I’ll be heading to Boston (where I promise not to ever bring up politics, or say anything objectionable, for my own sake as much as yours) for New Years, so I thought I’d post a few final offerings on two of the most important legislative things on our plate before I go.
The first is a post by Chris Hayes on the remaining public health care in the bill. While I still agree with David Sirota, that there’s a great long-term value of insisting the health bill is not enough, I do feel compelled to point out the things that remain in the bill worth fighting for: no denial of coverage, Medicaid expansion, community health centers expansion (thank you Bernie), and the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Program. I do also think the bill is unacceptable if it contains Stupak language, and I hope that ladies in the House kill that fucker if it does (sorry Marcy, gonna have to part with you respectfully and vehemently on this one. Stupak- you’re a dick.)
I officially invite readers to 1) post their own reflections on Avatar (especially if you disagree with me or want to point out how I suck) and 2) link to any reviews they found that I missed. In doing a very basic sweep I found a lot that was very enjoyable, I’ll definitely be continuing this feature.
Before we get to the race and political stuff (you know, what I give a shit about), here’s just one of hundreds of perspectives on the aesthetics sans-politico (does such a thing exist? hmmmmmm)
Put simply, Avatar is the most visually fantastic film I’ve ever seen. It will be hailed as the groundbreaking 3D release of its time while setting a new standard by which all blockbusters are measured. Yes, it’s that good.
Personally, I prefer my sci-fi movies to be mindless escapism. But when it comes to a national discussion about race — to the extent that there is one at all — I accept the reality that Hollywood is the moderator and the Internet is the forum. “Avatar” certainly keeps the discussion going.
I actually dig most of Milloy’s piece, though it mostly does what this post does by quoting other people, so I would say that wouldn’t I?
I was actively cheering for the humans — America, white people, the Western world — to commit genocide on the blue people — Native Americans, minorities, those oppressed worldwide. That’s not to say I am a huge proponent of the American ideology or am proud of the way our ancestors treated Native Americans. Far from it. I simply do not enjoy obvious Hollywood propaganda, specifically created to engender certain opinions and feelings. I can think for myself, thank you very much. All I ask, and maybe this is too much, is for some subtlety. Next time reach for the scalpel and leave the big wooden club at home. To go along with the anti-white, down with American message was one even more obvious: the environmental movement. Yes, we should be aware of Earth’s limited resources. Yes, we only have one planet. Et cetera. I, however, do not enjoy being reminded to recycle while watching a movie I paid $13.25 to see. I came to be entertained, not preached at.
Even more below the flip- some of this stuff is really good:
Neytiri, could you calm down for a second? I'm talking, there's a white man talking here- N'GOWA!
I’m going to own this movie so hard. But first, listen to Paul Mooney do it better than me.
I’d like to introduce a new series that will hopefully add some lightness and fun to this blog: Spoilers, in which I corrupt your enjoyment of pop culture through an illustration of the conservative assumptions that support that pop culture. Basically my own mini-version of the essential Racialicious (except, you know, I’m a straight, white, upper middle class, urban male- so let’s get one thing straight, I got me some blind spots). Proceed if you dare, and I’m giving due warning- I’ll be revealing plot points out the wazoo (though it’s pretty fucking predictable, so I wouldn’t worry myself too hard).
Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of ideological diversity in these United States. But the myth of the political ‘center’ that stands antagonistic to welfare state policies (or more charitably, policies where citizens agree to take care of each other) is just that, a myth. Paul Rosenberg’s Center-Left America: Vast Support For The Welfare State (ps. I hope you like numbers and charts. Hooray social science!):
The number of items in our sample is small, so it wouldn’t be wise to make too much of this comparison–yet. Still, it’s a significant warning that those think the welfare state unpopular, and controversial compared to “basic government functions” cannot just assume they are right. The evidence here is that they are wrong. Not only is the welfare state popular with everyone–not just liberals–it is more popular than the night watchman state, at least from the data we have here. So let’s look at some other sets of data…
Check out the whole thing and memorize it for parties/bar-outings/going to the club when your friends claim that the US is a ‘conservative’ country. JK (or not, just ask Lily what drinking with me is like:
If only I dressed this good...
But seriously, part of the point of this is to disabuse you, dear reader, of the idea that our country is crazy conservative. Our ruling class may be, but only oligarchies are directed by a ruling class out of touch with the majority sentiment of the people.
When we mute ourselves as a Democratic president pursues corporatist or militarist policies, we only encourage such policies…
Be it resolved: In 2010, we will not apologize for indefensible Democratic policies, and we will no longer support netroots groups that fail to resist such policies.
“Moderating” our goals is not a recipe for victory. It is a recipe for failure. Last fall, voters overwhelming voted for change, and they knew then — and still know now — the kind of change they wanted.
They wanted to end the stranglehold of the private insurance companies that continues to put every American a single illness — or one layoff — away from financial catastrophe. They want to take bold, clear action to assure that America is in the forefront of creating the clean energy jobs of the future — and leave a thriving healthy planet to our children. They wanted to fundamentally change the bull-in-the-china shop foreign policy of the Bush years and re-establish American leadership in the world. Most importantly, they rejected the failed economic policies that allowed the recklessness of huge Wall Street banks to plunge the economy into free fall — and cost millions their livelihoods. They desperately want leadership that will lay the foundation for long term, bottom-up, widely shared prosperity.
In other words they wanted… and still want… fundamental change.
We’ve entered a new era here of outright stoppage at all costs. So that’s what I’m trying to address with this amendment. I doubt anything will happen. But at least we’ll start the process.
If the insurance industry offered Democrats huge campaign contributions to reject the health care bill, we would be outraged and call it “bribery,” but when the Democrats themselves offer benefits for its support, we call it “compromise”. What makes it particularly galling is when the benefits are conferred upon Sen. Ben Nelson, the Senate’s most outspoken Democratic advocate against federal funding and insurance for abortions. His proposed abortion amendment discriminates against women. It is motivated by religious belief. It purports merely to continue the status quo — an argument that probably was made to continue slavery, discrimination, segregation and denying women the right to vote.
As I have said in an earlier post, certain religious groups are opposed to homosexuality. Could the exclusion of coverage for gays and lesbians and the treatment of AIDS possibly survive either legislative or judicial scrutiny? An entire group of persons should not be excluded from coverage merely because certain religious groups are opposed to them, their lifestyle or their beliefs. Abortion is legal in this country. The pro-life view is to be respected, but it should not be allowed to deny government funded coverage to those who need it and believe otherwise.
So we not only maintain this discriminatory policy, but reward its prime advocate. I concede that this is not an outright bribe. Money is not being handed to Sen. Nelson for his personal use. But it is certainly the equivalent to a campaign contribution. He can point to his obtaining an exemption for Nebraska’s expanded Medicaid costs as a major accomplishment of his tenure. He extorted it and got a pay-off. Call it what you will in Congress, but the voters know what it is.
This power to extort derives directly from the 60 vote cloture rule of the Senate. It might be wielded even if a simple majority were required, but the difficulty in obtaining 60 votes enhances the power of the hold-out senators. Either let the filibusters happen and show the country who the obstructionists are, abolish the rule or even consider abolishing the Senate itself (it will never happen) and let the majority rule in the House. The power wielded by individual senators is too often disproportionate to the number of citizens they actually represent.
I’m gonna come back to this, because one of the posts she cites is pretty juicy. But for now, Digby has a perspective that I think cuts through the ‘what did he and didn’t he promise’ meme a-circlin’ the media-sphere:
As I wrote earlier, aside from the political and moral question of making such “deals” in the first place, what this really reveals is the source of liberals’ frustrations at the moment. The president may not have campaigned on the public option or even been much of a crusader for health care reform. But what he did campaign on explicitly and without reservation was clean government and the end of business as usual. Indeed, the word “change” was predicated on that simple promise alone. This is where the problem lies with the left and a fair number in the middle. The technocrats in Washington see health care reform as a triumph of pragmatic manipulation of the various levers of power. The media is celebrating that Obama Plays by Washington’s Rules. But for a good many people, that very fact violates the central rationale for his presidency. That’s what’s causing this cognitive dissonance and giving life to a new right wing anti-liberal argument. (emphasis mine)
Right wing “populism” is of a completely different form than that of the left, although it’s fed by similar feelings of disenfranchisement and suspicion of elites. At the very least, lefties are not in the pockets of corporate America while they rail against the system that benefits it. I can’t say the same for the right. I realize that this new populist alliance relies on the belief that left and right are now an outdated political paradigm. I just don’t believe it. You can call it whatever you like, but the lines will divide up pretty much as they always have in America and liberals will have to decide who they’re going to sacrifice to the cause if they want to change that. Believe me, sacrificing corporate donations won’t get the job done.
The left is already philosophically consistent on the issue of big money in politics, and if they made the case straightforwardly and gained popular support, it could change the way politics are done. The populist right is incoherent. They operate on a whole other set of impulses, which almost always involve scapegoating of the other. I don’t see a meaningful alliance there, although I do see how right wing populism will be very useful to the wealthy. It always has been in the past.
For a fantastic book that deals with this a little, check out David Sirota’s The Uprising. I’ll return both to this book, and this subject in the future, because I think it’s a potentially important trend to watch, though most will probably eschew these kinds of alliances (with good reason, I think).
Welcome, dear reader to the second installment in my never-ending quest to highlight the social parasites we accept as legitimate powers! The cordyceps, if you will, of our global ant colony (I fucking love Planet Earth, and also planet Earth):
Today’s edition introduces us to the plutonomy, which viewers of Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story may remember as the term for a deeply unequal global society as defined by a Citigroup memo from 2005. This entry will quote from two papers (Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances and Sustaining Workers’ Bargaining Power In An Age Of Globalization) to give you a peek at the parasitism of plutonomy (with peculiar perspectives on pecuniary particularities to pique your passions). They’re great reads so I encourage you to check them out yourself. But shit, if you wanna take my word for it, check it out below the flip…
Slash happy Hanukkah, empowering Kwanzaa, and good Day of Ashura, Pancha Ganapati, and all other manner of Winter Celebrations (hooray unabashed multiculturalism/liberation!) Update: Crap, I forgot Life Day, Chewie please forgive me! And shit, if you’re an atheist/scientist/agnostic misfit, I hope you’re enjoying your home and family in a secular manner as much as I am. I for one, love Christmas, and will share my favorite Christmas clips below:
Update: Crap I forgot Life Day! Witness the glory:
