Golden Era where everything was how it should be or we will face the Total Destruction of Society (tm).

And to them, I can only say this: How dare you (a) seek to limit my life options under the guise of protection and (b) wage an imperial war in the name of "freedom" and under the guise of "freeing women from oppressive regimes." By doing all of those things, you are actually harming women far more than you are helping them.

Are you at all "concerned" about that?

You Get Down With Your Bad Self, GOP!

Well folks, it looks like it's gonna be rich, white, heterosexual man John McCain in an historic bid for the presidency versus either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. You know those Republicans, always on the cutting edge of progress!

But... are we ready for this?

Pressing questions we all must be asking at this juncture include:

Will McCain's core base of rich white men and Nascar dads be enough to ensure victory?

How will white and male identity politics play into the race?

Will men be able to separate the issues from their gender? How many men will vote for McCain just because he's a man?

Will white people be able to separate the issues from their race? How many white people will vote for McCain just because he's white?

How will McCain play the gender and/or race card to his advantage?

Is John McCain too unemotional to be president?

Does John McCain have too much testosterone-fueled rage to be president?

How will John McCain handle the moments he is president and has an erection?

What will John McCain wear, and will he ever cry during the race and/or the presidency?

How will male pundits react to the novelty of a male presidential candidate? How will they characterize his voice?

Will they critique McCain's appearance and outfits?

How will McCain handle the assumption that, by virtue of his gender alone, he is fit to be Commander-in-Chief?


Only time will tell.

Let's make history, USA!

Well, It's Official

I'm voting for Obama.

I have been undecided for a long time. But alas, as the Illinois primary approaches, I decided it was time to jump off the fence.

The three viable Democratic contenders are pretty similar on the issues. Clinton is running on experience, Obama is running on inspiration, and Edwards is running on populism. And, while I don't agree with any candiate on every single issue (and admittedly would prefer a viable Green Party candidate), I think that any of the Democrats will be better than a Republican. (By the way, where are all the non-white, non-male Republican candidates?).


My reasons for Obama?

1. On the issues, my beliefs align with Obama's more than any other viable candidate. On what I believe are our nation's most pressing issues: Obama is for expanding health coverage and ensuring access to care, restoring human rights in the context of war, increasing social security taxes on the very wealthy to help "save" social security, reducing the Bush tax cuts to help pay for health care, immigrants earning a path to citizenship, and gradual withdraw of troops from Iraq.

On "moral" issues, Obama favors a woman's right to choose, supports stem cell research, supports benefits for same-sex partnerships (I think he should support full marriage equality, and perhaps in time, he will), wants to get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," opposes the death penalty, and opposes an absolute right to gun ownership.

On environmental issues, he supports investing in alternative sources of energy and has sponsored legislation to improve energy efficiency.

As I said before, my beliefs also closely parallel those of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. What tips the scales in favor of Obama are the following criteria:

2. Obama's speeches and campaign are, by far, more inspirational than any other candidate's.

3. Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Obama is democratically and "in America anyone can grow up to be President" more appealing to me than Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton.

4. On a similar note, he represents more of a change in Washington than does Clinton. I don't see his "lack of experience" as a liability, but as more of a refreshing change.

5. While all candidates are over-eager to prove their Christian street cred to the masses, he is adept at handling Christian bullying.

When, during his Senate campaign, contender Alan Keyes claimed that "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama," Obama articulately responded,

"...[W]hen [liberals and progressives] ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway....

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Amen to that.


To conclude, I would have loved to for our nation to have its first female Commander-in-Chief (and perhaps Clinton will win the nomination). But ultimately, I have to go with the candidate who inspires me, who represents change, will stand up to fundamentalist Christian bullying, and whose beliefs on major issues best align with mine.


Here's to a Bush-free (and optimistically Republican-free) Presidency in T-minus 355 days.

But At Least He's Anti-Choice and Doesn't Want Gay People to Marry...

"A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements 'were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.'"

You can find the study here, where you can read more details about how Bush "waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."


Putting aside the reprehensibility of Bush's waging of a war on false pretenses can I just take a brief moment to say this:

Way to go, "moral majority"! You did one "heckuva job" electing Bush on the basis of his supposed "family/tradition/moral values"! It's grand and all that gay people can't get married and that you have a couple more anti-choice boys on the Supreme Court (who are *totally* not activist judges). But seriously now, see what happens when you do a piss-poor job of diagnosing what our nation's social ills are?

Threats, threats everywhere....


Now, does anyone still have the gumption to tell me that advocates for marriage equality are the ones ruining America?

Thought so.


(To be fair, a White House spokeswoman said that these reports were "not worth spending time on." Oh. Okay. So that's all settled then.)

Book Review: Shut Up & Sing

Right off the bat I should tell you, I did not have high hopes for Laura Ingraham's anti-liberal book Shut Up & Sing (not to be confused with the Dixie Chicks documentary of the same name). The premise of the book is that so-called "elites" are stupid, evil, and ruining America. Seriously, the premise is that simple. Ingraham actually uses the word "stupid" several times.

Knowing her premise, I expected to be angry and/or annoyed much of the time I was reading it. However, upon reading the book, I relaxed. Ingraham's case against "elites," whomever they are, is nothing but a mostly unsubstantiated rant. A rant, rather than being a scholarly piece of work, is really sorta just propaganda. Which, again, made me nervous. Because propaganda is often more persuasive than cold, hard facts.

For instance, Ingraham bases almost all of her claims on her own stereotypes and assumptions about liberals, Democrats, and educated people. She is telling her audience of (presumably) conservative, Republican, un-educated, rural Americans exactly what they want, and are eager, to hear about the "elites." (I say presumably, because the only people Ingraham does not bash in her book are for the most part conservative, Republican, un-educated, rural Americans).

In short, in Ingraham, "the masses" have found an educated, conservative, Republican (elite?) who will validate their concerns regarding liberalism, Democrats, and educated people.


1. The premise of Shut Up & Sing is that so-called "elites" are ruining America. Concerned with this latest (vague) threat to the country, I immediately set out to discover what an "elite" is.

Is it someone who is highly educated? Yes. That seems to be one feature. In which case it is unclear as to why Ingraham (Dartmouth-Bachelor's, University of Virginia- Juris Doctor) does not meet her definition of elite (more on that in a minute).

Of these highly-educated "elites," Ingraham writes,

"The most left-wing of the elites hang their hats, or should I say berets, at our finest universities and colleges.... they are the establishment on campus" (15).

And mark another believer in the great liberal conspiracy theory of our educational institutions. (Although I have to admit that the beret bit was kinda funny). Ultimately, it's just not faaaa-ir that so many liberals are in academia. It's not faaaaaa-ir that Women's Studies programs, African-American studies programs, and LGBT studies programs exist in colleges. (It's also not faaaaa-ir that some Americans are hyphenated-Americans, because aren't we all Americans?). Much like conservatives will not be satisfied until creationism is taught alongside evolution in classrooms, the likes of Ingraham will not be satisfied until conservatives are equally represented in academia. Regardless of the merits of their positions.

Okay, so elites are "highly-educated" (yet "stupid," of course).

Yet there are also "media elites," "cultural elites," "business elites," and "world citizen elites." Although she admits that elites run across the political spectrum, she really only bashes Democrats and liberals- perhaps proving that it is okay to be "elite" as long as you agree with Ingraham. Media and cultural elites essentially are famous people, like Susan Sarandon and the Dixie Chicks, who are liberal (it's also essential, when denouncing these liberals, to include the most unflattering pictures of these people as you can). As the title of her book suggests, these entertainers should just shut up about politics and entertain us. Well, the ones with whom Ingraham disagrees should shut up, anyway. "World citizen elites" are those who believe in the outrageous, preposterous, outlandish notion that we are all citizens of the world (rather than just American citizens).

In the end, I was left unsatisfied by her definition of "elite." Ingraham has created a straw-group of people that she abstractly calls the "elites," whose sole common bond is essentially any person who holds a position that she does not agree with. For, even though she's influential, wealthy, and highly-educated, she is not an elite. Throughout her book, she claims that the "elites" do not reflect the values of "we the people" or "Americanism" or "democracy." Even though she has conducted no poll, she believes she speaks for America. Citing no evidence whatsoever, she believes that conservative views are the views of "the masses," of the real America. Does anyone else find it troubling that she views the beliefs of an admittedly uneducated group of people as "real American values." Or that ignorant viewpoints represent the real America? It is here that I must note that she not once tried to prove the correctness of her conservative beliefs. Her "case" is essentially this: Elites are educated but they're stupid so we shouldn't listen to them. The masses are uneducated but they know what's best because there is more of them.

Not exactly the case I would make for saying my position is correct. But then again, logic is surely a highfalutin' "elite" notion.

The group she uses to contrast with the "elites" are "the masses"- also known as the common people, the little people, or Americans. Yes. Americans. [*Brief pause to check my passport to make sure I'm still an American* ] See, Ingraham implicitly defines an American as those people who agree with her: conservative, Republican, rural, religious, and uneducated people (white, heterosexual ones, of course). The "other," the "anti-American," is anything that falls outside of this narrow group. Conveniently. By defining a true American as those who agree with Ingraham, Shut Up & Sing is an exercise in political, religious, and social intolerance.

In short, Ingraham's novel is a case study in how conservatives have hijacked the phrase "American values" by instilling their beliefs in that phrase- allowing conservatives to claim that anything other than a conservative outlook is by definition un-American.


2. When speaking about the Iraq War, Ingraham (who was writing in 2003) continually and almost-embarrassingly does a premature victory dance. For instance, she quotes Senator Ted Kennedy as warning in 2003 that a war with Iraq,

"will not advance the defeat of Al Qaeda, but undermine it. It will antagonize critical allies and crack the global coalition that came together after September 11. It will feed the rising tide of anti-Americanism overseas, and swell the ranks of al Qaeda recruits and sympathizers. It will strain our diplomatic, military, and intelligence resources and reduce our ability to root out terrorists...."

After this quote, Ingraham taunts that Kennedy was "Wrong, wrong, wrong" on all counts.

When, of course, we know now that Kennedy ended up being right. According to this GAO report, Iraq is worse off in many measures than before the war. What is disturbing is that Ingraham fell, hook, line, and sinker for Bush's "Mission Accomplished" victory speech regarding the war in Iraq and implied that Senator Kennedy, by warning us about the war, was an "elite" who hates America. With the benefit of hindsight, we can look back and see that this war is still occurring and has not been as successful as Ingraham unquestionably believed it to be (and was based on lies propagated by the Bush Administration).

Ingraham, as the title of her book does more than suggest, would prefer for critics of Ameican foreign policy and people with whom she disagrees, to just keep quiet. To silence liberals, she uses the age-old jibe that those who vocally disagree with her or conservatives "hate America" or that liberals are somehow America's enemies. And, even though free speech is a quintessential American value, liberals should just shut up. If they don't shut up, they hate America. If you don't agree with her, you hate America. See how that little trick works? It's really a quite common tactic (eh Fitzy?) and entirely deserving of a Red Scare Award! (Congratulations).


3. Ingraham writes, "By definition, elites can never outnumber common folk" and with the ever-increasing population (thanks to huge families and megachurches) of "the common folk," elites will some day be "effectively contained." (41)

With her message that powerful "elites" are evil combined with her acknowledgment that the "common" people are more numerous and, therefore, more powerful than the "elites," Ingraham's message is at its core sorta socialist. (Don't tell her that, as she lambasts liberal commies and Marxists throughout her book!). I agree with Ingraham that the one thing the masses have over "elites" (whoever they are) is that they heavily outnumber the "elites."

It's just too bad that so many of the masses fall for conservative rubbish exemplified by Ingraham's novel than they believe in liberal polices that could actually benefit them. By continuing to vote Republican and "family values," the blue-collar masses continue voting directly against their financial self-interest. While "the masses" obsess over which candidate will not allow gay people to marry, their elected politicians help widen the gap between the very rich and the poor, vote to extend a perpetual war that makes a few people richer and poor kids dead, and extend tax breaks that mostly benefit millionaires. (Hello recession, by the way!)

It makes the very rich happy, you see, when the little people vote against their own interests. It makes the very rich happy when blue-collar working stiffs denounce liberals and progressives as "reds" and "commies." The working class so prides itself on its "Americanism" and "American values" that it will automatically denounce anything that has an "un-American" label on it, no matter what the merits of the idea are.


In sum, I found this "New York Times Bestseller" to be a collection of stereotypes and personal attacks on a group of people defined mostly by Ingraham's dislike of them than on anything they have in common with each other. And, that such a negative book would be a bestseller in this country is depressing. Do people really believe what Ingraham believes? Does this book pass as an accurate diagnosis of America's social ills amongst the conservative crowd and the masses? Do they really believe that America's problems are brought on by a vaguely-defined group of liberal "elites"?

While denouncing an alleged victim mentality of "elites," Ingraham has created the perfect justification for conservatives to turn themselves into victims: Liberal elites are attempting to oppress the "the masses" and (conservative) "American values."

At the risk of sounding elitist, I must end on this note: After reading Ingraham's book, it's apparent to anyone with any sort of brains that the Empress is not wearing clothes. Now it's just a question of when Ingraham's audience will figure it out.

Congratulations to Congress!

I'd like to take a minute to congratulate Congress on the recent pay raise they gave themselves. Woop woop!

In 2008, they will receive $4,100 more than they made in 2007, bringing their salaries to a total of $169,300.

Since Congress recently raised the federal minimum wage for hardworking low-income persons to $5.85/hour, they were likely reminded that they, hardworking public servants struggling to get by, were due for a raise as well. Adding to the necessity of the pay raise is the fact that a whopping 25% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing.

Congratulations!

Chuck Norris Doesn't Just Promote a Candidate...

He roundhouse kicks him into the presidency!

[bad Chuck Norris joke?]

But seriously? A serious presidential candidate is using Chuck Norris, who writes "political commnentary" such as this, as an endorser and spokesman?

One particularly, ahem, deep thought within Chuck Norris' article is this:

"So did Romney's Internet-transmitted roundhouse connect with Mike or me? While he tried to kick both of us, he ended up only creating a whiff of air by his bypassing foot, which propelled him spinning around like an inexperienced martial arts fighter and getting clocked by Huckabee's left hook in Iowa!"

Hee hee hee.

Honestly, every time I hear the name Mike Huckabee these days, I think of Chuck Norris, which makes me think of the Chuck Norris martial arts figurines I had when I was 6, which makes me think of Huckabee as something akin to a cartoon character.

I suppose I should end this post now, before Chuck Norris saves a roundhouse for me!

Yipes!

Real Presidents Don't Cry

Apparently, Hillary Clinton "teared up" at a New Hampshire stop. The burning questions are these, did actual tears roll from her eyes, or did they just sit there all welled up? And, are Clinton's detractors now going to call her a hysterical woman rather than an unemotional bitch?


Oh wait. Why is this even news?

Did I miss the memo where politicians are not allowed to cry?

Why. Is. This. News?

Answer: So her opponents and the media can play the Gender Card in 3-2-1...

"At a New Hampshire campaign event, presidential rival John Edwards told reporters he was unaware of Clinton's emotional reaction and would not respond to it, but added, according to CNN's Dugald McDonnell: 'I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being President of the United States is also a very tough business. And the President of the United States is faced with very, very difficult challenges every single day, difficult judgments every single day.'"

Being Commander-in-Chief is tough, 'lil lady, now you just best get back in that there kitchen and let us menfolk show you how it's done.

(Continue reading the ignorant, fuckwaddery comments after the article for more entertainment).


I'll bet George W. Bush has never cried.

He's just a manly man President like that, ya'll.

Fun Political Quiz for You!

Shoutout to Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimp Refuge for showcasing this quiz that let's you rank issues that are important to you and compare your score with the stances that all of the presidential candidates have taken.

I found this quiz more satisfying than similar quizzes as you get to assign a weight of each issue's importance to you. Although some of the wording is a bit awkward due to double negatives.

My results were unsurprising in that I received the highest "match" scores for Kucinich and Gravel. My third-highest match was Obama. And then Edwards. And then Clinton.

Interesting.

Rather, than shedding light on who I am going to vote for, I am now even more undecided. For many reasons.


I am still certain, however, that I will not be voting for Mike "The Rev" Huckabee in the general election, who I received a "match" score of negative 40. (And I can also add to that list Mitt Romney (-48), and Duncan Hunter (-49)).

Troubling Facts About Abstinence-Only Education

Abstinence-only education, while it can be appealing in the abstract, doesn't work out there in the real world. A real world that, you know, promotes and sells sex to all of us.

President Bush has promoted abstinence-only sex education and the federal government has attached abstinence-only provisions to the receipt of federal grants. Generally,

Abstinence-only sex education is a form of sex education that emphasizes abstinence from sex to the exclusion of all other types of sexual and reproductive health education, particularly regarding birth control and safe sex. This type of sex education promotes sexual abstinence until marriage and either completely avoids any discussion about the use of contraceptives, or only reveals failure rates associated with such use.

This type of education is problematic for many reasons. For one, it denies the reality that no matter what you tell kids, some of them are going to have sex. Two, a program that tells gay youth not to have sex until they are married is not helpful. For the obvious reason, of course, that gay people cannot get married to the people they have sex with.

More troubling is that while Bush promotes this policy to appease his fundamentalist base who seems to hate any form of sexuality that is not "man + woman within a marriage," the list of those who oppose the policy, and who base their opposition on actual evidence, is long. One of the most prominent being the American Academy of Pediatrics, which advocates for abstinence promotion and the delay of early sexual activity while urging responsible contraceptive use. The President's daughter, Jenna bush, has also publicly come out against abstinence-only after her admirable experience working as a UNICEF volunteer in Latin America.

But something that should concern us all, especially from a public health standpoint, is that several reports (inluding this House of Representatives Special Report) have found that abstinence-only programs deprive children of critical information about sexuality. Specifically, the House report found that "Eleven of the thirteen curricula most commonly used by [federally-funded abstinence-only] programs contain major errors and distortions of public health information." These programs, by the way, have received over $90 million in public funding.

What is some of the misleading publicly-funded info, you may ask? (All quotes from the House Report)

Well, "Several curricula cite an erroneuos 1993 study of condom effectiveness" distorting the rate of HIV transmission when a condom is used. (ie- it scares kids into thinking it's much easier to get HIV when they use condoms than it really is).

Some falsely state "as condom usage has increased, so have rates of STDs." (Even though, in reality most recent data indicates that the rates of "important STDs, such as syphilis and gonorrhea, have been dropping over the past decade" and condom use is associated with "reduced acquisition" of STDs. The STD that has seen an increase over the past decade is chlamydia, of which the rate of increase is attributed to "increased screening, imporved reporting," and other variables- not condom use.)

In addition, the curricula blurs "religion and science" by "presenting moral judgments as scientific fact." (Ya think?) "The SPRANS program mandates, for instance, that programs teach that having sex only within marriage 'is the expected standard of human sexual activity.'" Again, problematic for gay people why? You fill in the blank. "One curriculum that describes fetuses as 'babies' describes the blastocyst, technically a ball of 107 to 256 cells at the beginning of uterine implantation, as 'snuggling' into the uterus."

Some of the curricula also "promote stereotypes about boys and girls." For instance, girls care less about their futures than boys as one curriculum instructs, "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."

Yikes!


It would be helpful, one would think, for health information to, you know, actually inform, rather than distort health information. Especially if the purpose of the information is to help kids rather than impose fundamentalist Christian morality on them and control sexual behavior. Clearly, when some people seek to "save the children" they don't really mean it- believing that it's better to lie to kids and scare them than it is to be present honest information and expect them to make responsible, intelligent decisions.

But we already knew that didn't we ;-)

Read the report for more details regarding mis-information.


And now?

"In 2005 and 2006, researchers surveyed 2,000 teenagers in two rurual and two urban communities. They found that students who had had abstinence-only education were just as likely to have sex as a control group of teens who did not receive the instruction. Among sexually active teens in both groups, the average age of the start of sexual activity was just shy of 15. A majority of those had two or more partners, they said. Just 23 percent reported always using condoms.

The recent rise in teen births stands in stark contrast to more than a decade of decline. Between 1991 and 2005, the rate of births to females aged 15-19 plummeted by 34 percent, from a high of 61.8 births per 1,000 in 1991 to 40.5 live births per 1,000 females in that age bracket in 2005."

Teens are having sex, but are not using condoms. Is this a surprise, and can you blame some of them? They are irresponsibly told that condoms cause STDs, or they aren't told anything at all about condoms. I don't know which is worse, actually.

But this is a prime example of why religion does not often make sound public policy.

Repeal and Replace: A Guest Blog About Gays in the Military

Many of the women I know who are or were in the military are gay. In fact, I sort of wonder how the military thinks it would have substantial numbers of women serving if lesbians truly did not serve their country. Anyway, I even know some gay men and transgender persons who have served. I thought about serving, myself, many times. But in the end, I could not justify risking my life for a country that (a) denies me equal rights and (b) said I was not even legally allowed to risk my life for my country because of who I love.

In fact, I often wonder what motivates LGBT people to serve in the military at all. Answering that isn't hard, however. Like many Americans who join, gay people are attracted to the educational benefits, the opportunity to travel, and the possibility to make something of one's life having grown up with limited options.

What follows is a guest blog by a woman pretty active in the movement to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" who wishes to remain anonymous. She served the military and was discharged after being outed as a lesbian. Her story and reasons for advocating against the ban are compelling. Even though she was discharged, she has fond memories of her service. And, she sees the push for repealing the ban as an important step in paving the way for gay people to gain further rights.

This is her story:


"Fannie was nice enough to ask me to write a guest blog about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. (Note: Law not policy, 10 U.S.C. 654) After being outed and losing my retirement, the question most gay people ask me is why I wanted to serve with such an unfair law in place. People pick the military for many reasons. I chose the military because my parents couldn’t afford college and I had always wanted to travel. The military was a perfect fit to achieve all of these goals. My reasons for staying are very different from why I joined. I truly loved teaching young service members and contributing to a larger cause than myself.

Several of you have made reference to the military’s ban on your blogs. There is an interesting conflict that occurs when the gay community discusses military service. We are patriotic and want to be a part of our larger American community. This includes serving when we are needed and contributing to our families’ safety and security. However, gay people don’t want to be treated like second class citizen while they are serving the greater good nor do they want to see their loved ones that are willing to sacrifice for everyone hide inherent characteristics (this includes being gay). To me, both are valid, logical perspectives and I have struggled with both sides.

Throughout history there have been necessary military recruiting spikes. These spikes can be seen during every major war. The military has never expanded service to minority groups unless there was a critical personnel shortage. Three diverse groups of people, along with a historical timeline; 1) African Americans; 2) women; and 3) lesbians, gays and bisexuals. Shortly after all of these groups were acknowledged within the military, they achieved additional rights within the larger society.

There is an amazing opportunity for the gay community to kill two birds with one stone while there is a troop shortage. First, we can contribute to our larger American community by showing our continued dedication to the principles embodied in democracy by letting those who want to serve do so. Second, the gay community will move one step closer to equality in a manner that has proven effective for other disenfranchised groups. So here is a list of things you can do if you would like to see the law repealed and replaced:

1. Write your representative and ask them to support H.R. 1246.

2. Ask YOUR senator to be the leader on this issue.

3. Work with your state and local government to pass resolutions supporting repeal.

Finally, if you know a service member that needs assistance, tell them to remain silent and contact www.sldn.org. (It’s free and confidential.)"


Thank you, "Anonymous." And shoutout to all of our LGBT current, former, and future servicemembers!

Donor Daddies are Baby Daddies Too!

Yesterday I happened upon an article exposing the debate over alternative reproducive technology (ie- sperm and egg donation, but mostly sperm donation). Some, it seems, are framing this latest war as an issue of the "the rights of children to be raised by biological parents versus the rights of 'selfish' adults who want to have children."

I can understand that a person conceived via alternative reproduction methods would be confused about his or her origins. Yet, I can also understand that if the parents broached the topic of the child's origins with sensitivity, it would not be the scarring, traumatic experience that some are making it out to be.

See, I've been reading how this confusion is being manipulated and used by those opposed to families that do not meet the "biological mother + biological father = biological child" model. Some argue that children face real "pain" by being raised by persons other than their biological parents. This article sums up the debate well, and details one woman who is on a mission to.... do what? Let's explore:

Referring to the testimonial of one woman whose daddy was a donor, Elizbeth Marquadt of the Institute for American Values says,

"This debate is dominated by adults’ rights: the rights of same-sex couples, the rights of infertile adults, the rights of singles. But we also have to hear and respond to children’s pain when they lose the ability to grow up with their own mom and dad, whether it’s due to donor conception, or parental abandonment, or divorce."


Marquadt is framing the debate as an issue of selfish adults versus innocent children. (Children who, by the way, would never have been born without the selfish adults.) And by doing so she strikes a chord. For, what reasonable, loving, compassionate person can oppose the rights of innocent children?

Those on Marquadt's side of the debate go to great lengths, in fact, to villify their opponents. As Christine Whipp (over)states her case:

"Why should the child be held hostage for 18 years, denied a relationship with one of its parents, just to satisfy the whims of adults?"

The word "hostage," I won't address, as its use is irrational and inflammatory. But I will note how Whipp characterizes as "a whim" the desire of adults who cannot conceive children without assistance to have children. This, of course, is poor word choice as whim means "sudden impulse." Those using altnerative reproductive technologies must put more thought into reproduction than most other parents- especially biological parents who conceive a child after a drunken roll in the hay. Which, of course, often doesn't even meet the level of "suddely deciding" to have children at all.

I also find that the attitude that childless adults who want children are somehow selfish to be prevalent- particularly among the anti-gay crowd (who, unsurprsingly, often have no qualms about heterosexuals using alternative reproductive technologies).


But let's all note what goes unsaid is Marquadt's implication: People should not be allowed to use alternative reproductive technologies.


Which raises several questions:

1. Is the right to life conditional? Do those who support the buzz phrase "right to life" really mean "right to life while being raised by a biological mother and father"?

If so, they should amend their phrase to say what they really mean.

2. And, is living without both biological parents worse than not living, not existing, at all? Because implicit in Marquadt's analysis, that is what she is saying. Everyone should be alarmed by such an idea- as some people are taking it upon themselves to decide who should be allowed to be born and who should not. All under the banner of "saving the children."

3. And, if two people cannot naturally conceive together, should they marry partners with whom they can conceive in order to ensure that any resulting child has a biological father... oh yeah, and a biological mother?


Another relevant point is that Marquadt, and others, because they intuitively believe that all children need a biological father and mother, assume that most donor-conceived children face pain. Even though this hasn't been studied. Which is why Marquadt is proposing to study it (to be published by the *so very reputable* Institute for American Values? *shiver*). I find it irresponible and alarmist for her and the Institute to make such bold claims about the pain of children, before finding that children suffer such pain. She has gone to several mainstream newspapers, in fact, and declared that children are greatly suffering- all on the basis of some testimonials. A few testimonies do not constitute actual scientific findings.

Which is another reason the Institute for American Values is a joke. Who needs real science when you have intuition, eh?

As someone on the other side of the debate notes:

"Olivia Montuschi, of the UK based Donor Conception Network (DCN), believes that the results of such a study will force Marquardt to eat her words. Montuschi is frustrated that she is speaking out so vocally before collating the evidence."


The most pressing questions, however, I want answered is this: Why do some believe that "biological parent" automatically equals "better parent" for a child? And more importantly, why are opponents of alternative reproduction deigning to speak on behalf of all children, when children have many voices?

Can anyone answer without relying on mere intuition, illogic, or hyperbole?

The Global Warming "Hoax"

At the risk of making a huge generalization, I must ask this:

Why do so many religious conservatives doubt that humans are causing global warming?

Seriously, I peruse many conservative websites, many of them religious in nature, and I notice an odd trend. In the midst of the expected articles regarding marriage, family, "homasexuls," and the baby Jesus I often find articles about the global warming "hoax."

It seems strange to me that people who so readily believe in a literal interpretation of the alleged word of a supernatural being are simultaneously very quick to dismiss a phenomenon for which there is scientific evidence.

They chalk up the facts that the scientific consesus is that humans are responsible for climate change and that no scientific bodies of national or international standing reject the basic findings on human influence on recent climate as some sort of liberal conspiracy.

(If you're wondering about the switch to the phrase "Climate change," according to the National Academy of Sciences, "the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures.")

The term "climate change" is broader than the phrase "global warming." Thus, no national or international scientific body rejects the findings that humans are creating global warming in addition to other climate changes.



So, what's the deal? Are global warming deniers ignorant? Stubborn? Do they trust faith more than science?

Somebody help me out here.

Reading a few of the hoax articles, I found a few sort-of explanations:

1. "Environmentalists are not only working to keep America from developing new sources of oil, they are also blaming this unusually active hurricane season on global warming."

Ah. The oil. Could, perhaps, some people be profiting by claiming that global warming is a hoax?

2. More "unbiased" research is needed. Yes. Clearly, more objective research is needed when no national or international scientific body rejects the findings that humans are creating climate change.

3. "Radical" and "extremist" environmentalists dominate the discussion. Hmm. Note how calling anyone with whom you disagree a "radical" and "extremist" automatically connotes "crazy person who is out of touch with the common man." In other words, it automatically discredits your opponent and distracts the readers away from the content of his or her argument.

4. Global warming is occuring, but it is not due to humans. The world has just been "continually decaying since the fall."


In the end, however, I think the denial of global warming is about keeping dollars in somebody's pocket. Somebody being oil companies or those in the Jesus biz.

Happy New Year('s Eve)!

Hello? *tap* *tap* Is anyone reading this? I have a hunch that many readers are off of work today (and therefore, not bored and reading my blog), on vacation, away from their computers, or preparing for tonight's New Year's festivities.

So, to those of you reading this, "Hi."

And to all readers, new and old, I'd like to thank you for reading Fannie's Room.

As my last post of 2007, I'd like to make two lists. (Because people find anything in list form more exciting than the same info in a non-list.)

My Top 5 (as of today, anyway) favorite famous lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, questioning, or otherwise not-completely-heterosexual women, and my Top 5 favorite famous straight men:

Ladies first:

5. Daniela Sea. I know, I know, say what you want about her character on the L Word. I think she's foxy.

4. Angelina Jolie. In pre-Brad Pitt and Billy Bob days, humanitarian-actress-mother Jolie reportedly dated model Jenny Shimizu. (Luckeeeee)

3. Leisha Hailey. She's cute, funny, and into music. What more does one need in a girlfriend?

(ps- just kiddin' Hammerpants)

(pps- countdown: T-minus 1 month until the L Word begins)

2. Jodie Foster. For finally confirming what most of knew anyway.

1. Ellen. Just 'cuz she's still so funny, and positive for the most part.


And now, the guys:

5. Ralph Macchio. Yes, I recently watched The Karate Kid. A movie I was obsessed with when I was little.

4. David Boreanaz. I guess I'm a sucker for men who play dark, sensitive, brooding, vampires with a soul.

3. Will Smith. I've always like him because, like Ellen, he's a good entertainer without being negative.

2. Brad Pitt. I know, he totally stole Angelina from us. But hey, if she's going to be with a man, at least it is Brad Pitt.

1. Matt Damon. It's not that I think he's foxy, I just like the Jason Bourne movies. ;-)


Happy 2008 everyone!!

Friday Bonus Blog: Portly Dyke's Funny Feminist Prank

This might be the funniest feminist prank I've read about, ever.

And, can I just say that Teh Portly Dyke ("That's me -- 5 Feet, 51 years old, 155 Lbs. Get over it.") is one of my favorite bloggers to read. And not just because she once pulled shennanigans such as above. But because she, being an older and wiser lesbian than myself, offers inspiration to all progressives saying:

"If I could give one thing to every progressive I know, it would be more confidence in the inevitability of human evolution....For all progressives out there, regardless of age, who have swallowed the numbing drug of ennui/apathy/disenchantment, I want to say: "Buck up. Don't you recognize the screams of dying dinosaurs when you hear them? "

The people who want to drag us back to previous eras of oppression will not win the next election. They won't. They know it.

Isn't it time we know it?"


Indeed.

Because I can certainly think of a few dying dinosaurs I've heard squawking lately.

A Happy Dog Blog for the Holidays

Perusing through a People magazine at the gym the other day, I came across an uplifting and fascinating article about dogs that I want to share with you. Some dogs can serve a purpose other than being cute. Now, we all know that blind and visually-impaired people sometimes use guide dogs to increase mobility and promote independence. That, by itself, is enough to love dogs. But apparently, dogs can help people with other conditions too.

For instance, the organization Dogs4Diabetics "provides quality medical alert assistance dogs to youth and adults who are insulin-dependent type 1 diabetics." Dogs can be trained "to identify, and more importantly, act upon the subtle changes that hypoglycemia (low blood glucose) creates in body chemistry, changes undetectable to their human companions." Dogs can actually sense changes in blood sugar before the person with diabetes senses the change. The People magazine article included a story of one woman with diabetes whose service dog would wake her up in the middle of the night if it sensed her blood sugar changing.

Anyway, there hasn't been a lot of research studying the extent to which this phenomenon works, but it's a fascinating idea nonetheless. Here's another article about it.


But the more important question is this: would a cat be remotely capable of such a thing?

I think we all know the answer to that...

Dogs 2, Cats 4.

In Case There Was Any Doubt....

I will not be voting for Mike Huckabee (R).

Here are my reasons:

1. He is a former Baptist pastor.

That's fine, I suppose, if a former Baptist politician is able to separate his religious beliefs from his duties as a representative of people of all religions (or no religion). That being said, this statement of Huckabee's gives me the willies:

"My faith is my life - it defines me. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.... My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them."

See, I am okay with having a president who is religious. But I'm not okay with having a president whose religious faith drives his decisions. I don't share his religious faith. Nor do many Americans. And to add more salt on that wound, his particular faith is not the most tolerant.

But wait, Huckabee also says this, indicating that maybe he doesn't hold the same judgmental views on gay people as others in his religion:

"Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. It makes us less judgmental, as we see others with the same frailties we have."

Hmm. Hold that thought.


2. In 1992, Huckabee wrote this, in response to an Associated Press questionnaire asking candidates if measures ought to be taken to "isolate the carriers of [HIV/AIDS]":

"It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crises it represents,"

And, he stands by these statements today saying this:

"'I still believe this today,' he said, 'I don't run from it, I don't recant it.' He said he would, however, state his view differently now in retrospect."

Okay. But, even in 1992, it was commonly known that HIV/AIDS was not spread by casual contact. And, in 1992, AIDS was still largely seen as a gay disease (even though heterosexual rates of acquisition were beginning to significantly increase). So, why the need for quarantine if this "plague" could not be spread by casual contact?

Surely he wasn't making any implications about gay men's sexual behavior...


3. Oh wait. (This is the part where we remember Huckabee's definition of real faith as being non-judgmental):

When asked his opinions about gays in the military, Huckabee said this:

"I believe to try to legitimize that which is inherently illegitimate would be a disgraceful act of government. I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle..."

How very non-judgmental.

And, those are strong words coming from someone who never served in the military. I'd like to see him back up this statement before a crowd of current and former LGBT servicemembers.


4. In fact, Huckabee proudly admits that he is the most anti-gay candidate in the race saying on his website:

"No other candidate has supported traditional marriage more consistently and steadfastly than I have. While Massachusetts was allowing homosexuals to marry, I got a constitutional amendment passed in Arkansas in 2002 defining marriage as between one man and one woman."

You know, I'm reading several books right now on the history of marriage, and I'm learning more and more that the concept "traditional marriage" is a conservative construct that denies the reality that "marriage" has varied greatly over time and culture. Not that many in the "moral values" crowd concern themselves with pesky things like facts, however.

Oh, I also get the heebie-jeebies when people still use the word "homosexual" to refer to.... me.


5. Mike Huckabee also claims to support "the sanctity of life" (that virtuous yet vacuous buzz phrase). He boasts:

"As Governor, I did all I could to protect life. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction. What I accomplished as Governor proves that there is a lot more that a pro-life President can do than wait for a Supreme Court vacancy, and I will do everything I can to promote a pro-life agenda and pass pro-life legislation."

Heebie.

"I will staff all relevant positions with pro-life appointees. I will use the Bully Pulpit to change hearts and minds, to move this country from a culture of death to a culture of life."

Jeebies.

So, this wannabe "leader" is admitting that he sees the highest executive office in our nation as a means to be Preacher-in-Chief and that he will use his power as president to impose his religious beliefs on our nation.

Not exactly what our founding fathers had in mind.


Hmm. Well, I suppose if he is so into supporting a culture of life, we will finally have an end to war.


Hold that thought.


6. In Huckabee we would get another messianic "leader" (intentional quotes) who believes he is leading the world to be in an historic battle between good and evil:

"Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror....I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis.... I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. This war is not a conventional war, and these terrorists are not a conventional enemy....As President, I will always ensure that Israel has access to the state-of-the-art weapons and technology she needs to defend herself from those who seek her annihilation."

[*side rant*Do we really still refer to countries as ladies?*side rant over*]

Reflecting on Huckabee's committment to supporting "the sanctity of life," I wonder how his eagerness for war and a military upgrade substantiates his claims of supporting the holiness of all living beings.

I'm thinking of a number. 655,00 to be exact.

Sanctity of life indeed.


7. Now, this final reason is an admittedly shallow reason, but when combined with the other reasons it is sort of the straw that breaks the camel's back: his name. Can one possibly have a more good ol' boy southern name than "Huckabee"? Oh wait, yes, yes one can.



I'll end on these slogans that Huckabee's campaign managers are completely free to use:


Mike Huckabee: One more reason to support separation of church and state!

Mike Huckabee: One reason to vote in the Republican primary just so you can vote against him!

Mike Huckabee: Doing his part to create an evangelical Christian theocracy!

Mike Huckabee: I think gay people are icky too, so vote for me!