Adventures in Breakfasting

Margaret Thatcher's funeral was today.  My intense dislike for her has meant that I'm not sorry for her passing, and I've been disappointed at some responses to her from people I'd expect more of, and been rather pleasantly surprised at the responses of some others I would not necessarily expect to be so clearly thoughtful, if imperfect.

Anyway, I'm over it.  The beeb has been going on about it, and in striving for balance I, of course, think they're attributing good things to her that clearly are not true. But there you go. 

On to more important things:  BREAKFAST. As an antidote to the Maggie love, and the sight of Osborne at the funeral, I decided that I wanted to listen to something rather different (the left-leaning tendencies of the good folks at TWIB FM), and enjoy a cup of Yorkshire tea (she didn't have much time for those folks, it seems), and eat a jolly breakfast. 

As mentioned previously on this blog, I'm experimenting with breakfasts. This is a new one that I've done A LOT in the last fortnight or so. Adapted from my friend's instagram posts, this is banana pancake breakfast joy for those who are NOT on the paleo diet (but think it has some great recipes). Why it's good? It's extraordinarily tasty, and has fruit and good protein.

Take one banana.  Mash it up with a fork in a bowl.  Then mix in an egg, salt, pepper.  Then spray a non-stick pan with oil spray (paleo folks use coconut oil, I used regular old pam olive oil spray), and pour into the pan over medium heat.  The thing is, the first few times I did this, they burned / got very messy.  Suddenly, however, I'm in a groove. The thing is to make a couple or three pancakes, with a thin spread, and WAIT. (In this time, I also fry an egg in another pan because, you know, I like eggs).

Waiting is key: you have to have the bottom of the pancake thoroughly cooked; the top can be slightly wobbly, but basically, you have to treat it like an egg that you'd flip, or a normal pancake. The first few times I did this, I had to burn the bottom to get it cooked, but I've managed the last couple of times to make it work right.

I then serve with the fried egg, sriracha (because YES), and fruit. 

Well Hung

They are currently predicting a hung parliament at home. Reports abound of people having trouble voting and the inconsistencies with what precisely happens at 10pm. It's all very strange, to be here, watching while the results come in. I think Cameron is false, I think his "modification" of the party is a false impression, and I think he's going to be bad for women's rights, as I've detailed before.

Still, very homesick today. It's just not the same to have results come in while it's still light.

Unhealthy Debate

I don't have much to say on the topic of health reform, really. It's just such a big old mess. There are several main topics that have come out of it that really bother me, but I don't want to go on a diatribe here. Still, in case you were wondering (which, if you are at all familiar with this blog, you're probably not as you know what pushes my rage buttons):

1. Abortion is out of the healthcare bill - because it's not healthcare. This is a theme that drives me insane. It's the most common outpatient procedure, it's there because women's mental or physical health is threatened by being forced to carry to term a foetus that they do not want/can't have. And yet, that's not covered, but viagra is? Really? A man's right to have a long-lasting erection is healthcare (and drugs for it can be advertised at all hours of the day), but not a woman's right to bodily autonomy. For eff's sake.
2. The rage and violence and sheer thuggery of some of the opposition to healthcare is, frankly, extremely remarkable. The threats of violence (death threats to Louise Slaughter), the actual violence (bricks through windows), the spitting, the racial "epithets" (don't you just love the fact that everyone says "epithet" when they mean the N-word?), the homophobic abuse toward one of the only openly gay members of Congress... and the guns. The guns. The "blood of tyrants" quotes. To be fair, I oppose this Act, in part, because of the way that women's reproductive rights are being sold down the river. So I am distinctly not claiming that opposition to healthcare is, per se, outright wrong and/or racist. But my response is not violence or threats thereof. It's remarkable how people who are used to getting their own way behave like such violent brats when they can't control the electoral process anymore. And there is nothing like their demonisation of women (Pelosi) and the foreign (Obama) to illustrate why people who are, often, powerless or used to having all the power in the world cannot cope with this shift.

UPDATE: I just read this by Jill, and, of course, she (and Bob Herbert, whom she quotes) say a lot more eloquently than I do what I think I detect in the shifting of privilege / power and why that is making the raging people just so raging.

UPDATE 2: Jill and others also have pointed out the utter failure of Bart Stupak to connect the threats of violence he's received with the intimidation and fear that women seeking reproductive health services - be they tests, contraception, treatment or abortion (and again, that's only 3% of the clients that attend Planned Parenthood,* for example) - when they go to their local Planned Parenthood. Or with the death threats and violence that reproductive health workers receive many/most days of their lives in the US.

UPDATE 3: In point 2 above, I think I have misrepresented what I think. I think this is a good start, but it is health insurance reform, not healthcare reform. There are several things I deeply dislike about this Act (as it is now): a/ I'm not keen on individual mandates - I think that it truly is the government's responsibility to provide healthcare for its citizens. What I am hoping is that the mandates will flood the system with more premiums, and so hopefully lower the costs for all of us. At least, that's in theory what would happen without privatized, for-profit businesses in control of dictating who gets what and for how much money. We'll see if it does work. But I believe this bill doesn't go anywhere near far enough. b/ Women have been sold down the river, again, for their actual healthcare needs when, unsurprisingly, men haven't. And that's depressing and awful and wrong. c/ The "better than nothing" argument is true - it's just not enough and the people of this country that I currently live in deserve much better. I'm not sure if I would have voted for it or not; probably if the votes were close, but if I thought the Bill would pass without me, maybe not.

UPDATE 4: And here we go again - yet another reason why this reform does, indeed, fall short.

* See p8 of the pdf.

The 500

This is my 500th post. It is also the anniversary of the election of Barack Obama. It's so hard to believe a whole year has passed. Looking back on my post from the day after the night before last year, I think a lot of what I was thinking then is roughly what I think now. To whit: racism is this country should not be underestimated--and, in the past year has, frankly, been more than a little terrifying as well as disgusting; homophobia should not be underestimated (please Maine, please, show us your good side).

He's been in power only since January, of course. Since then, there have been great positives (the Lily Ledbetter Act, and the general pushing of women's rights to the forefront of foreign policy, as well as - FINALLY - the lifting of the ban on entering the U.S. with HIV/AIDS if you are a non-citizen, progressive judicial nominees), as well as negatives (the general stalling on DADT, the horrific continued bombing of Pakistan using the drones, and general assertions of executive privilege that displease me).

But there are always to be ups and downs, and often the details are forgotten underneath a general narrative. As always, I avidly listened to The News Quiz from Friday and got highly disgruntled when someone said Labour had ballsed up the country for the past twelve years. It's simply not true. They have made horrific errors. But I don't think the investigation into Stephen Lawrence's death, legalizing gay marriage, or the repealing of Section 28, are to be sniffed at.

But This Is Different...

There's been liberal handwringing at the President's refusal to intervene in the case of Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point-educated Officer (this seems to be important, it comes up in everything - like he wouldn't matter if he was a grunt who came through community college?) who is an Arabic language specialist who came out on the Rachel Maddow show a few weeks ago, and has been fired by the U.S. military. Jon Stewart's mini-takedown is below and, while I agree with his anger, I don't think the presentation (from the media in general) is entirely fair.

One thing I will say first: I think the Obama Administration is going about this wrong, I think they should be absolutely pushing for legislation to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And perhaps, as Feministing says, he could suspend investigations into sexuality (although that wouldn't have helped Choi, who came out on television -harder to ignore, perhaps). But my point is that in one sense Obama's right that it is not his place to do this - because it needs legislation. It's a LAW. It's not some stupid Executive Order (unlike those ridiculous healthcare provider conscience things that Bushy Boy pushed through and Obama revoked), it's a law that was passed by both chambers and signed by the President. The President, as we've heard everyone (rightly) argue about the torture laws, does not get to pick and choose which laws to obey. He doesn't get to write an Executive Order and somehow, magically, it's not the law anymore. He does need to stick his boot up the arses of Congress to work on this. No doubt. But he has a constitutional mandate to execute and take care the laws are obeyed.

Yes, this is awful and it's an absolutely ridiculous, damaging, dangerous and unsafe law, but when Bushy Boy and Cheney et al. were violating and ordering violations of the laws of war, of the UCMJ, of the Convention Against Torture, this was thrown against them constantly - you can't disobey the law. To willfully misquote Lincoln, it's not all the laws but one. Now that the disobedience is something liberals want, Obama is supposed to disobey separation of powers? I thought he won, at least in part, because he represented a return to order and to respectful adherence to the Constitution and the structural balancing of powers.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Moral Kombat
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

To repeat, again, he needs to throw his weight behind repeal of this. Their inaction is a disgrace. But make sure when you criticise him, it's for the right reasons.

The Dutiful Wife

I have just finished reading American Wife by Curtis Sittenfeld. It's a fictionalized and imaginary account of a woman's journey from teen in the Midwest to First Lady. People have stated that it's clearly based on Laura Bush but, I think, it's actually more accurate to state that her husband is based on George W. Bush. The reason being is that we know very little about Laura and so I'm not comfortable saying that Alice Lindgren is based on Laura Bush. Clearly there are things in common, but otherwise, the characteristics of Charlie, Alice's husband in the book, are much more strikingly like those of Dubya, including the privileged upbringing, the awkwardness, the general misbehaving followed by conversion to Born-Again Christian.

I thought it was an absolutely gripping read. It's rather long - over 550 pages, and so approaching Dickensian in length - but incredibly quick and easy to get through, with the bulk of my reading done on a plane ride back from England (although, to be fair, the movie choice on Continental wasn't up to much, and yet I managed to watch both Back to the Future and Pirates of the Caribbean -well, more accurately, they were on and noisy distractions while I read and did some work). It was lent to me by TOH's mum, and she had felt that the most interesting pages are the 150 or so after Alice becomes First Lady. But I was utterly intrigued by all of it - her adolescence, their courtship, his conversion, partly because it really did set the scene for her life as FLOTUS...

The most striking thing about the book, I feel, was Alice's ambiguity and, indeed, my ambiguous response to her. In part, I thought she was incredibly courageous and, frankly, sensible - she was able to separate the man she loved from his job. In some senses, she was right - how TOH is as an economist and teacher is, really, not much to do with me and doesn't, for the most part, affect my views on or feelings toward him. Yet I thought that this in some places really reflected a lack of conviction, or, perhaps, to be more charitable, a difference in the bases of our relationships.* Because it does matter that TOH does the best he can, and strives to make lives better, and is intelligent and committed to his job. At times it almost seemed wilful blindness for Alice to not quite understand the criticisms levelled at her regarding Charlie's politics.

Nonetheless, I'd then feel swayed by and, frankly, admiration at her integrity and successes at, for the most part, being able to maintain a relationship in the face of such differences and keeping his politics out of their personal lives. That was the bargain they struck and, for the most part, they stuck to it, which was a remarkable aspect of the book. Yet I think there's definitely a strong gender dynamic being played out here, in that the wife doesn't get involved in her man's business, at least not publicly, and that makes her a good wife. I think there's room to explore whether or not a male spouse would be so easily considered a good man and a good husband for being so willing to sit and be silent on the sidelines.

The success of their relationship in spite of their differences also struck me. TOH and I used to have virulent rows--usually on the way to the train station at Hither Green in the mornings--about the role of the NHS and poverty and various other things on which he as a hard-nosed economist (ha!) and me as a soft lefty-liberal (pinko) took radically opposed views. He was all reason, I was all unhinged emotion. We've come together a lot more over the years, as you'd expect, although we're still not exactly as one. Yet I think we've always had similar core values about what people are worth and what a just society might consist of. But I was intrigued by the book because I am fascinated by those relationships in which each person has unbelievably different viewpoints. I don't think I could cope with that, and not because I'm that prejudiced (I hope). More that you need to share values. I suppose I don't really understand how you can build a life together, particularly if it's one that involves raising children, with such fundamentally different views of what is truly important. The book raises that issue and is definitely food for thought.

* And yes, I am aware the book is not real.

Monumental

It's really hard to explain the thoughts and emotions coursing through me in the last few days. I have to admit, I underestimated this country in many ways: that fear would take over, that the machines would mess up, that people would suppress the vote.

Last night was astonishing, in so many ways. But the sheer wondrousness of voting for Obama may mask the other stories that are almost as important. South Dakota, for the second time in two years, rejected an abortion ban, one which was designed to get Roe v. Wade overturned; for the third time, California rejected a parental notification requirement for teenage girls' abortions; and Colorado gave a big fat two fingers up to the Fetal Life Amendment. Yet, these are happy stories because they are rejections of encroachments of our rights, not progressive achievements or growth of civil liberties.

It's even harder to state how disappointing the level of homophobia in this country is. People can harp on all they want about the sanctity of marriage, and how it's nothing to do with the gay folk. But it is. It's homophobia. It's about whether you think gay people are equal. And, according to Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, California, they're not.

It's really odd to feel euphoric and yet utterly depressed. But that's what I feel right now.

This One Thing

Today America votes. I don't, obviously. However, I've been thinking about the campaign as a whole, reading Margaret & Helen for its wonderful insights (the very simple post on Obama's grandmother made me sob a bit this morning), and just trying to come up with one reason that should persuade people to vote for Obama.

One reason, two words: Record Turnouts.

The Obama campaign has been all about mobilizing people to vote, inspiring them, often for the first time, to get their behinds down to the polling station and take an active part in democracy. The Republicans have been trying to scare people - scare Jews into thinking Obama will bring about a second Holocaust; scare taxpayers that he's a Marxist, terrorist thug who will still all their money and give it to black people, scare anti-choice nutters that Obama will bring about abortions for all because of women's "health"; and suing anything that moves to suppress the vote (with the Sixth Circuit ignoring Supreme Court precedent directly on point to allow them to sue).

The lines in Georgia (eight hours!) remind me of the lines in South Africa when black South Africans could vote for the first time; the Spanish elections in 2004, when vastly increased numbers turned out to stick it to Aznar for lying to them about ETA's involvement in the Madrid Atocha bombings for political gain. It makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck to think that people are really passionately involved and motivated to get out and vote.

McCain and the Republicans' tactics of voter suppression under the guise of voter fraud is the exact opposite of what should make you excited. That invokes black voter suppression of the Civil Rights Era (good old Chief Justice Rehnquist, eh?); when black voters were burned alive in a town hall for exercising their rights. Dramatic, yes, but it's on the same continuum of white voters wanting to ensure that black votes don't count. That's not the way any person should want to win the Presidency. And that's why I think you should vote for Obama.

Now, can we PLEASE get back to more important things, like whether or not Carlisle are going to get relegated to League Two this season.

Thanks.

Klear as Kristol

I really do have a problem with Bill Kristol. I can't help it. Today he has a stupid columnin the NY Times about how liberals are going to be fine if McCain wins... I presume it's supposed to be amusing - I cannot believe he'd be seroius - but it's just facetious and annoying. In response to his points:

1) McCain's the underdog. Really? I don't hear anyone saying they won't vote for an ex-Marine white guy, but you do hear an awful lot about people not voting for Obama because he's black. That just automatically underdogs you, when people cannot bear the thought of voting for you because of the colour of your skin. Because you have to discount them, and all the misconceptions and prejudices that others who are not as overt have about you, your wife, your children.

Further, the reason Kristol cites is that the Obama campaign was a multi-million juggernaut, and he conveniently forgets just why it raised so much money: lots of small contributions from record numbers of people. It's not just the amounts that are the stuff of record, but the sheer quantity of people who contributed. McCain's money came predominantly from the Republican establishment and the RNC, and the highest paid people on that staff were Palin's wardrobe and make-up consultants. Hmm, underdog indeed.

2) A defeat for the establishment. McCain only stayed in the Navy, according to some, because his Daddy ran the whole thing; he has been in the Senate umpteen years and is the embodiment of cozy establishment. Sarah Palin is also pretty cozy with the Washington establishment. Kristol claims the establishment nature of Obama is evident because Republican insiders are endorsing him; but surely, if they weren't, that would be evidence for how he's not ready to be President? You can't have it both ways - if he's criticised he's unsuitable, if he's endorsed he's an insider.

3) A victory for McCain is one for hope over fear, because it won't be just a retaliation for the Bush years. This one is just laughable. I suggest you just look at it in order to cry with laughter / bemusement at Kristol's depth of delusion. Again, if it's supposed to be funny, it is unfortunately coming across as facetious.

4) A victory for freedom. Hmm, because he caved over the torture Bush's administration may perform? He states that genocidal perpetrators will sleep less soundly during a McCain administration; Al-Qaeda endorsed McCain. What to do? Strange how "freedom" no longer means traditional constitutional civil liberties - freedom of speech, equal protection, right to be free of search and seizure - but means "freedom from terrorist attacks." National security does not equal freedom. Not that I'm a huge fan of Obama's voting for the wiretapping, either - I just don't think Kristol has a clue what he's talking about, because Republicans and the right have so far warped people's conceptions of personal freedoms that they honestly believe this is what it means. As a friend said to me last night, restricting American values of freedom in order to preserve American values of freedom doesn't really work.

5) Better for liberalism to have a mixed Congress etc. Maybe it worked before, but it's not good for us right now. Clinton caved to the conservatives in Congress by introducing and signing Don't Ask, Don't Tell as a way of dealing with the issues of gay people serving in the military. That's a good example of "compromise" legislation. Not that good stuff didn't happen with that mixture, but right now, liberals need to get their judges into the judiciary and need to get rid of the Global Gag rule and Abstinence-Only Funding and overhaul all the disastrous legislation Bush wrought (No Child Left Behind, anyone?). Bush has vetoed more legislation than anyone in history - does anyone really think Palin (Kristol's choice for President) would be any different if people did stuff she didn't like, particularly given her behaviour during Troopergate? I fear again for the DOJ and US Attorneys if she ever takes charge.

Right, that's out of my system.

Vote tomorrow. Please.

Devout

My tidbit on the election this week. Well, second, if you count my revelation yesterday of a dvd-based-conspiracy to get you to vote for McCain. A dear friend pointed this my way, and I could not agree more: Why on earth does everyone have to go out of their way to point out that Barack Obama is not Muslim, or Arabic? It's ridiculous, because it just should not matter. Not in the least. Then people will point to "tendencies," and we'll get into a nasty stereotyping war. The current devout Christian in charge of the White House is happy to invade other "sovereign nations," bomb and torture people; his very first act in office was to repress women's rights all over the world by reinstating the Global Gag rule after Clinton got rid of it; as Governor of Texas he signed the death warrant of thousands of people. He has shown himself to be merciless, full of brutality. Not much to do with the compassion, caring, or, indeed, Christianity. So why is that so much better than loving Mohammed?

I recommend reading the piece and watching the video. Highly.

This photo, incidentally, is of a mosque in the absolutely gorgeous Bo Kaap part of Cape Town - there will be more photos of this region in days to come.

Subliminal

I'm pretty sure Netflix is supporting the Republican Presidential ticket. It took me a while to cotton on, but looking at the login page just now* it's right there, staring you in the face. Look at the examples of emails you might use to log in.

A coincidence? I think not. Much like a friend's attempt to warn you of the evil power of Dewar's, this is my own little conspiracy theory. Has Netflix officially endorsed a candidate yet? No, but unofficially, it's there for you to see, my friends. Yes, my friends, not that one, but this one.

* (yes, should be working right now, but I'm not - master of my own time, me).

Debatable

So... thanks to a phonecall with a much more politically active friend who couldn't quite believe I wasn't watching it, I managed to get suckered into watching / listening to part of the debate last night; despite promising myself I wouldn't. Bear in mind, this is not because I am not politically engaged; it is because I am too politically engaged. This is for my mental health. Which, already strained (work is a little bit much at the mo., as it turns out that three weeks into it, I'm not perfect/awesome at it), really suffered last night. Observations:

1. I am not "your friend" Mr. McCain.
2. How on earth can anyone seriously think of voting for him?

That's about it. He's untruthful and I honestly can't stand it. My blood pressure went through the roof just watching The Daily Show from Monday that talked about the VP debate - although that piece with Jason Jones watching the VP debate in Alaska was genius. Note to Palin/McCain: that's gotcha liberal journalism, if anything is - simply getting people to say ignorant things on tv. Fab. Most honest and insightful piece of political debate: "they're all gay."

I'm back on the abstention kick: no more politics for me. Last night poor old TOH did the whole meal and I poked at the pan with a wooden spoon, probably more often than not brandishing it as a weapon, thrusting it at the radio and yelling at McCain. You see? Not good for my health or my relationship which, despite his current rather busy time - some might say crunch / vital /most important of his life - is very much a lop-sided affair right now. For the good of the world, I am retreating once more. You'll thank me for it later.

Home Comforts

Part of my doing repro rights spiel is that I really wouldn't have been as interested if I were back home. Reason being, the right to abortion is not so obviously under threat. However, there is a rabid anti-choice MP, Nadine Dorries, who keeps trying to get the abortion limit reduced. Recently, I posted on my utter annoyance with the horrible David Cameron and his horrible stance on the abortion-limit vote that took place last week. Well, too bad Nadine and tough bloody luck DC, your "moral conscience" vote showed that most people feel that allowing a woman the right to choose IS the definition of a moral conscience. Fabulous. And if that weren't good enough, The Bugle's opening item this week was about it and I absolutely pissed myself on the train home. I'm particularly pleased with it as I'd been saving it for a treat, something I deserved for working hard at bar stuff and the gym this week, and it really, truly was.

Four and counting...

I only have four classes left at law school. It's utterly terrifying. I really am almost done - I've even registered to take the bar. Ulp.

So, slowly, I am having my last ever last class of the semester. Tonight I had to say goodbye to my legislative drafting class. This has been absolutely fantastic - I've learned so, so, so much. Even more exciting has been sharing the class with politically active people who know so much about the inner workings of New York - both State and City. Several people in the class work for politicians, and one of our profs works for the judiciary. So tonight, in our last class, we talked a bit about the bill & statute we're drafting for our final project (on testing criminal defendants for HIV where there was a chance of transmission), but had a few glasses of wine, some pizza, and gossiped about what's going on in the government in NYS. I find my anger so often directed at the Bush Administration, I don't pay enough attention to what's going on around me, on a municipal level. This class was absolutely great, and I'm really going to miss it.

As for law school... yep, that too. I expect.

Titular

Listening to Washington Week - a great, wonderful, intelligent programme - I am bothered yet again by certain journalists repeatedly referring to her as "Mrs. Clinton," whereas Obama is "Senator Obama" or "Barack Obama." It's not the first time I've heard it, so I finally looked up the transcript to find out who's doing it. Step forward Todd S. Purdum of Vanity Fair and Michael Duffy of TIME.

Two things: first, Washington Week, you may put in the transcript "Ms. Clinton," but what they said was "Mrs.", whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Second, four times might not seem much, but it's infinitely more than "Mr. Obama" or "Mr. McCain."

Just a thought.

ps I still want BO to win, I think, but am repeatedly confronted with examples, as above, of differentiation in journalistic treatment of the MEN versus the WOMAN.

Exchanges

So, David Cameron wants to have the abortion limit in Britain curtailed to twenty weeks. Last year, there was a medical and scientific hearing in the House of Commons to discuss shortening the limit. Conclusively proved - that there was no need to do this. Yet, he's started spouting it again. Feministe kindly provided a link whereby you could email him to point out your opposition. So I did.

The response from Mr. Cameron? Not that he bothered to do it himself, but I quote his Correspondence Secretary:

Dear Grace,

Many thanks for your email regarding abortion.

David Cameron believes this is an issue of conscience and not one he would ever want to see becoming party political.

David personally believes that we should review the abortion limit in the light of developments in medical science and technology. He would support a modest reduction from 24 weeks.

Of course, this response sums up my two points I made in the original email to him. First, I'm also extremely puzzled how the House of Commons hearing's scientific testimony and conclusions - despite attempts to stuff the Committee with anti-abortion activists - can simply be ignored by Mr. Cameron in this instance. But, I suppose, so long as he personally believes it that's fine. Just like personally believing the sun goes around the earth, I suppose.

Second, and more worryingly, it's a matter of conscience for him because it's women's rights; it doesn't matter what medical or scientific evidence has been presented to show that it is not a necessary reduction. You can screw over women because it's what you think is the right thing to do. Can you imagine ignoring scientific evidence because you thought it was a matter of conscience whether or not you thought you should use synthetic blood, for example. Strange how conscience doesn't mean protecting women and keeping it safe and legal.

When I pointed this out, no one bothered replying. 'Nuff said.

Which is where we come to Bill. Bill, Bill, Bill. I have loved him for many years, but recently been going through a "hmm, maybe Clinton effed up an awful lot more than I believed at the time, and we just idolise him because GWB is such a dreadful person." But this video - described in RH Reality Check's excellent podcast (which I cannot recommend highly enough) - reminded me just why he is loved by us progressives. Sigh.

Unclean

This morning was an interesting one. I walked back from an extraordinary meeting with the Chair of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland - an amazing woman - only to be covered in smog and dirt from midtown. I loathe midtown. Times Square is disgusting anyway - they "cleaned it up," having got rid of the sex shops, but now it's a soulless horrible mess. I can't see how that's an improvement, really - sex is gross and dirty and must be expunged from the public view, but tasteless, commercial horribleness in the form of the Hershey's store et al. are somehow better.

Even worse, I saw the Mittmobile. I murmured obscenities under my breath as I walked past, obviously. Actually, all I'd have had to say to offend him would be words like "women are equal," "stemcell research saves people's lives and that's a good thing," "healthcare for all is a GOOD idea" and other horrible, dreadful things like that. I wish I'd thought of that at the time. Bugger.

Misplaced Priorities

There's so much going on right now that I should be processing, mentally, and then blogging on, such as: the House bill that would bring criminal liability to contractors in Iraq; the speech by Harold Koh at my school yesterday, which was exciting, inspiring, funny and wonderful, and has prompted me to restart writing my international law thesis (that nearly KILLED me last year - so all things in moderation); and the birth of a daughter to one of my very best friends, which is a watershed in my life, let alone hers.

Instead, however, I am getting increasingly (and quite embarrasingly) overexcited about the prospect of seeing LCD Soundsystem tomorrow. I can't quite believe it's nearly here. All other thoughts are therefore blown from my brain and I can't think straight. Tragic, but true.

The "S" Word

Very interesting piece in the NY Times today about Republicans bandying around the "S" word - socialist, socialism, socialized - to discredit Democrats' plans to reform healthcare.

My favourite part in the piece is the revelation that indeed there is socialised healthcare - for military veterans. No problem there - you put your life on the line, you deserve some kind of protection and treatment afterwards. However, how does draft-dodging Dubya get treatment there? Ah yes, the whole Commander-in-Chief thing. Still, leaves a nasty taste in one's mouth. As Mr. Boffey states,

a parade of Washington’s political dignitaries, including President Bush, has turned to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., for checkups and treatment, without ideological complaint. Politicians who deplore government-run health care for average Americans are only too happy to use it themselves.

Also, yet more proof that Mitt Romney is a nasty piece of work - he basically did exactly the same thing in Massachusetts and yet now is yelling about Clinton's plans to socialize healthcare. Strange how what it takes to win in Massachusetts suddenly becomes something that he has rejected based on experience and wisdom, as he has discovered now he wants to be Republican President - like abortion rights, like stem-cell research, as with healthcare that actually delivers. I hate that guy.

Don't Fight It, Feel It!

It's f-f-f-f-f-friday!

Sweet.

Even more sweet are:

• Chris Dodds kicking Bill O'Reilly's sorry behind (favourite line: "I'm sure you respect both men as patriots.")
• This genius suggestion in response to the Ohio senator who has introduced a bill requiring paternal consent for abortions. Not just notification, my friends, but consent. If you do not know who the father is, you are to suggest a list of the potential fathers. Awesome. What a git. However, if I were to find myself up the duff in Cleveland, this is definitely what I would do. I'd add Alito, Thomas & Scalia to the mix, though.

Less sweet: President Bush has truly discovered the power of the veto. Having not used it before 2007, he has now used it / threatened to use it for:

• The expanded children's health insurance programme - because we'd rather have children die of treatable conditions than create welfare dependence on the federal government, obviously. My favourite thing about this: He objects on "philosophical grounds." Funny how he doesn't give a crap about babies' lives once they're actually born, isn't it?
• The House's awesome response to overrule one of the most misogynistic, pro-discrimination decisions by the Supreme Court you could possibly imagine. I harp on about Ledbetter (here and here), but I honestly think this is one of the biggest disasters not just of this term, but of all time. Along with Gonzales v. Carhart, this is a really double whammy for women's rights. Unsprung has a typically fantastic take on it.
• As well as any exit plans for Iraq.

Wanker.