Post no. 14

Mob mentality is a strange feature of humanity–– an odd collective of raw human emotion, which I am apparently currently experiencing in part. I'm not talking about this strange tea party phenomenon where people who enjoy wasting a lot of money on tea pollute waterways to symbolically protest wasteful government spending. I don't really get that one. . . at all. It doesn't seem to prove a point, or demonstrate much. And these people don't know what 'representation' means if they think they are being taxed without it. . . Unless they come from D.C.–– then that just sucks.

No, I am writing about the protests that have been raging at The New School as of late. Now, there has been, shall we say, tension, between various groups at the New School since last semester. And by "groups of the New School" I pretty much mean group a: Bob Kerrey and his henchmen vs. group b: everyone else. There was a 95% vote of no confidence by all New School staff (part-time, full-time, tenured alike) in Bob Kerrey back in December, and, around the same time, over 100 students occupied a building demanding Kerrey resign. I don't feel like getting into the details. Basically, we've had a billion and a half provosts since Kerrey's time here. When the last one left he appointed HIMSELF provost, effectively putting all the university's power in the business side of the university and none in the academia. This, on top of losing important student space, was too much. It was covered by the Times and what not. Just Google it, or Wikipedia it.

Well, so, you see, what had happened after these protests was Kerrey started operating in a MORE transparent way. He un-appointed himself as provost. He put staff on the search committee for a new one. He promised the students some more space. He started sending out a billion and a half e-mails about our financials, etc. etc. But, he didn't resign. And this is what the students wanted. So, people are still freaking the frak out.

I didn't really get it at first. (Honestly, I'm still not sure I do.) It is clear Kerrey's contract will not be renewed in 2010. Let's all just chill and let this thing run its course. I guess you could say, after the December vote and protests, I became complacent with the mediocrity of the situation. "Eh, it could be better, it could be worse, so let's just let this all sizzle out quietly" typa attitude. So, I didn't understand the continuation of fuss.

That's why, on Good Friday, when 22 students were arrested, most for breaking and entering into a building, I kinda didn't support them AT ALL. I thought that was a completely ineffective and immature way to go about. . . I wasn't really sure what it was all about. (Honestly, I'm still not sure I do.) [also, that sentence has just gotta end in a preposition 'cause otherwise it sounds silly.] I guess they are protesting the fact that Kerrey has not resigned. I found this an absurd reason to break into a building.

So, I then saw a video of a friend of mine being beat up by the cops. Just flat out pushed on the ground and jumped on by four cops for "obstructing." No, for real, he did not break into the building. He was chilling outside intelligently not risking (or so he presumed) the master's degree he's about to (maybe, hopefully, one can pray) earn in five weeks. He yelled "shame on you" at the police for being violent to another protester. Well, for that he was pushed to the ground and brutally beaten by four officers. I've seen him since then and he's all bruised up. He is charged with "obstructing" and "resisting arrest." This has nothing to do with the New School. He did not break any laws besides 'obstructing' and, for real, if a cop can't do his job while someone is talking to them, the NYPD needs to hire better cops. I don't see how talking to a cop obstructs anything. Furthermore, you can't exactly resist arrest if you are pushed to the ground and attacked. So, my point is, he is suspended from school, and for what? For speaking his mind to a police officer in support of fellow students. This is no reason to get suspended. And pretty much it makes me not support the administration.

Well, I was still iffy on the whole thing, leaning towards "I agree with these students but not with their methods." It seemed a bit extreme to break into a building even if the administration of our school is a sham. The first protest was successful, peaceful, and all-well-and-dandy. This more recent one seemed ineffective, unorganized, and not-oh-so-very-well-and-dandy.

HOWEVER, I am slowly being sucked into the excitement. Today I again ran into said friend who was recently beaten by the cops. I didn't even recognize him cause he was all celebrity like with sunglasses and hat. (haha) They had an emergency assembly today called by the Lang Dean, followed by a march to protest police brutality and the works. So Tabby and I were discussing the situation again, and it is just flat out getting exciting. A Teacher's Assistant he had last semester is in one of the two student groups organizing these protests. She is part of New School in Exile. The other group is The Radical Student Union. (And I am discovering the latter is the ridiculous faction and the former may actually be filled with intelligent human beings.) We watched a video (the second one) of her speaking on Monday and Tabby got excited that she was distinguishing between the protesters inside the building and those outside instead of making a blanket statement that they are all terrorists or all godsends. Also she brought up a great point about our University having some protest policy where they must be pre-approved. .. uh, that's not a protest. Tabby also said he liked her a lot.

Well, THEN I found out Reverend Billy (who I am supporting for Mayor! HURRAH HURRAY!) spoke briefly at tonight's rally. He wasn't really planning on doing that. He had to be at NYU for some Mayor thing-a-ma-bob or NYU protest or something, but the New School protesters marched over to Washington Square Park. ANYway, Rev. Billy excites me. And this is when I felt the mob mentality kick in. I was all Reverend Billy is right, "He criticized what he sees as the corporate structure of the American higher education system." Well, of course there is a problem with the corporate structure of U.S. America's higher education system! So, then I feel myself wanting to blindly support these protesters because I like REVEREND BILLY'S point. . . Not cause I know what the protesters' point exactly is. (I think it has shifted into some weird collage about having the right to protest and not liking police brutality. . . idunno.) But I'm telling you, I was all "see Rev. Billy supports us! . . . I mean them. . . I mean. . . um. . . he said something intelligent about the higher education system that may or may not be related to the protests. . . "

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting moment of mob mentality. And I like the feeling of it and don't want to let it go, even though I know that would be the conscionable thing to do. Instead I wanna be part of this movement that may tear apart my University just because it's fun when a celebrity gets involved; and movements are sometimes cool; and hey, I need some excitement in my life. Strange, huh? I mean, mob mentality is a strange result of too much team spirit, for lack of better term. You know what I mean though, all these people feel like they're on one side against something else. . . And that can breed hostility towards that something else. And I've never particularly liked team spirit, or hometown pride, or patriotism, or any of that business. So, this is an odd moment in my life. What does it say about me? Perhaps I HAVE become too emotional without enough reason. . . but then I wouldn't be reasoning this out, now would I? So, idunno. I guess it is just something to analyze and resist.


A CUTE puppy and me two summers ago. I really need a hair cut! It needs to look like that again.

Post no. 13

Long time no chat,

I was recently accused of using emotion and no reason when arguing my passions. I would first like to direct the accuser to a discussion I had with myself here, in order to explain the way I think and feel about "reason versus emotion" in the first place. Second, s/he should visit the paragraph under the kitty picture of this post to understand that this is not school. It is a blog. Thirdly, I will now demonstrate that I do indeed have supreme reasoning skills in addition to my overly-emotional core: *ahem*

Eating meat is morally wrong. I do not believe this is a matter of opinion or subjectivity, and my reason dictates so (not my emotions.)

It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. It takes 3 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of chicken. On average, it takes 10 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat.

Consider the following: There are people all over the world going hungry; they eat literal mud cakes to fill their stomachs. Many would argue that this is not a problem of food production but a problem of food distribution. However, as developing countries consume more meat, the cost of grain is rising. Why? Because wealthier people are using that grain to feed animals, and essentially losing 9 pounds of food in the process. This higher demand for grain increases the price of it. It is a simple economics question of supply and demand. The result: people who could once afford grains no longer can.

Now, one could argue that meat consumption IN THE UNITED STATES does not drive the cost of grain up overseas. And they would be right in the most literal sense. However, the reason developing countries are consuming more meat is largely because of Western influence. A vegan I know from school who is from India and who is in my Fundraising and Developing class explained how McDonald's is popping up all over the place in India. (McDonald's is so successful because it brands itself as a "family restaurant.") You cannot tell me, with a straight face, that the "convenient," fast-food, excessive meat-consumption culture did not develop in the West. Therefore, indirectly yes, consuming meat even in the United States raises the price of grain overseas. This in turn, causes the starvation of human beings. Causing the starvation of a human being through negligence is immoral.

Furthermore, one may not be worried about a food shortage in the United States, but one should worry, I argue one is morally obligated to worry, about the effects one's food choices have on other people. With respect to the amount of grain used to produce meat, field upon field are devoted to government-subsidized corn. (see the original rant here.) This corn is used to feed animals. (I think this is also immoral as the animals eating corn cannot digest corn properly an we are commanded by God to take care of animals, not abuse them. . . but I will leave the Christian and animal argument out. Those can be found elsewhere on this blog anyway.) This makes both corn and meat CHEAP. So, anyone who, either through necessity or their own decision, buys inexpensive food is buying either products full of corn syrup or meat. The diabetes and obesity rates in this country are absurdly high, largely because of meat and corn syrup consumption. (The human digestive track was not meant to consume animal products in large quantities leading to a whole slew of other health problems as well.)

Every time you purchase meat (or something with corn-syrup in it for that matter) when you have the spending power to purchase something else, you are essentially approving the government's corn-subsidy policy. Healthful foods are more expensive, in part, because not enough of the public is willing to stand against this government policy. Instead, people exasperate the problem by purchasing inexpensive animal products. Healthful foods remain costly, and those who cannot afford to spend a lot of money on food, those living in poverty, pay the price with their health.

Meat does not just hurt other people's health directly through consumption, it harms people indirectly. Industry Factory Farm jobs are some of the most horrendous jobs in the country. Because workers are largely unable to unionize, the pay is awful and the conditions are dangerous. Granted, one could argue it is better to support these farms so that these individuals have SOME employments; clearly it is better to work in dangerous conditions than to be better employed. First, I would argue that many of these same people are opposed to sweatshops overseas, yet the same logic about employment applies. Until they figure out their argument, I won't listen to them. Second, job creation is indeed a problem in this country, and I will not deny that. But there are countless USEFUL jobs that should be created that could easily replace the jobs lost in factory farms. (I am thinking of 'green-collar' work, improving infrastructure work, safer factories that produce inanimate objects that won't act out and ram you in the gut so that we CAN stop importing all our products from sweatshops in China.)

In addition to the workers, communities located near Industry Factory Farms suffer. They are, without fail, polluted. They do not have clean air or clean water. This inevitably leads to health problems.

Speaking of water, according to most estimates, it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef. According to the beef industry it takes 441 gallons to produce a pound of meat. Now, let's be civil and give the beef industry the benefit of the doubt and say it takes "only" 441 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat. Is this justifiable? Is it morally acceptable to waste 441 gallons of water for one hamburger when clean water is a problem across the globe? When innumerable children are dying from diarrhea because they do not have clean water, can you use a product that wastes so much without a nagging at your conscious? I can't. And I won't.

On a global level the problem of climate change, while stemming from a variety of sources, is effected by meat consumption. Studies show that meat production is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the world's transportation combined. For starters, factories naturally emit a lot of pollutants into the atmosphere. But there are many other reasons for these emissions not as readily understood.

Billions of animals produce a lot of methane. This is through both digestion and because of the cesspools of waste created by factory farms. (the same cesspools polluting local waterways) Methane is more than 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. In the United States, animal agriculture is the number one source of methane emissions.

Nitrous oxide is another problem. 65% of the nitrous oxide emissions worldwide come from animal-product industries. And nitrous oxide is a lot more potent of a global warming gas than carbon dioxide is.

Brush, including the RAIN FOREST, is cleared so animals can graze in places like Brazil. Granted, this is not industry factory farming, but this post is about consuming animals. When Brazil recently decided to double their output of cattle, this problem became even worse. Anyone who went to the zoo as a child has learned about the importance of the Rain Forest and the necessity of protecting it. While, consuming meat causes the destruction of the Rain Forest, and, in turn, causes an increase in greenhouse gases as the Rain Forest is not able to absorb as much carbon. (Furthermore, and beside the point of the post, how can destroying God's creation to feed one's gluttony be considered anything but immoral in the first place?)

Additionally, animals are shipped all over the world for consumption. These factors make the meat industry the number one industry in greenhouse gas emissions. For the sake of all humanity, it is better not to contribute to this problem by supporting this industry. In fact, I argue, it is immoral to knowingly contribute to a problem that may cause countless deaths. (Some argue that global warming is already killing people. See Jessica Williams's 50 Facts That Should Change the World 2.0)

To summarize, eating meat supports a dangerous industry. It contributes to global warming, community pollution, the food shortage and the clean water crisis. Knowingly engaging in these acts, without doing everything reasonable to prevent them, is both negligent and immoral.

As alluded to earlier, I have many posts relating to animal welfare and Christianity and vegetarianism if you are interested. Feel free to explore the labels to the right.

May I remind you again, that this is not school. So, I know I do not have many hard statistics or citations. This was only an exercise in reasoning, and a demonstration of my ability to do so. Statistics and citations could easily be copied and pasted if I had the time to re-research all of this information–– which I do not. It is late.

Also, because it is so late, I do not want to proofread this. And so if I have made a fool of myself by not demonstrating my ability to use logic because my arguments are incoherent, feel free to point and laugh. Perhaps I will revise it later.


These are goat friends who live in Arizona at this weird Western-themed amusement park. THEY ARE SOOOOO CUTE. I wanna take them home. :)

P.S. I don't know why all those words are underlined, or how to get them not to be so.

Calla's Fifty-Fifth Post

I have just stumbled upon some distressing news. . . The ghost bands may not be able to make me laugh much longer. (ha! I cracked a smile just writing that line! The ghost band is the funniest thing in the world! AHHHH! John Allison is a comic genius!) Alright, but for serious, the ghost bands are not actually in the comic, and I still have the shirt. . . so no, they will make me laugh for ever and ever and ever until the shirt gets worn out. . . And then I will laugh at pictures of myself wearing the shirt!! But, to the point. John Allison may soon discontinue Scary-go-Round and start something new. http://sgrblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/state-of-onion.html In theory, I get this. If one focuses on the same project for seven years, one is bound to get burnt out. But I will cry, cry, cry when Comrade Bat and Shelly Winters are no longer in my life! Just like I am so sad that Delirium is no longer in my life. I get way too attached to these fictional people (and animal-friends). It is highly dysfunctional of me. It is the same way I think all my stuffed animals are alive.

Oh, that song from the last post is super swell, huh? In bed the night after that bad movie Tabby was all, "that was like a David Bowie song or something." And THEN, without warning, he sang "I got an empathy virus." I laughed so so hard. So hard like the ghost bands, and the Abraham Lincoln story, and the Painter with the Sombrero (see Calla's Third Post for a complete description of how amazing all those things truly are!) And I said, "sing more! Sing more!!" while I was in hysterics. And at first he would not!! He would not sing more because he said he didn't know how; so I helped. I sang, "and I can't go out in the sun." And then he finally started singing more. And oh-so-quickly I found a receipt and a red marker and began transcribing the most awesomest song in the world ever. (Besides the one where Baby Kitty tap dances. . . I don't know if that is on here though.)

Ok, so there is so much more more more to say. I have to tell you more about that fictional person I know in real live life. But I don't remember his code name. So I have to look that up first.

What I have to say is that Dollhouse was on last Friday. Now, Dollhouse was alright. (Though Tahmoh Penekitt [however one spells his name!] was not in it nearly enough.) But it wasn't believable at all. Joss Whedon set up these villains of sorts, right? Like the people in charge of the agents (or whatever they were called) convince themselves they do their work to help people, but they don't actually do that. Or so I thought was the set up. THEN they went and didn't erase Echo's (who is Faith in Buffy, who has a name when she is not acting, but I don't know what it is.) memory so that she could go save that little girl. It was such predictable story-telling. Now, had Ron Moore been telling a story like this, he would've gotten the audience invested in the situation, made us all eager for the child to get saved, and then it wouldn't've happened, because it is not believable that it happened. Overall, it was a good show. The concept is interesting, Helo is in it (and he is a better actor than everyone else around him!), the pacing was right on, there weren't cheesy U2 or Coldplay songs in the background (that I can remember at least), I was immediately invested in the story and the characters (it helped that one is Helo.), though it seemed that was a stand alone episode the ending appears that it will still be tied to the overall series. So, as far as TV goes, it was ok. But then Galactica came on immediately. . . and the OPENEING SEQUENCE, THE RECAP, was better than Dollhouse. Once Galactica is in one's life, no TV show will ever be on par again. (except maybe Mad Men. That's pretty good.) Just as when the ghost bands enter your life, there is no other T-Shirt worth wearing.

Though, I did buy the Eggbert shirt in honor of Shelley. But here is the problem. Blue is a really ugly color. So I can't really bring myself to wear it that often. Also, I didn't buy it. Tabby bought it for me for Christmas because I asked him too. I wish it was green, black, brown, white, or even purple. Blue is ugly.

Want to know what I don't understand? Why people think the U.S. constitution is sacred. The old men who wrote it weren't gods or even oracles. They don't know any better than I or you do. (That should say you or I, I suppose. . . but I am narcisistic [hence the fact that I keep this blog], so I am leaving it the way it is.) So, it is weird that if something is "unconstitutional" it is deemed evil. This is all brought up, of course, by D.C. wanting voting rights. And I think they should have them even though the constitution says STATES have representatives in congress. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION IS TYRANNY. (Probably our founding fathers overreacted a bit, no? Come on? Tyranny? Maybe mean would be a better word.) Though, I forget who said this, but someone said we should just stop taxing residents of D.C. HAHAHAHA! I love it. Colbert enlightened me to that guy who said that. Colbert is also a comic genius.

I am not sure if this picture of myself is up on a different post or not. If it is, I'm sorry for the re-run, but I wanted to put it up.



The kitties are playing with a toy!! No, Mama is playing, and the Baby Fuffersface does not understand how! :( It makes me so so so so sad to watch him try. He can't figure out he has to stick his paws in the slots and mostly just hits the side of the contraption. Though once in a while he gets his hand in the right spot and I think perhaps he will learn! But he doesn't. He is not the brightest crayon in the box. BUT HE SURE IS THE CUTEST!!!


Love,
Calla and the FURRY GUYS!!

Calla's Forty-Sixth Post

So, I pretty much hate my class that I just got back from which is called *ahem* Making a Difference: Global, Organizational, and Individual Perspective on Social Change. Now, you may imagine that I hate this class cause it just sounds stupid. But that's not precisely why. The name is actually a misnomer. What it should be called is *ahem* Intro to The New School Ideology: An Indoctrination of Our Postmodern Believes. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with postmodernism. I am a fairly a postmodern girl myself, being unable to help it as I was born in 1986 and all. What is wrong with my partaking in this stupid stupid class is that I have BEEN at the New School for 3.5 years. I already KNOW their postmodern mumbo jumbo. The fact that everyone experiences things based on their own positionality may or may not have seemed ground breaking to me three and a half years ago. (I'm gonna guess that it didn't because I was born in the postmodern era.) But it most definitely is not something I need to hear 3.5 years AFTER I entered the new school. The problem is that this class is supposed to be for first year students at Milano, The New School for Management and Urban Policy. Maybe these newcomers need to be indoctrinated, but I don't. I'm sick of it because I have heard it all before. So I have moved past the discovery of critical thinking and flat out use it without thinking about using it.

Well, here's the other issue. I was asking Tabby the other day, what other kind of thinking is there? How is there a kind of thinking that is not critical? Wouldn't that just be memorization, and repetition of facts and studies. How is there thinking without the critical part? Ok, so my point for this part of the post is that I have always thought critically. It is one advantage of being born in the postmodern era. I question everything. So, I gave up meat at the age of four without prompting from anyone. It was because I did not inherently accept the dominant ideology that meat is a necessary source of nutrients. I thought about killing animals for what it actually is, and just stopped eating them. It's not hard. Another example: In class, when we were discussing the dissemination of dominant ideology onto the masses (get it yet? Why this is so dumb?) someone mentioned the idea of a wedding. How little girls are trained to dream about their wedding day, and they plan it out as soon as they can speak, and when that day comes they are told it is the happiest day of their lives. Someone needs to correct me if I'm wrong, cause I don't have that good a memory about my "formative" years, but I don't remember ever wanting a wedding. I certainly do not want one now and I certainly did not want one during high school. As long as I can remember, they grossed me out. Why are you going to make this intimate, personal vow to spend your life with someone in front of a group of gawking relatives, friends, acquaintances and strangers? (You are not likely to know all of your spouses distant relatives who flew across the country to attend this horrendous display of overexaggerated bliss.) Much to the same point (the point of specified gender roles and household expectancies), know what pisses me off? People's views on adoption. I have always wanted to adopt children. I remember when I was a child I said so to my mom. She said, "you'll change your mind when you get older." Well, turns out I haven't. In fact I am much more strongly convicted that you are pretty much an asshole if you purposefully plan a pregnancy, what with the overpopulation and the hundreds of thousands of children WITHIN THE UNTIED STATES awaiting adoption. So, I am about to get to the part that pisses me off. When I say I want to adopt, people respond, "you don't want to have your own children?" SINCE WHEN DID THE DEFINITION OF "YOUR OWN" CORRELATE WITH A BIRTHING PROSSESS? I did not birth the jeans I am wearing, and yet they are my own. Imagine the idea that one could feel a child is theirs (as much as a child can be "own"ed by anyone in the first place. . . but that's a totally different discussion that pretty much falls to semantics and the limitations of human communication in my opinion.) without sharing DNA. My boyfriend is mine (hence the word "my" in the phrase "my boyfriend") and yet we do not have the same DNA. But seriously, I have even heard other people who plan on adopting say things like "I don't want to have my own kids." EWWW. It makes me want to puke all over the place. I always correct people and respond with "I will have my own children. They won't be biological if that's what you meant." But here's my overarching point: Because I was born in 1986 I have been analyzing the world critically since I was a child, and I have just offered three examples of how I was able to question dominant societal views without taking this dumbass class on social change.

OK, but there's still more to it. (More to why the class is hard for me to sit through.) I am not as postmodern as I could be given my position in life. (haha. That's a joke, get it?) I figure I must be too Christian to be postmodern. Not that some Christians aren't postmodern. Those emerging church people are. . . and I don't like them. Probably because they're too postmodern. But, ya see, I believe in objectivity hardcore. Maybe I view a certain situation as unjust because of the fact that I am a woman. Maybe a man would not question that same situation. Our realities might seem different. . . However, the situation is either just or it is not. One of us is wrong. Our difference in positionality does not automatically validate both of our experiences as true. What I'm getting at, and that was an awful example because I didn't actually give an example, is that not everything is subjective. The reason I figured maybe I'm not postmodern because I'm Christian is because so much of my faith hinges on things happening for real. I can't just accept that maybe the resurrection was spiritual instead of physical or that the incarnation did not truly happen but Christ was adopted by God or that Christ's performed miracles were mere illusions. And people can try to pass off the resurrection as a spiritual occurrence saying that the experience would be different for different people because it has to do with spirituality. . . but that's just bullshit. And also kind of postmodern.

Oh, here's the other thing that's wrong and stupid about The New School. . . shhh. . . it's a secret. I'm not convinced they teach people how to think critically. Some people, such as myself, were drawn to The New School because we already thought critically and so we were drawn to a university that flourished on seminar style instead of lecture and processed regurgitation. BUT those who were drawn to The New School without an already embedded notion of critical reasoning, well, they just regurgitate "progressive" opinions. They listen to their professors in class and just barf back up whatever the professor said. They do this later, in conversations with their non-New School friends so that they can appear enlightened. Really, they are no more enlightened then their friends who attended community college, but they can pretend they are since they are regurgitating well-argued, less-usual opinions instead of boring opinions accepted by the dominant culture as fact.

My school is dumb. The people in it are dumb at least. (Not all of them, some of them came to the school already not dumb.) I cannot precisely express to you what is wrong with all the people who surround me. . . but I can try. They are selfish. I think that is the base of it. They like to pretend that they are liberal, but really they are just mean. I figured this out because they have these weird ideas about spirituality, and finding oneself, and doing what it takes to make yourself happy, and never looking at the outside world for advice (I damn sure hope you're never a rocket scientist!!) because all you need is you typa-attitudes. That wasn't a well argued (or well thought out!) explanation. So. . . Let's try this. I'm liberal. I don't think we would deny this. (I'm vegan, my apartment is powered with green electricity, I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primaries, I think the war on terror and the war on drugs are both wastes of money, I think the "free-market" was an awful idea as I don't believe it was ever free, I am not homophobic, not racist, not sexist, not sex-negative, I believe the education system needs a complete overhaul, etc. etc. need I continue? You get the point.) So. I am of a liberal political persuasion, I think it is safe to say. Now, the reason WHY? Because I believe it can better society far more easily than a conservative political platform. It is not because I will benefit from a reform in elementary schools and it is not because I personally intend on marrying a woman. Additionally, I am not the one being abused and ultimately slaughtered in industry-factory farms. What I finally figured out is the people at my school are mostly liberal for strikingly different reasons. There are a few possibilities: #1, they are rebelling against their conservative Catholic upbringing and couldn't think of a more creative way than by voting for a pro-choice candidate. #2 They were raised around liberal people and are simply regurgitating. #3 They are selfish. They feel that a liberal agenda will give them more freedom to do what they want, no matter what that want may be. So, well I am against the war on drugs because of depressing sentencing discrepancies, the fact that drug offenders are not rehabilitated but imprisoned, the fact that common policing methods are inherently classist, and the fact that the money could be way better spent fixing our broken infrastructure and failing public schools, a lot of people at my school are against the war on drugs because they want to smoke pot. See the difference? They are not progressive, simply liberal. And there is, I am discovering through my critical reasoning skills, a difference.

In other, ENTIRELY unrelated news, I think my hyena must make me approachable. People are always asking me questions when I am wearing it like, "where's Broadway?" and "is this way north?" (the island is on a tilt, so I think that confuses people. What we call North is really northeast so people like looking towards the sun for directions or something have no idea what's going on.) SO, pretty much I must look irresistably cute in my hyena hat and look like someone with authority. I dunno, I maybe am crazy. But seriously, they always ask me.

Galactica fans are pretty weird about the show still. But I don't feel like explaining it. They must not know how to reason.

Love, Calla and her kitties

Calla's Thirty-Fifth Post pt. 2

Tabby is a froggy! No he's not, but he does a tongue thing that makes him look like one! That is all for now.

No, it's not. I also just want to say that Lehman Bros. ruined the world a little. (No they didn't. They just let us know the world was ruined. They didn't even get a bailout) Anyway, now everyone in the whole country is asking for money!! Like Las Vegas needs money for a mob museum , and some small town in like India needs a "small town stimulus." This is just ridiculous.

Calla's Thirty-Fourth Post

If you have not heard yet, change.org is letting people vote for what they believe are the most important issues for the Obama administration. Everyone can vote for ten ideas. The top 10 rated ideas will be presented to the Obama administration on January 16th. There are three animal rights ideas and one idea to require public schools to provide vegan lunch options! Register and vote!! None of these are currently in the top ten. And you must love the furry furry puppies! So vote for animal rights options at change.org/ideas.

(The creation of a Department of Peace is number nine! Kucinich's dream may yet become a reality.)

In other news, this is the subsidized corn rant from a long long time ago in a state far far away. (I wrote it on my sister's myspace page while I was in Arizona about two and a half years ago.) If it is already here somewhere I am sorry I could not find it and that this is a repeat. But TV always shows re-runs, so my blog can show one too certainly!!

My name is Christin. My sister, Calla, hates subsidized corn
"The government subsidizes corn. . . and only corn. That is why this nation is fat. Everything has corn in it. Corn syrup, corn meal, etc. Livestock is fed with corn. Everything made with corn (meat included) is cheaper than things made without corn. But everything made with high-fructose corn syrup and all the fatty hamburgers are bad bad bad for you!!! Many people cannot afford to buy a five dollar salad from McDonald's, but they can buy that double cheeseburgers for a buck. Our nation is fat because it is much cheaper to be fat than to be healthy.
Corn pollutes our environment. Well, no not corn in and of itself. But the price of raising livestock on corn and shipping that livestock all over the country in fuel guzzling trucks is about the cheapest way a livestock farmer can make a living. When you eat food it gives you energy, but the amount of energy provided by every cow made into beef is no where near the amount of energy taken from the earth to raise that cow. Far less people would raise cows for meat for a living if the government would stop subsidizing the corn the cows eat.
On Wednesday July 27 2005 Economist Joseph Stiglitz appeared on Lou Dobbs and made the claim that poverty is up in Mexico because the farmers cannot compete with our subsidized corn. I don't know much else about that argument but it sounds like a good one.
Subsidized corn is a devil!!! BOYCOTT!! But it will take you hours at the grocery store i'm sure to read all the lables and you will not be able to buy the majority of the food you like. Boycott anyway."

THINGS I RECENTLY DISCOVERED I HATE: (Calla talks a lot too. . . the beginning of the end of my own myspace)
1) subsidized corn
2) people that use God as an excuse to hate
3) organized religion
4) what the majority of this nation has turned God into
5) the contraversy of the Da Vinci Code. FICTION! (my sister, Calla, thinks this proves the stupidity of the nation. . . but that is a whole nother rant)
6) ILLEGAL immigration
7) the fact that the U.S. has no official language (my sister, Calla, thinks it's stupid that the government doesn't like our national anthem sung in any language except English but English isn't our official language. . . so that's dumb.)
8) people that come to this country and won't learn English (my sister, Calla, thinks i'm ignorant)
9) ignorant people, especially ignorant people in their cars on the same road as me
10) the war in Iraq
11) America is more worried about aid to foriegn countries than our starving children in AMERICA! (my sister, Calla, hates that we call our country America when it is actually the United States of America and not America in and of itself. . . though it is on NORTH America, are Canada and Mexico are also. . . not to mention all the countries on South America. . . ) we should all move to Canada
12) abortion that is forced or used as birth control. (my sister, Calla, hates abortion. . . it would take a really long time to explain why. . . longer than the subsidized corn thing. basically, she thinks it is ALWAYS used as an excuse to cover up other problems. our country doesn't have to deal with rape or domestic violence or incest or educating people or poverty or bad maternity leave laws or lack of housing for pregnant and mothering college students or shitty adoption laws or dead beat fathers etc because we have abortion. she is a psycho about this one, really, and she thinks pro-choice feminists are also the devil. Go to http://www.feministsforlife.org because it is her favorite organization in the world. They work to REDUCE the number of abortions by getting at the root of problems. George W. Bush and his fricken abstinence only plan is INCREASING the number of abortions because Bush is also the devil and he refuses to educate children on the uses of condoms. ok cool. . . that was pretty long too. . . let's NOT move to Canada because they like abortion even more than we do.)
13) domestic violence and how ignored it goes and how most people blame it on the woman. (my sister, Calla, says AMEN!)
14) so many women and children live in the ghetto while the "daddies" drive around in their pimped out range rovers. ("how can you force that woman raising her children in the ghetto to have another child. You have to let her have an abortion." "How can you force that woman to raise her children in the ghetto moron!" ROOT OF THE PROBLEM!)
15) that Calla has taken over my myspace. . . it is as if it was a Callaspace. . . she even typed that!

REMEMBER! THESE ARE ALL THINGS I HAVE recently DISCOVERED I HATE. (Calla hates that in caps lock there was no way to emphasize recently)


That is more than the corn part. That is the whole thing I typed while my wonderful sister was telling me half of what to type. Probably not the whole thing would be a re-run even if the corn thing is. I did not just re-read it, so I don't know what it says, but I hope it was good!!

Also, you should do your best to remember that that thing is so so old so those things are no longer things my sister recently discovered she hates. I don't know if she even hates them all anymore. I didn't read it. I just copied and pasted and trusted my former self and my sister's former self to not frak the whole thing up.

Did you see King Korn? I saw it in the movie theater like a year a go. My boyfriend and I bought popcorn on purpose to be ironic. hehehe

Love,
you know WHO-OO


Christmas Photos Below




P.S. I had a vague recollection that Lou Dobbs was mentioned in the myspace note, so I just skimmed it post publication and this is an edit to say he annoys me. . . so I am tagging this note as such. Also, there is a bit about abortion in there.

Post no. 7

Tell me why we should bail out the auto-industry? How long ago was an electric car invented, up and running? Oh wait, in the 1830s before cars ever ran on gas. But those are so outdated, how can we drive around in those? Oh wait, General Motors invented the EV1 in 1996. Infrastructure to support these cars was up and running in California. However, these cars were lease-only and G.M. refused to allow any customers to renew their lease. . . And then all those cars were discontinued and crushed. So, why, if G.M. had the technology and the ability 12 years ago to create electric cars, and has thus far neglected to do so, should we bail them out?

Not that electricity is necessarily better than oil, but it can be. I have green electricity in my apartment. Anyone can sign up for green energy through Con Edison Solutions. It's really that simple. So, electric cars at least allow the consumer to be environmentally friendly. They can choose to sign up for wind or water powered electricity and charge their car overnight with that electricity.

Basically, we can't just bail-out the industry without preconditions. Require them to design and build electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and I'll agree a bailout is a good idea. Let them continue to build inefficient cars which run on foreign oil, and I have to say, this is a bad bad idea.


Also, what is with Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State? What happened to Obama and Clinton disagreeing on foreign policy issues? Didn't Obama say Clinton's foreign policy stance put her in line with Bush? Didn't Clinton call Obama naive in regards to his foreign policy plans? I am oh-so-confused. This can only be used as evidence that politics, at least in this nation, are stupid.

Post no. 6

Am I the only one perplexed by Christian McCain supporters? Am I the only one who finds the phrase 'Christian Republican' an Oxymoron? Am I the only one startled by the mixed message of those who follow Christ and yet believe in capitalism, 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps,' rewarding only the "deserving" poor, supporting policies which abuse our God-given planet, treating children's educations as if these were experiments in the free market, denying what should be basic rights such as health care and living wages, putting 'country first' instead of humanity first, supporting policies which encourage human rights violations and child labor in other countries. . .? This list could continue indefinitely. Someone please clarify how any of this is Christ's message. This is a sincere request for someone to explain how the Republican philosophy and Christ's teachings align with each other.

Pictures2

Impromptu Party . ELECTION NIGHT '08


Crowd at Union Square complete with U.S. American Flags

Patriotic Balloons

Hot Off the Press (as in 1:30 a.m.!)

Crowd Surfing

Another U.S. American flag

Superman? Uh. . . not quite, but the pic. is cute

Climbing on statues in celebration. . . The cops helped them down without arresting ANYONE!


Obama Mask (Click pics to enlarge. Look in middle of each pic.)

Video Clips


Chanting "U.S.A."


"Yes We DID" (I find this quote amusing though, considering we didn't yet accomplish any of the things to which Obama was referring when he said "Yes We Can." . . . He isn't even in office yet. Really everything is still a "can do" not a "has done". . . If you see what I'm saying. I mean we DID elect him. But I somehow can't bring myself to believe his motto was only about getting him into the White House. [See, 'cause then it wouldn't've worked as a motto.])


"When I say Barack, you say Obama!"


Honking Horns


Crowd Surfing


"How ya'll doing tonight? I got something really quick to say to the office, to the government; . . . They said there wasn't a lot of young believers out there, but look around right now. . . That goes to show you that young America cares! Now we have to take care of our country! No look, listen my man right here (young man last on megaphone) said everything for me, but I'm gonna say this for you. We elected Barack Obama as our President. . . we need to take care of our country, and when you go home you need to take care of your neighbor. You take care of. . You take care of. . . You even take care of the person you hate, 'cause at the end of the day it's about the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is that you care! " ~ young man on megaphone

(I couldn't make out all the audio, and don't remember what he said. If you can make out the parts where I put '...' comment below.)

Calla's Nineteenth Post

This is the first post I am writing since Obama became the President Elect. My sister cried a lot a lot out of joy. Mostly this is because my adorable nephew face (who is nine years old) is half-black with a single white mommy and he has been obsessed with race since he could talk. (Probably before he could talk, but he couldn't express this fact until he was two.) So, since the primaries he has been loving Barack Obama, and he cried when Obama gave his speech on MLK jr. day. So, my sister cried and such. WOO HOO Obama!

This was like the earliest they've called the election. Obama is overcompensating for the time he got yelled out for not wearing a flag pin by having like 8 million flags behind him for his acceptance speech. IIIINTERESTING.

Who is going to be in his cabinet? I hope he creates a department of peace and appoints Kucinich. HEHEHEHEHE. That would be super super cool. . . But I think Kucinich might be the only one nutty enough to suggest creating such a department.

Obama is about to give his speech. He has his cute babies with him! It speaks highly of him that his kids are cute. The little one looks good in black and I like that they had the balls to dress her in only black. . . Most little kids can't pull that off because black clothing looks like you're in mourning.

Ok, I'm gonna watch this.

Buh-Bye. Sorry no kitty pictures. I want to watch an historic moment.

Calla's Eighteenth Post

"Barack Obama. Too Radical. . . HURRAY" That is my response to the commercial that says "Barack Obama. Too Radical. Too Risky." He doesn't seem particularly radical to me. But I'll take the McCain ad's word for it and vote for him because it tells me he is a radical like I am! Yay for radicals. And that is all I have to say about that.

Cindy McCain's eyes look like kitty eyes. MEOW. MEEEEEOOOOOOW. hehehe.


SOOOOO that seems to be all I have to write right now. (haha write right.)

It is like an hour later, and this is what I have to say now. I have to tell you something else that is funny that was on wikipedia but that is from cosmo. (HA! HOW AWFUL/ SEXIST IS THAT MAGAZINE!) So, it is not AS funny as a ghost band, but it is still funny. It says this, 'Cosmopolitan founder Helen Gurley Brown once advised women to, "Spread semen over your face, [it's] probably full of protein as sperm can eventually become babies.'" How moronic is that? Oh so moronic. . . semen is PROBABLY full of protien BECAUSE SPERM CAN BECOME A BABY! Um, last I checked, (and maybe things have changed. . . no, I promise they haven't) sperm doesn't just grow into a baby!!!!! AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Also, I want more political jingles.

Also, why does Jon Stewart think hermaphrodite is an insult? People need to stop being stupid-faces.

love,
Callakitties

Calla's Seventeenth Post

Mama is sideways and I don't know why! Maybe I will fix her some day soon.

This news article is strange to me. I am concerned now for my well-being because it bothers my head.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004757_pf.html

So so confusingly strange. The president of the Republican club at Liberty University says, "Aside from moral issues -- homosexuality and abortion -- I advocate small government." Yet is also "hesitant to criticize Bush." This is strange to me. Bush has not done anything to prevent abortion (you should look to the section on abortion in Post no. 4 [from October 2008] to see my full opinion on this) or gay rights (not that I would want him to) and has let the gov. grow 40%. . . Um, what? That is my response "what?" It is the only response I can muster because I am oh so perplexed by young Republicans. Additionally, I don't understand how someone in my generation can be against gay rights anymore than I can understand how someone in my generation can still be racist. But alas, there is racism and homophobia among even us 20something-years-olds. So, right that is strange to me. Yep. Strange and a half almost. . . But true and a half also.

Also, the culture element of Liberty University is surprising. It is surprising because it is NOT surprising. (hehe. . . didn't see that one coming! Did you?. . . um, did you?) What I mean is this: They dress like everyone I know, drink Starbucks like everyone I know, watch The Office like everyone I know, listen to Indie Rock like everyone I know, and wear shirts proclaiming I [heart] such-and-such like people I used to know in high school. (Let's be clear, I only personally approve of the skinny jeans [and with BOOTS not sneakers and not Uggs either] and The Office because I've never seen it so I can't judge. Nonetheless, they are like everyone I know.) So, what this leads me to believe is that the way my school is full of fake liberals, people claiming that want to change things and pretending they are activists, Liberty is probably full of fake conservatives, claiming they want to change things and pretending they are activists for the opposite things for which people in my school pretend they are activists. The reason I think this is because anyone who regularly supports a giant corporation like Starbucks is clearly content with the status quo, or hasn't thought critically about the status quo. It is just surprising to learn this is a two way street– students repeating things they have heard from their parents runs on both sides of the left/right political split.

Ok, so this is going to be one of the two weirdest parts of the article. This girl who is president of the Republican club is black. (That's not the weird part.) The weird part is, that by the other 9% of black students at Liberty University, she is considered a racial traitor because she's campaigning actively for McCain, AND the white students in the Republican club fear she is an 'Obama plant' despite the fact that she is their president. . . Once again, um. . . WHAT? In what alternative universe is Liberty University, where the entire student body, absent one girl, vote solely on race? OK, not to generalize (because the article does point out that some liberals go to Liberty and there is even a Democrat club), but I'm willing to BET you that most of the students at Liberty, black, white, hispanic, Asian, American Indian alike, have similar political views (be them fake or part of a deep-running conviction). So why are all the black students voting for the Democrat? Additionally, are a lot of the students there so racist that they can't understand why a black woman would vote for McCain, even one who is PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLICAN CLUB? Is it wrong of me to be confused by this weirdness? Am I missing something obvious. Please explain the obvious thing I am missing, because I would truly like to know what the heck goes on in the minds of these students.

Ok, so the other weirdest part says this:

Not all of Ayendi's friends at Liberty are in political lockstep, made evident by the arrival of Ray Woolson, a biology major who pulls up a chair. Woolson is ripe for ribbing: His Razor scooter is in the back seat of his Volvo, which bears an Obama bumper sticker. And not just any scooter.

"A scooter with a cup holder!" Ayendi teases. "When you want to come over to the real world, you can come over to my side. How can you be a liberal?"

Woolson is calm. "I think being a liberal is the most compassionate thing you can do," he says. "Jesus was a pacifist who chose to spend his time with the poor people. They weren't Big Oil, they were prostitutes."

Ayendi shakes her head in pity. Woolson gives it back. "There are a lot of kids at school who are blindly conservative," he says.

"Americans have gotten too soft and expect too much," Ayendi says.

"Like affordable health care?" Woolson asks. "The conservatives want to have tax cuts for Big Oil CEOs."

They could debate for hours, and they often do, but Woolson has to take off. When he leaves, Ayendi says: "Ray is so random. I'm not. I do as I'm told. I'm really proper. Liberals are very indie, very emo, just very fun. When we go out, we put on button-downs and Sperrys. I think ahead. I'd rather dress like this now, because when I'm in law school this is how I'll be dressing. Liberals are like, 'Live, take a load off!' My friends at home say I have to be perfect 24 hours a day. It's just who I am."

I am all around bewildered by this portion of the article. I would like to hear these debates they supposedly have for hours because all this girl did was shake her head at her friend without actually offering a response. Then, she ENTIRELY offended all liberals by implying we are indie and emo. . . like, what? I am not emo, and I also enjoying thinking ahead which is why I fight global warming and such. Also, when she is in law school will she ALWAYS wear button downs and Sperrys (what's a Sperry? I guess I'm too liberal to know.) Does she sleep in them? Also, does she imply conservatives aren't any fun, because I think many may be offended by that statement. Also, many liberals are not like "live, take a load off!" (whatever that even means) because we do not feel we can stop fighting for the social changes we deem vital anymore than she feels she can. Also, why does she admit to doing whatever she is told? That seems like a sign of complacincy. . . that is not always such a good thing to be. I am just confused. . . what's with the cupholder remark anyway? Oh and I really like when that Ray guy says Jesus hung out with prostitutes, because it's a good reminder we are not above anyone. (Seriously, how cool was Jesus? Coming to earth to redeem everyone)

Ok, that is all. This article was strange to me. Oh my.

UNRELATED ALERT: In Galactica, Sharon Agathon's call sign is Athena. Do you think this is because she was always grown up and Athena sprung out fully formed from Zeus's head? MAYBE

Love,

You know WHO!

Calla's Fifteenth Post

So, this is my newest post. I don't know what it will say!!! It is maybe a surprise for both you and I. That was a little rhyme, that last sentence was. I'm sleepyface. Are you sleepyface? I'm watching John McCain and Larry King chit-chat. McCain really needs to drop that town hall meeting thing. I love Larry King. He's so chill. He'll let anyone come on and say whatever s/he wants. He just sits back and asks simple questions every now and again to spur the conversation forward. And he's so short with people if they get off track– to the point and always dry. I love it. I can't stand the anchors with these cheesey personalities or fake passions. (Lou Dobbs and his stupid smile!! AH I HATE IT!) Basically, Larry King just seems like a nice, but no bullshit, kinda guy. I like him. I would like to be interviewed by Larry King. . . I think I need to either be famous or do something important first.

My fifth grade teacher thought that I would one day be President of this grand ol' country. (That would be important AND make me famous) However, there are a few problems with that assumption. (1) I am far too nutty and far too left. For example, I am in love with Congressman Dennis Kucinich. . . I would never be President for the same reasons he will never be President. We don't understand the importance of compromising on ANY position. We stick to our guns about things other people think aren't even worth while. (Like family farms and animal rights) So, you see, I would only be able to gain a small constituency like my man Kucinich has. (2) I don't want to run the country because I'm not in love with it like all those other politicians are. (Here is where Kucinich and I differ greatly. . . This is the reason he is a congressman and I could probably not even get elected by that many people.) No, so, basically, what I mean is, I don't want to have to walk around talking about how U.S. America is the greatest place on earth and I don't want to wear a big cheesy flag pin like Govenor Palin. (3) I HAVE NO DESIRE TO LIVE IN D.C. I just don't. First off, there is taxation without representation there! Isn't that why the Revolutionaries freaked out on England in the first place? So yeah, I would not feel right running the country from a place that is, in all reality, underrepresented- the contradiction and irony would be too much for me to take. Also, the school system is so failing and I plan on adopting kids and I also plan on sending my kids to public schools. Rich people canNOT keep sending their kids to private/religious schools because that is why there is no pressure to FIX the public school system. Nonetheless, I am not uprooting my hypothetical children out of their semi-failing NYC public school to bring them to a big-time-failing D.C. public school. . . That's just not nice. Um, why else don't I want to live in D.C.? Because I like it HERE!

So, that is what I have to say for the day: I will never be your Presdient (and aren't you relieved!) However, I do enjoy being opinionated and freaking out about politics, so probably one day I will be on a community board. That will be fun. And maybe I can get elected to the board because my community is liberalweird like I am, and that is one reason I like it where I am. (Is that bad? I should be somewhere where I can make a difference?) I can still make a difference. EVERY COMMUNITY NEEDS WORK.

The End for today.

Love, Calla and meow meow meow faces!

Post no. 4

OK, a week before the election I've decided to offer you my ultra-post debate analysis.

Initial (and sarcastic) reaction: Tell me why Senator John McCain hates the United States of America . . . He must, because he clearly wasn't wearing a flag pin during the last debate. (Though Palin's pin is probably big enough for the both of them. - She would've been a great waitress at that place Jennifer Aniston worked in the movie Office Space, right? Flare and what not.) So, let's take this debate one point at a time so that you can understand my opinions and why I have those opinions without any questions.

First Question: What the frak are you going to do about this financial frak-up!?

John McCain seems to want to buy everyone a house. . . at least, if you defaulted on your mortgage he would like to buy you a house. . . (This is $300-billion of his plan. . . what the rest is, he didn't care to mention.) And, McCain thinks he knows the criticism of this plan. It's not fair to the people who didn't frak up their mortgages. Ok, maybe that is a criticism, but frankly, that's not a compassionate complaint. If you could afford not to mess up your mortgage you don't NEED his help. So there.

BUT, I still have criticism. (Why wouldn't I? I'm an opinionated person.) My problem is that the Republicans are still obsessed with the market even though it has clearly failed, even though there has always been govt. subsidies for various businesses (ie: the railroads when they first got built) that prove laissez-faire capitalism has never been a true tenant of this country, and even though for all their trickle-down-effect ramble the gap b/w rich and poor b/w haves and haves nots is growing not shrinking. (See Paper: One for further details.) So, what is my criticism? WHY ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE THE BANK SO MUCH MONEY!? It's like food stamps or section 8 housing, the only reason these are supported by Republicans is because they put money right back into the private sector allowing all of this pretend laissez-fair capitalism to continue. Tell me why food stamps, which until recently only BIG BUSINESSES (sorry farmers or mom-and-pop stores) could accept, were the best idea for helping the working-class? These were just subsidies that helped the wealthy grocery stores more than anything else. And that's how I feel about McCain's housing plan too. . .

Also, what else is he going to do?

Now Senator Barack Obama, I give him props big time for wanting to give tax credits to companies providing jobs within the U.S. That pretty much spits in the face of the Republican notion that giving tax breaks to companies is good for our economy because it provides jobs. . . Blue collar jobs and now high-tech jobs are being outsourced, and you can no longer even pretend this isn't true. So, yes, give incentives to companies to locate here IF they actually provide jobs here! Point Obama

Where Obama loses me is his 98% of small businesses make less than $250,000 a year so they'll be fine with his tax break plan. Additionally, he said that he wants to give these companies additional tax breaks. I'm unclear. . . ALL small businesses get these additional tax breaks, or just those 98%? Even if it is for all of them, are the tax breaks enough to make up for the fact that they are making > $250,000 annually. Basically, I'm worried that 2% of mom and pop stores will fall through the cracks.

McCain also babbled about Joe the Plumber and whonot. . . And freaked out 'cause Obama told Joe that he would spread the wealth around. . . I know we are a capitalistic society, but much of the Republican base is supposedly Christian. . . And the base has people of the Christian persuasion that believe the bible is the inerrant word of God. . . um. . .

A stranger ran up, and kneeling before him, asked, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to win eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not give false evidence; do not fraud; honour your father and your mother."' 'But teacher,' he replied, 'I have kept all these since I was a boy.' As Jesus looked at him his heart warmed to him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come and follow me.'
-Mark 10: 17-21

Then he said to his host, 'When you are having guests for lunch or supper, do not invite your friends, your brothers or other relations, or your rich neighbours; they will only ask you back again and so you will be repaid. But when you give a party, ask the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. That is the way to find happiness, because they have no means of repaying you. You will be repaid on the day when the righteous rise from the dead.'
- Luke 14: 12-14

All the believers agreed to hold everything in common: they began to sell their property and possessions and distribute to everyone according to his need.
-Acts 2: 44-45

The whole company of believers was united in heart and soul. Not one of them claimed any of his possessions as his own; everything was held in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and all were held in esteem. There was never a needy person among them, because those who had property in land or houses would sell it, bring the proceeds of the sale, and lay them at the feet of the apostles, to be distributed to any who were in need.
-Acts 4: 32-35

Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but it sounds like God wants us to spread the wealth around much more radically than Obama does.

Second Question: We've got NO MONEY. . so what programs will you cut?

Obama says he'll cut the programs that don't work. (no shit Sherlock) He also avoided answering the question any further by explaining where we should INVEST money so we can SAVE money in the long run. It's hard to disagree with his list of investments, health insurance, energy policies, education. . . Right, that's all stuff with which I agree, but still, what would you cut? He doesn't answer.

McCain also tried to avoid the question by talking more about buying your house. But got cornered into answering the question by Schieffer at which point he offered the solution of a spending freeze.

Obama came back with an opinion with which I agree. THAT'S A HATCHET AND WE NEED A SCALPEL. He goes on to say how some programs don't work and should be defunded but some work and are underfunded - we need to fund those programs. Right, good, fund programs that work and defund programs that don't work. That sounds so logical and simple and obvious, it's almost disgusting that this needs to be said! However, it worries me on one level. How can you be sure which programs would work if properly funded? Will he cut programs he says don't work because he doesn't know they would work if they were properly funded? Um, since I don't have any specifics on which programs fall into what category that's as far as I can comment.

Third Question (and a ballsy one): Can you balance the budget in your first term?

McCain's solution is creating jobs through energy independence. He goes on to comment on the anger of U.S. Americans. So um, I am confused why it is ok to call the entire country angry, but not certain parts of it. (As when Obama said people in small town U.S.A. get bitter because they are hard-pressed.) Does anyone else see the contradiction? Obama says people get angry because of economic hard times and he gets in trouble because he's an 'elitist.' Well, McCain who can't remember the number of houses he owns but is NOT an 'elitist,' says people get angry because of economic hard times and it'sallgood.

Anyway, McCain started talking about how he fights against special interest groups and has stood up to his party whereas Obama has never stood up to his party (Ok, perhaps that is just a sign the McCain's party is wrong more often than Obama's, but that's just my opinion). . . This leads Obama to his first real strike in my book. Obama brags about how he is for pay-for-performance for teachers where the rest of the democrats are against it. UH NO! NO! NO! Obama shut your mouth. How can he be pay-for-performance? High-stakes testing, which is the only way one would judge the perform ace of the teachers, is not an accurate measure of a teacher's performance! Children with a high amount of cultural capital (more likely than not this means white, middle-class, suburban children) will perform better on those tests independent of the teacher. Additionally, curriculum is often absent of culturally relevant teaching. (see the post Paper: Two for much further details); the curriculum in place is Eurocentric and assumes whiteness is the norm. This gives an advantage to white children over children of color independent of a teacher. Also, teachers and their influence on students do not exist in vacuums; the school district in which a teacher teaches is largely responsible for the outcome of a student as well as the community in which that child grows. Furthermore, teachers who need to worry about gang violence and children who come to school hungry have more pressing issues at hand than making sure a student passes a regents exam. These problems are more likely to show up in low-income communities than in wealthy communities. HOW CAN HE BE FORE PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE? Ouch, it hurts. (Then again, I was never one of those who thought he was perfect.)

So, this attack McCain made about Obama not standing up to the democrats basically allowed Obama not to answer the question about balancing the budget at all. But Obama did go on to attack McCain for his agreement with Bush on economic policies (while simultaneously giving him props for disliking torture - one positive aspect of McCain I do believe.)

McCain went on to list his disagreements with the Republican Party and a few questions arose. #1, he stood up to them about Climate change, meanwhile his running mate believes climate change is not the fault of people. - McCain is the top of the ticket (though Palin may act as though their positions were swapped), so that doesn't really matter much, I just found it interesting. #2 WHY IS HE SO PROUD OF STANDING UP TO THE REPUBLICANS IF HE WANTS US TO VOTE REPUBLICAN? Palin seriously is the epitome of the Republican base, and I'm personally not convinced John McCain is going to last four more years. So, I am supposed to vote McCain into office with someone who represents a long list of things with which McCain himself disagrees. . . Not gonna happen buddy. #3 He didn't really point out many economic issues in his long list. . .

Ok, moving on to the Fourth Question: Got the guts to say to his face what you said about him behind his back?

This question just FEELS TEDIOUS TO ME, so I'm not gonna obsess about it too much suffice to say that McCain needs to drop this Town Hall B.S. - Someone telling you 'no' to something is not an excuse to viciously attack them! Seriously, if I ask Tabby to make dinner and he says no, and so we both sit around hungry, because I also am not in the mood to make dinner, I cannot, therefore, walk up to him and stab him through the chest or something psycho. . . Sometimes people tell you 'no.' Civilized people get over it and move on with their lives. Hmm. . . what else? John Lewis said mean things about McCain and Obama didn't refute them immediately enough. Well, tell me why it is Obama's business to correct other people's opinions? (Which, by the way, Obama claims he did refute: letting out a statement that the comparison of McCain to George Wallace WAS inappropriate)

Anyway, all this accomplished was to remind me of the time McCain corrected the crazy lady at one of his rallies who said Obama was an Arab. . . Remember what he said, "No ma'am, Obama is a hardworking family man" or something to that extent. Can we say racist-much? People of Arab decent can be neither hardworking nor family men apparently. Obama's campaign has made a similar mistake in my mind. Everyone accusing him of being Muslim and his campaign freaks the hell out and goes all "no no no he's Christian. 100% Christian. Christian, Christian, Christian." . . . Because Muslims are all evil, right? If I were a Muslim he would've lost my vote right there. How offensive to act like it is an insult to be called a Muslim. People are people and should not be prejudged psycho-presidential nominees. . . but whatever. I guess most of this country hates Arabs and Muslims too or something, because there really was not a large outcry against these intolerant, close-minded, biased statements.

Um so, Obama and McCain both have negative ads; they both attack each other; they both lie about each other; and Obama happens to know a guy who used to be a terrorist. That's all you get out of this back-and-forth. (Seriously, what an annoying question on Schieffer's part.)

So, may I defend Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers in a way he, as a viable politician, would never be able to defend it. Can I tell you the real reason it doesn't matter that Obama associates with someone who was a member of a group who bombed the Pentagon? Ok, so here it goes (and get ready to call me a raging leftist and wish the black plague upon my future grandchildren). So, people are always justifying the violence in war - for a greater good and what not. WW II - The U.S. had to go in stop a genocide. (not that they're following such logic in Darfur, but whatever.) Right? Violence is ok when it's violence towards peace (ha, whatever that means) and sponsored by the government. Ayers was protesting the Vietnam War. Not that I advocate violence, but I seldom advocate wars either. . . and to me, Bill Ayers's actions as a member of the Weathermen is one and the same as the U.S.'s actions as an ally in WWII. Hate me for it, but it's true. If you can justify the violence in wars as for a greater good, you can justify Bill Ayers's actions through the same measures.

Fifth Question: Why would your VP pick make a better President than the other guy's?

Obama brags about Biden's foreign policy experience and says that Biden never forgot where he came from. This is the argument that seems to permeate this campaign from both sides. Who represents the "real [U.S.] America?" Who is more of the common man/woman? Who can relate to people living in dying small towns?

I guess this is an important point of departure (from actual ISSUES) for a lot of U.S. citizens, but I don't see why we would desire a President who is the same as everyone else. Pardon me for saying so, but I don't WANT a President with whom I feel like I can sit back and have a beer. . . No, I want someone SMARTER than the average U.S. American. I want a President, no matter where they're from, to be able to relate to the ENTIRE country, not someone who can only understand small town U.S.A., or a global city. Am I the only one who sees things this way? Why would you want someone as intelligent as you are running the nation when you could elect someone MORE intelligent than you? Why would you want someone as cultured as you are when you could have someone more cultured? Why would you want someone who understands as much as you do about the dynamics in differing communities when you could have someone who understands the vastness of this country better than you? Need I go on? You get it, right? So, basically I don't care that Joe Biden "remembers where he came from," but it is important to me that he has always fought "on behalf of working families." I don't care that this is because he watched his own father lose his job. . . Nope, I don't care at all WHY he is fighting on behalf of the middle and lower classes, just that he is. Biden agrees with Obama's tax cut plan: give the cuts to the people who need them most. . . So yes, I believe Obama when he says Biden is "fighting for the little guy." (Ha, politicians have to say the WEIRDEST things!) So in this way, I agree with Obama that Biden would make a decent President.

Of course, McCain refuted Obama's point about Biden's foreign policy experience, saying he was wrong on National Security. But he really has no room to talk here when Palin's Foreign Policy experience consists of being able to see Russia from her state. . . right. . .

Ok, but whatever, before McCain got to that, he bragged about what a great role model Palin is for women and reformers. (Why women in particular?. . . I'm sorry, that just struck me as a bit sexist.) But basically McCain bragged about Palin's reforms as governor: cutting the size of government, resigning from an unethical board, understanding special needs families. That's all well and good except when I remember that I don't mind big government as long as it is a government not brimming with corruption. . . Yet Palin herself, with that whole 'Troopergate' business, was found to have done nothing ILLEGAL PER SE, but she did violate some ethics law. . . So, is she ethical or is she not? And that "bridge to nowhere" bit - she said no to the bridge only after it became a national scandal, and then SHE KEPT THE MONEY!

Ok, so McCain concludes by talking about what a breath of fresh air Palin will be to Washington. . .Excuse me Senator McCain, but if you are such a strong advocate of "fresh air" in Washington, why are YOU running for President? Seriously, he's been in the U.S. congress since 1983.

So, Schieffer flat out ASKS Obama if Palin is qualified to be President.

Now, Obama is trapped like a rat. If he says yes that's an endorsement and if he says no he is an elitist or a sexist or a small-town hater. . . So, what does he do. . . "That will be up to the [U.S.] American people." Ok Obama, I know you had to avoid answering the question because you were cornered, but that's just a stupid response. It is not UP to anyone to DECIDE if someone is qualified for a position. . . the U.S. American people can decide whether or not to GIVE Palin a position, but that has nothing to do with her qualifications. . . Whatever, politicians have to weasel their way out of awkward situations anyway they can I suppose. He then comments on her "special-needs" platform and throws a zinger at McCain, "[S]pecial needs will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talks about. And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it." Now, that was smart - catch McCain in a contradiction: He supports Palin's ideas about special-needs families (or at the very least brags about them during debates), yet, has no plan to fund them. . .

OK, so HERE is where McCain says Biden is qualified in some respects but that he screws up national security. I don't know his voting record, so I can't comment. . . But if national security is your #1, 2, or 3 issue, this is probably important for you to note and research.

Additionally, McCain takes this time to ask Obama why we have to spend more. . . and my thought was "duh McCain, the special needs children!" I agree with funding for special needs. . . but this debate confused me as to whose side I should be on. . . Palin is the one who talks about it, but Obama was the one who mentioned funding it and the McCain said "why spend more." So. . . you sort this out.

Sixth Question: How are you gonna reduce our dependence on foreign oil during your first term? (And somehow this was under the heading of climate change. . . though reducing dependence on foreign oil guarantees nothing about reducing carbon emissions if all we do is offshore drilling here.)

McCain doesn't even try to answer this question on any level. He says in 7-10 years (not his first term), if we start to depend more heavily on Canada (still foreign oil), we can eliminate our dependence on oil from places that threaten our security. Good job not answering the question McCain, but making it seem like you did. He also mentioned briefly nuclear (which scares me) and other alternative energy sources, but didn't go into details about how, with a spending freeze, investing in any of that would be possible.

Obama's turn to not answer the question: We can accomplish this in ten years. (Yeah buddy, also not your first NOR second term. . . ) Obama says we'll look at offshore drilling and that he's invested in alternative energy sources. (Once again, not going into details. . . Maybe that's because most of the nation is sold when the candidates talk about drilling.) He also says we need to design and build fuel efficient cars in the U.S.
NEWS FLASH: Ever hear of the EV1? Ya know, the electric car that General Motors built TWELVE YEARS AGO! Yeah, but with such pressure from big oil companies the cars were discontinued, customers wanting to renew leases were refused, and the cars were literally destroyed, except for the few in museums and whatnot. OK, right, so what does this teach us? GET OUT OF BED WITH BIG OIL AND WE WOULD'VE HAD THIS CAR CRISIS SOLVED BY NOW.

Also, McCain points out that Obama wants to "look at" offshore drilling while he wants to drill baby drill. . . As a cautious human being who doesn't want to see my island under water due to climate change anytime soon (or anytime at all for that matter), I PREFER the idea of looking at something before jumping to the conclusion that it's a good idea. But that's just me.

Free Trade also got mixed up in this question and I, personally, don't like Free Trade (Ha! how "UNamerican" do you think I am?. . . Well, it is true that I don't live in the 'real America.' But that's ok, because in my fake America we recognize that America is not a country but two whole continents and then some islands.) Ok, so, basically, to summarize, McCain believes in any and all Free Trade as long as it helps out U.S. Americans in some way or another. Obama only believes in Free Trade as long as there are no human rights violations in the process. . . I agree with Obama. I buy fair trade products whenever possible to ensure just that.

Seventh Question (and it's a big one!): HEALTH CARE- Would you favor controlling health care costs over expanding coverage?

Obama plays the optimist here and says, "we've got to do both." But seriously, I don't mind Obama's plan. I personally would prefer a plan like the one the U.K. has, but Obama's plan is better than nothing, for sure! First thing first, he has to cut the average family’s premium by $2,500 annually (who can argue with that) and allow people who don't have health insurance to buy into the federal pool that gov. people get to use.

Furthermore, Obama promises that insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. He promises preventative care for chronic illnesses. And he promises negotiations for the cheapest available drugs. I don't know how anyone with a heart who understands the dire state in which our healthcare system is, who knows that currently 46 million U.S. Americans are uninsured, who gets that filing for bankruptcy because you got sick is NOT ok, and who believes that health care should be a right and not a privilege can disagree with this.

McCain's plan doesn't make sense to me, and perhaps he is just not good at explaining it. But all I gather is I get $5000 to go to any state I want and get healthcare or something. Once again, he is calling for a plan that helps people who already have money and don't need help: the insurance companies. He basically wants to give insurance companies $5000 for every family in the U.S. Somehow this doesn't sit well with me. Also, I want the system to be simpler, not so complex it forces me to shop around in various states so I can figure out to which wealthy company I will give the government's money. (WEIRDNESS)

McCain also tried to call Obama out on forcing small businesses to pay for health insurance for their employees.

Well, Obama says these companies are exempt from paying into a kitty and only companies that can afford to pay will have to pay. (My concern is how he knows where to draw the line.) But this point really hurt McCain in that it allowed Obama to explain the flaws in McCain's healthcare plan. They're worth citing here.

Now, what we haven't talked about is Senator McCain's plan. He says he's going to give you all a $5,000 tax credit. That sounds pretty good. And you can go out and buy your own insurance.

Here's the problem -- that for about 20 million people, you may find yourselves no longer having employer-based health insurance. This is because younger people might be able to get health insurance for $5,000, young and healthy folks.

Older folks, less healthy folks, what's going to end up happening is that you're going to be the only ones left in your employer-based system, your employers won't be able to afford it.

And once you're out on your own with this $5,000 credit, Senator McCain, for the first time, is going to be taxing the health care benefits that you have from your employer.

And this is your plan, John. For the first time in history, you will be taxing people's health care benefits.

See the flaws? The most important one, I believe, is the point about how young healthy people will be the only ones able to go out and get insurance. There are people who can't get insured now because they are too old, or have a preexisting condition, not because they can't afford it. Those people are still out in the cold under McCain's plan. So not cool!


Now McCain freaks out about big government. The government has grown 40% in the past 8 years. . . We can't afford Obama, or it will grow even more Correct me if I'm wrong: The Republicans have had the white house for the past 8 years. During 6 of those 8 years, they also controlled the senate. Right? So, how are the Republicans still running on this B.S. idea of small government? McCain has been pandering to the Republicans ever since he started running for President (Maverick image sold and gone), essentially promising more of the same. So how is he going to say we can't afford a democrat in the white house when the republicans are the ones who fraked everything up? I don't get this logic. Do you get this logic? Please explain.

Eighth Question: Would you nominate anyone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with your stance on Roe v. Wade? (OK, honestly, who's gonna say 'no' to this if they're trying to appear non-partisan?)

McCain promises not to impose a litmus test. . . He would support anyone who was qualified and not judge their ideology, though Obama would judge their ideology. But then he says this weird statement "I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test." What does that mean!? It sounds to me like you are automatically less qualified if you support Roe v. Wade. However, he does not consider this a litmus test.

Obama has a similar answer, but on the other side. . . no litmus test, but it's important that a judge stands up for women's rights including Roe v. Wade.

Now it's McCain's turn to go for the gold. He attempts to appeal to the moral senses of all U.S. Americans, pro-life and pro-choice alike. Obama voted AGAINST life saving procedures for a child born as the result of a failed abortion. Even my sister, who is very pro-Obama, hated him during the primaries for this bit. . . That just looks BAD. And it was strategically intelligent of McCain to bring it up. He also accuses Obama of being for partial-birth abortions.

Unfortunately for McCain, Obama came back strong. And here is where he won me over. Here is where I went from a person who would vote for Obama 'cause, OHMYGOODNESS HE IS A BETTER CHOICE THAN MCCAIN, to actually wanting Obama to be my President. And it seems silly, but abortion is a wedge issue for so many people, I don't see why it can't be an influential factor in my opinion.

OK, OK, ready!? Firstly, Obama explains WHY he, and the Illinois medical society, voted against that bill that makes him seem like the devil: There was already a law on the books requiring doctors to provide life saving treatment to all infants - products of botched-abortions or otherwise. There was no point in voting for a law that would undermine Roe v. Wade, 'cause there was already a law in place doing what this bill was going to do. OK, but that's not the exciting part. Obama is also against late-term abortions of any kind as long as any law contains provisions for the life of the mother. - The bill against which he voted didn't contain such provisions. That's still not the exciting part. . . ready for it? READY!?

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.

AHH I love it! Do you know that this is what I have been saying since I was fourteen years old!? Educate people about birth control, provide free contraceptives, crack-down on child support payments, make it easier for single mothers to obtain welfare, give everyone health insurance so if they give birth in a hospital they're not in debt the rest of their lives, provide easy adoptions, free day-care, actual options for parenting students, refine maternity leave laws, crack down on coercive abortions, and GUESS THE FRAK WHAT! You have drastically reduced the number of abortions.
Abortions happen more often because women feel they don't have a choice. "If I have this baby I can't finish school." "If I carry out this pregnancy, I'll lose my job." "I have no way to provide for a child." "I can't afford it." Do you see this? People need to HAVE a choice. They need to have a choice that allows them to keep a child as easily as kill one. NO ONE HAS PROVIDED THIS.

The Republicans (beyond the group Feminists for Life, which isn't actually a Republican group, but does have more conservatives than liberals in it) have never taken the steps needed to reduce abortions. They rally behind overturning Roe v. Wade instead. (while never actually doing anything TO overturn it. Look at Bush's six years with a Republican Congress. . . Nothing changed anyway. Overturning Roe v. Wade is an empty promise at best, so why people still vote on it is beyond me.)

Say someone did have the balls to overturn Roe v. Wade. . . what would happen? Without social programs in place to prevent unintended pregnancies, and to aid needy mothers, people will do one of three things when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. One: give birth and then throw the child in a dumpster like those melodramatic prom queens you always hear about on the news (yuck and a half!). Two: Travel to a state where abortion is legal, thus disadvantaging the lower-socio-economic classes as they will be forced to carry out pregnancies and have NO MONEY to provide for their newborns. (Why not disadvantage one group more though, right? It's been working so well thus far!) Three: BACK - ALLEY ABORTIONS. . . because this way a baby can die AND potentially a woman as well!

OK, this sounds bad, correct? So, what we NEED to do, as a society that cares for each other, is systematically reduce the number of abortions through social programs and SEX EDUCATION. (Abstinence only programs don't work. Kids who take those vows are more likely to contract STDs because they still engage in oral sex without protection. . . Additionally, they engage in sexual intercourse, on average, about half a year after kids who DIDN'T take that pledge.) OK, so that's my rant. SAVE THE BABIES PLEASE. Don't just talk about overturning some court case that won't actually do anything to prevent bloodshed. . . Seriously, use you mind and develop strategies that actually work to prevent abortions. Obama is the only presidential candidate who has ever talked this way. . . and he won my support (though he already had my vote) because of it.

Final Question: What are you going to do about this country's LOUSY education system?

It's Obama's turn first and the only thing he says which is not already both painfully obvious and vague is about funding college educations. $40,000 tuition credit every year for every student in turn for community service. This still disadvantages the lower-income-groups as rich kids won't be forced to better their world. . . Wait! That's a good thing to force people to do! Get people involved in their communities or broader society AND pay for college all in one swoop. Genius. 



McCain then advocates for vouchers and charter schools. All vouchers do, in my opinion, is allow everyone to ignore failing public schools. It's a way to ignore the actual problems! (The same way abortion is the way we ignore lack of affordable day care, child support, maternity leave, etc.) He wants competition b/w schools because McCain apparently thinks schools should be treated in the same manner as the free market (which is a FAKE CONCEPT ie: railroads!).

Ok, well, you get the picture. They argue about vouchers for a while, and now I'm bored of writing cause this is OH SO LONG.