Alas, a Blog | Feminist, anti-racist, pro-fat, plus whatever else we feel like talking about.

In Defense of Divorce

Posted on January 25, 2012 by Ampersand

[Crossposted at Family Scholars Blog]

Marina Adshade, an economics professor with an interest in “sex and love,” writes:

Today we will take a few minutes to show a little appreciation for an important right in Western society – the right to divorce. […]

Economists Justine Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson, in a 2006 paper, showed that these legal changes had significant impacts on the quality of life of women. Taking advantage of in state-by-state variations in the time in which these laws were put into place they found that freer access to divorce brought with it an 8 –16% decline in female suicide, a 30% decline in domestic violence and 10% decline in the murder rate of women.

You may argue that these benefits to unilateral divorce laws come at significant costs – hardship for children and female poverty, just to name two – but that would only be true if the change in divorce laws increased the rate of divorce and that has not been proven. In fact, the best evidence suggests a very small positive effect on divorce rates only in the ten years after divorces became easier to obtain. And even then, that effect was only among those who were married before the laws were put in place.

The explanation for why easier access to divorce has not increased divorce rates is simple – men and women enter into marriage more cautiously when they know that divorce is easier to obtain. This is because while the laws may have made divorce easier from a legal standpoint, they have not made marital dissolution emotionally or economically painless.

It is this fact that explains why women marry later in life when it is easier to divorce.

A second explanation, which also explains the fall in domestic violence and suicide in states that support unilateral divorce, is just knowing that your spouse can divorce you without your consent encourages married individuals to treat each other better.

In the article, Adshade also argue that the use of “covenant” marriage agreements doesn’t actually make people less likely to divorce, but they do make the divorces harder on the people involved (“Anecdotal evidence suggests that even when abuse has been proven judges strictly enforce separation periods of up to two years.”). Those costs fall disproportionately on women:

The purpose of a covenant marriage is to increase the cost of divorce, significantly, and as a result give parties an incentive to stay in a failing marriage. If women are lower wage earners than men, or are out of the workforce all together, then the imposition of these costs falls disproportionally on women making it difficult for them to leave a bad marriage. That part of the arrangement is significant since in the majority of divorces it is the wife who wants the marriage to end.

I pretty much agree with Adshade on all of this. Married life was not a paradise in the 1950s, and the people I know who got divorced did so only after a lot of anguish and thought. Contrary to what the marriage-rescuers seem to believe, most Americans take marriage very seriously; trying to make it even harder to divorce is punitive, it is anti-liberty, and it will not actually improve anything.

Posted in Uncategorized | 128 Comments

The Separation of Church and State in Early 19th Century England

Posted on January 25, 2012 by Richard Jeffrey Newman

When my brother-in-law died a couple of years ago, I inherited from him a pristine set of The World’s Orators, a multivolume collection of “the greatest orations of the world’s history,” edited by Guy Carleton Lee and published by G. P. Putnam’s Sons in 1900. The other day, I opened Volume 7, Part 2 completely at random and came upon Sir Robert Peel’s speech, “On the Disabilities of the Jews,” which, according to the editorial note, Peel made in order to support a bill intended “to place the Jew on the same footing, so far at least as civil rights, as the Christian.” The editorial note continues, “Peel, who was usually to be found on the side of toleration and justice, [gave a] speech replete with a dignified breath of tolerance….” I have not yet finished the entire speech, but, early on, he makes an argument for the separation of church and state that I find disturbing, not because anyone is explicitly endorsing this way of thinking today, but because I think it is implicit in the notion put forth by some Republican candidates for president, and certainly by more than a few Evangelical Christian voices I have heard, i.e., that the United States is, at heart, a Christian nation and that our government and our laws ought to reflect that fact. This is what Peel said:

I must in the first place disclaim any concurrence in the doctrine that to us, in our legislative capacity, religion is a matter of indifference. I am deeply impressed with the conviction that it is our paramount duty to promote the interests of religion and it influence on the human mind. I am impressed by a conviction that the spirit and precepts of Christianity ought to influence our deliberations; nay, more, that if our legislation be at variance with the precepts and spirit of Christianity we cannot expect the blessing of God upon them. I may, indeed, say with truth that whether my decision on this question [of the Jews’ civil rights] be right or wrong, it is influenced much less by a consideration of political expediency than by a deep sense of religious obligation.

Between the tenets of the Jew and of the Christian there is, in my opinion, a vital difference. The religion of the Christian and the religion of the Jew are opposed in essentials. Between them there is complete antagonism. I do not consider that the concurrence of the Jew with the Christian in recognizing the historical truths and divine origin of the moral precepts of the Old Testament can avail to reconcile the differences in respect to those doctrines which constitute the vital principle and foundation of Christianity. If, as a legislature, we had the authority to determine religious error and a commission to punish religious error, it might be our painful duty to punish the Jews. But we have no such commission. If the Jews did commit an inexpiable crime nearly two thousand years ago, we have had no authority given to us–even if we could determine who were the descendants of the persons guilty of that crime–to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, not unto the third or fourth, but unto the three hundredth or four hundredth generation. That awful power is not ours. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”

In other words, if we were a religious Christian government, not merely a secular government guided by Christian principles, we would, perhaps, be in a position to make the Jews pay for their sins–in particular the sin of killing Christ, but, more generally, the sin of being Christianity’s antithesis. We are, however, not that kind of government and so (this summarizes Peel’s argument as far as I have gotten) we really have no choice; if we are going to be consistent, but to grant the Jews their civil rights.

What I find disturbing in these words is the, to me at least, clear implication that there is a part of Peel that would not mind having “the painful duty” of punishing the Jews, though, to be fair, I don’t know where the logic of the rest of the speech leads Peel and so it is possible that these two passages are part of a rhetorical strategy that does not necessarily reflect the actual position that he takes. Nonetheless, Peel’s implication that a theocratic government would, indeed, be justified in discriminating against, if not outright punishing the Jews is one that I hear echoes of in the US-is-a-Christian-nation rhetoric of some of our Christian politicians; and perhaps I will trace that echo in another post when I have the time. For now, though, while I am not suggesting that any of those politicians are out to get the Jews or even that any of them actively desire a theocracy, I will not deny the fact that their rhetoric makes me wary.

Cross-posted on It’s All Connected.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | 43 Comments

Hereville 2 Work-In-Progress: Dress Design

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Ampersand

Mirka wears the same dress for the first 45 pages of the graphic novel (although — spoiler alert! — by page 45 the dress will be torn and filthy). Unlike last time, where I just drew a dress on the first page and then had to repeat it, this time I’m trying to figure out what the dress looks like before I start drawing.

(Click on the image to see it bigger.)

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 11 Comments

Because It Is the First Day of the Spring Semester…

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Richard Jeffrey Newman

…and I think this is a worthwhile message to send to all students.

Posted in Education | 15 Comments

Washington State Could Have Marriage Equailty Law Within Weeks

Posted on January 23, 2012 by Ampersand

From KIRO TV today:

Washington’s Legislature has enough votes to legalize gay marriage with a statement from Democratic Senator Mary Margaret Haugen Monday who said she will support the measure, becoming the 25th vote needed to pass the bill out of the Senate. The House already has enough support, and Gov. Chris Gregoire has endorsed the plan. […]

Washington would become the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriages, following New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Washington state has had a domestic partnership law since 2007, and a “everything but marriage” law since 2009.

And from the Seattle Times a couple of days ago:

Once the hearings are over, the bills could move out of committee by Thursday in the Senate and by Jan. 30 in the House. The chairmen of both committees said they have the votes they need. The House bill is also expected to go through the House Ways and Means Committee. It’s not clear if the Senate’s measure will go through Senate Ways and Means.

Gay-marriage advocates say the earliest the bills could get floor votes would be the first part of February.

If the bill passes, according to a Fox news report, “gay and lesbian couples would be able to get married starting in June unless opponents file a referendum to challenge it at the ballot.” Of course, NOM and other opponents of marriage equality are already gearing up for just such a challenge.

But this time it might not be easy for them.

In October, a University of Washington poll found that an increasing number of people in the state support same-sex marriage. About 43 percent of respondents said they support gay marriage, up from 30 percent in the same poll five years earlier. Another 22 percent said they support giving identical rights to gay couples but just not calling it marriage.

When asked how they would vote if a referendum challenging a gay marriage law was on the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote yes to uphold the law, with 47 percent of them characterized as “strongly” yes, and 38 percent responded “no,” that they would vote to reject a gay marriage law.

Of course, it’s happened multiple times that marriage equality has done worse in the voting booth than polls indicated. But poll trends indicate that more voters favor equality with every passing year. So we’ll see.

The fight against marriage equality in Washington is led by Pasteur Ken Hutchingson, who says that people who favor same-sex marriage are like John Wilkes Booth, and “trying to put a bullet in the head of one of the greatest traditions that has ever existed,” and tells lawmakers who vote for marriage equality that they think “that you know better than God.” Oy.

Posted in crossposted on TADA, In the news, Same-Sex Marriage | Comments Off

The South Will Rise Again

Posted on January 21, 2012 by Jeff Fecke

South Carolina Republican Primary, January 21, 2012

✔Newt Gingrich           40%
Mitt Romney              28%
Rick Santorum            17% 
Ron Paul                 13%
Herman Cain               1%
Rick Perry                0%
Jon Huntsman              0%
Michele Bachmann          0%

Nevada Democratic Caucuses, January 21, 2012

✔Barack Obama (Incumb.)  Uncontested

So, Who’s Up, Who’s Down, and Who’s Out?

Who’s Up

Newt Gingrich

A Gingrich win would have been a big deal under any circumstances. But the blowout, double-digit win that he just hung on Mitt? In the words of our Vice President, that’s a big fucking deal. Newt didn’t just edge Mitt. He crushed him, sweeping all congressional districts and all 25 delegates up for grabs in the state.

Newt won, flatly, by playing ever ugly card ever devised by Lee Atwater, Dick Nixon, and George Wallace. He’s running against the media, people of color, women, and the Republican establishment itself — and this is something that will be unpredictable. Because let’s face it, the 2010 elections were all about the activists in the GOP throwing off the yoke of their more plutocratic masters, and seizing control for themselves.

Newt is probably going to lose Florida (a significant number of absentee ballots have already been cast, and it will be hard for him to close the likely gap). But he’s going to come in with a ton of momentum, and he could make it close. If he keeps it close or if he scores an upset, all hell could break loose.

Mitt is still the guy to beat, probably — he has better organization and more money, and the party apparatchiks are going to be backing him with guns a-blazin’. But at least for tonight, Newt has to be seen as the front-runner, the man with the most momentum, and the man to beat.

Barack Obama

Obama isn’t up because of his win in the uncontested Nevada primary. He’s up every day that the GOP continues to fight things out.

Let’s face it: the 2008 Democratic Primary was bitter and divisive at times. But it didn’t have a patch on this race. Newt and Mitt are ripping each other to shreds, and the only possible outcome of that is good news for Barack Obama.

Newt’s win tonight means that the GOP race should continue on through at least Super Tuesday. That’s great news for Barack Obama. And if Newt somehow wins? Oh, that’s to wonderful to imagine.

Who’s Down

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney has a glass jaw. That is now obviously, painfully clear. He took his first tough shot of the campaign over the last two weeks, and it knocked him to the canvas. He looked lost and disoriented in his attempts to react to Newt’s attacks, and indeed, managed to make things even worse through unforced errors. Then Mitt got thumped tonight, and while he hoped to roll out a Jeb Bush endorsement tomorrow to try to stanch the bleeding, this will not happen, which wouldn’t be so bad, except that they’d already been leaking that it would.

Now, in principle, the next few races should favor Mitt. He’s been banking absentee ballots in Florida, and has more money and more organization there than Newt does. Florida is followed by Nevada, which has a large Mormon population, and then Maine, which is in one of Mitt’s back yards.

In Mitt’s ideal world, by the time he hits Colorado and Minnesota on February 7, he’ll have won three straight races and four of six, and he’ll be back into inevitability mode.

But that said, if Newt can score an upset in Florida or Nevada or, ideally, both, Mitt could be dealt a fatal blow.

Mitt is in desperate, desperate straits. Things are so bad tonight that his campaign is actually trying to spin this as a great victory for Mitt, and a big loss for Gingrich. That this is patently absurd is no matter; they have to explain this away, because this is the ballgame.

This can’t be said too much: Mitt now must win Florida. The good news for him is that he probably will. Probably. But that was “certainly” a week ago. And I do wonder if we’re starting to approach a tipping point, with Newt solidified as the tea party candidate and Mitt as the establishment candidate. And you can ask Mike Castle who wins that one.

Ron Paul

Paul isn’t out of the race, but there’s no question his mojo has been dented by his fourth-place finish. When Paul racks up 23 percent and second or third place, he’s interesting. When he’s finishing a distant fourth and taking 13 percent, he isn’t.

Paul is running, per his speech tonight, to get delegates and influence in the Republican Party, far more than to win the nomination. So he’ll keep slogging on, because, well, why not? But if he doesn’t do better soon, he’s going to stop being a story worth following, and at that point, Ron’s influence begins to wane. And hopefully, for denizens of the internet, that means we hear less from the Ronulans.

Who’s Out

Rick Santorum

Santorum won Iowa, and he had a brief moment when he could have become Romney’s main foil. But that moment has passed. He won’t win the nomination, and I’d say the odds of him quitting before Florida are 50/50. Unless Newt totally collapses again, I don’t see how Santorum has any path to the nomination; indeed, I really don’t see how Santorum has any path to the nomination, period. If Newt collapses, he’s more likely to come back to life yet again than Rick to make a move. Santorum is done. It was a nice run.

I’m not sure how to feel about Santorum, at least relative to Newt. He’s certainly far less evil and venal than Newt. Far less overtly hateful. His hate is much quieter, less overt. And far more radical. I think I’m glad that Newt is the foil for Mitt. Rick is good at seeming not horribly evil. That is not Newt’s forte.

Stephen Colbert

Colbert has done a lot of very interesting and hilarious work exposing the disaster that is our campaign financing system. But as one could have expected, he didn’t do particularly well in South Carolina; Herman Cain, his stand-in on the ballot, only pulled 1 percent.

So ends the dream of a Colbert presidency. It’s too bad. I was really looking forward to him putting Canada on notice, listing North Korea on the threatdown, and outlawing bears.

Buddy Roemer

Roemer wasn’t on the ballot in South Carolina; it really wouldn’t have mattered if he had. He isn’t having any impact on the race at this point. Really, he’d be better off just making the jump to a third-party run and being done with it.

Fred Karger

Karger also wasn’t on the ballot, and he’s having even less of an impact on the race than Roemer. Really, it’s time for Karger to go.

He Who Must Not Be Named

Beyond time for the anti-choice douchebag to drop out. Of the race, the world, whatever — go away, and don’t let the door hit you.

Posted in Elections and politics | 2 Comments

Pre-South Carolina Power Rankings

Posted on January 20, 2012 by Jeff Fecke

So with a victory in New Hampshire and a ~~win~~ ~~tie~~ close second in Iowa, Mitt Romney’s got it all sewn up, right? A victory in South Carolina and it’s all over.

Possibly.

Because just at the moment Mittens got a hammerlock on the nomination, he went and had arguably his worst week in the six years of hiscampaign for the presidency — a week of gaffes, missteps, and a transformation into a caricature of a rich, obnoxious, out-of-touch plutocrat, which replaced his previous image as a flip-flopping, kind of geeky, out-of-touch plutocrat.

So what does this do to the power rankings? What about Ron Paul? And where does Colbert debut? It’s time to play power rankings.

Republicans

1. Fmr. Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney (Last Rank: 1)

Mittens is still in a commanding position to win the nomination. He’s still got the best national organization, the most money in the bank, and a field that is still incredibly weak. He even had Jon Huntsman drop out of the race, which should earn him all 73 of Huntsman’s national supporters, not to mention Huntsman’s cadre of fluffers inside the Beltway. Even if he drops South Carolina on Saturday, he’s still the odds-on favorite to win the nomination. That hasn’t changed. But in many ways, Mitt Romney has never been in a more precarious position in his six years of campaigning for this office.

It didn’t have to be this way. All Mitt really had to after winning New Hampshire was to not screw things up. If he just could get through the week without some kind of disastrous misstep, he would win South Carolina going away, and the race would be over. Yet even before the votes were counted in New Hampshire, what did Mitt do? Start acting like the rich, out-of-touch guy he is.

He said that he “liked to fire people” who provide services to him — yes, it was said about insurance companies, but the words weren’t the ones a former takeover king needed to say. He declared, in all seriousness, that discussions of income inequality were only driven by envy, and should be discussed, not by politicians, but away from the public in “quiet rooms.” He said that he didn’t make much money on speaking fees — fees that were running around $360,000 a year. He admitted that he pays just 15 percent in taxes — a rate about half of that paid by most Americans, that, yes, is legal, but certainly doesn’t make him seem like a man of the people.

And worst of all, as his opponents on the right attacked him for being out-of-touch, Romney flailed, trying to argue that the attacks were driven by a hatred of capitalism. He said that he’d created one hundred thousand jobs while at Bain, then ten thousand, then “thousands,” then back to one hundred thousand. He simply could not find a counterattack that worked.

And remember — this is, was, and always will be Mitt’s Achilles heel. He comes across as an out-of-touch plutocrat because he is an out-of-touch plutocrat, a guy who really does think $360,000 is not that much money.

A better politician could cover that. A better politician would work to learn, if only by rote, that average Americans aren’t nearly as well off as they are, and that they have to learn to communicate in ways that don’t advertise that fact.

But Mitt is not a good politician. He has a glass jaw. And while he probably will still win the Republican nomination — after all, look at the craptacular field he’s running against — he’s looking more and more like a fatally flawed candidate.

Now, Mitt is in serious trouble. Newt is leading — and likely to win — South Carolina, which was always Mitt’s firewall. Mitt’s national support is in freefall. If he loses South Carolina, he could be in jeopardy of losing the nomination. And even if he somehow muddles through, he’s now viewed as seriously damaged goods by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Throughout Obama’s term, I’ve argued that we are essentially living a mirror-universe 1980s, with Obama playing the part of alternate Reagan. If that’s the case, then we’ve entered mirror-1984. And if the economy is indeed picking up — as it appears to be — and it Mitt wins the nomination — as he still probably will — this could end up echoing that election. If Mitt loses the nomination — well, then Obama could do nothing but sing Al Green songs until 2013.

2. Fmr. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. (LR: 5)

After Iowa, and especially after New Hampshire, Newt looked pretty well dead in the water. He was back in the single digits both times, and it looked very much like Mitt’s attacks on him had worked.

But with Perry departing the race, and Santorum unable to get his campaign into gear, Newt is really the only quasi-viable candidate left who can take out Mitt. And while I don’t know as “take out Mitt” is quite enough for Newt to win by itself, it’s definitely enough to make life very hard on Romney in the interim.

The other thing working in Newt’s favor is that he is willing, as he always has been, to be precisely as evil as he needs to be to win the day. In South Carolina, that’s meant being flat-out racist (the code — “No, I just said ‘poor, inner city children are lazy bums.’ I never talked about their race.” — isn’t so much a dog-whistle as a foghorn). When he attacked Juan William with a dripping, condescending, “Now, Juan,” hitting his name as if it was an epithet, he was echoing the worst impulses of those who bought into the Southern Strategy.

Is Newt racist? Does it matter? He’s certainly willing to use racism to win in South Carolina. And all signs are that it’s working. It’s depressing, but racism, misogyny, homophobia, and religious bigotry are all that’s holding the right together these days, so I can’t say as I’m surprised.

Newt should win in South Carolina. Really, the only question is by how much. If he does…well, South Carolina picks Republican nominees. It’s done so every single time since Reagan. That could be tested if Newt wins; Romney is still the odds-on favorite to win, for a variety of reasons. But thanks to Mitt’s loss in Iowa, should Newt win South Carolina he’ll have won as many states as Romney. What’s more, if Santorum fades (more on him in a moment), Newt has a great chance in Florida. At the very least, Newt is back in the game in a major, major way. At best, Newt could win the nomination.

3. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas (LR: 3)

Paul continues to putter along, pulling about a fifth of the vote, not rising, not falling. Will he win the nomination? No. Will he send some Ronulans to the GOP convention? Sure. Will he run as a third-party candidate? Maybe. We’ll see soon enough.

What is interesting, I think, is that the Paul flirtation on the left seems to be dimming somewhat. I’ll get into the polling when we hit the third party section, but suffice to say that Paul is pulling much more from Republicans than Democrats. Of course, that makes sense: Paul’s politics are, at heart, the politics of Pat Buchanan, only not quite so anti-gay. Yes, that makes him anti-war, sort of. Pitchfork Pat is, too.

Paul will end 2012 like he did in 2008 — he’ll have his supporters, he’ll be a potential candidate in 2016 if he’s still alive — but he has no chance of actually winning the GOP nomination. He never did.

4. The Rev. Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA (LR: NR)

Colbert makes his debut in the rankings at number four, because he’s certainly driving a significant part of the conversation. Yes, as Chuck Todd managed to discover, Colbert is making a mockery of the post-Citizens United landscape. But it so desperately needs to be mocked. Indeed, what we have now is an almost worst-of-all-possible-worlds scenario, where companies are able to funnel money to shadowy groups that “don’t” coordinate with campaigns.

There could be changes made to the system that would at least mitigate the damage. The absurdly broad loopchasms could be tightened; reporting requirements could be improved; and frankly, campaign donation limits could be removed until we can find a way to overturn Citizens United, because it would be better if this money was going to the campaigns directly. At least they’d be accountable.

Colbert obviously won’t win the presidency, and he’s obviously not trying to. But at the very least, he’s shining a spotlight on the serious problems that plague our campaign financing system. And in so doing, he’s managed to explain the problems with our system far better than the media in this country. That’s to his credit. And it’s a serious indictment of not just our campaigns, but our media.

5. Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn. (LR: 2)

The Frothy Mix won the Iowa Caucuses Thursday. Unfortunately, the good news came too late. South Carolina is clearly more for Gingrich than Santorum, and if he finishes a distant fourth there, as appears likely, it’s hard to see how he can continue on.

Santorum blew it, because Santorum really is a lousy candidate. He’s not especially adroit, he’s not especially charismatic, and his positions on contraception put him outside the mainstream of even the Republican Party. Moreover, he just doesn’t know how to shovel the red meat to the base the way Newt always has.

About the only way Santorum can continue on is if he surprises in South Carolina. The bad news is that if he surprises in South Carolina, it will probably be at Newt’s expense, and if that happens, Romney probably wins South Carolina and ends the race. At this point, I think it’s clear the GOP race is down to two men. Santorum is not one of them.

6. Sarah-Jeb B. Christie-Jindal (LR: 6)

The White Knight is still a possibility. Mitt clearly has the glass jaw that Republicans feared he had, and Newt…well, Newt is great for running a campaign that echoes George Wallace, but that’s kind of a problem if you actually want to win.

If Romney can pull out of his nosedive, I think the powers that be will leave well enough alone. Romney will probably lose in November, but he (probably) won’t embarrass himself, or blow the party up with him. But if Mitt struggles, and it looks like a long and bloody fight is going to engulf the party, or — worse — that Newt’s gonna win, I could see, say, Jeb Bush stepping forward as a healing figure. Likely? Probably not, for a variety of reasons. But possible.

Now, if someone does jump in, it would have to be someone who could plug into a national organization. That’s a very short list. McCain could, but he’s already been tried and found wanting. Sarah Palin has a bit of national organization, kinda-sorta, but nothing that’s capable of running an actual campaign. The other oft-touted candidates — Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal — would all have to build a national organization on the fly, while undergoing a seriously intensive vetting by an outraged Romney and/or Gingrich.

For that reason, I really think that if there’s a white knight, it will have to be the former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. He could plug into his brother’s and father’s network, he’s got good name recognition, and he meets threshold credibility. Of course, Jeb would lose badly, because there’s really no way Jeb can pretend his brother was never president, which has been the strategy of all GOP candidates so far. But Jeb could at least lose with dignity, unlike Newt. He is the only option if the GOP decides on a “somebody else” strategy. For that reason, I doubt he’s gonna be the guy, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility yet.

7. Fmr. La. Gov. Buddy Roemer (LR: 9)

Roemer continues to be the non-factor that he’s been, and like fellow non-factor Gary Johnson and previous non-factor Mike Gravel, he’s now toying with a third-party run, on the Americans Elect line.

Will Roemer be a factor there? Well, he certainly won’t be any less of a factor than he has been in the Republican race. But while he meets the main Americans Elect criteria — he’s old! he’s white! he’s sort of moderish! — he doesn’t really have the name recognition or national interest to make that party anything more than the pretend sideline that it’s been.

That doesn’t mean Roemer’s going away, of course. Candidates like Roemer never go away. He’ll be running well into 2014. Running as fast as he can, far beyond the horizon. Godspeed, Buddy. Godspeed.

8. Fred Karger (LR: 11)

Karger continues to be the least interesting candidate in the field. It’s not just that he’s not in the debates. It’s not just that he’s not planning on a third-party run. It’s this: can you think of anything Fred Karger’s done over the course of this race? Anything? I mean, Buddy Roemer’s complained that he didn’t get on Twitter. Gary Johnson got some non-endorsement love from Glenn Greenwald.Vermin Supreme’s glitter-bombed He Who Must Not Be Named. He Who Must Not Be Named is running graphic anti-choice ads during the Super Bowl.

But what has Karger done? What has he accomplished? Where is his influence on the race? Yes, he’s a gay Republican. So how has he pushed the causes of gay rights? How has he influenced the campaign?

And don’t tell me to look it up. First, I’ve been following the race far closer than anyone should. Second, it’s not my job to get Karger’s message out. It’s Karger’s. Say what you will about Buddy Roemer, but he’s marketed himself very well. Karger? Not so much.

And so Karger can go on, or not; it doesn’t really matter. He’s not influencing the campaign in any way, shape, or form. He’s an insult to hopeless vanity candidates.

Falling Out: Rick Perry (4), Jon Huntsman (7), Michele Bachmann (8),
Jimmy McMillan (10)

Democrats

1. President Barack Obama (LR: 1)

I really don’t know how Obama could be having a better campaign season so far. The Republicans have been hammering Mitt Romney — their only candidate with a chance of beating Obama — and doing so using liberal memes. The GOP attacking Mitt is great, but attacking him for firing people while at Bain? For being elitist? For not paying as much as we plebes? That is a dream come true.

Add to it Mitt’s never-ending series of gaffes, Newt pushing the party into Bircher territory, and the fact that this trainwreck appears to be gathering steam, and Obama is really in about as good a position as he could possibly be in. And that’s before you factor in the slow-but-steady improvement in the economy, one that’s starting to register with people in the country at large.

Obama will win the Democratic nomination; that much is assured. This week showed that, while it will take a lot of work, if that work is undertaken, Obama is likely to win reelection. It’s not certain, of course — nothing ever is in politics. But it’s more likely than not, and it’s more likely today than it was in December.

2. Vermin Supreme (LR: NR)

I had totally not realized that Vermin Supreme was running. I don’t have much to say about him, although I always have loved his boot-hat. And the fact that he glitter-bombed that anti-choice douchebag justifies his continued campaign for office.

Of course, Supreme rarely keeps up his race much past New Hampshire, because unlike Fred Karger, he realizes that once you’re made your point, you move on. So I doubt Supreme is going to mount a national campaign. But I wouldn’t mind if he did. He’s got better fashion sense
than Santorum, a better platform than Gingrich, and he’s less of a douchebag than Romney. Of course, that’s really true of all of us.

3. He Who Must Not Be Named (LR:3)

The anti-choice douchecanoe is still allegedly running, primarily so he can run graphic anti-choice ads during the Super Bowl. You know those really graphic anti-choice ads that they like to hold up outside of events? The ones that make everyone hate the anti-choicers, even moderate anti-choicers? Yeah, they’re going to do that, but on television, during the Super Bowl.

And I, for one, am glad. Nobody human wants those ads up during the Super Bowl. People want to be left alone. If the ads have any effect, it will be to anger America, not at abortion, but at the jerks who ran the ad. And so I guess we should thank He Who Must Not Be Named. He’s going to help the pro-choice cause with his run. That doesn’t make him not scum, of course. But at least he’s doing more for us than he did for his side.

Falling Out: Uncommitted (2)

Third Parties

1. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas (Libertarian) (LR: 2)

Paul edges up to the top spot on the independent list, based on the fact that people seem willing to poll about him being a third-party candidate, and not so much anyone else (other than Gary Johnson – more on him in a minute).

If Paul runs as a Libertarian, it would pretty much eliminate any chance for the GOP to win the presidency. In a hypothetical matchup of Obama, Romney, and Paul, Paul draws two-thirds of his support from Romney backers. Not only does this indicate that Paul is who we thought he is — a paleoconservative with a libertarian veneer — but it shows that reports of a huge liberal groundswell for Paul have been greatly exaggerated. It’s hard for liberals to support a guy who’s anti-choice, thinks gay marriage should be illegal if states want it to be illegal, and wants to zero out Social Security. And Paul most definitely is that guy.

Will Paul run? I don’t know. It would be foolish of him to do so. On the other hand, the guy has an ego, and he may run just based on that. As a Democrat, I’m obviously hoping he does.

2. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Americans Elect) (LR: 1)

Bloomberg has given no indication he’s running, but I can’t shake the feeling that he’s Americans Elect’s dream candidate. He’s exactly the kind of guy that the Beltway folk love — vaguely authoritarian, willing to make the underclass knuckle under, happy to put the focus on deficits rather than pesky things like taxes.

But while I think Bloomberg is the guy that the Guys Who Dream of a Bland White Warrior dream of, I’m not sure if Bloomberg is willing to pull the trigger. He’s been here before, in 2008, and he didn’t run then, either. Will he decide that 2012’s the time? I kind of doubt it. But until he’s recruited by Americans Elect and turns them down, he’s on the list.

3. Fmr. N.M. Gov. Gary Johnson (Libertarian) (LR: 3)

Johnson pulls about 7 percent in national polls when run against Obama and Romney; that’s 7 percent more than he’d actually get if he were running. But it’s enough that Johnson should actually get a bit of publicity, assuming that Paul doesn’t steal it by making a third-party bid himself.

Would Johnson affect the race? Probably not much. He takes more from Romney than Obama, but given that he’ll probably take less than 1 percent of the vote, it probably won’t be decisive.

Johnson, of course, should be the Libertarian Party’s nominee, rather than Paul; Johnson is a much more traditional libertarian ideologically. But I’m guessing if it comes down to Johnson and Paul, the Ronulans will seize control of the Libertarian Party. Which would be…well, pretty indistinguishable from the state of affairs before.

4. Donald Trump (Americans Elect) (LR:4)

Trump sat alone in his golden chair
Totally motionless except for his hair
Candidates came to his place and grovelled
At least they did until his big debate was cancelled

He’s Trump
He’s Trump
He’s been bankrupt
He’s Trump
He’s Trump
He kinda sucks

Trump lingered last for humility
Thinks he could lead the country from sea to shining sea
He cut his pizza, after that he chewed
Is Trump gonna run? Well if his show isn’t renewed….

He’s Trump
He’s Trump
He bought his hair
He’s Trump
He’s Trump
He doesn’t care

Is this Trump running this fall? I think no.
Does this Trump have much of a chance? I think no.
Is this Trump kind of a dick? I think so.
If he runs, will he get his butt kicked? I think so.

5. Fmr. La. Gov. Buddy Roemer (Americans Elect) (LR: NR)

Roemer actually would make a good candidate for a new, moderate third party if it wasn’t Americans Elect. Roemer is pretty moderate, really does straddle the two parties ideologically, and wouldn’t be an altogether terrible fit for them.

Unfortunately, he lacks zazz, star power, a certain je ne sais qua. He’s no Joe Lieberman, I’ll tell you that. And so while he could, and probably should, be the Americans Elect nominee, something tells me they’ll find someone else — or quietly fold, just like Unity08 before them.

6. Robby Wells (Constitution) (LR: NR)

Robby Wells is a former head football coach at Savannah State University, an HBCU in Savannah, Georgia. Wells himself is white. After rolling up an impressive 7-15 record in two seasons, Wells was fired, and being the kind of guy who’d eventually seek the Constitution Party’s nomination, he sued for racial discrimination, ultimately settling out of court.

The main question at this point is whether Wells can win the Constitution Party’s endorsement. His platform actually puts him to the left of the Republican Party, although, to be fair, there really is no ideological space left to the right of the Republican Party. Wells benefits primarily from the fact that nobody else seems to be seeking the CP’s endorsement. Wait. What’s that? Is — is that — Alan Keyes’ music?

It isn’t? Oh well. A guy can dream.

7. Pastor Terry Jones (Independent) (LR: NR)

You may remember Jones from the time he tried and failed to burn a Qur’an. Well, he’s back, and this time he’s running for president. Or something. I assume he’s running on a pro-burning Qur’an platform.

The main thing Jones makes me think is this: both he and John Bolton have goofy white mustaches. Is that a thing? Is it that if you hate Muslims, you have to grow a goofy white mustache? Or does your goofy white mustache make you so mad that you lash out at the obvious culprit — Muslims? Maybe it’s a chicken-or-egg thing. I don’t know. All I know is that if my mustache ever goes simultaneously white and goofy, I’m shaving.

8. Kent Mesplay (Green) and/or Jill Stein (Green) (LR: NR)

Mesplay and Stein are running for the nomination of the Green Party, and I think this is a good thing. Not because I know anything about either Mr. Mesplay or Ms. Stein — I don’t, other than that they’re probably to my left on most issues. No, what’s good is that they’re unknown activists working on building their party, which is exactly who the Greens should nominate.

Three of the four Green Party tickets have been headed by gadflies — Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000, Cynthia McKinney in 2008. And it’s badly damaged the party. Yes, Nader drew 2 million votes in 2000. But when Nader flounced out of the party in 2004, it became apparent that he really hadn’t built the party at all. McKinney’s bid was ineffective as well.

Mesplay and/or Stein are unlikely to draw a few million votes. But they will help build the party. Now, I think it unlikely that the Greens in America will ever be more than a fringe party — our system discourages third parties, generally. But they’ll grow a lot more from the grass roots than they will from the top down.

10. Roseanne Barr (Green Tea) (LR: NR)

I am not making this up. Roseanne Barr — last seen growing nuts in Hawai’i — has decided to run for president as a member of the “Green Tea” party. And for those of you who follow the Twitter, you know that Roseanne has launched her campaign by being kind of a puritopian jerk.

Will it play in Peoria? I strongly doubt it. Especially since it’s really easy to say you’re running for president, but much harder to actually run for president. I suspect Roseanne views this as a way to grab some cheap publicity and go.

Still, it’s early, so at least the run is entertaining. Of course, by November she’ll be elected President, only to tell us later that all of reality is a novel that she wrote, and really her kids are married to each other’s fictional spouses and her husband is dead. And that will be unforgivable.

Posted in Elections and politics | 4 Comments

Feminism, Men, and Redemption

Posted on January 20, 2012 by fannie

[Trigger/content warning: Violence]

A couple of people have emailed me asking what I think about the Hugo Schwyzer, erm, Internet Feminist Situation. (See Alas, for a roundup of related links and background.)

(tl;dr version: What role should or can a male feminist play in feminist when, by his own admission, he has had a very problematic history with women but now seeks to make amends?).

My observations are as follows:

First, I have linked to Scwhyzer’s work a few times in the past. That being said, I am very troubled by Schwyzer’s past and, prior to this incident, I was not aware of the extent of how problematic it was (It ranges from having tried to kill himself and a former girlfriend while being addicted to drugs and alcohol, to having sex with adult students while he was their teacher).

Schwyzer is a relatively Big Name in feminism, he teaches gender-themed courses at a city college (I don’t know if he has tenure), he contributes (or contributed to, before recently resigning) to several very prominent feminist and gender issues blogs, he’s co-authored a book, and he has a fancy self-promoting website with his photo attached (he’s a conventionally attractive white man).

Much of this- the blogs, the gigs, the promotion- I believe is a function of white male privilege.

Not only has he never been arrested for criminal behavior, he recently wrote on his blog of having been given second chances, of having been “urged” to make amends by his colleagues and administrators, and of being handed the opportunity to chair the committee that wrote his college’s policy on relationships between students and teachers.

I value the power of forgiveness, amends, and redemption, and I do think Schwyzer is talented, but … that? That pisses me right off.

Not because I don’t think Schwyzer is “deserving” of such treatment, but mostly because I can’t see a lesbian feminist woman of any color, a gay man, a trans* person, or a person of color of any sexual orientation being coddled by superiors and colleagues in a similar way and going on to retain hir prominent status within gender studies and the gender blogosphere.

So, I think part of the backlash Schwyzer is now experiencing within the feminist blogosphere can be attributed to that. (Although, of course, many people have raised other valid concerns as well).

Feminist women often say that it takes a man to say what we regularly say for it to be taken seriously, and it feels unbelievably belittling that a man with such a problematic past can be taken more seriously than many, if not most, feminist women writers, bloggers, and thinkers.

And, of course, the cruelness of it is that white men in heterosexual marriages are deemed to be more authoritative objective than the voices of those who are not white men in heterosexual relationships and so Kicking Them Out Of Feminism can be counter-productive if the goal is to be persuasive to mainstream audiences.

Secondly, and relatedly, feminism is relatively marginalized within mainstream political discourse. I think this incident highlights not only the question of the role of men within feminism, but of the role of any person who is not perfect. In what ways does Internet feminism’s “call-out culture” further marginalize already-marginalized feminist narratives? Hugo Schwyzer may be a big shot on Feminist Internet, but he doesn’t exactly have his own talk show (um… yet?).

Although I don’t agree with him about everything, I do think Schwyzer has made some good points about male privilege, entitlement, and sexism against both men and women. I still believe those points are good and valid, much in the way I believe that other feminists who have problematic personal histories or ideologies have made good and valid points about other things.

Is there any other social movement whose members regularly and publicly kick people and all of their ideas out for not being perfectly acceptable to all people all the time?

And what about the voices of non-white men that are regularly kicked out of feminism. For instance, how does it help or hurt feminism to cite Mary Daly’s transbigotry, for instance, as a reason to reject her criticisms of the Catholic Church’s misogyny? Is there room for feminists to remain critical of problematic aspects of a person or hir theories without rejecting everything ze ever wrote?

Interestingly, Schwyzer mentioned that some of the colleagues who were supportive of him making amends were feminists. I wonder if feminists (myself included) can have a tendency to be So Grateful That A White Man Is An Ally that we overlook issues that we would refuse to overlook in feminists who aren’t white men in heterosexual relationships. Many feminists and “gender egalitarians” today won’t touch Twisty Faster or an Andrea Dworkin book with a ten-foot pole, but a dude who tried to kill a lady? Go write for Jezebel! Sure, why not?

My last main observation wouldn’t be complete without at least mentioning MRAs. Many MRAs seem to absolutely loath Schwyzer. But what they seem to loathe even more is feminist women setting boundaries around the feminist voices they/we want to promote and support. It’s all “witch hunt” this and “fascism” that. As though Internet Feminism has institutional power and backing to, like, burn Bad Feminists at the stake. (Oh wait, that was what the Catholic Church did to Bad Women).

Anyway, because much of the conversation has been centered around him and The Role Of Men In Feminism, I hope that the people he has hurt are finding, or have found, peace. I also hope that Schwyzer is finding peace in all of this. He has been honest, in a very public way, about his past.

Redemption is indeed an enduring theme in literature and film. But I’d contend that feminism’s primary concern is not, actually, about redeeming male protagonists.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues, Men and masculinity, Race, racism and related issues, Transsexual and Transgender related issues | 107 Comments

Angry string cheese!

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Ampersand

My very excellent studio-mate Kristin was annoyed that her string cheese snacks had been disappearing from the studio fridge. (As it turned out, there was a genuine misunderstanding going on about who owned the cheese.) Since Kris isn’t often here at the same time as everyone else, she grabbed her red marker and left some messages to set the evil cheese thief quaking in fear:

(Description of image: Photo of a row of individually-wrapped string cheese snacks. On each snack, a short message is written in red marker. The messages are: “Is your name KRIS?,” “I bite back!,” “POISON,” “Price: $800,” “Not tasty,” “Eat at Your Own Risk,” “Grrrrrrrr…,” something that I can’t make out at all, and finally, “I know where you work.”)

Posted in Syndicated feeds | Comments Off

Angry string cheese!

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Ampersand

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 10 Comments