Double Standards, And Their Absence

I'm not going to go into Senator Harry Reid's comments regarding the electability of then-Senator Barack Obama. But what I am going to talk about is the "double standard" talk emanating from some members of the GOP.

There is no damned double standard. Why? Well, for one, in order for it to truly be a double standard, the parties would have to be on equal footing. Guess what? They're not.

There is a long-standing tradition within the GOP to use dog-whistles, in their ads and in their robocalls. Like the Willie Horton ad, used against Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election. Like the poll calls in 2000 asking South Carolina voters if they would be less likely to vote for John McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate African-American child, based partially on the fact McCain and his wife had adopted a little girl from Bangladesh. Ronald Reagan used the specter of the "welfare queen" in order to win the support of white America.

Then there is this: the person Harry Reid is being most compared to on an individual level within the GOP camp is Trent Lott. Lott, who said that had Strom Thurman been elected president, the country would be in a better place, that we wouldn't have all the problems we have now. Some nice remarks for an elder statesman's birthday? Perhaps. But the question becomes, better for whom? For the African-Americans who were left out of Thurman's America? No. It would not be better for them at all.

And that's what it comes down to - policy decisions and reaching out to a minority community. I'm not going to say that the Dems don't house racists. I'm not going to say that the GOP is totally bad on issues of race and the Dems are totally wonderful. What I am going to say is that the GOP has continually made a home for itself in the high places, and have perpetually attacked policies that are designed to help minorities in our nation. Sometimes, out of a sense of political theory, but just as often it seems that it happens out of bad faith.

So, they don't get the benefit of the doubt when one of their members runs his mouth. So, they don't get the cushion that comes with having an amiable history with the community in question. So, they get hammered harder because there is no trust there. There is no sense that these guys are trying to do right, that they've stumbled and fallen because they're idiots and not because they just don't care.

That's why there is no double standard. Because, in general, the GOP and the Democratic Party start from two entirely different ledges. And to wipe that clean in an effort to win some scant political support is from the preschool pool of political wisdom.

Women As Bodies: Climate Change Legislation Edition

Hi! I'm all into the environment and stuff. I want to help enact climate change legislation! I have womanly parts, and I'm not into the ladies. Want to know how to not encourage my pursuit of a better world? This video!

Wow, is that bad. You know what this reminds me of? A post I wrote just around this time last year! I'll just quote myself, kay?

It is demonstrably for the man's pleasure in these adverts; and it is more of a bartering system, a tit-for-tat, than it is an actual expression of healthy sexuality. And that is deeply problematic. Women have the right for their sexuality to be their own; men have the right to not be treated like brainless sexaholics.

And here we are again, this time with models stripping for climate legislation. So, let's revisit this in a little bit more detail, shall we?

Ahem. Women and women's bodies are not bartering tools to get men to do good deeds. This is because women and women's bodies are, primarily, for women. To live in. And reducing a woman's (or even these specific women's) contribution to how hot she can make the guys, actually, more than a little sexist. In fact, it is a lot sexist. As is the implication that the way to make guys do something like focus on climate change legislation (or, as in the last post, voting for Obama) isn't through reasoned discussion or facts but by the chance to see some naked ladies. Because it suggests that (a) a woman's only power rests in her ability to sex up a man and get him to do what she wants, and (b) men are animals controlled by their libidos.

But there are some other problems with it; those are that the men are the actors. Men are the ones responsible for getting climate change legislation passed and done (and I say "men", because I very much doubt the masterminds behind the ad thought about lesbian response). Women are cast in the role of encouraging men to do good and fight the good fight, and then reward the great Climate Change Heros with some nudity.

But I can act. I can act, I can write letters, I can call my representatives in Congress, I can write letters to my local newspaper, I can write blog posts, and I can do all of those things while Being A Girl. And a lot of the girls I know can do all of those things while Being Girls as well. And this ad? Doesn't touch on that. It doesn't encourage any female action other than the getting naked bit. Maybe it is assuming those models have already written their letters. And yet, nada is mentioned about that possibility. Nada is mentioned about encouraging other women to write letters, to agitate for change. And what a way to cut 51 percent of the population out of a larger part of the solution than just being the body worth doing something to see.

George Will In Top Form

I read George Will at least once every two weeks, when he arrives in my mailbox on the back page of my Newsweek. I look forward with anticipation to the Anna Quindlen weeks; not so much with the George Will weeks. I like George Will fine. I'm pretty sure my liking of the electoral college system is due to a column he wrote in defense of it when I was younger (I'd put myself mid-teens), and I was not only swayed then but remain swayed now - even though I'm very very liberal. I'll get into my liberalism and why, in spite of that, I want my nation's highest office to move slower than molasses in most instances at some point, but right now I'm going to hang a right turn and get back to George Will. Because George Will is inflamed. He is incensed. And he is, aside from the periodic weeks of craziness that come with my Newsweek (about a month ago, he was deriding the idea that people should vote by mail, something Oregon has done for about a decade, along with mailing out handy-dandy cheat sheets, because it will lead to lazier voters), incredibly on the mark - at least in regard to McCain. Which should come as no surprise, given his ire toward the Arizona Senator has been growing for quite some time and written about thoroughly.

His current article at the Washington Post, which is not a replica of the article appearing in the back of this week's Newsweek (that one deals with the economy along with gas prices and foreign relations and, oddly enough, Franklin Roosevelt), is about many things. It highlights, once again, the ridiculousness of the Palin pick. It offers anecdotal evidence of McCain's black-and-white world view. And it lambasts both public finance for campaigns and limits on the amount of money a single campaign can collect from donations. What George Will does here, what he is continually able to do even while taking into account his moments of insanity, is to make me reassess an issue I was previously on the fence about. The electoral college was one such issue; and now campaign finance becomes another. I've always been on the fence about the spending frenzy the Obama campaign has waged. I've liked (even been enamored) with Obama since 2004; I remember the Boston DNC well. One day, my Newsweek is telling me about up and coming politicians and political figures and profiles a guy I couldn't care less about named Barack Obama; a couple of days later, I'm watching an electrifying key note address and frantically trying to find said Newsweek article again - digging, sometimes perilously, through the recycling to see if it had possibly missed the previous curb deadline (for the record, it didn't). But something about the amount of money he amassed and the way he spent it left me unsettled. Part of this is rooted in pragmatism. At some point, the Republicans will probably have an electrifying star like Obama; in which case, the tide will have been turned and Democrats will be inundated with ad after campaign ad and not have enough funds to launch any kind of counterattack - successful or no. Ronald Reagan can't be the only one. But there is a deeper issue at root here. We all know the studies that proclaim we are incredibly susceptible to advertising and its message. I'm not so great with advertising; I get it from my father who thought that Buddy Lee, the creepy doll, was advertising Levi's. That isn't even his most ridiculous advertising offense. I have those moments a lot too, where I'll assume my preferred brand is the one being advertised even when it is, to the not-insane viewer, clearly not.  But even I don't think I'd manage to turn many McCain ads into ones about Obama.

What I am incredibly susceptible to, though, is starting to like something (a song, a movie, a television show) that I had originally hated simply based on repetition. I'm not proud of it, but I've become fond of such songs as The Macarena and even Baby One More Time (which is apparently the Britney Spears' single's revised name, as Jive Records thought Hit Me, Baby, One More Time condoned domestic violence; the things you learn through a quick internet search). What I'm saying is, had I been living in a state in play and not my tried and blue Connecticut, I'm not entirely sure that if I'd started off with a vague disliking of a candidate - or even outright hatred - a constant barrage of ads for that person would not change my mind. If McCain had more money, I may have *gasp* ended up voting for him! Well, probably not. But the fact remains that if we are as susceptible to advertising as studies show, and if the government has mandated that the amount of air time for one candidate has to be granted the other, how is it in any way fair or democratic to have one person out of the two dominate the game? If we outright acknowledge the effectiveness of ads of any type, it seems strange to shrug at the effect these ads may have on picking the next president of the United States.

Now, I know that logically some of the most powerful of ads have only been used once - or in moderation. After all, the daisy ad from Lyndon Johnson only ran once, but it helped cement Johnson's win. It helped Johnson's case, of course, that Barry Goldwater was a nut. And I respect George Will's thought that "Government may not mandate equality of resources among political competitors who earn different levels of voluntary support". I even agree with it. I love the idea of being able to contribute whatever little bit I can to a campaign I support, and to know that I and others like me can help a candidate we believe in. I love that donating to a campaign is a direct way to participate and become entrenched in that campaign. I love people getting passionate about politics, and any way for them to do so is - in my book - a wonderful thing. And I love that it does not matter what level one can contribute; that just contributing can make a person feel empowered and energized and enfranchised. George Will is right; support cannot be mandated. Support cannot be punished. And so I suppose that George Will wins this round. I think I may have come around to the idea that limits on campaign spending only limits democracy and our direct contact to the democratic process.

A Message To The Youth Vote

Just in case someone has been living under a rock and subsequently has been missing out on Jay Smooth:


My cyber-crush on this guy continually grows.

"Girls Say Yes" A Big No

I'm more than slightly appalled by this poster, much in the way I am offended by this ad:

 found on some of the blogs I frequent. As I am by the

ads I've seen and the random other sites (one proclaiming Sarah Palin is a VPILF) and images produced that make Sarah Palin nothing but an object to be fucked (or reducing her to those fuckable body parts). No bones about it, the left is certainly better than the right when it comes to issues facing women, when it comes to combating sexism, and when it comes to the rights of people like Lilly Ledbetter and rape victims, and the list goes on and on and on. But the images above still reduce women and still reduce men; and it is profoundly disturbing to me to see "I only sleep with Democrats" and "Girls say Yes to boys who say Obama", because it once again makes a woman's power about her sexuality and it makes men nothing more than slaves to their libido. Reasoned discussion won't get those boys to change from Republican to Democrat, but a girl promising to say 'yes' will! And that is disgusting, because it operates under the assumption that (a) boys are so easily manipulated they will vote for Obama for some action when they would have otherwise voted for McCain, and (b) offers women up as prizes to men who vote the "right" way.

The original poster the one at the top is 'revitalizing' was edgy, and pushed boundaries.

victoria over on the BUST Magazine thread about this very topic summed it up when she said, "the original poster was edgy and effective. Not only was it a time of opposition to war, it was also a time of increasing awareness and acceptance of the sexual agency of women". I still find the poster problematic for many of the same reasons, but I also see some value in it that I do not see in the current incarnation. All the newest poster does for me, along with the bevy of images that reinforce the point, is to demonstrate how little we've actually progressed when it comes to thinking about women's sexuality. It is demonstrably for the man's pleasure in these adverts; and it is more of a bartering system, a tit-for-tat, than it is an actual expression of healthy sexuality. And that is deeply problematic. Women have the right for their sexuality to be their own; men have the right to not be treated like brainless sexaholics. Unfortunately, we have not yet gotten that message. If only the first poster had said, "Girls say 'Yes We Can' to Boys Who Say Obama". Then it would have been a true reimagining of the original image. It would have updated the idea and the vision, and actually demonstrated progress and respect for men and women alike.

"It Seemed As Though I Did Most Of The Driving"

This video answers that eternal question: what would happen if John McCain hired Hollywood directors to produce his campaign ads. I know I've been wondering that for some time. I find the John Woo one to be a bit lacking, which is too bad because it is first, but the Kevin Smith and Wes Anderson ones are hilarious and spot on. I love the discussion of Obama as Lando Calrissian in the Smith parody:

This one, I just find hilarious:

Good for Google

From the Google blog:

As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions -- Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay -- we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.

However, while there are many objections to this proposition -- further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text -- it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 -- we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

I think the title of the post sums up how I feel about this. I like how the tone of the piece is measured, and also how it explains why at this juncture Google is getting into the act of speaking out about social issues.

I also like this video on the matter:

It is an incredible well done piece.

Wow.

Just wow.



That is an amazing ad. It is astonishing how Barack Obama manages to be engaging and fully charismatic even in a setting and ad like this. This is who I want for the next president of the United States. 

And I kind of love YouTube for being around to show it to me, because up here in Connecticut, I don't get many (or any, really) campaign commercials.

PS- This makes me so much more excited to get my "lipstick" bumper sticker:from Emily's List!

News Stories of Interest

First and foremost, there is the story about how "federal agents may take a traveler's laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrong-doing". They are apparently allowed to copy the contents of the hard drive, and it does not matter if the person in question is a US citizen. Well, I can't possibly see where this violates civil liberties or how this is an abuse of power, or how it only further highlights how much of our freedom and our rights we will casually part with in the name of security. No, authoritarian states never begin like this; no, George Orwell and other distopian authors never described how governments slowly strip away a citizen's rights until the yoke of oppression is tied too tightly around them. Obviously, there is no need to worry.

Then there is the first of two real zingers from The Wallstreet Journal; Wal-Mart is "mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win in November they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize". Those damn unions, fighting for better wages and actual health care plans for the workers. How distinctly un-American. Almost as un-American as using corporate power to tell employees how to vote and who to vote for.

The second piece from The Wallstreet Journal is probably my favorite of the day, because right away it starts off with "John Kerry ran for president as GI Joe (or his naval equivalent), the war hero. This fell apart when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth called attention to Kerry's history of slandering his fellow servicement". What is intensely funny about this is that much of what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth stated has been contradicted by naval records; by accounts of people who were, you know, actually there; and by John Kerry's own statements over the years. So, great job reporting there, Wallstreet Journal! Excellent job; especially when the overall point of your article is to suggest that Obama may have his halo tarnished by the end of the campaign season!

The Wallstreet Journal does have a point somewhere in their crappy tale of political woe, and that is that the John McCain political ad featuring Britney Spears and Paris Hilton isn't racist. I have my own problems with the ad, but it isn't that it is "trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman" as stated by the Huffington Post (renamed the Puffington Host by the Wallstreet Journal). But my reasoning for not believing that was a part of the ad is not, as the Wallstreet Journal offensively suggests,  that "the invidious old stereotype has to do with black men as a threat to feminine innocence, and it is hard to imagine two less innocent symbols than Hilton and Spears". It is because the ad doesn't suggest that Obama is going to take advantage of white women but that Obama has the same superficial fame as Hilton and Spears. That is the obvious reading of the ad, and the right one. 

If the ad was one against Hillary and Bill Clinton was juxtaposed with young women, then a sexual reading of the ad would be grossly apparent. But the ad doesn't have Obama leering and isn't sexualizing him (or even Hilton and Spears) at all. Merely comparing fans of the two celebrities with the fans of Obama, and the talent and skill of the two celebrities with Obama's talent and skill. It is insinuating that Obama is empty calories and nothing more. And had The Wallstreet Journal taken that route, and left John Kerry out of it (or at the very least not insinuated like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were in any way an actual fact-driven organization), then they would have had something meaningful to say on the matter. But as it is, they came off as offensive on so many different levels it would be almost impossible to count them all.

Oh, Joe

I like Joe Lieberman. I do. And I've been defending him for a few years now, ever since he began his war-hawking ways and has become more and more conservative. Because I like him; but I'm starting to lose any idea of why I like him, and that's a bit of a problem for me. Especially when he defends political ads like this:

by saying, "To some extent the appearances of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears -people complain about it- they should just relax and enjoy it. The idea is to draw people into the ad. The point of the ad is really quite strong: Who's ready to lead America?"

Well, I'm sorry, Joe, but I'm not going to relax and enjoy it. Mostly because I think having Paris Hilton and Britney Spears -two fading stars who are now mostly referenced because of how far off the tracks they got, what with their drunk driving and panty-less flashing incidents, to name a few- detracts from the message of the ad; and is really just jerky. When I hear/see "Paris Hilton", I think "sex tape", "crappy show", and "Oh my god, is she really still a topic of conversation?" When I see/hear "Britney Spears", I think "institutionalized", "quickie marriage", and "Oh my god, is she still really a topic of conversation?" - though to be fair to Spears, she actually did something for years instead of just showing up on red carpets and acting like she deserved to be there. There is no question these two shouldn't be leading the nation!  

But that isn't what this election is about, is it? It really is about that second thing, that "Who's ready to lead America" thing. And no one, hopefully, will think that Barack Obama is even remotely comparable to Hilton and Spears. And their images being flashed up on the screen draw attention away from (a) Obama, and (b) why McCain should be president. They're trying to draw an allusion between two things that are lightyears apart. And it is insulting. Not to Spears or Hilton, but to voters in general and Obama in particular. Isn't this exactly the type of campaign McCain was going to stay away from? Didn't he vow to make it about the issues?

The ad actually contained some of that, once you got past the fact that it compared a self-made Harvard-freakin'-Law graduate to a woman who is heir to a tremendous fortune (and oh yeah, has a GED) and a woman who made it big by promising her to keep her virginity until marriage while dancing provocatively and singing songs about sex (because really, what else is "I'm a Slave 4 U" about?). Promising to not look into Off-shore Drilling (an issue in the ad I find extremely interesting considering McCain's recent reversal on the subject)? Raising taxes? These are items people could have an actual discussion about, though I contend that those who disagree about the off-shore drilling are ostensibly wrong. But Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Really? That is what counts as raising the level of debate in this country and staying on the issues? Oh, Joe, you disappoint me by lending support to this utter dreck. And McCain, you disappoint me by approving of it.