This Saturday in… Feminists Behaving Badly

Good morning everyone, Wonk the Vote here. I am having a holiday week from hell and laptop troubles to boot, so my Saturday offerings are going to be on the breezy side as I try to bypass the big-item news stories going on right now. It’s all so depressing, and I need to detox from my own stress. I doubt I’m alone in that!

First up… from Julie Bindel via The Guardian (this past Sunday): Why feminists are using their eyebrows to celebrate December… We’ve had Movember, but now it’s time for Decembrow – a fun way for feminists to grow a ‘unibrow’ to raise money for charity.”

More from the link: “What do Ava Gardner, Frida Kahlo, Jodie Foster, Keira Knightley and Brooke Shields have in common? You’ve got it – beautiful bushy eyebrows. And now you can too. A campaign led by Feministing, an online feminist community, has proposed growing a “unibrow” this month for a charitable cause of your choice.” Wonk sez: Bindel left out one of my Bollywood favorites from that beautiful bushy brows list–Kajol.

As for the feministing unibrow campaign, much as I love Frida and Kajol, I think I’ll pass on this one!

More power to Bindel, though, who says she’ll be popping down to [her] local fancy-dress store and buying a stick-on monobrow to show solidarity with [her] sisters.” Also, I think she makes a nice retort in response to the predictable “hairy feminist” taunts from the Concern Trolls Concerned Women for America. (Bindel writes, “Well, considering how often the words ‘hairy’ and ‘feminist’ appear in the same sentence, we may as well live up to the stereotypes for a good cause.”)

So what do you think? Is this just another ineffectual awareness-raising effort… or ’tis the season to sport a Frida-brow?

Alright, next up… The AFP/Herald Sun reported Tuesday that Ukraine feminists ‘urinate’ in protestDOZENS of Ukrainian feminists staged an unusual protest against the country’s all-male cabinet, pretending to urinate to show the government had turned into nothing more than a men’s room.” Way to take that Ulrich quote on “well-behaved women seldom making history” and run away with it!

The article continues: “The members of the Femen group – known for its brazen feminist stunts – squirted bottles of water and yellow liquid from their groins outside the government headquarters as a bemused line of police looked on... ‘To urinate standing is not a privilege,‘ said a banner held by one of the estimated 30 protesters. The police did not prevent the protest but also did not allow the women any further towards the government.

Stand up and… pretend to pee for your rights?

Well, I will say this…the protest certainly did get my attention focused on the Ukraine’s all-male cabinet. So I think this may have a little more sticking power than the Decembrow campaign. But, that’s just my two, heh.

Moving on to something a little less uncouth, but no less threatening to the status quo– from Deutsche Welle: Women’s publisher focuses on forgotten texts with feminist undertones… Newly established in Germany, the edition fuenf publishing house has a specific focus: books for women, written by women, published by women. Its founder is hoping to satisfy the needs of intelligent female readers.”

…which brings us back to the constant conundrum of whether having a separate category for women’s this, women’s that, or women’s anything is the solution — or is it just perpetuating the problem?

I personally think this “edition fuenf” undertaking sounds intriguing. I hope they publish some English versions.

Okay, now for my two “heavier” links for the week.

Serious read number 1…

If you click on any link in this roundup, I hope it’s this one, from last Friday in the Toronto Star, by Mona Eltahawy: “Let me, a Muslim feminist, confuse you. The entire thing is too wonderful to quote just one part. Read it. Now! (Or, as soon as you get a moment to yourself on this penultimate X-mas weekend.)

Serious read number 2…

Published Wednesday in the Independent Weekly, Carolyn McAllaster’s “Elizabeth Edwards: A feminist, a thinker. This roundup is already top-heavy, so I’m not going to excerpt. But, if you’re like me–still thinking about Elizabeth–and would love to hear about her feminist work back in her UNC Law School days, click on over and read for yourself.

Before I start wrapping this post up, a mini- Wonk rant (re: the Toronto Star link)…

Though I’m not Muslim, Eltahawy’s words mirror the thoughts that often go through my mind while watching the right wing’s paternalist, self-righteous and singular obsession with “defending” women of color from a certain side of the world. I’m an American Desi woman, a liberal, and a feminist. I oppose misogyny anywhere and everywhere. The right/left/whatever-wing hacks who don’t oppose the same can kindly go shove it. (Nope. I am not a well-behaved woman, Frida-brow or not. End Rant.)

Now for your weekend trivia. This Saturday, December the 18th, in feminist history (click on the links for their bios)…

1814: Josephine Sophia White Griffing was born.
1849: Henrietta Muir Edwards was born.

If you have a half hour to spare somewhere in your weekend, here’s a youtube of a neat interview with Laurel Thatcher Ulrich.

I’ll close with a light and fluffy feminist link from earlier in the week. Via the Patriot Ledger: EVERYDAY FEMINIST: Find time to savor the season Back by popular demand … On the twelfth day of Christmas my true love gave to me … twelve guests expected, eleven last-minute presents, ten family dramas, nine kinds of cookies, eight more pounds on my butt, seven sticky-note lists, six nights of no sleep, fiiiiive hungry kids …Four bill collectors, three pairs of high heels, two twisted ankles, and one woman does it all again!

So what are you reading and ruminating on this Saturday? Let’s have a listen in the comments.

Oh, and Happy Holidays to anyone who made it all the way to the end!


Crossposted at Let Them Listen, Liberal Rapture, and Taylor Marsh.


Bradley Manning Not Doing Well Mentally or Physically, Supporters Say

Bradley Manning

Heather Brooke has a piece in the Guardian UK in which she reports on her interview with David House, a Boston “computer researcher” who has been visiting Manning every couple of weeks.

“Over the last few weeks I have noticed a steady decline in his mental and physical wellbeing,” he said. “His prolonged confinement in a solitary holding cell is unquestionably taking its toll on his intellect; his inability to exercise due to [prison] regulations has affected his physical appearance in a manner that suggests physical weakness.”

Manning, House added, was no longer the characteristically brilliant man he had been, despite efforts to keep him intellectually engaged. He also disputed the authorities’ claims that Manning was being kept in solitary for his own good.

“I initially believed that his time in solitary confinement was a decision made in the interests of his safety,” he said. “As time passed and his suicide watch was lifted, to no effect, it became clear that his time in solitary – and his lack of a pillow, sheets, the freedom to exercise, or the ability to view televised current events – were enacted as a means of punishment rather than a means of safety.”

House told Brooke that people who publicly support Manning have been harassed by the government. They have been followed, and some have had computers seized by investigators. House was even approached and asked to “infiltrate” Wikileaks and report back to the government.

On 3 November, House, 23, said he found customs agents waiting for him when he and his girlfriend returned to the US after a short holiday in Mexico. His bags were searched and two men identifying themselves as Homeland Security officials said they were being detained for questioning and would miss their connecting flight. The men seized all his electronic items and he was told to hand over all passwords and encryption keys – which he refused. The items have yet to be returned, said House. He added: “If Manning is convicted, it will be because his individual dedication to human ethics far surpasses that of the US government.”

Manning is being held without charges, under conditions that most countries would consider torture. How much more evidence do we need in order to accept that the U.S. is descending into a police state?

As Dakinikat wrote last night based on a NYT article by Charlie Savage,

The Justice Department is hoping to use Manning to get to Julian Assange. If the conditions Manning has had to live under in prison are affecting his mental capacity–not at all surprising–he might break. Perhaps that is exactly the reason for the treatment he is getting. As we all know by know, a person who is tortured will say anything to end the agony. And believe me, despite the efforts of some bloggers to pooh pooh this, psychological torture can be as coercive as physical torture.

Human beings are social animals and we need other people in order to stay sane and to keep from sinking into depression. A person who is isolated has no way to help him reality check if he starts having troubling thoughts and feelings. The conditions Manning is living under could cause him to hallucinate and decompensate. After long enough, these effect might be permanent. Manning is only 22 years old. He’s really still a kid. He apparently has no access to the outside world other than visits with attorneys and supporters. It’s just shocking to me that our government is treating one of its citizens so horribly.

Glenn Greenwald has another post up about Manning and Assange. Like Dakinikat, Greenwald is very concerned about the effect of any prosecution of Assange on the rights of free speech and press. He writes:

…it is impossible to invent theories to indict [Manning and Assange] without simultaneously criminalizing much of investigative journalism. Thus, claiming that WikiLeaks does not merely receive and publish classified information, but rather actively seeks it and helps the leakers, is the DOJ’s attempt to distinguish it from “traditional” journalism. As Savage writes, this theory would mean “the government would not have to confront awkward questions about why it is not also prosecuting traditional news organizations or investigative journalists who also disclose information the government says should be kept secret — including The New York Times.”

But this distinction is totally illusory. Very rarely do investigative journalists merely act as passive recipients of classified information; secret government programs aren’t typically reported because leaks just suddenly show up one day in the email box of a passive reporter. Journalists virtually always take affirmative steps to encourage its dissemination. They try to cajole leakers to turn over documents to verify their claims and consent to their publication. They call other sources to obtain confirmation and elaboration in the form of further leaks and documents. Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau described how they granted anonymity to “nearly a dozen current and former officials” to induce them to reveal information about Bush’s NSA eavesdropping program. Dana Priest contacted numerous “U.S. and foreign officials” to reveal the details of the CIA’s “black site” program. Both stories won Pulitzer Prizes and entailed numerous, active steps to cajole sources to reveal classified information for publication.

Greenwald has the same thoughts that I did about the government’s motives for torturing Manning:

The need to have Manning make incriminating statements against Assange — to get him to claim that Assange actively, in advance, helped Manning access and leak these documents — would be one obvious reason for subjecting Manning to such inhumane conditions: if you want to have better treatment, you must incriminate Assange. In The Huffington Post yesterday, Marcus Baram quoted Jeff Paterson, who runs Manning’s legal defense fund, as saying that Manning has been extremely upset by the conditions of his detention but had not gone public about them in deference to his attorney’s efforts to negotiate better treatment.

Honestly, I don’t know what to do about this other than keep writing and talking about it. As far as I can tell, the President and Congress are impervious to our complaints. It’s gotten so I imagine them snickering at the outrage of the American people. We are headed for either tyranny or economic disaster–or both.


Friday Reads

Welcome back to the Gilded Age!!!
Well, it’s morning!

It’s more like a mourning morning than anything else.  If you ever needed more proof that voting for Democrats appears to be a waste of time any more, this is it.  Republicans have been overrun by Birchers and the Dems appear to be ready to let them get away with anything.  On top of that we have a president that appears to want to further enact Reaganomics.  It’s really a very sad situation.

Politico has an apt headline from last night’s gruel for every one else spending bill. You know those guys and gals that easily passed the Tax Breaks for Billionaires Bill?  The headline is ‘Democrats concede budget fight to Republicans’.  Senate Democrats don’t fight for the high ground and they sell out everything.

Senate Democrats abruptly abandoned an omnibus budget bill for the coming year, pushing major spending decisions into the next Congress and giving Republicans immense new leverage to confront President Barack Obama priorities.

The decision Thursday night sweeps away months of bipartisan work by the Senate Appropriations Committee which had crafted the $1.1 trillion bill to meet spending targets embraced by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R—Ky.) himself prior to the elections.

Sen. Robert Bennett (R—Utah), an old McConnell friend, worked actively to round up as many as nine potential Republican votes for the compromise, but these numbers rapidly evaporated amid personal attacks and the uproar this week over spending earmarks in the package.

McConnell, embarrassed by reports on his own earmarks in the omnibus, went to the Senate floor Thursday to propose a one page, “clean” two month extension of the current stop gap funding resolution that has kept the government funded since Oct. 1. And as if caught with their hands in the cookie jar, he and other top Republicans vowed to do everything in their powers to kill the omnibus to square themselves with their tea party backers.

It keeps getting worse. This is also from Politico: ‘Democrats keep ‘don’t ask’ on wish list’. Wish list?  They’ve got enough votes to repeal DADT. WTF is holding them up?

Senate Democrats on Thursday moved one step closer to repealing the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) scheduling a key vote Saturday on a bill to end the ban on openly gay service members.

But Democrats are bracing for an enormous backlash from repeal advocates if they fall short again.

As time runs out on the 111th Congress, top Democrats are pointing fingers at Republicans for stalling Senate action, saying if the buzzer sounds before Congress ends the policy, the GOP will be to blame. Still, there are at least four Republican senators on the record saying they’ll vote to repeal “don’t ask” under the right procedural circumstances.

Democrats also are reminding gay-rights activists that they — not their Republican counterparts — have been fighting to overturn the 17-year “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

One Republican senator suggested “he was going to do everything he could to run out the clock,” Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told reporters. “I don’t think that’s really what the American people want — to run out the clock. I think what they want is for us to get things accomplished.”

They frittered away two years of a supermajority when they could’ve really accomplished things instead of  following–at best–a Reagan/Dubya Democratic president.  Obama’s re-election strategy is going to be to basically run as a Republican.  I hope all those Dems that supported his vanity agenda that gave tons of money to the corporate plutocracy get thrown out of office next time.  At the very least, some special hell realm should await them.

Here’s more information on the passage of the Tax Breaks for Billionaires Act. It also zoomed through the House.  Thanks a lot Nancy!  You are sooooo gonna get lumps of coal in your stockings for the rest of your life!

Congress passed the most far-reaching tax bill in a decade late Thursday, averting across-the-board tax increases, enacting new breaks for individuals and businesses and laying a marker for how Washington might work in an era of divided government.

The bill goes to the White House for President Barack Obama’s signature after the House overcame persistent liberal opposition and passed it with an unexpectedly large bipartisan majority of 277-148. The measure passed the Senate earlier in the week also with an overwhelming majority.

The bill reaches deeply into the life and economy of the U.S., more so than might have been expected when Congress first started tackling the matter. Wage-earners will get a new payroll tax break; wealthy heirs get a lower estate-tax rate; and businesses gain an unexpected plum—a big tax write-off for new equipment purchases.

I don’t want to hear any of these jackasses talk about the deficit if they can justify signing this kind of disastrous economic policy.  It’s tax pandering and pork squandering at its absolute worse. There’s absolutely  no economic justification for this.

So, at least one piece of good news is coming out from the Fed. Yup, that’s the FED that all the tea partiers love to hate. The Dodd-Frank Law that extended the FED’s ability to regulate credit is actually having an impact.  If you give the Fed the power to do things, they will do it.  They’re reeling in the extraordinary profits from VISA and MasterCard.

Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. may face permanent damage to the fastest-growing part of their business after the Federal Reserve proposed rules that could cut debit-card transaction fees by 90 percent.

“It is negative all around,” wrote Scott Valentin, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets, in a note to clients. “This significantly impacts the business model for the networks.”

Visa and MasterCard, the world’s biggest payment networks, plunged more than 10 percent in New York trading yesterday after the Fed proposed capping so-called interchange fees at 12 cents each. Currently, the networks charge merchants an average of 1 percent of the purchase price, regardless of cost, and pass that money along to card-issuing banks.

The change, if approved by the Fed after a public comment period, would wipe out most of an estimated $15 billion in annual revenue for U.S. lenders that issue Visa and MasterCard debit cards, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co.

“These credit-card giants and banks are imposing fees that are in no relation to the actual cost of processing, and the retailers and merchants have no way to bargain or even resist these increases,” U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who pushed for the caps, said in an interview. “This new law brings the Federal Reserve into the picture and changes that dynamic.”

Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of plutocrats!   Here’s a somewhat depressing headline from The Daily Mail :  ‘We’re living longer… but not healthier: Children born today will suffer an extra year of disabilities than those born three decades ago’.

Living longer is not necessarily a bed of roses – it may mean more years spent struggling with disability, researchers say.

Figures show life expectancy is rising but that in return people born now will have to cope with disability or a long-term illness for an extra year compared with those born 30 years ago.

The gender gap is also closing, with women losing their traditional advantage in having better health for longer as they enjoy greater life expectancy.

There is some especially bad news for elderly women.

Men born in 2007 are likely to spend an even greater proportion of their life in poor health, 8.7 years compared with 6.4 years in 1981.

Women today spend 11 years in poor health compared with 10 years in 1981, according to figures from the Office of National Statistics.

Most of these problems will be due to obesity, an increase in hypertension and high cholesterol, more cancer, and more diabetes and cardiovascular disease.   Lifestyle and eating habits as well as exercise are more important than ever.

The Independent has a article up about a new threat to Polar Bears from climate change.   Scientists believe that there will be polar bear-grizzly bear hybrids as the two species have to change their habits to survive the immense loss of habitat.  Polar bears are especially endangered.

The first polar-grizzly hybrid to be spotted in the wild was shot by hunters in 2006. It was a white bear with brown patches and DNA tests subsequently confirmed that it was the result of cross breeding between the two species.

Although hybrids were known from captive bears kept in zoos, none had been confirmed in the wild. However, earlier this year another hybrid was killed by a hunter in the western Canadian Arctic and tests confirmed that it was a second-generation hybrid – the offspring of a hybrid female and a pure-bred grizzly bear male.

Scientists said that more cases of polar-grizzly bear hybrids are probably out there waiting to be discovered because of the change in behaviour of the polar bear brought about by climate change. They are spending more time on shore waiting for the sea ice to form, bringing them into close contact with grizzlies.

Brendan Kelly of the US National Marine Mammal Laboratory in Juneau, Alaska, led a study that found 34 possible hybridisations between discreet populations or species of large mammals living in or near to the Arctic. Twenty-two of these cases involved isolated populations at risk of intermixing.

“The Arctic Ocean is predicted to be ice-free in summer before the end of the century, removing a continent-sized barrier to interbreeding. Polar bears are spending more time in the same areas as grizzlies; seals and whales currently isolated by sea ice will soon be likely to share the same waters,” Dr Kelly and his colleagues report in the journal Nature.

It looks like its going to be one of those days where I’d just like to pull the covers over my head and stay asleep.  A recent report on the war in Afghanistan shows very mixed results.

Already, parts of the country with fewer troops are showing a deterioration of security, and the gains that have been made were hard won, coming at the cost of a third more casualties among NATO forces this year.

Then there are the starkly different timelines being used in Washington and on the ground. President Obama is on a political timetable, needing to assure a restless public and his political base that a withdrawal is on track to begin by the deadline he set of next summer and that he can show measurable success before the next election cycle.

Afghanistan, and the American military, are running on a different clock, based on more intractable realities. Some of the most stubborn and important scourges they face — ineffectual governance, deep-rooted corruption and the lack of a functioning judicial system — the report barely glanced at.

“We have metrics that show increased progress,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul. “But those positives are extremely fragile because we haven’t done enough about governance, about corruption. 2010 was supposed to be a year of change, but it has not changed as much as we hoped.”

It’s not known as the grave yard of empires for lack of evidence, that’s for certain.

Anyway, hug your  loved ones and appreciate the local if you can, because, all I can say is we are so f’d on the national level.

Oh, there’s one thing I’m kind’ve giggling about.   The Obamas are not on the Wedding list for the Prince William/Kate Middleton merger. Next time, some one should tell FLOTUS she’s not to touch the Queen and tell POTUS it’s totally tacky to return a present like a bust of Churchill.  Saying you didn’t know who it was makes the return even worse.

Oh, the humiliation. Once not so long ago one of the world’s top celebrities in his own right, Barack Obama and his wife Michelle did not make the cut for invitations to the royal wedding in London next spring.

On April 29 in Westminster Abbey with all the grace and pageantry sure to capture international imaginations, commoner Kate Middleton will marry Prince William, son of Princess Diana. And don’t forget the horsedrawn carriage perhaps.

But the current residents of the White House will not be there, according to the Daily Mail.

The official excuse provided to the British paper by royal sources is that the royal couple wants to share their special nuptial moment with ordinary citizens. Anyway, it is not an official state event, they said. And, you know, Westminster only seats 2,000.

Nice try.

So then how to explain the invites to French president Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife Carla Bruni?

What goes around eventually comes around.  Karma will out.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

Who Will Fight for Us?

The Deciders

We had a few days of excitement, and for some of us rising hopes that the Democrats–at least in the House–might actually fight back against the Obama-McConnell more money for the rich plan. This morning as I look around the web, I see that the corporate media is assuming that there will be no fight–that this outrageous “compromise” between President Obama and the Republicans is actually a good thing for Democrats.

At the WaPo, the message is the same as at the NYT–the deal is a fait accompli and House Dems aren’t going to put up a fight. In fact, it appears that the tax cut extension for the rich is no longer an issue at all. The only sticking point for House Dems is the estate tax rate.

For Democrats in both chambers, the most onerous provision in the package would exempt estates valued at up to $10 million from a newly imposed estate tax. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has called the measure a giveaway to the wealthy and “a bridge too far,” given that Obama has abandoned his campaign pledge to allow the Bush tax breaks for wealthy households to expire.

“Most of us agree with almost all of what the president negotiated,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told “Fox News Sunday.” “There is one thing that just was the choking point, and that deals with the estate-tax break.”

But, he continued, “I am confident that when we get to January, there will be no tax increases on middle-income Americans. We’re not going to hold this thing up at the end of the day, but we do think that simple question should be put to the test.”

USA Today reports–perhaps sarcastically–that Obama will fight for us next year.

“I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I’m itching for a fight on a whole range of issues,” Obama said last week. “I suspect they will find I am. And I think the American people will be on my side on a whole bunch of these fights.”

[….]

One of those fights will be over the very thing that some Democrats are angry about: The two-year extension of George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest Americans.

“When they expire in two years, I will fight to end them,” Obama said. “Just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I’ve championed and that they’ve opposed.”

[….]

…Obama has said that without a deal the Bush tax cuts would expire and everyone would see their taxes rise, and “I want to make sure that the American people aren’t hurt because we’re having a political fight.”

That presumably comes next year.

“I’m looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years,” Obama said.

But why should be believe the liar-in-chief? I don’t think even USA Today believes him.

The Hill reports that Steny Hoyer has other plans for next year. He hopes to work on deficit reduction, with the recommendations of Obama’s Catfood Commission “at the center of our national conversation.”

Hoyer said he was “heartened that the president’s bipartisan fiscal commission put forward a provocative, challenging plan on debt — a plan that needs to be at the center of our national conversation.”

He said the plan should be looked at, along with those by the Bipartisan Policy Center, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and the Center for American Progress.

As he has in the past, Hoyer stressed the need for entitlement reform, including reform of Social Security possibly by raising the retirement age and raising the cap on income taxes to pay for Social Security.

That sounds really ominous to me.

Now let’s look at some of the few naysayers who still think the President’s plan is wrongheaded.

Paul Krugman is still unhappy with the plan but he’s resigned to its passage by Congress.

The deal will, without question, give the economy a short-term boost. The prevailing view, as far as I can tell — and that includes within the Obama administration — is that this short-term boost is all we need. The deal, we’re told, will jump-start the economy; it will give a fragile recovery time to strengthen.

I say, block those metaphors. America’s economy isn’t a stalled car, nor is it an invalid who will soon return to health if he gets a bit more rest. Our problems are longer-term than either metaphor implies.

And bad metaphors make for bad policy. The idea that the economic engine is going to catch or the patient rise from his sickbed any day now encourages policy makers to settle for sloppy, short-term measures when the economy really needs well-designed, sustained support.

If you believe Krugman, we are headed for long-term economic turmoil with almost no efforts by the government to help people in need or to create jobs.

What the government should be doing in this situation is spending more while the private sector is spending less, supporting employment while those debts are paid down. And this government spending needs to be sustained: we’re not talking about a brief burst of aid; we’re talking about spending that lasts long enough for households to get their debts back under control. The original Obama stimulus wasn’t just too small; it was also much too short-lived, with much of the positive effect already gone.

Elizabeth Warren says we are still in a serious economic crisis. She can’t understand how anyone can believe the economy is recovering when so many American families are still in dire distress.

Wall Street banks reaping profits and paying bonuses while the rest of the country struggles shows “we still have a problem” with economic disparity, said Elizabeth Warren, the Obama administration adviser responsible for setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

“This just staggers me; I mean, I just don’t have words to describe what this means,” she said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Conversations With Judy Woodruff” that will be broadcast this weekend. “For me, what an economic recovery is about is about what happens to American families. It’s what happens in the real economy. It’s whether or not families are building up wealth in their homes or whether or not their homes are dragging them over an economic cliff.”

“It isn’t meaningful to talk about profits and a growing economy until American families are stabilized,” she said.

Former Reagan budget director David Stockman says unemployment is far worse than anyone is admitting.

At the rate the US economy is recovering, it will take 28 years to get back to where we were in December 2007 if something doesn’t change, David Stockman, former federal budget director under President Reagan, told CNBC Friday.

“When we look below the surface and the job outlook and the trend that we’ve been in, it’s a lot worse then people think,” Stockman said.

“The jobs that they count every month and people get excited about are really part-time jobs,” he said.

Now that we are in the “new normal,” it’s important to rebucket the data the Labor Department releases on the big picture of the 130 million jobs in the economy, Stockman said.

Take the middle class, Stockman said, which is at the heart of the economy—about 54 million jobs. This is everything you can think of in terms of bread-winner jobs. The annual median wage is $50,000.

“If we are going to have recovery, it has to happen here,” he said, adding, “we lost 7 million jobs in two-year downturn in the ‘Great Recession.”

Even a former supply-side guy like Stockman thinks the key to getting out of this depression (which is what it is) is getting back middle class jobs.

I’m not an economist, so I can’t discuss all this knowledgeably like Dakinikat can. But even I can see that this country is in deep deep trouble. Again, I have to ask: Who will fight for us? And when? What can we do to fight for ourselves?

Dkat here with an update from C-SPAN.

The Senate convenes today where they plan to resume consideration of The Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 (H.R. 4853). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has scheduled a procedural vote for 3pm today to move forward on the measure, which includes an extension of unemployment benefits for the next 13 months in exchange for allowing tax cuts for all income levels to continue for another two years.

This vote is scheduled to be broadcast on C-SPAN 2.

UPDATE: Senate in session and voting right now. (Voting to move vote forward 2:00 cst)

UPDATE:  The cloture vote passed today. Some time tomorrow or Wednesday, the bill will come up for an up or down vote.  There were 15 votes against Cloture.

President Obama praised the Senate today for taking the important first step toward passing the controversial tax plan he hashed out with Republicans, a compromise bill which has angered many lawmakers inside his own party.

The bill still faces a tough fight in the House and the president “urged the House of Representatives to act quickly to similarly pass the bill.”

“I’m pleased to announce at this hour the U.S. Senate is moving forward on a package of tax cuts that has strong bipartisan support,” he said.

He said the bill “will grow the economy” and “grow jobs.”

The deal passed a procedural vote in the Senate this afternoon, and will come to a final vote later in the week — perhaps as early as Tuesday — before it is taken up by the House.

In a procedural vote, 83 senators voted in support of the legislation, which extends Bush-era tax cuts into the new year. Sixty votes were needed.

There were 15 votes against the bill.


What the Socialists just said …

Well, here goes my shot at ever working again.  I’ve not only proclaimed this week ‘I love Senator Bernie Sanders Week’, I’m going to quote the World Socialist Web Site and agree with socialist Barry Grey.

To be honest, the U.S. really doesn’t have an active Socialist movement or anything  close to the socialist left in Europe let alone other places.   WSWS is one voice of socialism.   Glenn Beck and the Tea Party are regaling themselves as mainstream and the dude they’re reading these days thought President Dwight Eisenhower was a communist agent.  If that’s the new normal, then, maybe I am a Marxist by that silly ruler.  But, anyway, at the risk of being labeled a red, here we go.

Grey’s article talks about Progressive (TM) hand wringing over Obama’s supposed lurch to the right.  There was no lurching involved imho.  Obama is  just one of those pols that says one thing and does another.  I frankly have no idea what he actually thinks.  So, the fun part of this blog post is reading Grey dissect what  is “more repugnant”, the villager’s “stupidity or their cynicism”. Grey cites a bunch of whiny, disillusioned villagers in the process.   He identifies their central theme as:

The general theme of these commentaries—amidst the pleading, scolding and whelps of despair—is that Obama must reclaim his “core values” and start fighting the Republican right. It is summed up by Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who writes: “At this point, the strategy is to shame [Obama] into fighting.”

So, this is my first issue.  I just was talking to BB earlier and I personally believe that Obama has no “core values’.  He just says what’s expedient for the moment that gets him where he wants to be.  He’s like the ultimate pragmatist; whatever works for the moment.  I even wrote a post to that effect years ago here that accused Obama of always “doing the chameleon”. It’s his past MO that convinced me of this two years back.  There are way too many ‘present’ votes in the Illinois legislature and tales of Obama hiding in the bathroom to avoid votes for there to be evidence that he’ll fight for anything other than a chance to get to higher office in a shorter period of time.  He seems to have joined and ditched groups–ask Jeremiah Wright–more for the connections than for the higher purpose.  As my post notes, he flip flopped all over the place during 2008.  Why should we expect anything different?

The article cites lots of examples of villagers looking for Obama redemption.

Among the notable examples of such lamentations is Frank Rich’s column in the December 5 New York Times, which makes the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that Obama has been taken hostage by the Republicans and his behavior is best explained by reference to the Stockholm Syndrome.

Rich writes: “The captors will win this battle [over extending Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent of US households], if they haven’t already by the time you read this, because Obama has seemingly surrendered his once-considerable abilities to act, decide or think.”

Liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a December 2 New York Times column written in response to Obama’s announcement of a two-year freeze on federal workers’ pay, is harsher:

“After the Democratic ‘shellacking’ in the mid-term elections, everyone wondered how President Obama would respond. Would he show what he was made of? Would he stand firm for the values he believes in, even in the face of political adversity?…

“It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure—that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.”

David Corn, the Washington bureau chief of Mother Jones and a columnist for PoliticsDaily.com, writes, more in sorrow than in anger:

“President Obama, in the instance of this apparent tax cut compromise, seems to be settling without waging a principle-driven battle, and that is puzzling many of his progressive loyalists… His reasons for eschewing a showdown remain a mystery… A deal like this … will drive many progressives crazy, for they’re looking to Obama to lead a charge against the Republicans, not yield to their threats.”

Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun, suggests that the best way to “get Obama to become the candidate whom most Americans believed they elected in 2008” is to challenge him from the left for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012. The idea is not to defeat the incumbent, but to “pressure Obama toward much more progressive positions and make him a more viable 2012 candidate.”

As Eleanor Clift notes in Newsweek, “MoveOn.org is running ads with the theme ‘Bring Obama Back,’ calling on the president to ‘be the president we fought to elect’ and to hold firm on his promise to end tax breaks for the richest Americans… It’s a chance to reclaim his convictions, and Obama should seize it.”

Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of the Nation, bemoans “Obama’s Disastrous Path” in her December 7 column in the Washington Post. Defining herself as a “progressive supporter” of Obama, she lists the president’s right-wing moves since the mid-term election debacle, ranging from his abject apologizing to the Republicans to effectively abandoning his July 2011 date for beginning to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Vanden Heuvel objects to Obama’s leaning toward the notion that “we should impose austerity now, instead of working to get the economy going.” The operative word here is “now,” as it implies her agreement with the official line of the administration that whether sooner or later, austerity must be imposed.

Absurdly inflating Obama’s stature, she declares: “This president has a historic mandate. Just as Abraham Lincoln had to lead the nation from slavery and Franklin Roosevelt from the Depression, this president must lead the nation from the calamitous failures of three decades of conservative dominance.”

This, she continues, “is the necessary function of a progressive president… If he shirks it, [Obama] risks a failed presidency.”

I still don’t know what some of these people have been smoking or drinking.  I don’t see anything in Obama’s past history that would give me the impression he would wage a “principle-driven battle” on anything.  He says he supports GLBT rights and then he shows up with some of the most notorious homophobic religious nuts in the country and expands their role in ‘faith driven’ government GOTV grants. He doesn’t appear to be using his bully pulpit or his pen to remove DADT. The most he appears to be doing is a few symbolic finger waggings.   He says he supports a woman’s choice on reproductive health and then immediately sells every women’s uterus to the Stupakistan terrorist groups to drive through Romney/DoleCare; the healthcare reform that was less liberal than Richard Nixon’s plan.  He says he doesn’t support War or torture, but then sends Holder on an endless mission to defend the Dubya policies and people at every turn.

What core values?  What principled actions?

I even read an Ismael Reed Op-ed this morning that says that Obama can’t afford to get angry without being tagged a militant black man.  Was any one ever intimidated or upset when Steven Urkel got really mad?  Even the Steven Urkel character had scripted moments when he took principled stands.  No one wrote any thing about intimidation into the script and TV scripts love stereotypes.  We can’t get a little righteous anger from our Nerd-in Chief?

Better questions come from Grey:

They all proceed from the premise that Obama is a “progressive.” Why? On what basis? There is nothing in his political career either before or after his election that suggests anything other than a conventional—i.e., right-wing—American bourgeois politician.

In the end, they brand Obama a progressive on the grounds that he is Democrat and an African-American. Here on full display is the political bankruptcy of the rejection of social class as the basic criterion in politics and its replacement by race and other forms of personal identity.

Yes,  yes, yes.  That is it.  (Well, except I wouldn’t call him an “American bourgeois politician” since I really am not a socialist by nature.) The richest among us slice and dice us into neat little angry groups of Tea Partiers and New Black Panthers so that we get more mad at the idea of Raj in Bangalore taking a job or the idea that civil rights can cause ‘reverse discrimination’ against white men or that we’re being invaded by Mexicans who are driving all of our wages down or all white people are natural born racists. It’s all the poison flowers of the same ugly little divide and keep them in corporate serfdom seeds.

Continue on with Grey.  He’s so worth reading.

What are the “core principles” that Obama has supposedly abandoned and must now reclaim? The only principles he has evinced are the defense of the global interests of US imperialism and the wealth and power of the American financial aristocracy. Aside from occasional cheap demagogy, he has shown nothing but indifference and contempt when it comes to the American people.

The apotheosizing of Obama by this political milieu is ultimately a function of their own social being. They represent a very privileged, comfortable and complacent layer of the upper-middle class, and their pro-Obama, pro-Democratic Party politics reflects very real, material interests—interests that are sharply at odds with those of the working class.

One need only ask, in precisely what does their “progressiveness” consist? They do not advocate serious social or political reforms, let alone socialist policies. On the contrary, they tenaciously uphold a political system dominated by two utterly corrupt and reactionary parties of the American plutocracy.

They do not, for the most part, even call for an end to the US wars of aggression that are killing hundreds of thousands and destroying entire societies in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The people who are writing these words are–as Grey writes–writing from the comfort of their own social being.  Dana Millbank and  the other villagers  are the constituents defending the Obama tax cave-in because they will be some of the few beneficiaries.   Check out this FDL Diary from Blue Texan and check out the comments. You can check out more on this vapid Dana Millbank column at Economist’s View. Krugman, Thoma, and Dean Baker all take a punch at Millbank who just loves him some hippy punching. Krugman has a statement about the topic here too.

So look at how the Village constructs its mythology. The real story, of pretend moderates stalling action by pretending to be persuadable, has been rewritten as a story of how those DF hippies got in the way, until the centrists saved the day.

The worst of it is that I suspect Obama’s memory has gone down the same hole.

Grey states it eloquently.

What really upsets them about the crass manner in which Obama prostrates himself before the Republicans and Wall Street is how thoroughly it exposes their own role in promoting him and aiding the marketing campaign that was used to get him elected. They are terrified that their political dog and pony show built around Obama has so quickly and ignominiously collapsed.

So, this is what REAL socialists say about Obama.  Actual socialist thought is not  the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh fantasy philosophy that scares working class whites into seeing brown people as the threat.  It’s not found at all in progressivism (TM) that has warped like some magical Madison Avenue Marketing brand enshrouding Obama and the village into enabling the misguided notion that  it’s only white men that can prevent liberty and justice for all.  Ultimately, socialism asks people to look at how the very rich and the very powerful use divisive tactics to stop us little people from realizing who is taking the fruits of our labor from us. Even if you aren’t a socialist, this is an exercise worth entertaining.  Now, comrades, have fun with those links!!!