January 2008 Archive
« December 2007 | Home | February 2008 »
January 24, 2008
My Outrage Meter is Pegged to Numb
Just when you think the misogyny can't get much worse, you find out how much lower they will go. ACM put it succinctly:Hillary faces an uphill battle against unconscious misogyny (where even those who "wouldn't mind a female President" don't realize how much their filters for evaluating her include sexist standards of comportment), but this attack genuinely leaves me wordless.Of course, one can't expect much outrage or support from most so-called "liberal" men who have a hate on for her for allegedly non-sexist reasons, because they can't seem to separate the sexist treatment she's receiving (and what that means for all women, in the political sphere and elsewhere) from their own personal dislike of her and her candidacy.
<=> | in: Civil Rights & Feminism / Democrats
January 19, 2008
Obama's Reagan Worship
I know I have to deal with the thread in the previous post, and I'll get to it -- but I've been traveling and dealing with other things, including some physical/medical issues for both me and one of my cats (different issues, haha), so that will have to wait. In the meantime, though, I have to point to Digby's short post on why Obama adopting the Reagan beatification nonsense is a, umm, bad idea. Reagan was a bad guy with a genial tone and pretty smile who deliberately appealed to racists and bigots. Obama is either incredibly naive, or as cynical a manipulator as certain other candidates are accused of being. (I sort of hope it's the latter, actually, because if it's the former and he wins, he won't know what will have hit him when the wingnuts and their squawking allies in the media have their way with him.)What I don't get is why he keeps using conservative phrases and adopting hot button conservative issues like social security when it's so unnecessary. If the people are there, then why keep using this tired old crap to appeal to the middle? I understand that he doesn't want to run as a traditional liberal and that's fine. I don't think he should. But people also don't need that stale stuff about love-ins and "entrepreneurship" or "fixing social security" or dissing "trial lawyers" or they'd vote for Rudy McRomney. They want something new. Give it to them.This comment in the thread attached to the Digby post was also very good:
If he wants to change the trajectory as Reagan did then he should take a page from his political strategy instead of his rhetoric, stop praising him and bury conservatism instead.
This exactly the kumbaya crap that so many progressives like Krugman, (and me) find either naive or as calculatingily triangulated as anything Clinton is accused of. [Medley ed: with Clinton, it's "cynical triangulation", with Obama it's "transcendent bipartisanship"... ooohhh-kay.] You want people of different views to come together and unite? Have you observed the Republican party and its noise machine for the last generation? Have they ever showed any inclination to coming together in good faith and compromising to solve problems? Are Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Grover Norquist, the Club for Growth, the heath insurance industry going to change course because Obama smiles at them? Any real progressive reform is going to require, well, the Demoocrats to emulate a lot of Republican tactics (absent the lies and dishonesty). It will mean increasing our majorities in Congress (as well as replacing as many Bush Dogs as possible with real Democrats), having them stand together in the trenches to pass progressive legislation, and a president that will use his bully pulpit as relentlessly as, well, Boy George. Bipartisanship (or its many eupehmisms bandied about by the Obama-bots) basically amounts to rolling over for the Republicans. Basically, Democrats need to go to the matresses, where Republicans have lived for a generation, not hold hands around the campfire.
As for Obama's Reagan remarks, they are offensive on so many levels. Let's pick this level--they are buying into and solidyfying the Republican falsification of history and beatification of Saint Ronnie. This is not an academic debate, it matters in real world terms. For crissake, when Obama talks about the country being ready to be led in a different direction after the "excesses" of the'60s and '70s, he is talking about--and belittling--our agenda: the civil rights movement, feminism, the anti-Vietnam movement, environmentalism, one man-one vote reapportionment, Nixon being justly chased from office for subverting the federal government. [Medley ed: Indeed! WHAT EXCESSES??] And yes, Regan used those "exceses" by pushing back against them, both explicitly and by dog whistle, by inciting and exploiting people's fears and prejudices, like all good Republicans for the last generation. Lavishing praise on this, or pointing to it as something to emulate, is not the language of a progressive or a Democrat in my book.
If Obama wanted to tie into some troubling excesses that the nation might be ready to right, he might do a little more talking about how the Bush-Cheney years have subverted both the letter and spirit of 200+ years of American constitutionalism and how it is required to reverse their evil work. But might not play well with David Broder or Joe Klein, or the many Republican votes Obama thinks he is going to attract (I have news for him--he ain't).
January 10, 2008
Tom Toles, Yesterday
<=> | in: Civil Rights & Feminism / Democrats / Federal Politics / Media Dysfunction
January 9, 2008
New Hampshire
I could have just been typing away all day here, as against all reason I've gotten sucked into reading and thinking about the Presidential primaries. It's getting interesting out there. But there are just two points I'll make and then I'll try to go back to ignoring it all here for a bit (wish me luck).First, for what I believe is the first time ever, a woman has won a major party's U.S. Presidential primary. This is significant and worthy of a salute. (And I send an entirely different kind of salute to the media and how they're treating this candidate, by the way.) [Update: Nope - that's wrong; Shirley Chisholm won New Jersey.]
Second, any of the Democratic candidates would be far, far superior to the crazies and fakes who are running for the Republican nomination. Looking at the respective party's turnouts in Iowa and New Hampshire so far, I am as optimistic as I ever get (which, admittedly, is not very) that most of the rest of the country understands this now. I know there'll always be that small core of wacky bitter-enders who still think their darlin' Dubya is the bee's knees and that the scawy Democrats are trying to steal their Bibles or something, but maybe as a nation we are recovering from the collective psychosis that's been exploited so well for so long. We'll see.
<=> | in: Federal Politics
January 8, 2008
The Economist on Poker
I was catching up on a few magazines the other day and came across an end-of-year article in The Economist on poker and the no-limit Texas Hold 'Em phenomenon. I'm still very interested in watching it on the teevee when I get a chance -- Poker After Dark on NBC (wikipedia info) in the wee hours is particularly good as is any broadcast of a World Poker Tour tournament (you can 'watch' WPT with your eyes closed as if it were a radio broadcast -- the commentators are so thorough). I'd like to try to play more often, but we haven't really found a good opportunity for that and playing just heads up with each other only teaches you so much. We did play tournament-style with some family at Christmas, including my grandmother who's a real card shark, and I won both times. Woohoo! Anyway, The Economist (which I'm receiving as a free subscription -- they've ticked me off too much in recent years for me to actually pay to subscribe):Today poker is the third most watched sport on cable television in the United States, after car racing and American football, trumping even NBA basketball. In America, it is regularly aired on ESPN and the Travel Channel, while Britain has its own poker channel. ESPN's World Series shows regularly get more than 1m viewers, and numbers hold up well even during the busiest sports periods, such as during the major-league baseball play-offs and the NASCAR motorsports season.Who knew, right? I've avoided playing any poker online because I fear it might become addictive. At the same time, it is a way to play a lot of hands really quickly and to really start to get the statistics drilled into you so it feels intuitive as opposed to having to stop and remember that pocket aces look nice pre-flop, but many hands still beat them post-flop. Anyway, it's an interesting and long overview article. Worth a skim.. One interesting issue: is poker a game of chance or of skill?
The poker economy has never been flusher. There are an estimated 60m-80m regular players in America and perhaps 80m-100m elsewhere. Poker is by far the largest chunk of the online gambling market, which had worldwide revenues of around $15 billion in 2006—a figure that may be closer to $20 billion this year. Poker chips are among the best-selling items on Amazon.com. What was once the preserve of either high-rollers or low-lifes is now being roundly embraced by the mass of ordinary folk in between.
America's Department of Labour has given a nod to the element of skill, in some eyes, by last year recognising “professional poker player” as an official occupation. Courts, however, tend to view poker as a game of chance. That, Mr Lederer is convinced, is only because the opposing arguments have been botched at the bench.
As he concedes, it is hard to argue that a seasoned professional will beat a first-timer in any given hand. But there is evidence aplenty that, over the long run, a player with a head for calculating odds and a feel for the psychology of the game, such as bluffing, will always overcome an untalented opponent.
The skill, Mr Lederer argues, is in the betting. And it is apparent in the fact that you can win without the best hand. More than half of all hands end without the cards being shown, not because one player got lucky but because he managed to persuade the others, given their analysis of the available information and the size of the pot, that it was sensible to fold. When no one declares their hand, can it really be argued that the outcome was determined by luck?
<=> | in: Entertainment
January 4, 2008
Costas for Commissioner
One of TheGuy's gifts to me for Christmas was Bob Costas' book, Fair Ball: A Fan's Case for Baseball. I really liked it. It explained many things that have confused me since I started following Major League Baseball again after ignoring it since the 1980's. When and why did we end up with a wild card? Why does there seem to be so much more player trading going on now than I remember way back when? Lots of other good stuff. He also explores the economics of the league and has created a set of very sensible proposals that would go a long way toward fixing what's broken. The book came out in 2000 and not many of his suggestions have been implemented, but really, they should make him the baseball commissioner. I'd enjoy the game, as a whole, a lot more, I think if the bulk of his proposals were put in place. As it is, I now enjoy individual games, the rules and strategy and tactics, and I follow our local team, but I am a bit skeptical about the Game and the League as a whole -- and even more so, now that I understand a bit more about what's been happening over the last couple of decades.I didn't keep my booklist in the sidebar updated very well this year - I missed noting a bunch of books that I read this year -- will try to do better next year. But I give this one a 4 on the BCDC scale.
<=> | in: Entertainment
January 3, 2008
Caucus
Sure, I could write up a little post about who I endorse in this year's primaries and why. I even have an anti-endorsement sort of half-baked in my head. But the thought of it all just makes me tired. The whole process is such a complete joke -- as though the Iowa caucuses should matter as much as the media (and the parties!) are making them out to. It's all just so terribly absurd. The media is even worse than last time around. The Republicans are a freakshow (again) and the Democrats are mostly insipid. The country lacks true leaders at almost every level and locale, as far as I can tell. I really can't bear to look. Somebody wake me up on January 20, 2009, k?<=> | in: Federal Politics
1 Comments --
January 1, 2008
Happy New Year
2008, here we go! *boggle*My exciting New Year's day included a silly touch typing test. Hehe.
It will also include a few episodes from season 3 of The Wire.
Oh, and I started the 365 Days project over at Flickr. Here's the inaugural shot - me, grubby sweatshirt, unwashed hair. Just call me glamour girl.
<=> | in: Journaling
2 Comments --
Season 3! :) That's the year a great show gets even better. Love the City Council angle (and Roberts Rules of Order..."You're taking notes at a criminal f**king conspiracy?")
I actually spent the first hour of 2008 watching the first episode of Season 5. If only the rest of the year could maintain that level of excellence...
Posted by: Kevin on January 2, 2008
Are those new glasses? Cute! I don't think you look grubby:).
Posted by: Joni on January 2, 2008
Sorry to hear no one floats your boat this year. :( As you know, I'm over the moon right now.
Posted by: Kevin on January 4, 2008