Friday Reads

Good Morning!

It’s hard not to think we’re on the verge of civil war after watching the level of political nastiness around us these days.  The level of incivility and meanness just has me at a complete loss for words at times.  I am really glad there are no Republican primary debates scheduled for awhile.  I really can’t take the language of religious jihad any more. I’m going to start out with some sane people for a change. I’ve been dealing with religious nuts since the 1980s and it’s making me depressed frankly.  At least every one else knows about them now.

Maryland is going to be the next state to recognize gay marriages. A bill was approved by the Senate and goes to the Governor for signature.

The final vote by the state Senate ended a yearlong drama in Annapolis over the legislation, and marked the first time an East Coast state south of the Mason-Dixon line has supported gay nuptials.

With the vote, the measure moves to Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who has said he will sign it.

Maryland would join the District and seven states in allowing same-sex marriages. Supporters have cast the bill as a major advance in equal rights. Opponents have called it a misguided attempt to redefine the institution of marriage.

Despite one of the largest Democratic majorities in any state legislature, backers of gay marriage in Maryland had to overcome fierce opposition from blocks of African American lawmakers and those with strong Catholic and evangelical views to cobble together coalitions big enough to pass both chambers.

Here’s some really interesting academic research from folks at UMass-Boston that shows that the increase in household debt isn’t because of undisciplined spending.  This comes from a guest post by JW Mason at Rortybomb and it’s very interesting.  Nice to see some one did the math and didn’t rely on tired Puritan stereotypes.  The reason is that key interest rates have been high, stayed high, gone higher. Also, flow of funds to households via savings and income increases have decreased while prices have not decreased.  Some prices on key household expenditures have increased.  So, the leverage increase has come more from the nature of already present debt.

First, as a historical matter, you cannot understand the changes in private sector leverage over the 20th century without explicitly accounting for debt dynamics. The tendency to treat changes in debt ratios as necessarily the result in changes in borrowing behavior obscures the most important factors in the evolution of leverage. Second, going forward, it seems unlikely that households can sustain large enough primary deficits to reduce or even stabilize leverage. Even the very large surpluses of 2006-2011 would not have brought down leverage at all in the absence of the upsurge in defaults; and in the absence of large federal deficits and an improving trade balance the outcome would have been even worse since reductions in household expenditure would have reduced aggregate income.  As a practical matter, it seems clear that, just as the rise in leverage was not the result of more borrowing, any reduction in leverage will not come about through less borrowing. To substantially reduce household debt will require some combination of financial repression to hold interest rates below growth rates for an extended period, and larger-scale and more systematic debt write-downs.

Farakh Shahzad has written a compelling article in Pakistan Today explaining why Gender Equality is an economic necessity.

Keeping in view the 51 per cent of the total population, it is a smart economics to ensure gender equality as a guarantee towards economic self reliance. By neglecting majority of the segment from the economic mainstream cannot produce better economic outcomes in this generation and the future. Social scientists are unanimous that implementation of gender equality has the potential and dynamics to double the GDP from four to eight per cent that is no less achievement in the current global scenario. For that matter, all you have to do is change the centuries old social misperceptions ingrained in the society. It is an undeniable fact that women in Pakistan remain at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.

Femininity is measured to be the essential concern in the process of socio-economic infrastructure development. Therefore, investment in women’s empowerment in Pakistan is the key factor in improving the economic, political and social conditions in Pakistan. Hence, decision making processes for women empowerment; valuation planning and policy formulation should emphasis on main streaming gender equality around Pakistan.

Women empowerment is not limited to control over imitation or financial freedom only, rather it is a grouping of literacy, employment and health. Women empowerment is an important and functional concept in the development of a community as it represents women as active agents rather than inactive recipients of development policies …

Yup. It’s something they’ve noticed in all microfinance development strategies.  Giving women ways to earn a decent living for their families and all kinds of things improve.  But, it seems everywhere, there’s a back lash from hyperpatriarchal men.   Women across the MENA regions–including Tunisia and Egypt–are taking stock of their rights.  A series of protests and conferences are being held to ensure that the Arab Spring does not result in losses in human  rights or women’s rights.

Perhaps one of the most important questions for women in the Arab Spring region is: Has women’s involvement in bringing change to Tunisia and Egypt been undervalued?

“The March 8th call brought a few hundred women to the streets, [which is] nowhere near a million. This was not unexpected…,” revealed Egyptian author and Cairo University professor Dr. Hoda Elsadda in her latest book published by The Global Fund, “Telling Our Stories: Women’s Voices from the Middle East and North Africa,” a collection of articles that have gone deep to describe conditions for women on-the-ground in the region.

“… it was extremely unrealistic to imagine that the first sparks of a popular revolution would bring about overnight a radical transfor- mation in cultural attitudes towards women’s rights,” Elsadda continued. In January 2012 Elsadda was recently placed on the shortlist for her outstanding depth of writing by the Arabic Booker Prize. Her efforts to portray the real life and tone of Egypt have been outstanding.

“…What came as a surprise and a real shock, however, was the marked hostility and violence unleashed against women protesters who were harassed and shouted at by groups of men who encircled them,” Elsadda outlined in her book. “Egyptian women took to the streets to celebrate International Women’s Day [last year], in response to a call that was sent out on Facebook for a million women’s march.”.

Conditions for women in Tunisia have shown promise. “After 1956, we were given almost all the rights French women had,” said Staieb-Koepp during the Global Fund for Women event. “You can have an abortion, you can divorce… [even though] there has never been a very strong movement to get these rights,” she continued.

But Sraieb-Koepp also went on to convey that she worries that if Tunisian women are not especially aware, their rights could be taken away. According to Sraieb-Koepp Islamic fundamentalists in Tunisia are now arguing one of the best ways to cope with unemployment is to “keep women at home.”

While Tunisia and Egypt have different histories, Sraieb-Koepp sees the fate of women in both countries to be very similar, “…it is basically the same experience as [in] Egypt. Women took over the civil society activism and men were drawn to politics,” she added.

Okay, so I’ve saved one Alternet article for last because it’s title is this: The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science — and Reality.  The subheading reads: “New research shows that conservatives who consider themselves well-informed and educated are also deeper in denial about issues like global warming”.  I’ve often wondered how so many folks seem to completely ignore all kinds of things to hold some stupid ideas. This comes from an excerpt of an upcoming Chris Mooney book.  This section was inspired by a Pew Poll on global warming and the impact scientific data has on various people.

Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one’s political party affiliation, one’s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one’s level of education. And here’s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skepticalof modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

For Democrats and Independents, the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science—among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.

This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the “smart idiots” effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It’s a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists—and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.

And, of course, The Lorax is just one step in the indoctrination process to convince children that “industrialization is bad”.  I guess teh evil is no long Winky Tink or the Muppets.  It’s Doctor Seuss. Yes, Lou Dobbs at Fox has declared a war on Dr. Seuss.

On his Tuesday night show, Dobbs trashed the upcoming kids movies The Lorax and The Secret World Of Arrietty, accusing them of being liberal indoctrination that echoes the messages of Occupy Wall Street and President Obama. Dobbs didn’t appear to care that The Lorax is based on a book from 1971 and Arrietty is based on one from 1952 (and also, y’know, a Japanese film). Either that or the Occupy movement is much older than I thought.
Dobbs played clips from the movies and then drew the parallels.

“So, where have we all heard this before? Occupy Wall Street forever trying to pit the makers against the takers and President Obama repeating that everyone should pay their fair share in dozens of speeches since his State of the Union address last month.”

Guess there’s an occupy your local nursery and I missed the invite.  Yes, the Loras is yet another Kenyan born Muslim that wants to inflict Socialism on your children.

So, how do these people manage to drive and walk in a world with so many imaginary friends and enemies wandering around?  Is it something you have to have a special talent for like seeing dead people?

Anyway, that’s it for me on this Friday morning.  Let’s hear what’s on your reading and blogging list today!


New Jersey Blues and The Big Guy

Though I now live in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains, I’m a native of the Great State of New Jersey.  With friends and family scattered across the Garden State [something of a misnomer], I still keep half an eye on NJ happenings.

As we all know, Chris Christie now fills the Governor’s seat [with abundance].  Yes, that was a cheap shot.  Christie has become a Republican darling for his blunt, shoot from the hip style.  In Tony Soprano fashion, Christie badmouths teachers, unions and anyone who gets in the way.  What a guy!

But the man is not without Sin.

Christie believes in limited gun control.  Eeek!  He has stated that in urban situations, limiting the number of guns makes sense.  The ‘makes sense’ is obviously a big issue with the current crop of Republicans.  Christie also expressed a belief in ‘Climate Change,” stating that human activity is undoubtedly involved and that he would defer to the experts.

OMG.  A science guy!  How did this man squeeze his considerable girth under the GOP tent?

The proposed mosque site in NYC?  Christie refused to take a stand.  He withheld comment, while the flames of controversy were fanned with heady delight by crank pundits, 24/7 shock jocks, faux celebrities and Fox News [ahem] reporters. [In full disclosure, I believed the mosque plans were unwise and badly timed—too soon, too close to the proximity of Ground Zero, which I’d visited two years before the story broke].

But worse, when appointing a judge to NJ’s Superior Court last year, Chris Christie appointed a . . . Muslim!  Can you believe it?  Shades of Sharia Law rained across Tea Party brows.  The horror!  The betrayal!

Christie’s response?  He was sick of dealing with the ‘crazies.’

But it’s clear now, indisputable, that Governor Chris Christie has learned nothing—nada, zip–from his past misdeeds.  The National Organization for Marriage [NOM] is up in arms over Christie’s appalling nomination of Bruce Harris for the State Supreme Court.

Why? you may ask.

According to NOM, Harris is an extremist of the worst kind.  He would be the first openly gay, third African American to serve the High Court and has publicly admitted support of and work in behalf of gay marriage legislation.  Though Harris has agreed to recuse himself on any legislation involving same sex marriage, he’d sent an unfortunate email [emails can get you in a whole lot of trouble] to State Senator Joseph Pennacchio.  NOM, in a mailing to supporters dated 30 January, with a header reading, Tell Christie to Withdraw Nomination of Pro-SSM Judge For Extremist Views Equating Christianity and Slavery, reproduced said email:

When I hear someone say that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman because that’s the way it’s always been, I think of the many “traditions” that deprived people of their civil rights for centuries: prohibitions on interracial marriage, slavery, (which is even provided for in the Bible), segregation, the subservience of women, to name just a few of these “traditions.”

I hope that you consider my request that you re-evaluate your position and, if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman’s letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you you’d explain your position to me. And, if the basis of your opposition is religious, then I suggest that you do what the US Constitution mandates—and that is to maintain a separation between the state and religion.

Here’s the rub, according to NOM and their screeching advocates:

. . . a man who cannot tell the difference between supporting our traditional understanding of marriage and wanting to enslave a people lacks common sense and judicial temperament.

And to suggest that legislators should ignore the views of religious constituents, that moral views grounded in the Bible are somehow illegitimate in the public square, seriously compounds the offense.

These are not the words of a judicial conservative, a man who believes in common sense, strict construction of the state constitution—the kind of judge Gov. Christie promised to appoint to the court.

Over the weekend, it was suggested I lacked a sense of humor when referring to NC Congressman Larry Pittman’s email, sent ‘inadvertently’ to the NC General Assembly, in which Pittman suggested ‘abortionists’ [they would be physicians who perform legal and safe abortions] should be first in line for a public hanging.  Public hangings, Congressman Pittman added, should be reintroduced to deter crime and set a firm, if not ghastly example.

He was making a funny, I was informed.

Those who would expect me to laugh off the Pittman email would no doubt expect me to consider the Harris email a source of outrage and NOM’s response as perfectly reasonable.

They would be wrong.

The Bible is illegitimate in the public square when it’s stuffed down out throats as a wearisome and pathetic excuse to continue spewing ancient, ugly bigotry and discrimination; control the reproductive lives of women; and persist in the ludicrous, absurd proposition that a fertilized egg is a ‘person.’

And sorry, Harris is absolutely correct—you cannot erase or rewrite Biblical history.  It is not pretty. It is not even civilized. It is also not relevant, beyond the Beatitudes, which are rarely quoted and sadly ignored.

To be clear, I am not a fan of Governor Christie; I do not support the majority of his economic principles.  But when it comes to taking a stand against the ‘crazies,’ I give the man major props.  He’s standing firm for Harris.  He’s doing the right thing.

The National Organization for Marriage claims that Bruce Harris is an extremist.  My suggestion?

Take a look in the mirror, folks.  Take a long, hard look.


It’s about rights, not helplessness

There’s a bit of a flap going on because a famous person named Cynthia Nixon said she’s gay by choice. (Full disclosure: I’ve never heard of her. I only visit this planet now and again)

Saying it’s a choice is supposed to be very bad because it falls into a “right wing trap.” Everybody must say gays are born that way, that they can’t help themselves, that it’s-not-their-fault-they-found-it-that-way. Otherwise wingnuts can insist that re-education could work.

Bullshit.

Any kind of sex between any kind of people who can freely and knowledgeably consent is nobody’s business but their own.

The point isn’t whether you have a choice or not. That has nothing to do with it. The only point that matters is that nobody gets to tell you what kind of sex to have. Or not to have.

The only real “right wing trap” is granting the crazy premise that it’s okay to meddle in somebody else’s sex life if you can. Because that’s what the Aravosises of the world are doing. They’re saying it’s genetic, so they can’t help it, so give up already. Which means that if they could help it, then meddle away.

Again: bullshit.

People who freely and knowledgeably consent and are doing nothing to hurt others have a right to do anything they damn well please. Genetics and choice have nothing to do with the basic right to mind your own business.

Just because some gay people have made their stand on illogical ground is not Nixon’s fault. All she’s done is shine a light on it.

(I’d tell you to go read my chapter on Rights, but you know that already, don’t you?)
Crossposted to Acid Test


Rick Santorum’s notion of “rational, reasoned thought”

Yesterday Rick Santorum spoke to a group of high school and college students at “College Convention 2012” in Concord, New Hampshire and engaged them in what he apparently sees as some kind of Socratic dialogue about same-sex marriage. Here’s the video.

ABC News summarized and quoted from the exchange. Here’s a bit of it:

As Santorum addressed a group of college students, one asked him how same-sex marriage affects him personally and why not have legal same-sex marriage as long as it’s not religious in nature.

Santorum answered that for “230 years marriage has been between one man and woman. So if you want to change the law … you have to make the positive argument about why.” ….

He called on a woman who asked, “How about the idea that all men are created equal, rights to happiness and liberty?

Santorum responded, “Are we saying that everyone should have the right to marry?”

Several members of the crowd loudly yelled, “Yes!” ….

“So anyone can marry can marry anybody else? So if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people … so you can be married to five people. Is that OK?” Santorum asked.

It seems to me that Santorum is oddly obsessed with fantasies of group sex. He has made this comparison of same-sex marriage to polygamy repeatedly in the past. In this instance, when students told him his questions about fantasized group marriages were “irrelevant,” he actually lectured them:

“You know it’s important if we’re going to have a discussion based on rational, reasoned thought, that we employ reason, okay? Reason says that if you think it’s okay for two then you have to differentiate with me why it’s not okay for three, right?

That’s Santorum’s notion of reason and rationality? He sets up a bizarre straw man argument and refuses to deal with the question he’s being asked about how two people of the same sex marrying could hurt him. There are already laws against polygamy for heterosexuals in this country, and laws could also be passed against group same-sex marriage if groups of people begin agitating for the right to marry. But as far as I know that isn’t happening.

A little later in the discussion, Santorum explains why he believes marriage must only be between one man and one woman.

“I believe we’re made that way. God made men and woman to keep civilization and provide the best environment to raise children,” Santorum said. “I have no problem if people want to have relationships, but marriage provides a good to society. It’s unique because it is the union that causes children to be raised.”

Santorum added that “every child in America deserves” to know their mother and father.

“We deny children that birthright, then I think we are harming kids and society and not promoting what’s best,” Santorum added, before moving on to the next question.

That’s his idea of logic? Americans should behave according to Santorum’s personal beliefs? So if every child must know his or her mother and father, does that mean that Santorum opposes adoption? Well, he opposes gay couples adopting, but I haven’t been able to find his position on heterosexual adoptions.

After Santorum moved on to other questions, he displayed more of his “reasoned, rational thinking.”

…when a crowd member asked if he would adhere to the conservative pillar of state’s rights in cases when a state legalizes gay marriage and medical marijuana.

“I think there are some things that are essential elements of society to which a society rests that we have to have a consensus on,” Santorum said. “That’s why I believe on things as essential as ‘what is life’ and what life is protected under the Constitution should be a federal charge, not a state by state.”

He then admitted he was not familiar with medical marijuana laws, which led the crowd to press him on how he came to developing his views on issues he was unfamiliar with.

“Well I form that opinion from my own life experiences and having experienced that,” he said. “I went to college too.”

So no states’ rights if the issue is one that involves Santorum’s “beliefs,” apparently. After the town hall with the students ended, Santorum told a reporter his goal in the exchange was “to engage them to get them thinking about why they’re thinking the way you’re thinking.”

Huh? WTF does that mean? All I can say is that this man’s thinking processes seem to me to be not only illogical but also deeply disordered. This, combined with his obvious hypocrisy and corrupt behavior should disqualify him–even from becoming the nominee of the Republican Party, much less President of the U.S. Thank goodness most Americans probably won’t be as receptive to Santorum’s “reasoning” as Iowa Republican caucus voters were.


Video: Secretary Clinton’s Human Rights Day Speech

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Video: Secretary Clinton’s Human Rights Day Speech via Still4Hill