This Massacre Was a Hate Crime - UCSB, Isla Vista, Feminism and One Alumnus's Thoughts

An abandoned shoe in Isla Vista in 2008

Friday night there was a stabbing and shooting in my alma mater, UC Santa Barbara. I heard the news via facebook mere minutes after a young man drove through the center of Isla Vista in a black BMW shooting.

For those unfamiliar with the community, UC Santa Barbara (UCSB) is adjacent to an area call Isla Vista which has just shy of 2 square miles of unincorporated county land with no clear governance. In this small beachside community 23 thousand students live – most are UCSB students but there are also community college students from Santa Barbara and other youth also live in the area. As an area with almost entirely student residents and extremely high real-estate prices most houses have 6-8 residents. Isla Vista is known for it’s party life as students have much more freedom there than other universities where there are more individuals living in dorms.

The Beach

But returning to Friday night – as I sat watching facebook and more facts emerged it was clear this wasn’t just random carnage – yet the media has been slow to name this attack as what I see it as: a hate crime against all women.

In a disturbing video that was on You Tube and since taken down the killer, Elliot Rodger, states his intent clearly:

“If I can’t have you girls, I will destroy you. [laughs] You denied me a happy life and in turn I will deny all of you life, it’s only fair. I hate all of you.

—All you girls who rejected me, looked down upon me, you know, treated me like scum while you gave yourselves to other men. And all of you men for living a better life than me, all of you sexually active men. I hate you. I hate all of you. I can’t wait to give you exactly what you deserve, annihilation.”

This is not a standard crime. This clearly wasn’t just about one girl – it was about every member of the community. It was meant to instill fear in all. A hate crime is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime and this fits the bill.

As the killer’s sexism was called out, online Men’s Rights Activists rushed to say #NotAllMen are like this. However this took the focus away from the fact that even if not all men are killers, all women have experienced sexism, gendered bias and violent attacks like this are common, and the hashtag #YesAllWomen began to trend.

Statements like:

#YesAllWomen bc every single woman I know has a story about a man feeling entitled to access to her body. Every. Single. One.

#YesAllWomen bc “Text me and let me know you got home safe” is standard, necessary and normal.

#YesAllWomen “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” – Margaret Atwood

As a national and international media jumped into the coverage, as an alumni, I instead watched Facebook. I graduated from the Film & Media Studies program and the annual Reel Loud Film Festival meant I could expect many alumni friends were visiting for the weekend. And while there was a gut wrenching shock and fear to think of bullets flying through my community combined with the fear that perhaps I knew a victim – I can’t say I was totally surprised that it could happen there.

As a student at UCSB, my first week was colored with fear. Not of change or being in a new place, but of hate crimes. The first time I picked up the campus newspaper I discovered there had been a hate crime against gay male students. It wasn’t the last time I’d learn of instances of hate on campus.

My first protest at UCSB in the aftermath of hate crimes in 2008 against gay students

As a student organizer I spent a lot of time engaging with uncomfortable dialogs. Whether it was to address homophobia, racism, sexism, sexual assaults, environmental issues or more – UC Santa Barbara provided a space where students voices had many outlets. While many did not engage as much in politics preferring to enjoy the beaches, the party life, focus on academia or other pursuits… those worlds often meshed in odd ways.

Local law enforcement at the “Deltopia” street party in Isla Vista

Students embracing the local party life

Election Day showcases the engagement many students have even though the community is unincorporated

Student organizers working to address racism on campus

 

While the community was generally friendly and almost any individual was a beer away from being a casual friend, it also wasn’t uncommon that I’d hear slurs like “faggot” directed at gays or “slut” directed at women. When I walked home I’d often call friends to “talk me home” if I didn’t have a friend to walk with.

During the Take Back the Night Protest in which women marched to reclaim the night as safe – several male students yelled rape threats. The very act proved our actions we needed and as much as we craved safety it was by no means present already.

Take Back the Night Protest

Janelle Monae performing prior to the Take Back the Night Protest

 

In an article for the campus newspaper my senior year I wrote the following:

“The tragedy of the situation is that in I.V., we’ve accepted the norms that allow our streets to be unsafe and our fellow students to be targeted. Even during our celebrations within their designated safe space, we are never fully safe. Often times the problems of Isla Vista are brushed off as some excuse the hate speech as drunken antics and taunts not meant to offend or be taken seriously. However, the reality is the same slurs that are used by drunken folks in aggressive outbursts are occasionally heard in classrooms and on campus, and the oppression from ignoring the severity of the problem contributes to the lack of safe spaces for the queer community attending our school.

Whether spoken in ignorance or malice, hate speech hits a nerve. It makes for unsafe spaces, and verbal harassment leads to the same degradation that enables other types of harassment and assault. In Isla Vista, I often observe the contrasting dichotomy of the sun-soaked ideal paradise and the very real problems that constantly plague the queer community and other minorities. As tempting as it is to ignore reality and enjoy the beachside bubble, we have to address these problems.”

Although this was written specifically to address the hate crime against LGBT students – those words feel far too fitting an applicable for women today in Isla Vista. 

As an alumni I have so many fond memories, strong friendships, experiences that helped me learn and grow. The streets the shooter drove down I’ve walked, biked, and stumbled down many times. I’ve gone to parties at places where I’ve now seen twitter photos of body bags resting. It’s shocking to see the violence but the root cause isn’t shocking. There was always violence against women. There was objectification. There were very real problems regarding rape. The sense of entitlement to others bodies didn’t start in Santa Barbara and is by no means limited to there.

But as the national debate goes on and CNN loops the killer’s video my heart is heavy as I think of the place that was my home.

Last time I visited UCSB was to celebrate the graduation of some of the individuals I was lucky to mentor and share time with. In the Student Resource Building while I was there someone wrote on the wall of the women’s restroom a cry for help. And the community responded with words of encouragement, resources they could go to, reminders that the original writer was not alone. When I think of UCSB I think back to that space often, and two years after graduating the wall was even more crowded with messages of support. The community has never been perfect, but there is support for those in need and a community willing to work to improve itself. Let’s hope that helps the families of the slain and injured in healing.

The notes on the wall of the girls bathroom in the Student Resource Building

 

Further Reading:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-transcript-ucsb-shootings-video-20140524-story.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/05/lets-call-isla-vista-killings-what-they-were-misogynist-extremism

http://www.news.ucsb.edu/node/014194/isla-vista-shootings

https://twitter.com/hashtag/YesAllWomen

http://dailynexus.com/2010-05-06/hate-speech-creates-unsafe-environment-iv/

http://time.com/114043/yesallwomen-hashtag-santa-barbara-shooting/

Multimillionaire Sheryl Sandberg wants An Unpaid Intern

Sheryl Sandberg is no stranger to press - according to Forbes she's the sixth most powerful woman in the world and her book Lean In has launched a nonprofit that aims to, "encourag(e) women to pursue their ambitions, and chang(e) the conversation from what we can’t do to what we can do."

Which sounds great - unless you want to work with that organization and receive a salary.
In a Facebook post (that company Sandberg happens to work for...) Lean In's editor-at-large, Jessica Bennett, asked for an intern available to work immediately and through the end of the year in unpaid internship. Although she tried to backtrack on this - screen-captures have preserved the double standard for all to see.


Sandberg personally made $91 million dollars last week in a sale of Facebook stock. However the non-profit LeanIn.org is sustained through book sales of Lean In along with donations from Sandberg herself. However book sales were at Number 1 on amazon.com for a while and Sandberg's donations should be able to help cover at least the women working on spreading her idea.

The Fair Pay Campaign has launched a protest petition asking for Sandberg to pay her interns saying, "Instead of perpetuating the unfair advantages that privilege some women at other women's expense, pay your interns so ALL kinds of women, regardless of their economic background, can take advantage of career-building opportunities like these."

EDIT: According to the LA Times

The fury vented on Facebook prompted Bennett to explain herself late Wednesday:

"Dear What Appears to Be My Entire Facebook Feed: Want to clarify previous Lean In post. This was MY post, on MY feed, looking for a volunteer to help me in New York. LOTS of nonprofits accept volunteers. This was NOT an official Lean In Job posting. Let's all take a deep breath."

LeanIn.org apparently does not maintain a formal internship program.

This however does not remove my former critique. If Bennett is overworked and unable to complete her job and needs a volunteer/intern to help - that's fine. But I still believe if you're working on the pet project of a multimillionaire on a program to empower women you should be able to ask for the resources needed to cover the true cost of that labor - including the labor of support staff.  Otherwise it reflects poorly on the entire project.

Sexual Harassment Made this Union drop New York Candidate

Earlier today the Executive Board of 32BJ SEIU unanimously voted to rescind their endorsement of Assembly Member Micah Kellner for a City Council seat.

It was the first time the union, which has 75,000 members in New York City, has ever rescinded an endorsement. The union's members include janitors, property maintenance workers, doormen, security officers, window cleaners, building engineers, and school and food service workers.

In a statement from the Union secretary-treasurer Kyle Bragg said, "Given the allegations against Kellner, we cannot in good conscience continue to support his candidacy, and call on him to withdraw from the race. We are deeply disappointed, and do this with a measure of sadness, but it is the right thing to do."

Kellner made news last month after previous reports of sexual harassment came to light in a NYTimes article. In the article excepts of Internet chats were revealed in which Kellner flirted with his female staffers.

While this report is not anywhere near as explicit as the actions of Anthony Weiner or San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, it is another troubling case of a Democratic politician abusing a position of public trust and making the workplace unwelcome for women. The union taking unprecedented action here in rescinding it's endorsement is a sign that they are not willing to take that risk, and that the personal and professional integrity of candidates needs to apply to women not just in policy, but in their daily lives if candidates want support.

Angelina Jolie Opens Up About Why She Got a Mastectomy

Actress, director, and humanitarian Angelina Jolie is no stranger to the public eye. But in a New York Times op-ed published on Tuesday, she brought the media's attention to an issue Hollywood doesn't normally talk about: breast cancer.

After Jolie discovered she had a defective BRCA1 gene which sharply increased the likelihood of getting breast and ovarian cancer, she opted to have a preventative double mastectomy to reduce her odds of having breast cancer from 87% to roughly 5%.

In the op-ed, Jolie states her reason for sharing her choice with the world: "For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options. I want to encourage every woman, especially if you have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, to seek out the information and medical experts who can help you through this aspect of your life, and to make your own informed choices."

And like any good spokeswoman, she also made sure in her piece to go beyond her personal story to share data regarding the issue: "Breast cancer alone kills some 458,000 people each year, according to the World Health Organization, mainly in low- and middle-income countries. It has got to be a priority to ensure that more women can access gene testing and lifesaving preventive treatment, whatever their means and background, wherever they live. The cost of testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, at more than $3,000 in the United States, remains an obstacle for many women."

While normally I would wish privacy upon anyone undergoing difficult health situations, I hope the media honors Jolie's choice to speak out about this issue and does so in as factual a manner as possible, to help other women learn more about breast cancer and the health choices they can make.

Picture Credit: Gage Skidmore
Originally posted here.

Third Time's the Charm

On my third day of actually seeing films I finally seemed to get it right. I took today easy on the film side due to that whole it's a weekday and I should be an adult and do professional things. But I took the time to catch two films and I finally chose a selection that left me satisfied and BOTH films could finally pass the Bechdel test. (Gadzooks! Other odd exclamations of shock and surprise!) This was probably aided by the fact that the first film was directed by a woman, and the second was co-written by a woman. See what having women in the conceptualization does to a film? It makes the women actually worth watching! Sigh of relief.

Alright let's dive in.

I started the evening with Sweet Talk. This was an unconventional story and romance. Within the first 3 minutes it had already passed the Bechdel test and I sighed in relief that I wouldn't have to spend the whole movie looking for a well crafted female character, after all, there she is! The protagonist. Delilah arrives at work - answering a phone sex line. And Samson, is a frustrated writer seeking inspiration when he calls her. Delicately crafted as they let their imaginations run wild, confront their limitations, and create an encounter that keeps you glued to the screen well past when the lights turn on. Go see it. And if it doesn't make it to a theater near you - pester Netflix to get it on a small screen for you. It's the sort of film that inspires conversation, and feels almost European despite being filmed in LA. (I mean this as a compliment... Sorry LA.)

I followed up with City Baby. This film felt like a cross between a mid-twenties/thirties coming of age story and an awkward love letter to the city of Portland, youth, insecurities, and the process of accepting one's self. The best compliment I can offer this film is it feels real. Set against the backdrop of the Portland music scene we see Cloey, as she deals with love life, best friend's plans to move away, and the challenges of supporting herself and figuring out her life. We see the boy who never grew up still playing in his band, the professional who lives large, the indie actress, the hairdresser, the mechanic, the awkward family dynamics - it feels like a more elegant sexy version of daily life. Folks in the Mission - this is your kind of film. It hasn't sold out, it's smart, but still well constructed. And the performances are well worth watching.

SPOILER ALERT - STOP READING HERE IF YOU DON'T LIKE SPOILERS!

However to be frank - my favorite part was something beyond the film - the audience's reaction. At one point in the film, our protagonist models for a female photographer, and has a one night stand with her while avoiding thinking of her ex and the rebound. This scene was well done in that it didn't make a big deal of gender at all - it was just a hook up like any other hook up might happen. And the audience didn't make a big deal of the fact that the protagonist could now be read as bi or fluid - it was just part of her and no big deal.

This is something that shouldn't be a big deal. But to see bisexuality in a film as just normal, and not being made into an exotic performance or a falling into sin or other huge plot point is so damn rare I wanted to applaud the film makers and audience for just being cool. Seriously. Go audience at Cinequest! Thank you. That made my night. And for that alone - I want people to watch this. Go watch a film where sexuality is done in an honest way and oh by the way it's a film you should see anyways.

Goodnight all.

An Evening in the California Theater

Today I saw two films at Cinequest, both screened in the California Theater.

First "L!fe, Happens" a charming buddy film about two roommates and how their lives change when one has to adjust to having a baby while the other remains committed to her professional ambitions. While it had all the elements of a cheesy romantic film including handsome crush, awkward misunderstandings, nerdy/quirky side kick best friend, and accessory characters with easy to predict side stories - it was much more about the two girls relationship with each other than it was about either of their lovers, a refreshing change that was enjoyable to watch. After the film during the Q & A portion the two co-writers, who doubled as director (Kat Coiro) and lead actress (Krysten Ritter) were equally engaging. They both credited the honesty of the film as it's draw and the collaborative process of writing together to the point they don't remember who wrote what as what drove the film to be at it's core an honest and endearing film. They drew a strong round of applause from the audience when they pointed out while female driven comedies like Bridesmaids are great, the reality is women are more than a majority of the population and the media should reflect this more. They also commented on how it is strange to them how the timing worked as they are always being asked about how it feels to be coming in on Bridesmaids' coat tails despite the fact that they began writing years before that film. Overall I highly enjoyed this program and based on the amount of laughter heard from the audience I'm sure I'm not the only one. Also the men sitting near me were laughing too - so men don't be scared off by the idea of a female driven comedy, it's worth the time! (I hate that I feel compelled to justify that... I don't think that factors into any discussion of films quality being because they're male driven yet it seems to always be in the picture when there are ladies in control...)

I also found it strange how low their IMDB ratings are (4.9) until I looked into it and saw that is the weighted average. The mean of the ratings was 7.3 and the median was 9.5 - however due to a large number of people ranking it a 10, some of those votes were assumed spam and thus the average tries to correct for that. However 50% of the viewers loving it does not surprise me as when you look at the ratings breakdown women under 18 all voted 10 of 10 and women 18 - 29 averaged a 9.7. Thus the demographics of the majority of high ranking raters were young women which fits perfectly with the protagonists of the film. I would also say IMDB's ranking algorithm is off to rate this film so lowly, and I hope viewers don't find this number deters them from seeing the film.

Following that I saw Dorfman. Which was proceeded by the presenting of an award and then the interview portion of the programming. A choice that makes sense from a programming perspective (An audience will wait to see the film, but after the film is less likely to wait for a Q & A after 11pm) but it also irked me. I personally feel a good film speaks for itself, so to see the people talk about the process before the content was shown made me feel disrespected as an audience member. If I wanted to see someone interview or lecture a famous filmmaker I'd seek that programming out, but if I buy a movie ticket I am first and foremost there to watch a film - so anything else is a distraction. But I digress. First Elliott Gould was given his award and allowed to speak, then producer Leonard Hill, writer Wendy Kout and Director Bradley Leong came out. However Bradley Leong need not have come out as Leonard Hill and Wendy Kout dominated the discussion with most questions addressed directly to them, and the only open questions quickly being answered by them as well. (No offense meant to Mr. Leong, I just found his presence on stage was unsupported by the others and thus he was mostly a prop - the one time I noticed him trying to answer Leonard Hill cut him off)

The reason I mention this dynamic is I found my greatest annoyance when watching the film Dorfman was it felt off balance. The general story is about a Jewish girl who looks after her father, works for her brother's firm, has been head over heels for a friend of her brothers for year but ends up in unbalanced relationships where they all take her for granted. While helping her brother's friend/potential love interest by cat sitting his loft in LA, she finds herself pushed out of her comfort zone, meeting new people, learning about her city and finding her sense of self amongst the men in her life. But watching the film I found the difference between Elliott Gould's performance and the rest of the cast jarring. His presence was greater, the shots with him seemed longer and the cuts seemed to have a different rhythm. He did what he did, and though he acted well - it didn't seem to mesh well with the others on set in that they all seemed to have a similar rhythm. It felt to me as if they were all preforming a stand up sketch and he was an improv actor thrown into the mix - its not that the other actors were bad or he was bad - it just felt mismanaged and ill suited to be in the same film. It wouldn't surprise me if in his shots he had more artistic control than the other actors who probably followed the director. Because all of their performances fit well, the brother, the love interest, the neighbor, the model friends, parents etc... They all felt like they were in the same B romance film, while Gould felt like he wandered out of As Good As it Gets or any other quirky comedy poking fun at life. While I found this film less enjoyable, my parents seemed to enjoy it more than I - so if you see it - I'd love to hear what your thoughts were and compare notes!

Why I'm not impressed with Komen (Despite changing their stance on PP)

Last night I was going to post about Komen and Planned Parenthood but today’s news changes that thought train but I still think it is worth commenting on.

For background see Rachel Maddow’s summary from last night.

Attacking Planned Parenthood is not new, so why is it so hugely different when The Susan G. Komen for the Cure removes support from Planned Parenthood than when Congress and State Legislators do?

I think it largely has to do with where expectations lie. With Congress – no matter when you look in the last few years and regardless of what side of almost any issue you have an opinion on – most Americans agree Congress is something we don’t approve of. Since 2009 the highest Congressional approval numbers were at 37%. So when congress does something I don’t approve of, like cutting support to Planned Parenthood, I can’t really do much to change that. My representatives in the House and Senate generally won’t be swayed by any one feedback mechanism and this is true of most representatives on hot button issues. I expect Republicans in congress to be anti-women’s health because they come in campaigning on it. They are “pro-life” until a child is born at which point they’re anti-healthcare, anti-women’s rights and autonomy of health decisions, anti-LGBT families, etc… I expect it from them to attack women’s rights. And on the left I expect Democrats to make non-binding resolutions and give lip service to those issues but that they will ultimately cave when push comes to shove. (See Obama’s record on parental notification or NDAA etc… if you want to know why my expectations are calibrated as such) Ultimately when it comes to the government while I think there is huge potential for good (I like clean air, roads without potholes, clean drinking water, schools, fire fighters etc…) the political process will not represent the best of that. So while individually Democrats and Republicans might support women in their lives, that support being embodied in programs extending to all is another issue.

Meanwhile over at The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation – my expectations are a bit different. While there have been many critiques of running the non-profit too much like a business and making partners with ill fitted groups, reducing information and packing itself in a corporate manner that doesn’t suit the cause (See Komen Watch) – fundamentally people believe in the brand. People believe that if they are aware of cancer risks, wear their pink ribbon to bring a dialog about cancer and talk about the need for early screenings – ultimately there will be less breast cancer. When people participate in the Race for the Cure events, while they know the events won’t be the cure, there is a general feeling that the money they raise, and the awareness they raise will help. So when Komen pulls support from a group who’s About Us page says, “Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being, based on respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning.” – it shocks.

Komen describes themselves saying, “As the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists, we’re working together to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures.” – so when they put politics ahead of that mission and pull back support from Planned Parenthood who’s mission so clearly overlaps there is a natural and justified anger.

Today when Komen reversed that decision they said,

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.  The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen.  We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.  They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation.  We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

To which I’d like to call out – B*LL$HIT. As already pointed out by Mother Jones, Komen has not withdrawn support from Penn State which is under criminal investigations that are not political… Furthermore the timing of their withdrawn support does not correlate with the investigations, but it does follow the hiring of prominent Republican Karen Handel, a former GOP candidate who ran on a pro-life platform, (though not pro-life enough for Georgia where she took flak for being okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest). While she may not be responsible – an anonymous source claims she is and speculation began before the reversal of this choice. However she was stupid enough to tweet this (and promptly delete it when the internet exploded…) :

“Just like a pro-abortion group to turn a cancer orgs decision into a political bomb to throw. Cry me a freaking river.”

Regardless if she is directly responsible, she should be fired for that. She is Susan G. Komen’s Vice President of Public Policy, and to publicly put forward an insult like that to supporters of Planned Parenthood is not appropriate. “Cry me a freaking river?” That’s the VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY’S reaction to low income women losing access to life saving preventative care and screenings? Ignoring the politics of I disagree with her perspective – from a pure business standpoint as  someone who should be a good public face of the organization – she had failed. And while Komen’s statement said, ”We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.”  - the reality is it does.

And for a lot of advocates of women’s health Komen’s brand has lost a huge amount of trust, been mocked by Komen’s VP of Public Policy for reacting to that, and no reversal of policy will change that. Because a reversal of one politically motivated decision due to political outcry is in itself a political reaction. Once Komen pulled support it put itself in a position where by not giving support it was playing to one political agenda, and by renewing support in the wake of activists, senators and supports reactions – it played to the damage control of another political stance. Trustworthy non-profits operating to provide care do not do such abrupt about-faces- and the damage to the brand will not be repaired overnight.

As the Economist  posted:

“It’s a cynical thing to say, but I suspect this might cost Susan G. Komen more than it does Planned Parenthood.”

I agree.

If they were going to cut funding they should have also done so to Penn State. By not doing so they suggested that abortion is a worse crime than child rape. By cutting funding and doing a rapid about face they showed they’re operating in a political arena, and brought attention to their public policy, which is headed by someone who’s stance on the issue raises uncomfortable questions. And by allowing the news cycle to continue a full week – Planned Parenthood suddenly gained huge numbers of supporters, and people began to delve into what those pink ribbons actually mean. Which given the way they run their non-profit like a corporation is not a good thing to raise attention to. Things like the CEO making $481,704 in an annual salary… (I don’t believe non-profit workers should be paid so little they can’t lead a good life – but if one person’s salary is 70% the amount of grants you make to the largest provider of women’s health care in the country… HOW ARE YOU ALLOCATING YOUR RESOURCES? Seriously – that’s ridiculous.)

My mother is a breast cancer survivor. When I discussed this issue with her she said if it wasn’t reversed she wouldn’t participate in Race for the Cure. This is from someone who did 8 of the 3 day walks to raise funs for breast cancer research. Who has the keychain, a stuffed animal and lord knows how many pink products…  She is as much of Komen’s target market as you can get and an active part of their fundraising events- and this week she was disappointed and had lost interest in working with them.

I am glad to see they reversed their decision. But until they fire Karen Handle, reduce executive compensation in favor of allocating a greater chunk of their funds to actual preventative care and treatment – I’m done with the pink ribbon industry. For more reasons why you might want to do so too, further reading.

State of the Union gut reactions...

Personally I wasn't too impressed with the SOTU. It felt too focused on the military and banking without addressing the elephant in the room of #OccupyWallSt; there were too many military points without addressing increased militarization of civilian police. And given the number of on going battles on a state level against roe v. wade - to see the only points he made on women being about equal pay seemed very passive. I was about to be excited when he talked about distrust of congress and if he'd said campaign finance reform instead of insider trading I'd write a check to OFA right now, but elimination of insider trading won't change legislation. Definitely glad to see the Dream Act get a shout out - but beginning and ending with Bin Laden and not mentioning any civil liberties after passing NDAA makes it seem like the Dream Act will be the token part of the agenda for progressives and he'll be on a hard center right track till the election. 

Edit: How could I forget?!?! YAY TEACHERS!