I'm finding out that many California school districts are cutting back or even eliminating summer school. Santa Clara and LA are two such districts.

Now, education is very expensive, I understand that. But summer school seems pretty important to me-- I mean, it's the best chance some kids have to catch up to their grade level and keep from being left behind more or less permanently.

And then there's the mail we've been getting lately. We've seen a severe uptick in charity mailings in the last 6-8 months (and strangely the offers to consolidate our loans have completely dried up!), and it's hard to see all the causes that need support. Yesterday we got a mailing from Second Harvest pointing out that in the absence of summer school, and hence school meal programs, many kids are going to go hungry this summer.

I know I take these things harder than most people, and I'm learning to deal with it, but this one felt kind of like a punch in the gut. Kids getting neither the education nor the nutrition they need is wrenching. We gave what we could (we've been told that actually donating money to food banks is often more efficient than donating food, since the banks have deals with companies that make the dollars stretch even farther), and I wanted to post the information in case it's of use to anyone. If you can't, or if it's not your cause, that's fine, I don't want to make this a place of guilt and I know that the same reason I'm getting all this mail means most people aren't in a position to be too free with a dollar. Just putting the links up in case they help.

When we got home, the commander-in-chief's ball was in full swing, covered by Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. President (!) Obama gave a very good small speech that was very military-focused (so I was kind of hoping my Obama-dubious soon-to-be-marine-wife sister caught it, it might make her a little more comfortable?) and had a satellite feed to some soldiers from the Chicago area serving in Afghanistan (the president was chagrined to find that all but one of them were Cubs fans, rather than White Sox fans). Then he introduced his wife, to much applause. After a pause, he turned around and said "I think I might have been stood up..." just as Michelle came out in a really beautiful white one-shouldered dress. And they started to dance. To "At Last." It was just a really wonderful, blub-inducing moment. Made me think of Peter and Sara, who danced to that song first at their wedding.

As Her Dark Majesty put it over AIM: "Where do they get off being so damned adorable? They're the presidential version of your kitties."

Indeed.

Kudos to Rick Warren, that was very nice. Given that I'm kind of iffy on the whole invocation thing, that was perfectly functional. Was a big awkward when he was announced though.

Dude. Aretha Franklin is like the coolest woman ever. Check that hat.

Justice Stevens! Woooooooo!

That's a freaking giant Bible. It makes Stevens look particularly tiny.

Is this where I hold up the "you're a sucker" sign? Oh wait, that was officer inductions at Ruddock House. They didn't ask Biden if he'd behave in the manner befitting a Biden.

Wooo! John Williams arranged the quartet piece! Kickass!

Overhead shot of seagulls (?) flying past the rotunda. Or was that supposed to be doves or something? They looked like seagulls.

I really like this piece of music, hopefully it'll be on iTunes soon. I also like the symbolic diversity of the quartet, that's really lovely. Yo-Yo Ma has this huge grin on his face, it's kind of adorable. I just noticed the pianist is wearing fingerless gloves-- how are the rest of them able to use their digits at all? Do they have a heat lamp? Even more impressive then.

The Obama family is adorable.

Oooh I think he's nervous. There were sirens going off in the background, that would be jarring.

Hail to the chief, he's the chief and he needs hailing, he is the chief so everybody hail like crazy....

Shoutout to John Hodgman's twitter coverage for being generally awesome.

Dear maude that's a lot of people.

Nice, thanking Pres. Bush. And good for the crowd for general goodwill.

I do like the way the man speaks. I think this is a bit heavy on the generalities, but that's probably by design. Now's a time to make everyone feel good. I can get behind that I suppose.

Holy wow, shot of a couple Tuskeegee airmen in the crowd. Nice.

Science! Technology! Woo!

Schools! Colleges! Universities! Woo!

Did he list "nonbeliever" with all the other religions? I had just dropped the jam knife on the carpet, so I was a bit distracted. There's been a decent bit of G_d-talk, which I do understand, but that would be a nice inclusion. A very nice one, I have to say.

False choice between safety and ideals. Very well done.

Mmmm. Metaphor.

Woo! Poetry!

Hm. The poem was also a bit generic. But that's another way of saying "accessible" so okay. It was a lovely sentiment though. I like happy.

Amen! So say we all!

through a combination of exhaustion, sickness, and yet another Big Push at work i have as yet failed to say anything about tuesday. so, first of all: yippee! ginsburg and stevens can retire happily in january!

second of all, sidur_mishpacha has a really good post up, talking about the sociology of this election. here's a taste:

I find [Obama's] role as mediator between present and future, between society and the individual, to be fascinating.

• because i was lucky enough to grow up in a house with married parents, and giving more kids that opportunity can only be a good thing.


• because i don't want the government dictating with whom i can form mutually consensual contracts.


• i'm tempted to say that if some "traditional marriage" folk way back when (eta: yow, not as way back as i thought-- loving v virginia was only 15 years before i was born!) had their way, *i* could not be married (my husband is half latino-- so his parents also could not have been married under the old rules-- and in the bad old days, half was plenty to make him Other and therefore not marriage material), but you know what? it's not about me, or about my marriage. in fact, it's not about anyone who is pursuing a heterosexual relationship or marriage. it's about our friends, our family members, and our future. it's our duty to make the world safe for them.


• i love being married. it's the most fun i've ever had outside of disneyland! i wouldn't keep people out of disneyland for some silly pointless reason, either ;)


• because i have a fondness for constitutions, and it would pain me to specifically write discrimination into one.


• for kellie and carly, for erik, and all the others named and unnamed.


• mostly, though, because it's right. it needs to be done. and i have yet to hear any even remotely convincing argument to the contrary.

post script: i hesitated to post something like this. i'm scared, i don't like conflict and i don't like to hear the arguments against same-sex marriage because they make me sad. but i went to a rally on campus at lunch, and i saw people making their stands, and i realized that now is not the time to be cowardly. it is my privilege to get to make that choice-- i could hide under a rock if i chose, no skin off my nose-- and i feel it is my moral duty to make the choice to take action today.

what a weekend! spawning college friends, a trip to LA, beers in LA, seeing wicked (AWESOME, can't wait until it's in SF in january so i can see it again! let me know if you want in ;), getting to play the just-released guitar hero: world tour (and sightreading drums on hard! go me!)... so much stuff that i almost forgot to post this little tidbit of awesomeness: the presidential race as a d&d campaign. oh. oh yes.

randomly selected excerpt to pique interest:

OBAMA: OH NO YOU DIDN'T.

MCCAIN: Whatever, so's your mom.

OBAMA: So's your FACE.

MCCAIN: So's your Mom's face!

if embeddingness fails

(only way it could be better would be if he had said "sent by my mother from paradise island to help save the world of man," but sadly far fewer people would have gotten that....)

i'm worn out. there are only so many times i can have my stupid idealism about the goodness of people crushed out of me before i just crawl back into a corner and start saying things like "well, at least nobody's going to drop a nuclear weapon on me today."

the sheer level of bigotry, sexism, othering, and general unfairness evident in the world is too much for me, and i can only see it getting worse over the next month. though before, i was sad that such things exist, but i was grateful to live in a place like the bay area, where the general population is of a similar mind as i am. now, it's unavoidable. it's all over. it's in the overemphasis on barack obama's middle name, in the shouts and booing and abuse at political rallies, in the constant discussion of sarah palin's appearance, in the sunday-morning-news interview with the head of the san francisco arch diocese that completely put me off my breakfast (stupid communal dining room with a damn tv).

is it so hard to criticize a politician's work and platform without bringing their race or gender into it, even obliquely? as melissa mcewan pointed out: if you can't make your point without bigotry, maybe you should reconsider your point.

i simply cannot stand that these people exist, and in non-insignificant numbers. it actually makes me hurt. to see people being othered, and discriminated against, and looked down upon, for pointless differences. i know there's an instinct to form group identity, which definitionally involves the formation of a "them" in opposition to "us," but is it too much to think that maybe we could be better than our instincts on these things? will someone please explain to me WHY we allow ourselves to be this way?

i've been such a martyr, with all the hatred spewed in my direction because of my awesomely awesome vacation. so i think it's time for me to dish a little back out.

i really hate em for this:


(i apologize for the high-res picture, it's the one em sent me to gloat, so go blame her!)

do i need to separate you two? so help me i will turn this van around! BE NICE, DAMMIT!

though i'm still a tad annoyed about the four campaign calls ive gotten while in lab (note to everyone: i voted by mail last week. there's literally nothing you can do to change my vote) but i am actually kind of excited about today. i'm excited that i'd be happy with whoever the democratic party nominates, that i got to vote in a pretty historic primary, and most of all i'm excited that people are excited. driving to the doctor this morning, i saw probably 10-15 students at one of the busier intersections jumping up and down and shouting and grinning and cheering for barak obama. it actually brought a bit of a tear to my eye. it was really cold this morning-- frost on my car and all-- and these kids managed to overcome both our generation's famous apathy AND the frigid conditions to speak out for what they believe. that's pretty damn cool.

and of course, the obligatory: don't forget to vote! i don't care who you vote for (okay, i care a *bit*) but do eet! i was a little sad to hear on the radio that they're expecting record turnout in california-- which is slightly over 50%. let's up those numbers, people!

very interesting post at feministing, about how older feminists like gloria steinem and kim gandy (current NOW president) feel that younger women aren't supporting hillary clinton in larger numbers because they're in denial that sexism exists.

so, first off, they get written off by me for playing the "well, if you were a REAL feminist..." card. lame argument. what it sums to is "if you were a REAL feminist you'd agree with me 100% of the time." i hate it when people do that, especially people i mostly agree with. guilt dont fly with me.

second, yes, i do feel a twinge of guilt for not supporting the first major female presidential candidate. i really do want to see a female president in my lifetime, but i also believe she is not the one. she rings false to me, and i'm not crazy about her support for video game censorship.

third, even though i don't plan on voting for her, i can still be royally pissed about the way she's treated by fellow candidates, opponents, and the media. snarking about her gender (a la this cobag), making fun of the way she laughs, saying she's an ice queen but then nailing her for getting choked up. none of it is okay. same goes for saying that barak obama's middle name disqualifies him for office. i mean, i'm happy to see leading candidates who are non-white or non-male, but i'm getting very scared about what the response to their campaigns says about our country and our society. not to mention the gymnastics they have to go through to make themselves palatable (particularly clinton-- i don't like the product she's been made into). it ain't pretty.

fourth, i have a theory about why younger women seem to be eschewing clinton in favor of obama, and i don't think it's that big a stretch. it's not because they've never suffered the effects of sexism. it's because they're at the age where they retain some optimism, and obama has been careful to equate himself with hope for the future. i won't say "he is hopeful, and brings us hope" or anything, because i don't want to be crushed if/when it turns out he's just as slimy as the rest, but better at acting. anyway, to me there's a subtle but important difference in the tone of his campaign-- less "look how awful things are now! vote for me because i'm not republican!" and more "progress is important, and we can do great things."

anyway, i really should go back to not getting worked up. this post just made me think, so guess what, you get to read my ramblings. back to powerpoint i go....

i've commented a bit around here about the ongoing video game violence debates, and none are currently raging stronger than the fight over 'manhunt 2.' it was originally rated adults-only (AO) by the ESRB, but was editted and resubmitted and given an M rating (mature-- the equivalent of an R, i.e. under 17 not admitted without parent). some watchdog groups are upset that nobody will say what was cut out to get the M rating-- i guess that doesn't bother me much, since, well, it was cut out. if it's not in the retail game, who cares? eh, anyway the point is that one of said watchdog grous is urging a parental boycott of the game.

as gamepolitics.com blogger dennis puts it so nicely: "Not bad advice, actually, since no one under the age of 17 should be playing Manhunt 2, anyway."

what a stunning move. ::rolls eyes:: whatever. if calling it a boycott actually gets parents to think about what they're buying for their kids, then that's what it takes i guess. just seems kind of lame to me.

so, it seems england has banned sales of a video game called manhunt 2. and here in america, a parents' group is petitioning the ESRB to give the game an AO rating, especially on the wii platform, as the "performance" of violence (stabbing, strangling, etc) is included due to the wii's motion sensitive controls.

this brings up a number of reactions on my part. first of all, i do very much believe in free speech, obviously. second, i really wish games like this werent made-- not in a "ban them" way (see "first of all") but in a "we're so enlightened we don't need this to exist" way. why do they exist, anyway? i don't get the appeal.

then again, i don't get the appeal of torture horror movies, which brings me to another point. why is it okay for movies to contain horrible torture, but not video games? one commenter at game politics makes the distinction over agency-- in the game, you are controlling the guy doing the violence. in the case of the wii, you're even making the stabbing motions. the commenter argues that movies are designed to scare, not entertain. but i have to disagree strongly with that. those torture movies are absolutely made to entertain, and that's what repulses me most about them. people watch them for fun. even more frightening is the idea that the people in the audience typically relate to someone on the screen, consciously or not... and i have a hunch it ain't the victims here. let me put it bluntly: people are paying to watch torture. fake, sure, but that only makes a tiny difference. watching torture is fun to some people. how is that so different from "perpetrating it" in a video game? that way doesnt even involve real people, just pixels. im not saying, one's fine, so they're all fine. i wish they'd all just go away. but it just doesnt make sense to have two standards here.

getting back to the problem of "okay, these games exist, now what?" is the issue of ratings. i think movie ratings are an okay model, but even they need a serious update. R seems to cover kind of everything that isnt a cartoon these days. wouldnt it be more useful to have something above R that's not a death sentence like NC-17? or, even better, have different types of R ratings-- one for violence, one for sexual content, etc. and then-- wait for it-- ENFORCE THE RATINGS. i think i was carded once ever going into an R rated movie. i also remember being dropped off at the movie theater by a friend's mom, who bought tickets to forrest gump and then left us to go watch the movie. how can we complain that the ratings arent working (for movies or games) if nobody is enforcing them? the ratings agencies are doing their part, it's time for everyone else to do theirs-- parents, retailers, gamers themselves.

that was a mess of a post, but i have a lot of issues with this topic so i get incoherent.

just to get it out of my system, i promise i'll keep it short!

so, here's the thing. john edwards faced massive uproar (by, let me remind us, people who were incredibly unlikely to even consider voting for him) for hiring bloggers that had used curse words and criticized the leadership of the catholic church. it is determined, by this noise machine, that the bloggers, and edwards by extension, hate all catholics. edwards says he wouldnt let his kids talk like that (i.e. the cursing), gives the bloggers lukewarm support, and they both resign.

ann coulter gets up, with an introduction from mitt romney, and refers to edwards with a homophobic slur. people cheer.

what the...?

i'm so confused.

so, there has been a certain amount of backing-away by moderates of several stripes (there's a collection of such reactions at the moderate voice), which is gratifying, i suppose-- i always like to see reasonable people being reasonable. but here's the big question: why is it so much more of a crisis when a democratic candidate hires people who criticize the catholic leadership (NOT catholic people in general, i'd like to point out), than when someone uses homophobic name-calling in an endorsement of a republican candidate?

i can think of two reasons, off the top of my head. the republican party has THE best PR people in the entire world. and i don't mean that as a compliment-- i'm depressed that politics is so much about image and about some list of hot-button talking points and about selling books, rather than people actually debating ideas and trying to help our country progress into the future. the second reason also depresses me, which is that it's still okay, accepted, and even cheered, to use sexual orientation as a throw-away put-down. it annoys me when groups of men call each other "ladies" to get themselves riled up, because what they're saying is that women are weak, different, and lower than them. and it's the same logic when orientation slurs are tossed around, no matter what the target's actual orientation is.

but those are both meta points i think. on a basic level, i'm just pissed that high school level name-calling now passes for acceptable political discussion. maybe i should give up the internet for lent :p

found a provocative article at gamepolitics today. basically, a byu-university of michigan study has correlated the reading of "violent biblical passages" with aggressive behavior.

now here's the thing: i don't think i buy the actual study, since i don't believe correlating violence to anything is really worthwhile, as it doesn't remotely prove causation. in fact, it seems that the methodology of the study is very similar (if not identical) to the studies that correlate violent acts to playing violent video games, watching violent movies, etc.

personally, i think the importance of the study is its use of that same methodology, in fact. basically, now it should be more or less impossible to trot out the old "omg video games are murder simulators!" argument without also bringing this baggage with it. if you believe that those video game studies produce valid results (i.e. that playing video games cause people to become aggressive), you cannot logically argue that the bible is safe reading. on the other hand, what this particular study proves to me is the silliness of these aggression studies in the first place-- video games "cause" violence the same way that the bible does, namely only to already-disturbed individuals who are willing to ignore context in the media they ingest.

i suppose i'd be silly to think that this study will put the whole silly argument to rest, but that would be almost unbearably naive. i just think it's interesting.

okay, yes, ill participate. its not like im coming out as pro choice or anything, i think its pretty well known where i stand. but in honor of this momentous (?) occasion, some thoughts.

"pro choice" is the least helpful euphemism since "pro life." both extend the issue into crazy places it just doesnt belong. non-pro-choice people dont believe in forced arranged marriages or monarchy or anything, and non-pro-life people arent pro-everyone-dying. i think both terms are damaging to the discussion because they contribute to how quickly the debate (which ought to be about medicine, gender, ethics, and responsibility) becomes strictly ideological. black-and-white. yes-or-no. and that is just ridiculous.

i would not want to have an abortion-- i would not want any medical procedure that i could otherwise avoid. i mean, if i could take some medicine to prevent me from having moles, i'd do that, so i could stop having to have them cut out once every year or so. so if i strongly believe in anything for myself, reproduction-wise, it's access to all available means of contraception for everyone. the cool thing about contraception is that the technology is pretty good, and getting better day by day (slowly, but surely!)-- the different devices and pills all work at different levels of biology, so once you've decided for yourself where you believe life starts, there's probably a contraceptive device for you!

obviously, i'm avoiding the real issue at hand. but i feel like protesting/supporting abortion is something akin to protesting/supporting affirmative action-- both operate at the wrong level. in my expert opinion, the way to get racial and gender parity in college is to work at the base level and ensure equal access to good education from elementary school onward, not to micromanage at the collegiate level (of course, that's a long-term fix, and until then, i do support several mechanisms of affirmative action such as the idea of critical mass, which was upheld by SCOTUS, but i digress). in the same way, the way to get true reproductive autonomy is to agitate for real, useful sex education, and universal access to contraception, rather than to focus on the more end-point issue of abortion. yes, i believe abortion should be legal and available, since we have yet to fix the more deeply-seated issues of gender politics and body autonomy. but having a Final Answer (legislatively or otherwise) on abortion does not relieve us of the responsibility to deal with those other issues.

i typically don't blog about choice issues, mostly because i know this is a contentious issue, and i know so many people have such strong feelings about it. it's not as if we can say, well, agree to disagree. because if babies are dying, that's not an option. i dont happen to believe that life begins at conception (mostly because something like 2/3 of even fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus), but then again, i also dont have an answer for when life *does* begin. so while today i celebrate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, i want to see if i can help reframe the debate so that we actually get something done, and maybe *gasp* help some real people. because right now, i feel like the focus of each side is on the other side, not on the people (women and men) that need information and support.

so happy birthday, roe. here's to a more enlightened future for all of us.

i know thomas jefferson wasnt perfect, but he really did have some nice things to say. and he said them well. maybe we should bring rhetoric back...

anyway, browsing around wikiquote, i found some real pretty ones: ( this got longish, sorry :) )

and i'm going to say it slowly.


there

is

no

war

on

christmas.


seriously, get over it. inclusiveness is not an attack on any of the groups "included." recognizing that other holidays exist in december (both religious and non) is not oppressing anyone. so GET OVER IT and stop using a very nice holiday season about generosity, family and tradition to your own stupid political ends. i'm tired of it.

EDIT: so i realized i need to clarify one thing real fast-- luckily, everyone who commented knew what i meant, but i wanted to be clear. i was referring to what fundamentalist christians and uberconservative talkshow types are calling the "war on christmas" (i.e. that there's a concerted effort by liberal/secular/hollywood whatever types to suppress christmas and therefore christianity). the point, brought up in comments, that the message of christmas (generosity, good will, celebration, etc) is often mutated to sell things, is well taken. dunno that i'd call it a "war on christmas" even then, but i think its certainly more of a real issue than the made up "omg liberals hate teh baby jesus" one.