Bailout and Election Roundtable, Open Thread

Okay, it's the largest single-day points drop EVUH. Who are you reading for the lowdown? You know my oracles at this point, but here's three of their most recent entries below. The conjuncture of the financial crisis; the flaccid popular approval for any branch of government; the presidential race in its home stretch, and the cultural politics of the form and content of debating "the economic" in 2008 all combine to make this moment in politics seem the most historic in recent history.

1. Ezra says it's possible that the next bailout could be a 'Left' bailout, if the Dems're prepared to shitcan "bipartisanship" and go it alone.
2. Krugman congratulates himself (fair enough), reminds us how our govt is "bananas."
3. The American Scene, much to its credit, shows itself and by extension its "Grand, New" vision for conservatism, to be analogous neither with the "Wall Street" nor "populist" branches of the Grand Old Party.
   

I have heard strong arguments - mostly from Left and Center-Left - on both sides of the failed bill. I am not sure just how possible Ezra Klein's proposed all-Dem bill will turn out to be, but, with Krugman, I think the need to do something - something soon - helps put in context the toothlessness of the Frank-Dodd plan. Democrats need a new frame for the bill just as much as they need new language. Obama's unwillingness to address the issue in a full-frontal fashion on Friday night is plenty understandable, but it resulted in a "missed opportunity" for a "teachable moment" with the country on this issue. That may or may not be justified, and I'd love to know what you readers think on that issue. The argument exists that we should save Stimulus Package 2 and tougher re-regulation of the markets for January, when we'll have stronger majorities in both houses, and, one would assume, President Obama.

More immediately, Obama's inability to steer the domestic policy conversation resulted in forty minutes of conversation about earmarks Friday night. Let's be honest, Hillary or Edwards would've sliced McCain's face off (figuratively) if they had a half-hour to debate the economy with the Maverick. For whatever reason, BHO has proven weirdly incapable on this score. It doesn't make me doubt his progressive bona fides, his sympathy with (the absurdly over-evoked) "Main Street," and it doesn't keep me from supporting his candidacy enthusiastically - but it exasperates me to no bleeping end.

Chris Matthews' Advice for Joe Biden

"Ignore her nice stories" and go after John McCain.

"Social Movement" Unionism has proven...

to be an absurd framework through which to understand labor's political identity in the 21st Century, in my opinion.

but some interesting issues come to light as one goes about taking that framework apart. par example, see Paul Johnston's Success While Other Fails; Social Movement Unionism and the Public Workplace (1994):

This does not mean that public workers’ movements will promote a “workers’ state,” abolish capitalism or the state, and so on. Different parts of the public workforce are likely to be implicated on different sides of every great social contest. The important point is that public workers' claims are framed in certain common forms and that these workers rely on certain kinds of strategic resources; beyond that, the significance of a particular movement depends on its historical context. As they frame their interests as administrable public interests, they are perhaps the quintessential “state-making" social movement.

No on Measure 64

it's all about the fidelity on the vocal track, here.

imagine hearing this on a record with no accompanying visuals or text.

Vote NO on Measure 64

"When your child goes to school, they build your future."

NO on Measure 64, Defend Oregon!

"I'm opposing Measure 64 because it's going to make our job of protecting our communities harder."

Poll Results -- Hillary Proves Divisive

Once again, Hillary Clinton has proved to be the most divisive figure in the history of American politics. Not since Alexander "That No Good Son of Bitch" Hamilton graced the American scene has the American political world, as represented by the readers of this blog, been so torn.

Now, I am not suggesting that a former VP should shoot her, far from it, (although one does wonder if Quayle has any other way of getting back into the history books, which raises the side point of "what the hell is Dan Quayle up to these days?" I didn't see him in St. Paul. Does he not get invited to these things?) no, far from it.

People managed to tally nine votes suggesting that Hillary is out there every goddamn day busting her hump for this Obama guy who is totally inexperienced and is making more mistakes than a person who makes a lot of mistakes, but Hillary is a soldier who carries on in the name of all that is good and pure and clean in this world, despite the sexism that so pervades our society that not even her appeals to voters' racism could overcome it.

Three people voted for the middle ground option, choosing to say that Hillarty is working quietly behind the scenes. A bold choice, as it pretty much means that these voters are behind the scenes themselves, as they would have no other way to know this was true. All I can say is, welcome heavyweights!

Nine people have a more realistic cynical view of this crazy world, seeing in Hillary's complete absence from the American political scene in the last few months a sign that she'd much rather have a clear path to the nomination herself in 2012 than help Obama secure the presidency. Sure she gave a semi-good speech at the convention, but as far as being a partisan attack dog, she is failing big time.

Only one person acknowledged my side-splitting joke about the SNL bit. Side-splitting, yes, but also a fine example of the kinds of things Hillary could be saying, but for some strange reason isn't.

No one selected "told you so," possibly in protest against my uneditable grammar error. I'd apologize, but instead I choose to believe that you all find my mistakes charming. Maybe we could do a poll.

Bachelorettes in Alaska

I keep looking at the source of this story, trying to believe it's not The Onion. But it says it's the Sunday Times. Of London. And I have a hard time believing they'd publish something this batshit insane if it weren't well-sourced.

That said, OMFG I hope this is true:

In an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one — the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

[...]

McCain is expected to have a front-row seat at Bristol’s wedding and to benefit from the outpouring of goodwill that it could bring. “What’s the downside?” a source inside the McCain campaign said. “It would be wonderful. I don’t know that there has ever been a pre-election wedding before.” (via)

What's the downside?

What's the downside?!? The GOP candidate for POTUS getting a front-row seat at a nationally televised shotgun wedding is considered such PR gold that McCampaign can't see every mother in the country recoiling in horror at the thought of their daughter - who's still in high school - having her personal life politicized for the benefit of a creepy old man? Maybe?

Please make this happen. Please.

Your Daily Dose

Orrin Hatch is crossing the fine line between concerned and unhinged.

That's right, tonight Jane Fonda and all of her far-left Hollywood liberal friends are expected to raise $1 million for Democrat Senate candidates with one goal in mind -- to break our Senate firewall and seize total control of our government!

Yes, the message line read: Hanoi Jane.

Sometimes, nothing can be a pretty cool hand

RIP.

Post Debate Chit Chat

That was interesting. No?

Well look who decided to show up! debate open thread

He's done hiding, y'all! Let the free-fall commence in full public view!

Jack Smack

from Josh at TPM.

I can't wait for the VP debate....
I guess I will have to get my fix from tonight's tryst at ole miss.

See ya'll at the OG live blog.

Do It. Do It Now.

Organize some grievances and then throw Bonnie Tyler's "Total Eclipse of the Heart" on the platter.

Follow that up with some Heart, Quarterflash, The Motels, and Pat Bentar and you and I are having some fun.

Around the Horn, Despite all the Computations

1. As we've said before, BHO's assertions that the "real war" is in Afghanistan/Pakistan is a good frame, horrid foreign policy situation. Tariq Ali with more.
2. Vying for hegemony among the new Conservative intelligentsia, the American Scene's editors wonder if we're not on the verge of a new Liberal consensus.... check the comment thread, too.
3. Fascinating, hard-to-fuck-with analysis from Doug Henwood (what else is new?) and colleague Philippa Dunne over at the Liscio Report re: economic consequences of Republican vs. Democratic administrations. Naderites and Trots, beware! There is a difference.
   
4. Very nice editorial on events in Bolivia over at CounterPunch...good God! We've had relative silence for the last week or so...though it looks like Evo's out with a statement to the UN.
5. Venezuelan govt responds to Human Rights Watch on the topic of labor violations.
   
6. As hinted at - I think - by a certain scene in Good Night and Good Luck, it'd seem we're finally gonna get that Liberace biopic we've craved since whatever Wrestlemania it was he graced with his ivory-tickling.

What's in Your Wallet?

Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co., the third- biggest U.S. bank by assets, agreed to pay $1.9 billion for the deposits of Washington Mutual Inc. after the thrift was seized by regulators in the biggest bank failure in U.S. history.

The U.S. government closed Seattle-based Washington Mutual amid customer withdrawals of $16.7 billion since Sept. 15, the Office of Thrift Supervision said in a statement. WaMu had ``insufficient liquidity'' and was in an ``unsound'' condition, the OTS said.

(via Atrios:Eated and Pooped)

Seriously, WAMU was so reckless,... How reckless were they?

so reckless, they gave me a credit card....

I wonder if I still have to make my monthly payment? If they have been seized by the FED, don't I own a share?, and can't I work out some sort of payment plan???

I miss the Oregon Fourth

I suppose that I should feel lucky to receive all the largesse that comes from living in the home district of the House Majority Leader, but he's nothing compared to the man whose name's on the bike bridge:

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. [...] advocated a new government fee of .25 percent of every stock transaction to ensure that the government can recoup funds to pay for the aid that it provides to lenders. “If this is truly such a catastrophe, I don’t see how anybody can object to a one-quarter of one percent fee,” DeFazio said. Others who attended the session said that proposal seemed to be gaining little traction.

I'll be casting my ballot elsewhere this year, but my vote is with the Faz.

The Oregon Model

From the Eugene Weekly's I Saw You section:

Let's Chat More...

Saw you at the Spring GTFF GMM. We chatted about department politics. You: smart guy in jeans, cool t-shirt. Me: Blonde, vivacious, wanting to know more. See you at the keg on Oct. 3rd?

When: Thursday, April 10, 2008

Where: GTFF GMM

I saw a: Man

I am a: Woman

Date posted: Tuesday, September 16, 2008

McChicken might not be there, but we will

Remember the party conventions? Weren't they a hoot? And could you have even imagined how whacked out things would be only three weeks later? Our Dali-esque national reality show takes another turn for the weird when Barack Obama debates a chair, and, as an inanimate object can't really fuck anything up too badly, the pundits will declare it a win for McCain, expectations being as they are.

The OG, your favorite local "Irish-style" web log, is happy to host a Friday evening forum for what is already in the running as the Weirdest Moment in Modern Presidential Campaign history. And unlike those other "Irish-style" hangouts, we totally don't care if you smoke a doob here.

State of the Race; or, Why I Wanna Blog About Moosic!

1. Increasingly, the only meaningful "analysis" out there is right here. I'm not sure which OG constituents (besides Ash!) are even living in contested states at this point. In light of that fact, lemme say this: I cannot stop watching the punditry, and I won't stop laughing at and reviling in the obscene television advertisements, but it's clear that what's going to win this race has less to do with the airwaves and more to do with stumping, GOTV, and other "retail" tactics within selected precincts in selected places (OH, CO, FL, NV, MI).
   
2. That's exactly why Joe Biden remains a shrewd (I'm stopping short of saying "brilliant") pick for veep: all gaffes aside, he can stump avec gravitas and "like-ability" in some of the places mentioned above, and that's really all that matters barring major "events." HRC and WJC can and should join in - I'd love to see Bill in NC and VA, en particulier - and I suspect they will. As concerns our current poll, I think the worst thing for HRC's 2012 prospects would be to put a half-assed effort behind Barry. Chalk it up to "enlightened self-interest," but I think we're past the point where she can be blamed for whatever insane supporters of hers are running around making noise. Worse, I think we're adding to a GOP trope by harping on the issue. Not that any undecided voters are reading this, natch..
   
3. Somebody should hi-five Barry Obama for not following McCain into delaying the debates and further "politicizing" the Bail-Out (whatever the eff that's supposed to mean.) It seems like the obvious move in hindsight, but I for one was terrified as of yesterday that he'd cave. I think his calm/cool/collected persona and his willingness to let the Dem congressional leadership lead are as presidential (i.e., 'leaderly') as all get-out - as much as the "race speech," albeit in a different way.
4. McCain is more than on the ropes at this point. There was a really cool conversation with (my guilty pleasure) Chris Matthews on Rachel Maddow last nite that I'd gladly present in lieu of my point, but I cannot locate a youtube. In short, Matthews pointed out that McCain is reaching a point of diminishing returns when it comes to his "maverick" decisions. At a certain point, even the best-intentioned of these left-field, game-changing gestures (supporting the surge, nominating Palin, suspending his campaign) will start to seem less like "leadership" and more like the reckless last gasps of an unstable individual who will do anything to win. Obama need only provide a calm contrast and continue running his race against Reagan/Bush/"the Ownership Society:" if we continue to talk about the economy (and do the "retail" thing mentioned above), we will win. Step one, BHO, is getting the bail-out passed with a bunch of Keynesian strings (accountability, govt. equity, no CEO comp, a new stimulus bill). Let me repeat, as I know this sounds counter-intuitive coming from a left-leaner: the Dems should define the bill, pass it, and own it. This is the time to see if a Keynesian neoliberalism is a possibility, and to tie financial markets' sufficiency to public investment, job creation, etc...This way the Dems could claim the mantle of "fiscal responsibilty" without ceding their (alleged) identification with working America. (note - This should happen at a pace set by Chris "lexdexter's Dad" Dodd, not Hank Paulson et. al. ...why it needs to go down by this weekend is a question you'd have to ask those pigs.)
   
5. Obviously Sarah Palin is sinking fast. All that's left is for Joe Biden to do the yeomen's work of beating her in the debate without seeming like a condescending chauvinist pig. Can he do it? I dunno.
6. Kinda hoping for a macro-level discussion of the race at this point....anybody?
   

Oblique Bragging

Ginger and I once had a debate centering on the situation where I am, inexplicably, hanging with the urban rap artists that I listen to these days and I drop the word "hundo" to mean 100. She asserted that they would not deem this appropriate slang and alien to their culture, thus rendering me somehow different, outside and otherized from the group. I argued that, while "hundo" might not be a word that they would ever use or may not even have heard, it is recognizable as legitimate slang and therefore they would accept the usage without comment, perhaps even adopting the word into their everyday argot.

I do know that if I was hanging with Lil Wayne, Trick Daddy and/or Lil Jon, and they asked me how many membership cards the GTFF collected yesterday, we'd have occasion to settle this debate once and for all.

Moosic, 2008 and Yesterday

1. Frequent OG-comment(at)er GabbaGabbaHey continues his Hoover Genealogy Project with a highlight: vintage live WFMU sets from Hoover, Crownhate Ruin and Lincoln over at (xxx)HardcoreforNerds(xxx). Fans of the DC-Louisville-Chicago axis of 90s indie rock simply cannot afford to miss these sets, in particular the Hoover, which outshines even their amazing Lurid Transversal of Route 7. Despite many noble acolytes - like Athens' At the Price of the Union, par example - this "moment" in the punk/hardcore/indie/emo synthesis remains unmatched.
   
2. Over at a truer sound (ed - fixed link!) you can check out Son Volt's 1995-1996 acoustic radio sessions, a collection that's both a very worthy supplement to the original lineup's essential Straightaways and Trace albums. In particular, I'd call the versions of "Ten Second News," "Back Into Your World," and "She's More to Be Pitied" definitive. I'm loathe to dwell upon the greatness of early Volt because I feel like it goes without saying, and because I (for one) really identify with Jay Farrar's post-2000 efforts to destabilize the place of "traditional" American music in his ouevre. That said, there are plenty of his weird-er acoustic songs here - "No More Parades," "Creosote," "Last Minute Shakedown" - and people not suffering from my Farrar obsessions and esoteric biases would do well to start with this amazing collection. I'd humbly submit to you that this outshines both Tupelo's March and Gob Iron's Death Songs when it comes to the acoustic Jay.
   
3. Onwards to the DC-NYC-Chapel Hill axis. 'Member the Prisonship's epic "'member them 90s" thread? I do. And I'm pleased to announce that a kind soul in Spain has started a wonderful blog called Outdoor Miner that'd have to be called a primary resource, replete with all the Archers of Loaf, Sentridoh, Velocity Girl, Pavement et. al. that you could possibly need to jog your memory and revive that dialogue. Also, Mike Lupica's podcast and semi-torpid blog deserve mention alongside agony shorthand, usedbinforever and beyond failure, when it comes to 90s-ish, Benjamin-ish "archaeology of the future" vibes. Yes, that last bit is going too far.
   
4. Best albs of 2008, so far? I think I prefer the Walkmen, Make Believe, Ilyas Ahmed, Bob Mould, Prisonshake... I'm not sure what order yet. And god knows there's that new Cardinals coming...What do you players think? Let's have a conversation about records for a galldarn change!
   

Moms and Dads

Back in the primary season, and especially when the manly manliness of Fred Thompson was going to save us all from the likes of girly-man Rudy Giuliani, the Render unto Caesar Jeebus lover Mike Huckabee, and the immigrant loving Johnny McCain, there was a favorite theory amongst wingnuts that the Democrat party is the "Mommy" (or "Nanny") party and the Republican party is the "Daddy" party. (I invoke my Goldbergian privilege of not linking to anything because I am too busy to look it up).

You see the Democrats are the Mommy party because they want you to wear your bike helmet and think that things should have warning labels and that you should be able to sue companies. They care about things like health care and education and helping the little guy. They are concerned about things like sexism, racism, and (oh sweet jesus!) the gays. They think we can fix our energy problems through passive means like conservation and solar energy. Worst of all, they think you solve problems by talking about them. The Democrats are going to lick their hand, knock down your cowlick, and give you kiss on the cheek when they drop you off for school--right in front of the guys.

Daddies understand above all else that this is a dangerous dangerous world and Muslim terrorists must be killed before they kill us. Daddies will protect you when necessary. They will patrol the border of the lawn, keeping out unwanted strangers. They know that you must learn and grow on your own; sure you'll make mistakes, but you'll learn from them. Tough times will make you strong. Energy policy works best when it is also a half-veiled euphemism for sex. That's just nature right there. Common sense is more important than book learning. Dad may not give you a lot of hugs, but maybe if you win the big game, he'll loan you the down payment on a beat up Mustang and you can drive yourself to school, like a man.

That's the theory. If I can take the analogy a step further...

The Daddy party is calling us in the middle of the night. Drunk. He bet all the house money on a pony named Free Market and he needs us to come give his bookie large sums of cash or the whole family is fucked. Fortunately, he is pro-actively telling us we can go fuck ourselves if we think that this means that he has to stop betting the ponies. In fact, he's we need to give him the college savings because he needs to keep playing. The only way to win.

Ah Daddies, why do we love you so?

Your Daily Dose

From Orrin Hatch:

Far-left liberals like Al Gore and MoveOn.org are putting it all on the line in 2008 to elect Obama President and gain 60-seat filibuster-proof supermajority in the U.S. Senate. If they achieve their goal, they will seize total control of our government.

OMFG

If even Katie Couric is looking at you with undisguised contempt...



In other news, some rube from Alaska got mugged in New York today.

Now I'm a believer

I was skeptical the first time I was asked to make a contribution to DavePAC. Sure, "promoting Dave and all things Dave related" sounds like a good thing, and all you guys named Dave sure seem like decent folk, but what's in it for me, someone who's name is not-Dave?

Well now I know:



Contribute today.

Smoke them out of their caves - or corporate suites. Whatever

My favorite part of the "batshit insane political gimmick suspension of campaign to put Country First™" announcement, here in the last graf:

Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

A not-so-subtle attempt to try and bottle some of his presumed national security gravitas to sprinkle on his woefully lacking economic chops, no?

OG Gathering

Speaking of drinking Wob's beer, I am more than happy to announce the first of what I assume will be many gatherings of OG readers and writers this November in the Raleigh-area of North Carolina.

Further details will be released as they become known, but the meeting will occur sometime between the 9th and 14th of November at a location TBA.

The buzz is already palpable. Mark your calendars.

BREAKING! Wobs to suspend blogging to address urgent beer crisis

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

My fellow OGians. Ours is a desperate time. It has come to my attention that there is a half-rack of Rogue Dead Guy Ale in my refrigerator that must be consumed. Should this consumption not occur, further half-racks of beer will not be able to fit inside the refrigerator, causing a cascade effect which may prevent countless hundreds of beers from residing on the shelf next to last night's leftovers.

The situation is grave.

In light of this crisis, I am hereby suspending my blogging to focus all of my attention on these pressing matters. As OGians, we can all agree that when there is an urgent need to drink beer, it is no time to blog. I further call upon my fellow bloggers to suspend their writing so that they may rush over to my house in order to help resolve this crisis. It is time to put the needs of my refrigerator above our need to pander to the feckless whims of our readership.

God bless you, and god bless the OG.

Revenge fantasies of the impotent

Sometimes the tools I use to keep on top of the information I need for my job send me on some wild trips through the ninth sphere of the blogoverse. And today I found Woody, who hepped me to this thoroughly satisfying little journey through the land of "What if?"

What caught my eye is that Woody approvingly cites the WTF? first paragraph of this Washington Times bit:

Call them the "Doomsday" scenarios -- On Nov. 5, the presidential election winds up in a electoral-college tie, 269-269, the Democrat-controlled House picks Sen. Barack Obama as president, but the Senate, with former Democrat Joe Lieberman voting with Republicans, deadlocks at 50-50, so Vice President Dick Cheney steps in to break the tie to make Republican Sarah Palin his successor.

As far as the Times go, they've certainly got my attention. That Woody gushes over the most unlikely, improbable scenario possible is just kinda creepy. Aside from the obvious point that the certification of the Electoral College vote would proceed under a newly-seated Congress (presumably with a majority (not necessarily working) that doesn't include Joltin' Joe), I simply don't see any reason Joe Lieberman would do that. Voting to confirm Palin wouldn't land him a job in the administration of the (previously confirmed) President Obama, and it would certainly be followed by the words "I will not be seeking another term as the Senator from Connecticut" for all intents and purposes. And that assumes he has the Joementum to survive the recall vote sure to await the man who put the Least Qualified Veep Candidate Ever over the top. The whole scenario is just obnoxiously far-fetched.

The rest of the Times article presents a fair, if somewhat wishful, presentation of the possible politics behind a tie in electoral votes - standard fare. But I just can't get over that first paragraph. It's like the hook must include something that their readers think really sticks in the craw of the Left, and then they slap the trappings around it. After that, we're blessed with the opportunity to witness Woody's arousal at the thought of liberals so driven mad with rage that the National Guard would have to be brought out, and yadda yadda yadda President Palin nukes us to Heaven!

Woody scores additional points for having admitted that this particular revenge fantasy was crushed by the batshit insane prognostications of DHo, who, through a quick look at some Zogby polls, predicts a McCain landslide. And thus begins the turgidity brought on by the thought of a massively popular President McCain who drives liberals so mad with rage that the National Guard would have to be brought out, and yadda yadda yadda Jesus go BOOM!

Before I end, I'd be remiss if I didn't inform you that no visit to Woody's site is complete without a glance at the "Random Obama Facts" generator. My current "fact":

FACT: Tony Rezko once offered Obama a sweetheart land deal, but Obama said "no" because he wanted his family to stay within the community of which he was the organizer.

Kinda reads like a really bad fortune cookie, huh?

An Extraordinary Opportunity

h/t Christopher Hayes

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson

The Oregon Model

Last night was a hot night for the GTFF, my union, at the Villard Street Pub Trivia Night. Just about every table as filled with GTFs, generally divided into groups based on department. There was the poli sci table, the geology guys, the philosophy group, the comp lit table, and the biology table. Generally at these things I make the rounds during the break, chatting it up, but not about work or the union, unless someone else brings it up. Apparently though, not everyone follows this procedure, as it was reported to me that the biology table was repeatedly queried by other members about their lack of involvement in the union. Word on the street is that we got a steward and a few more cards out of them.

There's your organizing model right there.

GOP Emails

Every liberal special interest group from MoveOn.org to Big Labor to anti-drilling extremists are laying it all on the line in 2008 with one goal in mind: to seize total control of our government.

Echo Chambering

Blue Oregon has a story about what an asshole John McCain is. In my dreams this is the kind of thing McCain is asked about in a debate.

Hold the condescension please

I don't think Thomas Schaller's sneeringly delivered and thinly-veiled derision of Deaniacs, Obamabots, and other progressive grassroots activists is quite warranted by the facts of this particular situation:

I hate to be the wet blanket, but the electoral map continues to consolidate and contract around the same eight to 12 states that decided the last two elections. After reducing its presence in the South a few weeks ago, now comes news that Team Obama is closing its offices in North Dakota and moving troops there to Minnesota and Wisconsin.

[...]

As for all those "50-state strategy" advocates: They seem to be deafeningly silent now, don't they? It was stupid to believe in such fantasies in the first place.

I'm not sure what Schaller thinks all of us "50-state strategy advocates" mean by that phrase, but I'm fairly certain it's not "Obama will be competitive in all 50 states this year." My understanding of that phrase led me to believe that the DNC was attempting to invest in local and state level party infrastructure in order to build the Democratic Party from the bottom up. The benefits would be seen in local Democrats being elected to office and then progressing on, presumably to higher responsibilities. While this might one day manifest itself in a state shifting on the red-blue presidential spectrum, I don't think anyone expects it any time soon.

That as we approach the election the electoral focus narrows and campaigns marshal resources to compete in those pivotal areas is more a comment on the idiosyncracies of the electoral process than anything else. At any rate, the Obama campaign's electoral strategy and the DNC's 50-state strategy are two distinct operations operating in multiple electoral landscapes - they're certainly complementary, but not one and the same.

Each campaign is working on different (but again, complementary) goals and to date seem to be producing good results. Yes, the lofty rhetoric of a "governing majority" might have been a little overambitious. But the point here is to first and foremost win. If we have to win with 276 evs instead of 330, so be it. It won't be pleasant, but we'll take it - and right now the sky is not falling. The situation could potentially be even better with expanded majorities in the legislature and a raft of new Democrats coming up through the local parties.

So why the hate?

It's the housework, stupid

I hope I’m not the only person who raised an eyebrow to this article on the gender wage gap. This first part isn’t necessarily a surprise:

Men with egalitarian attitudes about the role of women in society earn significantly less on average than men who hold more traditional views about women's place in the world, according to a study being reported today.

It is the first time social scientists have produced evidence that large numbers of men might be victims of gender-related income disparities. The study raises the provocative possibility that a substantial part of the widely discussed gap in income between men and women who do the same work is really a gap between men with a traditional outlook and everyone else.

The differences found in the study were substantial. Men with traditional attitudes about gender roles earned $11,930 more a year than men with egalitarian views and $14,404 more than women with traditional attitudes. The comparisons were based on men and women working in the same kinds of jobs with the same levels of education and putting in the same number of hours per week.

Ah, we wander into the little bubble of reality where I can claim some competence as a thinker. From everything that I understand about the gendered economy, I could’ve predicted this response. But I didn’t, and so these guys got the “big find I got cited in the Post” honors. Good on them, and I’ll cede the floor so they can interpret their findings.

"Some would say, 'Of course traditional men earn more than traditional women -- they are both fulfilling their desires to play different roles in the home and workplace,' " said Judge, emphasizing that the researchers compared working men with working women, not working men with women who stay home. "Our results do not support that view. If you were a traditional-minded woman, would you say, 'I am fine working the same hours as a traditional-minded man in the same industry with the same education but earning substantially less'? I don't think traditional-minded women would say that."

[…]

Livingston and Judge said there are two possible explanations: Traditional-minded men might negotiate much harder for better salaries, especially when compared with traditional-minded women. Alternatively, it could also be that employers discriminate against women and men who do not subscribe to traditional gender roles.

"It could be that traditional men are hypercompetitive salary negotiators -- the Donald Trump prototype, perhaps," Judge said. "It could be on the employer side that, subconsciously, the men who are egalitarian are seen as effete."

Livingston, a doctoral candidate in management, added: "People make others uncomfortable when they disconfirm stereotypes -- we don't know how to interpret them."

Um… no.

The authors are right to note that women who adhere to traditional gender roles, especially career women, would think it wrong to be denied equal pay for equal work, but Livingston and Judge pay too much attention to attitudes as being a determinant.

It would seem that there’s a fairly strong correlation not between attitudes, but in contributions to the economy of the household. The person adhering to the gender role that contributes the least amount of work to social reproduction is the one who has the advantage in the realm of the formal economy. I look at those numbers and I see the economic costs of cooking, cleaning, and taking the kids to the doctor for both women and men.

The explanations put forward remain firmly focused on individual variations and miss the bigger picture. Traditional-minded men bargain harder and better? I don’t buy that for a second. You’d have to develop a metric for bargaining ability that didn’t rely on monetary success as an indicator. At any rate, I don’t think some mythical “bargaining ability” is differentially distributed between men and women or between those who adhere to different gender roles. The second hypothesis, that managers subconsciously perceive more feminist men as “girly men,” similarly seems to assume a little too monolithic mindset amongst that population.

Essentially, what we’re seeing is a subsidy that enables men to single-mindedly devote themselves to their careers, for various reasons putting them at a distinct advantage to those who attempt to strike a more equitable balance between work and family. For the method geeks, I didn’t notice any mention that they controlled for marital status and/or number of children, and I’d be interested to know if there were some interesting multiplier effects among some of the variables (adherence to traditional gender roles X gender; adherence to traditional gender roles X marital status, among others). That the authors went with seemingly implausible explanations suggests not seeing the forest for the trees. But whatever – I’m glad they’re interested in the problem, even if I think they’re barking up the wrong tree. But wait.

Parents looking at the study might be tempted to inculcate their sons with traditional gender views with an eye to greater financial success, but the researchers warned that this would come at their daughters' cost -- traditional-minded women suffer the greatest income disadvantage for doing the same work.

"Traditional values," Judge said, "do not have to be traditional gender-role values."

That the Post would jump to the cheap locker room guffaw of “maybe we should train our boys to keep women barefoot and pregnant” and that the authors would respond with a liberal piety worthy of its own bumper real estate just seems offensively hokey.

Think I'm Hearing the Alb of the Year

I don't have time for alb reviews au present, but I need to share somebody else's.

I'm only four tracks deep, but if nothing else, Prisonshake's Dirty Moons is the best-sounding, big, fat, analog, goopy mother-effer I've heard since Shellac's Excellent Italian Greyhound - and the thing is, i'm listening to the cds that came tucked in with the big, goopy 180-gram 2xlps... god knows what the vinyl experience'll be like. (btw, the music is not shellac-ish in the least, tho maybe it shares a similar wanton "pigfuck" sensibility.)

But the alb is so exciting - un-self-conscious rock music from people long past the absurd notion of playing rock music for a living, well-packaged, well-played and well-recorded because why not? - that it reminds me how contrived, rote, bland and by-the-numbers today's indie rock industry is. Anywho, I decide to google the alb, and lo and behold I run into this well-written review that begins with a lament on how contrived, rote, bland and by-the-numbers today's indie rock industry is. Moments later I discover it's written by WFMU's Mike Lupica..no wonder. He probably saw Prisonshake at Maxwell's on the Scat Insects of Rock Tour in 1994, too. Regardless, going by the continuing "holy shit! you remember that, too?" reaction his essential podcast evokes in me, I guess we're fellow travellers. But he's the articulate one, see?

Prisonshake harkens back to the days before the musical underground had been given the Rand-Mcnally road atlas treatment. Phenomena like Michael Azerrad’s Our Band Could be Your Life may have established the idea of an underground rock ‘canon’, but the smaller bands who played the same field throughout the ’80s have aged with a more intriguing sense of style. One of the many charms of left-of-center music is that it’s a large and diverse enough universe for one to leap into along with a few close buddies, and all emerge on the other side with completely different stories and experiences. Nowadays, with many young kids sweating heavily over the reunions of criterion bands whose members are three times their senior, and those same kids shelling out untold thousands in festival dollars to see performances of ‘signature’ albums in their entirety, a lot of the visceral joy associated with loving something just because it’s cool and different has been lost. With the approval index at such all-consuming peaks and venture capitalists masking as tastemakers, it’s no wonder I’ve started listening to my Springsteen records again..

(You should read the whole damn thing over at Dusted for some context.)

Please, God, Don't Let Them Be Right

I'm not going to pretend like I understand the current economic crisis in detail. I "understand" it as far as "banks were allowed to over-leverage, which they did to buy mortgages that were based on trumped up financial data to provide loans to people who couldn't afford them. When those loans went bad, all the over-leveraging is cascading to take down the entire financial sector." [For Godssake correct me if I am wrong].

I think I understand that this is exactly what free-market capitalism looks like and regulation of capitalism is designed to smooth out these "bumps." What is not supposed to happen in a free market situation is that government is not supposed to step in to smooth out only the bottom bumps, as that doesn't really work.

What I don't know is if this bailout will be better or worse for my beloved "working folk." Most "lefties" seem to be of the opinion that shit is going to roll down hill no matter what, so limiting the amount might be a good idea.

I find myself agreeing with Brad at Sadly No! among others. I'm not quite willing to go so far as to pledge to not vote for Dems if they fuck this up, but if the Bush administration is able to demand extraordinary powers and an extraordinary amount of money and we manage to get nothing out of the deal, then, really, what the fuck will be the point. If Reaganomics and conservativism in general can do this badly and we'll give them $700 billion with no strings attached, if they can actually say we have to give them $700 billion with no strings in order to get Wall Street to take the deal and we give in, then fuck it.

There might be a total of one million people in this country who would think that this is a good idea and they all vote Republican. What can possibly be the benefit of giving in here? If they give in, we might have to admit that our party is just as bought and sold as the other guys.

Prove Me Wrong...Good On You!

'Gotta hand it to Chris Dodd....'even Doug Henwood (sur le LBO listserve) gave the plan a "looks not too bad."

Between this and the FISA filibuster, if Dodd actually passes this thing as is - which I will believe only when I hold a copy of the bill in my shaky, shocked hands - I'm gonna send him a twelve of pabsts and mebbe even one or two of my rare-er seven-inches.

(ex post facto editorial addition: Krugman concurs, calculated risk hails it as a positive step and reports that CNBC reports Paulson has agreed to the bit about government taking equity in the bailed out banks.)

New Poll -- Where's Hillary? Edition

Assuming that our colleague EZ is buried under a blizzard of "Add" requests, I'll throw up a poll designed to get his attention.

Where is Hillary? One of the anticipated storylines when McCain announced Palin was Hillary tearing her apart. The GOP was going to put up a lightweight and our "oh-so-close" champ was supposed to destory her so that Obama-Biden could focus on more important things, like backing away from pledges to raise taxes on the wealthy and asking parapeligics to take a bow.

Take your best guess at the whereabouts of our "totally awesome, but not quite presidental material, but totally not because she's a woman, pitbull in a pantsuit" at the right.

Crap/Not Crap: Flaking out

Don't anyone get me wrong. I love the culture of the West Coast. The convivial and laid-back nature certainly suits the way I work far more than the dominant cultural mode of the East Coast. But I don't miss the cultural practice of "flaking out."

Back East, flaking out is an unequivocal bad thing. You just don't do it. Habitual flaking out on social engagements will guarantee a drop in said activities. It's just not acceptable.

Out West, on the other hand, flaking out is granted the same weight as you having a particularly virulent infection or your mother dying. Flaking out is a perfectly reasonable excuse for, say, missing your friend's dinner party (or worse). Never mind you said you were coming and the hosts toiled for several hours to make a delicious meal. To be fair, we all flake every now and again - some more than others - but the West Coast seems to enable flakers, not so much by approving of the act, but by heaping social opprobrium upon those who deign to be a little pissed off at their friend who flaked out on the concert after they forked over $45 for the fucking ticket.

I'll cop to having been prone to flaking out more than someone should. And living in a cultural milieu that is flaking-out intolerant, I've come to be better about it.

But for those of you who totally promise to be at the party to celebrate some professional milestone, and when I see you two days after the party you say, "How's it going, dude? Sorry I totally flaked on your party," you shouldn't be surprised if I'm pissed off. Don't promise to come, or let me know in a reasonable amount of time that you won't be able to make it. But don't get so stoned that you decide that the Seinfeld marathon seems easier to handle than getting off the couch and attending to your social duties and expect me to be happy about it.

Habitual flaking out is crap. Socially enabling that behavior is even more crap.

Prisonship Internal Memo to Congressional Dems

Memo to Dems: This is Leverage.

Dear Dems,

So, like many of you, I had a hard time turning away from beautiful geniuses like Jim Cramer (swoon) and (my life-pundit) Erin Burnett* as this last week came in with a "laissez-faire" Lehman collapse and went out with an AIG bailout, only to culminate in what Krugman et. al. are rightly (and ironically) referring to as "socialism" in our financial sector.

(Parenthetically, if you're wondering "what the eff does all of this mean, and who the hell can explain it to me?" you'd do well to check out: Jorge on the nuts and bolts of the housing market bubbles, CDOs and how we got here; Krugman on the meat of the Paulson proposal and how it "works" to solve even just the market-related problems at hand; Dean Baker, as usual, with a blueprint for a bailout that might improve things for actual fucking people; and, as pertains to the thrust of this memo, Bob Kuttner on what the Dems could do if they "strapped some balls on their dick," to use the colorful and masculinist phrase once overheard passing from the lips of my 9th grade history teacher.)

Anyway, Dear Dems,

I learned a lot about leverage in my former work as a union researcher. (It's an even-numbered year, so I will assume you remember what unions are.) In my old line, leverage was everything - you never knew where you'd find it, but you knew you'd know it if you saw it. Sometimes it's a matter of public record. Sometimes it's a matter of dumpster-diving. Sometimes it's a matter of building power and rope-a-doping your opponent into revealing her own weaknesses, then building more power in the light of that self-diagnosis, then winning.

This time's one of those times. I've studied and studied and crapped myself thinkin' on the meaning of leverage, its rhythms and habitats and metamorphoses....but I've rarely seen it show itself so plainly. Democrats, you hold a lot of power in your hands this week. And knowing you as I do, I expect nothing less than a warm-hearted, polite and ineffectual surrender.

Does "taking one for the team" always have to be synonymous with losing? Before your very eyes, not just the sitting GOP but the very legacy of Reaganism has shown its "less government in business, more business in government" ass to be a social disease, in need of an unprecedented dose of welfare. While it's understandable (to me, anyway) that our Democratic nominee for president affects something like moderation- and makes all the bullshit bipartisan calls for pragmatism of which it will be the job of people like me and the OGs to disabuse him in January - your job is to make sure that socialism does not come to Wall Street without strings.

There should be more government in business. Now is the time to trim away any compensation for the shareholders and executives we're bailing out, and to erect a wall between houses of finance and government agencies where now there's a revolving-door. For god's sake"White-collar" crimes can be as violent as any other...violent-er, even, when one in seven of our damn bridges are unsound and all our dimes are spread across Iraq and the inter-ether of Over the Counter markets. (fwiw - I will regret not living to see an Attorney General Edwards "assume the position" and enact the purge that gets us to pre-post-neoliberalism.)

There should be less business in government. The idea that, having purchased these "toxic" assets for a sum of $700 billion, we will parcel them out in $50 billion slabs and have currently functioning private financial houses resell them is obscene, insane, incestuous, and it repeats the lie of Reaganism. BHO spoke eloquently of a need to "make government cool again," a neat phrase that in many ways evokes the political and cultural stakes involved in the massive, necessary political project of undoing a 30-year ass-kicking of the many by the few. Our purpose is not served by outdoing the GOP at treating citizens like shareholders. Our purpose is served only by showing that government can and should function within a democratic polity as an agent of (downward) redistribution, and that Democratic government's version of redistribution is a lot more inclusive and a lot less violent than the alternative.

Anywho, summing up:

1. Good News! This week you have the chance to undo all of your past sins. You can work off the debt accrued by your failure to stop an evil, imperialist war by declaring the end of finance capitalism as we know it.
   
2. Bad News! We both know you'll be doing no such thing.
   
3. Don't worry, I'll probably end up voting for all y'all anyway. See you on the teevee!
   

(footnote: * Yeah, it'd seem that my MSNBC addiction is giving way to a CNBC fetish - can you blame me, with a duo like this as the Kiki Dee and Elton John/Gram and Emmylou/Thalia Zedek and Chris Brokaw for my shut-in vie de brain-diharrea?)

Prisonship Confessions...the Mets and Me

My favorite squad is faltering! Its star is over-thinking himself into a slump just as we enter the final week-plus of the gorgeous, heart-wrenching pageant called the Pennant Race.

Meanwhile, I've reached the period of "writing" in which I cannot, will not, do not write. It mirrors my ill-conceived idea of giving birth, or better, my idea of being "infested" with The Thing: something is happening inside of me. Something that is of me but not reducible to me. I walk around my office squatting, grunting, bending, breaking, and not playing The Long Run on the 8-track deck. I fill the wastebasket with spent fruit leathers, and I try not to drink coffee after noon because even with melatonin and Tylenol PM, I wake up at all hours and dream about things like TB-laced-afterbirths washing up on black and white shores.

Sat 5 - Gourmet Edition

Such a great institution, this (intermittent) Saturday survey.

Today's topic: filthy foods. What're five treats you eat that you hope to never be overseen snarfing on, either for aesthetic, dietary, or other arbitrary reasons?

Moi, you ask? Here goes:

5) Cheez-Its: I cannot seem to lay off these partially-hydrogenated squares, tho you won't see me bringing 'em to the nearest faculty potluck. En particulier lemme recommend the Tabasco version.

4) Jalapeno Poppers: These are ideally to be eaten in tiny doses, among friends and as part of a balanced appetizer sampler, non? Well I've been known to trip into Eugene's sports bars during off-hours and semi-formally take down a whole order w/ knife and fork.

3) Vegetarian Jerky/Vegetarian Ramen: both (pale imitations) are unhealthy and thrice the price of their meat-based (or meat-underwritten, as it were) foils. Further proof that we ovo-lactos are wannabe carnivores, and also that we're high-brow wankers!

2) Everything Morningstar Farms: I am a real "fake meat and potatoes" kind of Irish-Catholic shit, and thus avail myself of the Farms' products as part of my risky life-routine. When I make the Buffalo Wings, par example, it's always with a chaser set to the tune of Frank's Red Hot and butter. No wonder I look like a mound of balloons when swimsuit season rolls around!

1) Frank's Red Hot (solo): Ask any roomate! When it's my time to make dinner, I'll twice or thrice or a coupla dozen times pour a half-dollop of Frank's into my palm and lick it up. No nutrients involved, just "taste," and the pleasure that comes into a built-in cycle of lick, pain, guilt.

Psychoanalysts are totally loving this election

A few weeks back, we noted how a certain vice presidential campaign revealed deep-seated mommy issues amongst some of our conservative colleagues.

Now we have a delightful smattering of "kill daddy":



At one point, we thought her sole selling point was a rootsy genuineness and the ability to stay on script. Turns out she's not even good at that.

Around El Horn-Oh

1. It's official: "community organizer" = "Saul Alinsky + ACORN". Thanks to NW Republican for echoing Tom Frank's portrait of the ideological fantasies of the Fox News plurality and their "activist" vanguard. I just wish they would extend the "community organizer" frame to include Teachers' Unions and Gangster Politicians, then the entire public sector en general.
   
2. It's important to remember that the conversation about subsidizing capital markets has yet to mention working Americans in anything but the most passing way. Ben Smith has a nice riff here on the bevy of Left and Center-Left economic minds about to have a "Come to Jesus" sesh with nominee Obama, and I can only hope that the Stiglitz side gets some actual play.
   
3. Benjamin Dangle with a very important summary of the violent coup attempt in Bolivia this September and the crescendo still ahead as the Morales government attempts to ratify its Draft Constitution. It is interesting to see the coalescing of both Left and Center-Left governments in Latin America (not to mention Colombia) around Morales' explicitly socialist project. It is unsurprising to note signs of US support for the "white" oligarchy and its resource-rich regional governors, and it is ironic to note the prevalence of the initiative, recall and referendum in the historic process.
   
4. Why am I so cynical about The Battle in Seattle?
   

Get Off My Lawn

I am not a big fan of Gordon Smith. I am really not a fan of seeing his commercials during The Simpsons and King of the Hill. Those are my shows. I'd like to believe that only liberals enjoy them.

I do know different. How someone could enjoy The Simpsons and vote Republican is beyond me, but they obviously do. Still. I shouldn't have to watch your horrible, horrible commercials where a woman who was raped in 1986 tries to blame Jeff Merkley for not supporting some bill in 2007 would have "prevented" crimes like this in the future. Because, you know, serial rapists are worried about the length of the sentance they might endure.

Of course, the whole problem is the Republicans continue to kick our ass at this game. Some Republican state Rep probably dropped a whole host of no-hope extremeist measures in the hopper. Merkely didn't bring them up for a vote, because they had no chance. Now the GOP can say that he opposed this or voted against that. He's pro-rapist for fuck sake because he didn't support the "Behead all rapists before they have a chance to speak in court" bill. Disgusting.

Anyway, Gordo, get your commercials off my shows. There are plenty of JAG and Murder, She Wrote reruns on at the same time. Those are your people. Get them fired up.

Jesus Muffins or, Soon We'll All Live in Wasilla

A friend remarked this week that it would suck to live in Wasilla -- and I responded that if the Democrats fuck this up, we'll all be living in Wasilla soon. What I want to write tonight isn't about Sarah Palin per se (although I need to get back to that soon); instead, I am trying to process something I experienced yesterday that gave me a little taste of what I think it will be like to live in Sarah Palin's America.

A colleague and I had a meeting yesterday with representatives from a local organization called Pregnancy Support Services and a campus group called Carolina HOPE (an acronym for "Helping Our Peers with Encouragement"). PSS is a "crisis pregnancy center." You probably already know what that coded language signifies, but I encourage you to check out their web site. At the very least, stay long enough to enjoy the over-produced flash video on their home page. Go ahead, I'll wait...

...Crazy, huh? This is precisely the kind of through-the-looking glass nonsense that will shape our reality with Sarah Palin in/near the White House. Somehow we are expected to swallow the notion that this "pro-woman" organization is all about "choice" and "empowerment." (Hell, given that, you might even go so far as to characterize it as a feminist organization! In exactly the same way that Palin is a feminist candidate!) As with McCain's running mate, a fundamental dishonesty permeates everything about this organization. And the woman they sent to talk to me and my colleague? Also fundamentally dishonest to her very core.

(Actually, just as an aside, the woman actually reminded me of Sarah Palin in many ways. Very put together, confident, aggressive, and never for a second deviating from a carefully-crafted set of talking points.)

Anyway, the PSS rep was the handler (and puppet master) for a sweet, painfully earnest staff person for Carolina HOPE, a "a student-led Christian organization dedicated to assisting individuals facing the challenges of unplanned pregnancy, encouraging sexual abstinence outside of marriage, and educating individuals regarding the consequences of sexually transmitted diseases and other health concerns." (We initially agreed to a meeting with the student group; the PSS rep showed up uninvited.)

Why were meeting with these people, you might ask? (And believe me, I asked that many times myself.) I was there representing the Women's Center mainly to do some proactive damage control. Those of you who remember the PopTart days may recall me writing about the Women's Center's past unpleasantness with anti-choice student groups. It's a long story (one that involves these fuckers, who essentially orchestrated the whole mess from behind the scenes), but it resulted in, among other things, a ruling from our University Counsel that, unless we agree to represent "both sides" of the issue equally (which we will not do), we can't advertise or promote any program related to reproductive rights. Un-fucking-believable, but true. That was three years ago, and my director and I, both of whom came to the University after that debacle, have been fighting to change this. But that means for now we need to stay off the radar screens of the anti-choice crowd and their backers. So when the "HOPE" woman asked me to meet with her, I agreed to go and politely hear what she had to say.

My colleague is a sexual health educator with our campus Wellness organization. Her boss sent her because, on paper, HOPE claims to do exactly what she does: counseling and programming around sexuality, healthy relationships, and STI awareness/prevention.

So we sat and listened to their pitches, then got to ask them some questions. I'm mostly going to leave the HOPE woman out of this, because, although her organization clearly has an agenda that I vehemently oppose, she (as an individual) was just one of those "blissed out on Jesus" types who could just as easily have been teaching Sunday school as working for this campus organization. In other words, I got the sense that she does what she does just because she loves Jesus. Whatever. Then again, it's hard to completely let her off the hook when I think about what disastrous consequences abstinence-only education has had on so many young people's lives. NC is (shock!) an abstinence-only state. Coming to the University is, for many students, the first opportunity they've had to get comprehensive information about sex. If this group had their way, even that would be off the table. That saddens me. And it pisses me off.

But far, far worse was the (personal and institutional) agenda of the PSS woman. Evil lying liar. She said with a straight face that one of the things she loved about her organization was that it was "not political" and "didn't advocate for one side or another of any issue." (They don't support abortion rights and won't give referrals to anyone who wants to terminate their "crisis pregnancy" and the information they provide about abortion procedures are misleading and inaccurate--again, check out their web site to see what I am talking about; you really have to see this to believe it...but this, apparently, is "not political.") Their "open, tolerant, non-judgmental" approach is a result of their "Christian philosophy."

But Christian love is not the only unexpected benefit you can get if you show up at their clinic for a pregnancy test or STI screening. If the test says preggers, you will be treated to a free ultrasound. Isn't that awesome?! Other physicians charge for this, but they give first-trimester ultrasounds away for free--whether you want it or not! Why? So you can find out how far along you are and if it is a viable pregnancy. Oh, and also so you can see God's beautiful creation that you might monstrously choose to destroy. But that's neither here not there, of course. If you remain unconvinced and are hellbent on murdering a baby, you get pre-abortion counseling. Here you will find out how brutal, painful, and permanently emotionally-damaging abortion is. Also, PSS woman told us, at this point many people find it comforting for their health care provider to pray with them. What if the patient is not Christian or religious, we asked? Well, you might be interested to know that at moments of crisis many people find that they develop a newfound faith. Really, it happens! Such is the nature of god's (completely apolitical and value-neutral) love! And she noted that she herself likes to take the time to ask her patients about how their crisis pregnancy fits into their "worldview" while she has them in the examining room. (Let me just interject a big WTF??? at this point. Can you imagine this? You're sitting there freaked out, having just gotten confirmation of something huge and life-altering--and probably not in a good way, or you would be at your OB-GYN's office, not a crisis pregnancy clinic. And at that moment of profound vulnerability, some jesus freak swoops in and starts probing you about your beliefs and trying to pray with you. So. Not. Cool.) This course of action is known as helping you "consider your choices." (By the same token, their 800 number is known as the "option line.") See, they're not anti-choice! That's just propaganda from the pro-abortion crowd!

Even before students get knocked up, they can visit the clinic for free STI screening or information about birth control. Now this is a little dicey, since the organization subscribes to an abstinence-only philosophy. But in addition to free (free!!!) services, they'll give you the straight dope: about how condoms almost always fail and the huge number of fornicators who get painful, incurable diseases, and the detrimental physical, emotional, and spiritual effects of sex outside of marriage. Will Planned Parenthood tell you all that? No sir! And Campus Health may give you medically accurate information, but without any information at all about how Jeebus wants you to save yourself for marriage (or how you're going to hell if you don't). That, my friend, is real choice.

It was really hard to sit and listen to this. My Southern politeness was definitely put to the test. But at the end of our conversation (wherein I accomplished my mission of assuring them that we at the Women's Center were not preforming abortions in our back room, deflecting their attention away from our organization, and not being incarcerated for homicide), the HOPE woman presented me and my colleague with tins of muffins (two kinds!) with a note that read "Thanks for taking the time to meet!"

Initially I planned to abstain, on principle, from the Jesus muffins. But they were sweet and tempting and I was hungry. So I ate two of them. And I don't feel guilty. Not. One. Bit.

Anyway, all this to say that we cannot lose this election. Seriously, we can't fuck this one up. The consequences are just too scary. And I doubt they'll come with muffins.

It's the end of the world as we know it

And I feel fine.

For the record, while this may seem to have the trappings of a "personal, not religious" objection to the casting away of traditional marriage party labels, I'm pretty sure it came about after these morons couldn't figure out who was Party A and who was Party B.

T. Frank on Public Employees

excerpt from The Wrecking Crew by Tom Frank, from the chapter entitled "The Best Public Servant is the Worst One:"

In the mythology of the American right, federal rank-and-file workers are villains whose wickedness is surpassed only by that of the Soviet Communists themselves. They have just four concerns in life, sneered the journalist Don Feder in 1985: "pay, pension sick leave and throwing around their not inconsiderable weight around. No one has to teach us to detest public workers. It comes naturally, by process of observation and experience. "

Their tendency to join unions makes these public workers even more detestable. Once organized, civil servants support liberals, both with votes and campaign contributions - and these liberals, once in office, return the favor by making generous concessions to their unionized employees. Or so it seemed, anwyay, back in the seventies wen everyone from teachers to trashmen was going on strike - and winning, too. In that unhappy decade, the conservative mind began to dimly perceive a diabolical scenario unfolding, a disastrous endgame in which its two greatest enemies came together as one: government remade as a tool of its unionized employees, who would use its tax power to plunder the hardworking businessman.

The famous "Prop 13" tax revolt that swept Californaia in 1978 was inspired at least partially by this doomsday vision, with the rebellion's leader thundering, "We're not going to permit public employee unions to run this country." The issue also spawned an obligatory bout of direct-mail profiteering, with an outfit called Americans Against Union Control of Government sending out appeals for funds to help them fend off the "very real possibility of a relative handful of unions bosses seizing control of America's government."

The vivid colors of this particular catastrophe-dream have long since faded in the public mind, but Washington conservatives never forgot. Their policy toward career government personnel has always been to club them down, and by putting it into effect they have delivered massive rewards both to their political faction and to their primary constituents in the business community.

Letter from Prospectusburg

Dear All,

'Fitting we'd be having one of those gray days today as I nestle back into overdue revisions. A very special friend re-emerged, and it has been necessary to celebrate. But things are turning nerdy again.

Taking the separation of the political and the economic under capitalism even in its present phase, as our point of departure, the state should be seen (as should capital, according to Marx) as a relation, or more precisely as the condensate of a relation of power between struggling classes. In this way we escape the false dilemma entailed by the present discussion on the tstae, betwen the state comprehended as a thing/instrument and the state comprehended as a subject.

....


But I repeat, the relative autonomy of the state, founded on the separation (constantly being transformed) of the economic and the political, is inherent in its very structure (the state is a relation) in so far as it is the resultant of contradictions and of the class struggle as expressed, always in their own specific manner, within the state itself - this state which is both shot through and constituted with and by these class contradictions. It is precisely this that enables us exactly to pinpoint the specific role of the bureaucracy which, although it constitutes a specific social category, is not a group standing above, outside or to one side of classes: an elite, but one whose members also have a class situation or membership.

...

Indeed, conceiving of the capitalist state as a relation, as being structurally shot through and constituted with and by class contradictions, means firmly grasping the fact that an institution (the state) that is destined to reproduce class divisions cannot really be a monolithic, fissureless bloc, but is itself, by virtue of its very structure (the state is a relation), divided.

From Nicos Poulantzas, 'A Reply to Miliband and Laclau'

This recent copse of days has allowed me the opportunity to engage with Poulantzas' own writings, after no less than a year spent with Bob Jessop's Nicos Poulantzas: Marxist Theory and Political Strategy, and, shit, a whole decade ping-ponging between the works of Althusser and Laclau. Mostly known in the context of his famous debate with Ralph Miliband, Poulantzas is often (mis?)understood as a sort-of "missing link" between Althusser's crazed maoist structuralism and Laclau's always-contradictory program of antiessentialist Universalism, so as you can see I'm long overdue for this interface.

And I've had a positive experience, let me tell you. Considered alongside Laclau or Althusser, Poulantzas' theory distinguishes itself through its explicit engagement with the capitalist state as a political and social form. This is an important contribution, because serious theories of the class politics of the Liberal state eluded mainstream marxist theory - allowing for the anomalie and/or miracle that is the work of Gramsci - until the late 1960s. The politics of the state have also hounded American labor politics: Gompers' AFL wanted to maintain real distance with parties and government; Wobblies were bomb-tossing, no-contract anarchists; industrial unions made an ambitious, ill-fated run to expand the public and private sector welfare and establish a liberal-corpratist American consensus via collective bargaining and the Democratic Party. These diverse ideologies reflect unions' understanding of government, and, notably, electoral politics, as a major scene in labor politics, and one that has demanded decisive responses.

My current problem involves reconciling this broad, 20th Century labor history - "craft" vs. "industrialism," New Deal corporatism, Reagan etc - with the somewhat divergent, eruption of public employee organizing in the 1960s-1970s, and the equally virulent, counter-organization against public employee unions (and the public sector in general) under neoliberalism. Public employees enjoy a special place in the labor movement, having enjoyed relative successes in organizing throughout neoliberalism (ed - that's a bit of a generalization, but consider the neoliberal era to span 1973-now). Simultaneously, public workers occupy a place of privilege in the ideological fantasies of the activist Right. Coincidentally (or not), public employee unions trend towards a different-looking labor movement with far larger proportions of women and people of color, for example. In figurative and literal ways, this labor population leads workplace and electoral struggles in, for and through the capitalist state. Does public workers' proximity to state power, over and above many other distinguishing characteristics, make the public sector/the state an essentially different venue of political struggle than the private labor market?

We will continue this discussion of the public sector unions specifically soon with some words from Thomas Frank, but first I want to return to an important insight for marxist theory that is highlighted in Poulantzas: a generalized agnosticism when it comes to the validity of the "public-private" distinction in liberal political economy and the mainstream political culture. Even after Keynesianism has been burnt in effigy and pissed on (not unlike the flash-in-the-pan that was Althusserianism, come to think of it) by multiple sub-generations (of Democrats, even), no sane person could argue that the State is not an economic agent in the capitalist economy. Yet an overwhelming amount of blood and ink have been spilled since the 'capital-L' Liberal division of labor between politics/government and "the economy" set the table for wars, governments and social movements that mobilized their politics of redistribution and recognition around "nationalization," "privatization," of resources .

In what way are public employee unions different and the same as private sector unions? is what I'm wondering. And Poulantzas reminds me that while the public-private distinction is meaningful as a frame through which all mainstream political agents must pass, it is above all a _____________

a) Social Fact
b) Discourse
c) Structural "Effect"
d) Lacanian Imaginary

- that can be manipulated/appropriated/disrupted/undermined under certain conditions. The public/private distinction is meaningful, but also arbitrary. I'd been on to this line of thought for years - at least as long as I've been working inside public-service unions - but I've been incredibly happy to finally make this overdue journey into Poulantzas and find the distilled (if also highly concentrated dense) instance in marxist state theory.

Not Sure If I Would Meet With Him Either, to Tell the God's Honest

Let me get out ahead of Goldberg on this.

McCain refused to say if he would meet with the President of Spain and thought that Spain was in Latin America because as a POW for five-and-a-half years he had crazy men shouting at him in foreign accents, thereby permanently damaging his ability to understand anything other than American English. And as far as geography goes, McCain spent five-and-a-half years studying the inside of a 5' x 5' cell. That's the geography he knows!

I Weep as I Type

Dear Sirs,

I would like to apply to be a columnist for your fine publication. I believe I would fit in with the fine stable of men and women who currently write for your paper. As I have no experience, other than a blog I would prefer you don't find out about, I have taken the liberty of writing out the topic sentences for a year's worth of columns for the 2012 presidential election. I hope you will see that I would certainly fit right in fit right in, I certainly would.

November 2011:
Struggling economy, unpopular war with Iran leave McCain vulnerable.

Field of Democratic challengers strong, fight it out to see who will assuredly replace McCain.

December 2011:
Wal-Martification of American economy has left America prey to powerhouses China and India.

Democratic front-runner has glaring personality flaw that could spell defeat in November.

Democratic front-runner stumbles in debate, challengers bear down.

January 2012:
Crucial month for Democrats, nation.

Surprisingly strong third-place showing in Iowa reshuffles Democratic pack.

Democrats in-fighting, should be focusing on McCain.

February 2012:
New Hampshire narrows Democratic field to three, reform on agenda for all.

Super Tuesday surprise hands nomination to upstart Democratic challenger.

McCain camp "ready for fight," but internal squabbling blunts message.

March 2012:
Democratic nominee calls for focus on "issues," not "personalities," blasts McCain's handling of economy, war.

Economy, health care crisis continue to be burden to Americans, McCain struggles to find answers.

April 2012:
McCain cheers on Diamondbacks, Democratic challenger has ties to several teams.

Campaign trail gaffe: Democratic challenger questions need for rural Oregonians to use dogs to hunt cougars; appeal to far-left PETA crowd could hurt support in rural America.

May 2012:
Far-left attacks on McCain could backfire, Democratic challenger calls for "clean campaign."

Continued GOP use of 9/11 as justification for war a falsehood, Democrats need to go on the attack.

Questions raised about patriotism of Democratic challenger.

June 2012:
Democratic challenger grew up in same hometown as notorious child molester.

McCain says economy will rebound, accuses Democratic challenger of hoping it continues to fail.

Civil war in Kerplekistan: McCain blames Muslim extremists, Democratic challenger says "wait and see" approach best.

July 2012:
Democratic challenger's spouse went to Harvard, Yale, never eaten bacon-cheddar potato skins at TGI Fridays.

Cindy McCain embraces role as first lady, loves babies.

August 2012:
Republican insiders surprisingly say Palin has learned from last four years, ready to lead.

McCain would need spectacular convention to revive hopes of retaining the presidency.

Questions about McCain's health show prejudice among Democrats, do not belong in campaign about "issues."

September 2012:
Historic convention bounce has McCain barely trailing in polls; McCain resilient, America still loves Palin.

Where is Democratic challenger? Should Dems have picked other guy?

Allies in Middle East say weak America could destabilize tense situation.

Perhaps only McCain could get bipartisan support necessary to accomplish "Democratic" reforms.

October 2012:
Campaign turns nasty, as Democratic challenger accuses McCain of performing poorly on economy, war.

Vice Presidential debate shows that pitbull Palin, GOP not ready to back down.

Both McCain and Democratic challenge declare debate success, ready for stretch run.

On eve of historic election, America divided, ready for change.

November 2012:
Historic re-election shows that maverick McCain has mandate for change.


I can haz journamalism job now?

More of This, But Less of That

Obama: Now he tells us he's the one who's going to take on the old boy's network. The old boy's network. In the McCain campaign, that's called a staff meeting.

Also, yesterday I listened to an NPR story on the polls. Typical stuff.

Republican pollster goes first. Huge bounce from convention. McCain up by 5. Will come back a little, but will be ahead heading into the fall. No racism in campaign, but Dems say they worry about McCain's age. Dems equal discriminators. White women love Palin. Greatest decision ever. Highest bounce ever. Greatest comeback ever. McCain should be way behind, is ahead. Historic campaign.

Democratic pollster goes. Ummm, well very complicated. Worked on campaigns in the past. Polls spot on in primaries, no racism expected to play in. High turnout could affect polls. Of course white women love McCain, they are Republicans. Umm...McCain strengthening base. Ummm...complicated. America very divided. High turnout could swing it.

I start crying at this point. How many times must a party get beat, before a party starts asking why? Every "fucking" time. Republican: strong, assertive, assured, lying, knows no one in the world is going to call him on it, understand radio interview is propaganda opportunity. Democrat: Hesitant, concerned with nuance, conceeding to opponent, half-heartedly asserts that what looks obvious just might not be, thinks radio interview is opportunity to discuss issues/educate voters.

Then I read in today's paper a NYT/CBS poll shows Obama ahead by 5, no convention bounce for McCain, and no increased strength for McCain among women. Did the Dem pollster not know about this? Arrrrrgggg....fuck, fuck, fuck and why, why, why? Why every four years do we manage to find ways to just hand the goddamn election to them?