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

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Today's Shallow Thought 



I figured out why I find the Super Bowl discussion so annoying on some extra personal level, and this is why:

Here you have this great celebration of masculine sports, all focused on traditional masculine characteristics. Everyone is supposed to be watching because this sports event is not just about guys playing with an oval object but about the country, its spirit, its inner meaning and so on.

Then at half-time an ad comes up telling how women should behave to be viewed as good. In the past, the half-time ads have told us how women should behave to be viewed as bad in a good way: Show more ass and tits, as they would say.

It is jarring.
---
I forgot about the traditional role for women in this extravaganza: As cheer-leaders. The whole thing is an ode to the old-fashioned patriarchy, really.

|

The CBS Super Bowl Ad 



As you probably know, CBS is going to air an ad by the conservative (and patriarchal) Focus on Family during the Super Bowl:

For years, CBS and other networks banned "advocacy" commercials from airing during the Super Bowl.

But CBS recently reversed its stance. A commercial that opposes abortion, featuring Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow, is set to air in this year's big game. And some fans say they don't want to see these types of ads in the Super Bowl.

CBS reversed its stance without telling anyone. Whether this is in fact a stance reversal is not clear in any case, because:

In the past, CBS and other networks airing the game refused to run advocacy ads from groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the United Church of Christ and MoveOn.org. Some of these commercials lambasted the Bush-era U.S. deficit or spoke on the issue of gay rights.

Women's rights and abortion rights groups point out that long-standing ban — they want CBS to pull the Tebow ad. They also warn that CBS might alienate viewers by showing divisive commercials.

CBS approved the Focus on the Family commercial before making a statement about their new policy on advocacy ads. As the controversy over the ad grew louder over the past few days, CBS issued the new policy. The broadcaster now says it will accept advocacy ads that are produced "reasonably."

Note that word "reasonably." It offers a convenient out.

To understand why reproductive rights groups reacted by wanting the ad banned you need to know that the policy reversal was not advertised anywhere until the Tebow ad was accepted. It looked like CBS only accepted forced-birth ads.

The ad itself is not about forced-birth but about choice: the one Tim Tebow's mother made by going against the advice of her doctors. She had the right to make that choice, and the final outcome happened to be a happy one. But Focus on Family doesn't want women to have the right to choices in the future. That's the oddest thing about this ad.

|

SOTUed 



I listened to the SOTU speech tonight and still find it very refreshing to have a president who can give a speech easily, fluently and with real words in it.

The contents of the speech were not bad, either. The president focused on jobs which was needed. He covered the question of Wall Street Banksters and the health care mess fairly well, from the PR angle. I personally enjoyed his jab at the SCOTUS for their silly activism from the bench and a similar jab at the Republicans for refusing to hold the hand extended across the aisle.

Psst, Barack. They will never grab it except for the purposes of sawing it off.

There were also actual proposals: More money for Community Colleges, help for people paying back their student loans, tax breaks for small businesses and so on.

For us feminazis there was a mention of women in Afghanistan and Iraq (I suppose it was for us because women in Afghanistan and Iraq don't vote here) and the enforcement of the Equal Pay Act. I would have liked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to be mentioned, too, because men and women far too seldom actually have exactly the same job classification due to gender segregation at work.

I didn't like the mention of offshore oil and gas exploration. It reminded me of the "Drill, Baby, Drill!" Palin campaign. But at least it was combined with a stern word to the climate change deniers.

Speeches are not acts, of course. But it wasn't a bad speech, on the whole. Indeed, it might be the best Republican SOTU I've ever heard.

A couple of Echidne questions, though:

1. When did "small businesses" become the most quoted interest group in a presidential speech? I understand that small business employ a lot of people. But the majority of new small businesses also go bankrupt in five years and small businesses often don't offer retirement benefits or health insurance.

2. What's wrong with the ideas of justice and fairness? I noticed Obama used "freedom and human dignity" as the desirable attributes. But those smack a little wingnutty to me, given the way the Pope always uses "dignity" to explain why women should not be free and the way Bush always talked about "freeance and peance."
---
Oops! I almost forgot. DADT must go. A good thing.

|

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

The iPad 






Apple's newest touch-screen device is called an iPad. Monica Hesse writes:

Business Insider declared the name "terrible," with one columnist writing that he'd heard rumors of the name "but dismissed it immediately," thinking that Apple would have the foresight to predict a landslide of menstruation mockery. (Did they not see "MADtv's" iPad parody in 2007?)

Meanwhile, the blogosphere found the name debate totally absorbing -- "How will it stand up to other tablets if I pour a test tube full of blue water on it?" one Lemondrop blogger wondered -- and a heavy flow of iPad-related Twitter traffic led "iTampon" to become a top trending topic.

"Are there NO women in the Marketing or Biz Dev department of Mac?" wrote one user, speculating that "iPad" would pass muster only with a man. No women were present on Apple's panel at the San Francisco announcement.

My short search couldn't find out if the name-making team included any women. Neither was I sure if others would connect the name so very quickly to menstruation aids. It seems they do.

|

The Division Of Feminist Blogging Labor 



I don't write a lot about certain feminist topics because there are other excellent blogs covering them. But it just occurred to me that this might look like I don't care about the topics. So this post is to explain, I guess.

As examples, my coverage of sexism in the popular media, fashions, body shape and size requirements and so on is less than the amount I could produce, and that is simply because other blogs (feministing.com, pandagon.net, feministe.com, for some obvious examples) already cover them extensively. Likewise, I write much less about reproductive choice than I could because the information can easily be found elsewhere (e.g. RH Reality Check).

Do you think these choices are something I should change? I'd love to write about anorexia and bulemia, for example. Are there any other topics you can think of that I don't cover enough?

|

Time To Re-Tool! 



Yeah. Now it's fighting time for the president! Or so I see:

In his speech before a joint session of Congress, scheduled for 9 p.m. Washington time, Obama has a chance to retool his message as he seeks to give some momentum to his agenda before the November election that will determine control of Congress.

"He has to send a clear signal to the country, and to his own party, about what his top priorities are and what he is really prepared to fight for," said Bill Galston, a scholar at the Washington-based Brookings Institution who was President Bill Clinton's domestic-policy adviser. "The signals coming out of the White House have not been clear and to some extent they have been contradictory."

Health Care

The president's main domestic priority, an overhaul of the health-care system -- which represents about 17 percent of the economy -- has hit snags in Congress.

White House aides said the administration hasn't been successful in selling the U.S. public on the health-care plan.

The effort "became a caricature of its component parts," Robert Gibbs, the president's spokesman, said yesterday. "To the degree that that's a communications failing, I think people here at the White House and others would certainly take responsibility for that."

The communication effort has certainly been pretty miserable. I have no idea why the administration wants to urinate on its base, but that's exactly what has been raining here in the left-commie-feminazi land. (I really feel funny writing that because I'm so middle-of-the-road and polite in reality.) Why does it matter? Because the GOTV effort and the people who do most of that, and also because I doubt the administration wants the base to stay at home in November.

But I wouldn't count on any sunshine for us in the SOTU speech, either:

Since Brown's election, Obama has injected a populist tone into his speeches. During a Jan. 22 town-hall meeting in Elyria, Ohio, he used the word "fight" or "fighting" more than 20 times.

Afterward, the president was still in a feisty mood as he toured a sporting-goods factory and was given a shiny football helmet. "I'll need this during the State of the Union," Obama said. "I can knock some heads with this."

Sounds like the sunshine will still be reserved for the one-sided bipartisanship, even when it is rejected.

Well, I promise to watch the speech with an open and hopeful mind, wanting something, anything, pleasesir, to make me feel better.

Then on the specific tools mentioned in the first piece I linked to: Obama appears to promise accelerated depreciation for firms. Depreciation refers to the percentage of the purchase price of durable capital equipment (say, trucks) which can be deducted in taxes in a given tax year.

Because something durable produces income for the firm for more than one year, its price becomes a tax deductible cost also divided over a period of years. How much can be deducted in each tax year depends on the rules. When depreciation is accelerated, larger percentages can be deducted earlier and that helps firms which are struggling because it reduces the amount of taxes they will have to pay early.

In theory, this should boost investment in durable equipment.

|

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Remembering Kate McGarrigle (by Suzie) 


Tomorrow, in NYC, an informal gathering will celebrate Kate McGarrigle, who died last week. At the same link, an obituary describes her: "Outrageous at times, but anything was more fun when Kate was along."

I was at a retreat on sarcoma advocacy last week when she died, after struggling for 3½ years with clear-cell sarcoma.
|

On Contempt 



You may have already heard about this:
When things looked their darkest for Gov. Mark Sanford — when he was in danger of being impeached for running off to Argentina to see his mistress — his best insurance policy may well have been South Carolina's lieutenant governor, Andre Bauer.

Lawmakers knew if they removed Sanford, they would end up with Bauer, a fiercely ambitious Republican with a reputation for reckless and immature behavior.

Now Bauer has folks shaking their heads again, after he likened government assistance to the poor to feeding stray animals.

At a town hall meeting Thursday, Bauer, who is running for governor in his own right now that Sanford is term-limited, said: "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

The link tells us all the possible excuses Bauer may now use to cover up what he really thinks about the poor. But whatever made him flash us his Freudian slip, we now know what Bauer really thinks about those on government assistance.

Oddly, Bauer's silver-foot-in-the-mouth disease didn't anger me nearly as much as overhearing a discussion on Ford's new remuneration policy on Marketplace, a public radio program.

The particular program which made my blood go cold was about Ford auto company's new policy of paying its workers: Those who have been employed a long time get to keep their pensions and health insurance benefits, those who enter employment now will not. One woman in the latter category points out that people doing the same work now earn different amounts of money. She is treated as a contractor and must cover her own retirement and health care needs while someone next to her gets those from Ford on top of the wage package.

You could argue that firms have always been allowed to pay more on the basis of seniority which can be seen as a proxy for work experience.

But here's the snag: It's not the seniority which matters here but when the latest employment contract was signed. The woman the program interviewed had worked for Ford before but had taken a break in the employment and later returned. So it is the date on the latest contract that determines the total amount of earnings.

All this can cause bad blood among the workers. The program then interviewed one of those opposing voices who argued that new workers at Ford should not compare themselves to the old workers at Ford but to the workers at McDonald's and at Walmart. They can then congratulate themselves for making three times as much!!!

What contempt! Just tell people to compare their situation to the lowest paying jobs and firms in the country, without letting the fact that the jobs might be completely different intervene. Or was it a threat this voice expressed? If the new Ford hirees are unhappy, let them remember that they could be taken down much further?

To give all this some context, the automobile industry jobs used to be the blue-collar gold standard jobs. The kinds of jobs with which America's prosperity was once built.

|

A Good Listen 



Anthony McCarthy suggests this Callie Crossley show on gender and politics, in the context of the Brown-Coakley race.

|

The Good Old Double Standard 



Is well and alive, at least according to a survey of boys and young men about sex:

Despite discussion of hookups, friends "with benefits" and other sexual openness, the survey found a double standard for guys and girls: 53% of guys said having lots of hookups makes them popular, but 71% said it makes girls less popular.

"Girl can't do what a guy does and be thought of the same way," Cooks says.

Popular to whom? Other guys? Or girls? It's unclear from the quote but I suspect they mean popular to other guys. The distinction does matter.

Still, if these findings are true they suggest that young men and teenage boys see casual sex as something adversarial, a competition in which the guy tries to score and the gal is supposed to resist. If he scores he has won and she has lost. Then he moves on to the next hunting expedition.

|

Monday, January 25, 2010

And Suddenly, Deficits Matter Again! 






They have not mattered for eight years, my sweet reader. But now they do. They matter more than getting jobs for the unemployed, more than fixing health insurance, more than almost anything. And even more ominously, Obama's planned proposal to freeze some types of federal spending is seen as a way to start boiling the frog that is us:

But one administration official said that limiting the much smaller discretionary domestic budget would have larger symbolic value. That spending includes lawmakers’ earmarks for parochial projects, and only when the public believes such perceived waste is being wrung out will they be willing to consider reductions in popular entitlement programs, the official said.

“By helping to create a new atmosphere of fiscal discipline, it can actually also feed into debates over other components of the budget,” the official said, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity.

Those "other components" of the budget are Medicare and Social Security, not spending on the military.

I must say that I agree with Atrios.

|

From My "No Comment" Files 



Karen Tumulty at Swampland:

My favorite cause seems to have picked up a new spokesman: Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

We'll see if the Little Girls of the United States Senate pay him any more attention than they have me. (In addition to the two links above, you can read more of my earlier arguments on this subject here, and here.)

Emphasis mine.

This links to an earlier post and the attached conversation.

|

Wimminz in the U.S. Senate 



I read a post on women's under-representation in the U.S. Senate a few days ago, and had to think about it for a while before posting, because it sorta makes a mess of some things while doing OK on other things. An example:

There's an interesting subtext to today's election in Massachusetts. The Senate's two best-represented demographics are facing off: a woman and a white man.

...

Saying women are the second best-represented demographic is like saying Scottie Pippen was the second-best player on the Bulls in the '90s – the leader is so far ahead of the pack, the appellation doesn't mean much. To use an expression I picked up from King Kaufman, the first-place demographic for Senators is white males, then daylight, then women.

The 17 female Senators comprise (in an easy math question) 17% of the Senate. In a nation that is 50.7% female, they're underrepresented in the Senate by 33%. White males, on the other hand (disclosure: I'm one of those), comprise approximately 32% of the population – but 78% of the Senate.

Well, yeah. But it's odd to compare ALL women to only white men, and I'm not sure why the post decides to do that. It hides the situation of women of color, for one thing.

Why not compare women and men and then do a separate racial analysis? Neither am I terribly fond of the way the quote defines the percentage under-representation. It would have been better to say how many women we'd have to add and men to deduct to get fair representation. Fair in the sense of the population proportions of men and women, that is.

But most of that is nitpicking. This is what I have most problems with:

The difference is striking when viewed on a map of the United States:






You may note, however, that some of the states that have a female Senator are the most populous in the nation. Let's adjust for population, using the numbers from Wikipedia.

Both Senators represent the entire state, of course, so if a state has even one female Senator, she represents the entire population. Likewise with the white men. Under this calculus, 134,976,372 Americans are represented in the Senate by a woman, or 44%. This is closer to a fair representation of the population, but still off by a yawning margin.

What's off in this quote? Every state has only two Senators. This means that the most populous states are represented by the same amount of power as the least populous states. The power of the two female Senators from California, for example, is exactly the same as the power of the two white male Senators from Rhode Island or North Dakota.
----
For more on my views about the wider question of women in politics, go here.

|

Candle-Light 



My area just had a power outage which lasted a couple of hours. This offered an opportunity to light candles and to sit in silence, after the first few minutes of frenzied annoyance at the modern lifelines being cut.

A book about medieval interior decoration (yes, such books exist!) discusses the importance of candles and fire-light as the only real sources of light after dark. Houses were built with small windows in Europe and in the winter the rooms were dusky even through the day.

A modern museum installation shows us rooms of that era in a way the people then living would never have seen. I remembered that during the power outage, because the candles in the room were reflected in anything metal or glass and because of the way the shadows candles created brought out different colors and textures.

Gilded picture frames were not just a way of demonstrating great wealth but part of the overall impact of a painting, a way to bring glitter into the darkness and to cast more light on the picture itself. And copper, brass and silver were not just the raw materials of vases and bowls but also important reflectors of light.

|

Today's Action Alert 



CBS is going to air a forced-birth commercial by Focus on [patriarchal] Family, a right-wing organization, even though in the past it has refused to air commercials which it finds controversial:

The network has rejected ads from MoveOn.org, PETA, and the United Church of Christ among others on the grounds that their content is too controversial.

But there's something wrong with CBS's definition of "controversial." This year, the network approved an ad produced by the ultra-conservative group Focus on the Family attacking a woman's right to choose.

Demand that CBS pull this incredibly controversial and insensitive ad from the Superbowl line-up.

The Superbowl is the most-watched television program in the country, giving anti-choice voices an enormous audience to broadcast their idea that a woman doesn't have the right to make decisions about her own body. To top it off, CBS has no plans to run a pro-choice ad to balance the two sides of the issue.

So pro-choice is too controversial, forced-birth is not?

Here are two petitions you can sign about the planned ad:
Care2.com
Change.org

|

Utterly Hilarious 



This whole piece is full of bwahahas. Examples:

Mr. McCain, a Republican from Arizona, said on the CBS news program "Face the Nation" that President Obama should sit down with Republican leaders and begin adopting some of their ideas for improving the nation's health care system such as overhauling medical malpractice lawsuits, allowing residents of one state to buy health insurance from a company in another state, and granting tax credits for people who purchase health insurance on their own.

Medical malpractice lawsuits are not an important reason for high health care costs. Allowing residents of one state to buy health insurance from another state means that all firms migrate to the state with the laxest regulations and that is bad for the consumers. Tax credits are useless for people who don't earn enough, and those are the people who have the most trouble finding affordable coverage.

Still, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," said that in the wake of the Democrats' defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race, "my hope is that the current bill is finished."

"The American people are telling us please stop trying to pass this," he said.

He faulted Mr. Obama for pursuing during his first year a single-mindedly liberal path in running the country rather than trying to engage moderates.

"The president made a decision to go hard left," he said. "That's why he doesn't have many of my members. If he chooses to govern in the middle, I think he'll have much broader cooperation from Republicans."

I'm laughing so hard it hurts. Senator McConnell is lying about everything in that quote. Bipartisanship, bwahaha.

|

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Impeach Roberts by Anthony McCarthy 

As mentioned at the time, everyone in the room knew that John Roberts lied under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee in his confirmation hearings when he said he would respect precedent even if he didn’t like it. Well, he has shown in just about everything he’s done since taking office that he had no intention of doing that, and he hasn’t.

There is a special kind of lie that is told in these Judiciary Committee pantomimes, the kind that Roberts and any number of other nominees have told. The prospective lie that is told about the future, one whose evidence is yet to be created. That form of intentional deception is as deserving of punishment as one told about the past which leave witnesses and available evidence, certainly in the case of a Supreme Court justice who has absolute power and life tenure. Though as with the lies Rehnquist told about his voter intimation, it is not deemed to be sporting to look too seriously at those.*

I’m no lawyer or legal scholar and I knew Roberts was lying and I knew that the Senators did as they pretended otherwise. His opponents knew he was lying and his supporters certainly did, his intention to overturn precedent was one of the reasons they were so hot to get him on the Court.

It’s one of the most unattractive features of Anglo-american “justice” that it doesn’t deliver justice but its opposite. So much of it is a twisted and niggling means to find excuses to not deliver justice to those who need it and to so often deliver privileges to the privileged. That, dear lawyers, is why you are so widely despised by so many. It has been the privilege of courts that a courtly ceremony of respect and deference is shown to them even as they prove their basic corruption.

The few periods when the Supreme Court has consistently produced justice are used as PR by the corrupt majority of justices and the legal establishment with a vested interest in the charade. No doubt, liberals with bad memories of the “Impeach Warren” signs that American fascists put up during his term, will be horrified by anyone pointing out that the large majority of “justices” don’t deserve to be considered by us in the same way. If they were deserving of our respect, the enemies of the common good would have signs out calling for them to be impeached or “called home by the Almighty”. We, The People, are under no obligation to follow the hypocritical pose of judicial impartiality towards the various members of the Supreme Court. Maybe if we’d been more vocal in opposition of those who wrong us and in support of those who do justice, there would be more of the latter to look back on. Maybe the biggest obstacle for progressives is their observance of staid decorum when populist fury is needed and desirable.

Roberts, Alito, Thomas, are all obvious perjurers. They lied under oath about important issues during their confirmation hearings on TV, in public, to a room full of lawyers. The Senators, too finicky and fussy to do their jobs, pretended not to know it and so now we are under their judicial tyranny. Connecting those dots isn’t all that hard, though apparently it is for lawyers.

* As the lies told by Alito when he said that he would be impartial in the application of the law. There was no reason to believe that based on his previous record, as Professor Ronald Sullivan’s testimony in the hearings demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
|

Hope After The Storm? by Anthony McCarthy 

It’s been such a bad week that it seems almost painful to have to point to a few faint glimmers of hope. Apart from the modest move by Barack Obama to do to banks what he should have done last winter, there is the news that Elizabeth Warren was asked to call in. I think she will not let us down the way the boy’s club for growth has. If she becomes a more obvious influence in this administration and, more importantly, if policies she has called for replace those of the Wall St. insiders, it could save this administration from complete disaster. That change will be the decisive indication that Obama’s populist move is sincere and not just optics.

Warren has spent her career laying the groundwork for what might be called progressive populism. From her perch in Cambridge, she’s excoriated the unfair credit and lending practices that, in part, gave rise to the current crisis. She was the architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which, if created, would regulate credit cards and mortgages in the same way home appliances are regulated now. (Full disclosure: Warren once wrote about the agency in the publication I help edit.) And well before the bubble broke in the summer of 2007, when America was still riding high on George W. Bush’s economy, Warren was speaking out against the incredible pressure the 21st century economy was putting on the middle class. She was derided as a Cassandra, but she was right.

The election of Brown to the Senate was just one slap in the face for the Democrats in Washington this week, the other one is the “Citiziens United” case. If for nothing but their self-preservation even corporate Democrats have an interest in curbing that sell off of electoral Democracy by the out of control, partisan Republicans who hold the majority on the Court. There are ideas of how to get around it, most interesting so far is the proposal to change the definition of what is and isn’t legitimate activity for corporations. As entirely artificial, legal entities, corporations can only exist through the legal mechanisms of their creation. If those are changed, their legitimate functions can be curbed. This idea from Kent Greenfield, professor of constitutional law and corporate law at Boston College Law School gives some hope that it would be possible to cut the legs out from the court created monster before it destroys democracy.

Instead of using the tools of constitutional law, we need to use the tools of corporate law. Such a change could be put in place tomorrow, by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress followed by the President”s signature.

Corporations are chartered “for any lawful purpose.” To address the mistake of Citizens United, the only change required would be for charters to include: “except that any entity created by this charter shall not have the power to expend money to influence the outcome of any local, state, or federal election.”

This change would simply condition the benefit of incorporation itself on the waiver of the “right” of corporations to participate in political campaigns. The Court has often upheld the ability of government to condition benefits on the waiver of rights. The Court has not always been clear in all the nuances, but the basic rule is that if the government gives you something, it can limit the uses you make of it. It makes sense to assert that prerogative here: if the government creates corporations, it can pick and choose what powers those corporations embody.

The real obstacle is the state of Delaware. Most big corporations go there for charters, primarily because Delaware doggedly protects managers from shareholder lawsuits. And Delaware has no interest in limiting corporate speech.

So real change would have to come at the federal level. Congress could simply say that as a condition of being listed on a national securities exchange, corporations would have to be chartered at the federal level. And federally chartered corporations would be limited to doing what corporations are intended to do: create wealth by producing products and services and prohibited from trying to skew the democratic process.

That way, corporations would stay where they belong, in the marketplace. The “marketplace of ideas” will be left to the rest of us.

There are other ideas coming out of the House for restricting the Federalist Society judicial rewrite of the Constitution.

I would, of course, add restrictions on the ability of TV and radio stations, both broadcast and cable to lie on behalf of the corporate elite. Nothing about democracy is secure or automatic, it has to be constantly watched and tended. And that is a job too important to leave to the legislative, executive or the judicial branches. It is too important to leave to lawyers and legal scholars, there are few of those who have raised their voices to oppose this latest assault on democracy. In the end as in the beginning, democracy depends on The People, on their grasp of reality on their morals and good character. If you cynically deny those are important than you have already given up on the possibility of democracy. At bottom it is the mass media, unrestricted and let off its obligations to the American People who have fostered the rot in its foundation. And they’ve done it for exactly the same reasons of corporate self-interest that makes the corporate beneficiaries cynically named “Citizens United” so dangerous to democracy.
|

Sunday Purple Finch 






By 1WattHermit.

|

Eva Cassidy on Route 66 





|

Saturday, January 23, 2010

From YouTube comments 



Yes, I know that going there is like seeking something under the outhouse. But I happened to see this comment attached to a report on Haiti and thought it was a nice example of the fact that liberals and progressives don't regard all causes as equally important:

you stupid sad informed idiot if you really think that they put trillions into? blacks you are obviously a uneducated white person!! the money your talking about went straight to the white rich elite or in other words bankers!!So you keep believing that black people eat cash you twat!!!

For those who might not know, "twat" is the same as "cunt."

What I get from that comment is not someone who is against women or feminism but someone whose reptile brain brings up women as the nastiest thing he/she can think of when very angry. That IS part of the problem of trying to sell feminist ideas: Our reptile brains have already been well filled with the contempt towards women and all things female.

|

Putting Americans Under The Rule of Aliens, Foreign And Artificial by Anthony McCarthy 


Updated below:


How bad is the decision of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, constitution writing from the bench, far more extreme than mere legislating?

First, the obvious, it is a guarantee that mega corporations can swamp the airwaves and other media with propaganda on behalf of candidates they will, essentially, own, in general campaigns.

It guarantees that corporations can overtly or covertly run fully funded candidates of its choosing, its stooges, unbeholden to a party, which become about superfluous with this ruling, but not to the company that owns them. Individual tycoons used to, which is why they began to adopt regulations. Modern corporations have vastly more money to corrupt the system with than those quaint crooks of old.

A huge shocker is that, as argued in the court, itself, foreign govenments, through American corporations could do what any other corporation does and buy offices holders to serve their interests. If you want to consider what that means, Saudi Arabia or a consortium of oil states could exercise direct influence, if not control, of our policy on oil, energy use, Israel, or any other number of areas of interest to them. They could lower taxes on their products to zero and institute other measures that would bleed us, the mere human beings who live here.

And of course, what those countries could do, China or other countries could do. Greg Palast’s* question about al Qaeda forming an American corporation and getting directly involved in our elections have gone unanswered by Ted Olson who argued that nothing in present law could or should prevent that from happening. Since there has been some speculation that they and other foreign criminal organizations already have some business interests in the United States this isn’t a fantasy. Of course, our own, home grown criminal organizations are a larger presence in corporations, if that’s any comfort.

The absurd dodge that Olson Alito and others took when this issue was raised, that congress could regulate that, raises the question of why they would vote to regulate their owners? And, given the atrocity of this illogical, clearly constitution writing decision, why should anyone not expect that these same or other stooges on the court would sustain those?

The obvious intention of the five traitors on the court, Citizens United, Ted Olson and the others who supported the perversion of the Bill of Rights was to insure Republicans would control the government. As I said yesterday, this is Bush v. Gore by other means and made permanent. Once its beneficiaries are in place it would take a total collapse to change things. Politicians who have so few morals as to be the stooges of corporations and foreign governments aren’t going to be reliable in the matter of amending the Constitution or making statutes to regulate their patrons. Since the Republicans are pretty much the overt corporate party now, we will have an effective one party state in power for a long, long time.

Some are calling this the worst Supreme Court Decision since Dredd Scott, I see no reason to think that it might not be worse, making all, merely human “persons” in the United States into lesser beings. Dredd Scott was overturned, through the Civil War. Seeing the difficulty that Abraham Lincoln had in coming to the decision to end slavery during the war, the ambivalence of even many in the North to ending slavery then, that decision would likely have endured for a long time to come if the war hadn’t happened. Economic power, the interests of the elites, in all regions of the country, which directly benefitted from slavery were the main motivation for its retention. A large number of other Americans were effectively propagandized into accepting its existence. Building an effective anti-slavery movement took an enormous effort and a long, long time. My warnings about violence yesterday, weren’t unconsidered, they were based on this history.

I hope that there will be enough Americans to get rid of this abomination without civil war or insurrection. I am not optimistic about change within the constitution, which was intentionally set up to weaken the rule of The People through the Senate and the cumbersome amendment process. That process would likely make the overturning of this atrocity by amendment very unlikely. State legislatures would also be bought, to an even greater extent than they are now. Frankly, Republicans in control of a sufficient number of those can do what they do in the minority in the Senate, thwart the will of a large majority.

And there are those unintended, unforeseen consequences talked about yesterday. Millions of putrid, invasive seeds were sewn in this decision. What they produce won’t be obvious before they sprout and grow.

If Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress don’t understand this changes everything, right now, and take every possible measure to stem it, we are sunk. The absurd media libertarianism that Obama supported is out the window. Trying the fairness doctrine, equal time,.... everything to try to blunt the effect of this spear at the heart of democracy is the least they can do. If his legal training makes him feel queasy about that, it was lawyers and judges with impeccable educations and credentials who have created this betrayal of everything the Constitution is supposed to be there for. If it doesn’t produce government of, by and for The People, every part of that document and the entire legal edifice around it is garbage. Pomp and pretense masking a corrupt and hypocritical oppression.

* The extent to which foreign governments have an interest in our domestic agenda is already a danger to us.

In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill.

If you think that Palast’s question to Ted Olson was in poor taste, that is made quite irrelevant by the spectacle of Olson taking the risk of making it relevant.

UPDATE: I wasn't the only one thinking along these lines, note what this Buzzflash post with what Thom Hartmann had to say.

I was talking on the phone this morning with Thom, and he brought up the irony that may be prophetic that the infamous Dredd Scott decision that declared slaves to be property led to the Civil War. Now, we have a Supreme Court decision that affirmed that corporations have, according to the GOP 5-4 vote, the same election rights as people...

... For America, it's been a decade of two Supreme Court coups that have stolen democracy and replaced it with something akin to activist right wing judicial rulings on behalf of the oligarchy that pulls the strings in D.C.

The Dredd Scott decision, as Hartmann points out, resulted in the Civil War.

And the Center For Public Integrity pointed out:

Federal election law has long prohibited any foreign national from directly or indirectly making “an independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.” And the Supreme Court’s ruling does not explicitly address the issue of foreign corporations. However, in his dissent in Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens cautioned that the decision “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

|

Friday, January 22, 2010

Activism From The Bench 



The conservative style. It's a good editorial. I'm going to do spells to keep Justice Stevens chirpy and hale for another century.
---
Added later: How about this for a counter-move? Any firm advertising heavily before elections on a political topic will be subjected to a boycott campaign? The Internet could do that.
---
Added even later: Another good opinion piece on the ruling.

|

Music by women (by Suzie) 



Echidne has discussed mixed feelings for the music of Leonard Cohen. In one post, she concludes: “Art has no ownership, ultimately. I can take this song and make it mine …”

I’m lazy. I’d prefer another woman make it her own, and then I can listen to her, not him. (Yes, I do understand reader-response criticism.)

I love Jennifer Warnes’ “Famous Blue Raincoat,” her CD that covers Cohen. Hers was both a celebration and a collaboration. In contrast, KD Lang truly makes “Hallelujah” her own (while the YouTube listeners comment on her looks.) (Btw, here’s in interesting commentary on the song.)

A woman singing “Hallelujah” doesn’t change the meaning all that much. But some women turn a man’s song topsy-turvy. A famous example is Aretha Franklin singing “Respect,” which was written and first recorded by Otis Redding. Here are his original lyrics; see how she changed them.

When the Commodores did “Brick House,” the shapely woman was an object, albeit one that inspired awe. When Osborne does it, she’s the one built like a brick house (and she changes the lyrics to more appropriate measurements). For me, the meaning changed even more when I saw her perform at the Lilith Fair before a predominantly female audience. She seemed to be celebrating all of us with meat on our bones.



Women cover songs by men all the time. But some, such as Tori Amos and Annie Lennox, make it a CD project. Amos does a chilling cover of Eminem’s " ’97 Bonnie & Clyde," in which a man murders his estranged wife and dumps her in a body of water, while lying to his daughter. A commenter on the Cover vs. Original blog says:
tori is a fuckin nut winged psycho. Em went through some rough times && need to vent. tori just decided to be a bitch and jump on his case for nothing. all he did was talk about killing his wife.
No matter how subversive the women, the men still get royalties. That’s why we need more women like Ani DiFranco, who created her own record company and, for the most part, sings her own songs. Here are the lyrics to the song below.



I've got better things to do than survive.
------------
While I'm out of town, I hope you'll share other songs.
|

Bush v. Gore by Other Means And Made Permanent by Anthony McCarthy 

I’m sure you might have been as glad to know as I was that Sandra Day O’Connor was unhappy with the 5-4 in the Supreme Court this week. Nice of her to notice that the two Bush appointed member, joining the rest of the Bush v. Gore 5, overturned her on campaign finance. And, yes, thanks, Sandra Day for all that.

But, lest we appear inattentive, our thanks should go to those who made the final killing off of representative democracy possible, the actual Federalist Society members of the court, their law schools and mentors, the Republican Party, Ralph Nader - without whom Bush would never have been president to appoint Roberts and Alito, the media that promoted the Bush II putsch, and, last but not least the Senate of the United States who have confirmed one after another of these dangerous, far right lunatics to courts. And they confirmed them knowingly, as every person in the hearings chambers and beyond knew the nominees were lying through their teeth. And special thanks should go to those who have, throughout the decades, made and maintained the string of corporate personhood rulings. It should be noticed that this is one in a series of those entirely Supreme Court legislated laws, judicial constitution writing, far past making law from the bench*.

Like other dysfunction in the United States, not allowed to be discussed in polite society, this has been a long time coming and in full and obvious development. This is the dream of Richard Nixon, the ultimate goal of Anglo-American conservatives, a real corporate oligarchy, perhaps in time not even covered with the thinnest veneer of elections and consent of the governed. Indeed, other than maintaining the mechanisms to take our wealth, they might do without most of that governing nonsense. They’ll probably contract it out. One of the gleeful Republican goons I heard on the radio said it was going to be like the “wild west”.

A number of lawyerly commentators have said that this ruling could have unintended consequences. How unintended is a thing which will probably be subject to a great deal of that conventional hypocrisy mentioned in paragraph two above. Anthony Kennedy’s decision, indeed invalidates his own precedent from as recently as last year on judicial elections. While I’m sure he’s dangerously out of touch with reality, I don’t think the Joe Lieberman of the Supreme Court is that careless about his research or, as far as we have it in us to pierce the veil, droolingly ga-ga. I don’t think that the horrors of what will result from this decision are largely unknown now. It is the destruction of electoral democracy in the United States. As I have been screaming at the top of my lungs for the past four years DEMOCRACY IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN THE PEOPLE MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. DEMOCRACY ONLY WORKS WHEN THOSE DECISIONS ARE BASED IN REALITY AND RESULT IN AN EFFECTIVELY BENEFICIAL RESULT.

Anything and everything that prevents that from happening damages democracy and so results in harm to The People and the communities they survive in. The damage includes the purfumed, polite and decorous actions of Supreme Courts, Senate Committees, impartial “free speech” advocates, judical commentators, and others who have laid the ground work for this disaster. The destruction of democracy has been done in nice voices, in lofty rhetoric and moral posturing this time. “Free speech,” “freedom of the press” what could sound nicer than that? So many fewer syllables than “legitimate government can exist only with the just consent of the governed”. The proof to which those freedoms exercised by corporations are useful to the destruction of democracy is best demonstrated not by symbol but by a specimen of the actual thing, the post-facto recounting of the 2000 ballots in Florida, which showed that the original Bush v. Gore 5 had appointed George W. Bush as President of the United States illegitimately, against the vote. And the media pooh poohed it as being water under the bridge. But, then why not? After all the Chief Justice, in broad daylight, said that The People don’t have a right to vote and to have that vote count to absolute silence by the freest press we have had in our history. Freedom of the press divorced by the obligation to serve the possibility of self-government by The People turns out to be dangerous to it.

Democracy has been on the way out for a long, long time. It could be future Road Show memorabilia as soon as a year from now, if it exists at all. The abject failure of the kind of Democrats sitting in Washington to do our business, their refusal to produce an effectively beneficial result, might be looked on as another specimen in the study of how America lost democracy. I’d like to still be proven wrong but am not expecting it just this week. I’ve been clinging to the hope that wasn’t true all year. But maybe it’s not hope that maintains my efforts to pull what good can be gotten out of the ruins of Democracy, it’s the knowledge that it is a duty to try, up to and even past the end.

How bad can it get. The worse case scenario? I think very, very bad. I believe that the shreds of the common good that still hold on are some of the few things holding it together. Those will be gone in corporate oligarchy. By their actions and those of their party, the Republicans and cowardly Democrats, America is already a very violent society with potential to be extremely violent. Guns are prevalent, ammunition, explosives and the precursors of explosives are ubiquitous and unregulated, cults and individuals, both violent and potentially violent, are a common product of our media. Mass shootings are so common that they hardly make the front page anymore.

I fear that the potential for violence is enormous, encouraged by the media through their entertainment - for which thanks can go to free speech and press absolutists. There are not enough police, national state local .... or doughnut fed militias to stem a real wild west atmosphere in the United States. It has the potential to spiral into a blood bath. There are not enough private security guards to protect the gated lives of the elite, not for long. Even Senators and Supreme Court Justices could experience it, first hand. That elite will deceive itself to the end. Once they run things, life will continue on its present course, as surely as the cycles of boom and bust do in the only part of life they hold sacred. They don’t learn anymore than Senators in the Democratic Caucus have. Their policies will produce misery on a scale we have not yet experienced in our life times.

I’m sure that many people who read this will smile and gently shake their heads. They don’t believe things could go so totally nuts. I’ll point to the other disaster this week, Brown winning Ted Kennedy’s seat, an irrational but not unpredictable result flowing directly from the storm of financial, healthcare and other policies in Washington. Obama voters cast protest votes for Brown over the direction of his Geithner-Summers oriented policies and the lunatic spectacle of the sell-out health care legislation in the Senate. Many who didn’t cast a desperate and irrational vote against that, simply gave up.

That’s the direction, I am afraid is coming with corporate rule. As even the media has noticed, it’s a different enrironment. This ruling, overturning a century of law and precedent imposed a totally changed landscape, one that we haven’t experienced before. I don’t know the details or what any eventual conclusions to it will be. Whatever it is this or some other, alternative, disaster, we’re in it.

* It might be worth noting, if anyone ever tries to put together a representative democracy again, that the House of Representatives, the most equally representative part of government was that which was least implicated in the murder of of representative government. Not that conservatives in that body aren’t thrilled with it, they just lacked the opportunity to take a strong hand in it. As anyone could have predicted it was the Senate and Judiciary, the least equal, representative and accountable parts of the government. I’d also predict that you can add the United States to the long list of countries with a presidential executive which has devolved into despotism. Turns out we’re not such a special case, after all.
|

Friday bird blogging (by Suzie) 

(I hope) I'm in California, whale-watching, but I know others are hopping around in the snow. Julie Savell-McCandless took this photo. She's a longtime friend who put up Facebook photos that I'm harvesting.
|

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!