Not A Stripper

Redirect

2005-12-25T23:43:00.000-06:00

I made a decision! (I hope you were sitting down for that) From now on you can read my musings at the Latest Obsession. This blog will no longer be updated. See you over there!

inspiration

2005-12-08T11:05:00.000-06:00

ok. I'm getting inspired again.

I need to figure out how to have blogergy. synergy. blog synergy. right now I have a knitting blog, a personal blog, and this. Seems a shame to let this go to waste, and lots of the stuff I put on the personal blog could go here instead/also. I see my friend waking slow/slowlyawake do this crossposting all the time, I will ask her about how it works if she doesn't see this first.

I'm used to livejournal at this point, and I like its ease of use and its levels. Maybe I should become a paid user there and bring over the notastripper name? Or is this just as easy and I haven't figured it out yet? It'd be nice to have a place more formal than that, where I can do something resembling writing.

Robert Bork

2005-06-03T13:04:00.000-05:00

NPR this morning aired this overview of the Watergate scandal, which was very interesting and useful to someone who didn't live through it and knows the basics, but tends to get confused by the many names involved :)

Anyway, one part stood out. The Saturday night massacre ended when Robert Bork fired Archibald Cox, after his two superiors refused to do so. This depraved act of Bork's was surely a motivating factor behind the Democrats' opposition of his nomination to the Supreme Court in the 1980s (altho I'd appreciate some perspective on this from someone who knows more about the hearings).

That hearing seems to be the point in time people mark as the beginning of the current combative legislative tone, everything having been tit for tat since then. It's interesting to me that even that moment had its origin in the jaw-dropping abuse of power that was Watergate, surely one of the more clear-cut cases of right vs. wrong we've had in American politics.

On other words, the Republicans' choosing loyalty over fairness and justice is what got us where we are today. Hmm, when I say it that way it seems kind of obvious...

I'm back

2005-05-29T23:32:00.000-05:00

Sorry readers, I was expecting blogspot to email me if I had any comments, and they didn't so I thought nobody was reading anymore! I revisited my blog today after showing it to someone and noticed that I am still in some rss feed lists. :) I haven't deicded what to do with it, or anything. I could make it a "what's going on in my life" thing in general, but then I feel like that shoudl move to livejournal, I kind of have problems editing myself at times and who knows what I'd reveal ;) I had this problem in college once when a girlfriend told me she talked to her best friend every day. I don't always feel like I have thoughts worth sharing every day...then of course there are those days with plenty to go around.

Remember Me?

2005-04-26T18:00:00.000-05:00

Hi.

Well. Lots of changes.

--This blog was originally begun to give me a political outlet. However,
--I don't really need one anymore, since
--(insert angry comment about election here), and
--I had a dissertation to write, and
--I wrote it, and in the process weaned myself from politics.

Oh, I still keep up, kind of. But my outrage meter got severely reset by the election and everything happening since. The point at which I find my brain turning off out of self-protection from the anger politics produces comes a lot earlier than it did before. A LOT earlier. Like, I can sometimes feel it happening during the DAILY SHOW. During joke SETUPS.

So I'm not sure what to do with this blog now.

(and we'll see who still has me in their RSS. Holla!)

Tom Tomorrow is surprised

2004-10-03T09:59:00.000-05:00

This Modern World:

I have to admit, I'm surprised by the public response (though not unpleasantly so)--this is how Bush always looks to me. So he's shifty-eyed, smirks inappropriately, doesn't seem capable of maintaining a coherent train of thought for a full ninety seconds, seems generally befuddled and irritable? Well, it's nice the media and the commentariat finally noticed, but it's not exactly as if any of this is news. Point is, when I went back to the hotel last night I was too tired to watch much post-debate spin, so I had no real idea how this was going to play--I would have been unsurprised to find that Kerry had been declared the loser, or that the whole thing had been declared a draw. I just can't tell anymore. The gulf between what I observe when watching Bush and what the media report has just grown too wide.

I started this here blog (which got its perhaps-first non-friend reader last night, thanks for stopping by, narcissist :) because one day, I felt this exact way about the Iraq war reportage. I hope that this is the first weekend of the rest of our lives, and that in a few months, I'll be inspired to write another such dream column about how Bush had no clothes on the WHOLE TIME.

It feels like something is happening. I hope that's real. I've often marveled at how this election seems to go the way I want it to just at the right time.

Yes, I'm sober this time....

2004-10-03T02:55:00.000-05:00

and I'm rewatching the debate, all hail TiVo. I started doing so because of this here rumor, but I got sucked in. I'm not sure what I can see that I haven't already seen the first time or read about in the last few days, and let's face it, I'm so partisan that all it's gonna do is solidify my leanings :), but it's pretty interesting to carefully watch Bush and how he gets more and more annoyed as time goes on.

If you're too lazy to follow links, the rumor is based on this: at one point Bush is stumbling, and says "let me finish"--but he had plenty of time left, and nobody was interrupting him. They have an mp3 of the moment. It definitely happened. The tinfoil hats come out at the explanation they offer: he was talking to someone who was feeding him answers in an earpiece. Now given Bush's relationship to the English language, I think a more parsimonious explanation may just be that he got his verbal feet tangled up in his mental thicket and tripped. But hey, it's early on Sunday morning, and I am a scientist. Let's think about it a bit more systematically. What would one need to pull this off?

--an earpiece small enough (I'm sure the technology is good enough for this by now)
--a transmitter within range (ham radio people? what say you? what sort of boosters could bush wear to increase this?)
--a person feeding the info who can unsuspiciously be scarce during the debate (got to be a ton of these)
--practice with the system, requiring at LEAST one tech dude to handle the electronics and one policy dude to handle the content (I do not think you could find those skillsets in one person.)

Who is going to be looking for this sort of thing? The debate commission? They're busy running the hall etc. The other campaign? You'd have to have a suspicion first, and they are busy enough without going on snipe hunts.

Now, on the other hand, the video doesn't support this well. He seemed to be looking at someone (Lehrer?) as he was speaking, and kept eye contact with him and even gestured when he said "let me finish". So another possibility is a misreading of Lehrer's body language (because he had at least 30 seconds left). All I have is C-Span split screen video, so it's hard to be sure.

Another point against the idea is that inside accounts seem to suggest that even campaign Republicans were surprised at how Bush bombed the debate. "Everyone", including people like me, thought Bush would do about five times better than he did, and that Kerry'd be lucky to fight it to a draw. I doubt the Bush campaign thought differently enough to be scared enough to risk this.

But even if you think my tinfoil hat is reeeeeeeeally shiny right now (with the shiny side out, more of the mind control rays are deflected), you must admit that this is EASILY within the realm of possibility. We're talking about the party who sent their interns and staffers to Miami to stop the recount in 2000 by rioting in the halls of the county building. The party that even AFTER the Florida debacle in 2000 when they KNEW they'd be under scrutiny, tried to submit fucked-up felon lists that required a subpeona to uncover. What is stopping them from doing this? What moral principle? Only a nonbinding agreement with an opponent they don't respect and a commission with no real power.

Say what you will about the media's cravenness....

2004-10-03T02:47:00.000-05:00

but by rejecting the candidates' rules about the video feeds for the debates, thereby putting Bush's reactions and demeanor on the table, the republic just may have been saved.

Debate #1 Multiple Choice

2004-09-30T21:32:00.000-05:00

Which of the following is a true statement?

A) Bush is prematurely senile

B) Kerry is a wicked good debater

C) I am drunk

D) ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!

OK, if the blogosphere and punditocracy try to call this a tie I'mma spit on them all PERSONALLY.

The possible long-term effects of racism

2004-08-25T12:32:00.000-05:00

I haven't been following the Michelle Malkin business; I had vaguely heard of her book and its thesis (Japanese-American internment during WWII wasn't as bad as history thinks, racial profiling is sometimes OK), but when I saw her and her condescending ways on Bill Maher, I pegged her as an Ann Coulter type to ignore. But it turns out she actually has an idea or two that the blogosphere has decided is worth taking seriously. In a post by a blogger new to me, Orcinus, I found this paragraph:

Taken in isolation, these little acts of racial mean-spiritedness may have seemed of little moment. But in fact they had consequences that eventually exploded into the history books. In Japan, the public had been closely watching the passage of the Alien Land Laws with mounting outrage. And when news of the passage of the Asian Exclusion Act was announced, mass riots broke out in Tokyo and other cities. As Pearl Buck would later observe, the then-nascent movement for American-style democracy, which had been slowly gaining momentum in Japan, was effectively wiped out overnight. The military authoritarians who would control the nation for the next 20 years gained complete political mastery, and one of the cornerstones of their rule was a bellicose anti-Americanism that would finally reach fruition in late 1941.

Interesting, eh? I'm generally fascinated by this sort of wide-angle lens on history. Thought I'd share.

Alan Keyes is Nutty, Part 317

2004-08-25T10:35:00.000-05:00

The Chicago Sun-Times reports:

Declaring "the front line of the war against terror once again involves the citizens," Republican Alan Keyes said Tuesday he believes the U.S. Constitution grants properly trained private individuals the right to own and carry machine guns.

"You're not talking about giving citizens access to atom bombs and other things," the former presidential candidate said. "That's ridiculous."

Well, of COURSE!! Nuclear weapons, what a wacky idea!! He's just talking about MACHINE GUNS! You know, fully automatic rifles and such. The idea being that the 2nd amendment says that citizens should be armed similarly to the military. So give them guns like this one!

Or even little purse-sized guns like this Uzi-style! See, it goes right over one's shoulder.

Only with proper training, of course. Training provided by...erm....proper training, definitely, definitely need proper training. From the Fully Automatic Weapon Training Gnomes of Limited Government. Yeah, that's it!

Now, why would it be safe, and not scary as all get-out, to have Americans walking around with their own personal machine guns? You may wish to ask this of Alan Keyes. Well, someone has already done so:

"Have you ever been to Israel?" Keyes asked the reporter. "Because if you've ever been to Israel, you wouldn't ask that question. And in the midst of terrifying dangers, you walk around the streets of Israel and you see every other person carrying arms and Uzis and so forth and so on, and believe me, you do not feel less safe on that account."

Ah yes. When in Israel, one is awash in feelings of security and peace. Walking down the street, taking buses, sipping coffee at outdoor cafes--surely, the presence of multiple uzis being carried by trained citizens (all of whom are veterans, remember) is a soothing balm of reassurance to the Israeli mind. (Non-sarcastic proposal: you know the "Hitler" rule of online discussion? When Hitler gets mentioned, the conversation has degraded such that there is nothing more worthwhile to be said. Should there maybe be an "israel" corollary, on using Israel as a sociological example of anything?)

But wait, the best is yet to come:

Keyes made the remarks at a news conference he called to attack the "ideological extremism" of his Democratic opponent, state Sen. Barack Obama.

Extremist Barack Obama objected to a messy little law that would have allowed people to use self-defense as a legal defense for violating local handgun laws. So in Chicago, say, if you own an illegal handgun, but use it in self-defense, you would be able to avoid prosecution for owning an illegal handgun. Surely, objection to that sort of change by a lawyer like Obama could only be grounded in ideological extremism, and not in how it creates a frigging legal MORASS out of already messy gun regulations. And, surely, taking the 2nd amendment to one of its interpretations' logical extremes by allowing citizens to carry the same weapons as soldiers is, comparatively, a moderate suggestion.

Disgust, Equality, Leadership and the Family

2004-08-05T00:04:00.000-05:00

Martha Nussbaum has an article in The Chronicle about disgust and shame and how they relate to law, inspired by current debates about homosexuality. Lots of good insights, but then at the end there's this one:

"In general, a society based on the idea of equal human dignity must find ways to inhibit stigma and the aggression that are so often linked to the proclamation that 'we' are the ones who are 'normal.' Such a society is difficult to achieve, because incompleteness is frightening, and grandiose fictions are comforting. As a patient of the psychoanalyst Donald W. Winnicott said to him, 'The alarming thing about equality is that we are then both children, and the question is, where is father? We know where we are if one of us is the father.'"

Wow! This made me think of a lot of things. First of all, my man George Lakoff, who in my world would be a household name, and his ideas about the links between conceptions of the family and resultant political views that explain so much about sociopolitical discourse in America today. (I also talk about him in posts archived here and here.)

But it also made me think about leadership. My first 9-to-5 job was one summer at college, and watching how the office was run made me realize just how unorganized and leaderless a place could be while still functioning well enough to not get noticed. (No that place wasn't terrible, but it did illustrate the concepts.) It made me see what gets things done is just people deciding to do them, that there is no boss or parent in life, and that even people in roles that could be expected to be bossy/parental often don't fulfill those roles. It's hard to explain without sounding stupid. But it comes up a LOT, especially when I look at how things happen politically. Budgets may need to get passed or too many people get mad, but other bills and ideas? One person gets the light in their eye and their work makes it happen. That person is necessary (but not always sufficient) for implementation. (This article on electronic voting made me think of this, for some reason.)

So I think this observation about the frighteningness of equality is valid. That nobody could be in charge is so terrifying that we develop religions, invent conspiracy theories, etc. to PUT someone in charge. Grandiose fictions ARE comforting.

This election season

2004-07-29T22:07:00.000-05:00

It just gets better and better. Gore didn't run, gracefully. Dean woke up the Dems and then all the momentum transferred seamlessly to the strongest candidate, who keeps doing the right things. The bad news from Iraq and the 9/11 Commission comes in at just the right time and public mood starts turning just when it should. The famously scattershot Dems have a convention so on message even Republicans are impressed. The common wisdom about Kerry's speech was that he had to give a great one. Well, he was no Obama, but he was presidential. It really, really worked. Not a misstep to my ears, not one. Being overly stentorian may grate on one (the biggest criticism I have--not enough changes in tone of voice) but it's grating in the right direction--the respectable one.

Damned if I don't think we can do this. I just hope when we get there we can fix some of the damage. But we SO can get there.

One or Two Americas?

2004-07-28T22:59:00.000-05:00

So, like you I'm sure, Barack Obama's speech at the DNC last night blew me away. I've been loving Edwards for a year or so but his speech seemed lackluster in comparison, to me anyway.

This article in the New Republic
Online may not be accessible, so here is a long excerpt about this issue of divided or united America and how Obama's message resembles and differs from Bush's in 2000:

"So in 2000 Bush portrayed the country as divided (and therefore needing a uniter); and in 2004 Democrats portray the country as united (and therefore needing to get rid of a divider). But the funny thing about both these formulations is that neither was, or is, really true. In mid-2000 America wasn't nearly as divided as Bush contended. The economy had grown long enough and strongly enough to begin lifting all boats; there hadn't been a major war in decades; and, despite his Oval Office dalliances, Clinton was leaving office with an approval rating topping 60 percent in most polls. The election was considered dull news largely because no one felt a need for drastic change in the way things were headed. Bush's greatest success was convincing just enough people that, despite the evidence, the country really was a divided place, and new leadership was needed to bring us back together.

But if Bush was wrong in 2000, the Democrats are wrong today. The country is, in fact, divided. A hard-core 45 percent has rallied behind Bush, and a similar number behind Kerry. People are worried about terrorism, but deeply divided on what to do about it. The same goes for the economy, gay marriage, and abortion. To be sure, the Democrats will argue that all of this is Republican spin--that most people don't care about gay marriage, that a majority are critical of the war in Iraq. And to an extent this is true. But this line of argument can also be pushed toward self-parody, in which Democrats embrace a worldview that blames any kind of political tension, even healthy debate over real divisions, on the GOP spin machine."

All these arguments over whether or not we are united just make me think: what unites us? What should? "Freedom" obviously is a bit too vague a concept when some people are willing to get their bags checked on the Boston subway and some aren't. I know what I think: I think it's our tolerance for our plurality, and our ability to reinvent ourselves within and between generations. Some of "them" would say god, to which I say, bite me. But they'd be more right than I am, I do think.

Maybe the point is just that it's an ongoing experiment and it's set up such that nobody can impose their view for long. So since everyone feels like their values are dying, they fight for them, and the struggle is ensured to continue. Not very satisfying an explanation, not good for a campaign sound bite :)

Or maybe I'm reaching philosopho-burnout. I've been philosophizing about red/blue etc. for a few days now and it's starting to hurt.

Boyfriend!

2004-07-07T11:43:00.000-05:00

I think I've mentioned before that my boyfriend works in the Kerry campaign. Well, at last I have proof!! (He's the one with the most facial hair and the best clothes :)

Edwards!

2004-07-07T11:41:00.000-05:00

I am inspired to return to blogging by Kerry's selection of John Edwards for VP. My studies took over for a bit there, but I am so excited about this. I read a profile two years ago on Edwards that made him sound like the second coming of Clinton, charisma-wise, and emphasized his "ambulance-chasing trial lawyer" background as a PLUS. It's a fantastic assessment, go read it. (The bit I am talking about is near the end.)

18 or so months ago the word was that Edwards was who the Republicans most feared running against. I was never sure if that was reverse psychology or what, but I give it a few grains of truth. The guy has an iconic American life, beautiful intelligent wife, darling children, is no stranger to struggle and heartbreak...and he's got a REALLY CRAGGY picture in his attic! No candidate has been that good looking since Kennedy.

He's the only person I donated to in the primaries and I only started giving $ to Kerry yesterday. My bimonthly $20 will not get me on any Big Donor lists, but this is the first time in my political life that "my guy" is a contender, and I'm excited about putting my $ where my mouth is.

Against All Enemies

2004-06-05T06:18:00.000-05:00

I borrowed Richard Clarke's book from my stepdad and am reading it now. It's very accessible and the first chapter, which is his experiences on 9/11/01, is very exciting. It's amazing how long ago 9/11 was, but how fresh it can seem--and how unreal it still can seem. You may think you've heard all the book has to say in its media coverage when it came out (I did), but its overview is worthwhile.

Anyway the reason I am blogging about it is on page 89. December 1993 was the 5th anniversary of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing and Clarke had organized a Scottish cairn to be erected at Arlington in memorial (many killed were servicepeople). At a ceremony, Clinton and a 4-year-old boy whose father had died on 103 broke ground for the cairn, and Clinton whispered something in his ear, which the boy's mother later told Clarke was "My father died before I was born too. Be good to your mom."

Cute story eh? Not like the media cared--their report that night on the Prez was all about Arkansas state troopers, and not a word about Pan Am 103. No wonder people think politicians are assholes. Turns out those who actually interact with them have very different views. Clinton's empathy is well-documented, but when I was in DC last weekend I asked a campaign staffer why she chose to work for Kerry a year ago, and she had a personal story about how well he handled a question of hers when she met him.

Speaking of dissertations....

2004-06-05T06:12:00.000-05:00

did you know the difference between a thesis and a dissertation? I didn't until recently. In a nutshell, a thesis is an idea (hence "thesis statement") and a dissertation is a document. So one writes one's dissertation, which expounds and supports one's thesis. I can't believe I was thinking of doing this without knowing that.

Anyone who wants to buy me the book Shivers recommends is way hired. :)

Remember me?

2004-06-05T06:05:00.000-05:00

yeah...slow week for the blog, I know. I have decided that my interest in politics/current events and my interest in obtaining my PhD are not very compatible. So I am trying to unplug a bit from the news cycle...I will try and make it such that when I _do_ plug in, tho, I think to blog about it. Or maybe you will just hear a lot about the pain of writing a dissertation.

Freudian Overtone of the Day

2004-06-01T21:57:00.000-05:00

The Rude Pundit: Apparently our President keeps Saddam Hussein's gun, the one he had when he was captured from the 'spider hole,' in a study off the side of the Oval Office. Bush shows it to visitors; he is 'proud of it' because, it seems, or so it is said, it reminds the President of how 'proud' he is of the troops.

That's only a little bit illegal, btw. For all sorts of reasons...

Yes Yes Y'all

2004-06-01T20:51:00.000-05:00

I visited my boyfriend in DC this weekend. On Friday I met him at his workplace--the John Kerry campaign headquarters! I had a great time meeting his coworkers and volunteering for the afternoon with the Internet team. Later on John Kerry dropped by to visit me...well OK, for a photo op. (I was standing to his right.) You know how he can look way craggy sometimes in photos? Not in person, at ALL. And jeez, such a better voice.

It Made Me Laugh

2004-06-01T20:43:00.000-05:00

U.S. Backs New Iraq Leaders, Says Not Puppets.

not puppets! LOL!

Going to DC

2004-05-27T23:09:00.000-05:00

I'll be in the District over the holiday weekend visiting my boy. We'll try and avoid the terrorists, don't worry. But blogging may be light or nonexistent.

In Any Other Country...

2004-05-27T11:16:00.000-05:00

From Al Gore's speech to MoveOn.org:

But amazingly, even active duty military officers are speaking out against President Bush. For example, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior General at the Pentagon as saying, ' the current OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) refused to listen or adhere to military advice.' Rarely if ever in American history have uniformed commanders felt compelled to challenge their commander in chief in public.

The Post also quoted an unnamed general as saying, "Like a lot of senior Army guys I'm quite angry" with Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush Administration. He listed two reasons. "I think they are going to break the Army," he said, adding that what really incites him is "I don't think they care."

In another country, this level of disconnect would have people expecting a coup.

I want to be funny too

2004-05-26T10:42:00.000-05:00

Like Jesus' General, who here comes up with a new way to get street potholes fixed.