Nicely done! You started out sounding perfectly reasonable, but each clause ratcheted up the level of guilt by association and Smear Game talking points until you arrived at your zenith: his grandmother. Quite symmetrical.

Just out of curiousity, do you have an alternative candidate/philosophy/solution to offer?

thanks, as usual

you'll surely get the usual bile from obama's automaton supporters...but i truly appreciate it every time you put into words what the rest of us are thinking (though we don't have the platform to say it). i wouldn't vote for mccain...but i'd consider staying home. and i wouldn't for one second feel the burden on my shoulders if roe v. wade was overturned. that burden would sit with those people who assumed that we women (of all ages, it's not just the "older" ones, as I am not one of the older ones) would be okay with not being seen. not anymore we aren't.

-- lulubelle

Whether a person voted for McCain out of spite or merely stayed home out of spite, would the ethical responsibility be any different if McCain did manage to get into office?

I'm all for respecting people's feelings, and I do believe our party will reconcile, but I'm sure there are many serious feminists who could tell you that the real burden of Roe being overturned isn't the mild guilt (which can be easily deflected) incurred on voters, but the reality for women of all ages losing their freedom to control their bodies.

Please reconsider.

Nice post!

Lots of Women's Studies programs are interested in anthropology/primatology, especially following the big discoveries of the "Trimates" (Diane Fossey, Jane Goodall, Birute Galdikas), discoveries tied to their more empathatic approach to studying the creatures.

The discovered, for example, that females aren't passive prizes, but active agents who help influence the outcomes of contests for power (food, sex, dominance, etc.).

Later, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy became well-known for applying knowledge and ideas from her studies of primates to our lives as humans (esp women):

The Woman That Never Evolved

Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Blaffer_Hrdy

of course it's always tricky to try to extrapolate from biology/"human nature" what is appropriate or beneficial

it's natural for us as social mammals to compete against each other (murder), for instance, but also natural to cooperate for common purpose (laws against murder)

and many people cherry-pick facts/theories to fit their own preconceived ideas

still, it seems useful to try to figure out what makes us tick when thinking about what we should do next

I agree that judgmental snobbery isn't the way to go as we work to deal with this giant problem, but I didn't intrepret the statement you called out in the same way you did.

I was thinking that the author was being a bit distanced but sympathetic. Sort of saying, "Yes, folks, it's frustrating that it's all so complicated and we don't seem to be getting anywhere, but it makes common sense that even forward-thinking voters also have to consider their own finances."

So our economic troubles are one more obstacle that will make it difficult (but no less important) to cut carbon emissions.

I liked your explanation of this struggle much better, since the ground-level real-human-beings angle is such an important part of this story. I live it too. It's not a no-brainer.

Of course, if the medium-to-worst predictions are even half right, the more we exponentially build this climate change before beginning to slow or reverse our emissions, the more human pain and suffering is waiting for us down the road...

yes, there's been so much hype that's it often hard to know what's what, but it's not just a matter of getting a few degrees warmer here and there...

..but dramatic shifts in the Earth's weather patterns and ocean currents.

~drought --> wildfire --> famine --> conflict

Look at the legal battles over water this year between FL, AL, GA...

more abstract, but the whole point is that the world doesn't work according to our own abstract notions like state lines.

the rain falls on the just and unjust, etc.

climate change could cause lots of social/economic/political chaos all around the world

we're so connected economically that no (wo)man is an island

and some people also see a moral dimension in actively contributing to it

yes, there's danger in running around saying "the sky is falling," but there are also plenty of aphorisms about choosing the psychologically safer position of ignoring a problem until it's too late

than many on both sides realize/acknowledge

salon had a good article examining this written by a scientist who worked on a report. he said claims of "consensus" had been overblown, and that there was plenty of disagreement among scientists about how this playing and what the consequences might be.

he did, however, think it was pretty clear that human activity was at least helping to significantly influence climate change...

i bet it's in the archives

so you agree that the climate is changing, but aren't convinced that human activity has anything to do with it?

what do you make of the the correlation (discovered thru ice core samples) between temp. and CO2 in the atmosphere? Both rise dramatically with the coming of the Industrial Revolution.

how likely do you really think it is that—since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution—we've added who know how many billions of tons of carbon dioxide to the soup and it hasn't changed the taste one bit?

early american settlers must've thought the vast, rugged wilderness before them was practically infinite and inexhaustible, surely nothing that could be radically reshaped by little old people. but it has been.

also, if humans could conceivably cuase nuclear winter, why is it so outrageous to think we could cause our climate to change more slowly?