Black History Month? Let's celebrate a whole YEAR this time...

I am posting January 31st because it's ridiculous that Black History Month is February (the shortest month of the year) and i'm posting 12 months of Black history because there aren't enough days in just one month to honors all the contributions that should be honored...

Via Dr. A. Hodari

Here for the PDF

Candidates with a sense of humor turn me on...

Birth control pill and ovarian cancer study

FYI: Birth control pill lowers ovarian cancer risk

British researchers found that:

Birth control pills can protect women against ovarian cancer for 30 years or longer after they stop taking them and have so far prevented 100,000 ovarian cancer deaths worldwide.

The longer women stay on the pill, the lower their risk of developing the disease, which is more common after age 50... For example, women who take the pill for 15 years cut their risk in half.

Also,

When you are 60 it matters whether you took it for five years or 10 years in your twenties, the longer you took it, the better off you are when the risk of ovarian cancer is high.

The study found that:

Taking the pill for 10 years cut the risk of ovarian cancer before the age of 75 from 12 per 1,000 women to 8 per 1,000. It also reduced the risk of dying from the disease from 7 per 1,000 women to 5 per 1,000 before the age of 75.

The study also showed ethnicity, education, family history and other factors do not seem to make much difference in reducing risk when it comes to using the pill.

Let the Internet decide!

Since i'm really struggling to make my decision of who to vote for in this upcoming election, i thought i'd let the Internet decide for me (just kidding, don't worry... but this was a fun quiz with interesting results)

87% Barack Obama
86% John Edwards
82% Hillary Clinton
82% Chris Dodd
80% Joe Biden
80% Bill Richardson
78% Mike Gravel
77% Dennis Kucinich
45% Rudy Giuliani
38% John McCain
33% Mitt Romney
29% Mike Huckabee
27% Tom Tancredo
23% Ron Paul
19% Fred Thompson

Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

See whose platform you match up with! Enjoy :)

Happy Birthday Roe v. Wade!!

Today is the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which gave women rights to terminate pregnancy. Meaning it's also Blog for Choice Day (check out other blogs that are writing about choice today.)

"That was forever ago, why should I still care about it now?" Well, I am so glad you ask! The legalisation that made abortions legal through Roe v. Wade is historically referred to as a "technicality." This means that since no Federal legislation has ever been passed to decriminalise abortion, it could take as little as a court decision to overturn the 1973 legislation. With the Supreme Court leaning more and more conservative these days, Roe v. Wade is constantly being threatened.

Another reason to care is because the Hyde Amendment forbids federal funding of abortions which means that low income women do not have equal access to reproductive health care.

Also, limiting access to abortions threatens women's lives. Making abortions illegal will not minimize the need for them but will create a nation where women have to look elsewhere to get their needs met. For wealthy women this will mean going to Canada, Mexico, or Europe... however, for women with less resources, this will mean back alley, unsafe, unregulated abortions that may kill them.

Not to mention the dozens of fucked up bills and laws passed minimizing women's rights to choice all over the country.

Why else should we care? Feministe says it much better than I ever could. Please check out their post.

Before I continue, I want to get one thing straight: I am pro-choice. It's really as simple as it sounds. I believe it is 100% a woman's right to choose when it comes to matters of her own body. With that said, I absolutely cannot stand the pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy. It just doesn't compute. I think life is pretty fucking cool, doesn't that make me "pro-life?" What I am saying is that I don't understand why if a person believes in women's reproductive rights s/he suddenly becomes anti-life... Who doesn't like life? So, for your clarification, I call commonly known "pro-lifers" "anti-choicers" because that's what they are to me.

Not only that, they are so much more than anti-choice/pro-life. They are pro-forced pregnancy, pro-unwanted children, pro-government involvement in women's bodies, pro-limiting accurate and accessible sex education, pro-women's death. And those are all very much CONS in my book.

On the same note, just because I am pro-choice does not make me "pro-abortion." I think abortions and other reproductive rights (access to birth control, sex education, Plan B, etc.) should be widely accessible and without stigma but that doesn't mean that abortions are the right solution for every pregnant woman in the world. I think wanted babies are awesome and pretty darn cute to boot... However, I strongly believe that the only person able to make the decision whether or not to get an abortion should be the woman herself, well maybe with her doctor's help. Every woman should have a right to choose the best course of action for herself, her life, and her situation. Being pro-choice is much more than just being pro-abortion. It's being pro-women's lives, health, and rights.

This year's Blog for Choice Day asks us "why do you vote pro-choice?"

I vote pro-choice because:

No woman should be forced into an economical, emotional, physiological, and socio-cultural situation that she does not want to be in.

Because I trust women to make the best decisions for themselves and their bodies.

Because even though I may not agree with everyone's decision, I strongly believe in their right to have one.

Because legal abortions save women's lives and decrease abortion rates.

Because people like Mike Huckabee are running for president and write on their campaign website that they, "support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life... and believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned."

Because Bush's Global Gag Rule makes me want to gag.

Selfishly, I vote pro-choice because I want to decide whether or not to have children, and when. I don't want some white man in an ugly tie and over-priced suit making that decision for me.

Why do I vote pro-choice? Because there's too much at stake.

People searched WHAT and found me?!

Keyword analysis of Google searches that have recently landed people on my blog:

• getting pregnant man on heroin
• fingering and eating woman out
• jimmy's racism sprinkles
• fat woman fingering
• traditional marriage of mike huckabee's dreams
• jamie lynn spears and her puppy
• heavy lifting woman's uterus
• mrs. pacman women's rights
• pregnant 12 year old teenager baby kicking
• hillary cry onion
• videos jenny jones marriage proposals
• is it difficult to get pregnant on heroin?

I see...

Hopefully they got something useful out of their visit...

Cocaine and thinness

Does anyone read the Post Secret blog?

Many postcards they receive break my heart, this one though was especially saddening...

New Year's Goals...

Not resolutions, not resolutions!
(resolutions have no chance of sticking, at least i have a shot with "goals")

I realize i'm a bit late on this one seeing as it's mid-January but i wanted to jot a few things down in writing to hold myself accountable ;)

Goals for 2008:

1. Be more patient. Towards my partner, towards our puppy, towards others, towards myself. This includes not jumping down people's throats when i disagree with them, having more patience with my clients (recovery is a disease of relapse and i have to understand that,) and being more patient with myself, allowing myself time to achieve my goals.


2. Master the Bakasana (Crow Pose) and start working on the Vrischika-asana (Scorpion Pose)


3. Relinquish control regarding grad school. It will happen. And when it does, it will be the right place and time for me. And i will do research that works for the community, marginalized groups, and activism. It will be awesome.
   


4. Complete a triathlon. I chickened out on the swimming last year. I gotta get my butt in a bathing suit, in a pool, and start kicking...


5. Reconnect with friends. Being an adult is not conducive to maintaining relationships... It was so much easier in college when friends were constantly around and relationships didn't take much work. This all changed post graduation, when everyone scattered about the U.S. Now it's time for me to step up and hold on to the people that mean the world to me. I need to let those close to me know how much i value their friendship and invest more time and energy in maintaining the amazing group of friends I've developed.


6. More activism! Again, college makes it easy to protest, campaign, and generally be an activist. This year i hope to surround myself with others that are as passionate about social change as i am and start doing, not just talking.


7. Let go. There are still a few grudges I need to let go of. My goal is to find the balance of forgiveness and let go - for me, not for those who hurt me.


8. Paint more, and with brighter colors.


9. Find more time for family. With the possibility of a 6 year ph.d. program around the corner, i need to take advantage of the next few months to spend with family, while I'm close to home.


10. [insert #10 here] :)

What are some of your 2008 goals, and have you been successful so far?

"fat-fingering"

Sounds dirty doesn't it?

Unfortunately it's not. It's actually a term that was used today in a HIPAA refresher training i had to sit through. The presenter's recurring use of the term "fat-fingering" to imply typing passwords, email addresses, phone numbers, etc, incorrectly left me alarmed. Weightist attitudes are a huge problem in our society and weightist comments are much more socially accepted nowadays than racist, sexist, or homophobic ones even though they are just as discriminatory. The problem of weight bias is very real and can be just as oppressive as the other "isms" we fight against. Since the presenter is also the same guy who does the cultural diversity trainings for our company (HAHA!), i know that he didn't mean to be offensive by using "fat-fingering" and probably didn't even realize he was saying anything wrong. The problem that i see with it is that using the term with a negative connotation only further perpetuates weightist attitudes. Whoever said "fat is a feminist issue" hit the nail right one the head...

Weight bias can interfere with getting a job, obtaining fair health care, being promoted, and being treated equally in general. I don't mean to be the p.c. police here, and i swear that as a feminist i have learned to pick my battles. I realize that he was simply using a term that may have been thrown around (although i must admit i've never heard it before) but the truth is, a lot of discrimination is intrinsic and unintentional. I don't think that all people who say discriminatory things are terrible people, i think a lot of them don't realize the effect of their words and/or never took the time out to consider it.

For example, i've mentioned before that i work at a substance abuse clinic and see a diverse population of clients. A year and a half ago a client walked into my office for an appointment in a really bad mood. As we started talking through why she was pissed, she explained that, "the chink at the nail salon jewed me!" Holy Shit, WHAT?! Yea... You'd imagine i had an incredibly had time navigating between remaining unbias for my job to maintain the rapport i've established with her and wanting to shake the hell out of her based on my feminist values. What did i do? I calmly repeated back to her what she said and explained how offensive she was being to a number of different racial/ethnic groups. She said she knew "chink" was offensive but was really angry (and offending the Asian woman was a defensive mechanism) yet didn't realize "jewed" was a bad thing to say. I explained that "jewed" was based on the concept that jews are cheap, to which she said, "well aren't they?" I don't know ya'll, what then? It's not my job to teach her social politics, or even manners for that matter. Being a Jew, I had a hard time with that. I tried to explain the background to terms like "jewed" and "gyped" and relate them to race because she was a quick one to speak up when the counselors were being racist. I related the words she used to "jimmied" which seemed to do the trick and she quickly understood.

Tangents aside, words have power that people do not intend them to. A lot of the time this creates problems because people don't think before they speak. We are constantly bombarded with social messages that are nothing but discriminatory and perpetuate white/male/hetero/"good looking"/Christian/etc. norms. It takes a lot of effort to walk through life with a constant critical lens and those who do it seem to bitch, rant, and rave, a lot (i very much included). It's easier to ignore the status quo but like the pin i got from one of my favorite teachers, Marita, says, "if you want peace, work for justice."

Back to the original point (sorry, i'm pretty distracted tonight,) weightism is not ok. Not only is it not okay but it's one of those means of discrimination that is often overlooked and not acknowledged making it even less ok. Especially with the current push out there to get everyone "fit" (by whatever means necessary, i.e. The Biggest Loser). Now please don't get me wrong, "thin" doth not "fit" and "healthy" make. There's this overarching concept (read: misconception) out there that thin = beautiful = happy. This equation is faulty on many levels. Firstly, thin does not equal beautiful. Many a woman is absolutely gorgeous with curves (to link a few media crazed examples.) Next, even thin & "beautiful" does not equal happy. There are many "beautifully" miserable women out there as well (i simply couldn't resist). Now i'm all about being fit and healthy, hell, i'm the loudest proponent of women lifting weights, staying active, being strong, kicking ass out there... but not because media tells us what is "beautiful." Overweight women (more so than men) are constantly overlooked. How many plus-size female CEOs do you know? Now think, how many male CEOs that you know are plus-sized. Exactly. Once again we are whacked with the double standard stick.

As much as i hate the idea of "i lived for a minute in an oppressed person's shoes [or fat suit] so now i know their struggle," Tyra Banks did a show where she wore a "fat suit" for a day and, followed by her cameras, "experienced" the trials and tribulations of being discriminated against because of weight. Although a lot felt off about the whole thing, it did bring light to the issue of weightism in our society to an audience that may have not considered it prior, this i believe to be a success.

For what it's worth, the presenter that used the term, "fat-fingering" apologized and commented on how glad he was that i was comfortable enough bringing this directly to him (read: and not going over his head). But really folks, he must not know me... He said he never considered that it may be offensive and will find a different term for future trainings.

Many a time i've had people read my blog only to comment that i "read into shit too much" and i need to "calm down and not take things so seriously." I guess i'll get preemptively defensive on this one: if you think that weightism and fat-hate doesn't exist, please see here. Not only does it exist (as represented on the video) in mainstream America, but also within the feminist community (check out the comments that correspond with the post.)

(oh and p.s. it's De-Lurking Week so please leave a comment or just say "hey, sup?" :) I'd love to see who reads and especially what your thoughts are. Feel free to leave post ideas and comments with what you love/hate. Also, leave a link to your blog, if you have, for me to check it out! I'd enjoy reading what you have to say!)

Guantánamo Bay

Friday is the six-year anniversary of Guantánamo Bay. Why is this incredibly important? Because Guantánamo Bay is not only a blaring violation of human rights, but also undermines the constitution. The Military Commissions Act (MCA) unconstitutionally eliminated the right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This means that our government can hold prisoners of Guantanamo Bay for more than five years without charges.

Basically, the "justice system" set in place at Guantánamo Bay allows the president to decide who is an enemy combatants, who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime, and define what is and what is not torture and abuse.

There are many human rights concerns. The legal system in place at Guantánamo Bay:

• Deprives defendants of independent judicial oversight by a civilian court.
  
• Restricts the defendant’s right to choose his lawyer.
  
• Prosecutes prisoners-of-war in a manner that violates the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
  
• Fails to guarantee that evidence obtained via torture or ill-treatment shall not be used.
  
• Allows wide latitude to close proceedings and impose a “gag order” on defense counsel.
  
• Provides lower due process standards for non-citizens than for U.S. citizens.
• Prejudges the detainees as “enemy combatants,” thereby keeping the tribunals from making determinations with full independence and impartiality.
  Place severe limits on detainees’ ability to make their claims, including denial of assistance of counsel.
  
• Erroneously adopts the U.S. government position that all enemy combatants at Guantanamo can still be held under the laws of war.
  
• Does not recognize any legal obligation on the part of the U.S. government to conduct reviews of their detention nor any legal right of the detainees to such a review process.
• Reflects the U.S. government’s assumption that all those detained at Guantanamo are “enemy combatants” and that none are entitled to prisoner-of-war status.
  
• Assumes, erroneously, that all those held at Guantanamo can be detained under the laws of war; an unknown number of detainees were taken into custody where the laws of arm conflict did not apply.
  
• Provides for only an annual review when the laws of war require reviews for security detainees at least every six months.
  
• Places the burden of proof on the detainee to demonstrate why s/he is no longer a threat to the United States.
  
• Limits the detainee’s access to relevant information.
  
• Requires family members to provide information through their governments even in cases where doing so would place the family at risk.

The image above is of detainees upon arrival in January 2002

On an international note, Guantánamo Bay is an abomination of American values and continues to shame our country. Detainees have been held for years without fundamental legal and human rights. Even former Secretary of State Colin Powell has spoken out against Guantánamo Bay, “we have shaken the belief the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantánamo open and creating things like the military commission.”

Because justice is almost entirely about activism, here are some things you can do:

• Sign the petition to close Guantánamo
• Wear orange Friday
• Learn more about Guantánamo Bay
• Download and administer the fact sheet to help educate and outrage others
• Download the "toolkit" here
• Find more stuff to do here or here

Breaking News: Hillary Clinton is a REAL PERSON with REAL EMOTIONS!

News media is in a frenzy after Clinton shows debatably genuine emotion in response to a question asked by an undecided voter earlier today. The woman asks, "How did you get out the door every day? I mean, as a woman, I know how hard it is to get out of the house and get ready. Who does your hair?"

I'd cry too, but for different reasons. Seriously, who asks that bullshit? "how do you get ready...who does your hair?" Really?! You are an undecided voter and have a lead candidate in front of you and that's the question you ask... What would she ask if Obama or Edwards was there? Certainly something more politically relevant.

I am really impressed though with Clinton's ability to turn a ridiculous question into an opportunity to show emotion, passion, and intellect. Here was her teary-eyed response:

I just don't want to see us fall backward as a nation. I mean, this is very personal for me. Not just political. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. Some people think elections are a game: who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' future. It's about all of us together. Some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some difficult odds. We do it, each one of us, against difficult odds. We do it because we care about our country. Some of us are right, and some of us are not. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven't thought that through. This is one of the most important elections we'll ever face. So as tired as I am and as difficult as it is to keep up what I try to do on the road, like occasionally exercise, trying to eat right—it's tough when the easiest thing is pizza. I just believe so strongly in who we are as a nation. I'm going to do everything I can to make my case, and then the voters get to decide.

All joking aside, when i think about the current state our country is in, i want to cry also. After what the Bush administration has done, we desperately need a determined and focused leader in office. Is Clinton the right person for that job? I don't know... but she is the one i seem to be defending more and more lately...

The truth is, i'm fed up... with the media, with the general population, even with various friends and family when it comes to Hillary Clinton. The point is when she's strong and steadfast she is viewed as uptight, unapproachable, and too "masculine." Now when she shows vulnerability and emotion she is being too feminine and obviously not suited for the role of president. Spit it out people, what are you really saying? You're saying that women shouldn't be president because when push comes to shove, it's a (white, straight, Christian) man's job. And no matter how hard any "other" tries to fit the status quo, there's just no way to win.

I hope this election is different. It's time for a change in our country, and "change" seems to be the operative, buzz word nowadays which is a great thing in my mind.

Back to Clinton: was this whole teary-eyed, passionate, emotional response orchestrated by her campaign? Maybe... But this is politics people, and in 2008 it's a dirty race.

Below are some very well thought out and intelligent reactions to the article (read: sarcasm). I thought they would be fun to post here for your reference. Via Newsweek:

Comment: Do we really want a president who cries when the going gets tough?

Comment: Sure, I want a president that breaks and cries under pressure. NOT!!!!!!!Hillary can't even come close to being the statesman Muskie was, don't insult him by the comparison. Hilbillary admitted it. It is not about politics, it is "PERSONAL". Yes, her quest for power, and not politics.Don't let the crocodile tears fool you my democrat sheep friends.In short Hillary Clinton can't cut the mustard as President.

Comment: All I'd like to know is, how did she get that slice of onion into her handkerchief? If on the outside chance that it wasn't faked, then I'd say that the last thing this Nation needs is a crybaby with her finger on the nuclear trigger. "BooHoo.....you were mean to me!".....BOOM!

Comment: Thanks, Hillary. Thanks for setting women back oh-so-many decades. Appreciate it. Really I do.
(i don't get this one - how did she set women back?)

Oh and here's a doozy:
Comment: hahahahaha...what a cry baby. She needs to grow up before she gets her ticket to the white house. I'm surprised she hasn't ordered a death sentence on her opposition yet. I mean, we all know that's what she did to JFK Jr when he challenged her for the Senate seat in NY. Damn right we're more educated here on the West Coast. We know all about the Clinton Regime and their conniving schemes. It's too bad Hillary had her husband pull the trigger on John John. The country would have been better with that young honest Kennedy alive.

Even this, pseudo-positive comment left me cringing:
Comment: I find it funny that she is resorting to tears at this point. She's never shown a vulnerable side, a womanly side before. She's played hardball with the big dogs, and now, polls show she is down in N.H. and all the sudden the tears come out? I feel for her, this country needs a woman president, but not her.
(why is a "womanly side" parallel to a "vulnerable side"?)

Civil Unions in New Hampshire!

I'm a bit late on this one but due to its importance, i wanted to share:

Via the NY Times...

New Hampshire's civil unions law - enacted by the Democrat-dominated Legislature early last year and signed by Democratic Gov. John Lynch in May, gives same sex couples the same rights, responsibilities and obligations of marriage without calling the union a marriage. New Hampshire is the fourth state in the nation to allow civil unions.

So far, civil unions are legal in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and now New Hampshire. Massachusetts is still the only state that allows same sex marriage.

Hopefully more states will follow suite, although my hope is they follow Massachusetts' same sex marriage laws... Oh and don't forget about all the same sex marriage bans we have to still overturn...

To leave off on a positive note:

Dozens of gay and lesbian couples entered into civil unions in New Hampshire in the early moments of New Year's Day as a new state law legalized the partnerships after midnight.

Happy Day After the Iowa Caucus!

Sorry i've been a little MIA. I'm actually spending the week on vacation in North Carolina visiting friends :)

However, i couldn't pass up a chance to write about the Iowa caucus:

Obama and Fuckabee: Any thoughts?

Here are mine:

First i'd like to ask the general population, along with political analysts, the media, and government officials to start focusing on Clinton's politics rather than the fact that she is a woman. On a personal note, as of right now i'm not voting for Clinton come February 5th. There are actually tons of reasons to critique Clinton based on her politics and I agree with many of those who do so. However, no one really ever seems to. Instead people focus on the fact that she has a vagina. Clinton is female. And she's a forerunner for president! Get the fuck over it and move on to her politics. Then we can have some real political conversations. Here's a very pertinent example of something you can do to change the dynamics of how Clinton is seen: If/when referring to her with one name, call her Clinton rather than Hillary! Listening to political analysts and reporters last night i couldn't get over the fact that we had three candidates neck in neck: Obama, Edwards, and "Hillary"... seriously? I can't think of a better way to show someone that you don't take them seriously and that they don't have your respect than to call them by their first name while everyone else is addressed by their last name.

Truth be told, I'd prefer Obama, Edwards, and even Kucinich (although he's a space cadet) to Clinton. I don't agree with some of her key policies but find myself more defensive of her than any other candidate because of all the misogyny thrown her way.

Moving on...

On one hand, the thought of Huckabee gaining GOP support terrifies me. On the other, i'd much prefer him to take the republican nomination and lose by a long shot... I predict that he will alienate the moderates and either lose in later primaries or (definitely) in the general election.

I suppose i'd be more nervous if someone like McCain got elected, he'd actually have a chance at beating the dem nominee.

My only real fear for Fuckabee is that he's really smooth. The media loves to talk up his musician side, which makes him more relatable and he definitely has charisma. He has a sense of humor and charm, those are two scary characteristics in someone so extreme and so into what he's selling. What's even more scary is that he seems to genuinely believe all the radical politics he's endorsing... his beliefs paired with his personality are a scary combination (especially since now it's obvious he's gaining support). My fear is that a lot of the American population doesn't do their research and doesn't really get to know the candidates. Instead, they would vote on first impressions and Huckabee gives off a hell of a first impression.

However, the Iowa exit polls showed 60% of the GOP voters were Evangelical Christians. Also, polls showed that immigration was the top issue for those who voted. I don't believe either of these demographics are representative of the population, even within the GOP.

Whoever wins the republican nomination will have an extremely difficult time gaining widespread republican support, especially since candidates' religion seems to be such an important characteristic this term.

The other interesting thing i heard from NPR is that the gender gap, at least on the democratic side, was very wide. Among women, Clinton did as well as Obama but received only 23% of the vote among men. This tells us one of three things: 1. men are still reluctant to elect a female president on the sole reason of her being a woman; 2. women are voting for Clinton solely because she is a women; 3. one group (male or female voters) are more invested in the candidates politics and vote solely based on policy and not sex of candidate.

Some interesting demographics from last night:

• Six in 10 GOP voters said they were born again or evangelical Christians, and by far the largest share (almost half) supported Huckabee.
• Romney led among non-evangelical voters, getting about a third of their support.
• More than a third of Republicans said having the same religious beliefs as their candidate was very important, and of that group just over half favored Huckabee.
• More than half of voters younger than age 30 were supporting Obama, and he even had a roughly 2-to-1 lead over her among those age 30 to 44. Clinton had a decisive lead among the oldest voters.
• As in past Iowa caucuses and other presidential nomination contests, the Democratic turnout was predominantly female, while a majority of Republicans were male.
• Early Democratic caucus-goers were a little younger on average than their Republican counterparts.

Oh are there actual issues to consider? Looking past religion and demographics:

Given three choices, just over a third of Democrats said Iraq was the chief issue facing the country, with about the same number naming the economy. Healthcare was close behind. Obama had the most support among those naming Iraq and the economy, while the three candidates were close among those citing healthcare.

What are ya'll thoughts? Who do you predict will win the primaries, and just as importantly, who do you predict will be appointed as a running mate to the nominee?

In the words of Jon Stewart, i can't wait to see what happens in this "clusterfuck to the whitehouse!"

I’m not a feminist, but…

I realize that many people have written about women who maintain feminist beliefs but chose not to identify with the feminist movement. Since I have received various related questions and requests for this post, I’ll cover the topic as well:

My question to ya’ll: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but doesn’t identify as a duck, is it a duck?

I get it, feminism has an image problem. Not within the movement, because we all think we’re pretty fucking cool, but on the outside. Douglas (1994) found that the 1970s news media “played an absolutely central role in turning feminism into a dirty word by depicting feminists as deviant, man-hating, unrepresentative radicals who were a threat to society.” Obviously with this image of feminists out there, many people chose not to identify as feminists. However, Zucker (2004) found that “exposure to feminism through education, personal relationships, or personal struggles are favorable conditions for feminist identity.”

There's this weird misconception out there that all feminists are hairy, lesbians, pierced & tattooed, unattractive, fat, aggressive, stubborn, humorless, butch, bossy, etc. The thing is, some feminists may be those things, and that's cool. But others are also not. Just like some non-feminists possess those characteristics as well; they aren’t “feminists specific” traits. As a feminist, you can be all or non of those things and still identify with the movement and with its goals, in any combination. Because feminists come in all shapes and sizes so-to-speak, passing judgments and generalizations, is just, well, ignorant and close-minded. As far as those characteristics go, I fit into some. For example, I am pretty stubborn, however, I also wear makeup and high heels from time to time, and that’s all good and doesn't make me any less of or more of a feminist. What I’m trying to say is that whatever image you present to the world does not mediate your identity with the feminist title. Feminists can look and act however, it’s the beliefs and social action that count.

My opinion? The media loves drama. Most of the self-identified feminist that we actually experience through the media or portrayals of feminism that is created is done through extremes. What makes the news and what is created by television is radical feminism because it is an extreme and will get people talking. Radical feminists kick ass and without them, we'd be a lot further back than we are, but radical feminists do not represent the majority of the movement.

Back to “I’m not a feminist, but…”

I encourage you to take this short questionnaire...

Do you believe that:

• both boys and girls should have access to education


• all people, regardless their skin color or gender, should have the right to vote


• you should be able to wear whatever clothes you want without being blamed for how you are treated by others while you are wearing those clothes


• everyone should have the right to birth control and the ability to determine, themselves, how many, if any, children they bring into this world


• everyone should have the right to open a bank account and to own property


• division of labor should be based on skills and interest, not on gender roles


• no one should be discriminated against based on their race, sex, age, sexual orientation, weight, social class, religion, etc.


• everyone should have access to legitimate health care


• diversity should be celebrated, not just tolerated


• people should be paid for the job they do based on how well they do the job rather than what they have in between their legs or the color of their skin


• no one should be sexually oppressed


• we should provide valid sex education for our children


• domestic violence is unacceptable


• rape and sexual abuse are unacceptable


• you hate the way women and men are portrayed by the media


• add your own injustice here…

If you answered yes to one or more of these you way want to ask yourself why you don’t identify as a feminist.

So why are women (and men, but that’s a different story that will be covered at a different point) so reluctant to self-identify if they support so many feminist values? There are various opinions to this, most having to do with image. Jessica said in an interview that "younger women are nervous about feminism because they're afraid that boys won't like them." I don’t exactly agree with this 100% because all lesbians aren’t necessarily jumping on the feminist train either, and they don’t have the need to impress boys. I think it’s more of a fear that people will think you are too intense or "read into things too much." You’ll scare others (boys and girls) away because you’re constantly looking at things differently, and critically. This is absolutely the experience I’ve had at least.

Similarly, it’s also an identity thing. Maybe people nowadays are “finding themselves” as Dave recently suggested. Are people so scared of all the negative stereotypes and so insecure with themselves that they aren’t willing to embrace all the positives of being a self-proclaimed feminist? Identifying with something and self-labeling means that you are surrendering part of your identity to that specific group and allowing the group to define you. This is in terms of what those within the group and those not within the group want to believe of the group. As far as feminism is concerned, although many feminists realize how empowering it is to self-identify, due to the negative stereotypes associated with feminism, others chose to reject the label.

George Washington University’s Dr. Zucker (2004) published a study addressing this issue particularly. Dr. Zucker’s research explored women disavowing social identities when they said “I’m not a feminist, but…” Zucker notes that even if women embrace feminist principles, they strongly disassociate from the feminist label. Like most research, Zucker’s sample was not completely random because all surveyed were college-educated women, which is not representative of the American population. However, Zucker did find that in the 272 women surveyed, self-identifying as feminists was a predictor of feminist activism. Herein lies my concern. On one hand, I don’t care if you identity as a feminist or not, as long as you retain feminist beliefs. On the other hand, if self-identifying as a feminist is going to make you more of an activist then of course I want you on my side because then we could work together for common goals, not just dream big about a world of peace and equality.

The other thing is, as a young adult just beginning to be politically enlightened and active, it is difficult to navigate through the mess of titles and identities in order to chose the best fit for yourself. Should I say I’m “liberal” or “progressive;” “feminist,” “womanist,” “humanist,” or “pro-feminist” There are an overwhelming amount of titles with which one can align and this affiliation is important because it determines our social action and activism. Whatever word you use to empower yourself and work towards equality is okay by me. I just so happen to chose feminist because it seems to sum me up best, stereotypically and otherwise.

In summary, I guess if you work for equality, I don't necessarily care what you call yourself. However, since research shows that feminist self-identity directly and significantly relates to collective action, I think it’s super important. Also, being able to place all the things you tell me you believe in and work towards will allow my psychology operated, categorically inclined mind, to label you a feminist anyway.

I leave you with this: why do you, or why do you not, consider yourself a feminist?

Also, please respond to the two poll questions I have up regarding this issue. Although I realize this is not a random sample in the least bit (since the majority of those who read my blog are either feminists or part of the “male rights movement” – go figure) it’ll still be interesting to see what we come up with.



Happy Christmas to all who celebrate :)

Psychology Research Holiday Humor :)

All of us who've struggled to get studies through the IRB will very much appreciate this :)

Dr. K Kringle
Adjunct Professor of Child Psychology
Far Northern University

Dear Dr. Kringle (Ph.D, M.D., D.O.? Please verify your credentials):

At the regularly scheduled December 24 meeting, the IRB reviewed your protocol, "A Global Observational Study of Behavior in Children" While we believe it has many good features, it could not be approved as submitted. If you choose to revise your study, please address the following IRB concerns:

1. You propose to study "children of all ages". Please provide an exact lower and upper age limit, as well as the precise number of subjects. Provide a statistically valid power calculation to justify this large of a study.

2. Your only inclusion criterion is "belief in Santa Clause." Please provide a copy of the screening questionnaire that determines such a belief. Provide a Waiver of Authorization under MPAA in order to record these beliefs prior to enrollment in your study. The Board recommends that you obtain a Certificate of Confidentiality as beliefs are sensitive and personal information.

3. You propose to "know when they are sleeping and know when they are awake". How will this be done? Will children undergo video monitoring in their beds? Will they have sleep EEGs? You list 100 elves as research assistants. Are any of them sleep physiologists? Please provide credentials of elves.

4. Your primary outcome measure is to "know when they've been bad or good." What standard is being used to determine "goodness'? Do children have to be good all year or just most of the time? Please specify required duration and provide the instrumentation, with appropriate consent forms, that will be used for operationally defining "goodness".

5. You propose to conduct your research by entering the subjects' homes through the chimney. Have you considered the liability potential, i.e., damage to the roof, carpeting, etc., that this will cause? Moreover, children are likely to be startled by your appearance late at night. Please revise your protocol to conduct your home visits between 9 am and 5 pm Monday through Friday with at least one parent being present and all risks and benefits carefully described.

6. You state that compensation for participation will be "sugarplums, candy, and toys" for the good little girls and boys. This may not be appropriate for the children with obesity, dental cavities, and hyperactivity. Also, your proposal to leave a lump of coal in the stockings of the bad children will be unfairly stigmatizing to them individually and as a group. In general, the Board suggests a small token of appreciation for all participants. Perhaps a $5 Toys-R-Us gift card would be more appropriate in order to avoid potential coercion.

7. The database of good and bad children will be kept "on a scroll at the North Pole." Please describe the location of the scroll and the security provisions you have in place to protect the data. Is the scroll kept in a locked cabinet in a locked room? Who has access to the scroll? Are there backup copies of the scroll and how often are they compared to the original?

8. You mention the participation of "eight tiny reindeer" in your protocol. Please provide the Board with documentation of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval.

9. Please provide the Human Subjects Protection training dates for Mrs. Claus and the elves.

10. As this study involves prospective data collection and is more than minimal risk without prospect of direct benefit to the subjects, informed consent signed by all guardians will be required. Please have the consent form translated into every language spoken by children and ensure that assent forms are signed by all. Please submit 25 copies of your revised protocol to the IRB. The IRB will be on Holiday Season schedule for the next two weeks. If approved, you will be able to conduct your study sometime in the spring, if all items are appropriately addressed.


Sincerely,
E. Scrooge, MD

Chair, Institutional Review Board

Sex education... works?!

Feministing and the Journal of Adolescent Health provided me with a perfect follow-up to yesterday's post.

Hopefully this empirical evidence gets the government's attention to put more money into sex ed as apposed to abstinance only education in schools.

Here's the abstract for all us fellow psych nerds:

Purpose
Sex education is intended to provide youth with the information and skills needed to make healthy and informed decisions about sex. This study examined whether exposure to formal sex education is associated with three sexual behaviors: ever had sexual intercourse, age at first episode of sexual intercourse, and use of birth control at first intercourse.

Methods
Data used were from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, a nationally representative survey. The sample included 2019 never-married males and females aged 15–19 years. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted using SUDAAN. Interactions among subgroups were also explored.

Results
Receiving sex education was associated with not having had sexual intercourse among males (OR = .42, 95% CI = .25–.69) and postponing sexual intercourse until age 15 among both females (OR = .41, 95% CI = .21–.77) and males (OR = .29, 95% CI = .17–.48). Males attending school who had received sex education were also more likely to use
birth control the first time they had sexual intercourse (OR = 2.77, 95% CI = 1.13–6.81); however, no associations were found among females between receipt of sex education and birth control use. These patterns varied among sociodemographic subgroups.

Conclusions
Formal sex education may effectively reduce adolescent sexual risk behaviors when provided before sexual initiation. Sex education was found to be particularly important for subgroups that are traditionally at high risk for early initiation of sex and for contracting sexually transmitted diseases.

I only have one word for this: "Duh."

Reality television gone horribly wrong...

Unfortunately, tonight I caught a glimpse of what happens when writers go on strike :(

Jamie Lynn Spears kicks puppies, sells heroin to 8 year olds, and drowns dolphins!

Actually she's pregnant, which really doesn't seem like that big a deal compared to kicking puppies, oh and compared to all the other things she could be doing with a terrific role model like her sister. (<--sarcasm, for those who don't know me...)

All the tabloids, radio stations, and even legitimate news programs are covering this like it's a surprise for 16 year old girls to get pregnant, especially with the appalling sex education in our country (or lack there of). For more info, please check out the recent Federally Funded Abstinence Only Education Programs report for current and ongoing problems of teaching our children abstinence only. How are children supposed to stay safe when there are people out there like Tina Marie Holewinski saying things like:

• there are cancer-causing agents in latex condoms


• 80% of teenage girls who seek abortions are already on birth-control pills


• the human papilloma virus is small enough to pass through condoms


• condoms lead to cancer


• birth control pills are only 20 percent effective


• sexually transmitted diseases are spread by skin contact alone

Other *shocking* news that reporters are eating up in response to this is that Lynne, Britney and Jamie Lynn's mom, postponed her book on parenting. Lynne comments that she was "very upset because it wasn't what she expected at all" but "a week after, she had time to cope with it and became very supportive." Give me a fucking break. Cope with it? Your child is pregnant. You should have taught her the importance of safe and protected sex because expecting that she remains abstinent is not an example of good parenting. Put that one in your book.

Since Jamie Lynn plays the lead role in Nickelodeon's Zoey 101, of course Nickelodeon released a statement: "We respect Jamie Lynn's decision to take responsibility in this sensitive and personal situation. We know this is a very difficult time for her and her family, and our primary concern right now is for Jamie Lynn's well being."

This get me totally fired up... "Jamie Lynn needs to take responsibility for this personal situation":

1. "Situation"? Apparently now being pregnant is a "situation." What Nickelodeon can't say the word "pregnant" or talk about S.E.X.? Maybe they should, maybe if Nickelodeon takes this opportunity to advocate the need of adequate sex ed it would really help teach young girls and boys about the birds and the bees...

2. Jamie Lynn is not alone "responsible" for getting pregnant thus making it simply a "personal" decision... which leads me to my next rant:

Here's my biggest problem with this whole thing:
Girls and women do not (usually) get pregnant on their own. There is barely any mention of the baby's dad, Casey Aldridge, who should take just as much responsibility for this child. Neither Casey nor Jamie Lynn should be shamed by the media for this because all it does is speak to the abysmal sex education in our country, however, Jamie Lynn is being shamed and targeted and Casey is not. Why isn't Casey the focus of news broadcasts and interviews about how "sad this situation is" and "how young they are?"

However much I try to make this a generalized example of teen moms, it just simply is not. Jamie Lynn Spears is a privileged and rich girl who will probably never face the worries of teenage parenting. She has the resources (specifically financially) to provide this baby anything it needs. This simply is not a generalizable example of the struggles of teen parenting. However, it is one of many other things such as: double standards, lack of adequate sex education, and privilege.

Guest Post by Dave, Bah-Humbug Edition...

Merry Christmas, now show me the cash. I am accused of being "the grinch" every Christmas season, but for good reason. I can't speak for all the other Jews out there in the world, but I know that because I'm technically not allowed to celebrate that I have a certain passing fancy for this holiday explosion between Thanksgiving and New Years. What is all the fuss about? I even went so far as to see the mighty tree in NY, which is quite large and light encrusted. Good work citizens of NY. Navigating through the haze of shopping bags made me wonder, like I do every year, about the why of Christmas.

As a young nerd in high school, I was coerced into celebrating the ancestor of Christmas, called Saturnalia, which is the harvest holiday used to bring the pagans towards Christianity. In other words, if you call it Christmas but keep similarities like parties and such, people will transition to the new religion. It worked. Contributions to Christmas also came from the Scandinavian holiday of Yule, which also involved lots of drinking, carousing, and merry-making. Sounds like fun, I'll admit. But wait, I thought Christmas was about the gifts? Ok, so there was this fellow named Jesus and he was supposedly born around this time, but that is just a continuation of the myth surrounding this holiday and has little to do with gift giving other than the wise men. In no way am I questioning the validity of Christianity or the belief in the Jesus as messiah, but I am very positive that the birthdate of Jesus is not Christmas. Apparently no one knows the actual birthdate.

Anyway, my beef with Christmas is the economics of the season. Check this out: "On December 6, 1999, the verdict for Ganulin v. United States (1999) declared that "the establishment of Christmas Day as a legal public holiday does not violate the Establishment Clause because it has a valid secular purpose." This "valid secular purpose" is part of the economic boom created during the period between the end of November and the end of December. Maybe you are familiar with the "Black Friday" or "Cyber Monday" or whatever else is popularized by the media as part of the boom. A large chunk of the economic output of our nation is packed into roughly one month of the year, and the pressure to provide is outpacing itself annually, much to my chagrin and disgust.

I speak not as someone arguing for a return to the meaning of the season (although that argument is entirely justified for Christians in an effort to reclaim this holiday as something meaningful to their religious experience), but as someone who hates junk.

The effect of the acclimation of all this junk is catastrophic. In a country already over-invested in the credit system, I watch as the public puts even more harsh strain on their credit. Even worse, the environmental impact is significant. Americans demand goods, and demand those goods at the lowest possible price, which means importing goods from countries that will do anything to keep prices low. Want a really excellent example of this in action? Look at China. Their environmental issues make Al Gore look like an ant waving in a football field. People are protesting over issues like hazardous chemical dumps in their backyard, but business is protected in a large part through the government (similar to America, but the leeway is much greater). Workers are pushed to the breaking point for inconceivably low wages. I have also heard the argument that these wages are the best in the region, but the human rights issue goes far beyond the difference in wages between these workers and everyone else. I know that everyone has heard about this kind of behavior and it almost appears maudlin, but the problem is that still no one seems to care until their children are poisoned with lead paint. Even then, the influx of goods is hardly lessened.

One perfect example is the sock trade in North Carolina...ok, its a strange example, but pertinent. The socks made in NC are now too expensive to make because of the stitching in the toe, so most socks are imported from China at the expensive of fossil fuels, carbon emissions, and the previously mentioned abuse of the workers involved. The difference in cost between American made sock stitching and Chinese stitching is barely a penny, but that one difference has placed many many many American sock factories into ruin.

Bottom line: pricing has destroyed our world and subjugated thousands into slave-like working conditions. Christmas is the worst example of consumerism I can think of, and therefore needs discussion. How important is all that stuff really?? Does the things make us happy? Where do the things go when we become tired of them? There is a ridiculous amount of debt created every year because of this one holiday, and it has to stop. The baseline want will always exist despite one's income. No one is decreasing their "wants", only working like mad to put out the small fires of desire for the next best thing to come along this week.

When did it happen that so much clutter was required to make someone feel successful, popular, or loved? I worked in a school where kids used their DCF money to buy over-priced shoes because they needed a way to push status on others. Forget necessities, a new pair of Jordan's will make anyone feel great...right? Isn't that the message? Buy stuff and have an identity? Who are we without all the stuff? Putting the mental energy into this kind of work is easily shoved aside because the answer is so simple: buy things and get an identity. Bottom-line pricing doesn't help, because now we have really cheap ways of creating identity, at the expense of others and our world.

Here is my holiday suggestion: get to know people around you and stop buying them things. Furthermore, stop buying things for yourself. Find out who you are without the obscuring clutter. Remove the want and regain your sanity. It sounds easy, but it is hard in practice because the advertising is everywhere. Drink Pepsi and you are this person. Watch Nip/Tuck and you are this person. Drive a Volkswagen and you are this person. The advertising isn't always literal, but the combination of all these messages is a shiny, and ultimately empty, version of humanity.

My plea again: put down the credit card and pick your brain for a while. I have heard so many people claim they are looking for themselves, but if you are looking for yourself, who is the you?


Oh yea, and, Merry Christmas.

Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee

Very few political figures have ever really scared me. I mean, really threatened everything I hold dear, stand for, and believe to be Just.
Cheney’s one. Mostly because he is the brains of the Bush operation, also because he’s shot someone… crazy stuff.
Another one is Mike Huckabee.

Below you will find many scary Huckabee-ings:

Reproductive Rights:
"I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering. I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned.

As Governor, I used that Amendment to pass pro-life legislation. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction. I banned partial birth abortion, I required parental notification, I required that a woman give informed consent before having an abortion, I required that a woman be told her baby will experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby, I allowed a woman to have her baby and leave the child safely at a hospital, and I made it a crime for an unborn child to be injured or murdered during an attack on his mother."

(I’m sorry, so you forced doctors to lie to women before able to perform a routine procedure? Awesome…)

Religion in Politics:
"My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives."

(he only uses the environment example because any other would be too controversial)

"I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life.

No other candidate has supported traditional marriage more consistently and steadfastly than I have. While Massachusetts was allowing homosexuals to marry, I got a constitutional amendment passed in Arkansas in 2002 defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I got Arkansas to become only the third state to adopt 'covenant' marriage. My wife Janet and I upgraded our vows on Valentine's Day, 2005. Today, many churches in Arkansas will perform only covenant marriages, so I'm hoping we'll see a decline in our divorce rates."

(I searched and searched but could not find that decline in divorce rates that Huckabee was talking about... weird...)

Immigration:
"I know that securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency. I am as sick and tired as you are that it is harder for us to get on an airplane in our home town than it is for all these illegals to cross our international border unchallenged.

We cannot stem the tide of illegals until we turn the tide. Before you fix the damage to your house caused by a leaking roof, you have to stop the leak, which I am determined to do."

(“We cannot stem the tide of illegals…” I’m sorry… wha wha what?)

"In this age of terror, immigration is not only an economic issue, but also a national security issue. We must know who is coming into our country, where they are going, and why they are here. All those who are caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported. As Governor, I ordered my state troopers to work with the Department of Homeland Security to arrest illegals and enforce federal immigration law.

I opposed the misnamed DREAM Act, which was a nightmare because it would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all. Because once we open that door even a crack, we'll never get it closed again."

(anyone who is so black and white on issues scares me, they leave no room for conversations on these enormously important topics)

"I oppose giving driver's licenses to illegals, such as Governor Spitzer tried to do in New York. I support legislation that would prevent the states from granting this privilege to illegals. In 2005, I signed legislation that prevents illegals in Arkansas from getting driver's licenses.
I will take our country back for those who belong here and those who are willing to play by the rules for the privilege to come here. No open borders, no amnesty, no sanctuary, no false Social Security numbers, no driver's licenses for illegals."

(“illegals” is not a word. Any way you slice it, illegal immigrants are people and should be given universal human rights. I won’t get into my opinions on immigration but I will say that Huckabee needs to find new vocab before I can take him seriously, because using the term “illegals” just doesn’t fly with me.)

War in Iraq:
"Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror."

(Once again let me state, you cannot wage a war on a concept. We might as well wage war on grumpiness and rain clouds…)

"Setting a timetable for withdrawal is a mistake. This country has never declared war until 'a week from Wednesday,' we have always declared war until victory.
I am focused on winning. Withdrawal would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis."

(And Mr. Huckabee, what pray-tell is “victory?”)

"As President, I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might.
The terrorists train in small, scattered groups. We can accomplish a great deal with swift, surgical air strikes and commando raids by our elite units.

We don't have a dog in the fight between Sunnis and Shiites - our enemy is Islamic extremism in all its guises."

(if you don’t like “slippery slopes,” this is a clear slippery slope if I ever saw one…)

"I will expand the army and increase the defense budget."

(this may scare me most of all…)

2nd Amendment:
"As Governor, I protected gun manufacturers from frivolous law suits.
I was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license."
(Lovely…)

Now, the issues above were directly from his campaign website. Here are some articles from recent news:

Documents Expose Huckabee's Role In Serial Rapist's Release:
I wish I were joking.

Huckabee’s thoughts on same-sex marriage:
Here’s an excerpt:

"I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."

(1. “the issue isn’t being against gay marriage it’s being for traditional marriage” what the fuck is the difference? 2. What’s a “basic family structure” because if he is defining a nuclear family as a mom, dad, two kids, a dog, and a white-picket fence he’s gonna have to outlaw single parenting, fostering kids, parents who are childless by choice, and many many other “situations” that I consider very much a “family.” And 3. “never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived” haha, what?! Did he really just say that… read a history book sir before you spew nonsense and run for president.)

Thoughts on sex ed:
"I Do Not Believe in Teaching About Sex or Contraception in Public Schools"
Of course you don’t…

And last but not least, brought to you by Fox News (I know, I couldn’t believe it either):
"A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ"
I am certainly glad i'm not his wife...

Because I try to see both sides of issues and keep an open mind, this is the only thing that makes him the smidge bit cool, on a personal level:
Huckabee, 51, enjoys playing bass guitar in his rock-n-roll band, Capitol Offense, which has opened for artists such as Willie Nelson and the Charlie Daniels Band, and has played the House of Blues in New Orleans, the Red Rocks Amphitheater in Denver, CO and for two presidential inauguration balls.

And the only policy that makes me hate him a bit less, on a selfish level (even if it's for the wrong reasons…)
"I am a steadfast supporter of Israel, our staunch ally in the War on Terror, the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East, and our greatest friend in that region.
The United States must remain true to its long-standing commitment to the Israeli people.
As President, I will always ensure that Israel has access to the state-of-the-art weapons and technology she needs to defend herself from those who seek her annihilation."
(why is Israel a “she”?)