Occupy Pregnancy Street

We're so focused on our election we've missed the threats against women's rights across the globe lately, so we thought we'd help point them out.

What do women have in common with barnyard animals? Read on to find out.

Imagine for a moment a third-world country far far away where women have no rights.  If a woman is raped and wants an abortion, she is forced to carry that child to term.  If a woman is carrying a child that will be stillborn, she must suffer through the remainder of her pregnancy and put her body (and the mother of her children's body) at risk because the country won't support an abortion because of its fundamentalist regime.

Sounds bad, right?

Now, see if you can guess where this is:

Imagine if that same country said "No, no!" "We're progressive, really!  Women can get abortions.  First, they need to go through counseling and answer a million personal questions.  Then they must undergo an invasive ultrasound, even if they don't want one.  At that point, they can make their decision."  Of course, if they still want to proceed with terminating the pregnancy, they'll be subjected to repeated judgment as medical professionals show them ultrasound pictures and force them to listen to a heartbeat saying things like "Look at your baby! There it is! Listen to the heartbeat! You really still want to proceed?" And if the answer is yes,  then of course you have the right to say that, you just need to talk to two or three more other professionals who will all give you guilt trips and then force you to go home and think about it for at least 24 hours and then, if you still want it 'sign here' about umpteen times, assuming of course you haven't shrunk to the size of a pea by the judgment you've endured.

To be fair, there are exceptions for extreme cases, such as women that are victims of rape or when the fetuses will be stillborn and/or endanger the health of the mother.  Oh wait, no exceptions for those? Sorry about that, peeps.  Almost let them off the hook a bit.

Have you guessed the country yet? No?  Let's look at some statistics.

"But Poker Chick", you say, "that's the U.S.A.! What facts are relevant to this post?"

Surprise!  It's all the USA.  While you were distracted by the how-much-money-does-Romney-really-have debate or the which-wife-is-Newt-on game, millions of women in our country are having their reproductive rights taken away, piece by piece. 

We watch in admiration as citizens in nations around the world are speaking up for their rights and overthrowing totalitarian regimes in unprecedented numbers, yet we take for granted that we have complete freedom here.

Democracy is a team sport yet we've become complacent.  So in case you haven't been following this in detail, here's a half-ass roundup of some news lately, news from a country that is a role model of democracy everywhere. 

Last week, the Georgia State legislature debated a bill in the House that would make it necessary for a woman to carry a stillborn baby until she ‘naturally’ goes into labor.  Yes indeed, HB 954 makes it illegal to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks even if the woman is known to be carrying a stillborn fetus or the baby is otherwise not expected to live to term.  You can see the rationale of Georgia's esteemed leaders here:




Pennsylvania recently introduced a bill that will force women to go through personal procedures and medical guilt trips before they can make any decisions regarding their care.  Also very recently Virginia actually passed such a law, and it was the seventh state to pass a law requiring women to undergo invasive ultrasounds if they want an abortion.

There's so much more to read.  States with "let women die" bills, states criminalizing acts women do while pregnant that would otherwise be lesser offenses (or not offenses at all).  And the change in the last 10 years has been staggering.   How does it compute that in the last few years of the technological revolution our country has simultaneously experienced a seemingly backwards phenomenon where "religious" values are infiltrating our government.  Is this the "moral" reaction to the digital revolution?

Democratic, objective and free?  Or religious, dictatorial and puritanical?  It's a continuum peeps, but you can't assume you'll stay where you are.  Just like with relationships, if we continue to take our freedoms for granted, maybe someday they won't be there anymore.

Maybe it's time to take the "Occupy" movement a step further.  We have more problems than we think.

On Our Soapbox

We're asking for trouble, we know.

But if someone could take a minute to explain our constitution to us, that'd be swell.  Because, we thought we learned about this little thing in our constitution called the first amendment, which calls for separation of church and state.  Since we were in the third grade and since we were young and gullible we believed it. 

Here's where we get stuck.  Let's say you believe in this whole separation of church and state thing, which we'd like to.  OK, OK, so the first amendment doesn't actually mention separation of church and state.  But since no one is challenging the interpretation let's just go with that common implication for now.  What does it mean? No religion in schools.  No religion in politics.  So say you're some qualified person white male still running for the republican candidate for president.  Episcopalian, mormon, it really doesn't matter so long as you believe in Jesus and remember to thank him in your speeches.  Still, supposedly your religion is not supposed to influence your politics, right?

Now also explain to us how is it that you are opposed to something like same sex marriage?  What is it about it that bothers you?  Do you not believe in equal rights for all citizens?  Wait, you say you do? Then the answer can only be one of two things: a) your best friend is a cartoon character named Cartman or b) your church says so therefore it must be true.

Bam. Wethinks religion just dictated your political agenda. 

If this guy's running your campaign, you have bigger issues

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are above all that stuff, and that you can support a bi-partisan agenda regardless of your own personal or religious beliefs because you believe in democracy.  Then, you're going to have a little problem called "getting your party to actually vote for you".  Because no serious Republican candidate can ignore their party's cornerstone: christian evangelicals.  Take our friend Santorum, for instance.  Days after an evangelical endorsement his campaign contributions are up 50%. 50% peeps!!  He's so flush he can finally afford to go to-to-toe with this guy in South Carolina.  CNN quotes: "Newt Gingrich's campaign is working to limit the fallout of that decision."  Interesting.  Reading between the lines, this means Gingrich is likely to be doing more speaking out on behalf of "conservative values" and less for civil rights to win his evangelicals back.

Oh, and did we mention that "conservative values" is politically correct code for religiously-driven agenda?  But then again what do we know?  We're just another, dime-a-dozen, Ivy-league educated liberal Jew who can make up words like "wethinks" because we feel like it and ignore all proper grammatical rules for kicks.

It's a good thing our current president, a democrat, has the sense to check all religion at the door as it has no place in politics in a country where christians and jews and muslims and atheists live side by side.  It's a good thing he's not thanking his god in his speeches or doing any funny business like that.  It's a good think religious holidays like Christmas aren't national or school holidays.  Oh, wait...

Can we please just call a spade a spade?  Can we at least admit that religion plays into our politics whether we like it or not?  Then and only then, can we begin examining where we have fallen short of our democratic ideals.  As Betty Ford said, admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.  Or...wait, maybe was that was something someone said to Betty Ford.  You think we know the answer to that? As if.  Go ask a white male, will you?  And when you're done with that, let's have an honest debate about what role religion does (and should) play in our supposedly agnostic political system.   

Off our soapbox now.

Should Food Allergies Qualify as Special Ed? One Parent's Story...

Almost a year ago we wrote about the good times we had with the NYC Department of Education trying to get a school for our daughter.  Truth be told, they did us the biggest favor in the world, as mini is at a fabulous school: she's safe, healthy and thriving.

A public service message to kids with medical needs who can't attend school without help: if you're not behind academically there's no school for you!

But we couldn't let it go.  See, NYC's ignorant and dismissive attitude towards food allergies is going to get some poor kid killed one day.  It is a known fact that the majority of children with food allergies WILL have a reaction at school.  Furthermore studies have shown that the single biggest factor in determining whether or not a child's reaction was fatal was access to an epipen and time to administering.  Therefore it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that one must keep an epipen near a child with food allergies at all times, just in case.  It's an easy thing to do to prevent death.  After all, we already incorporate other things that may once have been perceived as "inconveniences" into our daily routines should the worst happen: sprinklers, seat belts, choking signs, fire extinguishers.  Have you ever seen a school that said "nah, we don't need the free sprinklers you're handing us, we've never had a fire.  You may have expertise in fire prevention but we've been preventing them for years and know we won't have any."

We didn't think so.

So why is it so hard for city officials and school administrators to wrap their heads around the simple fact that 5 minutes of training for all their staff plus easy access to epipens will bring peace of mind and evade a serious tragedy?  Seriously, you can watch one YouTube video and be trained, it's that simple.  And you can't even hurt someone by accidentally using the epipen.  And if you're still not convinced, think of it as a public health necessity: almost half of food allergic reactions at schools occur with children who were never diagnosed with any kind of allergy.

New York may not take it seriously but our federal government is.  There is a bill being proposed that would require schools to carry epinephrine, not just as prescriptions for individual students, but several injections of epinephrine not locked up, not in the nurse's office, easily accessible just in case.

And this is all we asked for.  We did not ask for a nut free school.  We did not ask for a curriculum change.  We did not ask the school to spend any money.  We simply asked the school to take a little time and meet with us to develop a plan, train its teachers, and ensure an epipen is available in any room our child would be in.

Clearly this was too much to ask.  So we asked for an IEP.  504 plans are great but they assume you had a say in what school you're at and therefore don't give you the right to move schools.  Kids with special needs should have the ability to say "hey, this school doesn't meet my needs, but this school does, so please move me."  Other kids have that right.  Kids with mild speech delays and an IEP have the right to switch schools.  Children with wheelchairs, hearing aids, etc. may switch schools if one is better suited to their needs.

But food allergies, while classified as a disability according to the ADA, falls under that vague non-specific area that until now has been interpreted as falling under 504 for most cases.  Except most cases assume the parents actually had a say in the school they choose to attend.  Studies in Massachussetts documented families moving to different school districts simply because they felt the new school would better accommodate their child's food allergies.  This happens all the time.

But due to a loophole mini didn't have that right.  She was "waitlisted out" of her zoned school, sent somewhere else, and her parents weren't even allowed to tour the school before registering.  So when we found the administration hostile to the accommodations we requested (the phrases "you're crazy," "I don't have time for this" and "we have children with real medical issues" were carelessly tossed about by the principal), we concluded that a 504 would simply not be enough.  According to many leading food allergy advocates:

No matter what the content of your school's plan for your child's safety, the biggest factor in your child's safety is the quality of communication and trust between parents and school staff.[1]

Thus, we naively assumed that when we brought all of the above information to the attention of the special ed committee, they would grant her an IEP so that she may be placed in a school better suited to her needs (in this case, one where the principal actually took the condition seriously).

Readers will know the result.  Six months after applying, we finally had a meeting, and were denied an IEP on the grounds that mini was too smart.  The conclusion: the medical condition was not affecting her grades, therefore she did not qualify for assistance.

You can imagine our horror.  Here we were telling administrators that without their intervention it was not safe for our daughter to set foot in a school for even half a day, and 4 months had gone by with her not being able to attend school the whole time, yet this was not enough to show "affect on learning".  What, we wondered, did children with other disabilities do if they were smart and resourceful? Would a child in a wheelchair be denied ramps if their grades were good?  Would a deaf child be denied an interpreter necessary to do well in schools if they were developmentally appropriate in all other areas? Would a diabetic be denied an IEP and transfer to a school with a full time nurse if they were academically at par with their peers?

Most of all, what really kept us up at night was "What if we weren't fortunate to have the resources we have?"  What would happen if another child found themselves in mini's shoes but the family could not afford an independent school as an alternative?  The parents would have to choose between home-schooling their child (which some parents of children with multiple food allergies are known to do), or risking their kids' lives every day.  We've heard stories of mothers going to the cafeteria every day at lunch to ensure their kids' safety, but what if you have to work?

Clearly, there were many, many kids risking their lives in the NYC school system every day and it was only a matter a time before tragedy struck.

So we sued.

If we didn't say anything, who would?

And we lost.  Friday we were informed that the judge upheld the claim that our child was not eligible for an IEP, solely on the grounds that she was not academically behind.  There was no dispute she had special medical needs, and had we kept her out of school long enough for her to fall behind, they'd grant it. 

So, for those of you out there with babies who have any kind of special need, if you're wondering how you will go about getting special accommodations for your child, fret no more! All you have to do is ensure your child is not performing at grade level and you can ensure they will get what they need!  Do not read to them! Do not let them play with other children! Do not play with shapes, colors, blocks.  Think of all the money you'll save on mommy and me classes!!  Think of all the time you'll save thinking up activities since you can just plop them in front of the TV all day!

Some will tell you to run in all kinds of circles, get a special education attorney, etc. to advocate for your child.  Learn from us! Save yourself the money.  As the judge's recent decision states: if your child performs below grade level for any of the academic tests, they will qualify for any service they need!  

So there you go, peeps.  Special education has been distilled into one, easy uncomplicated answer.  Prevention is a waste of society's time, it's all about being remedial.  You heard it here first.

Meanwhile, we'll be looking for ways to lobby for better laws.  We probably should give up saying "we fought the good fight" but we can't shake the nagging feeling of knowing something's wrong and that someone will get hurt if nothing is done.  

Other states have much better policies in place than New York.  It's time the policies were updated to focus on their original intent, which we presume is to actually educate our kids. 

No idea where to begin here.  Suggestions welcome.

---

[1]              Ellie Goldberg, food allergy advocate.  Also see Take Steps to Ensure Your Child has a Safe School Year, available at, http://www.kidswithfoodallergies.org/resourcespre.php?id=137.  and Communication Crucial to Protecting Food-Allergic Children at School, available at, http://www.nationaljewish.org/about/mediacenter/pressreleases/2010/food-allergic-children-school.aspx, quoting, Michelle Freas, coordinator of medical and health services at Kunsberg School on the campus of National Jewish Health (“Most parents do an excellent job during the summer of isolating their children from foods they’re allergic to, but when they go back-to-school they lose control of what their kids are exposed to.  The key to protecting food-allergic kids at school is communication with the school.”). 

Bill O'Reilly Slams Breastfeeding, So What?

We may be a little behind on the news, yes but we're not behind on your peeps' amazing ability to effect change.

Bill O'Reilly apparently feels that recent benefits to support nursing mothers are a burden to our society.  Sounds like he harbors a not-so-secret resentment to people fighting for nursing mothers' rights.  Who knows, perhaps he even harbors a secret resentment against nursing advocates, blaming these liberal idiots for the beating his portfolio has probably taken over the past few weeks.

We're going to go ahead and take a wild guess that readers of this blog are generally pro-nursing, or at least pro-supporting people who want to.

But sometimes you have to look at things from the other side.

Maybe the guy's got a point?  I mean, why should we make it easier to breastfeed at work, or frankly at all?  Do you really like walking down second avenue and seeing the indecency of exposed skin while some oblivious and thoughtless person feeds their child without even thinking to cover up or go down the stairs to the cramped and smelly bathroom like other people with manners do?

What has happened to us?  How are we supposed to increase our lagging GDP if we are encouraging people to take time away from their work to pump?  Look at all those Scandinavian hillbillies who let their womenfolk take a year off work and support their efforts to nurse.  What do they get for their efforts? Cold and ice! Cold and ice, peeps!!! Is that what you want? A land of cold and ice?

Think about it.  All that time pumping.  That, combined with all that brainwashing hoopla the government is disseminating about preventative health, for goodness sakes - smoke breaks may disappear altogether!  Think about what the tobacco companies do for our economy!  It would be downright irresponsible to let tobacco companies struggle in a time like this.  And the formula companies!  My goodness, formula!  Do you know how expensive formula is?  Women who nurse are not spending hundreds of dollars of formula, which would provide much-needed stimulus for our economy.

We don't want to scare you peeps, but Bill O'Reilly isn't afraid to tell the real truth like it is, even if it ain't pretty.  And we're here to tell you if this women's health nonsense doesn't stop we could become a society of (gasp) socialists!!!  Yes, we said the S word.  Extreme times call for extreme measures, peeps.  We apologize for anyone we may have inadvertently offended.

Don't listen to this uneducated hack

 
It's time we took back our society.  Breastfeeding is for wusses.  We need to focus on important issues like jobs for all those unemployed men out there and making guns more accessible to all who want them.  Don't listen to peeps like this guy, whose only agenda is to fuel anti-Fox News propaganda among the common folk.

And definitely, definitely, don't support organizations like this who are going to bankrupt America and spoil our workaholic culture with their agenda for more family friendly corporations. 

So, if you were mad at Bill O'Reilly's comments, you might want to look at an issue from all sides, is all we're saying.

*We feel an obligation to point out that the above post was sarcasm, or what may be referred to some as "satire".  Poker Chick does not, in fact, believe that all Scandinavians are hillbillies, nor does she think people who choose to breastfeed are ruining our country.  Just to clear that up.

And The State Of The Union Is....Awkward

In the buzz leading to tonight's State of the Union address, the focus was less on the substance of the speech and more on seating assignments for the audience.

Beyond the inspiring "Sputnik moment" sound bytes, the most interesting piece of it was watching how it was received. This sounds ridiculous at first.  But think about it.  For days we have been annoyed with this obsession on who's sitting where. For real?  What's the difference? Are you really unable to form your own opinion? Are we such adversaries that despite serving the same country and people we can't even sit together? Are we only able to applaud next to certain people?  And does it even matter? Some of these people are so new they could be sitting next to a seat-filler and not know it.

We thought it was a ridiculous topic of conversation. And truth be told, it is. It should be a given that seating should be party-agnostic and it's high time this was so taken for granted it's no longer a topic of discussion.

But let's indulge our inner gossip-mongers for a minute.

Admit it, you were watching. You tuned out for the middle of the speech when Obama struggled to find concrete examples of how he was going to push his policies forward, and looked at the crowd. And along with the nation's top reporters you noticed the reception this speech got was unusually quiet.

Well, duh.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you take people out of their partisan pens the "we're-better-than-you" syndrome is going to be taken down a notch. One only has to take a quick glance at each awkward individual to realize that. Look at the applause: historically loud and supportive; today tentative as people slowly got up, looked to their right, looked to their left, and then (and only then!) stood up and applauded if they noticed fellow party members cheering nearby.

And the awkward continues. 

There were genuine attempts at national unity, evidenced not only by the seating arrangements but also by small gestures: black and white ribbons, pink ties instead of red, more pats on the back, a somber and respectful tone overall. But on the flip side were the people who stuck to party lines, those who refused to sit apart from the party, those who even separated from their own party and made their own rebuttals. Even more awkward: the men sitting behind Obama, not quite sure how to react while he was talking.

"That's my boy!"                                "I'm so bored I could cry"

The President faced a nation in a very serious place, people who are nervous about their jobs, their future, their security, and addressed the fears that we are falling from grace (of course, special thanks to the Republicans who made sure to reignite those fears as they described in detail the "day of reckoning" the US is headed for, but we digress).

So Obama, you get props for rallying the troops and infusing Americans with renewed optimism in our future. But the vibe in the room? Tenuous at best, and, dare we say....awkward. Next year, in addition to mixed seating, let's work on boosting the confidence of our nation's leaders so they are comfortable enough to express their reaction honestly. It's not like they get a copy of the speech in advance or anything. Oh, wait....

Whatever you believe: Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, Roaring Tiger or Anxious Chopper...own it.   'Cause you can.  And that's what he's talkin' about.

Legitimate at last!

Our lame duck congress has been busy. Besides repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell", extending Bush-era tax cuts, protecting 9/11 first responders, and agreeing to nuclear arms control with Russia, many of you missed some groundbreaking legislation Obama quietly signed into law this week.

We present to you the Food Safety Bill. While this is widely lauded as the first major overhaul of U.S. food safety law since 1938, most are overlooking one small but crucial component. Yes, this law will allow our government to recall bacteria-laden food before it sickens a way-too-large population in our country. This is not to be dismissed. But Poker Chick is celebrating is the component that formally recognizes the government's role in protecting its citizens with life-threatening food allergies.

We can hear our Republican readers groan now. Why should the government stick its nose into what our kids eat? For those not yet convinced, allow us a little story:

Many of you have read about Poker Chick's frustrations at the reactions she has to deal with when managing Mini's food allergies. What many of you haven't heard is the saga that was getting Mini into school.

Picture this:

1) Hyper-neurotic food allergy parent tours local school a year before Kindergarten. Inquires about food allergy policies. Talks to understanding and somewhat knowledgeable administration. Asks around. Satisfied, decides not to move.

2) Unforeseen snag: local school is full (don't get us started on that civil rights issue), sent to nearby "alternate" school without a choice.

3) Forced to enroll. Try contacting administration in local school to get tour. Denied. Try contacting administration, letting them know about serious food allergies and asking about policies and process for putting health plans in place before September.

You know where we're going with this, don't you?

Denied.

4) Approach administration at orientation. Dismissed and told to discuss with teacher first day of school. Follow up with polite email as to why this needs to be discussed sooner.

5) Several weeks later, get call from principal. Mocked for being neurotic, told "you need to relax" and pushed off until September.

6) Immediately write to Special Ed committee to get help and formally request accommodations (i.e. Medical IEP plan noting epipen available at all times) so that child can attend school without either dying or causing her mother daily heart palpitations.

7) Watch the calendar move closer to September. Realize mini has nowhere safe to go. Panic. Lie awake at night. Try and convince yourself to "give it a try" as staff has suggested, despite emergency plans in place. Realize this would cause you immediate alarm if you left the building.

8) Finally meet face to face with administration (2 days before school starts). School does not yet have full time nurse. Principal's reaction to epipens at lunch is "we'll ask if student teachers would mind but can't force them". Principal points out they have other children with "real medical conditions."

This measures "through the roof!" on the Poker Chick scale of ridiculousness.

9) Send letter after letter to the special education committee that school is days away and your child still has no safe place to go to school. Remind them this "alternate" school randomly assigned was not your local school anyway and request transfer. Rinse and repeat.

10) Two weeks after school starts as your child watches all her friends go off you realize you are not equipped to homeschool and enroll your child in private school. Cry like a weak fool when they acknowledge your request for epipens available and take your concern seriously.

11) Receive response from special ed committee for meeting. 6 months later. Attend meeting. Request for accommodation (next year at this point) denied as your child is "too smart" and they do not feel medical issues affect learning. Remind them your child is entitled to a "free and appropriate education" by law and that they are refusing to create a safe enough environment for her to attend school and learn anything.

Poker Chick sure wishes she lived in Clayton right about now.

Receive blank stares, shrugs, and numbers for lawyers.

12) No, this ain't no 12 step process. The story ends here, peeps. Think we need help yet?

Parents of children with food allergies have been working for 5 years to get FAAMA signed into law. What good does it do? Imagine if the principal in our little story had a federal law acknowledging the "real medical condition" of food allergies, and providing education AND guidance on how to keep these children safe in your school? Imagine if Poker Chick had not been fortunate enough to be able to send her child to private school and had to decide between "giving it a try" or homeschooling?

Last week, a 7th grader died after accidentally eating the wrong thing at school. The reaction may not have been preventable, but with an epipen and proper emergency plan the death could have been. Imagine what might have happened if the principal of that school had national guidelines for managing food allergy reactions at school before this had happened?

Our heart goes out to this girl's family. Her death was a terrible and (sadly) preventable tragedy. Every kid with food allergies should have an emergency plan. It's not hard. It's not expensive. It's not even inconvenient, other than the few minutes of training required. It is not difficult to obtain epipens or use one. What's difficult is getting people around this stubborn mindset that we are being "neurotic". Why? Poker Chick has no idea why. But sadly, many people are quite mean when having to deal with allergies and refuse to give up their peanut butter. So if this law helps people understand their role in keeping these kids safe, it could save a lot of lives.

So thanks, Obama. Here's hoping you have a good time in Hawaii. And please don't pass the macadamia nut butter.

This end to our hiatus proudly brought to you by the makers of illegal generic drugs

Today, in the hustle and bustle of the evening commute, was guy holding a handmade sign in the subway.

How is this noteworthy?

Well, it wasn't your ordinary busker. It started out political. Meds like Lipitor are evil. Doctors don't tell you they destroy your liver. Things like that.

OK, so this is headed toward some solicitation for some fanatic group, right?

Wrong.

It was an advertisement for bootleg generic prescriptions meds. Not even branded bootleg drugs. Cheap-ass generic ones. At the end it advised you not to take Lipitor, "Stay safe" and rather than getting your meds from a nationally-recognized insured pharmacy, get them online from this unsavory guy.

So Poker Chick has to ask the obvious question:

Say you're running an illegal, offshore prescription drug scam. You want people to bypass the trusted route of their doctors and pharmacies, look to your dirty salesperson, and order from www.cheapassdrugs.com (or whatever that sign said). Let's just say you're actually the person in charge of marketing for these people.

SAFETY? That's your angle?

Run away, peeps. We're surrounded by idiots.

Vegas calls Obama! You heard it here first!

In case y'all were wondering, Vegas odds on Obama/McCain are 11-to-2. It seems people have shifted to bet on the longshot - no, not McCain - but Obama getting 370+ electoral votes. That's the "in" bet these days. However, it should be noted that Vegas has a historically poor record of predicting the outcome of Presidential elections.

Therefore, Poker Chick has just told you nothing of value.

Your Civic Duty

I voted on my way to work this morning. I was bummed not to get a pin or sticker. Being too selfish to settle for the "self-satisfaction of participating in the democratic process" I treated myself to a nice hot chocolate.

GO VOTE!!!! And be sure to check out the results below. OK, or on any "real" news network.

I won't tell you how to vote or who to vote for. Just do it, peeps.

Fun With Politics

Credit goes to this chick for putting it together.

Thank you, Tina!

I was right! How often do you get to say that?

So much so, turns out, that NBC pounced on the likeness Poker Chick called over a week ago. The resemblance is so uncanny that even as she types this, Poker husband is still challenging, claiming that it really is Sarah Palin on SNL's season premiere opening. Let's all re-watch Dave and do some scenario planning, shall we?


How many of you think McCain would win hands-down if Tina Fey was his actual running mate?

Hell, yeah.

America, The Stupid - Part II

Part II: Uh-oh, Poker Chick is getting political...

Indulge her a moment while she gets on her political soapbox, will you? Don't worry, it won't happen often. But something's gone horribly awry with this election. Read Emily's post today for a brilliant but sad commentary on this year's political circus they call "campaigning".

So start paying attention, peeps. Make sure you're registered and then read up. And no, People doesn't count.* Then, make your informed choice and exercise your right to vote this November. Whether it's McCain, Obama, or Nader (pause for shudder), never forget that your vote counts just as much as any of theirs.

This concludes today's installment of Deep Thoughts from Poker Chick.

If you've got a few minutes, watch this hilarious monologue. PC couldn't have said it better herself.


*No offense meant against you, People Magazine. We're big fans!! It's just not intended to be a sole provider of political news. But we still love it! In fact, just to show there's no hard feelings, if you peeps at People want to send Poker Chick some free issues, that'd be great!