Auf wiedersehen, Bravo!

Finally, after months of legal wrangling between NBC Universal, The Weinstein Co., and Lifetime Network, the sixth season of Project Runway is clear to air this summer on Lifetime. The Weinstein Co. had to pay an unspecified amount of money to NBC Universal, but the case is now settled and we are free to watch the first Los Angeles-based season of the original fashion design reality show (what ever happened to that knockoff that Bravo was hoping to air??). I wonder how good it will be, knowing that it was taped to air almost 6 months ago, and the fashion week that it surrounds has been over for months.

We’ll see, I guess, but I hope that the move to the West Coast energized this show, or maybe just that they had a more talented, less unnecessarily-obnoxious people this time.

Conflicted

I read this article about military wives supplementing their families’ incomes by becoming surrogate mothers. At first read I thought, “What a beautiful thing to do for somebody else.” The main person chronicled in this article, Angel Howard, is a 32-year-old mother of 6 whose husband is in Iraq. When her husband was home, she was able to take part-time jobs, but now that he’s back in Iraq, she’s at home full time. That means that she needs to stretch $56,000 to cover all of her family’s needs. To put it another way, this family of eight have less to live on than I bring in by myself.

After two failures, Howard was able to conceive, and is currently carrying twins for Esteban and Jean-Michel (okay, how cute are those names? I bet they’re adorable together), a gay French couple. The part that I feel conflicted about is that Angel is using her military health insurance to pay for the pregnancy, even though the insurer states that pregnant surrogates should cover their own costs. Angel is going to get about $25,000 from the couple for carrying the babies to term, plus a bonus for not needing the prospective parents to pay for her healthcare during the pregnancy.

What about the thousands or millions of uninsured pregnant American women who are not able to get reliable, necessary healthcare for themselves and their unborn children? For whom there will not be further financial benefit at the end of their pregnancies? While the best solution is a fairer system all around, I am bothered by what seems to me to be an abuse of the current military healthcare system.

Also, and this is something else entirely, I’ve wondered what happens when people allow newspapers, tv shows, blogs, and magazines to profile them admitting to behaviors that could have detrimental effects on their lives. What if Ms. Howard’s insurer insists that she reimburse them for the costs of her current pregnancy, or refuse to cover any subsequent pregnancies? I mean, seriously people. Isn’t shutting your mouth and supporting your family worth more than giving the Army the finger in print?

Whatever, Mo

I wish that Maureen Dowd was a dude, so that I could kick her in the junk. She’s always saying stupid things, and nothing makes her happy. First she tried throughout the campaign to imply that President Obama was weak and unmanly, and now that he has the most important job on the planet, she’s calling him elitist and arrogant. If he keeps his promises to Democrats, she says that he’s ignoring Republicans. If he reaches out to Republicans, she accuses him of ignoring those who put him in power. What does she want from him? Does she understand that life does not exist only at the ends of a spectrum?

I find Maureen Dowd obnoxious, and I do not for one minute believe that that is her actual hair color.

You learn something new every day

I hate it when The New York Times uses terms without definition, as if anybody should automatically understand exactly what is meant. It’s pretty lazy, especially considering the fact that they often link to more information about terms, people, places, and events that are mentioned in their articles.

I was reading this article today, which speaks about the Supreme Court revisiting the exclusionary rule, which states that “evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used against a defendant.” That definition was provided by the Times. Anyway, The Court is recently ruled that not all types of police misconduct should automatically exclude the admission of evidence into legal proceedings.

I found the article to be fascinating, but I was a little confused by the phrase “Warren Court,” which was used several times through the article without any background information being given. I kind of knew that there had been a chief justice named Warren, but I didn’t know when that was or why it was significant to this particular issue. Enter Wikipedia. I know, I know. Librarians should not get their information from a web site that can be edited by anybody (at least for now), but I find it to be a good starting point, and if I really needed more in-depth information, I have tons of databases at my disposal. So anyway, according to Wikipedia, the Warren Court “represents a period in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States that was marked by one of the starkest and most dramatic changes in judicial power and philosophy. Led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court expanded civil rights, liberties, the judicial power, and the federal governmental power in ways previously unseen.”

The article also talked about the current and former compositions of the Supreme Court, and how the this ruling may signal a change in other exclusionary rule cases. For more information on the doings of the Supreme Court, you can visit SCOTUSblog.

Senate news

We know what happened in the presidential election, but what happened in some of the other races I’ve been following?

First we’ll start with the good news:
Elizabeth Dole, hate- and fear-monger extraordinaire, was defeated by her opponent, Kay Hagan! I’m proud of North Carolina not only for ousting Dole, but also for going for Barack Obama (maybe)!

Then we’ll go to the meh news:
Frank Lautenberg, 84-year-old incumbent Democrat Senator, easily kept his seat in New Jersey. This means that he will be 90 years old at the next election. That’s super freaking old. He’s done a good job, so I hope he keeps it up, but I don’t understand how so many people who could complain about a 74-year-old presidential candidate could in good conscience elect a senator who is a decade older.

Then the “aw crap, Minnesota” news:
Norm Coleman defeated Al Franken by just over 700 votes. I try not to hate on those who vote for third party candidates, but seriously Minnesota, wtf? If even one thousand of those chuckleheads had voted for Franken, this would be a whole different day in Minnesota. There’s going to be a recount, so maybe there’s some hope, but I’m not holding my breath, since they say that a definitive winner may not be declared until December!

Michele Bachmann, who famously suggested that the media should reinstate McCarthy-era investigations into the patriotism of politicians, easily kept her seat. There is no justice. While I would have preferred it if she lost, and lost big, I would have hoped that any victory of hers was hard fought. I hate the idea of someone this bilious feeling as though she should keep behaving in this way and saying the kind of insane things she usually says.

Elizabeth Dole, WTF?

Apparently being decent in a close race is just too much to ask of North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole. Instead of bearing down and fighting for her seat on her own merits, she has resorted to making specious and laughably untrue attacks on her opponent, Kay Hagan, based on religion. Dole’s new ad claims that Hagen is “godless,” which 1) what’s wrong with that and 2) is easily disproved. The claim might carry more weight were Hagan not a regular churchgoer who also happened to be a former Sunday school teacher. Shame on you, Ms. Dole! I really admired you before this. Campbell Brown, though, doesn’t let her get away with it. Go Campbell!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMzX_EAfwyc]

The world outside my bubble

This presidential election is so dramatic and action-filled that I really haven’t been paying much attention to other races across the country. I mean, it seems like Lautenberg kind of has the Senate race sewn up in New Jersey, so I was content not to know what else was going on around the country. BUT then I woke up and started to be myself again, and decided to familiarize myself with other races that are going on. Two races that caught my interest are taking place in Minnesota and North Carolina. Actor/writer/producer, Air America founder, and impassioned proponent of progressive politics, Al Franken, is running on the Democratic ticket in Minnesota against one-term Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. Right now, polls have Franken leading Colemen 43% to 37%, with Independent candidate Dean Barkley having as much as 19% of the vote. Last month, Coleman was ahead of Franken, so this reversal is interesting indeed. When I read this, I was a little surprised at Franken’s ability to gain traction in Minnesota, but then I remembered that this is the state that elected Jesse Ventura as governor (NTTAWWT). Franken and Coleman’s numbers are rather close, and when you throw in the presence of a third party candidate, this race is definitely one to watch. It’s also interesting to note that Barack Obama has opened up a modest lead over John McCain in Minnesota.

The race in North Carolina is also close; polls show that Republican incumbent Elizabeth Dole has 44% of the vote, while Democratic challenger Kay Hagan has 49%. A third party candidate, Libertarian Christopher Cole has support from about 2% of the electorate, but in such a close race, even that small percentage could help decide the outcome of the race. I am fascinated by this race because it is dominated by two accomplished women. I know nothing about Hagan that I did not learn in writing this post, but I have admired Elizabeth Dole for years. She’s a smart, well-educated, interesting woman who is easily the equal of her politically powerful husband. If any woman would do, and Sarah Palin’s collapse under scrutiny would seem to illustrate that this was the case, why couldn’t John McCain have picked someone like her? Or Maine Senator Olympia Snowe? Either one of these women would have helped make a compelling ticket with much more of a fighting chance.

Here they go again

In advance of tomorrow’s vice presidential debate, Gwen Ifill, the moderator, is being attacked for a book that she wrote called Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. This book is being published in 2009, and is not available to be read, yet some people have exercised their powers of precognition to determine that she is somehow biased in favor of the Obama-Biden ticket, and cannot possibly be fair. Now, to be honest, it’s not impossible to believe that personal biases or loyalties can influence how one moderates a debate; just ask George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. I don’t think that anybody who was paying attention has forgotten how awful they were when they moderated a debate between the Democratic candidates earlier this year. They asked stupid questions, soft-balled Clinton (at least Stephanopoulos did), and took almost an hour to get to substantive questions regarding Iraq, Iran, and other issues meaningful to voters.

So, it’s not impossible to believe that a debate moderator can be too much for one side or the other. But it seems insulting to insinuate that, because she is a known supporter of Democratic politics, Gwen Ifill won’t be able to attain the level of fairness and bipartisanship required of a good moderator. Maybe the questions about Ifill are warranted and come from people who are genuinely concerned about witnessing a fair debate. But maybe not.

Let’s give a moment of though to what else could possible be fueling these speculations about Ifill’s fitness as moderator. Could it be fear? A lot of the furor over this issue has been raised by Republicans and others on the right. Perhaps concern about Sarah Palin’s prospects in a debate has also contributed to questions about Ifill’s commitment to a fair debate. Let’s face it: during her interview with Katie Couric, Vice Presidential nominee Palin did not shine. In one of the most difficult exchanges to watch, she demonstrated that she did not understand the causes of the current economic collapse, and could therefore offer no cogent or even coherent answer regarding what the country’s next steps should be. Maybe it was nerves, or maybe the slowing dawning realization that she’s totally unfit for the job she’s in the running for, but Governor Palin’s miserable performance definitely did not win over anybody who wasn’t already aligned with her.

Actually, pretty much every televised appearance by Sarah Palin that has followed her energizing, successful, nasty, and entirely scripted coming out party at the Republican National Convention, has shown her to be completely out of her depth. Like the current president, she has shown herself not to be a convincing, confident extemporaneous speaker. Like him, she also seems to have trouble grasping the details and nuances of issues of great national and global import.

Unless her peformances during the month of September were part of a carefully-orchestrated Machiavellian strategy to sharply lower expectations and lull Joe Biden into a false sense of security, she is in big trouble tomorrow. And what better way to negate unflattering day-after assessments in the press than by deflecting attention onto the moderator, before the debate even begins! If Ifill asks tough questions that Palin cannot answer intelligently, then this will be used as proof of Ifill’s supposed biases, and she will be called a bully. If the bruhaha makes Ifill ask easier questions that Palin can answer in a way that makes her seem more aware than she has in any of her recent appearances, then the right will be able to say, “Look! We told you that she know what she was talking about.”

I would love to be excited to see a woman excel on a national stage at such a high level in politics, but nothing I’ve seen so far has convinced me that Sarah Palin is going to be that woman.

Too touchy?

I don’t consider myself easily offended. I make and laugh at jokes about women, black people, New Jerseyans, Americans, Christians, liberals, and a host of other groups to which I belong. And I do believe that non-black people can talk about, or disagree with, black people without automatically being considered racist. So why did it bother me so much today when a white coworker used the word “uppity” to describe an annoying black patron?

I’ve been thinking about it for the last couple of hours, and I think I’m bothered because the word uppity has such a troubling history. When I hear it, I think of a person whose behavior is somehow above what could reasonably be expected from one of his or her station. I don’t know if this is a definition that would be used by that any significant portion of the non-black population when defining uppity, but it’s probably what a lot of black people think when they hear it. This word has been the subject of recent press, after Lynn Westmoreland, a Republican Congressman from Georgia, used it to describe Barack and Michelle Obama, then claimed to be ignorant of any racial connotations to the word. He’s from Georgia. Even if that’s not what he meant when he said the word, I find it unlikely that he could have spent the past 58 years in Georgia without somehow knowing that this word might have had a racist connotation. His explanation that he thought they were elitist and snobbish also makes no sense. They’re pretty high up on the freaking totem pole, buddy. Certainly higher than you. How do you expect them to behave? Also, I’m really love it if I Westmoreland could answer this question: what about a duly elected senator who won his party’s vote to be their Presidential candidate could be considered too elite? Don’t we want our leaders to belong to a relatively high class in society? Who should be of a higher class than those who aspire to lead our nation? And if that higher class does exist, why aren’t they running things?

So this patron was annoying, but in the same way that scores of other patrons are annoying many times throughout the day. She didn’t seem to look down on us, she just didn’t really care that what she wanted didn’t conform to library rules. She was over the whole rules thing, but she never acted as though she was above us. I get along just fine with my coworker and I’ve never thought for a second that he might have a problem with me due to my race, but things like this always make me uneasy.

Good news!

Yay! A judge announced that Imam Mohammad Qatanani, a local Muslim cleric, will be allowed to stay in the United States. Imam Qatanani had been charged with having ties to Hamas, and failing to disclose a related prior conviction in Israel. Some of the evidence presented included a signed confession from Mr. Qatanani, obtained after he’d been detained and tortured in Israel for three months. The confession was in Hebrew, a language he does not speak. He did not realize that he’d been convicted during his detention, and therefore did not report it when he applied to be a United States citizen.

According to Judge Alberto Riefkohl, the case presented by the Department of Homeland Security lacked evidence and credibility. I’ve been following this case, and I’m glad that it has such a happy ending. Imam Qatanani is beloved not only in the Islamic community, but has also been supported by many non-Muslims; rabbis, pastors, lawmakers, FBI agents, and other concerned citizens in the Paterson area were vocal in their support of Mr. Qatanani, and they, too, shared in the joy of learning that he will not be deported from the United States.

I don’t understand how our government can condone and participate in actions like this. Not only do we have Guantanamo Bay, which is more of a disgrace every day, we also allow people to be taken to other nations specifically for torture, and accept from other nations information received by people who are mistreated, if not the victims of outright torture. Every day, in addition to the possibility of death, our troops face being kidnapped, tortured, and forced to give false confessions in hostile nations. We view this with the utmost condemnation, as well we should. So how can we believe that this is okay when the person being tortured is not American (by birth, at least)?

I’m glad that Imam Qatanani’s story has a happy ending, and that after all the physical, emotional, and legal hurdles, he can go back to focusing on his family and his work in the community. I’m just sad that this goes on at all, and that there are probably people in this situation with fewer resources or supporters, whose stories don’t end as happily.