Vote AbbeyKimmy for Tyrannical President-like Ruler.

Ladies and Gentlemen, distinguished citizens of the United States, I would like to announce my candidacy for Tyrannical President-like Ruler.

If elected, I will immediately dissolve the for-profit media. I strongly feel that in order to maintain a functional democracy, our citizens must be armed with "facts" and "reasoned analyses of important events." Instead of living up to this lofty goal, the executives at MSNBC, Fox, and others have hired plastic-faced harpies to endlessly speculate on red herring stories ("Will Hillary's new pantsuit help or hurt her candidacy? Text your vote to 1-800-STUPIDBULLSHIT"). Pardon my dramatic phrasing, but I believe the corporate media's sensational, OMG-look-at-that, 24-hour shitstream is cannibalizing the soul of our country. We must stop this erosion of productive dialogue. Friends, pull up a chair, and let's have a discussion about the effects of militaristic foreign policy (sometimes, there is blowback!). Let's talk about race and religion and gender. Let's do nuance and cogent argumentation. Let's disagree sometimes (often!), but let's disagree respectfully.

Folks, I believe in the great American value of self-determination. I think that everyone should be given an equal opportunity to educate himself and to put his unique talents to work. I feel it is unjust to deny any person any opportunity to improve his or her life based on the fact that he or she was born to poor parents. Aristocracy, it has been said, is sooooo last season. In this vein, I advocate full college financial aid packages to those who weren't given enormous trust funds. While subsidized loans may make up a small part of that package, they mustn't exceed the student's ability to re-pay the loan (a small amount to foster personal responsibility to one's course of study, but not debt bondage). Also: students cannot live in California on $7000/year, so let's update those cost-of-living figures.

You know what would also be pretty sweet? Let's bring the manufacturing sector back to America. Those semi-skilled jobs belong at home, as they create opportunities for people who aren't ready for a Ph.D., but don't want to toil in a McDonald's kitchen. Let's create jobs to suit the entire range of American talent. And let's face it: nobody feels good while wearing a shirt sewn by a Bangladeshi girl who was paid 17 cents an hour. Stop paying to ship that shirt halfway across the world, and start paying one of your fellow citizens a living wage. I hope the slightly higher cost will motivate you to Buy Less Shit (but let's face it: American Apparel isn't much more expensive than Target).

When I am elected Tyrannical Ruler, I will abolish No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and replace it with Let's Just Help Every Child Realize His or Her Full Potential, Assclowns (LJHECRHoHFPA). Unlike NCLB, this bill will cater to a broad spectrum of students, from the high-achieving to the underprivileged, and make sure that every one is challenged appropriately. This will be co-legislated with another bill, called Actually, Some Children Are Genuinely Handicapped and Will Never Meet Your High Standards No Matter How Punitively You Enforce Them. A child with an IQ of 50 cannot be expected to do trigonometry, because he/she is mentally retarded. Schools who choose to serve these children should not be punished for doing so (under the current system, they are). Under my rule, we will -not- employ market-based principles (crafted to maximize short-term profit), because while they are great for the stockholders at Kaplan Education, the hyperfocus on math test scores is bad for children. The point of an education is to create thoughtful, creative, and productive citizens, not cogs in a corporate machine. Hint: let's reinstate programs for literature, science, history, and the arts!

These bills will be backed by a funding measure entitled Let's Give Schools the Resources, Support, and Training They Need to Be Effective, You Jerks. It is a pretty radical idea, so I'll give you some time to warm up to it. This measure will abolish the shitty property-tax-based school funding that allows white suburban children to monopolize most of the resources and teacher talent, while inner-city children (often children of color) are stuck in creaky old buildings with musty books and unsupported, stressed-out teachers. Every child, in spite of the race and yearly income of his/her parents, must be given the same opportunity to succeed. That does not mean taking resources away from suburban white kids -- we are simply also funding the inner city schools. That might cost money, so let's close some corporate tax loopholes, maybe! Sorry, wealthiest 1%, but you can and should pay a higher tax rate than our middle class citizens.

Friends, I believe that a just society cares for the health of its citizens. I think it is wrong that children die of treatable injuries because they are uninsured. I, personally, am willing to have money taken out of every paycheck to make sure poor children's boo-boos are properly bandaged and slathered with ointment, because I don't agree that they should lose limbs to a Pseudomonas infection. And if you call my beliefs "socialist," I'll have to call yours "atrociously inhuman and embarrassingly selfish."

"Holy crap," you say, "that kind of coverage is unsustainably expensive." Under the current structure, I think you're right. Here is what I propose to bring down the costs:
--I've heard it endlessly quoted that $1 of every $3 is spent deciding to whom insurance companies ought to deny coverage. I'm going to go out on a limb and say: that is a terrible waste of ca$h. All people need healthcare!
--Eliminate pharmaceutical marketing. Did you know we pay billions of dollars annually (often indirectly, through insurance premiums) to be forced to watch this propaganda? I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay billions of dollars to be emotionally manipulated into making major decisions about my health! Did you know that behind the scenes, drug reps inundate our doctors with science-flavored propaganda to encourage them to prescribe newer, more expensive drugs that often provide no benefit over older, more thoroughly tested drugs? If your drug is really as awesome as you say it is, let the science speak for itself. We don't need colorful presentations of manipulated data. We don't need images of shiny, happy seniors frolicking in green fields. We don't need trademarked mottos. What we need is the boring, plaintive data on efficacy and side effects. Does this drug work? Check yes or no.
--Stop subsidizing unhealthy foods (e.g. corn subsidies which inevitably decrease the price of high-fructose corn syrup, allowing children to purchase buckets-o'-soda for $1.29, or (even worse) soy subsidies that put more partially hydrogenated oils in our foods). Start subsidizing good food: fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Send families to farmers markets with cloth bags and coupons. Force schools to serve delicious lentil soup with a fresh side salad, not reheated tater tots with ketchup. It will be infinitely cheaper to feed your children vegetables than it will be to treat their heart disease and diabetes in 40 years. Apples and a pair of sneakers are cheaper than a lifetime of statins, insulin, and anti-depressants.
--If an adult wants to eat Little Debbie Snack Cakes or smoke cigarettes, that ishis/her choice! But he/she must pay the true cost of those products: whatever it costs to produce them, plus the expected cost of the triple bypass and/or tumor excision, divided by the expected odds of acquiring that disease.
--Focus on low-tech solutions and preventative healthcare. The cheapest fix is often the best one. (e.g. Prenatal vitamins: cheaper and easier than spinal bifida corrective surgery. Exercise: cheaper and more effective than Prozac.)

Esteemed American citizens, I believe we should craft legislation around science and fact, not pie-in-the-sky ideology. I believe we must acknowledge the interwoven nature of political problems, and seek creative solutions. I believe that gay people are human goddammed beings, and that they deserve full and equal rights. I believe we must stop dumping toxic chemicals into out water and soil. I believe that when something is morally wrong (e.g. payday lending, offshore drilling), we must outlaw it, even if it hurts "jobs" or "the economy." I believe that paying taxes is good, and that the revenue should be spent to create a clean, healthy, more just society. Do you like public roads, national parks, and food that is certified free of E. coli O157:H7? Then you must pay for those services. If you prefer, I guess you can move to the breakaway republic of Super-Capitalist-landia (governed by Ayn Rand) and pay a hospital $100,000 to treat your bloody intestines. Have fun!

Folks, I don't believe that markets are suited to every problem (e.g. for-profit education = worst idea EVER). I believe that corporations are ultimately beholden to stock prices, but I, your beloved ruler, am ultimately accountable only to YOU. I believe that corporations, entrusted with great responsibility, can cut corners, but maintain your loyalty with an effective PR campaign. I believe politicians can do the same, given enough money, and that is why we're going to do this campaign without corporate gifts or negative TV commercials. What I have to say wouldn't fit into a 30-second spot anyway.

I will speak to you honestly and openly. I will tell you: I am going to have to raise taxes, especially on the wealthiest citizens, but in return, you will no longer have to pay $1000/month for shitty health insurance that doesn't cover anything anyway. I will make sure your children are educated and that they are fed good food. I will pay down the enormous, unsustainable deficit that is crippling our ability to care for our citizens. Should we pay interest to China, or to fix Little Johnny's broken arm? When we pay off our debts, we will no longer have to make this choice.

Above all, I believe that a democracy can and must be set up to serve its citizens. This November, vote AbbeyKimmy for Tyrannical President-like Ruler of the United States. I will (mostly!) rule with benevolence (except with regard to Dana Perino¹, because that bitch is seriously awful).

Upon election, I will require one sequined tiara, as well as a large oak tree full of squirrels. Please and thank you.




¹Dana Perino on gutting the State Children's Health Insurance Program: "But it's okay to deny children medical care, because [stupid talking point that doesn't make any sense]." click here to watch.

How not to be a terrible husband: Stop doing that oppressive shit

(Book review -- For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage by Tara Parker-Pope)

I picked up this lovely tome from the library because I approach marriage the same way I approach a biology midterm. First step: studying!

Boy and I work so well together it's nauseating, but I'm always looking for new communication and relationship-management skillz to add to our repertoire. This book seemed to have the ultimate combination: science and good marriage, together at last. Why yes, sign me up for some solid evidence-based relationship advice! To seal the deal, the book's cover has a PIE CHART encircled in a wedding band!! OMG I LOVE GRAPHS!!

I mean "rings," I love rings. I'll never figure out how to be a regular girl.

Unfortunately, the book is more like an uncritical meta-review of shitty sociological studies. Wow, you can find evidence for differences between men and women? Quick, imply that they are inborn and natural, and then intentionally confuse correlative relationships with causal ones! Hurry, before they figure out how easy and fun it is to violate gender norms!

Don't even get me started on the RAMPANT HETEROSEXISM of her work -- all advice is given to straight couples, gay people are only referenced as subjects of study who only exist to illuminate the heterosexual condition. Says Parker-Pope: "Given that gay marriage isn't legal in most places, it's hard to believe there's much to be learned from gay and lesbian partners!"

WOW! DID YOU KNOW THAT THE GAYS HAVE SOMETHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY?!? I CERTAINLY DIDN'T!!!

Throughout the book, Parker-Pope (perhaps unwittingly?) insinuates that conforming to rigid gender molds may stand in the way of deeper understanding of your partner. All of her illustrative relationship conflicts are laden with gendered hand-wringing: "Why does she always want to TALK about our our problems?" "Why won't he just ASK for directions when we're lost?" "Why is she always berating herself for being FAT?" etc. etc. For those in highly gendered relationships, frustration about an inability to understand one's partner seems pervasive.

My best friend once said, trying to explain the difficulties of traditional marriage, "it's like men and women grow up in completely different worlds." Boys are encouraged to play with cars, while girls are encouraged to make themselves beautiful; boys yell, girls cry; boys get into fistfights while girls opt for diplomacy. With different interests, social norms, and codes of behavior, how can we be expected to understand each other, let alone forge deep and lasting connections?

Parker-Pope never explicitly articulates any anti-gender argument, but her sociological data gently dance around this point: WE HAVE TO FORGE SOME COMMON GROUND, 'CAUSE THIS SHIT AIN'T WORKING. Finally, after agonizing about it for 200+ pages, she presents an alternative to the highly gendered marriage model: so-called "peer marriages."

According to Parker-Pope, peer marriage "is based on a mix of equity and equality. Each partner contributed time and money to the relationship based on what he or she received, and each person had equal status in the household. Husband and wife were equally responsible for economic, household, and domestic duties."

Wow, that sounds pretty fucking sweet, right?!? READ ON:

"While [having this kind of equitable relationship] may sound impressive, the reality is that these relationships aren't perfect, and often require sacrifices many couples can't or won't make. [...] The constant focus on equality can be emotionally taxing -- it takes far less thought to divide household and parenting duties along gender lines than it does to work out a complex system of balance."

Yeah, I remember this time we had an EPIC week-long summit on chore division:

Girl: "I would like to help you with your computer problems and do your taxes, as suits my natural abilities and inclinations."
Boy: "Since you spend so much time commuting, I will cook you dinner! I highly enjoy combining foods in a nutritious and tasty manner."
Girl: "When you're done, sit down and relax while I do the laundry."
Boy: "If you don't mind, I'll take this opportunity to sweep and tidy up the living room."
Both: "Thanks for helping out! I sincerely appreciate your contribution."
OH, SO EMOTIONALLY TAXING.

She continues:
"Peer couples typically can't pursue careers to the fullest extent possible because the relationship is the focus and priority of both partners' lives."

Translation: Men can't maniacally pursue their careers because they actually have to scrub their own urine stains out of the toilet every once in a while. Also, they might be expected to cuddle with their wives even though that shit is totes gay.

Then there was this gem:
"Although peer relationships often involve intense companionship, some peer couples reported having less robust sex lives. One reason may be that sexual tension is often based on masculine and feminine gender roles. Peer marriages de-emphasize gender roles and place a greater emphasis on friendship and fairness. While that can make for a great partnership, it can also take some of the sizzle out of a relationship."

If I can delineate any kind of "train of thought" from this selective reading of the evidence ("some couples"?) and idle speculation ("one reason may be"), she seems to be saying that if a husband stops oppressing his wife, she will no longer see him as a man, and thus will no longer desire to bang him? EMASCULAT'D!

This book was so obnoxious, it has inspired me to write my own marriage manual. It will be called, How Not To be a Terrible Husband: Do Your Fair Share of the Housework, You Asshole. There will only be one page, which will read, "Didn't you read the fucking title? Pick up a mop help your wife."

The sequel will consist of a punch to the skull.