I'm maybe the only realist here. I refuse to be the one whining and complaining because the world is mean and people do inappropriate things and Disney is breeding a generation of untalented hack tweens but oh no Vanity Fair "sexualized" one of them and now we're going to light our torches and storm the publishing headquarters and turn Annie Liebowitz into a villain because how could she do something like that.
Welcome to the real world. The real world is full of competing interests. Vanity Fair wants to sell magazine. Annie Liebowitz wants to take photographs and create art. Miley Cyrus wants exposure/money/name recognition for something other than being the latest in a long line of Disney protégés.
Miley Cyrus has parents. She is fifteen years old. Her parents are still largely a part of her life. Are we seriously believing that neither Miley Cyrus nor her parents saw any of the pictures before Vanity Fair went to print? Really? When Annie Liebowitz photographs you, she does it with a digital camera. You get to see the pictures after she takes them.
Additionally, when Vanity Fair dressed Miley Cyrus in a sheet and tousled her hair, none of her caretakers thought maybe the photographs were going to be suggestive? Are you kidding me? Miley Cyrus is fifteen. She's not four. She knows what it means to be sexual. I'm assuming we all remember the pictures on her Myspace where she's pulling up/down her shirt. I make very valiant attempts to not know things about Disney stars, and even I've seen pictures of Miley Cyrus in her lime green bra.
Come. On.
When I was a "tween," I tried to leave the house in slutty clothing. I failed. Because of my parents. Teenagers know what sex is. They're insecure. They want to fit in. They try every way possible to be "cool." Now, granted, the situation is different when Vanity Fair is the party sexualizing you, but the role of the parents doesn't change.
Don't blame Vanity Fair or Annie Liebowitz. They're doing their jobs. Blame Miley Cyrus' parents for failing to keep their daughter from jumping on the bandwagon of Disney superstar turned slutty Disney superstar twat.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Let's talk about Miley Cyrus
I have little but disdain for Miley Cyrus and every other manufactured child star that has the Disney logo branded into her ass.
But as 15 year old girl whose entire existence is manufactured into pop culture commodification, she can't be anything but a product of our pop culture, accepting everything it tells her. And the number 1 thing it tells you is to be sexy, and if possible, to embody sex. Especially if you're a sign of wholesome American girls, and especially if Disney made you. (Don't forget: Disney also brought you Britney Spears).
And for fuck's sake, she's 15! 15-year-old girls are unstable, searching for an identity, and, literally, dying to fit in. This means blow jobs, sex, drinking, hard drugs, starvation, and self-inflicted wounds. And this means looking like a babyprostitute.
How dare the media condemn Miley Cyrus for being who they tell her and every other female from prepubescent girls onwards to be?
I know its patriarchy and I know its pop culture and I know its the pornification of all things remotely recognizably female, but I still can't contain my fury. It's just so unfair.
Oh, and Annie Liebowitz, for seeing a 15 year old as someone who it is appropriate to lead into being photographed with I've-been-having-sex-for-3-hours hair and a satin sheet, there's something wrong with how you look at young girls.
Sphere: Related Content
But as 15 year old girl whose entire existence is manufactured into pop culture commodification, she can't be anything but a product of our pop culture, accepting everything it tells her. And the number 1 thing it tells you is to be sexy, and if possible, to embody sex. Especially if you're a sign of wholesome American girls, and especially if Disney made you. (Don't forget: Disney also brought you Britney Spears).
And for fuck's sake, she's 15! 15-year-old girls are unstable, searching for an identity, and, literally, dying to fit in. This means blow jobs, sex, drinking, hard drugs, starvation, and self-inflicted wounds. And this means looking like a babyprostitute.
How dare the media condemn Miley Cyrus for being who they tell her and every other female from prepubescent girls onwards to be?
I know its patriarchy and I know its pop culture and I know its the pornification of all things remotely recognizably female, but I still can't contain my fury. It's just so unfair.
Oh, and Annie Liebowitz, for seeing a 15 year old as someone who it is appropriate to lead into being photographed with I've-been-having-sex-for-3-hours hair and a satin sheet, there's something wrong with how you look at young girls.
The World Needs Power-Sharing
MentalJumpstart (whoever you are, thanks!) sent us this powerfully infuriating article.
Infuriating because on face value, it's convincing, and within another paradigm, it makes sense.
Let's start off with this: the article is called "Why the World Still Needs Mr. Big: Rumors of its demise have been exaggerated. Just one country has the will and the wherewithal to take care of business." The will to take care of business. That's where this whole article goes wrong. In the subtitle. That might be a record. (Also, Joffe needs to go back and re-watch Sex and the City, because Mr. Big is an asshole but he definitely isn't a global hegemonist)
What exactly does that mean, "take care of business?" Let's speculate. The only things that superpowers are actually better at than normal-powers for are a)domination and b)war, which is a subset of domination. Not that superpowers have the monopoly on wars. The wars that we embark upon as an international community, at least, have come much closer to being ''just'' wars (Rwanda, former Yugoslavia) than anything America has lately embarked upon.
The point is, no one should be "taking care of business." No country should have a monopoly on domination of every lesser power, no country should be able to get away with the wars of "preemptive" aggression that we've flipped the world off with.
So I agree with Jaffe. Russia, China, Europe even should not be allowed to take power over the world in our stead. We shouldn't have been allowed to take power over the world in the first place. We should behave more like Europe--having the "means" but not the "will" to be a superpower, because in a perfect world, no one would have the will. In this one, however, we'll have to share power.
He got it right in the very beginning, "Washington faces two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that it is not winning. Russia, China, Europe and perhaps even India are stepping forward to claim a piece of the leadership action; the "unipolar moment" is waning in favor of multipolarity. There goes the American century." And thank God.
Post-script: I very, very much resent Joffe's assertion that only Russia and China shelter corrupt, brutal, even evil governments. We installed, funded, supported, and armed, countless regimes, from Iraq to Indonesia to countless Latin American fascist dictatorships and much, much more, many informally through government-sanctioned, officially illegal arms dealers. I know I'm going to sound like Hugo Chavez here, but seriously, go read Hegemony or Survival.
Sphere: Related Content
Infuriating because on face value, it's convincing, and within another paradigm, it makes sense.
Let's start off with this: the article is called "Why the World Still Needs Mr. Big: Rumors of its demise have been exaggerated. Just one country has the will and the wherewithal to take care of business." The will to take care of business. That's where this whole article goes wrong. In the subtitle. That might be a record. (Also, Joffe needs to go back and re-watch Sex and the City, because Mr. Big is an asshole but he definitely isn't a global hegemonist)
What exactly does that mean, "take care of business?" Let's speculate. The only things that superpowers are actually better at than normal-powers for are a)domination and b)war, which is a subset of domination. Not that superpowers have the monopoly on wars. The wars that we embark upon as an international community, at least, have come much closer to being ''just'' wars (Rwanda, former Yugoslavia) than anything America has lately embarked upon.
The point is, no one should be "taking care of business." No country should have a monopoly on domination of every lesser power, no country should be able to get away with the wars of "preemptive" aggression that we've flipped the world off with.
So I agree with Jaffe. Russia, China, Europe even should not be allowed to take power over the world in our stead. We shouldn't have been allowed to take power over the world in the first place. We should behave more like Europe--having the "means" but not the "will" to be a superpower, because in a perfect world, no one would have the will. In this one, however, we'll have to share power.
He got it right in the very beginning, "Washington faces two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that it is not winning. Russia, China, Europe and perhaps even India are stepping forward to claim a piece of the leadership action; the "unipolar moment" is waning in favor of multipolarity. There goes the American century." And thank God.
Post-script: I very, very much resent Joffe's assertion that only Russia and China shelter corrupt, brutal, even evil governments. We installed, funded, supported, and armed, countless regimes, from Iraq to Indonesia to countless Latin American fascist dictatorships and much, much more, many informally through government-sanctioned, officially illegal arms dealers. I know I'm going to sound like Hugo Chavez here, but seriously, go read Hegemony or Survival.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Peggy Noonan is Confused, Racist, and Angry
While my brilliant commentary on this op-ed may lead to you believe that it's all you could possibly need or want to know to fulfill all yearning for knowledge about why Peggy "Batshit" Noonan is Confused, Racist, and Angry, this piece is just so ridic that you should check it out for yourselves. After reading my divinely inspired rant.
First, it instantly becomes clear that Peggy Noonan believes that she is Queen of America, and in a uniquely colonial twist, replaces the use of the royal "we" with the royal "referring to one's self in the name of one's nation." I.e., Peggy Noonan refers to herself as America, and believes she alone really represents it.
B, Peggy Noonan is a neurotic bitch who wishes death on those who are doing their job to make sure that passengers don't meet their deaths via airplane bomb (which is not to say that TSA people aren't heinous bitches themselves, but still).
Roman Numeral III, Peggy Noonan is a racist, class-ist, age-ist bigot. She tells us that it is impossible that anyone who is not phenotypically Arabic Muslim could not possibly be any kind of threat to the safety of other passengers. She believes that "equality" means letting the "middle aged woman" bypass security. This of course also means the middle-class, white woman, by virtue of her soccer mom potential. Though the "vulgar girl on the cell phone" and the "loud ruffian" (ruffian? didn't that word go out of style after the Renaissance?) are also white and therefore non-threats, Noonan doesn't suggest that they should get to skip security--probably their punishment for being not as wealthy as she is.
Additionally, she talks about how no one's watching Wolf Blitzer mumble through his beard about PA, probably because they can hear him talking and who'd want to look at him, anyway? Also, the probably get all of their news from the internet, like everyone else.
Then she goes on for a while about how it's inherently ok to call Obama's patriotism into question, unlike John McCain, because he's black and a liberal and probably for some reason having to do with the fact that his father wasn't born here. And then there's something about how liberals and moderates should listen to her despite her racist, class-ist invective because she doesn't like Bush, either.
I'm filled with hate for the media.
Sphere: Related Content
First, it instantly becomes clear that Peggy Noonan believes that she is Queen of America, and in a uniquely colonial twist, replaces the use of the royal "we" with the royal "referring to one's self in the name of one's nation." I.e., Peggy Noonan refers to herself as America, and believes she alone really represents it.
B, Peggy Noonan is a neurotic bitch who wishes death on those who are doing their job to make sure that passengers don't meet their deaths via airplane bomb (which is not to say that TSA people aren't heinous bitches themselves, but still).
Roman Numeral III, Peggy Noonan is a racist, class-ist, age-ist bigot. She tells us that it is impossible that anyone who is not phenotypically Arabic Muslim could not possibly be any kind of threat to the safety of other passengers. She believes that "equality" means letting the "middle aged woman" bypass security. This of course also means the middle-class, white woman, by virtue of her soccer mom potential. Though the "vulgar girl on the cell phone" and the "loud ruffian" (ruffian? didn't that word go out of style after the Renaissance?) are also white and therefore non-threats, Noonan doesn't suggest that they should get to skip security--probably their punishment for being not as wealthy as she is.
Additionally, she talks about how no one's watching Wolf Blitzer mumble through his beard about PA, probably because they can hear him talking and who'd want to look at him, anyway? Also, the probably get all of their news from the internet, like everyone else.
Then she goes on for a while about how it's inherently ok to call Obama's patriotism into question, unlike John McCain, because he's black and a liberal and probably for some reason having to do with the fact that his father wasn't born here. And then there's something about how liberals and moderates should listen to her despite her racist, class-ist invective because she doesn't like Bush, either.
I'm filled with hate for the media.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Don't Use The R-Word.
As I sit here eating my mid-recession lunch of kidney beans (surprisingly sweet today!) and baked organic chicken breast (moist and delicious!) I seriously can't help but laugh at how batshit everyone is going over the fact that their "economic stimulus" checks are effectively in the mail. [CQ, sub. req'd.]
Ok. Let's be real about this. This is not a good economic stimulus package. I mean, if you're middle class and generally able to pay your bills and feed yourself, it's pretty ok. You're probably just excited that the government is giving you a pocket-full of cash and encouraging you to spend it on stuff. Because everyone knows that what I need in my life right now are more foreign-made conveniences. And I'm serious about that. But let's look at the big picture, shall we? Gather round for story time, kiddles. I will regale you with tales of bipartisanship (read: Republicans hacking the teeth out of what at one point was actually a decent economic stimulus package.)
A good economic stimulus package not only focuses on those who are most likely to spend the money (ie: me), but also on those who actually, you know need the money (ie: the unemployed, people on food stamps, etc.). If it's really good, it will also maybe try to create jobs, but getting all three of those things while there are still "fiscal conservatives" on planet Earth is so ridiculously unlikely that, really, I won't even bother hypothesizing.
Now that the first round of checks are mailed, House Democratic leaders want to start considering a second economic stimulus package. One that would include all the things Republican leadership managed to complain out of the first bill. Hooray! Extension of unemployment benefits! Expansion of food stamp benefits! Infrastructure spending to create jobs!
Wait.
Republicans don't think we need a second bill.
Oh well. Better luck next time, poor and lower-middle class America.
Sphere: Related Content
Ok. Let's be real about this. This is not a good economic stimulus package. I mean, if you're middle class and generally able to pay your bills and feed yourself, it's pretty ok. You're probably just excited that the government is giving you a pocket-full of cash and encouraging you to spend it on stuff. Because everyone knows that what I need in my life right now are more foreign-made conveniences. And I'm serious about that. But let's look at the big picture, shall we? Gather round for story time, kiddles. I will regale you with tales of bipartisanship (read: Republicans hacking the teeth out of what at one point was actually a decent economic stimulus package.)
A good economic stimulus package not only focuses on those who are most likely to spend the money (ie: me), but also on those who actually, you know need the money (ie: the unemployed, people on food stamps, etc.). If it's really good, it will also maybe try to create jobs, but getting all three of those things while there are still "fiscal conservatives" on planet Earth is so ridiculously unlikely that, really, I won't even bother hypothesizing.
Now that the first round of checks are mailed, House Democratic leaders want to start considering a second economic stimulus package. One that would include all the things Republican leadership managed to complain out of the first bill. Hooray! Extension of unemployment benefits! Expansion of food stamp benefits! Infrastructure spending to create jobs!
Wait.
Republicans don't think we need a second bill.
Oh well. Better luck next time, poor and lower-middle class America.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Nora Ephron Is Bad Writer, Complete Moron; Pennsylvania Voters Are Powerless To Demographic Trends
Nora Ephron has taken a moment out of her busy, busy day to give voters in Pennsylvania a thorough, yet amateur psychoanalyzing. Totally free of charge! Except, I guess, for however much the thousand or so brains cells I lost reading her idiotic drivel were worth. She also comes to the stunningly brilliant conclusion that it was slightly less obvious that the nominee was going to be either a woman or a black man when Woman and Black Man weren't the only options. [HuffPo]
Since, you know, if you're a woman or black, you don't get a choice when it comes to who you vote for, Nora Ephron has concluded that the only people who mattered in the Pennsylvania primary are white men. And they're all either racist, misogynistic, or both (read: Republican, if your English-Ephron dictionary is turned off).
That's right. Look around you. If there's a white male within eyesight, he definitely either hates black people or women. If you're either one of those, I guess you should just hope that he hates the other one. Although, if you're voting for Barack Obama, Nora Ephron would probably also conclude that you don't have to worry in this situation because voting for Barack Obama also means you run fast and can probably jump really high.
Sphere: Related Content
Since, you know, if you're a woman or black, you don't get a choice when it comes to who you vote for, Nora Ephron has concluded that the only people who mattered in the Pennsylvania primary are white men. And they're all either racist, misogynistic, or both (read: Republican, if your English-Ephron dictionary is turned off).
That's right. Look around you. If there's a white male within eyesight, he definitely either hates black people or women. If you're either one of those, I guess you should just hope that he hates the other one. Although, if you're voting for Barack Obama, Nora Ephron would probably also conclude that you don't have to worry in this situation because voting for Barack Obama also means you run fast and can probably jump really high.
I Fucking Hate Maureen Dowd
There are lots of reasons I should like Maureen Dowd. She's a woman, she's a liberal, she supports Obama, she's snarky (kind of...), she's also a fake red-head.
But I don't.
Her writing is totally inane. She's way more concerned with how awesome she (thinks she) is than actually writing good opinion pieces. Her pieces, when they have a point, never have a very good one, and usually get there in some stupid way.
Look. I'm no rabid Obama-lover. I really like him. I also really like Hillary. The point is that Dowd's piece, linked to in the title of this post, is extremely detrimental to both of them.
According to Maureen "my cynicism and hyper-judgemental-ness is more important than having a message in my political opinion pieces" Dowd, Hillary is conniving, emasculating, and has no desire but to take the party with her if she has to go down, while Barack is whiny, losing steam, and not enough of the leader we thought he was to make Hillary "go away."
Even more damaging, Dowd both portrays Hillary as buying into the misogynist invective slung at her every fraction of a second, saying that Hillary sends a message that Barack isn't "enough of a man" to "put me in my place" (in her place? What the fucking motherfucking fuck?!) AND Dowd portrays herself as buying into Hillary's claims that Barack must be inferior to Clinton as a leader because he can't "seal the deal."
Dear Hillary Clinton, Maureen Dowd and all the people who buy her shit,
Your point that Barack must be an inferior leader to Hillary because he can't "shake her off" is an absurdly blatant logical fallacy (didn't a bunch of you go to law school? Have you heard of fallacies? It has nothing to do with fellatio, stop looking at me like that). Hillary Clinton hobviously can't "seal the deal" EITHER. So much so that she's still losing the primary contest by hundreds of delegates.
So shut up with this groping for reasons why one is suddenly a failure and the other isn't. They can't "seal the deal" because they're both incredible candidates that would make amazing Presidents and really want a chance to prove it. THAT'S why, you morons.
Also, to all those Barack supporters who whine about how Hillary's damaging the ability of the party to be legit and present a united front: every time you Hillary-bash, you're doing THE EXACT SAME THING. Suck it up already.
--Rant terminated--
Sphere: Related Content
But I don't.
Her writing is totally inane. She's way more concerned with how awesome she (thinks she) is than actually writing good opinion pieces. Her pieces, when they have a point, never have a very good one, and usually get there in some stupid way.
Look. I'm no rabid Obama-lover. I really like him. I also really like Hillary. The point is that Dowd's piece, linked to in the title of this post, is extremely detrimental to both of them.
According to Maureen "my cynicism and hyper-judgemental-ness is more important than having a message in my political opinion pieces" Dowd, Hillary is conniving, emasculating, and has no desire but to take the party with her if she has to go down, while Barack is whiny, losing steam, and not enough of the leader we thought he was to make Hillary "go away."
Even more damaging, Dowd both portrays Hillary as buying into the misogynist invective slung at her every fraction of a second, saying that Hillary sends a message that Barack isn't "enough of a man" to "put me in my place" (in her place? What the fucking motherfucking fuck?!) AND Dowd portrays herself as buying into Hillary's claims that Barack must be inferior to Clinton as a leader because he can't "seal the deal."
Dear Hillary Clinton, Maureen Dowd and all the people who buy her shit,
Your point that Barack must be an inferior leader to Hillary because he can't "shake her off" is an absurdly blatant logical fallacy (didn't a bunch of you go to law school? Have you heard of fallacies? It has nothing to do with fellatio, stop looking at me like that). Hillary Clinton hobviously can't "seal the deal" EITHER. So much so that she's still losing the primary contest by hundreds of delegates.
So shut up with this groping for reasons why one is suddenly a failure and the other isn't. They can't "seal the deal" because they're both incredible candidates that would make amazing Presidents and really want a chance to prove it. THAT'S why, you morons.
Also, to all those Barack supporters who whine about how Hillary's damaging the ability of the party to be legit and present a united front: every time you Hillary-bash, you're doing THE EXACT SAME THING. Suck it up already.
--Rant terminated--
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Back On Track?
So today, the almighty (and perpetually drunk) Terry McAuliffe announced that Senator Clinton raised $10mn through 60,000 online donations after winning the PA primary by a 10-point margin. [Time]
My. Ass.
Seriously. Americans can't afford to fill their gas tanks, but you want me to believe that the Clinton campaign managed to pry about $166 from each wallet in blue collar America? I'm calling bullshit on this one. But that's not the point. Even if the Clinton campaign didn't just withhold $10mn at the end of the quarter and save it for a time when they needed a little money-driven "momentum," the question remains as to why blue collar America is so attached to Senator Clinton.
Blue collar jobs are incredibly difficult, strenuous, and over time, are often debilitating. It's a life that is incredibly admirable. But these people aren't sheet metal workers because it was their life's passion. They aren't workers in cement plants because they understand and value the importance of smooth texture and a good blend when pouring foundations. They're auto workers because it pays the bills. They're miners because they want to send their children to college. They're service workers because they want their children to be the directors and the CEO's they never had the opportunity to be.
Somewhere in this post I lost track of the snark and ended up in campaign speech land. But really. I've been trying to compose the next paragraph of this post for the last 20 minutes and have written and erased it 6 times. I don't fucking have an answer.
I don't understand blue collar America.
Sphere: Related Content
My. Ass.
Seriously. Americans can't afford to fill their gas tanks, but you want me to believe that the Clinton campaign managed to pry about $166 from each wallet in blue collar America? I'm calling bullshit on this one. But that's not the point. Even if the Clinton campaign didn't just withhold $10mn at the end of the quarter and save it for a time when they needed a little money-driven "momentum," the question remains as to why blue collar America is so attached to Senator Clinton.
Blue collar jobs are incredibly difficult, strenuous, and over time, are often debilitating. It's a life that is incredibly admirable. But these people aren't sheet metal workers because it was their life's passion. They aren't workers in cement plants because they understand and value the importance of smooth texture and a good blend when pouring foundations. They're auto workers because it pays the bills. They're miners because they want to send their children to college. They're service workers because they want their children to be the directors and the CEO's they never had the opportunity to be.
Somewhere in this post I lost track of the snark and ended up in campaign speech land. But really. I've been trying to compose the next paragraph of this post for the last 20 minutes and have written and erased it 6 times. I don't fucking have an answer.
I don't understand blue collar America.
But that's what Al Gore does...
You know what I'm getting kiiiind of sick of? Presidential candidates that (rightly) make the environment one of the biggest campaign issues, but choose policies that sound familiar (i.e. from the last 8 State of the Union addresses) rather than ones that are, you know, well-thought-out. Or even rely on knowledge that any freshman environmental studies major would be able to tell you. I'm referring to biofuels.
Biofuels require more oil to produce than they save. So when you put 10 gallons of 10% ethanol gas in your tank, you're not consuming 9 gallons of oil rather that 10...you're actually consuming more than 10 gallons, more than your would if you had gone to a non-"flexfuel" station. (I nevertheless commend your effort, but seriously, stop doing it now).
Oh, that and making biofuels out of corn (which is less efficient than using sugar cane or switch grass) is causing the poorest of the poor in the world to starve due to rising grain prices while industrial agriculture gets rich off of ethanol demand, speculation on corn prices in the commodities market, and farm subsidies that come from our taxes. (For that matter, lets get rid of farm subsidies. If they actually went to small (often organic) farmers, who often don't qualify for subsidies, I wouldn't have this issue).
This is why I like Barack's energy policy the best--he calls for the use of non-food crops to make biofuels, though he doesn't take it far enough. ALL of the crops that we use for biofuels should be non-food crops, like switch grass. But before that, let's go back to doing research in biofuel production so that making biofuel actually cuts down on our oil use, rather than increasing it.
Sphere: Related Content
Biofuels require more oil to produce than they save. So when you put 10 gallons of 10% ethanol gas in your tank, you're not consuming 9 gallons of oil rather that 10...you're actually consuming more than 10 gallons, more than your would if you had gone to a non-"flexfuel" station. (I nevertheless commend your effort, but seriously, stop doing it now).
Oh, that and making biofuels out of corn (which is less efficient than using sugar cane or switch grass) is causing the poorest of the poor in the world to starve due to rising grain prices while industrial agriculture gets rich off of ethanol demand, speculation on corn prices in the commodities market, and farm subsidies that come from our taxes. (For that matter, lets get rid of farm subsidies. If they actually went to small (often organic) farmers, who often don't qualify for subsidies, I wouldn't have this issue).
This is why I like Barack's energy policy the best--he calls for the use of non-food crops to make biofuels, though he doesn't take it far enough. ALL of the crops that we use for biofuels should be non-food crops, like switch grass. But before that, let's go back to doing research in biofuel production so that making biofuel actually cuts down on our oil use, rather than increasing it.
Questions of Strategy
The New Republic's John B. Judis successfully echoes the same blah-blah "the Democratic candidate must be able to win the big Democratic states in November" bullshit rhetoric that party old-liners are trying to shove down the tensed throats of slightly-less-than-ridiculously-cynical Democratic voters. Yes, yes, we know: Senator Obama has more of the popular vote, more pledged delegates, and more states than Hillary Clinton. Yes, yes, we know: Senator Obama hasn't really won any of the so-called "big states" upon which Democratic candidates have used as crutches for their reliably gimpy-bordering-on-completely-paraplegic campaigns since, oh, I don't know, the mid-20th century. [The New Republic]
Really? One's electability is determined by how popular one is within one specific demographic? You can't win the presidency if you're not the party's cookie cutter candidate? Yes, Senator Obama failed to win two of Philadelphia's four suburban counties. Yes, he has trouble with blue collar workers. But also important to remember is that the biggest reason why Democratic candidates are traditionally made or broken by the same 20-some states is because they're the only 20-something states in which Democrats campaign. At some point in time, Democrats might have to suck it up, buckle down, and campaign in states where they have to do more than just show up to collect votes.
Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Montana: I'm looking at you.
Sphere: Related Content
Really? One's electability is determined by how popular one is within one specific demographic? You can't win the presidency if you're not the party's cookie cutter candidate? Yes, Senator Obama failed to win two of Philadelphia's four suburban counties. Yes, he has trouble with blue collar workers. But also important to remember is that the biggest reason why Democratic candidates are traditionally made or broken by the same 20-some states is because they're the only 20-something states in which Democrats campaign. At some point in time, Democrats might have to suck it up, buckle down, and campaign in states where they have to do more than just show up to collect votes.
Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Montana: I'm looking at you.
Snark Nation
Welcome to Snark Nation!
As a proud parent of Snark Nation, allow me to explain the simple yet ridiculously motivating force behind this little piece of cyberspace heaven: most political blogs really, really suck. Seriously. They're terrible. I mean, as much as I love reading what professional bloggers have to say about this morning's Washington Post op-ed, and argue with themselves about whether telecom immunity in FISA is actually a big deal or whether the ACLU is just acting like a neglected middle child, frankly, political blogs have turned into one giant clusterfuck of a therapy session wherein otherwise unemployed Political Science majors and law school rejectees pretend they know things about how politics "works."
I know, life is tough. That career you could have had as a strategist at a top DC firm mocks you every day as you drag your hungover ass from your bed and start perusing the internet for stuff to make fun of. How could this have happened? You have that degree hanging on your wall and everything! I know you're bitter. (You probably also cling to your guns and religion in a vain attempt to fill the soul-sucking void in your life.) But let's not forget that no one fucking cares.
This is a blog, not a therapy session. And with that, snark away.
Sphere: Related Content
As a proud parent of Snark Nation, allow me to explain the simple yet ridiculously motivating force behind this little piece of cyberspace heaven: most political blogs really, really suck. Seriously. They're terrible. I mean, as much as I love reading what professional bloggers have to say about this morning's Washington Post op-ed, and argue with themselves about whether telecom immunity in FISA is actually a big deal or whether the ACLU is just acting like a neglected middle child, frankly, political blogs have turned into one giant clusterfuck of a therapy session wherein otherwise unemployed Political Science majors and law school rejectees pretend they know things about how politics "works."
I know, life is tough. That career you could have had as a strategist at a top DC firm mocks you every day as you drag your hungover ass from your bed and start perusing the internet for stuff to make fun of. How could this have happened? You have that degree hanging on your wall and everything! I know you're bitter. (You probably also cling to your guns and religion in a vain attempt to fill the soul-sucking void in your life.) But let's not forget that no one fucking cares.
This is a blog, not a therapy session. And with that, snark away.
What Agency?
Everyone knows that most women embark on the long, joyless process of attaining an abortion with little to no gravity or weighing of consequences.
Thankfully, the Missouri legislature has addressed this pressing issue by introducing a bill the likes of which is sweeping the nation. This bill says that women must, a) wait at least 24 hours between scheduling an abortion procedure and receiving treatment and b) provide "pertinent information" to those women so that they have something to think about during those 24 hours. After all, we all know that women won't think about anything unless you give them something simple and well-explained and instruct them to use the mushy organ behind those pretty faces.
All of this is about denying agency to women. It comes from an attitude in which women should not be allowed to make decisions for themselves, most of all not the ones that patriarchy dislikes. And then laws like this one are part of an onslaught to chip away at whatever ability to act and choose we have left. All under the pretense of enhancing our choice, with that co-opted phrase "informed consent."
Of course, women also get in trouble for things that happen to them that they never chose (rape being the example so obvious and profuse in instances that I can't even begin to rant on) like this abuse of justice against a child.
Dear misogynistic legislators everywhere,
I like your laws in my uterus even less than I like your propensity for gay-hating and public bathroom anal sex.
Many thanks to I Blame the Patriarchy for the story
Sphere: Related Content
Thankfully, the Missouri legislature has addressed this pressing issue by introducing a bill the likes of which is sweeping the nation. This bill says that women must, a) wait at least 24 hours between scheduling an abortion procedure and receiving treatment and b) provide "pertinent information" to those women so that they have something to think about during those 24 hours. After all, we all know that women won't think about anything unless you give them something simple and well-explained and instruct them to use the mushy organ behind those pretty faces.
All of this is about denying agency to women. It comes from an attitude in which women should not be allowed to make decisions for themselves, most of all not the ones that patriarchy dislikes. And then laws like this one are part of an onslaught to chip away at whatever ability to act and choose we have left. All under the pretense of enhancing our choice, with that co-opted phrase "informed consent."
Of course, women also get in trouble for things that happen to them that they never chose (rape being the example so obvious and profuse in instances that I can't even begin to rant on) like this abuse of justice against a child.
Dear misogynistic legislators everywhere,
I like your laws in my uterus even less than I like your propensity for gay-hating and public bathroom anal sex.
Many thanks to I Blame the Patriarchy for the story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
