Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Welcome, Franken!
Well, in a day when Republicans irritated me to a great degree (Sanford, Palin outrunning Obama? Wtf? A rehashing of the stimulus money rejection in VA with a friend, Cheney, etc.), here is some terrific news! Welcome to the Capitol, Senator Franken! It's about time! Hooray for a 60-seat, fillibuster-proof majority! Now if we can only convince all the Democrats to do stuff, it will be a glorious time. Of course, to some extent that will be tough, but certainly easier now than it was without him. What great news.
Sanford and Soulmates
Mark Sanford had an interview that came out today in which he claimed that the woman in Argentina is his soulmate, but that he's trying to fall back in love with his wife. What a dirtbag. Whether or not that's the truth - save it for behind closed doors. There's no way it's fair to his wife to have that wandering around in the press while they're supposedly trying to patch things up. If I were her... well I'd like to think, anyway, that I'd be gone. I like that he's not trashing his mistress, but you can speak respectfully of the one woman without being so incredibly disrespectful to your wife. This kind of stuff just makes me so mad.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Public Option
So, it seems that the big divide right now in the battle over health care reform is between those who want a public option and those who do not. I think I really must be missing something. It seems to me that those who oppose a public option essentially oppose it because it would drive down costs of insurance coverage, and hopefully health care itself. So I guess my question is: unless you own an insurance company, what's so bad about that? I suppose it might lead to some job loss (that could probably be atoned for by the increase in public sector jobs and revenue), but when you balance that against the absolute necessity of doing something to combat rising costs and the ever-increasing bankruptcies due to medical emergencies, I really can't understand what motive the Republicans have to oppose this, apart from wanting campaign contributions from the insurance companies...
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Yay Obama!
Okay, I know this is cheesy, but I am so happy Obama is President. It may just be those eight long years under Bush, but I'm just glad. Yeah, he doesn't do everything right, and he hasn't done everything I hope he'll do yet, but that's part of life in a democracy, really.
I've just been thinking about this all week because of his supposedly "testy" press conference earlier in the week. I loved it! My favorite part was when he responded to the question about whether pressure from the Pubs had made him "toughen" his stance on Iran (gee, people, could it be that the situation has changed? Also, could you actually compare current statements to ones made a week ago before you act like it's some huge difference?), when he said something about how McCain is passionate about foreign affairs, but only he, Obama, is President. That is right, Mr. President. It's just you, and how thankful am I for that? It is just you, not McCain, not Lindsey Graham, not Mark Sanford, and most importantly: not W. Thank you, Mr. President, and keep up the (mostly!) good work!
I've just been thinking about this all week because of his supposedly "testy" press conference earlier in the week. I loved it! My favorite part was when he responded to the question about whether pressure from the Pubs had made him "toughen" his stance on Iran (gee, people, could it be that the situation has changed? Also, could you actually compare current statements to ones made a week ago before you act like it's some huge difference?), when he said something about how McCain is passionate about foreign affairs, but only he, Obama, is President. That is right, Mr. President. It's just you, and how thankful am I for that? It is just you, not McCain, not Lindsey Graham, not Mark Sanford, and most importantly: not W. Thank you, Mr. President, and keep up the (mostly!) good work!
Friday, June 26, 2009
Executive Power
First of all, let me say that I absolutely believe that homosexual marriage should be permitted and that discrimination against homosexuals in all other ways should also be prohibited. That said...
I've seen a lot of complaints recently about Obama's lack of action thus far on Don't Ask Don't Tell, particularly in response to the Center for American Progress's recommendation that he suspend it pending a legislative solution, and in response to the Justice Department's continued enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act. Although I fervently hope that both of these laws go by the wayside very soon, I do not think it is a good idea, or even legal, for Obama or his Justice Department to unilaterally decide to stop enforcing the law. The executive branch cannot be allowed to simply pick and choose which laws it would like to follow or enforce - I admit that Constitutional Law is not my strong point, but I'm pretty sure that sort of goes against the idea of rule of law.
Take this as an example. Say there is a law against health care providers refusing to prescribe birth control for people solely on the basis of marital status. Now, say there's some Republican governor in office who decides he's just going to drop ongoing suits regarding this law, because he's morally opposed to non-married people having sex. We'd all agree that was wrong, right? But those people think that law is just as morally invalid as we think DOMA and DADT are. Like I said, I hope that we get rid of those laws/policies as quickly as possible - but I had enough of abuse of executive power under Bush, and I rather appreciate Obama's reluctance to go that route.
I've seen a lot of complaints recently about Obama's lack of action thus far on Don't Ask Don't Tell, particularly in response to the Center for American Progress's recommendation that he suspend it pending a legislative solution, and in response to the Justice Department's continued enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act. Although I fervently hope that both of these laws go by the wayside very soon, I do not think it is a good idea, or even legal, for Obama or his Justice Department to unilaterally decide to stop enforcing the law. The executive branch cannot be allowed to simply pick and choose which laws it would like to follow or enforce - I admit that Constitutional Law is not my strong point, but I'm pretty sure that sort of goes against the idea of rule of law.
Take this as an example. Say there is a law against health care providers refusing to prescribe birth control for people solely on the basis of marital status. Now, say there's some Republican governor in office who decides he's just going to drop ongoing suits regarding this law, because he's morally opposed to non-married people having sex. We'd all agree that was wrong, right? But those people think that law is just as morally invalid as we think DOMA and DADT are. Like I said, I hope that we get rid of those laws/policies as quickly as possible - but I had enough of abuse of executive power under Bush, and I rather appreciate Obama's reluctance to go that route.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Direct Response Television Advertisements
So, I think I mostly call these infomercials, but apparently when they're shorter, they're not technically infomercials. Anyway, it seems like, lately, there are a lot more of these lately - maybe just cause I'm bored on vacation and have the TV on a lot more than I usually do. Anyone else feel like they're seeing more of them?
I dislike them because I am virtually always tempted by the product, and because they never tell you what the real cost is going to be. "$9.99 plus shipping and handling!" but if you're lucky, the shipping and handling is in the fine print, and if not, they never tell you. The other day I saw one for an exercise thing with a 30 day trial for $14.95 - and it took me looking through the website for a few minutes to find out that afterwards, it would be 4 easy payments of about a hundred bucks. Each. Also, when you do order stuff, they then ask you to order a million other things. Yes, I know from personal experience - twice :-)
Nifty little gadgets, yay! And yes, I am kind of a sucker.
I dislike them because I am virtually always tempted by the product, and because they never tell you what the real cost is going to be. "$9.99 plus shipping and handling!" but if you're lucky, the shipping and handling is in the fine print, and if not, they never tell you. The other day I saw one for an exercise thing with a 30 day trial for $14.95 - and it took me looking through the website for a few minutes to find out that afterwards, it would be 4 easy payments of about a hundred bucks. Each. Also, when you do order stuff, they then ask you to order a million other things. Yes, I know from personal experience - twice :-)
Nifty little gadgets, yay! And yes, I am kind of a sucker.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Slumdog Millionaire
Went to see this last night. Very well done, very good movie. Got me to thinking about two things. One is how useful hope is when it is completely unrealistic. Vast swathes of people will get behind those who go from obscurity to fame and/or fortune overnight because they see themselves in those people, and it helps them have hope of a better life. Now, most people who end up rising out of slums and horrible lives do so out of a combination of hard work, intelligence/savvy, and luck. Plenty of people who combine those things don't have quite enough of the luck or whichever to make it out anyway. Granted, winning some game shows takes a bit of hard work and intelligence/savvy, although not all, but still the chances of that happening for any individual have got to be astronomically low. It's kind of like inner-city youths hoping to make the NBA - sure, it's a worthwhile dream, but it's so unlikely that it's almost counter-productive, unless the coaches are able to translate some of that hard work into other areas. So, I guess what bothers me is setting these unrealistic hopes for people that might make them sit and hope for salvation rather than have any faith in their ability to rise out on their own and concentrate their efforts there.
Furthermore, I think it's a way that people can get really dissatisfied with the lives they have. "Oh, I'm making enough to get by, and I've got this great family, but that guy's got this incredibly romantic story and is a millionaire! Why can't I have that?" Well, the vast majority of people can't have that - especially both parts. Romantic movies with their ridiculous happy endings have this effect on people all the time - David Sedaris talked about going to see The End of the Affair with his longtime partner and how it had that effect in his book Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim. It's so true - it leaves people thinking that love is easy and fated and just around the corner, and super romantic and happy all the time - and makes them wonder why their pedestrian relationship isn't the same way.
The other thing that it made me think about was the extent to which Western cultural chauvinism will impact the success of this movie. I had a couple of different classes this last semester that talked about the effect that has on feminism and on human rights movements. We have a tendency to assume that we have reached the pinnacle of both women's rights and human rights, and to assume that the way we view and value treatment of women and people generally is the best way to do so. As a result, when we see things that are done wrong in other countries, we shake our heads and think we need to help them - according to Leti Volpp, we often do so while ignoring the similar problems that still exist in America. I don't know that I buy that things are as bad for women in America as they are in every other country in the world, but I do think it's interesting to note just how easy it is to accept the depictions of some of the horrible things that go on in the movie, maybe partly because we're seeing them happen in India. Our country has its share of horrors, too, but I'm inclined to think that if the movie was set here or in any other Western country (made by British filmmakers), then it would be harder for many Western viewers to take the extent of the misery and abuse depicted in Slumdog Millionaire at face value.
All in all, a great movie - but I'll still pick Milk over it.
Furthermore, I think it's a way that people can get really dissatisfied with the lives they have. "Oh, I'm making enough to get by, and I've got this great family, but that guy's got this incredibly romantic story and is a millionaire! Why can't I have that?" Well, the vast majority of people can't have that - especially both parts. Romantic movies with their ridiculous happy endings have this effect on people all the time - David Sedaris talked about going to see The End of the Affair with his longtime partner and how it had that effect in his book Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim. It's so true - it leaves people thinking that love is easy and fated and just around the corner, and super romantic and happy all the time - and makes them wonder why their pedestrian relationship isn't the same way.
The other thing that it made me think about was the extent to which Western cultural chauvinism will impact the success of this movie. I had a couple of different classes this last semester that talked about the effect that has on feminism and on human rights movements. We have a tendency to assume that we have reached the pinnacle of both women's rights and human rights, and to assume that the way we view and value treatment of women and people generally is the best way to do so. As a result, when we see things that are done wrong in other countries, we shake our heads and think we need to help them - according to Leti Volpp, we often do so while ignoring the similar problems that still exist in America. I don't know that I buy that things are as bad for women in America as they are in every other country in the world, but I do think it's interesting to note just how easy it is to accept the depictions of some of the horrible things that go on in the movie, maybe partly because we're seeing them happen in India. Our country has its share of horrors, too, but I'm inclined to think that if the movie was set here or in any other Western country (made by British filmmakers), then it would be harder for many Western viewers to take the extent of the misery and abuse depicted in Slumdog Millionaire at face value.
All in all, a great movie - but I'll still pick Milk over it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
