I haven't seen the new Star Trek movie yet, but I am an avid review reader, so I am aware of some details. Specifically, about the costumes and the main relationship. I've heard a few reviewers complain about this, but my feelings are mixed.

( Some spoilers ahead . . .  )

*headdesk*

I managed to misinterpret a blogger's statements, thus getting into an argument that didn't actually have to do with what she was talking about, and wasting her time. Ugh. Plus accidentally insulting her once. Double ugh. Someone, remind me not to respond to posts unless I have the time to really attend to what I'm saying and to read the other person closely?

(Mind you, I still think she's wrong, and that she did her own fair share of backtracking, misinterpretating (is that even a word?), and insulting, but I can hardly complain about something I'm guilty of. But am I the only person who finds it harder to apologize to someone who does the same thing, even if you know you were wrong?)

*headdesk*

Apparently a President Hillary Clinton would have saved us from evil Wall St. by now, and everyone who voted for President Obama did so because they were misogynistic, 'voting black',  and/or had a crush on him.

Okay then.

I mean, I can see wanting a woman president. I do too. I can understand criticizing the sitting president. I have plenty of things that I wish he would do: pushing  the Democratic members of the House and Senate a bit more - I'd like to see no Democrats using insulting language, opponents or not, and no Democrats adding pork to bills - and being firmer on issues his Administration supports - legalized marijuana, choice, and the economy -  among them.

But Sec. of State Clinton was no saint. As she used her time as First Lady as part of her campaign, I think I am justified in pointing out that President Bill Clinton didn't exactly reign in Wall St., although some of the warning signs already existed, including over-consolidation, a widening wage gap, and  reckless speculation and bubbles. Neither did they make nearly a strong enough stand on environmental, trade, and media issues. The effort to pass Universal Health care (under her aegis) failed miserably (the descriptions of that failure being part of the reason I didn't vote for her - bullying legislation through is a qualification for President only if you succeed). She was downright poor on corporate campaign contributions.

And as the previous First Lady and a sitting Senator, shouldn't she have known that President Bush' claims about Iraq were wrong? Oh, right. She did. Her speech on the Iraq War Resolution, as I recall, more or less involved her acknowledging that the case for Iraq was incorrect or misleading on almost every count, and yet she voted in support of it anyway. Granted, so did almost everyone else. Granted, it would likely have hurt her for years following. But one of the few places the President has true power is the U.S. military. And I think, wanting a president who has not already approved sending that military into combat based on peer pressure is not - was not -  unreasonable. And every last one of those points, plus inevitable "Stand by her man" jokes, would have been made by the RNC if they paid any attention at all to the campaign.

In the meanwhile, Sen. Obama had spoken eloquently against war in 2004, conveyed a sense of civility that has been lacking for 20-plus years, demonstrated familiarity with modern technology, was funded largely by individual donations, and managed to present himself not as someone who had all the answers, but as someone who knew how to do the research.

So, no, I don't think that a President Hillary Clinton would have made everything all better. Nor do I think President Obama will - it's a fine line between civility and concession at times, and difficult to break out of the years of intensive neo-conservative propaganda. But I do think that most of the people who voted for him did so for perfectly logical reasons that had nothing to do with race or gender.

(And the Hitler comparison? Cheap shot. Very cheap shot.)

I have health care again!

Sadly, it does not cover me as completely as my previous health care did, but for right now, I don't have to deal with the local Department of Human Services. Who are incompetent and rude to a degree that astonishes me - the state department seems excellent, and I've never had any trouble dealing with the federal government. But these people . . . I'm fairly certain responding to a telephone message is still standard procedure for any office, you know?

***
Also, the wonderful saleswoman at my eyeglass store figured out a way to replace my broken eyeglasses for free, even though a) it was past the 90 day warranty, and b) that frame was no longer in stock.

Flint faces a mayoral recall election on February 24th.  There are many of us who oppose recalls.  They can be divisive, confrontational and personal.  However, given the current situation in Flint, with this mayor, at this time, a successful recall of Don Williamson trumps all reservations.

( Continue reading the open letter . . .  )

For those in the Flint, MI area:

The 2009 "Social Justice Now" Symposium, "Focus: Closing the Achievement Gap: Reshaping Education for the Benefit of All" will be held on Friday, February, 06, 2009 at the University of Michigan-Flint's Harding Mott University Center from 8am to 5pm. The Guest Keynote Speaker is Pedro Noguera, Ph.D.

Dr. Pedro Noguera, an urban sociologist, is a professor in the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New
York University. He is also the Executive Director of the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education and the co-Director of the Institute for
the study of Globalization and Education in Metropolitan Settings (IGEMS). Dr. Noguera is also the author of City Schools and the
American Dream: Fulfilling the Promise of Public Education

Registration is free. A Continental Breakfast and Lunch is included- Limited Capacity. Pre-Registration is strongly encouraged. For more information or to register visit http://umflint.edu/eoi/sjn.htm or call Dawn Demps at 810-701-2820.

Sponsored by: University of Michigan-Flint Diversity Council; University of Michigan-Flint Center for Civic Engagement; Leadership Development In Interethnic Relations (LDIR) with support from the C.S. Mott Foundation; LINK Community Arts; Urban League of Flint; The Shariki Group

Okay, look, I know you said you didn't get women, and I have to admit, that definitely appears to be true. And I can certainly appreciate why you don't want to just walk up to a woman and ask her lots of personal details.

But, here's the thing. I know you use LiveJournal. So do a lot of women, myself obviously included. Why don't you try friending some of them and just reading what they have to say? You know, all the boring personal stories about classes, annoying bosses, shopping with friends, and family get-togethers, as well as any fiction? Try following links and friends until you get something interesting, or type in an interest you think your character would have. If you feel weird friending someone you don't know, write to them and tell them you're doing a writing excercise, and ask if they mind.

Just, please, do something to make her more than a freaking Disney princess.

For anyone in the Flint, MI area:

Two discussions on Health Care Reform are being hosted by Healthcare - Now! of Genesee County. The first will be on Saturday, December 27 from 10:30 a.m. - 12 noon at Mt. Calvary Baptist Church, 4805 N. Saginaw. The second will be on Monday, December 29 from 7 - 8:30 p.m. at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 2474 S. Ballenger Highway.

For anyone in the local area (Flint, MI):

Ernestine Tune has taped the League of Women Voters programs on "National Popular Vote" and "Net Neutrality." They will be broadcast on Sun, 12/21/2008, Channel 17 at 9:30 pm.

There will be a Flint City Charter Meeting featuring Jim Ananich on Mon, 1/5/2009 at 9:30 am in the Flint Public Library, Main Branch (FPL: M) Rm 205, 1026 E Kearsley, Flint, unless they are snowed out. Another meeting will be held Mon, 1/12/2009, same time, same place.

So, I just finished voting. We got there at 7:00 am, and I voted at 9:45 am. While precinct 42 pretty much always has high turnout, most of the wait was thanks to some  slow workers and several spoiled ballots. Ah well. I voted. And now I have the rest of the day off.

While reading my bulletins from the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), I ran across this very interesting piece:

"Why do people form superstitions, create conspiracy theories, and see patterns where none exist? In a Report in the 3 Oct 2008 Science, Whitson and Galinsky suggest that the answer may be because people are in situations where they do not have control. That is, when individuals are unable to gain a sense of control objectively, they will try to gain it perceptually. In a series of experiments that used multiple methods to induce a lack of control in participants, the team found that subjects in the lack-of-control condition were more likely to perceive a variety of illusory patterns, including seeing images in static, forming illusory correlations in stock market information, perceiving conspiracies, and developing superstitions. . . . Interestingly, when these participants first did a self-affirmation exercise designed to make them feel more psychologically secure, they were less prone to seeing illusory patterns. . . . Lead author Jennifer Whitson discussed the work in a related podcast interview." (Science Roundup, October 31, 2008)

If the conclusions are true, might it be possible to track how secure Americans felt in earlier periods by seeing when superstitions and conspiracy theories were on the rise? For instance, there was a high amount of belief and interest in the paranormal during Victorian/Edwardian times, a wave of conspiracy theories in the 1990s and early 2000s, an increase in superstitious behaviors among farmers in the Dust Bowl. For that matter, in the antebellum American South, slaveholders saw conspiracies among slaves and abolitionist Northerners constantly, and believed some highly questionable racial science (drawing patterns where they didn't exist?).

Article Information:

Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception (link to AAAS website, purchase article there or find it in the following journal)
Whitson and Galinsky
Science 3 October 2008: 115-117
DOI: 10.1126/science.1159845

So, Senator McCain wants to postpone the presidential debate because he needs to be in Washington to help the "stalled" debate on the bailout?

Uh-huh.

You know, some of the most important debates in U.S. history were held in 1858. A senator had been beaten to a bloody pulp on the Senate floor, Southern states were threatening secession, and still the candidates for the Illinois Senate seat talked (and talked). Even the sitting senator, Stephen Douglas, took time out of his busy schedule to discuss issues. And in 1860, both Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Sen. Stephen Douglas went on speaking tours, with the country falling to pieces around their ears. In 1932, three years after the Great Crash on 1929, with every person in this country dealing with the Great Depression, the sitting President, Herbert Hoover, and the Governor of New York, Franklin Roosevelt, both intimately involved with the vital relief efforts, managed to continue their campaign.

Because, amazingly, it turns out that the business of America, our single most exportable good, is democracy. And the first rule of democracy is that the public must make an informed choice. Yes, the Senate's work is important. It was important last week, and last month, and in 2003. But democratic discourse matters too, and it should not carry on, or cease, at the whim of any one candidate.

People keep throwing book memes around lately, so I suppose I should return the favor.

1) Look at the list and bold those you have read.
2) Italicize those you intend to read.
3) Underline the books you LOVE.
4) Strike out the books you have no intention of ever reading, or were forced to read at school and hated.
I've put in small the ones I'd never previously heard of, or wasn't aware of as a book.

Some of you may get this twice, since I also sent an e-mail.

I am certain that you have been inundated with news about the 2008 election campaign, just as I have, so I'll beg your forgiveness for adding more. However, in the past few months, I have heard several people complain that none of the candidates had "said anything about the issues" and either ask how I picked a candidate and/or party (a trifle unusual) or flatly announce that I couldn't be picking a candidate based on the issues. Since I know many of you are likely to come in for serious political debates and/or similar queries, I thought I'd pass along some of my favorite online sources for your use.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science offers a website devoted to "Science and Technology in the 2008 Presidential Election," including a full comparison of the candidates on science and technology issues here: http://election2008.aaas.org/

The Council on Foreign Relations offers a guide to the 2008 election, including candidate positions, full workups on their "brain trusts" and links to candidate essays written for the respected journal Foreign Affairs here: http://www.cfr.org/campaign2008/index.html

In National Public Radio's guide to the 2008 election (http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1102), they include a candidate position guide here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18437398

The Seattle Times offers a series (and searchable database) on earmarks here (this is not the easiest website to search, but if you stick with it, it will tell you who asked, who donated, and where the money went, usually by name): http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/

I'll admit to a fondness for the stories on Bill Moyers Journal on PBS, which runs a number of stories on the election and on political issues in general. I believe they're the ones who ran a story on the earmarks project above. Videos and full transcripts of previous shows can be found in the archives and transcripts sections, here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

And finally, my favorite source for fact checking, PolitiFact, which is a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly, here: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ . Check for the "pants-on-fire" rating for a laugh. (And then cry as you realize people believe some of it.)

If you have favorite websites relating to the election, please send them my way - I'm always looking for good info.

This semester is finally over. I won't find my grades out for another couple of weeks, but I think I did well. I did find out I got an A on my paper for American Institutions: Theatre, which involved the memorable experience of not receiving my interlibrary loan books for several weeks longer than it normally takes and having to change my topic for a 20 page paper a week before it was due. Please, never again.

***

I am so utterly sick of this discussion over the Michigan and Florida Democratic primary delegates. To the best of my knowledge, the DNC announced the rules sometime in, oh, August. Michigan and Florida broke the rules without consulting party members or the voters in general, and everyone, from the candidates (including Sen. Clinton, who is showing a disturbing tendency to revise the past now) to the voters, acted as though the rules were going to be followed. What New Hampshire or Iowa did is irrelevant, since by all accounts, they received permission from the DNC to schedule their primaries first. There is no good reason to seat the delegates now, except to pander to the same Michigan reps that made the incredibly ill-thought decision in the first place, and all they are doing is damaging the party's image right before a fairly important national election.

There are several Michigan politicians that I like, but will probably never vote for again because of this. They put their pride (because that is the only reason to move to the front of the primary sequence, as opposed to, say, second) ahead of the welfare of their constituents, and I will not forgive that.

***

Also, I'm given to understand Sen. Clinton is counting the votes from Michigan and Florida as evidence she has more popular votes. *eyeroll* She might want to try running a full campaign with names other than hers on the ballot before she says that.

***

Those people claiming that Rev. Wright should have kept his defense of his own reputation until after the election is over? Should probably try listening to the whole thing first. And I do include our spectacularly incompetent news media in this. I've heard a couple of criticisms from commentators I generally like that sounded, quite honestly, as though they were recorded when they heard there was going to be a defense and just played alongside a couple of clips from Bill Moyer's Journal. I understand there's a rush to come out with a response first, but I think they could wait long enough to actually check out the story first.

***

Finally, my doctor has recommended that I wear an engraved alert bracelet; unfortunately, I have no idea of where to go for one, and I forgot to ask. Anyone have an idea?

Do lesbians write m/m slash?

Check it out:

PolitiFact
"PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly to help you find the truth in the presidential campaign. Every day, reporters and researchers from the Times and CQ will analyze the candidates' speeches, TV ads and interviews and determine whether the claims are accurate." - PolitiFact's website

Evaluated claims are organized by story, candidate or attacker, party, issue, source type, or accuracy rating, and include an moderately in-depth analysis, including links to source material and mitigating factors.

Overall: Accuracy levels somewhere below that expected of your average college student on a term paper. Not exactly a surprise.

Apparently CBS news anchor Katie Couric recently asked the U.S. presidential candidates what one book they would wish to bring along. The answers are quite informative:

See their answers here

Ah, don't take Mr. Huckabee's word for it; you should probably look Whatever Happened to the Human Race up yourself to see what it's about.

Bill Moyers is asking people for their choices at his website and blog:

Bill Moyers Journal

If I were to pick my candidates on the basis of these answers alone, this is how it would fall:
( candidate ranking by reading choice )