Blogger Outage

Sorry all, but Blogger - the system I use to write this blog - has been experiencing some major problems, which meant that I have been unable to post any content to the blog for the past 36 hours or so. Also, they appear to have removed the most recent content posted by all their users, although they say that they are going to work to restore content ASAP. In my case, this means that they have taken down my blog about the prettiness of my commute, with pictures, and the associated comments.

As the British like to say, "I am not best pleased."

Personal Priviledge

Today, on a whim, while I was looking out the window of my morning commuter train, I snapped a picture of Hackney Downs - an urban oasis of greenery in the middle of East London. The place is kind of a miracle, and I had this moment of gratitude that my daily commute just so... beautiful.

So then, I thought - "Heck. Why not try to document the total coolness of my daily commute as it goes along?" So here's Liverpool Street station, where my train arrived...

From there, I exited the station and crossed the street to a bus stop - this picture shows the building my bus stop is in front of. Yes, it's been converted into a supermarket. Gorgeous AND convenient!

I grabbed this shot from the bus as we whizzed through the City (City with a capital C is the term for London's financial district, for you non-locals. Kind of like lower Manhattan.)

This is the Monument to the Great Fire of London - it's 1666 feet high, and that's a clue to the date of said fire, if you're paying attention.

In an effort to pack more walking into my day, and to enjoy the sunshine, I got off a stop early so that I could walk across London Bridge, from which this shot was taken.

Then I walked along the river for a little bit before cutting through Hay's Galleria and passing the world's MOST bizarre and amazing sculpture - the fish shaped boat here is just like something out of Terry Gilliam, and the oars actually row through the water. It's wonderfully odd.

And finally, I stopped at this coffee shop for my utterly-essential morning latte. 

So yes, consider this a true confession - I am a foreign dwelling, urban living, train taking, latte sipping LIBERAL.

It's a pretty darn great thing to be, actually.

(Click on any of these pictures to see them larger.)

Yes, Americans pay too much for healthcare.

And here's the source. 

Oh Dear. Republican wrongness still threatening economic calamity...

So a few days ago, in my round up of the many vital things about which Republicans are wrong, I wrote, referring to their then-apparent decision to avoid threatening the US with debt default:

The one Republican achievement this week is their (apparent) willingness to reluctantly agree that they will NOT cause a financial calamity for no apparent reason.

May I take this opportunity to strike this unfounded praise?

Turns out the giant game of chicken Republicans were playing with their economy is back on:

In a speech before a Wall Street crowd on Monday, John Boehner laid out the three legs of the GOP's opening bid on the debt ceiling. They are:

1) "Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions."

2) "They should be actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future."

3) "With the exception of tax hikes -- which will destroy jobs -- everything is on the table. That includes honest conversations about how best to preserve Medicare."

With the exception of tax hikes. Which will destroy jobs. Everything is on the table.

Forgive me a moment, as my head is currently on fire.

OK. Have dowsed head in bucket of water.

I feel that this line of argument cries out for an analogy and I'm struggling to find one sufficiently vapid.

How about:

1) For curing a fatal disease: "With the exception of taking medication, which will kill unicorns, all options are on the table."
2) For making a baby: "With the exception of heterosexual sex, which will threaten kittens, all options are on the table."
3) For losing weight: "With the exception of eating less food, which will help terorists, all options are on the table."
4) For doing a web search: "With the exception of Google, which bitch-slaps infants, all options are on the table."

I'm not sure any of these fully convey the stupicity of the Boehnerism, though. Further suggestions welcome. Other than that, I just want to say what he said:

As a substantive matter, Boehner has no idea what he’s talking about. His entire schpiel is gibberish. Even a rudimentary understanding of recent events should make clear, even to someone with Boehner’s limited abilities, that his model doesn’t make sense. Reagan raised taxes and the economy grew. Clinton raised taxes and the economy grew. Bush slashed taxes and produced the worst job-creation record of any president in generations.

How does the Speaker even think this is possible?

Cheer for Your Rapist: The case for empathy on the courts

In one of the most horrific stories of the justice system that I have ever encountered, a Texas teeneage who was kicked of the cheerleading team after refusing to chant the name of her rapist was ordered to pay $45,000 in legal fees to the school as punishment for the "frivolity" of her suit to have this decision overturned.

This week, the Supreme Court announced that they would not hear the case, so the judgement will stand.

Let's all pause a moment to say: WTF?!

Here are the fuller details:

According to court documents, H.S. was 16 when she was raped at a house party by one of her school’s star athletes, Rakheem Bolton. Bolton was arrested, but by pleading guilty to misdemeanor assault, he received a reduced sentence of probation and community service. Bolton was allowed to return to school and resume his place on the basketball team. Four months later, H.S. was cheering with her squad at a game when Bolton lined up to take a free throw. The squad wanted to do a cheer that included his name, but H.S. refused, choosing instead to stand silently with her arms folded.

“I didn’t want to have to say his name and I didn’t want to cheer for him,” she later told reporters. “I just didn’t want to encourage anything he was doing.”

Several school officials of the “sports obsessed” small town took issue with H.S.’s silence, and ordered her to cheer for Bolton. When H.S. refused again, she was expelled from the cheerleading squad. Her family decided to sue school officials and the district. Their lawyer argued that H.S.’s right to exercise free expression had been violated and that students shouldn’t be punished for not complying with “insensitive and unreasonable directions.”

Now there a bunch of things that I want to say about this - including why on earth the school district chose to pursue this throught he courts rather than just letting her back on the team. My preferred solution would have been that the rapist himself be expelled or at least forced to transfer schools or at VERY least kicked off the basketball team. Because, um, hello, he RAPED A CHEERLEADER. Maybe he doesn't so much deserved to get cheered for by... anyone at all?

But I'd actually like to take a step back and use this incident to revisit the conversation about the role of empahty in the Court system. If you remember way back in August of 2009, when the Senate was preparing to vote on the nomination of now-Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, there was something of a mini-kerfuffle in which the right stirred up a storm of protest over President Obama's declared preference for a Justice who would have empathy and life experience to round out the Court. Commentators chose to huff and puff about  this as if it were somehow a bizarre notion that judges are influenced by their experience. In point of fact, I anyone who pauses for a moment to reflect should realise that there is always a role for discreition in the application of the law - and even more so in the application of justice.

And this case is a classic example of what this means. Any application of the law has to take into account what is reasonable, proportional and fair. The freedom of speech that this student is asking for is so incredibly small - remember, she doesn't want the right to refuse to cheer for the team, or to boo her assailant as he struts up to the free throw line, just to stand silently and not chant his name while he shoots.

And her reasons for wanting that are so manifestly fair and reasonable, so big in relation to the smallness of her personal response - just to not cheer for a few seconds - that the application of the law in this way seems to most of us gratuitiously cruel.
But is the Appeals court wrong, on a hard reading of the law. Well, probably not in fact. If you extrapolate from this case - imagine a student landing the lead in the school play but refusing to speak any of her lines because she's offended by the play. Well, the school would have the right to replace her. It is true that sometimes when a student speaks in a school setting, as when an employee speaks in a work setting she is representing the school not herself.

But the law shouldn't be applied like a blunt instrument. Judges should have some ability to understand that there are many sides to every case that comes before them, and unless they can put themselves in the shoes of both parties to a dispute their judgements, however technically accurate will always be wrong in any meaningful sense. There will always be a disappointed party in any dispute, and often the disappointed party will have good reasoning on their side and will have been hard done by themselves. Only through leavening our justice with some sensitivity do we stand any hope of being fair to everyone concerned. My personal belief is that in free speech cases, we should err on the side of upholding the rights of the individual to speak wherever reasonable as preferred over the right of an institution (such as a school) to... ummm... force students to publicly celebrate violent sexual criminals. (Sorry, still having trouble getting my head around this one... Failure of empathy on my part for the rapist duly noted - I'll work on that. Well, not much, really. But I'm not a judge to it's OK.)

In this case, I think the Court's decision to uphold the school's decision was wrong on it's face - though arguable under the law. But calling her suite frivolous and demanding her family pay $45,000 in legal costs is a spectacular failure of judgement.

When I first started writing this post, I didn't know the gender breakdown of the 5th circuit court, which made this ruling. Having looked it up now, the 3 judges in question were Emilio Garza, Edith Clement and Priscilla Owen. Two women and one man. The first two were shortlisted by George W. Bush for Supreme Court seats.

Appalling from start to finish.

And finally, can I just say that I would never allow a daughter of mine to attend that Texas High School. Shouldn't other parents express some outrage here?

A Blog can be a lonely place...

Apologies for the metablogging (now I'm blogging about blogging about blogging... This could go on forever) but I wanted to take a moment to ask for your help with this blog.

You see, despite what some of my critics believe, I actually have a lot of other stuff going on in my life besides this blog. And making the time to do it is a bit of a labour of love that sometimes means I ignore my poor and patient husband, or get less than my requisite amount of sleep. I enjoy it. But, compared with my other online interactions on Twitter and Facebook it requires a lot more of my time and intellectual energy in exchange for less actual interaction with other humans. I watch my stats really closely, so I know that I do have some readers. But for the most part I don't know who you are or what you think about the stuff I put out there. Quite frankly, if you do like the stuff on the blog and if you would like more of it, I could do with a bit of positive reinforcement to help me keep it coming.

Here's what you can do to help:

1. Comment. Please let me know what you think - I always keep my eye on comments and make an effort to reply. I really like it when you guys actually talk to each other or challenge me on something I said or ask a question.

2. Tweet. If you're on Twitter, please use the green Retweet button at the top of each post to share stuff you like with your friends.
3. Follow me on Twitter. I'm @karinjr - and I almost always tweet a link to the latest post shortly after posting, so if you follow me you can stay on top of what's new.

4. Like the post on Facebook. There's a button to do this at the bottom of each post. Remember, if you read the blog on my Facebook feed and like the post there, it doesn't count in the overall "Like" rate for the post as recorded on the blog. So please click Like on the blog itself.
5. If you read the blog on Facebook... It would also be great if you could click through to the main blog every once and a while just so your interest is recorded in my blog stats.
6. Write a guest post. I never meant for the blog to be so entirely my own voice, and I'd love to hear from anyone who has something relevant to say. Contact me on Twitter if you are interested, or let me know in comments and we can speak offline. Be aware, the blog is for Obama supporters and written from an expat perspective, so content relevant to that is most welcome. And I can't promise to publish anything you write, for a number of reasons. But would love to hear from you.
7. Send me leads! Read or heard something interesting lately? Send me links and suggestions.

Copious Republican Wrongness: I Try to Keep Track of it All

The Republican Party is so fundamentally wrong so often about so much stuff that is so important that's it's ironically easy to lose track of it all. And in recent days we've been bombarded with evidence of Republican wrongness at such a fast and furious clip that I realise I personally haven't been able to full absorb the depth and breadth of the wrong.
So let's make a quick list - based just on news stories from the past week:

1. Republicans - including John McCain back in 2008 - were wrong to insist that we should not pursue Osama Bin Laden into Pakistan if we had credible intelligence that he was there. Or rather, since one could argue that the policy might be right even if the outcome would be bad, let's say that whether this is right or wrong, Osama Bin Laden would still be threatening America today if the Republicans had won the last election.
2. Republicans - including, most notably, Dick Cheney - were wrong to suggest that Americans are less safe from terrorism under Obama than they were under Bush.
3. Republicans leaders were wrong to keep calling everything that Democrats proposed a "job killing" measure, when in fact the last three months has been the best 3 month period for job growth in 5 years. On the other hand, independent experts at Moody's have reproted that the GOP's proposed budget would result in the LOSS of over 700,000 American jobs. That's just wrong on so many levels.

4. Republicans - in particular Rep Paul Ryan - were wrong to suggest that they had a plan to cut the deficit. Ryan's so-called deficit reduction plan was based on heavy tax cuts for the wealthy plus heavy cuts to needed services for the poor (that's balanced! See! He's cutting taxes AND spending! Everything gets cut!). But even with these deep spending cuts, Ryan wasn't able to project any ability to balance the budget without his piece de resistance - a plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with vouchers to allow the elderly to buy private health care. This proposal has been strikingly unpopular with the public, and has now been abandoned by Republican leaders - though not before House Republicans voted for it. Without the elimination of Medicare, Ryan's plan does not balance the budget.
5. Republicans in Congress were wrong to make posturing noises to suggest that they would be willing - nay! eager! - to let America default on its debt. For bizarre procedural reasons, every time US borrowing goes above a certain point, Congress must vote to allow this debt ceiling to rise. Republicans, however, had been ranting about their unwillingness to do this unless Democrats were willing to let old people die accept the phase out of Medicare. Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed and Republicans are willing to settle for deep cuts to non-entitlement spending programs instead. Gee, thanks. The implications, if the debt ceiling were not raised, would be that the US would default on its borrowing, doing severe damage to our position within the markets, which experts believe could trigger another financial crisis. White House Economic Advisor Austen Goolsbee put it this way, "If we get to the point where we damage the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity.”

So to sum up:

If Republicans were in charge this week, they would have left the world's most dangerous terrorist happy in his Pakistan mansion, lost 700,000 jobs instead of adding 250,000, eliminated Medicare, and cut taxes for the rich.

The one Republican achievement this week is their (apparent) willingness to reluctantly agree that they will NOT cause a financial calamity for no apparent reason.

Why does anyone vote for these guys?

Barack and Michelle Do London - the story so far

As mentioned before, Barack and Michelle are due in London for a visit the end of this month. I've done a bit of digging around to find out what we know so far about that visit, and thought I should give you a quick update.

Bear in mind, though that:

1) For obvious reasons of security, the President's schedule - especially for a foreign visit - is typically not released much ahead of time. And...
2) Although Democrats Abroad (which you should all join, if you are US citizens living abroad) is the official party organisation of the US Democratic Party, when the President travels abroad on official business he is - rightly - severely restricted in the his ability to any Party political activity. Which means is surpassingly unlikely that he will be able to do anything "with us". I'm sure he cries himself to sleep every night over that.

So... President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will be visiting the UK on May 24-26. The visit will be an official state visit, and they will be staying in... what for it... Buckinham Palace, as a guest of the Queen.

I KNOW! I'd love to get that invite, if only so I could sneak around after the Secret Service goes to bed and poke through the linen cupboards.

Anyway, the US Embassy of London has a helpful page giving the details announced so far (not many), details of the Obama's last visit here in 2009 and some interesting videos on life in the travelling press corps. It looks like they have set up this page to be updated as more info is released, so it's worth bookmarking it now:

http://london.usembassy.gov/obamavisit.html

Prince Charles, the Heir to the throne here and - of more interest of late - father to the world's most famous bridegroom - met recently with the President in the White House where the appear to have exchanged pleasantries in the longstanding tradition of content free Head of State (or heir to Head of State) interactions over the years.

The President also congratulated the Prince on the wedding of his son, Prince William, to Catherine Middleton and extended his best wishes to the newlywed couple. The President looks forward to visiting the United Kingdom at the invitation of Her Majesty the Queen during his State visit later this month.

Slightly more interesting, perhaps is to speculate what Her Majesty the Queen's feelings might be about the impending Presidential visit - she and Michelle Obama appear to have forged something unusually like a real bond of affection on the First Lady's last visit here. Bearing in mind that Queen Elizabeth's remarkable longevity is often attributed to her extreme skill at projecting neutrality - she was unusually non-neutral in her team's comment on the supposed breach of protocol when there was physical contact (gasp!) between the two women.

"This was a mutual and spontaneous display of affection and appreciation between the queen and Michelle Obama," a palace spokeswoman said.

 Oo er! Ahem.

Undoubtedly, President Obama will meet during his visit with the UK Prime Minster - Conservative Leader David Cameron.

When they do, I wonder if Barack will raise the obvious point that the British economy is actually on the point of shrinking, with GDP in decline, at a time with the US economy appears haltingly to be carry on down the road to recovery.

Of course, the British Government has embarked on a program of strenuous cuts to government spending, whereas the US government has attempted to avoid such draconian measures. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation... Hmmm...

Whatever happens, I am already steeling myself for the inevitable British press hand wringing about whether the US President REALLY REALLY likes us or just SORT OF KIND OF likes us. Is our special relationship REALLY, truly special, or just kinda sort of special?

There will undoutedly be extensive media coverage of any gift that the President might chose to bring for the PM and the Royal Family, and it will be digested endlessly for a significance that it almost certainly does not have.

I therefore would like to take this opportunitiy to go out on a limb and make a flagrant prediction - the UK and the USA will remain strong and vital allies after this trip, no matter what else happens on it.

"Accedes to their absurd requests one week, and slays their demons the next"

I thought there was some really valuable perspective in this Ta Nehisi Coates post ruminating about how the attempt to question Barack's "American-ness" is really an insult to the millions of families across the country to whom the Obama's don't look especially exotic. He writes:

for those of us who are waging the fight against a crippling cynicism, who are urging our children on, who visit schools and begin our addresses with, "I remember when I just like you," the First Family is perhaps the greatest weapon in our arsenal.

From the perspective of race, we don't object to people trying to defeat Obama. We don't object to Hillary claiming he's soft. We don't object to McCain claiming he's a celebrity. We don't object to the GOP calling him a tax and spend liberal. We don't even object to Mitt Romney aspiring to hang him. (We know what you meant, Mitt.)

But when broad sections of this country foolishly follow a carnival barker in the ugly tradition of attacking black citizenship rights, when pundits shriek that Obama's successes are simply the result of the misguided largess of white people, they undermine our most intimate war. They undermine the notion that someone familiar to that kid on the corner could legitimately reach the highest levels of the country, that someone like that kid's Aunt could be the First Lady. They undermine this country's social contract, and the "hard work pays" message of my parents. And to that we object.

For if they will not take as legitimate a magna cum laude from their highest institutions, if they will not accept a man who tells black kids to cut off the video games and study, who accedes to their absurd requests one week, and slays their demons the next, who will they accept? Who among us would they ever believe?

What fascinates me about this whole phenomenon - in which the right wing attack on Barack and Michelle Obama is the suggestion, subtle and not-so-subtle that they are Not Like Us - has always struck me as incredibly weak. I don't think it's just African American families who look at the Obamas and think that they look like the family down the block - I grew up in a waspy suburb in which there were literally only 2 black kids in my entire high school graduating class of 250 kids.

But the Obama's would have fit in great at our neighborhood barbecue. My mom would totally have bonded with Michelle if they ran into each other at one of my school plays. Barack and my dad would absolutely have backslapped and networked and talked sports if they bumped into each other.

Until not that long ago, in fact, any of those things could have happened! The Obama's lived a pretty middle class life, they got involved in their kids schools. Heck Barack even marched in a goofy St Patrick's day parade, brandishing a toilet plunger. Less than a decade ago.

But the best, most effective attack they can think of to levy against him is that this almost stereotypicallly normal, happy, healthy American family is somehow "not one of us".

By contrast, I recall that the equally deranged lunatic fringe that attacked Bill Clinton during his moment as the Liberal whipping boy for the right wing lynch mob accused him not just of (plausible) sexual misconduct but actual mass murder.

Perversely, I think of this as some sort of progress.

Here's your birth certificate, you freaks. Choke on it.

Sometimes I forget... I have fans!

So, apologies for the silence on this blog - I assure you that I have been very far from silent in real life over the past month and a bit. Just differently loud.

But at tonight's Democrats Abroad Speakeasy (first Wednesday of every month here in London - all are welcome!) I had to face down multiple complaints about the lack of posting on this blog.

Flattered that you care - thanks guys! I'm back on the blogging beat - and to make it up to you, I'll promise to post at least once a day for the rest of the month.

That's right! Obama London is giving a special offer - Every Day in May! For the bargain price of... nothing! Enjoy.

I'm never sure how much personal information to include on this blog, as it was never intended to be about me or my life, but you should know that in the past month I have:

• Been re-elected Vice Chair of Democrats Abroad UK (thank you all - I'm truly honoured to serve, and I really love this organisation)
• Gone with my husband on a much needed 2 week vacation - hiking in the Peak District and Snowdonia.
• Continued to learn the guitar (if you're really good someday I'll post video of my efforts at "The Times They Are A Changin").
• Planned some big and interesting digital campaigns for clients.
• AND - appeared yesterday on the BBC World Service to discuss the death of Osama Bin Laden and Obama's political situation.

On that last point, you can listen to me here - it was the Tuesday morning program (03/05/11), and my segment was about 46 minutes in.

I thought the first question that I was asked by the interviewer was laugh out loud ridiculous, basically: "So is Obama just going to change the subject to national security throughout the campaign?"

Ummm... so we should have NOT taken out Osama Bin Laden because... we don't want to change the subject from the economy?

As Obama said way back in the 2008 campaign, when John McCain wanted both candidates to SUSPEND THEIR CAMPAIGNS to DEAL WITH the economic CRISIS (scare caps sarcastic, please note)- "You know, Presidents have to be able to do more than one thing at a time."

 Keep doin what you're doing, Barack. Proud of you.

Newt Gingrich explains it all for you

I'm one of the biggest news junkies I know - but lately I can't seem to bring myself to watch or read much news. It feels like the End of Days with the devastation in Japan especially unbearable to watch. And Libya - goodness gracious, Libya! Yesterday my husband wanted to engage me in conversation about the new UN sanctioned no-fly zones there: "what was the military strategy? Didn't it seem like this was too late to be effective? What is the long term strategy?"

I found myself staring at him, and thinking: "I'm lack the strength to form an intelligent opinion about this." (Fortunately, Matthew Yglesias has some good ones to keep you going.)

But it's all become a bit too much. When I have these moments, I give myself leave to cocoon into "comfort thinking" for a little while - I re-read Jane Austen novels, have a bath. With lavendar bath gel. Play my guitar. Slowly, and badly.

And in these moments, it's sometimes nice to revisit a trashy old classic from your youth - you know, the kind of thing that you didn't really like at the time, and you still think is pretty crappy, but you have a certain fondness for it that is born of remembering that when you first heard it you were young, and that you survived the things that worried you then (and they didn't turn out to be such a big deal) and isn't it nice that you're older and wiser now?

So it's in that spirit, that somehow Newt Gingrich's comments yesterday really made me smile. Asked about the situation in Libya, the conversation went as follows:

QUESTION: What would have been the steps you would have taken early on?
GINGRICH: I would have studied Eisenhower and Reagan and studied the things they did. I mean there are lots of -- there are lots of ways to not necessarily use American troops and have an enormous impact on a country the size of Libya.
STAFFER: We have to go.
QUESTION: Can you list one or two?
GINGRICH: Take -- take a look at Eisenhower and Reagan.

Aww.... bless. Newt Gingrich randomly shouting out Reagan's name as if he has Tourettes. Republicans threatening to shut down the government. It's like 1995 all over again!

Confidential to Michele Bachmann:

Dear Michele Bachmann,

Recently, you mistakenly declared that the opening shots of the American Revolution were fired at Lexington and Concord... in New Hampshire.

Um. Michelle? Lexington and Concord are in Massachusetts. I'm from Massachusetts. We're a fine state. We're famous for outstanding higher education, unbeatable clam chowder, cranberry bogs, baked beans, and much more.

But mostly - we're proud of our role in the American revolution. Tediously proud of it. Nobody gets through primary school in the US without a mandatory trek through Boston's "freedom trail" - the battle of Bunker Hill, the Boston Tea party, and yes... the Shot Heard Round the World in Lexington and Concord. Take away Lexington and Concord and you lose half our school curriculum.

So, Michelle, I give you fair warning. Don't mess with Massachusetts.

But while we're on the subject, a lot of people get a lot wrong about my home state, so it's probably worth reminding you as well that, while conservatives have for some reason long enjoyed insulting my state, in fact Massachusetts proudly boasts:

• The lowest divorce rate in the country
• The highest college graduation rate in the country (68%!)
• Two of the top ten universities in the WORLD by global ranking (Harvard and MIT)
• The 3rd highest per capita income in the country
• The most doctors per 100K residents of any state in the country
• The fewest firearm related deaths of any state in the US (!)
• The inventors of basketball, volleyball AND candlepin bowling (we ROCK!)

Lord, save me from this distopian nightmare!

Yes, we also have legal gay marriage, universal healthcare for all, a relatively high investment in public education. And, yes, it is one of the most politically liberal states in the country. My point is that it WORKS for us. Applying liberal policies has made Massachusetts a pretty nice place to live. Everyone is better off because we care about education, and butt out of other strangers' marriages (while supporting those of our friends and family), and try to ensure that no one who gets sick has to do without care - it helps make us healthier, wealthier, and happier.

You should try it, Michele.

Yours,

Karin

I am woman. Hear me scream.

Today is International Women's Day, and in honor of the more than half the population who still don't earn equal pay, who often don't feel safe in the simple act of walking down the street at night, who face stigma and blame for every sexual decision they make from saying no to saying yes, from wanting a child when their boss wishes they wouldn't to not wanting one when politicians think they should: This post is just about outright feminist anger.

Because most of the time, I'm not really motivated by anger. Mostly, I feel lucky. As recently as my mother's generation, my choices would have either been much more constrained or I would have had to fight for them tooth and nail. Sexism is real, and present, but I don't experience it as a constraining factor in my day to day life in meaningful ways.

But that sense - that perceived experience - is wrong. We still live in a world where our leaders can think it might be a smart political strategy at the earliest opportunity to:

• Redefine rape to exclude the kind that isn't, ya know, REALLY rape. (charming)
• Strip all funding from Planned Parenthood, to ensure women don't get access to frivolous luxuries like cancer screaning, birth control, STD treatment and pregnancy tests
• Listen to the "testimony" of foetuses, but NOT of women on the issue of abortion rights
• And, of course, ensure that women who have been systematically discriminated against don't get any uppity notions about acheiving justice.

Equality is still something we have to fight for, and even us raging feminists are sometimes guilty of unwittingly perpetuating the assumptions that make us unequal.

So, today I'd like to raise a glass to the heroic women of the past and of the here and now who have been willing to face being laughed at, yelled at, abused, insulted and injured just because they aren't willing to lie back and take it.

And speaking of not taking things lying down - here's a video, shared widely and mentioned with approval by lots of folks who work with me in the world of social media. They think it's fabulous.



I hated it. Why? Simple:

I like beer. I like hugs. I like Facebook. Indeed, most Facebook users and huggers are female, and I suspect a pretty hefty constituency of the beer drinkers are too. But we are not being thanked here. Are all of Heineken's 1 million Facebook fans male?

I realise this is petty. But I decided to grant myself permission to be petty today. Don't worry, tomorrow will be one of the 363 International Days of Men, so we can go back to complacently accepting that physical contact with attractive women is the currency with which brands bribe men to drink beer, but for today, let me be the humourless shrew who points out that sexism is so ingrained that on most days, in most circumstance... most people don't see it.

Obama Administration Decides DOMA is Unconstitutional

Attorney General Holder yesterday announced that the Obama administration would no longer defend the so-called Defence of Marriage act in Federal Court.

This is great news. But it's a little complicated - so I've been reading up on the matter trying to figure out exactly what the Justice Department's new policy now means, and what the implications will be. Lawyers who read this blog (I know you're out there!) please feel free to chime in with further info as I'm just figuring this out as I go along.

The big news here is that the Obama administration believes gays and lesbians DO meet the standard of requiring heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the constitution. Previous court cases have been raised in jurisdications where the courts had previously ruled that this standard should not be applied to sexual minorities - but no such precedent exists in the 2nd Circuit Court, where two new cases are to be tried. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on this specific question.

The Obama administration therefore had no precendent to be bound or guided by in this instance, and the Justice Department therefore had to fashion its legal reasoning from scratch.

Under those circumstances, the position that they take is that section 3 of the Defence of Marriage act - the portion that specifically prevents the Federal government from recognising same sex marriage that are legal within a particular state - is unconstitutional. They will not defend it. But that doesn't mean that it is no longer law.

Until either 1) Congress repeals the law or 2) a Federal court rules the law unconstitutional, the provision will stay on the books.

So there's no immediate effect to this decision. But the government's position does make it far more likely that the law will be struck down by the courts, because it is difficult for anyone other than the federal government to claim that they have legal standing to defend the law.

This is a narrow, legalistic decision on the part of the Obama Justice Department, but the thinking that underlies it is boldly clear:

“It’s a lawyer’s decision based on a careful consideration of the law,” said Paul Smith, head of the Supreme Court and appellate practice at Jenner & Block, and counsel with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in a DOMA challenge now pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.


“There was only one right answer,” he said. “When you examine the law and which groups need heightened protection under the equal protection clause, you realize that sexual orientation is one of those kinds of discrimination that is suspect. There really was no way for them to defend Section 3 of DOMA because the law doesn’t serve any purpose other than to stigmatize persons.”

If a court eventually does decide that Section 3 is unconstitutional, as the Obama administration believes, that would greatly complicate the work of the US Government because suddenly we would have a patchwork system in place for federal benefits. Gay couples would have immigration rights in Massachusetts, but not in Ohio. They could have social security survivor benefits in Iowa, but not in Kansas.

But I say - bring on the mess. Because the more people are forced to confront the reality of gay men and woman and their "unreasonable demands" to be treated just like everybody else, the more hollow and pointless the arguments of the opponents seem.

Did Sarah Palin violate Facebook's terms of service?

UPDATE: I was right - Facebook (a client of my employer) have now removed the Lou Sarah Facebook account stating that it did in fact violate their terms of service: “The account was found to run afoul of our terms and it was disabled,” wrote Facebook official Andrew Noyes.

I wonder if Wonkette journalist Jack Stueff started pursuing this angle before or after I pointed it out to him by e-mail?

Yesterday I came across this intriguing tidbit from Wonkette, in which they used info from the recently leaked manuscript from a former Palin staffer to identify Sarah Palin's gmail account, and by conducting a simple search they were able to identify that Palin has a Facebook account under a different name, "Lou Sarah" that she has been using to "Like" content on her own and on Bristol's Facebook pages, and to comment positively ("amen!") on both pages. The profile still exists, but has now been scrubbed of its activity record - when I looked at it last night, though, it still looked the way it did in the Wonkette story:

So here's the thing. I do a lot of work on Facebook. I work for an agency that has Facebook as a client. I manage Facebook pages, I advise clients on use of Facebook. I've royally screwed things up on Facebook from time to time as well. Hey - it's how you learn!

So I think it's probably important to clarify a couple of things quickly (don't worry, you may commence your respective "Sarah Palin is the Devil" and "How dare you attack this woman who will SAVE this COUNTRY!" diatribes momentarily).

Firstly, Wonkette says the Lou Sarah account is Palin's "second" Facebook account. If it were true that Palin had two Facebook Profiles, that would be a violation of Facebook's terms of service, which specify:

1.You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

2.You will not create more than one personal profile.

But it's not immediately clear whether Palin has done this or not.

The famous Sarah Palin page with 2.75 million fans is a page - not a profile. A Facebook page is sort of like a website set up on Facebook. There is no limit to the number of people who can "Like" a page, and pages can be managed by multiple users. Pages that represent a brand or famous person are asked to confirm that they do in fact represent that brand or person.

Facebook profiles, on the other hand, represent individual people, not brands. They have "Friends" rather than being "Liked", and are limited to a maximum of 5,000 "Friends". The important thing to note here is that Facebook pages can only be managed by people with a Facebook profile of their own.

So, if "Sarah Palin" the individual person and politician would like to directly edit and manage "Sarah Palin" the Facebook page, she needs to have a Facebook account of her own. And, as a famous person, she may well want to avoid using her actual name for that, since people that she doesn't know personally shouldn't interact with her via her profile, but rather via her page.

So, in short, it wouldn't be so odd if "Sarah Palin" the person (hmmm... getting tired of the scare quotes, will drop them from now on) had created an account under a disguised version of her real name - Louise is her middle name, so Lou Sarah isn't a million miles from representing her - and that personal profile might well be something she would want to use to interact with people she really knows such as... her daughter. An occassional comment on Bristol's page from this account therefore doesn't strike me as terrible, especially since Bristol will presumably know the secret of "Lou Sarah's" real identity. Moms are allowed to gush over thier kids, so we'll let that go.

BUT - consider for a moment Lou Sarah's comments on the Sarah Palin page. Firstly, liking and commenting positively on your own content is a bit sad and pathetic (and in this case, pretty pointless - it's not like she needs to drive traffic to the page!) but not against the rules. But the fact that she was able to post at all as Lou Sarah on the Sarah Palin page shows that the Lou Sarah account is not an admin on that page.

If Lou Sarah had been one of the profiles permitted to post to the Sarah Palin page, then any comments she made on that page would not appear under her profile. Page admins appear under the identity of the page whenever they post on their page.

Thereby, QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM we arrive at a great big circle. There are only two possibilities here. Either Sarah Palin herself is not an administrator on the Sarah Palin page (which seems unlikely) or she does indeed have two separate Facebook profiles.

Which is in violation of Facebooks Terms.

Right then.