questionable

this editorial in the atlantic intrigues me.

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/some_final_thoughts_on_warren.php

now i don't know if i'd go so far as to say that obama is a bigot, but i think there are some important issues here under the surface of his pick of warren. i'm kind of torn on this issue because on the one hand, come on, it's just a little prayer at his inauguration. this guy hopefully won't be adivising him or becoming one of his BFF. BUT i am uncomfortable with obama even reaching out to someone as crazy as warren to be involved in the political process at all. now i know that obama's main message during his campaign was for unity, and i suspect that this is his first big move in that direction. but i just can't see how one can unite with a man who is, to be politically correct, retarded. but i guess you can't really unite and bring people together without going for the crazy ones. let's just hope obama makes more moves in the correct direction for the gays in the future. otherwise, i'm going to be really disappointed.

a few things

couple things i feel like commenting on.

1. i'm now reading "the shack" by william paul young. hmmm i'm a little over halfway through, and it's interesting, to say the least. it's about a man who has to go back to this shack and has quite an experience with God. the fact that it is nonfiction is what really is intriguing me. it's an easy read in the sense that i'm getting through it fast, but gosh it's one that'll make you think. lots of issues are raised, and i don't want to get into them now so as not to ruin it for you. but if you're interested at all in exploring some ideas about religion, mainly christianity, i'd say check it out.

2. i really want to see the films "milk" and "frost/nixon." i might go see milk this weekend.

3. illinois politics strikes again! i'm sure most of you all know what's going on now, but i really just want to focus on obama's role in this. here's an editorial i don't really buy, although it has some interesting points:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122895356506696347.html
i think obama did the right thing by not immediately striking out against blago. it's not really his place to when nothing is certain right now (although, let's be honest, blago is an idiot). obviously, obama did the right thing by calling for his resignation and for a special election to fill his seat, but what else do these people want obama to do?! i really, honestly don't believe obama is involved in any of the "chicago politics" that the GOP is dying to accuse him of. he's just better than that, and i think it's clear from the way he ran his presidential campaign, the way he speaks, and everything else about him. it's disgusting to me that the GOP is using this as a political tactic to bring down obama. they're just itching for something! the connections between obama and blago are nowhere near defined lines of trust and friendship. obama is holding a press conference today, and i'm interested to hear what he has to say. i do believe he'll take the higher road and prove to everyone that he is not involved in all this nonsense. yay politics.

4. this is just amusing: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/12/10/joe-the-plumber-trashes-mccain-in-new-book/

5. god love ya, jimmy carter! this editorial is great, and i'm so glad that people are still talking about these important issues: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120902776.html

slam dunk

maybe i'm obsessed, but thomas freidman nails it again!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/opinion/10friedman.html?_r=1&hp

he summed up all my thoughts and arguments about this auto bailout into an amazing, concise, editorial.

good idea

amid the governor of Illinois, whose name i will not even try to spell or pronounce, being arrested today for conspiracy and being a general idiot, this story makes me very happy:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/08/obama.gore/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

even though the people say al gore isn't being considered for a cabinet position, i think he should. gore has done so much in the past 8 years to promote and further develop the conversation on energy and climate change. why wouldn't you put him in the cabinet! HELLO. him or thomas friedman, ha. seriously, he's qualified: nobel peace prize, VP for 8 years, won the popular vote in 2000, kind of studly... you know, the typical qualifications. yes to gore.

revving my engine

picture the following: i start to go out to the bars and clubs every night, spending ridiculous amounts of money on booze for me and my friends. we have a great time and no one is going to stop us! this happens for years. my credit card bills keep increasing and i am more and more unable to pay them off. i realize there's no way i can keep up my life since i've blown all my money on booze and going out. if i were to go to my parents for help, they'd flat out tell me SORRY but no. i did this to myself, i am responsible for my own actions now. worst case scenario would be that i'd have to leave the city and move back home so i can get myself back on track.

luckily, this is not my story. but it is the story of the auto companeis and their pleas to congress for help. congress needs to say no. yes, i am aware of the many, many people that will go unemployed, but i honestly believe this is the best choice for the country right now. the auto companies can't keep wastefully spending their money (while at the same time doing NOTHING for the environment) and then expect mommy and daddy to bail them out. sorry but no. going bankrupt is not always a bad thing. it will allow them a chance to reorganize and think about what they're going to do to make sure going to let this happen again. hopefully they will also make a plan to really push for more economically friendly cars. which is a whole other issue for me. i think there are pros and cons to this situation, and it's tough. but the best plan of action for congress is to say, we're sorry, but this bailout money needs to be going to other places that will actually benefit from it. also, unions have really gotten out of control. they need to be out of power for a while so that they can stop demanding so much from the administration. i realize the benefit unions have had on our country, and at their core, they are a great institution. however, they've gotten out of hand and need to be reigned in a bit.


on another note, i started "eat pray love". i love it! i'm almost done and have racked up a fair amount of library fees, but how can they expect me to read 4-5 books in 4 weeks and not be able to renew them?! yay free books. and yay the holidays!

pissed.

dear hillary clinton,

please stop it. you would be great domestically. can't we just stick to what we're good at?

sincerely,
laura

also, i finished "hot flat & crowded." it's AMAZING. please read it now. i don't feel like updating any more right now, but felt i needed to mention these two things.

dear mr president...

if i could have 10 minutes with president-elect obama, here is what i would cover:

1. for the love of all that is great, PLEASE DO NOT PICK HILLARY CLINTON FOR SECRETARY OF STATE. she is clearly not the best person for the job. her comments about nuking Iran during the primaries should say a lot. clinton is very qualified to stick to domestic issues, such as health care. this is where she belongs. i have no doubt that she is a great woman and that she'd get along with obama well, but a key characteristic of the secretary of state must be a diplomat. this means negotiating, and i just don't see her doing this very well in the international realm. and while i'd argue that we need to stop compromising on domestic issues such as health care reform, the environment, and social rights, negotiation must be at the forefront of our foreign affairs in the future. we've seen what happens when it's not.

2. please, please read "hot flat & crowded." i know i've been harping on it a lot, but as i'm getting through it, i really think friedman is right! he provides such a clear and powerful outline of what we must do to save the environment and in the process, grow, innovate, help fight poverty and topple petrodictators. it would work!

3. do not let the government bail out the auto industry. i actually had mixed feelings about this, and to be fair, i still kind of do, but especially after reading mitt romney's editorial today in nytimes, i can't help but agree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?ref=opinion
i have no doubts a move like this would really hurt a lot of people, but i think in the end, it's for the best.

4. after reading all of this, you must be certain that i should in fact, be a top adviser to you. and i accept.

on the ball

friends, keith olbermann said it right:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27652443#27652443

please read his special comment in full. ironically, when i first clicked on this link, there was a BREAKING NEWS headline that read, "BREAKING NEWS: Judge enters final ruling, making Connecticut 2nd state now allowing gay marriage." :) i love our country!

YES WE CAN

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/obama.executive.orders/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

*fingers crossed*

obsession

while having lunch w/ the lovely doody yesterday, i confessed to her my latest realization: i'm obsessed w/ sarah palin. and not in an admirable way. in a, "what the F is going to come out of her mouth now" kind of way. and this obsession hasn't stopped since the election. in a way, part of me wishes she had won b/c then she'd be out there saying and doing more ridiculous things for me to make fun of (i'm sorry, i couldn't think of how else to end this sentence than w/ a preposition, forgive me). in any case, matt lauer had an extensive interview with her yesterday in AK, and i watched some of it this morning on the today show. then i read this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/10/AR2008111003017.html
and became obsessed again. mainly this line: She said she "would have preferred more opportunity to speak to the media more often, because there were a lot of things that I think I could have, should have said that could have, would have helped John McCain." like your amazing ability to speak, huh. i realize i'm not a great writer/speaker, but i also wasn't running for the second most powerful position in the country (arguably the first by bush/cheney standards). and even looking at the context of her sentence... didn't all the polls say that sarah was the reason so many people did not vote for mccain? as a funny side note: i think sarah is the reason my mother voted for mccain... as my mom said, "mccain is just not socially conservative enough for me." barf. anyway, i think sarah needs to just stay out of the public light for her own good. or read some books, newspapers, anything really. god bless america.

around the world

now that the election is over, we can all go back to remembering that there are other issues out there rather than sarah palin's wardrobe. for instance, for anyone who has read or will read "hot, flat & crowded", this article sums up exactly what he's calling for:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/giving/11AFRICA.html?ref=world

how cool is that! lebone solutions is beginning to change the system of how we do things around the world, exactly what friedman argues must happen. friedman says that if we keep consolidating our efforts to be green on just recycling or just switching to energy saving light bulbs, as great as these things are, it will not change do what is exactly necessary to keep us from ruining our planet. what we need is a change in the SYSTEM. we need ordinary people to be able to do extraordinary things. and lebone solutions is doing just that! america must be the leader in this movement or else we're going to be left behind by china or india who discover these technologies later for cheaper and blow us out of the water. seriously, read friedman's book now.

out with the bad, in with the good...?

thomas friedman might be one of my new favorite people. i've shared this article w/ some people, but i want everyone to read it. he wrote this op-ed piece on november 5.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/opinion/05friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

i think most everyone who reads this is going to agree that the obama win was absolutely necessary and the only way america could survive any longer. at least, that's my opinion. :) gosh if sarah palin was anywhere near DC.... anyway.

speaking of terrible ideas/thoughts/actions, while the election of obama was a great big giant leap in the right direction for social justice issues, the ban on gay marriages in CA, AZ, and FL is quite another big hop backwards. not only that, but there were also amendments passed to prohibit unmarried couples from adopting children (including straight couples). in this article, http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/state.laws/, ron prentice is quoted as proclaiming the greatness of traditional marriage. i would like to ask him one question: what the bleep is traditional marriage? and why are we so afraid of anything other than tradition? it used to be tradition to segregate white people from african americans. it used to be tradition for women to not work or be educated or have the right to vote. these traditions aren't the standard anymore, they are the exception. the people of the GLBT community and their supporters are not going to make marriage any less sacred or important. if anything, allowing a couple of any sexual orientation the same rights as everyone else will strengthen the definition and meaning of marriage. marriage obviously is important and sacred if the gays want in on it. and why wouldn't gay couples be any less committed to each other than straight couples? isn't the divorce rate about 50% right now? and heaven forbid children are raised in a same sex couple home!! children being raised in a single parent home should obviously also be outlawed since a child needs a mother and a father to be raised properly.

this is one topic i'm extremely passionate about. some of my friends and family argue that this is a moral issue. moral by the definition of christianity. ok, that's fair i guess. but let's think about it. did Jesus have lots to say about allowing gay couples the same rights as straight couples? no. not at all. in fact, the way i interpret Jesus's message was: hey people, WHY CAN'T WE JUST ALL LOVE EACH OTHER? (ahem, doody) seriously though. i'm sure Jesus hung out w/ the gays b/c i'm sure they were much more abandoned by society during his time, and the Bible does state that Jesus hung out w/ the outcasts of society. what about the verses in Leviticus that say two men should not share the same bed? ok but if we're going to follow that archaic law, then we also must follow the laws right around it that say women cannot wear more than two types of fabric and that we can't plant two different seeds in the same field. why do we get to pick and choose what we are going to follow and what we're not going to obey? i honestly believe Jesus would have a problem w/ the way we deny civil rights to certain groups of people in our society. i've also heard the argument that being gay is wrong because you can't reproduce. well, i know a BUNCH of straight kids who can't reproduce either. so are they not allowed to get married? to me, this just doesn't make sense, and i hope obama makes some real changes in this area of social justice during his presidency.

i quite like this: http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_110608_news_transgender_mayor.18a1f2fa7.html

btw, i want my friends to know that whether you disagree w/ me or not, i still think you're great. plus, argument and disagreements are healthy!

babies!

a friend of mine at work sent me this story about her neighbor. i love it!

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/us_world/Baby_Wont_Wait_for_Obamas_.html?corder=reverse

i can't imagine being in her shoes (and not just b/c the thought of having a child right now is FRIGHTENING). that rally was crazy. but props to them for going for it... i'm sure on their walk to the hospital, they just kept telling themselves YES WE CAN!

beginnings

i'm currently reading "hot, flat & crowded" by thomas friedman and "lolita" by vladimir nabokov. i'm absolutely LOVING friedman and recommend it to anyone and everyone. he makes the green movement/revolution so much more than just about saving the planet and all that mumbo jumbo. more later... but nabokov is hard. it's actually quite disturbing, and i get nervous reading it on the L every day. my dear love, david, has assured me that it's an amazing novel, and i can certainly see how great of a writer he is, but it's hard. i have about 100 pages left, so i'm not going to give up.

i'll also probably be posting numerous times throughout each day, depending on my work schedule. if i get bored at work, i usually check out nytimes.com or other newspapers to see what's going on in the world. i plan on using this space to post links to great articles, review books i'm reading, and share any personal thoughts i'm having about life. ENJOY!