Yeah, You Right!!
Posted: February 9, 2011 Filed under: House of Representatives, just because, Women's Rights | Tags: Pepsi ad, racist and sexist stereotypes, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee 14 CommentsTexas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee gave it to Pepsi on the House floor on Tuesday. Her focus was a disturbing commercial run during Sunday’s Superbowl. The commercial basically lit up the scoreboard for gender and race stereotypes.
“In this month of African-American history where we’re trying to celebrate what is good and great, it certainly seems ridiculous that Pepsi would utilize this kind of humor,” she said. “It was not humorous. It was demeaning — an African-American woman throwing something at an African-American male and winding up hitting a Caucasian woman.”
Jackson Lee said she has a sense of humor and believes in the First Amendment. She also said the Super Bowl is a great time for “fellowship” with family members.
“That is why I’m so disappointed with the Pepsi advertisement that showed a demeaning role for African American women, in an ad that showed a can being thrown and being utilized to wound someone else or hit someone else,” she said.
“I think that we can come together in a much better way, sell Pepsi, and as well talk about good nutrition,” she said. “But, frankly, I consider this insulting, and so did many other women of all colors.”
There were a ton of ads on display that were an insult to women including at least one Go Daddy ad. You all know I’m the ultimate football grinch. I think it’s the modern day American Empire equivalent to panem et circenses. One important item mentioned by the Congresswoman was the number of views of the thing by families. Couldn’t advertisers give the traditional bimbo and beer sports ads a rest for a change? This has been a staple of sporting event advertising for years. It still shows no sign of going away. Here’s a sexist blast from the past of 10 years ago. Remember this one?
“It just doesn’t get any better than this,” boasts Old Milwaukee beer’s TV campaign, which features a gyrating “Swedish Bikini Team” descending upon male campers. But Stroh Brewery, the beer’s maker, is discovering that things $ just might get worse. Five women employees have sued the company, charging that the ads foster a work environment that encourages sexual harassment. “These ads tell Stroh’s male employees that women are stupid, panting playthings,” says attorney Lori Peterson. Her clients have been confronted with pornography, taunted with lewd remarks and slapped on the rear, she contends. The company describes the allegation as “a preposterous link” and says Stroh has a strong policy against sexual harassment.
This particular ad just couldn’t resist the entire racial tie-ins either. Since I don’t drink Pepsi or watch football, I’m in no position to boycott either. I’m just glad to see the Congresswoman do what she could do to condemn the ads. Hopefully, we never have to view the silly thing again.
But, wait! There’s more! Here’s another one for you from the same corporate idjits that we will see on a TV near us per CNN and via elephant.
Can a soda can be sassy? Pepsi thinks so.
Diet Pepsi will soon be available in a “taller, sassier new Skinny Can” that the company says is a “celebration of beautiful, confident women.”
Right. Taller, sassier, anorexic-looking cans define beautiful and confident women. Can the Congresswoman please go back to the House Floor and make a statement about this too?
They think they own our Bodies
Posted: February 9, 2011 Filed under: abortion rights, U.S. Politics, Violence against women, Voter Ignorance, We are so F'd, Women's Rights | Tags: birth control redefintion, HR#3, pro choice, rape redefinition, religious extremists 100 CommentsUpdate: Women’s Health Outrage of the moment: BREAKING: Appropriation Committee sticks gov’t-funding law that cuts $372 mil in funding for Planned Parenthood/family planning into HR358
The Republican Party is waging a war against American women and is being joined by a few bad Democratic sell outs. Representatives like Joe Pitts are attacking the rights of women to make personal health-related decisions daily. HR#3 is just the first of a series of bills designed to narrow definitions of rape, prevention, and what constitutes federal support of women’s reproductive health. Any one that voted for any Republican under the guise of being pissed at Democrats should take this as a lesson. Republicans cannot be trusted to do right by women.
This is nothing less than a crusade against the autonomy and adulthood of women. We need to take to the streets again. This is the latest affront: Under Banner of Fiscal Restraint, Republicans Plan New Abortion Bills.
All but invisible during the midterm elections, the abortion debate has returned to Congress.
Invoking the mantra of fiscal restraint that has dominated House action since lawmakers reconvened last month, Republicans began committee work this week on two bills that would greatly expand restrictions on financing for and access to abortions. Another bill, one that would cut off federal dollars to women’s health care clinics that offer abortions, is expected to surface later this year.
“This House is more pro-life than it’s ever been,” said Representative Joe Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania and the author of one of the bills to limit money for abortions.
Democrats in both the House and Senate immediately fought back Tuesday, working closely with reproductive rights advocates. They have appropriated the Republican charge from last year that Democrats were working on a liberal policy agenda instead of on job creation and the economy, and turned it on its head.
We’re fortunate that some Democratic office holders are fighting against this religious crusade against American Women. Others are not as reported here by StarkReports. Is HR#3 so overreaching that it could end even the watered down abortion rights that we now know in the US? Will Democrats like Harry Reid be complicit? The Youtube above and the quote below cover the recent Democratic Press Conference on Republican attempts to control women. It makes this important point. Dozens of Democrats will probably join their crazed Republican counterparts to pass this abomination. There is one thing in particular that I’d like to point out in bold below that will let you know why no woman that respects her own autonomy can vote Republican period. This should also increase our skepticism of Democrats too.
Since every Representative in the Republican House majority is anti-choice, and since there are probably dozens of anti-choice Democrats that will join them, HR3 will assuredly pass the House.
In the Senate, Harry Reid is anti-choice and has been rolled by Mitch McConnell and the Republicans at every turn. Moreover, procedure in the Senate is much more amenable to minority priorities. Abortion supporters are hopeful, but nobody is saying with any degree of certitude that HR3 will die in the Senate.
With that in mind, I decided to ask the people in the room if they were willing to withhold their support from the President if he signed the bill if it reached his desk. Nadler dodged the question, saying it was premature. I pointed out that there was a reason he called the press conference: that he didn’t wan’t to see this bill become law. He stayed silent on the President.
The Republican party no longer represents a sane alternative to the Democratic Party. Still, the Democratic Party cannot be trusted to do the right thing by women either. Women have no choice but to ensure that any one that is willing to sell us out to religious extremists in the Democratic party does not get our vote. PERIOD.
HR#3 and its counterparts make women second class citizens. There is no other personal health decision that the government feels the need to make for any man. This says that the majority of people in Congress and a good deal of them in the Senate do not think we are adult enough to make a ‘moral choice’. It also continues the special treatment of fetus fetishists to opt out of paying taxes for women’s health while forcing the rest of us to pay for their bridges to no where, their murderous wars, and their religion-based stupidity like ‘abstinence education’. The rape redefinition trick is still in these bills too.
One bill, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” would eliminate tax breaks for private employers who provide health coverage if their plans offer abortion services, and would forbid women who use a flexible spending plan to use pre-tax dollars for abortions. Those restrictions would go well beyond current law prohibiting the use of federal money for abortion services.
The bill, sponsored by Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, has drawn fire over language that undercuts a longstanding exemption on the ban on using federal money for abortions in the case of rape or incest; the measure narrows the definition of rape to “forcible rape,” a term that his office has never defined. Democratic lawmakers and others repeatedly hammered on the term, saying it suggested that victims of statutory rape and other crimes could not get abortions paid for with federal money.
While Mr. Smith’s staff said last week that the term “forcible rape” would be removed from the bill, the staff of Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, said that language remained intact as of Tuesday.
Another bill, sponsored by Mr. Pitts, addresses the health care overhaul head-on by prohibiting Americans who receive insurance through state exchanges from purchasing abortion coverage, even with their own money. The bill is essentially a resurrection of a provision in the House version of the health care law but was not in the Senate version.
The bill would also permit hospitals to refuse abortions to women, even in emergency situations, if such care would offend the conscience of the health care providers.
We now have senators whose narrow religious views will be used to define rape and will allow hospitals to let women die. Many of you have heard this story before, but my daughter has already experienced some of this conscious clause bullshit during her forth year in Medical School while doing a rotation in Michigan. A resident left my daughter–not a qualified physician at the time–and a nurse to clean up the remnants of a botched abortion that was rapidly going septic in one woman’s uterus. That’s right. This woman was left by a doctor to a fourth year medical student and a nurse as a result of an abortion-gone-wrong. The doctor basically left her to die. Thankfully, my daughter was a competent and conscientious caregiver and so was the nurse. This last bill allows entire hospitals to walk away from dying women.
These bills would go no where with out the duplicity of Democrats like Nebraska’s wacko Senator Ben Nelson. We need
to make it loud and clear that we will not contribute to any mass campaign fund that includes support for people who believe women are not adult enough to make moral decisions for themselves. You need to make sure that your donations do not go to Democratic Politician’s PACS that can sneak money to these culprits. Lastly, we need a pledge that pro choice Democrats will not sell out women for any reason. There needs to be an absolute understanding that these bills will not reach the President’s desk and if they do, the President will not sign them.
Woman’s should not be hung on a cross of bipartisanship or kumbaya centrist compromises. It’s time to make that very clear. We do not want to return to the days of forced pregnancy or wire hangers. We need to know that we can trust each and every one of them to stand by us before they get any form of support from us. This includes the President.
Rachel Maddow is on the forefront of this fight. You can follow her efforts and get more information here at The Maddow Blog. Send letters to your congressman via NARAL. Support Planned Parenthood here. Read more Feminist bloggers on this. We are not alone in our fear and outrage. Here’s the latest from Shakesville: ‘Take Your Legislation OFF Me‘.
US Economic Malaise
Posted: February 8, 2011 Filed under: Economic Develpment, Global Financial Crisis, U.S. Economy, We are so F'd | Tags: economic outlook 2011, joseph stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini 15 Comments
I happened across the latest outlook for the global economy by Dr. Doom–Nouriel Roubini–over at Project Syndicate. We must share the same depressed muse. His outlook is very similar to mine although he’s crunching numbers in computer models that I can only dream about. It’s also a similar outlook to what Joseph Stiglitz indicated while in Davos. You will not need sunglasses while facing the future if you’re in Europe or North America. This will most likely be the decade of developing nations. I don’t have the sophisticated programs available to Roubini but his forecasts seem reasonable.
The outlook for the global economy in 2011 is, partly, for a persistence of the trends established in 2010. These are: an anemic, below-trend, U-shaped recovery in advanced economies, as firms and households continue to repair their balance sheets; a stronger, V-shaped recovery in emerging-market countries, owing to stronger macroeconomic, financial, and policy fundamentals. That adds up to close to 4% annual growth for the global economy, with advanced economies growing at around 2% and emerging-market countries growing at about 6%.
The word anemic is never one you want to see when talking economic forecasts. Roubini does identify a few possible black swan events related to things like the deterioration of the Spanish economy that could make anemic sound like a good thing. His comments on the US economy indicate more of the same. None of the same is pleasant.
The United States represents another downside risk for global growth. In 2011, the US faces a likely double dip in the housing market, high unemployment and weak job creation, a persistent credit crunch, gaping budgetary holes at the state and local level, and steeper borrowing costs as a result of the federal government’s lack of fiscal consolidation. Moreover, credit growth on both sides of the Atlantic will be restrained, as many financial institutions in the US and Europe maintain a risk-averse stance toward lending.
There’s some indication of our potential black swans in that paragraph. Every economist is attuned to the solvency problems in states like Illinois, New Jersey, and California. There is also no faith in the federal government’s ability to bail out any one but political donors. The only hope I have for the situation is that it’s an election year and those do tend to be important states electorally for presidential wannabes.
The other trends that worry me are the trends in oil and food prices which could mean that huge countries like China may have to readjust their plans with their sovereign wealth funds. Countries that import a lot of these items are going to be in for hefty bills. China is already experience inflation and has upped its interest rates. Roubini is watching for further signs that they recognize the potential problem. He also believes these tensions will further fuel currency tensions.
Roubini actually sees some upside risks and believes that we will slowly pull out of things. He believes that all sectors are still engaging in balance sheet repair with the exception of the US government. This is especially significant for the potential for jobs creation. If corporations are lean and mean and things do improve, this could create some much needed labor demand.
Joseph Stiglitz wrote a column for the UK Guardian after his Davos trip for the World Economic Forum. He may actually need to take the Dr Doom title from Robini. He focused on some systemic things that you might find interesting. Once again, we see an evaluation of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). This is something that should’ve happened years ago. He also mentions some skepticism of the monetarist (aka Milton Friedman) positions of central banks on inflation.
But this time, as business leaders shared their experiences, one could almost feel the clouds darkening. The spirit was captured by one speaker who suggested that we had gone from “boom and bust” to “boom and Armageddon”. The emerging consensus was that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast for 2009, issued as the meeting convened, of global stagnation – the lowest growth in the post-war period – was optimistic. The only upbeat note was struck by someone who remarked that Davos consensus forecasts are almost always wrong, so perhaps this time it would prove excessively pessimistic.
Equally striking was the loss of faith in markets. In a widely attended brainstorming session at which participants were asked what single failure accounted for the crisis, there was a resounding answer: the belief that markets were self-correcting.
The so-called “efficient markets” model, which holds that prices fully and efficiently reflect all available information, also came in for a trashing. So did inflation targeting: the excessive focus on inflation had diverted attention from the more fundamental question of financial stability. Central bankers’ belief that controlling inflation was necessary and almost sufficient for growth and prosperity had never been based on sound economic theory; now, the crisis provided further scepticism.
A Self-Examined Academic Life
Posted: February 6, 2011 Filed under: academia, Equity Markets, financial institutions, Global Financial Crisis | Tags: Fault Lines, Financial Crisis, Matt Yglesias, Raghu Rajan, Tyler Cowen 22 CommentsMacroeconomists seemingly have adopted monastic practices of self-flagellation to explain why the tribe completely
misjudged the housing bubble . Their collective crystal balls didn’t predict an ensuing financial crisis either. A blog entry by Finance Professor Raghu Rajan at University of Chicago has further stimulated the conversation today. He’s written a book called Fault Lines and made remarks from the book at its official blog site. I found it at Memeorandum along with a few choice links.
I’ve written about fresh water and salt water economics before. Some of today’s discussion clearly involves philosophical fault lines. Rajan is from the panultimate fresh water university and all finance academics eventually drown in the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH) literature. I’ve been pretty outspoken about how much damage I think the EMH has done to economics and especially my field, financial economics. However, it’s hard to get published in finance journals taking a contrarian view. This is one explanation he examines, then dismisses which is why I’ve taken a good look at his argument.
I have not read his book, but judging from the video and this blog entry, Rajan spends some time on the role of EMH and EMH true believers in the crisis. I can provide you with my own anecdotes on this. I can also tell you I tried to avoid some seminars because I don’t want to read any more Eugene Fama who is Rajan’s colleague. I frankly think EMH blinders or misunderstanding were a good deal–but not all–of the problem.
I was researching the subprime markets directly after Katrina and was told by my finance professors that I was following an unpublishable and boring line of research. (They used the term ‘unsexy’.) I saw hints of problems in subprime markets as early as late 2005 in the work I did with the sensitivity of stock prices of finance companies heavily invested in subprime loans to some key macroeconomic variables. I was told that line of research was unlikely to help my marketability and ability to get tenure upon graduation. They yawned when I presented the paper. I turned it in for my third econometrics seminar and switched to something else.
Finance journals editors do love them some EMH so anything on market anomalies is likely to get a jaundiced set of editor eyes. But, Rajan brings up some important points and the resulting discussion is worth viewing here. Here’s Rajan talking directly to the EMH and why he thinks it may not be a big deal.
Perhaps the reason was ideology: we were too wedded to the idea that markets are efficient, market participants are rational, and high prices are justified by economic fundamentals. But some of this criticism of “market fundamentalism” reflects a misunderstanding. The dominant “efficient markets theory” says only that markets reflect what is publicly known, and that it is hard to make money off markets consistently – something verified by the hit that most investor portfolios took in the crisis. The theory does not say that markets cannot plummet if the news is bad, or if investors become risk-averse.
Critics argue that the fundamentals were deteriorating in plain sight, and that the market (and economists) simply ignored it. But hindsight distorts analysis. We cannot point to a lonely Cassandra like Robert Shiller of Yale University, who regularly argued that house prices were unsustainable, as proof that the truth was ignored. There are always naysayers, and they are often wrong. There were many more economists who believed that house prices, though high, were unlikely to fall across the board.
Rajan points out that this probably isn’t the sole or primary explanation even though it is one that gets a lot of ink these days. I too think some of the problem is a misunderstanding of the various forms of EMH . So, the major philosophical debate happening in finance circles isn’t central to Rajan’s explanation. There is no conspiracy of EMH apologists to force misunderstanding of market rationality, so alright, I’ll give him that one.
Economist Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution likes the alternative succinct explanation Rajan provides. (You should read the comments to that thread.)
Raghu Rajan nails it:
I would argue that three factors largely explain our collective failure: specialization, the difficulty of forecasting, and the disengagement of much of the profession from the real world.
Rajan also dismisses another circle of conspirators by stating this. It’s also probably why one of those so-called progressives jumped on the dismissal earlier today. This conspiracy meme crosses circles of folks that are more into political economy than economics itself. This group argues the hypothesis that the “system” bribed economists to stay quiet. I’ve gotten into it more than a few people of the Matt Stoller mindset and various Rand hanger-ons about this improbable case. One of the biggest memes is that the FED actively influences economists not to publish things against their interests. (Usually, this comes from Austrian School folks who can’t get published any where mainstream because they want to completely operate outside of the scientific method and ignore data.) Matt Yglesias is one of these people making a living off this canard and he jumped to the bait immediately. His reasoning speaks more about him than about economists.






Recent Comments