Subscribe via RSS Feed

“I feel eventually you would care enough about me…that I could live with that.”

[ 0 ] January 27, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

I love Jon Chait’s Mitt Romney/Ace Rothstein analogy.   The problem for the conservative base is that their competing suitors can’t even rise to the level of a card shark, a golf hustler, and/or a pimp from Beverly Hills. Rick Perry was like the juiced-in slots manager. (“You have got me there. Old Rick is as useless as tits on a boar.”) Newt, even after he sorta decided to run for president 6 weeks or so before the Iowa primary, is more like Morry from GoodFellas, a pain in the ass who was useful in some previous roles but becomes intolerable as he gets more ambitious. (“I’d do anything for you!” “Except stop busting my balls.”) I think Newt just asked the Republican establishment whether the diner they’re heading to has danish…

Kindly Old Ron Paul

[ 4 ] January 27, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

Of course he was fully aware of and approved of the content of his racist newsletters:

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

But, in fairness, surely we need the essential civil liberties voice of someone who believes that the Bill of Rights shouldn’t constrain state governments.

As a coda, I also recommend this segment of Pollitt’s debate with Greenwald.  It’s true in some sense that Obama vs. Paul would be a “lesser of two evils” contest. But this is a trivial truth indeed — every national election in American history has been a “lesser of two evils” contest.   LBJ escalated a particularly disastrous war and lied repeatedly about it, FDR sent people to concentration camps based on their race and signed off on extremely stingy social welfare legislation that systematically discriminated against African-Americans, Lincoln was a white supremacist who didn’t believe the federal government had the authority to interfere with slavery in the states, etc. etc.   Obama over Paul is at least as easy as LBJ over Goldwater or FDR over Landon, and to think that progressives could be genuinely conflicted over whether to prefer a moderate Democratic president to a guy who wants to restore the Articles of Confederation is absurd.

Can’t We Find the Good in Slavery?

[ 5 ] January 27, 2012 | Erik Loomis

I’m not saying that any of you didn’t already understand the deep-seated racism in Tea Party members. But if you needed any additional evidence, please see the legislative goals of the Tennessee Tea Party, which includes outrage over history classes teaching that the Founding Fathers owned slaves and that slavery was bad.

We talked to Tea Party leader Hal Rounds Wednesday. He described the way slavery is taught now as race-baiting. When asked if kids are walking out of school thinking our founding fathers were evil, he said “(The kids) are being taught (the Founding Fathers) were hypocrites and slave owners and part of the teachings about slavery was that it was inherently cruel.”

Rounds first petitioned the state for the changes last year and is continuing the fight now.

We asked if you can seperate slavery in our country from the centuries old struggle for racial equality, Rounds believes you can adding “White people were whipped to.”

More

Wolf

[ 24 ] January 27, 2012 | Erik Loomis

Appropriate given Wolf Blitzer’s increasingly embarrassing existence on CNN, watch him score what might be the lowest score ever on Celebrity Jeopardy.

Also, Andy Richter is a beast. Not that this is surprising.

Equality Does Not Depend On Biology

[ 137 ] January 26, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

Cynthia Nixon’s recent comments are very wise:

Regarding her late-in-life sexual orientation switch, the “Sex and the City” star said:

I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.

Writer Alex Witchel reports that “her face was red and her arms were waving” as she continued, “It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate,” Nixon said. “I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive.”

Nixon may think her comments are “politically incorrect,” but they also represent what should be the clear progressive position. Obviously, people’s attractions are driven to a greater or lesser extent by biological factors, and also obviously people have agency. The precise ratios, however, are completely irrelevant to political questions about LBGT rights. The issue is not just whether the means proponents of legally subordinating gay and lesbian use will “work”; it’s that the ends are reprehensible, because there is in fact nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian. It os a profound violation of human dignity for the state to police consensual behavior among results irrespective of to what extent one’s behavior is driven by biology or agency. It is fundamentally wrong and undemocratic for the state to prevent a same-sex couple from marrying on the same terms as an opposite-sex couple regardless of whether the couple is exclusively attracted to members of the same sex, chose their partner from a number of plausible same-sex or opposite-sex partners, or for that matter is asexual but wants to codify a long-term companionship. To put too much emphasis on the biological roots of sexuality, as Nixon says, concedes way too much.

This Is All Because Dana Milbank Didn’t Sit Down And Tell Him to Cut the Bullshit

[ 9 ] January 26, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

Shorter Verbatim Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE): Contraception “is unrelated to the basic needs of health care.”

Foreign Entanglements Episode Two

[ 1 ] January 26, 2012 | Robert Farley

Matt Duss vs. Daveed Gartentstein-Ross. Here they discuss the SOTU:

Matt talks with Daveed Gartenstein-Ross about foreign policy in the State of the Union. Will America miss the boat on the Arab Spring? Is Obama’s triumphalism over Al Qaeda premature? Also, the simmering crisis in the Strait of Hormuz and Daveed’s foreign policy trends to watch over the next decade.

See here for links to the video and audio RSS feeds, as well as the video and audio podcasts.

How White Are You?

[ 296 ] January 26, 2012 | Erik Loomis

It’s hard not to be bouncing off the ceiling for the chance to make fun of Charles Murray’s new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. I really need a comedy fix right now and this could be the funniest book of the year. The only problem with Murray is that he’s really hard to parody since he’s routinely kicking parody’s decaying corpse. Example one is this excerpt from Murray’s book, where he provides what is essentially a whiteness quiz. This is great stuff:

12. Choose one. Who is Jimmie Johnson? Or: Have you ever purchased Avon products?
13. Have you or your spouse ever bought a pickup truck?
14. During the last year, have you ever purchased domestic mass-market beer to stock your own fridge?
15. During the last five years, have you or your spouse gone fishing?
16. How many times in the last year have you eaten at one of the following restaurant chains? Applebee’s, Waffle House, Denny’s,IHOP, Chili’s, Outback Steakhouse, Ruby Tuesday, T.G.I. Fri-day’s, Ponderosa Steakhouse.

Of course, Murray is conflating whiteness with heteronormativity and political conservatism. The writers of this blog certainly aren’t real whites, except maybe for Farley since he probably does eat at Chili’s. A non-fishing professor who thinks NASCAR is dumb and drives a small car is the wrong kind of white and therefore doesn’t count. After all, I’d probably let my daughter have sex with a black man and we know Murray’s uncomfortable with that. This is almost on a play on the Stuff White People Like blog that was big a couple of years ago. In both, there are lots of white people but only certainly kinds of whites count. Whereas for that blog, the writer was making gentle fun of a certain kind of white person, Murray actually takes this seriously.

This book is going to be a rich text.

The Fourth Amendment and the Surveillance State

[ 30 ] January 26, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

I have some follow-up thoughts to the GPS surveillance decision handed down by the Supreme Court earlier this week. The first major takeaway from the case is that Sonia Sotomayor was one of the best decisions Obama has made so far:

The split on the Court Monday, in essence, focused on which of these strands of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to emphasize. The most interesting opinion in the case, however, is Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurrence. Although I’m a little puzzled as to why she joined Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion—which seems to give less attention to her fundamental concerns—her own analysis is brilliant, forcefully arguing that the Court needs to rethink its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in light of the Internet/wireless communication age. The “expectation of privacy” standard will not provide adequate protection if the increased potential power of the state is not taken into account. Sotomayor is correct, first of all, to argue, that “it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties.” And she is extremely persuasive in her argument about why the judiciary needs to check the use of GPS technology:

“Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may ‘alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.’ [...] I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account when considering the existence of a reasonable societal expectation of privacy in the sum of one’s public movements. … I would also consider the appropriateness of entrusting to the Executive, in the absence of any oversight from a coordinate branch, a tool so amenable to misuse, especially in light of the Fourth Amendment’s goal to curb arbitrary exercises of police power to and prevent ‘a too permeating police surveillance.’”

Every point here is crucial, and her argument about the danger of information in the hands of third parties is particularly important.

Alas, Sotomayor spoke only for herself, so I have another piece about how to the extent that this is a victory, it’s a minor one. Normally, in a civil liberties case you’d take any vaguely acceptable opinion from Scalia and (especially) Alito and run, and neither of their conflicting opinions forecloses the development of a Fourth Amendment doctrine properly adapted to new technological powers. But the Court stopped short of even holding that this search violates the Constitution, and one can easily see either standard evolving in a way that gives the state extremely broad latitude. Thinking along the lines expressed in Sotomayor’s concurrence is desperately necessary.

An Immorality Tale in Three Acts

[ 202 ] January 26, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

Item:

When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.

But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.

Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.

Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.

Item:

However, the workers assembling iPhones, iPads and other devices often labor in harsh conditions, according to employees inside those plants, worker advocates and documents published by companies themselves. Problems are as varied as onerous work environments and serious — sometimes deadly — safety problems.

Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple’s products, and the company’s suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors.

More troubling, the groups say, is some suppliers’ disregard for workers’ health. Two years ago, 137 workers at an Apple supplier in eastern China were injured after they were ordered to use a poisonous chemical to clean iPhone screens. Within seven months last year, two explosions at iPad factories, including in Chengdu, killed four people and injured 77. Before those blasts, Apple had been alerted to hazardous conditions inside the Chengdu plant, according to a Chinese group that published that warning.

Item:

Record sales of iPhones and iPads resulted in record profits at Apple in the final quarter of 2011, the first since the death of its co-founder, Steve Jobs.

Apple more than doubled its profits: to $13.06bn (£8.35bn), compared with $6bn for the same quarter in 2010. The result easily beat analysts’ forecasts, taking pressure off the chief executive, Tim Cook, handpicked by Jobs as his successor. Last October Apple shares recorded their biggest single-day dollar drop after iPhone sales missed their forecast.

Nostalgianomics?

[ 135 ] January 26, 2012 | Erik Loomis

Megan McArdle delivers a typically hackish column on Obama’s SOTU address. After noting her TV appearance with such bright bulbs as John Stossel and Gary Johnson, she proceeds to get after Obama for his nostalgic view of the economy. I’m not going to quote at the length necessary to completely eviscerate her points; you can click on the link should you feel the desire to beat your head against a wall. But I will quote this:

Finally, there’s the fact that the 1950s ended in the 1970s. In the 1950s, American products were envied all over the world; by 1980, they were a joke. This is not some radical disconnect; it is the beginning and end of the same process. The technocratic American institutions became sclerotic agents of inertia. Bosses whose pay was capped poured their energy into building personal empires instead of personal fortunes. Unions like the UAW began making demands on their companies so heavy that even the UAW president who had negotiated these amazing pay increases began to fear that his members had lost their minds.

So much just in this one paragraph. The conflation of some shitty cars made by the Big Three in the 1970s with all American products, a stereotype about American manufacturing at best. The gratuitous apologism for maximizing CEO pay (Megan knows her masters). The completely unsourced, uncontextualized, and probably untrue anecdote about the UAW president thinking UAW members are crazy for asking too much of their bosses. The between-the-lines blaming of union pay scales for the supposed decline of American products.

I may be critical of Obama on his economic and labor stances, but let’s be clear–the mid-20th century was the glory years of the American working class precisely because unions were so strong, forcing companies to divert resources from their ivory back-scratchers to worker paychecks. McArdle somehow sees this as counterproductive to the American economy, linking to a blog post making bizarre claims that capping CEO pay causes deep problems in the economy because CEOs are hypermasculine beasts or something and just can’t be stopped. But thirty years of Republican obfuscation of economic reality has failed to cloud one key fact–the only period in American history when working-class people got a fair shake was the precise period when unions were the strongest. She’d rather serve her corporate masters, but we should not be fooled by her capitalist shilling. Obama may not be willing to go all the way in understanding why the 1950s worked and the 2010s don’t work, but he’s at least pointing us in the right direction

The Inaccessibility of Academic Research

[ 31 ] January 26, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

I strongly recommend Laura McKenna‘s piece on the wall that separates the general public from academic research:

Step back and think about this picture. Universities that created this academic content for free must pay to read it. Step back even further. The public — which has indirectly funded this research with federal and state taxes that support our higher education system — has virtually no access to this material, since neighborhood libraries cannot afford to pay those subscription costs. Newspapers and think tanks, which could help extend research into the public sphere, are denied free access to the material. Faculty members are rightly bitter that their years of work reaches an audience of a handful, while every year, 150 million attempts to read JSTOR content are denied every year.

And this is true even though writers of academic articles aren’t directly compensated. It is indeed a system that needs to be fundamentally rethought.

Page 1 of 1,14312345102030...Last »
  • blogroll

  • Brad Delong
  • Crooked Timber
  • Daily Kos
  • Danger Room
  • Eschaton
  • Ezra Klein
  • Feministe
  • Talking Points Memo
  • Feministing
  • Glenn Greenwald
  • Juan Cole
  • Monkey Cage
  • Switch to our mobile site