Sister Artemis

Home

Journal

Wonkthings

Odd Bits

About

Month: July 2009

  • Shatner Does Palin

    31 July 2009

    I didn’t used to be much of a fan of William Shatner, largely because I didn’t like Captain Kirk when I was a kid. I like him better now, but still find him to be a strange, strange man.

    I haven’t been much of a Sarah Palin fan because she billed herself as competent to lead our country, and then said stupid and offensive things, sometimes outright lies, in her shrill voice and extreme tone.

    I’ve never been much of a fan of beat poetry, bongos not withstanding, viewing it as rhythmically strange and annoyingly hoighty-toighty. Beat poets always seem to take themselves far too seriously.

    But bring these three together, and magic happens. Who’da thunk? William Shatner, doing Sarah Palin speeches and tweets to the smooth backup of wood bass and bongos… somehow, it all fits together soooooo well…

    Thanks Bill!

  • The Right to be Angry

    30 July 2009

    No surprise that the advent of our first black president has and will continue to spark discussion about race and racism.  But I’m continually amazed at the narrow views held by extreme right media stars. 

    Not such a surprise that Rush Limbaugh would fling accusations of racism, or reverse racism back on Obama, as we’ve see over many months.  Charges of racism?  Really?  Typical of Rush, typical of his kind of tactics, typical of someone trying to get a rise out of a radio audience.  So to me, the quote which came up for discussion today seemed mild by comparison.

    Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman.  I think he is genuinely revved up about race.  You know me.  I think he is genuinely angry in his heart and has been his whole life.

    But as bizarre as Glenn Beck can be, this comes out of the blue: he views Obama as "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don’t know what it is…"  The guy goes on and on.  He seems amazed, appalled, and convinced that this is Obama’s whole viewpoint, that it is his defining characteristic.

    Leaving aside my own confusion about where the evidence for this supposed hatred of white people or culture comes from, I would like to say that Rush’s accusation of Obama as an “angry black man” strikes as a “well, duh!” moment.

    I don’t much expect anything else.  I’d be angry too, just like I’m angry at the limitations and dismissals I encounter as a woman.  Is this really surprising?  Of course not.  But it’s also not the whole picture.  One can be mad about something and still have a fairly even handed approach to those issues, to any issue.  Because you’re angry does not automatically dictate that you’ll view those issues narrowly, or make bad policy, or treat people unfairly.

    When you have something to be angry about, you get angry.  It may well be that to allow yourself the anger, to admit it and recognize it, allows you in turn to view the big picture more clearly.  Pretending you are not angry typically compromises your ability to think clearly; it’s one of the elephant-in-the-room things, where you never acknowledge the anger, yet totally structure your life in avoidance of it.

    In Obama’s case, his generally even-handed approach to things like racism, sexism, abortion, gay rights suggests he doesn’t much operate out of anger, however he might have passions stirring somewhere we can’t quite see them.  And as calm as Obama generally is, maybe he needs a little anger in the mix.  Spice thinks up, Mr.. Obama!  Show us your passion!

  • Sarah Palin Steps Down

    27 July 2009

    A few thoughts on the day Sarah Palin steps down as the Governor of Alaska.

    I’ve had a few whacky ideas about Palin over the months since she came on the scene at the 2008 Republican Convention, mostly inspired by her whacky behavior on the campaign trail.  The main one, which didn’t prove to be true whatsoever, was that John McCain and/or his campaign team picked her for VP as a bait and switch move.

    My idea was that they’d put Palin out there, inspiring everyone with her snappy speeches and her appeal to what has become known as The Base.  Then within a few weeks, she’d step down for some reason ("special needs baby" woulda worked, but it could have been anything) and McCain would pick some OTHER extreme conservative for VP running mate, but someone not so extreme.  The new pick would compare quite favorably and appeal to a more voters, and yet be someone The Base would be willing to vote for.  With the right pick, maybe McCain could have won the White House.  Alas, poor GOP, it was not to be.

    Now, had the McCain camp followed my scenario, Palin would have been out of the picture before anyone had a chance to discover how out-there, how thoroughly  immersed right-wing-nuttery she was, and before her lack of experience was so disturbingly exposed by Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson and others.

    I just didn’t think the GOP was that clueless.  I really thought they had something more clever up their metaphorical sleeve.

    Wrong.

    Anyway, reflecting on Palin’s resignation, I have another whacky thought.  The current playlet, which I hope proves just as unconnected with reality as my Bait and Switch scenario,  is that Palin is stepping down to join her husband in spirit and membership in the Alaskan Secession Party (or whatever it’s called), going on from the Governors office to help free Alaska from the oppression of the new Kenyan Socialist friend-of-terrorists Muslin now running her sacred America.

    Gawd, hope I’m wrong.  I’m probably wrong.  Right?

  • The Most Adorable Economist Ever

    27 July 2009

    Just a note to say I think Peter Orszag is adorable, possibly the most adorable economist we’ve ever had.  This is a real achievement in Nerd-dom.  He seems nice too.  Now, if he can just prove himself to Do the Right Thing, we’ll have achieved a lovely little trifecta:  adorable, courteous, and gets things done.  We can only hope.

    Peter Orszag, the most adorable economist ever.

    Peter Orszag, the most adorable economist ever.

  • The important, but irrelevant issue of Health Care Reform

    21 July 2009

    Today, a friend of mine asked me what I thought about Obama’s proposed health care reform platform.

    Her question found me at lost for words.  Not that I haven’t thought about health care, and  health care reform.  Believe me, every time I feel a suspicious ache I think about health care.  I have none, you see, and can’t afford any, and so aches and pains are an open question. A not-well-planned for question.

    But I don’t really look at actually acquiring health care coverage.  I can’t fork over three or four hundred bucks a month for it – and being 50, I’ve noted that the few among my contemporaries who are buying health insurance are indeed forking over several hundred a month for the privilege of having something like 75% of their potential  medical expenses paid for through insurance.

    Now, it’s not that I have no health care coverage.

    First of all, there’s workman’s compensation.  For injuries while I’m being a "workman" of course.  Should I be injured on the job, I’m covered, at least up to some sort of cap I haven’t really bothered to investigate.

    And then there’s the car insurance.  For a few bucks a month, any (human) body damage endured due to a car wreck is covered.  Good, yet small comfort.  Particularly because there’s yet another cap once I hit some high water mark on medical bills.

    So, as long as I’m working or in my car, I’m okay.  Hmmmmm…. So, anyway, back to my friend’s question.

    Though I haven’t been tracking every detail of the health care debate, I am not unaware of the changes to health care being proposed by the White House and members of Congress.  I am not unaware of the potential, the great advance this would offer to our society and our financial crisis, and I do not believe that some kind of socialist system will sneak in.  It’s pretty hard to label something as socialist when the plan is to create a competitive market for health care options.  Competition, market… sounds pretty NON socialist to me.

    But in my situation, with absolutely no money to spend on health care other than  out-of-pocket, nickel and dime expenses, all I can hope for is that the Obama administration can push things that much farther, getting closer to a time when I can afford basic health care.

    I won’t get it during this term, or most likely the next, but eventually all the struggle around something I cannot afford will ripple down to me in some form of cheaper options.

    I hope.

    We’ll see.

  • 24 Access, Raw Information, and a Free Press

    19 July 2009

    Another note on my fascination with Sonia Sotomayor’s Senate hearings, and with Congressional hearings in general:

    Back in the Watergate era, when my mind was glued to every aspect of the unfolding story, I gathered my information from print newspapers and television news.  Notably, in this week of his passing, Walter Cronkite  was the voice of many of these reports, and I thank him for his sane approach to delivering the story.

    But (typical of me) I digress.

    During the Watergate hearings,  newspapers and network broadcasts allowed you to read and listen to the reports on what had happened each day, and how the overall story was unfolding.  But the raw story unfolded on public television, which broadcast (if I remember correctly) live from the hearings room, and replayed the daily proceedings late at night.  That’s when I watched most of the drama, because during the day I was in junior high school.  And drama it was, best taken in through those live recordings, where every nuance of facial expression, seat-shifting, and raised eyebrow added to my understanding of what was happening.

    Naturally, chores and homework and bedtimes chewed into my viewing hours, so I never saw the hearings in their entirety. Thank the stars for Cronkite and the others who provided us with succinct summaries of the highlights, many of which I would have otherwise missed.

    What a contrast to Senate hearings in this era.  And thankfully so, Cronkite and his colleagues not withstanding.

    The Sotomayor hearings were broadcast on C-SPAN 3.  I have limited television channels, and only get C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2 (which did re-air hearings in the evening).

    For my viewing pleasure, I availed myself of http://www.c-span.org, where live streaming video, and recordings of every session was available to me.  I primarily watched the hearings, session by session, through their recordings, which I could then pause (to take the dog out, or fix a sandwich), or rewind (because I just HAD to revisit yet another "wise Latina" question, or watch another Perry Mason exchange).  I could also fast forward through segments I’d caught in broadcasts or on tv the night before.  It was great.

    C-SPAN provides the public an interesting and very useful component of our free press, even while it is part of the government.  But in offering recordings which can be viewed NOT in real time, and can be rewound and examined as only the pause and rewind buttons can provide, they make access to raw information available to an increasing population.  It’s one thing to read about Lindsey Graham’s "unless you have a complete meltdown" comment, or see it excerpted in a tv news report.  It’s quite another to see it all in context, complete with body language and facial expressions.  And as much as I appreciate punditry, and sought lots of it during the hearings, it’s great to get the information in raw form.

    Suffice it to say I’m very grateful for the internet, and for C-SPAN.