Letter to the Editor in Rolling Stone

I have been thinking about the blog a lot lately, way more than I have actually been posting. It must be that time in the election cycle when the GOP and right-wingers really start grinding my gears.

For today, I just wanted to brag about my biggest accomplishment in life: getting my letter to the editor published in Rolling Stone (RS1203, the one with Philip Seymour Hoffman on the cover). I confess that I spent the better part of one Friday night and all of my brain power editing the heck out of this little paragraph in the hopes that it would be published. 

My letter is in response to "The Stealth War on Abortion" in the January 30th issue of Rolling Stone.

Enjoy the first day of Spring*!

*Offer good in the Northern Hemisphere only.

Protesting the KXL pipeline

Hell hath no fury like a hippie scorned.

Hello friends. It turns out that summer in Seattle is delightful and I got distracted for a few months, so please forgive my rusty writing skills.

I am very much against the Keystone XL pipeline project, as are most people who have done more than three minutes of research into the issue. The pipeline extension's effect on climate change alone would be "game over" in terms of guaranteeing more carbon pollution. On top of that, the inevitable enormous spill from this pipeline is more than likely to devastate key components of our ecosystems. James Hansen's short essay "Silence is Deadly" is a stunning summary of the serious consequences that would result from building this pipeline. A few political aspects have changed since this paper was written, but the message remains the same. What possible reason could there be that we would allow such a thing to be built on our land, or anywhere on our planet? 

Answer: money. Isn't that always the answer?

I can go on and on about this KXL monster itself, but I would rather tell you about my experience protesting it. I signed up with 350 to protest KXL Sunday evening outside of a northwest Seattle home where President Obama was attending a private fundraiser. Since my invitation got lost in the mail, I decided the next best thing to rubbing elbows with the POTUS would be to wave a sign at him. I just wanted to remind Barry that KXL was a bad idea and if he really loved us he would not approve the project. I donned my best Obama sweatshirt and met the hippies environmentalists at the agreed upon location. There were quite a few people already waiting when I arrived around 4:30 p.m. It did not take long to realize that, whether or not this was intentional, the protesters' language was not only anti-KXL, it was anti-Obama. 

This I did not like. The best example of my frustration? One of their chants went like this:

Hey, Obama!

We don't want

Your pipeline drama!

This sounds like a taunt from a middle schooler who has been held back a grade...twice. (To be fair, some of the other chants made sense and had better messages.) One woman near me quickly moved to a location across the street, literally distancing herself from us, saying "Oh no, I'm going over there, I'm for Obama." To her and many others, we protesters sounded like we were against Obama, not just the pipeline. And there is a huge difference between those two ideas.

At one point, a protester leader made a classic "us vs. them" comment through his megaphone about how we were outside the fundraiser, and not inside the house, because none of us had $1,600 to spend on a ticket to the dinner. He implied that President Obama only listens to the big donors. I just don't think this sort of rhetoric is productive: who are we to judge what people spend their money on? If I had $1,600 to spend on a political fundraiser, I would go and hopefully have a chance to voice my opinion on how terrible KXL is and how Obama should not approve the project. Is it crazy to think that some of the donors at last night's fundraisers were doing exactly that? Why assume that someone attending an Obama fundraiser is not pro-environment? I would imagine the donors who were inside the fundraiser actually have similar values to those of us who were outside the fundraiser. Why create an "us vs. them" mentality?

In general I really do believe that 350 is a great organization with a strong and important message. And perhaps the individual protesters, not the organization, were the real problem. I liked the inflatable KXL monster they brought (see photo above). But to attack Obama with such childish remarks makes me angry. How is that tactic going to further the 350 cause? Really, all it does is placate the protesters. It is a distraction. Many of the protesters were eager to join in the chanting, no matter how little thought was put into it. I am sure that some of the less intelligent ones went home and slept soundly, thinking "I did a great thing today, I gave that scoundrel Obama a piece of my mind." Firing up the base with mindless messages, without really accomplishing anything, reminds me a lot of the Tea Party's tactics.

We climate activists are better than that, and this issue is too important for us to manufacture outrage on top of the real outrage this issue warrants. We have reason and facts on our side, so I don't need your drama, 350 protesters. President Obama is the first sitting president to publicly acknowledge climate change and the need to take action to reduce our carbon emissions. Let's work with him, not against him.

I agree that it is wise to address all politicians with a healthy dose of skepticism, but what evidence do we have that Obama is anti-environment? Has he done everything perfectly? No. Has he accomplished a few key things using the shreds of political capital he has left? Yes. (My favorite small example of this: "An obscure new rule on microwaves.") 

Furthermore, ascribing the "pipeline drama" to Obama is such a distortion of reality. I suppose the proverbial ball is in Obama's court on the KXL approval, but implying that this is Obama's issue alone (as if this was his original idea to cut a disastrous pipeline through America and that there are no outside forces affecting this decision) alienates the thousands of people who blogged, phone banked, canvassed, and otherwise fought to get this president elected.

I'm interested in getting things done, not just getting people worked up. Until I'm proven wrong, I'm going to continue to protest KXL and support my president.

Trayvon

Everything about the Trayvon Martin story is horrible. Right now, I am most upset about the number of people expressing sympathy for George Zimmerman and such blatant scorn for Trayvon Martin. (For the purposes of this post, I'm not talking about the jury or the legal facts and agruments of this case. That is a different subject.) I understand the people who truly do not want to take sides due to the fact that they do not have first hand knowledge of the situation. I don't agree with them, but their position is logical, so I won't argue with them.

As for the people who are "pleased" with the verdict or otherwise support Zimmerman over Trayvon? Or a weird subset of these people who are irritated with those of us who want justice for Trayvon (i.e. the people who are clueless about their own white privilege and racist mindset)? I'm not even sure where to start. George Zimmerman is one of the least likeable defendants I have ever seen. I cannot find one instance where he expresses any remorse* for ending the life of a child. Even if Trayvon had been the aggressor, wouldn't a normal human being be distraught that he had killed a 17 year old?

Let's look at what we do know, and compare the two people in this case:

Trayvon: A child. Walking home from the store. Approached by a stranger wielding a gun and asking questions. Fights. Gets shot and dies. His life is finished at the age of 17.

Zimmerman: An adult. Sees a child who looks suspicious to Zimmerman. Calls 911. Is told to stay put.  Confronts Trayvon. Fights. Shoots Trayvon. Found not guilty of any crime, gets to live among us and keep his gun.

Seems to me that Trayvon Martin did exactly what almost anyone in his situation would have done. And it also seems like Zimmerman did exactly what an overzealous, racist gun-nut would have done.

We know for a fact that Zimmerman killed Trayvon. By all accounts, there is nothing to suggest that Trayvon did anything wrong until confronted by Zimmerman, which I personally assume was a natural fight response (as opposed to a flight response, which is not a great option when directly confronted with a gun). How, as a spectator to this case, does anyone side with Zimmerman?

The racism surrounding this entire story is unbearable.

*If you can find an example of Zimmerman expressing remorse for his actions, please send me the link or post it in the comments.

In case you didn't like my last post

Please read this piece from the Chicago Sun-Times, "Anti-gay bias loses its legal whip." A straight Jewish man schools the sad "straight fundy Christians" on not having your religious beliefs made into secular laws.

I'm still thinking about my last post and the myriad ways I could have offended someone. With every post I write comes discomfort: I am still learning to truly own my opinions. But unlike my previous post, I'm usually towing the Democrat party line for a liberal audience. Voicing some sympathy for religion, especially when I have very little scholarly training on the subject, makes me nervous. Although I will give myself bonus points for exploring the intersection of liberalism and Christianity with an open mind, instead of shutting down the conversation and imposing my beliefs, however flimsy, on others.

Just yesterday I was walking around with a friend who started talking about a job interview she'd had recently. My friend was raised Jewish, although more in the cultural sense than as a religion. She was reading the text of a speech the potential boss had given, at a Jesuit institution, in which he had pointedly discussed "Christian values."

"It just makes me uncomfortable," she said. I felt a little pang of guilt and sadness. Maybe this problem is even more pervasive than I thought. Both she and I largely interact with open-minded, educated people in our work life. This potential employer she described even sounded like a great boss, one who wouldn't actually impose his beliefs on others. She did not make a big deal of this observation, but clearly this had made an impression on her, even as a non-practicing member of another faith. 

I still stand by my previous post, but I promise to be more cognizant of these situations. I can see how a Christian using the phrase "Christian values" implies that they are fundamentally better than Jewish values or atheist values. Personally, I avoid using that term because to me it has so much hypocritical baggage that it is nearly a joke. I do think many people say "Christian values" and really do mean adhering to Jesus' teachings and the Ten Commandments, without judging other value sets, but I get it. Coming from the religious majority, it really does sound exclusive and judgmental. 

 

I'm sorry.

Judging others for thinking they are judging others too

I mostly enjoy the Everyday Feminism page on the Facebook, but like anything other issues-oriented site, they sometimes preach to the choir and don't think through their assumptions very well. Or, I'm just way off base here. Either way, I wanted to post a slightly atypical HTBB post about being a liberal Democrat who also identifies as Christian.* A post on Everyday Feminism yesterday caught my attention. Read "30 Examples of Christian Privilege" here.

I totally agree that these types of "privileges" alienate non-Christians. The idea of a "War on Christianity" in the U.S. is completely ridiculous. However, I think part of the premise of the general argument here is wrong. I genuinely do not believe it is the Christian faith itself that is the problem. Stay with me here...the Christian faith is based on the teaching of Jesus. (It doesn't matter if you personally believe Jesus existed in order to follow my logic here. And the Bible is a document. Which may or may not depict real events. OK, it definitely depicts some made-up events, but we're getting off topic here...) Jesus' actions and words, as represented in the Bible, overwhelming show a doctrine of love and acceptance, especially for marginalized people. (For those who are unfamiliar with Christianity, a lot of the weird and self-righteous "Christian" rules you may have heard of are probably from the Old Testament portion of the Bible, and the worst of them are essentially reversed or forgotten in the New Testament.)

So based on my ramblings above, it's not the faith itself that creates a hostile environment for people who have other belief systems. It is bigots and extremists in the Christian religion that are the problem. Bigots and extremists are always the problem, no matter if we're talking about racism, sexism, religious intolerance...it always comes down to the bigots and extremists.

I do acknowledge that there seems to be a connection between Christians and narrow-minded thinking, but at least part of that perception is due to how The Media operate. Plenty of Christians are peacefully going about their daily lives being accepting people of all faiths, but the loudmouth bigots in the group get all the attention. This is how the media generally sells stories to us: they focus on the fringe. Think about how Muslims are sometimes depicted and how right-wing conservatives think all Muslims are violent Islamists. It's ridiculous and so far from the truth! (Obviously the Muslim scenario is more harmful than the Christian scenario here. There are degrees of influence and differing consequences from traditional media and social media on our perceptions.)

The introduction to this list on Everyday Feminism states that "If you identify as Christian, there’s a good chance you’ve never thought about these things." Well, I actually think about these things a lot and so do other Christians. I don't want to marginalize anyone, and through my volunteer work, political work and my everyday behavior, I try to prevent, stop and reverse any such marginalization. Period. I don't know where they get their stats for "a good chance"; I have no idea what that percentage is. Even if most Christians are intolerant (in which case I would argue that by some measures they aren't even really Christian, since they're missing the whole point of Jesus' teachings), why do you have to judge the rest of us? Doesn't that just exacerbate the problem?

Please do not think I'm saying Christians are bullied. Christians definitely enjoy more advantages in this country than any other belief group. I'm saying we're all getting into a vicious cycle of judging here. You're judging me by thinking I'm judging you. I think it would be better if we all focus on the bigots and extremists, not the religion itself.

Also, I just want to explicitly give a shout-out to the atheists: I think that the majority of my friends are atheists. I will never try to convert them or any other atheist. I appreciate the fact that atheists are operating under a very solid system of logic. My only real request is that you don't associate me (or the vast majority of Christians) with the Westboro Baptist Church people. Just thinking about that makes my stomach turn.

If I wish you a "Merry Christmas" in December, please feel free to respond with a "Happy Hannukah," "Happy Holidays," or simply "Have a great day!" My use of this greeting doesn't mean I think you need to celebrate my religion's holiday...it just means I sometimes say "Merry Christmas" in December as a way to express my best wishes for you. Really!

*When I say I identify as Christian, I mean I was raised Christian and my extended family are all Christians. I believe in a higher power and many of the teachings of Christianity resonate with me. I also believe that you can be a great Christian and still trust modern science, accept LGBTQ people as 100% equal to heterosexuals, and allow a woman a right to choose. Even if I wake up as an atheist tomorrow, I'm still going to celebrate Christmas and Easter, and from time to time I will accidentally say "Oh my God!" and "Holy Moses!" It's not a glamorous culture, but it is a culture that I belong to.

An endangered species

"[Mother Nature] is just chemistry, biology, and physics. Everything she does is just the sum of those three things. She's completely amoral. She doesn't care about poetry or art or whether you go to church. You can't negotiate with her, and you can't spin her and you can't evade her rules. All you can do is fit in as a species. And when a species doesn't learn to fit in with Mother Nature, it gets kicked out. Every day you look in the mirror now, you're seeing an endangered species." 

     ~ Rob Watson, as quoted in Hot, Flat and Crowded 2.0 by Thomas L. Friedman

This week's winners: criminals, the gun industry, anti-government fear-mongers

          

President Obama says it better than I can say it, so before you read my post, you might want to just save yourself some trouble and watch the video above.

The POTUS is angry, angrier than we've ever seen him during the last four years. I'm angry too, for the exact same reasons. I've been planning a post on expanded background checks, but today is the real kicker.

A majority of Senators voted for the Manchin-Toomey Amendment to the Firearms Bill and 90 percent of Americans support the measure. The sponsors of the amendment, one Democrat and one Republican, are both gun owners and have "A" ratings from the NRA. But somehow, this was not enough to make a law that would move us an inch toward reduced gun violence. We have a mile to go, and we can't even move an inch.

Who won today? Criminals who cannot pass background checks. The gun industry, interested in selling more guns and more powerful guns that can shoot expensive ammunition more quickly. Anti-government fear-mongers. To be succinct: anyone who profits (financially, politically or intangibly) from more criminals people buying guns or simply the idea that anyone should be able to buy a gun.

I have many, many thoughts on this subject but in light of today's vote and Monday's bombing in Boston, I do not have the emotional strength to explore these in a coherent fashion tonight. I will fight again tomorrow, and I hope you will, too.

I leave you with one thought for today: think of a reason to reject expansion of background checks that is not also a reason to scrap the whole background check system entirely. Every "reason" I've heard so far (infringing on 2nd Amendment rights, it's too expensive, hurts law-abiding gun owners, etc.) seems to be a reason to get rid of all background checks, which is extremely scary and dumb. That's not a very polite thing for me to say, but I'm done with being polite when it comes to this subject.

Guns and the Constitution

A lot of hardcore gun enthusiasts keep clinging to their expert interpretation of the Second Amendment. I have two main points to make:

1. If you're so hellbent on the fact that the Second Amendment needs to be interpreted literally or "as is," then...can I join your well regulated Militia?

2. Are you as super passionate about the 14th Amendment, and its validity and wisdom in its current state, as you are about the Second Amendment? Because the 14th Amendment implies that I, a woman, do not have the right to vote. And I have a huge problem with that, as do most women, and then you really are going to need those assault weapons to protect yourself from us poking your eyes out with our stilettos.

Once again, I'm not saying that the extreme gun-lovers of America don't have any valid points in this argument. I'm saying their overall reasoning is shoddy.

And, on a positive note, I am loving the small but growing voice of the gun owners who want to reform and improve gun control. Their voice is the most valuable of all.

The NRA must be stopped

It's been a long while since I've posted. Call it an election hangover. I think most of us needed a break from politicking, no matter how much or how little we were involved this year. But the end to this break is long overdue. We're back, y'all!

I just went to post something to Facebook and then remembered that I started this blog for a specific purpose, and that is to stop inciting useless fights consisting of poorly-reasoned five-word arguments on a social network and post at least a paragraph or two to make a real point and start a real conversation. Even if no one visits the blog but me.

The National Rifle Association, God bless them, has gone off the deep end. Liberals have always been wary of the NRA, since the ushering in of the "New Guard" of their leadership, but personally I just didn't know what to make of them. My feelings toward them, not individual members but the leadership and organization as a whole, were those of general dislike. In light of the Sandy Hook school shootings, however, their statements have dropped to a whole new level of evil. Yes, evil. 

Read this NPR article: NRA Says White House Has 'Agenda To Attack The Second Amendment" 

Hey NRA: how about you spin Biden's gun control talks as, oh I don't know, "White House Has 'Agenda To Prevent Innocent People From Being Murdered As They Go About Their Daily Lives'," you horrible, paranoid fear-mongers.

For extra good measure read the original press release from the NRA: Statement From the National Rifle Association of America Regarding Today's White House Task Force Meeting

As one of the commenters on the NPR website pointed out, one of the highlights of the press release is the quote, "...we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions [emphasis HTBB] to members of Congress of both parties..." Are you trying to buy off Congressmen, NRA?

Dear NRA leaders: how would you explain your positions to the parents of each of the children killed at Sandy Hook? The Aurora, Colorado theater shooting? The Sikh temple in Wisconsin? Virginia Tech? Columbine High School? 

We, liberals, are just asking for background checks, limits on assault rifles, and investigations when some nobody buys 8,000 high-capacity magazines at one time. 

NRA: we're coming after you with sound reasoning and smart policies. Thanks for the ammo.

GOP misinformation: slow down, I can't keep up!

Republicans, I just can't even keep up with your flagrant disregard of facts and how generously you feed misinformation to your loyal supporters. If you don't like a particular policy of President Obama's, that is perfectly OK. But what's with the hatred of truthiness? Romney's recent attack ads burn me up in so many ways, and on the surface they look like your usual biased nonsense. But the "welfare gutting" ads in particular have been refuted specifically over and over again. I'm mildly frustrated the Romney keeps hammering this idea onto the airwaves, but what's most disturbing is the collective Republican mindset of believing anything, especially if it sounds like a poor person of another race is going to get a free meal on their dime. (Tangent alert: Obama will never come out and say it, so supporters such as myself will have to say it: conservatives, you are flat-out racist on so many issues, and the only people from whom you are sometimes able to conceal it are yourselves.)

Read the full article on NPR, but here's the really disturbing snippet:

"We think that the fact that the work requirement has been taken out of welfare is the wrong thing to do," said Peggy Testa, attending a Tuesday rally near Pittsburgh for Romney running mate Rep. Paul Ryan.

When told that's not actually what had happened, Testa replied: "At this point, [I] don't know exactly what is true and what isn't, OK? But what I do know is I trust the Romney-Ryan ticket, and I do not trust Obama."


Even when Obama gets re-elected, we're still kind of doomed...because the Peggy Testas of the world will still be here.

(Sorry, Peggy Testa, I'm sure you're a very nice lady. Go Steelers.)

"Stupid" single women

Oh Republicans, you've done it again. I had a whole long list of important and not-so-important topics that I was going to tackle this week, but now a congressman and U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri has shot his mouth off and once again it is necessary to talk about the ever-current subject of respect for women.

"Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, the Republican who's challenging Democrat Claire McCaskill for the U.S. Senate seat, said in a television interview Sunday that it's 'rare' for women to become pregnant when they are raped. 'If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,' he said in an interview with KTVI, a St. Louis television station."

Seriously. One could try to explain this as a rogue Republican's singular remark, and that the GOP is not a party full of misogynists, but let's look at just a handful of recent evidence to the contrary:

• The much publicized three-day attack Rush Limbaugh launched against Sandra Fluke earlier this year, calling her a "slut" for testifying to Congress about the benefits of access to birth control.
• Ann Coulter saying that Obama had recruited Sandra Fluke to campaign on his behalf to get the "stupid single women" vote.
• Romney "distancing" himself from Rep. Akin's remarks: "Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan disagree with Akins's statement. Saul told NPR, 'A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.'" That's fantastic, how about commenting on the fact that Rep. Akin falsely claimed that a woman's body will prevent pregnancy in the event of a rape?

So, Ann Coulter and company, if I were not a "stupid single woman," I would naturally vote for the party who publicly says that it's somehow a failure of my body if I get pregnant as a rape victim? Smart women, by your standards, believe this?

Affordable Care Act: Still a BFD

So the Supreme Court says the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as "Obamacare," is constitutional. As soon as the news broke, you probably noticed quite a bit of activity in your Facebook or Twitter newsfeed. I was as guilty as anyone, but I felt like my quick Facebook status update was somewhat appropriate seeing as how I only posted what NPR described as the "money quote" from the court's decision: "Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it." Aside from a sassy "mmm-hmmm" I didn't post any of my own thoughts or interpretations...in fact I started this blog so I could vent without flooding my friends' and frenemies' social media feeds, and at the same time force myself to stretch my thoughts beyond a 140-character rant.

My status update prompted a few questions and issues, from the right and the left, that I hadn't thought about in quite some time. Let's discuss!

The first topic that came up was the idea that the government "owns" you with the implementation of the ACA. I would be more on board with this logic if we were implementing universal health care. What we're really doing with the individual mandate, which I believe is the source of many people's Obamacare concerns, is balancing out the economics that allow insurance to function. See my previous post on health care from December 28. Currently, pretty much everyone receives some level of health care, but only some of us pay into the system. The individual mandate says that everyone will receive health care and everyone will pay into the system. So, while we as a population are probably going to be providing more health care services, we're also going to be taking in more money. 

People don't like this because they think their money is going to pay for treatment for some lowlife who doesn't deserve health care. There are two things I hate about this reasoning: one, all human beings deserve basic care especially in a resource-rich country like the Unite States, and two, that "lowlife" could be any one of us if our luck changes. When more people pay into the health care system, there are fewer unpaid medical bills (in general) and therefore costs go down for everyone. People have a hard time with this, and rightfully so, because providing and paying for health care is very complicated and you won't see a benefit to the individual mandate immediately or clearly. The benefit could be that health care costs only rise two percent per year, as opposed to seven percent. That's not very sexy politics, but it is a likely valuable outcome of the individual mandate and the complete ACA.

Please keep in mind: the government is not taking over the delivery of health care services. They are becoming more involved in the payment of such services. In this regard, the federal government is not doing anything more than your for-profit health insurance provider already does for you.

Another thing that came up was being tied to your employer under current conditions so you can have health care insurance. I made this point because I am no more "scared" of the government making health care payment choices than I am of the insurance companies. The insurance companies need to be reigned in; I love the idea of capitalism but I do not love companies who put profits ahead of people's health and lives. (Why are people afraid of the government but not an insurance company whose primary responsibility is to shareholders?) First, I think it's good for capitalism and entrepreneurship if you are free of the health insurance issue to switch to a new job or start your own company. Second, I have a little personal story about health insurance and switching jobs...

To my knowledge, I have only been without health insurance for a few months of my entire life, most memorably in July 2010. In June of that year, I left a wonderful job in Chicago to move to Denver and take an even better job with a different company. I am so fortunate to have survived the recession and the earliest stages of my career without any involuntary unemployment. My last day on the job in Chicago was a Thursday, and my new job in Denver started the following Monday, June 21. I would be unemployed for only one business day. However, my health insurance at the new company would not start until August 1. A typical delay when starting with a new employer. So, I applied for COBRA insurance to cover the gap. COBRA is slightly expensive, but it's better than paying for health insurance completely on your own. I didn't think twice about this arrangement until two weeks into my Denver residency, when I received a letter from the health insurance company. They regretted to inform me that they would be unable to insure me. It turns out that I had failed to complete a minor procedure a doctor had recommended prior to my insurance application. (I canceled the appointment for that procedure because the movers showed up a day early, the day of the appointment.)

Instead of charging me a higher amount for my "pre-existing condition," they just flat-out denied me coverage. My pre-existing condition was something that a majority of women experience in their lifetimes and usually requires a simple fix. I did not have cancer, a congenital heart defect, AIDS...I had a common condition, but I was un-insurable. I was out of luck, through no fault of my own, except perhaps making the mistake of telling the truth on my insurance application. And, OK, I suppose you can fault me for canceling the original doctor's appointment, but the movers were showing up to take my stuff to a new city where I was pro-actively moving to get a bigger and better job. Call me a lowlife, it was my fault I was un-insurable! I survived this short period of being without health insurance, but what would have happened if I had been in a hit-and-run accident, or I had been brutally mugged, or caught in a fire? I would either be dead or bankrupt.

As usual, I urge you to please leave comments if you find holes in my arguments or think that I am just plain making things up. Given my Ivy League degree, the legal studies classes I've taken and the countless nights spent arguing with some of the smartest people on the planet during my college years, I should be good at making my case...but I still have a long way to go before I reach Maddow-level logic and well-researched arguments.

Pro-Capitalism = Anti-Corporate Welfare

"Companies should thrive through innovation and having great products ... not by setting up a few P.O. boxes overseas. No profitable company should get out of paying for the nation’s infrastructure, education system, security, and large market that help make them successful." - CoPIRG

I hope Rush is sleeping on the couch tonight

Rush Limbaugh, you have reached a new low. The twitterverse/blogosphere is all over this, and I don't have enough time tonight to add anything intelligent to the conversation, so I'll leave you with this: 

Never forget who's really in charge when it comes to sex. Mr. Limbaugh and like-minded misogynists often forget that, in order to have heterosexual intercourse, they need women. Ladies - be empowered. Gentlemen - be humbled and grateful for the women in your life.

Mr. Limbaugh has the audacity to call a young woman advocating for access to birth control a "slut"? See my previous post - this type of thinking is both repulsive and illogical. His behavior and comments are unacceptable. The saddest part is that Mr. Limbaugh has a decent resume of charity work, yet drowns it out with ridiculous hate speech.

You spoke of "Feminazis," Mr. Limbaugh? Well, your recent comments just increased their membership tenfold.

Doing real life stuff and easing into feminism

Hi friends! Just a quick post tonight, as I don't really have a specific point to make tonight (or ever).

I've been slacking on the posts because I've been doing far too much real life activism.

• The Colorado Democratic Party put on a fantastic Jefferson-Jackson dinner earlier this much, which I helped with a bit. (We were even protested by Occupy Denver! I think they are a little silly sometimes, but I support their right to be silly.) See the video of Cory Booker's keynote speech here:

• I'm now on the volunteer committee of the Democratic Party of Denver, and we're busy getting ready for Caucus on March 6th and County Assembly on March 31. Holla at a girl if you are interested in volunteering, especially House Districts 4 and 6, as I am your designated committee person, like it or not.
• I'm currently in the running for both Assistant Treasurer of the DPoD and Treasurer of the Denver Young Democrats. For DPoD I need to be appointed, and for DYD I need to be elected, but both of these, um, "races" are uncontested. If you're registered as a Democrat in the County of Denver and you are between the ages of 18-35, please join the Denver Young Democrats and come out and vote for me and my compadres tomorrow night at Tavern Uptown! Membership is only $10 per year. And tomorrow night, membership comes with a FREE DRINK! DAMN I love being a Democrat!
• And, most importantly, today I got a friend to register as a Democrat. Winning!

The main theme for my political thoughts over the past few weeks has been "there is no way the GOP is for real." They've turned me into a feminist! I'm the kind of girl who gets bi-weekly manicures, wears dresses every day that ends in "Y,"  and uses different hair conditioners and facial moisturizers depending on the humidity of a given day. And right now I'm wearing a FLANNEL SHIRT. The same flannel shirt I WORE YESTERDAY. Why? Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) held a hearing regarding the mandate to offer birth control to women, and this is what it looked like:

Thanks for inviting us, asshat. I'm so embarrassed that the head of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod even showed up to this thing. A few thoughts on the birth control access mandate:

• NO ONE is forcing anyone to take birth control. The mandate does require that you provide access to a birth control pill, which is a proven and safe drug for the prevention of pregnancy. If you are against birth control, you are free to continue practicing your beliefs by, wait for it, wait for it...not taking birth control.
• The birth control pill prevents abortions. If you are against abortions, then why the hell are you also trying to prevent expanded access to birth control? Oh, okay, I see, that leads me to...
• Some of these people define the beginning of a human life pretty damn early. We can all agree that a living baby existing outside of its mother is a real human life. I would even go so far as to say a fetus in its third trimester is pretty damn close to a real human life, as it has a good chance of surviving if suddenly taken from the womb. But what about fetuses in earlier stages of development? What about the egg and sperm immediately after fertilization? What about the egg right before that son-of-a-bitch sperm gets to it? We can see the baby being born: that's clearly "life." We cannot see the egg and sperm and little zygotes and know exactly when they start taking off on the path to being a real human. So, go ahead and encourage people to carry pregnancies to term, but let's legally allow people to make choices in that gray area we can't agree on.
• STOP referring to me and other like-minded individuals as "pro-abortion," or the supercute shortened collective term, "pro-aborts." It would be lovely if all pregnancies, intended or unintended, could be carried lovingly to term and live happy lives in emotionally and financially stable families. But that's not what we're talking about. I don't know of a single person who is pro-abortion. We are pro-choice.
• To the States that require a woman to view a sonogram or undergo an ultrasound before an abortion: why the hell doesn't the man have to participate? Do you think that woman got pregnant on her own?
• Stay the hell away from my reproductive organs, God-damn it! Why do so many people think the liberals are too involved in our daily lives?

I can't wait to walk into the pharmacy when the mandate takes effect, pick up my birth control pills without paying a co-pay, and turn to the other customers in line and yell "Thanks, Obama!"

Oh, health care economics...you CRAZY!

My little brush with Michele Bachmann on CBS' Early Show the other day has solidified my morning routine of listening to NPR's Morning Edition: the sweet, sweet sound of logic and facts told through soothing voices.

This morning, NPR did not disappoint: I nearly died when I realized Dr. Patricia Danzon, one of my favorite professors at Wharton, was on Morning Edition! She knows more about health care economics than pretty much everyone in the entire world. The NPR story was about Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney's vacillations on their health care platforms. Given the topic, I knew what Dr. Danzon would say. I had been waiting* for this since the Affordable Care Act sparked the debate over our nation's health care act into a full-on bonfire. The frenzied arguments have died down a bit in recent months, but they're back, baby!

I digress. As I listened to Dr. Danzon's speak, with her smooth British-with-a-hint-of-South-African accent, I thought, "please say it, please say it..."

And she did. Allow me to paraphrase: Health care is already socialized, in the least efficient way possible. And everyone pays for it.

The NPR piece highlights the fact that the individual mandate, vilified as a socialist idea, was actually a Republican concept when first introduced. Romney instated such a mandate in Massachusetts, leading to a population that was 98 percent insured, and Gingrich praised this plan in the past. Now that both candidates are catering to the extreme right, they are falling over themselves to lead the charge against the "socialization" of our health care system.

But our health care system is already socialized, in an extremely inefficient manner. Assume that everyone who walks into an emergency room will be given at least the basic level of care appropriate for their injury or illness. It's perfectly alright to assume this, since this is actually the case all over America. Now, for people who do not have health insurance, when they require medical care they must either pay out of pocket to see a primary care physician (PCP), where costs are more contained, or go to the more expensive emergency room if they are not able or willing to pay. Any of us could do this, but those of us with health insurance go to the PCP unless our condition is truly an emergency. On our health insurance plans, it's much less expensive to go to the PCP. That is, our health insurance plan incentivizes us to go to the PCP. Why? Because the emergency room is an extreme waste of money for any non-emergency health problem.

So who pays for the treatment of those uninsured people who go to the emergency room and then skip out on the bill? We all do. The way this happens can fill a textbook, but essentially we pay for their care through higher health insurance premiums, higher charges at the hospital, and so on. But we're not just paying for a doctor's visit and some antibiotics. We're paying all the costs of emergency care. Logically, we'd be better off if we paid for uninsured people to visit a primary care physician.

Sounds like socialism, but as a country we would pay less for health care and have better results. So, since health care is already socialized, as noted by Dr. Danzon, then what's the problem with a somewhat socialist solution (the Affordable Care Act) to making it more efficient? Is there a better solution via capitalism? I'm not sure if one really exists. This is health care. People's lives. We're not talking about manufacturing or bond-trading here. Different economic principles apply to each industry, and health care is by far the most confusing and rule-defying category.

Why do Romney, Gingrich, and their co-horts insist that the Affordable Care Act needs to be repealed? Why is socialism a dirty word? And is socialism really so bad if, by efficiently providing health care to those who cannot afford it, you also lower your own costs?

*Seriously, every time health care policy was mentioned in any national media outlet, I wondered when they were going to bring on Dr. Danzon. She's THE expert! I took her class on the  economics of the pharmaceutical industry, in which my mind was blown repeatedly, and I worked in her office in the Health Care Management department at Wharton for three years during college.

Bachmann, payroll tax cuts and 2+2=5

I can no longer hold back. I really, really dislike* Michele Bachmann. Today she appeared on CBS' The Early Show, and was at her most Bachmanny. Besides reminding me why I don't watch the major networks' morning "news" shows, she said a lot of dumb $#!&, and really failed to answer the anchor's questions and dodged most of them poorly.

Bachmann accused the House Democrats of leaving D.C. before voting on the extension of payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance benefits...from her campaign tour stop of Davenport, Iowa. Look, I get that she's running a tough campaign to be the GOP presidential nominee and we are less than two weeks from the Iowa caucus, but you can't accuse the Democrats of being absent when you are also absent, Michele. (I am not going to verify whether or not the Democrats, or Republicans, actually left Washington, because this is not my point.)

Besides that little double-standard she expressed this morning, the fact is that Democrats and even some of the Republican leadership were ready to pass the bill. Late last week, the Senate passed their bill with huge bipartisan support. Speaker Boehner even seemed on board. Then on Tuesday, the House rejected the bill. I am very pleased to say that not a single Democrat rejected the bill. The most recent maddening twist to this saga is that the Republicans are claiming they will not settle for anything less than a one-year extension of the benefits, as opposed to the two-month stopgap extension in the bill passed by the Senate and presented in the House. This totally pisses me off because the original offer of a two-month extension was intended as a bill that would be easier to pass than a one-year extension. All things being equal, I'm pretty sure the Democrats would have been on board with a one-year extension.

An hour after the House vote, President Obama was so pissed off (my interpretation) that he walked into the press secretary's briefing unannounced and talked to the reporters directly. I love it. It sounds like something Jed Bartlet would do. Funny, though, that this morning on CBS Bachmann said something to the effect that Obama is nowhere to be found regarding passing this bill or starting new negotiations.

This leads me to a larger point, that we'll need to explore futher at a later date, of the Orwellian statements coming from the right wing these days. By "Orwellian" I mean statements like "two plus two equals five." Bachmann provides many examples of this. Today, she gets on national TV and says Obama is not involved in the process, while he is in DC working on this, giving his own press conference, has pretty much given up his Christmas vacation...while she campaigns in Iowa. Too many people out there believe Bachmann and the other candidates' words without thinking for themselves or finding another source of information. Too many voters believe that two plus two equals five.

*"Hate" is a strong word, so I try not to use it unless I really mean it. I only feel hatred, or something close to it, for three living people: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Fred Phelps.

First World Problems: Taxes Pt. 1

Lately every complaint that comes out of my mouth needs to be followed with the disclaimer, "first world problems." Honestly, maybe every complaint I've ever uttered needed that disclaimer, or it's sister disclaimer "white girl problems."

Source: The Economist Online, Sept. 29, 2011

There is a significant portion of the population right now that complains about taxes, and I have no sympathy. As U.S. citizens, we don't really pay that much in taxes. Based on a benchmark income of $100,000 per year, our friends in Belgium, Greece, Germany, France and Denmark have an effective tax rate nearly double that of the U.S. Our federal income tax brackets range from 10 percent to 35 percent. That top rate, applicable to individuals making approximately $380,000 and more, is unbelievably distant from the  top tax rate we've ever had: 94 percent in 1944, for people earning over $2.5 million in 2011 dollars. 

Now, don't get me wrong, 94 percent is a ridiculously high tax rate, in my humble opinion. Between the end of World War II and the beginning of Reagan's presidency, the largest tax cut was ushered in by (Democratic) President Kennedy, and the top tax rate was reduced to 70 percent. Gradual cuts over the years have reduced the top rate to 35 percent, and the poorest people in our society end up paying nothing because, in short, taxing someone on a nonexistent or nearly nonexistent income is a joke.

On top of our comparatively and historically low tax rates, this isn't even the real percentage that some people pay. And the richer a person is, the more ways they have at their disposal to decrease the actual percentage of income paid in taxes. The top 400 richest Americans actually pay about 17 percent of their income in taxes, which, as Tim Dickinson recently stated in Rolling Stone, is five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year.

This is not  how a graduated income tax is supposed to work. We'll be discussing taxes more and more over the coming weeks. Get. Excited.

But for now, tell those ungrateful Tea Partiers and the so-called "53%" to sit down and shut up.

For further reading:

The Tax Policies That Increased Economic Inequality

The Twitter

Happy To Be Blue is now on the Twitter, tweeting super insightful comments about the luxury of being liberal. Follow me @happy2beblue.

A challenger

Not since the late '90s have I been so impressed with a hamster website: Hamster for President 2012.

And now I have that damn song stuck in my head.