ritaxis: (hat)
Saturday, June 28th, 2014 11:11 am
My son Frank still lives in Czech Republic for the time being (hopefully not long as his leaving will be because he's gotten work as a doctor in the UK). The last time they had an election there, he sent me along the descriptions of some of the candidates. There was one fellow in his eighties or so who had a photo of himself in his suit and tie embellished with neon mohawk and other punky accessories in an attempt to sell Czech youth on his platform which largely involved returning state properties to the descendants of the nobility. There was a party whose name was a several hundred word Nazi-flavored screed. And the Pirate Party, which is about what you think it is. There was a candidate whose campaign was bought explicitly and unashamedly as a present from her lover.

But I think the US has outdone Czech Republic now. We have a candidate who claims that his opponent is a robot replacement for a man who was executed byu the World Government onstage in front of tv cameras in the Ukraine. He's no threat, but the guy who claims that gay folks are demonically possessed and that he exorcised a lesbian soldier while a military chaplain has won a Republican congressional primary in Colorado.

What candidates (and elected officials) have you noticed lately that give you pause, US or elsewhere?
ritaxis: (Default)
Friday, June 24th, 2011 07:45 am
Has anyone besides me been hearing bits of Hilary Clinton's speeches in various places around the world and been startled by the things she's been saying there?

(google is not being my friend.  It wants to show me speeches from 2008)

She told Peru that the rich have to pay their share of the taxes and they had to adequately fund their social institutions and protect human rights.

She told Saudi Arabia to support women's rights (well, they are so far from dealing with abortion and medical care access, since the women can't even go outside, so maybe that's not threatening to US interests at home).

Thwere were more of these sprinkled throughout the week, but naturally I can't find them right now.  I wish I could: there's a pattern here, and I know what it is, but I don't know what it means.

Almost every time she opens her mouth and says something to another people, she articulates the demands that the US left has been making of President Obama.  And then when she talks to US Democrats, she says "don't give up on Obama."

What the hell is she doing?  Is she trying to further a progressive agenda by making these outward-directed speeches?  Is she trying to paper over the huge cracks in the Democratic platform?  Or does she have no idea what she's doing?
ritaxis: (Default)
Saturday, June 19th, 2010 12:55 pm
I juast realized this very second that there's a special election this coming Tuesday in my district. How come I haven't gotten election materials? Is the election in the usual place?

I remember reading that the Governator had decided that we poor central Californians had to have a special election in the middle of the summer, but I never saw any more specific practical information about it and I read Calitics!

I can't tell you how important it is to be represented by John Laird in the first place. This is the right man for any political job you can name. He's honest, hard working, progressive, approachable, and effective. And did I mention he's on the right side of everything? In the second place, he's being opposed by a lying scumbag of a San Luis Obispo oilman. So, if you're local, figure out how to vote Tuesday, and make all your friends and relatives vote.
ritaxis: (Default)
Friday, March 26th, 2010 01:09 pm
Watch clip of the Tea Party star Victoria Jackson being interviewed on Fox News. Doesn't she look like she's goofing? She used to work for Saturday Night Live. Could she have taken a parodic persona on the road?
ritaxis: (Default)
Friday, November 7th, 2008 07:00 pm
They actually sing it pretty well. Emma sent this link to me so I'm sending it to you:
"There's no one as Irish as Barack Obama"
ritaxis: (Default)
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:16 pm
So for some reason the nice fellow has had CNN on since I've been home from work. You know the crawl at the bottom of the screen, with the breaking news? Well, sometimes it's sports scores, but anyway. All night they've had great big letters "Breaking News: Obama and Clinton to speak together tomorrow in Unity, New Hampshire," which is notable but not breaking news since it was announced days ago and despite the media's best efforts to the contrary, these two have been all about forging party unity and winning this election -- yes, they said mean things about each other in the course of struggling for who would get the nomination, but that was partly because there were a few real issues being hammered out in those speeches and partly because each of them really wanted that nomination. Oh, yeah, also: "breaking news" is that Obama's going to help CLinton pay off her campaign debt. That's interesting, of course, but it's not top-of-the-front=page, 50-point banner headline news.

On the other hand I never read or heard about the latest in impeachment news. I wonder why?

look at this email I got from my representative: )
ritaxis: (Default)
Friday, May 16th, 2008 07:13 pm
Okay, the state Supreme Court made a decision that reinstates gay marriage in California, maybe, while there's still an anti-marriage initiative. Then Edwards says we should just get it together behind Obama. And Critical Mass turned into a riot-like object at the tourist wharf. And labor endorsed Bill Monning, so I've changed my vote there too. And I turned into a snot factory.

And there wasn't a single film at the Santa Cruz Film Festival that I wanted to see, and I feel guilty about that.

But we did go to the Greek Food Festival on its opening night and I found out that my moussaka is better than theirs. And I didn't dance so I have to go back and dance.

I'm up too late and I can't even blame it on the raccoons - it's just inertia.
ritaxis: (Default)
Thursday, April 17th, 2008 08:41 am
My favorite archaeologist says Bill Monning is "the kind of liberal who sends their kids to private schools."

That's not much to go on, but there are a few other small things. Emily Reilly does in fact have experience in government and is I think more likely to know how to go about getting things done. Bill Monning has not proved himself electable at all in his own backyard, which is scary, since his own backyard is the not-reliably Democrat end of the district. I don't see Bill Monning glad-handing at the places where the progressive Democratic constituency is nurtured (but I don't see the labor events at the southern end of the district). Before you get the idea that I'm all out and about all the time and that, by "see" I mean "hear about" and "read about" as well as "see with my own eyes."

Those things are political. I got tired a long time ago of voting for people to make a statement: I want to vote for people who will win, as in get into office, do the job, and stay there as long as the law allows, while they stand up to the right, and stick out the fight (rhymin unavoidable, sorry), and actually get something done towards saving the goddamned world.

On another front, snapshot training day is the same day -- and the same time -- as the native plant society/friends of the arboretum plant sale which I desperately need to go to. I can handle it if I go to the plant sale early and the training late.

Other than that, the dog is better, the vet doesn't care that she's shedding tremendously and changing color (from black to tipped white and black with enough tan to make her look like a German shepherd), and for future reference, low-dose enteric aspirin for pain (2 maximum a day) and the nice fellow doesn't remember what she told him about a brace for her gimpy leg (one of the bones didn't develop).

Now I have to go to work, no time to call Frank in Prague: tomorrow's their birthday! Twenty-nine and twenty-one! How can this be? I'm only twenty-six!
ritaxis: (Default)
Monday, April 7th, 2008 09:22 pm
food porn ahead, I guess. Not quite irreproducible recipes. Almost.

Anyways.
Ambrosia variation: if Andrew Marvell wished a ton of minneolas and a half-ton of kumquats on you recently. You cut up a minneola (tangelo, right?) and an equal volume of kumquats, and add a palmful of grated coconut and about half a palmful of chopped candied ginger. Stir this together with a spoonful or two of ricotta. It holds together like haroset, rather than lying down prettily like ambrosia usually does, because the pieces are small.

Ambrosia variation I haven't tried yet: cut up enough kumquats (a cup and a half? for two people), or maybe kumquats and also some other less intense citrus, mix with sage (about 6cm square laid flat together on the cutting board: I haven't decided whether to cut the leaves large or small), and walnuts (a palmful, cut rather fine, not grated though). This will probably need sweetening, and I think that just some granulated or superfine white sugar might do it, though I'm really leaning towards using this event to get rid of that little pile of dried candied cranberries still lying on my counter.

Waldorf variation: an immense red apple, cut medium fine. Two small stalks of celery, cut medium fine. A large palmful of walnuts, broken into pieces a bit smaller than my little fingernail. A similar quantity of kumquats, cut about the size of the walnuts. Enough mayonnaise to spread all around and just touch the fruit, nearly disappearing: not enough to make a visible white suspension around the rest.

I talked about scooping out the innards, combining them with cream cheese and tiny bits of candied ginger, and then stuffing the kumquats with the stuff. The variation the nice fellow perpetrated, which was much better than his lazy ass deserved, was to simply smoosh tiny bits of brie across the topps of halved kumquats (the cut, flat part being the top).

Another antipasto variation: wrap a little strip of tasty meat around a kumquat and eat it. You might pin this together with a toothpick. I used "black forest" ham. If you don't eat pig, smoked turkey leg would work beautifully if you can slice it thin enough to wrap well.

On another note, I promised Emily Reilly in person that I would decide between her and Bill Monning within two weeks. They're both running for John Laird's seat in the Assembly. John Laird is another argument against term limits. Oh well.

So I'm thinking of sending each of them emails with questions. If you had personal access to somebody running for a State Assembly seat, what would you ask?

One question I've thought of is: What will you do if the mandate you've been sent to Sacramento with is opposed by the governor and the Republicans (that if should be when but I think the question is easier to think about as an if)? I need to word this differently. I want concrete thoughts about how each will deal with this. Democrats have a horrible tendency to crumple in the face of opposition. One of the reasons I love John Laird so much is that he doesn't. He's not a rhetoric and bombast man who never does a political thing, but he hangs in there.

So. Emily Reilly? Bill Monning? In Bill's favor is that he's a labor lawyer guy while Emily is an employer (not a bad one). Also in Bill's favor is that he's a solid left guy from Salinas,the southern end of the district, where it's really been hard to get any really progressive people elected, and it would be good for the political development of the Central Coast to get that to happen. On the other hand, among the progressive people who have not been elected to office from Salinas is Bill Monning. He has no history in office at all, though he does have a history of making brave runs. Emily's been on the Santa Cruz City Council for a while, and she's done a good job, and she's been on the right side a lot. And -- well, the other time I talked to her about her run for Assembly, she was at the NAAACP/Central Labor Council jointly sponsored labor day picnic (remind me to tell you one day how I and a few friends started Labor Day picnics happening in the county, what? thirty years ago, I guess). And this time was in the elevator of the Monterey Marriott hotel where we attended the volunteer awards for the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary "network" -- all the conservation entities that work together with the Sancuatary. She gave a speech, and I got an award. Anyway, the point is, those two things tell you something about what Emily wants to be spending her time on.

I'm leaning towards Emily, for pragmatic reasons. But Bill's possibly lesser connections and following might not be so deadly, since the Republicans don't seem to have an actual candidate emerging from anywhere.

I lost a chance to have anything to do with the Presidential primary (because my candidate dropped out!) but I want to do something about this.

finally, I'm working overtime tomorrow and the next day because we don't have any slack left.
ritaxis: (Default)
Sunday, February 11th, 2007 05:40 pm
Okay, lately there's been this big stupid argument about whether Barack Obama is black.

If this argument were taking place in an academic context, and being used deliberately to highlight the nuances of American racism and caste structure, I would be pleased as punch. This is obviously the sort of thing you can use to illuminate the parameters of categories, and the force of the verbs and nouns and adjectives that make the categories, that arise from and maintain and challenge and transform them. Okay fine.

However.

What's happening is that, since Barack Obama has a conceivable chance of winning the election, there are those who want to discredit him any way they can (I reserve judgement myself as to whether I actually want to vote for him in the primary until maybe November or so. I would have said next year, but primary insanity is welling in California and they're talking about moving our primary again, from April to February: but that's based on what he does in the next few months and on who else is running. If he makes it through the primary, I'll certainly vote for him in November next year). So you get repeated misspellings of his name (Osama for Obama): you get emphasis on his very-common middle name Hussein: you get proclamations that Al-Qaeda wants Barack Obama elected: and now you get "he's not black, he doesn't share the experience of slavery."

Garbage.

Look, Colin Powell is black by American definitions, and he shares the experience of slavery, and he's evil and I wouldn't vote for him. Condoleeza Rice is a woman, and she's black, and she shares the experience of slavery, she even has one of those stereotypical weird names that black families like to give to their daughters, and she's evil and I wouldn't vote for her. I'm not choosing my candidates by their ethnic identity any more than I'm choosing them by their sex, or where they went to college, or what state they come from.

When we talk about wanting more black candidates, more Hispanic candidates, more women candidates, more everything underrepresented candidates, we're talking about wanting the conditions that create these things. We're not -- or I'm not, and I hope the rest of us are not -- engaging in magical thinking, that if you just get the right color or the right genitalia or whatever in to office, your problems are over. We think that the kind of politics that gives you a viable candidate with ties to these communities is the kind of politics that might just get us somewhere and might just keep us from self-destructing before we get a handle on our long-term survival needs.

Barack Obama'a attraction does not arise from the color of his skin. It arises from his connections, who he's beholded to and who he's not beholden to, and his promise. I certainly hope that people don't engage in this argument for long. It's dumb and irrelevant.


The real challenge is: will Barack Obama make the right things happen? Will he work with the real progressives in his party? Will he vote right in the next few months? Will he stand with the grassroots (and not just passively accept their support while courting the same-old, same-old DLC guys)?