tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80711729105664962492024-03-13T06:49:31.806-07:00The exposition is happening now!Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.comBlogger141125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-71145987448718623692014-07-29T12:38:00.001-07:002014-07-29T12:38:16.485-07:00Not knowing stuff<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/paul_ryan_s_anti_poverty_plan_the_house_budget_chairman_s_paternalistic.html">This article</a> by Jamelle Bouie makes me realize how little I actually understand poverty. I did know that most people who need food stamps only need them for a short length of time, but it surprises me that only about 3.5% of the population counted as impoverished for the entirety of 2009-2011. That seems hopeful, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
Also, I've seen a couple places that if <a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5901437/six-californias-explained">this crazy 6 Californias plan</a> could actually come to fruition, I would suddenly find myself a resident of the poorest state in the country. This...makes me rethink a lot of what I think I know about Mississippi. But I think there's also some important questions that need to be answered before I understand what that statistic really means. Would the median household in "Central California" be poorer than the median household in Mississippi...or are there just a more significant number of very rich people in Mississippi that pull up the mean? Are poor Central Californians better off overall, despite low incomes, because of a more expansive (better?) safety net financed by the richer parts of the state/a more liberal political culture? Even though this area is obviously not rich, I definitely don't go through life viewing my neighbors as some of the most unfortunate people in the country...so either the country is much better off than I thought it was, or there's something extra at play here.Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-77998850159204010252014-07-28T10:28:00.001-07:002014-07-28T10:39:41.413-07:00Advanced Baby Names, ctd.I've been thinking about what I mean by "advanced baby naming." What I most definitely do not mean is finding better baby names than the stupid names the plebeians are giving to their children (and to repeat, this is a sentence about what I don't mean, so I DO NOT THINK that the plebeians are giving their children stupid names)...although it can be hard not to stick your foot in your mouth, because there is such a fascinating socioeconomic element to baby names but its impossible to get into specifics without insulting someone. If someone could help me find a perfectly positive way to say "Your choice is so atypical of college educated parents! Please tell me more about your background because I'm intrigued!" I would really really appreciate it. I think what I do mean is a conversation about baby names in which the ultimate goal is not to pick a name for a specific real or even hypothetical baby. It could be a conversation about people names, even...but specifically about the process of parents choosing what to name their children.<br />
<br />
So take, for example, unisex names. Parents who pick a name for their child - and for now I'm thinking mostly about daughters - that could be used for the opposite sex often are going for a certain effect. They might be envisioning/assuming/hoping that their child will be a bit of a tomboy. They might like that it seems daring. They might think a masculine name will make people take their child more seriously. Or they might be going for contrast. Being named something like Alex can underscore a person's natural femininity.<br />
<br />
I found a peer reviewed article at one point (trying to find it to provide a link) that found that in the 1980s, college educated mothers were especially likely to masculinize their daughter's name...pick Lauren over Laura, for example. This seems to track with 1980s feminism pretty well to me. My question is whether that trend for unisex names is like shoulder pads...something that is eventually going to go out of style...or fairly constant in their appeal.<br />
<br />
The first way to look at this is just look for popular unisex names across generations.*<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>2013: Five definitely unisex names in the top 20 (Addison, Madison, Avery, Harper and Aubrey), and one that might have counted as unisex historically (Evelyn)</li>
<li>1983: Three: Erin, Kimberly, and Ashley </li>
<li>1953: The only even kind of unisex name I can find in the top 20 is Carol...but Carol was a reasonably common name for men in the generation before, so I'm counting it.</li>
<li>1933: Five...Shirley, Jean, Joyce, Frances, Carol</li>
<li>1903: Only Frances</li>
</ul>
<div>
So unisex is definitely having a moment right now and is a more significant trend than it has been since my grandmother's generation. But what I'd really like to do is go out and interview parents from each of these generations and figure out WHY they liked the names that they liked. Did they imagine the Carols growing up to be assertive and confident? Was Jean supposed to be good at sports? Or was Jean supposed to look <a href="http://jnpickens.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jean-harlow2.jpg">like this</a>. While being good at sports? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
*My process for picking out unisex names is to first pick the names I think have been used for boys at some point in the recent past, and then to verify using the SSA database. I did not verify that names like Elizabeth are <i>not</i> unisex, so I could have conceivably made some errors there. Also I didn't consider that parents wanting a boyish name for their daughter might name her Patricia and call her Pat...which is definitely an oversight, but I don't know what to do about it. But I did count names that had a feminine spelling but identical pronunciation to a male name (Erin, Jean).</div>
Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-67200397545191827402014-07-25T09:12:00.002-07:002014-07-25T09:12:57.803-07:00Advanced Baby Name DiscussionAlright, so last time around I claimed I was ready for advanced baby name discussion. So here's an attempt:<br />
<br />
I've been thinking recently about the concept of a "cool" name. People have all kinds of motivations for picking a particular name for their baby, but coolness is definitely one of them. But then, coolness is also generally considered to be generational...parents are inherently uncool. So how can a name picked by parents to be cool be cool?<br />
<br />
One theory is something that I think we already kind of know....coolness really isn't that generational. Kids who are cool usually have parents who were cool (and kids who aren't cool usually have parents who weren't cool) so the cool names of any generation are going to be whatever names the cool people of the previous generation like. They teach their kids what to like, and so its a self fulfilling prophesy.<br />
<br />
Another theory is related, but not necessarily exactly the same...there is no such thing as a cool name. Cool kids make their names cool. You can give your kid the exact same name as the most badass badass in school, and on that kid it will seem cool and on your kid it won't.<br />
<br />
And then the last theory is that the actual cool names are normal names. Trying for coolness is doomed.<br />
<br />
In practice, thinking this all through requires remembering what names I thought were cool when I was in elementary - high school. I'm pretty sure in elementary school, the coolest name that anyone I actually knew had was Melissa. I have no idea why I liked it. I was a dork and wanted to turn it into a name that was more unique and special, so I discovered Millicent, and that was my "favorite" name for a while...but really I liked Melissa. And then by high school, I'm pretty sure it was Joanna (plus some of the completely un-Americanized names my classmates had, but I think those have to go in a different category because liking them didn't make them part of the menu of options I had for naming my own kids, at least by my interpretation of what the "rules" are). So I guess that's overall a vote for normal-for-their-generation names. Melissa I think also hints at a preference for newer names...none of my classmates' moms were named Melissa. Joanna (the 88th most popular name in my birth year vs. number 8 for Melissa) I think shows a growing appreciation for timelessness and not being too popular. Both are three syllable, melodic names...of exactly the type I didn't have or give my daughters. Neither one is cool specifically because of the person/people I knew who had it.<br />
<br />
I'm not going to list the uncool names, because that's just mean...but they definitely tended to be attached to just one person, and just one person I didn't think was especially cool. I can think of plenty of instances of a unusual name seeming normal because the person with it was so normal or was someone I was close to, but none where I thought someone was a complete dork but had an awesome name. I can actually kind of remember some cognitive dissonance in this area. There were names I wanted to like because they were unique or old fashioned, but I just kind of didn't. (And again, not talking about anyone I was ever close to here...this only seems to work for people who the main thing you know about them is their name).<br />
<br />
But obviously, I wasn't really the arbitrar of cool growing up, so my sample size of one is pretty useless. <br />
<br />
Oh, and ironically...the coolest name I ever liked as a kid by my current standards would have been the one I picked when I was about three and decided to name all my dolls Alice after my great-aunt.Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-35100313245934631672014-07-17T15:55:00.003-07:002014-07-17T15:55:59.515-07:00Finding stuff you like.I've been feeling a bit like I've hit the end of the internet lately, so on a whim I started reading <a href="http://www.swistle.com/">the actual blog</a> of a woman whose baby name blog I check. (There's a lot of admissions in that statement, primarily that I read baby name blogs. I find them pretty interesting but I think I've graduated to advanced baby name discussion and there actually isn't a place on the internet for that, that I've found. Maybe I'll try to start it here, all by my lonesome, talking to myself). It's turning out to be the kind of thing that I want to email links from to Ryan to give him insight into my inner being. I like the writer's openness. She writes a lot, and obviously thinks a lot...not in a pretentious, every-insight-I-have-is-a-rare-gem kind of way, but in a way that you can imagine becoming exhausting for the people around her. But I think I prefer that risk of being exhausting to the carefully curated risk-free version of life on facebook where people only speak in witty one liners. It makes me miss livejournal. (So here I am, updating my blog).Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-60186313994539578702014-04-02T07:23:00.001-07:002014-04-02T07:28:47.375-07:00Jon Chait and Ta-Nehisi Coates do battle.A while back, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote something that I remember singing the praises of for a few weeks, about challenging yourself intellectually by taking on the very best arguments of your opposition, and not letting yourself getting distracted by the weakest. Apparently, the guy practices what he preaches, because recently when people were piling on Paul Ryan for saying something about how the urban poor could help themselves by abandoning their self destructive poor people ways, Ta-Nehisi walked right past Paul Ryan and threw his glove at Barack Obama, who habitually says not dissimilar things in a slightly different context and tone. And then Jonathan Chait, who might be my second favorite writer after Ta-Nehisi, took up the glove (that's how duels work, right? I'm a little fuzzy on the mechanics) for the honor of Barack Obama and all progressive kind, and the two have been going back and forth on the issue ever since.<br />
<br />
Two incredibly smart people are publicly debating one of the most sensitive and volatile issues of liberalism, putting themselves out there in a way that kind of terrifies me. You should go watch.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-secret-lives-of-inner-city-black-males/284454/">The Secret Lives of Inner City Black Males</a><br />
<a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/obama-ta-nehisi-coates-poverty-and-culture.html">Barack Obama, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Poverty and Culture</a><br />
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/black-pathology-and-the-closing-of-the-progressive-mind/284523/">Black Pathology and the Closing of the Progressive Mind</a><br />
<a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/barack-obama-vs-the-culture-of-poverty.html">Barack Obama vs. the Culture of Poverty</a><br />
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/other-peoples-pathologies/359841/">Other Peoples' Pathologies</a><br />
<a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/coates-disagrees-with-jonathan-chait-so-do-i.html">Ta-Nehisi Coates disagrees with 'Jonathan Chait' and so do I</a><br />
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2014/04/the-blue-period-an-origin-story/359968/">The Blue Period: An Origin Story</a>Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-74837765632741075772014-03-16T10:05:00.000-07:002014-03-16T10:05:17.927-07:00Veronica Mars Movie!No idea if anyone is still reading this, or if the list of people who might still be reading this in any way overlaps with the list of people who care about Veronica Mars...but one thing I've realized about myself is that I have a compulsive need to talk through my ideas, and an audience is nice, but not 100% necessary. So here goes (with spoilers, of course).<br />
<br />
1) I thought they did a really good job letting Logan grow up. When I heard that the central premise was him being accused of murder (again) because his girlfriend had been found dead (again) I thought it was a pretty discouraging sign. If Logan ten years later is the same directionless kid, hanging out with the Casablancases of the world because they won't ask him any hard questions...that kind of cuts into his attractiveness. On the other hand though, if they gave him a happy life with a serious girlfriend and then killed her off, I'm pretty sure the only realistic way to portray the aftermath would be a padded room, or Veronica trying to clear his name after he committed suicide. Either way, no looking forward to the romantic chemistry between him and Veronica. But the relationship they gave him to Carrie Bishop made sense to me, as did the idea that his involvement in previous murders would make him especially vulnerable to being framed. I also think the military is a pretty perfect fit for him. In Seasons Two and Three, it's really striking how very very alone he is...I get mad at Keith for throwing him out of his house when he fights with Veronica, not so much because that's not the right way to react to someone losing their temper at his daughter, but because I feel like an adult man should realize that what Logan needs is not to be thrown out but to be taken in, and that if he doesn't want that burden falling on Veronica maybe there's a role for him there. I don't honestly know much about life inside the Armed Forces, but I hear that the sense of belonging is one of the real positives. Logan is obviously intelligent, but he's more motivated by bravery. It seemed obvious as soon as they showed him in the uniform. So good job there.<br />
<br />
2) Grown up Veronica made slightly less sense to me. I think they probably could have fleshed this out better with more time...it's bizarre how short a movie seems after a TV season. The closest they got was the conversations between her and her dad about success and respect, but I wish they could have fit in a conversation with Piz about their future plans too. I actually liked grown-up Piz, and after rewatching the third season have more of an appreciation of how his character is meant to be conscientious and idealistic in a less embattled way than Veronica herself. I didn't like the premise they used to break her and him up, it felt artificial...but also like there was also just a lot of detail left out. (They apparently broke up for a while and then got back together? They're serious but she hasn't met his parents? He's got a hipster dream job and she's going for corporate sellout?)<br />
<br />
3) Speaking of the breakup...one of the real strengths of the series to me is the way that friendships intermingle and get even footing with romantic relationships. Logan maintains his feelings for Lilly while falling in love with Veronica, they both still manage to care about Duncan while falling for each other, Duncan and Veronica have obligations to Logan as his friends even though she's broken up with him and he's stolen his exgirlfriend, and then the same dynamic plays out with Meg, Jackie struggles to understand why Wallace is so committed to a friend instead of "the girl he makes out with", Parker worries about dating Logan without endangering her nascent friendship with Veronica, and Wallace and Weevil both have their issues with Logan that are much more motivated by friendship than jealousy. And then Piz breaks up with Veronica because he can't understand why she's prioritizing keeping Logan out of prison over meeting his parents. Without more context on their relationship it's hard to say for sure, but it's hard to picture Veronica in a serious relationship with someone who gets threatened when his girlfriend cares too much about her male friends. Sure, Logan is not just a friend but an epic love...but she hadn't seen him in nine years, since freshman year of college. (Also, Eli had just gotten shot the day before...is that not a reasonable reason to stay an extra day?)<br />
<br />
4) And Eli. It really bugs me in Season Three how Eli is supposedly trying to get his life on track, and Veronica keeps asking him to steal one more car or commit some other crime for completely petty reasons. Sure, if he gets caught, his life is pretty much over...but Madison St. Clair is such a bitch! It seemed unrealistic; oblivious to the rest of the way Eli's character is written as an insightful human being who sees the trade offs and compromises of his environment. I feel the same way about the writers putting him back on a motorcycle at the end of the movie. I get that they're putting everyone back in Neptune and in a facsimile of their original role for possible sequels...but Eli deserves to grow up at least as much as Logan does, and not just be a plot device for when Veronica needs some crime done. (Wallace completely refusing to steal a school file though? That was pretty awesome.)<br />
<br />
5) I have similar feelings about the fight at the reunion. I can see why the writers wanted it...it makes a great clip for the trailer, it's one of the few moments of character development that Piz gets, and it provides some nostalgia for fans. But I think it kind of undermined Logan's character development. He's handling being accused of his ex-girlfriend's murder with restraint and maturity, doesn't make stupid decisions to get in trouble anymore, but starts throwing punches at the sight of Veronica's ancient history sex tape? Who did he even find to punch? Not Madison obviously. I think I would have liked the scene better if they had let Piz throw the first punch...or if that's too out of character, maybe Wallace or even Dick. Eli's wife? Pretty much anyone. As is, it comes across as a mindless replay of the TV series' greatest hits. (Same with Veronica and Logan's big kiss. I'm not sure what else they could have done, but I'm pretty sure the scene would have had more impact if it had been less like their first big kiss).Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-36145718848455807942013-05-25T09:19:00.001-07:002013-05-25T09:19:50.827-07:00All she wrote.She as in Charlaine Harris. And I guess specifically in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, since I think she intends to write more in other series. There should probably be some kind of spoiler alert here too.<br />
<br />
So! I now know the end of the Sookie Stackhouse saga. Or one of the ends. Maybe True Blood will eventually end up in the same place, but if it does the route will have been so entirely different that it'd be hard to really call it the same. I'm like 90% satisfied with how Charlaine Harris decided to leave the series. It made sense. It seemed like there had been an intentional and overarching theme to the series all along. Sam says something about the realization that he's just a man that happens to be a shifter, and I think the same applies to Sookie too. The beginning of the series is all about how alienated she is from regular people because of her telepathy, and how it's just natural for her to be dating vampires. This book is almost kind of a homecoming. Nobody in Bon Temps ever really suspects her...except for the ones that have been hexed...because even though she's a little odd they know she's good people. People come to her rescue from all over. In the end she's rescued by a whole bunch of very regular humans. Turns out she's not such a misfit after all.<br />
<br />
There are things I liked about Eric's exit, and things I didn't like. Sending him off to play the part of subservient husband is pretty interesting, especially because it's never suggested that the subservient role would be emasculating for him or undermine his attractiveness. (Go feminism!). I think it also contributes to the series' ability to make vampires "other" in ways that aren't purely about violence. How well can people who were born hundreds of years ago really adapt to modern day thinking? It's not so much that vampires are sadists as that their thinking is medieval or even pre-Christian. Which means that retribution is often swift and violent, and sometimes your romantic love story gets interrupted by a marriage for strategic alliance. On the other hand though, I feel like the thing about Eric always assuming Sookie would become a vampire was just added in to make their relationship double extra plus impossible, without much in the way of roots in earlier books. I'd have to go back and read some stuff again to be sure, but I seem to remember that vampire/vampire romance isn't really a thing. And the promise to keep Sam from talking to Sookie was just contrived and made no sense to me. But, given that Charlaine Harris has openly admitted that she's a little burned out on the series, I think she did a good job. And I respect her for actually finishing it. The great romantic moments might have been a little lacking, but there was some brainstorming on how to ditch a body, and Sookie's holding a grudge against a powerful vampire for ruining a piece of furniture. So I'm happy.Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-1527706164327113312013-04-04T09:09:00.002-07:002013-04-04T09:09:50.160-07:00Another year older...Oh hi it's my birthday...which is turning more into a meditative occasion for me as I get older rather than party + gifts day. Turns out it suits my personality better.<br />
<br />
I have a weird thing on facebook and birthdays. If I wish other people a happy birthday, I try to find a way to not do it on facebook...mostly because I don't trust myself to be consistent enough to not somehow put my foot in my mouth with that kind of performed friendship. I'd forget someone important while simultaneously remembering someone less important. I hate the decision making process of deciding whether that person I haven't legitimately talked to for over five years still makes the cut. So you get the point, no facebook birthdays.<br />
<br />
But then I feel guilty when other people wish me a happy birthday. So now my birthday isn't on facebook. Someone will out me eventually today, probably, but it may take a while. And did I mention the meditation? Because here's the thing. The person who outed me last year passed away later that same month. I remembered that - that she had been the one to out me - about an hour ago, and have been sitting here thinking about what it means to miss somebody and be sad that they're gone. It's this whole wrapped up bundle of change and sadness. If change is inevitable, does it make sense to be sad about it? And does being sad about something imply that you want to change it? I don't want to get too far into it right now, but this is something I've been thinking about off and on for a while. How do you find the right balance between accepting the world as it is and fatalism, or Panglossism...avoid the knee jerk reaction we have to "solve" or "explain" everything but still know when to take action when appropriate? It turns out be kind of a big question.<br />
<br />
And I'm a year older, and people don't live forever and the world is not perfectible. But overall life is pretty good.Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-11935940568163733782013-03-26T18:15:00.001-07:002013-03-26T18:15:12.880-07:00Charles Cooper's Barely Contained FertilityOne of my handicaps in life is that things that sound absurd to other people often make sense to me.<br />
<br />
For example, Charles Cooper's argument that older heterosexual couples need to be allowed to get married to restrain the fearsome procreative power of men over the age of 55. I mean, I'm not denying that the image is funny, especially since I feel safe in assuming that Cooper is himself over the age of 55 and the justices he was making the argument to most definitely were. But, if you're ok with abstract philosophical arguments about human behavior, it's not unreasonable. Adult human beings have a strong tendency to have sex. An imperfect but widely attempted strategy for controlling that tendency is to let everyone have one "right" person to have sex with while making it "wrong" to do with anyone else. Paul said in Corinthians that it was better to marry than to burn, in the <i>Good Earth</i> Wang Lung gets his sons wives to keep them from going to prostitutes. (Although it occurs to me that Wang Lung was not a real person and his story was created by Pearl S. Buck, so I'm not actually branching out of western culture here). So sure, I guess if marriage exists for the sole purpose of preventing illegitimate children, the marriage of a 55 year old, presumably fertile, man to a 55 year old, presumably infertile, woman has a legitimate role in that.<br />
<br />
But the problem is that the exact same logic applies to gay couples. Gay people are <i>capable</i> of procreative sex, after all. Assuming that no one ever has sex that contradicts their orientation is only slightly less naive than assuming people don't have sex unless they love each other and want to have babies together. Of course, this is the modern age and people have expectations about love and compatibility beyond gender that prevents making people get married from being a simple solution to any problem...but if conservatives are going to be going around claiming that making poor people get married is the solution to poverty, and making unwed mothers get married would eliminate gun crime, I don't see how they can deny that making gay people get married would prevent gay unplanned pregnancies.<br />
<br />Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-79052624694657623362013-03-16T09:05:00.000-07:002013-03-16T09:05:06.046-07:00Long time...I've been thinking lately that it would really be nice to have time to update this more. Thinking isn't necessarily going to make it so...it turns out motherhood is kind of demanding, timewise, and the reasons I wish I could update more are precisely the reasons it will be difficult. It's easy to keep facebook open in the background and like people's pictures and such when you might have to drop everything and change a diaper at any moment. It's quite a bit harder to spend time focusing on what exactly you want to say, looking up sources and data, and really scrutinizing your argument before you hit publish. But I miss the people in my life who find the second a more meaningful form of interaction than the first.<br />
<br />
Ironically, just as I've been thinking about this dilemma more and more, Google has decided to shut down Reader. Hopefully some other RSS feeder will step up, if we're really lucky it'll be one that allows following/sharing. But it's disconcerting, and a reminder of how much it sucked when following/sharing got shut off in the first place, and how passive I was about it. Not that I had any chance of changing the company's mind, but I didn't even vote with my feet. Of course, I'm not sure how much Google would have cared about me taking my non-paying business elsewhere.<br />
<br />
Because I read Andrew Sullivan's blog, and because he's been very fixated on "the future of journalism" lately...going independent and setting up his own subscription based site. I have not chipped in my $20 yet...I mean to, I think it's reasonable, but I'm lazy and poor. And I need to subscribe to the Merced Sun Star now too, which I think is even more reasonable. I'm heavily dependent on them every election when I'm trying to figure out how to vote on local candidates, and I really think they're a great local paper. And it's only 99 cents a month so...not too steep for my civic duty. But $20 a year here and $12 a year there is quickly going to eat up what I'm reasonably going to spend on online journalism, and it seems to tip the scales towards getting more of your information from one source if possible, which isn't the healthiest thing. I'd like to see "the future of journalism" go to some form of micropayments filtered through RSS feeders, personally. With a sharing function.<br />
<br />
And maybe free babysitting. Although actually, I'm in no way interested in reducing the number of hours I spend on childcare. I'd like to go to work less, but that would probably impact my ability to nobly expect to pay for the content I consume.Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-50918537112370367062012-11-09T19:55:00.001-08:002012-11-09T19:57:51.478-08:00An excuse to bring up Grover Cleveland...There's an interesting debate going on in the blogs I read about how the Republican party may need to change to attract more support next time around, particularly from non-whites. It's interesting, because there seem to be two basic schools of thought. The first is that the Republicans are a party with broadly appealing ideas that are <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/detoxifying-the-republican-party.html">basically held down by its association with the kind of people who are afraid of demographic change in this country.</a> The second is that the core ideas of the Republican party <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/08/ethnocentric_budget_politics_racists_love_medicare_and_social_security.html">aren't actually that broadly appealing at all</a>, but until now it's been possible to prop them up through association with the kind of people who are afraid of demographic change. If the first is true, all they need to do is compromise on immigration and gay marriage, get their candidates to stop accidentally saying racist things, and they'll be good to go. If the second is true, they're a lot more screwed.<br />
<br />
If you go back far enough, you can get to a time when the Republican party pro-business and anti-government spending, but not necessarily more (and generally less) pro-white supremacy than the Democratic party. And they were obviously successful at that point and won national elections. However, here's Grover Cleveland, the only Democrat elected president between the Civil War and 1913, talking about immigration in 1897:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A century's stupendous growth, largely due to the assimilation and
thrift of millions of sturdy and patriotic adopted citizens, attests the
success of this generous and free-handed policy which, while guarding
the people's interests, exacts from our immigrants only physical and
moral soundness and a willingness and ability to work. </blockquote>
Here's Woodrow Wilson on the subject in 1915:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Restrictions like these, adopted earlier in our history as a Nation,
would very materially have altered the course and cooled the humane
ardors of our politics. The right of political asylum has brought to
this country many a man of noble character and elevated purpose who was
marked as an outlaw in his own less fortunate land. </blockquote>
And here's Henry Cabot Lodge, one of the most prominent Republican senators of the time, talking about immigration in 1910:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There is a growing and constantly active demand for more restrictive
legislation. This demand rests on two grounds, both equally important.
One is the effect upon the quality of our citizenship caused by the
rapid introduction of this vast and practically unrestricted
immigration, and the other, the effect of this immigration upon rates of
wages and the standard of living among our working people. </blockquote>
<br />
(all quotes found <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAE1917A.htm">here</a>) <br />
<br />
Notice a difference? Presidents Harding and Coolidge both passed legislation restricting the immigration of Southern and Eastern Europeans. Hoover actually tried to suspend all immigration during the Great Depression. I honestly don't know how much nativism has always been a portion of the Republican appeal (although it might be telling that Catholics used to be as uniformly Democrat as blacks were Republican in the nineteen-teens and twenties), but it does kind of seem like it wasn't all austerity and fiscal discipline back then, either. It'd be mistake to assume that the Republican party is over and done with just because they only managed 48% of the popular vote this time around, but I think it's also a mistake to assume that a simple shift on immigration will actually be all that simple. Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-82862688994123516622012-11-07T20:30:00.001-08:002012-11-07T20:49:22.120-08:00Aftermath of the Jungle PrimarySo it's hard to say what the effects of the jungle primary system were...when (if) I have more time there's some numbers it could be interesting to look at, like whether the final winner was the same person who got the most votes in the primary, or if the second person won in any districts. On the most surface level though, it's probably worth noting that two of the incumbents who ended up running against someone from their own party in the general were defeated, which I think is a pretty high rate (although in a small sample size).<br />
<br />
Specifics of those races below:<br />
<br />
http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_21944496<br />
<br />
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/gloria-negrete-mcleod-bests-joe-baca-in-congressional-race.htmlKerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-29230782766185263922012-11-07T07:06:00.000-08:002012-11-07T07:07:05.685-08:00Oh and also..."The Rape guy lost" "Which one?" Your party has serious issues if people have to ask "Which one?" <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23GOP">#GOP</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23itstheTwentyFirstCentury">#itstheTwentyFirstCentury</a>— Alex (@AlexCarpenter) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlexCarpenter/status/266011235127005184">November 7, 2012</a><br />
<br />
(borrowed from Andrew Sullivan, curator of the internet)<br />
<br />
((and actually, they both lost)) Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-4912548163361684822012-11-07T06:47:00.002-08:002012-11-07T06:47:21.538-08:00Wow.So, a lot of stuff happened last night.<br />
<br />
Obama won, which was cool. Possibly improved on by the fact that Fox News and friends were so very sure that he wouldn't. It's 2012 and your viewers aren't the only people who matter anymore! As it was happening last night, it felt like the impetus was minority turnout...which if you're going to crush the hopes and dreams of a group of people who tried to give themselves an edge through voter suppression, is an awesome way to do it. I think I have to look at more numbers before I can say that's actually what happened though. And I'm sure Republicans will try to blame it on Sandy, or voter fraud, or who knows what else. <br />
<br />
Oh, and can we say tipping point on gay marriage? If you live in a state whose name starts with an M, or something that looks like an upside down M, and isn't in the south or sort of kind of in the south like Missouri, or I guess Wyoming or Montana...alright I'll stop trying to make a trend out of this. Except the trend is, this is happening. It's only a matter of time.<br />
<br />
Mostly though...CALIFORNIA! I mean sure, the all caps and the exclamation point are mostly only earned because my expectations were so very very low, but it almost kind of seems like some sort of logic actually infected the initiative process. Voters conceded that a teeny tiny increase in the state sales tax might possibly worth it to keep schools running (along with a bigger tax increase on high income earners, in keeping with the "tax anyone but me" philosophy). They even conceded that giving minor offenders, like pot heads, life sentences might not be the best use of our precious revenue. And supposedly somewhere in the state, the legislator that makes the difference between the Republicans having the 33% they need to block all tax increases, and not having that 33%, stands a real chance of losing. It might be too much to hope that this will mean the rediscovery of moderate Republicanism in this state, but I'll go ahead and hope anyways. Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-25259446570041072702012-11-05T18:16:00.000-08:002012-11-05T18:26:20.177-08:00Election 2012 - How I'm votingFederal offices - Democrats, all the way down. And I'm probably not even going to waste any time explaining this. But with the new jungle primary system, make sure you know which ones the Democrats are. I'm not sure it will be indicated on the ballot. Or there might be two of them! Depending on your district. (Or two Republicans, in which case, I'm sorry...try to make the best of it).<br />
<br />
State legislature - Even more Democrats! Have you seen the state of the California Republican Party? They make the national guys look like geniuses.<br />
<br />
Propositions - Holy shit there's a lot of them. And interesting ones, too. Ones that maybe actually require some thought, and potential revisions to my "vote no on everything" philosophy. For the record, I think my new rule is to vote no on everything, unless it repeals an earlier proposition, has been placed on the ballot by the legislature, legalizes gay marriage, OR raises taxes...then it merits further consideration. To get into specifics:<br />
<br />
Prop 30: Raises taxes! And although it does appear to be an initiative rather than a referendum, it's heavily backed by Jerry Brown, so I think the quality of law writing should be close to what you could expect coming out of the legislature (not a high bar, I know, but one that a lot of initiatives don't meet). It's bad for California to have so much of our revenue dependent on the incomes at the very top, because those incomes are more volatile, but it's even worse to not have any revenue at all. Voting yes.<br />
<br />
Prop 31: The hardest one to fit into a convenient metric. It's more serious/wonky sounding than most of the "gee, this sounds like a good idea" initiatives I generally end up voting against, and <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Reasonable-reform-3884284.php">the SF Chronicle is endorsing it</a>. However, I think I remember not always agreeing with the SF Chronicle endorsements in the past, and this <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-prop31-20121018,0,7129652.story">LA Times editorial</a> against it is pretty compelling. So, voting no.<br />
<br />
Prop 32: Republican scheme to ban one of their opponents most reliable sources of campaign funding and weaken the influence of unions? Voting no.<br />
<br />
Prop 33: Gee this sounds like a good idea...or wait, why exactly do we need an initiative to set rates for car insurance? And how much do you want to bet that higher income people are more likely to maintain continuous car insurance coverage than lower income people, regardless of how safe of drivers they actually are? I actually think I may have gotten screwed by this exact kind of policy (although I'm not sure, because wouldn't the fact that they are trying to pass it now imply that it wasn't the law six years ago?) when I tried to get car insurance for the first time after college. Turns out, nobody believes you that the reason that you didn't have car insurance before was that you weren't actually driving (or were using a car sharing service), so I paid really high rates at first. Seems like this could screw over a lot of people who try to cut costs by going a few months or years without driving a car. So yeah, voting no.<br />
<br />
Prop 34: Gee this sounds like a good idea...and it probably actually is. Doesn't fit into a neat little metric, but the Death Penalty is costing the state a whole lot of money for very little benefit, and it's probably wishful thinking that we'll even get politicians who are immune enough to the appeal of being "tough on crime" to abolish it. So finally, maybe something the initiative process is good for. In fact, let's add that to the metric...initiatives that are "weak on crime" merit further consideration due to the distorting influence of electoral politics on these issues in the legislate. I hear there's very little likelihood it will pass though, probably because the same people who those politicians are worried about also vote on initiatives. I'll do my part though. Voting yes. <br />
<br />
Prop 35: I'm as against human sex trafficking as the next person, but this is almost the opposite of Prop 34...I see very little reason why it would be difficult for the legislature to address these issues, with a lot more flexibility and less risk of unintended consequences than you get with an initiative. Voting no.<br />
<br />
Prop 36: Speaking of unintended consequences...is it too much to hope we might be able to finally do something about the unintended consequences of Three Strikes? Probably. But it's still important to keep trying. Voting yes.<br />
<br />
Prop 37: Gee this sounds like a good idea..and that's why I'm voting no. Unintended consequences, inflexibility of the initiative process, sounds like something the legislature would be better equipped to address, rinse was repeat. (This is the labeling GMO products one, by the way).<br />
<br />
Prop 39: So what I'm discovering is that maybe I shouldn't even bother writing this and should just post a link to the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-prop39-20120927,0,7091721.story">LA Times endorsements</a> instead, because I seem to almost always agree with them. They make a good case for why this isn't likely to be handled by the legislature (as a tax increase, it needs a two thirds majority to pass, and as out of step with the rest of California as the reactionary element of the California GOP is, they consistently hold onto just over one third of the seats in the legislature) until and why the ballot box budgeting that's included in the measure is an acceptable compromise (only lasts five years). So, voting yes.<br />
<br />
Prop 40: Speaking of the reactionary California GOP, they keep trying to change the rules of the game rather than change their platform so that they might actually, you know, appeal to more than a third of California voters. Turns out non-partisan redistricting still isn't enough to negate the fact that California isn't actually a particularly conservative state, so Republicans want to try something else. I see no particular reason why they should get to. Voting yes. (Yeah I know that's confusing, but voting yes actually approves the current districts, voting no means that someone has to come up with new district lines).<br />
<br />
Prop 41: Oh wait, there is no Prop 41. Only ten propositions this year...clearly not nearly enough of them.<br />
<br />
Local stuff:<br />
<br />
So my biggest challenge with this election is just figuring out what local stuff is going to be on my ballot, and what district I'm in for things like the school board elections. So, for anyone who's looking for it, here are links to the various maps (which all seem to take forever and a day to load, unfortunately)...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.co.merced.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=1855">Merced County Board of Supervisors</a><br />
<a href="http://www.mercedid.org/_images/184_midboundaries11_11_14.pdf">Merced Irrigation District</a><br />
<a href="http://www.mccd.edu/news_events/news/redistricting_2011/downloads/MCCD_ScenarioC2.pdf">Merced Community College District </a><br />
<a href="http://www.muhsd.k12.ca.us/cms/lib5/CA01001051/Centricity/Domain/5/MercedHigh_FinalTrustee%20Nov2011.pdf">Merced Union High School District</a><br />
<a href="http://www.mcsd.k12.ca.us/files/kkubo/MercedCity_FinalTrustee_WallMap.pdf">Merced City Elementary School District</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on this, I think I only really need to develop an opinion on who I want for the Merced Irrigation District...which is a little daunting, because the main controversy seems to revolve around how many acre feet of water is needed for farming in different parts of the county, which of course I am one of the world's leading experts on. I don't think I want to sit back and just let people with more expertise than I have vote, however, because unfortunately the people who take time to develop expertise are going to be the ones that have financial interests at stake, and that can be a dangerous thing. So, water allotments! There isn't a whole lot of information on the internet to work with, but what I can piece together makes me think I should probably vote for the incumbent, Gino Pedretti. He has the endorsement of a couple of different unions, which isn't an automatic deciding factor for me, but is a positive. Also, the <a href="http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/10/20/2602803/cap-on-water-a-hot-issue-with.html">comments in the Merced Sun Star</a> have some useful information, specifically one from someone calling himself "patriotfreedom" who sounds like a guy I'm likely to disagree with on most things. I think I can piece together the point that he's trying to make about the current system being unfair to El Nido (if people would typically use less than four but more than two acre feet of water without a cap, and the rules are that El Nido gets 50% as much water as the rest of the county, a cap at four acre feet negative effects El Nido and no one else), and although there really isn't enough in <a href="http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/10/08/2579767/drought-concerns-rise-as-weather.html">this article</a> to figure out much about his views, I guess I find it encouraging that he seems to be saying that farmers will have to adjust their planting in response to drought conditions (whether this is controversial, I don't know, but based on the "Congress Created Dustbowl" signs up and down the valley I don't doubt the ability of Central Valley farmers to protest the reality that water is in fact a limited resource.)Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-13250422305299193652012-10-17T08:50:00.000-07:002012-10-17T08:50:09.878-07:00Morning after debate....4) Seeing Obama this time around makes it even more striking how off he was last time around.<br />
<br />
5) In addition to wishing Obama had pounced on Romney for having no answer on pay discrimination aside from the free hand of the market, a quick reference to the difference between actually knowing and having a lifelong history of working with women vs. needing people to put together a binder of them for you would have been pretty awesome. Nobody found Hillary Clinton in a binder, but that actually might explain a lot about Sarah Palin.<br />
<br />
6) There's probably no way to cram this into the pacing of the debate...but we could talk about the fact that Mitt Romney did not actually create Massachusetts from scratch? I find it pretty grating to watch him brag about successes that are the result of several hundred years of a political culture that values publicly funded education & equal opportunity. I'm guessing it's a lot harder to to get the best gender balance in high level state positions in the country if you start out in a state that isn't already the home of a lot of really successful women.Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-41523130001309151042012-10-16T22:12:00.000-07:002012-10-16T22:12:04.631-07:00Debate!Some random, rapid fire thoughts about the debate:<br />
<br />
1) I wish Obama would have pointed out that Romney's answer to what he would do about pay discrimination for women was "nothing - the magical hand of the free market will fix it."<br />
<br />
2) Mitt Romney really seems to have a strange but genuine hatred of single mothers. And China.<br />
<br />
3) The amount of adrenaline on display in both the candidates is pretty spectacular. I feel like making coherent points in that kind of setting is probably one of those much harder than it looks kind of things. Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-86263026395626444892012-10-13T10:11:00.000-07:002012-10-13T10:11:13.965-07:00UndecidedJames Fallows is doing a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/undecided-voters-speak/263554/">series on undecided voters</a>, under the general theme of "who the hell are these people?" which gives me a great opportunity to revisit my <a href="http://expositionhappeningnow.blogspot.com/2012/03/times-change.html">growing animosity</a> towards people who call themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal. So I'm brainstorming new, more accurate ways that this could be phrased:<br />
<br />
"I don't like paying taxes, but I do like strippers and porn."<br />
<br />
or<br />
<br />
"I don't believe in funding the federal government, and the fact that this makes bigots and fundamentalists my most natural political allies has not yet led me to reexamine my views"Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-78702276371048178852012-06-04T18:54:00.000-07:002012-06-04T18:54:10.602-07:00Election tomorrow...Good article on Prop 28: <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/27/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120524" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #1155cc; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" target="_blank">http://articles.latimes.com/<wbr></wbr>2012/may/27/business/la-fi-<wbr></wbr>hiltzik-20120524</a><br />
<br />
Best info on Hub Walsh/Casey Steed I've found, although it takes some commitment to get through it: <a href="http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/05/23/2357400/off-the-99-podcast-walsh-steed.html">http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/05/23/2357400/off-the-99-podcast-walsh-steed.html</a>. Still not really sure who I'm going to vote for. They both sound like intelligent, conscientious guys.Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-12582208975966788392012-06-03T20:10:00.001-07:002012-06-03T20:21:00.615-07:00Holy Jungle Primary Batman!Hey, so the California primary election is Tuesday, and while it will probably be a pretty low turnout affair since both Presidential nomination contests are wrapped up, you should still vote...precisely because it's going to be a low turnout affair and that's when "they" try to pass really stupid, horrible laws through the initiative system and just generally try to ruin our lives.<br />
<br />
Well not exactly, I can't actually say that either of the initiatives on the ballot this time are pure, raw evil...but they still deserve to be voted on by more than 30% of the voting population. On top of that, somewhat excitingly, this is going to be the first year in which California has a non-partisan primary...in November, instead of having a Democratic nominee and a Republican nominee to choose between in state legislature and congressional races, the candidates on the ballot will be the top two vote getters from the primary, whatever their party. I don't think this will matter much for Merced, since races here were pretty competitive already...but for someplace like San Francisco it could mean Nancy Pelosi facing serious competition from someone just slightly to her left or right. Or it could mean a massive clusterfuck of underinformed voters who don't even have the shortcut of voting for whichever party holds their loyalty. Anyways, since I know you're all waiting with baited breath, here's how I'll be voting....<br />
<br />
Initiatives:<br />
<br />
Prop 28 - Yes. This is one of those initiatives that sneaks through my policy against ever voting in favor of any initiatives by virtue of the fact that it undoes some of the evil of an earlier initiative by changing around the way term limits work. Right now, members of the state legislature typically start out in the assembly, stay there until they reach their maximum number of terms, and then afterwards have to compete to win one of a smaller number of seats in a slightly bigger district that may only overlap partially with their previous district to be elected to the state senate if they want to stay in government. This process serves very little purpose other than to confuse the incentives of ambitious young legislators (They're supposed to represent their constituents, but is that their current constituents or the ones they hope to have in just a few years? And should they view the representatives from neighboring districts as allies, or soon to be competition?) and make the assembly the subordinate to the senate in experience instead of equal. If Prop 28 passes, term limits will stay in effect, which is less than ideal, but at least individuals will be able to choose to make a career in either the assembly or the senate, instead of letting graduation from the first to the second be the de facto norm. It probably won't make a huge difference in governance, but I like the idea of my representative spending up to12 years really becoming an expert on the issues of my district...assuming that it's anyone I want to vote for in the first place.<br />
<br />
Prop 29 - No. I mean, I hate cancer as much as the next person, but I have several issues with the way this law would work. First of all, the mindset that tries to pay for things that the government should theoretically be doing by getting one set of voters to approve a tax on people who are most likely not the ones voting annoys me. And it annoys me a couple dozen times as much if the tax is also regressive, which a tax on smokers is. I understand the desire to force people to stop smoking (or prevent them from starting) by raising the costs, and I guess there is good data out there that it's a strategy that works, but for some reason I tend to think more about the addicts who won't stop smoking but will now also have less money for their families...and I dunno, it doesn't seem quite fair to me. The real problem I have with this law though is that it would tie up yet another portion of California's tax revenue (sure, a new source of revenue, but it uses up a potential source of revenue that could theoretically be used for something else) for a purpose that marginally informed California voters thought "sounded good." Sure, cancer research is swell...but should we be increasing funding for it while we're slashing the budget for foster kids, people with disabilities, public health inspectors...you name it, we're slashing it? At the very least, that should be a decision that the state legislature has the flexibility to make, and possibly change its mind about in a few years if the economy changes, or if the program does not turn out as well as expected. The initiative process is way too inflexible a process to allow coherent budgeting if anyone can get something passed by identifying something that sounds good (cancer research!) and a group of people to pay for it who sound bad (smokers!), and that's why our state is fucked right now.<br />
<br />
Congress:<br />
<br />
District 16 - Jim Costa.<br />
<br />
I'll cop to not having done nearly enough research on this one, but there's really just no way that I'd elect a Republican to congress, even in a jungle primary. And the one other Democrat who's challenging him doesn't seem to have a website, so yeah...moving on.<br />
<br />
State Assembly:<br />
<br />
District 21- Adam Gray, I guess.<br />
<br />
This race is both interesting and not interesting at the same time. There seems to actually be some controversy, but a lot of it seems to be character based and it's really hard to judge that when you're talking about small time local candidates who only even have a couple of stories in the local newspaper. Adam Gray apparently never graduated from college, which doesn't really bother me at all, and may not have been completely honest about that, which might bother me a little bit, and then described his role working with university students at UC Merced in a way that might have been misleading...which I'd want to understand better before I formed an opinion on it one way or another, because frankly, the terminology could get pretty mixed up quite innocently, or also not so innocently. On the other hand, one of the other candidates might have gotten caught driving under the influence of an illegal substance. Or he might have gotten framed. Why can't they just disagree about property zoning laws, or something I have some hope of understanding? But I'm probably going to vote for Adam Gray despite woeful ignorance because he has a flashy website and seems like he could probably beat the Republican, and it might be all I'm hoping for right now is a dutiful cog in the Democratic machine. (Since no doubt the Republican, despite sounding like a pretty decent guy, would be a dutiful cog in his party's machine and set right to work defunding government).<br />
<br />
Local:<br />
<br />
Merced County Supervisor, District 2 - ???????<br />
<br />
This may be the first election ever where I've gleaned a significant amount of information from lawn signs. Hub Walsh signs seem to correlate well with other signs that I approve of, and I've also seen them on apartment buildings...which I take as a point in his favor in an area where being against apartments and the people who live in them actually seems to be a viable political stance. His opponent, Casey Steed, does not keep quite as good of company in the world of lawn signs, and visiting his website I see discouraging things like a lot of hype about lowering salaries for board members...this is almost never a budgetarily significant amount of money and almost always a sign of a slash and burn attitude towards government. To be fair though, I don't really see the slash and burn approach in Steed's write ups on various issues. He comes across as a genuinely thoughtful guy, with a slightly Republican tinge to his thinking, but not nearly as reflexively as I was expecting based on where his lawn signs hang out. Hub Walsh's website is much more polished, and while it touches on some good things from my point of view (clean air, safe drinking water, transit, housing "options"), in the end it gives very little away, except that he's a well established guy not really sticking his neck out. So I'm actually a little torn. Steed is endorsed by the Republican party, but that's not a deal breaker for me in local level politics the way it is at the state or federal level, and I like the idea of thoughtful people in office and competitive local politics, so that may be enough to get him my vote. Especially since I'm feeling a little frustrated that in the two state level races I don't see much option except for to vote for the pre-decided, establishment Democrat. I can't quite commit to bucking my party tonight though...maybe I can find more info tomorrow.Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-73832977592200716422012-05-15T12:59:00.002-07:002012-05-15T13:06:15.224-07:00Game of ThronesI don't have anything too particularly interesting to say about Game of Thrones lately, except that I kind of hate the characters they've created to be Robb and Jon's love interests. I mean, it doesn't help that they're only in scenes with Robb or Jon, who were already characters I was wishing the show could just forget about already. Has either shown an ounce of personality this whole time? But now they've gone and inserted these uninteresting, implausible women to share screen time with them...and damnit, I want that screen time back and replaced with one of the Lannisters.<br />
<br />
One of the best parts of the series, in my opinion, is the way that it handles womens' roles in a medieval setting. Between Cersei, Sansa, Margaery, and even Myrcella you have a pretty broad theme going on with the reality of arranged marriage, the variety of ways that different characters adapt to the limits of their autonomy, and how they manage to scrounge some power and influence regardless. Even Daenerys, who most of the time is also a character I wish would just toss her screen time back into the pot and get out of the way, is cool to watch as she negotiates the possibility that she could make a strategic match for herself with the guy from Qarth, if she chose to, since her royal lineage is the one thing that his money can't buy otherwise. In contrast, I feel like Florence Nightingale of Westeros and that Eskimo girl ought to be prancing about in comic book style leather bikinis (maybe Eskimo girl's could include a fur cape, for realism) based on the amount that they represent any kind of realistic depiction of the kind of dilemmas that women would face in that kind of society. They're nothing but foils for the already boring male characters they're meant to attract, and it shows, and I'm really hoping they die next episode. (That's the one good thing about the show, if you really truly hate a character, there's at least a 50/50 chance they'll die soon...if only that didn't also apply to the ones you like).Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-12435972257548702132012-05-10T12:33:00.001-07:002012-05-10T12:34:49.277-07:00Prep SchoolSo it turns out <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/romney-a-gay-basher-in-high-school.html">Mitt Romney was kind of an asshole</a> when he was younger. I mean, I actually have pretty mixed feelings about the whole anti-bullying fervor that's so prominent right now. I'm not a fan of bullies by any means, but I also feel like it doesn't take much courage or introspection to be against one thirteen year old kid beating up another thirteen year old kid, and that it's kind of telling that that's the kind of anti-gay discrimination that we've decided to fixate on. Plus, based on my own memories of middle school...relationships between kids are complex. Sometimes it's the kid throwing the punch that's been picked on the most, and sometimes mockery is a type of self defense too. Or it's a type of flirtation. Or it's who knows what. It doesn't really seem like a situation where a zero tolerance policy is applicable, and the kids I knew at least would be hard to divide up simplistically into victims or perpetrators. <br />
<br />
On the other hand, there is nothing particularly complex about a gang of guys pinning another one down to cut his hair. I don't think it even particularly matters if Romney thought the guy was gay. This was the 1960s after all, long hair was a big deal back then, and it seems just as likely that Romney was showing off his political intolerance. Mostly though I think it shows a sense of humor that's surprisingly lacking in empathy towards other people (or animals...nobody would know that story about the dog if he didn't think it was hilarious).<br />
<br />
Anyways, I wasn't going to vote for him anyways, so it doesn't really matter.Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-69127827821695423632012-05-08T20:43:00.001-07:002012-05-08T20:44:03.122-07:00IdealI've been brooding most of the day about the idea that the problem with same-sex marriage is that it undermines the "ideal" that children should have a mother and a father. First of all, I'm starting to really hate the concept of ideal when it comes to raising children, period. The idea that anybody is either able or willing to approach child rearing from the standpoint of carefully researching what is most close to being perfect and then following it is ridiculous. First of all, most people would have to conclude that neither their or their spouse's genetics should be involved in the process...forget the studies that show that this, that, or the other thing can have a slight downward effect on IQ, to get real results you need to be willing to swap out prospective parents. I'm also fairly sure that any parent genuinely concerned with maximizing their child's safety needs to be willing to do things like give up car travel and move away from high or even moderate air pollution areas. Or on the less serious side, there's baby names. People have no end of opinions about the doom and misery that await a child whose parents give it an unfortunate name...unless that name is the last name. If it's not optional, then suddenly we remember that somehow, we all eventually learn to deal with whatever less-than-ideal hand life deals us, and our children will too.<br />
<br />
But getting past the fact that I really, really need to take a break from pregnancy books for a while (and taking for granted that I actually see no reason two same sex parents are less ideal for a child than two opposite sex parents), why, exactly, would you obsess about the non-idealness of a choice that most people aren't even going to consider making? I think <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/the-marriage-divide.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+andrewsullivan%2FrApM+%28The+Daily+Dish%29">this guy</a> (Andrew Cherlin) might have a very good point...raising children in wedlock confers status, and the thing about status is that it needs to be denied to some people in order to retain its worth. At least, looking at it from that perspective makes more sense to me than trying to understand it as some kind of bizarrely selective concern about the welfare of other people's children. Their goal is not to use the law to coerce others into what they consider better lives, I think most people - even those who I wouldn't call particularly rational otherwise - realize that that's unrealistic. We're talking about people who want to be congratulated for the way their personal preferences and good fortune already coincide with "ideal," who are used to being congratulated for it, and who resent whatever minor extent that might be taken away in order to make the world fairer for others.<br />
<br />
(Blah blah blah obviously you can't assume that the whole 50% or so of the population that is against gay marriage is against it for the same reason. You can pretty safely assume that there are a wide variety of reasons out there...but this one I hadn't really thought about today, and the more I think about it the more significant I think it is)Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-76682063158520394192012-04-19T18:00:00.004-07:002012-04-19T18:00:00.635-07:00Pepper SprayI may be off the deep end here, but it seems to me that if <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/reports-reveal-two-new-scandals-in-the-pepper-spraying-at-uc-davis/256058/">a police officer shows up at protest in riot gear when he has been ordered not to, and carrying a form of pepper spray that is outside of what his department authorizes him to carry</a>, he is no longer acting as a representative of the police department at that point and is instead just a private citizen. I don't think the law is particularly kind to private citizens who pepper spray college students. I'm absolutely sure that unwillingness to comply with departmental guidelines regarding appropriate limits on force, not just in high stress spur of the moment conditions but with the degree of premeditation required to obtain non-standard pepper spray, should be a disqualification from being a police officer.Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8071172910566496249.post-52799126953704890002012-04-11T21:16:00.000-07:002012-04-11T21:16:31.626-07:00Adventures in Pregnancy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oJe-vpDCwYw/T4ZW8iFBGoI/AAAAAAAABOM/SSk6Ao97yyg/s1600/SpatialAwareness.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oJe-vpDCwYw/T4ZW8iFBGoI/AAAAAAAABOM/SSk6Ao97yyg/s1600/SpatialAwareness.JPG" /></a></div>Kerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07394019906538116160noreply@blogger.com0