My sister, the geophysicist, was telling me today about the Southern California ShakeOut, an event this November 12th at 10AM when everyone is being asked to stop & consider what would happen if there was a 7.4 earthquake on the San Andreas. She went to a seminar where different representatives of the event spoke about the various pieces of the puzzle.

Such a quake would break the freeways heading east. The only “escape” would be north. The first city north is Bakersfield, whose mayor has stated that they would be unable to deal with the influx of refugees that such a quake would cause and would shut down the freeway. Which just underlines the importance of working together: we’re in this together, as a state and as people.

Such a quake would cause fires, fires that LA firefighters would start work on, and which San Diego firefighters would very quickly pitch in with. Until the aftershock hit SD, forcing them home. The best thing to do in that kind of situation would be to head to the beach and watch the city burn.

If evacuated, people would surrender their household belongings to the looters, who would come. If people have a disaster plan, and if they stick to that plan, most people will congregate with their friends and family members, with food, water, data (hopefully!), and pets. (See comments for my disaster plan.) My sister made the very valid point that we (humans) can live without food for weeks (although I will have my cats) as long as we have water. My sisters’ plans are to congregate, one with food, one with guns & ammo.

It’s interesting to me to listen to peoples’ disaster preparedness plans, and in Southern California, disasters (fires, quakes) are never far from peoples’ minds. But I have found that most people my age don’t discuss disaster preparedness in terms of fires, quakes, or tornadoes; we discuss it in terms of zombies. “When the zombies attack…” is the frequent start of conversations among friends & coworkers.

“When the zombies attack, if you can’t grow your own food, you won’t survive.” A coworker (who always bikes to work) has told me, just before pointing me in the direction of his favorite gardener-cum-activist.

“When the zombies attack, this will be one of the worst places to be.” Is a frequent phrase heard early in the morning at the Apple store, just before the giant glass doors (they weight a ton each) slide open to admit the first shoppers with their dead dead eyes.

“Dude, when the zombies attack, I’m hanging out with him.” This violates my rule, since it was spoken by a 40-ish coworker about a 60-ish coworker who holds the record for his age group in running the marathon. However, the logic here is misplaced since, when the zombies attack, he’s gonna be running. And we won’t be able to keep up…

“Of course I’ve got an earthquake kit at home. When the zombies attack, you need to be prepared!” This one was interesting to me since it combined the two: being prepared for an earthquake as the same as being prepared for a zombie apocalypse.

“My wife calls it the panic room,” a friend says of a closet in his home where he keeps his guns, “and when the zombies attack, we’ll be set!” His wife is now thinking of putting provisions in there.

In the same conversation, his brother said, “No, when the zombies attack, I’m going to WalMart!” And then proceeded to outline his clearly thought-out reasons: food, lockdown, and guns. Although WalMart no longer carries guns, which we reminded him of. “Okay, then when the zombies attack, I’ll swing by your place first. We can get some guns and then hole up in WalMart.”

There’s no if in these conversations. There never is. The zombie apocalypse is clearly very entrenched into our psyches. And I wonder if it really is the most concrete way we can think about the unknown disasters that can strike. I’m currently reading the Black Swan: the Impact of the Highly Improbable, which discusses the difficulty humans have preparing for, mentally and physically for the improbable and for the not-clearly-defined. Southern Californians can say glibly that we have many earthquakes a day and that there is a high likelihood that a large one will hit us soon. But very few of us have a disaster plan. Is the zombie apocalypse so outlandish that it becomes real to us? Something that we can prepare for in a way that we cannot prepare for earthquakes, fires, and tornadoes? Or is it a broader social commentary about social sheep/zombies? Or, or! Is it because there are hundreds of cultural zombie artifacts (movies, TV shows, books) to help mentally prepare ourselves but for natural disasters, we must turn to the hated genres of history and documentary (Twister, I think, actually proves this point).

Religion Dispatches has a very interesting deconstruction of a well known Old Testament story, one used frequently to support “the Culture of Life” (forgive my scare quotes, but they scare me!), but which, RD argues, ought to be understood to support Justice.

Spark is a category for sharing links. No intense commentary, just a link & a brief reason you might want to click on it. Something to Spark your Mind to Flame, if you will.

At the top of Google News at 1230 today (I heard about it from some blog or another) was the news that the California Supreme Court passed down a ruling today that Proposition 22, which was approved by 61% of voters in 2000 was unconstitutional, causing an infringement upon the basic rights afforded to all residents of this state. Immediately, right-wingers submitted their million signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the November (you know, the presidential one?) ballot to change it to “all rights except this one should be afforded to all people and then only excluded are people we don’t like”. My coworker, who found out at the same time as I while we were reading this online, sighed. “As much as I’m for what this ruling represents,” he said, “I just can’t help but think what it will do in an election year.”

And he’s right. This will surely help release the right-wingers from the woodwork. But maybe, just maybe, it’ll release the left-wingers, too.

However, that’s all just back story. What I really want to do is [Read more →]

Extra extra, read all about it.

So…NARAL just came out in support of Obama, who is *gasp* a man, for those of you who weren’t sure. I don’t know about all you vaginas (since it’s obviously what we think with) out there, but I had always thought that he had a stronger pro-choice position than Hillary. Although I’m currently perusing both their websites and can’t find anything concrete on either. I thought he, at least, was better than that. [See Obama on Family, Education, or Ethics; wait, maybe it’s under Heathcare, or Poverty…nope? Too bad there’s no search function. See Hillary as a Champion for Women and Supporting Parents and Caring for Children (I feel like a Dick & Jane book). No? Well, she doesn’t have a search function either.]

John sent me an email to see what I’d heard in the Feminist Blogosphere (I’d not heard anything, actually, his email was the first), so I Googled it. According to him, “a lot of NARAL folks were pretty pissed off”, which I shall leave to him to substantiate (sorry, I’ve got fifteen tabs open in this window alone, my li’l iBook cana take much more ). So this is what I found in the feminist blogosphere:

The usually verbose Feministe had a very short post regarding it which I feel sums up my frustration with this:

This is going to ruffle some feathers.

Which just sets this up as a cat-fight. We feminists are so disorganized, so unsure of what is in our own best interests, such bitches, that we just can’t agree on anything! Excuse me while I contract a case of the vapours.

Pandagon was quite equanimous about it. She brings up the fact that he has a strong track record, has a better chance of winning, and is not McCain (which is a slightly odd argument, but okay), all of which make him a good choice for (a) people, (b) women, and (c) feminist organizations with political clout. Pandagon is disturbed by the comments on NARAL’s site (the cat-fight noted above) and reiterates that the point is having a feminist in the White House.

Feministing, my favorite (and only one left on my daily click) mentions that EMILY’s List disagrees with the choice but that NARAL’s stated goal is not to promote women in politics (as EMILY’s is) but, again, to promote feminism (and choice). She then leaves open what her particular leanings on the subject are but once again anticipates that there will be a cat-fight:

Thoughts, y’all? (Please, please keep it civil. Both Clinton and Obama supporters are participants in this blog community. Be kind.)

(her emphasis)

As of this posting, Bitch, PhD has not yet weighed in, nor has the Well-Timed Period, who may or may not (she’s more concerned with actual legislation & may not mention it until which ever we get as president passes some asinine legislation).

Which they will. Make no mistake, Hillary and Obama each know how the political game is played and these are the rules: don’t mention the A-word, dance around when asked point-blank about medication (lest we say the word “pill” too loudly), quietly vote for small pieces of legislation that slip through the cracks unnoticed by all but the most rabid of anti-choicers, and publicly state that you’re “pro-woman”, “pro-family”, or “pro-child” which can ambiguously go either way. If either gets to a position of power where they might have the opportunity to introduce a constitutional amendment to uphold the right to choose, I have no illusions that either of them would. Obama has managed to strike me as the less wishy-washy of the two when it comes to this subject (which every smart Democrat is wishy-washy about), but I have been unable to find anything to back that up. Just as, in some circles, an endorsement by George II could be the kiss of death, endorsement by a vocally pro-choice organization may well not be in the best interests of either candidate. I wish Obama well. I wish he was more liberal. I wish our political process allowed him to stand up and say what he believed, rather than what his speech-writers spin for him.

And at the end of the year, I’ll be voting Democratic. It was a hard decision for me, but I cannot afford to throw my vote away this year. This is, of course, contingent on us actually having and election come November. Which I am still not convinced of.

Finally, Feministing reminds us that what is important in this election season is voting. Thanks to those who went before us, even if my first introduction to them was from Mary Poppins.

Mildred Loving, half of the Loving couple who battled antimiscegination laws through the Supreme Court died (yes I’m late to this). And already the wolves are claiming her as an historical figure for their side in the homosexual marriage battle. Unfortunately, she already chose a side. Read her words here. Religion Dispatches has a great discussion of Focus on the Family’s attempt to claim her for their side here.

Spark is a category for sharing links. No intense commentary, just a link & a brief reason you might want to click on it. Something to Spark your Mind to Flame, if you will.

(It’s that time again – guest post from Zach time.)

(Image from Bloomsbury Auctions)

Lots of people are talking about a newly-surfaced letter by Einstein, which seems to clarify his ambiguous views on religion with the following strongly-worded statements:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

and

For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.

According to one blogger, the sentiments quoted above aren’t actually that new – similar ones were republished in Skeptic magazine in 1997. But even so, this reinforces them, plus they are getting a lot of press. So I am pleased by the news overall. But I think one should keep something in mind.

[Read more →]

This is almost a Spark post, however I’ve got two from over at Groovy Green.

Why Higher Gas Prices Should Make You Smile, at least if you believe that the only way we’re going to get out of this crisis is by switching to “alternative” (to fossil fuels) forms of energy. I have often said that $4 was the price point at which I would stop driving and I’ve been trying to live up to that. I’ve been better about biking to work (I have my husband poke me in the back when my alarm goes off each morning to get me out of bed) and I’ve actually done so twice a week for the last three weeks. Yay me It means getting up & getting ready earlier than I’m used to, it means more exercise than I’m used to, and it means being more organized (like figuring out what’s for dinner the evening before I have to go shopping); but it also means a certain smugness that makes me feel warm inside (or maybe that’s just the exercise) when I pass gas stations, and an even better smugness when I pass cars because I’m actually going faster than they are in traffic.

Grow your own grain in Massachusetts. This is an awesome story about *ahem* grassroots sustainability. I’m so envious of Jana and her veggie garden, but I’ve never even considered growing my own wheat. Having such a relationship with a local bakery/miller is truly awesome. I can only hope that more such ingenious schemes come around. This is what’s going to help when the zombies attack.

A little taste of what you’re in for:

“So if you’re a truck buyer, be like your Meh-sai-er–only Ford pickups will do.”

“When your best friend’s a shyster, don’t drink Jagermeister. Jack is what Jesus would drink.”

h/t Friendly Atheist

(Hey ya’ll – another guest post from Zach. PS, hope you don’t mind my saying “ya’ll.”)

A year ago, a group called Soulforce organized two buses of queer and allied folks, mostly students, to ride around the country visiting colleges with discriminatory policies – i.e. religious and military ones. The East Coast bus visited Gordon College, my alma mater, and the same week two students and I released a booklet of anonymous stories by LGBTQ and questioning Gordon students, which had never been done on that scale before. From what people on campus told me, both events had quite an impact, and there was recently a “what’s happened since then?” event.

Being two years gone, I don’t really know what it’s like on campus. And honestly I don’t really care to know except in outline – hearing detailed arguments about Romans 1:24 gets tedious after the 37th time or so, and so does splitting hairs trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. But Gordon occupies a fascinating niche between evangelicalism and the cultural mainstream, such that I’ll keep paying attention to what goes on there long after my friends have all graduated.

So I read with interest an article in the Salem News last week, about how a proposal to start a LGBT support group was voted down 7-6 by the Student Association. Read that, browse the comments if you like, and come back. [Read more →]

It’s long, but go listen to & read NPR’s “Two Families Grapple with Sons’ Gender Preferences“. Then come back for study questions. [Read more →]