At the post, "Sarah is the Fresh Air," on Blogher, I found this comment today:

When can she be interviewed by reporters - I find it disturbing that the McCain campaign isn't allowing Ms. Palin to be interviewed by reporters. What are they hiding?

According to Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign, possibly never:

Oh, well, wait - maybe in two weeks, said Todd Harris yesterday, a Republican strategist who was John McCain's communications manager. Why not for at least two weeks? Listen:

And in fact, did anyone see Sarah Palin on the Sunday shows this morning? Nope. Just the boys. Governor Sarah Palin, the candidate about whom we know the least, remains the person we're seeing the least often and hearing from the most infrequently.

But is this scarcity of Sarah due to sexism?

The McCain campaign is so afraid that she might make a mistake that they'll keep her out of the voters' view for at least fourteen days - when there's only 60 days left for voters to choose. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic calls this move sexist:

The sexism that implies that someone cannot stand up to reporters because she is a woman is appalling. This entire pick, of course, is incredibly sexist, and the handling of her in the last week the most sexist double standard I have ever seen in American politics. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying she wasn't going to answer questions for two weeks? Or Margaret Thatcher? Or Kay Bailey Hutchison? Or Elizabeth Dole? And none of these women were ever as close to global power as Sarah Palin now is. This is getting to Manchurian Candidate levels of creepiness. It's deeply sinister and slightly terrifying.

And, Jay Carney wrote the following in regard to Nicole Wallace's shrug off, in TIME's blog, The Swampland:

...in [Nicole Wallace's] smug dismissal of the media's role in asking questions of the candidates, Wallace was really showing contempt not for reporters, but for voters. I bet there are a lot of undecided voters out there who were intrigued by Sarah Palin last night, but who don't yet know enough about her -- what she believes, what she knows -- to be comfortable with the idea of her as vice president of the United States. It's important to them to know if Palin can handle herself in an environment that isn't controlled and sanitized by campaign image makers and message mavens. Maybe she can, maybe she can't. As far as Wallace is concerned, it's none of their -- or your -- business.

David Frum, of The National Review, wants the McCain ticket to win and wants to see more of Palin. In his post, "Why Bother?," he answers Wallace's laugh-filled opinion that no one cares if Palin ever meets with the press by saying that he cares, because in order to win, McCain needs to go beyond the non-Elitist vote that the controlled messages hit:

If you want to win a debate, you have to come prepared to debate for every audience at every level. We can all understand that it is unwise to refuse Oprah. But it is equally unwise to do only Oprah. It's not just Jay Carney who wants more. As President Bush's current numbers suggest, so does Oprah's audience.

What other evidence have we seen that the McCain handlers might be sexist?

In this August 30 New York Times article, McCain advisor Charlie Black, when asked about Palin's ability to handle matters of foreign policy, says:

...that [John McCain] viewed her as exceptionally talented and intelligent and that he felt she would be able to be educated quickly.

“She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long,” said Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s top advisers, making light of concerns about Mr. McCain’s health, which Mr. McCain’s doctors reported as excellent in May.

And then, in regard to the same question, but this time posed by Campbell Brown, McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds paints a similar image of a maiden at the feet of the experienced master:

Bounds: Governor Palin has the good fortune of being on the same ticket with John McCain, who, there is no question, is the most experienced and shown proven judgment on the international stage; he understands foreign affairs, he has a familiarity with the players across the globe—

Brown: Well, we know all that about John McCain, Tucker. I asked you about her, though, because we all know the role of the VP, as John McCain has defined it, is to be able to step into the job of the presidency on day one if something should happen to the president. So I'm asking you about her foreign policy experience.

What is going on here? Sure, often-maligned as not too bright former Vice President Dan Quayle was tightly managed and, as Frum points out, very likely he shouldn't have been - for more than superficial reasons. But would Charlie Black or Tucker Bounds have given the same portrait of getting educated at the feet of the master if the GOP veep choice had been Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee?

Let's look at what the senior Bush's campaign did with Quayle: they let him out, right away, and guess what? As this New York Times article from 1988 memorializes, he did a whole lot of talking, and getting into trouble.

So is the McCain campaign holding back because Palin is a woman, or because they fear what happened to Quayle? Dick Cheney wasn't held back, nor was Bob Dole's 1996 running mate, Jack Kemp.

Why is Palin being held back?

Subtle and not so subtle sexism. All of which needs to be called out.

I have almost a zero-tolerance for sexism at any level and don't agree with the opinion that we dilute the cause of calling it out if we point it out when we see it, any of it.

For example, not all voters saw the sexism in the media coverage of Hillary Clinton. I tangled with Obama supporters in particular as to whether this New Republic images was sexist. And although I agree that Clinton didn't lose because of sexism, it sure didn't help her either.

The acceptance of sexism - subtle and not so subtle, from friendly and not so friendly corners, contributes to what I consider sacrificing the soul of feminism in order to at last get its face closer to the ceiling. By no means are we getting through any ceiling if the GOP ticket succeeds since Palin will be what got the man to where he is and will only re-entrench the image of women being the support behind the man.

The McCain campaign's constant reference to Palin as a naif not only contradicts the image of a pitbull with lipstick, but reinforces the image that Palin is only the lipstick on the pig.

The result of tolerating these lower levels of sexism is the treatment of Sarah Palin that we're seeing now, at the hands of the people who supposedly want to make her a queen in yet another pageant.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz thinks so. He sought to reassure the California Republican delegation that Obama's lead in polls is, in part, an illusion...

Analysts believe voters lied when they said they'd vote for Bradley, when in fact they were unwilling to vote for a black man. Luntz predicted the same thing would happen with Barack Obama. He told California delegates not to get discouraged if John McCain is trailing in the polls, because the Bradley effect will make up for some of that.

The Bradley effect refers to a phenomenon where non-white candidates lead in polls and yet ultimately lose to a trailing white candidate:

Researchers who studied the issue theorized that some white voters gave inaccurate polling responses because of a fear that by stating their true preference, they might appear to others to be racially prejudiced. This theory suggested that statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but that those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the non-white candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate.

Luntz might be surprised to learn, however, that some racists are supporting Obama. Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, report Not All White Supremacists Oppose [a] Black President (H/T Cecily Walker for the link)

It's not that the assortment of neo-Nazis, Klansmen, anti-Semites and others who make up this country's radical right have suddenly discovered that a man should be judged based on the content of his character, not his skin. On the contrary. A growing number of white supremacists, and even some of those who pass for intellectual leaders of their movement, think that a black man in the Oval Office would shock white America, possibly drive millions to their cause, and perhaps even set off a race war that, they hope, would ultimately end in Aryan victory.

Even without racism as part of the equation, the sheer number of white voters means that, depending on how you slice the data, groups of white voters can be seen as determining the outcome of presidential elections. Shay Riley, writing at The Root believes that White Women Will Decide...

Sen. McCain needs to raise his support [vs. George W. Bush] among whites to 60 percent, and he can do it by bringing more white women into his fold. This is especially true in key swing states, where Sen. McCain is currently polling a five to 20 percentage point gap over Sen. Obama among white voters.

That demographic sweet spot may catapult him to the White House. This would offset the expected increased turnout among blacks and younger voters.

McCain will certainly need to increase Republican share of support of white voters to offset what the party is losing from its already meager showing with African-Americans.

Only 36 of the 2,380 delegates seated on the convention floor are black, the lowest number since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies began tracking diversity at political conventions 40 years ago. Each night, the overwhelmingly white audience watches a series of white politicians step to the lectern -- a visual reminder that no black Republican has served as a governor, U.S. senator or U.S. House member in the past six years.

However, there is a glimmer of hope for Republicans this election cycle:

Deborah Honeycutt, a doctor from Georgia who is running for a seat in the house of representatives in the November 4 elections, hopes to be the first black Republican woman elected to Congress.

At A Day In The Life Of Tree, Tree writes:

Is it me or should I be concerned at the lack of diversity and the Republican Convention. It looked like the “Old Boys Club.”...

I guess whites in America don’t think racism is a huge issue but for those of us who experience it to this day and had parents who lived through those times and great grandparents who were enslaved, well we have a different perspective on things. So please excuse me if my observation offends anyone but as an African American you see things through historical lenses.

I would be very interested to read what Tree thinks of the choice of Sarah Palin from her perspective as a black, pro-life, Christian mom of a special needs child.

Until then I will leave you with a small sampling of women of color, ranging from conservative to liberal and moderate in between, blogging on Palin

Booker Rising, a "news site for black moderates and black conservatives" shares two views:

Conservative Juliette Ochieng who blogs under the name baldilocks says perhaps McCain is Not So Senile After All and moderate Angela Winters was underwhelmed by Palin's speech to the Republican National Convention.

Here at BlogHer, feminist author, Rebecca Walker writes: The Pitbull in Lipstick Mommy: Five Questions for Sarah Palin.

Liza Sabater of Culture Kitchen was interviewed on CNN.com and shares:

I had the honor again to participate in Melissa Long's livecasting from the conventions. In the first one at the DNC we barely spoke of women's issues. Ironically here in St. Paul and with Palin's nomination the discussion was almost exclusively about her and about women's rights.

Maegan la Mala at Vivir Latino writes: McCain's VP Pick : Palin and the Politica and Privilege of White Woman'hood/ Mommy'Hood

And the always insightful Tami at What Tami Said shares Why Sarah Palin is an abysmal veep choice and what that says about John McCain

BlogHer CE Maria Niles is showing The Daily Show much love for their convention coverage at her blog PopConsumer.

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents," Sarah and Todd Palin said in the brief statement.

I read the above statement in an article posted on the Huffington Post website. Now let me see.....the word "decision"....that would imply that Bristol had a CHOICE, wouldn't it? Amazing! It's okay for Palin's unwed and pregnant minor daughter to have a choice, but it's not okay for the rest of America's females? Palin not only wants to see Roe vs Wade overturned, she wants to outlaw All abortions, even in the case of rape and incest, and whether or not it will affect the health of the mother. Talk about a double standard! I admit that some of the above was paraphrased from an episode of The Daily Show, but it's accurate and it bears repeating.

Now, close your eyes and imagine that McCain and Palin actually win this election. Then imagine the unimaginable...that something happens to the President (given his age and history of cancer it's not out of the realm of possibility). Do you honestly think that Sarah Palin (over Joe Biden) would be the most suited to take over the reins as the world's Most Powerful Person, especially during what would undoubtedly be a sad time for America, as well as amid all the other turmoil in the world? I honestly don't think so. This is a serious election and I'm asking you all to not vote the vagina, but to vote with your minds. As much as I would love to see a woman in the White House, and our day WILL come, this is NOT the time, and this is NOT the woman! Sarah Palin has ZERO experience when it comes to national defense and until she was selected to be McCain's running mate, I doubt that she could even tell you the names of most of the world leaders, let alone has she ever sat down with them. Please see through the very transparent reason that McCain chose Palin. She's a token female. He wanted to try to get the disaffected Hillary Clinton voters, but wait until Monday. Hillary will be "on the stump" in Florida and I have a feeling that she will NOT be there for Palin. They are polar (no pun intended) opposites on most issues.

Also, if you have any doubts as to which party will work the hardest for you and your family, check out my previous blog entitled Thank A Democrat. It outlines all the important legislation of the last few decades, and who was responsible for passing it.

Lastly, don't forget that this election is between Barack Obama and John McCain, not Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.

Darryl Roberts' film "America The Beautiful" asks the question "Does America have an unhealthy obsession with beauty?". I think we all know the answer to this question, but it's always refreshing to see a filmmaker pursue truth in this area.

Loosely following the sudden rise to fame of 12 year old model Gerren Taylor, Darryl also takes the opportunity to interview fashion magazine editor-in-chiefs, people in the advertising industry, plastic surgeons, and everyday people on the street regarding the origin of their views on beauty.

My husband and I missed the premiere night here in Dallas, which included a Q&A session with Darryl Roberts and discussion of the topic, which I am sure would have been great. But we were able to catch the matinee the next day and Darryl was there when the movie let out. We were able to thank him for bringing up this topic again.

The topic he raises is important to discuss, especially for parents, but I would not recommend seeing this film with children. Some of the footage of women and plastic surgery is very graphic and there are a few men they interview who are very crude and offensive in their references to their own bodies and women's bodies, hence the R rating. However, Darryl told us that he is working on an edited version that will be PG that can be shown in schools to prompt discussion about beauty standards and what our society believes in these areas.

I have to admit, sometimes this problem seems so huge that I don't even want to think about it. I mean, come on, I love my Glamour magazine! And if you read my blog you know about my current obsession with skin care and my love of beauty products.

But at the same time, it is important for us to take a step back and look at what we're doing as a society. The film points out how much money is involved in keeping this giant wheel of body image and dissatisfaction turning. There is no single voice, action, or movie that can stop it.I think that the best that we can probably do is keep bringing up the issue. All of us, over and over, bringing this topic into the open and replacing the lies with truth. Maybe if we bring it up often enough we can turn the tide...Hey, it worked for Al Gore and climate change...

I've been very emotional about Sarah Palin since her announcement a week ago, and I have genuinely tried to examine why.

I like her, I identify with her loving a big family, I appreciate that she lives unapologetically. I deeply, and very personally, celebrate that she is a high-profile example of how we should value all babies, even the inconvenient and the imperfect. Even when it changes your life and breaks your heart.

I don't agree with everything she says. I don't even always like her tone, though speakers at both conventions used sarcasm and condescension to play to their crowd. And that's her job, to be the pitbull and appeal to the people to whom that tactic appeals. (I am not one of them.)

For a few years now, while struggling to hang on to my identity and at least few IQ points while raising babies and preschoolers, I have said the words "I can't" way too often. I can't take that job, I can't take that class, I can't volunteer right now, I can't go to an HOA meeting, I can't even go to the movies. Because I have small kids. Because right now, I have babies, no childcare, no nearby family, a husband deployed . . . oops, I'm getting myself emotional again, let me get through this to the good part . . .

The peptalk I often give myself is that I chose to be a stay-at-home mom, and right now, this is exactly what I want to do for my kids. And someday, when they are older, when they need me less, I will be able to go out and do more, get involved, improve the HOA, grow my business, get an MFA, volunteer at my church, go to a Feminists for Life conference, take guitar lessons . . .

And I think that deep down in my sub-concious, I worry, what if I'm kidding myself? What if this is what I am, and choosing to be a stay-at-home mom, and for so long, will erode the . . . potential for me to do more? Will my abilities, my "talents" if you will, whatever gifts I have to bring to the table, atrophy if I have another kid and keep choosing to stay home?

I say Sarah Palin is my new hero, because the day I saw her for the first time, she made me stop saying "I can't." I'm not going to run for PTA president or city council anytime soon, because my choice is still the same--I want to stay home with my babies right now. But it's not because I can't. It's because I just won't.

Not yet.

Kristi Vega

Small Things

As an advocate for girls let me make the following plea on behalf of your daughter:

Please, please, please speak respectfully
of the one and only female candidate the Repubican Party has ever put
on their ticket for Vice President of the United States - Sarah Palin.

What
you say about Sarah Palin has the potential to translate to your
daughters as your opinion of all women (including your daughter)
seeking power.

Disrespectful criticism has the potential to translate, "I only respect other women if they agree with me." Your daughter may one day disagree with you. This moment, and your reaction, won't be forgotten by her.

Your
example will also teach her how she should expect to be treated by
those who disagree with her and how she should treat those who disagree
with her.

In other words -

Mothers - don't be a mean mommy and you won't create a mean girl.

Fathers
- don't reduce her to whether you'd have sex with her and you won't
create a daughter who gets her self-worth from her sexuality or appearance.

Click Here to read more on Empowering Girls: So Sioux Me.

The Plain Dealer published this op-ed, written by me, on May 5, 2005. I don't think I state any more clearly why I believe parents should share with other parents, "how they do it," and particularly a parent who is holding out that status as a qualification for being second in line to the United States President.

There's no shortage of documentation about how mothers feel crushed between simultaneous responsibilities. Earlier this year, Newsweek published a cover story based on Judith Warner's book, "Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety," which explores women's feelings when their career woman role collides with being a mother. A New York Times piece, called "Mommy (and me)," detailed the explosion in online chronicles of parents' angst. And a new industry — parent coaching — seeks to capitalize on the critical mass of worry.
Unfortunately, this type of sympathy perpetuates the very assumption we need to attack: that integrating motherhood into our lives can and should be performed perfectly, without anxiety and in harmony with all other desires. I say this as a mother whose family would nominate her to be the poster child for Warner's book faster than she could speed dial the pediatrician.
We need to refocus the debate and affirm a mother's efforts without applying a win-lose analysis to them. We need to stop pandering to the belief that a mother can function perfectly if only she watches enough episodes of "Supernanny," digests enough parenting manuals and increases the memory in her PalmPilot.
Take me, for example.
By the time I turned 30, I'd earned two graduate degrees, gotten married and was pregnant with my first child. Over the course of eight years, I took three maternity leaves and worked a variety of schedules at a large, mental-health agency. For the last three years, I've worked 10 to 15 hours weekly from home. I circumnavigate the same six streets up to nine times a day as I take my kids to and from school, dance, art, friends' homes and birthday parties. I volunteer in the schools and attend a variety of monthly meetings in the evenings.
What's not perfect?
Well, I've had multiple fender benders, locked my kids in the car and locked all of us out of the car (both inadvertently), blown three tires in four months by driving over a stroller, a bungee cord and a curb (I was late to the carpool pickup line), mailed thank you cards two months after receiving the present and, this year, I sunk to a new low: preschool guests at my son's birthday party received candy-filled Chuck E. Cheese goody bags because I was too lazy to scour stores for politically correct items like puzzles or inexpensive books.
Heck, I've consumed three brownies in five minutes just exposing these flaws.
And still, I don't view myself as a slacker (loser) mom or a super (winner) mom.
Why not? Because no matter how many trips I take to the body shop or how many gallons of gas my car guzzles, my situation isn't tough, or even undesirable. I'm lucky, and my kids are lucky, too.
I'm not single, unemployed, financially poor, in my teens, or physically or mentally disabled, and none of my kids require assistance beyond my means or abilities. To rant about my life as difficult, when thousands of mothers who bear the burden of these special circumstances live within miles of me, would be insensitive and insulting, to say the least.
I've also always expected that motherhood would demand that I drop a ball or two in order to catch others, no matter how big or heavy they got.
Where did I get this idea?
From my own mother, who married at 19, had three kids by 26 and viewed millions of fruit flies as a lab researcher. Her intellectual passion occasionally kindled embers of ambition, like when she studied at night to take the law school entrance exam. But my father's home business consumed her talents, the family needed her job's health benefits and her law school plans flamed out. Yet, at 66 years old, she still rejects the label of martyr.
When beliefs about how mothers should fulfill numerous roles clash with reality, we need to correct those beliefs. We must not settle for merely educating others — through our complaints — about the pain or impossibility of role integration. Rather than cater to the unattainable and destructive goal of perfection, we need to change it. Through our actions and our words, we must model a balanced and achievable image of motherhood.
How else will our children learn to value it?
Zimon is a contributing editor and columnist for Cleveland Family magazine.

This upcoming election is extremely important to me.  It should be important to all of us.  To that end, I have done a little research.  Okay, I did a LOT of research, and I’m asking you to take a few minutes to read what I’ve come up with, especially if you are wavering as to whom you will vote for in November, or know someone who is.  In that case, please forward this to them.  You might think it a bit lengthy, but hey, if you’ve taken the time in the last couple of days to read 5 or so Internet jokes that have been circulating, then PLEASE take the time to read this.  It’s much more important and the stakes in November are too high to be unaware of some of the most important legislation of the past few decades that has surely impacted your life, or that of a friend or loved one, in some way or another.  I might add that this year has also made me the most politically active I’ve ever been, on a local level as well, because I’m totally committed to helping achieve the change we so desperately need.  The following is one attempt, for what it’s worth.  THANK A DEMOCRAT

IF you are a woman, and you are enjoying your right to vote, no matter how you vote, thank a Democrat.  Specifically, President Woodrow Wilson and the 65th Democrat-controlled Congress. The 19th amendment to the Constitution was ratified on Aug. 26, 1920.

IF you are a woman, and you are enjoying equal, or at least comparable pay as that of a man (admittedly there is more work to be done in this area), thank a Democrat.  Specifically, President John F. Kennedy and the 88th Democrat-controlled Congress.  The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963 and it prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of gender by compensating workers differently for jobs that require equal skill, effort and responsibility.

IF you are a woman, a person of color, or have a national origin other than the United States and got into a school or got a job anyway, thank a Democrat.  Specifically, President Lyndon Johnson and the 88th Democrat-controlled Congress.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and it was a landmark piece of legislation that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment.  Conceived to help African-Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time.  It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

IF you are a woman and you value your right to choose, whatever that choice is, thank a Democrat.  Specifically, the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court whose majority opinion on Roe vs. Wade was written by Justice Harry Blackman on January 22, 1973.  He was a Republican conservative who voted with the majority Democrats and then later “drifted left”.  Keep in mind, being pro-choice doesn’t mean you are pro-abortion.  It means you simply appreciate having a choice.

IF you are now, ever have been, (since 1978) or intend to be a pregnant woman who wants to seek employment or continue working in your current job, for your right to do so, thank a Democrat.  Specifically, President Jimmy Carter and the 95th Democrat-controlled Congress.  The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was passed in 1978 and it prohibits discrimination against pregnant women in all areas of employment, including hiring, firing, seniority rights, job security, and receipt of fringe benefits.  The most controversial features of the bill have been those requiring employers who offer health insurance and temporary disability plans to give coverage to women for pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions.

IF you are a woman and you are now, or ever have been, (since 1994) a victim of violence and didn’t know where to turn, thank a Democrat.  Specifically, Senator Joe Biden, President Bill Clinton, and the 103rd Democrat-controlled Congress.  The Violence Against Women Act was introduced in Congress in January 1991 by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, the same Joe Biden who is currently running for VP.  The bill was made part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and was signed into law on September 13, 1994, by President Clinton.  The act authorized $1.6 billion to be spent over 6 years on the creation of rape crisis centers and battered women’s shelters and authorized additional local police, prosecutors, victim advocates, and a domestic violence hotline.  Funds were also made available to provide special training for judges who hear domestic violence cases.  Provisions of the act expanded rape shield laws, created offenses for interstate spousal abuse, and allowed victims of gender-based crimes to sue those responsible in Federal court.

IF you are a parent who has benefited from the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, thank a Democrat.   Specifically, the 102nd Democrat-controlled Congress and President Bill Clinton.  The bill makes the willful failure to pay a past due support obligation with respect to a child residing in another state a federal offense.  The intent of the statute was to prevent non-custodial parents from fleeing across state lines to avoid paying their child support obligations and to facilitate recovery of unpaid child support.

IF you are someone who had to take up to 12 weeks off from work to tend to a family medical emergency, and you were given your same job (or one of comparable pay and responsibility) when you returned, and had your same health benefits while you were gone, thank a Democrat.  Specifically President Bill Clinton and the 103rd Democrat-controlled Congress.  The Family & Medical Leave Bill was passed in Feb. of 1993.  It assures that upon return from a family medical leave absence, an employee must be returned to the same position, or to an equivalent position with equivalent benefits, pay, status, and other terms and conditions of employment.  Also, an employee who takes family leave is entitled to maintain health benefits coverage.

IF you are someone who has ever benefited from the Freedom of Information Act, either personally or through what media outlets and others have been able to gather on behalf of the public, thank a Democrat.   Specifically,  the 89th Democrat-controlled Congress and President Lyndon Johnson who signed it into law on July 4, 1966.  

On the subject of the environment and wildlife: 

IF you are someone who appreciates the effect of the Marine Protection and Sanctuaries Act (also known as the Ocean Dumping Act) of 1972, thank a Democrat.   Specifically,  the 92nd Democrat-controlled Congress.  That, and the Clean Water Act were passed and together they set a global standard for managing environmental restoration and protection, for maintaining the environment within acceptable standards, for prohibiting the disposal of waste materials into the ocean, and for regulating the discharge of wastes through pipelines into the ocean.

IF you are someone who recognizes the significance of the very first Clean Air Act, thank a Democrat.  Specifically, the 91st Democrat-controlled Congress, which enacted the law in 1970.

IF you are someone who was happy with the passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, thank a Democrat.   Specifically,   the 93rd Democrat-controlled Congress.  It was enacted to replace/enhance the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, also passed by a Democratically-controlled Congress (the 91st).

I imagine you have guessed by now where I’m going with this. Can you see the pattern?  All I ask is that you think carefully before voting this November.   When it comes down to individual rights of citizens, especially women, the environment, and a host of other issues, the Democrats have clearly done the right thing over many decades.  With your vote in November, they can continue to do so. While there are many more issues that need to be addressed in order to assure individual rights, especially if you are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, I can pretty much guarantee that those issues will NOT be advanced in a 3rd term Republican administration. On Election day…  Vote responsibly, Drink moderately, then Pray like hell!!!!

Reformer? Maverick? Defender of motherhood? Independent-minded woman? Former beauty queen? Serious politico? Moose hunter?

As soon as John McCain announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be his running mate, the liberal vs. conservative online discussion was off to the races! Progressive bloggers are shocked at Palin's positions on reproductive choice, gun control and religion in schools, just to name a few.

Conservative bloggers have been put off by this reaction, wondering why women should have been expected to celebrate Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency, but not Sarah Palin's shot at moving into the vice-president's home at the Naval Observatory in January.

The diverse scuttlebutt in the blogopshere is fascinating.

As I read and think about Sarah Palin, I personally see someone who is WAY too conservative for me (now there's a surprise, right?). But I have to acknowledge that there are things about her story that are temptingly attractive -- she grew up in a small town (like me) where people probably didn't expect much, either of life or of her, how she went from a PTA mom to governor, how she has been able to figure out the work/life balance thing. When she says things like it's OK for her kids to eat macaroni and cheese instead of having a Governor's mansion chef prepare meals every night, I can relate to that kind of life.

I assume there are lots of other women who also find things appealing about Palin. Just as I assume there are many who have concerns about how she's being discussed and worries about what she's saying.

People are talking about Palin in a way we don't talk about men candidates because she is the mother of young children. And how we view her because of that is as diverse as we are.

Elissa's Illuminations, in wondering about the discussion on Palin's approach to motherhood, asks:

Why does talking about [putting] children first become reason to call people anti-feminist?

[Palin] is putting herself out there to be looked at, and I will not be afraid to say that moms are invaluable and we need to put our children first. There is nothing anti-feminist about that. And if there is, if I am going to be judged as living in the dark ages because I want to find a way to put my children first, then give me a boar and a club and send me into the cave...just make sure my kids are there too.

Many, including myself, have wondered whether in scrutinizing Palin through the lens of motherhood, we are igniting a new wave of Mommy Wars. Kate at Vice Squad weighs in on that, saying:

For most women, most mothers anyway, Sarah Palin's situation will seem both alien and familiar. Most of us have never run for high office but we've all had to justify our work lives to our families and vice versa. The question in her case is, just what does her family life tell us about how she'd do the job she's asking us to give her?

For others, in assessing Palin, it's not about her motherhood, but about her lack of exposure to things other than suburban Anchorage.Mocha Momma says:

[Palin] scoffed at Obama’s community organizing and pushed for her own small town agenda. You know what I heard in that thinly veiled line? Her lack of experience with people of color and the power of community organization. She doesn’t know cities or poverty that way or even what that does for education. She is keeping that dividing line bold and prominent by letting me see what she thinks about that: small town = hard-working white farming families vs. city/community = blacks and latinos and asians and other people she knows nothing about. She so wasn’t talking to me.

So where does that leave us with Sarah Palin? I don't think we'll know for a long time, whether she is elected to be the next Vice President or not. But it sure will keep providing us with a lot of good blog fodder.

Joanne Bamberger, a Contributing Editor for Politics & News, writes about politics at her place PunditMom. You can also find her at MOMocrats and The Huffington Post.

Ok, I am sitting here watching the convention and I have had 1 observation (among others) that stood out. Is it me or is the audience as enthused or vibrant as the audience at the DNC? Again, just an observation, but wow. Everything that has been said last night and tonight seems so stuffy, fake and forced. But I suppose some people like that.

A huge thank you to Delaine Eastin, formerly the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, for endorsing Sophie Hahn.  Sophie is running for the Berkeley City Council against an incumbent who is a machine insider and unknown by residents.  Sophie is a true superstar and seeks to raise the bar of excellence in her community.  She is a Stanford trained attorney, former small business owner, lifelong activist and mother of three.  She is also a graduate of Emerge America, the premier national training program for Democratic women candidates.  Here's the problem: her opponent has a lock on all the local endorsements. 

To get fresh women's faces into politics, we need to think outside the box.  Most local endorsements come from within the community.  Incumbents, absent a scandal, are almost guaranteed insider endorsements even with mediocre performance.  We can get around this by encouraging well-respected prominent folks committed to women of excellence to lend their names to this kind of campaign.  You can show your support for Sophie by lending your name to her campaign at www.sophiehahn.com/volunteer.php.   

Marya Stark is a Co-Founder and was previously the Founding Executive Director of Emerge America. She is VP, Biz Dev at Allegory, a corporate leadership and communications training company based in San Francisco. She is frequently quoted about leadership and politics including this profile http://www.7x7sf.com/people/profiles/11325071.html and this article in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010300078.html.  Her blog about politics and leadership is at http://maryastark.blogspot.com.

A huge thank you to Delaine Eastin, formerly the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, for endorsing Sophie Hahn.  Sophie is running for the Berkeley City Council against an incumbent with a lackluster record.  Sophie is a true superstar and seeks to raise the bar of excellence in her community.  She is a Stanford trained attorney, former small business owner, lifelong activist and mother of three.  She is also a graduate of Emerge America, the premier national training program for Democratic women who want to run for office and an effective and impassioned community builder.  Here's the problem: her opponent has a lock on all the local endorsements. 

To get fresh women's faces into politics, we need to think outside the box.  Most local endorsements come from within the community.  Incumbents, absent a scandal, are almost guarnteed insider endorsements even with mediocre performance.  We can get around this by encouraging well-respected prominent folks committed to women of excellence to lend their names to this kind of campaign.  You can show your support for Sophie by lending your name to her campaign at www.sophiehahn.com/volunteer.php.   

Marya Stark is a Co-Founder and was previously the Founding Executive Director of Emerge America. She is VP, Biz Dev at Allegory, a corporate leadership and communications training company based in San Francisco. She is frequently quoted about leadership and politics including this profile http://www.7x7sf.com/people/profiles/11325071.html and this article in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR200701....

You know, I am sick and tired of some people saying that we should not mishandle Sarah Palin!  What? What is the difference? Is she not a woman like Hillary was? Except Hillary is a lot more brilliant!  The Republicans gloated over the fact that they could tear Hillary apart!  Sarah Palin, in fact, called Hillary a whiner! So I say, we treat her the same way she has treated women and Hillary in particular.

We will go after Sarah on issues affecting women and children in this country -- w will not insult her the way she insulted and belittled Sen. Obama.  If she is a real woman, then she should talk on the issues and refrain from baseless attacks on her opponent.

Pundits and conservatives are asking, "Where are the feminists and why aren't they standing up for Governor Sarah Palin?" BlogHer Contributing Editor Suzanne Reisman has the answer.

Are feminists standing up against sexist attacks being thrown at Palin? Should they be?

My plan was not to write about politics today, as much ink has already been spilled on the topic and there is ever more to come. However, last night, after watching Gov. Sarah Palin's well delivered speech at the Republican convention, one of the many talking heads looked right at me through my new HDTV asked why feminists are not defending Gov. Palin against sexist attacks by the (mythical) "liberal media" that is out to destroy her. This is one of the few times I've laughed my head off because we are right here. I know that it would be annoying for a comfortable conservative commentator to bother to read any blogs written by feminists, but even a cursory stop at BlogHer would reveal much feminist defending of Palin in the hundreds of comments that have been left on the site.

Even beyond BlogHer, which is a nonpartisan organization, "traditional" feminist blogs have posted about their disgust at sexist attacks on Palin herself, rather than the issues. In the UK, The F Word has a lively discussion on the situation and how feminists are doing their part. At GlobalComment, Renee Martin points to multiple early feminist responses to how people react to Palin:

Sarah Palin has been on the national stage for less than twenty-four hours and already feminists are rushing to her defence. The rallying cry of the day is, attack the issues not the woman. Shakesville, Feministe, Alas, a blog, and Feministing all have posts attacking the media for its willingness to reduce the Governor based in obvious anti-woman rhetoric and misogyny. Many other feminist blogs have today issued the same sort of rallying statement, whether or not they agree with Palin’s political leanings. Melissa at Shakesville states, “I will defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because I like or support her, but because that’s how feminism works.”

Martin goes on to note that feminists, for the most part, did/do not rally around Michelle Obama with the same force. (Ironic that none of the talking heads seems to care about that, though...)

Verite Parlant at Whose shoes are these anyway? looks at the flip side of the coin, asking whether those who launch sexist attacks on Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton are using sexism against Palin as a diversion from the real issues:

In addition, Republicans idolize a misogynistic candidate [McCain referred to his wife as a "cunt" when speaking with reporters] yet call others sexist who ask legitimate questions about Palin's record and credentials. If you suggest Palin's a puppet, mouthing a speech that was posted in advance, then of course you only think that because she's a woman, right? As though men have never been accused of being pawns and puppets. Republicans are attempting to label people who don't like Palin as sexist, while they refer to this VP nominee as "cute" and "hot."

Yes, I've got issues with Palin, but I guarantee you my concerns about her being on the ticket have nothing to do with either her womanhood or motherhood or her daughter's pregnancy. I've got issues because the entire nomination smacks of hypocrisy and she's carrying enough baggage (Trooper Gate and more) to be the sister line of a slow train to Arkansas.

I agree with Melissa at Shakesville that it is critical to call out actual misogynist attacks (as opposed to those that are labeled offensive for merely asking a question one would ask of any political candidate) on Palin "because that's how feminism works," but the whole situation is lose-lose for women who care about equal rights and self-autonomy. Allowing the media and the public (including women, who have been lobbing some of the fiercest criticism out there) to continue unfettered attacks on a woman for choosing to run for office at the expense of her family creates a hostile environment for all women whose decisions are not traditional. At the same time, defending Palin means that feminists are helping a woman who, if elected, will take away our rights. She tried to ban books that she disagreed with while she was mayor; she believes that all abortion should be illegal unless the mother is in imminent danger of death; she supports abstinence-only education; and on and on. Further, it is hard to defend Palin against some of the attacks made against her as a woman because she pushes traditional "family values" as an issue. I don't support that special card (my family values are dear to me and they have almost no relation to hers), so how can I defend her without defending her beliefs with which I do not agree? Very tricky.

Still, whether we like her or what she stands for, whether it hurts us in the long run, feminists are out here defending her. I welcome the pundits and talking heads to look beyond their usual media outlets and see what we have to say. We are all around you. (Wave to the cameras, feminists!)

Updated to add: For a famous feminist's take on the Palin/sexism situation, please read Palin: Wrong Woman, Wrong Message by Gloria Steinem in today's LA Times. The second to last paragraph gave me goosebumps. (Hat tip to Pam at Nerd's Eye View.)

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants, about yogurt at Live Active Cultures, and about politics (along with many other fine women) at Political Voices of Women. She is putting together an anthology of stories about menstruation and begs you to submit yours at Congratulations, You're a Woman Now!. Her first book, Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, is a funny take on eclectic things in NYC, and has nothing to do with politics, feminism, or gender.

For years, women's issues have been suffering complacency and lukewarm responses from the media and mainstream culture in general.  Childcare, reproductive justice, fair pay and countless other issues have not rallied the forces or the show of hands needed to secure true equality for the "fairer sex". Suddenly the GOP, hardly the womb known to birth feminist activists, brings us Gov. Palin. In less than 48 hours, she has single-handedly reinvigorated dormant feminists.  Just maybe not in the way the McCain campaign had hoped.Across the media, there are accounts and react quotes from women who were, before the Palin announcement, uninspired by either candidate. There don't seem to be many fence-sitters anymore. Not researching Palin wasn't the only vetting oversight. When the McCain camp decided to attract Hillary voters with a "vagina-American" candidate, a term coined by Jon Stewart's Samantha Bee, they didn't do basic demographic research.  A good number of the Hillary supporters are pro-choice baby boomer women--the women who fought to give us Roe v Wade.  Even superficial number crunching would have shown that these voters would not be swayed by a "vagina-American" who claims her daughter's reproductive choice is a family matter, yet is willing to impose her creationist beliefs on the uteri of our daughters. Women who don't consider themselves feminists are insulted by McCain's obvious pandering.  With a host of other VP options who aren't being plagued by Troopergate, Abramoff-ties, pork barrel spending, earmarks, and bridges to nowhere, Palin is a pathetic choice for Republicans, but a fantastic choice for feminists.Gov. Palin has made women of all walks of life and political leanings perk up.  Formerly apathetic women are shaking their heads in disbelief and will blow the whistle on the McCain farce in November.  HBO couldn't have written a better script with such nuanced plot twists and turns.As a feminist, I think Palin is the best thing that has happened to us in a long time.

Not just your product or service. At the end of the day, it’s all about you. That means your personal brand and your business brand are one in the same. I encourage you to begin by choosing one word that defines you. Here’s a hint to get you started: Think about what you do well.

Let’s use Oprah Winfrey as an example. Everybody knows Oprah’s brand. Much of her success is due to the fact that people feel like they know her. She defined her career in a real way—as an extension of her personality. By sharing her story, she got people to believe in her. It’s the reason why she’s been successful at building a phenomenal career.

How about you? What’s your story? Get started now at RealYouIncorporated.com.

Americans are wanted to be fat.

We are wanted to be fat by those who produce and market the foods that render us obese and diseased.

We are also wanted to be fat by those who sell us all the merchandise of weight loss-and whose profit more from our failures than our successes.

Most of all, we are wanted to be fat by a corporate-manufactured mass/trash culture and a governing imperium that prefers us passive, indolent, torpid and dumb.

And they get away with wanting us to be fat because of the many of us, fat or not, who refuse to understand that America's obesity epidemic is neither purely a matter of individual responsibility nor anything to be "solved" by "Fat Liberation" movements or PC pseudo-tolerance.  Our fatness is, rather, both a symptom and a cause of America's ongoing and accelerating decline as a civilization. But it is a symptom and a cause we can do something about-provided we face the issue as citizens.

There is no nice way to say much of what I'm going to say.  So let me begin with an affirmation of civility.  We engage in a monstrous, hugely self-destructive delusion when they (we) pout that "hating fat people is one of the last socially acceptable prejudices."  And facing this is not about hate.  It's about refusing to tolerate a national gluttony that neither we nor the planet can any longer afford.  It's about the future of us all.

So how bad is the problem?

Bemoaning our national obesity is a national obsession, a splendid exercise in non-binding self-criticism.  Hardly a day goes by without something on the subject appearing somewhere.  So only a few points need to be made in this regard.

According to the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 66% of Americans over 20 are overweight; 30% of Americans over 20 are obese.  Between 1960 and 2004, overweight Americans went from 44.8% of the population to 66% and obese Americans went from 13.3% to 32.1% of the population.  Most of this increase occurred after 1980.  These figures are derived from a formula known as the Body Mass Index, or BMI. Because the BMI is based on weight and height, it does not always accurately measure the fitness of athletic people, who tend to be more heavily muscled and have denser bones.  Nevertheless, the BMI is also generous and most of us are simply not athletic, or even active.

Fat costs. In 1995, the direct and indirect costs, which have been adjusted to 2001 dollars to account for inflation, were $61 billion in direct costs and $56 billion in indirect costs; since fatness and obesity are more common in 2008 than they were in 1995, these costs are going to be far higher now.  The Department of Health and Human Services defines the costs in the following manner:  "Direct health care costs refer to preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services such as physician visits, medications, and hospital and nursing home care. Indirect costs are the value of wages lost by people unable to work because of illness or disability, as well as the value of future earnings lost by premature death." (All preceding figures may be found at http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/#preval, accessed 28 July 2008.) 

So, given that two thirds of us are overweight-and almost all of us because we are fat, not because we are muscular-regarding fat people as some sort of oppressed minority is nonsense.   Hating fat people is not the last acceptable form of discrimination in America.  (It's still OK to hate people for their professions:  Ask any lawyer or journalist.)  Yet every time the New York Times runs an article on America's increasing problem of the girth, you can read a pandemic of reader comments claiming that it's all a matter in the eyes and minds of the beholders:  irate rantings that appear with such frequency and regularity that one might conclude that these people are reimbursed by the fat or the fat treatment industries. 

Yes, most of us bear at least some responsibility for our condition and its effects.  The first aspect of this responsibility is the fact that the natural antidote to obesity is well-known.  If we exercise and eat moderate portions of nutritious foods in order to balance energy intake with energy output, the overwhelming majority of us will not get genuinely fat.  It really is quite as simple as that, even though we are mammals who evolved to store fat.  Until the invention and common use of canning, packaging and refrigeration, around a century ago, fat was the safest and most nutritious way to store excess food, especially against the lean times.  But our lean times have (this may be changing) evanesced.  Food has long been plentiful and despite recent price rises, remarkably cheap.  Our mammalian propensity toward fat long ago ceased to be justifiable on natural grounds; so did the notion that fat could be a sign of wealth and social status.

But we keep on eating.   In our consumer society, fattening Americans, then selling purported remedies for that fattening, is very big business.  And the food business, like all big businesses, knows which buttons to keep pushing.

A 2006 Washington Post article conservatively estimated that producing the foods that generate so much of America's obesity, then treating that obesity, would be a $315 billion enterprise by the end of that year.  In 2004 alone, Americans spent $37 billion on soft drinks, $3.9 billion on cookies, and $6.2 billion on potato chips.  ("Why America Has to Be Fat:  A Side Effect of Economic Expansion Shows Up in Front", by Michael S. Rosenwald, The Washington Post, 22 January 2006, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012100180.html, accessed 28 July 2008.) 

In comparison, the total Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Defense Budget was $447.398 billion.

In short, there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake annually in making and keeping Americans fat, in the junk food and diet "industries."  But if that were the extent of the problem, all we would have to do is moderate or eliminate our intake of junk.  The dilemma is more fundamental.

Cheap food has long been considered a national blessing, and rightly so, when compared to the alternative:  expensive food and hunger.  But it's a fact of economic life that if you sell cheap things, you have to sell a lot of them to make money.  America's historic ability to produce vast quantities of food, exerting massive downward pressure on prices, only adds to this dilemma.  Historically, to make money, food producers and marketers have had to keep food cheap-an endeavor well-subsided by federal farm policy-but sell plenty of it.  Producers have kept food cheap in two short-term sensible but long-term disastrous ways:  mucking about with Mother Nature and exploiting other human beings.  From restricting production to a few genetically favored or engineered crops to shooting up animals with hormones and antibiotics to the tens of millions of underpaid humans doing farm and food processing work here and around the world for us-the impetus is the same.  Keep prices down.  And keep us gorging.  And America's food retailers, whether supermarket chains or restaurant chains, employ much the same strategy.  Keep prices low, portions large and the customers coming back for more of the same. 

Fat also means big bucks for the health care industry money:  spent on insulin, open MRIs, heavier patient tables and ambulance litters, and treatment of all the illnesses and injuries associated with being fat.  Fat aggravates when it does not outright cause high blood pressure, putting us at risk for stroke; high cholesterol, which puts us at risk for heart attack; osteoarthritis, which puts us at risk for knee and hip replacements, as well as serious back problems; and causes insulin resistance to such a degree that being fat is the leading cause of diabetes, a horrible disease that is a cascade of problems, including being the leading cause of amputations and blindness in this country. 

On the other hand, there is not a lot of money in losing weight.

Here I do not mean diets and the dieting industry, which produces books, tapes, CDs, speaking tours by weight-loss gurus, inspirational calendars, meetings and support groups, packaged foods and food plans, drugs, gastric bypass surgery in ever larger quantities.  If this stuff worked, there would be less of it because there would be less need for it.  As it is, one suspects many people buy this stuff, not because they want to lose weight, but because they want to make just enough of an effort to convince themselves that they can't. 

Rather, there's not a lot of money in the changes that produce safe, permanent weight loss:  the slow alteration of eating and exercise habits.  It's no secret that we need to eat fewer processed foods, more dairy, fruits, vegetables and grains, and generally speaking less meat and fat, along with a heck of a lot less sugar.  (Of course, you could be fat, as a friend of mine ruefully admits she is, because she has a horrible weakness for cheeses that smell, as the French say, like the feet of angels.  But generally speaking, we fall for processed sugars, not aged and stinky cheese.)  And we need to boost our exercise levels so that we burn more energy than they consume until we reach a healthy weight and size. 

So what else is new?

It's often said that you can't begin to recover until you admit you've got a problem.  But we Americans have been admitting for a long time now that we've got a problem, a major national problem with significant public health and security aspects.  We've admitted it to stupefaction.  But it only gets worse, and blaming the producers will not solve it.  For that matter, neither will blaming ourselves for lacking the intestinal fortitude to change the contents of our intestines.  Every time we binge eat, we are disgusted, both with the producers for producing something "so good that we just can't help ourselves," and with ourselves, for eating more than we know we should, and for how eating that much makes our bodies feel, but blaming the producers and ourselves, their collaborators, for our disgust, doesn't change anything.  Blame is a cheap substitute for taking action, for literally changing ourselves. 

Change is hard.  And complex.  There's a gargantuan psychological and medical literature on why people overeat, from the body's natural affinity for sugar-laboratory rats prefer sugar water to real food, even as they starve to death-to eating to numb anxieties of various sorts.  Another reason why change is hard is that the only alternative we really see via the corporate mass/trahs culture is "the beautiful people."  Here I'm not talking about the starved and airbrushed models you see in places like Vogue or even GQ.  We all know that these people are a fantasy, and from the perspective of anyone who simply likes other human beings, a horribly malicious fantasy.  I'm talking about the people who are shown as simply perfect, leading shiny, happy, effortless lives, and that is also a fantasy.  No one can live that way.   But to present "the beautiful people" as the only alternative to an ugly gluttony is to set the vast majority of us up for a failure we are only too happy to embrace. 

So, instead of casting around for someone to blame, and falling into another spell of self-pitying overeating because we cannot and can never be "beautiful people," we all-fat or not-need to ask ourselves why we eat so much, as individuals and as a nation, and what the implications of national gluttony are.  We need to ask ourselves, too, what are the implications of rediscovering the tastes of real cheese and apples and meat.  For the corporate bottom line does not benefit when we rediscover the pleasure of a world of movement, whether it is simply being able to tie your shoes, or going for a long, hard hike or swim. 

Still, bewailing the merchants of high-calorie sickness and death, or even rediscovering real food or the joys getting back into shape, don't address the cultural and political aspects of the problem.

I propose the following:  One reason we binge, especially on junk, is what the food technologists call "mouth feel."  It feels good in our mouths-so good that we willingly accept the subsequent "stomach feel," as in "Yuk." 

Now, how about a little "head feel"?  Engaging in the pleasure of thinking over this issue, not just as mammals but as citizens of this civilization, l leads to a common-sense conclusion.

Being fat makes us lazy and being lazy makes us dumb, and the lazier we are, the dumber we are. 

Put differently:  Our disgraceful passivity as citizens and our bovine acceptance and consumption of mass/trash culture are sustained and augmented by the food-induced sluggishness of our bodies and our minds.

This is a biological truth-and it applies to each and every one of us.  The fatter we are, the harder it is for us to move, but physical activity and exercise aren't just good for the muscles.  Exercise and physical activity force oxygen-rich blood to the brain and cause neurogenesis, the creation of new neurons in the brain, specifically in the hippocampus, the seat of memory and learning.  Good nutrition also makes a powerful difference in brain function, while bad nutrition can cause serious impairments in thinking, memory, and motor function.  Being fat is a vicious downward spiral:  the fatter we are, the less energy we have to move and to think, so the fatter we get.  And while good nutrition and exercise are not a cure for all mental disorders, lack of them, especially exercise, certainly aggravates and may even cause many mental disorders, such as depression, senility, dementia, and Alzheimer's, while there is no one, no matter how disabled or restricted, who cannot benefit from some exercise. 

Being fat also makes us ugly, and a civilization full of ugly people cannot help but be an ugly civilization that cares not to look too closely at itself.

I want to be clear on this. 

Fat is not ugly.  Skin is not ugly, nor muscle, nor bone.  And healthy, active, well-fed human beings inhabit a range of heights and body styles. But we all need hard bones, strong muscles, and a bit of fat, from about 10 to about 20% of body weight.  As we bear children and age, our body fat may go up a bit more, but body fat levels of over 30% are simply too much, even for women.   Unless you're an elite athlete, the minimum most people should carry is about 10% body fat, but as long as you eat enough nutritious food to maintain your body and sustain your energy output, ultra-low body fat is in itself not harmful, even for women.  It bears repeating that healthy, active people inhabit a range of weights for their heights. 

But just as being reduced to skin and bone is ugly (think of emaciated models and jockeys), and the grotesque muscular overdevelopment you see showcased in body building magazines is ugly, so is being fat. 

And we know it. 

We humans are animals, after all.  We have the mammalian tendency to store our extra food on our bodies for safekeeping.  But we also have the mammalian need to enjoy our bodies:  how they look, how they feel, how they move.  And the body does not want to be fat, or starved, or grotesquely overdeveloped.  It just wants to be strong and fast and sleek and well-fed, to be treated with care and respect. 

We do not like ourselves when we are fat.  Nor do most of us find anorexia or muscular hypertrophy attractive.  But most of us are fat, not anorexic or overdeveloped.  We do not like the way we look or the way our bodies feel.  We do not like the way others look, jiggling down the streets, their excess fat spilling out of their all-too-often slovenly clothes.  And if we don't like how anorexics look, we also don't like, albeit in a very different way, how people look who are simply a normal, healthy weight and physically active.  They are a reproach to us, not because they are "virtuous" or "beautiful," but because they like their bodies enough to be kind to them.  They're not perfect, they may not even be happy or particularly like their bodies.  But they also aren't torturing their bodies out of their unhappiness.  They aren't adding to whatever troubles or bedevils them by actively hurting their bodies and choosing to make themselves ugly.

What we do not allow ourselves to know that those who market to us the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of junk food and diet aids know this.  So do those who market luxury goods to us know that most of us cannot possibly fit into their clothes, and who intend that  we buy their makeup, their purses and their shoes to compensate for bodies we do not and cannot like, enjoy and appreciate.  We know that all these corporations, whether they are selling us massive quantities of food, makeup, or fat treatments know that we are fat, and that being fat makes us hurt and sick, stupid, lazy and ugly.  We know that they know being this way is not conducive to liking oneself or anyone who looks like one.  But we do not permit ourselves to know that these corporations with their hundred of billions of dollars annually at stake in our continued fatness-whether we are eating to make ourselves fat or dieting or needing medical treatment because we are fat-want us fat.

We know ourselves marketed to and manipulated, but what we have been unable to bring ourselves to admit is that they want us to be fat.  They want us fat, with all that attends upon being fat.

You could say that there ought to be a law, but laws are made by a government that, especially at the federal level, is more and more owned by corporate interests and makes no real pretense of being anything better. 

I could say, it is time to remember that we are not just consumers, but citizens.  And not just citizens of this nation, but of this civilization.

There's been a lot written about citizenship and most of it is garbage:  people ranting about sacrifice, for example (I think they're collecting sacrifices that they don't intend to contribute to) or unity and leadership (theirs, naturally).  Citizenship is more. 

Classically, citizenship has rested upon two entwined ideas.  The first was that the citizen's body is his (only recently begun to be hers) alone.  No one has a right to touch the citizen's body, much less strike it, or sell it. No one has any right of control over the body's work:  not without the citizen's free consent.   The second was that the citizen was an active part of participant in his polity.  He helped defend it in arms, whether from foreign enemies or domestic criminals, sat on its juries and voted its laws.

In a more modern sense, the citizen is someone who fully inhabits her or his life-starting with what and how much we eat and exercise.  To put it bluntly, we-our bodies, to include our brains and the minds and souls they house-do not exist to consume garbage for the sake of corporate profits.  We exist to live as strong, intelligent individuals at home in our bodies.  The consumer-whose normal human emotions, insecurities and weaknesses are manipulated into eating vast quantities of processed foods and chemicals, then buying a host of gadgets in an almost inevitably futile quest to lose the weight overnight (when it was not so gained)-is antithetical to the citizen.  Corporate America, including corporate American politics, hates the citizen and wants to feed it to death by morbid obesity and it's doing a damn good job.  The citizen is the enemy of the corporation and corporatized politics.  Rejecting the definition of ourselves as consumers and insisting on our political status as citizens is the only way to reclaim our human dignity. 

And there is a simple way to start acting as citizens.   We have ourselves sufficient power to bring all those who want us fat-and so lazy, stupid, hurt and sick-to their knees.  All we have to do is eat less-and eat more local, unprocessed foods, especially fruits and vegetables-and exercise more.  We don't have to go cold turkey and this is frankly not about virtuous self-denial.  It is about pleasure, about a variety of pleasures, only beginning with the simple and extraordinary (if also sometimes difficult, even maddening!) pleasures of real food and movement, of eventually liking what we look like when we are nude-and then dressing in ways that express our appreciation for the strength and resilience of our bodies.  And then, having made the real effort to look better, we will feel better:  good enough to make another effort, this one to look ourselves and our fellow citizens in the eye and start talking with each other again about subjects of public importance. 

When George Bush told us to go to the mall, he no doubt also meant the food court.  We did.  So the next time you're at the food court in the mall, spend a moment as a citizen, looking around.  And if you see it with new eyes...that's a start.

While the past several days have been spent looking at the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, it's important to note that voters should pay just as much, if not more, attention to their local/regional elections.

Whether the issue is wanting to better your schools, make your community more green, or save funding for the libraries, get educated on who else will be on the ballot in November. While the president has the power to veto or sign a bill into law, get to know the people who draft that legislation. Sites such as Project Vote Smart allow users to search by zip code to learn not only about their state's representatives, but also learn how they voted on recent pieces of legislation.

Curious to learn more about how your Congressperson or Senator voted on an issue important to you? Or, want to learn who's making interesting speeches on the floor? Visit the Library of Congress to view the Congressional Record for the past 10 congressional sessions. 

Recently, there's been a ton of discussion on being a woman rand unning for political office. As Suzanne Reisman noted in her entry on "Electing More Women, Part II: Building the Pipeline":

Building a pipeline is one critical piece of the female president
puzzle. The other is combating the rampant sexist beliefs that are
firmly ingrained in the minds of men and women in the United States.

To reiterate, if you're not happy with the latest crop of candidates at the top, make sure you're paying attention to those on the lower rungs of the ladder.

A. L. Venable is a Random Citizen...and registered Independent. She writes at Dimple and a Smirk (dot) com and Our PDX Network.

Some say we live in a man’s world, but after one conversation with Marion Paul you won’t believe that for a minute. Others will smile and tell you to make lemonade of the lemons that life hurls your way. Well, Marion not only made lemons, she quite literally built, owns, and runs the lemonade stand – plus the hot dog stand, the sausage stand, and even the snowball stand. You’d know that too, if you ever spent a day at Fannie Farkle’s in Gatlinburg, Tennessee.

After graduating high school, she set out to fulfill her dream in the world of professional dancing, from summer stock in Long Island, NY to working chorus lines and entertaining troops during a USO tour throughout Southeast Asia. She met Don Paul, the man she would marry, while working a burlesque show with a traveling carnival.

Don and Marion became not only husband and wife; they became partners. For twenty years they worked side-by-side. Together they opened Fannie Farkle’s and, while Don worked the traveling arcade operations, Marion ran the Gatlinburg operation. Soon they expanded their arcade businesses, opening up Walkin’ Charlie’s on the Daytona Beach boardwalk in Florida. As partnerships go, theirs worked… until 44-year old Don, piloting his small plane, crashed when a mechanic’s error caused him to lose control of the plane shortly after take-off.

Don’s death left Marion alone to mourn the loss of her husband. But life wasn’t done with Marion just yet. She had businesses with bills to pay, and her competitors were circling.

Faced with having to manage two businesses, 650 miles apart, she gathered together the employees of both locations and put the question to them directly. “Will you stay and work with me?” she asked. With a thunderous “Yes!” the die was cast. Both properties would remain open.

Once again, life was good. Marion proved to herself and to anyone who cared to watch, that she was an exceptional businesswoman. Financially secure, Marion decided that it was time to give something back to the community. Volunteering for the United Way of Sevier County, Tennessee, she met Ken Wade. Marion says that when she met Ken, something “just happened.” Something indeed, for Marion and Ken were destined to marry.

Not much later, a male colleague asked Marion if she would like to apply for a seat on the board of directors of the Amusement & Music Operators Association, the international trade association of the coin-op world. AMOA represents those who own and operate jukeboxes, pool tables, and other coin-operated games and equipment in commercial establishments worldwide. In an industry so male dominated as the coin-op industry, the AMOA board of directors might have been said to represent, at that point in time, coin-op’s glass ceiling. But that wouldn’t last for long.

Within coin-op, being chosen to serve on the AMOA board of directors is considered to be a great honor. With more than a little apprehension, she filled out that application. Five industry references were required… and it was five men who put their signatures on the line recommending Marion Paul to the AMOA.

It comes as no surprise -- Marion was accepted to serve on the AMOA board. It amuses her to think back to when she and Ken attended their first AMOA board function. She recalls how one board member, an elder statesman of sorts, walked up to Ken, hand outstretched, to welcome him to the board. Ken took the man’s hand and, smiling now, moved it over to Marion’s and said, “Meet your new director.” This group of forty-eight – forty-seven of them men – understandably intimidated Marion, an only child who had attended an all-girl’s high school.

As awkward as that first introduction may have been for Marion, the time came soon enough to put away any insecurity and to, once again, put her shoulder to the grindstone and do a job. Aware that others were quietly skeptical of her, she watched and listened – and learned. Marion became convinced that this group of men would benefit from a female perspective.

Ten years later, Marion Paul became only the third woman in the organization’s 60-year history to be elected to the position of AMOA president. Since serving her term in 2004–2005, Marion has proudly watched five more women join the ranks of AMOA director. Today, whenever she attends a function as a member of the past-presidents council, there are a few more female faces in the crowd. Marion says that she “is proud of setting a standard for other women to know that it can be done… if you just set your goals high and never give up.”

“In the years since Don’s death, I have learned a great deal about going it alone in a man’s world. Yes, at times it has been quite frustrating, being challenged by men who have not been as nice as they could have… well, I just learned to put on my ‘big girl panties’ and move forward. The harder it became, the more determined I was not to give up! If I’ve learned one thing from working on the AMOA board, it is this… men have just as many insecurities as women… they just don’t talk about them.”

What does the future hold for Marion at age 61? She would like to mentor young women who are just starting out. She believes strongly in leadership by example. When asked what advice she would give young women today, Marion said, “Set your own goals… always keep them in front of you so that you can keep them in focus. NEVER compromise your ethics or integrity. Have the courage to say yes when it matters and, even more importantly, to say no when you know you should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions and reach out to mentors. That glass ceiling is getting broken through more often these days.”

And when it comes to cracking through glass ceilings, Marion Paul carries a big hammer!

Originally posted on the blog, "Women Over 40 Rock!" for In The Trenches Productions