Cats are Democrats

Really? Kirk Anderson says so.

Our national pastime

I just wanted to share the warmth in my heart as I listen to Elwood and Steve recap the entire World Series, telling the same jokes and pointing out the same stats that we've been hanging onto for the last eight games. Yes, the Red Sox won the first World Series, and they won the hundredth. The Cubs are now the uncontested "curse" team. Curt Schilling really is a classy guy. Johnny saves. And though no one else is paying attention to him, I think that Bellhorn and Braid-Boy are goin' places.

There was a full lunar eclipse tonight, and some in our house were struck by the fact that during the dark of the moon the entire game froze (no runs for anybody) and the Sox got their last out just as the light was peeking back out onto the moon. That's the fun thing about baseball: all the stats and history and coincidences. It's easy to believe there's something mystical about it.

Rest in peace, Babe.

Oregon Ballot Measures

While filing out my Oregon ballot today I came across a fairly insane argument in favor of banning gay marriage. Based on the Bible, this guy goes well beyond the religious right to a point further into infinity. is his website where he blames homosexuals for the rise in heterosexual divorces. He's not the only one that has a radical view point. At the end of another "Argument in Favor" is a man from the Traditional Prejudices Coalition who says "Agree with us or burn in hell!" Nice touch for a Voter Information Guide! Of coures there are the usual against "the law of nature." Blah blah blah. Not one person had a cogent argument for this measure. I'm voting No on this one. Are there any other states voting on this issue this year?

Mis-conceptions

We saw an advance screening of Vera Drake tonight. It's a sign of my over-involvement in the abortion debate that I had a hard time "reading" the film ("Whose side are they on?" I kept asking myself.) THEN I made the mistake of going into the message boards at IMDB and reading the several-thousand-word debate that has been festering for the last week and a half, despite the fact that almost no one on there had seen the film. Elwood tagged it an "artsy realist film," and I think he sums it up very well. Big on scene and character development. Small on plot. It's fairly easy to predict what happens, but it's fascinating to watch stoic post-war Brits wrestle with the topic. For the most part, they politely declined wrestling and opted for a cup of tea and change of subject. Subtitles would be illuminating--I think I missed some lines due to thick accent. And no, they're not really on anybody's side, as far as I can tell. Rabid pro-lifers would probably disagree, as Mrs. Drake doesn't end up burning in the fiery pits of hell. But she doesn't go home singing, either. The real villain of the movie never does reappear to take justice, and I found that disappointing... But I'm spoiling your cinematic fun if I disclose all that.

Can I just say that right about now I'm REALLY tired of the abortion debate? Also the sex ed debate. And the war debate. And politics in general. Hell, even the government is getting on my nerves, and I'm normally a backer. This election season may just turn me into an anarchist.

Fortunately, nothing can quench Heather's zeal. She runs Scarleteen, one of my all-time favorite sexual health websites, and also a naughty little blog that I gobble like candy. For the first time, Scarleteen is endorsing a candidate, or un-endorsing Bush, if you prefer. It may seem a little odd to pitch this on a teen health website, but if I and my colleagues are any indication, most of her readers are actually over eighteen. I get some of my best talking points from her. While you're over there, contribute a few bucks. I dare you.

Fafnir reassures us on our election woes.

Did you know that if a Red Stater and a Blue Stater come into contact they will explode an leave behind only a trace of purple goo? It's true! But there is hope. That purple goo can grow up to be a swing vote.

FlyLady has also taken this stance. One of her "flybabies" writes:

Dear FlyLady and FlyBabies,
Marla and her wonderful crew have been reminding us to vote. Looking at one of those magazine maps of the U.S., with red states and blue states and big question-mark states, gave me an idea.

Some FlyBabies are red. Some FlyBabies are blue. But all together, we FlyBabies make up the Purple Party (Marla's favorite color!).

Members of the Purple Party don't all choose the same candidates. They don't all agree on the issues. But members of the Purple Party do care enough to learn about the candidates and issues, and then take the time to vote. This year, it may take more than 15 minutes to vote because so many people are expected to show up at the polls. But you'll have the time to do it from following FlyLady's routines!

PLEASE VOTE! Our future depends on it.

Signed,
An American FlyBaby

(I'm shocked that they haven't jumped onto this "Purple Party" and formed a voting bloc already. Marla and the rest of her crew have scrupulously avoided endorsing any candidates this season, although I'm sure that's taken hours of weeding through member posts. Most of the FlyLady info smacks of conservatism, though tolerance and polite subject-changing are strictly enforced. Marla Cilley has a local political career that she keeps far, far away from her web activities. I wonder how long she will be able to maintain that?)

I'm tickled by all the newfound political activism. But I'm also heart-tired by it.

On a happy note: St. Louis' victory (well-deserved) means there won't be any Houston-Boston proxy war going on in the week before the election. Whew.

The Oregon Ballots are out!

I got my official Oregon ballot in the mail this weekend. Oregon is a vote by mail state so every registered voter gets a ballot mailed to their home along with two rather large booklets full of voter information. The first publication was devoted to the 10 various constitutional measures ranging from medical marijuana to gay marriage to property issues. It first lists what exactly is written on the ballot for a yes or no vote. It then explains both pro and con views on each measure, how much it will cost the taxpayers (if any cost) and what the implications are for a no vote and for a yes vote. The second publication was devoted to the candidates for each race, who they are, what party are they representing and what do they stand for in regards to issues. Curiously enough, Dick Cheney was absent from this publication. Why you ask? This is from the local news station:
"Tracey Schmitt, western spokeswoman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said the party in this case chose to only place a statement from Bush in to the pamphlet.

She said there was no deep campaign strategy afoot in their decision to not submit a separate pamphlet statement for Cheney, and pointed out that the vice president has campaigned frequently in Oregon.

Kevin Mannix, state Republican chairman, told The Oregonian that it was his guess that the Republican national campaign is focused on Bush and didn't see a need to send out any additional information on Cheney."

I will say that Oregon does a good job of informing the voter with those booklets. I never received anything like that from the Illinois State Government! I'll let you all know if this voting by mail thing is worth not having to go to the polls on November 2nd.

stuff and things

Last night I went to Kim’s Uptown to see Battles (the website doesn’t work with Firefox so you gotta use IE – booooo). Let me just say this about Battles. They totally rock. Then Steve made wonderful Thai one-pot dish. He totally rocks too.

My latest time-waster involves finding full-length television broadcasts online. PBS makes me happy most of the time. Lots of NOVA and Frontline episodes to watch from your computi.

One of my recent favs is from Now with Bill Moyers -- a report on the history of presidential debates.

Another gem comes via ReBlog via Boing Boing Blog. It’s a quite moving Schoolhouse Rock episode explaining global power relations.

No Child Left Behind "on the ground"

I've attended six local school council meetings in the last 30 days, at six different schools. The No Child Left Behind Act has been mentioned in all of them. So before we go into tonight's domestic-policy debate, I thought I'd offer a few recent issues I've heard from Chicago's teachers and administrators.

But first, some excerpts from a recent Chicago Tribune article by Tracy Dell'Angela "City's schools get gold star; 74% improve" (158/218). IL students get tested using the ISAT (IL Standards Achievement Test) in grades 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, and the PSAE (Prairie State Achievement Examination) in 11th grade. Most 3rd and 5th graders are meeting the state math requirements; the reading scores are still below the state's acceptable rating. The graphic shows a list of most-improved grade schools and high schools; for reference, the grade schools listed had between 51% and 64% of students meeting or exceeding state standards. The range is wider in high schools: between 40% and 73% of students met or exceeded standards on the "most improved" list. In order for a student to "meet standards", they must pass both the reading and math portions of the test. However, writes Dell'Angela, "Last school year, 365 of the city's 600 schools had to offer students the option to transfer to a better-performing school because they had not met federal academic goals for two years in a row." Transfer to where? If every school in the neighborhood is failing, there will be nowhere for the kids to go.

Anyway, concerns that I've heard in the last month:

• The math is screwy. School H happens to have excellent facilities for special needs kids. Everything is accessible. Teachers are trained to help mainstream students. (I love this school, by the way.) It made the top 10 list of most improved schools. However, a lot of their students come from other neighborhoods, because of the accessibility thing. When schools report their test scores to NCLB, they are supposed to test 90% (?) of their students. But when School H tests their students from other neighborhoods, those students' scores go back to their neighborhood schools and that school gets credit for testing them, while School H does not. So, to calculate how many children got tested, the NCLB administrator took the number of test scores attributed to School H (the neighborhood kids) and compared it to the total enrollment at School H. So School H didn't make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the NCLB standards. They are trying to appeal, but they can't figure out where to direct their appeal.
• Subgroups are tested inadequately. School J is a neighborhood grade school with a diverse population: recent influx of Somalian immigrants in a traditional Polish neighborhood with some Hispanic and white kids thrown in. The NCLB standards point out that each recognized subgroup has to pass a certain percentage of students for the school to make AYP (I think that no more than 35% of students can fail? But that sounds high). The test is given only in English, and is timed. The white and Hispanic kids, therefore, do markedly better than the Polish or Somalian kids. The ESL teachers are overloaded, trying to get the kids test-proficient in English by April. In the lower grades, it's possible. After about grade 5, there's not much hope.
• No funding! This is everywhere. Afterschool programs, ESL programs, longer school days... NCLB is supposed to have funds that schools can draw from to help students, but the money has not come in for a year and a half. If a school fails three years in a row, they're required to offer tutoring to their existing students. Some schools are now forced to tutor kids, but don't have any funds with which to pay teachers or buy materials for that tutoring.

Please keep in mind that on its face, No Child Left Behind is a great program. Test the kids using existing instruments. Make sure that minority performance matches whole-group performance. Structure options for both the students and the schools if a school is failing. But in practice, the program sucks. Neither the structure or the money has been put in place so that schools know what to do or where to go if things are not right. During the school year, it's difficult for me to get enough time to the students because they have enforced reading hours and spend a month warming up for the ISAT. And because of this, the test scores are improving. But is the education improving? I don't think so.

Zorn, Dred Scott, and Fish Eyes

Cripes, he's a quick reader. AND, he has my initials! Eric Zorn,* in his Notebook today, quotes Steven Lubet about Bush's mysterious Dred Scott response in the debate on Friday. (Plus, look for Leigh Anne's Quiet Coyote mention...) However, Timothy Noah in his article at Slate.com offers another theory on why Bush and his wrong-headed constitutionalism might have brought Dred Scott into the fray. The anti-choice lunatic fringe would like to see Roe go the way of Dred Scott, and are the only other group besides us militant feminists who would be paying much attention to the question on Court appointments. Bush may have been advised to bring up the Dred Scott case, but, being Bush, he managed to mangle the Court's reasoning on that decision and say it was because they were terrible, activist judges. The "strict Constitutionalists" that he pledges to nominate would again uphold Dred Scott, given an 1857 Constitution.

And here's the best part: we probably shouldn't talk about it. The people that Bush was actually addressing don't care about strict Constitutionalism, at least not as it applies to God and currency. They want Roe overturned, and Griswold vs. Connecticut (which legalized birth control for married couples in 1965) if they can get it. Griswold is the root of the problem, because it extrapolates from the Bill of Rights a "zone of privacy". If they can strike down Griswold, they can then dismantle several other decisions, including Lawrence v. Texas, which declared sodomy laws unconstitutional only last year. Dred Scott, to the religious right, is about legal precedent trumping morality. The reversal of that decision gives them hope that someday all this liberal hoo-ha will also be overturned and we can get back to the Good Old Days.

So, concerning Bush's response on Friday, do we point and laugh? Do we attempt to expose this coded message, therefore causing everyone else to point and laugh at us? It's a conundrum that would make even Alan Keyes polite and close-mouthed, which is precisely how he acted tonight from all reports. (I didn't get to listen to the debate itself--work before play--though I caught some televised clips on Faux News after the game.) It's a shame that they didn't televise this one, not just because of the scenery, but because Alan Keyes looks like a fish and a crazy person. If you close your eyes, he sounds surprisingly calm. Open them, and you see his crazy rolling fish eyes and a slick political leer. I can't wait for the next debate. The only question is, what should the drinking game be?

*Why am I plugging Eric Zorn? 'Cause I wrote him about this, and he replied within 20 minutes. I am tickled by this and intend to start reading his blog. Also, he cites One Good Thing regularly.

Wanting it all

I feel a bit like Walter Ecklund in Father Goose. "You do know there's a war on, don't you, Walter?" Yes, well, everybody keeps saying that. Meanwhile, I got me ten fine toes to wiggle in the sand...

We're all supposed to give to the war effort. For Dems, that means building international credibility, avoiding "failed-state" scenarios in Afghanistan, Iraq, and wherever else we've sent troops, and above all, getting Bush out of office. So tonight, I went to all the news polls I could find, and dutifully reported that Edwards was my hero. "Regardless of your opinion on the issues, who do you think won the debate?" Truthfully, I think that Edwards and Cheney were participating in two different debates. Or rather, Edwards was playing a counselor (therapy or law? You decide.) building rapport, and Cheney was playing a mobster threatening delinquent customers. No, I don't have quotes, that was just my gut feeling.

I do have quotes, however, on the topics they didn't discuss. Cheney was pretty mum about the gay marriage issue, which seems best at the moment since his beliefs may not reflect his party lines. Edwards just talked too damn much about the topic, and said all the wrong things:

Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can‘t have anything but respect for the fact that they‘re willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It‘s a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.
And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry. I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships.
But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country. No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state‘s marriage. This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it‘s wrong.

We both believe that—and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about—we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.
For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they‘re in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral. I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that.
But we don‘t—we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Only a few breaths away from declaring that he did not believe in gay marriage. (These statements of belief confound me. What is this "believing a marriage is between a man and a woman" about? Is this like Tinkerbell, where if we don't clap our hands for the hetero couples they will fade away?) The guvment in Massachusetts
tried to do a "full benefits partnership" law, and the Court sent it back and said that it had to include the word "marriage". What Edwards is proposing violates the MA ruling. Part of me wanted to see Cheney call him on that, which of course he would not have done, because then both parties would be arguing a side they didn't necessarily believe in and then it would be like a REAL debate!

And then there was the AIDS question.

IFILL: I will talk to you about health care, Mr. Vice President. You have two minutes. But in particular, I want to talk to you about AIDS, and not about AIDS in China or Africa, but AIDS right here in this country, where black women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times more likely to die of the disease than their counterparts. What should the government‘s role be in helping to end the growth of this epidemic?
CHENEY: Well, this is a great tragedy, Gwen, when you think about the enormous cost here in the United States and around the world of the AIDS epidemic—pandemic, really. Millions of lives lost, millions more infected and facing a very bleak future.
In some parts of the world, we‘ve got the entire, sort of, productive generation has been eliminated as a result of AIDS, all except for old folks and kids—nobody to do the basic work that runs an economy.
The president has been deeply concerned about it. He has moved and proposed and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help in the international effort, to be targeted in those places where we need to do everything we can, through a combination of education as well as providing the kinds of medicines that will help people control the infection.
Here in the United States, we‘ve made significant progress. I have not heard those numbers with respect to African- American women. I was not aware that it was—that they‘re in epidemic there, because we have made progress in terms of the overall rate of AIDS infection, and I think primarily through a combination of education and public awareness as well as the development, as a result of research, of drugs that allow people to live longer lives even though they are infected—obviously we need to do more of that.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds.
EDWARDS: Well, first, with respect to what‘s happening in Africa and Russia and in other places around the world, the vice president spoke about the $15 billion for AIDS. John Kerry and I believe that needs to be doubled.
And I might add, on the first year of their commitment, they came up significantly short of what they had promised. And we probably won‘t get a chance to talk about Africa. Let me just say a couple of things.
The AIDS epidemic in Africa, which is killing millions and millions of people and is a frightening thing not just for the people of Africa but also for the rest of the world, that, combined with the genocide that we‘re now seeing in Sudan, are two huge moral issues for the United States of America, which John Kerry spoke about eloquently last Thursday night.
Here at home we need to do much more. And the vice president spoke about doing research, making sure we have the drugs available, making sure that we do everything possible to have prevention. But it‘s a bigger question than that.
You know, we have 5 million Americans who‘ve lost their health care coverage in the last four years; 45 million Americans without health care coverage. We have children who don‘t have health care coverage.
If kids and adults don‘t have access to preventative care, if they‘re not getting the health care that they need day after day after day, the possibility of not only developing AIDS and having a problem—having a problem—a life-threatening problem, but the problem of developing other life-threatening diseases is there every day of their lives.
IFILL: OK, we‘ll move on.

Huh? Cheney didn't know those numbers (they've been stable for the last five years or so) but at least he acknowledged the statistic. Both of them talked about AIDS overseas, though the moderator explicitly asked them not to, and Edwards sandwiched his lack-of-answer between jabs on lack of fulfillment on the $15B, genocide in Sudan, and health care. All within ninety seconds.

Let me explain my current job for anyone who doesn't know me in real life. I am a sexual health educator and spend a lot of time with HIV prevention. We have six people in our department, all female. Four are African-American: 70something, 50something, 40something and 20something. One mid-thirties Latina. And me--the token white kid. On a professional level, this question sparks our interest because it relates to our funding. Will the next administration encourage risk-reduction or abstinence? Will we be allowed to take condoms to our health fairs and community presentations, or brochures that say, "Just Say No"? On a very personal level, I know that when I walk into the office tomorrow all these women will be in arms. Right there on the table sat the biggest health crisis to face black women, and both men walked away from the opportunity to discuss it.
Why? It wasn't on their list of talking points. They steered the discussion back to the "important issues", which probably will win them votes in most corners. But my office will be pissed, rightly so, because this question proves to us that everyone is ignoring health issues and minority issues and women's issues. All in under five minutes.

And yes, I know there's a war on. I'm just tired of seeing our questions at the bottom of the list.

Your thoughts?

Erruption!

Erruption!
Originally uploaded by HeatherEggs.

So, there it goes! I'm trying to find a live webcam site to post but the Forest Services' one isn't working right now. This is exciting!


Update, this is the only webcam shot I could find, and it's not very exciting.