Switzer runs

I'm running again (I've lost 21 switzerpounds since last October, baby!), so that's good. I'm trying to build a base so I can start training, in September, for the Las Vegas Half-Marathon. Today was a banner day; put in 5.5 miles in a time that shall not be revealed because I've lost my youthful vigor and speed and it's none of your business and why can't you just be happy for me because I ran and I'm being healthy and stop looking at my belly, it's getting smaller for God's sake and it's none of your business anyway. Now, using the kick-ass tool Map my Run, I can put my routes up here for your amusement! So I do:

For the Mt. Si High School GSA Day of Silence

You go, Patty Murray!

Check out Patty dressing down the VA (again) for lying.

Anyone who thinks Patty doesn't earn every dime she's paid in the Senate are deeply, deeply confused and uninformed about the work she does on behalf of veterans.  I'm just sayin'. 

Grammer Frydai II

{Posting on Thursday - tomorrow will be silent posting in support of Mt. Si High School's Gay-Straight Alliance's Day of Silence, and in protest of Ken Hutcherson's ongoing stupidity.}

Wow!  Two whole weeks in a row I'm doing this!  I know, it's a switzer-record; I've actually done two installments in a series for the first time.  A little sad, but what are ya gonna do?  As a reminder, this is just me bitching about grammar/spelling/other wordsmith-related things that really get my goat.  I'm neither a grammarian nor an expert on the English language.  Your submissions are always welcome, too!  So let's get right down to it.

First:  A-whole-nother.  What the hell is this?  I don't see it written, or at least I haven't yet, but I hear it all the time out on the streets and even on the teevee nooz. There is no such thing as a "whole nother".  It may be 'another' thing, or 'a completely different' thing, or even 'something else altogether'  (which is still not right, but at least uses whole words).  Seriously.  From an English language standpoint, this is a whole nother thing that should be avoided.

Deux:  Scat talk - such as 'pee' and 'fart' - appearing in headlines.  Hey, news organizations (I'm looking at you, MSNBC)...stop doing this!  You're the news!  Use adult words for adult things - please!  Instead of 'pee', which is fine to use with your kids or even your buddies ("I need to pee, I'll be right back" - totally acceptable in informal usage), how about the new says 'urine'?  How would that be? 

And really, diminishing serious scientific work - even if it isn't world-changing in itself - with puerile headlines such as this one should be embarrassing to any reputable news organization.  Stop it.  To quote Jon Stewart, you're hurting America.  Use grown-up words for grown-up news.

Lastly for this week:  All of the sudden.  I know, I know...it isn't technically grammatically incorrect (wait, yes it is.), nor are any of the words spelled wrong, plus it uses complete words.  So this is a whole nother thing, right?  Wrong.  It's a common saying that's been intact for hundreds of years and the blogosphere is fucking it up for everyone else.  It's all of A sudden, you bunch of morans!  Honestly, just slow down and read, aloud, what you've written.  If it doesn't make any logical sense, it's probably incorrect.  And you may be a redneck.  {Switzer punches self in nards for ever, ever using a Jeff Foxworthy joke} 

Okay, these will get better in time, I promise.  Or not.  Suck it, it's my blog, my rules!

In the Matter of Hutcherson v. Mt. Si High School

This court rules that Ken Hutcherson is a douchebag and exhibit friggin' A that anti-gay crusaders are motivated by sex, not God. 

Okay, got that off my chest.  Boy, I'm not even sure where to start with this.  So, this article reports on Ken Hutcherson's planned "protest" at Mt. Si High School tomorrow during their GSA's annual Day of Silence.  For those who don't know, during the DoS, gay students and others remain silent all day to draw attention to the gay students that have to live in silence, hiding their sexuality to avoid abuse.  It's not even a day calling for special access or rights they lack, just drawing attention to some basic dignity they feel entitled to.

But Ken...ol' Ken, as always, can't let any opportunity to get attention for himself AND attack gays pass by, and is supposedly bringing 1,000 of his "prayer warriors" to protest.  (I say supposedly, because he also has assured Microsoft that he was leading massive boycotts and bringing them down several times.  Last I checked, they're still doing okay)  He's bringing adults.  To protest.  High school kids.   He even ran an ad in the local paper saying straight people should "come out of the closet", one of the more rancid things he's said lately. 

Hutcherson said minority students aren't treated with the same respect and sensitivity that is being shown gay students.

"There are so many issues at that school, and homosexuals get a whole day?" he asked.

Really, Ken?  Martin Luther King day doesn't ring a bell?  Christmas?  It's really that upsetting that a couple hundred kids will just be quiet for a day, that you need to bring "1,000" people to fucking protest them?  Douche.  Of course, it isn't that simple with Ken.  See, he had his feel-goods smushed last time he was there on Martin Luther King day and they pulled all the kids out of class for an assembly with him.  Seems some of the kids and a couple teachers weren't so agreeable about a single-minded bigot coming to talk about equality, and let him know that. 

Mount Si principal Randy Taylor said Hutcherson's planned protest is continuation of that controversy.

"It's personal," Taylor said. "We embarrassed him at the Martin Luther King assembly. It's payback."

Hutcherson countered, "Of course it's personal. They embarrassed me and they embarrassed my daughter."

There you have it, folks, the pastor at Antioch Bible Church.  Your religious leader, pulling you into his personal vendetta, because he was embarrassed and wants revenge.  Ask yourselves this:  Would Jesus hold grudges?  Would Jesus pursue revenge? 

Last month, the Times covered this when it first came up and Hutcherson's brownshirts went to a school board meeting to complain about other people's kids looking for a bit of tolerance.   As you'd expect, there are the conservative kids who assure us they were mistreated and made to feel badly because they didn't "go along" with the DoS. 

Irony, thy name is youth.   

In an open letter to the school's GSA, Garding and five other CoDE board members said the day coerces support and encourages hostility.

"Neutral students can't opt out, and they can't say they don't like it," the board members wrote. "Please choose to not spread anger this year and do not request the Day of Silence during the school day."

Irony, thy name is also these douchebag parents.  Yes, let's teach kids tolerance by asking them to stop seeking tolerance.  That's not comically inept at all.

I love the kids complaining that education isn't "taking place to its fullest extent" on this particular day.  (This, of course, appears in both articles.  Talking point, anyone?)  Riiight.  That's your problem with it.  I assume these same kids oppose pep rallies, the day before winter break, and assemblies, right? 

But guys, here's the clincher for me:

...Hutcherson, whose daughter attends the high school, has also denounced the school's Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA), calling it a "sex club," and urged parents and community members to oppose it and the Day of Silence.

I've said it a million times, the opposition people like Hutcherson have to homosexuals has nothing to do with religion or sin.  There is no such thing as a gay "lifestyle".  It's all about sex.  Sex, sex, sex.  To Ken, the mere existence of a GSA means kids are walking around sodomizing each other all day long, and the survival of civilization is threatened!  Oh my! 

Would someone please out this douche as a Haggard already, so we can stop hearing his nonsense? 

Returning to today's article, which closes with my favorite quote: 

GSA adviser Kit McCormick said members will observe the day regardless of the protest going on outside.

"It's enough of a tragedy that there are 1,000 grown-ups protesting kids who are asking for acceptance. We don't need to say a thing."

Goddamn right, Kit.  I'm with you.

Grandpa McCain wants to help the poor

...with tax cuts for the, um, not poor. 

Grandpa visited a shuttered factory in Ohio yesterday on his "I care, really I do" tour (not sure if his $100 million wife was there), and talked about free trade vs. protectionism, encouraging the out-of-work folks there to consider going to community college and learning how to work a computer.  You know, be part of the "knowledge economy". 

According to this article, his big plan to help these folks is...wait for it...see if you can guess (hint - he's a Republican)...yup, tax credits.  

Sen. McCain, who is a father of seven, proposed doubling the tax credit for children. In Youngstown, nearly half of single-working-mother families live in poverty. Sen. McCain said the current tax credit isn't adjusted for inflation and the increased credit would allow adults to "invest more in their own families."

Listen, let's assume that the half of single-working-mother families living in poverty include two children, for the sake of this exercise.  According to the most recent HHS poverty guidelines (pdf), a family of three has to make less than $17,170 to be considered "in poverty". 

Um, Grandpa?  How much do people making less than $17,000 pay in taxes? 

I don't have a problem (for the most part) with a higher tax credit for kids.  Childcare is expensive, and it's the kind of thing where the government can help you out in this way.  But let's face it.  This is McCain picking low-hanging fruit; he doesn't know how to help these folks without abandoning his ideology, so he appeals to "I'm helping your kids!".  It's the opposite of a third rail.  And the reality is, this will help middle-class families and have little to no impact on folks in poverty - while it's great to help middle-class families, and there should be a lot more of that than there is here, we've got a rapidly expanding bottom tier economically, and keeping the conservative blinders on isn't going to make things better for them.

Grandpa McCain's tax policy is immoral.  Telling families in poverty that you'll help them by giving tax credits to middle-class families is like telling the failing neighborhood store that you'll help them by shopping at Wal-Mart.  It's not just immoral, it's stupid, and more typical Republican magical thinking.

Pennsylvania, vindication edition

What did I say? 45.5% for Obama? (yes, I wrote 46.5%. Obviously, my math was idiotic). Final count is 45.3%. Don't doubt the Switzer!

Pennsylvania

Okay, I haven't looked at the intertubes since 8:00 last night, so I'm making my prediction unsullied by third-hand breathless reports of BREAKING - PROBLEMS WITH POLLS IN PODUNK!!!!! or MASSIVE CROWDS IN PHILLY, OBAMA'S GOING TO WIN IN A ROUT!!! or any of that nonsense.  Here we go...

Switzer sez: HRC: 54.5, Obama 46.5.

There.  I predicted.

*sigh* I've had enough of Hillary

I give up.  It's just become too disgusting to bear. 

Now, Hillary's running an ad featuring Osama bin Laden.  So, finally, it's enough for Switzer.  Fuck off, Hillary.

They're still talking about Obama having to answer "tough" questions at the last debate (and the media, btw, is happily supporting this talking point  the linked CNN article says Obama was "asked several pointed questions").  As I've said, those questions were neither tough nor pointed (and no one other than Hillary, Republicans and the media have suggested they were), they were simply stupid and ill-conceived.

Add to that Hillary's continued opposition to anything Obama says that is plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face obviously truthful.  Such as, you know, the bitter nonsense.  Or from this weekend, when Obama suggested that any of the three remaining candidates would be a better President than Bush.  Despite the fact that she's openly said, several times, that McCain is ready to be President and Obama is not, she's now (again, btw) trying to argue that he supports a Republican and thinks McCain would be a wonderful president. 

Uh, Hillary?  A deceased potted plant would be a better President than Bush.  So yes, McCain would be better than Bush.  Luckily for us, McCain will be running against Barack Obama and not Bush (and more importantly - you might take a note - not against you). 

Back to the OBL ad...I've argued that folks shouldn't be so surprised by Hillary's tactics, because this is the very thing people used as justification for supporting her from the beginning - her willingness to campaign like this.  But I truly, and perhaps naively, assumed that Hillary would at least be above this, the slimiest of campaign options.  Does she not remember her friend and (former) colleague Tom Daschle, whacked by OBL campaign ads?  Does she not remember her friend and (former) colleague in the House, Max Cleland, a goddamn war hero defeated by ads featuring OBL? 

Sorry, stupid questions.  Of course she does...that's why she's using it.  Trying to use fear, xenophobia and racism to defeat her opponent. 

I've had enough of Hillary.  I no longer care if Obama goes negative on her; in fact, I hope he goes nuclear.  Rather than destroying the party, which she is clearly willing to do, I'm willing to see her own career destroyed.  This makes me sad, as she has done good and I believe still has good in her.  But if something must be sacrificed to save the Party, let it be her career.

Tough questions? Not so much...

So Hillary's embrace of right-wing talking points is leading even the righty National Review is starting to swoon for her. After the ABC debate debacle, much has been made about the, um, paucity of quality questions. Much of the media agrees that ABC should be embarrassed by the quality of the questions, and Obama has enjoyed mocking them for wasting the first hour of the debate before asking about a real issue.

But today, Hillary had this to say:

Hillary: Well, we were both asked some pretty tough questions, and you know, that's part of what happens in a debate and in a campaign. And I know he spent all of yesterday complaining about the hard questions he was asked. But you know, being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressure you face inside the White House. And in fact, you know, when the going gets tough, you just can't walk away. Because we're going to have some very tough decisions that we have to make. And I think that we need a president who can take whatever comes your way. You have to stand strong. You have to fight for the American people. Because it will not be easy to stand up against the special interests. {Switzernote - that's rich}

Anchor: So you were fine with the debate? You didn't see any problem with them?

Hillary: Well, can I say I've been through, what, 23 of these debates? And if you'll recall, I was asked some pretty tough questions in nearly every one of them. That goes with the territory. Having been inside the White House, I know the pressures inside the White House, I know how hard it is every single day. When the going gets tough, you can't run away. It's going to be tough going dealing with these hard problems... The special interests are going to be a lot tougher than 90 minutes of questions from two journalists.

Yeah, Hillary's really gonna stand up to those special interests. Heh.

But here's what gets me about this. The only people calling the wasted first hour of the show "tough questions" are ABC, conservative douchebags, and...Hillary. Not one complaint I've seen at Kos, from any progressive, and least of all from Obama has been about "tough questions". No, the complaints I've seen have been that those questions were a waste of time. ABC's time, the viewer's time...everyone's time.

The National Review has this to say:

...And every once in a while, when she demonstrates she has the guts to 'go there' in front of a Democratic audience that want their debates to be criticism-free lovefests, I’m tempted to say, 'I like the cut of your jib, Senator.'"

...

Hey, is anybody else getting this weird tingle up the leg when Hillary speaks lately?

You know, Hillary likes to talk about who Obama's known or worked with in his life...perhaps the company you keep works both ways! When right-wingers start to like the 'cut of your jib', you're on the wrong path.

But here's what really concerned me when I heard the audio clip of Hillary making her statement above: They weren't tough questions. They were stupid questions. And it concerns me that Hillary can't tell the difference anymore.

Junk science

This is my house, in Kirkland, Washington...on April 18th.






And a couple hours later...

So, it isn't armageddon, I grant you this. But, really? Let's all pretend that climate change is just a big hoax, while every year gets more and more bizarre. I fucking hate snow - and now I'm seeing big, fluffy flakes out the window.

Craig, Colorado, the town from whence I moved to escape cold and snow, was 60 degrees and sunny today. That is all.

Grammer Frydai

What the hell?  Let's start a weekly blogthingee wherein I complain like a crotchety old man about grammar or spelling mistakes that piss me off.  I'll make this weekly-ish, and if you (both regular readers and the seven daily google-led switzer-stumblers) hate it, tough! 

First up:  Rediculous.  This has been popping up on the interwebs lately, in all manner of places.  Since I peruse lefty blogs for the most part, that is of course where I've seen it the most - diaries at Kos, comments at Slog...it's frickin' rediculous how often I see it!  Seriously, guys...it's spelled and pronounced ridiculous, with two i's.  It isn't red-iculous or re-diculous.  It's ridiculous.  *sigh*

Next on the docket:  Inappropriately, placed commas.  Good lord, how often I see this one from otherwise competent writers.  I see it on news sites, in editorials (how does this get past editors?!), occasionally even in books or magazines!  A comma has many uses - providing separation in lists, clauses, or (to keep it simple and easy for the writer to remember) simply where a natural pause appears in a phrase.  It does not, appear in places, just because you want it to.  Honestly, usually I can understand how people make mistakes (i.e. rediculous or loose/lose) - there's some underlying problems with the written language versus pronunciation that mistakes are inevitable, even if they should be avoided.  But I can't fathom how something as logical as a comma can be confusing for people.  The most vexing questions are, "do I use a comma before the last item in a list," (A: maybe) or, "what's the difference between an essential and non-essential clause," (A: I don't know either).  Other than that, it's extremely straightforward.  How can so many go so wrong???

Third:  Loose/lose.  As a frequent reader of Kos, I'm subjected to oodles of amateur conjecture about who has the greatest chance of winning elections.  Often, this is done by predicting who will NOT win (i.e., "I can't wait until Hillary looses Iowa!").  Here's how it works, kids:  You lose elections, you then turn your campaign staff loose to find new jobs.  Loose is the opposite of tight (or in the above example, the opposite of employed, but this is a vernacular usage.  You could also say, correctly but awkwardly, "loose your campaign staff"...meaning to release them).  Lose is the opposite of win.  Please make a note.

Okay, I know I'm not perfect.  I often write "the" when I mean "they", or "you" instead of "your".  I use parentheticals excessively, hyphens where they're not needed, semi-colons (which are apparently out of style) (see, more parentheticals), and I'm prone to run-on sentences.  I'm not Mr. Grammar, nor do I aspire to be.  But I know enough to avoid basic, obvious mistakes, and seeing large numbers of people repeat basic, obvious mistakes gets right the fuck under my skin. 

Hence, we'll do this weekly.  I'll try to keep track of grammar and spelling mistakes that piss me off through the week, and hopefully my treatment of them will get more interesting with time.  Remember, my blogging is still rusty!  Oh, and PS:  I'll happily take suggestions for grammar or spelling mistakes for Grammer Frydai!

Weekend = w00t.

Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and one atheist

I've been fortunate enough to spend a lot of time over the last 5 days listening to the Dalai Lama discuss compassion and early childhood development.  For those of you outside the Seattle area, his visit was part of a 5 day event hosted by Seeds of Compassion.  Well, it was the MAJOR part.  Yesterday's event, which stretched over 4 hours, was a panel on interfaith discussion and spirituality which I enjoyed and found very informative.

You regular readers, and outraged Don Stewart or Fascinating Womanhood fans, will be wondering why an atheist hippy such as myself would go to an event like this and what sort of scorn I'm about to heap on religions and the holy personages named in the title above.  Well, getcher panties outta their bunch, have a seat and calm down.  No scorn-heaping is on the way.  Nor have I converted, so my atheist fans can unclench as well.

The thing is, I have no problem with spirituality, nor with religion.  In fact, Rabbi David Rosen voiced a wonderful defense of religion today - that I happen to agree with - when asked about violence attributed to religion.  He pointed out that those who use religion to justify or rationalize violence have grossly misappropriated spirituality.  Bear in mind that I'm a boob, and he said it better than I'm writing it.  The point is, while religion has been used over centuries and centuries to justify all sorts of horrors, in general religion and the followers thereof lean towards peace and harmony.  The new testament seeks to undo some of the violent aspects of the old testament, with Jesus walking with sinners and calling on believers to practice peace and love.  Islam calls for much personal sacrifice for the community (yes, in addition to some beastly views on gender equality and some calls for violence that A: are mirrored in the bible and B: are clung to a little too closely by the extremists we've come to know as terrorists.  I didn't say all was roses).  These are good things, and as an atheist, I want people to look for harmony and reasons to be peaceful, whether that's inside themselves or in a belief system that includes an invisible man in the sky. 

There are certainly things about religion that can be looked on with scorn.  Views on women are often mysogin..misogyn...bad.  There are strange and contradictory views on peace and war.  One can quite easily find justifications for any manner of abuse towards one's children, gays, women, or even slavery in most (major) religious texts. 

But, especially with Christianity (although also, and intentionally, with Judaism), there is a pick-and-choose sort of religion alive today that has for the most part been for the better.  By picking and choosing, for instance, we've eliminated the need for any inquisitions (although unfortunately picking and choosing always leaves that door just a lil' bit open).  Picking and choosing allows for the Unitarian church which welcomes our gay brothers and sisters to worship as they please without fear of the boot of Jerry Falwell's ghost finding its way to their ass.  Yes, that picking and choosing has also allowed for the evangelical outburst of the last 15 years, prompting sometimes physically violent opposition to abortion, outright hatred of and single-minded focus on homosexuals, and a sort of hybrid hyper-patriotic Christianism.  The dangers are there, and well discussed.  I need not list the sins of religion, particularly American religion, again here.

But for the most part, cafeteria religion has allowed modern believers to focus on giving within their communities, being loving and charitable within their families, and forging tighter bonds between people.  It's allowed for a sense of increased and much-needed comfort and security, as in the uptick in church attendance following 9/11.  And this is what today's event was really about - the different ways these faiths interrelate and work together to bring compassionate change in people's lives. 

I'm all about that.  Atheists, as any true non-believer knows, are no more likely than your average Episcopalian to become an ax-wielding homicidal maniac or child molester (in sheer numbers, in fact, less so!).  And we want peace and harmony as much as any religious leader.  We want our children to be raised well, to be taught to feel safe and love others and show compassion.  The Dalai Lama touched, repeatedly over the weekend, on something that I try to live by (and too many of the Christianists currently dominating the media and our politics do not seem to get):  that to help someone we know who is hurting, while good, is not true compassion.  This is compassion with an angle.  We like them and want them to like us.  We feel good for helping.  True compassion is helping those who need it, even if they despise us or we despise them.  If someone wrongs us yet they need help, they are still people in need of help.  Even bad people (or different people) are still people. 

In any event, I've run right out of steam here.  (Does it show that I've gotten rusty at blogging?)  My point is that this was more than worthwhile, and even a big ol' cynical bag of gas like me managed to pick up a few new things.  Take note, true believers, us atheists aren't all rabble-rousing buttholes out to disrupt the Dalai Lama's speechifying.  And atheist friends, let's take a look at where we can all agree, argue those points where we can't, and, as we would ask others, let's lighten up a bit!

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary

Yeah, I've been out for a while. Yeah, everyone's covered this to death.  Whatever, sue me.  My blog, my rules!

I've been defending Hillary lately, despite the increasing difficulty of doing so and the increasing, um, unpleasantness of her supporters.  I don't think she's destroying the party, although she's certainly doing us no favors and making herself no friends.  I don't think she's ruining Obama's chances in November, although she's certainly made his job harder.  My basic defense has been thusly:

• Prior to the primary season really getting going, Hillary's willingness to do anything to win was seen as a strength.
• By this I mean she was willing to go nuclear on her opponent.  Claw, kick, low-ball, dirty ads, you name it. 
• We've wanted a D candidate to do this for years.  It struck us as the way to win (it worked for the Republicans, right?).
• She's doing not only what we'd expect (I mean, we remember who she is, right?), she's doing exactly what we wanted her to do. 
• We just didn't expect this to be the year that her tactics wouldn't be needed, nor that she'd turn her guns inside the tent.
• It's too much of a good thing. 

So, my view has been to tell people to suck it up.  We also thought the Dean folks would never, ever work for Kerry, and they did (in droves).  People get over this kind of thing.  The party will survive, and Obama will have survived the trial by fire folks said he A: hadn't faced and B: couldn't handle.  Confused ol' Grandpa McCain will have to get his shit thoroughly together if he's going to survive the Obamaslaught(tm) in October.

However, I find myself really pissed at Hillary about this "bitter" nonsense.  I mean, I was pissed about the "he said Reagan was great" nonsense before the Nevada caucuses, but this is a whole new level of pissed at Hillary.

Obama said what we all know is true.  People feel their government doesn't listen to them.  They feel that because of this, their economic well-being has been, to put it mildly, placed somewhere between at risk and destroyed.  So when Obama or Clinton or whatever Grandpa the GOP sends out says "hey, we're gonna fix things up and get this mill working again!", folks feel a little bitter about the last umpteen times they've heard this, and rightly assume it's bullshit.  And so they turn to the things they feel they can trust - God.  Guns.  Family values (whatever form that may take in their household).  And they find someone to vote for, since you gotta vote for someone, who matches them on at least those counts. 

This is what our public discourse has become?  That speaking the obvious, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face truth requires an immediate two-week long attack?  That the media not only willingly joins in on this parade of lunacy, but drives it even after both campaigns have moved on?  Is the truth so dangerous and hurtful that we're unable to hear it without being offended??

I know, none of this is news.  Yes, our public discourse has been like this for years, and no, I'm not surprised by it.  Well, I am a little surprised at the depth of the depravity on this one.  Because in this case, Hillary, the self-styled 'hero of the working class', is not just trying to make Obama unelectable, but by doing so is setting the stage for completely shutting down possibly the first real, honest discussion of the plight, and thinking, of working class Americans in many years. 

And this makes me sad.  Draining a shot of Crown Royal in a bar doesn't make you blue-collar, nor does it make you "in touch" with real Americans.  Making up a clearly false, or at minimum grossly exaggerated, story about your background hunting, doesn't make you blue-collar, nor does it make you "in touch" with real Americans.  Heck, Hillary, you don't even need to be blue collar to be in touch with real Americans. 

You just have to understand, and be willing to admit, that maybe they have a reason to be voting for the things they vote for, and maybe they need a new reason to believe their lives can be better.