Why I Didn't Report

Inspired by a very strong friend - I'm making a decision to stand with Dr. Ford:

#WhyIDidntReport

I didn’t report because I was 17 and confused about what happened. I only had vague moments of memories, and the idea that I could have been drugged didn't occur to me. The reality of what had actually happened didn't hit me until I had to find ways to cover up the hand-shaped bruises on my face, neck, and wrists.

I didn't report because the man was someone I knew and thought I could trust, and afterward he did nice things for me. I've since learned this is common. A rape victim will question whether it was rape because her attacker brushed leaves off her back after forcing her into them. I was confused by him bringing me food and changing the sheets.

I didn't report because he told me I wanted it. I had enjoyed his initial attention. He was older, he must be right. What did I know at 17?

I didn't report because it happened on Christmas Eve, and all I wanted to was to spend a happy Christmas Day with people I loved.

I didn't report because when I first told my boyfriend what happened, I said I cheated. When I told him the truth a few hours later, he didn't believe me. His anger never left me.

I didn't report because when I told several people I trust in my church, including two pastors, I was told it was my fault for being alone with a man. I was to blame. I was shameful in the eyes of God and to be judged for what I had done.

I didn't report because I was a strong 6'4" athlete. How could a man overpower me?

I didn't report because I was not emotionally capable of processing what had happened to me. As a friend said, "Rape is not the kind of thing the human brain easily recognizes as fact. Eventually, adrenaline and shock gave way to a numb, cold certainty I could no longer explain away." Months later, as a freshman in college, my attacker contacted me. My incredible basketball team heard me and supported me. It was only then that I was able to start to deal with what had happened. After what I now consider a minor mental breakdown, I faced what happened and started (STARTED!!!!) to rebuild. I considered reporting then, but at what cost? With what evidence?

And in following years, when other assaults happened that I've now learned were non-consensual, I didn't report because I didn't even consider them assault compared to that life-changing moment at 17.

I'm quoting my friend directly here because I can't say this next part better than she did:

"Not reporting is my reality. It’s the reality of thousands upon thousands of women, men, non-binary/trans folx, and children who’ve been raped and sexually assaulted or abused. It’s a reality for survivors far more often than it isn’t. The statistics are absolutely staggering. The vast majority of these crimes are never reported, and that’s NOT because they don’t happen. False reports are so very, very rare."

I believe and stand with Dr. Ford.

We Still Need Feminism

This post is most likely going to come across a little disorganized and a lot emotional, and I've decided I'm okay with that. And I'm gonna pull a John Oliver on this one and promise you that if you can get through this one with me I'll reward you with funny cats at the end.

A couple of weeks ago Buzzfeed took a tumblr viral when it critically posted that 14 women posted why they were against feminism. I say critically because the intent of the post was to highlight the idiocy of the tumblr (read the URL: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means), but in doing so they gave so many more people access to this hurtful, ignorant website.

Just look at some of the pictures on this website. Some of them have understandable reasons they've been hurt by radical feminists. But some of them are just ignorant. "I enjoy being a homemaker..."???? Being a feminist gives you the choice to do that OR go to work. Glad you enjoy it, some women don't. Do you think everyone should HAVE to? fahsdklfhghdaios;hjsgfjs;gj; < me hitting my head on my keyboard

I have some unorganized thoughts on this that I need to get out, and I really hope you can just hang with me for a minute on this one:

I Kinda Sorta Maybe Halfway Understand - ISH:

• I once was a young woman who didn't want to be called a feminist - I thought feminists weren't feminine.
• I want to be a stay at home mom for a couple of years at least. I LOVE the idea of having a man who can care for me - that didn't sound very feminist to me before I became educated about feminism.
• I don't want to be associated with the people who go overboard. I am not a radical. I am not an extremist. 
• I believe there is a difference between men and women and used to not understand that most feminists understand this, too.

And Now the Harsh Truth of What I Really Believe...
YOU do not get to make ANY judgments against feminism to me IF you have never:

• been told to keep your mouth shut because it's a client and it doesn't matter if it's sexual harassment.
• been raped.
• been paid less than your male peers when you work more than they do.
• been abused.
• been told you didn't get the job because they think you'll want to have babies soon.
• been kept out of meetings that you made happen because only men were invited.
• seen how women outside our borders are treated.
• been told you were a bitch when the man who did the same thing was aggressive and doing his job well.
• had a relationship not work out because you make more than the guy.
• been told you were asking for it.
• been delegated to party planning and ordering everyone's lunches when you outrank everyone at the table.
• been told, "girls can't/don't do that."

Polly Young-Eisendrath's definition of feminism is STILL my favorite ever:

“A discipline of thought and action that aims to enhance mutuality and trust among all people; to reveal the meanings of gender differences, especially as these might interfere with reciprocity and trust… and to oppose all models and methods of dominance-submission for relationships among people. What feminism has revealed, in its many forms from theology to literary criticism to psychology and philosophy, is that the silencing and trivializing of women and their ideas affect all of us all of the time in the way that we expect the world and ourselves to be.”

And feminism is ABSOLUTELY still necessary. 
There are so many studies and well-written articles on why it's ridiculous. Here are a few:

• http://www.pay-equity.org/day.html - Women will have to work through April 14, 2015 to make what men will make in 2014.
• http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/bloggers/why-feminism-still-matters-in-2014.1394191059 - 2/week in the world are killed by a current or former male partner, 1/4 women are victims of domestic violence.
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-solod/feminism_b_1693029.html - young women have a choice: pretty and married or successful and bitchy.
• http://listverse.com/2013/03/16/10-reasons-we-still-need-feminism/ - because many countries still remove women's clits without anesthetic, marry them off before puberty, and sell them into prostitution.
• http://www.patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2014/04/23/yes-we-still-need-feminism/ - b/c we are constantly faced with new challenges in an evolving world

My favorite response comes from an artist named Rebecca Vipond Brink. I think she's fabulous. And I think her response is on point: http://www.flareandfade.com/i-dont-need-feminism-because/

And now, those promised cats:  http://confusedcatsagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/

Thanks for listening.

Emotional Citizens

Because we are all emotional people, I present Gail Collins' article on irrational expectations in the NY Times.

My favorite part:

Let’s complain about Barack Obama. Why doesn’t he sound angrier? Doesn’t he understand that his job right now is to be the Great Venter?

Sure he keeps saying he’s mad. But you can tell that he secretly thinks it’s crazy to obsess about $165 million in bonuses in a company that’s still got $1.6 trillion in toxic assets to unravel. “I don’t want to quell that anger. I want to channel our anger in a constructive way,” he said on Wednesday. Everybody knows constructively channeled anger doesn’t really count. It’s like diet pizza.

If John McCain were president, you can bet that we’d be getting outrage 24-7. McCain would be so angry that we’d be scared that he’d have a coronary or invade a new country. The New York Post would be running “Calm Down, Mr. President” headlines.

Except, of course, the whole reason we elected Barack Obama was because when the economy started melting down, Obama seemed sane and calm while McCain appeared to be a loopy visitor from the Planet of the Overwrought.

I hate it when we make irrational, contradictory demands of our president. But, it seems as if that’s what he’s there for.

Finally!

California Senate Passes Budget

The Senate had been one GOP vote short until Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), changed his mind to support the budget plan, but only after Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders agreed to his demands.

"I know there will be dire political ramifications for me, but I know the ramifications for the people of California would be more dire (without this budget)," said Maldonado. "This budget is about shared pain and shared sacrifices."

Glad you finally figured that one out, Maldonado - everyone else came to that conclusion, oh, about 4 days ago - BEFORE the deadline. Thanks for your sacrifice.

What's even crazier, though, is that I agree with ONE of Maldonado's demands:

Maldonado's demands included the removal of a proposed 12 cents a gallon gasoline tax, suspending hikes in pay and per diems for lawmakers when the state is facing budget deficits, and a ballot measure in June 2010 that asks voters whether they want open primaries.

A 12 cent/gallon gasoline tax? Now? Right - because that doesn't hit the families that need the most help or anything. Historically, particularly in California (except for the Bay Area), the people in the most dire circumstances are the people who have to drive the farthest. That's because they can't afford to live in the cities, so they live farther out and have to cross longer distances to find work. So increasing the gas tax almost immediately hits the people who are already struggling the most. I can't believe the democrats supported that one. I mean - 2 or 3 cents maybe, but 12 cents?!?

But Maldonado's other demands? NOT suspending hikes in pay during budget deficits? If a public company is in bad shape, employees don't get raises. Why should it be different for lawmakers? Might actually get them to work to close the budget deficit. But Maldonado doesn't want to have to come up with solutions in order to get a raise. What I will agree to, though, is that this really shouldn't have been tacked on to the budget in the first place. This isn't part of the budget, so why does it matter in face of the deadline? Same thing with the primaries. I don't really understand everything behind it at this point - I know it's a big deal - but why does it need to be tacked on to the budget?

So anyway, I'm actually kinda happy with the results of the delay. Craziness.

Regarding the original budget plan, I do have to comment on the sales tax increase. This doesn't help the economy. I propose a plan more like some other states (Minnesota comes to mine), with sales tax eliminated on necessities (food, school supplies, children's clothing). Then maybe we could increase the sales tax more on other items. Perhaps you just do a moratorium for a year, which would boost the economy by encouraging people to buy more of those necessities now while there is no sales tax on those items. At the very least, we shouldn't be increasing the sales tax on food. How is that helpful at all? People will just be able to afford less, which means food banks will have more demand, which means the government will have to provide more in food stamps and aid. Not smart people.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get our officials to think past the next election?

Rally Against Overreaction

SFist has the scoop on the Bay 2 Breakers rally. My favorite part:

God forbid SFist should tell you how to prioritize your battles, San Francisco. But, a rally to keep public pissing, nudity and drinking in a race? Really? Huh.

I love this city.

A Positive First Step

I remember the day I learned that Bush had implemented a policy to deny funding to all international aid groups that offered the option of, or even counseling about, abortion. It was one of his very first acts in office - and that day I hated him, perhaps more than I had hated anyone.

I was a sophomore in college, which goes to say that I was really a kid with a lot of fight in me ready to protest all the ills of the world. I had campaigned for Bill Bradley, then Gore, and although I would later come to respect some aspects of the Bush presidency after 9/11, on that day I hated him.

His act to showcase his strong pro-life stance and satisfy the fundamentalists who furthered his campaign also happened to cut funding for organizations that provided emergency protection for victims of oppression, abuse, rape, and war all across the world. Aid organizations in Africa assisting refugees of the war could no longer accept U.S. funds because they would counsel a woman on ALL of her options in a pregnancy (often as a result of an assault). Across Asia and Eastern Europe, budgets were slashed for organizations helping women in all kinds of perilous situations. Medical services groups like Planned Parenthood, that often serve as the primary health care provider for low-income women, couldn't rely on help from the U.S.. In my eyes, it was a devastating day.

I won't get into the argument about abortion - to me that's not what this is about - the U.S. was NEVER funding abortions. The idea of cutting funding to a group that offers counseling on abortion is a message that the U.S. will not help a fellow human because of an ideological belief. We will not help you with this concern, because the organization that is helping you will also tell someone else the truth about her choices. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, limiting NECESSARY healthcare because of this is ridiculous. It's like telling my coworker I won't work with her on a project because she disagreed with me on a personal issue. It's a petty punishment that has no place in the world relief conversation.

Obama changed that today.


I don't know that Obama is going to be a great president. I hope. I hope he will be, but I don't know that his leanings toward community organization and socialist principals will be the answer. Maybe. I do know, though, that this act is an incredible step in a good direction. We are telling the world that we will not let ideology get in the way of our place as a world power - we will help regardless of religious belief or ignorance about world situations.

A response

This will be slightly out of context to some, but I want to put it all in one place. In response to a constant ongoing debate about Prop 8 through various facebook comments and posts, I had a little hissy fit tonight (albeit an extremely justified one). Here's my piece:

I try to remain very civilized here. I try to express my opinion while respecting others. But now I'm done. That last comment was the straw on this camel's back, Mark, and here's a little dose of reality.

The people advocating for gay rights want nothing more than to draw upon common ground. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that these are the people who are outlining differences. The people who do outline the differences are those who interpret a couple of lines of the OLD TESTAMENT in an extremely restrictive way that has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. You know Jesus Christ never once mentions homosexuality? Not ONCE. Most gays only want the same rights and respect, and to be seen exactly the same, as straight people. Most gays just want the love they feel for one another to be equal to the love that every man and woman who are married feel for each other.

Given the freedom and lack of expectation to be married of gays, those couples who do want to get married have fought extremely hard for each other and are very devoted to a lifelong commitment. Many couples I know are far more committed, loving, and realistic than the straight couples I know.

And don't give me that bullshit civil union talk. That's ridiculous. You know what that is? It's called "separate but equal". We tried that in this country once. We had different water fountains for "coloreds". They had a great water fountain. It was just like our water fountain. Hell, it was even called the same thing. They didn't make some fancy word for it to make it different. But it was still a different water fountain. Separate, but equal. That's what civil unions are.

And sure, you can argue that it was still a man and a woman, and that's not an "abomination of God" like sodomy is. (And let's not even get into how anything other than your routine missionary sex could be considered an abomination of God, too. Guess God must have been playing some cruel mean trick when he made the human body so damn pleasurable. That's the God I know. Yep - mean and cruel and just trying to get us to slip up. Riiiiight.)

You know what marriage was in the Old Testament? Marriage was commitment, with sex. It had nothing to do with a ceremony. It had nothing to do with a title of being married. It had nothing to do with any kind of government recognition or rights. It simply meant that two people said, hey, let's be together, and they were.

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing fundamentalists preach some gospel that's more republican than Christian. This gospel of less government - "don't let those socialists take over, don't let them take our money to take care of anybody, blah blah blah", but then when it comes to basic human rights (remember "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?) they want more government than anyone else. You guys don't want the government to have the budget to take care of the elderly, the sick, or the poor, but you want the budget to go kill some of those Arabs and to poke your nose in on my relationship, my bedroom, and my body. Quite a contradiction. Then again, fundamentalists are frequently masters of hypocrisy. Yep, that was a bitchy comment. You know what? I earned it.

I've earned the right to say this piece in whatever way I see fit. I devoted my life to the church. I devoted everything I had. I scrimped and saved and gave every penny I could to help build a monstrous building off a highway between Ozark and Springfield because as a child I was guilted into thinking I would live a poor life and I would send my parents to the poor house if I didn't. I spent 7 days a week at church, but when I spoke up and thought I should have a shot at being a pastor someday, I was told I was too outspoken for a woman. I taught pre-school kids, I served in the nursery, and I worked with the junior high kids, but when I wanted to aspire to be a pastor, I wasn't good enough. I wasn't submissive enough.

I didn't even so much as kiss my high school boyfriend, but later, when another male friend betrayed me, my pastor told me it was my fault, and my church abandoned me.

So you know what? I get to say this. I get to call you out on your hypocrisy. You say you live God's love, but you don't respect your fellow humans. That is shameful. That is a human rights issue. A basic human rights issue. And it's not a Christian vs. Non-Christian argument. It's a self-righteous intolerant Christian vs. humble loving Christian argument.

If you think civil unions should be good enough for gays, then they should be good enough for everyone else. NOBODY should be allowed to get married in the eyes of the government. The word itself should be abolished from any legislative documents. Marriage should be within a church, within a family, within a home. That piece of paper you sign? guess what? that's bullshit in terms of what "marriage" is really supposed to be. That's your civil union.

If gays can't get married, why can people who don't love each other? why can people who are just getting married to cover up the pregnancy they got into because their parents refused to talk to them about real life? why can muslims, or buddhists, or hindus? And to that end, honestly, why can you? What makes you so friggin pure that your love is better than anyone else's? You think God thinks you're better? Show me where it says that in the Bible.

I'm sure I've alienated some people. I can deal with that. if I have hurt anyone personally, I sincerely apologize. Please know that I am speaking from truth, and also from sincere hurt that anyone could be filled with so much hatred, and yes, bigotry. I've been depressed since 8 passed. And honestly, I don't actually have a stake in this at all. I wouldn't campaign one way or another. But I'm just devastated by the fact that so many people are so filled with hate that they won't let others recognize their love and devotion to one another.

I have been so careful up to this point. But I just can't be anymore. It's not about not hurting anyone's feelings or not pissing anyone off. This is about LOVE. LOVE. know that word? LOVE OTHERS. LOVE LOVE LOVE. The movement against homosexuality is not based in love. It is NOT based in the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is based on one often misinterpreted line in the old testament (alongside all the other ones that so many people choose to ignore), and it is ridiculous. What Would Jesus Do? Jesus would not let politics affect his beliefs. He wouldn't force others into practicing under his beliefs. If we know anything from the Bible, we know that.

So yes, I'm sorry to go off like this, but it had to be done.

Honestly, this is bull, and I'm tired of hearing the ignorant overly religious remarks on my facebook page. I am extremely proud of where I come from. I am a Missouri girl in so many ways, and I love it. I am proud to have experienced what I did with the fundamentalist churches back home. That said, there's a reason I left. And after 23 years of hearing this shit over and over, I will not tolerate it in my space. I hope only that everyone can look into their hearts, look to their God, and look at their fellow humans, and forgive me my brashness and maybe hear some tiny piece of what I'm saying.

Some Are Useful

I hate campaign season. Everything is fake. It's terrible. Really truly horribly icky. Blah.

My economics professor has a saying that he repeatedly uses:
"All models are flawed; some are useful."

I'd like to extrapolate a bit and apply it to our current situation:

All politicians are flawed (replace with: assholes, morons, or whatever fits your need); some are useful.

Reconciling My Liberal and Conservative Sides

A friend posted a wonderful article about the real meaning of conservativism that really highlights the fact that conservative and liberal are not just interchangeable terms for republican and democrat.

The author has many great points, and I strongly urge you to read the article yourself, but my favorite paragraph is his description of Obama:

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who went from supporting McCain to rooting against him.

California Hunger Crisis

I've been working on a proposal to address the California Hunger Crisis, and I thought I'd share some of the background info here.

Hunger in California
Before the recent economic downward turn, 4.2 million Californians (12% of the population)
were considered “food insecure”, which means they had to make choices between food and other
living expenses. A much larger percentage was considered to be living in “marginal food
security”, which means they were sometimes threatened with these choices while frequently
facing the lack of a healthy balanced diet. This population is constantly vulnerable to becoming
food insecure when circumstances change.

Families with children are much more likely to be food insecure.

The Current Food Crisis
Nationally, food banks are reporting a 15-20% increase on average in the number of people
turning to them for help now compared to one year ago.

Decreased Support
Food banks receive the bulk of their food from the food industry, including producers,
distributors, and grocery stores. Usually this food is donated because of surplus inventory or
slightly damaged product. Increased efficiency in the food industry, and thus decreased surplus,
along with the proliferation of bargain grocery stores that will purchase dented cans for resale
has led to a major decrease in food donations from this previously steady source.

Since 2002, USDA commodities distributed nationwide has decreased more than 60% - the
equivalent of 45 million lost meals in California. The low dollar has increased food exports,
which has further decreased USDA donations over the past year.

Rising Food Costs
The United States is experiencing the worst food inflation prices since the 1970s.
The federal consumer price index (CPI) for the cost of food rose 4.7% from March 2007 to
March 2008. The CPI for the Thrifty Food Plan, the basis for Food Stamp allotment, increased
even more at 5.6%. The Thrifty Food Plan includes items that will feed a family at the lowest
possible cost while providing basic, although not adequate or healthy, dietary needs. In 2007, the Thrifty Food Plan cost $320 per month for a family of two. Changes in the price of items in the Thrifty Food Plan present a more accurate description of the stresses felt by low-income
families.

In the first quarter of 2008 crop prices were up 20%, and livestock prices were up 10%.
The CPI for cereal and bakery products increased by 4.4% in 2007 and is projected to rise 8% in
2008. Price of milk is up 30% and bread is up 16%

Rising Fuel Costs
The cost of gas has led many families to make choices between going to work and purchasing
groceries.

The increase in cost also has great impact on Food Banks. The cost of distributing food is greatly
increasing the overhead required of these programs, particularly in outlying communities and
areas where food banks have had to close.

Economic Crisis
The recent economic crisis, including home foreclosures and job losses, has disproportionately
affected citizens living in marginal food security. This has led to those families that previously
were able to subsist without assistance to turn to food banks in recent months.

In early 2007, California’s Central Valley experienced a devastating freeze that destroyed crops
and caused widespread economic hardship. Many families have yet to recover.

Several California food banks have reported that past donors and volunteers are now turning to
them for help. The number of first time aid recipients is up an estimated 26-50%.

Insufficient Utilization of Federal Aid
Of the Americans eligible for food stamp benefits, only 65% are enrolled nationally. In
California this number is even lower at 50%. In the subgroup of working families, nationally
57% eligible households are enrolled, while in California it was 34%. California ranked 50th in
the nation on this measure (including D.C., we only performed better than Colorado). Even if
California aims only to participate at the national average, the state is currently forgoing $1
billion in federal funds for its citizens each year.

Food Stamp benefits are entirely federally funded and provide economic stimulation to
communities in California. Every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates $9.30 in community
economic activity. Every additional dollar in food stamps generates up to $0.47 of new spending
on food.

Food Bank Response
The recently passed Farm Bill will deliver some relief in October, but the new level of funding
will still not return food supply to the 2002 level and will certainly not address the excessive
increase in demand.

Food Banks across the country are responding by decreasing programs while dipping into
reserves. Several food banks have closed in the past few months. Most food banks, however, are
avoiding closure by limiting programs. Food pantries and soup kitchens across California have
decreased from five to seven open days per week to one to five days open every two weeks.
Distribution programs are reporting that they have been forced to decrease handouts from seven
days of food to two days of food.

Most commonly, though, food banks are simply depleting their reserves in order to supply the
needed resources to communities. This will have a devastating effect in the coming months and
years.

The federal budget does not currently allow for a comprehensive plan for addressing hunger in
America, and the California budget deadlock further incapacitates state and local agencies in
efforts to help. Food banks are completely dependent upon private donations to weather this
crisis and work toward a more sustainable future.

Please consider donating what you can. Volunteer time, non-perishable food, and of course, cash, are always valued and greatly needed.

Resources

Information

Food Crisis Effect on Food Banks

“Food Agencies Go Hungry in San Francisco” San Francisco Business Times

“Potato Chips Beckon as Food Prices Rise” San Francisco Chronicle

News Articles Regarding Current Crisis - LA Food Bank


Donate/Volunteer

San Francisco

Alameda County

Contra Costa/Solano Counties

Peninsula and South Bay

Marin County

Sonoma County

Napa County

Lipstick on a Pig

This is exactly why I can't deal with politics pre-election. I'm interested in policies, not campaigns, and this is just idiotic:

From the SF Chronicle:

On Tuesday, Obama criticized McCain's economic policies as similar to those of President Bush, saying: "You can put lipstick on a pig ... it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."

The McCain campaign contended that the comments were directed at Palin, the GOP's first woman on a presidential ticket. In her acceptance speech last week, she had referred to herself in a joke about lipstick being the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull.

Accusing Obama of "smearing" Palin in "offensive and disgraceful" comments, the McCain campaign demanded an apology — though McCain himself used the folksy metaphor a few times last year, including once to describe Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan.

The McCain campaign on Wednesday issued an Internet ad that said Obama was talking about Palin and said of Obama: "Ready to lead? No. Ready to smear? Yes."

...

"What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and tired of politics in this country. They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad because they know that it's catnip for the news media," Obama said.

Obama's campaign has accused the GOP camp of engaging in a "pathetic attempt to play the gender card." In an e-mail to reporters Wednesday, the campaign noted two other instances of McCain using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" and its use by other Republicans such as House Minority Leader John Boehner and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl.

Argh.

Call of Duty

As a teenager, I was a HUGE fan of Natalie Portman. She taught me how to handle dirty old men in Beautiful Girls, she was lovably quirky in Garden State, and she helped heat up the screen in Closer. She's such a self-assured young woman, and I've always admired that.

So it's no surprise that she was my introduction into National Service. I remember the big hullabaloo over whether she would serve in the Israeli army, and then later whether she was a draft dodger. Turned out she wasn't required to serve, but it brought the idea of mandatory service of some sort to light for me.

I've often wondered if we shouldn't require our high school graduates to make a choice among military service, higher education, or possibly public service of some sort. Seems the idea is becoming much bigger in this pre-election year. So much so, that Time Magazine featured a special report in its September 10, 2007 issue.

The report discusses the current presidential candidates' stances, other countries' programs, and the need for something in the U.S. As for the next president, McCain supports incentives for National Services, Hillary supports the Public Service Academy model, Edwards wants to require community service in high schools, and Barack wants to do what tons of urban non-profits are already doing - put disadvantage youth to work on the environment, teaching them usable skills for the future while instilling a spirit of service. As mentioned above, Israel requires 3 years of military service for men, 2 for women, but only for the non-orthodox Jews of the country. Germany has a draft of 180,000 men, but half of those opt out for civilian service and foreign development work. South Africa (offering my favorite program) requires new healthcare workers (including docs, nurses, dietitians, psychologists, etc.) to spend a year working in poor areas before they receive certification to practice. The need is clear to many, but the main idea seems to be that citizens who work together to provide services stand together as a united republic.

The author, Richard Stengel, goes on to outline what a service program might look like in the States. The first thing he points out is that a plan in the U.S. would not be mandatory. Americans would throw a hissy fit over not having the "freedom" to not serve (my statement, not Stengel's), and many argue that requirements take away the meaning. Having established the voluntary nature of this potential Universal National Service, Stengel discusses what needs to be included:

1. Baby Bonds - For every baby born in the States, the Federal Government would invest in a $5k bond in that child's name. By around 20 years of age, the bond would be worth $19,000. the could then redeem the bond between the ages of 18-25 after committing to at least one year of national or military service. The bond could then be used only toward an education, a business start-up, or a home.

2. Cabinet-Level Department - No more small, independent agencies. This would need to be a priority of the president, and the department should be big enough to demonstrate that.

3. Expand Existing Programs - AmeriCorps and the Senior Volunteer Corp serve as a bit of a catch all for the small number of people who actually know about them. These should be expanded, and then divided into new branded corps and programs under the cabinet-level department.

4. Education Corps - Half of America's high school drop outs come from just 15% of the schools, mostly in urban areas and across the south. This division would match teachers and tutors with needs in the community.

5. Summer of Service - Between middle school and high school, students would be required to do a summer volunteer program, and be rewarded with a small scholarship to college.

6. Health Corps - Many children qualify for public health insurance, but are not on it. The health corps volunteers would help people navigate healthcare, and the experience might lead more people into nursing or medicine, which would help the current shortage.

7. Green Corps - Volunteers to combat climate change, focusing on the 1.5 million young Americans who are neither employed nor in school.

8. Rapid Response Reserve Corp - Katrina.

9. National Service Academy - This is what Hillary supports. Like a military academy, with tuition being subsidized by the government in exchange for service. But rather than a few years in the military after graduation, students would commit to 5 years of public service (defined in current pending legislation as federal, state, or local government - I'm in favor of non-profit work being included here, too, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards).

10. Baby-Boomer Education Bonds - With the vast number of baby boomers that will be old enough to retire, but would like to keep working, many public service positions could be filled by this population. Each volunteer would be able to designate a scholarship of $1,000 for every 500 hours of community service.

The best part about this proposal is the cost. According to Stengel, who neglects all of the other pieces, the baby bonds alone would cost $20 billion per year. While this sounds high, it's roughly two months of funding for the Iraq war, and around half of what the government currently spends on the federal prison system. In addition, the government would get dividends and would be able to cash in unused bonds. Basically, the proposal means that corporate America would have to fund a big portion of the project. And why shouldn't they?

My only concern with this idea (it mostly sounds great to me), is what happens to the nonprofits out there that are working on this now? It would be great if non-profits weren't needed, but given the government's reputation for never actually offering enough funding for things like this, they probably still would be. But would people still donate? If the government had this program, would donors still turn to NGOs for social services?

Maybe. But I've got to admit it's a scary thought for those of us in the sector.

Michael Kinsley has a pretty interesting argument against any form of universal service. A piece of it:

As it happens, we already have a system for inducing truly voluntary activities that benefit the public. It's called free-market capitalism. It works this way: if you need something done, you offer enough money to induce someone to do it. There is no need for inspiration or other malarkey. In fact, the voluntary nature of transactions under capitalism is what gives our economic system its moral authority. And if the need that has to be satisfied is social — if satisfying it would benefit everybody or the worst-off among us who need help — we have another well established system called taxation. It works this way: through democratic processes, we decide as a society that something is worth doing or someone is worth helping. Then we tax ourselves in order to buy this service from someone who wishes to sell it for the amount we are willing to pay.

This will be an interesting one to watch, folks.

The Cost of a Human Life - The Philanthropic View

Peter Singer (I've always thought of him as "the ethics guy") wrote a fabulous article on the value of human life versus the way we give to charity. He makes two strong assumptions that should then lead to a pattern of giving:

1. If we were to place a number on the value of a human life, it would surely be in the millions.

2. All people are created equal.

Singer attempts to determine an appropriate amount of giving that would even out the discrepancies between intrinsic worth (which should be equal) and actual net worth in dollars (bill gates vs. you or me). He points out that Gates has given away nearly 35% of his total worth, while former partner Paul Allen, the 5th richest man in America, has given only 5% (although that 5% reaches over $800 million). Should we all strive to be like Gates? or is 5% enough? Who would tell Paul Allen that $800 million is not good enough?

Singer then goes through various income brackets and argues what they could reasonably give, pointing out that the richest of the rich (the top .01% of taxpayers) could reasonably give 1/3 of their income and still be super wealthy. The rest of the top .1% could give 1/4. The top .5% could give 1/5, and the rest of the top 1% could give 15%. If the then remaining top 10% of taxpayers paid a traditional tithe of 10%, a total of $404 billion could be given to those in need. Singer admits the scale could be steeper, so that the rich pay more and the comfortable pay less, but regardless of the scale, this is only asking the top 10% to pay a relatively small amount. But it adds up to so much!!! And this is only from America. If the rich in other countries did the same, think of what could happen to global poverty!

He says so much more, but the point is made.

I personally believe very strongly in a capitalist society, but have always felt that includes the generosity of the rich to the poor. If only the richest of the rich took heed and followed Singer's plan to share brotherly love, capitalism could still lead to the greatest cure for social problems in our times, too.

The challenge is on, rich folk.

A Christmas Blessing

F****R Frist has decided to do something valuable with his time. He plans now to go back to doing medical missionary trips instead of screwing up America.

According to today's Reuter's Article:

He said he would take a sabbatical from private life and "return to my professional roots as a healer."

"In the short term, I will resume my regular medical mission trips as a doctor around the world to serve those in poverty, in famine, and in civil war," he said. "I will continue to be a strong voice to fix what is broken in our health care system and to address the issues of clean water and public health globally."

Joy Abounds!