chandra's Blog

My 2nd Grader Was Taught that "Boys Can Marry Boys"--Not in School, but on TV--from a Yes on 8 Ad

2008-10-21T16:06:51Z

The anti-gay nutjobs in California are at it again this election year. Prop 8 would amend California's constitution to take away the right to marry a same-sex partner. Not only do they want to take that right away, they want to put it in our constitution. Bigotry as the supreme law of our state. Yech.

But here's the other thing that's bothering me: The main thrust of the television campaign is several ads focused on the idea that second-graders will be taught in school that "boys can marry boys and girls can marry girls."

That message ignores the facts that (1) our schools barely have the time and resources to teach reading and math, much less this stuff, and (2) your kids might have friends or classmates whose parents are same-sex couples, married or not, and you can't prevent them from noticing that and talking with their friends.

But you know what else that message does? It does EXACTLY the thing it purports to "protect" us from. My daughter--a second-grader--learned that "boys can marry boys and girls can marry girls" FROM WATCHING A PRO-Prop 8 AD. Hello? How do they not get this? If they don't want it taught in schools, how is it better to be teaching it on TV???

For my daughter, it was no big deal--she asked me about it, and we discussed why I think people who love each other and want to make a marriage and/or a family should be able to get married. I told her I would have been really sad if her dad and I had not been allowed to get married. And I told her that when she grows up and is old enough to vote on questions like this, she'll have to make up her own mind about them.

I remain completely mystified about why some in California are so obsessed with banning same-sex marriage. The best way to "protect marriage" is to work hard on the one you're in (if you're in one); nobody else's marriage or relationship has any effect on my marriage with my husband. Why can't these nuts just mind their own business?

Anger Management Classes for Blog Commenters!

2008-03-20T16:10:04Z

I don't know if these exist, but perhaps they should. It seems that every political site or blog I visit lately has some great, well-reasoned comments and some, well, how do I put this?--some comments that make me picture hordes of red-faced individuals hunched over laptops drooling rabidly while spewing hatred and venom.

I guess we should be glad that most of them limit this palaver to their online personas. I guess we should be glad that they're typing instead of re-loading.

But mostly, I'm wondering if we should be talking about Universal MENTAL Health coverage in America . . .

Hear Iowa Roar! (Puh-lease . . . )

2008-03-19T14:49:26Z

Is anyone else curious about why Iowa claims it must keep its stranglehold on the presidential nominating process? Yeah, well, this won't clear it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19giddins.html?ex=1363665600&en=f7a9f492d9e9f47a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

First thing on the Democratic Party agenda in August should be overhauling this process for next time, removing BOTH the superdelegate nonsense AND the Iowa/NewHampshire/SouthCarolina hegemony on the nominating process. It's ridiculous.

Party Unity? or Disenfranchising Nearly Half of All Democrats?

2008-03-07T17:29:15Z

I support Hillary Clinton to be our next president. I am one of millions of voters--nearly half of our Democratic party--who believe she is the best choice for the Democratic nomination. She may not win. I would be very disappointed for myself and for the country, but I could live with that. If I have to.

Here's what I can't live with:
1. People who claim to be in favor of party unity, and then fill the comment sections of every political site and blog with calls for half of the Democratic party to just shut up and go away in the name of "party unity." And Donna Brazile making a public statement that DNC Chairman Howard Dean should step in and put a stop to this--how? By disenfranchising the half of the party that has voted for Clinton so far? Not to mention anyone who intends to vote for her in the primaries to come? Nice, Donna.

Here's the best thing we can do for party unity: We can allow the process we created--for better or for worse, this is the system we Democrats have in place--to run its course until there's a winner. That time has not yet come. I don't know when it will. But what I do know is that if other supporters of Hillary Clinton are as tired as I am of being told to just shut up and go along, it's not a big surprise that many of them are angry and threatening to vote for McCain.

I've worked the phones on election day trying to make sure that voters all over the country are allowed to vote without interference. I thought that was something Democrats cared about. It's certainly something I feel strongly about--regardless of whether the voter in question agrees with my positions and candidates or not. It's all about fair play.

Disenfranchising half the party before the process is complete is a disastrous turnabout of this fundamental value. Don't do it. Let someone win, and then we can all get behind that nominee for the general election.

2. Am I the only person who sees the parallel between "Your criticism of [insert candidate name here] hands talking points to McCain" and "Your criticism of the Bush Administration hands talking points to terrorists"?

3. Surrogates and supporters of a candidate who simultaneously praise him for being "above the fray" and unwilling to engage in personal attacks . . . but then explode the comments sections and blogosphere accusing Hillary or, more ominously, "the Clintons," of every terrible thing from global catastrophe to causing the local supermarket to run out of Cheesy Poufs. Please.

In David Brooks' NYT column this morning, he discusses what might happen if Obama "takes the gloves off": there would be accusations against Hillary Clinton flying everywhere and Obama would lose the moral high ground that is the centerpiece of his campaign story. OK. I'm guessing that David Brooks doesn't read TPM as often as I do, but if he did, he'd see that Obama supporters have been slathering the internet with these accusations--some fair, some not, and some just ridiculous--for months now.

Here's the thing: you can't have it both ways. If you support a candidate for refusing to attack or "kneecap" other candidates (and that's a pretty good reason to support someone, in my view), then have the moral courage to refrain from filling the void with kneecapping on their behalf. It makes a difference.

You see, the other half of our shared Democratic party is listening. We hear criticism of Obama among Democrats for lack of experience or speech plagiarism, being countered all over the internet not only with fair and relevant criticism but also with accusations against Hillary Clinton that are breathtaking in their venom and scope.

And this venom I'm talking about is coming from Democrats who support Obama. And right or wrong, that venom is a big part of what's splitting our party in two today.

If you expect us to stand together in November behind your candidate, think twice about how you're treating us now. Because it's our party too.