Three Imaginary Girls - Politics

February 9th Democratic Presidential Caucus

Lawrence Winnerman — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:14:36 +0000

As you undoubtedly know, the 2008 Presidential Election season is upon us.

The Democratic field is blessed to have several phenomenal candidates – and amazingly, it increasingly looks like Washington State could play a pivotal role in deciding the nominee.

The Washington State Democratic Party decided last year that our input into the nominating process would be done through caucuses — and only caucuses. Therefore, the only way you can make your voice heard for the candidate you support is by participating in the Washington State Democratic Caucus on Saturday February 9^th, 2008 at 1:00pm in the afternoon.

(Confusingly, there is also a Primary on February 19^th, but for Democrats, the Primary does not count towards awarding candidates delegates to the National Convention in Denver. If you are supporting a specific candidate, the caucus is the only way to help him or her win!)

What: Washington State Democratic Presidential Nomination Caucuses

When: Saturday, February 9^th – 1:00pm to 2:30pm (doors open at 12:30)

Where: http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucusfinder

And now for some expectation-setting:

Caucuses aren't like "regular" voting. You have to show up at a specific place on a Saturday afternoon (there is no absentee or proxy voting, except for religious reasons), hang out for approximately 90 minutes, and publicly indicate who you're voting for.

Mamas with new babies take note!! Commenter J.R. on SLOG reveals this:

The dirty secret of the caucus system is this: Once you have signed in and written in the name of your preferred candidate, you have voted. If you don't want to switch your vote (i.e. if you're backing Clinton or Obama) and you have no interest in serving as a delegate to the county convention, you can just go home and your vote counts. Ten minutes, tops.

The Caucuses this year aren't even like in 2004 — then, your candidate had to get at least 15% in the first round of voting to be "viable." If your candidate wasn't viable, you could team up with another non-viable, or switch to a candidate who was.

This time, it's a bit weirder. There is no viability round, but you jump right into doing math to see who gets delegates. Your precinct has anywhere from 2-9 delegates to the Legislative District Caucus assigned to it — and the whole point is to do the math so your candidate gets the most of them.

Here's how commenter Cascadian on SLOG explains it:

However, because of the way fractional delegates are determined, there's still an effective threshold for each precinct that depends upon how many people show up and how many delegates are available in that precinct. Delegate counts are based on the votes for the last Democratic presidential candidate in each precinct. So if your precinct has 5 delegates like mine does, any candidate with 20% or more of the votes in a precinct is viable. Because of fractions there's usually at least one delegate unassigned because the remaining voters don't add up to 20%. Those delegates are assigned to candidates in the order of their fractional support.
At the precinct caucus, you announce your first choice, then the math is done. Then people have an opportunity to switch, which involves no small amount of bickering and horse-trading. Then a final tally is taken, each candidate group chooses its delegates and an equal number of alternates, weighing them according to gender, and their names and info are recorded. Then you go home, and if you were selected as a delegate or alternate you go on to the next level at the legislative district and county conventions.

So — caucuses are weird, and public, and lengthy, and a crappy way to do this whole "Democracy" thing. But I can tell you from experience that they are fun and informative, and a great way to meet your neighbors and other like-minded individuals who care about the future of this great country.

Good luck and fun caucusing!

Questions? Email me!

Lawrence Winnerman

Democratic Party PCO for Precinct 36-1715

lwinner@gmail.com

vote2.jpg

Confused about how to vote for your Presidential preference in Washington State? Wonder no longer — if you're a Democrat, we've got the deets on the who-what-when-where. And even the why.

Vote No and Hell No

Lawrence Winnerman — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:00:00 +0000

I remember the first day I came to Seattle, 13 years ago. My friends took me down to the Market, to introduce me to my new city, and to gaze out upon the glories of the waterfront. But as soon as I looked down from Victor Steinbrueck Park at the Viaduct, I was hollering like a madman. "What the EFF is that?! That's the ugliest goddamn thing I've ever seen in my freakin' life!!! You people put a highway on the WATERFRONT?!"

Yeah, we did put a highway on the waterfront. In 1953. It's bulky, ugly, and despite what any warped modernist romantic says about it being classified as an historic object, it cuts off the rest of downtown from the waterfront. It might have made sense in the 50's when the car was cool, and all oil was from Texas…but now? A dinosaur. A throwback. A Saudi oil princes' wet-dream. We'd never make that mistake again, right?

Don't be so sure.

If you are a City of Seattle resident, you are receiving a ballot in your mail RIGHT NOW for a March 13th Special Election. The only two items on that ballot? Measures 1 & 2. Here's a summary:

Do you want to pay $3.6 Billion for a 4-lane cut and cover tunnel with surface streets: YES or NO
Do you want to pay $2.8 Billion for a 6-lane elevated (with one exit lane per level (read: 8-lane) viaduct: YES or NO

Well gosh. That's easy. Only two questions, and "yes or no" on both. You just pick which one you like, right? WRONG!!!

My dear friends – please hear my prayer – for the love of all that is holy and good, vote NO on BOTH of these abominations. It is not rejectionist, or a screw the establishment vote. It is the only thing you can do to save Seattle from the convoluted political posturing that got us to this place.

These are both bad ideas, and they are NOT the only solutions available to us. There is a word for forcing citizens to pick among false choices while doing whatever you want in the end, and it sure as hell is not "Democracy".

Voting NO on BOTH is like taking a money-loaded gun out of the hands of politicians who are behaving like children. It will force them to sit down and consider a solution that makes much more sense – the People's Waterfront Coalition's "Streets + Transit" plan. The Streets + Transit plan isn't a one-word thing, like "Tunnel" or "Elevated" – it's a whole enchilada deal: a nice boulevard where the Viaduct is now, plus a package of improvements to the street grid to make the whole of downtown easy to get in and out of (or through). Plus it allocates money to transit, opens the waterfront, and makes us think about all of downtown transportation capacity holistically – for about $1.7 Billion.

Do you see what I am saying here? We get all of the benefit of a well-thought out transportation plan, more transit, open waterfront, environmental benefits, and it costs AT LEAST ONE BILLION DOLLARS less than the "cheapest" of our two false choices.

I could list out the many and compelling arguments, but The Stranger's Erica C. Barnett has already done a fantastic job in this week's cover story: No and Hell No: Just Say No to Both Viaduct Measures.

Once you've assimilated that healthy chunk of enlightened thinking – become a friend of the NoAndHellNo.org campaign on our MySpace page. Then invite YOUR friends to come join us. You can also print out yard signs to let other people know that it's AOK to vote NO and HELL NO.

And, finally, when your ballot arrives in the mail, firmly and with courage vote NO on Measure 1, and NO on Measure 2, and mail it back in by March 13th. Future generations of Seattleites will thank you.

noHELLno.gif

Voting NO on BOTH is like taking a money-loaded gun out of the hands of politicians who are behaving like children.

Utah Ravers Raided by Police

imaginary dana — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:00:00 +0000

Have you heard about this? There was a rave going on in Utah this weekend. The police raided it in full-on combat gear, with helicopters, tear gas, the works. You can watch a video of the raid here.

I first read the story over on Daily Kos and was completely horrified/taken aback by the situation. According to the first-hand report on Daily Kos, this event was 100% legal. "They had every permit the city told them they needed. They had a 2 MILLION DOLLAR insurance policy for the event. They had liscenced security guards at the gates confiscating any alcohol or drugs found upon entry (yes, they searched every car on the way in). Oh, I suppose I should mention that they arrested all the security guards for possession..... the police did not have a warrant. The owner of the land already has a lawsuit against the city for something similar. A few months ago, she rented her land for a party and the police raided that as well. And catch this, the police forced her to LEAVE HER OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY. That's right. They didnt arrest her, but made her leave her own property!!!"

This is truly terrifying shite. After I read this, I was ready to storm the castle, beat the man, run for my life, etc.

Instead I googled for more info. The story as told by Salt Lake City Tribune tells a very different story... "Investigators learned that no permit had been requested for a mass gathering which requires a bond and Utah County Commission approval for groups larger than 250, said Gilbert. Police learned around noon Saturday that the rave would be held in the Diamond Fork area of Spanish Fork Canyon and assembled about 90 officers from several agencies to enforce crowd control.

Undercover officers filtered into the party when the doors opened about 9 p.m. By 11:30 p.m. police confirmed that more than 250 people were in attendance and stormed the party. During their two hours at the DJ-driven dance party, undercover officers had observed a multitude of illegal activities including the sale and consumption of drugs such as cocaine, ecstacy, alcohol, methamphetamine and marijuana.

Notice the differing reports about the required permits? I'm wondering what the truth is here.

Did the media upsell the drugs of a rave (cause c'mon, it was a rave) and lie about required permits in order to negate the human rights violations in the story? Or did the DJ who witnessed the event not have his facts straight? Anyone out there have more information?

I haven't been able to find anything too interesting in the online news (shocker) so I'm hoping someone in the imaginary world might have more answers and insights. I've blogged about this over at Music for America, so click this link to post comments and info.

I'm the one and only {imaginary} dominator.

rave.jpg

Only for the headstrong?

All the Residents' Men

Imaginary Boy Shaun — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:00:00 +0000

The biggest problem with mysteries is that sooner or later they have to be solved. And the solution to any mystery is invariably a letdown. As long as there is uncertainty, there is the chance that the answer will reveal something beyond the ordinary. But answers rarely do. Do you really want to know what lies beneath the Bermuda triangle? Do you really want to know the truth about Bigfoot? Do you really want to know who shot JFK?

Did you really want to know the identity of Deep Throat?

And the revelation of G-Man W. Mark Felt as Woodstein's Cigarette Smoking Man came not only as an anti-climax, but as not much of a surprise. I was introduced to the Felt-as-DT theory a few years ago by Tim Noah in Slate. Noah's case, and that of his sources, was convincing enough that the mystery was more or less ruined for me then. But as long as everyone remained tight-lipped, I could still watch All the President's Men and fantasize that Hal Holbrook was in fact playing Henry Kissinger, or Al Haig, or William Rehnquist, or… or somebody who could juice up the news for a few weeks when the lid got blown off.

But no. Instead we get a semi-senile obscurity with the mixed motives of, well, a real human being. And anyone with any sense of romance in them will tell you, the last thing we want in our mysteries is a real human being. Unfortunately, that's what we're stuck with.

Kind of like the day I realized that I knew who the Residents are.

The first thing anybody learns, and the only thing many people know, about the Residents is that they have managed to maintain their anonymity for the 30-plus years that they've been making music. Which to some extent is true, in that it would be nearly impossible to generate a reliable biography based on what is known about them. Much of the story can be assembled based on facts given or implied by the "official" biography and on the work itself, but the Residents story is full of elision, exaggeration and, well, outright lies.

But to any die-hard Residents fan (is there any other kind?), the identities of the artists themselves is no secret. I'm not going to reveal that information here - if you haven't figured it out yourself, relish the mystery. The fans don't even admit it amongst themselves; through want of maintaining the illusion or out of respect for the band's wishes, we perpetuate the myth that we have no idea whose faces hide beneath those eyeball heads. It's sort of like pro wrestling: they know it's fake, we know it's fake, but the enjoyment depends on both of us pretending that it's not. Mass suspension of disbelief is key to the whole concept.

I remember the day I was introduced to the music of the Residents. It was through a mix tape made by a friend of a friend, and was full of the darker, moodier elements of their oeuvre. I had never heard of them, and when I was told that this bizarre music was made by an anonymous group of musicians obscured by giant top-hatted eyeball heads, my interest was piqued. The music seemed otherworldly, inhuman, and the fact that there wasn't some beer-gutted, bespectacled geek named Doug pictured inside (no, none of the real Residents are named Doug; lighten up, Sherlock) maintained that impression.

As time went on and I obsessively collected Res-related minutiae, some facts did emerge. They came from Louisiana to San Francisco as more of an arts collective than a rock group. They have maintained that concept, combined with a need to be constantly on the edge of technology, ever since. From early videotape to synths to CD-Rom to DVD, they have experimented early and often with every new media form and toy that has come along. Projects have fallen apart when their realization times outlasted the shelf life of the technologies on which they were based.

Still, who were the driving forces behind all this tinkering and creation? I can put names (I think - are the names I know their real names?) and faces to the shadowy forms. But still, much of the tale remains obscured. The why is missing. Why a four-album trilogy about the civilization clash between mole people? Why the obsession with '60s bubblegum pop in an avant-garde setting? Is there a reason behind every shift in style and concept beyond the questionable explanations that have been given us? And what of the oft-told tales? Who is the Mysterious N. Senada, and what is his connection to Harry Partch? Was Not Available really shelved until the day when the band had forgotten about its existence? And is the fantastic new album, Animal Lover, really based on animal mating sounds?

Part of me awaits the day when the definitive biography is written, all is revealed, and I can fill in the blanks. Another, maybe even bigger part of me, hopes that day never comes. As for Deep Throat: so long, it's been good not to know ya.

Recordstoredem_lg.jpg

And anyone with any sense of romance in them will tell you, the last thing we want in our mysteries is a real human being. Kind of like the day I realized that I knew who the Residents are.

College Students Can't Write "Sex" or "Balls"

Joseph Riippi — Sat, 07 May 2005 07:00:00 +0000

{This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.}

A couple of weeks ago, The College of William and Mary's student newspaper, The Flat Hat, ran as their weekly "Behind Closed Doors" sex column an installment entitled "Balls: Lick 'em and Love 'em," which focused on the fondling of testicles and gave advice to "those ladies out there that like to pretend the scrotum is invisible."

The April 8 column was not an unusual one for "Behind Closed Doors," even when it went on to describe more effective ways to find a woman's G-Spot. However it did seem to spark more discussion than sex columns of the past.

David Brooks, a New York Times columnist, made reference to the "Balls…" article in his April 17 column "Public Hedonism and Private Restraint," aligning William and Mary's sex column with 50 Cent's "Candy Shop" and young teens "with acres of exposed pelvic skin" as examples of the sex all around us. Meanwhile, at William and Mary, one faculty member took it upon himself to write The Flat Hat a letter in which he outlined several reasons, sometimes convincingly scientific, as to why a college paper should not feature a sex column written by students.

Naturally the "Balls: Lick 'em and Love 'em" article was the one to get national attention, however not all "Behind Closed Doors" columns have been so explicit. An earlier column from this semester was entitled "Love: Not easy, but worth it." Other installments have shown the columnist speaking out against sexual violence, informing readers about "the morning after pill" and reporting on Virginia State's long-overdue abolishment of what was referred to as "the fornication law," a fourth degree misdemeanor which, although not having been used since 1847, made it illegal for unmarried couples to "fornicate." Most of all, her columns have focused on the goal of making sex less taboo, and something that can be talked about as opposed to a foreign mystery for some people.

This is not the first time The Flat Hat, (or probably any other college newspaper) has had to deal with oppositional flack due to its content. I've been a columnist and writer for The Flat Hat for the past four years, and in the two years of the sex column's existence, it has been no secret that the writer of "Behind Closed Doors" got a bad wrap from not only some faculty, but also some of the more conservative students on the Williamsburg, VA campus. Last year, someone from the College community sent clippings of her column home to her parents, resulting in nothing less than huge embarrassment.

Arguments against the column have always centered on the column as being too explicit, encouraging of pre-marital sex, or representing the College in a negative light. I myself became a topic of conversation when in several of my columns I used the word "fuck." My boss at a campus job said some of her co-workers felt it was extremely inappropriate for a newspaper that prospective students read as an indicator of the school in general to contain any obscenities. It might paint for the prospective students a poor picture of the College. Later the Reviews section of The Flat Hat, in which my column appeared, received an email that read simply, "Dear Flat Hat – Fuck you."

My attitude then, and my attitude now, is that, well, college students say "fuck," they have sex, and if there is a student newspaper, it shouldn't tailor to the needs of anyone but the students. Freedom of the press, Freedom of speech, etc. However, the faculty member who authored the letter to the newspaper seemed to think otherwise. In his listing of reasons as to why a student should not write a sex column, his first reason was thus:

"The writings of the current 'Flat Hat Sex Columnist' are always childish, always a display of ignorance, and sometimes pornographic. If one of our legislators sees her column 'Balls: Lick 'em and Love 'em" there will be a negative impact on the College's appropriation from the State [sic]. Some of her columns probably violate Virginia's statutes of obscenity."

Another reason:

"Sexual intercourse is connected to chemical processes that are not under conscious control. For example, in females, intercourse causes release of oxytocin, the "mother love" hormone, which is involved in the bond between mother and infant. Thus, the same chemistry that mediates the mother-infant bond also mediates the bond between a woman and her mate. This is the strongest chemistry in our bodies."

I find it hard to believe that the Virginia State Legislature would revoke funding to one of its public universities because of a column in which a student gives sex advice to other students. And whether or not it does in fact violate VA's obscenity laws is unclear. As for the science, I believe it only strengthens the fact that sex is not something to be taken lightly – never does the columnist advocate sleeping around, rather she has acknowledged that sex is something meant only for those deeply in love, and she advocates waiting for marriage if you believe in waiting. And in any case, the issue at hand is not whether or not sex is a good idea, or whether of not "fuck" is a bad word. Rather it is whether or not they should be discussed in the print of a college newspaper.

The most recent installment of "Behind Closed Doors" is not any cleaner since the New York Times mention or the faculty letter; this week the topic of conversation is anal sex: "It has a cultural shock value, so we only talk about it when we're making a joke…Anal sex doesn't have to be a joke. It can be a normal, pleasurable way to have sex, as it is for a lot of people." And after having read the letter from the faculty member, I had no problem leaving in the five occasions in which I used the word "fuck" in my own column.

I agree that a sex column, or the incidence of the word "fuck" in a campus newspaper paints a somewhat negative light of a college for prospective students, or perhaps more correctly, for their parents. But I also believe that even if it is more negative, it is a more honest and more real picture. The College of William and Mary does not offer a journalism program, therefore The Flat Hat is run entirely by students, and is thus a reflection of the students' lives, not an advertisement for the College. What should it be? {This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.}

danaMfA.gif

I find it hard to believe that the Virginia State Legislature would revoke funding to one of its public universities because of a column in which a student gives sex advice to other students.

Microsoft Wants Gay Employees to Do More With Less

imaginary dana — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 07:00:00 +0000

I've lived on Capitol Hill, an über-urban Seattle hipster neighborhood, for the past seven years. Hipsters and freaks predominate, and of course, the area is extremely liberal and gay-friendly, especially compared to my suburban upbringing. Moving out here, I've always felt like now is a great time and Seattle is a great place to be gay.

I don't think that anymore. Right now is a super-sucky time to be gay in Seattle, and the actions of our state legislature and one of our top employers just confirmed it. This week, an anti-discriminatory House bill that would have protected gays and lesbians came to vote, and it was voted down – by only one vote.

And this bill simply covered the basics. From an article in the Stranger on the issue:

"House Bill 1515 would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance, and other matters by adding sexual orientation to a state law which already bars discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, and mental or physical handicap."

In other words, this bill wasn't for special rights or privileges, or even the right to marry {something else that I find a ridiculous restriction, but something to be saved for another column}. This bill simply stated that people should not be discriminated against based on their sexuality in life's basics: housing, jobs, money. It's an atrocity that this right isn't already being protected.

What makes this particular loss even more troublesome in the Pacific Northwest is that Microsoft, a long-time advocate for gay rights {pun not intended, but still funny} and anticipated supporter of the bill, reversed it's long-standing stance on anti-discrimination based on sexuality, and instead proclaimed themselves "neutral" on this bill. Even worse, they did so after receiving threats {my word, but I feel it's apt} from – guess who? – Evangelical Christians who opposed the bill, who vowed to, "organize a national Evangelical boycott of Microsoft."

From the same Stranger article:
"(Microsoft) withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch. The pastor, Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, met with a senior Microsoft executive in February and threatened to organize a national boycott of the company's products if it did not change its stance on the legislation."

I am familiar with this Hutcherson fellow. This is a religious leader who won't allow known gays to be members of his church, and he's the same offensive jackass {again, my words, again, apt} who organized a "Mayday for Marriage" rally at Safeco Field last year in Seattle, which yellow-bused in approximately 20,000 narrow-minded bigots from around the state to convene in the downtown arena in my gay-friendly city to proclaim how threatened they were by two people in love who want to marry who happen to be of the same gender. My then fiancé and I attended the counter-rally to defend the sanctity of all people to marry the partners of their choosing, and to express our dismay with this outpouring of hatred and discrimination {two sides, one coin} toward our gay friends.

But back to Microsoft. I recognize that Microsoft is a software company, not a political organization. It's not necessarily their job to champion social or political causes. But here's what I can't fathom: some bully from a suburban parish talks to a few executives and suddenly the company shirks away from taking a long-held stand against discrimination? Microsoft did this?? This doesn't sounds like the aggressive, innovative, indominable Microsoft we've all grown to love (or hate), but to certainly acknowledge as competitive force to be reckoned with.

Microsoft never shirks from competition; it thrives on it. From what I've seen, they either acquire their competitors, or they mobilize to annihilate them. Linux? Bring it on, says Microsoft! Mozilla? Bulk up the Internet Explorer team and make security atop company priority. Lawsuits? Hire top lawyers and fight back. But now one creepy evangelical reverend in the suburbs and Microsoft negates – no, neutralizes – a stellar history as a progressive leader for the rights of all their employees? I don't like it. This might not be their battle to fight, but that doesn't make me like it one bit more.

And really – are the threats even valid ones? Are these people going to impact the overwhelming stronghold Microsoft has in the desktop and office environment? And with all due respect to Evangelical Christian bigots, is the Honorable Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond going to start evangelizing for open source solutions with his congregation? Is he gonna buy them all G5 iMacs and force the faithful to download Mozilla? Give me a break. I bet most of these folks are lucky if they can type in 14 point Comic Sans to forward their hokey "Forward this to 10 friends or God will send gay people to teach your children about Darwin" email spams.

Microsoft has a stellar record as pioneering same-sex partner rights, and they haven't reneged on this stance internally. Microsoft continues to offer same-sex partner domestic benefits – benefits which are exemplary, especially for health insurance coverage. They haven't taken these back at all – they simply refused to take a stand on an amendment that would guarantee these same rights for all Washingtonians, and likely because of their neutrality, the West was lost.

Now is not the time to be neutral. I hope that moving forward Microsoft will choose to continue to be an innovator not just in the world of software, but also in the realm of human rights. Why should they expect their employees to do more with less?

{This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.}

danaMfA.gif

Microsoft, a long-time advocate for gay rights {pun not intended, but still funny} and anticipated supporter of the bill, reversed it's long-standing stance on anti-discrimination based on sexuality, and instead proclaimed themselves "neutral" on this bill.

The Right to Die

imaginary dana — Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:00:00 +0000

I spent the better part of my weekend wracking my brain to write my Music for America column this week, which focuses on Michael and Terri Schiavo; specifically, I make use of my long-dormant speech pathology masters degree to explain a little somethin' somethin' about cognitive and swallowing difficulties following traumatic brain injury. I called the article The Right to Die.

The article addresses the hypocrisy of our cursed Republican leaders du jour, who supposedly advocate for small government and the so-called "sanctity of marriage," but who have trounced Congress into the marriage of Terri and Michael Schiavo to appease their Christian Conservative voterbase. "Prayerfully optimistic," my ass. No one should be making difficult end-of-life decisions for Terri Schiavo but her next of kin, her power of attorney, the person she chose to foresake all others for when they said "I do" back in 1984: her husband. This weekend's shenanigans in Washington speak volumes to what personal freedoms our current leaders will wallop in order to serve their agendas, and I find it terrifying, infuriating, and very, very dangerous.

I don't want the government invading my deathbed and making decisions for me, or my family. Do you?

I invite you to read the article, and to share it with others as you see fit. One of the most dangerous elements to this issue is that the media has been taking such a soft stand on defending personal freedoms. All I've heard is self-righteous Republicans, right-to-life protestors, and of course, Terri's mother pleading to leaders to "save her little girl," with little to no input from her husband, or those defending his right to act as her husband.

OK, I've ranted enough. Now go read the entire article and post your comments on the Music for America website.

{This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.}

danaMfA.gif

The article addresses the hypocrisy of our cursed Republican leaders du jour, who supposedly advocate for small government and the so-called "sanctity of marriage," but who have trounced Congress into the marriage of Terri and Michael Schiavo to appease their Christian Conservative voterbase.

Ignorance + Pina Coladas = Bliss

imaginary dana — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 08:00:00 +0000

Hola muchachos! I've just returned from a fabulous honeymoon in Mexico, and can I just tell you how much I love fresh ceviche? Ohmygod. It's a little bit of heaven, I tell ya.

Know what else was blissful? Spending over a week being completely ignorant of the news. My new husband (omg husband!) and I lounged in the sun, and downed frothy pina coladas + shots of tequila, all the while purposefully avoiding newspapers, televisions, and the Internet news sites, and remaining completely out of touch with the happenings in the world.

Of course, now it's time to write something insightful for my friends at Music for America, and I am completely clueless. I asked my Political Best Bud Lorenzo for a potential topic idea and the conversation went something like this:

Me: "What's been going on in the world that I could write about for Music for America?
PBBL: "Why don't you write about the Italian journalist who was kidnapped and how the American troops opened fire on her as she was being liberated?"
Me: Huh?

Clearly, ignorance is bliss, but it has its pitfalls once you return to reality.

But while we're on the topic of ignorance, I should mention that there was an election in the state of Nayarit, Mexico during our stay. As soon my fella and I hopped in the cab from the airport, political signs chased up and down the highway and throughout the rustic town where we stayed. Signs were taped to the storefronts and stickers were affixed to the insides of beaten-up pickup trucks. Ney! Salvadora! That other guy! Foreign names and, somewhat alarmingly, unknown faces followed us around our honeymoon, smilingly entreating us for a vote we could not give.

{Aside to readers: be thankful that the U.S. hasn't adopted the practice of plastering the candidates' grinning faces to their political posters. It's really creepy. Imagine if we had to see Dubya's smirking monkey face on all those bumper stickers… *shudder*.}

Elections occurred on the Sunday we spent in Sayulita. While we ate breakfast, we watched the locals fill the town center in what we were told were overwhelming numbers, queueing in the sun to make their selection from the sea of faces. From what I could glean, it seemed to be a primary election for the "PRI" party. Whatever that means, whatever they stand for. No me importa. I ate my huevos rancheros and watched with a light heart. After the agony of last November, it was such a relief to actually NOT participate – to observe their enthusiasm and vehemence dispassionately, as an onlooker. "Isn't it refreshing?" I thought to myself. "No matter what they decide, this election won't impact my life."

I sat in the café, just watching those voters. I contemplated whether any of the unfamiliar candidates peering out from the posters were as inarticulate, narrow-minded, and offensive as the winner of our last election. I wondered if any of those folks in line would have their hearts break as mine did last November once the results were announced. I smiled to myself, happy not to worry about politics, content to simply enjoy my vacation for a few days more. I turned to order my first pina colada of the day (hey, it was approaching noon, and it does contain juice), and had a conversation that went something like this:

Waitress: "No alcohol today."
Me: "Oh {crestfallen}. Is that because it's Sunday?"
Waitress: "Nope, because of the elections. It's dry here today because they don't want the banditos to shoot each other once the results are announced."

Ack! Que lastima! I guess it goes to show – even though we might be ignorant about the politics involved, we all feel the ripple of all elections....

{PS ~ Special huge thanks to the fabulous Lisa Wood for doing such a fabulous job with A Rush and a Push during my two week absence. And – it's so good to be home!}

{This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.

danaMfA.gif

My new husband (omg husband!) and I lounged in the sun, and downed frothy pina coladas + shots of tequila, all the while purposefully avoiding newspapers, televisions, and the Internet news sites.

With a Rebel Yell

imaginary dana — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:00:00 +0000

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've probably heard that Vermont Governor and one-time Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean has been elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee. I've been looking at all the news articles about his winning the nomination, and keep seeing these sorts of phrases: "Screamin' Dean." "Infamous Iowa scream." "High-flying presidential bid collapsed in disarray one year ago."

While I wasn't in at the ground level of Dean activism, I did caucus for him in Washington state. I completely admire the way he inspired hope, organized the masses, and challenged both the Republican opposition as well as John Kerry's campaign to take on important issues.

What amazes me about the Dean sitch is that he was invalided by our press with one sound bite: a simple cheer of victory that echoed around the world and negated the year+ worth of campaign work and grassroots activism he had completed and inspired.

What's even more amazing is that I've heard from Democratic activists who were in the room for that speech, and according to them, the cheer wasn't even extraordinary, given the ambient noise level in the room. Dean was rallying a crowd of cheering campaigners, the sound level was deafening, and he was yelling – into a mouthpiece mic'ed only for him. The news media took the sound byte – which of course sounded outrageously boisterous and unruly without the cheers of the crowd audible in the background – and effective destroyed his presidential bid.

What makes this more amazing is how many incredibly stupid Bush quotes have been captured by microphones that have never been broadcast like the infamous yowl. My favorite example: remember during the second Presidential debate, during a discussion about small businesses and taxes, when Kerry claimed that Bush had received $84 from a timber company that he partially owned? When it was Bush's time to talk, he snickered, "I own a timber company? That's news to me!" He then proceeded to chuckle and stare stupidly at the audience for a moment, before he quipped, "Wanna buy some wood?"

I realize I don't need to convince this audience that Bush is an idiot. What's interesting is that Kerry was completely right: Bush had earned exactly that much money under his own definitions of small business ownership. So why didn't the media jump all over that idiot quote, or one of several zillion others Bush has made over the past 4+ years? How could a man like Howard Dean be completely negated by one yell, when Bush, who has entire websites and books dedicated to the stupid things he says, get re-elected?

{Amusing interlude: here are a couple of my favorites GWB said while campaigning for re-election (source)}

** "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

** "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Of course, the answer is: our mainstream media doesn't challenge our President. My hunch is, the Republicans realized fighting Howard Dean would be more of a challenge, as he didn't have a voting record in the Senate, and was a vocal opponent of the war. They couldn't negate him as a flip-flopper, so they labeled him as unstable, as erratic – for one rallying cry.

And it worked – for awhile. And clearly this man – a doctor, governor, and grass-roots leader – isn't some sort of screaming Dean. I'm proud that the Democrats have elected a unifier, a man with outspoken opinions and a powerful use of language. I'm excited to see what he has in store – and when he shouts his next rebel yell, I expect to shout back, "More! More! More!"

{This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.}

danaMfA.gif

While I wasn't in at the ground level of Dean activism, I did caucus for him in Washington state. I completely admire the way he inspired hope, organized the masses, and challenged both the Republican opposition as well as John Kerry's campaign to take on important issues.

Chocolates are on the March!

imaginary dana — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:00:00 +0000

Since my weekly MFA column falls on the day after the first so-called free election in Iraq in 50 years, I felt the need to address the subject. But what to say about it?

I don't believe that "Freedom is on the March." Bush has been proclaiming that inanity since Fall of last year – and it was trite the first time. Nor can I even stomach that Bush has "Firmly planted the flag of liberty." My every skeptical liberal nerve stands on end at the banality.

But I'd like to consider – could it be possible that there's something good coming to pass in Iraq today? On this day, I'd like to read a news source I could believe, to find out what transpired. But mostly, I feel like we here in the U.S. can't possibly know what's going on half a world away, especially with the current conservative bias of our media.

To illustrate the case, I browsed three articles posted today:

From a U.S. corporate media news source (Knight Ridder Newspapers – and incidentally, the top Google news story this afternoon)

From the Guardian (a top U.K. newspaper)

From the Nation, one of the top progressive news sources, also the top story on CommonDreams.org today.

Let's check out the tone of these three articles…

First from the Knight Ridder Newspapers-owned Kansas City Star…

Millions of Iraqis defy insurgent

The story opens a bit bombastically, with glowing praise for the events of the day…

"Sunday was a rare day of jubilation in this war-weary nation. A surprise majority of Iraqis cast ballots in their first independent elections in half a century, voting for democracy and defying the insurgency that tried to silence them with a barrage of attacks that killed at least 44 people."

It continues on in this same tone, proclaiming that, "…Iraqis basked in a freedom that most of them had never before known. Voters danced in the streets and let out shrill cries of joy. They wiped away tears and hugged their children. They risked death and celebrated with chocolates.

I'd like to believe this was true. Who doesn't love chocolate? Chocolates are on the march!!!

Mmmm, chocolates. But seriously - chocolates? Clearly, the plausibility factor has plummeted for skepticalD.

Next, I was encouraged to find a more objective story from the Brits. I especially liked that they began the story with a bulleted list of just the facts:
Iraqi voters defy the bombers

Turnout put at 57%

Polls fail to open in some Sunni areas

More than 40 die in blasts

OK, that's a bit closer to what I was looking for. The article continues with a guardedly positive response to the elections, without too much editorializing. It described the relatively high voter turnout ("Iraqis... go to the polls in greater than expected numbers for the first democratic elections for 50 years.") but it also mentioned the unrest right at the top ("At least nine suicide bombers, most with explosives strapped to their chests, detonated themselves near polling stations in Baghdad.")

Can you imagine if a U.S. or U.K. election involved nine suicide bombers and over 40 deaths? Tony Blair described today's vote as "a moving and humbling experience." I'd like to hear if the friends and family of the suicide bombers and their victims were moved.

In this same article, Bush proclaimed that, "the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists." With over 40 deaths and nine suicide bombers, it's fair to ask the rhetorical: have they?

Earlier this week, Bush issued another philosophically-questionable platitude, "A world without tyranny is an ideal world."

Jesus. Why do we have a President who talks like the head cheerleader at a pep rally before the big Banal College versus University of Vapidity homecoming match? The words say nothing tangible, but they incite – so it's difficult to counter argue them. I mean, I know tyranny = bad. Hard to argue. But did any journalist question Bush, both about whether Iraqis really are rejecting the "ideology of terrorists" (a weak euphomism for "anti-American occupation"), and about whether we're truly working to eradicate tyranny? Which brings me to my third article…

Occupation Thwarts Democracy
The fantastic John Nichols at the Nation challenges the question: even if this one day was a success, is the principal that brought us to this day a moral one? Do the ends justify the means?

"Under pressure from the Bush Administration, political parties campaigning in this weekend's so-called "election" in Iraq did not proposed timetables for the withdrawal of US troops from their homeland.

This constraint upon the debate effectively denied the Iraqi people an honest choice. Polls suggest that the majority of Iraqis favor the quick withdrawal of US forces, yet the voters of that battered land were cheated out of a campaign that could have allowed them to send a clear signal of opposition to the occupation."

An excellent point, one not addresses in the previous articles. Nichols continues to say…

"That democracy has been denied in Iraq is beyond question. The charade of an election, played out against a backdrop of violence so unchecked that a substantial portion of the electorate-- particularly Sunni Muslims--avoided the polls for reasons of personal safety, featuring candidates who dared not speak their names and characterized by a debate so stilted that the electorate did not know who or what it is electing."

Again, good points – but are they accurate? He doesn't provide any objective data about the number of the disenfranchised electorate who couldn't/didn't vote. Did the Iraqi people not know who they were voting for? Was there really chocolate in Iraq?

Our media has been "Chicken Big" for so long – proclaiming that the sky is upheld, when it's most likely falling – that how are we to trust them to relate historically significant events like today's election? Where does the truth lie? With Chocolates on the March? Somehow, I doubt it...

{This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.}

danaMfA.gif

Since my weekly MFA column falls on the day after the first so-called free election in Iraq in 50 years, I felt the need to address the subject. But what to say about it?

The FCC Chair is Resigning - Long Live the Chair!

imaginary dana — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:00:00 +0000

Looks like Colin isn't the only Powell bowing out of a second Bush term - Colin's son Michael Powell is likewise stepping down as chairman of the Federal Communications Committee. Ding dong, the Chair is dead! Long live the Chair!

Why do I sound so joyous and Brit-patriotic about his retirement?

Because Powell has been a disaster of an FCC chair. During his tenure, he worked relentlessly to promote the consolidation of media and the repression of free speech in the name of "cracking down on indecency." And more importantly, he's done nothing to curtail the use of the public airwaves as propaganda machines for the neo-con Republican agenda - in fact, he's encouraged everything negative about media consolidation. Let's review some of Powell's more public accomplishments as Chairman of the FCC:

We can thank Powell from protecting us from the foul talk of DJ Howard Stern, who has received nearly $3 million in fines thanks to Powell's, and was pulled from multiple Clear Channel-owned stations for his so-called indecent remarks. Incidentally, Stern got fined and subsequently fired in several markets only after he started mingling his off-color humor with anti-Bush comments. Go figure.

Powells' FCC also stood behind the whole Janet Jackson Superbowl wardrobe malfunction/nipple debacle. They took what should have been a collective middle-school-style snicker and escalated it to morality outrage of epic proportions. Then they issued the largest FCC fine for a single broadcasting incident. After all, the world NEARLY SAW A NIPPLE!!! Good thing Michael Powell thought of the children and imposed those fines accordingly!

But I'm being glib. Let's talk a bit more seriously about the dangerous decisions Michael Powell has made, and why you should care about who replaces him. FreePress.net has printed a list of the Top 10 Things Big Media Doesn't Want You to Know, from which I have included a few choice scary facts:

Five media conglomerates - Viacom, Disney, Time Warner, News Corp. and NBC/GE - control the big four networks (70% of the prime time television market share), most cable channels, vast holdings in radio, publishing, movie studios, music, Internet, and other sectors.

Since 1975, two-thirds of independent newspaper owners have disappeared, and one-third of independent television owners have vanished. Only 281 of the nation's 1,500 daily newspapers remain independently owned, and more than half of all U.S. markets are one-newspaper towns.

The number of radio station owners has plummeted by 34% since 1996, when ownership rules were gutted. That year, the largest radio owners controlled fewer than 65 stations; today, radio giant Clear Channel alone owns over 1,200.

Consider the implications media consolidation had on our last election. Remember when MoveOn.org was denied the right to run a 30 second anti-Bush ad during the Superbowl, on the grounds that it was "too political" in an election year? Or how about last Fall when all the major news networks refused to run advertisements for Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" DVD, citing, "the closeness of the release to the election" as justification? Yep, that was Powell's influence again, keeping the airwaves decent.

But when the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, a media conglomerate like Clear Channel that owns or programs content for stations in 62 markets, ordered each of its affiliate stations to pre-empt local programming in favor of a blatantly anti-Kerry documentary just two weeks before the election, do you think Powell's FCC balked? Of course not.

According to Powell, he feels that during his tenure he, "Worked to get the law right in order to stimulate innovative technology that puts more power in the hands of the American people."

Which American people does Powell believe have more power as a result of his work?

There is no resource more vital to a free democracy than a free press. If the government is the heart of our country's body (bear with my metaphor a moment), then our free press is the blood that carries nutrients to every capillary, every cell, every one of us in this country. Should that flow of information get restricted, we'll lose our vitality and die. Should that blood become toxic with false sustenance, we will likewise perish.

It's crucial that you speak out now, to have a voice in who gets chosen to replace Powell as FCC Chairman. The fine folks as FreePress.net have made it easy: they have a great petition for you to sign, with a pre-written letter of positive intent for Bush as well as space to include your own message about what you hope to see in the new leader of the FCC. In their own words:

"President Bush's replacement for Powell will have a profound impact on the future of a media system that is already in deep crisis due to lapdog journalism, an ever-narrowing range of political debate and unchecked commercialism. The White House needs to hear from the public before it appoints yet another corporate pawn. "

I couldn't have said it better myself, and I just signed their petition. I encourage each of you to do the same.

{This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.}

danaMfA.gif

Looks like Colin isn't the only Powell bowing out of a second Bush term - Colin's son Michael Powell is likewise stepping down as chairman of the Federal Communications Committee.

George W. Bush Gets Inaugurated this Week, and All I Did was Write this Stupid Column

imaginary dana — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:00:00 +0000

January 20th approaches. Inauguration day is nigh. Will there be public outcry? Before the last election, my politically active friends and I had big plans in the event of a Bush win. My personal favorite involved walking arm-in-arm to the Canadian border on inauguration day and throwing up our hands, surrendering Western Washington to Canada, and seeking asylum as political refugees to our liberal neighbors to the north. But here it is: we're on the brink of inauguration, and what have we done? Not a whole helluva lot.

I have my personal excuses. Time has gone on since the devastation of losing the election, and I've been happy.

I'm planning my wedding. I have great friends, a fine job, and a lot of creative writing outlets (including this one). I love my cats. As much as I want to kick and scream for the entire world to witness about the GWB re-election, I can't quite get myself knee deep in the hatred hoopla.

Because, you see, I hate George W. Bush and what he stands for with the vehemence of a hormonal teenager and the hot fury of 1,000 sins. I recognize that, as a writer, I must be detached and reasonable in order to make my point, to work for positive change. But realizing that doesn't diminish my rage.

And that latent rage is all around me. It winks at me in the form of the "W" stickers of my fellow commuters. For not only do I hate Bush, I hate anyone who voted for him – and yes, that includes various family members. I despise the Bush supporting, yellow-ribbon-magnet-on-the-back-of-your-gas-guzzling-SUV jerkoffs. I loathe the sanctimonious, bigoted, god-fearers of this country who believe W's re-election was a victory for morals. See? I seethe! I'm burbling with ineffectual hatred – it's raw, it's ugly, and I have nowhere to place it. No one likes a whiner, a ranter – or a loser. And that's what January 20th is all about – a $50 million party to celebrate our collective, liberal-thinking loss.

This week especially, my anger seeks outlets of protest. Short of expatriation, what can we do to express our utter disgust and dismay at the outcome of this election, and the direction of our country? How can we let the world know that not all Americans approve of our president's actions or re-election? What can we do – and what can I write now – that will make a difference? I loathe impotent gesture. What good will it do to go to the street in protest on January 20, other than increase ones likelihood of getting arrested or placed on a no-fly list?

As my wise friend Imaginary Lorenzo just said to me, "My political friends and I feel beat – and I don't mean tired, I mean defeated."

Who can blame us for feeling defeated? Just last week, the White House finally ended its fruitless search for so-called "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq (note to self: write future column about the annoying way our current administration and media manufacture and ingratiate bombastic new words and phrases into common usage). Bush and co. have remained unrepentant about their invasion of Iraq, despite their premise for said invasion being proven false.

The sliding scale of reason used to justify going to war is disgusting. And the lack of outrage from the American public at our leaders instigating a war on false premises – it's completely disheartening. Are we really that beaten?

This week, I feel a bit like we are. I feel the futility of protest, and it's so demoralizing.

I don't accept the Republicans so-called mandate (see note above regarding current administration and media introducing annoying new words into common usage), and neither do the other 49% of the rest of us who voted against Bush. Mandate my ass. I'm going to do anything in my power – write, educate, donate to charities, volunteer, fight for election reform, argue with my father – to fight for civil liberties and personal freedoms over the next four years. I just wish I had a way to communicate both my hopes and my grief in a meaningful way, for myself, and for the rest of the world to see.

Despite all our anger and disappointment, life goes on. But during this inauguration week, please feel free to take this space to vent your anger, express your concerns, or inspire revolution. And most importantly: after you vent, be sure you hold on to whatever gives you joy. Me, I'm gonna go try on a white poofy dress, write some vows, and keep saving to pay for that catering bar tab…

{This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.}

danaMfA.gif

But during this inauguration week, please feel free to take this space to vent your anger, express your concerns, or inspire revolution. And most importantly: after you vent, be sure you hold on to whatever gives you joy.

Are You There, Blog? It's Me, Dana.

imaginary dana — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 08:00:00 +0000

Greetings, MfA friends. Please allow me to introduce myself as I launch into my new MfA column, A Rush and a Push.

I'm Dana: dayjob corporate content hack by day, and imaginary girl by night. I write, I edit, and I see way too many indie-rock shows. I read, I surf the web, and I drink too much vodka. I listen to tons of CDs. I sing way too much karaoke. And I write a whole lot of emails.

But know what I've never really been? Interested in politics.

I've no head for international policy or global economics. I often find domestic policy issues convoluted and too multi-faceted to sort. And frankly, with so many other interests {see: writing, editing, vodka, above}, I've never dedicated much mental time or energy to political issues. Until now.

And I know I'm not alone in this sudden new wave of political involvement. Just call me Flock of Seagulls and buy me some legwarmers, because during this past election it was so easy to care about politics – because we were fighting EVIL: the worst sort of dangerous, manipulative, smirking, smarmy, insidious, privacy-stealing, women and gay hating, civil liberty denying, personal-privacy invading, bigoted, war mongering, drooling, prevaricating, stammering, moronic, manipulative, incoherent, pure goddamn evil. I found comfort in the simplicity of the battle. Forget agonizing over the nuances of liberal policies; it was clear as oil that we were {and sadly, still are} facing the forces of evil, and we needed to fight with all that we had.

And I did. We all did, in any way we knew how. We wrote, we volunteered, we protested, we donated, and we fought. And then we lost.

I don't think I need to tell all of you how devastating the night of November 2nd was. I wept — a lot. I'm still mourning today. I never thought I could care so much for the fate of our country, but I do.

I'm saddened for where we've gone, and I'm frightened for where we're heading. I’m concerned about the loss of basic liberties I see coming in the name of security and morality during a second Bush term. I'm terrified for the lives that will continue be lost in the unjust and un-winnable war we're fighting.

And you know what's made it harder still? Our lack of public voice. We've had no leader to rally the forces, or lament with the bereaved, or inspire us to keep on fighting. In the weeks since the disastrous election, haven't you been yearning for a public voice to address our collective loss? Where are our leaders? And where are the voices of protest?

Oh right – the media. I forgot. How could we possibly expect that our media would give voice to the 58 million of us who voted against GWB? And with the allegations of voter fraud pouring in, shouldn't we expect our media to pursue the "fair and balanced" truth?

Hrmph. I know I shouldn't be shocked, given that our media is so controlled by the media giants that own them that journalists behave more like angry used car salesmen than thoughtful, objective interpreters of events. But I am. As I've said before {and as you'll be reading from me again}, fuck our so-called free press.

But in writing this, my first column, I've realized that I'm angry at our media for not only for being a bunch of sycophantic nimrods, but for also neglecting to address the collective mourning of the nearly half of us voters. I'm pissed! Fuck those guys for validating Bush and company and their so-called mandate, without addressing that the millions of us who despise everything he represents.

So where does that leave us?

I was thrilled when MfA asked me to write this column, but I've been challenged in writing this first entry. It feels strange to come in as a pop-culture political correspondent now, to start a column that kicks off now, right when our fight has failed. Where to begin? I believe we all have to acknowledge the loss, publicly – and independently of the media, as we can seek no comfort there – and mourn a valiant fight, lost.

In short – does anyone need a hug? A cry? Or a punching bag?

What I need to know most of all is that all the energy and power we all placed into the fight for election 2004 still exists. I know it does, even if my MoveOn.org and Democratic party emails don't come as frequently. I know it does, even though the daily news headlines don't talk about it. I know it does, and I know organizations like Music for America are going to keep it alive.

Take comfort in this thought: we're all still here. And know it's clear who's right in this struggle, and it's the left. The good guys lost. The Death Star defeated the rebel alliance, these leaders were NOT the droids our country was looking for. And that sucks. If you're indignant, it's justified. But it doesn't negate our struggle in any way.

Because as with all battles against evil, our country is in a battle of morality, though not in the way the jackass so-called compassionate conservative Christians would have you believe. And the ways to win rely on your vigilance. We have much to learn before we can triumph, young Jedi.

Only our apathy ensures their success. The media exerts huge influence over public opinion – and for now, there's not much we can do to change the media {all in good time…}. But ultimately, it's our complacency that can kill us.

So yes – now is the time to act for GOOD. I know a lot of us did it leading up to election. I know losing totally sucked. But I also know it's up to us to keep fighting. Because good always triumphs over evil. We just have to work our asses off along the way to make it so.

Here are a few of my own personal New Year's Resolutions to fight the good fight for 2005:

Let's beat them by laughing.
{I mean, c'mon. This man is a clown. Okay, so he's a terrifying clown because he's the clown who's controlling the minds of millions of All-American morans, not to mention, plundering the world with his pro-war and anti-environmental/human rights policies. He's still a clown.}

Let's listen to great music.
{If Reagan taught us nothing, he taught us that bad politics makes for great music.}

Let's spend a bit more wisely.
{Shift your dollars away from companies that supported GWB in 2004, and toward companies that favored Democratic candidates. A few spending changes from a lot of people could make a huge impact in the 2006 and 2008 elections.}

Let's read smarter news sources, and let's express our views a little too overtly.
{You can't fight a battle until you know the facts, and you sure as shit aren't going to find those on FOX News, or CNN. Then share those views.}

Let's volunteer and/or donate to organizations that need our help more than ever during the Bush administration.
{Who needs more crap for the holidays? Why not make donations to your favorite floundering not-for-profits: think Greenpeace, Planned Parenthood, Amnesty Internation, Lambda Legal, or countless others. Or better yet – donate your time; get your sweet ass down to one of these organizations and volunteer.}

What about you MfA folks? What has helped you deal with your grief during the weeks after the election? What ideas do you have to be able to move forward in a second GWB term? Share how you've mourned, and tell us your schemes. I, for one, will take great comfort in hearing them.

If we pool our thoughts, we're going to kick all sorts of ass. After all, we have the brains and the true morality on our side. I see no way we can lose.

"A rush and a push and the land that we stand on is ours. It has been before. So it shall be again." ~ The Smiths

{This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.}

danaMfA.gif

I'm Dana: dayjob corporate content hack by day, and imaginary girl by night. I write, I edit, and I see way too many indie-rock shows.

Why this Liberal Imaginary Girl Didn't Vote for Gregoire

imaginary dana — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 08:00:00 +0000

I love friendship symbiosis. Case in point: I am a music/pop-culture junkie, while my best friend Imaginary Lorenzo is the political smartie-pants. As an active member of Democracy for Washington, an avid campaigner, and a lifelong news junkie, he's my one-stop resource for all-things-political. When Lorenzo needs a new music recommendation or the lyrics to some obscure 80s song, he calls me. When I need an election crash course, I turn to him. We have a long, illustrious history of trouble-making and using our respective powers for good.
So when it was time to cast our absentee ballots this November, my fella and I opened our voters guide and called Lorenzo. We were especially interested in his input on the gubernatorial race between Democrat Christine Gregoire and Republican Dino Rossi.

Why did we, as extremely socially-liberal and politically-concerned voters, not immediately cast our votes for the Democratic candidate?

Lorenzo's expressed our concerns and expounded upon them, as he was extremely involved with the race throughout the campaign:

"Of the three Democrats who were running for the gubernatorial nomination Christine Gregoire was absolutely the worst. She presented no vision, she held no strong opinions, and of the many issues Washington State is facing, she didn't take aggressive or progressive stands on any of them.

I attended the Democracy for Washington-hosted gubernatorial forum for the Democratic candidates, where all three candidates were asked about two of the most heated issues facing our state: 1) gay marriage and 2) the fact that Washington State has the most regressive tax structure of any state in the nation. Only Chris Gregoire refused to discuss either issue. When I personally asked for her views, she evaded the questions in the most patronizing way possible, insisting that "Washington State wasn't ready to talk about either one of those issues." What many of the people in the audience heard was, "I can't talk about those issues because Eastern Washington won't vote for me if I do."

Not an inspiring example of leadership."

Washington State has had been a Democratic stronghold for over 20 years, with the populous liberal areas in western part of the state, including Seattle, outvoting the more conservative/less populous eastern part of the state. Once Gregoire easily won the Washington State Democratic nomination, her election was practically predicted. Then she ran a vague, issue-less campaign, with the subtext that the office was hers by entitlement.

Needless to say, we were under-whelmed by her assumed great expectations. So there we were, our pens hovering over our gubernatorial votes, pondering: how could we make our votes count? As true social liberals, was it more honest to vote along Democratic party lines? Or were we serving justice better by refusing to support a candidate who we felt would waver on all important social issues, and prove ineffectual on reforming our tax structure? How could we support a candidate who couldn't even express enough of an opinion to let us know why we should support her?

Again, Lorenzo expressed and validated our concerns:

"I can fight Dino Rossi if he wants to restrict a woman's right to choose, or if he wants to legislate against gay marriage," said Lorenzo. "I can't depend on Christine Gregoire if I don't know what her positions are. Will she sell my right to marry down the river for boost in the polls? Will she compromise on social justice budget issues? How can I know that she'll support the issues that are most important to me if I don't know what she believes?"

As per always, Lorenzo had a good point. We couldn't bring ourselves to vote for Dino Rossi, an acknowledged opponent of gay rights and abortion rights. But we couldn't bring ourselves to vote for Chris Gregoire either. Instead, we three cast our votes for the honorable Lorenzo Winnerman.

Apparently we weren't alone in our doubts. Gregoire underperformed the Kerry vote in Washington State by anywhere from seven to 11% in Democratic strongholds. Never did we guess that this race would become the closest race in history – that the entire election practically came down to our three votes. Rossi won the election, and the first recount.

It appears that now, after a second recount, Gregoire is the governor-elect of the state. Throughout the weeks following the election, Lorenzo and I have both been questioned by Democratic activists if we regret "throwing away" our votes. I asked him this week if he wished he had voted differently.

"Not at all," Lorenzo answered emphatically. "After the contested vote, it has become universally acknowledged that she ran a bad campaign, and was hurt by her lack of vision. That was my goal in refusing to vote for her, and no matter who ends up winning, that goal has been met."

As per usual, I concur with my personal political advisor. While I will confess that the thought of a Republican governor in my state with George W. Jackass starting his second term gives me hives, I feel like voting against weak Democratic candidate was the smarter decision for the support of issues that matter most to me: personal rights, freedom of speech and the press, and the separation of church and state. Because the Democrat party has become amorphous at best, and the only way to let them know what we Democrats think is to cast our votes.

Hell, I just read last week that John Kerry and other Democrats have decided that, "Democrats also needed to welcome more pro-life candidates into the party." Excuse me? We've hardly heard anything from John since he conceded the election faster than you could say "but what about the money I donated to investigate election fraud?" – and this is how he come roaring back out of the political gate? I find that terrifying, and exactly the wrong direction for Democrats to choose.

Lorenzo continued…

"Democrats at local and national levels are torn by the decision to shift the party left or right. The party moving left would look like an embracing a progressive ideals, social justice issues, and a strong counterbalance to the false accusation that the Democrats have no moral authority. A move to the right would look like making the Democratic Party more Republican light than it currently is.

I think the true message in Washington State's gubernatorial election is this: when given the choice between someone whose positions are clear, even if you disagree with them, versus the choice of a person whose positions are ambiguous, it is natural to choose the person whose positions are clear."

And moving forward, we need to be very, very clear about how we want the Democrat party to progress.

Heavy thoughts for the end of a heavy year. Tune in next week, when I tell you and Lorenzo all about the best imaginary albums of 2004.

{This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.}

danaMfA.gif

I love friendship symbiosis. Case in point: I am a music/pop-culture junkie, while my best friend Imaginary Lorenzo is the political smartie-pants.

Visualize: The Vote, The Victory

imaginary dana — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:00:00 +0000

We have an imaginary secret for you. Lean in close.... cross your heart you won't tell...? Okay then, here it goes: We're going to win.

Forget the skewed presidential polls predicting a race that's too close to call: We're going to win. We're going to win big. And we're going to win because of us.

We're going to win because no one is anticipating the imaginary vote. The polls haven't counted the overwhelming Kerry support from us: the young, the musicians, the independents, the rebels, the artists, the punks, the previously disinterested and disenfranchised. But we're here. We plan to vote for change, and we have our ballots aimed at a monumental upset: to pull off the Dewey Defeats Truman of our generation with a landslide victory for President John F. Kerry on November 2nd.

That's the big secret. We're deciding this election. We're the November Surprise. It's up to us.

It's up to us to elect a president who will protect our personal freedoms — the right to free speech, assembly, privacy, liberty, reproductive choice and safe and affordbable health care — for all people, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
It's up to us to elect a president who will break up major media conglomerates, to fight for an informed, free press that will challenge our government instead of pandering to political partisanship.
It's up to us to elect a president who will inspire our country with courage, not fear; who will face our enemies with strength, not brute force; and who will rally our allies with leadership, not coercion.

Isn't it invigorating to know we're a vital part of the decision-making in our country? Because we are. And now you know what you need to do.

Vote on November 2nd. Visualize President Kerry! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote!

Some Additional Voting Resources:

kerryvictory.jpg

Three imaginary girls, three real votes. Vote on Tuesday!

2004 Presidential Debates Mix Tape

Imaginary Boy Shaun — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:00:00 +0000

I know what you're thinking: why must there be only three?

The 2004 presidential debates are over, and after what has been largely perceived as a John Kerry three-peat it seems that the world is a much happier place. Democrats are starting to leave the house again after a two-month crying jag following the DNC, and Republicans get to exercise their beloved denial of reality by spinning a Bush victory out of the wreckage. Everybody wins.

But now, with the election almost upon us, we may find ourselves looking back at the last few weeks as the turning point in the campaign; either the moment when President Kerry locked in his victory, or the last giddy rush of hope before four years of depression and exile to Canada. And as we grow nostalgic, there's no better way to relive the past than that instant flashback generator, the mixtape.

Below is a suggested mixtape of songs which best reflect the stand-out moments of the 2004 presidential debates.

Track 1: R.E.M.—"World Leader Pretend"
"I recognize the weapons, I used them well / This is my mistake, let me make it good"
Bush's dismal failure in the first debate stemmed from the same reliance on over-optimistic assumptions that led to his dismal failure in Iraq. Rove and Co. apparently figured they'd have Kerry on the defensive, droning on and on about wonkish minutiae, and Dubya could just trot out his "flip-flopper vs. strong-and-resolute leader" soundbites and take the whole thing in a walk. When Kerry proved far more disciplined than anyone expected, the President was thrown for a loop...

l Track 2: Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band—"Frownland"
"My smile is stuck / I cannot go back t'yer Frownland"
...especially since he apparently learned nothing from Al Gore in the 2000 debates. Bush scowled where Gore sighed, but the effect was the same; he looked irritated and grumpy next to Kerry's stately (if a tad wooden) poise.

Track 3: John Cage—"4'33""
Combine that with the President's endless pauses (which probably only seemed to last as long as Cage's infamous exercise in silence), and he seemed tired and unprepared.

Track 4: Merle Haggard—"Workin' Man Blues"
"I keep my nose on the grindstone / I work hard every day"
I suppose harping on the presidency being "hard work" was meant to prove that Bush recognizes that maybe, just maybe, Iraq isn't all sunbeams and butterflies, but it came across as petulant whining.

Track 5: Ruins—"Grubandgo"
"Gorrtho gorrtho grubango"
Actually, anything by the Ruins will do, since like the President they speak some crazy made-up language and I have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. Yeah, maybe it's a cheap shot to pick on the Pres for mangling the English language, but "mexed missages?" Only G-Dub can turn a simple linguistic stumble into self-parody so effectively.

Track 6: XTC—"Generals and Majors"
"Generals and majors ah ah / they're never too far / away from men who made the grade"
No matter how much fun it is to say "John Shalikashvili" (try it five times fast), Kerry showed alarming signs of running off on one of his endless tangents when he started naming military men who support him. And he did it again in the second debate. Though I must admit it was cute the way, every time a new country was mentioned, Bush trotted out his phonetic pronunciation of its leader's name. Looks like someone's been using that World-Leader-a-Day desk calendar that Condi bought him for Xmas!

Track 7: The Beatles—"Fixing a Hole"
"It really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right / where I belong I'm right / where I belong"
The second debate was more evenly matched than the first, as the format played more to the President's strengths (he got to wheel around and wink at audience members after his answers). But a weak moment for both candidates came when Bush was asked to name three mistakes he had made during his administration; he refused to name even one. But Kerry failed to take advantage of the opening in his rebuttal, where a simple enumeration of Bush's failings would have been far more damning than merely repeating his charges about "rushing to war" and "gut-checks."

Tracks 8 & 9: Phil Ochs—"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" / "Cops of the World"
"I read New Republic and Nation / I've learned to take every view... / But I've grown older and wiser / and that's why I'm turning you in / Love me, love me, love me / I'm a liberal"
"We'll spit through the streets of the cities we wreck / and we'll find you a leader that you can't elect / those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck / 'cause we're the cops of the world"
AKA The Bush Attack Plan Medley: Liberal! Global test! Naïve and dangerous!

Track 10: Monty Python—"Lumberjack Song"
"I'm a lumberjack / and I'm OK"
The strangest moment in the second debate came when Kerry squeezed an incomprehensible mention of the President's timber holdings into the last few seconds of his answer, leading Dubya to hop up and deny the charge with a smirking "Need some wood?" Not exactly worthy of Cicero.

Track 11: Charles Mingus—"Don't be Afraid, the Clown's Afraid Too"
You could almost see the flop sweat on Dubya's brow during the third debate. Presenting a cheery, laughing alternative to his dour first performance, Bush started every response with a desperate-sounding joke, though alienating your host by disparaging his recently-discredited network with a crack about the news media may be the wrong tactic. And the image of the President enjoying a hearty chuckle while his opponent talked about Americans losing their jobs on the other side of the screen seemed a tad inappropriate. Kerry's Tony Soprano reference may not have been funny, but at least it wasn't crass.

Track 12: God Is My Co-Pilot—"Straight Not"
"Experiencing some kind of umm / Same gender attraction or something"
Though his reference to Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter was crass, whether a gratuitous low-blow or a sly pander to the homophobic right.

Track 13: Public Enemy—"Can't Do Nuttin' For Ya Man"
"I can't do nuttin' for ya man / I'm busy tryin' to do for me"
Shockingly, Bush failed to capitalize on his greatest advantage - his sense of common-man faux-empathy - when asked to respond to a worker whose job had been outsourced. Not only did he fail to show any compassion whatsoever, he completely switched topics, to...

Track 14: Dizzy Gillespie—"School Days"
...No Child Left Behind, which seemed to be his default answer for everything that night. Don't have a job? We'll educate your kids, and they can support you in twenty years. No health insurance? No problem—we'll educate your kids!

Track 15: Yo La Tengo—"The Lie and How We Told It"
"Talking words, angry words / hang in the air, we don't dare"
Various charges of misrepresentation and deceit were leveled by both sides throughout the debate, but the best came when Kerry quoted Bush as saying that he was "not concerned" about Osama bin Laden. Bush laughed off the accusation, calling it an "exaggeration," but unfortunately the exact quote that Kerry used was on videotape for the world to see. Twice. Oops.

Which brings us to our closing arguments...

Track 16: Alice Cooper—"Elected"
"I'm your top prime cut of meat, I'm your choice / I wanna be elected / I'm your yankee doodle dandy in a gold Rolls Royce / I wanna be elected"

Happy November 2nd. Good luck.

And for those of you burning onto CD:

Bonus Track: The Monkees—"Words"
"Strange voices in my ears... / But all I can hear are those / Words that never were true / Spoken to help nobody but you"
C'mon, George - what the hell is that bulge?!?

Recordstoredem_lg.jpg

Below is a suggested mixtape of songs which best reflect the stand-out moments of the 2004 presidential debates.

Love Thy Cheek While They Turn the Other Neighbor

imaginary dana — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:00:00 +0000

It's hard to feel outraged 'round the holidays. I'd way rather be thinking about my favorite albums of 2004 or buying politically-conscious gifts for my pals than lamenting the state of the world. Yes, Christmas is a time to celebrate the winter solstice with trees, lights, feasts, merriment, music, wine, frolicking, and all those other madcap fun Pagan rituals that the Church co-opted in order to get the peeps on board for Christmas all those years ago.
Luckily in the week before Christmas, I've gotten another reminder about just how out-of-wack some of today's Conservative Christians are with their so-called moral values. And now I'm outraged – again. 2004 has been exhausting.

{disclaimer}
Yes, I recognize that there are plenty of loving, caring, cool Christians who actually live up to their beliefs and value all the religious meanings in Christmas, and I respect them. Please note that in the content of this rant I'm speaking of judgmental, FOX news-watching, antithetical-to-the-teachings-of-Christ, Republican Christian conservatives like our president.
{/disclaimer}

Ahem. Here's the news story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6729916

According to a recent study by Cornell University, forty-four percent – nearly half – of all Americans believe that the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans. The article continues that, "Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims’ civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious."

Call me an agnostic secularist if you must, but would Mr. Jesus Christ have been excited to hear this news about his so-called followers? I'm not so well-versed about the whole New Testament thing, but I'm pretty sure he said something in there about loving thy neighbor? Turning the other cheek made the cut too, right? But I can't remember the part about "thinly veiling racism and oppressing those of different religious beliefs in the name of safety." But then, I never was much for religious studies.

Back to the article. Apparently, researchers also found that respondents who watched television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim-Americans.

Well duh, that's a shocker. Republicans, neo-conservative Christians, corporate-owned media: call these the three totems of the three unwise men. But just as I start to wallow in all my righteous, holier-than-thou indignation at the disastrous state of our media, I find this – a blogging community expressing the indignant voices of those who feel the media persecutes them for being Republican Christians.

Here's the blog:
http://www.lucianne.com/threads22.asp?artnum=189174

Here are a few samples of blog discourse for those of you who don't want to raise their hit counter…

"I believe there are good Moslems (sic) and there are bad Moslems (sic). The perception problem with Moslems (sic) is that when the bad ones do evil things, the good ones don't stand up to denounce it. Silence means approval as far as I'm concerned"

Another blogger named "Texaslass3" replied with:

"Yes indeed. Muslims have THEMSELVES to blame that we do not trust them. We have heard virtually no strong support for America AGAINST THE NASTY TERRORISTS ever since 9/11. Any criticism has been muted and rare - and then only when questions continually are asked as to WHY their critique of evil beheaders of innocents never really denounced!"

This community of bloggers continued on in this vein, implying that Democrats don't seem to remember Sept 11th – as if by implication, those of us who bring up civil liberties at a time like this are somehow deluded, careless, reckless, unprotected, a menace. As if. As if these folks never read a history book, I mean. Remember Japanese interment camps, people? Remember what they say about what happens to those who don't remember? Are we proud of that part of our history to risk it happening again…?

Another happy blogger ("Fun One") thinks not only that we're deluded, but that we also have a political agenda for wanting to protect Muslims civil liberties:

"The Dems are not worried about them being here because they know they don't tend to vote Republican. Simple as that."

That's right, Fun One! It's simple as that – voting Democrat clearly means you're aligned with the terrorists. Oppose Bush, and you're probably harboring al Queda down at your neighborhood Trader Joes. C'mon. That's no fun, Fun One! How can we even attempt real discourse about how to protect our country rationally and competently, if you really think it's as simply partisan as that?

But let's back up a bit and ask: how would Texas Lass and her blogger buddies really know how Muslim Americans feel or think? When these bloggers speak about not hearing from "good" Muslims – where do they expect to hear from them? The Bill O'Reilly Show? Crossfire? Rush Limbaugh? I hate to blame media consolidation for all our nation's woes, but I think it's fair to put it out there that Texas Lass might be getting a not-so-fair-and-balanced world view.

Does she know many Muslims personally? Think she's been volunteering down at the Mosque? Has she done much to curb the rise in hate crimes against Muslims in the aftermath of September 11th? Why would any group facing a huge raise in hate-crimes come out to sing the praises of the country?

And more importantly, on the cusp of Christmas – shouldn't these good Christians be trying to show a bit more love their fellow man? A few steps lower in the thread, I read something that jarred even my jaded online eyes, when I read:

"A good muslim is a dead muslim."

No one on the bulletin board objected to this statement – in fact, other bloggers concurred. I know it's Old Testament, but surely these Christians should still believe in the whole "Now Shalt Not Kill" commandment. It's the basis of any moral code worth a damn.

I guess now it's up to us liberal/Democrats/secular/immoral folks to do onto others as we'd have them do onto us.

Merry Christmas, all – and here's to hope for peace on earth.

{This article originally appeared in igDana's weekly Music for America column "A Rush and a Push." Check out the column and feel free to comment on their message boards here.}

danaMfA.gif

Yes, Christmas is a time to celebrate the winter solstice with trees, lights, feasts, merriment, music, wine, frolicking, and all those other madcap fun Pagan rituals that the Church co-opted in order to get the peeps on board for Christmas all those years ago.

The Sinclair Sitch

imaginary dana — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:00:00 +0000

I've taken a deep breath. My seething rage at the current situation with our so-called free press has quieted. Now, as a writer, imaginary girl, and lover of independent media, I need to calmly tell you more about a bi-partisan situation I find extremely alarming, one that might not have made it through the filter of our mainstream news sources. So here's the sitch:

The conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group is ordering its affliate stations {which broadcast into nearly 25% of our nation's homes with TV} to preempt regular programming just days before the election to air a film that attacks John Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War. It's not irrelevant to mention that the Sinclair Broadcasting Group has donated over 60,000 smackers to GWB's campaign this year.

Sinclair is forcing every one of its stations — many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida — to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal. The film features former POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film {more}.

Now you might ask, "But what about Michael Moore's film? They're showing that on Pay Per View on the eve of the election too." This is true. But the difference here is, you have to PAY, privately, to see Moore's film. That is your choice and your right. There would be no issue if Stolen Honor were showing on Pay Per View. This issue is: TV airwaves are publicly owned. Sinclair is getting away with this by passing the 90 minute partisan so-called documentary off as a news story.

When confronted with the question of how Sinclair could get away with ordering their affliates stations to pre-empt their programming, their VP Mark Hyman replied, "Don't be absurd about this whole thing. Just like Sears tells all of its stores, 'You will sell Craftsman tools.' McDonald's tells all of its restaurants, 'You will have a sesame seed bun.' That's the business we're in." {more}

Excuse me??? He admitted that they dictate (read as: censor) what their local affliates can and can't show, nationwide? He just told a CNN news anchor he was absurd for expecting anything different; he equated the responsibility of keeping the nation informed and challenging our government (the proper role of the journalist) with a retailer selling hand tools???!

This is very, very scary. And this is not a partisan issue. If Sinclair Broadcasting Group were full of stauch Democrats and wanted to show Fahrenheit 9/11 or Going Upriver on public airways on the cusp of the election, without allowing equal time for the Republican agenda, I would be likewise outraged.

No matter who wins on November 2nd, I want our media balls-to-the-walls challenging him and his administration. I want to know that the men and women who went to school to learn how to interview, investigate, write, and report will be allowed to report their findings, no matter what the interests are of their affliated networks.

There is no more valuable lifeline to a democracy than the freedom of the press. None. If we allow the sort of monstrous manipulation of American minds that Sinclair is proposing in the coming weeks, we are seriously screwed. As it stands, with networks like FOX News running blatant pro-Republican messaging into millions of homes daily, it's hard enough to try to see the truth through the sound bites of spin. Which — again I say — I wouldn't mind if they were honest about it, and presented themselves as the conservative entertainment network they are. But FOX News' self-proclaimed motto of a "Fair and Balanced" news source is stupifying, at best (and terrifying, in actuality).

But the whole FOX News/abuse of media conglomeration issue will need to wait for another rant, another day. For now, I want to provide a status update and some action items regarding the Sinclair situation...

UPDATE:
Michael Powell, the current head of the FCC announced today (Oct 14th) that Sinclair would be allowed to proceed with the broadcast. "Don't look to us to block the airing of a program," he told reporters. I hope I'm not the only one who finds that comment particularly discouraging. {more}

On the other hand, the former head of the FCC Reed Hundt is in a lather about Sinclair's horrendous decision, {"The move breaks with a longstanding tradition among broadcasters of covering presidential campaigns as part of their obligation to serve the public interest, and to do so with at least a patina of honesty." more}.

TAKE ACTION — IT'S EASY:

Sign the Stop Sinclair petition TODAY.

Sinclair could lose their license in many states soon, including Florida. Make it likelier that this will happen.

Boycott Sinclair Broadcasting Group. Contact Sinclair's advertisers and let them know they will be losing your support if they continue to advertise with Sinclair: (let me know if you want a sample email — I have!). In fact, here are the email address for several big ones:

7-Up

Applebees

Best Buy

Circuit City

Corona

Dominos Pizza

Dr. Pepper

Dunkin' Donuts

Geico

General Mills

Miller Brewing

Pfizer

Sonic

Taco Bell

Wachovia Bank

And most of all, make sure you email FCC chairman Michael K. Powell, and tell him that you find Sinclair's actions a more punishable offense that Janet Jackson's boob.

Please feel free to email me back with questions — and also to forward this article to your friends/foes/conservative uncles. This issue is far too important to get overlooked just because Britney decided today that she should take her new husband's last name....

{igDana is now officially obsessed with protecting our free press. She also sends special imaginary hugs and thanks to Julian the Mad Professor, Imaginary Bri, and the journalists who wrote the articles referenced above.}

usa.gif

The conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group is ordering its affliate stations to preempt regular programming just days before the election to air a film that attacks John Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War.

The Death of Decency

imaginary dana — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:00:00 +0000

All right, already. Dick's daughter is a dyke. Edwards said it, Kerry said it. We all knew it before they said it. So what?

The Cheney's and their extended family The Pro Republican Administration Media are in a complete huff over of it, with conservative website OpinionsEditorials.com today condoning Kerry's mention as "The Death of Decency."

The Death of Decency? Anyone else find this bombastic statement a wee bit hyperbolic, not to mention, hypocritical? I wish the blatantly-partisan media spin-meisters du jour would try to show a tinge of editorial responsibility before issuing such grandiose claims.

Kerry answered a simple question, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" His exact reply was:

"We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it. And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that."

Amen, Kerry! I respect that. I admire what he has said. It's completely decent. The only reason why anyone could take offense to his words is if they think being gay — or having a gay child — a source of shame. And I'd call that viewpoint indecent.

It's clear from this incident that Americans on both side of the political fence have a problem with the word "lesbian." Lesbian. Is it indecent to use the word in respectable conversation, or, say, political debate? "Gay" is acceptable, because it's another word for happy. "Queer" — why, that's a synonym for strange, nothing offensive about that. "Homosexual" sounds clinical, safe, benign; it sounds like what they do to milk to make sure it's safe to drink.

But lesbian: that word means nothing but a woman who likes to have sex with other women. And like it or not, this act — and the word that represents it — offends and frightens many, many Americans.

John Kerry did us all a favor by calling a spade a spade. She's a lesbian. Good for her! On the other hand, Mary's "Angry Father" Dick Cheney leads an administration that has done everything in its power to undermine the quest for gay and lesbian rights. They sought a constitutional amendment to ensure that no committed, monogamous gay and lesbian couples — such as Mary Cheney and Heather Poe — would ever get the right to legalize their unions. As it stands now, they can't legally speak for one another in dire medical situations, they can't share health insurance benefits, and they pay a shitload in extra taxes if they buy a home together. That doesn't sound very decent, does it?

But even more insidious: the controversy caused by trying to enact such an amendment has served to foster a spirit of fear and hatred towards gays and lesbians. Lynn and Dick Cheney say they're angry parents? Perhaps they should direct that anger more constructively, towards folks who really are a threat to their lesbian daughter. Perhaps Cheney could use his position of power to be an advocate for gay rights, instead of merely feigning righteous PFLAG indignation when it belittles his political opponent.

It's vulgar and indecent for both the Cheneys and the Republican spin-machine — which has been so adamantly anti-gay rights these past four years — to now vilify John Kerry for his lesbian statement. He was advocating gay rights, something that this Republican administration has never done. How dare they be such hypocrits! And more importantly, how come more of the American public can't see past the media spin to this obvious conclusion? It's absurd; it's vulgar; and it's extremely indecent.

But I still wouldn't call it the Death of Decency.

To demonstrate the Death of Decency, I look to words uttered by Jimmy Swaggert, words that our outraged press somehow managed to miss when he spoke them to his congregation last month:

"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." The remarks were met with applause from his congregation.

When Swaggert stated he would kill a man because of his sexual preference, that was indecent.

When Swaggert implied that he actually speaks to God directly, that was indecent too, bordering on deranged.

When Swaggert claimed he would kill a gay man and then "tell God that he died," does that mean he thought he could lie to God about the murder, to deceive an omnipresent entity? Or was he stating that he would brag to God that he had taken another life? The last time I checked, Thou Shalt Not Kill came up pretty high in those Ten Commandments that so many rabid lawmakers want to see in their courthouses.

Swaggert's words were unquestionably arrogant, malicious, dangerous, incendiary, and indeed, indecent.

But when the audience applauded Swaggert for his hateful speech: that was the moment when decency actually died. Why didn't the indignant members of the mainstream press show up for that funeral?

{igDana thinks it's pathetic that few of our so-called journalists are taking the opportnity to interview actual real live GAY people about this issue. She's an Angry Imaginary Girl who desperately doesn't want to see her gay and lesbian friends prejudiced against as they have been with the Bush administration. She also hopes none of them would ever want to marry Jimmy Swaggert.}

Additional Resources:

The Washington Post: Outrage that Rings False
Common Dreams: She's Here, She's Queer: Get Used to It
The Advocate: Guerriero attacks Bush and Cheney for "feigning outrage" over discussion of Mary Cheney's sexuality
Salon: John Kerry's Lesbian Moment
Seattle for Dean: The Political Landscape
Read all bazillion articles on the subject on Google

lesbiansymbol.jpg

Amen, Kerry! I admire what he has said. It's The only reason why anyone could take offense to his words is if they think being gay — or having a gay child — a source of shame.

Of Dive Bars and Debates

imaginary jessica — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:00:00 +0000

Highlights from the first Presidential Debate, Oct 2004

The afternoon of the first debates, my friend Melissa and I decided that it would be fun to get a few friends together at a bar and watch the showdown between John Kerry and George W. Bush. After a bit of calling around, Sandy — one of our all time favorite bartenders — graciously agreed to let us watch the debates in the cozy surroundings of the Nite Lite. For those of you who've yet to visit this fine establishment, it's a classic. Already decorated for Halloween with garish pumpkin lights and ghost pictures, the Nite Lite provided an ideal setting for the spectacle of the first presidential debate.

I arrived a few minutes late with Matt, a college friend visiting from out of town. Melissa, Bryan, and Don had already settled into a conveniently located booth facing the televisions, which beamed down the smirking specter of our fine (and hopefully soon-to-be former) president. Matt and I ordered a couple PBRs and sat back to watch the show. A handful of people lined the bar, all attentively gazing up at the debates. From the start, Bush's simpering countenance raised the hackles of many a debate watcher, particularly when the network (CNN, I believe) cut to split screen during Kerry's responses.

"Is he even listening to Kerry?"
"It doesn't look like it."
"Doesn't sound like it either."

Kerry wisely focused his responses on the war in Iraq. In recent weeks, his campaign managers finally realized that Kerry's main opportunity for winning in November hinges on the current debacle in Iraq. Prior to this new approach, the campaign resembled a race for the mayor of Dayton rather than the President of the United States. By shifting the emphasis to the sole issue of Iraq, Kerry tightened up his message and concentrated the differences between the two candidates into a stark dichotomy.

Time and again, Kerry pointed up Bush's failure to have "a plan to win the peace" before entering Iraq. "I know I can do a better job in Iraq," Kerry asserted in his opening remarks. He emphasized "rebuild[ing] the alliances [and] reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done" as essential components of his plan for fighting the war on terror. Although I personally find the "war on terror" concept to be problematic — can a war be fought against a mercurial concept? — Kerry's decision to employ this term so often used by the Bush administration effectively trained attention on the differences between Bush's policies and Kerry's plans for Iraq and for American security. Kerry made "bring[ing] people to the table" the centerpiece of his proposals — a refreshing contrast to the cowboy vigilante stance of the current administration.

When Bush addressed the war on terror, he spoke of an America "on the offensive." Everyone in the Nite Lite grimaced at this remark, thinking instantly (as I did) of an endless string of preemptive wars a la Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush repeatedly characterized the current international situation as a conflict between those who appreciate freedom and those who espouse an "ideology of hate." This us-against-them approach, a classic part of the Bush administration's framing of the "war on terror," paints in black and white what can only be properly rendered with a myriad shades of grey.

A brief laugh came when Bush remarked that he "was hoping diplomacy would work" in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. "Right," one person remarked, "hoping but not really trying." Of particular amusement were Bush's repeated references to "strong alliances" fostered by his administration to support the war on Iraq. "My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland?"

"Did he just say Poland?!? While he's at it, why not bring up the Marianas Islands?" interjected one Nite Lite patron.

Bush's defense of his decision to keep America out of the International Criminal Court proved equally laughable. He described the ICC as "a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial." Henry Kissinger must sleep well at night knowing that someone like Bush is on the job.

One of the most telling parts of the debate came in the candidates' brief exchange over the Bush daughters. Kerry noted that he had found occasion to "chuckle a few times" at comments made by Bush daughters Barbara and Jenna. Bush quickly interjected that he has been "trying to put a leash on them." Kerry's response: "I know. I've learned not to do that." This brief aside succinctly demonstrated Kerry's respect for his daughters (and, as Melissa and I noted, his respect for women in general).

Most surprising of all were the four women seated at a nearby table who appeared oblivious of the debate (in spite of the television looming right across from them). Rather than watch the face-off between Bush and Kerry, they preferred to drink white wine and share the latest gossip in tediously loud detail. {As an aside, who the hell drinks white wine at a dive bar?} Their strident ignorance of the impending presidential election prompted a number of pointed glares from those watching the debates, particularly when the ladies' crowing laughter drowned out Bush's absurd responses. My table took it as yet another example of the political apathy that continually plagues the United States. Although 2004 has been a record year for voter registration, voter turnout even in races of importance has been morbidly low for years. High registration numbers matter little if people don't come out on Election Day — the true test of the current drive toward electoral participation will be in November.

Favorite quotes (as judged by response elicited from Nite Lite patrons):

Kerry: "The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, "invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."

Bush: "First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that."

Watch the next round of debates live from Washington University in St. Louis this Friday, October 8th, on virtually every network around.

Other websites that made us giggle like imaginary girls after the debates:

Please vote. Vote Kerry. Please.

forgotpoland.jpg

The afternoon of the first debates, my friend Melissa and I decided that it would be fun to get a few friends together at a bar and watch the showdown between John Kerry and George W. Bush.