OPINIONS OF ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES, A MINOR GREEK GODDESS. She can be reached at: ECHIDNE-OF-THE-SNAKES.COM

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Them Damn Minorities! 



That's the new Conservative meme about the secret real reason for the financial markets crisis. Yup. It's the Community Reinvestment Act that caused it, forcing banks to lend to minorities:

Several conservatives in the media have recently blamed the Community Reinvestment Act for the current financial crisis -- when, in fact, the CRA does not apply to institutions making the vast majority of troubled loans underlying the crisis. It applies only to depository institutions, such as banks and savings and loan associations. Experts have estimated that 80 percent of high-priced subprime loans were offered by financial institutions that are not subject to the CRA.

Well, if it's not that particular act, it must be the minorities anyway. Except for this:

2008-ComplianceTech, a provider of technology and business intelligence for consumer lending institutions and government agencies, has released an industry report indicating that the majority of subprime-rate loans originated in 2006 were made to non-Hispanic Whites and upper-income borrowers (conventional, 1st lien, 1-to-4 family, owner-occupied, home purchase and refinance).The findings are contrary to the way subprime-rate lending has been portrayed. Frequent media portrayals and congressional dialogue refer to subprime-rate lending as a minority and low-income issue. Findings in the report are based on data submitted by lenders under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) analyzed with the data-mining tool LendingPatterns(TM).

The report concluded that a disproportionate share of loans made to minorities and low-income borrowers were subprime-rate loans, but the majority of subprime-rate loans were made to non-Hispanic Whites and upper-income borrowers. Of the 1,917,809 subprime-rate loans originated in 2006, non-Hispanic Whites had 70.82 percent of the loans, and 56.23 percent of the subprime-rate loans. Upper-income borrowers had the highest share of the subprime-rate loans at 39.37 percent, followed by 27.55 percent for middle-income borrowers and 20.99 percent for moderate-income borrowers.

Contrary to popular belief, low-income borrowers had only 149,173, or 7.57 percent, of 2006 subprime-rate loans. The report also concluded that the majority of subprime-rate loans were originated in predominately-White geographic regions (areas representing census tracts less than 30 percent minority).


|

WHACK! POW! $%^^$*&! 



The conservative Jonah Goldberg, while talking with the conservative Glenn Beck, asks us to think about Harry Reid's slashed stomach and half-starved weasels. I didn't know that it was the Democrats who caused the financial crisis, what with not having been in power when it started and all. But whatever, as they say these days. Though it's probably time for a post with some actual data to point out that the minorities and the liberals are not behind this crisis. To argue that they are is a really desperate attempt to grasp at straws. I guess Democrats are also the reason why the Chinese milk has melamine and so on.

No, my conservative friends. These problems have to do with your free market fundamentalism and corporate crony capitalism.

Added for clarification: I was reading about Howard Rich's threats to people who donate to liberal causes and the supposed threats to conservative donors that had provoked Rich to make his threats. Then I read some of the comments at Politico and started thinking about the cartoon violence character of these debates. It worries me, the dehumanization of the opposition. What also worries me is something I have noticed recently: The commenting communities on quite a few larger blogs appear to have become self-policing and increasingly narrow. Homes for those who think exactly alike.

|

Monday, September 29, 2008

Out Of Her League 



I happened to catch Kathleen Parker today on my radio. Sadly, I had to release her.

If you don't know Parker's writings count yourself lucky. Her most recent books is called something like Save The Males and whenever she writes about anything that has to do with women she expresses her deep and abiding misogyny. She's not an uncommon type of a wingnut woman but in the general mold of many of them. Ann Coulter suggesting that women shouldn't have the vote is an extreme example of the type of writing these women do.

All this is important to know to see why I wasn't exactly surprised when Parker decided to tell Sarah Palin to get the hell back to Alaska. But this is really very silly:

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted

Pulling for Palin? Perhaps if it was a rope around Palin's neck, but not otherwise. Because our Kathleen really has a big psychological problem with women and that problem is called misogyny.

Parker is not the only misogynistic voice raised against Palin. Andrew Sullivan is another pundit who never saw much value in women (remember his testosterone-makes-men-better article?). But now Andy has gone all feminist in his attacks against Palin.

So is Palin "out of her league" as Parker points out? Of course she is if the league is defined carefully to only include people who are very experienced and very educated and very intelligent, the kinds of people some of us would like to see leading countries.

On the other hand, let's take a look at - oh, say - George Walker Bush. What was his level of expertise when he ran for the president of the United States? There was a rumor at the time that when asked a question about the Taliban Georgie thought it was the name of a rock band, and though I can't verify that story I can certainly verify (as can all of you) that George Bush is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer and that many of his utterances are pure word salad. Yes, we point that out on the liberal side of the political aisle but I have not noticed conservative pundits suggesting that Bush should have withdrawn his candidacy because he was stupid and ignorant and uninterested in learning anything whatsoever.

See? We didn't even have to go back to Dan Quayle to find another Republican candidate who had very little experience and who made a lot of very stupid comments. It looks like Sarah Palin is in the same league as the president we have right now, doesn't it?

What is one to conclude about all this? My conclusion would be not to vote for McCain-Palin. I don't want another ignorant president. We can all see what the current one has done to this country. But let's not pretend that this country has never had stoopid run the country before.

|

Was will das Weib? 






Those immortal words by Sigmund Freud come from this quote from a letter he wrote:

The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is "What does a woman want?"

I'm sure you have seen that question many times and read several answers to it, ranging from whole books such as Patricia Ireland's What Do Women Want to loads and loads of sexist little columns about the impossibility of knowing what such featherbrained and deficient (though cuddly) creatures might want to serious treatises pointing out that no large group of people ever wants just one thing or just the same things and how sexist it is to even assume that this would be the case.

That's one monster sentence! I'm rather proud of it, because I really want to stop writing in such a short and manly style...

In any case, whenever I now see that little question what I want most of all is to open my mouth really large to extend my fangs and to cut off the neck of the person who used that phrase. Annoying, that's what it is. To see why that would be the case, just ask yourself a similar question about, say, all Jews or about all Somalians or about all men. Then ask the question about all monkeys. You might notice that somehow the question makes better sense when applied to monkeys, because we have trouble with communication across species and because we see ourselves as the researchers and the monkeys as the objects of the research.

And those are the emotions this phrase evokes in me: Freud in his white coat, on one side of the cage walls, me (as "das Weib") shrieking and climbing the cage walls while being "observed." That's part of what annoys me about the quote: It sets the roles of the observer and the observed. Then it adds to that the assertion that Freud's thirty years of observing should be enough for him to know the answer, not to mention the implicit assumption that his "research" has been all objective and thorough and that an answer should have been forthcoming.

This from a man who wrote to his betrothed:

Woe to you, my Princess, when I come... you shall see who is the stronger, a gentle girl who doesn't eat enough or a big wild man who has cocaine in his body.

See how annoying all that is? Especially as Freud's statement is not only treated as objectively true but also as leading to the unavoidable conclusion that it's pointless to try to understand "woman" so we might as well just not try to understand "her." It's nice for all the lazy people, people who don't want to make an effort in understanding other people. After all, if Sigmund Freud, a great and calm thinker, agrees it must be AOK not to understand women.

But then of course Freud thought the idea of gender equality was frightening and ridiculous and totally out of question, and he never seems to have put these feelings of his under the cool microscope of his brain even though he advocated complete honesty in self-interrogations.

I rather think that my zoo cage parable isn't a bad one if you allow for the fact that not only is "das Weib" a monkey in a cage but so is Professor Freud a little upset monkey in a cage and that one mostly of his own making.





-------
Pictures from my files.

|

No Bailout Yet 



So the bailout bill failed to pass in the House. The Republicans played the "bipartisanship" game most beautifully.

The bill that failed today was better than the initial bill but it didn't include any of the stuff I wrote about in an earlier post and it wasn't anywhere as good as the 1992 Swedish bank bailout plan was. It wouldn't have done very much but it might have kept the markets going until the next administration which then might have had more scope to do something more serious to fix the market problems.

Most people in the U.S. are opposed to the bailout of the financial markets, full stop. There are, however, fairly good reasons to be concerned about the markets even if you have no mortgage problems or a shrinking retirement investment. Money is like oil in the gears of the economic engine and the lack of money there will cause horrible grinding noises, failing parts of the engine and breakdowns. Unemployment will rise, lots of people will see their retirement income shrink, lots of people will find that dad or mom will not live in Florida after retirement but with them. Lots of people will find that little Jenny's college fund isn't enough to buy her more than a week or two. And so on.

It's important to keep in mind these problems, too, because the unregulated markets will not.

|

Some Monday News About Women And Vaginas 



Not fun ones, sorry.

First, in Afghanistan:

Two Taliban assassins on a motorbike shot and killed a senior policewoman as she left for work in Afghanistan's largest southern city Sunday and gravely wounded her son.

Malalai Kakar, 41, who led Kandahar city's department of crimes against women, was leaving home Sunday when she was killed, said Zalmai Ayubi, spokesman for the Kandahar provincial governor. Her 18-year-old son was wounded, he said.

The Taliban claimed responsibility.

Militants frequently attack projects, schools and businesses run by women. The hard-line Taliban regime, which was ousted in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion, did not allow women outside the home without a male escort.

President Hamid Karzai condemned the assassination, as did the European Union, which said it was "appalled by the brutal targeting" of Kakar.

The Taliban kills people for all sorts of reasons, but it's never good to forget that they are pretty keen to get women back into the houses to sit there silently as graves. It's good to remember that violence of this kind is really intended to the rest of Afghanistan women, a statement telling them that is is what you, too, may meet if you dare to step out. This, my friends, is terrorism, too.

Then about those damn vaginas (hat tip to Phila):

A leading urogynaecologist has spoken out against the growing popularity of cosmetic vaginal surgery.

Professor Linda Cardozo, of King's College Hospital, London, says little evidence exists to advise women on the safety or effectiveness of procedures.

These include operations to make the external appearance more "attractive" and reshaping the vagina to counter laxity after childbirth, for example.
...
Professor Cardozo said the most established vaginal cosmetic procedure was reduction labioplasty - a procedure to make the labia smaller - which is requested by women either for aesthetic reasons or to alleviate physical discomfort.

"Women want to emulate the supermodel. It's part of a trend. But they should know that all surgery can be risky.

Mmm. This is the way so many socio-medical news items about women are written: First shockingly explain the horrors some women (never mind how few) are willing to have performed to them (chopping off toes to fit into smaller shoes, getting rid of the unevenness in those labias). Then suggest that women really are rather vain and stupid creatures who don't want to grow old gracefully or who want to look just like supermodels. The reasons for all these operations are just the women themselves. No external pressures are applied, yanno. Women are just rather silly creatures.

Just a minute! What supermodels was professor Cardozo talking about? Do the supermodels now take their panties off on the catwalk and turn around to show us the perfection of their vaginas? I thought they were clad in expensive clothes they try to sell us. This is very weird.

She is talking about porn stars, natch. But why not mention that? Interesting...
|

Sunday, September 28, 2008

The Shale Game (by Phila) 

As you probably know, the desert West contains huge deposits of oil shale. This is a sedimentary rock that contains a solid compound called kerogen, which can be refined into a synthetic crude oil. Most of these deposits are on publicly owned land.

There's no good method of extracting shale oil. Currently, the most "promising" method -- the method that is supposed to make the industry economically and environmentally viable, at long last -- involves creating and maintaining an underground ice wall to protect groundwater, and then heating the kerogen-bearing rock in situ:
In the high desert near Rifle, Colo., Shell engineers are burying hundreds of steel rods 2,000 feet underground that will heat the shale to 700 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature at which Teflon melts.

The heat will be applied for the next four years....
This process releases more greenhouse gases than conventional petroleum production. But in the short term -- which is all we really care about, right? -- the more serious consideration is probably water, the scarcity of which is already increasing conflicts between Western states and towns.

With all this in mind, it's interesting to read this op-ed by Jeff Hartley, who is the director of Utah's Responsible Energy Developers Forum. He was offended by a recent editorial in The Salt Lake Tribune, which criticized the new energy bill's lifting of the moratorium on oil shale leasing in Utah, and he's eager to set the record straight:
[T]echnologies now exist that require little or no process water, minimize surface disturbances and significantly reduce emissions. While some of The Tribune's claims about purported environmental impacts may have been true several decades ago, that is no longer the case.
That's progress for you! Still, I'm willing to bet that the careful phrase "process water" conceals an unpleasant reality; in discussions like these, specificity is almost always intended to mislead. At the very least, he's probably ignoring the water consumption of infrastructure and labor.

Then again, the fact that I allow myself to be troubled by these suspicions proves that I'm a Luddite or worse. Since there are no longer any serious environmental problems with oil shale, it's obvious that opposition to the project can only be based on hatred of civilization
"I've always said [to oil shale critics], 'What are you afraid of?'" [Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah] said. "You're afraid it might work."
Guilty as charged.

Here's the part I find fascinating, given the ongoing battle over water rights:
“There’s a misconception that it’s (oil shale development) all going to be new water, it’s really not,” Kuhn said. “Oil companies have existing valid water rights.” Some of those companies have water rights dating from the 1950s or 1960s"....During a water shortage, water consumptive oil shale extraction could deny Gunnison Basin or San Juan Basin or other water users their water rights if they date from 1970s or 1980s, he said.
Oil shale production will be allowed to proceed on federal lands as of tomorrow. Some members of Congress are talking about reinstating the moratorium in January, just in case anyone was thinking there's not enough at stake in the upcoming election.
|

Palin Is For Patriarchy Not Against It. That Is The Beginning To Understanding Her Place In This Race by Anthony McCarthy 

It’s been my experience that there is one overriding mental habit that produces what is called the conservative mind set, maintaining a narrowed boundary of interest. Conservatives’ ability to empathize with those relatively distant from them or to care much about their rights is limited. Their actions, when they have power, is a clear demonstration of that fact as are their words. And it’s been my experience of conservatives that there are degrees to it. Some are more generous with their concern than others. Some have deep feelings for their nationality or ethnic group, some for their local community, some for their extended family, some only for them and their closest. Some of the feelings for other people outside of that boundary might be genuine at times, but usually it is expressed in some kind of balancing of costs and benefits to the conservative. The utility of the benefits extended to outsiders to the conservative is a common expression of why the limits of the only apparent self-interest should be extended, on occasion.

Empathy and its related ways of thinking are more associated with liberals and leftists, we are often mocked for that way of thinking. I think there is something to the stereotype and I am not at all ashamed of it. While there are many things that can be said about the consequences of that way of thinking about the world, this post is about only one consequence of that view of life. We tend to attribute that way of thinking to other people, including conservatives and even those conservatives whose actions show limited or no ability to break out of their self-interest. This assumption is often wildly over generous. At times it distorts the reality against and the results aren’t beneficial to us or the world at large.

The fact of being a member of a group which is discriminated against or even oppressed doesn’t guarantee that the habits of generosity and empathy will be generated in the individuals experiencing that oppression. Oppression produces different results among individuals. Some look at their experience and use it to become more sensitive to other peoples’ feelings, especially those in other groups which are oppressed. But that isn’t a guaranteed result. There are conservatives within even the most oppressed groups who don’t extend their generosity to other people outside their groups, or even to those within their oppressed minority. There are members of oppressed groups who find it in their personal interest to join the oppressors and gain personally from it. Clarence Thomas is an extreme example who held up his own sister to scorn to boost his standing in the Republican right. I mentioned Roy Cohn here last week. Phyllis Schlafly is certainly a woman whose personal power is based almost entirely on her supporting the worst of patriarchal oppression of other women.

In trying to figure out what is wrong with these people, traitors to others within their kind, looking at their inability to see past their own interest is a key to understanding them. It’s a mistake to look at Sarah Palin and analyze her actions and her place in this campaign in terms of the struggle against patriarchy. She doesn’t struggle against it, she endorses it. That she has found a way to rig the patriarchal system to HER benefit and through her to that of those closest to her is to be expected, that’s what conservatives do no matter what group they belong to. Looking at Palin as any kind of first for women (second, actually, as we are not supposed to remember) only leads away from reality. She is out for number one, not for women in general. Her nomination is as meaningful for progress for women struggling against patriarchy as Clarence Thomas has been for the equality of black people or the Log Cabin Republicans for gay people. In the struggle against patriarchy, she’s just a patriarch in disguise. The use of her daughter in this campaign is rapidly approaching the level of depravity that Thomas’ use of his sister was. It is a warning of just how bad a Palin administration could get.

Note: I had a request to keep writing until the election on these subjects. Not getting all that many requests, I’ll try to oblige.
|

An Elaborate System of Control (by Phila) 

An economist named Sir Allen Peacock worries that addressing climate change will involve "subjecting man to an elaborate system of control."

Given the seriousness of this threat, he feels a duty to force our thinking and our behavior into compliance with the free-market dogma that will liberate us.

No one can blame a freedom fighter for stretching the truth now and again, so we won't linger over Peacock's lame attempt to pretend that there's an equivalence between the "global cooling scare" of the 1970s and the current theory of climate change. What's much more interesting is his effort to counter the claim that there's no equivalence:
[C]limate change scientists say...it is undeniable that the pumping of [CO2] into the air is positively correlated with the growth of industrialisation.

Robinson and Morris demonstrate that this conclusion, when subject to the simplest statistical test, fails.

In theorising, they point out, climate change modellers need not accept that the future will be like the past.

Modellers say: "Is there not sufficient evidence of global warming in the melting of the polar ice caps?"

Here we come to a second reason for scepticism. If true, this can only be, at most, partial evidence in their favour. More generally, policy should require guidance from modelling on the time scale of global warming and its magnitude.
If you're going to ask people to change their views on the basis of "the simplest statistical test," you're obliged to give them a clear sense of what that test entails. Instead, Peacock has cobbled together a series of statements that seem to me to have virtually no relation to one another and to express nothing coherent.

From there, things get even stranger. The environmental taxes and regulations that to Peacock comprise "an elaborate system of control" are "Draconian," which is bad. But they're also "unenforceable," which is apparently even worse. (If we must live under tyranny, let it at least be enforceable!)

Also, there's some uncertainty about the likely effects of climate change. This means that "circumstances hardly justify" taking what Peacock would call drastic action, because as everyone knows the proper reaction to uncertainty is complacency (unless you're talking about the faint possibility that regulating CO2 emissions will lead to a new Gulag, in which case it's very definitely time to panic).

Peacock's evidence -- apart from that simple statistical test -- boils down to his discovery of dogmatic overtones in environmentalist rhetoric (which, for some reason, he fails to detect in his own free-market boilerplate):
To compare their activities with religious extremism is modish, but enlightening. Prophecy leading to identification of sin, salvation and heresy can be identified in their pronouncements.
This, you'll agree, is a bracing antidote to the muddy thinking and wild speculations of the world climatological community.
|

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Darwin's Dangerous Idea (by Phila) 

One of the mantras of climate inactivism is that polar bears will simply adapt to climate change. The fact that this theory is usually advanced by people who question the reality of climate change and the utility of polar bears should give you some idea of how sincere it is.

At any rate, it looks as though polar bears are indeed adapting:
Scientists have noticed increasing reports of starving Arctic polar bears attacking and feeding on one another in recent years. In one documented 2004 incident in northern Alaska, a male bear broke into a female's den and killed her.
Starving bears will occasionally attack humans, too. The inactivist response is straightforward: if this is how polar bears are going to behave, why shouldn't they die out? The possibility that they might adapt to the loss of their natural prey and habitat means they shouldn't be protected; the fact that they try to adapt suggests that we're better off without them.

It's funny how the basic concepts of evolution inspire pious horror from social conservatives when they're taught in schools, and shouts of "amen!" when they're used to justify nudging some inconvenient species into extinction. The besetting sin of "Darwinism" is supposed to be its amorality; meanwhile, the idea that polar bears have value in themselves, either as created beings or as members of a fragile ecosystem that we don't fully understand, is cast aside as quasi-religious sentimentalism at best. They attack evolution as a justification of eugenics, and then embrace eugenics as a justification of economic and foreign policy. Like Jesus Christ, Social Darwinism must be martyred in order to triumph.

Curiously, it's the evolutionary viewpoint that tends to provide the moral seriousness here: you won't find too many biologists who contemplate the loss of large or small species without fear and trembling; their eye is on the sparrow, as the saying is. This, I suspect, is the only aspect of evolutionary science that right-wing ideologues truly view as "dangerous."
|

Read and Copy (by Phila) 

Be it known:
The Bush administration has overturned a 22-year-old policy and now allows customs agents to seize, read and copy documents from travelers at airports and borders without suspicion of wrongdoing, civil rights lawyers in San Francisco said Tuesday in releasing records obtained in a lawsuit.
There's not much I can -- or should have to -- say about that. What I find really interesting here is the evolution of this practice.
[T]hose policies were first enacted by President Ronald Reagan's administration in 1986, in response to lawsuits by U.S. citizens who were questioned and searched after returning from Nicaragua. President Bill Clinton's administration refined the policies in 2000 but made no major changes, Sinnar said.
In other words, these policies had their origins in the political harassment of US citizens, at least some of whom were undoubtedly providing humanitarian aid to a country whose democratically elected government was under attack by the Reagan administration, on the grounds that it posed an existential threat (Nicaragua, you'll recall, was only "two days' driving time from Harlingen, Texas").

Clinton left the policies more or less intact. Now, Bush has expanded them. Previously, there had to be "reasonable" grounds for seizing and copying documents. Now, it's simply a matter of autocratic whim. This is a good example -- if we needed another -- of how Democratic administrations postpone, rather than reverse, the slide into authoritarianism. It's conceivable that Obama will reject these powers, and dismantle them. It's even more conceivable that he won't, which ought to (but probably won't) give conservatives pause for thought.

You can read the FOIA documents on these policies here.
|

Bitch magazine and the feminist press (by Skylanda) 

Nearly ten summers ago, I was taking - of all things - a 101 level chemistry class at a junior college in San Francisco. I struck up a conversation with the gal on the lab bench across from me, and over some foggy lunches and breaks between cram sessions, we talked about all kinds things political and passionately personal. One day, she brought me a magazine and told me she thought I’d like it, should give it a read.

The magazine was Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture. I was intrigued. I read her two back issues cover to cover. I started buying it on the newsstands when my meager budget allowed. Though the rhetoric was familiar (and sometimes off-base, and sometimes trite…ya know, like any other publication out there), it put to print opinions that I’d had myself, thoughts that I should have had, and insights that I never would have come up with on my own.

I didn’t agree with every writer published in their pages, and one time I disagreed enough to fire off a snappy reply to the email address listed under the letters-to-the-editor section. One of the editors herself wrote me back and we proceeded to engage in five or six back-and-forth emails debating the topic at hand (which concerned - I kid you not - whether the infamous lesbian kiss on Ally McBeal was a step toward or away from adequate, accurate representation of lesbians on primetime). At the end of our exchange, though we animatedly disagreed, she told me she liked my style and asked if I would be interested in writing for them some time? And so Bitch magazine became the first media venue to ever put my name in print. In the intervening near-decade, I was a regular contributor until the demands of work put a crimp in my minimally-paid extra-curricular activities.

I bring this up now not to flash my somewhat dubious qualifications around now that echinde has given me a space as a regular contributor here, but because Bitch is going through a rough patch these days. There’s all the usual stressors on small independent press - low advertising revenues, the flailing fluctuations in income when one issue does not sell as well as the last, a markedly biased increase in postal rates for bulk mailers a few months back - and then there’s the stress of putting out a progressive, incisive feminist mag four times a year while maintaining the editorial cojones to turn down advertising not in line with the mission of the publication. On September 15th the editors ran a home-spun video to plead their case that if they didn’t come up with the cash flow to publish the next issue, the previous would be the last.

The outpouring from readers - new and established - in cash and subscriptions pushed them over their goal in just three days. The fairly spectacular feat of having gathered up some $55,000 in donations in the span of a few days - a few days that coincides with the virtual collapse of the nation’s banking industry and its reverberating effects at home - speaks volumes to the value that a large (and fairly poorly-funded) group of people place on independent press in an era of media consolidation.

Along with the plea for a cash infusion (hey, if the banking industry can call on the masses for a cash hit every so and again, why not a feminist press?), they also opened up threads to take suggestions on how best to proceed in the days ahead. Continue to rely on donations when sales are thin? Change over to an online-only format? Close the doors forever next time the cash flow closes in around them?

Many suggest the middle solution - quit the print business altogether, go to an online-only format to cut costs and maybe even save a few trees. Others decried the lost of yet another indie print magazine (check out the video for a litany of independent magazines that have left the shelves forever in the last year), arguing that online venues are dimes per dozens, and the print format lends a (literal) weightiness to the publication that would evaporate with an internet-only incarnation.

Not that I’m biased or anything, but I gotta agree with the latter. With the advent of teh internetz, it is easy to dismiss print publications as wasteful, needlessly expensive, passe. But the fact remains that this is critique is offered up - often unasked for - only for struggling, progressive indie press. You don’t hear Cosmo, Vogue, Seventeen, or The Economist pressured by readers to junk their newsstand editions for purely electronic versions.

But there’s more to it than that. Independent print media fills a necessary and irreplaceable niche that the internet cannot mimic. It gives corporeal form to the unique and rarely-published views - a form that sits on coffee tables, gets passed around dorms, gets picked up and read again a year later when you dig out the mess of papers accumulated on your desk and find a great issue you’d forgotten about. It plays in the world of the big boys - not the every-page-is-an-open-mike-night world of bloggery and chat rooms (not to dis my very fine host and her excellent blog!), but the world where things get translated on paper that lasts beyond the next crash of a server, or the next time the mag can’t pay the bills to their online host. Print and online media complement each other well, but it is inexcusable that print become the sole domain of the mainstream and the powerful - something that has become alarmingly possible as indie magazines have failed in droves these last couple of years.

And another thing: I suspect that I was not the only young, ambitious gal with a keyboard and a penchant for lengthy commentary on all matters practical and arcane that Bitch started out in the published world. Independent print venues offer openings and vital experience that pave the way for young (or otherwise burgeoning) writers with diverse views to get their name down, get some experience, find their confidence in the craft of the written voice. Without Bitch, I never would have learned the arts of the published word, things like respecting word limits, working with editors whose creative vision might not be identical to your own, and producing creative material under deadline (haha, I can hear the editors laughing, she hasn’t quite mastered that one yet!). I can’t imagine any other venue that would have put my name on feature-length articles on the faith in my skills gained solely from a few letters back and forth to the editor.

So Bitch has pulled through the financial grinder this time - the next issue will go to press on December 1st. But the long-time sustainability of one of the last standing grrlzines (which started as black-and-white, hand-folded photocopies) is still in question. If it’s a venue or a viewpoint that intrigues you - or one that you would like to see stay strong into the future - consider throwing them a couple dollars, or buying a subscription and seeing what they have to say in the coming months. It’s an investment well worth your dimes and dollars.

Cross-posted from my blog Loose Chicks Sink Ships.
|

From My Notebook by Anthony McCarthy 

Just wanted to say that this is not most definitely NOT what I had in mind

When I said that faith in the social sciences didn’t provide the left with as firm a foundation as history and learning from experience I didn’t expect to read this a few days later:


Peter Michaelson: Think Economics is Bad -- Take a Look at Psychology

Just one example of modern psychology's disservice involves its marginalization of Sigmund Freud. He discovered that we all experience everyday situations through the dynamics of transference, projection, identification, displacement, defenses, and denial. These factors influence our capacity for self-regulation of behaviors and emotions, and also affect to what degree we're being rational or irrational. Thanks to modern psychology's refusal to accept the importance and the truth of these psychological tenets, only a small minority of Americans can see and understand the operations of these dynamics in themselves. This limits our intelligence and hinders our evolution.

Counting the eclipse of Freud and his more cockamamy ideas as a very positive development, I want to make it clear that I’d never advocate a return to that mythology. What it would do to women, lesbians and gay men alone would be a complete disaster. Two words, Woody Allen. Enough said.

Field Guide To Total Jerks: a series, perhaps.

1. People over the age of 12 who make “Kids on the short bus,” “jokes” are being total jerks. “Adults” who say those kinds of things are bigger jerks than teen jerks who might grow up someday.

The smug 30 something guy who said it yesterday within the hearing of a disabled child came about as close to getting my fist in his mouth as anyone has in forty years.


If The Republicans Use The Impending Collapse

as a political tool, Democrats in the House and Senate should put it in their laps and let the thing go. We can't give up the next four years anymore, we've been giving up terms of office to this kind of blackmail for too long. If McCain and his fellow political gamesters don't explicitly, publicly and loudly sign on, let them take the blame for the consequences.
|

Debate Commentary. Sort of 



I watched the first presidential debate last night (it's after midnight as I type this), the one McCain almost canceled, the one he was supposed to be strongest in because of his foreign policy expertise. Those were the expectations, then: That McCain would have an easier time with this debate than the following ones but that he had been throwing odd temper tantrums all the preceding week and it wasn't quite clear what that meant for his preparedness.

The substance of the debates was not terrible, actually, because the questions were substantial. Obama's answers were considerably better on the economic questions, though both candidates failed to realize that anyone who proposes cutting public spending when a major depression looms should probably be hung and quartered, never mind that most people don't understand how important NOT to cut public spending is in such a situation. To give you a simple example: Suppose that we do get a major recession and that lots of people lose their jobs. Is that the time to cut back on unemployment benefits, hmh? And how would cutting back those benefits affect the ability of people to go on consuming that some other workers could keep their jobs longer?

On other economic questions Obama showed very good preparedness (including pointing out that the high U.S. corporate tax rates don't mean that U.S. firms pay unusually high taxes, rather the reverse, because of all those loop holes the tax laws have, many of them voted in by McCain). McCain was mostly into talking about earmarks, a problem for sure, but not one which is driving any of the evil engines in this economic crisis. So Obama won the economics section in substance.

Now who won the foreign policy section is something that I sort of missed, because I started watching all that other crap. Remember the 2004 debates? And the post-debate debates about who won? And how we were suddenly told that Bush did really well in them because he turned up and looked prezdential? Even though Kerry was much better prepared, he came across as boring.

So I tried to see how people might actually rate this debate on the prezdential measure, and to me that measure appears to be very much a silverback measure of aggression and putdowns and taking hold of the debate without actually grabbing the other guy's throat. And on those grounds I thought McCain did better: He interrupted more, he yelled more, he belittled Obama a lot, he used lots of soundbites which had little to do with the topic under discussion. That seemed to be how the winner was determined in 2004. That was how prezdential was determined then.

I'm happy to say that I seem to be wrong (at the time of writing this, anyway). The rules for deciding on how one wins these debates have changed (or I never got them right in the first place) and most Independents (the crucial focus market here) thought that Obama did better. I'm very glad to hear that, because he certainly was better on the substance in the questions I paid attention to. A lot better.

|

Friday, September 26, 2008

"The Hammer of God" (by Suzie) 



       Looking for analysis of the debate, I stumbled upon an NYT review of this tour by Malleus, an Italian trio whose posters depict naked women as deviant and demons.
While obviously raising a collective middle finger to both the gallery system and such concerns as “the politics of representation and gender,” Malleus has such a facility with graphic styles and cultural references that it far transcends the usual limitations of commercial art.
       In other words, it's OK to make money off sexism if male critics like the art. I wonder what Capt. Hammer might say. 
|

Please Welcome 



Skylanda! Many of you remember her excellent guest blogging series on various aspects of the health care system. I'm very happy to tell you that Skylanda will join Suzie, Phila, Anthony McCarthy and myself as a more regular feature on this blog. Well, as regular as her hectic work schedule allows. Be prepared for a post from her in the near future and other posts later on, usually towards the end of the week. Welcome, Skylanda!

This is also a good time for me to express my gratitude and appreciation of the rest of the gang: Suzie, Phila and Anthony McCarthy, all sharp and original thinkers, good writers and careful researchers. I'm truly blessed to have them write here, especially given what I pay them for it. Heh.

|

Caring for the underdog (by Suzie) 

          At night, as my Chihuahua sleeps at my feet, I sometimes steal a peek at Chihuahuas on the Web. I came across this photo of LeClaire Bissell, M.D., a founding member of Chihuahua Rescue and Transport. She died last month.
          What a fascinating woman she was! She pushed for women's rights and LGBT rights. She pioneered the humane treatment of drug and alcohol addiction, especially among women. The Florida Commission on the Status of Women honored her, and she won the Elizabeth Blackwell Award for her contributions to women and medicine.  She rescued injured wildlife. And she was a big supporter of Democrats, including Hillary Clinton for president, according to donation reports. "Her answering machine said, 'If you’re a Democrat, you may leave a message.' ”
           Here's more from the Island Reporter: “I think the most extraordinary thing about LeClair was that she did things because they needed to be done,” said Kate Gooderham, who knew LeClair from the local National Women’s Political Caucus. “No limelight, no applause, no kudos — she saw a need and filled it. I really admired her dedication to her beliefs. She truly put her ‘time, her treasury and her talent’ into the things she cared about.” 
          May women like this inspire us all.
|

Bloggers vs. journalists (by Suzie) 



           A friend sent me a 2006 review by Emily McMackin of the book “Infamous Scribbers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism” by Eric Burns.
Taking his title from George Washington, who complained during his presidency of being “buffeted in the public prints by a set of infamous scribblers,” Burns explores an era in which opinion ruled newspapers, and journalists didn’t hesitate to use crude language, baseless accusations or character attacks as weapons to make their cases.
          Sounds a lot like some bloggers and TV commentators today.
          It amuses me that journalists and bloggers snipe at each other because they have much in common. For starters, it’s not bloggers vs. the media. Any blogger who hopes to reach a lot of people is part of the mass media (but often not the MSM, or mainstream media.) There are a lot of journalists and former journalists, like me, who blog, and I’m sure some bloggers would be happy to be hired by the MSM. (I’m waiting to be hired by the FSM.)
         Speaking of hiring, one difference between bloggers and journalists is the latter generally works for someone else and gets paid, while most bloggers do not. As employees, journalists may go against their own judgment to do their boss’s bidding. Rarely would a boss say: “I hate this politician and I want you to go after her." Usually, it’s more along the lines of: You’re working on a story you think is really interesting, but the publisher hits a pothole, and so, you get pulled off your story to write something on potholes. Or, you’d like to spend months investigating a story, but your boss needs to fill the paper, and so, you spend your days on stuff you consider less important.
        The influence can be subtle. You may get praised for one story, but get criticized – or simply get less praise – for another story. Journalists who want to keep their jobs or get ahead look for ways to please their bosses. Some of these same influences affect bloggers. Bloggers may want to drive traffic to their sites. They may want to please their regular readers, other bloggers, people who might give them a job, their Aunt Bess, whomever. A guest blogger may want to please her host.
        Another difference between bloggers and journalists is that the latter get training specific to the profession. Some of us took journalism classes in college or got a degree in journalism. (I have the coveted BJ degree – a bachelor’s of journalism, not science or arts. And yes, there were jokes aplenty.) But many others did not get training in school; they got their training on the job, as do bloggers, for the most part.
        Some journalists have expertise in other areas, such as science or economics, but rarely can they match the expertise of a blogger who comes from that field. 
        Journalism has all sorts of rules and theory, from objectivity to direct quotation. But this information isn’t secret. Bloggers are welcome to learn, use or discard what they want.
       Journalists complain that bloggers make no attempt at fairness. But bloggers are similar to columnists, commentators, editorial writers and others in the MSM whose job is to express opinions. In return, bloggers complain about bias in journalism. Some biases are expected. If a commentator is supposed to provide a Republican viewpoint, you can expect him to be biased in that regard. If he's not hired to be biased against women, then there's a problem. To me, that's the bigger problem: people who think they're being fair, and are unaware of their biases. 
       In journalism, attempts at fairness often amount to quoting people with different opinions. As a character in Absence of Malice said: “You don't write the truth. You write what people say.” (Then bloggers comment on it.)
       Journalists complain about bad writing on blogs, and vice versa. Journalists complain about the lack of editing on blogs, but editing in journalism seems to be getting worse, as staffs shrink.
      Bloggers criticize journalists for acting like a pack and writing the same crap over and over, with little insight or investigation. Journalists say the same thing about bloggers. Actually, it’s a problem for all of us. Let’s say a newspaper publishes a story that is incorrect or distorted. The Associated Press spreads it throughout the MSM. Then a bunch of bloggers have at it. They ay cut through the B.S., or contribute to it.
       I think the best thing about blogs is the increase in ideas, opinions and experiences. In many ways, bloggers reflect the earlier days of newspapers before the rise of monopolies, corporate ownership and the myth of objectivity. People who might not otherwise be heard can now express themselves online.
         Nevertheless, people with time, money, education, writing skills, etc., are going to have an advantage. And, for some unknown reason, white male bloggers get a lot of attention.
         I discussed this on Magda’s Speak Freely radio blog, and she brought up crowdsourcing in journalism. This runs the gamut of a newspaper asking readers to submit their favorite cookie recipes to TPM asking readers to sift through government documents. As the MSM cuts staff, it seeks more information, writing and photography from people who don’t work for it. And some of those people are writing blogs.
|

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Wow. 



Just wow:

In a panicked atmosphere and amid flaring tempers, Democrats and some Republicans announced before the White House meeting that they had the outline of an agreement, but GOP leaders refused to sign off on it. Liberal and conservative interest groups railed against the bailout, while business groups insisted that Congress pass the plan with all speed, warning that tight credit already is sharply slowing business activity.

At the White House, Republican leader John Boehner expressed misgivings about the plan, and McCain would not commit to supporting it, people from both parties who were briefed on the exchange told the Associated Press. In the Roosevelt Room after the session, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not to withdraw her party's support for the package over what Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal, according to the New York Times.

There is little doubt among economists that a recession has begun. The question is how deep and long it will be, and that depends on whether the bailout plan, if it passes Congress, works. Another possibility is a long stagnation like Japan's "lost decade" of the 1990s, which followed a similar real estate market collapse in that country.

Either way, the nation faces what Berkeley economist Barry Eichengreen, an expert in financial panics, calls unavoidable consequences.

These could include big budget deficits, higher taxes to service that debt, higher interest rates and more-strictly regulated banks that will lend more cautiously. "We've had a decade of relatively successful economic growth and have been living beyond our means," Eichengreen said. "Now we'll have a decade of the opposite. It's payback time."

Maybe credit markets would recover on their own, as some believe, or maybe they wouldn't. But few in Washington really want to find out.

On the other hand, few in Washington want to be the ones who authorized the bailout, especially on their own. Remember that the people who gave us the initial rude draft proposal are from the Bush administration. Now the Republicans in the House pretend to have nothing to do with those people.

Here's another story about the same events.

|

Deep Thought For The Day - Again 



When what you really want is a huge slice of a cake aptly named "Chocolate Orgasm" a tiny bowl of fat-free yogurt with fresh blueberries Will. Not. Do.

|

Caribou Ken 



If Sarah Palin was a male governor from Alaska, do you think that she would be treated the same way she has? Would this imaginary Sam Palin be taken to task for his ignorance on foreign politics (coughGiulianicough) or for his weird fundie ideas (coughHuckabeecough)? Would Sam Palin be called Caribou Ken after the penisless boyfriend of the Barbie doll?

These are not comfortable questions for a liberal goddess to ask, especially given Palin's bad platform and the way she is being used by McCain for nefarious ends. Indeed, both the Democratic presidential primaries and the presidential campaigns have been unpleasant moments for me, because I had underestimated the amount of free-wheeling and jokey sexism that still prevails in this country and because I see the term "sexism" itself cheapened and mutating into something that has no meaning at all.

So who are we to thank for these odd gifts, us feminists? There's lots of thanks to go around, layers and layers of sexism, if you wish, and it's extremely difficult to look at the mess and point a finger at one point to say: "There!" Extremely difficult and also frightening, because my attempts to follow the chains lead me to point my finger at all sorts of people I otherwise value. Including some feminists.

Sigh. This is not a pleasant writing assignment.

Let's start from today and Sarah Palin. She is a woman, the governor of Alaska, an ex-beauty queen and a very right-wing Republican who likes to hunt and wants Alaska turned into a gigantic oil refinery. There are many reasons why McCain might have wanted to have her as his vice-presidential candidate, including the fact that McCain is sorta boring and Obama is not, but the major reasons she was picked was a) to satisfy the right-wing base of the party (which does not love McCain) and to take advantage of the lack of women in the final Democratic ticket. Had Obama picked a female vice-presidential candidate McCain would probably not have done so. I understand the political games being played here, including the idea that McCain can pick up votes from women who wanted to see a female vice-presidential candidate.

Was McCain's choice a sexist one? What does "sexism" mean in this context? If it means that he might think of women as all the same and that any one woman could be picked for his ticket to appeal to that mass of womanhood, yes, I think that his choice was sexist. I doubt that the imaginary Sam Palin would have been on McCain's ticket.

If, on the other hand, "sexism" means something like the assumption that no woman can ever rule over men then McCain is obviously not sexist.

Let's remove one layer from this argument and ask a slightly different question: Did McCain want to benefit from the societal sexism with his vice-presidential choice? Here the answer must be a resounding YES. Oh, yes. Imagine the riches of that choice! It's really quite masterful, the pun intended. The choice offers liberals and progressives a very narrow space in which to attack Palin without attacking her on grounds which will uncomfortably echo in many women's minds as something they, too, have experienced in their own lives.

As an example, take the argument that Palin is unqualified to be the vice-president. She may well be unqualified, depending on the terms one uses to define the necessary qualifications. But then "unqualified" is the usual excuse women get when they don't get promoted or when they don't get a raise. If a firm is accused of sex discrimination what do you think they use as their defense? The woman was unqualified or a bad worker. Yet McCain chose someone who cannot be allowed to give interviews because she is not ready to give them yet.

That's a double-whammy, my friends. If Palin succeeds in getting McCain elected, great. If Palin fails to get McCain elected, all the Republican anti-woman people can point out how terrible the idea of picking (randomly picking, mind you) a woman in the first place was. And all the time the liberals and progressives and feminists, even, are hammering away at Palin as unqualified, as a bad mother and so on.

It's enough to drive a goddess to drink. Then add to that the idea of Palin as MILF (a mother I'd like to fuck). The idea is to pick a woman partly on her looks because it might give McCain the votes of men who think through that narrow head only and because the idea to have a pretty woman in the office is not uncommon among the old school sexists. Well, all that is sexist, true.

But so is the response to that trick from the other side of the political aisle. Too many progressives and liberals think that talking about Palin's body is the way to attack the Republican ticket. Yet, once again, many women have had their bodies loudly discussed while walking down the street and even poked by those assessors of female charms. Sometimes those experiences are scary enough to create triggers which can later be pressed by the lightest of sexist jokes...

The bottom layer in all these layers of sexism is naturally based on actual societal sexism. Sarah Palin is only the second female vice-presidential candidate in the United States and anything that is being said about her will be filtered through that fact, whether intended or not. Hence the possible damage to all women when she is kept hidden from the press (women are easily-wilted flowers even when they kill wolves from helicopters) and the often expressed idea in the media that Biden must treat her with kid gloves lest he be accused of sexism. But of course the reverse options would offer equal scope for sexist interpretations.

Now do you see why I hate writing about this particular topic?

|

The New Bailout Deal 



All bipartisan! Love it. Here's the gist of the changes from the initial monster draft:

Those principles will include improved oversight of the program, as well as a plan to phase in the $700 billion investment in stages, while still assuring the administration a virtual free hand for at least the first $350 billion.

There is a greater emphasis on efforts not just to relieve Wall Street firms of their bad debts but also to help homeowners threatened by foreclosure. Companies that benefit from the plan would be expected to limit pay and severance packages for their executives, and community banks are expected to benefit from a new $3 billion tax break as a result of their stock losses in the government takeover of the two mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So it's not as bad as the first kidnappers' demand. They only get half of what they asked for with no strings attached and they have to work a little harder to hide the golden parachutes for their CEOs. And to throw out a few crumbs to the homeowners who are going to lose their houses.

But on the whole the deal worked very nicely for the financial markets. Yes, I know that I should write about how great it is that the deal was changed at all, and it probably was because ordinary people of all stripes said very clearly and loudly that they would not be mugged by highway robbers, even if the latter wore Prada. So take that as written. I'm not ready to make nice.






|

Price Discovery 



This is fun stuff. Paul Krugman writes on his blog about the newest reason for the suggested bailout: Price Discovery:

A sneaking suspicion

So now the whole rationale for the plan is "price discovery": we're going to throw lots of taxpayer funds into the pot because that will let us find the true values of troubled assets, which are higher than the fire sale prices out there, and so balance sheet will improve, confidence will return, etc, etc..

So I just did a Nexis search trying to find out when Paulson and Bernanke started talking about price discovery, which we're now told are at the core of the plan's logic. And the answer is …

Yesterday.

I can't find any use of the term, or even a hint of the argument, until yesterday's Senate hearings.

One possible explanation. It wasn't until yesterday that they realized that it would actually be necessary to explain themselves.

High finances are not my field of expertise, so I may be very wrong about all this, but I thought the markets are all about values as set by the markets, not by some horrible government bureaucrat. So it looks like the plan was to pay more for the assets than they are currently worth. We'd be the ones paying that "more."

Do read the rest of Krugman's post. Heh.

|

Out Of Touch 



I turned the radio on and happened to catch the exhortations of a past CEO of General Electric. He was so very adamant! We must save the markets now! Before it is too late! And never mind all that other stuff! Main Street (the ordinary chumps) has been in bed with Wall Street (the rich) for centuries and the sexually transmitted diseases are shared. So there! Pay up, chumps.

That's my translation of what he said. But how very out-of-touch the rich are with the rest of us. Humility is not a concept that is in fashion among the rich, I guess.

|

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

And Here Is David Letterman 



On McCain canceling his appearance at Letterman's show because of the financial markets crashing. There's a video n all. (Including some rather nasty sexism and ageism; one of the lovely gifts of the 2008 presidential campaigns.)

Not sure how canceling the first presidential debate (which McCain also wants to do) or the campaign or hiding your vice-presidential candidate is helpful for the management of the financial crisis, because McCain is not exactly an economics genius (as he himself has admitted). The financial gnomes can work on the crisis while McCain does other stuff. Well, they could if the will to work was there.

|

Today's Immensely Deep Thought 



Forbes.com:

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Hee!

|

Once Upon A Time: Free Market Fairy Tales 






Once upon a time all markets were unregulated and we lived in paradise. Any dairy farmer could sell you milk without horrible government regulations. If the milk had some water added to it, well, the farmer needed to make a living, and watered milk went much further. So did flour with sand added to it to make it heavier when the price for flour was by pound. And of course the scales the sellers used to weigh their products were their scales.

Now why did I call all this a paradise? Because there were very few markets in those days, most people grew what they ate on their own land, and those who did not learned over time to tell the honest farmers from the dishonest ones and the latter couldn't make a living from adulterated produce for very long. Their names were known to everybody and people soon learned not to buy from strangers who passed through the villages on market days.

Or perhaps I called it a paradise because the people got together pretty fast and decided that unregulated markets were not a very good thing, after all, that at least the scales used for measuring should be provided by some unbiased party, that their accuracy should be measured and maintained, and that those who watered the milk they sold or added sand to the flour they sold should then be tarred and feathered themselves?

So it goes. Over time the nature of markets changed, but those early lessons about the dangers of completely unregulated markets were not totally forgotten, and when they were deaths here and there reminded us of the need for some oversight and some rules. Indeed, it was pretty obvious to most thinking people that the widening distance between the seller and the buyer and the increasing complexity of the products that were being traded required regulation and oversight more than ye-olde-worlde village market days. The latter had more information about the sellers, the buyers and the products, after all, and less scope for a truly callous criminal to harm people.

Such a nice and soothing fairy tale I'm telling here. Boring enough to put you all to sleep. Sadly, such boringness was not to be for ever. One day the forces of free market capitalism rose up again, full of injured fury over the lost opportunities that millstone of regulations around their necks had caused, and this time people HAD forgotten about the reasons for oversight and rules. Or enough people had forgotten about them, because the rules and oversight had worked to make the markets relatively safe places to trade in.






So here they ride to war, the free marketeers. It is about thirty years ago, and you can read about the reasons for markets to be free, everywhere. Chile, Argentina and so on, all are going to be saved from the evil grasp of the government. Later Ronald Reagan rises as the leader of the troops, so fatherly and handsome, ready to squash the evil government before it has had time to "help" you. And Americans listen to him and look around and don't see adulterated pet food or fish with mercury or any other great hazard to their daily lives and they decide that Reagan is right. Who needs a disgusting government, anyway?

Not the financial markets, that's for sure. They're the ones who are taking all the big risks and they deserve the rewards, too. Time for some personal responsibility, my friends! Time for an ownership economy!

What comes next? The Bubble Eras, my charming and discerning readers. First the high tech bubble, then the housing bubble and the war bubble. They were like soap bubbles, so beautiful and iridescent in the affluent and calm sunlight of the nineties. No government dared to breathe too hard on them, of course, because they would burst and the trick was to make them burst only with the next administration. But the markets were mostly free! Just for you and me! Mmm.

And here we are again: Once upon a time (now) the markets are free and unregulated again, luxuriating in all that space to make things better for one and for all. Sure, infant formulas have melamine in them in China (because melamine registers as nitrogen in measuring devices and nitrogen is used as a cheaper proxy measure of protein and infant formulas must have protein to give a good price for the makers). Sure, the financial markets are largely trading in the big shitpile. Sure, various food items recently on the markets gave people salmonella or killed pets. But all that is just an obvious and necessary by-product of the important jobs unregulated markets do. Besides, don't the markets self-correct once enough deaths take place? They do.






So what is the moral of this little fairy tale?

|

Rep. Marcy Kaptur Gets It 



Via Avedon at Eschaton. Make sure to watch Kaptur's proposal at the end:





Two comments of mine: First, cast your minds back to the time when the bankruptcy reform bill was debated. Isn't it interesting how differently people in financial trouble are treated when they are rich? Second, we need a real and unbiased discussion about what needs to be done and when. I believe that something will have to be done now that the financial markets have been allowed to grow so large that their demise will tear through all our safety nets, but that something is not what we have been told so far by the Bush administration.

|

Snake-Eye Observations 



1. How I feel about what I write (its importance or how much it took out of me to write or the passion I felt) and how the writing itself then lives or not after its birth seem to have no real relationship with each other. Frequently some throw-away comment turns out to be important and equally frequently something I've slaved over for days drops like a stone into a sullen pond. It's very weird and of no interest to anyone but another blogger, probably. Still, I probably should have written about the importance of female role-models in more explicit terms than I did in that polling post below.

2. The American system of political campaigns hones and sharpens the candidates, true, but only into being good campaigners. That has nothing to do with how well they later govern as we have learned during the last eight years. And so much of that system is truly laughable: Consider the comment I recently heard that Palin will do fine in the debates because expectations about her are low. So if one student in a college class is expected to fail but manages to pull C-level work in a test and another student is expected to get an A and does that, we are now to decide that the student with the C is the best in the class?

3. If it indeed is true that people don't vote on the basis of issues but on the basis of how they'd like a candidate in bed or by the bar counter or at the barbeque, well, I'm afraid that democracy then doesn't have quite the advantages it has been assumed to have. Or rather, we should select a double set of presidents, one for the looks and feel-good stuff and another for the actual work. The latter person could even be smart!

|

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

From My Tinfoil Helmet Files 



Some of you have asked what makes the financial crisis a "crisis" and why is it so important to react to it RIGHTNOW, and those really are very good questions. The crisis has been brewing for some time and will go on for some time longer, so picking any particular point as the time when all the old-white-guy bankers are dusted out and brought to enunciate on the seriousness of the situation is intriguing.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the real reason for the crisis: Only few weeks are left for the market to benefit from the realm of the current president, George Bush, and there is still money in the government coffers (or at least unfilled IOU slips). So it's urgent to get in if you want to scavenge on this corpse of the United States of America.

That may be tinfoilery or it may just be the truth.

I've been listening to mainstream news organizations on the financial crisis today (while gouging out rot from a post on my porch; suggestions for fixing the post without replacing it most welcome), and the other side has my full admiration: They are all organized, with people sent to every single studio to tell us how this is not the time to feel envious of the golden parachutes or to worry about ethics because while we do that the SKYISFALLING!

Thank goddess for Paul Krugman, because without him our side would not get much of a hearing. Too bad we can't clone him.

P.S. For those who are being told that the crisis was the fault of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, read this.
----
P.P.S. This is fun, too:

One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain's campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

*whistles nonchalantly*

|

Women Being Polled! 



Wow. This newish poll, called "Every Woman Counts", by Lifetime, asks women about their opinions on the two presidential candidates and their running mates. Picking Sarah Palin helped McCain among women:

Understanding Women and What is Most Important to Them: In Lifetime's late July Every Woman Counts poll, Barack Obama handily beat John McCain 52% to 18% with 11% volunteering "neither" to this question. Just six weeks later, and with the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, McCain/Palin has dramatically reversed those fortunes, now in a virtual tie with Obama/Biden, 44%-42%.

What's really interesting about that quote is the July results. Note how the Democrats can put up a guy against a Republican guy and still lead by 30 points in how well the campaigns understand women's issues. If I was a Republican strategist I'd do some very serious self-analysis there, though of course all Republican strategists now think that the trick is just to put a really fundie chick on the ticket as the vice.

There is a different reading of the impact Palin has had, and that's the reading many feminists avoided making during the primaries: Appearances do matter.

That's not meant to imply that any woman, however inexperienced and unskilled is OK to nominate because then all stupid women will rush to vote for any old sexist. That's not the kind of appearances I'm talking about, but the other kind, the kind which points out that there has never been a female vice president in this country, that very few faces in the positions of power look like the faces women see in their mirrors early in the morning while harriedly combing their hair right before taking the kids to daycare or school before dashing off to that dead-end pink-collar job. For women like this Palin is a breath of fresh air.

Of course most of them don't know what Palin really stands for, that she wouldn't allow abortion even in the case of rape, that she's really all fundie and no feminism, that she would not help the lives of those women at that mirror to become easier at all, rather the reverse, what with the Supreme Court appointments she might make if McCain was elected and then died or became incapacitated. But she looks a little like lots of women in this country, and that does matter, you know, on a deeply psychological level. It's hard not to think that someone like that would not see things the way you do, that she wouldn't be fighting for you. She wouldn't, of course, alas.

|

Reading the New York Times Boyz 



Paul Krugman has a good column on the Paulson proposal, called "Cash for Trash."

David Brooks has a funny column about the coming new era of the benevolent old-white-guy dictators in the government, the ones who are going to save us and our money. He just loves the idea of unelected dictators of that type and pines back to the olden times:

Once, there was a financial elite in this country. During the first two-thirds of the 20th century, middle-aged men with names like Mellon and McCloy led Wall Street firms, corporate boards and white-shoe law firms and occasionally emerged to serve in government.

...

So we have arrived at one of those moments. The global financial turmoil has pulled nearly everybody out of their normal ideological categories. The pressure of reality has compelled new thinking about the relationship between government and the economy. And lo and behold, a new center and a new establishment is emerging.

The Paulson rescue plan is one chapter. But there will be others. Over the next few years, the U.S. will have to climb out from under mountainous piles of debt. Many predict a long, gray recession. The country will not turn to free-market supply-siders. Nor will it turn to left-wing populists. It will turn to the safe heads from the investment banks. For Republicans, people like Paulson. For Democrats, the guiding lights will be those establishment figures who advised Barack Obama last week — including Volcker, Robert Rubin and Warren Buffett.

Just beautiful. I especially enjoyed that "it will turn to the safe heads from the investment banks." So funny, so very funny.

The whole column is most interesting to read, because Brooks seems to be re-branding himself as someone who can write from both sides of his mouth and because of those unintentional glimpses into his desires for a safe daddy lap.

Did Brooks ever strike you as someone who wants to dum down America? I could never quite understand my visceral dislike of his writings and blamed most of that on Brooks' often-expressed contempt towards women as a species, but now I think I might also hate his strenuous attempts at making stupidity seem worth striving to.

|

Monday, September 22, 2008

And Just For The Fun Of It 



You can watch this old interview with Phil Gramm, one of the great geniuses behind our current financial problems. Atrios very aptly calls these problems "the shitpile."




|

Better Proposals 



The Republican draft for the Great Bailout appears to have spawned a reaction from the Democrats with some better ideas:

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said lawmakers and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson narrowed their differences on a $700 billion plan to buy bad investments and they agreed the U.S. should get equity in the participating companies.

Lawmakers ``made it clear'' the U.S. should get stock warrants ``so that if the company becomes profitable, we get more than the general share for taking these risks,'' Frank told reporters today in Washington. Paulson agreed as both sides narrowed differences over the plan, Frank said on Bloomberg Television.

...

Frank and Dodd have proposed changes that include strengthening foreclosure-prevention efforts, curbing executive pay for companies that need the U.S. to buy their assets and expanding oversight of the Treasury program. Paulson has opposed limits on executive pay, Frank said in the television interview.

The Treasury proposal gave Paulson ``much too much authority,'' Frank said. ``We have restored the notion of judicial review and accountability.''

"Too much authority" means total and complete and utter authority. I'm not sure why people don't call it what it was. A New York Times article on the initial draft also avoids pointing out the simple facts that we would have made Paulson a dictator in his realm if we had gone along the initial draft:

Both presidential nominees, who face the prospect of inheriting an enormous new program, said there had to be more oversight of the Treasury Department than the Bush administration had proposed.

The Bush administration had proposed ZERO oversight. Let's not forget that.

Still, I'm glad to see some real progress happening. Or I hope that it's real progress. One part of me thinks that the draft had those totally unacceptable bits about no laws allowed for the very reason that people would get up in arms about them and then any compromise would seem like a victory, while in reality the industry and its cronies got exactly what they wanted. The Republicans play that game a lot.

|

Boiling Angry 



As you may have noticed I have a slight anger problem right now. I don't quite have the energy to make my anger smash through all this crap and to fix things, but I have plenty enough anger to turn my eyes into laser weapons which melt, burn or shrivel everything they touch.

Anger is an emotion, of course, and it's only at our peril that we ignore the messages of our emotions or emotions themselves. There are whole books written or to be written about how emotions are being manipulated, how certain emotions are bad for you and how certain emotions are culturally unimportant (especially all girly emotions such as love or pity or empathy or compassion). Anger is not one of those despicable emotions, true, probably because it's viewed as a manly virtue or vice, and as long as you don't get a heart attack from your anger you're all good to go. At least to Wall Street where anger will be called benign aggression and where it will net you billions, if you are angry enough, I guess. All those big teeth...

It's always worth studying our own strong emotions (though not necessarily when they happen), and I did do one of those all-systems checks when I first started feeling that crystal-clear razor-sharp yet red-burning anger over the initial draft for bailing out the financial markets. Am I angry about something completely different, really? No. Am I angry about the mindless gods of greed and stupidity? A little. Am I angry at having to pay more taxes for this while not getting any of the benefits? A little.

None of this explained the level of my anger or the way it feels extremely purified. The real reason for that rare type of anger was elsewhere: Something very fundamental to me was being threatened, one of my non-negotiable values was endangered. The very idea of democracy and the government of the people by the people was treated as a farce in a three-page draft which included the proposal to erect a minor god (whom nobody may criticize or oversee) to spend our money for us in ways which we would not be told about to benefit whomever that minor god wanted to benefit without any negative repercussions whatsoever. And in all this one of the big stumbling stones had to do with how many billions the culprits of the crisis could get to take home to the Cayman Islands. Because it was still those guys who had all the power and if we (the schmucks) didn't like this situation, well, wait and see how much worse they could make it for us.

That's where the nest of my anger was, though it was also fattened and feathered by the odd upside-down ethical principles the deal employed, where the culprits got saved and the innocent got bashed and the screens behind which all this took place.

I always get angry at unfairness, I guess, and at the end of democracy as we know it. Well, not always . My anger seems to need fairly concrete triggers to truly flare up. I can be intellectually angry at the loss of our civil liberties but to hammer home the level of contempt this administration has for us required this particular example for me. I'm not proud of that, by the way.

The reason for all this navel-gazing is that I suspect many of you have similar anger feelings, perhaps even caused by similar reasoning, and you might want to take care of yourselves while the anger burns bright. It's a powerful feeling, and powerful feelings are exhausting to the body and the mind, unless given the space and the movement they need, unless steered into the right direction and allowed to exit in a natural way.

Writing and calling your Congress critters is excellent for this anger work. Writing newspapers and political organizations is also excellent. Sending money to organizations which fight for your values is great if you can afford it. Talking about the issues can help if you pick the others carefully. Standing up for what you believe in is what the anger is meant for, I think.

If you still find too much unfocused anger use it to do physical chores which you have postponed. Focus on letting the anger leave as energy (just letting it, no forcing). Go for brisk walks or a run or dance to some very lively music. Last but not least, breathe. Especially exhale.

|

Gallows Humor 



Here ya go:

US President George W. Bush on Monday warned lawmakers wary of his 700-billion-dollar debt bailout scheme that "failure to act would have broad consequences" for the battered US economy

Meanwhile, in other news:

Bush's overall approval rating fell to 19 percent, from 30 percent last month, with 76 percent disapproving.

The "battered economy" and the approval ratings of the guy who prepared the batter are not unrelated. I do feel as if we are Chinese dumplings ready to be dropped into the sizzling oil.

|

On Financial Executives' Compensation Packages 



The Wall Street banksters want to keep the very large executive compensation packages. Remember the Lehman Brothers and how the firm disappeared last week? Do you know what happened to its executives? This:

Last week Barclays paid $1.75 billion to buy Lehman's North American investment banking and capital markets business. It emerged over the weekend that Barclays had agreed to pay $2.5 billion in bonuses to Lehman bankers in the United States in a move that has angered stricken staff in London.

Two and a half billion in bonuses, for the people who were running the firm when it exploded. Isn't that something? Did the secretaries and janitors get anything?

What is the rationale behind the financial executives needing as much money as some small countries have in their budgets?

The usual one is this: Really smart and clever financial managers are an incredibly rare talent. In fact, there are so few of them that all the firms are bidding for the same few individuals and the only way to get a really good executive is by buying him (it's almost always "him") for billions and billions. Otherwise the firms will end up having to hire some ordinary schmuck with just a few PhDs and a few decades' experience and that would never do.

This rationale has been employed for quite a while. So what did the industry get for the high executive compensation? The crashing market, it seems to me. IF this particular talent that created the crash really is so very rare we can all thank our chosen divinity for its rarity.

In short, this is all utter crap.

|

Long-Term Cures 



The financial markets are like a patient who keeps turning up at the ER, waiting to be patched and to be sent back to the streets to do whatever made that person so sick in the first place. Yes, the patch-up is necessary, but it will not be enough. This patient also needs long-term medication and behavioral changes. If those are not instituted we will just end up in this very same situation again and again until the final crash kills the market.

From another point of view, the real illness in the financial markets may be diagnosed as greed-induced lack of trust. To cure this illness we need to return trust and harness greed within some suitable limits. Here are my very simple and basic suggestions about how to achieve this.


First, create proper regulations for the financial markets. The free-marketeers have been telling us for decades that regulations are evil, that they suffocate the adventurous and creative spirit of the markets and that they shouldn't be enforced. And the government listened and stored these words in its heart (if it has one) and Phil Gramm made sure that the regulations no longer stifled anyone. Then of course a market which deals in fortune-telling and guesses and imperfect information and leveraging and pure adrenalin went crazy. Imagine, for a moment, what a baseball game would look like if the umpires were not allowed to say anything at all, and imagine then how the game would change ( would there be hired killers to shoot the pitchers of the other team?) and you can see why the stock market needs regulations (rules) and regulators (umpires). Of course, the stock markets matter much more than baseball games, but you get the point.

Second, stop ignoring the anti-trust regulations. Stop letting one fish eat up all the other fish, stop that enormous bubble-fish taking over the whole market. There are several reasons for enforcing the anti-trust rules which we still have in the books. They range from the nastiness of having just one firm to buy from and the power this gives to that one firm to charge a lot to the present crisis where some firms are so large that we have to bail them out even when they don't deserve such a bailout at all. There are many different economic models, true, but none of them advocate monopolies or oligopolies in all the crucial industries, yet that's the way the Republicans have steered the markets.

Third, make sure that the bailing out doesn't reward those who are major culprits in causing the crisis. Make sure that the authors of the crisis get full credit for it (Phil Gramm, I'm looking at you), that all those conservative thinkers who created it get forever remembered for creating it.

It will not be possible to fix the crisis in a fair way, a way which would not punish the innocent or reward the guilty, and neither will it be possible to fix it without a lot of pain. But at least we can use the opportunity to make sure that future crises will take longer than a few decades to appear and we can make sure that those who advocated the relaxing of all the protective rules and regulations get that reputation eternally attached to their names. Why? Not only because of the sweetness of revenge. The main reason for that is something called "learning from experience" or just "learning", and if we let others obfuscate the real causes of the crisis we are not going to learn what is necessary.

|

Sunday, September 21, 2008

The Hour of Development (by Phila) 

The Billings Gazette strikes a blow for Historical Perspective with an account of the discovery of the Alberta tar sands:
A hundred years later, in 1889, the chronicler of a government expedition to the region remarked prophetically: "That this region is stored with a substance of great economic value is beyond all doubt, and, when the hour of development comes, it will, I believe, prove to be one of the wonders of northern Canada."
The point of the article, as far as I can tell, is to inform us that whereas people formely didn't know what to do with tar sands, they're now extracting (low-grade) oil from them (at a staggering cost). Thus does humanity move from barbarism to enlightenment.

The best thing about the article is that it's neutral. You won't find any mention here of the industry's staggering water and natural gas usage, nor of its huge toxic tailings ponds, nor of its massive subsidies, nor of its outsized CO2 emissions, nor of the strain it puts on local infrastructure. Instead, it sticks to the cold hard facts: there's oil, of a sort, in them thar tar sands, and we intend to get at it, especially now that real oil has become so expensive.

In the real world, things aren't quite so straightforward. First off, the dismal credit market seems to be hobbling the industry:
Until recently, banks and other investors have been eagerly pouring their dollars into Alberta's vast oil sands, the world's second-biggest reserves behind Saudi Arabia's trove....

"There's a whole mix of projects - some of them candidly wouldn't make it even with a very high oil price," said Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at ARC Financial, a Calgary-based private-equity firm. "The cost of capital going up combined with the price of oil going down makes it more likely that already weak supply expectations (for non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) aren't going to be met. Is this going to be a problem? Yes."
At the same time, the costs of extraction are skyrocketing:
Petro-Canada, the country's second largest refiner, estimated costs to develop its Fort Hills oil- sands project in Alberta, Canada, have increased by 50 percent since a memorandum in June 2007.
With that in mind, here's Mark Hoskins, senior partner at investment advisors Holden & Partners, on a new report that attempts to quantify the financial risks of investment in tar sands:
The recent banking crisis has shown how the financial markets can totally misjudge both the risks and values inherent in company balance sheets. Oil companies depend on oil reserves for their market values. BP and Shell are two of our most trusted UK stocks, but it is a shocking fact that 30% of Shell's oil reserves are in tar sands.
Obligatory election-related note: Just before she was selected as McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin awarded TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. a license to build a 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline from Alaska to Alberta, along with $500 million in taxpayer-provided seed money (which I'm sure they're happy to get, given their troubles with Lehman Bros.).
|

Deep Thought For The Day 



We are all banksters* now, partly courtesy of this guy:







Though without any other power than that of check writing.
No corner office, no gently braised nightingales' tongues in mellow port wine, no multiple houses, no oversight powers. But we do have the responsibility to write checks.
------
*I saw this term on Eschaton, I think. It's very delicious.

|

A Satisfactory Class of Residents (by Phila) 

Whatever woes we may be facing here in America, we can rest easier knowing that home values in Baghdad are going up, thanks to sectarian strife:
[T]he motives behind many real estate deals cast a shadow over efforts to reconcile Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs, whose desire to live in exclusive sectarian enclaves is a major driver behind the resurgent property market, realtors say.

Now, for example, Shi'ites who fled the Baghdad district of Karkh want to live with their co-religionists in Rusafa, one realtor said. Given that Rusafa is roughly half the size of Karkh, property prices there have risen with demand.
Maybe we can learn something from these bitter, angry people. Granted, there's a glut of homes on the market right now, but perhaps we could solve that problem by making them more...exclusive.

Ron Paul's followers have shown the way by building Paulville, a gated community "containing 100% Ron Paul supporters," as well as "people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty" (and therefore wish to isolate themselves geographically from all heterodoxy and dissent). Why not explicitly rebrand some of our moribund developments as refuges for bowhunters, young-earth creationists, fans of Insane Clown Posse, believers in men's rights, Obamabots, McCainiacs, or what have you? Developers could let people live in these little fiefdoms for little or no cost, initially — which would help to empty out our tent cities — and put them to work building walls, digging moats, and manning barricades, which would increase exclusivity and, logically, property values.

Skeptics should be aware that this idea has a good track record right here in the USA. After the Panic of 1893, the market for suburban real estate all but dried up. A visionary investment house bucked this trend by building a residential development called Roland Park outside Baltimore, on which they imposed firm but fair restrictive covenants that ensured "a satisfactory class of residents" (to the consternation of "a Jew named Walters," among other prospective buyers). Thanks to this exclusivity, as Robert M. Fogelson explains in his book Bourgeois Nightmares: Suburbia, 1870-1930, "the Roland Park Company weathered a financial panic, a chronic dearth of capital, and a sluggish real estate market."

A new era of racially, religiously, sexually, and politically restrictive covenants could be just the shot in the arm this country needs. Divided, we will stand!
|

Before Going Back To The Campaign by Anthony McCarthy 

I have myself quite cheerfully been both a country-music fan and a feminist for years – if Camille Paglia is the cosmos, so am I. When some fellow feminist doesn’t like my music (How could you not like “You are just another sticky wheel on the grocery cart of life”?), I have always felt free to say, in my politically correct feminist fashion, “Fuck off.”
Molly Ivins, I Am The Cosmos; Mother Jones, October 1991

The ways that smart people think that get them into trouble has always been interesting to me. Being politically on the far left of the scale, the political aspects of that have been the major focus of my writing. It’s not the ideals or even much of the analysis of the left that are wrong, as this weeks collapse of the financial fairy tale castle again proves. So the failure to convince an effective majority of the population isn’t due to just being wrong. Our agenda is democratic, egalitarian, promotes the common good and saves the biological basis of life. That of our political opponents does the opposite.

It being essential to save our species and almost certainly life on our planet, our political success, the left, actually taking power and making laws and policy and CHANGING the ways we defeat ourselves, is the most important issue there is. A good part of our problem is that pretending is often easier and more pleasant than facing the unpleasant truth. But the truth will out in the end. We are at the time of reckoning in every way. Taking your own advice is a way to foster confidence that you might be on to something. So the left should face the facts of its past failure too.
-------
It was through trying to figure out that problem that the inadequacy of how we look at the world came to assume a greater importance. A faith in the efficaciousness of the behavioral and social sciences and the melding of those with genetics is endemic to the left. I’d guess that those have largely replaced liberal religion, Marxist theory, and even basic liberal civics in a large part of how leftists back up their ideas. George Lakoff’s present influence is symptomatic of that faith. Looking at it in as generous a light as possible shows mixed or inconclusive results. The scientifically vetted and clearly meat-headed “General Betryaus” idea was no rip roaring success. I don’t think the results flowing from that sector have been very useful politically. They haven’t led to our having a better chance of winning elections.

The latter day successors of social Darwinism not only do that, they knock the legs out from under the basic agenda of the left. We can’t be right about even the possibility of democracy and equality if any form of biological determinism is true. When you look at their absurd research methods and the amount of myth you have to swallow whole to believe they’re right tends to leaving them behind and wading into life without the leaden life preserver of their dogmas. I’ve tried to bring up instances when determinism has been politically important to what happens and the inevitable disasters that result. Democratic politics is all about results, making things better. Nothing that doesn’t have that result is politically valid.

The predictable responses of the fans of Dawkins et al has been that they are politically liberal. I’m not entirely sold on their liberalism but, as I’ve said about some leftists, they can just as easily be our own worst enemies. Quite frankly, I don’t feel very good about someone who opposes a return of sodomy laws if they undermine the very concepts of equality and freedom that led to their being abandoned in real life. There is a reason that these guys are popular with Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks.

Having rejected the methods used in the social sciences you get left with those most unscientific but probably more successful political methods, noticing things and consulting the hard lessons of experience. Those unfashionable methods, I am fully convinced, are as good as we are ever going to have.

I very strongly suspect that the mania for free markets in the society at large got its biggest boost with Milton Friedman’s load of garbage shown on PBS* a number of years ago. Those possessing a certificate of higher education in the United States depend a lot on what is shown on TV for its common received wisdom outside of their specialty. We’re not as far removed from the plebs as we like to think. And, as a group, we aren’t notably more industrious about continuing education. Once an idea is lodged in our collection of bromides and aphorisms, replacing them for others isn’t very easy.

With the series of disasters following the path Friedman and his allies have brought us, why that isn’t seen as the equivalent of economic Lysenkoism is an interesting question. I’m at a loss to understand why anyone would have kept their faith after the S&L crisis of the 90s, never mind having the same ideology that led to that being the predominant one persist to cause the disaster we are in today. Harry and Louise seem to have needed more than one jolt of experience to wise up. I think part of that is the same kind of faith in anything with the trappings of science. You have to remember that in a lot of universities that economics is taken as one of the social sciences. It’s been pointed out by others here that a lot of economists seem to believe themselves to be biological scientists these days.

------

We The People are a motley and scruffy lot. Democratic politics can’t attempt a basic scrubbing of the necks and ears of the electorate. You can’t attempt to completely eradicate and “correct” basic beliefs that you don’t like, certainly not in the time frame that we’ve got to work with in an election cycle. The attempt carries a guarantee to produce a self-defeating backlash. You are not going to “end faith” in God, the wearing of synthetics or even an addiction to forms of entertainment you find annoying. Leftists need to grow up and face that the electorate as it is now is what we’ve got to work with. Our politicians, the real ones who get elected, face that basic fact every single day, they have to or they get out of politics. Leftists political impotence has in no small part been due to the insistence of many of the loudest that facing this most basic fact of democracy, is a form of selling out.

Another of the big problems of the left is the instance that our politicians be, if anything, even more correct than we would like the electorate to be. Having just pointed out that it is the far from surgically clean electorate that gets to choose who is a real politician, instead of a pretend politician, expecting this of our elected officials is about the stupidest attitude we maintain.

There is no politician in our history who did more of what the left wanted than Lyndon Johnson during his presidency. He also did quite a bit which was among the worst a president has done.

As an aside, I think if he hadn’t listened to some of the product of our most prestigious universities, he might have avoided a lot of the worst. He would have probably been re-elected in 1968.

Lyndon Johnson was a rude, crude, bigoted, sexist, unscrupulous and ruthless and rather conservative politician. As Hillary Clinton pointed out during the campaign, he also delivered those laws that are the highest achievement of our democracy to date. His legacy is that which has been under constant attack for the past forty years. If he had gotten us out of the Vietnam War he might have been able to count on the left supporting him. We’ll never know. Someone like him, today, couldn’t get elected with the support of the left.

Nancy Pelosi is the actual high water mark for the left in out entire history to date. Her record as Speaker has had to deal with the real effective limits on what she can do. She doesn’t have the power to keep the Republicans and conservative Democrats from blocking the moderate and liberal wings of the Democratic Party. The majority she has to work with is small and often unstable. I believe she is doing as much as she possibly can under the real limits of her power. That she has to watch out for attacks from the left is a problem but she’s got larger problems she has to deal with.

One of the responses to the posts I did here last weekend asked “ .... how do we push the Dems leftward? And how do we punish them when they move right”? Well, the left has tried to inflict punishment on Democrats. The abandonment of Democrats in 1968 for Eugene McCarthy (no relation worth mentioning), clean Gene in countless other presidential farces, Barry Commoner’s candidacy in 1980 (still got my pin), Nader in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, Lord knows how many others in between and in races for lower office, all of those have been attempts to “punish Democrats” for not doing what we want. It is an idea that has been given the test of time and has failed, failed absolutely and in the worst possible way.

Unfortunately, the attempt to punish Democrats in that way has, more often than not, led to Republicans taking office and doing a hell of a lot worse than what Democrats were guilty of. And it has led to the marginalization of the left within the Democratic Party. Republicans have used the power they got from those elections to free broadcast media of fairness and equal time provisions, silencing the left, allowing the rise of right-wing hate talk radio and TV and the further marginalization of the left in the general culture. When you look at the record and find that much failure an idea should also join the Lysenko list of political futility.

The part of the left that has taken that most the superficially gratifying road of getting even isn’t large enough to make the threat effective. We’d have to be able to prove our ability to decisively deliver electoral victory, in the first place, to do that.

Our future depends on making effective coalitions, with those we like, with those we don’t especially like. That’s the only way that the left is going to exercise any kind of political influence for the foreseeable future. The road of leftist puritanism leads to nowhere. The other road might be “ahead but much too slow” but at least it leads somewhere worth trying. Maybe I’ll see you there.

* I seem to recall PBS put it on in “response” to the series by Galbraith on the history of economics. For anyone who missed the Galbraith, it paralleled his wonderfully entertaining book “Money”.
|

Saturday, September 20, 2008

How. Dare. They. 



From the Wall Street Journal:

House Republican staffers met with roughly 15 lobbyists Friday afternoon, whose message to lawmakers was clear: Don't load the legislation up with provisions not directly related to the crisis, or regulatory measures the industry has long opposed.

"We're opposed to adding provisions that will affect [or] undermine the deal substantively," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, whose members include the nation's largest banks, securities firms and insurers.

A deal killer for the group: a proposal that would grant bankruptcy judges new powers to lower the principal, interest rate or both on a mortgage as part of a bankruptcy proceeding.

"If there's a risk a judge could change the terms...that will increase the risk of mortgages [and] increase the cost," Mr. Talbott said. "It makes homes less affordable for everybody."

Brokerage firms are fighting limits on executive compensation for firms that participate in the package, saying that particularly in an industry under siege, the limits will hurt their ability to find and retain top brass. The industry could lose that one: proposals to limit executive pay enjoy bipartisan support and backing from the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.

I'm not safe to write about this right now, but I bolded the one bit which is truly incredibly assholerish.

|

Open Access (by Phila) 

As taxpayers, we routinely fund scientific research, so it's logical and fair that we should have free access to that research. That's why a bill was passed in 2007 that required all NIH-funded research to be made available to the public within 12 months of publication.

Now, John Conyers (D-MI), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), and Tom Feeney (R-FL) are co-sponsoring a bill called the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (HR6845). Like most legislation with a feel-good adjective in the title, it amounts to a fairly brutal assault on the public's rights. Far from being "fair," the FCRWA would not only reverse the current NIH policy, but also prevent other agencies from adopting similar ones.

The Alliance for Taxpayer Access explains why this is a dangerous idea, as well as an unethical one:
Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information from the NIH’s PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 4,000 new crucial biomedical articles were deposited in the last month alone. This proposed bill would prohibit the deposit of these articles, and as a result, researchers, physicians, health care professionals, families and individuals will find it much harder to get access to this critical health-related information.
Over at Effect Measure, Revere adds a personal note:
I am one of those NIH supported researchers whose papers get locked up for decades behind copyright permission firewalls. I want you to have access to my research. I want the journals I publish in to be required to make it available to you after a reasonable time period (the shorter the better) as the NIH policy now does. It helps me professionally by making my work more widely disseminated. It helps me as a professional by making it possible to get access to scientific research, now inaccessible because of the predatory and outrageous charges of the large scientific publishers, the same people behind the Conyers legislation.
At a time when the federal government is demanding "virtually unfettered authority" to accomplish a staggering redistribution of wealth, the garden-variety cupidity of the FCRWA seems almost quaint. But it springs from the same contempt for democracy, and calls for the same sort of public outrage. You have until September 24th to urge Congress to scuttle this bill; the ATA has a draft letter, and a list of congressional contacts. Please take a few minutes to make your feelings known.
|

McCain Wants Health Care To Fail, Too 



Paul Krugman reports on that:

OK, a correspondent directs me to John McCain's article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.

Here's what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!

Of course one might argue that in the longer run McCain's policies would get us socialized health care faster than any alternative, after the markets inflame, erupt, explode and spill blood all over the participants. But given my next two posts below we wouldn't then get socialised medicine but medicine under National Socialism.

|

More On The Blank Check 



The draft for the proposal of how we are handing out 700 billion to Wall Street is here. It's not fun reading, as I point out in the post below, but it's important reading. Very important reading, and you should read it together with Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism. Atrios singled out this one part of the draft and it is shocking indeed:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Get it? The agency is God. It alone has the right to decide how to spend 700 billion of our money. It alone. And no, you have no recourse if you don't like what the agency did with your money.

This is also an interesting snippet:

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

The bit I have bolded means that they can do whatever they want with the contracts, including giving all of them to their best friends.
-----
A Post-Script: I am aware that all these things may have been added to the draft as a Game Move so that the Democrats can remove them and feel as if they averted an even greater evil while letting the crony capitalists get their bailout package pretty much the way they wanted it in the first place. Nevertheless, we are not playing simulated computer games about dragons and monsters. We are playing with real lives here and I'm going to give boils to anyone who plays with other people's lives as if it was something on the computer.

|

Crony Capitalism Strikes Back 



It never really stopped striking, of course, but what is coming out about this great government rescue is truly frightening. Calculatedrisk has the details, and if you read through there you find nothing about the government doing any controlling at all. None. The industry is going to get money and a kiss on its cheek (some kind of a cheek) and it will be sent back to play the same game but with more money this time! Our money.

I'm shocked to almost wordlessness. Truly shocked. I never thought that the Bush administration wouldn't even bother to pretend that there would be some kind of government control, in exchange for all that yummy taxpayer loot. But nope. There will be no oversight, no control. Even the people who will run these new funding organizations will be picked from Wall Street.

Let me see if I can summarize what they are doing right now in the simplest possible terms: There's a market who has acted like the Robber Barons of old, with no ethics, no real rules but lots of money for the inside circle of participants. There's a market which has been allowed to do this in peace and quiet by those who were supposed to oversee it. Then this market collapses, whines and whines and whines. So the supposed overseers give it lots of money, tell it to mind the money themselves and go back to play just as they used to. The only difference is that now the people bearing the risk are those who never got the returns at all. The people getting the returns are still the people who behaved unethically and got us into this mess to begin with.

We are being treated like suckers, my friends. Or like the peons of the rich and wealthy. But much more importantly, the market will be in the same shit almost instantaneously, because the rules of its game have not been truly changed. And the lesson the market is learning here?

If you are rich enough, you get communism and socialism when YOU need it. If you are rich enough and you whine enough you will be handed all you desire.

|

A Maestro of Petropolitics (by Phila) 

It's bothered me lately to see people on the left attacking Sarah Palin's "inexperience"...as though her stance on abortion, or same-sex marriage, or environmental protection would be more palatable if only she'd been governor for ten years, instead of two. It's a classic example of arguing within the right's frame, and it plays into their attempt to paint Palin as an uncorrupted outsider who'll shake up an ossified, elitist establishment.

I'm not surprised, of course. The left rarely misses an opportunity to live up to the right's charges of "elitism." Amazingly, there are still people who get righteously indignant when conservative politicians mispronounce words or mangle basic facts. I guess these people missed the last 28 years, during which one bumbling, invincibly ignorant, malapropism-spewing authoritarian after another was sworn in as president after defeating candidates who could speak intelligently, in complete sentences, about important subjects.

This isn't simply a matter of unsophistication or stupidity. It's a badge of honor that reinforces the GOP's brand, and gives voters the pleasant impression that they're not all that different from the person who seeks to rule them. Mockery of such a candidate, by people who seem to be comfortable and well educated, amounts to mockery of the voters themselves. Liberal rhetoric, too often, effectively demands that voters self-identify as failures and dupes (instead of keeping up appearances at all costs, as frightened and threatened people are naturally inclined to do). You might as well ask people to parade down Main Street in dunce caps.

Anyway, Palin has plenty of experience and skill, but it's of a highly specified type, as Michael Klare explains:
In the clinical terminology of political science, Alaska is a classic "petrostate." That is, its political system is geared toward the maximization of oil "rents"--royalties and other income derived from energy firms--to the neglect of all other economic activities. Such polities have an inherent tendency toward corruption because of the close ties that naturally develop between government officials and energy executives and because oil revenues replace taxation as a source of revenue (Alaska has no state income tax), insulating officials from the scrutiny of taxpayers....

The question thus arises: how does Palin's experience as a maestro of petropolitics bear on her candidacy for vice president? To begin with, it should be clear that she has nothing in common with the leaders of any other state. Although it is true that Texas produces more oil per day than Alaska, Texas is no longer a petrostate, since its economy has become so much more diversified. Alaska is virtually alone in possessing a large (oil-supplied) state budget surplus--now about $5 billion--at a time when most states and the federal government are facing massive deficits and citizen groups are rising up in fury at the prospect of budget cuts. Palin is simply unqualified to deal with the demanding economic realities of any nation that is not a petrostate.
Depends what you mean by "unqualified." In Palin's circles, the way to deal with "demanding economic realities" is to profit from them personally and politically, while blaming any negative outcome on people who are unpopular with their voters. If anything, someone who runs a petrostate needs to have a greater talent for scapegoating, identity politics, and distraction than the average politician. Palin's ample experience is demonstrated by the fact that despite everything, she and McCain still have more than a slight chance of winning.
|

There’s Nothing Hard About This One, Presenting Shills As Sources of Information Discredits Whoever Does It by Anthony McCarthy 

For its having one of the best reputations of anything in the broadcast media, Diane Rehm’s show has got to have one of the most over-sold contents these days. The guest lineup is typically a small variation of what you hear on the cabloids. On Friday’s “Press Roundup” it’s often just about identical to it. Since those Friday guests are among those who’ve turned the media into a public hazard, they should be rounded up only to be run out of town. Having them on for fifty minutes without commercial interruption doesn’t make what they say any better, heaping up more garbage doesn’t improve its quality. Rehm’s most frequent stand ins, Mr. Cokie Roberts also heard on that other bastion of journalistic quality, Hardball, and Susan Page of USA Today and late of The Leherer Redundancy, don’t do anything to bring up the standards of the thing. They’re just more of more of the same.

Rehm’s non-press guest lists also follow that most dishonest of all practices in broadcast journalism, regularly featuring industry hacks as if they were interchangeable with what are supposed to be reporters of fact. This is clearly a violation of any real standard of journalistic honesty.

NO, AND THIS MEANS NO, INDUSTRY SPOKESMAN OR SPOKESWOMAN IS HIRED TO TELL THE UNBIASED TRUTH. THEY WON’T GIVE RELIABLE INFORMATION, THEY ALWAYS DISTORT THE TRUTH IN FAVOR OF PROFITABILITY. THAT’S THEIR JOB, THEY KNOW THEY’D LOSE IT IF THEY DIDN’T DISTORT TO SUIT THEIR BOSSES! AND THEY’RE TRAINED TO DECEIVE IN MORE EFFECTIVE WAYS.

Sorry for yelling but I’ve wanted to say that for a long time. The only acceptable place for an industry hack in the allegedly free press is lying in a commercial, and they shouldn’t even be there.

Last week, for instance, the show featured a petroleum industry shill countered, one is supposed to imagine, by their typical representative of pantomime liberalism from the Brookings Tea Time Cotillion and balanced out by a hack from the The Energy Daily* in place of their typical hack from the Wall Street Journal or The Economist.

What goes for the hired distortionists of industry goes for those they hire at one step removed, “fellows” and “scholars” of DC area talk shops.

There are certainly many hundreds of real scholars in and outside of universities who would be available to give more unbiased information than any hired talking head will. Hundreds sufficient to staff years of panels with those who are now never heard from. Real scholarship has to defend itself sometimes, which the hired hacks of the guess pools don’t have to worry as much about since they are somewhat cushioned in the same way as the “spokesmen” who are called a polite form of what they are.

You could probably find real scholars on just about any topic within driving distance of any major media studio and certainly by phone. You've been known to use the phone before, remember the famous Newt Gingrich interview? Yet the media, perhaps especially that based in the D.C. area, inevitably goes with just those people who can be counted on to distort, if not outright lie, in a predictable way. And it’s becoming more clear that those in that industry who are alleged to present opposing viewpoints are not going to rock a boat they might someday want to ride in. Talk shop liberalism being not far removed from the more polite form of talk shop conservatism.

There are moments of hilarity on Rehm’s show, however, such as the guest last week, who, as the temple of Free Markets was falling down around their heads claiming that the trouble was that deregulation hadn’t been allowed to go far enough. It’s like a Philistine guard, as the temple is collapsing, saying if only .... no, simile fails. There isn’t anything equivalently foolish. What that guy said on that show might be the stupidest thing yet said about the dark comedy that deregulation has always been. Here’s a clue, O most august organs of the free press, when someone can get away with saying something so clearly loopy on your show, on a most topical subject, it’s time someone called you on it. If you can’t see these glaring violations of your own professional responsibilities, how can you expect anyone to trust you on anything?

Whoever is in charge of putting together your guest lists, Diane, should be fired, including you if responsible. Your show is becoming a bad joke.

An important job for the blogs is to point this out to more people in the audience than seem to get it now. That anyone who listens to NPR or PBS doesn’t get it and so act to stop it is a symptom of how listening to those over-praised networks lead to the absence of real thinking.

* From their website:

About The Energy Daily

Whether your business is nuclear power, natural gas, electric utilities, oil, coal or alternative fuels, The Energy Daily will analyze and explain breaking energy business news, congressional hearings, regulations, market intelligence and trends that are important to your competitiveness.

Founded in 1973 by Llewellyn King, CEO of King Publishing, The Energy Daily has kept its readers at the forefront of major developments in the energy industry for over 35 years. It is the top daily publication among energy executives.
|

Friday, September 19, 2008

Not Things 

Arranged words on W. C. Williams’ Birthday last Week by Anthony McCarthy

James Watson once answered that he couldn’t lose what he didn’t have,
The callow questioner brought up gaining the world and losing his soul,
Candy taken by a famous self, his answer dutifully applauded by an audience not experienced in enthusiasm.
Watson is the kind of ass who could look in any optical instrument and see his pasty face in place of any universe.

And a university poet whines out his choice to not live,
inactual stasis, the convenience of faculty life, his pale blues not dead because not lived,
left with insipidly longing for a movie desideratum a billion ad men could have written.

But we here in love, would be ridiculous for watching.
Paltry to onlookers. No penetration, roles, danger, parallels to literature or criticism.
Undocumentable, needless to say, non-fungible.

Did people think about how their life looked before TV or movies?
Does the constantly sensed audience lead to how anxiously we face just life?
Always observed by the absent, the tacit audience always present,
and we, never so here as watching them, and so miss our own lives.
Even love the most Unexplainable and Entirely Sufficient Reason To Be at All,
a performance for the memory of our place in a bored or jaded or, worst of all, pleased audience? The loved as cast rival.

How could we ever consider this through an observer? Not an act but

There isn’t a word conceivable in any grammar.
Not for this, both now, together, pleasing by pleasure by pleasing.
Our bodies not symbols but incident to the deeper sex of coupled souls, beyond things.
It not beyond but essentially separate from transaction.
One at once both, not element’s of any Set subject to the properties of even addition.
No subjects or objects, no act or any other nouns, or transitive verbs, or conditional statements or Boolean scribbles, or geometry or political theory or praxis.

The very naming and saying a violation and nullification of even what happens in time,
Intending rigorous examination, virtuously hacking away the inaccurate words
you would be left with a nothing to explain what most is, of all and everything.
Mistaking your failure as confirmation of a nothing and for publication so turn to analyze the illusory audience’s imagined reaction to the residuum of your failure. Missing it all.

In no way describe, but meet it Both in silence. It beyond pronounness.
The love transfigures us together outside it and ourselves, this time, many others, many to come,
many as the times become the deepest sex of souls beyond transaction or distinction or time or words or even songs.

For the love of very being, why would anyone want it any other way?
|

Friday Critter Blogging: Lizard And Friends 






Can you spot it? Picture by FeraLiberal.


The next picture is by Doug and of a cactus, but I see a desert god in it, a wild and old one.





|

Focusing on abortion (by Suzie) 



          In all the talk about saving Roe vs. Wade, I’ve been thinking of how many times feminists, especially white ones, have been criticized for focusing too much on abortion.
          Flora Davis wrote: 
“… like other women of color, African-American women objected to white feminists’ single-minded focus on abortion.”
          Here's Maud Blair, Janet Holland and Sue Sheldon:
… the pro-abortion stance of the 1970s did not take into account the fact that many black women’s reproductive struggles were around the right to retain their fertility. For black women abortions, sterilizations and Depo-Provera were all-too-easily available, and were often administered without adequate consultation and/or under the shadow of economic repression. These are not experiences restricted to black women, but it was the intervention of black women which exposed the in fact narrow base of what seemed to be a universal demand, and transformed the campaign – which has subsequently focused on choice and reproductive rights.
         Pam Chamberlain and Jean Hardisty: 
The right has been extremely successful in keeping the primarily white and middle-class women of the pro-choice movement and their male allies pre-occupied with responding to the escalating strategies of the pro-life movement… Because the right, with the acquiescence of the voting public, has successfully shredded the social safety net, it is increasingly unlikely that women of color and poor women will be guaranteed the means to bear and raise children. Without that means - in other words, without control of their reproductive lives - even the preservation of legal abortion does not guarantee all women's reproductive rights and reproductive freedom.
          If these narratives are correct, middle-class white women have been selfish, perhaps even racist, to work so hard to keep abortion legal. But this oversimplifies women’s history. In eugenics, people could be condemned for other factors than race. As Victoria Nourse notes, many of the women who were sterilized because they were imprisoned, disabled, poor or otherwise deemed unfit were white. Here’s a brief history of sterilization.
            While many women were sterilized without consent, many others (white and not white) could not obtain sterilization, contraception or abortion easily or safely. Tonyaa Weathersbee wrote:
Because as bad as the bad old days were for white women … they were even worse for us.
           When abortion was illegal, botched abortions were a primary killer of black women. According to research by Loretta J. Ross, former program director for the National Black Women’s Health Project, between 1965 and 1967 the death rate of black women in Georgia from illegal abortion was 14 times higher than that of white women. Another study estimated that in the 1960s, black and Puerto Rican women made up 80 percent of the deaths from illegal abortions in New York.
          People of color have long been involved in the fight to protect women’s rights not to have children. This spring, I attended a Planned Parenthood luncheon honoring Dr. Kenneth Edelin, a black doctor who was convicted of manslaughter after performing a legal abortion soon after Roe. Sadly, the luncheon audience was almost all white.
         Lauren Bayne Anderson wrote about how abortion is framed as a white issue, even though “a Women of Color Reproductive Health Poll showed that 83 percent of African American women identify as pro-choice.” Of the women getting abortions, 37 percent are black, 34 percent are non-Hispanic whites and 22 percent are Hispanic.
          Have feminists focused too much on abortion and not enough on other issues? Sometimes I’ve thought so, but then again, who knows what would have happened if we hadn’t.
           In regard to reproductive freedom: It’s hard to imagine what that would look like, considering everything that influences our decisions. Nor do I know how many women choose not to have children because of a lack of social services. But I'm confident that many feminists will continue to support legal and accessible contraception and abortion, along with social services that assist families.
|

Telling feminists how to vote (by Suzie) 



          Back in 2002, Katha Pollitt took Dennis Kucinich to task for opposing abortion rights.
That a solidly anti-choice politician could become a standard-bearer for progressivism, the subject of hagiographic profiles in The Nation and elsewhere, speaks volumes about the low priority of women's rights to the self-described economic left, forever chasing the white male working-class vote.
          She reported the reaction:
A surprising number of readers felt pro-choicers should shut up about their silly little issue and embrace Kucinich in the interests of progressive unity.
          Kucinich changed his position when he ran for president. Fast forward to the present, when feminists are told they must vote for Obama to preserve abortion rights. I’m voting for Obama because I dislike McCain’s positions on abortion and other issues that matter to me. I believe in coalition politics. But I may tear out the throat of the next hypocrite who cares little about abortion but wants to bludgeon me with it.
      Similar inconsistencies have arisen since the primary, when some feminists who supported Hillary Clinton were maligned for paying more attention to sexism than other injustices. An example would be Betsey Reed, executive editor of The Nation, who complained about women “confined” to feminism.
        Also in The Nation, Jessica Valenti criticized Clinton supporters who suggested that anyone who voted for Obama was less of a feminist. She said feminists should resist calls for solidarity, and recognize the differences among women. Now, some Obama supporters are telling feminists that, if they really cared about sexism, if they were true feminists, they would help elect him. Solidarity is good, as long as we are all backing Obama.
        I wish people would stop making support so distasteful.
        Note: I'm not slamming my colleagues on this site or any other who have remained consistent. I'm not trying to single out anyone. I'm just tired of being jerked around.
 
|

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Fun in A Silly Way 

The Best Book Ever:





I usually dream about the interviews I will get as a verrry famous old author. I could write the Best Ever Author Interviews.
|

The Memory Hole and McCain 



We are not yet living in the world of Orwell's 1984 where all memory of past events could easily be erased. Too bad, from McCain's point of view:

In his latest attempt at a total makeover, John McCain said today that if he were president, he'd fire Chris Cox, the chairman of the SEC, for keeping in place "trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino."

Never mind that the president can't actually fire the head of the SEC. Just think about McCain's assertion in the light of this:

McCain's former economic adviser is ex-Texas Sen. Phil Gramm. On Dec. 15, 2000, hours before Congress was to leave for Christmas recess, Gramm had a 262-page amendment slipped into the appropriations bill. It forbade federal agencies to regulate the financial derivatives that greased the skids for passing along risky mortgage-backed securities to investors.

Sorry, McCain. But this mess belongs to the policies your party has pursued and the policies you still insist on pursuing.

|

A Postcard From Wingnuttia 



I spent a few hours cleaning my kitchen trash bin (aren't you glad I shared that?) and the fridge and while doing that I listened to right-wing talk radio. Now that was fun.

Honest, try it sometimes (well, at least listening to the talk radio). The last program, for instance, started with a piece about how the Black Political Caucus is behind the takeover of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Then there was stuff about how John Kerry never checked the boxes on his tax forms which would have made him pay more taxes, and then you could vote on the day's illegal immigrant quiz.

Earlier I heard Rush Limbaugh. YES! My future husband, Rush Limbaugh (he's gonna marry me because I will be the last woman in the world who'd have him and I'm hungry). He repeated that old joke about feminism being a social movement for ugly women who otherwise cannot thrive in this society, so either I was listening to an old show or his feminist principles have shed off him faster than -- well, you know what. And yes, of course Rush is a handsome hottie. We all know that.

It's really a whole other reality, the one in which those right-wing radio shows exist. But lots of people live in that one.

|

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

The Beginning of the Socialist States of the United States? 



Some make jokes about all this "socialization" that's going on in the financial industry and perhaps even in the automobile industry, and it's true that "we the taxpayers" seem to be amassing a lot of previously private market "investments" recently.

But it's not socialism when the industries take over the government. That has a totally different label. And though the industries aren't exactly taking over the government neither is the government taking them over. It's just giving them money, hugs and kisses.

Not sure what to call that. Perhaps crony-capitalism.

|

VOTE! 



The Feminist Majority Foundation has a message for you:





Do you know which group of women is especially likely not to vote? Single women. Now changing that would be change I could believe in....

|

Less Health Insurance 



Bob Herbert has a good piece on McCain's health insurance policies, and you should read all of it. I have written about those policies earlier at the Nation site and that post is a good complement to what I'm going to write here.

Note that one of the biggies in McCain's proposed changes is to raise the price of health insurance. Yes, my dear reader, you read that right. The way this works in his program is as follows:

If you are lucky enough to have employer-offered health insurance your premia currently come out of pre-tax dollars, dollars on which you have not yet paid taxes. McCain wants the premia to come out of post-tax dollars, dollars on which you have already paid taxes.

Let's think of an example: Suppose that your current health insurance policy costs you 1000 dollars per month. You pay for it with 1000 dollars in pre-tax (or gross) income. If McCain had his way with you, the payment would come from your post-tax income which would be, say, 700 dollars (assuming a 30% tax rate). Clearly, you can't afford the same policy with these dollars, so you would have to chip in an extra 300 bucks from, say, your food budget.

Now, even McCain knows that voters wouldn't think this kind of a policy an improvement so what he would combine with it is a lump sum financial compensation which ideally would equal that extra 300 bucks you need. Ideally, because in practice it would only equal that sum to those who happen to be paying for the average policy right now. Others would either get a windfall gain or lose money. The latter group would include people who are paying a lot for their health insurance coverage. Some of those people are sicker than the average consumer so the policy would punish them for being sicker.

Why is McCain suggesting something like this? Well, partly he has been magically seduced by an economist who loves the world of Microeconomics 101, with its price effects and income effects. Partly he wants to make consumers really FEEL the pain of the costs of health insurance, to make all of us more alert and careful buyers of various health insurance policies. You know, we will all run around figuring out deductibles, co-payments, group vs. staff models, indemnities and so on. I'm sure all those terms are something you roll around in your mouth every morning before tooth brushing.

So we are back in that mythical world where unicorns swing off rainbows and free markets lower the health care costs for all, but only if there are no tax subsidies and nobody else worrying about the consumers except consumers themselves. Who are all busily comparing non-commensurate health insurance policies and carefully negotiating with various hospitals for the day when they might arrive somewhere unconscious and unable to shop around.

This would be hilarious if McCain hadn't himself admitted that he doesn't understand economics. Yet he would leave all consumers out there at the mercy of sellers whose business he can't understand.

What McCain's proposed changes boil down to is less health insurance and more uninsured people. Bob Herbert explains some parts of how that would work, but the major reason for it all is that McCain plans to make health insurance more expensive.

|

Wake Up And Smell The Estrogen 



That sentence was on the cover of one of the old Ms. magazines I just put into the trade basket in my library, and it makes a very good kick-in-the-pants beginning for this rant. And a rant it will be.

To begin with the Bitch magazine is in financial trouble and it needs your dollars to continue. You can donate here.

Then you can go out and buy (yes, buy) the Summer Issue of the Ms. magazine, which includes the following topics:

We've got an exclusive story on medical neglect at the only federal prison hospital for women, dirt on anti-gay-marriage but prostitute-going Senator David Vitter, a look at misogyny within polygamous cults, and more …

Naturally, if you have no money don't give any. But supporting feminist media is not a bad way of spending your money, despite what Jezebel has to say about the financial difficulties of Bitch:

Maybe the reason why Bitch isn't succeeding is because, although it's trudged along for 12 years, it just isn't successful. Has anyone stopped to think that it's the content, and not the mean, evil corporate world that's costing them money? A lot of women don't really subscribe to the stilted rhetoric of first-year women's studies. And it would seem that a lot of women don't really subscribe to Bitch either.

That Bitch has a circulation of only 47,000 seems to support that argument, does it not? Until you start thinking what the circulation rates of political opinion journals are in general. Here is a picture for you showing the circulation rates of really important political opinion journals (click on it to make it bigger):





From the source of the graph:

As the BPA audit ending in June 2007 shows, counting the Hill-delivered copies allows the New Republic to keep its subscriber numbers up above the 65,000 mark (although just barely, at 65,779) . That is a critical point because it means the magazine, which has been losing circulation since 2000, can say that it has stemmed the losses. Keeping subscriptions up at the magazine is a priority for its new owner, CanWest.

You must have heard of the New Republic? It's a major opinion source in political debates and its circulation figures are rotten. Now, it could be that the reason is that no reader is interested in Political Science 101 and that the ads in the magazine are too boring for eyelid batting. It could even be that the New Republic is circling the drain.

But isn't it funny that we hardly ever read something similar to the opinion from Jezebel when it comes to these political opinion journals? Note that the National Review, the breeding site of All Things Conservative, isn't doing that well in the circulation races. Does it mean that the wingnuts write about how boring it is and how it should get better ads?

Of course not. And they don't write to wonder why the Washington Times is still in business, despite having made a loss in every single year of its existence. Because that's not the point of political opinion magazines. Their point is to get certain topics out there, to be discussed more generally. Their point is to influence opinions.

And that is ultimately the point of Bitch and Ms. and other feminist magazines, too. Once they stop existing (for being soooo boring), fewer feminist stories will crop up in the political discourse.

Have I made my point? It's closely related to the misconception that picking things in politics is just like choosing an ice-cream flavor. This misconception is astonishingly common and I blame the advertising culture for it. There's a difference between political choices and preferring chocolate ice-cream with extra chips to vanilla ice-cream: If the ice-cream parlor doesn't stock your favorite, you can just not buy and leave empty-handed. This is impossible in politics, because the choice for those who don't vote will be made for them.

Or perhaps a different parable would be clearer here: Suppose that you are stranded on a deserted island, running out of food and going mad with the solitude and the fear. Then you see a ship against the horizon, you scream and yell and light fires and jump up and down. And the ship sees you! It turns and comes to rescue you! YEAH!

But as it gets closer you see it's a dirty ship with bad paint and a torn sail and ugly sailors, so you decide not to get on the boat at all. You deserve a prettier and more interesting rescuer.

So I may have just fallen overboard the ship called My Rant. But feminists should support their opinion-making organs, just as the progressives support their and the conservatives support theirs, especially because those other journals have more institutional backing than feminism has, more angels covering up their losses.

|

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

And Let The Money Flow.... 



Looks like we just bought AIG (the American International Group):

In an extraordinary turn, the Federal Reserve agreed Tuesday night to take a nearly 80 percent stake in the troubled giant insurance company, the American International Group, in exchange for an $85 billion loan.

The decision, only two weeks after the Treasury took over the quasi-government mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is the most radical intervention in private business in the central bank's history.

How does it go? Privatize the benefits, socialize the costs? Or "communism for the rich, capitalism for the poor"? In any case, note that the $85 billion loan has as collateral the very reason why the loan was given. It's so circular it makes my head turn a full 360 degrees.

It's hard to know what the government should do now, of course, because once firms are let to grow big enough in a very concentrated industry their downfall will hurt most everyone. That's why we used to have anti-trust regulations and such, but all those were diluted or ignored during the free-market decades.

I have written about the need for better regulations (or better rules of the game) for the financial markets before. This would be a good opportunity for the government to introduce them, would it not? In exchange for the help, I mean.

|

Sexism As A Joke 



We've come a long way, baby. Sexism is now something Rush Limbaugh deplores in his programs. Sexism is now the quick come-back joke among the Liberal boyz. On the former:

Summary: Rush Limbaugh said of the investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin's dismissal of Alaska public safety commissioner Walter Monegan: "This is pure sexism in Alaska on the part of these old boys trying to get rid of Sarah Palin, and she didn't put up with it, and she didn't bend over and let them have their way."

This is the same Rush Limbaugh about whom I wrote a long researched piece some years ago on this blog. A snippet from that:

One of my fabulous routines concerns a San Francisco men's club which lost its battle to exclude women from membership. The courts ruled that they had to admit women on the basis that businesswomen were being unfairly denied opportunities to do business. This is specious. How much business did women think they were going to get as a result of forcing their way in?
Anyway, after one year, the female members demanded their own exercise room. They were probably tired of being ogled by a bunch of slobbering men while they pumped iron in leotards and spandex. The men offered to install the first three exercise machines in the women's new workout room. The ladies were thrilled. When they arrived on that first exciting day they found, to their stunned amazement, a washing machine, an ironing board, and a vacuum cleaner. Heh, heh, heh. (The Way Things Ought To Be, p.142-45 Jul 2, 1992)

I don't have to go back to 1992 to find a sexist comment from Rush Limbaugh, of course. But to find him using sexism as an accusation, well, that requires looking only at the last few days.

That's the first way sexism has become a joke. The second one has to do with the responses to the first one: When Rush Limbaugh suddenly pretends to think that sexism is a deplorable, deplorable thing, who do you think will find sexism quite funny? That's right, the Libral Boyz. Now, admittedly they are reacting to the wingnuts' arguments that any criticism of Sarah Palin, however justified, is mere sexism. But at the same time the two ridiculing uses of the word "sexism" are doing real damage. The word is transmuting into something different, something laughable. And all the time real women in this world are dying because of sexist customs or beliefs.

When I sit down to think about what to write on this here blog these days I have a lot of emotional trouble. It's like I had been making a cake from a complicated recipe with lots of expensive ingredients and lots of labor put into it, and when I had finally iced it on a glass platter the whole thing slipped and crashed on the hard tiles of my kitchen. There it sits now, a mess of broken cake, glass shards and whipped cream. What should I do with it? Just throw it all into the trash? But then I lose all that effort and money. Should I pick the glass out carefully and then try to rescue most of the cake for reshaping? But then I'll cut my hand.

So I sit at the keyboard and don't get anywhere. Of course it's not feminist causes that I liken to a dropped cake here but the discourse we are having over this election campaign and the preceding Democratic primaries. That discourse might ultimately turn out to be of benefit for the feminist movement but not in the shorter run. Unless better bakers come in and rescue it right now.

|

MILF 



You may or may not have heard that acronym. It stands for "a mother I'd like to fuck" and is not uncommon in the blogosphere discussion threads. There's also GMILF but as far as I can tell, the only person who suggested FILF was me and it didn't take on.

What is it all about? Mostly bantering, with no evil intention behind it. But it's still fun to think about what calling someone a MILF really means: Either it points out that despite being mothers some women still retain their sexual appeal. Or it points out that among all those old, decrepit and wrinkled mothers (or older women in general) there are a few who still have that something which makes men think of black silk sheets in bedrooms.

But why is it that my suggestion of the term for "a father I'd like to fuck" didn't take on? Is it because women are not supposed to measure men up for that particular use? And why was my suggestion seen as a joke? Worth thinking about.

In any case, I'm writing about this trivial topic because I have read that there are men who say that they are going to vote for Sarah Palin because she is a MILF, and only for that reason. Yet I can't find all those articles about how unreasonable this behavior is. Yet the articles about the unreasonable Hillary voters have been many.

|

Monday, September 15, 2008

And Even More Funny Stuff 



Some days are so full of sunshine and laughter:

On the September 15 edition of MSNBC Live, while assessing Sen. Joe Biden's speech on the economy, Reuters Washington correspondent Jon Decker said that Biden does not "help[] his case when he's making the argument on economic issues wearing French cuffs and dressed to the nines. I think that he's really got to connect with these voters." MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing agreed, asserting: "Yeah, it's about the message, but also about the perception. I guess ... I was a little surprised too that he didn't have that coat off and roll up his sleeves." Contrary to the notion that wearing French cuffs may interfere with Biden's ability to "connect with these voters," French cuff shirts can be found for $37.50 on the website of J.C. Penney, a national department-store chain that many voters can presumably "connect" with.

Love it, just love it. If we have to go to hell in a handbasket why not laugh all through the journey?

Let me see: When you discuss bad unemployment figures you should probably come to the studio wearing one of those sandwich boards which says "Will Work For Food." And when you discuss the Iraq occupation you should wear a helmet and carry a machine gun. Got it.

Likewise, you really shouldn't discuss bad news about the health care system looking all hale and hearty. At least strap yourself to an oxygen machine and wear some gray makeup.

George Bush used to do all that play-acting. Remember him holding a hammer in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina? Of course he held it all wrong but acting is not the same as actually doing something and appearance is all that counts.

Yeah, I know. Voters are supposed to vote on issues such as French cuffs.

|

Some Fun 



If you haven't watched the SNL video spoof on Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, Shakes has it.

This is also very funny in a twisted way:

McCain, in a speech in Jacksonville, Florida, this morning, said, "You know that there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall St. And it is -- people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult times."

Funny why? Because Herbert Hoover kept saying that "the fundamentals are strong" all the way into the Great Depression. I noticed George Bush saying that earlier but I thought nobody else would be quite that silly. I was wrong.

|

Wall Street's Troubles Are Yours, Too... 



So goes the headline of an article about the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy (after the firm managed to keep its boat afloat through the financial panic of 1907 and the Great Crash of the 1920's it was sunk by the Bush tidal wave) and about the equally troubled times of Merrill Lynch and AIG. And of course it's true that the troubles of Wall Street are our troubles, too, but not for quite the reason the author of that article intends.

No, we are not equally guilty of greed and short-sighted gambling with the loaded dice of the market-place. No, not all house buyers bought houses they couldn't afford for selfish and greedy reasons. And no, most of us ordinary folk did not benefit from the anything-goes decades in the financial markets, and among those who did benefit the culprits of the current crisis benefited the most of all.

Rather, those troubles are our troubles for two fairly obvious reasons:

First, the powerful in this society still have the power to make the less powerful suffer in their place, and while the trickle-down theory of economics appears not to work that well when times are good, it sure works great when times are bad. What the top layers rain down on top of the ordinary working people I leave to your imagination, but it translates to unemployment, loss of health insurance, retirement savings which are barely enough to buy a stamp and so on. Misery, in short.

And how to avoid that misery? Here is the second reason why we are fucked, my friends: The only way to avoid that wholesale misery is by accepting a slightly smaller (though still very unfair) degree of suffering, and that is by a taxpayer bailout of all the financial firms which fail. Or most of them. We ordinary people are expected to pay the piper either way. We can choose a deeper recession or we can choose to pay more taxes to perhaps avoid one.

But isn't it usually the case that who pays the piper calls the tune? What happened to that idea? For instance, when I read about the financial firms negotiating with the federal government the first image in my mind would not be the government representatives kissing the toenails of the CEOs who have come in for some more money. But that's how these negotiations appear to be going: The firms send in some tough guys who threaten to cut the throat of the market unless money is forthcoming and soon, and then the government gives them the money. Or rather, loans without any good collateral. Toenail clippings, old copies of the New York Times, perhaps even snake scales. All good collateral.

What happened to the idea of demanding concessions from the firms before they are offered any help? I have this crazy idea: Suppose that the federal government told the industry that it would not bail out any firms unless the whole industry agreed to new government regulations which would stop this crisis from happening again in the near future? Now wouldn't that be something? It would take us back to the way things were before the Reagan revolution, back to the times when unregulated markets weren't regarded as the greatest thing since the invention of the zipper. It would let us say in public that wholly unregulated financial markets sometimes look exactly the way the U.S. financial markets look today. Markets Gone Berserk.

Of course today's picture isn't quite right, either, because wholly unregulated markets aren't supposed to get bailed out by the evil, evil government at all.



|

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Batman vs. Penguin 



This YouTube, found by commenter Richard on Eschaton, is not about the current American political campaigns. It's not. I swear. It's about Batman and the Penguin.
Enjoy.




|
Impromptu Political Poem by Anthony McCarthy

Life isn't perfect, pure
or permanently secure,
sorry.
|

Interior Monologue of the Conscious: While Stacking Wood With The Radio On by Anthony McCarthy 

Why not Romeo and Juliette in a New York tough guy accent? They’re just a bunch of thugs talking in iambic verse. What else is the play about but two gangs of street toughs? Wonder what C would say if she heard me said that? She’s the one who brought up the “Shakespear question”. All I said is that the evidence for any of the attributions was flimsy. Didn’t even mention Oxford. Doubt the Bard of Avon bilge and you’ve immediately put yourself beyond the pale of respectability. Couldn’t say anything right after that. Well, it was all of them, really. It finally got off that damned board.

All’s Well that Ends Well in a Down East accent, now that might work too. No, West Paris. Yeah, West Paris.

---------------------

I’d have voted to give the Oscar to “Crash” too. Better movie than the horse opera. Dumb thing. Hall Mark Theater. Wonder what would happen if I said that?
|

Malevolent Gay Far-Right Republican Men, Why Not Look At That Phenomenon? by Anthony McCarthy 

Trying to listen to the more gentle angel of my nature, I’d intended to entirely forego my tradition of mocking the “Insights from the Social Sciences” the morning paper brings me. I started writing this in that intention but Izzy, my leftist hell-raiser angel, won out over Nat. Nat’s my annoying liberal niceness angel. I’ve complained about Nat before, I think.

This Sunday, Evo-psych tells us that homosexuality, in the form of queer genes, persist because having sex with members of your gender has a reproductive advantage. And here I always figured that was the one risk being gay didn’t include. As the tricky Boston Globe Soc-Sci columnist has taken to doing so often lately, the “study” his report is based on is forthcoming so I can’t go look to see what is being passed off as science. But being suspicious as well as naughty, Izzy asks, “Why study something like that to begin with? Aren’t there other gay issues more pressing to the business of the world?”

As an old gay man, one of the things that has always carried a morbid fascination for me is the phenomenon of the evil gay Republican power broker. There are certainly a lot of them to look at, and just about to a person they are truly rotten. If you ever wanted to identify a truly malevolent bunch, it’s the right-wing, gay male Republican. Roy Cohn, who was universally known to be gay from the beginning of his public career, was about as rotten as they come. He regularly worked on behalf of the most repressive gay bashers in the New York scene and beyond, some of them, like Francis Cardinal Spelman, were specimens of the type themselves. There are those who claim Joe McCarthy - no relation worth considering - belongs among them. Literally everyone knew Cohn was having sex with men during the decades he was around. Yet he flourished within the political milieu that would have destroyed him had he not been one of them. Near the end of his life, as it became just as widely known that he was dying of AIDS, the New York elite helped him in his psychotically futile public denial of what was clear to anyone who looked at him.

After McCain selected Palin, I was curious to see how the Uncle Tom’s Cabin Club stood on the McCain-Palin ticket. Needless to say, they were lying, saying that they were no danger to the rights and lives of gay people. Kiss of the Spider Woman would seem to have gotten that kind of dishonest, self-centered gay man* just about right. Despising them for the hypocrites and traitors they are, I usually call them Future Capos of Amerika. I’m not giving a link and risk aiding the more uninformed of our Republican blog boy monitors in their networking.

Gore Vidal, in one of his essays, cast doubt on the existence of a category “gay”. Other than having sex with other men, what does Vidal have in common with Roy Cohn, Karl Rove or Mark Drier? What did Walt Whitman have in common with James Buchanan? He also points out that the entire idea of someone as being a “homosexual” hardly describes the reality as shown through experience. Some people have sex with one gender, many have sex with both. More are probably sexually attracted to members of their own gender at times than act on their desires. It’s apparently tempting for some to wonder which category those people belong in, if you’re the kind of person interested in putting people into categories. But that’s the problem. People in real life are too complex and varied to categorize like that. And why would you feel it was a useful thing to do? From the history of the 20th century, we know that kind of putting people into categories can be dangerous to their existence. I use the term “gay” purely as a political description without pretending it has scientific meaning.

I’m no beauty and certainly have not been mistaken as such in my lifetime. I’m also someone with sexual interest only in adult men. Being very fussy and having put up with more immaturity than you can shake a stick at, I’m only attracted to adult men who act like adults. So you can see, there’s not a lot for me to have chosen from.

In my life I’ve had several married men come on to me. Two were men who I’ve known most of my life. In a small town like the one I still live it, its likely that a history of having sex with other men would be known within the gay population. Anyone who is part of a small town’s gay population will know about straight men who also have sex with men. I had no reason to suspect that the two men I’m talking about had sex with other men. Were they gay? I don’t know. I don’t know why they came on to me, I don’t even know how they would have reacted if I’d accepted their advances, which I didn’t. Married men are a species I am totally uninterested in having sex with. Perhaps unfortunately, it would seem that further opportunities to collect data have dried up for me. Nothing like that has happened in quite a while now.

I don’t have much in common with most of the men who identify themselves as being “gay”. The stereotypes don’t fit many of the gay men I know. We don’t constitute a cohesive community. Other than the discrimination and threats of violence we face, there is pretty much only the fact that we are sexually attracted to some members of our own gender in common. I don’t believe that diversity results from a common genetic expression. My experience leads me to believe that Vidal got it more right than the social scientists ever can.

Oh.... I can’t resist. Those “gay genes”, which I doubt exist, probably couldn’t account for an increased reproductive activity in men who had sex with men. Maybe the researchers might ask if it might not be gay jeans that did it. At least you can see those.

* I’m trying to recall an example of a similarly rotten Republican lesbian and can’t think of a single example. There are certainly not as many obvious ones as there are FCA’s.
|

What? Losing Roe Isn’t Enough To Make You Shake Hands And Fight Together? by Anthony McCarthy 

There is a temptation among those of us with the leisure time to read and write blogs, to concentrate on absurdly small matters instead of what’s truly apocalyptic. At times we can match the corporate media in ignoring what’s important in favor of, literally, nothing.

It was no neat trick to predict that if Obama was the Democratic nominee that the Republican’s dirty tricks machine would use the divisive Spring campaign for the nomination against him. Anyone who couldn’t have foreseen that has to be too dense to be reading this blog. What we are seeing now in the Republican dirty tricks campaign against Obama, would have been used in reverse if Hillary Clinton was the nominee. Again, if you can’t see that, you are not reading these words or are probably a Republican monitor.

I almost got dragged into a comparison of the words, hurtful and those pretended to be hurtful, on both sides of that grudge match, but I’m not going to become part of the McCain-Palin campaign.

Having reviewed both lists, continuing to talk about them is absolutely stupid and exactly the kind of thing that has won Republicans the right to overturn everything that was gained with so much struggle and bloodshed over the past hundred-fifty years.

Somewhere in the media, one of the alleged “Hillary holdouts” was quoted as saying that she didn’t care about Roe because she was beyond having to worry about being pregnant. I very much doubt that this was a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Certainly it’s nothing a supporter of her policies would ever say. For the rest of us, maybe it needs saying again. Here, from an op-ed by Cass Sunstein

It is relevant here that many people, including McCain running mate Sarah Palin, believe that abortion is unacceptable even in cases of rape and incest, and there is little doubt that if Roe is overruled, some states will enact that belief into law.

To anyone who has forgotten, John McCain is the oldest person ever nominated by one of the two national parties for president, he has had serious health problems including cancer. The prospect of Sarah Palin becoming president during the next term are probably better than her not becoming succeeding a President McCain. Even if he didn’t die, he caved in to the ultra-right to choose his VP, do you think he wouldn’t for his Supreme Court nominees?

For anyone freed from having to worry about their own unwanted pregnancy and too self absorbed to worry about other women’s rights, Sunstein points out that literally everything is in danger of being lost to exactly the kind of Supreme Court nominees that both McCain and Palin have announced they will appoint.

For the future of constitutional rights, there is a broader point, which involves the fragility of many constitutional principles. Of course the Supreme Court tends to move slowly, but some conservatives who speak of "strict construction," and of "legislating from the bench," have something quite radical in mind.

For them, these are code words. They seek to appoint judges who will overturn not merely Roe, but dozens of other past decisions. For example, they want judges to impose flat bans on affirmative action, to invalidate environmental regulations, to increase presidential power, and to reduce the separation of church and state. Some Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have already called for significant changes in constitutional law in these domains.

McCain-Palin not only would deny women the ownership of their bodies, they’d brick over the glass ceiling once and for all. Maybe younger people don’t remember but within living memory it was legal for a man to tell a woman “Sorry, honey, but all our girls start out in the typing pool”.

Would a rational person risk, literally, undoing all the advances of the Civil Rights amendments over the piddling list of Freudian fantasy wrongs?

No.
|

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Down at the Balinese (by Suzie) 



        I've got that ZZ Top song stuck in my head, after hearing that Ike destroyed the Balinese Room in Galveston. The Houston Chronicle's web site has updates on all the damage. 
|

McCain/Palin on Reproductive Choice 





|

The Third Party Delusion And How It Props Up The Corporate Establishment by Anthony McCarthy 

In the past month there have been a few mentions of a revival of the disastrous “Nader trader” idea of 2000 on the blogs. I thought it might be worth looking at what the Greens are saying this time. Not much has changed since the last time I looked. Though its interesting that since the last time I wrote about their record of electoral “success” it’s harder to find that information. You get the feeling that they’re trying to hide something they’re not proud of.

After a quarter of a century of getting a lot of attention and the devotion of more people on the left than they deserve, the Greens of the United States need to be looked at in the harsh light of day.

Anyone who believes that they can become a viable national party, supplanting the Democrats, has had a long period of time to evaluate their effectiveness. It is a record without a single positive accomplishment on the national level and, as has been pointed out before, it has had a grand total of exactly one person elected to any of the 50 state legislatures.

I’ve said here before that I liked the Green who has achieved the highest office in his parties history, John Eder, the FORMER legislative representative from his district in Portland Maine. Former because he lost his seat as the Maine Greens gave their all for the fourth place finish of their candidate for Governor that year. In typical Green fashion, the national Greens lauded her fourth place finish, behind an independent candidate who managed to get a decisive third place without having the advantage of a party to back her. Fourth place in the Maine Governorship as a great success, that could serve as a dictionary example of the word “failure”, if not “fraud”, if not “nuts”.

And even on the local level their record is pitiful for a party that has had the publicity, financial and volunteer resources it has had for more than two decades. Many of its touted successes were in non-partisan races. The one and only third party which has succeeded in the history of the United States, the Republicans, had already been governing the country for about two decades by that point in its existence.

And yet their website absurdly talks about their prospects on the national level this fall. Let me propose an experiment to you, one which will just about certainly have a 100% success rate. Look at a group of people you just happen to see, point to one of them. That person will have exactly the same chance as Cynthia McKinney to become President of the United States in January. January of this year or any other. Running a candidate for president who has no chance of winning is pointless and self-indulgent. After one of your previous candidates helped put a man in office who made real the opposite of everything you support, running another in a close race is an act of grotesque irresponsibility. It is a total and fundamental betrayal of your principles and your supporters. In a tight race, as the one this year is looking to become, it is dangerous, reckless and pathologically narcissistic .

Symbolism has no rational place in how serious people vote. If you vote symbolically, “to send a message” or “to teach a lesson”, no one in the entire world but you will care about what your intended symbolic vote stood for.* They will be too busy dealing with the results in the real world. Voting is a serious thing, it has a profound potential to change how the world works, how people live. Voting is a life or death matter, it isn’t the equivalent of trying to interpret the vague game you think an author might be playing. Serious people know the difference. Voting for a Green on the presidential ballot is a vote for McCain-Palin and the policies they will put into effect.

Greens record on the national level has been a disaster. The Greens get trotted out nationally every four years in hopes that they can again play the spoiler and put a Republican in the White House. In some states they are used by the Republican establishment in the same way, mine for instance. They have no function in the left other than to discredit us with more successful progressives, we should marginalize them as often as necessary.

Libertarians, perhaps even more a failure in electoral politics, exercise massively more political influence than the Greens do through the influential guess pool, The Cato Institute. Their ‘research’ is constantly promoted on NPR and other media venues, though they never say a thing you couldn’t guess before their place on the guest lineup is announced. As an aside, I wonder, if it always and inevitably ends up supporting the pre-existing Cato ideology, how can anyone keep pretending that what they do is research? Through their constant appearances as a part of the respectable spectrum of opinion, the libertarians have been able to make the most absurd and easily contradicted assertions function as if they were real ideas in our politics.

The difference is in the purpose they serve for the corporate establishment. Greens are used as spoilers, libertarians as a means of keeping conservatives with kinky personal tastes attached to the overtly fascist wing of the Republican movement, though they would destroy libertarians ability to do what they want to if they ever really achieved power. In order for that ruse to work they have to be kept voting for Republicans. Their use of the Greens is to keep Democrats out of office, which they have shown they can do. They’ve been useful for nothing else in our national politics.

* The same goes for “principled non-voting”.
|

Friday, September 12, 2008

Vaginas, and what women have in common (by Suzie) 

         

         I’ve held off writing about my vagina as long as I could.
        Although I can’t find evidence of the etymology, I blame the Vagina Monologues for inspiring "Vagina Americans" and related jokes. A recent Daily Show sketch ridicules the idea that women would (or should or might) vote for someone just because she’s a woman, without considering other issues. As one commenter put it: "Please women, don’t be, as Samantha Bee called it, a Vagina-American. Vote for the best person, the one who is part of the party that you are loyal to. Don’t vote with your vagina."
         Some people use the phrase to chastise women who consider gender at all. I still have guys trying to get me to ’fess up that I wouldn’t have liked Hillary as much if she were a man, as if I should not have considered gender at all.
         (People don't talk about Penis Americans, or voting with the penis, nearly as much.)
          Jokes about Vagina Americans may imply that women have nothing in common other than vaginas. This is a corruption of feminist theory that questions the category of “woman.” I don’t believe that all women are essentially the same, not do I think we all have the same experiences. But I do think a lot of us share similar experiences. For me, shared experiences count for something, even though they may translate into different views and policies.
            The synecdoche of vagina = woman troubles me because, once again, it reduces women to a body part, and it assumes all women have that part. We don’t. In 2002, I was diagnosed with leiomyosarcoma, a rare cancer that arose in my vagina (although it can appear throughout the body). Most of my vagina was removed, along with my uterus and ovaries. Other women have had vaginas removed due to cancer. Who does or does not have a vagina also can be an issue for intersexed or transgendered people.
            I don’t mean to stifle all vaginal humor; I have quite a repertoire of jokes. I just wish people made fewer assumptions about what they have in common -- and how they differ.

|

Learn some history (by Suzie) 



          Writing in the NYT, Hannah Seligson says she never saw any gender bias until she got into the workplace. Now, she advises women to play the game like men. There's a lot to critique, but I just want to look at her first sentence:
I was born in 1982 — about 20 years after the women’s rights movement began.
         People make this mistake frequently, thinking that feminism was invented in the 1960s. But, for Goddess's sake, this is the New York Times! Where are the editors?
        The organized women's rights movement in the United States is generally considered to have begun in 1848, when a convention was held in Seneca Falls, NY. In July, the Women's Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls celebrated the convention's 160th anniversary. The park's web site has much information, including the story of Charlotte Woodward. She was a teenager when she signed the Declaration of Sentiments at the convention, and she was the only one who signed who lived to see the 19th Amendment passed in 1920. Stories like that remind me that I am in this struggle for the long term. 
       
|

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Odetta 






Love her voice.

|

Some Straight Talk, My Friends 



I borrowed that title from the Great Maverick, John McCain, the guy who is so extremely aware of women's issues that he ummed and ahhed through a video on health insurance not covering contraception because he quite clearly couldn't be bothered to have learned even one political soundbite on the issues. Or rather, he was put between the rock and the hard place by the questions because his wingnut puppet-masters don't like women to have any access to contraception but the mainstream voters think contraception is a good thing. What to say, my friends? Well, McCain said "errr" and rubbed his nose as you can see here:






That's not the straight talk bit, although McCain is not a feminist and never has been one. And neither is the Republican Party a party of women's rights. Goddess help me. Did I actually have to write that down? And is the sky now purple in this reality?

What got me going was this:

Quinn & Rose's Rose, whose co-host referred to NOW as the "National Organization for Whores," called Obama a "sexist pig"

Summary: On the Quinn & Rose radio show, co-host Rose Tennent claimed that Sen. Barack Obama's remark regarding Sen. John McCain's policies, "[Y]ou can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig," was directed at Gov. Sarah Palin. After saying she was "offended" and "appalled" by Obama's remark, Tennent stated, "You know what, you're a pig, you're a chauvinist pig is what you are, Barack." On previous shows, Tennent's co-host Jim Quinn introduced a segment about Sen. Hillary Clinton by playing the song "The Bitch Is Back" and referred to the National Organization for Women as the "National Organization for Whores."

Feminism is being used in this election campaign. It's a weapon, it's something to ridicule, it's a way of getting votes from both those who admire Osama bin Laden for his views on women and from disgruntled Hillary voters. Now you can become a feminist just by saying so or by calling someone a chauvinist pig (where did she find that expression? in some archeological dig?) You are a feminist now on just your say-so, even if behind you lies a career of bashing women and fighting against any rights for them. The Republican fundies are now feminists! Though just for the duration of this election campaign, that must be understood. Once the elections are over everything will return back to normality which means that the Republicans will hammer women who pop out of their allotted slots down with that large family-values hammer. And what will the Democrats do?

Here's the part where I go all straight talk. My view for a long time has been that choosing between the two parties on several grounds means choosing whether you want a terminal case of cancer (the Republicans) or a permanent case of mumps and measles (the Democrats). I choose the latter but I'm not necessarily happy with the choice and make it largely on the basis that real people will die and suffer because of that difference. Yes, the Democrats are better on the issues that I care about. No, the Democrats have no spines and far too often advertise themselves as the almost-Republicans. But other options don't truly exist in this two-party system. The Founding Guys made sure of that. They were astonishingly frightened of the power of the people, by the way.

So to me the Democratic Party is the better choice, because it might keep the world and this country going for a little longer. But I was not happy with what the Democratic primaries revealed to me about the sexism within that party. I was not happy to realize that I was suddenly (and unintentionally) making a mental list of people I knew on the net and in real life who suddenly came out as sexists with blood-dripping fangs. I was not happy to find some writers who had always come across feminist on that odd list in my head, and I was not happy to find so many women on that list. No. I wasn't happy. I felt like a mule had just kicked me in my guts and people told me not just to breathe but to smile and to support the party.

My first reaction to all this was enormous anger and bitterness. I had worked for these folks myself and now they ridiculed my cause and the group I belong to by birth. I chewed over that anger in private, because it didn't seem to me to be a suitable weapon for writing. It was personal anger, anger born out of my naivete and my unrealistic expectations, perhaps. Anger at how much more sexist this world was than I had hoped or thought.

It was also anger which set me apart from others in the feminist movement, from the way they saw the cause and the best means to forward the cause. Instead of writing about my anger I chose to try to understand those rifts, to write about the different ways we see the world and to try to sew together those rips in the fabric of the movement. Silly arrogant goddess that I am. It didn't work, of course, but it served to put my own anger into my tool kit as something that can be used for more fruitful writing. Like this piece.

The reason I wrote about my own anger is to explain that I understand the anger of those women who are disappointed in the Democratic Party and in the sexism that truly flowered like ragweed during the Democratic primaries. That anger is kept aflame by the continuing refusal of so many people to acknowledge the legitimacy of that anger, to acknowledge that people who feel like that are not just sore losers. Rather, to call women who have woken up to the sexism in their own party "sore losers" is just more of the same anger-causing belittlement.

Where I diverge from many with the same anger is in what to do about it. To vote for McCain/Palin would be a protest vote for someone who would have otherwise voted for a Democratic candidate, sure. But as Gloria Steinem said, it is also like deciding to amputate your legs because someone stole your shoes. Or like choosing cancer over mumps and measles. Or perhaps choosing things like that for other people. In any case, a protest vote of that kind will work only if many people do it and if it's clearly an organized movement with power behind it.

We don't have such an organized movement in large enough numbers right now, and if we had such a movement the Democratic party would listen to us more carefully and the open sexism of the primaries would not have happened in the same way. These are my reasons for thinking that the best response to the anger is to go back to the basics and to work more on feminism and the issues of sexism directly, and to go and work on the sexism among the progressives and liberals even more directly. But I'm not telling anyone else how to vote or how to act. I would if I could, of course, but I'm a goddess only on the net.
------
Make sure that you read Katha Pollitt's take on the Sarah Palin nomination and how it is playing out in the media conversations.

|

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Worth Reading 



Cathy G. writes about the criticism of Sarah Palin as a mother and the double standard of applying that measure for female politicians and not for male politicians. I have often wondered what would have been said about John Edwards' candidacy had his name been Jane Edwards but all the other facts had been unchanged: a very ill spouse, two small children at home and so on.

So I agree with Cathy's main point about the double standard perhaps gaining the Democrats something in the short run but most likely harming women in politics in the longer run. (In a purely theoretical sense it might be possible to practice a different kind of feminism where the double standards are acceptable. But that would be feasible only in a theoretically very different kind of world, one in which the power is held by mothers and grandmothers, and my thoughts on how such a feminism would look like are still embryos. Heh.)

|

On Lipstick. Sigh. 



Sometimes our political conversation is really stupid, and the lipstick thing is one of those. It started with Sarah Palin asking at the Republican convention what the difference between a hockey mom and pitbull might be. The answer was "lipstick".

That's quite funny, except that a religious wingnut guy wrote a book about the proper way to subjugate women with a version of that joke: "What's the difference between a Doberman pincher and a woman with PMS?" Answer: "Lipstick."

That's not quite so funny now, is it?

Now scroll forward to the present time and the discussion about Obama criticizing McCain's economic policies by calling them more of the same and by noting that if you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig:

"I'm assuming you guys heard this watching the news. I'm talking about John McCain's economic policies and I said here's more of the same, 'You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Suddenly, they say, `Oh you must be talking about the governor of Alaska!' "

As Atrios pointed out, McCain himself used the lipstick-on-a-pig comment in 2007:

McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's health-care plan, he said it was "eerily reminiscent" of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the early 1990s.

"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said of her proposal.

All kinds of people use that saying. It's just a saying. At the same time avoiding that particular saying at the present time would seem to be a good policy for the Obama campaign, just so that McCain doesn't get to grab the public conversation again. Maybe they should hire me to read through the speeches beforehand?

|

500 Billion Dollars 



Sadly, it's not how much I make out of this here blog. It's the predicted size of the federal budget deficit when the next president takes over the reins. Gee, I wonder who spent all that money in the last eight years and how? The spend-and-owe Republican administration. To actually pay for the spending in Iraq was not the done thing because it would mean more taxes.

If you read the article I linked to a little further you will find those she-said-he-said impartial statements which drive me crazy:

A deficit of that magnitude could severely constrain the next administration's agenda, regardless of whether Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the Republican candidate, or Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), his Democratic opponent, wins in November. Each has promised billions in new tax cuts or new spending.

Is it really true that there is no difference between the sizes of the deficits the two candidates would cause? No difference in how they'd spend the money, for what benefit and in what amounts?

I understand the point of that paragraph in an article which mainly discusses the meaning of the federal budget deficit. But the reader still goes away with the idea that it doesn't really matter which candidate gets elected, because they are both going to make the deficit worse.

|

The Animal House 



Working for the Bush administration has its perks for some:

Government officials handling billions of dollars in oil royalties engaged in illicit sex with employees of energy companies they were dealing with and received numerous gifts from them, federal investigators said Wednesday.

The alleged transgressions involve 13 Interior Department employees in Denver and Washington. Their alleged improprieties include rigging contracts, working part-time as private oil consultants, and having sexual relationships with — and accepting golf and ski trips and dinners from — oil company employees, according to three reports released Wednesday by the Interior Department's inspector general.

The investigations reveal a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" by a small group of individuals "wholly lacking in acceptance of or adherence to government ethical standards," wrote Inspector General Earl E. Devaney.

The reports describe a fraternity house atmosphere inside the Denver Minerals Management Service office responsible for marketing the oil and gas that energy companies barter to the government instead of making cash royalty payments for drilling on federal lands. The government received $4.3 billion in such Royalty-in-Kind payments last year. The oil is then resold to energy companies or put in the nation's emergency stockpile.

Between 2002 and 2006, nearly a third of the 55-person staff in the Denver office received gifts and gratuities from oil and gas companies, the investigators found.

Devaney said the former head of the Denver Royalty-in-Kind office, Gregory W. Smith, used illegal drugs and had sex with subordinates. The report said Smith also steered government contracts to a consulting business that was employing him part-time.

It has sex in it! It might have legs as a news story!

It does remind me of a frat house atmosphere. It's also a good approximate example of the incestuous relationship that the U.S. political system sometimes enables between the regulators and the regulated. The word "incestuous" is used to point out that often the people who work for the regulators end up working for the regulated and vice versa, sometimes even switching sides several times. This is not desirable if the objective is to keep the industry properly regulated. If the objective is to skim off the most money and sex, well, it works until you get caught.

This case is not quite the same as it's more about government marketing than regulation but the disadvantages of extreme closeness and poor oversight are pretty similar.

So how much did all this cost to us taxpayers?

|

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

What's This All About? 



The Blogger has a blog called womenagainstsarahpalin. Erin PDX noted that something odd was going on with the blog. I clicked on it and got first this page:

Possible Blogger Terms of Service Violations

This blog is currently under review due to possible Blogger Terms of Service violations.

If you're a regular reader of this blog and are confident that the content is appropriate, feel free to click "Proceed" to proceed to the blog. We apologize for the inconvenience.

If you're an author of this blog, please follow the instructions on your dashboard for removing this warning page.


What would those violations be? And who has complained about them? I'm confused.

|

John Tierney: A Martian. 



I used to write about John Tierney's sexism a lot but then the New York Times removed him from the political stable and put him in the science stable and I read him less often, partly because I pretended that he would somehow have less scope for sexism there. Yes, I knew better. After all, he specializes in pseudoscience findings which are all about how women are inherently the way he would like them to be. Or something like that.

Anyway, he has written a piece about sex differences which starts like this:

When men and women take personality tests, some of the old Mars-Venus stereotypes keep reappearing. On average, women are more cooperative, nurturing, cautious and emotionally responsive. Men tend to be more competitive, assertive, reckless and emotionally flat. Clear differences appear in early childhood and never disappear.

What's not clear is the origin of these differences. Evolutionary psychologists contend that these are innate traits inherited from ancient hunters and gatherers. Another school of psychologists asserts that both sexes' personalities have been shaped by traditional social roles, and that personality differences will shrink as women spend less time nurturing children and more time in jobs outside the home.

To test these hypotheses, a series of research teams have repeatedly analyzed personality tests taken by men and women in more than 60 countries around the world. For evolutionary psychologists, the bad news is that the size of the gender gap in personality varies among cultures. For social-role psychologists, the bad news is that the variation is going in the wrong direction. It looks as if personality differences between men and women are smaller in traditional cultures like India's or Zimbabwe's than in the Netherlands or the United States. A husband and a stay-at-home wife in a patriarchal Botswanan clan seem to be more alike than a working couple in Denmark or France. The more Venus and Mars have equal rights and similar jobs, the more their personalities seem to diverge.

These findings are so counterintuitive that some researchers have argued they must be because of cross-cultural problems with the personality tests. But after crunching new data from 40,000 men and women on six continents, David P. Schmitt and his colleagues conclude that the trends are real. Dr. Schmitt, a psychologist at Bradley University in Illinois and the director of the International Sexuality Description Project, suggests that as wealthy modern societies level external barriers between women and men, some ancient internal differences are being revived.

So a science piece can start with talking about the Men-Are-From-Mars idea, as if it was something serious science had produced and not a part of general pseudo-psychological pop literature? That's a great way to increase my trust in what's to come next.

Do you know how I think John Tierney writes his articles? I think that he begins with the conclusions he wishes to reach, the ones about inherent sex differences acquired in some mystical and unknown prehistoric era. Then he goes and digs in research files until he finds pieces which support his beliefs. Then he upends the whole thing and pretends that he first read the science pieces and then came up with his findings. Such innocence, such purity! Such honesty!

And why would I think so? Because his findings are always biased in one direction. David Brooks does something similar in his opinion pieces, or that's how they strike me.

The job of responding to such pieces is difficult, because ideally the responder should know the all of the relevant field. But people who actually work in those fields tend not to get rewarded (with tenure or pay raises in academia) for responding to biased popularizations of science or pseudo-science. Instead, some of the odd fields of research have created their own walled enclaves within which all people seem to have the same biases, and the rest of the scientist try to ignore what they are doing.

That leaves the discussion to few brave amateurs (cough) who mostly don't have enough time to be educated in all the research going on in all the different relevant fields.

All that prelude is to explain why I address Tierney's piece on this blog, and the reason is largely so that someone will address it. At the same time, I do not have the resources that someone who actually works in the field would have and, once again, I plead for the professionals to step in.

So here we go: Tierney's thesis is that the more gender-equal a society is the more men look like they are from Mars and the more women look like they are from Venus. Men are competitive, aggressive, emotionally flat, and women are cooperative, timid and emotionally curved I guess. Yet the reason for these differences is not our different planetary roots but our different roots in prehistory!

And that prehistory must have had a division of labor between men and women though we don't have any direct fossil evidence from it. And that division of labor must have meant that women gathered and men hunted though we don't know if that's actually the whole truth. And somehow gathering required cooperation and hunting did not though it's fairly easy to imagine how finding a really good spot for juicy roots would be something you'd keep hidden from the other gatherers and though it's also fairly easy to imagine how hunting for big game would actually require cooperation between the hunters.

In short, I fail to see how cooperation would have become the selected-for characteristic more often in women than in men, and I also fail to see how it wouldn't have benefited both sexes to be able to be both cooperative and competitive, depending on the situation. In any case, only a guy who keeps his distance from women altogether could assume that women are not intensely competitive when needed.

What about the research that Tierney uses to back up his conclusions? I need to read all of it and then I need to read alternative research on international comparisons and what that research finds and then I need to compare the methodologies of those studies and so on. See how rigged this game is?

|

Who Should Pay For Rape Kits? More On Palin and Feminism. 



In the year 2000 a little town in Alaska called Wasilla charged the rape victims for the cost of the kits used in collecting evidence so that the taxpayers wouldn't have to ante up. Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002.

Does this matter? Was it Palin's responsibility to know about the (to me atrocious) practice of charging rape victims for the forensic work? But this is the sort of news snippet that the conservatives use all the time: picking up news snippets and forming them into albatrosses to drape over Democrats in politics.

More importantly, this item also tells me that Palin isn't keeping an eye out for other women and most likely would not support feminist policies in general. Well, I know the latter from just reading about her ideas in general.

Are there any feminist benefits from having Palin as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate? Perhaps. Even Margaret Thatcher brought some such benefits with her reign, because people got used to the idea of a woman in power and that may have changed some prejudices. At the same time, a different woman might not have stated that she owes nothing to feminists (when she owed the very right to run for office to them not to mention the right to vote herself) and a different woman would not have created a cabinet in which she was the only female member. A different woman might have changed the society for the better in more obvious ways, too.

But having more woman-friendly policies is not a benefit I expect from Palin in the White House or near it, rather the reverse. She would not revoke the Global Gag Rule. She would not fight for reproductive choice. She would not keep the Supreme Court from becoming a permanent extreme right wing of the Republican Party, with all that means to the rights of women and people in general.

|

Tell Me How To Herd Cats 



I've heard that trying to get liberals/progressives organized behind one large concept is like trying to herd cats. But we need some way of doing that, because we have no message discipline on the left side of the aisle, no way of making sure that the day's talking points are actually talked about.

The conservatives do that all the time, and naturally the way they do it is jack-booted and unpleasant to watch. But it works, just as repetition and focusing on only a few items at a time works at school. We, my dear friends, are all over the place and this makes us less efficient.

It's not at all necessary or desirable to go to the ugly other opposite end, but it would be nice if the liberal/progressive side had more think tanks and more jobs with money for people who are good at making liberal/progressive points. It would be nice if there were more pulpits for liberals and progressives, pulpits which actually can be seen above the roar of Republican soundbites. It would not only be nice; it would be very important. And Rachel Maddow is great, but she doesn't have to be the only liberal political pundit with her own television show, you know.

I was thinking these thoughts when reading the opinion columns in some newspapers today. When something truly silly or disgusting crops up we appear to have no mechanism for answering that. None.

All this goes tenfold for feminists. Whenever women are attacked with some spurious pseudoscience, for example, we should have an organization which can quickly get hold of people who can respond. We don't have those organizations.

|

For Your Reading Pleasure 



Bob Herbert is very good on the liberals' fear of fighting for their cause.

|

Monday, September 08, 2008

Mood: Irritated 



I'm not happy with the political chatter these days, because it is orchestrated by the Republicans. What is it about the Democrats which makes it so hard for them to pick their own topics for discussion? And yes, I'm including myself in that criticism.

Not sure. But there's something odd about the so-called liberal media which doesn't allow any actual liberals in its programs, never mind actual left-wingers. And there's something odd about the way wingnut soundbites become the topic of conversation in the media even if they're nasty and pointless and have nothing to do with the politicians they are used to attack. Yet the reverse appears not to happen. Just compare the attention Obama's minister got and the attention Palin's church and its rather weird policies get. Or rather don't get. It should be easier for the media to discuss Palin's religious views, too, given that she thinks God is her personal political backer.

We're all supposed to view the election of the president of the still-strongest country in the world as a soap opera. We're supposed to rate the people on such bases as whether we'd like to have a beer with them or whether we rate them as fuckable or whether they make us feel good because they are as ignorant or as stupid as we are.

It's all theater or ballet, and the only criticism one is allowed to make is about the performance of the players, not what they'd actually do when in power. If you try to discuss that latter bit (of some importance, really) then you are very very boring.

Four. More. Years.

|

My Suggestion For The Republican Election Slogan 



McCain is trying to steal Obama's message of change with no change in any of the policies he advocates. We should steal the old Republican slogan:


FOUR MORE YEARS!


And remind the voters that this is exactly what would happen with McCain in the White House. Four more years of the bog of pointless and killing wars. Four more years of bad economy, jobs slipping abroad while voters are told they are whiners. Four more years of increasing theocracy of the kind Osama bin Laden would love to have. Four more years of diminishment, downfall, destruction and disease for this great country.

|

Too Opinionated 



Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are too opinionated for NBC. Glenn Greenwald notes that "opinionated" never hurt a Republican yet:

This has been going on for years. As I wrote in response to the uproar generated at places like The New Republic over the fact that MSNBC has now given an actual liberal, Rachel Maddow, her own show and is thereby jeopardizing non-partisan, objective, high-minded journalism:

Over the past seven years, the following people have hosted prime-time cable news shows: Joe Scarborough (MSNBC), Michael Savage (MSNBC), Glenn Beck (CNN), Tucker Carlson (MSNBC), Nancy Grace (CNN), Bill O'Reilly (Fox) and Sean Hannity (Fox). None of that seemed to bother the likes of [TNR's Sacha] Zimmerman. None of that was depicted as the downfall of objective journalism or the destruction of civil, elevated, high-minded discourse.

Several of those hosts had and continue to have atrocious ratings (Carlson, Beck, Scarborough), yet were kept for years.

Beyond that, network and cable shows routinely convene panels filled with right-wing views and devoid of anything remotely approaching liberalism, and that creates no controversy.

Not that Chris Matthews is especially liberal. But I find the power of the conservatives over the media astonishing. However much we wrote about Matthews' misogyny in his coverage of women in politics, all we got was a quasi-apology. The wingnuts get him for their dinner.

|

Sunday, September 07, 2008

"Girl fight!" (by Suzie) 



           Ugh. That's the headline on a CNN commentary about the Obama campaign using Clinton to fight Palin.
McCain has a strong woman? Well, the Obama campaign wants voters to know they’ve got one, too, and they’re going to deploy her to crush the moose hunting hockey mom from Alaska. In a strange twist of logic, the Obama campaign is touting the woman they passed over as the woman they need to beat the woman the other guy picked. 
          Clinton is speaking on behalf of Obama in my town tomorrow, but I'm not going. I'm hiding under the bed until the election and the hurricane season are over.

|

As The Fall Campaign Continues, Candidates Have To Get Votes Where They Can, Voters Force Them To Make Those Decisions by Anthony McCarthy 

A lot has been made about the selection of Sarah Palin theoretically attracting self-defined diehard supporters of Hillary Clinton to vote for everything Clinton stands against and against everything she stands for. How can that latter assumption be anything but ingrained sexist stereotyping, an insult to the reasoning ability and seriousness of women who voted for her? Isn’t it a manifestation of the exact complaint continually repeated against the Obama campaign? I doubt these Clinton -> McCain-Palin voters are anywhere near as great in number as the media push-polls state. But I’ll resist the temptation to go into the fraud of opinion polling again. Quite frankly, after hearing them out and thinking about what they’re saying, I don’t think anything can be said to appeal to anyone holding that position now, in September of 2008. If anyone can tell us what Obama can say to them to get their votes it might be useful.

But voter blocks don’t exist in a vacuum. Other groups are also out there and can be won over. There is also an important opportunity for the Obama campaign in Sarah Palin’s extremism and McCain’s cynical use of her. A lot of marginal supporters among Republicans can be appealed to by the Obama campaign on the basis of the real dangers a very possible Palin administration. The idea that pro-justice, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-healthcare, pro-economic sanity voters of any party affiliation would just fall in line and vote for McCain-Palin is just as strange as the speculation that Hillary Clinton’s former supporters would vote against her enthusiastically endorsed candidate this fall, in favor of her political enemies*.

As the election grows closer candidates will have to cut their losses as well as go for blocks of possible voters. They have to do that, they can’t spend time on people who aren’t going to vote for them. If you lose one group you have to look for votes from another group. Being intransigent cuts you out of consideration. Obama’s best hope for countering the cynical Palin gambit is by appealing to moderate independents and even Republicans who can be persuaded of the clear dangers of having her as McCain’s Vice President. Their possible support in November, when it counts, puts them in play. McCain might have made winning them to his side much more difficult when he tied his political fate to Palin.

Obama will be forced to put his attention where he might get votes. Groups that remove themselves from play in September will find themselves out of the focus of the campaigns. That is the way that electoral government works.

* It is well known that John McCain repeatedly told what passes as a joke in the Republican right during the 1990s, to the effect that Chelsea Clinton was so ugly because Janet Reno was her father. Many people have reported hearing him say it. McCain has certainly shown no respect to Hillary Clinton except when it’s convenient for him. His support for women's rights is, likewise, a matter of his political convenience. Palin dismissed just the complaints that those angry at Obama are giving as their reason to support the Republican ticket as “whining” and playing the female card.

By the way, I’d put Chelsea Clinton up against any combination of right wing Republican political brats any day. She’s better than all of them put together. That’s what counts.

Update: Response to an item just found in my hate mail file. No, I’m not going to going down the bottomless pit of competitive correctness here.

I’ll just say that Chelsea Clinton shows early promise of sharing many of the same qualities that made Eleanor Roosevelt among the most beautiful people of any time.
|

Recap by Anthony McCarthy 

McCain’s Palin gamble benefits from his age and health problems. It’s appeal is based on the fact that her voters, the James Dobson allies and fans, will be hoping for him to kick the bucket as soon as possible after they’re sworn in. Short of dying, their bet would also pay off if McCain remains alive but in bad enough health for him to not be able to stay in office. Between the two of those possibilities, their gamble takes on even better odds. His age and health are some of the most obvious issues in his biography. There is no way that his campaign couldn’t have realized the part they’d play in this choice and its appeal to voters who weren’t enthusiastic supporters of McCain.

The good chance that he’ll not remain in office is an intrinsic part of the appeal to the Republican far-right who are the real target audience of the Palin selection. Those guys don’t want McCain, a lot of them would have stayed home on election day. Their gamble is that McCain WON’T remain in office for the next four years. They are also counting on at least the two or three Supreme Court vacancies which are all but certain in the next four years being filled by one of their own.

That makes his age and health a far greater issue than it was in the beginning. The attempts to put those topics off-limit by his campaign and the media are part of an attempt to put the most radically right-wing person in the presidency since the 19th century.

This is the most cynical presidential campaign gambit in our history. One whose chances are enhanced by the probability of the presidential candidate dying in office. This, friends, is what the death of democracy looks like, I thought it was worth saying again.
|

Saturday, September 06, 2008

Can’t think of a more profound statement of loneliness than

Abbey Lincoln singing Left Alone.

Words by Billie Holiday, composition by Mal Waldron who plays piano in the recording. Arrangement by Julian Priester.

posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

How The Republican Far-Right Is Meant To See The Palin Choice by Anthony McCarthy 

Largely unasked is the question of how the people McCain sought to win by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate really think about her choice. The stupid cabloid style blather about winning over Hillary Clinton’s supporters is only useful to show how useless those guys are. No one with a functioning brain would vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries and then vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. People that clueless wouldn’t have supported Clinton in large enough numbers to begin with. The real reason he chose Palin was to call out the Republican far-right who showed signs of staying home on election day. Republicans can’t win an election without their support and they could be counted on to not want McCain to win this election. The only way he could get them to come out in large numbers next November is by selling them someone who they would want to see as president.

But to win them, McCain fundamentally betrayed the fabled “moderate” Republicans who are supposed to constitute his voter base. It’s a bait and switch gamble that only pays off for McCain’s moderate supporters if he serves out his term. In choosing Palin, McCain gives away the charade the “moderate” Republican politician really plays.

Stated or not, the extreme right, the real audience intended to be won over by the Palin choice, will be eagerly anticipating her becoming president at the earliest possible date. They will be looking for her to have influence even while McCain is in office. The cynicism of choosing someone at odds with his one-time positions on major issues for the purpose of getting in the Oval Office could be among the most irresponsible actions ever taken by the presidential candidate of a major party. It is similar to Nader’s final gift to the American People. You don’t have to wonder how sincerely McCain holds his legacy as a “maverick” because if he’s elected, those allegedly bold positions in opposition to his party will be about the mootest point imaginable.

The line that bringing up John McCain’s age is unfair, heard on even the most unlikely venue on TV last night, is dead wrong. It was always a legitimate point to bring up because John McCain is old, the oldest presidential candidate nominated by one of the two major parties. Being 72 simply by itself renders a man at greater risk of dying in the near future. That’s one of the less pleasant aspects of getting old. Not everyone makes it to 77, a significant percentage of the population don’t. Added to that is that he has had serious health problems, recurrent cancer. His age takes on added significance due to that, bringing it up is a perfectly legitimate issue. It is one of the facts that makes his tactic of using Palin to catch the far-right vote work.

McCain, himself added to the need to bring up his age when he chose a Vice Presidential candidate who is far different from himself on many important issues, or at least from the McCain who used to exist. A presidential term is a fixed four years. If McCain wasn’t able to finish out his term a new election can’t be called, his understudy will be president. McCain’s choice was to give a person from the quite far-right the greatest boost someone from that extreme has ever been given. There is every reason to expect that Sarah Palin could become the President of the United States at any point in the four years. Having a quite old man with far less than excellent health the only thing preventing that is a legitimate issue in the campaign this fall.

You can well imagine that if he is elected John McCain will immediately join the less rabidly right wing members of the Supreme Court on the list of those whose deaths are fervently prayed for by the far right. We know the list exists, they’ve openly talked about it on TV.
|

Friday, September 05, 2008

Moose Roots? 



The title of a hagiographic piece on Sarah Palin in the Los Angeles Times refers to her moose roots. Imagine that. Your roots are in mooses (meese?) if you like to kill them with a gun that shoots bullets from a great distance. That's not exactly brave, mind you. I'd love to see an angry moose in an arena with an unarmed hunter, to even the odds. I also think that anyone killing moose should also eat the catch. Hunting for food is one thing, hunting for the pleasure of killing creatures is a completely different thing.

I share with Palin the moose roots, I guess, except for the killing bit. When I was a tiny goddess I used to watch the moose families on summer evenings, slowly making their way from one site in the forests to another site, the path requiring them to cross our vegetable garden. The size of the adults impressed me and the silly legs of the coltish calves made me laugh. I was always told to respect the moose and not to approach them. Not even to shoot them from a great distance.

One summer I was looking for wild blueberries in the woods and came upon a moose cemetery in a deep and shaded notch where the silence was dark and eerie. There they rested, gigantic moose skeletons, side by side, the most recent dead still with some brown skin on them. The antlers rose into the air like some prehistoric plants. I held my breath for quite a while, just as one would when coming across something holy or sacred. That's moose roots for you.




|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

This is my friend Greg Fight's cat, Peanut. Greg, a photographer, says: "He's a couch cat, stays indoors. He is very smart but naughty. He knows the rules but can't help but break them." He says the spots on Peanuts' nose started when he was a kitty.
|

Daddy in blackface (by Suzie) 



          The son of Jewish immigrants, my father grew up poor in a multicultural, multiracial neighborhood where people joked about ethnicity and traded insults. He boxed at a black gym where some African Americans joked that he was darker than them. For a while, he commanded black troops in World War II. He ended up living in the South, and he supported civil rights.
          For the first part of his life, before Jews became white, he was neither white nor black, but fell elsewhere in our crazy taxonomy of race. When Alzheimer’s took away what little impulse control he had, he would blurt out to black people how much he liked black people while my sister and I cringed.
           A bass baritone, Daddy had performed in community theater, and loved Gilbert and Sullivan. He sang along with a CD of “The Mikado” as my sister drove him to a nursing home, never to see him again. We had taken care of him until his medical problems outstripped our abilities. He didn’t live much longer.
           Daddy had admired Paul Robeson, and he loved “Ol’ Man River.” Once, when he sang it in a talent show, he blackened his face and dressed like the dock worker in “Showboat.” To him, he was dressing in costume just as he might for another role. He thought the song was a testament to the perseverance of oppressed people. He thought singing in dialect made it more authentic.
            In a family album, Daddy proudly put a photo of himself singing at the talent show. In blackface.
           My sister and I finally convinced him that it didn’t matter what his intention was; what mattered was how people perceived his performance. We convinced him that he would offend and anger black people if he continued to sing the song in dialect or if he ever wore blackface again.
          I’ve left the photo in the album as a reminder of the complexity of the history of race. And I still know all the words to “Ol’ Man River.” 

|

Racism, sexism and drag (by Suzie) 



          You may have read about Charles Knipp, a white drag comedian who portrays a black woman. Critics have accused him of furthering stereotypes, and Jasmyne Cannick started a petition to ban blackface performances that mock African Americans.
          I don’t favor banning such performances; I don’t even know how that could be done under the First Amendment. But I fail to see how he's fighting racism or being subversive, as he claims. For more information, see what Sheelzebub posted.
         Those defending Knipp include RuPaul, Margaret Cho and Robert Simmons, who says:
The premise being tested is one that says a person
of a certain culture cannot make fun of another culture -- one can only
make fun of a culture if one happens to be OF that culture. That is:
Larry David can make fun of Jews because he IS a Jew, but if Dave
Chappelle makes fun of Jews, then he is ‘racist’. Or, if a hetero
makes fun of gays then he is a homophobe, but if Rosie O’Donnell does 
it, it is ok. Ditto for Margaret Cho re: Koreans, etc.
          I’m so tired of humor that reinforces stereotypes, no matter who's doing it. But more power to anyone who can use humor to subvert stereotypes. For example, Robert Downey Jr. portrays a black man in the new movie "Tropic Thunder." I haven't seen it, but it has gotten a different reception than Knipp because the movie is supposed to be mocking white actors who portray blacks. (Consider this post from Racialicious.)
           In addition to Knipp, Cannick has criticized black men who portray black women in offensive ways, such as Eddie Murphy in the movie “Norbit” and Martin Lawrence in “Big Momma’s House.” Another example is Gina McCauley's criticism of BET shows that demean women.
Moya Bailey, a graduate fellow in women's studies at Emory University, shares Cannick's concern about the extent to which much of the negative media about black women is produced by black artists and executives. 
         I would extend this criticism to all men who promote negative images of women. But let's return to the more specific topic of men dressing as women to get a laugh. Much as I loved “Monty Python,” for example, I was uncomfortable with men making fun of women, especially ones deemed uneducated, older and unattractive. Isn’t this similar to what Knipp is doing?
           Among progressives, it's unacceptable for a white to show up at a costume party in blackface. But think of all the costume parties in which a man, especially a big, hairy one, has clomped around in high heels, with bouffant hair and enormous breasts.
          This brings me back to drag shows. First, let me say that I understand that some people who grow up as men believe they are women and want to dress as women. I understand that some men choose to subvert gender roles by wearing clothing associated with women. I understand that some men get a sexual charge from wearing women’s clothing. But I want to address gay men who dress as women for the entertainment of others.
        Some argue that drag shows are a form of cultural expression for an oppressed group. But so was minstrelsy for a lot of Jewish men.
         Some argue that many drag queens celebrate women, not put them down. But some blackface performers admired aspects of African Americans. In a previous comment on “the American history of blackface minstrelsy,” Martha Bridegam said: “It's old news that racism coexists intimately with feelings of love and jealousy for the Other."
           Even when people have good intentions, their acts can reinforce stereotypes. In minstrelsy, whites took the stories, the voices, even the chances on stage, of black people. Men have done the same to women for centuries.
            Some people think drag subverts gender by bringing its performativity into the open. But parody works only if people get it. A straight man at a drag show does not necessarily think: “If that man can look and act like a woman, then that means my girlfriend and I are just performing gender.” Or: “It’s ridiculous that women have to wear makeup, heels and these ridiculous clothes to perform their gender.” More likely, he thinks the drag queen is not a real woman, but his girlfriend is, and there’s nothing wrong or funny when she dresses up. In other words, he sees only the drag queen as performing. 
           That's one reason why some people accuse a woman who they don't consider attractive or feminine enough to be in drag. For example, Camille Paglia called Hillary Clinton a drag queen. Ditto for Kathleen Harris.
           This reminds me of the New Yorker cover of the Obamas. It’s satire to people who understand that Barack and Michelle are not terrorists. For others, however, the image reinforces stereotypes.
          Esther Godfrey writes that drag and minstrelsy can both reinforce and subvert stereotypes. But she theorizes that people find minstrelsy more offensive because white men (and it’s almost always men) who put on blackface don’t want to be black. After their performance, they return to their former state of privilege. They see black men as oppressed, but they generally don’t put on blackface to fight that oppression. In contrast, she says, many gay men who perform drag long to be women, and some make the transition. They see women as holding power. When not performing, they don’t get to return to privilege. They face discrimination for being gay.
         But her reasoning focuses on the performers and their attitudes, not the effect of their performance on others. As Kelly Kleiman says:
In discussing drag, we talk about challenging the audience’s conception of gender, or recovering the male performer’s sense of the feminine. But what about those of us being impersonated?
          (Here's a more scholarly version of the same article.)

|

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Meanwhile, on the Democratic Side 



The Obama campaign has received ten million dollars in donations in the day following Palin's speech. Noice.

|

Sarah Palin And Feminists: Where Echidne Puts Her Snake Tail In Her Mouth 



This will not end well, I swear, because I'm going to go down some scary and dark alleyways in this post while throwing out half-digested thoughts. But some posts need to be written and this is one of them.

Without further ado, let us begin by noting what Rudy Giuliani said about the treatment Sarah Palin has gotten from the media:

One final point.

How dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time with her family and to be Vice-President. How dare they do that?

When did they ever ask a man that question?

I never thought I'd live to see the day when Rudy Giuliani becomes a member of the National Organization for Women (so very recently as today called "the National Organization of Whores" by a right-wing pundit), and I'm naturally overjoyed and very happy and all ready to vote Republican forevermore (except that goddesses can't vote). But. I somehow sense that Giuliani might not in fact have seen the sudden and piercing light of feminism at all. He might just be using Republican political tactics here. Especially given that "the National Organization of Whores" is more like what I usually hear from the wingnuts.

Maybe Rudy has been reading my blog where I often muse about such gender reversals as the one he proposes? Nah. Rudy is playing political games here.

How do I know that? First, the Republican Party has always consistently opposed every single thing that would give mothers more space to have both children and jobs or careers. Every single thing, from trying to stop them from having parental leave to fighting against any kind of childcare in programs intended to get people out of poverty.

Second, the Republican Party has always consistently opposed every single thing that would make the labor markets a more even playing ground for women, starting from the Equal Pay Act of 1963, continuing with the Civil Rights Act which bans discrimination in hiring and promotions (Title VII) and extending to the Civil Rights Act which banned sex discrimination in educational institutions (Title IX). All these things the Republicans have opposed and still fervently oppose.

Third, the Republican base consists of two largish groups of people who do not believe in women's equality at all. The first group is the fundamentalist right-wing Christians, the people beautifully represented by the Southern Baptist Convention which in 2000 stated these principles about the role of women:

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.


While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

The bolds are mine, to make it easier for you to see how some Republicans are not that eager to see women have the rights to work outside the home. In general the theocratic part of the Republican base is not only anti-abortion, it is also very much against women's equality in general.

Let us take a small break here and remember that when Rudy was telling people to do a gender reversal about Palin, he was speaking in a room with lots of right-wing theocrats. Kinda funny, in a dark and twisted way. Or it would be if I didn't let myself get angry about it all.

The second part of the Republican base is not that socially conservative in the usual sense of the term, true, but many of them just love the facile explanations of the trumped-up type of evolutionary psychology (the one I usually call Evolutionary Psychology to distinguish it from real research) which tells them that women's inferiority is not God-given but acquired in those long-gone times of prehistory, causing today's women to be really good at coyness and shopping and really bad at most everything else, including driving, map-reading and careers.

Whether we look at the Dominionist Christian base or the Evo-Psycho base of the Republican Party, we come up with the same conclusions: Don't do anything at all to help women lead better lives. Either God doesn't want that or our genes don't want that. It is important to keep all this in mind when evaluating Giuliani's comment, because he gave the speech as a representative of those groups.

For all these reasons I'm not that hyped up by Rudy's sudden turning into a feminist. I don't trust him and I don't trust his party. The old saying about walking the walk and not just talking the talk applies here. (And no, a few Republican token working women is not the same as freedom and equality for all women, especially if those same women have a platform of nothing but anti-women measures and plans.)

Still, many in the media and on the blogs (even progressive ones) have picked up that still-blood-caked cudgel that was used on Hillary Clinton's noggin, the one which is all about "naked political ambition" (only a problem for women), about the bitch from hell (naturally also only a problem for women) and about the Cunt (some mythical walking vagina with fangs which threaten all honest men and women). That Clinton and Palin are two very different women seems to go unnoticed by those who use these insults, and it is this fact which makes their use sexist in my mind. They are being whipped with the same whip even though their political ideals are almost total opposites. This suggests that they are being whipped for the crime of being women in politics.

I have some sympathy for people who try to find creative and nonsexist ways of swearing at Sarah Palin because she sure does deserve some strong criticism. But it would be very nice if the rest of us uppity wimminfolk were not attacked whenever either Clinton or Palin or some other assertive woman is attacked. It is even a good political strategy not to anger a large group of voting women.
-----
Now read Gloria Steinem on Palin and feminism.

|

This Is Silly 






(This picture from my files is intended to express my emotions about the post.)


I was reading the Giuliani speech at the Republican convention again and noticed his summary of what McCain will do if elected as president:

John McCain will bring about the change that will create jobs and prosperity…let's talk specifics…John McCain will lower taxes so our economy can grow. He will reduce government spending to strengthen our dollar. He will expand free trade so we can be even more competitive. He will lead us to energy independence so we can be free of foreign oil. And he'll do it with an all-of-the-above approach, including nuclear power and off-shore drilling.

[ chants of "Drill, baby, drill"]

Giuliani laughs as the audience chants.

This and a lot more is the kind of change we need…

John McCain will keep us on offense against terrorism at home and abroad. For 4 days in Denver the Democrats were afraid to use the words Islamic terrorism. i believe they think that it is politically incorrect to say it…please tell me who they are insulting if they say Islamic terrorism. They are insulting terrorists. A great concern for me, they rarely mentioned the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

There's not much "change" in that list as promises go, because George Bush has been promising all those same things for the last eight years. Of course fighting preemptive wars doesn't really go with making the government smaller or with lowering taxes to the super-rich even more. It just doesn't. Giuliani made McCain sound just like the McSame he has been called on some blogs.

Then that jab about the reluctance of Democrats to use the term Islamic terrorism. I'm sort of glad that Giuliani made that point, because from now on I can freely and openly call the terrorist acts against abortion clinics Christian terrorism and nobody will be insulted except the Christian terrorists themselves, right?

|

How We Can Fight The Clueless Boys Of The Blogs by Anthony McCarthy. 

In the epidemic of their corruption and cynicism, the art of Republican political inoculation has built up a more than sufficient case file to come to some useful conclusions. By now we should know the early warning signs that the needle is about to be stuck in by the corporate media. The political inoculation is done using a weakened or dead organism, just like medical inoculation. In about the only failure of the metaphor , in the case of political inoculation, the disease goes on to ravage the body politic and the world at large.

The inoculation will often be done using a sex story on the margins of a wider pattern of corruption or garden variety hypocrisy. The corporate media will go for the flimsiest, most irrelevant, part of the rumors and use that to distract and put aside the really dangerous parts of a truly dangerous pathology. The Iseman scandal for McCain is one of those, the rumors surrounding the pregnancies of Sarah Palin and her daughter are the current ones. Sex is always good for a distraction to start with and our sex addled media loves to talk thingy. It doesn’t help that you just know sex is going to get the bottom of the blogosphere going as well. If talkin’ tail wasn’t possible in our media, Chris Matthews and most of his guest list would be entirely unknown.

Instead of being the thorn in the side of the corrupt Republican establishment, many liberalish blogs are becoming a part of the Crooked Red Cross campaign of innoculation. No matter what part of the blogosphere you’re talking about, someone, a blogger or their comment threads can be counted on to run with a sex rumor. The Republicans just harvest the stuff, attribute it to Democratic or angry liberal bloggers and use it to cover up mountains of corruption and incompetence. They do it over and over again. I don’t think there is much we can do to keep he boys, mostly, from playing their reliable part in that self-defeating game. Even if every single person left of the zero coordinate could be stopped from doing this, some Republican trolls would do it on our blogs.

But sex, unless it is part of an actual crime against a minor or a non-consenting adult, should never be used against Republicans because they are the beneficiaries of the second most enduring of sexual double standards. What will get a Democrat a tabooed as a tramp, will be presented as a badge of honor among Republicans.

Maybe our best hope is the in the fact that it’s mostly the media who are obsessed with sex scandals. When Clinton’s private adultery was being shoved down the nation’s collective throat, non-stop for years, The People took the news in a markedly more adult way than the media or the Republicans wanted us to. It was the hypocrites in the establishment who were disappointed that their smear campaign didn’t do what it was meant to do. We are in the interesting position where The People are generally a lot more sensible than they are hoped to be in the oligarchic imagination. That’s what we’ve got to work with.

Concentrate your fire on John McCain’s hypocrisy in promoting inexperience and extremism. Concentrate on his cynicism and Rovian gambit. Concentrate on Palin’s corruption in office, her ties to extremist and dangerous far right groups and individuals. Concentrate on her being in the thick of the massive give-aways of Republican misrule and you will appeal to the adults among the electorate. Tell the boys on the blogs deploying the “c” word that they’re Republican tools, because that’s what they are.
|

The Party Of Hate 



Really. That's what I got as the message of yesterday's speeches at the RNC, though the final message seemed a bit more complicated: First, be proud of America. Second, hate around half of all Americans openly (and probably more than that in secret).

Compared to those speeches the DNC speeches were homilies to McCain and company.

It reminds me of the 1992 Republican Convention.

|

I've been Sarah-Palinized 



Meaning that I watched her speech. This shows how heroic a blogger may have to be, sometimes.

Here are my first impressions:

Clean coal? CLEAN COAL? We gonna get loads of jobs mining for clean coal. Sure.

In general, she wants to turn the state of Alaska into an oil refinery, to serve the needs of just one single generation of Americans. It's all most short-sighted and about the few winners in the game.

She's also gonna charge hardly any taxes from the super-rich, even though she's firmly planning to continue the very expensive Iraq adventure. How are we going to fund it, then? Borrowing? Is that good fiscal discipline? And she really doesn't like those death taxes, a Republican name for estate taxes which apply to less than one percent of all Americans. But I guess the room in which the speech was given was full of the people who can't sleep because of fearing estate taxes.

Then Palin went on attack, telling us how very much better John McCain was than Barack Obama, because he was a POW and was tortured. Lots of people in Guantanamo Bay will be surprised to hear that they, too, are now presidential material.

OK, that was mean of me. But nowhere as mean as the tone of the Republican speeches tonight. The Republican Party seems to have decided to run as the Party Of The Mean.

|

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

My Short Summary On Sarah Palin 



She is to the right of Attila the Hun. That's all you need to know about her.

In any case, none of the readers of this blog think that we need more of the kind of change that George Bush started, the kind which consists of driving the train called the U.S. of A. straight into that deep chasm of no-return. But that's exactly the kind of "change" John McCain and Sarah Palin advocate: More of the same destruction, only a lot faster. Mavericky enough for you?

And was I the only person who noticed that the cheering at the RNC sounded very different from the DNC? Check out the differences.

|

Fashion Photography 



The New York Times discusses a photo spread in a recent Vogue India and how it was created:

NEW DELHI — An old woman missing her upper front teeth holds a child in rumpled clothes — who is wearing a Fendi bib (retail price, about $100).

A family of three squeezes onto a motorbike for their daily commute, the mother riding without a helmet and sidesaddle in the traditional Indian way — except that she has a Hermès Birkin bag (usually more than $10,000, if you can find one) prominently displayed on her wrist.

Elsewhere, a toothless barefoot man holds a Burberry umbrella (about $200).

Welcome to the new India — at least as Vogue sees it.

Vogue India's August issue presented a 16-page vision of supple handbags, bejeweled clutches and status-symbol umbrellas, modeled not by runway stars or the wealthiest fraction of Indian society who can actually afford these accessories, but by average Indian people.

Perhaps not surprisingly, not everyone in India was amused.

Mmm. Imagine a restaurant chain doing a photo spread about the starving of the world eating their steak-with-barely-bruised-gooseberries, not to feed the poor but to sell the food to the wealthy. I can see why some might not be amused when the people in the photos are never going to be able to afford the advertised products. Besides, I doubt that the poor fashion models were allowed to keep that expensive bib or that Burberry umbrella, though I may be wrong.

But take a step deeper: Is all this super-consumption perfectly OK if the photos don't show any of the poor who can't afford the products? I'm entering into the ouch-territory here and should probably not go any further lest this post becomes a long treatise on global capitalism and the like.

Instead, I will note that fashion photo shoots have a long tradition of using "exotic" poor people as a colorful and artistic background for the pictures. The emotions that evokes are every bit as difficult and unpleasant as the ones discussed in the New York Times piece. Or have been for me at least.

|

Just Like The Good Ole Times 



When I read this story about a girl being told she can't be a kicker on the football team because she is a girl I felt a wind from the distant past. Ah, those wonderful serene days with eternal sunshine when men were men and women were women and girls didn't play football! All you needed to do then was to point out that a player was a girl and that was enough to keep her off the team.

It still might be, of course.

|

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Today's Grumpy Thought 



Did you know that Sarah Palin is "a mother from hell?" If there is such a thing as "a father from hell" it doesn't appear to be Mr. Palin. Because even on liberal blogs it's the women who are responsible for the families, not the men.

|

Today's Cootie Award 






Goes to William Saletan! He's tried for one for years and now he gets it. For this wonderful piece about the possible pregnancies of the daughters of U.S. presidents and vice-presidents:

Is Sarah Palin the first nominee on a major-party presidential ticket whose daughter got pregnant out of wedlock? Or is she just the first whose daughter didn't get an abortion?

That's how he begins the piece, by tasting his big toe. Then he decided to stuff the whole foot in his mouth by listing all the daughters of the right age but not yet married who just could have become pregnant during their daddies' reigns. He even adds fertility statistics as a sauce to make his foot taste better.

The piece ends with this:

If any of these daughters conceived, but no pregnancy or birth was reported, what happened? One possibility is miscarriage. But the Guttmacher analysis suggests a different answer: Most unintended pregnancies in the higher income and education brackets end in abortion.

Remember that before you judge or poke fun at Sarah Palin. She's not the candidate whose daughter messed up. She's the candidate who didn't get rid of the mess.

And what is the award for, you may ask if you are rather oblivious. Well, if you wouldn't give one for the way private people (the daughters of past presidents and vice-presidents) are dragged into the Saletan limelight here and subjected to his wondering about their sex lives maybe you would give one for Saletan not caring about the sons of American presidents and vice-presidents and what they might have done with their penises during some crucial times.

The human race doesn't increase by division or multiplication, William, and you are a sexist who deserves the highest cootie award with slime ribbons.

|

Do You Have What It Takes? 







Do you have what it takes to be a famous photographer? If so, do participate in this competition I saw advertised on a website with that same headline.

But what if you actually would be a genius photographer but have no self-confidence? What happens then? Or what if you have higher standards about your work than the competition has about their work? What if you decide that you are not good enough to participate in that competition or any other competition? You will go to your grave with your talents unused.

This question matters for feminists, because there are studies which suggest that women, on average, have less confidence in their ability and more rigorous standards about what makes their work good, that women submit fewer manuscripts in academia than men, though often very good manuscripts, and that women also submit fewer opinion pieces in political writing and so on. It's not possible to measure the prevalence of this problem and a good study about it would be very welcome. But perhaps it's time to discuss this question and also the headline of this article.

When I started graduate school, a professor told us students: "Look to your right. Look to your left. Only one of you three will finish the course." My first thoughts on hearing this was that he was fucking rude and that the university was taking our money on false premises, not intending to teach us well enough for most to pass. But right after those thoughts I wondered if I was good enough. See how it works? Perhaps someone different would have found the quip a great spur for working harder?

Where do those worms of doubt come from, especially when there is no evidence for them? Is it family upbringing? Societal effects? Note that I'm singling out those cases where the lack of confidence is not deserved in the particular instance under discussion.

And why does this seem to be a more common problem for women than for men?

|

What? The Media Elite Didn’t Really Believe They Meant It All These Years? by Anthony McCarthy 

As the extremism of Sarah Palin comes into ever more frightening focus, the reaction of big media is interesting. Some of them seem scared, as well anyone who enjoys freedom and reason should. But where have they been as the Republicans have been courting the overtly fascist nut case minority for the grand alliance with their larger faction whose only purpose is to loot the American treasury, steal the credit card and run up ruinous overcharges - selling us to RED CHINA in the process- and generally scuttle the ship of state on the rocks for the hell of it. Didn’t they think these folks really meant it? It’s not as if they’ve varied their message, they are dangerously anti-liberty, anti-equality, anti-environment and pro-extinction. For our media, their devotion to profit and wealth concentration overrides every other defect.

The media and corporate elite, who could find themselves living in Sarah Palin’s world within a year, are sort of nervous but they aren’t turning their efforts to put McCain into the only office between us and neo-feudalism. Their choice in this election is between Obama and Biden and the a damaged and failing pacemaker sold by a discredited and sleazy outfit. AND THEY DON’T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE UP THEIR MINDS!

NPR, this morning, CNN, which I caught at a friend’s house last night, they’re using the pregnancy story to politically innoculate a lunatic, right-wing, nutcase to hand her the spare set of keys to the Oval Office. As anyone familiar with the various political inoculations they have given Republicans could have predicted.

If they succeed in putting her there, once McCain has died or has to step aside for health reasons, which I’ll bet he would, they will find themselves in a real life version of The Damned”. And we could too. If I counted the number of times I’ve heard people WORKING IN THE MEDIA, put the “maverick” stamp of approval on this insane choice, I’d bet it would be well into the three figures by now. And that’s not counting the number of times Republican mouthpieces have been had on to endlessly repeat it.

McCain, of course, has the ultimate guilt for putting American democracy in peril for political reasons, but it’s the corporate media who is selling us down the river of no return.
|

Monday, September 01, 2008

Scenes From The Twin Cities 



Amy Goodman from Democracy Now being arrested:



And another picture about the riot police arresting people.


Meanwhile, the RNC has cancelled most events today because of the hurricane threat to New Orleans, but some partying took place:

Yet, last night lobbyists for the National Rifle Association, Lockheed Martin and the American Trucking Association put on a raucus six-hour party at a downtown bar featuring music by the band "Hookers and Blow." There was no evidence of any actual prostitutes or cocaine.

Yah, as an orc might say.

|

The Bridge To Nowhere: News From An Alternate Reality 



So Sarah Palin is John McCain's Vice Presidential pick. She's the Governor of Alaska, a fervent social conservative and a favorite among the fundamentalist base of the Republican Party. Some also think that she was picked to skim off some of those disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters: women who wanted to see a female president during their lifetimes.

My head is spinning. My first reaction to the choice of Palin was that John McCain is one of those funny guys who thinks of the concept of a "woman" as a spoonful out of some imaginary mountain of the characteristic "womanhood", so that any woman is just as good as any other woman, and that he doesn't see any reason why feminists wouldn't vote for Palin. Even if Palin only supports abortion in the case when a woman's life is at risk. No rape exception for our Sarah, nope. But she's got a vagina, right? So those feminazis must like her.

Do you see how what he's doing is sexist? He refuses to see women as individuals, and that's why his choice is insulting if it is intended to snare the Clinton supporting feminists. If it is intended to snare the Republican fundie base the choice may well be quite smart, who knows. Though I doubt they think a mother of five children should be running for anything but more diapers for the baby and beer for the husband.

Still, Palin is a ferocious social conservative and totally for abstinence-only education. The Republican base approves of that. And no, there is no conflict between that and the announced pregnancy of Palin's teenage daughter, not among the fundie base, because their beliefs are a) that teenage sex is wrong and getting pregnant outside the marriage is wrong but b) getting an abortion is even more wrong and c) having the baby is a suitable punishment for any girl slutty enough to have had sex. - That's of course my translation of the underlying value system.

What else can I say about this woman who told us that she'd break through the marble ceiling, the one which Hillary Clinton mentioned as now having millions of cracks because she came so close to becoming the Democratic candidate for the president? I can say that should Palin somehow succeed in that breaking she'd waste no time in getting the cement mixed and the trowel ready to permanently fill that hole so that no other woman could follow her, ever. I can also ask you to read about Palin's political views and actions and the political trouble she has had in Alaska.

Did I already mention that all this smells and tastes like an alternate universe? I did? A couple of days ago I saw a headline about the Palin choice, and even though I was still on vacation I took it down just because it was so silly. It went something like this: "Mothers React To Palin As the Vice-Presidential Pick."

Imagine the reversal of that headline, say, "Fathers React to Biden As the Vice-Presidential Pick." You can't imagine it, I bet, because it's nonsensical. Comparing the two headlines tells us more about the gender norms of this society than this long post can.

|

Soap Bubbles 






So I'm back from vacation. I think I am, or is this some alternate reality where Sara Palin is the Republican Vice Presidential candidate? Perhaps an alternate daytime soap opera reality where a presidential election is taking shape the way it would in one of those soaps?

It's a little bit dislocating, coming back to the current talking points, and I better keep my mouf shut on those for a few moments longer lest I say something very mean (though very funny) that I might regret later on.

Instead, I wish to extend my most fervent thanks to my guest hosts who have kept the blog going so admirably during my snooze break. Suzie, Skylanda, Phila, Hecate and Anthony McCarthy: I raise a toast of nectar to all of you. And thank you, Skylanda, for the great series on things medico-social and medico-economic.

It's also good manners to wish all of you readers a happy and labor-free Labor Day.

|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com
Progressive Women's Blog Ring
Join | List | Previous | Next | Random | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Skip Previous | Skip Next
  • DONATE: FEED THE GODDESS!