...Chienne Précoce...

Photomicrography of Cocktails

This is some impressive photomicrography (photography using microscopes) of different drinks!  Check out more drinks here.  So impressive!

Vodka Tonic (my fav. drink, and surprisingly it’s also my fav. of all of these)

………….

Schnapps

………….

Sea Breeze (in honor of Char!)

………….

Madras (so pretty!)

………….

And… for the virgins out there: Shirley Temple

Look closely to see junk mail, postcards, business cards, greeting cards, cruise itineraries… stand back to see them upcycled into a textural representation of beauty. Mosaics by Schimmel.

…Twig the Wonder Kid…

…………………………………

…All American Blonde…

………………………………..

…Night Blooms II…

…………………………

Taylor Marsh wrote on “Hillary Hysteria” today, and I think her comments are right on the money.  She’s receiving email from readers who are upset that Taylor is being so supportive of Barack Obama.  I’m not Barack Obama’s biggest fan, and neither is Marsh, but we also both understand how important this election is. 

She’s been receiving emails that say things like:

…As a woman, I am supposed to support a candidate who refers to women as “sweetie.” Now the elegant speaker continues to flip-flop and show his true colors.

…Blocking a role call in Denver will only enrage people like me more. I suggest you keep your negative comments to yourself and understand, people like me will not fall in line because you say so. My vote is mine and it is my right to use it as I want.

You, and the Democratic Party, underestimate the negative feelings you have created by the treatment of Senator Clinton and President Clinton. I am sick of your whining and accusations. Neither of you have given me any reason to be proud to be a Democrat or to cast my vote for Obama. Why are you so opposed to Senator Clinton? She has more experience, more personal appeal, and a proven record. Obama has no experience, comes across as arrogant, and no record. The more we hear about him, the less we trust him.

LindaM

And another reader emails Marsh:

Please stop trying to supress our vote. Last I heard we live in a Democracy and we have a right to our vote.

I am so disappointed hat you only want to let the people that agree with you the right to vote.

We want a roll call vote at the Democratic Convention….

RobinH

Taylor responds to these readers:

Unhinged Hillary hysteria has now replaced supporting what Hillary Clinton has requested of all her supporters: to help elect a Democrat in November by working to elect Barack Obama. Hey, but to these people what Senator Clinton wants doesn’t matter.

What about what’s good for Senator Clinton? That no longer matters either. For anti Obama zealots it’s all about them now, their vote, what they want. It’s tragic because their hysteria is only going to backfire on Hillary. Because if people like LindaM and RobinH have their way there will be bedlam at the Democratic convention. Of course, they won’t be blamed for that, Hillary will.

I assure you, none of this Hillary hysteria is condoned by Senator Clinton. She also can’t control it.

Linking and agreeing with Craig Crawford who wrote that Obama won’t allow a roll call vote has brought a new brand of hysteria to my inbox. The fact is that Hillary is negotiating her part at the convention at present. It’s up to her. What I want for Hillary is whatever she decides is in her best interest. Speech in primetime, with all eyes on Hillary Clinton, with the convention floor breaking out in applause that lasts for… .. sounds like a start. Of course, I wanted her to be the nominee, but we did not prevail. Causing chaos at the convention won’t change that fact, even though that’s what many of these people believe. As I’ve said innumerable times, I’m not part of the Hillary hysteria crowd. I follow Senator Clinton’s lead. To do otherwise is to disrespect her and put the power base she’s worked hard to build in jeopardy. The ignorance of people who don’t understand how party politics works is frightening.

The chaos being promoted by these types of people is counterproductive and will have a bad ending, especially for them. What are they going to do after the Democratic convention? They can vote however they choose, I don’t care. But I won’t support their efforts to take down Hillary in the process, however unwitting, though I’ve been warning them for weeks.

What they also refuse to realize is that Hillary is working with her own best interest in mind. She won’t negotiate anything at the convention that isn’t what she has earned, with the help of all of us. Why don’t these people trust Hillary’s judgment anymore? Because the Democratic convention has become all about them, with the intent of these groups, by whatever name, to cause chaos at the convention. This wouldn’t just hurt Democrats, Obama, and our efforts to change this country, but it will all be blamed on Hillary. It’s happening already.

Emphasis mine.

I’ve struggled with my role as a progressive, registered Democrat and Hillary supporter now that she’s out of the race, but this kind of behavior is immature and downright frusturating.

A few gorgeous images from photographer Nicolas Matheus. No words necessary…

Obama on Abortion

Here’s Obama reaching out to the evangelical right. The Associated Press reports:

In an interview this week with “Relevant,” a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain “a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother.”

Obama then added: “Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.”

Obama made no such distinction last year:

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he “strongly disagreed” with the ruling because it “dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.”

NARAL leaders ought to feel like idiots.

The official position of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group that endorsed Obama in May, states: “A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family.”

A leading anti-choice group says Obama either is being disingenous or he’s or ignorant. (Note they don’t mention the third possibility which is that he’s on their side):

David N. O’Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama’s remarks to the magazine “are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about.”

“You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade,” O’Steen said.

Looks like no one will be pleased with his new position. As I’ve said all along about his religious outreach, you don’t get something for nothing and if he wants the evangelical vote, he’s going to have to offer them something. Is this it?

Update: Obama’s full positions on abortion are set out with quotes here.

-Via TalkLeft

Just some thoughts I've had...

Sorry for the long periods between posts that actually contain some substance - the 9-5 working world of living in a new city has kept me busy living life instead of blogging it.

I’d like to begin this post by saying that I will vote for Obama in November. The vote will not be cast with joy or chants of “Yes We Can,” but with a heavy hand and somber sealing of my absentee ballot. I want nothing more than to be excited about voting for him, and I’m remaining open minded (ie I want to like him so if he does something to earn my vote, then I’m all his). With the general election landscape, however, Obama is unlikely to do anything that will make me jazzed about voting for him.

Having gotten that out of the way…

In a recent “Media Matters” episode, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said that Sen. Barack Obama should pick as his running mate “[s]omeone who’s palpably patriotic, who sort of exudes it.” Also, referring to Sen. John McCain’s 6-percentage-point advantage over Obama among suburban white women in a recent poll, Matthews asserted, “[W]omen are low-hanging fruit, though, in the terms of politics. You can reach up and say, ‘I’m pro-choice, he’s not.’ “

CHUCK TODD: … So, I think when you look at this, and our experts, our pollsters said, boy they would worry about the suburban women thing. If they were Obama they’d worry about the suburban women thing first, before the men. They say, you know what? Hey, Bush won men by this much; you can still win it by losing men by that much. I’d argue and say if he slices men from 20 to 15, and you assume those women come home, then that’s how he wins a big win. And he forces McCain to play defense.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: But in a political [unintelligible], women are low-hanging fruit, though, in the terms of politics.

TODD: Correct.

MATTHEWS: You can reach up and say, “I’m pro-choice, he’s not.”

Emphasis mine.

This kind of attitude is what is so irritating to me, and many other Democratic women. We don’t need to do shit to get women’s votes. All we have to do is scare them about losing their right to choose. Where else are they gonna go? Vote Republican? Nah.

For me, that’s basically true, as much as it irritates me to give them that satisfaction. The thought of McCain winning scares the shit out of me, and if the Democrats were running Hannah Montana, that’s who’d get my vote.

But I don’t represent all Democratic women or all female Hillary voters. And although I haven’t spoken with a single woman yet who voted for Hillary and is planning to vote for McCain, I’m sure these women exist out there. I’m sure there are some - especially those old angry white women who are past their childbearing years - who are sick and freaking tired of having Roe v. Wade held over their heads, as if it will somehow be the fault of pro-choice women if it’s overturned. Some women will no longer stand being told that it’s “in their self-interest” to vote for any Democrat, just because voting for any Republican would be worse. It’s also in my own self-interest to break my left hand over my right if I were forced to make that decision (I’m right-handed), but that doesn’t make me stoked about that option.

I’m not going to use my ballot to protest this November, but I understand why someone would. Yes, even those who are thinking about voting for McCain. Personally, I don’t agree with that choice, but I understand that many women have different beliefs and priorities. Some of them might actually believe that Obama is unqualified to be president. Some of them might have been centrists to begin with and don’t see McCain as all that horrible. Some of them don’t realize that McCain is all that horrible, because the media loves him so. Some of them might even be anti-choice (note: women do occasionally vote for Dems because of other concerns.)

And if, God forbid, they push McCain over the top, it will not be their freaking fault. If this country is so far gone that McCain can be pushed over the top by a handful of angry swing voters, the Democratic Party’s got a serious problem.

Listen up, pundits, party, and bullying bloggers: It is not women’s job to “come home” to the party. It is the party’s job to make us fucking feel welcome in our own “home.” It is Obama’s job to earn our votes. Taking us for granted is shitty, and threatening us with the loss of our bodily autonomy is about a zillion times shittier. STOP IT.

And you are seriously pissing off even those of us voters you can count on this year. I’m not ready to abstain just yet, but give me another couple decades of this bullshit - of being told you won’t bother to work for my vote, of being told it will be my own fault if Roe v. Wade is overturned, of being told that my concerns about sexism thriving in the party are overblown - and I might just say hey, you know what? I’ve spent my entire adult life voting for Democrats, and they’ve never shown one real whit of interest in me. They’ve done nothing but take me for granted, because to them, I’m low-hanging fruit, not someone whose concerns actually merit any expenditure of time, effort, or political capital. Well, hey, maybe they’ll miss me when I’m gone…

Not surprisingly, a whole lot of the women refusing to vote for Obama this year are a couple decades older than me. Do the math. You can only get away with treating a large chunk of your base as an afterthought for so long.

Ever since the Reagan Revolution, the Republicans have been successfully destroying public trust in the government as an entity that serves society and does good things for it. They’ve made it a talking point that the government is a necessary evil that must be suffered and should be minimized (even as they bloat the military for wars of aggression). If that’s true, then it’s no longer the duty of candidates to compete for the voters’ votes and earn them through proposing policies to better their lives; it’s the duty of voters to apathetically determine which of the jerks running is going to screw them over the least, and vote for that person. We need to challenge that kind of thinking.

The president is responsible for addressing and resolving the many problems facing the country and voters are responsible for holding the president accountable for that. The presidency shouldn’t be a job where candidates merely have to meet the bar of “not going to make things worse,” it ought to be a job where the employers–you and me, ordinary citizens–hold candidates to the highest possible standards and then demand more. It’s the only way we’ll get our concerns addressed. That’s why I’ll cast my vote for Barack Obama with a heavy hand and heart. I don’t actually want to reward this system that is so comfortable and predictable and eternal, but I’m afraid of the alternative…

Mmmmmmmm fear mongering politics, thou-art… frightening.

Just Some Links

Too Little, Too Late - Rebecca Traister, Broadsheet @ Salon.com

Bad News for 27 Year Old Virgins - Catherine Price, Broadsheet @ Salon.com

High Medicare Costs, Courtesy of Congress, David Leonhardt, The New York Times City Is Pushing for H.I.V. Tests for All in Bronx – Anemona Hartocollis, The New York Times

What Clinton Won by Losing

This article in New York Magazine is long, but well worth the read.

Mendo Makes NYTimes Front Page

My hometown of Ukiah, CA made the front page of the New York Times today with this article and this video. I’ll give anyone who knows Ukiah about one chance to guess the topic… (Hint: look at the photo.) This is just too funny.