I don’t watch the Daily Show very often, not because I don’t like it, but I just don’t really think about putting it in the rotation. It’s damn funny but for some reason I always forget that it’s on. Anyway. I just watched these clips (they take a while) and I have to say the first one especially is pretty darn depressing. I realize the Daily Show is meant to be comedy. But isn’t it sad that there’s so much truth to what Jon Stewart says? Why is a comedian so much more intelligent than like 90% of the news pundits out there?

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

Our general acquaintance is jubilant at the outcome of yesterday’s election results here in the U.S.A. With a democratic president, and a black man to boot, and even our governor holding on to her seat we’ve got a lot to be happy about.

I can’t help but be more than a little depressed though about some other results that have happened around our country. In California, Prop 8 (banning gay marriage which was made legal in June when the California Supreme Court nullified a 2000 ban) passed, Arizona and Florida passed similar measures and Arkansas banned unmarried (i.e. ones who can’t legally marry) couples from being adoptive or foster parents.

It makes me angry. Really angry. Marriage is a legal contract made with the state. It’s not really any different than the contract I signed to get my business license. Some people believe that their marriage is also a holy union but those people have to sign a contract with the state as well. Same contract as those who have religion-free weddings. It irks me to no end that the morally/religiously-self-righteous have found a way to assert their control through a legal means. If we are putting labels on what it means to be a man or a woman and what legal contracts each can engage in where do you draw the line? Should we go back to a time when black folks and white folks can’t get married? Or is it about a misplaced notion of deviance? Should anyone who’s ever watched porn not be allowed to get married? Maybe no non-Christians should be allowed to get married. Or perhaps women shouldn’t be allowed to own property. Or to vote. Try and explain to me how these things are so different.

I firmly believe that it is amoral to apply a scale system when it comes to giving out rights to citizens. And the fact of the matter is there’s something down-right creepy about a whole group of people who want to know the details of what goes on in our bedrooms. It’s funny how this group also overlaps with the group that claims personal responsibility and less government intervention as some of its core values.

I know, I know, there isn’t much sport involved in poking fun at Sarah Palin. After all, she supplies a ridiculous amount of ammunition. However, this video is really quite funny. It’s just too bad the amount of people that won’t see how much of this video is based in truth. Unfortunately, you have to sit through a commercial before watching the video, but it is worth the wait.

Palin and Hillary speak against sexism in politics

.

Wow, so no matter what happens in November – no matter which candidate wins, a historical first for our country will occur when either the first black man is elected president or the first woman sits in the vice presidential seat. After reading who McCain chose as his running mate, I have experienced a variety of emotions. As a woman, I have a sense of excitement that a woman might actually hold such a high office – and then I remember that should that happen, McCain will be our president which makes me very unhappy to think about. I also feel a little used as a woman because I can’t help but think that McCain chose Palin in hopes of not only attracting those Hillary supporters who don’t like Obama, but also blue-collar workers who might identify with Palin’s husband who is/was an oil worker in Alaska (oh, and he’s white – I read a blip in the P.I. yesterday saying that a number of union workers may not vote for Obama because he is black). Or maybe I’m just pissed because I’m afraid this move will take away from Obama’s chances of winning – this person (I’m talking about Obama here) who seems to have a greater interest at heart than just what will get him elected or make him popular, who is more in touch with today’s society (hello, at one point recently Jay told me that McCain had never been on the internets – !), who chose a running mate in part because he thought that person would challenge ideas he disagreed with (really, is that a qualification many presidential candidates look for, I don’t know, but am guessing no), and who might actually be able to make some changes (tho I’m not sure I believe that is possible with our current governmental structure). So I’m left feeling a bit upset that a woman has been chosen to run as part of the Republican ticket – and also feeling sad about my feelings there. Of course I would love to see a woman in such a high office, though I would never vote for a person based on whether they were a man or a woman – but it does tug at my heart and sense of feminism. Is that part of what the McCain campaign is hoping for? I just hope that anybody at all swayed by the fact that Palin is a woman also looks closely at her record and opinions. From the little bit I’ve read, she’s not in support of the same women’s rights I am, but Obama and Biden seem to be.
(Doctors of political science who may read this, please excuse my lack of understanding of anything I’ve mentioned – I’m going from the gut here )

I found this article pretty interesting, not only because our own Mr. Anderson has agreed there needs to be a conversation about the legal drinking age and its merits, but also I had no idea that the law needs to be reauthorized next year. I haven’t read any of the buzz mentioned but I’d assume we’d be hard pressed in this country to do any actual changing of the drinking age. Read on.

8/24/08
College presidents’ debate on drinking age raises ire
Critics say discussion avoids work

P-I STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES

The college presidents said they wanted a national debate on the 21-year-old drinking age. They got it.

For years, former Middlebury College President John McCardell has been criticizing the law, saying it only encourages binge drinking and pushes alcohol into the shadows.

But then McCardell quietly enlisted about 100 college presidents — including Pacific Lutheran President Loren Anderson — in a campaign calling for the drinking age to be reconsidered. After The Associated Press reported on the effort this week, the issue erupted into the biggest discussion on the subject in years — in blogs, over e-mail, in newspaper editorials and around office water coolers.

College presidents usually avoid contentious topics because alienating alumni and politicians poses big risks and offers few rewards. So it was big news when so many leaders of the nation’s best-known institutions signed on to McCardell’s “Amethyst Initiative,” named for the Greek gemstone said to ward off intoxication.

Supporters included presidents of private universities such as Duke, Dartmouth and Johns Hopkins, and public schools including Ohio State and the University of Maryland. So far Anderson is the only college president from Washington state supporting the effort.

“I’m not among those that has concluded that changing the drinking age is what needs to be done. I am one of those who feels the issue needs to be studied, that there needs to be a national conversation about it,” Anderson told KIRO News Radio last week.

“Alcohol use is an incredible problem in our society, but it particularly affects the college campuses because our primary group is in the 18, to 23, 24-year-old age group, where this transition is occurring…. I looked over the focus and intent, and it seemed to me appropriate, as a higher education leader, to say not only does higher education but the larger society needs a conversation about this.”

Critics led by Mothers Against Drunk Driving got their view across, too, accusing the presidents of seeking to avoid the unpleasant work of cracking down on campus lawbreakers.

MADD marshaled critics, including the acting chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, who called changing the law “a terrible idea” that would “jeopardize the lives of more teens.”

Amid the backlash, two presidents — Robert Franklin of Morehouse College and Kendall Blanchard of Georgia Southwestern State — withdrew their support.

“We welcome an honest discussion and that begins with a clear discussion of the science,” MADD CEO Chuck Hurley said. “We are hopeful that that will be the focus going forward.”

But at least 20 presidents have added their names this week, including the presidents of Montclair State in New Jersey and the University of Massachusetts system, bringing the total to at least 123.

“We’re not burying our head and trying to hide behind laws,” said Father Paul Locatelli, president of Santa Clara University in California, who meets personally with every student written up for alcohol infractions. “We’re trying to say, ‘What is the best way to approach this issue?’ ”

Whether the debate will lead anywhere is unclear. Opinion polls suggest most Americans support enforcing current drinking laws.

In a MADD news release, Rep. James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat and chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said he would not consider any effort to repeal or weaken “this lifesaving law.”

Efforts in states including Minnesota, Wisconsin and Vermont to relax the drinking age have been rebuffed. A 1984 federal law limits a state’s access to federal highway funds if it sets a drinking age lower than 21.

But that law is up for reauthorization next year. McCardell wants it changed so states can decide for themselves the best drinking age, without fear of losing federal money. He hopes the drinking age will become an issue in the fall election campaign.

It’s Super Tuesday in America. Monday must feel bad sandwiched between Super Bowl Sunday and Super Tuesday. Anyway, I came across this Obama video this morning.

It’s done by will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas and some of his famous friends. And damn if it’s not inspiring. Whether or not he can effectively govern can be argued, but Obama is one amazing speaker. A little bit of abstract hope after 8 long years of Bush sure is comforting.

Speaking of will.i.am, he’s been redeemed in my eyes with this. I thought Black Eyed Peas were a somewhat talented band with some ok songs and entertaining stage show (breakdancers and whatnot), then they added Fergie and things really went downhill. Generic inoffensive pop, doing silly commercials, Fergie wetting herself, etc. But at least they got enough $$ to make a snazzy video…

Hey, it’s time for everyone’s favorite post-modern ponderance! Copyrights, pirating, intellectual property and ethics in the digital age! Woo! But seriously, I found this post by David Pogue, the NY Times technology fascinating.

The short version is that he’s been giving a lot of speaking recently and often asks audiences a series of questions. “I own a CD, it gets scratched. I borrow my friend’s to burn a copy. Is that wrong?” A raise of hands. Most people think that’s ok, few hands go up. The questions get progressively murkier. “I meant to record a movie on my DVR but forgot to. Is it ok to copy my friend’s DVD of that movie?” And so on. He recently spoke to his first audience that was exclusively college students. As you might expect, a generational gap emerged. Even at the most blatant examples of copyright violations, very few agreed that it was wrong.

The comments are worth reading. One interesting point made is that younger kids (middle school let’s say) sometimes respond that since the technology is there, it must be ok. As in, if it’s bad why would they have Limewire (a download program). I got no answers, but this continually evolving discussion is fascinating. The model for the distribution of intellectual property will be fundamentally different in a few decades. Not just movies and music, but books once they can make digital readers that don’t look like a cell phone from 1988.

You know, I guess I’m not really surprised that prop 1 (the transportation package) was voted down. I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor that put it well – potential voters are split into 3 very distinct camps on this measure, 1) people who think it concentrates too much on mass transit, 2) people who think it concentrates too much on roads, and 3) people who just want shit done. I admit I was a part of category 3 and voted accordingly even though I felt like a category 2 person. However, now it’s back to the drawing board and much like the failed monorail project, it’ll take years to get something ready for a vote again.

While this kind of stuff is frustrating I have to say that what’s actually a whole lot MORE frustrating is the lack of voting at all. According to our good ole secretary of state, Sammy Reed, Lincoln County with its 6,500 registered voters had the highest turn out at 65%. Lincoln County, people. that’s in Eastern Washington (I had to look it up). King County on the other hand had 25% turn out. I realize this isn’t anything new. but what the fuck? 25%?! So really what that means for us here in Seattle is that nothing gets done and that’s being decided by slightly more than than 1/8 of our voting population. that’s pretty sad that so few people can impact the lives of so many.

I guess what I’m saying is that if you live in the USA and didn’t vote on Tuesday you’re an asshole. Sorry. Get your freaking act together.  I don’t really care HOW you voted just as long as you did.