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.

"Sick Puppies"

This is actually why I like Keith Olbermann:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

When not on his own show, he's actually not bombastic and hard-liney. He's rather reasoned and calm(ish) and intelligent-sounding. That kind of sounds like I don't like his show, and I do. But I'm sure that if Olbermann covered this on his own show, he wouldn't be offering up the paternal defense and going straight for the "Are you calling me a sick puppy, you sick puppy?" And I like that defense, because it is actually understanding of the different impulses human beings actually have - even Republican ones.

Wow

I did not see this coming.

Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, is resigning some time this month.

I honestly don't know what to say to this. There's speculation afoot that this is to best prepare for a 2012 run for president.

But I seriously hope not. Especially since she apparently said "she feels she can be more effective working outside of government."

If she does run, I want that thought to be brought up. I don't want someone running my government who doesn't like government, or who doesn't feel effective within government. I want someone running my government who likes government; I don't even need someone running my government who likes Big Government, as long as they believe in Efficient Government.

For my money (not that the GOP would want it or take it - they've practically ex-communicated Colin Powell after all), a Sarah Palin presidential nomination would be a Bad Thing. For the party. For the country. In general. It would be good for Saturday Night Live, and possibly John Stewart. But few others.

I can only hope that Palin realized that politics may not be the best fitting of hats. I can only hope that she'll find something else to do that won't put her on my television screen incessantly. I can only hope that she has felt a pull toward a different calling.

Editing to Add:

In an ironic twist, this:

is what greeted me on the "Post Successful" Blogger page.

Oh, the pleasures of keyword generated advertising.

Obama Could Have Been Great

Too bad he's already failed.

I do worry that this sort of idea, that Obama has failed in fixing a floundering economy was at least 10 to 12 years in the making after only four months, will take hold.

And it probably will. For one thing, it is easier to have this one man to blame than to try to sort out the sordid details of what really brought this to our door. There have been countless Planet Money podcasts and at least two whole This American Life broadcasts dedicated to figuring out what went wrong when, and who is to blame for it all. I haven't listened to Josh and Chuck's (the guys from the Stuff You Should Know podcast) Super Stuffed Guide to the Economy, but I'm guessing that aside from being awesome they offer the same type of complex and villainless piece. They really haven't discovered the golden nugget of truth that would place the blame directly at anyone's feet, which is good. But without a concrete, mustache-having, black-cape-wearing, malicious villain, it's easier to point to the guy at the top - the guy who wasn't at the top through those past ten or so years (not that I think he would have done anything differently, just that he didn't have the opportunity to even do the same thing)  - and say, "It's him!"

It might work. But right now, with the Right floundering and attacking pretty much everyone without cause or even a fully formed strategy, I'm holding out hope that it backfires terribly. Especially with Cheney skulking around claiming that Bush left the GM mess to the next guy.

What Was The National Review Thinking?!

There is so much "no" in this one cover, it's kind of hard to even begin to formulate a coherent thought. Let's start with this one: The National Review, though  a beacon for actual, intellectual conservative thought for much of its tenure, has in recent years given itself seemingly entirely to a branch of Republicanism and conservative thought not worth the paper on which it is printed. This cover is an example of that particular trend, and it is a shortcut example of why the Republican Party and conservatism in general is becoming more and more the party of white, southern men and not all that appealing to almost anyone else. After all, this image conflates one distinct minority group with another distinct minority group. Talk about a "all you people look the same" racist moment in action.

The very use of Buddhism as the natural implementation of wisdom is also highly problematic, for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it propagates the notion of Asians as inherently wise, as inherently spiritual, as inherently Buddhist. It makes wisdom for minorities dependent on an external function, whereas if it were a white man in the picture, the link to spirituality would not be necessary to highlight his wisdom; and if his wisdom was linked to a religion, it would most likely be his own instead of the religion we stereotype as exemplifying wisdom.

Buddhism used in relation to Sotomayor's wisdom is yet another clusterfuck of racism. The 'wise [Catholic] Latina' can't be represented as wise through an image that relates to any aspect of her person or heritage; no, it can only be understood by appropriating the popular image of Buddhism, and by extension Asians. Buddhists can be seen as wise, Asians can be seen as wise, but Latinas on their own cannot be automatically seen as wise. And in making Sotomayor in the image of a South Asian Buddhist monk in a decidedly un Puerto Rican or Bronx-like environment, the cover erases Sotomayor's own life, the life that led to the "wise Latina" remark in the first place.

Chris Hayes Is A Dork

I love the guy, and look forward to his editorials in The Nation with glee, but he is also totally a dork:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I actually think his dorkatude works to his advantage. It may just be that he fails to use contractions when he says, "I am obviously being sarcastic". It may have been more annoying had he'd said "I'm obviously being sarcastic", but the combination of that statement when it was indeed obvious and the lack of contraction really makes it.

Now, onto more important things; I'm starting to believe that what Chris Hayes says is correct, that many of the Republicans who have reached the upper echelons of their party's leadership have decided that the best way to win back some power in America would be to stymie Democratic attempts to fix America. If they obstruct many pieces of legislation, or, you know, the sitting of a senator, then they are playing on the hopes that it fails and that they can point out its failure in 2010 or 2012 without mentioning the part their obstruction could have potentially played in that failure. I have no doubt that Norm Coleman really wants to be Minnesota's senator. But really, at a certain point in time it is more than appropriate to throw in the old towel; and this, along with Republicans voting against the stimulus bill and then bragging about all the goodies they got in it, along with continued Republican lies about organizations like ACORN and what was actually in that stimulus bill, makes me a might bit suspicious.

The game many Republicans are now playing seems directly related to the game they play in regard to national security. I live in a blue state - not a blue dog state, just a true blue one. Our Republicans are for things like gun control laws and abortion rights (not that we have any more on the national scene), that's how blue we are. And even I have heard and seen plenty of talk about how Bush kept us safe for 8 years, because after 9/11 there hadn't been another terrorist attack. The problem with that is two-fold; it is trying to prove a negative in that it is trying to create a correlation between the policies that have ostensibly proven to create more terrorists with the fact that we have not had a terrorist attack, and it is playing the numbers game. There is no way to keep America perfectly safe, especially now that we've (we've) destabilized a nation in an already tumultuous region and tortured people; we can keep America fairly safe, even very safe. But what the Bush administration and those who have fixed upon their talking points have done is to ensure a climate where any hint of terrorism under Obama equals a fail for him, even if those engaged in terrorism had turned to terrorism because of Bush era policies. And that is as intellectually disingenuous as it is politically savvy. 

A less politically savvy aspect of this "My country when it thinks I'm right, but I hope it fails when it thinks I'm wrong" are things like Sean Hannity's poll asking what kind of rebellion his followers would prefer against the country, and Rush Limbaugh hoping out loud and often that President Obama fails; but the presence of such ideas in the overall dialogue lends credence to the thought that the other obstructionist stuff may be less based on principles and more on politics. It doesn't prove anything, but it sure does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

But back to Chris Hayes. Chris makes a point that "the town remains wired for Republicans. It still listens to Republican talking points. We saw this in the stimulus and when you had all these Republicans on the cable networks talking all the time about, you know, their objection to this part of the stimulus. That still permeates the institutional structure of elite consensus opinion in Washington despite the massive change in public opinion about how people feel about conservative ideas and the Republican party. The smaller, kind of insular, beltway establishment still is far more willing to cut Republicans slack than actual voters at large are." This is an echo, though less tinfoil hat extreme, of someone I thought was just insane on Bill Moyers' The Journal on February 6th. Says Glenn Greenwald:

I think it raises an interesting dilemma. Which is, if you look at what the media were saying about Obama favorably, both around the time of his election and subsequent as well, they kept insisting that he could continue Bush's counterterrorism policies that were so controversial.

They were praising him for leaving in place all sorts of Bush officials that the media wants to see is continuity, that he's not threatening to their way of life and to their establishment, for the reason that we talked about before. That's how he wins praise from them, is by showing that he isn't going to change things fundamentally, and therefore, isn't a threat to their system.

At the same time, as Jay said, what he needs to do more than anything to fulfill the commitments that he made, is demonstrate that he's a true change agent. And I think these objectives are very much in conflict, because the more he threatens the Washington system, I think the more hostility the press will feel towards him, and therefore, project to the public about him. And that, too, can undermine his political popularity.

And while Nancy Pelosi may have schooled Rachel Maddow about how effective the Republicans dominating the talking points during the stimulus debate was, I think at some point the dominance will affect American perception of the presidency and the legitimacy of the Democratic rule and liberalism in general. Liberal is already a damned dirty word, and I would like that to change. But as long as the Republicans can play keep away without being seriously called on it, that isn't likely to.

Michele Bachmann Is Why We Need To Elect More Republicans

No, seriously; that title isn't MST3000 material. I think Michele Bachmann is why we need more Republicans in Congress. Just listen to her crazy ramblings:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A good democracy has more than one party, and at the moment the Republicans left - especially in the House - are tending toward the unhinged side with Michele Bachmann being the head of them all. And while that leads to fun Chris Hayes, I really think that bipartisan efforts and better legislation in general could come about if there were more moderate Republicans in the mix. I can't help but feel like maybe we (collective we, because I don't live there) shouldn't have voted Chris Shays out of representing Connecticut's 4th district.

Crying Wolf

"If we don't do this, we will be known as the party of Herbert Hoover forever."

That's Dick Cheney discussing the bail out of the Big Three auto makers. Now, aside from the bit of hyperbole, I can definitely understand why, if a Republican wasn't so keen on this bill, they would not be swayed by Cheney. After all, this is the dickweed who visited everyone on the Hill he could think of to drub up support for a war that wasn't necessary, citing facts we didn't have, and making it seem like if they the Republicans did not fall in line not only would Cheney and the Bush Administration be upset but America herself would be in danger. Now, after all of that, would you be inclined to believe this guy when he started waxing poetical? I mean, he has a lower approval rating than Bush, who is holding steady at around 28% (and who are these people?!). He is part of one of the most maligned administrations; he lied straight to Republicans faces before, and his war and his administration is part of the reason why the Republicans have been losing so badly lately. If I wasn't inclined to bail out the auto makers anyway, nothing this man could say to me would make me change my mind. In fact, had I been inclined to vote to save the auto industry, I would be rethinking my position if it agreed with Cheney's. Because the man is, to be frank, an asshat.

But what gets me here is how some people are up in arms over the fact that the Republicans on the Hill have broken with the Republicans in the White House. Because now that we agree with Bush and Cheney, obviously everyone should see the light as well. There are valid reasons to not want to bail out the Big Three. I don't happen to agree with them, because as interesting an idea a self-correcting market is, I care more about the hundreds of thousands of workers who will be laid off than I do about how laissez faire economics is best for the economy; and how certain companies should fail because they are a blight and a tumor upon said economy. I don't disagree in theory; but in practice, I think we should also consider those who would be adversely affected by the removal of this blight. And how that adverse affect would then reverberate in an already bad economic situation.

But I don't blame the Republicans on the Hill for this; not entirely, anyway. Because the White House should have been smart enough to send someone with less political baggage - and less negative history - than Dick Cheney if they were serious about having their point of view considered in a fair and unemotional fashion. They should have learned from their childhood tales. Eventually, the boy who cries wolf isn't rescued, but gets eaten. And Cheney and the Bush administration are guilty of crying wolf too often.

"It Will Not Only Electrify Our Country, It Will Electrify The World"

Colin Powell on why he is supporting Barack Obama for president:


I like many of the points he presented; I like how candid he is with the Republican Party's further shift to the ideologies of the far right. I like how he expressed disappointment and disgust with how the Republican Party and the McCain campaign have run against Obama. If Colin Powell believes John McCain to be one of the most inclusive individuals he knows, I believe Colin Powell's assessment. I'm sure he would know. But I do like how he points out that no matter John McCain's actual ideas about race, he has allowed race to be injected into this campaign in a negative fashion. I also enjoyed his retort to the idea that this is only about one African-American supporting another African-American's bid for the presidency, in that if that had been the case his mind would have been made up months ago.

"It's Pretty Maddening To Watch This Game Get Played Over And Over"

Some Chris Hayes for your Tuesday.

How Democrats Lose Elections (Pt 2)

For once, I agree with Andrew Sullivan entirely. I don't know what the Democrats are playing at, but I want to know where all the nefarious Democrats went -you know, the ones that used to rig elections and would fight dirty. Where did those people go?! I want them back, and I want them back right now. I want someone to stand up and say exactly what Sullivan said:

We are now rigging the debate formats to compensate for a know-nothing, mendacious Manchurian candidate drilled in meaningly talking points? And the Obama team agreed to this?

He gets extra points for the alliteration. Because this (via the New York Times):

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive

could only be a good thing for Democrats! Maybe I'm doing it wrong; but when I fight, I tend to want my opponent to be on the defensive as much as humanly possible. I don't want to go to any length to compensate for my opponent's weaknesses! If Palin is that inexperienced of a debater that she needed the format changed, then there is no way she should be on the national ticket. It is that simple. And by capitulating and creating a format that may work better for her, the Dems have completely ignored the fact that this is where they could have hit Republicans so that it hurt.

Unless they know something that I don't; like some crazy winning strategy that makes it so even if Palin wins in these specially crafted debates, she loses. But given the state of the Democratic party since friggin' Carter, and given the state of the American public and how many of them will probably recognize a change in format (or if they are aware, how many will know it was for Palin's benefit), I'm going to say that may backfire. Horribly.

Once again, an election is the Democrats' to lose. Go get 'em, boys.

"If It Keeps Our Government From Socializing Healthcare, I'm All For It"

Jon Stewart is the love of my life.

The only thing that makes me more upset than the fact that the Republicans will still claim to be the party of small government are the letters flooding my local newspaper calling upon people to vote against Obama because he will make the United States a socialist nation. Yeah, because that is so different than what's happening now. I have to say, I hate people sometimes.

Feminism And Sexism And Sarah Palin

The Right have jumped on the cause of decrying sexism like stink on a dog. One would think that this would be a good thing, except they have, time and time again, made a mockery of the word "sexist" and the movement that fights against sexism by attacking segments like the SNL sketch; Carly Fiorina invoked the specter of sexism by saying,

"I think that, of course, the portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial. I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance."

To which everyone should sigh, "Oh please". There is nothing sexist about saying Hillary Clinton is a more seasoned, substantial, and learned person than Sarah Palin. There is nothing sexist about poking fun at a candidate for not believing in global warming and whose only foreign experience seems to be that she can "see Russia from [her] house!" These assertions may not be true, but that is a whole other debate and story divorced from the sex of the candidates. At the same point in time, people like Keith Olbermann make it very hard to completely rip apart Fiorina and the right's bogus claims of sexism when he says something like,

"And after Tina Fey portrayed her on Saturday Night Live, a McCain advisor called Ms. Fey's performance quote "sexist", even though Ms. Fey, Ms. Palin, and the advisor -Carly Fiorina- are all women! (clip below)"

Le sigh. Come on, Keith Olbermann. You know and I know and the rest of the world knows that women can be sexist, and sexist toward women at that. We've got Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter in our midst. To state otherwise - that just because Tina Fey has ovaries, she is obviously not sexist - is disingenuous, stupid, and wrong. Tina Fey's portrayal isn't sexist because it is (a) lampooning sexism and the way sexist behavior is "suddenly" a hot topic while sexism continues unabated, and (b) poking fun at Sarah Palin's own compliance in playing off of her own looks and traditional "womanly" behaviors to be more electable -along with gently poking fun at Hillary Clinton's own, sometime myopic, desire to get to the White House. That is what should have been Olbermann's counter argument. But apparently, that kind of retort was either too nuanced or lacking the essentialism contained in Olbermann's own rebuttal.

The Right has been overzealous in calling out supposed sexism while continuing to engage in sexism at the same time. First, the Right declared Sarah Palin a feminist. I'm no feminist scholar (though I play one among my friends), but I do think that one has to be for several things in order to truly be feminist. One, being pro-choice is a plus. There are probably feminists out there who aren't pro-choice, so this is just one of those "probably a feminist" indicators rather than a straight booting out of the feminist block if one doesn't believe it. But you probably shouldn't make rape victims pay for their own rape kits. That is a definite detraction. Feminists generally support items like equal pay for equal work; and just by being on the ticket with McCain, a man who seems to think that this isn't a problem, limits one's feminist credentials. Sex education is a biggie as well; as is the idea of environmentalism. And tolerance for other religious beliefs and the firm separation of Church and State. And feminists, generally speaking, are defined by more than just being women who have benefitted from what feminism has accomplished before. Because that is pretty much every woman alive today, and many women aren't and do not identify as feminists (which is a rant for another day).

But the Right, along with making statements about Sarah Palin's feminist credentials, also seems to be making the case that by pointing out where Sarah Palin fails as a pro-woman candidate, those on the left are somehow denying her womanhood. We're denying her feminism; she is still a woman, but just by being a woman does not mean she is entitled to women's votes or that she is a woman's candidate (as Jessica Valenti nicely points out). And while that is going on, she's the subject of websites like vpilf.com (I'm not linking it), and items like Palin in a school girl outfit:

and reports about how some in the media are dreaming about Palin and dream of sleeping with Palin (and making sure we all know it) instead of focusing on the issues. Which is sexist in two ways; one, Palin's candidacy should not be about whether or not she is deemed fuckable by those who agree and disagree with her viewpoints; that makes her into an object, and frankly the fact that a man can joke about how badly he wants to get with a political candidate and still be considered a serious journalist but it probably wouldn't fly the other way around (and didn't when the criticism of Bill Clinton women supporters in the mid-90s was that they were voting for him because they found him attractive) really friggin' bugs me as well. I'm not for the debasement of men to reach an "equality" with how women are treated. I'm not for objectification of any sort at any time. But it does perpetually bother me when aspects of society like this rear their ugly little heads.

There have been some genuine cases of sexism the Republicans have called out. The whole debate early on about Palin being able to juggle being a wife and mother with being the vice-president was bull, and it continues to be bull. The Republicans and the feminists who pointed out how sexist that was is entirely correct. But I also have become increasingly bemused and discouraged by the fact that now, when it affects the conservative -and conventionally pretty, traditional 'woman'- candidate who makes it a point of fact to mention how she never planned on getting into politics, the media is so intent about pointing out sexism and engaging in a debate about sexism. When sexist remarks were being made about that other woman candidate, you know, the one who actually wanted to be in politics and made no bones about it, they were often ignored. And that is on the DNC, and it sucks. But it shouldn't stop the DNC and liberals and feminists from protesting the outright perversion of feminism and sexism in this new Republican offensive. Sexism and feminism should not be used as a shield against legitimate questions of readiness and of competence, but that is what has been happening. We all need to follow faux-Hillary's advice, ask Sarah Palin about dinosaurs, and grow a pair.

A More Perfect Union

My father is more a fan of Keith Olbermann than I am; I prefer The Daily Show. But I do love some of what Olbermann does and I love how often Chris Hayes is a guest. And I love some of the issues that are brought up in segments such as this one.

This is the kind of attitude from Palin Obama and company have to attack. It isn't enough to keep chanting "4 more years" because although that is what we're going to be getting, the picture McCain and Palin are presenting is one of two genuinely likable people. And apparently Americans have forgotten that voting for the seemingly genuinely likable guy (with the surly VP choice) is what got us into much of the mess we face today both at home and abroad. Obama should be flooding the airwaves with the idea that not only is Palin mimicking a line from Bush, it is a line not even Bush publicly states any more. Any sort of connection between Iraq and 9/11 have long been disproved, and the fact that someone who is the potential #2 (wo)man in the White House (and could hold the #1 spot at some point in the next 4-8 years) either believes it or believes it still has enough political milage to parrot it more is more than scary. If she believes it, then we are in a terrifying situation. If she doesn't believe it but thinks it will help her side win, then - as Chris Hayes rightfully points out - it is morally repugnant.

We need to actually detail how the next four years will resemble the last eight if McCain and Palin are elected. We need to make it clear that we can't afford four more years of this. I hate the argument that we should vote for a president based on what will potentially happen on the Supreme Court. It didn't work in 2000, it didn't work in 2004, and it probably won't work in 2008. But I really think we need to emphasize the whole host of issues with a McCain and Palin picked Court, along with McCain and Palin foreign policy and McCain and Palin domestic policy.

We also need to seriously examine the fact that so much of our money goes toward military endeavors. The West Wing taught me why the military needed more expensive items when Jack Reese broke a $400 ash tray to demonstrate how the added cost created an extra safety measure. But I think Chris Hayes is right when he says, "what's really, really frustrating is the fact there is no other area of policy and political debate in which your prescription can be to just spend 12 billion dollars a month and keep a hundred and forty thousand Americans somewhere with no definitive strategic end point." We also need to firmly examine whether or not Chris Hayes' assessment regarding McCain's foreign policy as being even more extreme than Bush's current policy is correct. Because if it is, that is also something that needs to be stressed to the American public. Yes, this man is a POW. Yes, he is a respected and respectable man. Yes, he does genuinely want to do the best by his country and for his country. But that doesn't mean that some of his policies aren't just insane, and that his vision for our future may not, in point of fact, be the vision we require to carry us toward a better and more actualized version of this great American experiment.

My Crush On Jon Stewart Grows Daily

So, this weekend I'm going to post about Sarah Palin's speech and the sexism issue and Sarah Palin's policies -and also why John McCain shouldn't ever be forced to make a speech and how if the worst of the worst occurs and he does win the presidency, he should really think about taking a page from Jefferson's book and sending Congress a letter in lieu of actually presenting the State of the Union to them (and us). But this video was too good not to share right now:

Jon Stewart once again does his thing, and does it well. The hypocrisy, it runs rampant. I pretty much hate all of these people. No, Sarah Palin should not be getting sexist comments made about her. No, the age of her children should not be a factor in her readiness to be vice president. But feminism isn't a mantle we can pick up when it is someone we like being harmed, to be put back down again when we want to truly diminish another woman we don't like nearly as much. Feminism -and critiquing sexist comments- should not be utilized in such a manner, because it politicizes sexism and makes sexism into something that could only possibly happen to people we like. If it happens to people we don't like, well, some women really are white bitches (or so I'm told):

So, Republican talking heads, please please please just stop. Please. I'm begging you. If you're defending Sarah Palin against sexist attacks, do us all a favor and make sure you haven't made those exact same kinds of attacks mere months ago. If you had, you can still defend Palin. But first, you kind of have to apologize for and take ownership of the same demeaning crap you fostered on other women. Because now, you're just being disingenuous.

Cookie?

I kind of love this video, but how hard would it have been to look up American Gothic and note that the painting does not depict a farmer and his wife but a farmer and his daughter? Not very, because I just did. Courtesy of the Art Institute of Chicago (great museum, by the way):

[Grant Wood] asked his dentist and his sister Nan to pose as a farmer and his unmarried daughter.

Meet The New Boss...

I've been reading some disparaging remarks about Barack Obama, John McCain, the two-party system, and the electoral college -though mostly about Obama, because I visit mainly liberal blogs and many liberal bloggers are feeling "betrayed" by him at the moment. Some of those liberal bloggers, like Liss from Shakespeare's Sister, are planning to assert their political strength by voting third party. Which is their right and their prerogative; and yes, sometimes third-parties become one of the dominant two. Like, we don't hear that much about the Whig party or the Federalists any more outside of history books, and the Republican party has been a major player on the political spectrum for over a century and a half now. But these people aren't really voting for a third party candidate because they believe that particular party will become one of the dominant two but because they want to punish the Democratic party and make the party recognize how important they as leftists are and how important their particular issues (and their particular take on issues) are to winning; and in so doing getting things like Women's Issues and Gay Rights to the forefront as national issues of concern. We in Connecticut tried the same "punishment" tactic on Joe Lieberman last time around by voting for Ned Lamont during the democratic primary after Ole Joe made it known that if he lost he'd run as a third party candidate. It is a nice thought, but entirely impractical, especially in terms of a national election; because in order to win elections in this day and age, candidates need votes from people not just at the furthest end of their particular political table but also the people who aren't entirely Blue or Red but varying shades of purple.

This basically means appealing to the guy who is vaguely uncomfortable with sharing a locker room with a gay man but really thinks that the war is no good and that the Trickle Down Theory of Economics was a stupid idea; and so that means highlighting an economic plan that appeals to that particular voter rather than highlighting the "Gay Marriage For Everyone" idea. And it isn't exactly idealistic, but it is politics and the political process. It is more about meeting people in the center and resolving differences through mediation and compromise than it about distinct and full victories. That is why a Republican from Connecticut is normally about as liberal as a Democrat from Texas. The last two candidates immediately springing to mind who didn't live in the center and who didn't forego their own political ideals in order to appeal to the masses were Adlai Stevenson on the left and Barry (AuH2O) Goldwater on the right. These two had one thing in common and it is that they lost and lost big. Also, both had a keen sense of humor.

And this is the reason most radical, lasting change occurs through forces outside of the elected political spectrum. It is why groups like NARAL and NAACP and -God help me- the NRA are important, because they don't have to compromise their values and they are able to stress why it is deeply important politicians fight hard for women and minorities and second amendment rights. Ralph Nader did real good when he was a safety advocate, because he wasn't beholden to voters and was able to distinctly highlight his issue of choice without fear of political backlash; he didn't have to worry about not going whole hog because his next bill may get bogged down in committee as retribution. His job was to be a conscience and he was a good one because he wouldn't back down. This is also, ironically, why he makes a good third party candidate -a man who can highlight issues that should be discussed on the national scale but that the two parties won't bring up out of fear of rocking the boat and losing votes.

I don't envy politicians on the national circuit. They have to both appear genuine and appeal to the vastest population they can. What ends up happening is a lot of flip-flopping, a lot of leaning toward the center. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have rested their laurels on the idea that they represent a new, integrity-driven candidate. Both have garnered fans due to the idea that neither one is going to play the traditional political games. That was part of Obama's appeal over Clinton during the primary season; Clinton was Old DNC, the Establishment with a capital "E". She was too crooked to really fight for what matters, to shine the light in the dark places. And lo and behold, Obama is now pretty much the same.

Obama has made some statements about abortion rights that are, in a word, demeaning to women. He has made some overtures about keeping faith-based initiatives, and he voted for FISA, all as a way of connecting to more voters. John McCain? Well 'The Maverick' has backtracked on his no-offshore-drilling policy, and is trying to portray himself as a "friend to women" even though he voted against having birth control covered by health insurance (Viagra is, by the way) and has told a "lovely" joke about gorilla rape many times over the years. There are other examples on both sides of flip flopping, but I'm too cynical/lazy to dig them up because this, my friends, is politics. It is the worst system in the world with which to pick a leader, until we compare it to all the others.

And so, the mantra remains the same: "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss".

Earth First

Gas prices have finally hit and surpassed four dollars on national average, and our president is going on his final European tour to remind everyone that we "are all too dependent on hydrocarbons" (and seriously, who would blame a European leader -any of them- for responding to that gem with a solid punch to Bush's nose?). So let's talk about energy, the crisis, and the affect the whole deal will have on our economy. First, I must say that I am incredibly angry that we Americans had to wait until gas prices became unbearable economically to have a majority of us -and our government- seriously consider alternative fuel sources. Prior to this, it was Willie Nelson riding around in an ethanol powered bus and Prius owners who seemed to actually be taking steps forward -and the Prius people were doing so partially because the car became synonymous with "cool". The rest of us? Well, we killed the electric car early on in that model's lifetime; and although many companies were paying lipservice to finding alternate fuel sources (I can't open my Newsweek without seeing bp advertising that "There's energy security in energy diversity"), it seemed more like a PR campaign than a real attempt at change. Kind of like Phillip Morris sponsoring anti-smoking campaigns. There just seemed to be something incredibly disingenuous about the whole thing.

We have been told for quite a while "we have reached our peak oil production and some oil geologists [believe] that 90 percent of the world's oilfields have been tapped". But America kept on gobbling up energy resources, kept on buying SUVs, and kept our collective head under a rock. Because as long as it wasn't affecting us economically right that second, then we could deny any validity to claims that it would adversely affect us in the future. We could believe that some solution would magically appear at the right moment without us having put money, time, or energy into finding it. And we are paying for our short-sighted idiocy: "When gasoline was selling closer to $1 at the start of the decade, American households were spending some $300 billion each year to drive their cars and heat and cool their homes. They are now spending some $700 billion a year on energy. Household gasoline bills in the coming year will rise about $100 billion -even if the national gas prices stay near $4 a gallon through 2008". And gas prices staying at $4 a gallon now seems unlikely.

Meanwhile, the gas prices "are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries" and are also responsible for the ingredients that make those meals becoming more and more expensive as well. What Americans forgot, or never learned, or didn't find relevant, is that "oil goes into making virtually everything, including steel, aluminum, plastics, rubber, fabrics, transportation ...and food. People don't generally associate food and petroleum, but petroleum is used to make fertilizers and in vehicles used for planting and harvesting, storage and processing, and the trip to the market for the final sale from the freezer in store to the freezer in a home". Great.

I can't blame everything on ordinary Americans' spending habits though; I can blame some of it on their voting habits. Republicans blocked even discussion of a tax bill aimed for oil companies who were making "unreasonable profits". By the way, Exxon made $10.89 billion profit in the first three months of this year. I can definitely see where taxing them -or even talking about taxing them- is a bad thing. And in the past, our government has apparently "created a disincentive for new technologies and new ideas" by doing things like "mandating that so much ethanol is made and that it has to come from corn sugar" thus diminishing the exploration of creative solutions. Doesn't that just take the biscuit?

Now Americans are finally getting into the swing of things, doing things like trading in their SUVs and carpooling to work, and possibly even thinking about buying a hybrid. We drove 11 billion less miles in March 2008 than in March 2007. And maybe -maybe- we've learned our lesson. Because if we had been investing in and investigating alternative fuel and energy options seriously, we probably would not have gotten to the point where food and gas prices are rising to the further detriment of our economy. If we had been serious about voting people into office who would have fought to have the automobile makers actually work toward more fuel efficient vehicles; who wouldn't have made "light trucks" exempt from such laws; or went after automobile companies who began designing other vehicles to fit the "light truck" definition in order to circumvent the regulations for higher fuel efficiency, we would be farther away from this position today. If we begin to cultivate a mindset recognizing how potential negative effects of our actions that may accumulate in our future are important to consider and work to prevent, maybe our current situation will not have been for naught. Unfortunately, I don't believe it has. I think we will do our best to get ourselves out of this situation in the short term, and then continue along with the mindset we have always embraced and has best been summed up by a bumper sticker my father had three cars ago: "Earth First: We'll Strip Mine The Other Planets Later".