When fashion and politics collide...

Walking the streets of Boston and now the streets of New York City I see a still emerging trend which I was sure would have faded out by now, but, to my dismay, has not. This long-lasting trend is the donning of the keffiyeh [kah-fee-yah], which is the traditional checkered scarf worn by men in the Middle East. The red and white keffiyeh is mostly shown being worn by Saudi men, while the black and white keffiyeh is worn by men in most parts of the Middle East and has become a symbol of Palestinian unity and, in many ways, a statement of one's political stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict:

"Traditionally worn by Palestinian peasants, the keffiyeh became a symbol of Palestinian nationalism during the Arab Revolt of the 1930s. Its prominence increased in the 1960 with the beginning of the Palestinian resistance movement and its adoption by Arafat...
Another Palestinian figure associated with the keffiyeh is Leila Khaled, a female member of the armed wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Several photographs of Khaled circulated in the Western newspapers after the hijacking of TWA Flight 840 and the Dawson’s Field hijackings. These often included Khaled wearing a keffiyeh in the style of a Muslim woman’s hijab, wrapped around the head and shoulders. This was unusual, as the keffiyeh is associated with Arab masculinity, and many believe this to be something of a fashion statement by Khaled, denoting her equality with men in the Palestinian armed struggle."

The surging popularity of the keffiyeh, worn in the traditional style of Middle Eastern men, began with North-eastern urban hipsters and has now spread to various demographics and has picked up some new shades. I now see everyone wearing keffiyehs--women in business suits on the subway, stylish 20 or 30-somethings on 5th Ave., preps in Irish pubs--it seems I can't escape them. The style of the keffiyeh has also changed to fit its growing popularity...it has been shortened to be better styled as an accessory rather than an actual scarf (for the warmer climate) and now comes in all colors and several different prints. I have seen keffiyehs with flowers on them, seen them in orange, hot pink, red (red and black, unlike the traditional red and white keffiyehs of the Middle East), green, blue. I stopped in my tracks as I walked up 31st Ave. towards 5th Ave. and witnessed keffiyehs of all colors displayed in the window of a small clothing shop. Attending the recent Common/N.E.R.D. show in New York was like attending a who's-who of keffiyehs---just about everyone was wearing one. And this new fashion style is not gender or race biased either. Men wear them, women wear them, black, white, asian, hispanic..I've seen it all at this point.

I admit that I own a keffiyeh and I do wear mine as a scarf when it's cold. But mine is the traditional, long, black and white keffiyeh and my reasoning for wearing it is also much different than those walking the streets of Boston and New York. I bought my keffiyeh in Amsterdam, a place where I was amazed to find them being sold on almost every street in Arab or Turkish owned shops.

Now every time I see someone sporting a keffiyeh, I get a tiny pang of anger inside. Turning the keffiyeh into the hottest new trend, in my opinion, has striped it of all its cultural and political meaning and made it nothing but a cute accessory. The Palestinian people do not have much to fight with, and the wearing of this scarf was one of the peaceful tactics employed for their struggle. How dare fashion take something that makes (or made) such a strong statement and means so much to people that most of those living in northeast America know nothing about and turn it into such a spectacle? What's next, fashionable hijabs? Trendy yarmulkes? Hip turbans?

Now I understand that fashion occasionally needs to reach into far depths to pull out something new and edgy (and often down-right ridiculous) for the urban population to "express themselves" with, hence the passing 'urban cowboy' trend. Overalls shouldn't be worn by anyone over 5, I say, but fashion says otherwise and all I can do is sit back and silently judge those giving into the trend-pressure. But I can say this openly: Fashion should stay out of politics! Unless you are wearing an Obama tee-shirt or in some other way expressing your own personal political views, leave the political stylings of people you know nothing about alone! Unless you are willing and ready to say that you support the Palestinian cause and wish to express your solidarity with the Palestinian people, put your keffiyeh away.

From the bottom up or the top down?

Watching the debate last night, viewers were reminded once again of McCain's "hero", Ronald Reagan. Ok, whatever, John! Doesn't Reaganomics equal trickle-down economic theory? The theory that if those at the top's wallets are full, money will naturally spill out from them to the rest of the population. Trickle down economy theory is the opposite of the ground-up approach, in which the economy is stimulated from the lower levels of the economy (ie The small business owner rather than the top corporate executive) and that from there more jobs are created and, most importantly, more stability and better competition is created.

Trickle down economics has proven itself to not work. Why? Because money does not just trickle down from the pockets of greedy top level corporate executives. If the CEO of a giant corporation gets receives a $50,000 bonus, do all of that company's employees also get a bonus? No. Are all the workers receiving wages and benefits anywhere near that of top or even mid-level executives? Of course not! Now, bring in out-sourcing. If there has ever been evidence of corporate America's greed, this is it. Now we've got corporate execs. still raking in multi-million dollar paychecks, and the "excess" is tricking down to...India? Bangladesh? While outsourcing has been a great opportunity for developing nations and corporations to make more money, what about the rest of us, still looking upwards in search of a few bucks trickling our way.

Even when we look internationally, we see that trickle down does not work. Large international money lenders like the IMF, the World Bank and the US have proven this. While the World Bank has actually done some good for developing countries, the large loans made to these countries (expected to be paid back AND with interest) are usually just used to pay off debt these nations owe to other countries! It doesn't solve any problem, and if anything, just makes the situation worse for that country. In many instances, a receiving country may have access to food and health aid, but once a large loan is made to that country, the aid is discontinued. Since the loans are usually used to pay off other debt, the money is in and out of the country without a single cent trickling down, and the people who need it are now also stripped of the aid they were depending on to survive. A number of years ago, a substantial amount of money was loaned to Nigeria in order to fight AIDS. When all was said and done, only 10% of that money could be accounted for. This is another obstacle to seeing any money trickle down...on it's way down it often gets stuck in the pockets of corrupt leaders, which the developing world is full of.

So what does work? In the past few decades, a new phenomenon has sprouted all over the developing world and has proven to actually work for the people who need it the most. It's called micro-lending, micro-credit or micro-finance, depending on which you think sounds best. Micro-lending involves the setting up of small lending banks in rural parts of developing countries and gives very modest loans to the citizens of these rural areas. With these loans, villagers can begin a business of their own--opening a general store or making clothes to sell to tourists or fixing shoes. Eventually, if they are successful in their business, they pay off the loan, generate a substantial income and ultimately are able to employ other villagers and stimulate the entire economy of the village. This way, instead of waiting for the government to come bail them out, rural people are generating their own economy and, most importantly, generating their own economic independence. The one thing any nation needs to have before anything else is a stable economy. No one is going to care or fight for anything else if they can't feed, clothe and shelter themselves and their families. Once a nation's citizens can do all of these things and have become economically independent, they can then begin demanding other things, like democracy and stability in other areas of their country.

Now, how do we apply this to home, and why haven't we yet? Sure, America isn't a developing country, but I think that it has been proven by now that capitalism is not the only answer. It has had it's hey-day and we are all paying for it now. Maybe we should take a lesson from the micro-lenders and take our economy out of the hands of greedy and corrupt corporate executives and put it back into the hands of small businesses. Maybe it's time to focus on generating our economy on a more local level, stimulating dollars on a community by community basis, creating new and local jobs all over the country, rather than putting all of our eggs in one giant corporate basket.

Round 2!!!

As the presidential campaign gets closer and closer to election day, we are seeing the candidates at their worst and their best. At this point they have clearly shown us how they are going to fight their opponent in the hopes of taking up the executive offices in January.

During last night's debate, I saw many of the same tactics McCain has used before being used again. For one, he spent most of the debate not really explaining what he would do as president, but rather what Obama hasn't done or has done wrong in the past. Watching the approval scale on the bottom of the screen (calculating the opinions of undecided Ohio voters as the candidates spoke) it was clear that Americans don't want to hear this rhetoric anymore. We're over it and we want real answers to critical questions. At this time in our nation, where the economy is falling, Wall Street is in the worst shape it's been since the Depression, we are in a multi-year/multi-country war and so many families are without health insurance...we don't want to hear about what dirt you've dug up on the other guy, we want to hear why we should vote for you and what you will do for our country as the next president.

Another tactic McCain used again, one which Palin is also using, is the "buddy" system. This is a tool also employed by Bush, contributing to his being the #1 president Americans would want to have a beer with. Both McCain and Palin have adopted this strategy of appealing to citizens' emotions, of trying to be our friends. Palin, as the winking, folksy, hot hockey-mom; McCain as the old-but-still-funny, joke-cracking "maverick". How many times last night did McCain refer to..I guess everyone, as "My Friends." (The meaning of which was very much confused when he suddenly referred to Obama as "my friend" also.) He leaned against banisters as he answered questions and seemed to make it seem like he was having a talk with his buddy, not a constituent.

Well, McCain seems like a nice guy and maybe I would like to be his friend, but in a president we need a leader, not a friend. We need someone who understands our issues and what kind of change is needed to address those issues and to lead us out of this mess we're in towards a better future. Presidents are not our friends, leaders are not our friends. They are our protectors, our inspirers, our decision-makers. That is what we need in the White House. Not another four years of "friends", like George Bush.

Polls all over the country are showing that Obama is in the lead and that, most certainly, Obama won Tuesday's debate. I guess this means that Americans are finally looking beyond the superficial elements of this campaign and looking for real answers to the most important question we, as a nation have to ask ourselves on November 4th: Who will lead us to a better tomorrow? With the looks of today, it's clear that we can no longer accept anything but honesty, integrity and true leadership.

Election Anxiety

I realized this morning how serious this campaign is and how much it means to me.  After not watching Sarah Palin go down in flames at the VP debate, I was haunted all night by dreams of the GOP once again winning the elections and of my country being stripped of more and more of the precious values that once made it the land of the free.  I stumbled out of bed and into the livingroom  where my aunt was sitting by her computer and, half asleep, asked her what the news was saying about the debate.  I didn't even think about it.  It was a natural reaction, a reflection of how aware I am of the implications of this election, either way it turns out.  I have said many times that I will leave the country if McCain wins, and those statements are only partial jokes.  I can't stand to experience another four years of everything our country has fought for and built up over centuries be completely destroyed by ideological, greedy, inexperienced "leaders".  

When I was growing up, being American meant something completely different than it does today.  It meant that you were one of the luckiest people in the world.  You had every opportunity at your fingertips because your nation provided the economy, the liberties and the security to chase your dreams, whatever they may be.  And now being American feels like something I have to defend--something I have to fight to be proud of.  I have been thinking a lot lately about how unfair it is to the people in my age group who have been stripped of their rights to chase their dreams and now clamor for a good paying job with health benefits.  I can think of only one friend of mine who is successfully living out her dream.  I have become nostalgic for a time I have never experienced.  I and many people my age have had to lower our standards tremendously just to be able to get by--burdened with unbelievable debt and ever-increasing rents to live in cities that provide no available jobs that pay enough to survive except for those in restaurants or mind-numbing 9-5's that are nowhere near where our passions lie.  Why can't we have the freedom of those before us to have options available...to do what we want and be properly compensated for it?  

This is one of the many reasons that I am in agony over the upcoming elections--why I will not give any kudos to Sarah Palin or John McCain for anything they might do that seems positive--why I will give my time away for free to help Obama's campaign--why I leave angered comments on other blogs just to get people to read my own in the hopes that they might just agree with what I have to say about it--why I feel that I will have no choice but to leave my country if Obama does not win this election.  I want to be able to stand behind my country, but the way things have gone these past eight years, I find that to be an impossible feat.  

To echo my anxious hope/fearful agony over this election, I am pasting a beautifully written article by Courtney Martin.  She puts my emotions in words that I cannot and has helped me accept the feelings I have toward this election and Obama:

DARE I BELIEVE OBAMA CAN WIN?
His idealism brings out the best in me – and in others. So what happens if he loses?

By Courtney E. Martin
from the October 3, 2008 edition



BROOKLYN, N.Y. - Like so many Americans, I feel as though I am holding my breath.

Could the quiet seed of joy that was planted in my heart the day I heard Barack Obama speak for the first time take root and grow without fear of the brutal storms of disappointment?

Could a leader that evokes awe in me actually win a presidential election? Could the beauty – and logic – of his words win over the majority of this country's voters? Could they see past the lies and distractions to the center of a human being who sincerely wants to invoke citizens' higher selves?

Could a system that seems so broken, so moneyed, so corrupt actually serve to help the American people elect an authentic, complex thinker? Could it be that – despite all that is wrong with the electoral process – there is enough right to allow a thoughtful candidate to get through the muck and emerge earnest and excited to lead?

Could the inspirational, not aspirational, America that I was raised to believe in – Eleanor Roosevelt with her Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Martin Luther King Jr. with his dream, and John F. Kennedy with his "ask not" encouragement – be the America that I live in?

And finally, and perhaps most profoundly, could this country reflect the best within me?

There is part of me, I admit, that is fearful and self-focused and, worst of all, cynical. She understands why people stay home from the polls. But there is another part of me that is courageous and compassionate and, best of all, idealistic. If Senator Obama is elected, I feel as though that best part of me – the best part of all of us – will be given permission to lead.

As Nov. 4 nears, I feel heavy with internal struggle and dangerous anticipation.

I have never voted for a presidential candidate who has won, much less in an election that wasn't considered potentially corrupt. I have never gone to sleep on Election Day with a sense of accomplishment, with the satisfying congruency of my values and those of the country's leader merging as one.

I have never woken up the next day without a deep, wide sadness, without a sense that my country doesn't reflect my dearest beliefs, that it actually mocks my youthful enthusiasm for the political process and commitment to following my political heart.

Now I watch Obama, a leader who articulates my own ideas and intuitions with the most eloquent grace, on the brink of a presidential miracle. His words about the critical nature of cohesive community, about injustice, about personal responsibility ring so true in my ears. But I'm scared to believe.

I don't think that Obama is a "messiah." I know that he has flaws, that he will fail in many ways, that the space between his ideals and his actions will often gape with a discomfiting hypocrisy, or at the very least, inefficiency.

But I am almost certain that he is good deep down, that he believes, as I do, that we could do better, that we could be better, that we are – when stripped of bureaucracy and alienation and skepticism – already better.

It is not his inevitable fall from grace that I fear. It is the possibility that on Nov. 4, I will find out that my acute craving for a kind and complex leader is not shared by the majority of Americans. That conclusion to this breathtaking story would tempt me, not just to be alienated from American politics, but from the American people. I fear that the worst part of me would bully the best part with cruel words: "I told you so. Hope is dangerous and naive."

But what would Obama himself say to that sentiment? I imagine he'd stay calm, in his top-of-the-lake-on-a-still-day kind of way. He'd remind me that his candidacy was never about him, but about me, about all of us. That it isn't his victory that confirms America's greatness, nor his defeat that disproves it; it's our own capacity to be resilient and committed to change every day, in all sorts of quiet, nonpresidential ways.

If Obama is elected, if I am invited to rejoice with the majority of Americans, the best part of me will have a chance to smile triumphantly at the worst.

Sometimes you believe in someone and they inspire you right back. Sometimes kindness and wisdom triumph over fear and brutality. Sometimes this country is as amazing as your wildest imagination of it.

• Courtney E. Martin is the author of "Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters" and a columnist for The American Prospect Online.

This pretty much says it all....

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/76085

And I quote:
"COURIC: "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
"PALIN: "That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we´re ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the-it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending have got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.""

God help us....

Elaborating on my $700 Billion Idea

A few days ago, I wrote a post detailing what I believe the government could do with $700 Billion that would really help our economy and protect, for once, those of us who have been struggling for years to make ends meet, secure affordable health insurance and maybe, if we're lucky, have some money to spend on what we want, not just what we need. This is the American Dream, right?

I'm writing on this topic again because it seems that my idea is one shared by many. Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner and Joan Blades, founders of MomsRising.org, recently published an article in the Milford Daily Press highlighting the financial struggles American families face and have been facing for years and basically echoing the ideas from my recent post. While the authors reflect mainly on the financial woes of mothers, something I can't relate to, they make many points in their article which apply to most working families throughout the country:

"What's wrong with our nation? That bailing out the big corporations is deemed acceptable, while helping families meet basic needs and protecting women from discrimination is too often dismissed as unnecessary and even un-American?

It's time to change the conversation away from the tired, old trickle-down theories that got us into this mess, where the rich get richer as it gets harder and harder for working folks - and mothers in particular - to make ends meet. The price of milk is up. The price of gas is up, and so are the prices of childcare, healthcare, and the number of hours that need to be worked each day in order to keep up with monthly costs."

All feminist ideals aside--the facts that women make less than men in most cases, the glass ceiling, mothers having it harder than anyone else in the workforce--these issues are becoming so widespread that they are felt by workers of all genders, races and ages throughout our country. The price of everything is up. Peoples' homes are being foreclosed. Why not take that money, even a portion of it, and help the majority of American citizens who are struggling in this recession. Isn't that what we pay taxes for, after all? Or is it to save big companies who have essetially screwed many of us over and, if bailed out, will probably not only continue to do so but also send out the message to other companies that they can do the same, and instead of being punished for their misactions, will be bailed out by our government.

I, for one, am very satisfied that the Bailout Plan was rejected. Not only is the fact that the bill was to be un-reviewable by pretty much anyone and non-subject to any court (which sounds utterly illegal and unconstitutional to me) but the very fabric of the idea behind the bailout plan is wrong.

When Congress sits down to re-analyze this crisis and come up with a new plan, hopefully they will remember who in this situation really deserves the bail-out. Not the corporate executives who have been sitting on top of five-figure and over salaries and running their businesses poorly, but rather American citizens who, though they may have made some bad decisions, truly deserve the bailing out.

Round One!!!!

DING DING DING...LET THE FIGHTS BEGIN!!!!!

Last night our nation's presidential candidates officially kicked-off their series of presidential debates, both fighting for undecided voters and trying to show our country who hands are dirtier with DC corruption.  

My first comment on this first debate is this:  Obama and McCain went after each other almost violently, slinging corruption allegations at each other.  At one point I actually said out loud to the television screen, "You're both politicians, you're both corrupt, now say something of value!"  I suppose that pointing out your candidates downfalls is a valuable tactic (or would that be a strategy, McCain?) but the scene of them going back and forth like a couple of school-girls--"You did this", "Oh yeah well do did this!"--often times just repeating allegations they had already made and that had little to nothing to do with the topic at hand, seemed a little ridiculous at times.

Last night was supposed to be all about foreign policy issues, but with the recent economic crisis, about half of the debate was taken up by this topic.  I don't know how anyone feels, but I don't feel like I got a direct answer from either one of them about how they plan to solve this problem.  They are still both in Congress so that may have something to do with it, but I still don't feel that I know what they're planning to do to solve this crisis.  I do, however, prefer Obama's bottom-up approach, as told by my previous post.

As far as the foreign policy part of the debate, McCain harped on Obama's lack of foreign policy experience--Obama harped on McCain's affiliation with the Bush administration and McCain's bad fortune-telling skills as far as Iraq goes.  Obama wants to take attention off of Iraq and put it on Afghanistan and possibly even Pakistan--McCain wants to fulfill the wishes of the few soldiers in Iraq he spoke to (as well as those who re-enlisted) and stay in Iraq until "the job is done", and said of Obama's statement about attacking Pakistan, "You just don't say that!"

The essential differences I found during the debate were unfortunately not so much what the candidates were saying but rather how they were saying it.  Obama was very straight-forward and concise in his speaking, appearing more as a leader or a salesman (I guess at this point both) than McCain.  McCain, on the other hand, appeared to be attempting to use the Bush tactic (or is it strategy??) to win over voters--acting like the every-man.  McCain was relatable, taking your attention off of what he was actually saying and making you feel like you just wanted to say, "Yeah, yeah I see what you're saying, buddy", instead of actually paying attention to what was coming out of his mouth.  He did make many strong points, all backed up by his laughing and scolding while Obama spoke.

Hopefully this tactic/strategy won't have too many voters fooled, however my hopes as  far as voter's attention to detail/policy over presentation/gender have been highly let down during the course of this campaign.  We'll see during the VP debates whether Palin goes down the same road--appearing as the Hot Hockey Mom instead of future VP--or if she'll actually join a Toastmaster's group and maybe make a valid point for once.   

Here's a thought on what you can do with $700 billion

In the wake of the recent Wall Street financial crisis and the potentially devastating proposed solution to this crisis, I began to think of all the things our country could do with $700 billion. So many cracks in the foundation of our nation that could be melded together. It is, of course, extremely offensive (at the least) to all the American non-corporate executive multi-millionares to assume that taxpayers would or SHOULD be expected to bail out these executives. Why should we? Why are we protecting those who don't need the protection and making those who do need it clean up their mess?

If we're going to spend $700 billion to clean up this mess, here's my proposal on how to use the money. Instead of the appreciated but also insufficient $600 (or more for those with dependents) economic stimulus checks we all received with our tax refunds, why not use $700 billion to give citizens a susbstantial economic stimulant? Working from the ground up, this money would surely not only give a boost to our economy, but also (even slightly) help those in the debt that's causing this financial crisis to pay some of it off.

And what about the Fannies and AIG and the other failed corporate execs? Either they did themselves out of the grave they dug for themselves or they go under. And if they do go under, perhaps new businesses which will take a lesson from them and run their business properly can emerge. And what's wrong with that?

This may be an over-simplified solution--in fact I'm sure it is. Unrealistic even, perhaps. I've never studied business or economics and honestly don't even fully understand the situation. I think the point I'm trying to make is that there are other solutions out there. And maybe a bottom-to-top solution will do us a lot more help than the already proven to not work top-down approach.

Any other solutions? Please share!

Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Protesting

I found this to be pretty enlightening:
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/525008.html

Keep in mind, those who have actually been governed by Palin know her best! Let them tell you how qualified she is.

What's Right and What's Feminist

I have recently begun a paid internship with a feminist organization. That's right, I'm no longer unemployed. Still uninsured but who really cares about me....

As I was saying, I have recently begun a paid internship with a media-based feminist organization. Part of my daily responsibilities is to go through all of the organization's (general) e-mails, most of which are comments in response to news briefs the organization puts out to its subscribers. Many of them salute the work of this organization, some are trying to promote their own work, and then there is a fairly substantial amount who write to voice their disappointment at this organization for being a feminist media organization and yet still bashing Sarah Palin.

I stick to my beliefs fully and I expect others to do the same. Which is why a large part of me sympathizes with these commentators. As a feminist, media-oriented organization, what are our goals? Sarah Palin, for all of her faults, is a woman in a position of extreme power and media-attention. She is the first woman to be a nominee for a GOP presidental position. Whatever the motives behind her selection and no matter how much she may or may not be qualified for her proposed position, she is still a woman in an incredible place. Without really thinking about it, you could say that she is a breakthrough for women. No Hillary Clinton, who really earned her position in politics, but she's still there none the less.

As a feminist organization, where does that leave you? Ok, Palin doesn't support abortion at all, for any reason, but she does still consider herself a feminist. Why, I'm not sure, but she apparently does. And even if she didn't, she's still a woman. What does a feminist say to this? How does a feminist organization deal with the fact that our country's first female Vice President does not agree with its values? Do you not support her because you tend to be a liberal organization (as many feminist organizations do and many feminists are) and she is very conservative? Do you shun her because her values are not the same as yours? If you do, aren't you going against the very fiber of your beliefs?

This is surely a very troubling spot to find oneself, as a feminist, in. I am all for women's rights but have never waved the feminist flag too much myself, so I have the pleasure of not being faced with this problem. Plus, I am a single person, allowed as many opinions and hypocrisies as I please. But as an organization...with a motto....with a code of ethics....with RULES....what do you do? Support a woman in that position simply because she's a woman--the organizational way to approach the issue-- or shun her because, despite her gender, she just does not believe in the same things as you do--a much more individualistic way to approach the issue.

This is a sticky subject indeed and, to be honest, I can't help but nod my head to those e-mails I read shaming us for our anti-Palin actions.

If These Walls Could Talk....

...they would probably say, "Stop getting us involved!"

I had a strange moment the other day...a moment when, while simultaneously looking at a picture of one thing and a bunch of words written about something else, and suddenly a whole new thought came into my head. The picture was of the wall being built in our country's southern borders with Mexico and the bunch of words had something to do with Obama's support of AIPAC. Suddenly, it came to me, this new idea.

The Great Wall of China must seem like a cure-all solution for the US and Israel today. When you don't want someone coming into "your" country, just build a wall! Much like people not wanting people to come to close to them so they build an emotional wall...some of you may be better able to relate to that.

Why does this seem like such a good idea? Why does simply putting a band-aid (or in this case a giant wall) on the wound seem like it will make it heal? The Great Wall of China may have been successful in keeping the Mongols out, but we are not living in barbarians days anymore. We live in a world of dipolmacy...of democracy...of the United Nations...why can't we find other ways of solving our problems?

Another advantage of our modern times is our modern technologies. The Mongols may not have been able to break down the Great Wall with their swords or their testosterone, but today there are new options for people really, really wanting to get through a wall.

And what about the other feature of our modernity: the recognition of human rights? You know, we may still be living in a world of barbarians, but are they still the ones trying to get over the wall?

Who, exactly, is a "real" politician?

One of the many highlights of the RNC was the GOP bashing of....senators??

What?

One of their 'tactics' was to talk up 'real' politicians, like Palin, who serve as governors of their proud state, and to down talk those money-grubbing, soap-opera watching, DC politicians. Wait a second....doesn't the man running for President in your party reflect those qualities? He's a seasoned senator...he's spent lots of time in DC...his wife is a multi-millionaire...

By attempting to make Palin look like a legitimate, qualified candidate for VP, they just went ahead and made McCain look...well...like an illegitimate, underqualified candidate for President. All the things they said make up for a bad politician are all things that McCain is.

Another point for the RNC! Actually, this one should qualify as a three-pointer.

The RNC: Repetition Equals Success?

Can the RNC speakers do anything other than hate on Obama and talk about how McCain was a P.O.W.?  Here's a hint Guiliani and Co.: Talking down Obama does not equal talking up your party.  Get something real to talk about. 

Conservatives + Republicans = What the &$*@

As I sit here watching Mike Huckabee going on about how McCain was his second choice for GOP presidential nominee (hardy-har-har) and how all GOPs really just want smaller government, I am struck by a question that has haunted me since PolSci 101 in college...How the hell did conservatives ever manage to merge into the Republican party?  And how did Liberals become Democrats?  It's truly one of the most ass-backwards features of our nation's political system.

As the history of our country's two-party system (one that I disagree with, but that's another topic for another day) shows, historically the two parties' ideals were sort of switched.  Historically, Republicans represented more truly liberal ideals...smaller government, bigger liberties for Americans.  The party stood for economic and social liberalism.  You were a Republican if you believed that the government's involvement with your life should be as minimal as possible.  In today's world, a traditional Republican would stand for the lowest taxes possible as well as for limited government intervention in social affairs, such as gay marriage, abortion and other morally debatable issues.

The democratic party, on the other hand, stood for bigger government.  Government charging higher taxes to provide our country with more.  Economically--as a business owner under a Republican government, you could either become as wealthy as possible without any government interference or begin a business that goes down in flames costing you everything, and not have the government to fall back on.  Under a democratic government, if your business was wildly successful you would be held accountable by the government to give back to your country a portion of the wealth you have accumulated, and if your business goes down in flames costing you everything you have your government to fall back on and to take care of you.  That's traditionally the purpose of a Democratic-led government...to have the government to take care of you/to hold you accountable for giving back to your country.

My confusion comes in here: at whatever point in time it was that the Republican party also became the party of social conservatives.  I suppose there's really no way they could fit into the Democratic party, but why the Republican party?  How is it that Mike Huckabee can stand up at the RNC and proclaim that his party asks only for smaller government and minutes later rant about how women shouldn't have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies?  Why can what you do with your body or your choice to marry whoever you want be the business of our government but how much you have in the bank cannot?   Why do Republicans feel that American citizens should NOT be accountable for sharing the immense wealth they may make as business owners with struggling single mothers without access to affordable healthcare, but feel that they should be forced by the government to follow their moral values?  The moral values that may have put that struggling single mother in the place she is in the first place.

This has always been my primary example of how much sense the GOP party doesn't make: Republicans oppose abortion, but also oppose paying the taxes to support all those struggling mothers forced to have their children young and uneducated.  They oppose abortion and then also tend to oppose teaching sex education in school.  It's perplexing.  But here I am digressing a bit.

I'm just wondering where and how the Republicans adopted the conservatives and why it makes any sense.  A conservative Republican...looking at it historically, this is the oxy moron to end all oxy morons.

I will never forget the day I realized that, traditionally speaking, I would probably be a Republican.  A student in one of my PolSci classes proclaimed himself to be Republican.  He stated that he supports gay marriage, he supports abortion, he supports people doing whatever they want and the government keeping its nose out of the peoples' asses.  What happened to you, Republicans?  What happened to the days you could call yourselves the Grand Ol' Party and really deserve it?

Smells Like Teen Pregnancy

When I first heard the news that Sarah Palin's 17-year old unmarried daughter is five months pregnant, I'd be lying if I said that one of the first thoughts in my head wasn't, "Yes!  Now I get to use that blog post title I thought of a few nights ago and have been dying to use!"  I figured I would have to wait for another Jamie Lynn Spears incident of teenage starlette pregnancy, but apparently I got lucky.  Now I can fit the title into my blog in a completely relevant manner!  

My blog-centered joys aside, this news brought the same delight and fear that any other news I've heard about this Palin character has brought to me.  Delight at the fact that I now know that not only is she completely inexperienced and underqualified to be vice president, but I now know that she is also a mother of five, one of whom is a pregnant seventeen-year-old, and the youngest of whom is a four-month-old with Down's Syndrome.  No way can this woman be our country's VP!  Not that I have anything against Palin's family facts...in fact it's quite admirable to know that she manages to hold her post as Alaska state governor while also dealing with these 'issues'.  Clearly she has accepted and embraced these things that most people may see as misfortunes and continues on with her responsibilities both to her family and her job.  But not as VP.  There is simply too much going on that would fall on her shoulders and too many distractions in her family for her to take on this magnitude of responsibility.  Even if her youngest child did not have Down's Syndrome, requiring more care and attention from the family, it's still a four-month-old child who needs his mother more than our country does.

The fear that I feel is the fact that this woman actually could become our VP.  It gives me a headache just thinking about it.  And the fact that this is clearly just a ploy of McCain's (or whoever's pulling his strings) to get him into office, but what then?  What happens when we realize that our VP is completely unavailable because she's busy attending to her plethora of family issues.  Family does come first, but when taking on a position as globally involved as the VP of America is--at a time when our economy is basically in a recession, we are in a seemingly never ending military entanglement with Iraq and Afghanistan, globalization is at its peak, our environment is deteriorating--the person assigned that post should definitely have the family issues at a minimum.  

I hope I've managed to make my point without sounding too arrogant or anti-feminist.  If not, as long as I made my point I'm at peace with it.

Another note on Palin

I just received an e-mail from MoveOn.org with information about Sarah Palin, all of which only contributed my previous woes about her inexperience.  Apparently, Palin has only been governor of Alaska for about a year and a half, and before she held that position she served as mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside of Anchorage.  According to the e-mail, McCain had only spoken with Palin once before choosing her as his running mate.  She is an incredibly right-wing conservative...she is against abortion even in cases of rape or incest.  However, personal morals aside, the woman, as stated in my last blog post, is completely unprepared to be our VP.  She seems to have no experience outside of Alaska.

Now, as much as I want to believe those on the same side as me, I have to remain open to the other side.  Obviously MoveOn.org is going to bash Palin, just as they bash everything else about McCain's campaign....that's their job.  So I went to McCain's campaign homepage.  (www.johnmccain.com)  I figured it would be only right and only fair (or only strengthen mine and MoveOn.org's arguments) to do my research on Palin.  I went to the page that was supposed to have info about her, and all I found was her totally unimpressive acceptance speech.  In it, she discusses her career as a "hockey mom", PTA member and eventual life in politics, beginning as city council member, then mayor of her hometown and finally governor of Alaska.  As stated earlier, these are all admirable posts to hold, but where did I miss her credentials for the position of VP?  It makes me wonder again: What the hell was McCain thinking when he choose her??  What could his strategy possibly have been in this decision making process?  Steal Clinton supporters?  With a woman who is as much of a hard line conservative as she is?

My fears that this may have been the motive were only strengthened when I read this statement toward the end of her acceptance speech: 

"It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America.  But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

(www.johnmccain.com/about/governorpalin.htm)

You're right Palin, the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.  But it's certainly not going to be shattered by a ploy--a simple trick for simple minded Clinton supporters blindly following McCain's dribble without giving it any thought, any consideration.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, Hillary Clinton should be offended, as should all those who support Hillary.  

What is McCain thinking?

After hearing that McCain would possibly choose former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, as his running mate, I made a promise to leave the country if they won the election.  Although the running mate he did choose, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, shares many of the same hard line conservative values as Romney, (the source of my for my dislike of both politicians) I must say that my concern has been much alleviated.  McCain must have been out of his mind to choose Palin, and if it hurts his chances at winning in November, then I say good choice!  

Palin, governor of the notoriously politically corrupt state of Alaska, is not only barely known, she is known for her lack of experience and knowledge of foreign policy and security issues and has confessed herself that she doesn't even know what is expected of the VP.  When leaving the country to visit Alaskan troops in Kuwait, Palin had to make sure she applied for a passport in time.  In a time when America is involved in a war that involves any country 'supporting' terrorism, at a time when globalization is not only real but expanding rapidly and the economy is as globally-based as it is, does our country really deserve a VP who doesn't have real global experience, let alone a valid passport?

One glaring suspicion of McCain's running mate choice has nothing to do at all with her qualifications for the position, but rather her gender.  This was the first thought I had when I heard the news that McCain had chosen this (in my opinion) absolutely random governor: Here is another attempt to pull more Clinton supporters.  And sadly, it may just be working.  I guess only the polls will show in the end, but hopefully the majority of Clinton supporting democrats will be smart enough to see that, aside from gender, these women have so little in common their gender may be about the only thing they do have in common.  Hillary Clinton is former First Lady, the wife of a still very powerful and influential former president; she is a New York State Senator; she is a democrat; she has relatively liberal views; she came pretty damn close to becoming the first female president of our country!  Although I'm sure Governor Palin has led an admirable and successful political career thus far,  she holds nowhere near the credentials that Hillary does.  To support Palin because she's a woman is like eating cat food when you can't have steak because, hey, they're both meat right!

The two women's credentials aside, to repeat myself once again, CLINTON TOLD YOU THAT IF YOU SUPPORT HER, YOU SHOULD TURN YOUR SUPPORT TO OBAMA NOW!!  (Can you tell how much it bugs me that people don't get this?) The reason she says and, I think, truly believes this is because, even if she can't be president, she wants to see someone with the closest values to hers take the position instead.  McCain and Palin represent the complete opposite of her values.  So, please, please, if you are a Clinton supporter, be a little smarter than that.  Realize how insulting it is for McCain to try to trick you like this.  

Afghani-Stand-Up-For-Yourself

Today I read an article in the New York Times (8/27/08, 'Taliban gains new foothold in Afghan city", Carlotta Gall) about a Taliban conspired attack on an Afghan prison in Kandahar in June.  A white fuel tanker was parked in front of the prison and minutes later fired on with a rocket-propelled granade by Taliban members.  The man who parked of the tanker, who walked away laughing, was fired on by prison guards.  They missed the assailant and managed to shoot and kill a local shopkeeper's son as the father helplessly looked on from across the street.

The prison's walls were blown apart and, with many prison guards dead, 900 prisoners were able to escape.  The kicker: 350 of these prisoners are Taliban members.   Although the attack is a tragedy in itself, the following actions, or should I say lack thereof, by Afghan police and security guards was the true tragedy.  Or rather the faulty security infrastructure.  For example, the night of the attack there were 10 guards to look after 1,400 prisoners.  Five of those guards were killed in the attack and over half of the inmates escaped. Canadian forces hired and trained the security guards but failed to put any barriers or blast walls near the entrance that may have prevented this sort of explosion.

That's only the beginning.  Police reinforcements only showed up on the scene once the escaped Taliban members were long gone, and police at a nearby checkpoint began running away from their posts when they learned what was happening.  A by-stander mentioned that only 20-30 police could have stopped the escaping Taliban members, but the city police chief and his forces instead stood nearby and approached only after the escapees were long gone.

This may seem like elaborate conspiracy to some, but to the Afghans interviewed in the article, these types of issues are causes of a lack of resources or a lack of leadership.  One government official pointed out that the provincial governor was out of town that night, leaving the city without good leadership.  

Why is it that Afghanistan's police forces are still being bullied by the Taliban?  How can anyone expect the country to successfully govern itself when one of the things it needs most for effective government right now--security forces--runs away from their posts when they are needed there the most?  The United States may have been successful in taking the Taliban out of power, but where is the follow up?  What kind of affect does this have on the psyche of the Afghan population?  To see your police running away from the Taliban, leaving their posts and fleeing...where are you likely to put your loyalties?  And what about those still fighting against the Taliban...what protection is there for them?

How can Afghanistan rebuild itself when there is shoddy security infrastructure (at best) and a blanket of fear wrapped around the police and security forces?  It makes me really wonder what we're doing in Iraq and what similarities we can expect from that country.  But I won't open that can of worms tonight.

Da Me Mas Gasolina...and Less McCain

Just a quick comment on McCain's recent endorsement by Daddy Yankee, the reggaeton pop culture icon who supports McCain because of his positive work for the Hispanic American community.  McCain introduced Daddy Yankee  to a room full of unsuspecting, hormonal teenage high schoolers, resulting in a wave of shrieking and "freaking out" by the female students. Smart move by McCain, both targeting the youth with one of the hottest latin pop stars around today, and targeting the Hispanic community, a community full of Hillary supporters who may now be confused about which way they'll vote in November.  On top of that, this happened on the first day of the DNC.  Now that's just rude.  But pretty smart.

You will be insured or you will pay!

Massachusetts has always been a state that boggled my political mind.  A few years after finally legalizing tatooing in the state, it became the first state to legalize gay marriage.  While these are both positive and progressive things to legalize, they are a perfect reflection of the irony of the state.  It is a constantly blue state which elected a very red, probable running mate of John McCain, Mitt Romney as governor for years.  

Now don't get me wrong, I love Massachusetts.  The five years I spent in Boston were some of the finest I've had.  However, Governor Duval Patrick's health insurance policy, forcing everyone to be insured and fining them for not being insured, is just weird to me.  While the state has made health insurance readily available to pretty much everyone, it still just doesn't seem to make sense, and is another reason why I can't help but ask this great state, "Are you moving forwards, backwards, or just standing still?"  Universal healthcare does not mean, in my opinion (which is what this blog is all about, after all) forcing residents to get health insurance and then fining them on for not having it.  Isn't this a free country?  Isn't it my right to be uninsured if I am stupid, lazy or just unfortunate enough not to be?  How dare the government charge us for our lifestyles, as much as they may not agree with them!

Then again, I may just be bitter since I did break my ankle while being uninsured.

"My mother was born before women had the right to vote and my daughter had the right to vote for her mother for president"

I was motivated to begin this blog after watching Hillary Clinton's speech at the Denver Democratic National Convention.  Much of her speech was dedicated to women, reminding them that although it is Obama and not Clinton as the Democratic nominee for this year's elections, she has still put 18 million cracks in that pesky glass ceiling American women are always attempting to shatter.

Clinton's speech was incredibly moving and inspiring.  For all women watching, it was a reminder that we cannot stop moving forward.  For all democrats watching, it was supposed to be a reminder that we cannot stop moving forward.  The quotes Clinton used from Harriet Tubman about never stopping, not when the dogs are barking, not when the search lights are on, no matter what you continue ahead without looking back, were dead on with Clinton's main point (aside form women's rights, of course).  Speaking to Clinton supporters who say they would rather see McCain in the White House than Obama, Clinton correctly and honorably reminded them that her ideals are not lost in the presidential race just because she is.  Her speech was meant to send out the message that there is someone running in the election who most closely reflects the changes she would have made and that person is Obama.

In other words, Clinton supporters--why would you go to the McCain side?  Were you supporting ideals or names?  What is it exactly that you want from the next president?  By supporting Clinton, you're saying that you support democratic ideals, so why would you support McCain, who is basically a Bush-extension plan for the republicans?

Clinton made this point so clearly and I became hopeful.  I have been somewhat trouble by these issues lately and thought that this speech may turn things around. These hopes were immediately trampled when, minutes after the speech concluded, a woman being interviewed, while sobbing, rambled on for minutes about how upset she was that Clinton will not be the next president and how, although she's not voting for McCain, she does not yet 'feel comfortable' with Obama and, after years of voting and urging friends and family to vote along with her, she now does not know if she will show up to the polls in November.

"DID YOU NOT JUST LISTEN TO CLINTON'S SPEECH?!?!?!?" was all I could think.  "Or could you not hear it over the sound of your crying for the death of Clinton's presidential chances?"  The point that Hillary and I are making is this...however sad you may be that she is not the democratic nominee, move on, and move in the right--or should I say left to avoid severe irony--direction.  If you truly believe in Hillary Clinton's message, stick to your guns!  If you don't get what you wanted the most do you turn around and ask for the complete opposite of it?  Or do you work with the closest thing you have available to it?  

Bottom line is, if Clinton is endorsing Obama and you support Clinton....can you see where this is going?  If anyone has any reasoning against this, I would love to hear it.

Thanks for reading my first official blog!

Introduction of an unemployed, uninsured, highly flatulent gimp

Hello World!  Allow me to introduce myself, Barefoot and Pregnant in the Kitchen.  I suppose an explanation is due as far as my name goes, seeing as how although I may be barefoot at the present moment,but  I am certainly not pregnant and, at the moment, not in the kitchen.  Sitting here, searching for a zany political or otherwise joke on line and reflecting on the motivation to begin this blog, which will be discussed in my next post, I was suddenly bombarded by a generally not-so-welcome memory.  An ex of mine, several years back, "jokingly" commented several times on how a woman's proper place is "...barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen."  I smirked then as much as I do now at the thought of this man-boy telling an incredibly ambitious and idealistic 21 year old college student studying political science and international relations with future plans of saving the world that her proper place in life was barefoot and pregnant, happily preparing a delicious and nutritious meal for her thankless (and oafy) husband.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not really that much of a man-hating, anti-family woe-er of overpopulation.  It may be a possibility sometime in my life that I may actually be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. In fact, if I ever am pregnant, I wouldn't be very surprised to find myself in such a predicament.  It's really just the irony of the time at which this comment was made that makes me smile.  The fact that I was bright eyed about my future...forging ahead to make changes and to become a Somebody...and maybe, somewhere down the line, I would begin a family. But that was the furthest thing from my mind at that point.

So here I am now, a 24 year old college graduate, barefoot and gassy in the spare bedroom of my Aunt's house...unemployed, uninsured and recovering from a broken ankle.  My ambitions have dulled a bit, seeing as how I've been out of school for over a year and still can't get a non-restaurant job, but I am still forging ahead, still not barefoot and pregnant in a kitchen!

Nice to meet you!