inspired by cqg's brief musings on Texas:
Google Trends on Obama, McCain, and Clinton.

Tags: politics

The NBC Nightly News coverage of Jeremiah Wright made me want to vomit.

News stories like this one make me want to vomit.

The much-touted-beforehand Moyers interview is now being almost completely ignored in favor of a new set of out-of-context sound bites and interpretations of sound bites from speeches to the NAACP and the press club. Much of what Wright has said speaks truth to power, and often in a pithy, humorous, even "sound-bite friendly" way. But while I didn't do an exhaustive search, I haven't been able to find a single news story released after the press club event that takes up that angle in a serious way. It's all about how Wright is either (a)crazy (b)radical (c)narcissistic or (d)all of the above. Perhaps that's no surprise.

Tags: politics, spirituality/religion

Hillary hints at Clinton-Obama ticket

"That may be where this is headed," Clinton said. "But of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket."

My impression is that Clinton would be the bigger roadblock to a shared ticket, so if she's talking about it as a possibility, I think it just might go forward. The question, as she says, is who would be at the top of the ticket.

Some recent poll analysis:
Clinton v McCain
Obama v McCain
(simulation based on state-by-state polling)

Clinton v McCain
Obama v McCain
(simulation based on state-by-state polling)

Clinton v McCain
Obama v McCain
(these last two seem to be based on average percentage in various national polls, but presents an "over time" result in a nice graphical format - it should be noted that the current pattern also has shifted back and forth on a state-by-state level if you look back through previous analysis on the other pages)

Of course, if it's a shared ticket that may complicate the results of these polls immensely. And we really have no idea who McCain would choose.

EDIT: I also want to say that I was in the Common House living room watching the primary results come in, and the people there were all Obama supporters, and it was really kind of annoying to hear their reactions. Of course, I think I would have had a similar reaction in a room full of Clinton supporters. In the end I think my predominant reaction at the moment is that both "camps" need to get over themselves.

Tags: politics

I stumbled upon a short poem I wrote probably a year or two ago in response to witnessing the Eyes Wide Open exhibit, which was displayed on the UA mall for a short time. I may have posted it here before but I'm not sure, so putting it here now for posterity:

As in life
The soldiers form a straight line
A regiment
The emptiness fills their shoes
Overflowing

( More on the Eyes Wide Open exhibit )

Tags: about me, art/theatre, politics, spirituality/religion

A group of us were talking over dinner last week, and (mostly based on acutegirl's contributions to the conversation) came up with four rough criteria (in no particular order) people use to decide whether they will enter into a certain sexual situation or not:
(a) Is it illegal? (are there laws - perhaps also policies/rules - against it?)
(b) Is it immoral/unethical? (do I believe it to be harmful to myself or others, does a Higher Power forbid it, etc?)
(c) Is it beneficial or is it in my/their interests? (beyond strict answers to above considerations, will it be unharmful and perhaps helpful in some way - psychologically, socially, etc. and probably actually includes consideration of consequences of (a) & (b). This criterion was the most vague and may actually need to be explicated further and teased apart more from (b).)
(d) Is it a preference? (do I like or want to do it, does it turn me on, etc)

Clearly, this set of criteria probably applies more broadly than sexual situations. How these four considerations are weighed against each other depends upon the person, and probably varies across situations for at least some persons. For example, some people would never do anything they knew to be illegal. Other people wouldn't much care about the legality. Some people might care a great deal about the legality in business matters, but not sexual matters. Sociopaths would only consider (d) and a limited aspect of (c) in regard to decision-making about pretty much anything. And so forth.

I decided to write about this now, beyond the fact that I considered the above conversation very interesting, because of how I thought about it being applicable in another case I recently ran into. On an LJ gaming community I posted part of a post by Gabe from Penny Arcade, an interview of his grandpa who fought in World War II. The interview ended with the following exchange:
( Interview excerpt cut for length )

At the end of this quote I asked about what kind of moral/ethical lines people drew in regards to the games they play. I was only somewhat surprised to get back a couple of responses along these lines:
"I play what I like. I don't like moral/ethical values stand in the way."
"I do not avoid video games based on morals or ethics. The line should be drawn when games stop being fun."
In other words, mostly using (d), with perhaps a limited consideration of (c). Sound familiar?

As I thought about it, it seems to me this is actually a common attitude towards media in general. Certainly there are things individual people won't read or watch, but it varies quite a bit from person to person, and often tends to be expressed more in terms of personal preferences than ethics or morality. Indeed, there is often lots of criticism and contempt heaped upon groups that recommend avoiding a movie or book because of the ethics or morality it displays (of course, this is somewhat confounded by a history of actual censorship or attempts at censorship, and/or un/misinformed viewpoints about content of a book or movie). So I would venture to say most people will read books or watch movies in which various sorts of unethical and indeed horrifying behavior takes place, even when portrayed in anything from a neutral/ambiguous to sympathetic light. Witness the Hannibal Lecter fandom, as a quintessential example of this phenomenon.

So it should not be shocking to find people extend this attitude to other forms of media including video games. But, in the case of video games, it seems to me people tend to find this more worrisome. While in a sense people may "take on the role" of characters in any form of media, in video games this is much more explicit and active. The main character "is" the person playing in a way they are not for the person viewing or reading. Certainly I find it somewhat worrisome, although upon reflection I think perhaps we should also do more worrying than we do about other media as well. What does it mean that many of us use a logic arguably akin to sociopathy to decide what media we consume?

Tags: about me, friends/gatherings, gaming, politics, pop culture, science, sexuality & gender/glbt, spirituality/religion

San Diego mayor changes stance to support of gay marriage resolution. (via firinel)

Tags: politics, sexuality & gender/glbt

To "celebrate" the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, a pro-life group has placed a huge set of banners on the mall depicting aborted fetuses. There is also a praise choir singing praise music. Not somber hymns that speak of human suffering or injustice, mind you, but cheery "praise God" stuff. Thus walking through the mall becomes an exercise in cognitive dissonance. This might actually be the plan, since cognitive dissonance is supposed to be an opportunity for acquiring or modifying beliefs, but I think it possibly is creating subconscious connections these people don't intend.

acceptmyreality offers commentary wondering why we allow such a display while sexually explicit material or artistic expressions that might be construed as debasing of religion are censored as "obscene." One reason might be because it's being portrayed as violence - murder to be exact - and our culture is highly tolerant of depictions of violence. For example, it doesn't take much sexual content to press a movie into NC-17 or "X" categories, while rather gruesome depictions of violence merit only an R. Perhaps we should start a campaign placing these pro-life propaganda pictures (and perhaps some other violent imagery) alongside pictures of couples having sex and asking "why is this ok to display in public, but this not okay?"

...

Intramural softball is starting on campus and the Sociology dept is fielding a team (the Sociopaths). I'm going to try to participate this year since it's on Tuesday evenings.

* Go to OSCR to get Sophos fixed (Replaced with AVG)
* Pick up print outs from CCIT
* Attend first working group meeting
* Work on master's paper revision
* Find a preface to discuss in FM class for Thursday (Nickel & Dimed)
* Finish my GPSC travel grant application

Tags: art/theatre, politics, pop culture, school/teaching, sexuality & gender/glbt, spirituality/religion
Mood: blank

I'm not a particularly big fan of the institutionalized and elitist HRC, but they do some potentially useful things. They've released a Buyer's Guide in time for the holidays based on company policies towards GLBT (no Q's to be found here) issues. Criteria for scoring include: non-discrimination policies for sexual orientation and gender identity, diversity training including sexual orienttion and gender identity, domestic partner health insurance, parity in a variety of other benefits, GLBT employee resource group or diversity council that includes GLBT issues, GLBT-friendly advertising and/or sponsorship, and not engaging in activities that undermine goals of GLBT equality (negative points if they do).

PDF Buyers Guide Here

Now, that said, this Buyer's Guide is still (perhaps necessarily, given the national focus) focused on large corporations and does not explicitly take into account any other issues like racial equality, good labor practices, support for other progressive political parties/causes, etc. Though it seems likely there is a lot of overlap based on who I see in the "ok" category based on what I know about these companies in the other issue areas.

Some interesting things I noticed:
What's up with Heinz? Or Ben & Jerry's for that matter? That's surprising.
Kroger. That's going to be a problem.
The famously homoerotic Ambercrombie & Fitch scored no better than the more notoriously homophobic JC Penny, though both actually fall somwhere in the middle.
FedEx scored surprisingly low (to me), might have to start paying more for UPS despite the Memphis roots.
It's somewhat funny that Progressive insurance isn't very progressive.
Where the hell is Tmobile?

Tags: politics, sexuality & gender/glbt
Mood: informed

Really Short Nicholas Kristof: I'm an idiot.

Slightly Less Short Nicholas Kristof: Atheist apologetics are offensive to believers, so they should cut it out. Especially since the Christian Right is too busy helping the poor and desperate to be involved in those nasty little culture wars anymore.

...

Despite the title this does not appear to be a Swiftian satire. Atheists are described as snarky, increasingly assertive, obnoxious, militant, in-your-face, proselytizing, acerbic, mocking, intolerant, mean, contemptuous, fundamentalist, dogmatic, and aggressive. On the other hand, they shouldn't be discriminated against and make some "legitimate policy points." Wow. Talk about fair and balanced.

Even if some these charges are fair, they apply to a handful of authors/spokespersons representing (by Kristof's own numbers) maybe up to 1-2% of the population (the 15% doesn't count since they are by Kristof's standards clearly not militant but rather either closeted or wishy-washy). A clear and present danger.

Which leads us to the most ridiculous statement in the piece: "Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, let’s hope that the Atheist Left doesn’t revive them." Really? The Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars? Someone tell Barack Obama. Or the LGBTQ folk in over half the states that have passed "protect marriage amendments" in the last few years (the vast majority since 2004). Or all the stores that have been boycotted for their "war on Christmas."

Kristof needs a reality check.

( A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion )

Tags: politics, spirituality/religion
Mood: annoyed

Don't be fooled into thinking the acceptance of Rumsfeld's resignation the day after the election was totally about a contrite President. This was a carefully orchestrated media event, albeit one I'm sure Bush preferred not to have. He thought they would pull it out, no doubt. But what better way to ensure the media didn't talk about the Demos 24/7? What took up the first 5 minutes of NBC news last night? Not the Demo victory. Rumsfeld's resignation. There's no such thing as bad publicity, folks.

Tags: politics
Mood: blah