The Stir By CafeMom: Blogger Julie Marsh

Our Country Is Changing, But Will Republicans Change Too?

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:05:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

The president has been re-elected, Governor Romney gave a gracious concession speech, and Republicans across the country persist in leaping to the worst of conclusions and losing their ever-loving minds.

This morning, I told my kids the election results and reminded them to be gracious and kind. They know that I have my reasons for supporting the president, and those who voted for Governor Romney have their reasons as well.

But when adults are literally weeping for the future and high school and college students still living on their parents' dime are lamenting the (false) prospect of paying for "lazy" people's health care, you know the hyperbole has reached epic heights. Even before reading Donald Trump's string of drunk-tweets.

It's hyperbole because President Obama is a moderate Republican of the old-school variety.

If the current breed of Republicans could cease wailing and leaping to the wildest of all possible conclusions for long enough to look objectively at the president's policies and positions, they'd see that he's not the socialist they erroneously believe him to be.

But that's not as much fun as self-righteous outrage. We love a good rivalry in this country, don't we? Perhaps that's one of the factors driving Republicans and Democrats apart, and blinding citizens to the fact that we're the ones who lose in this manufactured fight.

Would I be disappointed if Governor Romney had won? Of course. As I said, I have my reasons for supporting the president.

But I gave my energy to the election, not its results. I left it all at the polls, to borrow a swimming metaphor (leaving it all in the pool). Even last night, watching the concession remarks, I simply felt contentment. Had it been the other way around, I would have felt disappointment, not outrage.

I do hope that Romney voters will take his words to heart, along with the president's. As GOP strategist Mike Murphy said this morning, "Our country is changing." I'd love to have everyone along for the ride, Republicans included.

Image via YouTube

Governor Romney Needs to Meet More Women

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:52:00 EDT

Post by Julie Marsh

Last night's presidential debate differed dramatically from the first in many ways. First, moderator Candy Crowley was engaged and in control, despite both candidates' overages, interruptions, cherry-picking, and exaggerations. Second, President Obama himself was engaged and in control. He made some truly brilliant points and articulated some thoughtful rebuttals.

Governor Romney remained much the same -- same expression, same manner, and same fictitious talking points that ought to have been fact-checked out of his arsenal by now. But he did touch on a point that he'd previously outsourced to his wife, Ann: Women.

The discussion of his Massachusetts cabinet was brief, but it was extremely telling. Asked about workplace inequality, he eschewed the opportunity to comment on the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and spoke instead of how "all the applicants seemed to be men" when he put together his cabinet. Massachusetts women's groups brought him "binders full of women", which helped lead to an admittedly diverse cabinet.

Points for Romney for wanting women in his cabinet. Problem is, why didn't he know any himself?

Never mind the fact that the so-called "binders full of women" had been assembled long before Governor Romney took office, certainly not at his behest. Hadn't he ever worked with any women whose performance merited consideration for his cabinet?

In any executive position, be it CEO or governor or president, there's a fantastic opportunity to surround yourself with people whom you personally know to be excellent performers. I blinked at the word "applicants," wondering if he didn't mean "appointees." Were these positions advertised on Monster.com? For all of Governor Romney's private sector experience, shouldn't he know dozens, even hundreds, of qualified folks that he'd want to work with as governor?

Instead of underscoring Romney's supposed commitment to workplace equality, the example he cited demonstrated a historical lack of diversity in his workplace experience. Had he made a concerted effort over his years in the private sector to recruit qualified women, he wouldn't have had to rely on any binders. He would have had plenty of appointees in mind right in his own Rolodex.

Governor Romney didn't even know enough women to staff his Massachusetts cabinet without outside help. What would this mean for representation of women in his presidential cabinet?

Image via moveon.org

Mitt Romney Is Creating Jobs Already ... For Fact Checkers

Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:38:00 EDT

Post by Julie Marsh

Last night's presidential debate at the University of Denver was an exercise in futility, both for viewers and moderator Jim Lehrer. I couldn't Google fast enough to make sense of all the claims and accusations that flew fast and furious between President Obama and Governor Romney.

It seems I wasn't alone though; Thursday morning's news has brought forth a slew of fact check articles. Apparently even the professionals needed a few hours to suss out the exaggerations and outright falsehoods.

In short, Romney was vague on details and left many questions unsatisfactorily answered, and Obama jumped to the worst possible conclusions to fill in those gaps. Likewise, both men laid claim to good news that really wasn't news at all.

Obama vowed to use money saved by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for rebuilding America. From the Washington Post Fact Checker:

The Bush administration never properly accounted for war spending, refusing to project costs in the future, which kept its deficit projections artificially low. Now that the wars are winding down, the Obama administration is happy to project costs far into the future, because it artificially inflates the potential deficit reduction.

You can't save money that hasn't been budgeted and appropriated. (But you sure can spend it, right GWB?)

Meanwhile, Romney vowed to create 12 million jobs while he's president. The Fact Checker dampens enthusiasm considerably with these projections:

Moody’s Analytics, in an August forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs.

Perhaps those who haven't been following the campaign closely aren't so wary of these claims, but I can't believe we're still hearing about the $716B in Medicare cuts, which has been addressed ad nauseum by FactCheck.org, among others. Likewise, the government "takeover" of health care was named PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" in 2010, and yet it's still a talking point.

Fact checking by The New York Times, Washington Post, and The New Republic all identified errors in arithmetic by both candidates. It seems that we voters need to check the work behind all the answers; none of it can be taken at face value.

In the meantime, I'll be brushing up on my typing skills so as to be more adept at Googling in real time for the next debate.

Image via ABCNews

Ann Romney: Daughter-in-Law of a Welfare Recipient

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:38:00 EDT

Post by Julie Marsh

Last week I watched Jon Stewart on The Daily Show absolutely skewer Mitt Romney and his campaign concerning the statements made on video regarding voters who support the president (and, by his logic, will never support him -- let alone take responsibility for themselves and their own lives) at that infamous Florida fundraising event. I would like to point to that clip and say simply, "What he said."

Really, everyone ought to watch it. Stewart is a comedian, but that fact does not invalidate his points.

Not even interviews with Ann Romney herself, insisting that Mitt Romney doesn't "disdain the poor," that his words were "misinterpreted," that without President Romney, "more and more people will become dependent on government."

Folks, we are already dependent on government. To President Obama's point about how we "didn't build that" (now there's a quote that was doctored up beyond all recognition), the government provides products and services to us all. The slippery slope argument doesn't follow logically, nor do assertions that those who avail themselves of what government provides are "takers" (and those who don't are "makers").

Ann Romney is a mom, to be sure. A mom who worked hard to raise a houseful of boys. But she has grown ever more far removed from moms who don't just work hard, but struggle valiantly -- and still sometimes need assistance. Assistance that may come from family, friends, community, or the government.

If Ann Romney's mother-in-law were still living, perhaps she would educate her daughter-in-law on the realities of welfare recipients. They aren't all queens; some of them are future governors and presidential candidates -- just like her own husband's father.

I'm sure that the Romneys and their campaign have concocted some sort of justification for this historical fact (captured on video, even!), such as pointing to themselves as an example of how everybody on welfare can reach the point of living off the interest of their investments, paying only capital gains taxes each April.

But that doesn't negate the fact that once upon a time, the Romneys were dependent on the government. It's pretty rich that they'd seek to deny such assistance to others.

Image via The Daily Beast

Republicans Can Love Their Families and Be Smart Too

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:12:00 EDT

Post by Julie Marsh

Is Rick Santorum really still talking? Even more surprising, are people really still listening? Apparently yes, but not the "elite smart people."

At the Values Voters Summit, Rick Santorum spoke about the perceived chasm between intellectuals and the Republican Party -- one that he believes cannot be bridged and should therefore be embraced by GOP adherents. Instead, he advocated for a sort of political and social isolationism, withdrawing from culture and learning and turning inward toward church and family.

On one hand, I find this both amusing (is Rick Santorum really saying that Republicans aren't -- in fact, cannot be -- intellectuals?) and intriguing (does this mean all the Republican politicians will leave Washington and return home to their biological and church families?). But mostly I think it's sad.

More from The Stir: Democrats Trump Republicans in Representing America

Republicans can value education and knowledge and culture and intellectual curiosity, no matter whether they are devoutly religious and no matter how conservative their views might be. Granted, learning about the world -- historically, culturally, scientifically -- does necessitate a certain openness that woefully seems to be missing from some high profile Republican politicians and pundits. But plenty of intellectual Republicans do exist, and they're smart enough to know that an educated worldview includes sources beyond family, church, and Fox News.

Fortunately, not all Republicans are buying what Santorum et. al. are selling. The mostly conservative blog Outside the Beltway is likewise dismayed:

[T]here’s something about being intelligent, or curious about the world, or interested in something beyond the orthodox interpretations of history and the law that conservatives insist upon. You see it manifest itself in the rejection of even the rather obvious fact that humanity can have an influence on the environment around it and, most irrationally, in the very rejection of everything that biology, anthropology, physics, and cosmology teach us. For many on the right, it’s easier to believe in the stories written in a 6,000 year old book than it is in the evidence of just how amazing the universe around them actually is.

I grew up in a conservative household where the Bible had no place on the bookshelves among dozens of volumes about history, culture, and science. I'm confident that similar conservative households still exist. I wish more of those families would speak up among their party.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see "How Do We Best Sustain American Values?"

Image via congress.gov

Democratic National Convention Inspired Me More Than the RNC

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:09:00 EDT

Post by Julie Marsh

Now that both the Republican and the Democratic National Conventions have wrapped up, I don't even need to look at the polls to see which party enjoyed the greater bounce. All I had to do was watch the conventions themselves.

There were some good speakers at the RNC. I enjoyed hearing Mia Love (Mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah). And while I may not agree with the politics of Condoleezza Rice or Governor Nikki Haley, I enjoyed listening to them.

I enjoyed Clint Eastwood too, but for different reasons. I used to think Here Comes Honey Boo Boo was the rock bottom of reality TV. Clint proved otherwise.

But there were far more downright amazing speakers at the DNC. Not simply because their politics resonated more closely with my own views, but also because they gave me a clearer picture of what they stood for and how that philosophy would translate into policy.

In short, the RNC gave platitudes. The DNC made plans.

I was not pleased to see that the DNC convention chairperson committed voter fraud where it came to changes to the party platform vis a vis the word "God." I might actually register as a full-fledged Democrat if they'd drop the pretense of being just as religious as Republicans.

However, I was genuinely impressed by the spirit of generosity at the DNC in referring to Republicans in a kind and positive manner. President Clinton's speech elicited applause for President George W. Bush's good works on natural disasters. Vice President Biden's speech elicited applause for Governor Romney as a good and decent human being, albeit one with whom Democrats disagree strongly.

I watched the RNC. I saw none of that same generosity. No acknowledgement whatsoever that in spite of our disagreements on philosophy and policy, Republicans and Democrats have our country's best interests at heart.

It was disappointing, but it was one more reminder of why I left the GOP.

In fact, I wasn't the only one who showed up at the DNC party. Governor Lincoln Chafee spoke at the DNC, as did Governor Charlie Crist. Perhaps the RNC would have had a more compelling assortment of speakers (not to mention more decent and humane rhetoric) if they hadn't spent the past four-plus years chasing moderates out of the party.

Even though I believe the DNC was the more inspiring convention by far (and polls indicate that I'm far from alone in this opinion), President Obama is no shoo-in for a second term. The Democrats may have gotten the bigger bounce, but the Republicans still have the bigger coffers.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Which Convention 'Won'?

Image via Salon.com

President Clinton's Message of Cooperation Wasn't Just Lip Service

Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:57:00 EDT

Post by Julie Marsh

Last night, Former President Bill Clinton nominated Barack Obama for president and addressed the Democratic National Convention. For 48 minutes. It was an exceptionally long speech, but he had a lot of ground to cover.

Full disclosure: I'm not a fan. I harbor lingering resentment of President Clinton for his efforts to avoid military service and for his treatment of women in his personal life, including his wife. But over the years, I have gained a grudging admiration for the many ways in which he has served (and continues to serve) his country.

So it was somewhat of a surprise to me to find that I was genuinely interested and attentive throughout his speech. I may not be moved to throw my panties at him, but I was moved by his inclusiveness and the spirit of cooperation he espoused.

President Clinton is more effective than most politicians when it comes to getting into the policy weeds. He cited compelling facts and figures with ease, illustrating where President Obama and the Democratic Party have succeeded -- and where Republicans have failed. For example:

[S]ince 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats, 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private sector jobs. So what’s the job score? Republicans, 24 million; Democrats, 42 [million].

The recovery act saved or created millions of jobs and cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people.

[M]ore than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents’ policies can cover them [due to the ACA].

Republican economic policies quadrupled the national debt in the 12 years before I took office [in 1992] and doubled the debt in the eight years after I left [2000-2008].

The Fact Checker at the Washington Post refutes some of President Clinton's arithmetic ("arithmetic" trended on Twitter during his speech, which generated over 22,000 tweets per minute at its peak) and two other Post writers sort fact from fiction on the economy and Medicare, but by and large there wasn't much to factually correct. Pretty impressive for a 48-minute speech in which substance far outweighed rhetoric and platitudes.

Wonkiness aside, President Clinton's speech made me feel as if there's hope for Republicans and Democrats to resume cooperation. He spoke highly of Presidents Eisenhower, Bush 41, and Bush 43 -- and elicited applause for Bush 43's support of PEPFAR and their work together in the wake of natural disasters.

Let me repeat that -- President Clinton had an arena full of Democrats cheering for President Bush. That's a testament to the inclusiveness of the party and its commitment to cooperation, and it's something you'd never see at the Republican National Convention (and I suspect Republicans are proud of that).

image via CNN

Congressman Todd Akin Isn't the Problem, Merely a Symptom

Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:03:00 EDT

Post by Julie Marsh

Congressman Todd Akin really stepped in it this time. Politicians make utterly ridiculous (and often blatantly, demonstrably false) statements all the time, but Akin's assertions regarding legitimate rape might even top President Clinton's bluster about how he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

(Politicians can make nearly anything sound authoritative and believable, but both sides of the aisle struggle where it comes to truth-stretching in the sexual arena.)

As stupid as Akin's statement may have been, both from a political perspective and that of actual science, the fact that the rest of the Republican party has basically put the guy on notice that he's being blackballed leads me to believe that this debacle won't have much of an effect on undecided voters. Folks in Romney's camp, even women, will be satisfied that he has roundly criticized Akin. Folks in Obama's camp will continue to draw parallels between Akin and the persistent state and federal legislative efforts to criminalize abortion.

I suspect that Republicans are chastising Akin not so much out of horror regarding his assertions, but because they want to pick up that Senate seat. Akin crossed a line that may very well keep him from beating incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill. For one, McCaskill's Facebook page has seen explosive growth in popularity, particularly among the 55-64 age group. McCaskill is also leading Akin in multiple polls, causing a near panic among Senate Republicans.

I do think Republicans are being a bit disingenuous by distancing themselves from Akin, given how I and other women of both parties keep checking the calendar to be sure that we haven't somehow boarded a DeLorean and landed in the 1960s (or possibly even earlier in the 20th century). The current prolonged discussion of women's health and personal freedoms (remember those, Republicans?) is mind-boggling to those of us who thought these battles had already been won. Perhaps by the turn of the 22nd century, we'll be discussing whether or not women and blacks ought to have the right to vote.

Congressman Akin's stupidity is merely a particularly extreme and visible symptom of what's been taking place in our country for the past several years anyway.

Image courtesy House of Representatives

Paul Ryan Doesn't Want to Kill Medicare, Just Rough It Up a Bit

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:49:00 EDT

Post by Julie Marsh

It appears that one of the primary reasons Democrats are so tickled by the selection of Congressman Ryan as Governor Romney's vice presidential pick is that "he's known as the 'Kill Medicare!' guy." In 2008, Senator McCain creamed President Obama in the 65+ demographic. With Ryan on the Republican ticket, Obama might have a fighting chance with seniors this year.

That's one assumption. The other assumption is that Ryan (and by extension, Romney -- is that the tail wagging the dog, I see?) really intends to purposefully kill Medicare.

Let's back up. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed Ryan's 2010 budget proposal at Ryan's request. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) summarized that analysis in a white paper, published in April 2011. The analysis isn't pretty, and it's made for a great Democratic talking point.

In 2022, the projected cost of purchasing a Medicare equivalent plan is equal to 35 percent of the median 65-year-old’s income. By 2050 the cost is projected to rise to 68 percent of the median 65-year-old’s income...[The projected payment to buy a Medicare equivalent policy] would be equal to 200 percent of the income of the median 85-year-old.

Looks terrible, right?

Ryan has since revised his budget proposal, both in 2011 and again this year. CBO's most recent analysis, from Q1 2012, is inconclusive. But even the detailed 2011 CBO analysis of Ryan's 2010 budget admits that projections are "highly uncertain, particularly in the longer term." Everybody's crystal ball is on the blink.

That's really the crux of the matter here. Not simply that we can't accurately predict dollar figures ten, twenty, or forty years out, but that we can't accurately predict what our budgetary priorities will be in the future.

If you read the portions of Ryan's FY12 budget proposal that deal with Medicare, it's clear that (on the surface, at least) his intent is to offer a fiscally viable means of continuing Medicare.

[T]his budget will save Medicare for future generations, protecting those in and near retirement from any changes while forging for younger workers a Medicare program modeled on the system of affordable, quality health coverage options now enjoyed by members of Congress.

…This is not a voucher program, but rather a premium-support model. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, to the plan chosen by the beneficiary, subsidizing its cost.

Not so terrible, right?

Of course, there's unsubstantiated partisan jabs in the Ryan budget proposal -- specifically the claim that the ACA "raids" Medicare (refuted by PolitiFact.com) -- but that's the job of politicians, to compare and contrast themselves with the other party. But Ryan supporters and dissenters alike ought to read his proposal more closely before making broad statements about his intentions. Same goes for the ACA.

Back to the viability of the budget proposal. If CBO can't make any definitive predictions as to whether this specific plan will succeed or not, I'm wary of anybody on either side of the aisle who claims that they can.

Can we save Medicare, as both sides purport to want to do? Of course! We can do anything if it's important enough in relation to other competing budgetary priorities.

But therein lies the problem. Our priorities as a nation shift as capriciously as those of a four-year-old, and we protest just as loudly when we get what we supposedly wanted and it turns out to be not at all what we wanted. Conversely, we get so wrapped up in opposing what the other guy supposedly stands for that we're blinded to the points on which we agree.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Should Medicare Be Replaced by Subsidies?

Image via ProgressOhio/Flickr

VP Nominee Paul Ryan Doesn't Idolize Ayn Rand Anymore

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:04:00 EDT

Post by Julie Marsh

Welcome to the 2012 Presidential Melee, Congressman Paul Ryan! You are a sight for sore eyes, and not just because yours are so big and blue.

You're a fiscal conservative, I hear. No, really. Unlike the rest of your GOP colleagues in Congress, you actually want to cut spending. Mostly. Except for that whole TARP business, where you voted against your principles to preserve your principles. Sounds like the sort of logic my 4-year-old uses, but it's kind of cool to realize that he's already qualified to serve in Congress.

You're also a Tea Party favorite, what with your Darwinesque Randian leanings. In 2005, you credited Ayn Rand's philosophy as the primary reason you ran for office. Then in 2009, you compared our country to an Ayn Rand novel and reasserted the morality of unchecked free markets. Survival of the fittest/smartest/richest. Sucks to be you, parasites.

But now you're eschewing your "youthful infatuation," claiming that you "reject her philosophy." Presumably because of its basis in atheism, which Tea Party adherents studiously ignore. Cafeteria Objectivism?

It's okay, Congressman Ryan. Even Ayn Rand strayed from her own staunch beliefs when she elected to take Social Security and Medicare. And your own flip-flops give you something else in common with Governor Romney.

Funny how one's circumstances have a way of altering one's views. I support the evolution of thinking, when it comes about in an intellectually honest manner and not merely as a matter of political expediency. I suspect both you and Governor Romney (and, to be fair, nearly all politicians) are in the latter camp.

Perhaps your presence on the ticket will attract fiscally conservative independents who don't care about social issues -- what the Tea Party purported to be at its inception -- but I'm not confident that many such voters remain. Given the GOP's propensity to push a socially conservative agenda, issues like gay rights and abortion and health care now hold as much sway over voters as foreign policy and the economy.

I'll tell you a secret, Congressman Ryan. I had my own "youthful infatuation" with Ayn Rand (though I'd characterize it as a brief friendship instead). I was full of my own potential and where it would undoubtedly take me.

Then I grew up. I saw more of the world, gained a greater understanding of others' circumstances, and took a few knocks myself. In spite of all my advantages, I was not immune to misfortune and injustice.

Congressman Ryan, whether or not you acknowledge Randian influence on your thinking is immaterial. It's present in your views and in the policies you advocate, and it's fair game in this election. Things just got interesting, thanks to you.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see "Romney Picks Paul Ryan as VP."

Image via Paul Ryan

Gabrielle Giffords' Husband: Should He Stay or Should He Go?

Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:01:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

Julie Marsh

Mark Kelly is the husband of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. He's also a NASA astronaut and the commander of the Space Shuttle Endeavour's April mission, which will deliver supplies to the International Space Station.

NASA has not yet announced whether Kelly will command the shuttle on this trip, presumably because Kelly has not yet decided whether he is ready to do so while his wife is in physical rehab after surviving her nearly fatal gunshot wound.

In light of the recent anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster that took Christa McAuliffe and other parents from their children, as well as Giffords' own terrible accident, I wouldn't blame Mark Kelly if he chose to hide under a blanket with his kids for the duration. But I'm pretty sure he'll go as planned, and what's more, I'm pretty sure that's what Giffords would want him to do.

We've heard a lot recently about Giffords' career, but as a space geek and military veteran myself, I'm thoroughly smitten with Kelly. He's a Navy captain and aviator, still active duty military but currently working for NASA. He has commanded three shuttle missions, and his twin brother Scott is also a NASA astronaut. Considering how little we hear about NASA and our work in space, I'd love for Kelly to command the Endeavour and bring some much needed publicity to that final frontier again.

Then again, I'm a wife and mother. I can understand if Kelly is reticent to leave his family, even if it has a negative impact on his career.

Bad things happen every day, and they happen to good people. I hate to imagine my own family enduring such pain, but it doesn't keep me from going about my usual business in fear of what might happen. I do have to admit, though, I might think twice about getting on a plane (let alone the Space Shuttle) if my husband had nearly died a few weeks ago and might or might not ever walk or talk again.

Mark Kelly, whatever you choose to do, I salute you.

Egypt Shuts Down the Internet and Social Media

Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:07:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

Egyptian citizens are fed up with President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled for 30 years and whose son, Gamal Mubarak, was expected to be his successor. Mubarak became president of Egypt after the assassination of Anwar Sadat in the early 1980s.

The Egyptian people have grown increasingly restless recently, thanks to poverty and the oppressiveness of the regime. They're seeking government reformation, and Egypt's autocracy is pushing back -- with tear gas, police intervention, and pulling the plug on social media.

Similar to the Iranian government's response to protests, Egypt has blocked digital communication networks, squeezing protestors' ability to advise each other and organize gatherings. Traffic to and from Egypt dropped off almost entirely at 5:20 p.m. ET on January 27, according to a graph produced by Internet security company Arbor Networks.

Egypt has long been a US ally, and the US response thus far has been tempered by that friendly relationship. Vice President Biden said last night that Mubarak is not a dictator, but should be responsive to the protesters (who, in turn, should demonstrate peacefully). Likewise, in a YouTube town hall presentation, President Obama noted our peaceful relationship with Egypt (and Egypt's peaceful relationship with our fellow ally, Israel). But he acknowledged the frustration of the protesters and the need for reform, as well as "the importance of free speech, including access to social networking tools."

Say what you like about the way Americans fuss and fight in full view of the rest of the world: At least our government continues to allow us the freedom to do so.

Image via Asthma Helper/Flickr

Chris Matthews Insults Michele Bachmann ... Again

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:14:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

Is Chris Matthews destined to follow in Keith Olbermann's footsteps, heading right out the door at MSNBC? Based on his unprofessional characterization of Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) as a "balloon head" and his history of similar sexist remarks, I think Chris Matthews ought to be polishing his resume.

Yesterday afternoon on Matthews' program Hardball, he played a video of Bachmann speaking about how the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery. He then challenged his guest, Tea Party Express co-founder Sal Russo, to defend Bachmann's assertion and questioned the wisdom of choosing her to give the Tea Party sanctioned response to that evening's State of the Union address.

Bachmann was wrong; our Founding Fathers did not work tirelessly to end slavery. They owned slaves. Abraham Lincoln and the Union worked and fought to end slavery, much to the consternation of the Confederacy. Legal discrimination persisted for another century. Bachmann tossed around inaccurate rhetoric in an attempt to manipulate emotions, and she failed to fool anyone -- Democrat or Republican -- who knows even a shred of American history.

But that does not justify Chris Matthews' rude, misogynistic, and downright childish name-calling.

Bachmann should feel silly for trying to pull such a stunt (I do not believe that she actually thinks slavery ended with the Constitution), and Russo should feel silly for his clumsy attempts to stick to his talking points and, failing that, for defending her. His tap-dancing needs a lot of work, and Bachmann should have known better.

Instead, we're talking about Matthews' latest gaffe. He took himself off-message by making such a ridiculous statement. Commentators are supposed to push the envelope and elicit reactions, but it's possible to do so while remaining professional. Matthews' tendency to stoop to insults belies a lack of basic respect for others and for his position.

Should Schools Stop Teaching Cursive Writing?

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:01:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

My third grader is learning to write in cursive. But according to the Common Core State Standards for English -- the guidelines that cover what kids should learn before graduating high school -- cursive writing is no longer a requirement of the elementary school curriculum in 41 states.

Reasons given for the abandonment of teaching cursive include the time required to do so -- time that could be better spent on skills that kids will actually use. Plus, it's not covered by No Child Left Behind testing, which, like it or not, is a significant benchmark in determining what receives teachers' and students' attention.

I have mixed feelings about cursive writing. I'm a fan of handwritten thank-you notes and personal letters, but I acknowledge that these are just as meaningful when written in print. It's the act of taking pen to paper that I cherish, not the quality of the penmanship.

I also recall the fun of altering how I shaped my cursive letters, particularly those in my signature. I made my W's so fancy that a friend asked me to teach her how I did it, and likewise, I adopted another friend's style of J as my own. Today's teens are developing callouses on their thumbs, not trading handwriting style tips.

What's especially interesting to me is the idea that learning to recognize and reproduce letters impacts brain function. Language comprehension and speech are apparently tied to visual and manual learning of the alphabet -- and not just the Roman alphabet, but any assembly of linguistic components.

However, that's not to say that cursive writing is different from hand printing in terms of reading, learning, and communication. Most cursive writing I've observed from other adults is actually a mix of cursive and printing. How many of us still make a capital Q as a big, floppy 2 like we were taught in elementary school?

But as with most curriculum decisions, I expect that testing will drive focus. Check back with me in three years when my second child is in third grade; I'm not so sure that she'll be learning cursive.

Image via Flickr

Gay Conservative Group GOProud to Attend CPAC, but Others Drop Out

Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:50:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

The Conservative Political Action Conference is coming up in mid-February, and word is out that some organizations and invited speakers have backed out due to the inclusion of GOProud, a group that supports gay conservatives, among the CPAC's participants.

Groups who have elected not to attend the conference include the Heritage Foundation, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America. Additionally, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and New Jersey governor Chris Christie have declined invitations to speak. DeMint's spokesman essentially said that if those conservative groups weren't coming to CPAC, neither was DeMint.

What's interesting to me is that plenty of other conservatives who have cheered family values -- though strictly limited to the type of family that includes a man, a woman, and 2.3 children who attend Protestant services every Sunday -- have been confirmed as CPAC speakers. They've got Ann Coulter, Andrew Breitbart, and Mitt Romney, among many other well-known conservatives.

Of course, I don't think that the presence of these conservatives at CPAC alongside GOProud signifies a change of heart concerning gay rights. But it is heartening to see that they are willing to share space with others whose views don't align with theirs. Gay conservatives exist; they deserve a place in the party. In fact, as a social liberal myself, I might begin to find my own way back to the GOP if it recognized the rights of all people, gays included.

I'm not hopeful though. One of the anticipated sessions at CPAC is "Traditional Marriage as a Cure to Poverty." Aside from the fact that many families rely on two incomes, making so-called "traditional marriage" an impossible standard regardless of politics, gay families run the gamut of structures just as all families do. Families will never fit a pre-conceived mold, and it's disappointing to see conservatives continue to hammer away at what's really not under the purview of government.

I admire GOProud for going where they may not be wanted in an effort to demonstrate the breadth of the party, and I'm cautiously pleased that their presence has not driven away others who've opposed them in the past.

Facebook 'Stalker Tracker' Apps: Do They Work?

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:07:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

Have you been tempted to install one of those Facebook "stalker" apps that claims to tell you who's been viewing your profile most frequently? What if we told you Facebook actually prevented any apps from accessing that information and reporting it to you?

It's hard to believe that Facebook is actually protecting your privacy, but it's true. None of those apps work.

I've grown to love Facebook (though not enough to pay for it, mind you Mark Zuckerberg), but just like any other social media platform, it can be manipulated in subversive ways. Zuckerberg and his team have eliminated much of the shenanigans that plagued MySpace by locking down what users and developers can do, but there's only so much they can do to alleviate user gullibility and ignorance.

Ars Technica breaks it down for the tech-impaired:

A recent app called Stalker Checker, for example, ended up showing you the users who were the most active on your Facebook account. So, if you had a friend who was constantly commenting on your wall posts and leaving "Likes" all over your images, he or she would show up on the Stalker Checker. If you had an ex-boyfriend who was visiting your page every day without leaving a trace, however, he would not show up on the Stalker Checker.

It's not just this particular app that doesn't work -- none of them do because Facebook does not make the information accessible that these apps claim to gather. So it makes you look silly and paranoid at best if you install one of these bogus apps. At worst, you've voluntarily compromised your Facebook profile privacy by allowing a nefarious app unfettered access to all of your restricted information.

The Fate of Gabrielle Giffords' Congressional Seat

Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:05:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

Gabrielle Giffords continues to astonish both doctors and the public with her incredible recovery following the tragic shooting in Arizona only 10 days ago. The Washington Post reports that she not only recognized and smiled at her husband yesterday, but she also rubbed his neck.

The preservation of her mental and physical abilities, in spite of a gunshot wound to the head, is simply amazing. She has not yet tried to talk, but that will be one of the many activities handled during the rehab phase of her recovery.

As positive as all the news has been thus far, an awkward question still lingers: Can she return to her duties as a Congresswoman?

No one should expect to answer that question so soon after such a grave injury, but it will have to be answered in the coming weeks and months. There's an empty seat in the House, and a district of constituents that are unrepresented. Congress has a packed agenda, and I imagine that Tucson residents would like to have their voices included in the discussion. But neither do I expect that they'd want to cast Giffords by the wayside so soon.

Given that choice, I'd opt to wait and monitor her recovery. But how long is appropriate?

Arizona state law appears to call for a special election if an official is unable to perform his or her duties for three consecutive months. But lawyers and constitutional scholars in Washington have countered that such a vacancy can only be determined by Congress itself.

Unfortunately, that assessment leads me to wonder if a Republican-controlled Congress would be inclined to declare Giffords' seat vacant sooner than a Democratic Congress, given that Giffords is a Democrat and her seat was held by Republican Jim Kolbe from 2003 to 2007. The district is historically conservative, but becoming more socially liberal. Giffords' re-election in 2010 was by the slimmest margin of her three Congressional elections.

Again, it's only been 10 days, and Giffords' recovery thus far has been utterly amazing. Who knows what she'll be doing in a matter of weeks or months. I hope that both Congress and her constituents can exercise a little patience.

Image via Gabrielle Giffords

Prince William and Kate Middleton's Wedding Plans Upset the Queen

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:57:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth issued quite a scolding to her grandson Prince William regarding the plans he has made for his upcoming wedding to Kate Middleton. While some of the Queen's objections pertain solely to tradition, most concern the logistics involved in his vision of events.

She's not just being a stuffy old busybody; Her Majesty has planned more than a few royal weddings, and she understands the limitations of staff and venues, as well as the time required to pull off such massive productions without a hitch. The Queen isn't just royalty -- she could be a professional event planner. You know, as long as every event involved her staff and Buckingham Palace.

As a project manager by trade (and a woman who's dealt with my share of men who try to stuff ten pounds of crap in a one pound bag -- figuratively, of course), I can't help giggling at the frustration the Queen must feel, seeing Prince Charles and Prince William writing checks that Buckingham Palace and its staff can't cash. As explained in the Huffington Post:

Buckingham Palace only has one kitchen set up for formal occasions. Even with all the staff and help, it will take hours to set up the wedding breakfast reception. So by the time that reception is finished at around 3:30pm in the afternoon, all the fine china and crystal have to be cleared, hand-washed, and reset, and then another multi-course meal prepared for several hundred more guests just a few hours later for dinner.

Only a couple of guys who've never hand washed a single silver spoon in all their lives would think such a turn-around was possible.

The Queen is also piqued over other details we commoners must navigate when planning weddings. She doesn't approve of Kate traveling by car to Westminster Abbey, nor is she pleased with the idea of a buffet lunch reception. Her Majesty is also balking at the guest list -- the royal version of the father of the bride bellowing: "Who the hell are all these people and why am I paying to feed them?!"

I would bet that Kate Middleton hasn't uttered one word of input regarding the wedding plans. Not that I blame her; it wouldn't much matter what she thought anyway. Becoming a princess meant relinquishing control over her own wedding day. Think of that when you're tempted to grouse about the wedding day concessions you had to make to appease your own mother-in-law.

Image via Rob the moment/Flickr

Pope John Paul II: Next Stop ... Sainthood?

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:23:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

Pope Benedict XVI has determined that Pope John Paul II will be beatified on May 1, 2011. Since the former pontiff's death, Catholics have called repeatedly for his canonization, and beatification is only one step down from sainthood.

The reason cited for the move to beatify Pope John Paul II is that his intercession cured a woman of Parkinson's disease, a recovery deemed scientifically inexplicable and therefore miraculous.

Pope John Paul II served for 26 years. Under his leadership, the Catholic Church made a great deal of progress. (Remember, progress is a relative term where it comes to religious institutions.) While I may strongly disagree with the church's stance on multiple issues, I acknowledge that Pope John Paul II himself accomplished much good.

However, I still don't believe that supernatural forces can elicit miracles, nor do I think beatification is any big deal. Pope Benedict XVI has already beatified 563 blesseds and canonized 14 saints (and that count is almost two years old). Pope John Paul II would have plenty of company.

Hey, if it makes Catholics happy to have another saint to pray to for intercession that doesn't really happen anyway, that's fine by me. Saint John Paul it is!

But then I'd like to see some of the real miracle workers out there -- doctors, therapists, social workers, researchers, inventors -- get similar recognition for everything that they do to save people's lives. I'll grant that the mind-body connection exists; our state of mind absolutely does have an effect, positive or negative, on the state of our body. But praying over a child who needs a blood transfusion to survive or a woman who needs chemotherapy to have a fighting chance is almost certainly doomed to failure if it's the sole course of action.

If intercession was valid, whether it could be scientifically proven or not, it would occur far more frequently. Why wouldn't the saints intercede on behalf of Christina Green or other innocent children who have died, either from disease, accidents, or at the hands of others? Pope John Paul II cured a woman of her Parkinson's disease, but he couldn't cure himself. If intercession is real, how can that be?

Therein lies what Catholics have that I don't: faith. Not just faith in supernatural forces and miracles, but faith in what their leaders say and conviction that those statements ultimately originate with God. The petty details that I question incessantly don't matter to them. What they say God says goes, no questions asked.

Image via parafia-gron/Flickr

College Student Needed Housing Help, Sent to Psych Ward Instead

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:44:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

A Nigerian student at Brooklyn College was having trouble with her roommates and landlord, so she went to Campus and Community Safety Services for help. Next thing Chinemerem Eze knew, she was in an ambulance headed to Kings County Psychiatric Hospital, where she was locked up for two weeks. She missed her final exams and was kicked out of school.

What was Eze's problem? She told a campus security officer that her landlord had put a hidden camera in her apartment.

That claim instigated the series of events that culminated in Eze's commission to the psychiatric hospital in early December 2008. She asked for help with a housing issue, and she ended up facing accusations that she was crazy.

Oh, and by the way, according to her verified legal complaint, she found a camera placed in a vent in her apartment.

The presence or absence of the camera is immaterial though, as far as the school's reaction to Eze goes. Roommate and landlord disputes happen frequently. Eze was a young college student who tried to use the resources available to her to help resolve this common problem. Sounds like the responsible approach, right? Instead, these resources -- a security officer and the school psychologist -- ultimately caused more problems for her.

Not only was she held in a psychiatric hospital for no apparent reason, she missed her exams as a result of this confinement. A semester's worth of work and tuition, all for nothing.

Eze has apparently settled a medical malpractice suit against the City of New York, but now she is suing Brooklyn College for negligence and violation of civil rights. Whether she really did find a camera or not, I'm on her side in this complaint. Hospitalization really ought not to have been Brooklyn College's first course of action, and the fact that Eze's commitment at the hands of Brooklyn resulted in her termination from the school is unacceptable.

Image via kowaleski/Flickr

A Quiet Commute in New Jersey? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:44:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

Last Monday, New Jersey Transit extended its Quiet Commute program during peak hours on train lines to and from New York and Newark. The first and last cars of each train are "quiet cars" in which Quiet Commute etiquette is enforced.

I can't help grinning at the dichotomy of a so-called quiet commute in New Jersey. I rode NJ Transit for three years. Ever been to New Jersey? Folks there are some of the loudest I've ever known.

The New York Times covered the initial mixed reviews of the Quiet Commute program. Some people attempted to abide by the etiquette guidelines, but others ignored the restrictions altogether, leading some to complain to conductors. Still others interpreted the etiquette guidelines with such severity that one man asked a conductor to "disable the automated announcements, which inform riders of impending stops, as well as the conductor’s work radio." In typical New Jersey fashion, the conductor ignored him and whispered within earshot of the Times reporter: "Why don’t I just get this guy a pair of pajamas and a pillow?"

Quiet is a relative term. We each have our own definition, which can vary depending on circumstances. NJ Transit has attempted to create an unambiguous set of etiquette guidelines, but there will always be room for interpretation. Also, there will always be those who either don't know the rules or choose to ignore them. Conductors have bigger jobs to do beyond mediating disputes between passengers regarding their individual definitions of quiet.

Riding NJ Transit -- heck, riding any sort of public transportation in the New York metro area -- requires an ability to compartmentalize. If you're the type to get irritated by what people around you are doing and saying (and how loud and in what proximity they are), you might want to consider living elsewhere or commuting by car. "Quiet commute" regulations aren't going to change ingrained behavior, certainly not immediately.

Kidney Donation Springs Scott Sisters From Prison

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:23:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

Sisters Gladys and Jamie Scott were released from prison in Mississippi this morning under the condition that Gladys would donate a kidney to Jamie. Jamie Scott is in level five renal failure and requires dialysis three times a week, costing the state $190K each year.

The sisters had served 16 years of a life sentence for armed robbery and were scheduled to be eligible for parole in 2014. Mississippi governor Haley Barbour suspended their sentences after the Department of Corrections deemed the sisters to no longer be a threat to society.

It's a humanitarian move that will also save the state money, but what I find curious is that Gladys Scott hasn't yet been tested to confirm that her kidney will be a match for her sister.

The sisters' lawyer pleaded for their release due to the serious nature of Jamie Scott's illness and her desperate need for a donor organ. I expect the state approved the release not so much out of concern for Scott's welfare as the Corrections Department's budget, but I would have thought that they'd cover their bases by ensuring Gladys's kidney was a match before releasing the women.

The nature of their specific crime seems to be relatively minor in the scheme of what constitutes armed robbery: They purposely brought the victims into contact with the perpetrators, who "hit them with a shotgun and took their wallets." Sixteen years is a long time, especially since the Scott sisters were unarmed accomplices, but given that the GOP prides itself on being tough on crime, it's surprising that a Republican governor would release any prisoner on such terms.

What's also interesting to me is that the sisters are headed to their mother's house in Florida, ostensibly for the purpose of finding medical care for Jamie and a surgeon to perform the transplant. Being in prison for 16 years, it's unlikely that the sisters have health care coverage, so I expect the expenses will be borne by Medicaid. Did Mississippi snooker Florida into accepting its convicted felons and their medical costs? Nicely played, Governor Barbour!

But for Jamie Scott's sake, I hope that her sister's kidney is a match.

Representative Darrell Issa: In Search of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

Mon, 03 Jan 2011 13:09:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican Representative from California, will be the new Chairman of the House Oversight Committee when the 112th Congress convenes on Wednesday. During the lame duck session, he warned Congress and the Obama administration that he intended to focus on waste, fraud, and abuse under what he called "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times."

Issa has since clarified that he meant to refer to the [alleged] corruption of the administration, not of President Obama himself. Even so, his basis for the allegation is that the Obama administration inherited $1 trillion in TARP funds and received $1 trillion of stimulus funds, and that "has a corrupting effect."

Money and power have the potential to corrupt? There's a revelation. However, I'd submit that's a problem for all politicians, regardless of party or office.

But the concern in the case of Darrell Issa's Oversight Committee is that he's already betrayed his assumption that corruption exists in this administration -- all he has to do is find it, dammit! Will suspects be dunked in the Potomac River to see if they sink or float? Perhaps some of those stimulus funds can be used for burning floaters at the stake.

Of course corruption exists in this administration! Corruption existed in the Bush administrations, both 41 and 43. Corruption existed in the Clinton administration, the Reagan administration, the Carter administration. Corruption is a political fact of life.

I actually think the concept of the Oversight Committee is hilarious. Talk about the fox watching the hen house. No elected official or appointee from either party acts with nobility and integrity at all times. But it stands to reason that when the House is controlled by one party and the administration is of the other party, there's a political advantage in unearthing misappropriations and elevating them to scandals. And since Republicans haven't exactly been too strict with their own spending habits, it makes sense that Issa would seek to highlight the same among Democrats.

What bothers me -- apart from the fact that there are still unanswered questions from several previous administrations; so much for the effectiveness of the Oversight Committee -- is the likelihood that civil servants with neither money nor power will be the ones who pay. Congressional censure is a joke. Even impeachment means practically nothing in the grand scheme. But five- and six-figure legal fees, borne by the mid-level government employees who will likely be subpoenaed as part of the investigations, can be devastating. (Though of course not for the lawyers who collect them.)

I expect that the committee, under Issa's chairmanship, will turn up some problems. I also expect, as with previous administrations, it won't change a damn thing about the way Congress and the presidency operate.

NY Times Homewrecking Couple: Selfish AND Clueless

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:30:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

The Vows section of The New York Times is a coveted place for couples to tell their love stories. But last Friday, it was also home to the tale of two broken marriages that preceded the union of New York media execs Carol Anne Riddell and John Partilla.

The couple met when they were married to other people. They fought their mutual attraction. But eventually they succumbed to it, divorced their respective spouses, and married each other.

Similar bittersweet stories have happened before, but this might be the first one documented in such high profile and told as a love story without regard to its casualties.

Unsurprisingly, there's been a lot of backlash against the Times, Riddell, and Partilla. Riddell's ex-husband is angry that the Times didn't contact him to obtain permission to print his daughter's photo. Many Times readers were aghast that the sad and selfish aspects of Riddell and Partilla's story were brushed aside in favor of the joyous "messiness" of true love.

Meanwhile, Riddell can't understand why people are upset, noting that "people are focusing a lot on the negative, but there was a lot of positive."

Riddell and Partilla are in love, and apparently they are so blinded by it that they can't be bothered to see how telling their story to The New York Times twisted the knives deeper into the backs of not just their former spouses, but of anyone who has ever been the casualty of a love like theirs. By crowing publicly about the joy they've found, they've also reminded people of the pain they caused (and in turn, the pain that so many other ex-spouses have borne).

It's surprising that a couple of high-powered media execs couldn't see the potential for backlash. By virtue of their profession, they should have an intimate understanding of how stories will be received by the public. There was no way to tailor their story such that the majority response would be positive. For that reason alone, they shouldn't have worked with the Times.

Worse than that, this sensational telling was gratuitously self-serving and crass. Riddell and Partilla may be over the moon with happiness, but at least two other people -- their former spouses -- are forced to lick their wounds in the public eye. Children of divorce suffer no matter where they live, but as Riddell's ex-husband Bob Ennis noted, "New York can still be a dangerous town for children of wealthy people." The children in this newly blended family have been subject to their parents' whims, right down to the telling of their private story.

For the children's sake, I hope that Riddell and Partilla's union lasts. For Riddell and Partilla's sake, I hope they are satisfied to step out of the spotlight and return to their messy lives, made even messier by their blind selfishness.

Image via The New York Times

Sarah Palin: Give Me Dessert or Give Me Death!

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:10:00 EST

Post by Julie Marsh

Sarah Palin is twisting the issue of healthy eating once again. This time, she included a jab at First Lady Michelle Obama in an episode of Sarah Palin's Alaska in which she made s'mores, sniffing that Mrs. Obama "said the other day we should not have dessert."

Actually, what Mrs. Obama said was that "dessert is not a right," and that's something probably heard from a lot of parents across the political spectrum: Dessert is not the exclusive domain of the GOP, nor is healthy eating practiced solely by Democrats.

I have to giggle at objections from the right concerning the First Lady's healthy eating campaign, especially in light of Nancy Reagan's exhortations to "Just Say No" back in the '80s. Why should the government tell my children not to do drugs? That's outrageous! It's my decision whether or not to allow them to do drugs. I don't need the government interfering with how I raise my children. If they want to abuse Oxycontin, they should have that right!

Oh, right. Dessert is legal, but drugs aren't. So it makes sense that the First Lady should remind us not to break the law, but encouraging healthy habits constitutes an intrusion into our privacy.

Sarah Palin needs to pick a different issue to harp on, especially if she's seriously considering a presidential run in 2012. First of all, this effort isn't a policy matter. Nitpicking the First Lady's work is an irrelevant distraction (but probably a welcome one for Palin, who's not exactly up to speed on policy).

Furthermore, nobody's arguing that parents ultimately decide what to serve their children, simply that there ought to be healthier choices available in school lunchrooms. I was the child of two staunch Republicans, and unbeknownst to them, I often ate two ice cream bars for lunch in middle school. I was free to do so, but perhaps I would have been better off if there wasn't any ice cream for sale in the cafeteria.

Finally, how can any reasonable parent argue against healthier food? I'm genuinely baffled by the idea that offering healthy choices is somehow harmful.

Image via Flickr