In an article in today's New York Times, it is suggested that Obama might benefit if the Republicans gain control of Congress in the Midterm elections (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/weekinreview/24baker.html?_r=1&hp "In Losing the Midterms, There May Be Winning" by Peter Baker). This is an interesting opinion, given that it's fairly likely that Republicans will at least gain control of the House, thus switching the roles of John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi, which I highly doubt will actually benefit any of Obama's proposals or ideals or anything. I know that Boehner is, as present-day Republicans go, pretty moderate, but he has a lot of party support and is unlikely to back energy reform bills or other more liberal causes. A Republican Congress would most likely make it difficult for Obama to do his job effectively, because that's what usually happens when the government is divided. Divided government isn't bad, of course -- there's more room for debate and a chance that a middle ground could be reached. But often things just stalemate and reach gridlock and then absolutely nothing of importance occurs. By this reasoning (which is extremely normal reasoning), any president would want a unified government as much as they seem to when stumping for party candidates nationwide.
But the NYT article expresses that having a conservative Congress would, basically, give Obama someone to blame, making 2012 an easier victory for himself. There's obvious logic to that -- if the Republicans get Congress, and then screw it up, Democrats look good. This is the game which Republicans are currently playing, saying that Democrats ruined everything concerning the economic meltdown and health care and whatnot and therefore the only way to fix things is to start afresh with the GOP. That's a really stupid platform but it's something which both parties do when they're not in the majority. And then they get the majority and the positions reverse. There is far too much focus in politics about getting elected, and what needs to be said/done to then get re-elected, rather than a focus on actual politics; if this isn't so, it at least appears this way. The NYT article describes how Newt Gingrich, as House Speaker, made Clinton "look good" and that a Republican House gave Clinton the opportunity to be more moderate than liberal, necessary when dealing with the opposite party (a skill he was able to acquire as a Southern politician, which Obama doesn't have as much experience doing). A Republican Congress may be good for 2012, but that's an incredibly risky statement; why hope for two years of likely gridlock and petty political tensions just for an election?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
A Whore By Any Other Name...
So this is, for the most part, a follow-up to some topics raised in my previous posts. First off, yesterday I watched the third and final televised Brown/Whitman gubernatorial debate. Of the three debates, I enjoyed this one the most, although I spent most of the time yelling at the television, the way I imagine normal people yell at televisions during, like, sports. There was this beautiful moment near the beginning when Tom Brokaw invoked John F. Kennedy and asked the candidates what they think the people should have to do for their country, and Whitman proceeded to completely not answer the question and then sort of answer it a little bit at the end, followed by Brown sort of answering the question (yes, yes, "live within our means" -- we've seen the commercials, Jer. We get it) and then going off about, I don't know, experience, I'd assume. Whitman has always been disgustingly on-message, and Brown was doing the same thing last night; trying to bring his answers back to his main points. Eventually, he seemed to give up on that, and went back to his usual style of just saying whatever pops into his head, and it made him seem so much better, so much more honest (whether or not he really is.)
A few other issues I had included:
--Everything anyone said about the budget. I mean, that has to go through the legislature. Like schools being left to school boards, budgets aren't completely under the governor's jurisdiction. Brown did try last night to clear up a few things concerning limitations of powers, but candidates really have to be careful with that. I'm assuming Whitman doesn't know better. And her budget ideas, her "detailed plan" -- what is it? She's never described it. And she seemed skeptical of spending extra millions on the Bay Bridge to keep it seismically safe. Honestly, I don't care how much is spent on that bridge if it's earthquake-proof.
--Can somebody please do something about Prop 13? So that would mean more taxes. I like taxes. It connects people to their government.
--Oh, that fantastic moment when Whitman, the so-called "jobs candidate" (who sent jobs overseas, but I digress) said in one breath that she plans to get California back to work, and then, in the very next breath, said she was going to cut state workers' jobs. And their pensions. I don't think she realizes that state workers are kind of the workers she has the closest responsibility of. And all of her, oh, I'll help small businesses with less regulation -- well, that's stupid because deregulation was how the nationwide recession was started, and it's stupid because she is speaking directly from her experience as an employer and investor who would have benefited for her proposed tax cuts, and it's stupid because she's also beholden to out-of-state oil companies HENCE her support of Prop 23.
--Every time Whitman brought out one of those "well I talked to a (worker/man/woman/business owner) in (some small town) and they told me..." stories. Come one. You can't connect to the common man and spend one hundred and twenty million dollars on a campaign. You just can't. And if you think you can, well, have fun checking into Tammany Hall, because you just got political.
--When Whitman kept commenting disparagingly about Brown being a politician. Generally, experience is an asset in a profession. Also, if she was referring to politician as being political in the sense of giving half-answers and trying to please everyone with a good deal of partisan mudslinging-- oh my god, she does all of that regularly! Finally, if elected, she'll be a politician too. You can only play the newbie card once.
And, here's what bothered me the most, and since I can tie it back to other things I wrote, I feel no shame in focusing on this really small event which has gotten far too much media coverage:
Whore is not a bad word.
Okay, so I heard the story break about Brown's phone message with the Police Union while some unidentified staffer in the background could be heard calling Whitman a whore. And then Whitman kept saying how that's a disgrace against all women in California, or something to that effect. Brokaw raised the issue at the debate; when Brown apologized for his staffer's conduct but conceded that it's not at all comparable with the n-word, which Whitman had previously insinuated, Whitman made a low "noooo" noise and shook her head in a weird, weird vie for attention, and then kept saying how it was going to anger all the women in the state. Seriously? I'm a woman in this state, and I was definitely not offended. This kind of outrage is just playing the gender card, which further breaches the equality and legitimacy of women and men in politics. It's not like this staffer was actually accusing Whitman of prostitution; he's working in a campaign against her, of course he doesn't like her, and it is very common behind closed doors in politics and in business and in high school to say simple, kinda-mean words about people not because you actually mean it but just because you don't like them. If the staffer had been caught calling a male candidate a dickhead or an asshole, there wouldn't be this kind of outrage-- yeah, it's immature, but it's considered perfectly normal.
And then, in Delaware, there's Christine O'Donnell and her "i am not a witch" commercials. Not sure why I find this so disturbing, other than that it has nothing to do with policy or anything relevant to an actual election, but only to a small media store which has caught public attention. Which I would say is kind of being a media whore. But the biggest whores of all are still Westboro Baptist Church. I finally finished reading the transcripts of the opening argument, and Chief Justice Roberts asked Phelps, the lawyer/Westboro Baptist defending her father's church in Snyder v. Phelps, if the group chose to picket Snyder's son's funeral because they knew it would garner the most public attention. She begrudgingly agreed with that statement. If that's not whoring out a cause -- albeit a creepy and hateful and disgusting one-- then I honestly don't know what is.
A few other issues I had included:
--Everything anyone said about the budget. I mean, that has to go through the legislature. Like schools being left to school boards, budgets aren't completely under the governor's jurisdiction. Brown did try last night to clear up a few things concerning limitations of powers, but candidates really have to be careful with that. I'm assuming Whitman doesn't know better. And her budget ideas, her "detailed plan" -- what is it? She's never described it. And she seemed skeptical of spending extra millions on the Bay Bridge to keep it seismically safe. Honestly, I don't care how much is spent on that bridge if it's earthquake-proof.
--Can somebody please do something about Prop 13? So that would mean more taxes. I like taxes. It connects people to their government.
--Oh, that fantastic moment when Whitman, the so-called "jobs candidate" (who sent jobs overseas, but I digress) said in one breath that she plans to get California back to work, and then, in the very next breath, said she was going to cut state workers' jobs. And their pensions. I don't think she realizes that state workers are kind of the workers she has the closest responsibility of. And all of her, oh, I'll help small businesses with less regulation -- well, that's stupid because deregulation was how the nationwide recession was started, and it's stupid because she is speaking directly from her experience as an employer and investor who would have benefited for her proposed tax cuts, and it's stupid because she's also beholden to out-of-state oil companies HENCE her support of Prop 23.
--Every time Whitman brought out one of those "well I talked to a (worker/man/woman/business owner) in (some small town) and they told me..." stories. Come one. You can't connect to the common man and spend one hundred and twenty million dollars on a campaign. You just can't. And if you think you can, well, have fun checking into Tammany Hall, because you just got political.
--When Whitman kept commenting disparagingly about Brown being a politician. Generally, experience is an asset in a profession. Also, if she was referring to politician as being political in the sense of giving half-answers and trying to please everyone with a good deal of partisan mudslinging-- oh my god, she does all of that regularly! Finally, if elected, she'll be a politician too. You can only play the newbie card once.
And, here's what bothered me the most, and since I can tie it back to other things I wrote, I feel no shame in focusing on this really small event which has gotten far too much media coverage:
Whore is not a bad word.
Okay, so I heard the story break about Brown's phone message with the Police Union while some unidentified staffer in the background could be heard calling Whitman a whore. And then Whitman kept saying how that's a disgrace against all women in California, or something to that effect. Brokaw raised the issue at the debate; when Brown apologized for his staffer's conduct but conceded that it's not at all comparable with the n-word, which Whitman had previously insinuated, Whitman made a low "noooo" noise and shook her head in a weird, weird vie for attention, and then kept saying how it was going to anger all the women in the state. Seriously? I'm a woman in this state, and I was definitely not offended. This kind of outrage is just playing the gender card, which further breaches the equality and legitimacy of women and men in politics. It's not like this staffer was actually accusing Whitman of prostitution; he's working in a campaign against her, of course he doesn't like her, and it is very common behind closed doors in politics and in business and in high school to say simple, kinda-mean words about people not because you actually mean it but just because you don't like them. If the staffer had been caught calling a male candidate a dickhead or an asshole, there wouldn't be this kind of outrage-- yeah, it's immature, but it's considered perfectly normal.
And then, in Delaware, there's Christine O'Donnell and her "i am not a witch" commercials. Not sure why I find this so disturbing, other than that it has nothing to do with policy or anything relevant to an actual election, but only to a small media store which has caught public attention. Which I would say is kind of being a media whore. But the biggest whores of all are still Westboro Baptist Church. I finally finished reading the transcripts of the opening argument, and Chief Justice Roberts asked Phelps, the lawyer/Westboro Baptist defending her father's church in Snyder v. Phelps, if the group chose to picket Snyder's son's funeral because they knew it would garner the most public attention. She begrudgingly agreed with that statement. If that's not whoring out a cause -- albeit a creepy and hateful and disgusting one-- then I honestly don't know what is.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Supreme Court Groupies!!!
Firstly, I'm not actually a Supreme Court groupie. I have a feeling that is not actually a thing. But I'm kind of an American Civil Liberties Union groupie, at least to the extent that I'm a fan of the ACLU on Facebook and a lot of the issues being brought up by said organization also involve the Supreme Court. The Court actually has a pretty interesting session ahead, with the appeal of California's Prop 8 to be reviewed next year being highly anticipated. There's also November's Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Assoc. (California doesn't want violence in video games--is this a free speech violation?) , December's Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (involving Arizona and immigration and privacy, which, if SB 1070 taught us anything, is a super-exciting combination), and next year's FCC v. AT&T (do corporations maintain personal privacy? fun stuff!). Interestingly, newest Supreme Court appointee, Elena Kagan, won't be sitting on or voting for about half the docket, since she was recently solicitor general. This means that a good deal of cases could end in a tie vote, and then have to resort to the original ruling of the lower court. She will, however, be present throughout my favorite case on the docket, Snyder v. Phelps, which began October 6th with the arguments set forth by Summers (Snyder's lawyer) and Phelps' lawyer/daughter (apparently it's a good idea to raise a bunch of semi-competent lawyers when you're running a hateful religious group that nobody likes). This case is complex, in its way, involving First Amendment rights and privacy and the limits of free speech, particularly of really, really unpopular opinions. This is why the ACLU supports Phelps -- well, not exactly Phelps, since the ACLU isn't really into handing out "God Hates America" signs to little girls so they can protest military funerals, but the ACLU supports his and his Westboro Baptist Church's right to free speech.
Westboro Baptist Church, which Phelps is in charge of, is a really small organization which has been disowned by the actual Baptist church, is intolerant of basically everyone, and has a URL called "godhatesfags" which describes how God is punishing America by killing soldiers because of our acceptance of homosexuality, out-of-wedlock sex, Judaism, and Catholicism, all neatly organized around a running tally of souls which God is damning to hell each minute. These are not exactly likable people or, given the fact that everything they say is hateful and totally groundless, rational individuals. In 2006, WBC picketed Snyder's son, a Marine's, funeral; although Snyder did not see the protests during the funeral, as they had been strategically placed 300 feet from the procession as per a Maryland law, he did see the hateful signs on the news that evening and read the "epic poem" on WBC's website which describes how just it was of Snyder's son to die. Snyder won the case in Maryland, lost in the Fourth District Court, and so, here it is, before the Supreme Court. Summers, the lawyer, began with a statement about how emotional duress was placed on a family during a funeral, and, after being passed around from judge to judge until he was thoroughly eaten alive, started invoking Hustler v. Falwell over and over again, even though that case "involved intentional emotional distress" (a cartoon in a Larry Flynt publication constitutes emotional distress? Yeah right) inflicted upon a public figure, not a private citizen, which Snyder is and his son was. Summers seemed rather intimidated by the Justices, at least from my reading of the transcripts, and rightly so; what he was saying was not totally applicable to the case. The judges contributed greatly, with an interesting question raised by Justice Breyer-- "under what circumstances can a group of people broadcast on television something about a private individual that's very obnoxious [and] to what extent can they put that on the Internet, where the victim is likely to see it?" Justice Ginsburg continually went back to the private v. public nature of the Snyder family, and then how much precedent cases like Hustler v. Falwell or Gertz v. Welch really take in this particular case. And Justice Scalia insisted that Summers stop talking about the funeral thing and say what he really meant, which would be that this is a case involving personal attacks-- but, conversely, how personal were they if similar protests occurred in Annapolis at the same time they occurred at the funeral? Is this just general hatred? This case is turning out to be not just about a man who lost his son going against a hate group, or just the freedom of speech v. freedom to worship peacefully argument that most people had expected it to be; this involves the relevance of freedom of speech electronically, the differentiation between a private citizen and a public figure if a very public attack is made on that individual, and really where freedom of speech turns into libel or hate crime. It harkens back to the concerns of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and the very reason the First Amendment was made at all: to protect the opinions of the minority, particularly the unpopular opinions. The content is not so much the issue here, it's the action, and as deranged as the opinions expressed are, they may very well prove to be legally expressed.
Westboro Baptist Church, which Phelps is in charge of, is a really small organization which has been disowned by the actual Baptist church, is intolerant of basically everyone, and has a URL called "godhatesfags" which describes how God is punishing America by killing soldiers because of our acceptance of homosexuality, out-of-wedlock sex, Judaism, and Catholicism, all neatly organized around a running tally of souls which God is damning to hell each minute. These are not exactly likable people or, given the fact that everything they say is hateful and totally groundless, rational individuals. In 2006, WBC picketed Snyder's son, a Marine's, funeral; although Snyder did not see the protests during the funeral, as they had been strategically placed 300 feet from the procession as per a Maryland law, he did see the hateful signs on the news that evening and read the "epic poem" on WBC's website which describes how just it was of Snyder's son to die. Snyder won the case in Maryland, lost in the Fourth District Court, and so, here it is, before the Supreme Court. Summers, the lawyer, began with a statement about how emotional duress was placed on a family during a funeral, and, after being passed around from judge to judge until he was thoroughly eaten alive, started invoking Hustler v. Falwell over and over again, even though that case "involved intentional emotional distress" (a cartoon in a Larry Flynt publication constitutes emotional distress? Yeah right) inflicted upon a public figure, not a private citizen, which Snyder is and his son was. Summers seemed rather intimidated by the Justices, at least from my reading of the transcripts, and rightly so; what he was saying was not totally applicable to the case. The judges contributed greatly, with an interesting question raised by Justice Breyer-- "under what circumstances can a group of people broadcast on television something about a private individual that's very obnoxious [and] to what extent can they put that on the Internet, where the victim is likely to see it?" Justice Ginsburg continually went back to the private v. public nature of the Snyder family, and then how much precedent cases like Hustler v. Falwell or Gertz v. Welch really take in this particular case. And Justice Scalia insisted that Summers stop talking about the funeral thing and say what he really meant, which would be that this is a case involving personal attacks-- but, conversely, how personal were they if similar protests occurred in Annapolis at the same time they occurred at the funeral? Is this just general hatred? This case is turning out to be not just about a man who lost his son going against a hate group, or just the freedom of speech v. freedom to worship peacefully argument that most people had expected it to be; this involves the relevance of freedom of speech electronically, the differentiation between a private citizen and a public figure if a very public attack is made on that individual, and really where freedom of speech turns into libel or hate crime. It harkens back to the concerns of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and the very reason the First Amendment was made at all: to protect the opinions of the minority, particularly the unpopular opinions. The content is not so much the issue here, it's the action, and as deranged as the opinions expressed are, they may very well prove to be legally expressed.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Notes on the First Debate (&etc.)
With the second gubernatorial debate between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown to begin in about half an hour, I'm still trying to process Tuesday's debate at the Mondavi Center and what, if anything, really was said/happened. The scripted quality of Whitman's rhetoric allowed her to stay eerily close to message (which is basically impossible to escape thanks to the hours and hours of airtime of her commercials) and sound very, very canned, something like a pull-string doll spouting out Palin-style aphorisms with little-to-no substance. Just on an visceral level, she kept on this forced smile, which failed to hide neither her nervousness nor her growing anger. She kept discussing insanity, specifically a quote she falsely attributed to Einstein which stated the definition of insanity to repeat the same mistake and expect different results. She repeated this statement at least three times. Oh, the irony.
But anyhow, Whitman has spent $120 million of her own money, plus another $25 million, on her campaign -- the most of any candidate, ever. Business-wise, sure, she's fairly savvy. But government is not corporation, and this fact does not quite seem to register in her mind, at least based on her debate contributions. Her figures never matched up; how, exactly, would she give $1 billion to schools (without actually making an executive decision about the UC budget, instead giving that job to the schools' chancellors -- way not to lead, Whitman) AND re-route the water lines AND build a border fence and improve border security AND deport illegal workers and their contributions to the state's economy AND force later retirement ages for state employees AND refuse to raise taxes? That's impossible. According to Time magazine, she plans to fire about 40,000 state employees; hence, many state employees and other unions, such as the nurses, do not support her. In the debate, she called state workers and workers' unions "special-interest groups," to whom Brown would be indebted. That was pretty fallacious; for one, as a private donor to her own campaign she effectively is a special-interest group, and two, Jerry Brown doesn't really seem to care about who he owes what. He's been involved with politics for most of his life, basically nonstop, understands first-hand California government and, ultimately, is too old to really have any more political goals after this campaign. I feel the need to momentarily digress and say that, although I generally do agree with Brown, his debate wasn't flawless; one of his trademarks is getting off-topic and trying to sum it up with a little motto, this time, "I've done it before, and I'll do it again," and quite a bit of what he said about elementary schools and water conservation wouldn't really be in his powers anyway, which he would obviously know. But at least he tried to answer the questions; Whitman turned each question into a way to follow her script, somehow answering a UC-budget question with a welfare-themed answer. (Digression over.)
This debate was one of the first times Whitman really publicly discussed her beliefs on immigration, saying she opposes the "Arizona law" but would basically create something similar-but-not to deport illegal immigrants; Jerry Brown said something about instead working towards naturalization, which is far more reasonable than deportation. Anyways, Whitman also has been courting the Latino vote, gaining a peak of 35% of Latino voters's support (this is a traditionally Democratic group, according to the Sacramento Bee). Today's debate is being shown on Univision, with Spanish voiceover. I just think it's strange that her heavily anti-immigration sentiments -- which, in my opinion, would peg her as the a protector of upper-class whites and not much else (yeah, I'm biased against her, but her tax cuts for the rich and job cuts for the not-rich kind of influences how I see her)-- haven't affected this demographic too drastically. Until last Wednesday, of course, when celebrity lawyer and professional annoyance Gloria Allred came forward with a story about Nikki Diaz Santillian, former housekeeper to Whitman, until she told her boss that she was an illegal immigrant and Whitman, instead of assisting her, fired her. Whitman is quoted in the Sacramento Bee as calling herself a "victim" to another illegal immigrant worker -- seriously? The rich, white woman with the governor's campaign is being victimized by a poor immigrant? Currently, on the debate in Fresno, Whitman is accusing Brown of controlling this story and releasing it to Allred at a pivotal time during campaign season. In return, Brown says that she's "talking out of both sides of her mouth" as she vies for support from the Latino community.
This has gone, again, off-topic and into a virtual rant, and I apologize for that. But at least I don't have to apologize for never voting like Meg Whitman did so pathetically at the Davis debate.
But anyhow, Whitman has spent $120 million of her own money, plus another $25 million, on her campaign -- the most of any candidate, ever. Business-wise, sure, she's fairly savvy. But government is not corporation, and this fact does not quite seem to register in her mind, at least based on her debate contributions. Her figures never matched up; how, exactly, would she give $1 billion to schools (without actually making an executive decision about the UC budget, instead giving that job to the schools' chancellors -- way not to lead, Whitman) AND re-route the water lines AND build a border fence and improve border security AND deport illegal workers and their contributions to the state's economy AND force later retirement ages for state employees AND refuse to raise taxes? That's impossible. According to Time magazine, she plans to fire about 40,000 state employees; hence, many state employees and other unions, such as the nurses, do not support her. In the debate, she called state workers and workers' unions "special-interest groups," to whom Brown would be indebted. That was pretty fallacious; for one, as a private donor to her own campaign she effectively is a special-interest group, and two, Jerry Brown doesn't really seem to care about who he owes what. He's been involved with politics for most of his life, basically nonstop, understands first-hand California government and, ultimately, is too old to really have any more political goals after this campaign. I feel the need to momentarily digress and say that, although I generally do agree with Brown, his debate wasn't flawless; one of his trademarks is getting off-topic and trying to sum it up with a little motto, this time, "I've done it before, and I'll do it again," and quite a bit of what he said about elementary schools and water conservation wouldn't really be in his powers anyway, which he would obviously know. But at least he tried to answer the questions; Whitman turned each question into a way to follow her script, somehow answering a UC-budget question with a welfare-themed answer. (Digression over.)
This debate was one of the first times Whitman really publicly discussed her beliefs on immigration, saying she opposes the "Arizona law" but would basically create something similar-but-not to deport illegal immigrants; Jerry Brown said something about instead working towards naturalization, which is far more reasonable than deportation. Anyways, Whitman also has been courting the Latino vote, gaining a peak of 35% of Latino voters's support (this is a traditionally Democratic group, according to the Sacramento Bee). Today's debate is being shown on Univision, with Spanish voiceover. I just think it's strange that her heavily anti-immigration sentiments -- which, in my opinion, would peg her as the a protector of upper-class whites and not much else (yeah, I'm biased against her, but her tax cuts for the rich and job cuts for the not-rich kind of influences how I see her)-- haven't affected this demographic too drastically. Until last Wednesday, of course, when celebrity lawyer and professional annoyance Gloria Allred came forward with a story about Nikki Diaz Santillian, former housekeeper to Whitman, until she told her boss that she was an illegal immigrant and Whitman, instead of assisting her, fired her. Whitman is quoted in the Sacramento Bee as calling herself a "victim" to another illegal immigrant worker -- seriously? The rich, white woman with the governor's campaign is being victimized by a poor immigrant? Currently, on the debate in Fresno, Whitman is accusing Brown of controlling this story and releasing it to Allred at a pivotal time during campaign season. In return, Brown says that she's "talking out of both sides of her mouth" as she vies for support from the Latino community.
This has gone, again, off-topic and into a virtual rant, and I apologize for that. But at least I don't have to apologize for never voting like Meg Whitman did so pathetically at the Davis debate.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Girls Just Want to Run For Office as Republicans and Exploit Feminism
Friday's New York Times featured a front-page article detailing the political philosophies and campaigns of Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, both high-profile, politically inexperienced, ultra-conservative businesswomen candidates in California. Whitman is running for governor against Jerry Brown, while Fiorina is attempting to take Democrat Barbara Boxer's senate seat. The governor's race is at about 41%/41% at the moment, while Fiorina unfortunately seems very likely to win her race, leaving Diane Feinstein as the only liberal senator in California. There is no way I will vote for either candidate. Whitman's campaign has mostly consisted of her pouring money from her own billions as ex-CEO of eBay into advertisements bashing Jerry Brown (like the commercial with the clip of Bill Clinton bad-mouthing Brown? from 1992? the year they were running against each other for the Democratic primaries? the statement which Clinton explained as not what he meant -- which isn't probably true either, but whatever -- last week?). Although she does support abortion rights and is against Prop 23 (Prop 23 would undo AB 32, the environmental law), Whitman is a very traditional conservative, very corporation-minded and more focused on sounding like a good politician than on actually proving herself to be a good politician. She's had barely any experience, except for working on Mitt Romney's and McCain/Palin's campaigns in 2008, but lately Republicans have been valuing that fresh, new-politician smell, and decrying any experienced candidate as a "career politician" (oh, the illogic of campaign advertisements -- I think most people would like the idea of being led by people who have had some sort of knowledge and experience in office, and just two short years ago, conservatives were yelling about how Obama wasn't experienced enough. He'd been a senator, for chrissakes. Whitman's done basically nothing political and they're all just fawning over her. But I digress.) Fiorina is pro-Tea Party, pro-gun ownership, pro-Central Valley farmer (and thousand-dollar-a-plate dinner) and offshore drilling and Prop 23, as unabashedly conservative as Boxer is liberal, referring to San Francisco as "that other world" even though she lives in the Bay Area, and relies on her temp worker-to-HP executive (until she was effectively fired) story as a selling point.
The main crux of the story was Whitman's emphasis of her event in Anaheim as a "women's town hall," her belief that free enterprise and fiscal discipline are subjects well-known to working women. She has a campaign group called Mega-Women and speaks in that oh-women-get-together-and-vote-for-me-because-I-don't-have-a-Y-chromosome-either sense. Fiorina, too, is trying to rally female voters. Whitman and Fiorina have good reason to rely on their gender to try to garner votes -- most Californian women are registered Democrat, though, of course, most Californian Democrats don't vote (neither do young Californians, but that's a different story). But I can't stand that women actually do this; they resort to old stereotypes and aphorisms to capitalize on their femininity or maternalism or non-maleness or whatever to try to get votes. And there are women who respond to this. I vaguely recall flipping through some idiotically bland ladies' magazine in line at the grocery store in '04 and reading a "Letter to the Editor" from some lady who probably proudly refers to herself as a "housewife" saying that she was definitely going to vote for George Bush because "of that old housecleaning mantra -- if you make a mess, you clean it up." This angered me; yeah, maybe that works to get some kids to clean up milk or whatever, but politically you do not vote incompetence back into office. An argument some suffragists used during the turn of the last century was that women would vote more compassionately, and not at all like men would; up through to today, there have still been women arguing that a female president would be good for America because she'd be more nurturing and responsible and, basically, act like a housewife. This further separates women from men, making it seem like the only way for a woman to be politically equal is if she, well, isn't; although some men do try to use military backgrounds as a sort of off-handed proof of their machismo and, therefore, electability, the majority of male candidates try to be elected because of presence and policy, whereas women politicians usually try to resemble Sarah Palin trying to rally "mama bears" to vote because of the children and whatnot. This bothered me in '08, when Hilary Clinton didn't make the primary and Palin attempted to gain her old supporters as a sort of, "well, since that girl didn't make it, why don't you vote for me?" faux-feminist type of thing. But I didn't want a woman to be in higher office; I wanted Hilary Clinton to be in higher office. And playing the gender card, like Whitman and Fiorina are currently doing, devalues women's right to vote and choose and support personal political beliefs.
The main crux of the story was Whitman's emphasis of her event in Anaheim as a "women's town hall," her belief that free enterprise and fiscal discipline are subjects well-known to working women. She has a campaign group called Mega-Women and speaks in that oh-women-get-together-and-vote-for-me-because-I-don't-have-a-Y-chromosome-either sense. Fiorina, too, is trying to rally female voters. Whitman and Fiorina have good reason to rely on their gender to try to garner votes -- most Californian women are registered Democrat, though, of course, most Californian Democrats don't vote (neither do young Californians, but that's a different story). But I can't stand that women actually do this; they resort to old stereotypes and aphorisms to capitalize on their femininity or maternalism or non-maleness or whatever to try to get votes. And there are women who respond to this. I vaguely recall flipping through some idiotically bland ladies' magazine in line at the grocery store in '04 and reading a "Letter to the Editor" from some lady who probably proudly refers to herself as a "housewife" saying that she was definitely going to vote for George Bush because "of that old housecleaning mantra -- if you make a mess, you clean it up." This angered me; yeah, maybe that works to get some kids to clean up milk or whatever, but politically you do not vote incompetence back into office. An argument some suffragists used during the turn of the last century was that women would vote more compassionately, and not at all like men would; up through to today, there have still been women arguing that a female president would be good for America because she'd be more nurturing and responsible and, basically, act like a housewife. This further separates women from men, making it seem like the only way for a woman to be politically equal is if she, well, isn't; although some men do try to use military backgrounds as a sort of off-handed proof of their machismo and, therefore, electability, the majority of male candidates try to be elected because of presence and policy, whereas women politicians usually try to resemble Sarah Palin trying to rally "mama bears" to vote because of the children and whatnot. This bothered me in '08, when Hilary Clinton didn't make the primary and Palin attempted to gain her old supporters as a sort of, "well, since that girl didn't make it, why don't you vote for me?" faux-feminist type of thing. But I didn't want a woman to be in higher office; I wanted Hilary Clinton to be in higher office. And playing the gender card, like Whitman and Fiorina are currently doing, devalues women's right to vote and choose and support personal political beliefs.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
All Tomorrow's Parties?
Just by principle, I've always been simultaneously underwhelmed and annoyed by the Tea Party "movement." I have trouble considering a group of largely middle-aged white conservatives as a "movement," since historically consequential political movements are either young (the uprise of post-Kennedy liberalism in the sixties, as well as the Founding Fathers, who were for the most part on the young-ish side, and upstarts at that), minority-based (such as the Black Panther Party), or liberal (the Progressive movement in the early 1900s). This is not to say that the pendulum never swings to the conservative side, or that middle-aged white men tend to hold political power, but a movement which isn't young and doesn't have liberal vitality seems extremely laughable and likely to fail. But the Tea Party has been gaining quite a bit of media attention, first as a sort of sideshow of old guys in Patriot hats, but in the past two weeks, the Tea Partiers have been talked about everywhere from PBS' Newshour to the Today show, culminating in the most recent issue of TIME which features an oversized teacup on its cover. The group is still relatively small, still rallying with misspelled posters advertising fabricated anti-Obama conspiracies, still demanding a return to how America used to be (which is highly ironic, because if the majority of the party had been alive during, say, the Revolution, they'd probably all be dead. Lower life expectancy. And if they were actually living I highly doubt they would have enjoyed the progressivism of employing a new form of government. But I digress). The issue is that the Tea Party is actually winning, beating out establisment Republican candidates in Senate races in Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Alaska, Kentucky, Florida, and Delaware. Delaware is the latest story, featuring former anti-masturbation pundit Christine O'Donnell as the newest Republican Senate nominee who looks like a poor man's Sarah Palin and speaks in a bastardized version of apocryphal Jeffersonian with taglines like "When the government fears the people, there is liberty." There is also, of course, the off-chance that perhaps a government which was originally set in place to protect the liberty of its citizens and has managed to provide levels of freedom superior to the majority of the world's nations is actually a pretty damn good source of liberty, but the Tea Party doesn't really deal with such novelties as "reason" or "rationality."
The "cause," as O'Donnell and others refer to it, desires a small central government, financial markets with little-to-no restrictions, low regulation, and few federal entitlements (TIME). The extreme conservatism doesn't bode well for traditional Republic candidates, but also haunts Democrats; Republicans have been voting more in this year's off-season primaries anyhow. Tea Party candidates, such as O'Donnell and Alaska's Joe Miller have been elected after elections with very few voters, and these candidates sell themselves based on their supposed connection to the "people;" they have very little political experience, which they somehow have twisted into a selling point. It's all part of their anti-elite campaign, regardless of the fact that they don't represent minority groups or the working poor or pro-union workers or the young or the politically literate or the non-radical conservatives. Their definition of the "people" is vague and largely incomplete. Personally, I don't feel threatened by or afraid of this Te Party; I think it's silly, and since I'm not a member of the GOP I'm not worried about my party being toppled. But on the other hand, I would feel a lot better having a more moderate GOP, and not have to live under the discretion of politicians elected by the idiot masses because they are, as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity, the ones farthest to the right. The demagogues are pushing for their supporters to vote as extremely conservative as possible, according to the TIME article, and even though I have enough faith in people to trust that most won't listen to the crazies, victories by people like O'Donnell make me question the sanity of conservative voters. These are the same people who call Obama a socialist, and here they are, vouching for the extreme right and not expecting to be called fascists -- obviously, I know this isn't fascism, but I mean it is a pretty hypocritical situation. But whatever, I keep digressing. Back to politics, I just don't agree with the Tea Party's support of devolution of health care and the EPA and the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. The Tea Party will likely die out by 2012, and if not that, then definitely 2016, but as for now they're an annoyance with increasing clout. Or maybe not. Maybe all this media focus just makes it seem that way.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Feelings, Followed by Less Personal Writing
Today, I realize, is September 11th. I feel like I should post something relevant to this being the ninth anniversary of the attacks, but I can't figure out exactly what would even be relevant. I remember what it was like when everything happened; I was young, I didn't understand what was occurring, but I knew that something had happened. The grief was so palpable, followed by what I sensed was some kind of national bonding, a lot of compassion, a lot of outpouring of respect even from the most cynical. I'm not incredibly patriotic, in the sense that I'm not some blind, flag-wielding nationalist, but I don't think the way people felt was mere patriotism -- it was more about compassionate responses to human loss, and a reassessment of what freedom means. And I don't mean that in like a country-music-station, taking-a-gun-into-a-bar-in-Tennessee-just-because-I-can kind of way. I like having the freedom to criticize people in charge and policies I don't like and general hypocrisy in the media, to have whatever opinion I want about the nation's predominant religion(s), to (theoretically) be eligible for whatever school or job I want. Yes, it's self-interest in the most Madisonian terms, but it's also humanistic (and it's basically my version of what Jon Stewart said on The Daily Show on September 20, 2001 -- except everything he said was heartfelt and brilliant and beautiful). So that's what I've been thinking about in regards to the day's date, just what things were like nine years ago.
Because I don't really know what matters now. Less than two years later, the U.S. invaded Iraq on the terms of finding WMDs (there weren't any) and al-Quida (who weren't secretly harbored there) and eventually turning into a dictator-overthrowing, "democracy-spreading" mission in futility ignoring the importance of the Shi'ite/Sunni dynamic in an attempt to Westernize the Middle East and occurring around the same time as Iran's controversial presidential election, continued strife between Israel and Pakistan, increasing worldwide oil dependency and a furthering of oil as a main cause of American warfare, continued terroristic activities in Europe, an American economic recession, etc. It hasn't been the best decade, apparently. Combat activities officially ended two weeks ago, but troops are still abroad, and will continue to be until next year (and about 50,000 will remain non-combatant). Islam-related news has been very prevalent the past few weeks, straight off the heels of the cultural center "debate" (I assume it's not really a debate if there's no actual, legal reason not to build the center), with that idiotic preacher in Florida trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. I'd really rather not even mention that story, since the over-mustached, under-educated little wannabe-demagogue (the church he founded -- and had to leave due to something along the lines of money laundering, I believe -- in Germany has decried him, as has General Petraeus, the Pope, et al) wouldn't be having any impact at all on the world if the media hadn't covered his story. Even that statement conflicts me -- the media should cover stories about book-burning and other violations, but at the price of giving a nutcase a microphone? Mayor Bloomberg called him an idiot, but cited freedom of speech -- I feel like destructing a Quran isn't an exercise in freedom, but an exercise in Klan-style passive-aggresive hate crimes. I saw this story covered on PBS Newshour, which showed video clips of flag and effigy-burnings (effigies of the preacher) in the Middle East; news of the man is well-known, giving the impression that all Americans are the same way as him, just as violent and stupid. And this information, just as Petraeus feared it would be, has been spread mostly by extremist groups. My realization after watching the segment was that this is not a battle between different peoples or different values, but a battle between uneducated extremist Christians and uneducated extremist Muslims. Both deny evolution, both want to convert everyone to their system of beliefs, both refuse to learn anything not strictly following a fundamentalist interpretation of dogma. I am fairly skeptical of any religion, and a good deal of my skepticism comes from the fact that stupid, hateful people like this exist in every expansionist religion.
I just read an Associated Press article from yesterday describing Obama talking about the continued pursuit of Al-Quida leaders. The article included a quote from former 9/11 co-chair Lee Hamilton, stating that "the American relationship with the Islamic world is one of the really great foreign policy challenges of the next decades...[w]e're not going to solve it in a year or two or five or even 10 years." Obviously, the timespan it takes for two cultures to understand each other is a very, very long one, and most Americans don't have the patience, and most humans don't have the foresight. News stations are going crazy over the story about the woman sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for adultery, while one of the men involved only has a three-year prison sentence and in the midst of two other women sentenced to a similar fate. This is primitive, this is unjust, sexist, wrong -- but many Americans are using this story as a way to justify their own discomfort with Islam. You can't just tell a country that it's cultural law is wrong; it is wrong, but it's just not possible to change centuries-old law. At the same time, if Iran wants to be respected as a viable modern nation, this kind of human rights violation needs to end.
I've gone far enough off-topic for now....
Because I don't really know what matters now. Less than two years later, the U.S. invaded Iraq on the terms of finding WMDs (there weren't any) and al-Quida (who weren't secretly harbored there) and eventually turning into a dictator-overthrowing, "democracy-spreading" mission in futility ignoring the importance of the Shi'ite/Sunni dynamic in an attempt to Westernize the Middle East and occurring around the same time as Iran's controversial presidential election, continued strife between Israel and Pakistan, increasing worldwide oil dependency and a furthering of oil as a main cause of American warfare, continued terroristic activities in Europe, an American economic recession, etc. It hasn't been the best decade, apparently. Combat activities officially ended two weeks ago, but troops are still abroad, and will continue to be until next year (and about 50,000 will remain non-combatant). Islam-related news has been very prevalent the past few weeks, straight off the heels of the cultural center "debate" (I assume it's not really a debate if there's no actual, legal reason not to build the center), with that idiotic preacher in Florida trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. I'd really rather not even mention that story, since the over-mustached, under-educated little wannabe-demagogue (the church he founded -- and had to leave due to something along the lines of money laundering, I believe -- in Germany has decried him, as has General Petraeus, the Pope, et al) wouldn't be having any impact at all on the world if the media hadn't covered his story. Even that statement conflicts me -- the media should cover stories about book-burning and other violations, but at the price of giving a nutcase a microphone? Mayor Bloomberg called him an idiot, but cited freedom of speech -- I feel like destructing a Quran isn't an exercise in freedom, but an exercise in Klan-style passive-aggresive hate crimes. I saw this story covered on PBS Newshour, which showed video clips of flag and effigy-burnings (effigies of the preacher) in the Middle East; news of the man is well-known, giving the impression that all Americans are the same way as him, just as violent and stupid. And this information, just as Petraeus feared it would be, has been spread mostly by extremist groups. My realization after watching the segment was that this is not a battle between different peoples or different values, but a battle between uneducated extremist Christians and uneducated extremist Muslims. Both deny evolution, both want to convert everyone to their system of beliefs, both refuse to learn anything not strictly following a fundamentalist interpretation of dogma. I am fairly skeptical of any religion, and a good deal of my skepticism comes from the fact that stupid, hateful people like this exist in every expansionist religion.
I just read an Associated Press article from yesterday describing Obama talking about the continued pursuit of Al-Quida leaders. The article included a quote from former 9/11 co-chair Lee Hamilton, stating that "the American relationship with the Islamic world is one of the really great foreign policy challenges of the next decades...[w]e're not going to solve it in a year or two or five or even 10 years." Obviously, the timespan it takes for two cultures to understand each other is a very, very long one, and most Americans don't have the patience, and most humans don't have the foresight. News stations are going crazy over the story about the woman sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for adultery, while one of the men involved only has a three-year prison sentence and in the midst of two other women sentenced to a similar fate. This is primitive, this is unjust, sexist, wrong -- but many Americans are using this story as a way to justify their own discomfort with Islam. You can't just tell a country that it's cultural law is wrong; it is wrong, but it's just not possible to change centuries-old law. At the same time, if Iran wants to be respected as a viable modern nation, this kind of human rights violation needs to end.
I've gone far enough off-topic for now....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)