The Vote of One Woman

Less than a hundred years ago, I would not have been able to vote for president. 

This fact may seem vague or hazy in many of our minds. There's often just one paragraph in the history books about women's suffrage. But I can't forget it.

Less than two hundred years ago in Texas, I would not have been allowed to have my own property if I was married. My clothes, my hairbrush, my books - all would be considered property of a husband. If I earned my own money, he would not have had to share it with me. It became his.

When I was four years old, I lived in a world where there had never been a female Supreme Court Justice.

Someday, I will live in a world where I'll be able to say: I remember the first woman president.

Until that day, I will strive to cast my vote for the candidate who best represents the hope for all of us to one day live in a society where justice is woven into the system and fabric of our society, just as injustice is today.

Because there was a time when I would not have been free, I refuse to deny freedom to others. For if those who had the privilege of voting and governing had not stood up for my rights, I would not have been able to cast my ballot and make my voice heard.

Harry Burn - a Republican from Tennessee -
believed he had a moral imperative
to extend the franchise to women. 

Tomorrow, votes will be cast all over this country. Most of us think: Which candidate will increase my prosperity? Who will be best for me?

I cannot think that way. I cannot, because Harry Burn said this when he cast the vote which led to the ratification of the 19th Amendment:  I appreciated the fact that an opportunity such as seldom comes to a mortal man to free 17 million women from political slavery was mine.

I voted for Barack Obama not because I think he is perfect, or even a particularly brilliant president, but because I believe that I have a moral imperative to increase the spread of justice throughout this country. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for anyone who would deny rights to gays, would appoint a Supreme Court justice who would deny women's right to choose, for anyone who would use the franchise as a weapon. Obama is not perfect, but our civil rights, and those of our fellow Americans, mean too much for me to vote any other way.

Who Would Mama Earth Vote For?

I love voting. When I taught second grade, I eschewed Halloween, but dressed up in costume for election day (flag-blue wig, Lady Liberty sash). This year, the economy is number one in most people's minds. The question of who'll improve the economy has been dumbed down in election ads -  tax and spend, spend and tax. There's a lot more to the question of improving the economy, however; and how the president thinks about science and technology will impact BOTH the economy and the environment.

If you're interested in where the presidential candidates stand on scientific questions, check out "Science Debate 2012", in which you can compare side-by-side responses of the candidates to questions about science, the environment, and innovation.

The big take-away?

These guys aren't so different, at least on paper

But hey, you're probably thinking:isn't Obama our guy if we're environmentalists?

Well, I do agree that if you're voting green, Obama is the one to vote for.

But lets be real. Neither side is that green. 

Take the Keystone XL Pipeline, for example. In the televised debates, Romney has repeatedly brought up the pipeline - a pipeline that would bring oil from Canadian tar sands - .as necessary to foster energy independence (how a pipeline bringing oil from Canada results in US energy independence, I'm not sure.) Environmentalists believe that the pipeline will have devastating environmental impacts along its route. In particular, extracting oil from tar sands is a seriously dirty way to get oil. But Obama's record isn't all sunshine and puppies when it comes to Keystone.The Obama administration has both slowed the construction of Keystone and supported parts of it. No matter who becomes president, there's a good chance Keystone will go ahead, even as it becomes less important to the oil industry. 

We have to ask ourselves, in a two-party system driven by big money, will the long-term view of planetary health ever be a major issue? There's no benefit in the quarterly profits to looking a hundred years ahead, and a four-year election cycle is too short to truly witness our impact on the planet.

And of course, journalists today are afraid to ask the hard questions about our planetary future:
Which candidate will bring about Z-Day*?

For that, you have to turn to the fearless truths spoken by Joss Whedon, who also happens to be creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and also happens to be on my short list of personal heroes, along with Stephen King and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

If you're waiting for the Zombie Apocalypse, well, then Romney is definitely your guy.



*Z-Day? You know... the beginning of the zombie apocalypse.

Feminism: It's Not the F-Word - Part 1

Le Tigre's Kathleen Hanna in her iconic
 "Feminist" sweater.

...  but obviously, many people think it is.


The past few weeks, there's been a war on women and our right to self-determination. It's all wrapped up in politics and religion and ... politics.


Here are a few things that have gone down recently:

• When Chris Brown, who violently assaulted then- (and now-?) girlfriend Rihanna, performed on the Grammys (an event which offended many women, including survivors of domestic violence), several women tweeted that Brown could beat them.
• The Susan G. Komen Foundation withdrew funding from Planned Parenthood and then reinstated it after there was an outcry.
• Republican candidates have spoken out against a mandate that employers provide health care that includes birth control. In a debate, Newt Gingrich said that Obama supports "infanticide" and Rick Santorum said that we need stronger families, rather than birth control.
• Rick Santorum (again!) said that women in combat will cause problems because men will have "emotions."
• Michelle Duggar, the mother featured on 19 Kids and Counting,  is publishing pamphlets that advocate the key to a happy marriage is wifely submission.
• The Girl Scouts were accused by conservatives of having a radical lesbian agenda and one California Scout called for a cookie boycott because Girl Scouts allow transgender boys who identify as girls to be Scouts. In other news, Samoas were accused of having an agenda of liberally spreading deliciousness.
• Susan B. Anthony had a birthday! She's 192! If you listen closely, you might hear her say, "We've still got a lot of work to do!"

Obviously, in this political season, one party has decided that attacking the freedom of women is a way to be successful. And although there's been a great deal of uproar in response to each of the events described above, there're also way too many people who take these attacks seriously. Not only are they serious, they believe that suppressing women is MORAL, even the will of God.


And even though it's clear that the fight for equal rights, regardless of gender (and regardless of a whole bunch of other factors - such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, ability... ) is still going on, only about a quarter of women say they are feminists.


 This makes me sad. It makes me sad because in a world in which our country's political leaders actively and openly belittle women and their rights, women don't identify with the movement that has allowed us to:

• vote
• get educations and jobs
• own our own property
• choose who we want to marry -- or if we marry -- regardless of whether our fathers agree
• divorce husbands who commit adultery or violence
• maintain custody of children after those divorces
• write, act, and produce art under our own names
• decide how many children (if any) we want to have
• speak out if we are harassed in the workplace
• and that's just the beginning...

I know that this is a blog about the environment -- and some other stuff -- but I want to devote a few posts over the next week or two to the continuing battle for equal rights for all humans in our country. Because that's what feminism is all about -- equal rights. Not about hairy legs, not about hating men. It's about equality.

And in the end, many of the people (especially politicians) who do not support the rights of all humans are the same ones who don't support the movement to make our lifestyle more sustainable. It's pretty amazing -- when it comes to a philosophy of caring - for people, for the planet -- one side is curiously silent. They advocate for a Darwinian vision of survival of the fittest.

Oh wait. They don't actually believe Darwin knew what he was talking about...

Say it Ain't So-bama! 2

Ben: Wow, the sky is really beautiful.
Leslie: It's pollution from the Sweetums factory. It's gorgeous. But is it worth the asthma?
Ben: No.
- Parks and Recreation, "Camping"

Right now, President Obama reminds me a lot of Leslie Knope in the above dialogue. In TV's Pawnee, Indiana, the Sweetums factory produces delicious candy while polluting the air and making the citizens fat. Yet they sponsor fun parks activities like the Harvest Festival. They create beautiful pink and blue sunsets with their pollution. And did I mention their candy is delicious?

So let's imagine that instead of candy, Sweetums is promising jobs for all of America (Sweetums is representing industry in this analogy, FYI).

The EPA says: Let's reduce pollution.It's the law.
Sweetums: But it will cost jobs.
The President: Hmm... OK... we won't reduce pollution. It's probably worth the asthma.

Like Ben, we should all answer a resounding NO to this idea.

In case you're not familiar with what's going on, Obama's office quietly announced on Friday that they will delay stronger smog standards (these were planned well in advance and impact ozone emissions specifically). According to the National Resource Defense Council:

The stronger smog standards would have saved up to 4,300 lives and avoid as many as 2,200 heart attacks every year. They would have made breathing easier for the 24 million Americans living with asthma. And they also would have created up to $37 billion in health benefits annually.

The official rationale for this move is that the regulations would cause an "undue regulatory burden" on industry, which would cost jobs.

I am SO SICK of this false dichotimizing between the environment and jobs. It makes me want to scream (and I did, in all-caps at the beginning of this paragraph). There's a whole world of new green jobs that we are not opening up because we're protecting traditional industry from the tech revolution that is racing on ahead of it -- it's the worst kind of cronyism. Because exactly the kind of 21st Century industry and tech that would help us to get out of the recession is the kind we're not developing in the name of getting out of the recession. It's frakkin' Ouroboros devouring his own tail.

Like many environmental problems, the burden of this will be unduly borne by the poorest Americans. Asthma is more prevalent among those who live in poverty. The same with heart disease. And that means that we will all bear the health care burdens caused by this supposedly economic decision.

So it seems like the economic argument is a win for Mama Earth's side. Again, the NRDC:

The smog standards would generate $37 billion in value for a cost of about $20 billion by 2020.

Which means this is not truly a matter of the economy. It's about politics. If we don't act now, the smog standards are due to be re-evaluated in 2013 ... after the election.

But we shouldn't need to make a political argument or an economic one. This is about justice. How many jobs equal a fair trade for the lives that will be saved by a reduction in ozone emissions?

So what can you do? Here are three Light (that means low-effort on your part) Green things you can do:

1. Email the White House. Follow this link and there's a simple form you can use to tell the President that you are NOT OK with this decision.

2. Or, if you'd rather, use your phone to make a difference. Join the NRDC's phone campaign.

2. Donate to the NRDC. They are planning a legal challenge to this decision. It's simple and you can donate whatever you can spare.

It's fun to be an activist! Voting is important, but all of us who were re-invigorated by the last presidential election can expand our influence by adding a voice (and dollars if we have them - even though we probably won't be able to compete with industry when it comes to greenbacks - at least we've got right on our side).

*Photo courtesy of fanpop

Odds and Ends

Howdy-do! Just a few odds & ends and random musings for you:

First off, check out this amazing short video from the World Wildlife Fund. It features Bill Nighy, a Bond girl, and some of the most recently-discovered animal species (including colossal squids and the world's larges insect!). If this doesn't make you want to start conserving resources, I don't know what will.

Note: it's worth watching full-screen!

Speaking of cool British accents (a comment that won't make sense unless you've watched the above video), I HIGHLY recommend that you watch the premiere of The Hour tonight on BBCAmerica, or free download from iTunes, even though it doesn't have anything to do with the environment. It does deal with the media's responsibility to truth, however, which - as you'll read below -- is crucial to the green movement and the movement for sanity. I actually watched it a few days ago, taking advantage of the promotional download. It tells the story of journalists working at the BBC in the 50's, and the creation of a new news program called The Hour. It stars The Wire's Dominic West and prestige-drama vet Romola Garai, along with Ben Whishaw. A lot of reviewers have been comparing it to Mad Men, but so far the period details and the cocky male lead are the only similarities I've found. I loved the premiere and am looking forward to the rest of the series.

Now... to totally switch gears, this weekend I was in Seattle and visited Trophy Cupcakes, the virtues of which one of my close friends has been extolling for years. Cupcakes aren't exactly my thing; I'm more of a pie connoisseur. However, I have to say that the chocolate cupcake with peanut butter frosting I had was absolutely delicious. I was also happy to read that they use local butter, free-range eggs, and organic peanut butter. It's always a plus when delicious and green collide.

Kids love cupcakes and kids love SpongeBob (nice segue, right?). But FoxNews does not love SpongeBob. They recently criticized Nickelodeon for pushing a global warming agenda because the Department of Education hosted an event in which kiddos were given a book called SpongeBob Goes Green!: an Earth-friendly Adventure (click here to buy the book and piss off Gretchen Carlson). Fox also claimed -- erroneously -- that the kids at the event were shown a cartoon in which a character said, "Thanks to global warming, the temperature will soon go through the roof, and we'll have an endless summer", but didn't qualify his comment by noting that the man-made origin of global warming is "disputed." Huh? A) Take a joke; I know it's hard for y'all at FoxNews, but really? B) The stupidest part of all this? White House spokespeople actually had to take the time to respond to this idiocy.

FoxNews also doesn't seem to be too fond of Ron Paul either, giving his candidacy short shrift compared to other conservatives. Although I disagree with many of Paul's positions, I have an odd affection for him (but wouldn't vote for him - don't worry). I live about five blocks from the Federal Reserve Houston Branch, where Paul or his supporters can sometimes be seen holding little protests. He's a part of my neighborhood life. He's also ideologically consistent. On the environment, Paul retains his ideological consistency - he's not in favor of spending government money to reduce emissions, nor is he in favor of subsidizing oil companies. He thinks conserving resources is a good thing. Ideological consistency, hewing to one's core beliefs, that's something I think we can all learn from, even if our beliefs aren't the same as Paul's. However, FoxNews-style conservatives treat him as a joke, probably because they feel threatened by someone who actually stands by his beliefs. Like Dennis Kucinich on the left, he's painted as crazy ... and isn't it weird that we see people who actually stand for something as crazy?

And that's all the odds and ends I have to report! Any interesting things going on in your brain today?