My mother in law testified before the senate in DC yesterday. Thanks to my brother in law, I convinced my lovely husband to take the day off, hop in a car and drive to DC for the day.

My last trip to DC was on my birthday a few years ago. We spent a weekend in the very warm city and visited the memorials and parks. At the time, I had a fever of 100 and some so most of what I remember from the two days isn't very pleasant. I remember people being slow and taking literally minutes to answer a simple question or getting a simple item from a store. I came home, all frustrated and thankful that I lived in New York City. I belonged in the city. I am one of those people who get in a city cab and ask the cabbie to please drive faster. Many friends have tried to talk up the benefits of Washington DC since that trip, but I'll admit I was close-minded and kept insisting it wasn't a place I could ever inhabit.

My husband and I drove up after his workday on Tuesday and, despite what people had said, made it to DC in about three and a half hours. We found and checked into our fancy hotel just miles from the Capitol and the White House. My mother in law was putting the finishing touches on her speech. While eating the room service, she explained the crux of the legislation that she was testifying about. We talked about how laws are made and how long it takes from inception to a fully approved state. As someone who has never taken any politics or government courses and pretty clueless on the subject matter in general, I found the conversation fascinating. I was amazed that with all the necessary approvals, any work got accomplished at all.

The next morning, we went to the hearing, which turned out to be pretty popular. The two of us and my brother in law were lucky enough to get reserved seating. All in all, ten different senators showed up for the hearing and at parts the discussion got very heated. I found the entire scene fascinating and felt patriotic (even though I am still quite a few years away from qualifying for citizenship). I was mostly fascinated about how accessible all these discussions were and how an ordinary person could simply walk in , given they showed up early enough to get a seat.

After the testimonies and lunch, the two of us walked over to the Supreme Court building where we had a quick and very interesting lecture on the history of the Supreme Court and how the hearings work. Two interesting tidbits I learned: you don't have to be a lawyer to become a supreme court judge and the judges work half a year, half a month, half a day. The intern who gave the tour explained that the public could come in and see any trial, given they showed up early enough and were willing to wait in line.

To finish our tour, we went back to the Capitol and got passes from our senator so we could enter the Senate Chambers. When we walked into the chambers, a senator was talking about a specific procedure for abortion, which made the papers today. The first thought that went through my mind, as I sat in the room was that if I lived in DC and was unemployed, I could come here and listen all day long.

I'm not sure what excited me so much about the experience of sitting in the hearing and in the chamber. I guess I liked that I saw history being made, first hand. I know CSPAN airs these all day long and even in Turkey we can watch the Parliament on TV, but I'd never actually been in the room where the events occurred. I'm not even sure I can in Turkey. I find it really incredible that I can in the US.

I'm not sure my overall opinions on DC have changed but I certainly saw a different side of the city this time. At least now I have an idea of what I could do with my free time if we did move there.

Millions of people have already linked to this 13 Myths About the Results of the 2000 Election story that Derek originally linked to at MetaFilter but in case you haven't seen it, I wanted to make sure to point it out. One of the most interesting points, to me, was the 13th. I never really thought of that and it's an interesting point. The entire piece is quite thought provoking actually.

I'm still reading the political issue of the New Yorker from a few weeks ago. Today, I read the Joseph P. Kennedy letters. They were beautiful. The two I found most touching were the ones relating to the deaths of Joe Kennedy, Jr.and Kathleen Kennedy Hartington. It seems he was quite religious. Even though I'm not, I liked his strong emotions and eloquent wording. Here's the one he wrote to Kick (Kathleen) 30 minutes after he found out about her death:

All in all, a very interesting read.

Before?

Everyone's talking about voting. It's all over the Fray ( you can even read my little comment) and all over MetaFilter. I know there are many people who are sick of all this talk, but I am still totally obsessed. I can't think of anything else. I have MetaFilter and CNN up on my screens at work and I keep refreshing to get the most recent updates. Kinda freaky, I know, but I can't stop myself. I promise to go back to normal as soon as Gore wins. Heh.

So much to do and so little time. I'm still feeling overwhelmed about this weekend. Trying to get my arms around all the Japanese I need to master in the next three weeks. I also need to produce some literary sounding scenes for my novel class on Monday. This one will go to the entire class so they can critique it, so it needs to be extra good. Let alone all the TiVo catching up I'm gonna have to do. Argh.

Before?

Thanks to Stewart I tracked down the double issue of The New Yorker and I am so glad I did. I don't know why I suddenly became so fascinated with politics, but here I am yelling at my TV while Jake's surfing the net. Maybe it is cause I can't vote.

One of the articles in the New Yorker, titled The Word Lab, is about what language the candidates use and how they get selected. It has quite a few interesting points. For the article, they created a focus group and one of the things they discussed was death tax. People's opinion of the amount you're allowed to pass on after you die was a lot more than people had originally guessed. But even after the facts were given, almost none of the participants changed their opinion on whether to abolish to tax or not. "The point here was that if you introduce a subject using language that will produce a strong opinion no subsequent information will get people to change their minds."

Another thing they did during the focus group was to make them put these five words in order of what matters most in their life. The list was opportunity, community, responsibility, accountability, and society. (I listed them in the same order as the magazine) What would be your order?

I gotta go back and yell at my TV some more.

Before?

I spent several hours reading the Economist's election edition. They had information on the different platforms of the two candidates. I think it's very important that people realize that there are very specific differences in the platforms of the two candidates. Cause both of them are trying so hard not to fuck up so close to the election, it seems that they are agreeing on everything, but trust me, they are not. I think this is a really important election, especially since they are so neck and neck. Each vote will count in this election. Well, unless you live in New York. Or in any of the other, 'decided', states.

Before?

I really don't understand why candidates run ads that put down their opponents. Do they really think that people vote for them because they said something negative about the other person?

The same behavior bothers me in corporate ads. When Pepsi runs an ad bashing Coke or vice versa, I feel like they must be so pathetic that they need to put down the competition. Their own product obviously must have no redeeming qualities.