bogwitch64: (Default)
With the election only hours over, I have no writerly words for you today, only words of relief, of disbelief, and of hope.

First words of relief. Whew! President Obama got the four more years he asked for during the FIRST time he ran for President. He told us then he needed two terms to even make a dent in the things necessary to heal the country after so many years of bad politics. Thank you, America, for proving that though we might have a lot of crazies spouting the loudest, they don't speak for all of us. The margin was way too narrow for comfort! But, honestly, it sent a message. There are a lot of unhappy people in this country.Their voices need to be heard too. And that brings me to the words of disbelief...

Most of my flist on Facebook are likeminded artists. I do have some family in there who are steadfast Republicans, a few friends. I noticed that almost every disgruntled Republican post said the same thing: Now that Obama won, corporate America is going to start the layoffs. I normally don't say anything, because I'm with Jefferson--there's nothing about differing in politics or religion that will make me turn away from a friend or family. But when nearly every one of the posts this morning is warning that now Corporate America is going to start the layoffs, I can only think: A temper tantrum because they didn't get their way? Is this what you believe in? Is this what you back? Instead of grossly impacting thousands and thousands of YOUR workers, would it not be better to FINALLY start working together?

This is just sad. So sad. I hope that the disappointment wears off quickly and that this country can mend instead of constantly batting heads. The far right and the far left are NOT this country, but they do all the speaking for us. This election was, supposedly, about the MIDDLE CLASS. So how about we now make the result of this election be about all of us in the middle, leaning either right or left instead of firmly over the line, flags waving?

Now the hope--the hope that those doing all the shouting shut the hell up and allow moderate Republicans to be "real" Republicans. It was a shame what the party did to John McCain, and I think they did the same to Mitt Romney. Obama is NOT a far left radical. He's proven he's willing to give and take. Let's let him do it now.

And while I'm not really sure how I feel about legalizing marajuana (Colorado), it made me weep to see that by the time I went to bed last night, Maryland and Maine had legalized same sex marriage, and Minnesota voted down the Constitutional Ammendment that would define marriage as solely between a  man and a woman. More is coming. Soon, my friends, but not soon enough for me. Like "giving" women the vote, it should never have been necessary to VOTE on such a thing. This too shall pass, and we'll bear the scars for a while, but sometimes, scars are good. They mean: "I have survived!"

I go forward from this election with hope, renewed patriotism, and pride.
bogwitch64: (Default)
It's a joke now, coming out of the first presidential debates. Romney's going to fire Big Bird. Ha. Ha. Ha. I get it. It's a clever combination of getting a point across while making a joke about the candidate's very serious campaign promise to cut funding for NPR and PBS. But you know, since the joke went viral, it's made me angry.

Candidate Romney is, once again, proving just how little he cares for the less fortunate in this country. If he wins and he gets his way, who loses? Not kids from families who can afford cable, or DVDs of shows like Sesame Street and--much as I cringe to say it--Barney. Do children NEED Sesame Street and Barney to live? Will it fill their bellies? Keep the rain off? No, they don't. But they need Public Broadcasting nonetheless.

When my oldest was a baby and we were that poor family who had only a cast-ff black and white, 12 inch tv on the kitchen counter, complete with wire coat-hanger antennae, PBS was all the children's programming available. Every day at eleven and four, she sat on the floor in that crappy little kitchen and watched Sesame Street. Would she had DIED without it? No, but her little life was enriched by of it. PBS is science and nature and cooking and children's programming--all on one free channel. FREE. No cable required. So, you tell me--who loses if PBS funding is cut?

Yeah, those poor folk again.

This country belongs to our kids; and not just the rich kids. Considering the eight million the government ponies up to keep PBS going, doing so isn't going to make or break the US economy. Romney is throwing PBS under the bus in some effort to "prove" he's serious about making the hard cuts. Come on, dude. Really?
bogwitch64: (Default)
I...I have no words. I'm laughing too hard. Just read this article.
bogwitch64: (Jamie)
This is insane:

edited in later:
My daughter sent me that link this morning. This is one of her comments:
"My favorite is that she could be prosecuted if she didn't leave an abusive spouse and he beat her and killed the baby.

I believe that's called the "Bitch Was Asking For Trouble" Clause.

I mean really. You leave an abusive partner, you have no insurance or financial means to care for yourself or your unborn baby, you miscarry, you go to jail. You stay with your abusive partner, he beats you, you miscarry, you go to jail.

Why don't they just make possession of a vagina a felony and get to the point?"

She is my hero.
bogwitch64: (Default)
   Connecticut voters could have opened the door to ending gay marriage last week by voting for a constitutional convention to amend the state's constitution, but the measure was defeated.
   Peter Wolfgang, the executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, a gay-marriage opponent, acknowledged that banning gay weddings in Connecticut will be difficult but vowed not to give up. He condemned the high court's decision as undemocratic.
   "Unlike California, we did not have a remedy," Wolfgang said. "It must be overturned with patience, determination and fortitude."

Wait a second...the high court's decision was undemocratic?? It was brought before the Supreme Court. It passed. It was then given over to the voters to support or deny--and it was supported--BY A LANDSLIDE!!! How was that undemocratic?

All I can say is, "Peter, you ignorant slut! How dare you? You are just another example of the mean-spirited, small-minded, vengeful, self-righteous little pricks that have been telling everyone what to do for far too long. Now you've been denied what you so believed was your absolute RIGHT to dictate what love and marriage means and you're calling shennanigans. HOW THE FUCK DOES IT FEEL?? HUH? HOW DOES IT FEEL TO HAVE YOUR 'RIGHTS' TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU? HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE IN THE MINORITY?"

Ew. Now I have to go brush my teeth because the bad taste in my mouth is NOT going to be soothed away by graham crackers. Not even the kind with cinnamon on them.
bogwitch64: (Default)
Talk about a buzz-kill. I wept so that my chest hurt when I read it a few moments ago. Then I called my brother-in-law who finally, LEGALLY married my brother on Oct. 11. For the moment, their marriage is safe--until these assholes start up a new campaign. Which they will. Only the narrow margin gives any hope that they won't.

I cried when I read of the other bans that passed, but this one hit home and tumbled me right off my feet. But talking to my bro-in-law, who is angry as hell but still full of hope, picked me back up again.

"Look how long it took African Americans to get so far," he said. "So it'll take us a while longer. We'll get there, just like they did."

And they will. This is a torrent that no amount of idiocy will be able to hold back forever. No way. No how. It's sad that there even has to be a fight for such a basic right. The election of Barak Obama has opened the floodgates. Get out your floaties, oh-ignorant ones, or be swept away.
bogwitch64: (Default)
In case you can't... )
I am proud of Americans today. I am proud to BE an American--and for now at least, I am so without that lingering sense of doubt and chagrin I've felt over that pride for the last several years.w
bogwitch64: (Default)
Option 1 on the CT ballot:
Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?

Option 2 on the CT ballot:
Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to permit any person who will have attained the age of nineteen years on or before the day of a regular election to vote in the primary for such regular election?

What would you make of this? Knowing nothing about anything but those two questions, what would you vote?

Those up on the issues know that Option 1 is being voted upon because the same sex marriage law was recently passed here in my state. Of course, it immediately went up on the ballot. The question should have read, "Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution of the State to state that marriage is between a man and a woman."

The way the option is worded is ambiguous. The second option there makes it sound as if THAT is the amendment being sought. A red herring? Hmmm...I think it is purposely misleading. It is causing a bit of a hubbub here in CT. I don't know what to make of it, honestly. And this just goes to prove that you MUST be up on your issues before you step into that voting booth, because you might just vote FOR something you are actually AGAINST.

(and btw--go Pennsylvania! Obama has your love!)

(Update: It looks like Op 1 is going to be a landslide NO in CT, so my worries are needless. Whew!)
bogwitch64: (Default)

I have always wondered about this. Today seemed like a good day to finally find out. Courtesy of Fact Monster:

The now-famous Democratic donkey was first associated with Democrat Andrew Jackson's 1828 presidential campaign. His opponents called him a jackass (a donkey), and Jackson decided to use the image of the strong-willed animal on his campaign posters. Later, cartoonist Thomas Nast used the Democratic donkey in newspaper cartoons and made the symbol famous.

Nast invented another famous symbol—the Republican elephant. In a cartoon that appeared in Harper's Weekly in 1874, Nast drew a donkey clothed in lion's skin, scaring away all the animals at the zoo. One of those animals, the elephant, was labeled “The Republican Vote.” That's all it took for the elephant to become associated with the Republican Party.

Democrats today say the donkey is smart and brave, while Republicans say the elephant is strong and dignified.

bogwitch64: (Default)
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

A note from the editor to the various authors:
Overall, a good, powerful piece. I suggest very minor edits. I imagine you meant for the characters to pledge allegiance to their country, not to its flag. That line is superfluous, wordy and misleading. The second edit gives more power to the words nation and indivisible. A better punch. The 'under God' part could and will cause some really divisive disagreements for your characters in this area where you might not want division. There is already enough conflict in the story itself. My advice, ditch the line.

Make your decision about the edits and get back to me. I'll be waiting.
bogwitch64: (Default)
I'm not going to pontificate; all I'm going to say is this: Please don't tell me, "I just don't like him," and leave it at that, whether talking about Obama or McCain. Know WHY you don't like him. And please, PLEASE stop with the Arab/Muslim thing even if it DOES make a difference to you whether or not the leader of our country is Christian.

After 20 months, countless speeches, three debates and an infomercial, too many people are still pretty ignorant.
bogwitch64: (Default)
Granted, they're not ALL that many, but in the years I've been a conscientious voter, I've never seen such agressive campaigning. I don't remember so much muck being slung. It's disgusting.

To save space in the event you're not interested in my rant. )
bogwitch64: (Default)
Well, more than halfway through the debate tonight. I'm not hearing anything that I've not heard before. Enough, already, gentlemen. Let's move this along.

Senator McCain has to stop referring to the voting public as, 'my friends.' It's starting to sound sinister.

Senator Obama, you need to rein it in. You sent poor Mr. Brokaw into keniptions. You ALWAYS go over your time limit.
bogwitch64: (Default)

Please forgive me if my constant political rants are dominating my LJ posts lately. How can I help it when there are so many amazing articles being written daily? Here's a snippet from one of the BEST I have read thus far. If you feel so inclined, click on the link below to read the whole article.

Don't hate me because I'm passionate about my disdain for Palin. I'd much rather you hate me because I'm beautiful. :)

 (From Salon Life)
In this "Handmaid's Tale"-inflected universe, in which femininity is worshipped but females will be denied rights, CNBC pundit Donny Deutsch tells us that we're witnessing "a new creation ... of the feminist ideal," the feminism being so ideal because instead of being voiced by hairy old bats with unattractive ideas about intellect and economy and politics and power, it's now embodied by a woman who, according to Deutsch, does what Hillary Clinton did not: "put a skirt on." "I want her watching my kids," says Deutsch. "I want her laying next to me in bed."
Welcome to 2008, the year a tough, wonky woman won a primary (lots of them, actually), an inspiring black man secured his party's nomination for the presidency, and a television talking head felt free to opine that a woman is qualified for executive office because he wants to bed her and have her watch his kids! Stop the election; I want to get off.

What Palin so seductively represents, not only to Donny Deutsch but to the general populace, is a form of feminine power that is utterly digestible to those who have no intellectual or political use for actual women. It's like some dystopian future ... feminism without any feminists.
bogwitch64: (Default)
I am so tired of people NOT GETTING the issue with Palin and her ex-brother-in-law and public safety commissioner Monegan. The point is NOT whether or not she succeeded in getting a bad cop fired or that when she couldn't succeed at that, had Monegan fired. The point is that she used what power she had to further her own, personal agenda.

There are an unfortunate amount of 'bad cops' out there. The FACT IS that Palin wanted THIS bad cop fired for her own personal reasons. I don't care if they are justified or not! When the people trust you enough to put you in a position of power, NEVER abuse it. EVER! I don't care how 'justified' you are.

And this whole Monegan thing just stinks really, really badly. There is more to it than what's been uncovered so far. I have a feeling that the more probes sink into her background, the more unhappy little details will be uncovered. I've said it before and I'll say it again--Sarah Palin is NOT stupid. She's not intelligent either. What she is is cunning--and that is the most dangerous sort of politician there is.

And while I'm at it, this charging for a rape kit under her watch (as Mayor of Wasilla) until the then-governor put a nix on it?? There is not ONE WOMAN who should vote for her on that fact alone. I don't care that it's not an uncommon practice. She's been nominated as the potential head of our country. Anyone who could allow such a practice and, in fact, actively support it, should never be in the position of such power.
bogwitch64: (Default)

(From an article my daughter sent to me:)

And, I think, they (Republicans) find her (Palin) acceptably “real,” because Palin’s not intimidating, and makes it clear that she’s subordinate to a great man.

That’s the worst thing a woman can be in this world, isn’t it? Intimidating, which appears to be synonymous with competent. It’s the kiss of death, personally and politically.

But shouldn’t a woman who is prepared to be commander in chief be intimidating? Because of the intelligence, experience, talent and drive that got her there? If she isn’t, at least on some level, off-putting, if her presence inspires national commentary on breast-pumping and babysitting rather than health care reform and social security, then something is seriously wrong. If she doesn’t elicit at least some degree of awe, then something is missing. 

To read the whole article, go here: 

bogwitch64: (Default)
A friend: I suppose we have your vote now.
Me: My vote?
Friend: Yeah, for McCain/Palin
Me: Why would you think that?
Friend: Because Palin is a woman. Isn't that why you said you were voting for Hillary?
(btw--it irks me that so many use Hillary rather than Clinton. It is usually done as a conscious or unconscious means of marginalizing her.)
Me: What I said was, all things being equal, I'd vote for Hillary because she is a woman.
Friend: That's what I mean.
Me: No, I said all things being equal.
Friend: (look of consternation) So are you voting McCain now?
Me: No. I'm not.

Is it me?


Jun. 17th, 2008 08:07 am
bogwitch64: (Default)
It is not often that I click on a headline while online. I did, however, have to click on the article concerning the legal marriage of two 80-something year old women finally and legally being wed after 55 years together. It was beautiful. It is a time for celebration in California. And then, further on down in the article, I read this:

The celebrations are tempered by the reality that in a few months, Californians will go to the ballot box to vote on an initiative that would overturn the high court ruling and again ban gay marriage.

On Monday, three lawmakers and a small group of other same-sex opponents gathered outside the Capitol to criticize the Supreme Court decision. They urged voters to approve the ballot measure.

"This is an opportunity to take back a little bit of dignity ... for kids, for all of us in California," Republican Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa said. "It really disturbs me that the will of the people was overridden by four members of the Supreme Court."
I just don't get it. Why is it again up for a vote?? I guess I just don't understand the nuances of politics and the legal system. Four Supreme Court Judges lifted the ban on same-sex marriage. Is that not the highest law in the country? Oh, wait--Joe and Jane Smallmind want to spend MORE tax dollars trying to overturn the ruling. It's 'for the kids' don't you know...

Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, I wish gay children upon you. I wish them to be strong enough to come out and live as truly as they can live. More truly than you would have them do so.
bogwitch64: (Default)
My daughter handed me the article The Feminist Reawakening by Amanda Fortini; not because she is saying I need to know these things, but because she is again apologizing for once calling me 'militant'.

Part of me was glad my girls did not know the sort of anti-female crap I endured as a kid, as a young woman; and didn't understand what it was I found offensive about calling a woman who stood up for the rights of women 'militant'. I was glad such concepts were alien to them, because it meant they never felt it themselves. Still, I made ours a feminist household. Doing so while being a stay-at-home-mother (a career choice somewhere between waitress and gas station attendant on the prestige scale of career choices) was not easy. It was a damn hard thing to balance. But I raised two boys and two girls who not only honor the position of 'mother' as highly as they would any high profile job, but are all feminists to the core.

It is SO still there though--the connotations of 'feminist. It hides behind success of those visible few. Yes, we've made strides, but it almost feels like being appeased.' Shrew. Shrill. Agressive. Bitch. Militant.' They shout, "See, our Speaker is a woman! See, that bank executive making four million a year is a woman!" But the ratios are still horribly skewed. Is it better than it used to be? Yes. But, as the article says, we haven't made it as far as we thought we had.

I had an idea, one that I think Hillary should implement when she becomes president: All kids, male and female, must take a women's studies course before they graduate high school. All male college students should have one requirement for a women's studies course as part of their core curriculum. It certainly couldn't hurt, right? And just think how much it would help. History is required. What is history but the study of man's impact on the world? It's only fair, don't you think? (While we're at it, there should also be a requirement for race relations but that's another subject.)

My daughter, the one who once called me militant, has already apologized a million times for her teenage comment. When she was a senior in high school, she took an AP Psychology class in which they studied how advertisers work on the brain. Her teacher showed a bunch of commercials from the 70's--all of them having something to do with 'the little woman' and her place in the home, catering to her man, all while looking lovely and keeping fit. She came home that day and apologized. She does so over and over again, with things like the article. Last night, she called me quite upset about a newscaster referring to Hillary Clinton as "feisty." 

"Am I wrong to be offended? Feisty is something small and viscious and cute baring its fangs! They would never refer to Obama or McCain as feisty, would they?"

My work is done. And I am pleased.
Should you be interested in the article: 


bogwitch64: (Default)

January 2013

  1 23 45
6 78 910 1112
13 141516 17 1819
20 2122 2324 2526


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 19th, 2017 06:49 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios