Don't Mess With My Family

I haven't written in a while. I haven't felt like I had anything important to say.

Now, I do.

How dare Ralph Reed think he can criticize my family.

In case you are not familiar, Ralph Reed is a small minded, well funded (and coiffed), bigot with a big mouth here in the U.S. who loves to be on T.V. Today, in defense of the country's ongoing prejudice against same sex couples he made he argument that it is "for the children" saying: "The verdict of social science is overwhelming and irrefutable. And that is without regard to straight or gay. In other words, this applies to one-parent households, it applies to foster homes, it applies to the whole panoply – they’ve looked at them all – that the enduring, loving, intact, biological mother and father is best for children."

What the huh?

First of all, "science" is not a citation. Give me studies, Ralph, give me names. I want empirical evidence here, not just something your buddies heard behind the 7-11 before the latest Westboro protest. And not just one study, I want to see a lot of them. They all better have big sample sizes too. I have seen enough of these "500 hundred first cousins" bullshit surveys to know the difference.

This is my family. 

Also, have you looked at the demographics of the United States of America lately? While you may be living in a "Leave it to Beaver" world, this is definitely more of a "Full House" country now.  I'm not just talking about liberal, commie, granola crunching weirdos either. I am talking about your so-called base of Christian fundamentalists. Families are taking all shapes and sizes, no matter your political or religious bent. No, they may not have two Moms, or two Dads, but they likely will have only one or the other under one roof, and have foster or adopted children as well. Do you really think now is the time to start excluding them from the "big tent?"

Lastly, in your defense of DOMA, and Prop 8, and your attack on families, you are trying to somehow say some are better than others. I agree, some are. But it has nothing to do with demographics; it has to do with love. All families will have good times and bad; whether they share DNA, or live in the same house, or have parents of the same gender. It is how we deal with those times, not the statistical picture, that matters.

I wish any of this would make a difference to him. I know it makes a difference to me. I know that I am raising a child in a world that still has so many prejudices it makes me afraid for her. I want her to know that her family is the one place she is always safe, and never judged. It makes it hard when it feels like people are judging her family.

So, I will fight like a rabid badger until that is not the case.

Come at me, Ralph Reed, and bring all your "science" with you. I will fight you with the love I use to protect my daughter.

The love of a Mother.

Because we are family. And not some discounted family.

The real damn deal.

Read more →

This is Where I Live

Utah is going to be in the news for the next few days.

No, it isn't because the Sundance film festival is starting, or because we have another Nobel prize winning scientist among us. It isn't even because the Mormon church is making headlines. It's because some idiot decided to go into a store like this.

Yes, that is an assault rifle. Yes, it is perfectly legal for him to be carrying it. Under Utah state law as long as the gun is unloaded, or he has a concealed carry permit, he can take it anywhere he wants, no matter if it makes others around him feel unsafe, or if he has mental problems, or if it is just plain dumb. Yes, the police can stop and question him, but as long as he meets the criteria, he can do what he wants.

Do we all see the problem with this?

Guns are becoming more important than people.

More important than maintaining a civil society.

Don't tell me this is about rights. If this were about rights then the same people screaming about guns would be screaming that homosexual couples should have the right to express their love like all other Americans, and that women should be able to make their own reproductive decisions. After all, don't all "slippery slopes" end at the bottom?

Don't tell me this is about safety. I could quote a millions studies showing how a gun in the home is more likely to get the residents injured or killed than any intruder. How having a gun involved in a  crime raised the risk of fatalities. How most of the people who commit gun crimes own their firearm, don't steal it. However, if you have ignored those studies before, you are going to ignore them now.

Don't tell me this is about hunting, or self-reliance.  That dude is not going hunting at JC Penney. I know they claim to have "killer prices" but I don't think he is trying to take it to the extreme.

What this is about (at least as far as I am concerned) is intimidation. It's about people who feel their way of life is being threatened and so they are figuratively and literally pulling out the big guns.  They feel they are becoming the minority after so long in power, and it's scary. I get that. But the answer isn't to threaten your fellow citizens, even under the guise of trying to protect you and them. After all, I bet if anyone talked to that guy he would say the gun was "for protection."

I really wish that we could all just talk about this. That I could say to someone "I fear that guns are becoming so prevalent that I want background checks on the parents of all of my daughter's friends" without being told I am a liberal fascist (yeah, I know, but I have seen the term used). I am sure that gun owners want to vent their fears of inadvertently being painted as criminals because they are exercising a constitutional right.

That won't happen though -- at least not right now. So, maybe we could all just agree not to be total assholes. At least not in ways that makes everyone else in the state have to explain to their friends why exactly it is we live here again. We can only extoll the beauty of the mountains, and the not so weird liquor laws, so many times.

Please?

Read more →

E-nough

I really wish Joe Biden would stop emailing me. 

Not just him, either. I'm tired of getting emails from Barack. And Michelle. And Bill Clinton. And even -- no, I can't believe I am saying this -- Beyonce. I want them all to stop with the emails. 

First of all, they really shouldn't be concerned about my vote. If I could have "bleeding heart liberal" tattooed somewhere on my person without using ouchy needles to do it, I would. There is no way I am voting for Mitt Romney. He could fly through the air on a golden unicorn, tossing down hundred dollar bills and birth control, then land and perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, and I still would wouldn't vote for him. If President Obama is one hundred percent sure of one vote this year, it's mine. He doesn't need to keep sending me little "Hey" messages to remind me he's running. 

Okay, so the emails are probably about money. The campaign needs it. I get it. What I don't get? A large paycheck. If I did, I would probably be voting for unicorn boy (no, I wouldn't). I am a local news producer, married to an educator, trying to put a kid through an independent school. The fact we gave anything at all shows just how devoted we are to this campaign. 

Also, I have to say the emails kind of insult my intelligence. Do they really think I believe the President, or even Biden for that matter, was sitting at his desk, worried about the campaign and thought "I know who can help! Libby! I mean, her blog alone reaches tens of people on a yearly basis! She will save the day!" 

I don't. Oh, and I've read all the articles about how using my name in the email will supposedly make me more likely to read it. I guess they haven't read the ones about how everyone knows about cut and paste. 

I think it would be even worse for the President if I actually did believe he and his high powered political friends are sitting around sending these emails out. They're supposed to be running a campaign and the country but they have time to email me? Even the ridiculously stupid version of me would see that's a bad use of time. 

I am glad to see though that the Obama campaign isn't the only one abusing the power of email though. According to Politico Romney is spamming the people who, like me, thought supporting their candidate meant handing over an email address. I can only imagine what's in those emails -- and it's definitely not money and free birth control. 

Read more →

Office Politics

I work for a company that can only be called "conservative." Many people have called it many other things, but for our purposes, let's just leave it at "conservative." If you have ever read my blog, or my Twitter feed, or been within a 50 mile radius of me (even if I am just flying in a plane over your general area) you know that I am anything BUT conservative. I am a Godless, commie, bleeding heart, tax and spend, any other negative epithet you want to throw at me liberal.  

Still, I like my job. My job seems to like me.

I figure discussing politics in the workplace is never a good idea no matter where you work. I figure that my co-workers, many of whom I am sure disagree with me ideologically, are polite enough not to bring it up, so I am as well. I figure no one agrees 100% with everything their company does. I figure where I work is only a part of who I am, not the sum total. I figure anyone who knows me, will know that. 

People who randomly call my office? They obviously don't. Take for example the call I took this morning:

          CALLER: I'm sick of you trying to push your conservative agenda on me. 
          ME: Excuse me?  
          CALLER: Oh, don't try to pretend. You right wing, Christian conservative bigot! 
          ME: Sir, do you have something specific you want me to address? 
          CALLER: Specific? How about the fact you think you can step all over people's rights!
          ME: I don't think that in the least, Sir. I voted for Obama. I give money to the ACLU. To Planned Parenthood. To the NAACP. 
           CALLER: You have no right!
           ME: Sir, I don't know what right you are talking about. How can I help you? 
           CALLER: By not trying to silence liberal views. That's what Hitler did.
           ME: Sir, I'm sorry you feel that way. Try reading my blog. There are some liberal views for you. And the Hitler card? REALLY? 
           CALLER: You just don't get it. 
           ME: I don't know what you want me to get. 
           CALLER: You and all your Romney supporting buddies. Only worried about your money. 
           ME: Silence. I wouldn't vote for Romney if I were strapped to an ant hill covered in honey. And money? Honey, I got none. 
           CALLER: I hope you're happy. 
           ME: Alright. Have a nice day.  

That isn't the first call like that I've taken. It won't be the last. I know there are some who think I am being untrue to myself, and my beliefs by not speaking up, by not asserting myself. Maybe I am. Or, maybe I just know the time and place to do it. 

And I know it's not my office. 

No matter how many names I am called. 

Read more →

Rove-ing Utah

Three or four times a week I see Karl Rove.

Well, not actually Karl Rove, I don't watch that much FOX News. A Karl Rove look alike. Utah is lousy with them. Men (and, occasionally women, bless their hearts) who look just like the dark lord of the GOP. Not just a passing resemblance either. Dead on. So much so that most of the time Ryan and I (and whoever else may be with us) actually have a short conversation about whether or not it actually is him.

Don't remember what he looks like? Here's a reminder...

Yep. He's a looker.

He looks like roughly 10% the population of Utah. I don't think it's an accident either.

No, I am not saying that "Rove chic" is a thing here. Nor am I saying our genes are Roved (although he did grow up here). What I am saying is I believe people who naturally look like Karl Rove have moved here to find safe haven.

Think about it. It makes sense.

Poor chubby guys (and gals) were living happily in Vermont, or Oregon, or Wisconsin when suddenly, in 2000, they begin being mistaken for what is now the face of the far right wing. They try to lose weight, buy new glasses, buy Subaurus and put HRC bumper stickers on them, invest in shirts that say "I am not Karl Rove," but nothing seems to work. Neighbors start gathering pitchforks. They are pariahs. So, they start looking for a place where the fact they have a Republican doppelgänger  will be a positive.

Utah. The state that would change it's name to "Republicanada" if that didn't sound so much like "Canada" where godless socialists live.

I haven't done the research to prove my theory (that would be work), but I am pretty sure I'm right. I bet if I went through the records at the DMV I would find a large number of balding, pleasantly plump, bespectacled new residents applying for licenses around 2003.

Every time I see a Rovian now I want to tell them to "stay strong." After all, there is a Democrat in the White House now, and probably will be until 2016; eventually Rove will have to retire, and people will forget who he was. Then they can return to their liberal, hippie homes without fearing retribution.

At least I hope that happens. Rove could be having himself cloned, or be planning to have his head jarred ala "Futurama." I really hope that isn't the case though. The more of these Roveugees that come into the state, the more likely that Meg's graduating class will end up looking like an episode of "Face the Nation." How is she going to hang that picture on the wall of her dorm room at Howard University? She'll have to go to Bob Jones University just to fit in.

Of course, there she might actually see Karl Rove.

I just hope she doesn't mistake him for the butcher at our local grocery store. Or the teller at the bank. Or one of the board members of the local Planned Parenthood chapter....

Read more →

Wieners and the Truth

I really hate it when Republicans do something better than Democrats -- even when it comes to embarrassing sex scandals.

Think of the last three big Democrat sex scandals: Clinton, Edwards, and now, the fortunately named, Weiner. All three engaged in varying degrees of sleazy behavior, all three lied about it, and all three really wouldn't have been in that much trouble if they told the truth in the first place. However, because they didn't (for whatever reasons: wives, cowardice, wanting to see his package on TV more) one faced impeachment, one is facing criminal charges, and one will likely face an ethics sanction. Not because of what they did with their dicks, but because they lied about it.

Now think about the latest Republican scandal. You know the name -- it's as big as his bicep. Arnold fathered a child with a household staff member, hid the child for more than a decade, and then just released a little four line message admitting to all of it and saying he was sorry.

All four of these men faced the wrath of the press, and their wives, and the public. All four of these men took (or will take) career hits because of their indiscretions. However, three of them tried to publicly deny their guilt, claimed to be victims, and then had to make very public admissions of mea culpas in front of a slobbering press corps. One of them just got to write a note.

Oh, and Arnold was smart enough to have his sex scandal surface after he was out of office! Score -- no criminal charges or ethics investigations. Think of how much money he saved the people of California.

If only the people of New York were so lucky.

Well, what do you expect from Democrats though? After all, we do love to spend.

Ugh.

Read more →

Beaten into Submission

Utah's newest Senator has a way to fix the deficit, save social security, and not make the richest one percent of Americans pay more in taxes. Yep, instead of taking from the rich to help the poor (that is really so un-Ayn Rand) he wants to make the poor work longer, and get less when they retire. He is absolutely sure it will work. Why? Because the younger generations don't expect that much from their government.

You think I'm kidding, don't you? I'm not.

Senator Mike Lee had joined with two other Tea Party "activists" to put forward a plan that would raise the retirement age to 70, and reduce the benefits anyone would receive once they reached that age. Now, to his credit, the people who make the most would receive a lot less than those who make the least, but he admits that's because those who make the most probably won't need social security anyway, and will be able to retire long before 70.

So, that shouldn't be so bad, right? I mean, 40 is the new 15, and everyone lives to at least 90 now! Oh, yeah, except the poor. The people who will have to work the longest will live the shortest after they retire. In fact, as their social security benefits have decreased over the past three decades -- so have their life spans.

Wait! Dead people don't need social security! Ca-ching!

Of course, not everyone will die, that would make things too easy. Luckily, the people this plan really sticks it to is the middle class. You know, the people who might make more than 43-thousand dollars a year for at least one year in their working career. Those people will still be paying the highest percentage of their income to social security, and seeing the lowest returns for those payments.

I guess I could consider this Senator Lee's plan to spur me to make more. After all, if I do that, I won't have to worry about this silly "social security" nonsense.

Or I could just expect less. After all, it's what all the cool young kids are doing. And it is MUCH easier than expecting my government to work for me...

Read more →

The Power of Ovaries

Hey, wanna know a secret? This big government shut down that might happen? The one that is supposedly about making major budget cuts and saving the country from financial ruin? Yeah, it's not actually about that.

It's about vagina.

Well, more specifically, it's about what the vagina leads to, and what women should and should not be able to do with those parts of their anatomy. Yep, the primary reason that the budget cannot be finalized is because Republicans want to pull all funding for Planned Parenthood, and restrict federal funding for abortions, and the Democrats aren't going along with it.

It isn't even that Planned Parenthood, or abortion, get all that much money from the feds. I know, I know, you would think that would be the prime concern in "budget" talks, but the amount of money spent on these programs is so laughably small that lawmakers probably spend more each year on those little flag pins. The reason they are hinging the budget battle on this issue is because it is a way to deal with it, and not have many people notice.

Think about it. If conservatives Republicans mount a bill calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and changes in federal programs to not cover abortion, it's going to be a major national issue. Every person in America will hear about it. It will start a debate. The people trying to do this don't want a debate. That's why it's in the budget bill.

This budget bill will eventually have to pass. It has to. Before it does all the news will be about what happens if it doesn't. If a government shut down happens, people will get panicky. Once they get panicky they won't care what's in the bill as long as it's passed. We all know once people are panicky the Democrats will fold. And, just like that, the far right has won on an issue they have had in their back pocket for years, without any debate.

Then the women of America, especially the poor or those without health insurance, will be left wondering what happened to their reproductive rights.

Great secret, huh?

Read more →