This woman won't vote for the woman

It's times like these--in the midst of a hotly contested national election that brings up all sorts of social debates--that I realize how insulated each of us is from our fellow citizens. Certainly, this is a little extra true for those of us living in Madison, but I'd argue that it also applies to people living in towns, great and small, all across the country. It's difficult enough, after all, to keep up with the pulse of your own community--let alone an entire nation made up of hundreds of different demographics and opinions.

So it is that I find myself feeling especially perplexed and troubled by the current political climate. I've been energized by the Obama campaign, with it's high new voter registration numbers (especially with my generation) and long lists of small donors. But ever since McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate, I've been bumping head-on into the other side of this country's reality coin: there seem to be an awful lot of people out there who either think they should be able to legislate their morality for everyone else, or simply don't pay enough attention to really know the truth about an issue or candidate.

See, I can at least understand a person's reason for supporting the McCain-Palin ticket if they're vehemently anti-abortion, for the continuation of the Iraq war, not so sure about climate change, and like what the Republicans, in general, have been up to in Washington for the last 8 years. Even though I'd disagree with them on all of those points, I'd at least get where they were coming from.

It is the so-called "swing voter" and other less far-right folk, who've now stated a preference for the McCain-Palin ticket, that I just don't get. Especially among women! Why? I'll explain by laying out why I, even though a fellow "vagina American" to Palin, will be voting Obama come November 4.

• Both John McCain and Sarah Palin are strongly pro-life, and support overturning Roe v. Wade.
• McCain favors making the Bush tax cuts (the ones that overwhelmingly support only the wealthiest Americans) permanent, and reducing the corporate tax rate.
• Both McCain and Palin are against the legalization of same-sex marriage, and support state constitutional amendments to ban them outright.
• Palin is pro-capital punishment. McCain is too, and wants to see its use expanded.
• McCain supported and voted for the new FISA legislation that granted retroactive immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping program (to be fair, Obama caved in and did so, too).
• Palin claims to be a crusader for cutting unecessary government costs, saying over and over that she was against the "Bridge to Nowhere" and such - and she does get credit for a few such actions, but the bridge is not one of them. She campaigned for governor on a pro-bridge platform, and only redirected funds for it after it became clear that it wouldn't be politicly expedient. Furthermore, while she doesn't seem to want the state to pay for much, she's all for the federal government giving them big handouts.
• Palin backs abstinence-only sex education programs, stating that "explicit sex ed programs will not find my support." McCain has voted to increase funding for abstinence-only programs.
• McCain supports a Constitutional ban on desecration of the American flag, even though this flies in the face of everything for which it stands.

And it goes on and on. McCain has voted in line with Bush 95% of the time, including on things like voting no on a proposed repeal of tax subsidies for companies that move jobs overseas, and voting to make declaring bancruptcy more difficult for individuals. He also seems to have a rather schizophrenic relationship with environmental issues, having supported certain clean energy initiatives and expansion of protected lands, but now pulling a complete reversal and supporting an end to the moratorium on off-shore drilling, incorrectly claiming that such a move would help relieve prices at the pumps in the near future.

I think it's worth noting that I'm not 100% anti-McCain (Palin I can't say for sure, because there's still so little we actually know about her, her opinions, her experience, and her knowledge--but in general, I don't much care for what I've seen). The man has worked for some good causes and legislation in the past, and, at least until very recently, was generally one of the less noxious Republicans in national office. Back in 2004, he seemed to me to be closer to what Republicans used to be (honest-to-goodness fiscally conservative, socially moderate) and not what they had become/been hijacked into being (fiscally irresponsible, socially extremely conservative). A lot of that has since changed, but even if it hadn't, I'd still like the Obama-Biden ticket better.

Why? Because Barack Obama proposes smart, long-term clean energy solutions and tax incentives for companies working toward them. He encourages civic duty and service. He's pro-choice (and enjoys a 100% positive rating from NARAL), and though personally moderate about same-sex marriages, opposes a federal amendment to ban them. Obama supports comprehensive sex education programs that emphasize both abstinence and good contraceptive access, etc. He wants to set a timetable for a measured, responsible withdrawal from Iraq, and a refocusing of our energies on actually bringing Osama bin Laden and his supporters to justice in Afghanistan. Obama wants to end the tax subsidies for companies that send jobs overseas, as well as cap farm subsidies for Fortune 500 companies. And the list goes on and on.

In light of all that, I don't feel any further need to defend my decision, or to defend against spurious claims that many McCain-Palin supporters are making that any and all attacks or criticisms of the ticket (Palin more specifically) are based only on personal misgivings, sexism, or fear. I don't want McCain or Palin in the White House because I have fundamental disagreements with their political positions on most every level. For Palin in particular, I don't believe she has the general knowledge or wherewithall to hold that high an office. Given a few more years in publc service, I might change my mind. But the fact that she had to be sequestered with campaign foreign policy experts and the like for a week of cramming doesn't bode well for her awareness of the issues facing the world around her. Heck, even I know that Freddie and Fannie are privately held companies.

So can we cut the bullshit? First off, people have every right to disagree with any of the candidates on the issues, and to question whether they would be fit for office, without immediately being accused of sexism, racism, or anything else of the sort. We all deserve a chance to put our feet in our mouths before any such names are called. Secondly, can we please get some real, tough journalism going with all of the candidates? Make them answer questions, and hold them accountable for any truth twisting or outright lying. Make them talk about the big issues that matter, and showcase what, if any, knowledge they have about them. Fuck off with the softballs (I'll be watching you, Gibson), and especially with questions about their families and churches.

That shouldn't be a lot to ask--it should be par for the course in a country that claims to want/have an educated electorate and free, fair elections. Sadly, however, we seem to have arrived at a place where we the citizens need to kick and scream for every scrap of real information and balanced, informative coverage we can get.

And while I'm kicking and screaming, I'll be trying to keep my eyes turned outward and uninsulated in an attempt come to terms with those folks who so vehemently want to tell me what particular moral/religious code by which to live. They can't all be inherently bad people. I simply refuse to believe that. So I'm left at square one: why?

The iron men (and women) of Wisconsin

Every year, a sea of finely toned, well-trained triathletes descend on our humble city to participate in one of the world's most difficult races: the Wisconsin Ironman.

A qualifier for the big show in Hawaii, the Wisconsin Ironman race involves a 2.4 mile swim, followed by 112 miles of biking and a 26.2 mile marathon through the streets of Madison. To say this is a daunting task would be a vast understatement.

In year's past, my only real experience with this race came from trying to avoid it: "Oh man, don't go downtown today, it's Ironman and farmers market and a Badger game day!" This year, however, I decided to go check out the whole shebang, as up close as I could get without actually being affiliated with the race or any of its participants.

So at 6:00AM on Sunday morning, as the sun rose over clear skies and cool air, I rolled out of bed and made my way down to the Monona Terrace to catch the swim start. There was already a massive mob of spectators clogging the best vantage points (I got there a bit later than I ought to have), but I managed to sidle in atop a planter on the terrace roof for a good view of the churning, people-filled water below. It was quite a sight, serving to remind me, quite starkly, that I am not a great swimmer.

We then watched the first clump of racers out of the water running barefoot toward their bikes, then flying down one of the corkscrew parking ramps and out onto John Nolen Dr. for the next leg. So many pretty bikes, so little time!

Having gotten a tip about a good spot to watch the bikers coming up an incredibly steep hill, we drove out into the wilds of Middleton's far west side and went to snap more photos. Said hill was also well populated with spectators, all cheering wildly as each racer made their way up the daunting incline. We saw reams of custom-made "team" t-shirts supporting this or that participant: families and friends all out to show their support for what must have been months, if not years, of training and preparation. Nothing against the pro athletes who run these races, but I got a special kick out of seeing so many "amateurs" giving it their all, and getting special kudos from the assembled crowd.

After the hill (and lunch), we then headed back downtown to watch the final leg of the race: the marathon. Wandering up and down State St., I marveled at the fact that these runners had already done so much that day prior to hitting the pavement. Heck, I'm no slouch in the athletic department, but this was taking things to a level of which I have absolutely no comprehension. It was really impressive.

I managed to catch the top three women finish the race, as well as a handful of the under-10-hour men, and the joy/relief visible on so many faces was palpable and infectious. Perhaps most touchingly, we watched what I can only assume was a father/daughter duo come jogging toward the finish line, hand-in-hand. Talk about setting a good example for your kids!

All in all, it was a spectacular day to be outside, and an entertaining (and motivating) event to watch. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to all those who finished, regardless of time.

See more photos from the race at my Flickr photo set (more coming soon, too!).

What the hell?

Seriously.

Not that I was ever super on-board to begin with, but when Palin was first picked to run as McCain's VP, she came off as somewhat of a moderate. I've now been made aware of just how forced that clever obfuscation is/was. And yet, and yet--some otherwise perfectly decent folks still seem strangely inclined to support the McCain/Palin ticket. I really just don't understand that. Maybe I'm giving people too much credit again.

Sigh.

On a more positive note, Rep. Barney Frank is right on the money, and I wish more people would understand the argument he's making.

UPDATE TO ADD: Found this great resource of Palin myths the media has done little to debunk, courtesy of Media Matters. Much needed illumination that ought to get far more mainstream daylight.

Sunday Brunch: Rasputin

A friend of mine stumbled onto this gem of a song the other day, and I feel absolutely compelled to spread the joy.

Grigori Rasputin: the "mad monk" of Russia, spiritual adviser to the last Tsar and his family, hard man to kill, and, I think most noteworthy, inspiration for one totally rad song.

First, the original, as performed by German pop group Boney M:


Then, the equally awesome folk-metal take on it by Turisas:



Enjoy!

Shaking it up at the 911 center

Lots of news about the Dane County 911 center this week, both as reported by the WSJ.

First, Kathleen Falk and Joe Norwick's budget priorities are shot down by the center's own board:

Falk has proposed borrowing $163,000 next year to buy police dispatch software that would allow 911 operators to get more information from callers, send the optimal police resources and improve quality control checks on police calls.

But the 911 board, which advises the 911 director on budget matters, voted 8-1 to remove the software from next year's budget proposal and spend the money instead on replacing the center's outdated computer dispatch system.

Second, Norwick resigns, this coming months after his resignation was originally called for over his less-than stellar handling of the Brittany Zimmermann case.

From my outsider's perspective, it's obviously difficult to figure out exactly what's going on. I can only hope that, whatever comes of all this shakin' up, it does something to improve the way in which our 911 center handles calls, and to improve the working conditions for those dispatchers.

Judging by these two articles, though, it would appear that there are some serious differences of opinion and priority between the center's board and the county leadership, namely Falk and Norwick. To be fair, after Falk first proposed borrowing money to upgrade the dispatch system, she agreed to add a plan to borrow money for upgrading the actual computers used in the center once concerns were raised by the board about the aging infrastructure.

So why not do both?

Norwick said the center is already taking on other major projects next year including a new $30 million countywide radio system, a redesign of the 911 center that will increase the number of consoles from 13 to 18 and the addition of nine more staff.

"To complete a (computer system assessment) is going to be tough enough," Norwick said.

Maybe his resignation, and the subsequent hiring of a (hopefully) more qualified director, will lead to a different response to this issue, something like "It's going to be tough, but we'll do it because it's important."

UPDATE TO ADD: I almost completely missed this story from Isthmus and dogged reporter Jason Shepard regarding the center oversight board's failure to do performance evaluations on Norwick. D'oh.

What's the word again?

I don't think I could have made this point any better:


If you haven't caught any of the Daily Show's coverage of the DNC and RNC, you owe it to yourself to hit the backlog. Despite, or perhaps because of, being a "fake news" show, I have to say that it continues to present some of the most biting, on-point, and informative commentary on the state of modern politics and culture that can be found anywhere in this country. There's a reason so many of my generation turn to it.

This isn't to say that if you don't watch it there's something wrong with you. I'm just saying that I think its popularity, at very least, is a thing worth paying attention to in and of itself.

What makes a woman

Criticizing Dave Blaska's logic is a lot like shooting fish in a barrel: it's easy to do, and more tempting than it ought to be.

I had to stop myself for a moment and decide whether or not it was really worth my time to tackle his latest blog opus, re: Sarah Palin, because I'm a little burned out by arguing the same points over and over again and never seeming to get anywhere because Blaska, and others making similar cases, seems to have his fingers shoved firmly into his ear holes.

Then it occurred to me, though, that there are an alarmingly large number of people out there who agree with Blaska's take on things, and have their own many and varied reasons for doing so. It would be incredibly naive (and a little condescending) of me to simply dismiss this reality outright. So here I am, criticizing another of Blaska's blogs. I beg your induldgence.

I disagree vehemently with most of what he argues in his post, but most offensive of his assertions is certainly this:

[Palin] made it clear that the Democrats are only the party of some women, the party for whom Down’s syndrome son Trig, whom she held onstage after her speech, would be a "choice."

As a staunchly pro-choice woman, I run into this harsh misperception (or blatant accusation) a lot. I can understand that the issue gets people hot under the collar--it certainly does for me. But take a step back for a minute and think about this: Blaska is trying to say that every pro-choice person regards a mentally handicapped baby as something to consider getting rid of, simply because it has said disability. That's appauling and so, so wrong that I hardly even know where to begin. I shouldn't even have to defend myself here, it's so ridiculous.

Let me put it plainly: being pro-choice does not equal being pro-abortion. It means, very simply, that you believe the decision as to whether or not a pregnancy should be seen to term should be left up to the mother first, informed doctors and family members second, and the federal government only in the most extreme cases of mental incompetence on the part of the involved parties.

I can think of very few (nay, none) of my pro-choice friends who are pro-abortion. Most of them, if faced with that unthinkable scenario and decision, would likely choose to see the pregnancy through. But thankfully, most of my friends have loving, supportive family and friends and lives of relative security. That is not the case with all, or even most, women who end up in this situation. Many end up in that terrible place as the result of poverty, lack of a good education, poor family life, abuse, etc. Palin's daughter is lucky to have a supportive family to help her through this big change in her life. Not everyone is so fortunate.

There is common ground between pro-choice and pro-life supporters, believe it or not. All of us, I would argue, want to see a decline in the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. For pro-choice advocates, that means better and more comprehensive sex education for our youth, better and more comprehensive maternal and child care programs in our cities and states, better work leave deals for new moms and fathers, and so forth. Because what most of us recognize is that people are always going to have sex. It's a human imparative. The best we can do is to arm our children with the self respect, decision making abilities, and thorough knowledge of how to take care of themselves so as to hopefully avoid these kinds of situations all-together.

The big problem, it would seem, is the deep anxiety and fear that many of us still feel about sex, especially outside of marriage. I suppose that's a whole other issue for a whole other post, though, so I'm going to attempt to get back onto my original tack here.

In addition to accusing pro-choice liberals of viewing disabled children as disposable, Blaska also seems to think that most of us Obama voters secretly hate strong women like Sarah Palin. I won't pretend to speak for everyone, but I feel confident in saying that the vast majority of folks on both sides of this political race don't give a rats ass about Palin's gender.

I don't. What I do care about are her policy ideas, her record, her experience. I disagree with Palin (and McCain) on almost every single issue they've brought up. That's why I won't be voting for that ticket come November, and that's what I'd hope most people would take into consideration when they walk into their voting booths.

One other not-so quick point I'd like to make about Blaska's post--and it's a theme that's come up throughout the right-leaning media coming to Palin's defense since she was picked--is this idea that, to be truly feminine, a woman must be raising a family. Frankly, if you're looking for something to shout "sexism!" about, that would be it.

I think family is incredibly important, but a husband and children are not required to define and strengthen a woman. This goes for men, too. Can we draw inferences about a person's character from their family life? Certainly, but it cuts both ways, and I really, really don't believe that it should be the make-or-break of whether or not someone is fit for public service. Take a look at our politicians in general, and you will find a diverse sea of divorces, infidelities, long-term committments, children, no children, gay and straight. Just like the rest of the country.

Sarah Palin could have been a no make-up wearing, single person and it wouldn't have made a lick of difference to me. The sad truth, however, is that I strongly suspect it would have made a difference in how she was treated in the political sphere. Would that be true of a man? I don't know, but history suggests not.

So to Blaska and others who share his opinions, I honestly want to ask you this: do you really believe that those of us who don't support McCain/Palin are just a bunch of baby hating, woman subjugating, fearful little pansies? Because if so, we've all got a lot more work to do than I thought.

For what it's worth, just because someone is pro-life, conservative, etc., doesn't mean I immediately assume them to be a heartless, oppressive jerk. And they usually aren't. Frankly, we'd all do well to make that more clear when we debate the issues.

(edit to add: For further Palin reading, and just generally insightful and well-written blogging from an Alaskan perspective, I'd like to heartily recommend Mudflats.)