Lil' Bit of Film Review, Lil' Bit of Bitchin'

Yesterday the totally awesome boyfriend and I attended the final day of the Traverse City Film Festival, which is exactly like the Sundance Film Festival except that nobody's ever heard of it. Which is unfortunate because the Traverse City Film Festival is really a pretty cool thing. It's the brainchild of local left-wing pinko Michael Moore, who believes that "we need movies that seek to enrich the human spirit and the art of filmmaking -- not the bottom line."

So yesterday afternoon Chris and I saw two documentaries -- Chicago 10 and In the Shadow of the Moon -- that did just that. And although I didn't plan it that way when I bought the tickets, both films were set in the same time period and seeing the two together presented a really neat dichotomy of the late 1960s. While Chicago 10 illustrated how fucked up and torn apart our country was, In the Shadow of the Moon painted a picture of oneness and. . .well. . .grace experienced not just by Americans but by all of humankind.

I've always preferred books to movies, but since Chris started sharing all his obscure documentaries with me I've realized that this is one of the coolest things about seeing quality films. Just like a good book, a good film makes you think, which I guess is the whole point of the Traverse City Film Festival and why the schedule includes panel discussions in addition to film screenings. Not that you need to attend a discussion in order to discuss; as they exited a theater, I heard some guy say eagerly to his companion, "Let's go sit somewhere so we can discuss, in depth, what we just saw." (PS - that guy was Chris).

We actually did attend a sort-of discussion -- an event called "Mike's Surprise," the surprise being that you end up seeing whatever Michael Moore feels like showing you, which in our case turned out to be outtakes from his new film Sicko. The cool part about this was that we got to see Michael Moore live in person (!) and to hear him speak, and that when he spoke he said lots of intelligent and funny things. We also (obviously) got to see quite a bit of interesting Sicko-related footage that none of you losers get to see until the DVD comes out, including a lengthy conversation with the very wise, very British, and very articulate Tony Benn. Plus Mr. Moore took questions and answered them thoughtfully, and when -- for some odd reason -- he insisted that one little white-haired woman sing her question while sashaying down the aisle, she did.

Okay, so there was more than one cool part of "Mike's Surprise." The not-so-cool part, however, was Moore's response to a young woman who stood up and asked -- with a sort of helpless, hopeful urgency -- what we can do. The muckraking hell-raiser's call to activism?

Write your congressperson.

That's right. Write your congressperson and encourage him or her to co-sponsor HR 676, The United States National Health Insurance Act.

Gee, Mike, that'd be a really swell idea if the vast majority of our politicians wasn't languishing contentedly in the pockets of their corporate donors and actually, I don't know, gave two shits about what the average American wants. I mean, sure, I'll try it, but come ON. You can't go around making movies about how fucked up things are in our country and then pretend that things aren't SO fucked up that a quick little note to your elected representative won't make everything all better.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but "write your congressperson" seems like a pretty tough sell to a girl whose letters to congresspeople typically generate little more than a polite restatement of the congressperson's position on the issue. Surely there must be a way to convince our elected representatives to, you know, represent us.

If not, at least we can create disparaging likenesses of them to affix to local street signs, like this one we stumbled upon yesterday:


Which admittedly would be markedly improved if the culprit knew the difference between "murder" (a verb) and "murderER" (a noun). Fuck and alas.

Actually, You Have More In Common With King George III

On Monday, our current president celebrated Presidents' Day with a visit to Mount Vernon and a speech that drew parallels between George Washington's presidency and his own. "I feel right at home here. After all, this is the home of the first George W.," Bush quipped.

I've always felt sort of lukewarm about George Washington so this doesn't get me as fired up as when George Allen used to compare himself to my beloved Jefferson, but it bothers me when people who know better deliberately misrepresent the views of our Founding Fathers for political gain. To be fair to the current George W., he does have a few things in common with the first George W: they share a first name and they've both held the office of US president.

But there the similarities end. For starters, George Washington knew how to put a fucking sentence together. More importantly, he believed in democracy. When presented with the possibility of becoming king of the newly created US, Washington declined: "How irrevocable and tremendous! What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal & fallacious!" Bush, on the other hand, refused to concede the controversial election of 2000 and isn't particularly troubled by the possibility of despotism: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Of course, some dictators are bad, and we're currently engaged in a war whose purpose was to remove an Evil Dictator from power. Bush, who has sent 3150 Americans to their deaths in the Iraq War, never served in the armed forces (unless you count the whole Texas Air National Guard thing, which I certainly don't). Washington experienced war firsthand as commander of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War and later lamented, "My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth." He warned against involvement in foreign wars, and suggested that "overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

Overgrown military establishments, however, are Bush's bread and butter, and he's never really concerned himself with pesky little things like liberty or the will of the people. "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me," he's assured a critical populace.

While Bush came to power as a result of a lawsuit the Supreme Court decided in his favor, George Washington took office only reluctantly and even tried to refuse his presidential salary. Washington was a contemplative man who deeply valued the principles for which America stood and was concerned with the common good.

"Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience," the first George W. once urged -- a bit of advice he might today offer the current George W., whose celestial fire seems to have been all but extinguished by his delusions of grandeur.

You Had Me At "Never Should Have Been Authorized"

On Sunday, presidential hopeful Barack Obama criticized the current war in Iraq:

We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged, and to which we now have spent over $400 billion and have seen over 3000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.

On Monday, he apologized:

Even as I said it, I realized I had misspoken.

Misspoken.

Misspoken because he doesn't believe it's true or misspoken because he realized that might cost him a few votes?

Because if those 3000 young Americans haven't died for no fucking reason, I don't know who has.

Why I'm Pro-Choice

Until I visited Lulu's blog, I didn't know today was the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and I'd never heard of Blog for Choice Day. I guess I'm a bad feminist.

Abortion is one of those topics I generally don't see much point in discussing. Most people have pretty strong feelings on the issue, and either people agree with you -- which doesn't make for particularly interesting conversation -- or they REALLY don't --which doesn't make for particularly productive conversation. But since the good folks at NARAL invited us all to do so, I figured I'd share my thoughts on why women's access to abortion should not be restricted. (I am not, however, going to get into any ridiculous abortion-related pissing matches in the comments section. See "doesn't make for particularly productive conversation" above.)

I don't know when life begins (and neither do you). I've watched enough In the Womb to know that something magical happens when sperm meets egg, and if I WANTED to have a baby I'd be pretty stoked on that little ball of cells slowly transforming into a little human inside me (although now that I put it that way, ewwww). Of course, I DON'T want to have a baby -- at least not right now -- so up to a certain mysterious point it's difficult to think of that little ball of cells as anything more than a little ball of cells.

Fortunately, I've never had to pursue this dilemma beyond the abstract. From the time I knew enough about sex to have it, I knew about and had affordable access to contraception.*

When politicians and religious fanatics are ready for the government to actively promote contraception and provide access to birth control, when they're willing to ensure that poor girls receive the same education and access (at the same price) as not-so-poor girls, when abstinence-only programs are scrapped for sex-ed programs that actually make sense, when teenaged girls aren't encouraged to pledge their virginity to their daddies, THEN I might buy into the anti-abortion argument about the sanctity of human life.

Because it's not that complicated. As I said a year ago when nobody but my brother and my friend Steve read my blog, if we did a kick-ass job of promoting and providing access to birth control, there would be far less abortion because there would be far fewer unwanted pregnancies. But you can't have it both ways: you can't deny women the opportunity to prevent conception and also deny them the right to terminate a pregnancy. Unless, of course, you hate women.

Which brings me to why I'm actually pro-choice.

I don't think the anti-abortion argument is really about the sanctity of human life at all, the deeply-held religious convictions of many pro-lifers (both male and female) notwithstanding. I think opposition to abortion is perpetuated by the male leadership of patriarchal religious organizations whose goal is to ensure women's inferior status. I know that sounds a bit conspiracy-theory-ish, but if we really wanted to eliminate abortion we wouldn't allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control.

I think Roe v. Wade rests on pretty shaky ground, constitutionally speaking (the 9th amendment, which essentially says there may be some rights the Founding Fathers didn't initially think of -- combined with the 14th amendment's guarantee of due process -- implies a right to privacy, and for a woman that privacy includes the right to terminate a pregnancy) but until all women enjoy complete and equal reproductive freedom, I remain pro-choice.

*Also I've been lucky. Which is not to say that I'm a tramp. I'm totally not.

This Just In: Pot Calls Kettle Black

I read last week about Jim Webb's unsuccessful attempt to avoid our current president at the White House reception for newly elected members of Congress. Aside from being grateful that we elected Webb instead of that jackass George Allen, I really didn't spend much time thinking about the event until I saw this piece by the perpetually-pompous George Will a few days later.

Although I think he's an intelligent man and an excellent writer, I try not to read George Will's columns, as they invariably piss me off. It's not that I disagree with him, though I often do, it's that I think he's a snooty elitist. But he's a snooty elitist who can usually put together a cogent argument.

Not so much with this column.

Let's start with paragraph two:

Wednesday's Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush," refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "I'd like to get them [sic] out of Iraq." When the president again asked "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy."

If you read Wednesday's WaPo, you know that Will's representation of the exchange between Webb and Bush is inaccurate at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. What Bush said in response to Webb's "I'd like to get them out of Iraq" was not a simple repetition of his initial question. Bush first said, "That's not what I asked you," and THEN repeated his question. Kinda changes the whole tone of the conversation, dontcha think?

Will goes on:

Never mind the patent disrespect for the presidency.

(You know, I can't get too excited about this. It's not like Bush has treated his office with much respect.)

Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being -- one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another.

A civil and caring question, as one parent to another?! Give me a fuckin' break.

First of all, you don't get to send a bunch of kids to die in a war for which you manufactured justification and then ask their parents how they're doing. If you gave a shit about the troops you wouldn't have gotten them into this mess in the first place.

More importantly, "how's your boy fighting my war in Iraq?" is not a question the president can ask simply "as one parent to another." Bush, like most of the ruling class, does not have children on the front lines of this or any other war. Although Webb's son is truly a volunteer, he is an exception. The kids who enlist in the military tend to be the kids with limited options, as John Kerry so ineloquently attempted to point out. I'm sure parenting the sorority twins is not without its tribulations, but I doubt the Bush family lies awake at night worrying about the same things the families of our soldiers on the ground in Iraq do. Bush asked this question as a politician, not a parent.

George Will calls Webb "a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language," and advises him that "in a republic, people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves." Thankfully, we can also decline to read their snooty little columns.

Upon The Resignation of the Secretary of War Defense

This is a little late, but whatever. . .

Donald Rumsfeld resigned his position as Secretary of Defense yesterday. I, for one, am glad. This should give him plenty of time to focus on his existential poetry.

Happenings
You're going to be told lots of things.
You get told things every day that don't happen.
It doesn't seem to bother people, they don't—
It's printed in the press.
The world thinks all these things happen.
They never happened.
Everyone's so eager to get the story
Before in fact the story's there
That the world is constantly being fed
Things that haven't happened.
All I can tell you is,
It hasn't happened.
It's going to happen.
—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

Straight But Not Narrow

By a margin of 57% to 43%, Virginia voters approved the Marshall/Newman Amendment, which not only defines marriage as something that may only exist between one man and one woman, but also forbids the state to legally recognize ANY marriage-like relationship that is not actually marriage.

There were about a million good reasons to vote against this amendment, all of which were heavily promoted by The Commonwealth Coalition.

1. We already have a law on the books banning both same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions, so a constitutional amendment is unnecessary.
2. The amendment goes too far in that it applies equally to straight and gay couples. (hey, there's a unique concept)
3. The amendment discriminates against unmarried couples, both gay and straight.
4. The amendment is an invasion of privacy that represents an unecessary government intrusion into our personal lives.
5. The amendment would make it considerably more difficult for unmarried victims of domestic violence to seek legal recourse against their abusers.
6. Opposition to same-sex marriage is primarily religious, and Virginia has recognized the wall of separation between church and state since we passed Jefferson's Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom in 1786.
7. The amendment is bad for business. Passage of this amendment is likely to spark litigation against companies whose benefit plans offer coverage to life partners, and will drive highly-qualified professionals out of the state.

And that's all well and good, but here's why I voted against the Marshall/Newman amendment:

Gay people should be allowed to get married.

That's it. End of story. (I've covered this territory before.)

And so, as a straight Virginian, I'd like to apologize to the gay community of Virginia. I'm sorry. I'm sorry that 57% of Virginia voters are so fucking bigoted they rejected every reasonable argument above simply because the idea of gay sex kinda creeps them out, and I'm sorry that 57% of the voting public is too fucking stupid to read past the first sentence of the proposed amendment and vote no.

You're Doing A Heckuva Job, Hart InterCivic!

Voting machines in Alexandria, Falls Church, and Charlottesville did not display the full name or political party of Democratic challenger Jim Webb today. Instead, voters were asked to choose between James H. "Jim" or George F. Allen.

Guess how the residents of Alexandria, Falls Church, and Charlottesville typically vote.

Don't worry though, Hart InterCivic promises to fix this problem "before the next major election." 'Cause, you know, a mid-term election involving one of the mostly hotly-contested Senate seats in the country. . .no biggie.

If Hart InterCivic's unwavering devotion to future voting accuracy doesn't make you feel better, take heart: "This is not the kind of problem that has either shaken our confidence in the system overall or that of the vote," said Alexandria Registrar Tom Parkins. "There have been far worse problems around the country."

Buck up, lil' campers. You've got it pretty good here in the Old Dominion. There have been far worse problems around the country than not knowing which candidate you're voting for.

Fucking fake democracy.

And PS, they haven't called the race yet, and Webb is up at the moment anyway, so don't bother accusing me of being a sore loser.

On The Eve Of The Midterm Elections, A Few Friendly Reminders About Democracy

Much is being made of the importance of voting in tomorrow's elections, and although I believe voting is little more than a symbolic act at this point, I have plans not only to vote but to spend a couple hours working the polls for Jim Webb and the Democratic Party.

I would, however, like to state for the record that I have long considered voting to be the lamest and lowest form of political participation possible. Far more important to the preservation of our democratic system is an educated, informed electorate that's willing to monitor and question its leaders, for as John F. Kennedy pointed out, "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." His was not a revolutionary idea -- my beloved Jefferson noted the same nearly 150 years earlier: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Voting is nice, but paying attention and questioning authority are really what democracy is all about.

And while Jim Webb is certainly no JKF or TJ, he does seem to get this whole democracy thing:

In a democracy, we are the boss. And George Allen and George Bush work for us. And the more people they can scare away or turn away from politics, the fewer bosses they're having. They don't want participation. They want to just move along with the status quo, lining the pockets of their corporate friends, protecting their own, while your job goes overseas and your kid goes to Iraq.

So, sure, go vote tomorrow. And vote Democrat. But then give some thought to refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Or maybe just write some strongly-worded letters or something.

Oh, So That's What Desperation Sounds Like

With ten days to go before Election Day and the Virginia Senate race too close to call, George Allen noted that "this campaign ought to be about issues, ideas and a proven record." Shortly thereafter, the Allen campaign released the shocking results of its careful review of challenger Jim Webb's military fiction and accused Webb of "a pattern of disrespectful behavior toward women" based on eight sexually explicit paragraphs culled from his five novels.

Rather than leave it at that, the Allen campaign then wondered, "How can women trust him [Webb] to represent their views in the Senate when chauvinistic attitudes and sexually exploitive references run throughout his fiction and non-fiction writings?"

Right. Better to trust a guy whose chauvinistic attitudes have been shaping public policy for the past 25 years; who (as Congressman) voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act; who (as Governor) opposed women's admission to the state-funded Virginia Military Institute, advocated tougher welfare-to-work programs, and signed a parental notification abortion bill into law; and who (as Senator) opposed over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception and voted against funding for pregnancy prevention programs.

The guy I'm supposed to be concerned about is the one who writes steamy sex scenes?

Living Sort Of Deliberately

I finally figured out why I've been grumpy for the past few days: I'm not in Florida anymore. I had a great time visiting my best friend, but it's always hard to leave her. Maybe I'll just move to Jacksonville.

Anyway, that's not the point of this post and if I tried to tell you about the weekend A) you'd probably be bored and B) I'd probably start to cry.

So.

Although I've been feeling grumpy since I returned to school yesterday, the depth of my grumpiness didn't really register with me until this afternoon at our Young Greens meeting. (In retrospect, it probably should have registered yesterday afternoon when I told my friend Steve I was about to punch him in the face over something as trivial as a flyer.) Steve and I co-sponsor both the Young Democrats and the Young Greens. Neither organization did much last year -- the Greens got together fairly frequently to watch movies (Outfoxed, Fahrenheit 9-11, The Corporation, The End of Suburbia, etc.) and the Dems held a lot of meetings about getting t-shirts.

This year though, the kids at least have a lot of ideas about what they want to do. The Greens, in addition to wanting to get t-shirts, want to start their own Food not Bombs chapter, which is incredibly ambitious and admirable and impressive. But as I sat there listening to them talk about it, I found myself whispering to Steve about how crazy they were. "How 'bout volunteering with organizations who are already feeding the hungry, like the Union Mission or the Food Bank, so you can get a sense of what that's like before you take on something as time-consuming and complicated as Food not Bombs?" I suggested. "That's a good idea," the kids said. By which I'm pretty sure they meant, "Way to rain on our idealism parade, you naysaying bitch."

And I'm usually not a naysaying bitch. I'm usually pretty idealistic myself. Food not Bombs is, in fact, right up my fucking alley. So I tried to rally my old idealistic self for the inevitable t-shirt discussion.

"What did we decide about t-shirts?" some kid asked. "We're gonna get white t-shirts and tie-dye them green," the Vice President answered. "With eco-friendly dye!" the President added happily. "Are you gonna get sweatshop-free t-shirts?" my idealistic, non-naysaying self asked, mostly because I am madly in love with a little sweatshop-free t-shirt company in LA and will take advantage of any opportunity to plug them (see? I just did it again.). "Yes! We are not going to be selective liberals," the President announced proudly.

And good for them. But shit. Unless you are prepared to get all Thoreau on everbody's asses,* selective liberalism is where it's at. You can't go to work every day in sweatshop-free eco-friendly clothes made entirely of organic hemp. Believe me, I've tried. So, for the sake of practicality, we compromise some values while holding fast to others. I won't set foot in a Wal-Mart, but I'm no stranger to J. Crew and Anthropologie, neither of which are particulary ethical (nor particularly UNethical). However, you will not find a single cleaning product in my house that's not completely biodegradable, phosphate-free, and therefore eco-friendly. I may be a selective liberal, but I'm a prioritizing liberal. What else can you do really, aside from selling all your worldy possessions and moving to the woods to tend your bean patch?

*This is what teachers do, by the way. We start saying certain things to make fun of how our students talk and before you know it those things have crept into our vernacular.

You Call This A Senate Race?

Hey, remember yesterday when I said I was gonna dial down the crazy? Yeah, that's working out well. At least I MADE the dinner I'm eating while I blog.

So.

Just twelve days after we learned that in the 70s, Senate hopeful Jim "Born Fighting" Webb didn't think women were fit for combat, we're faced with the startling revelation that Senate has-been George "Macaca" Allen may or may not have made frequent use of the n-word during. . .guess when. . .the 70s.

For the record, it's never occurred to me that Allen might be the kind of guy who DOESN'T use the n-word, and Webb's 1979 position on women in the military is a clinically proven fact. But you know what? I don't CARE what either of these fucksticks was up to 30 years ago. Hell, a mere 15 years ago I was reading a bunch of Ayn Rand books and bitching about how poor people should get a job. But I think my behavior since then demonstrates that I've had a serious change of heart.

Allen? Not so much. He's simply traded in the n-word for the m-word in public discourse.

Webb has emphatically stated that he's completely comfortable with the role women currently play in the military. But even if he isn't, even if he still thinks women can't fight, who fucking cares? Does he think we can have access to contraception? Does he think we can elect to terminate a pregnancy?

Because this election isn't about women in the military. And unfortunately, like most elections these days, it isn't about voting for the candidate you believe in. It's about voting for the candidate who sucks less.

I used to ABHOR this approach to politics. I used to respond to those who chastised me for throwing my vote away with sanctimonious lectures about how the only way to throw your vote away is to vote for a candidate you don't believe in.

So when Steve told me yesterday that a colleague of ours plans to vote for the Green Party candidate instead of Webb (because the colleague's wife had to leave the Naval Academy as a result of Webb's "Women Can't Fight" article), I was somewhat suprised to hear myself saying, "What?! Shit is way too polarized and way too fucked up to be voting for the fucking Greens right now! You vote for Allen or you vote for Webb. Those are your choices."

I certainly don't like that our choices in most modern elections boil down to a contest between the lesser of two evils. I think it's deplorable, actually. I've even been known to deliver a sanctimonious lecture or two on this very topic, especially if I'm drunk. But in 2000 I wrote in a candidate I believed in and spent the next four years watching George W. Bush systematically attempt to destroy almost everything I love about my country. Then, like Twisted Sister, I decided I wasn't gonna take it anymore and in 2004 I did something I'd never done before: I voted for a major party candidate.

It didn't quite work out the way I'd hoped, but I'm gonna keep trying. Because at this point not taking it anymore probably means not voting for people who stand absolutely no chance of getting elected.

From The Mouths Of Babes

Today was Constitution Day. Since I was legally required to teach a lesson on the Constitution and since my class has pretty much nothing to do with the US Constitution, I had my kids compare our constitution to others from around the world, including Iraq's. One of my students expressed some confusion about that constitution's emphasis on combating terrorism.

Student: It says all this stuff about how they're against terrorism but don't they HAVE a lot of terrorism?

Me: You have to remember this is the government's position on terrorism. It doesn't necessarily mean the state will be free from terrorism. Just like the US government says it's opposed to terrorism but we've still experienced terrorist acts. Iraq is being terrorized, but not by its government.

Student: Oh. So what would the Taliban be? Cause it was the government but it was also kind of a terrorist organization.

Me: Well, the Taliban was in Afghanistan first of all, but --

Student: Wait. So why'd we invade Iraq then?

And I just let the crickets take it from there.

Lesson Planning

In case you haven't heard, tomorrow is the five year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Social Studies teachers in my school district are required to highlight this anniversary in our Monday classes, which we were told on Thursday. A reasonable expectation, but one that turns out to be not nearly as easy as it sounds (and one of which we would have appreciated a bit more advance notice).

Like most people, I find it difficult to think or talk about 9/11 without thinking and talking about all the shit that's come after 9/11 -- specifically the way BushCo has used 9/11 to its own political ends, doggedly promoting the damaging mentality that "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists," dismantling our constitutional rights, and leading us into a quaqmire of a war that has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and that is certainly not making us safer from terrorism.

I've spent lots of classroom time over the last five years addressing issues related to 9/11. It's never easy -- and always controversial -- to discuss 9/11 with high school students whose opinions often mirror those of their parents and who tend to think that asking them examine their existing beliefs (whatever they may be) is an attempt to impose your beliefs on them. Despite this difficulty, I think I have a pretty good handle on how to deal with 9/11 in the classroom.

That being said, I'm at a complete loss as to how to deal with 9/11 in the classroom ON 9/11. In the first few years after the attacks, I used to have a class discussion about heroes, which worked well. But we're way too far gone for that innocent discussion and our collective perception of 9/11 is far too clouded by BushCo's successful attempt to neatly divide us into freedom-lovers and terrorist-lovers.

My initial plan for this year had been to show clips from a PBS documentary called The Road to 9/11, which traces the roots of terrorism and religious fanaticism in the Middle East. And I definitely WILL do that at some point during the year (like maybe during my unit on religious fundamentalism, wherein I also discuss Pat Robertson and Warren Jeffs), but not tomorrow. Because I'm not sure that exploring the mentalities of those who murdered 3000 people five years ago is a particulary good way of honoring the memories of those 3000 people.

Should we really be doing anything tomorrow except remembering -- in some non-political way -- those who died in the 9/11 attacks? And why, after only five years, is it so hard for us (myself included) to put politics aside for one day and find a meaningful way of remembering?

Support Your Local Independent Everything

I really don't have that much against Starbucks. Well, okay, ordinarily I make a concerted effort to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks (since I'm often a pedestrian myself), but I refuse to stop for people waiting to cross the street to Starbucks, and my Starbucks-going friends wisely use the euphemism "coffee shop" around me when discussing experiences they've had at their friendly neighborhood Starbucks. Or their OTHER friendly neighborhood Starbucks. Or their OTHER friendly neigh -- okay, fine. I think we can all agree there are a lot of fucking Starbucks. Which is sort of my problem with them. Holy ubiquitous, batman.

I know it's really cool and hip and edgy to wear a lot of black eyeliner and hate things like Starbucks these days, but I'm not that kind of cool and I don't look good in eyeliner. So it's not that. You won't find me at the next IMF protest (because, you know, people throw stuff at those), but if there's a local option you definitely won't find me at a chain.

Never have I been more glad of this policy than I was this morning. There are two coffee shops within a block of my house. I can see Fair Grounds, my local indie, from my bedroom window, and Starbucks is across the street from that. I go to Fair Gounds. Obviously. But I usually don't go to work as early as I have been this week so I've never concerned myself with what time they open.

They open at 7:00, which I discovered at 6:45 this morning when I opened the door and found the coffee shop girl (I think her name is Kirsten) just a few steps ahead of me on the darkened stairs. "Uh, I guess you're not open yet," I said glancing across the street at the brightly-lit Starbucks and contemplating selling out. "We open around 7, but what can I get you?" Kirsten asked as she flipped on lights. "Well I wanted some coffee, but. . ." (PS, of COURSE I wanted some coffee, I was AT a fucking coffee shop, right? But that's the best I can function without caffeine.) "It'll take me three minutes to make coffee. Are you coming up?" Kirsten asked while I stood in the doorway wondering whether it would be worse to go to Starbucks or to go without coffee or to disturb Kirsten before she was even open. "Uhhhhh. . .are you sure that's okay?" I asked. "What size do you want, sweetie?" said Kirsten.

See, I bet they don't call you "sweetie" at Starbucks. And when I asked for a medium, Kirsten didn't make me repeat myself in some stupid elitist yuppie code. She just gave me a medium coffee. Kirsten ROCKS! I can tell you this: nobody's even allowed to talk to me for the first 20 minutes or so that I'm at work. I even have a sign on my classroom door indicating that I am not to be bothered until 7:15 at the earliest. And here's Kirsten happily brewing me coffee and calling me sweetie a mere three minutes after she's walked in the door, before she's even OPEN. You gotta love that girl.

And it's not just Kirsten and Fair Grounds. According to the Andersonville study, local businesses reinvest THREE TIMES as much money in their communities as corporate chains do. Why why WHY would anyone go to Starbucks when Fair Grounds is right across the street?! Is the carmel macchiato really that good? Is the fate of your soul really that trivial?

Seen On An OBX Bumper. . .

When Jesus said, "Love your enemies" I think he probably meant, "Don't kill them."

Can I get an amen?

A Brief Note To The AP

I do not care what John Mark Karr, the suspected killer of JonBenet Ramsey, ate for lunch on Sunday or that he may have been contemplating a sex change operation. For future reference, I am also not the least bit interested in knowing what his favorite color is, whether he prefers cats or dogs, what kind of music he likes, or if his shirt's tucked in. Just let me know when you have some real news.

In Response To A Letter To The Editor, Vol. V

From The Virginian Pilot, 08.19.06

To the Editor:

Re "Fed up with the GOP" (letter, Aug. 15) by Roland:

Let me remind you that the #1 goal of all Islamic radicals is to kill all freedom-loving Americans, period. Please also keep in mind that fighting these radicals in the Middle East keeps the fight over there and allows you, [Roland], to live peacefully in the United States of America.

Terrorists seem to become more radical each day. We live in a different time and it may become necessary for us to continue our presence in the Middle East to ensure our freedom and way of life.

Don't blame the president or the Republican Party for wanting to destroy these radicals who want nothing more than to destroy us.

--Scott, Portsmouth

To Scott:

Did BushCo* pay you to write this little ditty? Or are you just a brainless twit who actually believes all this bullshit?

I know our current president said that the terrorists hate our freedom, but he was lying. It's what he does. Terrorists obviously want to kill us, but they don't give a rat's ass about our freedom. They're out to destroy us, not our freedom.

Let's be clear: the only threat to our freedom -- since 1776, for the love of god-- has come from within our own country, usually from conservatives like yourself. From the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the McCarthyism of the 1950s to today's Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping program, and ever-blurrier line between church and state, our constitutional rights have been threatened not by outsiders wishing to do us harm but by fellow citizens hoping to make us more secure.

The founding fathers were pretty fucking clear on the topic of liberty vs. security:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." --Benjamin Franklin

"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither." --Thomas Jefferson

But I know you Bushies think all this founding fathers crap is overrated. They were radical, after all.

And I'm not exactly sure what you mean, Scott, by "our way of life." I can only assume this is some sort of euphemism for "our addiction to oil." Although I appreciate being able to drive myself to the grocery on a rainy day, I don't enjoy it nearly enough that I'm willing to send my beloved students to the Middle East (or anywhere else) to die procuring me those last few drops of black gold. I'll just gather up my canvas bags and walk. Oil is over, buddy, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who isn't Dick Cheney arguing otherwise.

Lastly, this whole "all" thing (as in "the #1 goal of ALL Islamic radicals is to kill ALL freedom-loving Americans") is something you and your propaganda team might want to revisit. Even my 10th-graders know that "all" is the harbinger of stupidity and dishonesty. It's why they do so well on standardized, multiple-choice tests; if it says "all," it's obviously the wrong answer. No person with a brain gives any credibilty to what comes after "all."

We do, as you said, live in a different time. It used to be Americans gave a shit about their constitutional rights. There have even been points in our history when political discourse involved more than regurgitating the same line of bullshit the politicians feed you.

Watch all the Fox "News" you want. I, for one, am going to continue to blame both the president and his Republican Party for systematically destroying our civil liberties while using freedom as their rallying cry.

--Megan, Norfolk

*BushCo is a clever term Vikkitikkitavi uses and may very well have coined. I stole it from her. I needed it. Nothing else works as well.

Senator George Allen, Jackass Extraordinaire

I may have mentioned once or twice how much I dislike Senator George Allen and his right-wing Republican politics, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who think Virginia's a little backwards and that it stands to reason we'd have a guy like Allen for senator. But seriously, this guy?! And he wants to be president?!

Allen said he was sorry. Well, actually what he said was, "I do apologize if he was offended by that." As in, "Wow, what a silly thing to get upset about. It's too bad he's stupid enough to be offended by something so trivial." A few days later Allen explained that he meant to call the guy "mohawk," in reference to his hairdo. Yeah, because that sounds a lot like "macaca." Plus, the dude has a mullet.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised given Allen's track record. I mean, we're talking about a guy who opposed the creation of Martin Luther King Day and whose idea of tasteful office decor involves a noose dangling from a tree.

Please tell me we are not going to re-elect this guy. Please.

Three Thoughts On Fascism, Islamic And Otherwise

1. Am I the only one who finds it ironic to hear our current president, who's a bit of a fascist himself, sanctimoniously declare that "this nation is at war with Islamic fascists," as if Mr. "I don't do nuance" is suddenly able to detect non-existent nuances between Islamic fascism and his own brand of Christian fascism? I know Islamic fascists are bad because they're constantly trying to blow us up, but how 'bout 40,000 civilian casualties in Iraq? We're blowing people up too, and what the fuck's the difference?
   
   
2. In a recent column about combating "the Islamofascist plague," FOX "News" favorite Cal Thomas asserted that "it is long past the time when we [the US] need to start 'playing' the equivalent of smash-mouth football with these people" and drew the following analogy:

   Health officials respond to plagues by isolation and eradication. Their objective is not only to control the spread of a disease, but also to kill it so it won't infect others. If that is an effective method for combating a plague, why is it not also a good strategy for combating the islamofascist plague?

   Well, Cal, because no medical professional with half a brain would expect to eradicate a disease without identifying its causes and figuring out how to make sure people don't contract it in the first place. So either your analogy is stupid or you are. Also, I'm really not sure why you put those quotation marks around 'playing.'
   
   
3. Lastly, and just for fun, here's a cartoon about Ann Coulter, that fascist bitch.

(via Non Sequitur)