Archive for Politics

Thoughts on the primaries

It’s galling to me that in a Democratic field that has, for the first time, a woman and an African-American and a Latino, the candidate with whom I most align on the issues is a white Southern male. But there you are.

Hillary Clinton is not my candidate, but if she wins the election, I think she’ll be a good president. Not ideal, but good. I was moved by the passion and commitment evidenced in her “display of emotion,” and being a girly girl, I’m not afraid of emotion, nor do I think that it’s inconsistent with toughness or clarity of mind.

John Edwards is my candidate, but the sexism he displayed when asked to respond to Hillary’s “emotionalism” is appalling.

I enjoy watching Keith Olberman very much, but I’m stunned at how visciously he criticized Hillary last night for daring to compare herself positively to Obama. An election is a competition, in which one person wins and others lose, is she really expected not to think she’s the best candidate for the job? Is she expected to campaign for Obama or what?

One final thing: Obama is not my candidate. Nonetheless, the little dance he did on Oprah kinda turned me on. Mea culpa.

Monday Movie Review: Two Movies About Women

This week, I saw two movies that satisfy Bechdel’s Rule. It is remarkable to see women who seem real in the movies, and then again remarkable that it is so remarkable, if you know what I mean. The movies are a true-life drama (A Mighty Heart) and a ditzy, sexy romantic comedy (The Truth About Cats & Dogs). They share a deep feminist sensibility without ever doing that “I’m talking about feminism” thing (see: Something’s Gotta Give).

A Mighty Heart (2007) 8/10
When Daniel Pearl (Dan Futterman) is kidnapped in Pakistan, his wife Marianne (Angelina Jolie) and his colleague Asra Nomani (Archie Panjabi) work with the authorities to try to find and rescue him.

Asra Nomani has written that she is unhappy with the way A Mighty Heart is not about Danny Pearl; she felt betrayed by that. But the movie feels to me like it isn’t meant to be about Danny, who is, after all, off-stage for the drama being shown. Indeed, his story might be told, and told beautifully, but this is a different story.

I struggled with the chaos of the movie; a legitimate portrayal of what it felt like to be in that situation, or needlessly chaotic film techniques?

But in the center of the chaos are two remarkable women, and as I watched, I was struck by how not-movie these women were; they seemed like women I might know. They were smart, thoughtful, aggressive, angry, needy, analytical, focused, and compassionate. They were simply human. They were never “the women” cast in a movie to add a little color and costume and tits. There was nothing cliché about them. This was particularly striking for Marianne Pearl, who was never reduced to “the wife,” or “the pregnant wife,” and with that growing belly, that had to be a challenge to the filmmakers. Because yes, she was a pregnant wife, but also a journalist and, well, a human being.

And again, I reflected that this shouldn’t be so striking. That human women shouldn’t be such an oddity.

The Truth About Cats and Dogs (1996) 8/10
Dr. Abby Barnes (Janeane Garofalo) is a veterinarian with a pet advice radio show. When an attractive caller (Ben Chaplin) wants to meet her, she convinces him that she looks like her gorgeous neighbor Noelle (Uma Thurman). Complications ensue.

People kept telling me to see this movie, but the identity-switch plot made me cringe. I finally broke down, and yeah, there’s a couple of cringes, but it’s somehow nothing like the description sounds. First, because the self-consciousness of the cringey switch is a reflection of Abby’s own self-consciousness. Second, because there’s a crucial scene on the phone between Abby and Brian (Chaplin) that is so warm and lovely that it legitimizes the ensuing shenanigans, and finally, because the friendship that develops between Noelle and Abby as they weave their ridiculous lies is lovely and rare.

Seriously. Two women thrown together. Attracted to the same man. And…choosing friendship as a priority? Did you see that coming? And not necessarily, y’know, being martyrs, but recognizing the value of it. Considering it. Exactly as if they were human.

Because they are. Human women. In a script, get this, written by a woman. That includes female masturbation (and someday soon I’m writing a whole post on that subject).

Seeing these movies made me a little sadder about movies in general, because I shouldn’t be writing this post. It shouldn’t be, hey I saw movies in which women were actually friends. And human. And thoughtful. Two of them! Made only eleven years apart!

Racist Comedy Gaze

So I watched some standup comedy special on Comedy Central. It was a couple of weeks old, but I have a DVR, so there you go. It was a single live performance featuring Dave Attell, D.L. Hughley, and Lewis Black. They performed their routines in that order, and then came out and did a thing together.

At some point, I became aware of the way the camera moved through the audience. You know what I mean; the audience members laughing in response to something the comedian has said.

Everyone shown in the audience for the white comedians was white. Everyone shown in response to Hughley was black.

I don’t get it. I mean, what’s the purpose of that? Is it scary to show white people enjoying Hughely? Does that provoke white anxiety in some way that eludes me? Are Black and Attell so unfunny to blacks that it would be implausible to show black audience members laughing at them? Are the camera operators, incredible as it seems, unaware that they are making racial choices?

There’s certainly a quantity of racial content in any comedian’s routine. Hughley does humor that is more black, Black does humor that is specifically Jewish (and Attell just isn’t fucking funny). And none of that feels racist or problematic. But the audience stuff; I had a real problem with that, and I just. Don’t. Get it.

Nativities, Pagan displays, and establishment

There’s a really interesting discussion going on at Alas, a blog on the subject of nativity scenes on government property. The post is a couple of days old but the comments remain lively.

The Wild Hunt has also been covering this issue, and while I have a lot to say, I have decided to forgive myself for not having the time for a comprehensive post. Just go visit these other folks.

The True Diversity of American Religion

Jason quotes Philocrites about Mitt Romney’s “I am a Mormon but Don’t Hold it Against Me” speech.

By trying to define “faith” as conservative traditionalism and “pluralism” as a name for monotheistic traditionalism, Romney misrepresented the true diversity of American religion, explicitly dismissed Americans who don’t identify with a religious tradition, and painted the traditions he did mention in a way that celebrates their most traditionalist wings and ignores almost all of their visions for the commonweal. What a disappointment.

I agree with everything except the “what a disappointment” part. What the flock were you expecting, tolerance? On the Right?

I think not.

Monday Movie Review: The Namesake

The Namesake (2006) 6/10
Ashoke Ganguli (Irfan Khan), a Bengali professor living in New York, marries Ashima (Tabu) and brings her to the United States in 1974. Their American-born son Gogol (Kal Penn) struggles between his family’s traditionalism and his desire to assimilate. Directed by Mira Nair.

The Namesake is a movie struggling to find itself. Although I haven’t read the novel, and so have no idea how close it is to its source, it feels like a movie trying to slavishly follow a novel’s plot and pacing. It has a novels way of rising and falling around events, without a clear flow of character or narrative arc. I wanted to take it apart, shake off the loose pieces, and put it back together with a more sound structure. Almost everything about the movie is appealing except its inability to tell a story.

This is the sort of movie I see all the time and don’t bother to write a full review of. (After all, most weeks I see two or three movies and only review one here.) But it has some very good qualities that are worth discussing. First, of course, is the modern immigrant experience; arriving not on Ellis Island but at JFK International Airport, treated symbolically (if clumsily) in the movie as a sort of waystation; each time the Ganguli family passes through JFK they pass between worlds; between states of being. Ashoke and Ashima are always aliens in their adopted country, their traditions don’t fit in. And looking at it, you can certainly see how most of our traditions didn’t fit in at one point, and how the first generation born here struggled with a foot in each world.

There’s a fascinating anti-feminist feminist component about The Namesake. I realize that sounds contradictory, so hang in there.

In the course of the movie, there are two women in Gogol’s life. They are incredibly poorly-written characters, stereotypes of Evil Feminists or Evil Modernism or something else Evil and Female. Their evils are variously independence, informality, premarital sex, wearing short skirts, and disrespecting tradition. The feeling at the end of the movie, when the family comes to a particular sort of resolution but the Evil Women are cast aside, is of misogyny.

Rethinking my position involves spoilers about the end. Continue at your own risk.

» Read more..

Third Party Candidates

Yesterday’s Presidential Candidate Picker generated some interesting comments. In particular, I was casually dismissive of Nader, when my thoughts on the matter are actually more complex.

I think this country desperately needs more than two parties. I don’t know how we’ll ever get there, but I think it’s needed. As with most changes that might happen, I think a big obstacle is the corporate media; the media conglomerates must be broken apart to give smaller voices a chance to be heard.

The authors of the Constitution envisioned a lively electoral process. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution states:

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

“Not exceeding three.” After the voting, if there’s no majority, you narrow down to three.

I watch the electoral processes of other countries, where there are multiple parties, and they seem more exciting, more involving, and they give the electorate (us) more choices. The voters would benefit by hearing a variety of voices, with a range of opinions. My Presidential Candidate Picker results showed a cluster of similar Democrats on one end, and a cluster of similar Republicans on the other. Multiple parties with a real chance at the White House would give real choice; you know, like the Libertarians and Greens pretend to do. Right now, alternative parties are symbolic votes; we all know those candidates can’t win. People vote for them to make a statement.

I like making statements. I also like winning.

The electoral system makes my vote virtually meaningless in a general election. I live in New York. We’re a very blue state. Blue blue blue. So blue that candidates don’t come here much. So blue that political advertisements don’t play on my TV much.

Under such circumstances, a symbolic vote makes sense. My vote for a major party candidate in 2000 would have had no impact on the results; New York was for Gore and that was that. But my vote for Nader (and I did vote for Nader) did have an impact. An important goal of the Nader candidacy was to get 5% of the vote, thereby forcing the Green Party to automatically appear on the ballot thereafter. It didn’t work; Nader got 3%, but I had no doubt that every vote counted in the effort.

I remember, in 2000, knowing that Nader appeared here or there, for this debate or that, and it never got onto the news. There was some rally or debate that Nader was shut out of, and there were pro-Nader protesters who were interrupting Gore or something, and the news reported the interruption, and I remember yelling at the radio, because the reporters weren’t telling me what the protesters were saying, or why Nader was shut out. They were reporting it as a “Gore was interrupted” story; no differently than if he’d been rained out. Nader was just a weather condition.

We, the voters, need a voice. We need candidates who address issues. And we need a media that communicates what the candidates say. The media we have doesn’t much do that. They mostly just report the horse race. Which takes me full circle, back to the corporate conglomerate media. Back to the need for many parties; not two, not three, but many.

Right now, this year, I’m not interested in voting symbolically. I’m not interested in casting a vote for a candidate with no chance, a candidate being shut out of the media circus, because he’s the most progressive (that’s Kucinich). Because there is a robust field, and because my vote does matter now, while the field is so populous, I will choose a candidate who has values I can support and integrity I can admire (that’s Edwards). But soon enough the field will narrow; the media and the money machine will force that on us; New York’s candidate will likely be locked in before I have a chance to vote.

Presidential Candidate Picker

Ultimate 2008 Presidential Candidate Matcher

Your Result: Dennis Kucinich
 

The top priority of Dennis Kucinich is to end the war in Iraq. Kucinich also favors a repeal of the Patriot Act, would fund stem cell research, and create a universal healthcare program. He is liberal on social issues, and favors eliminating Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. Kucinich is also concerned about global warming.

Barack Obama
 
John Edwards
 
Hillary Clinton
 
Rudy Guiliani
 
John McCain
 
Ron Paul
 
Mitt Romney
 
Ultimate 2008 Presidential Candidate Matcher
Take More Quizzes

Yeah, sure, but I’m still not voting for him.

A board member of the NH Libertarian Party writes an open letter to Ron Paul

I am personally acquainted with this person, as are my parents. That’s how I found this.

Most of the letter is of interest chiefly to Libertarians, but one part of it struck me as worth repeating:

On the topic of the Constitutionality of abortion rights, I could cite a right to privacy, which I do believe in, as a Libertarian. I think the government needs to stay out of our homes, our bedrooms, and our doctor’s visits. Yet, you support government violating the most sacred of trusts, the most intimate of issues. One that should remain between a woman, her doctor, her partner and her conscience.

If privacy isn’t enough, the Constitution contains a second support of a woman’s right to choose. You see, the thirteenth amendment of our great Constitution is the amendment against slavery. In 1865 our Congress ratified an amendment that said that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

If a woman has not consented to sex, the possible result of that rape is, simply put, enslavement. However, a woman who consents to sex yet not to pregnancy, is still enslaved as long as she is involuntary bound to harbouring the body and developing life of something she did not consent to creating in the first place.

Her other objections are well-put and also may be of interest to more Left-leaning readers.  You can read the full letter here.

To prevent abortions, prevent unwanted pregnancy

This is really Amanda‘s hobby horse, but hello to being proven right. Here’s what greeted me when I turned on the computer this morning (emphasis added):

LONDON – Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.

In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe

“The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy,” Beth Fredrick of the International Women’s Health Coalition in the U.S. said in an accompanying commentary.

Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary injury.

“The continuing high incidence of unsafe abortion in developing countries represents a public health crisis and a human rights atrocity,” Fredrick wrote.

So, if you think that abortion itself is morally wrong, then obviously you want to prevent it, right? And legal obstacles don’t prevent abortion. So you’ll obviously want to work to make birth control accessible and affordable, right? And to inform women about it?

And if you’re pro-life, then the high rate of death from illegal abortion concerns you. Obviously. So keeping abortion safe and hygienic is vital, and keeping it legal helps ensure that.

This sounds like sarcasm, but as snide as my tone is, I’m not being sarcastic. It is absolutely true that if you want to prevent abortion and preserve life, then safe, legal abortion combined with safe, legal, accessible, inexpensive birth control is the way to make that happen. The fact that the “pro-life” (snort) movement doesn’t favor any of those things doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’re not pro-life. No matter what a “pro-life” person says, if they don’t support policies which are proven to reduce abortion rates and preserve the lives of women, then they have a different agenda.

I understand they are changing their name to the “Punish Slutty Women” movement. Okay, that was sarcasm.