Procrastination Leads to Political Action

I didn't make it to the group viewing of the debate at school tonight, but I caught the second half of the debate at home and followed it closely on Twitter. Then a college acquaintance of mine got angry about one of my (misinterpreted, on her part) tweets, and sent me an angry message on my Facebook wall. A few quick back-and-forths later, she realized I was NOT: a) insulting Michelle Obama or b) insulting Barack Obama. Well then.

On a rainy Friday night, what better to do post-debate than exercise some quasi-political views? A few days ago in the midst of my con law procrastination, I was paging through an issue of Marie Claire, which I generally find to be the most intelligent of the trashy women's magazines. That is, until I stumbled upon this gem of an article: How to Talk About Politics You Don't Really Understand - A shamelessly oversimplified cocktail-party guide to where the candidates stand on the big questions.

Some highlights:

YOUR SMARTY-PANTS SOUND BITE [about the War]
"Well, Iraq isn't the first time we've overestimated an enemy. Hello, NSC-68? The intelligence report that grossly misrepresented Russia's capabilities, jump-started the Cold War, and pushed us into a decades-long arms race? Duh."

YOUR SMARTY-PANTS SOUND BITE [about Energy]
"You know, in New Zealand, where sheep outnumber people 10 to 1, over half of greenhouse gases come from the country's 50 million livestock. If only they could harness all that methane . . . could you pass the bean dip?"

Now, I'm not the MOST politically-aware person out there; I'll admit, there are a LOT of issues that I should learn more about - taxes, the economy, and energy policy being just a few examples. But, c'mon...that last one isn't even coherent.

So, I wrote an angry e-mail to the editor:

Dear Marie Claire,

I am *extremely* disappointed with your article, How to Talk About Issues You Don't Really Understand (by Yael Kohen and Lauren Iannotti, pg. 122 - October 2008). Rather than giving your readers "smarty-pants sound [bites]," why not encourage them to learn more about the complicated and important issues up for debate in the election? If you really want to empower women to act intelligently within the political system, give them the tools to exercise their well-informed voice in the voting booth - NOT at a cocktail party.

To be perfectly frank, I am insulted that you would encourage women - even tongue-in-cheek - to use any of the lines in your article. A woman who hasn't thought critically about the differences between the candidates most likely has no idea who de Tocqueville or Keynes were, or the effects they have had on society. Please stop promoting the idea that women don't (or don't need to) care about the future of our country; we're the majority of the electorate, but we have no hope of being elected to the highest office in the land if we limit our political involvement to "[kicking] back, [mixing] up some cocktails, and [watching] the returns roll in." Maybe you could have given instructions for how to register to vote? No partying without pulling the lever first.

I'm never reading your magazine again.

And that, dear readers, is the extent of my productiveness for this Friday. Zero class reading done. Zero laundry done. Meh. That's what the real weekend is for, right?