I had a fair amount of trouble tracking down the 2008 Presidential debate schedule and the networks the debates were airing on, so I thought I would consolidate my information here for the benefit of those of my readers who plan to watch the debates. I highly recommend watching the debates, by the way, since they are one of the few times we get to see politicians exactly as they are, composing off-the-cuff answers to questions and engaging with their opponents directly.

Also, you can invent some great drinking games to go with the debates. Although if you go with an “every time McCain tells a blatant lie,” I would have a doctor standing by in case of alcohol poisoning, if I were you.

So, here we go:

• 26 September, 8:00pm (PBS): domestic policy debate, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi. (Wanna go in person?)
• 2 October, 8:00pm (PBS): Vice-Presidential debate, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. (Wanna go in person?)
• 7 October, 8:00pm (NBC): town hall format debate, Belmont University, Nashville, Tennessee. (Wanna go in person?)
• 15 October, 9:00pm (CBS): foreign policy debate, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York. (Wanna go in person?)

In addition to the networks listed as the moderators/hosts, the major networks (ABC, CNN, etc) will be getting rebroadcasting rights for the debates. There does seem to be a lack of consensus on starting time; some are going for 8:00, while others are pushing the debates back to 9:00. And, of course, for those with more patience, I’m sure clips and footage will be up on YouTube and the major networks in the days following.

I find that debates, much like concerts, are best enjoyed with a large group, as long as everyone settles down for the especially relevant bits. So, why not hold a debate party? That way you also have a reservoir of snacks to throw at the television when someone says something especially stupid.

…is not sexist.

Just wanted to make sure we were all clear on that.

As a follow-up on Sunday’s discussion of Bristol’s pregnancy, I thought I ought to talk about this Los Angeles Times article, which discusses statements by Governor Palin which seem to suggest that she is “pro-contraception,” or at least pro-condom education, which is astonishing. For one thing, if she really does feel that way, I think that’s a good sign, and, for another, it shows that she disagrees with McCain on a pretty fundamental issue, because he’s all about the abstinence-only.

So here’s the thing. I think that abstinence should be taught in sexual education programs. It is the 100% guaranteed way to avoid getting STIs, including pregnancy, the worst STI of all. That said, I am fundamentally opposed to abstinence-only education, because I believe that people need to have all the available tools to make educated choices. (Hey, there’s that “choice” word again.) All manner of birth control/STI avoidance tactics should be discussed, along with their failure rates, so that kids can make their own decisions about what is best for them.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of young men and women (some of whom, in my opinion, are a bit too young), are engaging in sexual activity. That fact is not going to go away, and rather than punishing people for it, we should be talking about it. I know that sexuality is tied up in values for a lot of people, and I certainly respect kids who abstain for religious reasons, and who do manage to remain true to that personal pledge, but denying educational opportunities to others seems a bit unfair to me.

Which is why I was stoked to see that Palin (at least theoretically) supports condom education, because condoms are a terrific tool to avoid STIs and pregnancy. If you’re only going to teach kids about one option in addition to abstinence, condoms are definitely it, in my opinion. And I’m glad to see that Palin (at least at one point) recognized this.

What’s less clear is whether or not Palin supported the distribution of condoms, in addition to discussion of how to use them properly. Depending on where one is, condoms can be easy or difficult to obtain. Sometimes they are readily available through outreach programs, and sometimes you have to go and seek them out, occasionally from snooty pharmacists who are going to pass a value judgment. (And uhm kids, if you are embarrassed to buy condoms, you are not mature enough to be making humpies.)

Furthermore, I’m curious to know about Palin’s stance on hormonal birth control. A lot of fundies believe that by preventing implantation, options like the pill are simply another form of abortion, so they do not support them as options for women. When Palin said she is “pro-contraception,” did she really just mean “pro-condom,” or did she mean to indicate support for the full array of choices, including IUDs and hormonal birth control? Inquiring minds want to know.

Palin is clearly anti-abortion, but how much is she willing to commit to in order to prevent abortions? And, as always, how can you claim to be “pro-life” while slashing programs designed to help teen mothers, special needs children, and all children under 18? If you think fetuses are important, how come babies and kids aren’t?

Look, there are a lot of problems with Palin, but I think it’s important to discuss it when she seems to be getting an issue right, at least partially. Making a balanced decision in November is all about having all the facts, and this is just one more piece of the puzzle.

So, I’m sorry to keep talking about Sarah Palin, but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot to talk about, and all of it seems pretty darned interesting to me. And it should be interesting to my American readers as well, because I think that Palin is going to become a major force in this election. The McCain campaign is going to use her as much as it possibly can, and that means that we are going to be seeing and hearing a lot from her.

I actually don’t want to talk about Sarah today, I want to talk about her daughter Bristol. Now, there has been a fair amount of argument that Bristol’s pregnancy is not a topic open to discussion, from feminists, right-wing crazies, and Barack Obama, among others. But the fact of the matter is that the Republicans have made it a topic of discussion by politicizing pregnancy, so I feel like it’s fair game.

Watching the Daily Show last week, my favourite segment was the one where Samantha Bee went around asking people about Bristol’s pregnancy, trying to get people to say the word “choice.” She got a lot of circumlocutions, most of which focused on “well the government and the media should stay out of people’s private lives,” and “there are lots of options.” It was a pretty awesome segment, and I heartily encourage anyone who hasn’t watched it to do so. Feministing kindly linked to the specific segment I am thinking of.

John Stewart also had Newt Gingrich as a guest, and there was a pretty awesome exchange between the two of them about the abortion issue.

John Stewart: Sarah Palin is on record as saying she would veto abortions for women, even in the event of being raped. So she is in essence saying ‘respect my family’s ability to make this decision, and elect me, so that I can keep your family from having the same opportunity.’

Newt Gingrich: That’s…no. That’s not true.

John Stewart: That strikes me as hypocrisy.

Newt Gingrich: No. What’s she’s saying is you and she can have a policy debate about whether or not Obama’s decision defending infanticide by abortion doctors was appropriate in the Illinois legislature.  Or, whether-

John Stewart: No no no. Wait a second. No-

Newt Gingrich: -unintelligible

John Stewart (talking over Gingrich): I understand…her words…not talking about Obama here…abortion even in the case of rape.

Newt Gingrich: -yes that’s right. And so you can see that Obama’s position in the Illinois state legislature was one extreme, her position may be the other extreme. That’s a policy debate.

John Stewart (talking over Gingrich): But when it comes down to her family, she says respect her decision.

Newt Gingrich: No, she says respect the privacy of her daughter-

John Stewart: She said it was Bristol’s decision-

Newt Gingrich: -very different than-

John Stewart: -that was their press release. It was Bristol’s decision.

Newt Gingrich: Right, and Bristol’s decision was to keep the child because-

John Stewart: That is not a word for choice.

Newt Gingrich: -because in Alaska today-

John Stewart: Right.

Newt Gingrich: -…may have children.

John Stewart: Right. I’m just saying, if she was President, that choice would be removed from the family and the government would make it, and that’s why I think it’s a legitimate issue.

Zing! Have I mentioned that I love John Stewart?

Bristol’s pregnancy, which should indeed be a personal matter, has become a public issue because the Republicans have turned it into one. And they can’t even stay consistent. They say they don’t want the government interfering in people’s lives, yet they support intrusive interference in a very private part of people’s lives. They scream for “privacy” for Governor Palin and her family, while looking up the skirts of everyone else.

I wish that Bristol could see her pregnancy out in private, and I hope that she has a healthy pregnancy and a reasonably easy birth, at least as easy as these things go. But the fact of the matter is that she has been turned into a political pawn, willingly or not, and this means that she is going to attract a lot of scrutiny. Her family is going to attract a lot of scrutiny.

And while I respect the arguments that people are making, that the family should be left alone, I respectfully disagree. I will stop talking about this issue when the Republicans agree to stop trying to abridge my personal and private freedom to choose, and when they start living up to the claims that government shouldn’t interfere in people’s personal lives.

“Freedom isn’t free” is something the Republicans are fond of saying. Now I see why. Bristol got to make a choice (presumably). If her mother is elected, that choice may be taken away from every other woman in America.

Are you angry yet? Because you should be.

Hot motherfucking goddamn, was that a speech or was that a SPEECH?

Discuss.

I’ve been percolating on the Obama speech for a few days, trying to decide exactly what I think about it. These things take time, you know, and should never be hurried. I’ve also been arguing over various bits with people sporadically over the last couple of days, with opinion fairly evenly split between “meh” (my father) and “Obama is the closest thing that I have ever felt to what people describe when they talk about faith” (my top-secret contact at the convention).

So, how did I feel about it, as someone who is not intending to vote for Obama?

I was pretty ambivalent by the end. I felt like I needed to listen to it, because it was a pretty historic moment, the first black man accepting a nomination for President from a major party. That’s the kind of moment that you want to be able to tell people you heard live on the radio in 40 years, you know? And I tell you what, Obama is an amazing orator. It was a pretty well-written speech, but he really delivered, and if I wasn’t so staunchly opposed to him, I might have even been converted.

Although the fireworks at the end nearly gave me a heart attack until the radio announcer said that they were fireworks. Pretty much every time that man appears in public now, I fear for his life.

I thought that he did a pretty good job of touching on the major issues in his speech, but there were a few notable points I was disappointed on:

• Nothing strong on the environment. Sure, he promoted green tech, which is good, but he didn’t really push the fact that we need to do something about the environment. Now. Starting with tougher environmental legislation and a serious effort on environmental cleanup and enforcement of such regulation.
• No strong stance on gay marriage. Yes, he said that “gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination,” but that’s not the same thing as marriage equality. And, of course, nothing for trans/queer/etc, which I didn’t really expect, but still, sad. Maybe you say that’s too much to hope for, but I say that women were told that the right to vote was too much to hope for, once.
• He didn’t take a powerful right to choose stance, either, referring to abortion more obliquely, and that kind of bummed me out.

However, there were also some things I really liked.

• I loved “And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work, because I want my daughters to have the exact same opportunities as your sons,” because equal pay is a major issue for me, and it was a nice nod to feminists in the audience.
• I also appreciated the talk on education, although “accountability” sounds suspiciously like NCLB (ugh) to me. And I dug this: “And we will keep our promise to every young American: If you commit to serving your community or our country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.” This is something I’ve been lobbying for for years.
• “America, we are a better country than this.” YEAH DOG is what I said to Tristan when he said that. It was a nice bit of rhetoric, and so was the followup: “We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty, that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.” Again, I say, YEAH DOG.

I wasn’t a fan of the “look at me pushing my working class angles here” stuff, which felt really stiff and false to me. Also, I obviously wasn’t hugely supportive of the tough on terror pandering, although I understand why he included these issues in his speech.

In a lot of ways, the speech was politics as usual, but there were a few pieces of soaring rhetoric in there that were just outstanding. If that’s the real Obama, the Obama in the corners of that speech, the Obama who knows how to use language that way…that’s a man I’d want to vote for. The man who references Langston Hughes in political speeches. The man who really believes that this country can be fixed. The man who says “ENOUGH” and means it.

I should apologize in advance to my foreign readers: there’s going to be a lot of stuff about politics in the next few months, and some of it is probably going to be really boring for you, unless you are really interested in American politics. That said, I really hope you engage in the discussion, because I would love to hear your perspective on the issues in American politics, and how politics here is being covered overseas. And I promise that things will die down after 4 November. Well, unless we have a repeat of the 2000 election.

So let’s talk about Palin. As my friend Sem said when McCain announced his pick, “raise your hand if you’ve heard of Palin before today.” I wish I could say that the Palin pick is historic, but, really, it’s just sexist and insulting, historic or not.

First of all, I want to talk about the timing of the announcement, because it was wicked sneaky. McCain wanted to steal Obama’s thunder on Friday morning, and he sure did it; the Obama speech slipped to the bottom of the news cycle pretty fast. Also, notably, so did McCain’s 72nd birthday, which just happened to fall on the same day. It was some brilliant timing, and the pick was a political move which might be shrewd, or might be terrible.

From the shrewdness point of view, putting a woman on the GOP ticket tells Americans that the Republicans are ready for change, and they’re going to shake some shit up, or it may attract disaffected Hillary voters who really are foolish enough to vote for the ticket with the vagina, as my top-secret convention contact put it. (I really hope that this isn’t the case.) Palin also has a reputation as a bit of a maverick, reinforcing the whole McCain “ideal.” But really, it’s just that they are smart enough to realize the value of a token.

It’s a problematic decision, though. Her minimal political experience makes her an easy target for the Obama campaign, which is probably tired of being battered on the experience issue. Palin “hasn’t spent a day in Washington,” whereas Obama has at least served in the Senate. And if people are smart enough to realize that she’s basically been picked as a political tool, they might just get a tad riled up. I certainly hope so. This could backfire in a major way, and she’s already being shredded on The Daily Show and objectified on VPILF. I may not like Biden, but I kind of can’t wait to see him tear her apart in the veep debates.

Palin herself is certainly not a candidate I can get behind, and most of the feminist community seems to be with me on this one. Let’s just give a few highlights of why Palin, in my opinion, is not a good choice for veep:

• Staunchly pro-life, and I mean staunchly.
• She advocates for the teaching of creationism in schools.
• Very pro-drilling in Alaska (husband is in oil), and has a generally weak environmental record.
• She may have “gay friends,” but she is against marriage equality.
• She doesn’t support equal pay for women!
• Involved in a whiff of a corruption scandal involving her attempt to get her brother in law fired, which could become a major political problem.
• Pop quiz: when was Palin’s first passport issued? If you answered “2007,” you are correct! (Just for comparison, my first passport was issued when I was two weeks old.) But it’s ok, she knows about foreign policy because Alaska is “close to Russia.” (And Canada!)
• Babygate! I mean, hot damn, first there’s the kerfuffle over the parentage of the youngest kid, and then she announces that her oldest is preggers, but it’s ok, because she’s marrying the father. So we have, in one blow, clear evidence that abstinence-only education totally sucks, a “lack of Christian values,” and evidence that Palin is just, uhm, not a very good parent. Her daughter will “grow up really fast” all right…
• Her political experience: council member, then mayor of a town the size of Fort Bragg, partial term as governor of Alaska.
• Also, you’re “sexist” if you question the Palin pick!

Finally:

“As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.”

-Sarah Palin, July 2008

I’ve been following the gaffe with McCain and the houses with as much interest as the next disgruntled renter, but since I wasn’t feeling so awesome this weekend, I haven’t had a chance to write about it until now. For those of you who have missed the media circus, John McCain was asked how many houses he has, and he waffled and said “let me check with my staff.”

Most people have interpreted this to mean that McCain doesn’t know how many houses he owns, although I would argue that it’s also possible that he knew exactly how many he owned, and he wanted to find a good way to spin it, so he said he needed to “ask my staff” to buy time. If that was the plan, it sure as heck didn’t work, because the Internet and the media collectively exploded, and the parody videos were literally up within minutes.

Although can I just say, for the record, that I am really sad about being unable to find a Sesame Street style video with the Count going “how many houses…” It could be a great learning experience for kids!

But seriously. The house thing raises some interesting issues, most of which have already been flogged in the media. For example, while most people don’t have a problem with crazy-rich people (although I do), the idea of being so wealthy that you don’t keep track of major assets is a bit off-putting, especially in a candidate who is trying to make the other candidate seem elitist and out of touch with America. With the foreclosure rate on the rise, I think there might be some bitterness going on here too, what with people who own minus one houses. Let alone renters like me who are really frustrated by people who buy multiple houses, driving the price up and making it impossible to go from renting to owning.

It’s also just funny, and it encapsulates so many of the reasons I wouldn’t possibly vote for McCain. The man is walking an awkward walk, what with the highly secretive and insanely wealthy wife and all, and I think we’re going to see more pressure in the coming months about the McCain’s wealthy, and whether or not McCain can really be viewed as a populist candidate. His wife may think she’s entitled to her privacy, but the fact is that when you are married to a Presidential candidate, your life is kind of open to inspection. And so is your money.

The bottom line is that it’s hard to think of McCain as anything other than a dinosaur who is totally out of touch with what is going on in the United States right now. If he had any conception of what life is like for most Americans, I think he’s understand why the inability to remember how many houses you own is perceived as extremely offensive, and why the Obama campaign got so much mileage out of it.

The next time you run into a real person who doesn’t know how many houses ou owns, please let me know.

Unless you’ve been under a rock or something for the last week, you are probably aware that the Summer Olympics are in full progress in Beijing (and Hong Kong, for the equestrian sports). Now, as we all know, I have very mixed feelings about the Olympics, especially this year’s. But I really like the idea of the Olympic Movement. I love the concept of setting aside national differences for a few weeks every four years and competing against the best athletes in the world. (Although I wish they had sports I could compete in, like speed etymology and cat wrasslin’.)

So I’ve kind of loosely been following the Olympics news, which is kind of hard not to do if you read any news at all right now, and I have noticed a disturbing trend.

Here in the States, all any news outlet can talk about is Team USA. Team USA did this, Team USA did that, look at all these medals we are getting, isn’t Team USA just the best! We are so awesome!

And the thing is, a lot of the athletes competing for the United States are pretty darn awesome. They are talented athletes, and really interesting people. And I’ve met a few Olympic athletes in my time, so I feel pretty confident saying this. And I’m proud of them and their accomplishments, and I am glad that they are getting the honor of participating in the Olympics.

But I am also proud of athletes from other nations, and I want to hear more about them. Even when a news article does feature a foreign athlete, the news source manages to slip in some reference to Team USA. Usually a reference which points out that we are better. Like, “her training regimin, unlike that employed by Team USA, involved…” or “ultimately the whatever country national team doesn’t stand a chance against Team USA, but it sure is nice to see them try!”

Baxt, who watched the opening ceremonies, said that the commentary was making her writhe in her chair. “This country only just became a country! They’re so small! They are much smaller than the United States!  They won’t make it through the first round, so you probably won’t see them competing against Team USA, but their costumes sure are nice!” And, of course, when the American athletes stepped out, the commentator went into spasms of delight.

Here’s the thing. I thought that the Olympics was all about international cooperation. I understand that American news sources feel the need to report on the American athletes, because obviously Americans are interested in how their national team are doing. But would it kill the media to at least feature some information about athletes from other countries, and other teams? All the headlines are “Team USA Does This!” “Team USA Does That!” Team USA Creams Some Athletes From a Country You Have Never Heard Of!” “Oh My God Michael Phelps is So Cool!” “Team USA Rocks!” “Here’s Another Article About Team USA In Which Nothing Really Happens!”

When we aren’t talking about how awesome Team USA is, we’re posting “exposes” of all the stuff the Chinese faked at the opening ceremonies, just to emphasize the fact that they may have more medals than we do (since obviously the medal count is the only way to judge merit), but we’re still better, because Americans would never fake things at the opening ceremonies. Apparently it’s not enough to manipulate the schedule of events to fit things in with our prime time schedule.

I contrasted this with the Olympics coverage at The Age, an Australian news source, and I found a pretty fair mix of news. A lot of news about Aussie athletes, of course, but also some news about athletes from other countries, and matches between other national teams. The Age is talking about some of the political issues in the games, like a friendly exchange of hugs between a Russian athlete and a Georgian one, which kind of embodies the spirit of the games, and an inquiry into an Iranian athlete who may (or may not) have withdrawn from a match to avoid going up against an Israeli (not in the spirit of the games). The content is interesting, balanced, and informative. Sure there’s some Australian pride going on, but it’s nothing like the coverage in American papers, where you might be hard pressed to believe that any nation other than the United States is really competing.

Likewise with the Guardian, a British paper. There’s commentary about the Olympics, along with coverage of major events (and not so major ones). Unsurprisingly, the paper is keeping close tabs on British athletes, which is entirely reasonable, but again, news about athletes from other countries is also very present. I find the content at the Guardian far more dynamic and interesting than the “Americans first” coverage at sources like the New York Times.

If the Olympics is supposed to be all about International cooperation and friendship, why can’t American newspapers look beyond the American athletes for news? I’m feeling rather more ashamed than usual of our national media at the moment.

So the big news explosion last week was over the John Edwards affair, complete with photographs of The Other Woman looking shifty and Mr. Edwards looking contrite. Cynics pointed out that the timing of the news release sure was convenient, since it was quickly overshadowed by the impending conflict in Georgia and the Olympics. Despite this, the media sure managed to wring a lot of miles out of it, and they’re still hard at work.

My gut reaction to the Edwards affair was “who cares,” and then I started genuinely wondering about who cares, and why it is that extramarital affairs among politicians continue to get so much press. It’s sort of like reporting that the sky is blue, or that cats like milk. It’s just sort of a given fact. Yet people eat this schlock up every time it comes out.

I find it interesting that many people are willing to pass judgement on Mr. Edwards without knowing the particulars of the case, and that they are willing to assume that a little dallying outside the officially sanctioned marriage bed somehow makes him unfit to serve as a politician.

Do I think it’s sort of shitty that he abandoned his cancerous wife for an affair? Well, I might, if she hadn’t been in remission at the time. And, for all we know, the couple had an understanding which they have chosen not to share with the media, in an attempt to keep some part of their personal lives personal. Without knowing the negotiated specifics of their relationship, I feel hesistant to cast aspersions upon Edwards.

And I am really disappointed in formerly ardent Edwards supporters, who have turned viciously on him in the wake of the announcement, terming him irresponsible for running when he knew that the affair might hit the news. Rather than admitting that people make mistakes, sometimes big ones, and that these mistakes don’t necessarily shape people. Sure, we learn from our mistakes, and contrition is appropriate, but one mistake shouldn’t terminate a career or destroy a relationship. It’s a learning experience, and I believe that what we learn makes us stronger.

I see people criticizing his wife for staying with him, while others praise her for sticking with him. It seems like the poor woman can’t win, depending on which media source she feels like reading this morning. And, of course, all sorts of salacious speculation about The Other Woman’s child is flying around, with The Other Woman feeding the flames by decisively announcing that she doesn’t want a paternity test.

I’m always interested to see how the media copes with sexuality, and I’m pretty much never surprised, at this point. If depths can be plumbed, they will be, and who cares about the damage it causes. It continually amazes me to see the details of the private lives of public figures paraded out for our consumption, as though we should care. I suppose one could argue that by living a public life, these figures are exposed to the potential for public interest, but it does seem like a line needs to be drawn somewhere. The whole thing reminds me of watching seagulls fight for scraps of bread. It’s vile.

Especially since the politicians who are most vocal about morals and “family values” are often the ones schtupping people in airport bathrooms. In those cases, where politicians actively preach about morals and family values, I am interested in their private lives, to see if they practice what they preach, and stand behind what they believe in.

But Edwards didn’t campaign on an “affairs are bad” platform. He campaigned on a fighting poverty platform, and I’m sorry, but I just don’t see who he was sexing has to do with poverty. I seem to be in the minority, however, because even in places where I expect more indifference and progressive ideas, Edwards is still being condemned as a liar and a cheat.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, my friends.