Does Joseph Ducreux (above) remind you of you?. Image from diylol.com

Walt Whitman isn’t the only one who loved to celebrate himself. Chances are that quite a few of us spend a lot of time singing our own praises.

While Whitman chose to do it through poetry, we are doing most of it via everyday conversation and on those oh-so-self-gratifying  social sites like Facebook and Twitter.

So, with that said, can you guess what 40% of your everyday conversation consists of?

You!

If you guessed that correctly, then one or more of the following must be true:

1) You’ve been following the content of this post pretty well so far and used common sense to arrive at the answer (how clever you are! Good job!)

2) You already know about this because you heard about it in the news (you informed Democrazy reader, you!)

3) You’re just so into yourself that you assume that you are pretty much the subject of all topics (hmmm…you should probably just read on).

If the third statement is true for you, you might be surprised to find that you might just spend more time putting yourself as the subject more than anyone else does.

According to a study from a team of neuroscientists at Harvard University, we derive quite a bit of pleasure from talking about ourselves. In fact, talking about ourselves and our feelings, an act known as “self-disclosure,” triggers the same sensation of pleasure we get from eating or having sex.

But as good as all this talking may feel, is it possible that we could become overly self-absorbed, especially given the ease with which we can voice our thoughts via Facebook updates and tweets?

We welcome your thoughts on the subject. Feel free to talk about yourself…

To commemorate North Carolina’s very, very brave and very, very redundant display of patriotism in quashing of the non-threat of same-sex marriage, we here at USDemocrazy thought it would be useful to review the state of gay rights, state by state. By state.

The Guardian has a cool interactive chart showing each state’s level of support for gay rights issues and degree of protection against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

Let me tell you, folks, it really runs the gamut from Vermont to Utah.

Vermont vs. Utah Gay Rights

That northeast bastion of liberal decadence sports full equal rights in all categories: marriage, adoption, and hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples. Vermont also has robust anti-discrimination laws preventing prejudicial treatment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Finally, Vermont has passed legislation concerning anti-gay and anti-transgender harassment.

Utah, that Mormon Shangri-La, has banned same-sex civil marriages, prohibits adoption by same-sex couples, seems not to permit hospital visits by same-sex partners, and does not protect against discrimination, harassment, or hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

North Carolina's Gay Rights Legislation

North Carolina’s protections against harassment of LGBT people are laudable but the Tar Heels resemble their neighbors, South Carolina and Georgia, in the realm of marriage and adoption rights.

The AP reported a great line from State House Speaker Thom Tillis, a Republican: “It’s a generational issue,” Tillis told a student group at North Carolina State University in March about the amendment he supports. “If it passes, I think it will be repealed within 20 years.”

So what’s the point? Same-sex marriage already isn’t legal. The Republican Speaker of the North Carolina House thinks it will be repealed anyway, in due time. Why do this?

Perhaps it has something to do with North Carolina’s state motto: “Esse quam videri,” roughly, “To be, rather than to seem.” They don’t want it to seem like same-sex marriage is illegal in North Carolina; they want same-sex marriage to be illegal. Twice.

The Truly Great, Great State of North Carolina

While other states, including Washington and Maryland, have made great strides this year, North Carolina is stuck in the 1950s. Back in the good old days, when the majority dictated the rights of the minority.

Which reminds me of North Carolina’s other state motto: First in Flight, Last in Rights.
(Look it up! Just kidding.)

Photo courtesy of The New Yorker

Undeniably, the biggest cinematic hit in 2009 was James Cameron’s Avatar. Its use of technology was truly innovative and captured audiences’ attention despite what it was lacking in the script department.

Now Cameron is saying he’s not interested in making any narrative films other than Avatar sequels. His reasoning:

“I think that within the Avatar landscape, I can say everything I need to say that I think needs to be said, in terms of the state of the world and what we should be doing about it.”

Obviously it has absolutely nothing to do with the billions those films are almost guaranteed to make, right? Well, he’s also planning on bringing China in to share that wealth as a producing partner for all the Avatar installments we’ve been dreaming about.

China’s film market has been on the rise as the United States’ has been floundering. It makes sense to get investment from the location of your audience.

And believe us, there’s plenty in it for Cameron too.

Instead of the 13-17% of box office earnings China usually sends back to Hollywood, domestic films in China can hoard 45%.

Avatar’s main man is looking to get his hands on that bigger chunk of revenue–but trust, it’s just so he can keep making those profound pieces of cultural commentary about the dangers of consumerism.

The controversial issue of same sex marriage is back in the headlines this week.

First there’s the Obama campaign back-tracking Vice President’s comments in support of equal rights for gay couples ( see our coverage here). Then there’s a vote Tuesday in North Carolina on whether to ban same sex marriage in the state.

But there is an another current story on the subject that has it’s roots back in April 3, 2009.

This was the day the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality.  Now three of the justices who voted in favor of the case- who never thought of themselves as same-sex marriage advocates – have been voted off the bench.

Marsha Ternus was the Chief Justice when the Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case.  Before the case, Ternus reports that she hadn’t really thought about the issue and didn’t really know any gay people.

She remembers being surprised when she realized that all of the justices agreed that there was no way to reconcile their state’s equal protection guarantee with anything less than marriage equality.

The New York Times profiles Ternus as she prepares to be honored the Profile of Courage Award.  It’s a chill-down-your-back, inspiring, stand-up-for-what’s-right kind of story, and if you haven’t read it yet, you should!

But Ternus and her colleagues made history in their decision, which Theodore Olson of Prop 8 fame praises as incredibly thoughtful, straight-forward, and thorough.

That same-sex marriage offended tradition? Well, many musty traditions proved indefensible over time. That marriage was for procreation? Childless couples abounded. That it undermined religious tenets? The court was dealing with civil marriage, not church weddings. That it devalued male-female unions, as conservative religious groups claim?…If these organizations are really worried about marriage, rather than being motivated by bigotry and hatred, then they would be going after the divorce laws. But they’re not.

This blogger argues that this back-track is a dumb move – Republicans will continue to claim to their base that President Obama supports marriage equality, while this denial will frustrate Obama’s gay supporters and their allies.

But Ternus’s story shows that there certainly can be political consequences for taking a stand for equality.

What do you think?  If you were President Obama, how would you balance the political consequences with the belief that gays and lesbians should have equal rights?

Biden: Gay-OK. Photo via Yahoo.

Vice President Joe Biden said yesterday that same-sex marriage is totally cool with him.

This is a bold-ish statement coming from someone so high up in an administration that is officially and, let’s be real, somewhat deceptively on the fence when it comes to this issue.

“I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Mr. Biden said, while noting that the president, not he, sets policy on such matters.

The administration may be “scrambling,” as the Times puts it, but both David Axelrod and a spokesman for Biden have come out saying, basically: What Joe said? Yeah, so, even though it sounds like something we wouldn’t want him to say, it’s totally what we’ve been saying except with different words and an entirely different set of meanings and implications. So, yeah. Forward!

Funny enough, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said this morning that he also supports same-sex marriage.

“How about we start asking if there is anyone in the Obama administration who supports protecting traditional marriage?” asks Kathryn Jean Lopez on National Review Online.

No matter what your position is on the issue, it would seem at this point that we’re entitled to do just that.

At least one figure in the Obama administration has signaled to the press his resolute opposition to same-sex marriage, however. In an exclusive interview with The Retriever Weekly, Bo Obama reiterated his position that “if two men are allowed to get married, the next logical step is for a man and a dog to get married — and then maybe for a man to eat a dog.” He continued, “And I don’t want that. That’s not the America I know. Ruff.”

Image courtesy of westernplastics.org

Reading, ‘riting,’rithmatic used to be the three “R’s” pertaining to school education. Now you can add a fourth “R”: “Re-’riting”.

A controversy regarding the influence of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a lobbying group for the plastics industry, on a K-12 text book has gotten folks in a rollicking rage.

To understand  the controversy, let’s first go over the the reactants that coincidentally came together for the reaction.

First was the ACC’s public relations and lobbying effort last year to battle plastic bag bans across the nation.

Second: the rewriting of textbooks and teacher’s guides for a K-12 environmental curriculum in California.

Add a touch of special interest influence from the opportunistic ACC on the curriculum writing process and what is the product yield? An entire section in the environmental curriculum titled  ”The Advantages of Plastic Bags.”

Many California residents, environmental groups, and some politicians were not okay with that equation, so they decided to become proactive to address the matter. Over 30,000 California citizens signed a petition demanding that California school officials omit or clarify any misleading statements from the ACC.

Now, you may be wondering why, if this was last year’s news, would anyone bring up the matter again right now?

Well, California’s Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) responded to the demands of the petition and decided to revise the section on plastics, and the amended chapter was just released this past Friday for the public to view.

So far, the newly edited chapter has been getting a pretty good reception; even the environmental organization Californians Against Waste was satisfied with the changes.

Brian Ehlers, Cal/EPA’s Assistant Secretary for Education and Quality Programs, stated that to revise the chapter, Cal/EPA, in collaboration with school officials:

“updated a few statistics and made a few tweaks to make certain there is no bias.”

He also assured that the agency edited the chapter in such a way that it did not display bias in “the other direction” either.

After all, the ACC and environmentalists do tend to have a distinct polarity when it comes to their respective–and inflexible–feelings regarding plastic.

President Obama surrounded by notoriously-hard-to-impress white people. Photo via Bloomberg.

Forget about the Secret Service, dogs, China, and Mitt Romney’s VP pick: It’s clear enough that President Obama’s chances for reelection in the fall will rest largely on how well the much-vaunted recovery appears to be going to average Americans — how well the job figures and unemployment rates look in the eyes of on-the-fencers.

But what about how the President looks? We mean the way his, uh, skin looks. Sound irrelevant? Think again, you naive post-racial American!

The New York Times reports today that race appears to be a not insignificant factor in the minds of some voters in predominantly white and blue-collar parts of Ohio — areas that vote solidly Democratic and even favored the President in 2008.

In 50 interviews in this county over three days last week, 5 people raised race directly as a reason they would not vote for Mr. Obama. In those conversations, voters were not asked specifically about race, but about their views on the candidates generally. Those who raised the issue did so of their own accord.

Of course, the vast majority of Ohio’s Democratic voters could care less whether the President is African-American or not; the Times says they’re more concerned about the potential of his energy policies — like his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline — to hurt crucial industries that the state’s workers rely on for employment. Just a few weeks ago, Republican-in-chief John Boehner appealed to Ohioans with open arms about just this very issue.

Still, the loss of even a relatively small number of Democratic votes over the shade of the President’s skin could have serious implications for Ohio’s hue in November. Alas, whether the hotly-contested Buckeye State colors itself blue or red could potentially decide the race.

Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer writes in the Washington Post that it only makes sense for Americans to feel divided this year, given that

[the] entire Obama campaign is a slice-and-dice operation, pandering to one group after another, particularly those that elected him in 2008 — blacks, Hispanics, women, young people — and for whom the thrill is now gone.

According to Krauthammer, photo ID laws, the “Buffet rule,” “the war on women,” and the President’s appeal to college students in debt are all bottom-of-the-barrel attempts to pit voters against each other, to divide and conquer with “bogus court challenges, dead-end Senate bills and forest of straw men.”

It remains to be seen whether the President will succeed in unifying as many different Americans to the extent that he did, or appeared to do, in 2008. Whether Mitt Romney can, however, is an even greater unknown. It might even be the case that, for a variety of reasons, Romney could alienate even those few prejudicial voters in Ohio and turn them back to Barack. Just imagine the signs: “Racists for Obama Say: I Wouldn’t Let Him Near My Daughter, but He’s Better than Mitt!”

photo cred: (left) Alexander Historical Auctions (right) DiscoveryNews

Uncontrollable flatulence. Bull semen. Cocaine. What do these things have in common? They were all found in Hitler’s classified medical reports.

According to these reports, the German dictator Adolf Hitler suffered from excessive flatulence due to his vegetarian diet, injected himself with bull semen to increase his sexual drive and enjoyed cocaine often.

But don’t just take my word for it. Hitler’s medical documents will be up for bid by Alexander Historical Auctions of Stamford, Connecticut next week. That’s right. You can now own a 47- page report of Hitler’s doctors and scans of the dictator’s skull or even a 178-page report which details Hitler and his doctor’s dialogue concerning his ongoing health and even some sketches of Hitler’s hideout, “Wolf’s Lair”. The auction is expected to generate $1,500- $2,000 for each document.

Do you think there is an issue of ethics involved? Do you think many people will bid for the medical reports of a man responsible for the deaths of so many people?

This is Julia.  She’s the newest part of President Obama’s campaign team.

On Thursday, “The Life of Julia” hit the interwebs.  A series of infographics show an American woman going through life – going to HeadStart, starting college, beginning her career, having a child, getting Medicare (anybody else think it was odd Julia didn’t need birth control until age 27?).

The campaign shows how Julia fares under an Obama presidency compared to how she would under a Romney one (SPOILER ALERT – she does better when Barack’s in office).  Cute idea, right?

“The Life of Julia” is just the latest installment in this year’s battle from the female vote (assuming you believe women vote as a bloc, which the WashPo doesn’t).

What’s interesting about this graphic is that it doesn’t just touch on women’s issues.  Sure, they bring up birth control and Lily Ledbetter, but Julia definitely doesn’t get an abortion or take action after being sexually harassed on the job.

She doesn’t take time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for her son or her aging parents.  She doesn’t seem to need services under the Violence Against Women Act (which 31 Republican men recently voted against) or apply for welfare benefits as a single mom.

Instead Julia goes to college with help from Pell Grants.  She benefits from being allowed to stay on her parents’ health insurance until the age of 26.  Her son goes to public school, Julia gets a small business tax incentive, and she eventually receives Social Security and Medicare – all generally non-gendered benefits.

Opponents are blasting Obama’s depiction of Julia’s life as a classic example of the cradle-to-grave welfare that makes government too big and have countered with a #Julia hastag on Twitter.  (”#Julia is bummed. Her share of the national debt went up $16,345 under Obama,” tumbled the RNC.)

Does Julia’s life look like yours?  Are these services that you use or want to use?  Or ones you think we should cut to reduce the size of government?