feminist blogs

But that’s just until Raoul gets a job and can start picking up the tab for my prescriptions. Then I think I’ll bump it up to A-minus.

What lambert said: asshole.

In other hilarious news, President Obama claims that he “did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.” Fat cat bankers disagree.

At least everything looks pretty for Christmas:

I’m curious about those bluish globe ornaments. Are they hand-painted earth globes? If anyone has a link to more pictures, I’d be obliged. Really — no snark. I like Christmas stuff.

I just finished reading a happy little propaganda piece by Steven Benen on “Motivation.” His thesis is that the current disenchantment with Obama is misplaced. This always happens, he says:

Presidents take office with high hopes, governing proves difficult, the policymaking process gets bogged down, and supporters get discouraged and start to walk away. It can be pretty disheartening.

Poor president! Silly supporters! They just don’t understand that presidentin’ is hard work. Benen even hauls in Matt Yglesias for back-up; Matt’s been on a roll this week finding various people to blame for Obama’s failure to deliver (Mitch McConnell, Ben Nelson, the Founding Fathers).

Here’s my question for the group at large: how do you think pieces like this get written? Do Benen and Yglesias and the other water boys get the word from higher-ups (their publishers? their contacts in the Obama administration?) that it’s time to fluff the president? Do they think it up by themselves? Do they discuss it by email and synchronize their watches? Do they actually believe anything they’re saying?

I’m really curious. What do you think?

Or maybe 2016. We gotta plan ahead.

Read Falstaff on the incompetence of the Obama administration (more on that later) and Hillary Clinton’s prospects:

The most interesting thing to me, political-leader-wise, is Hillary’s position. I think she’s holding a remarkable hand. If/when it becomes obvious to a majority of Americans that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter II — i.e., a flop as president — she’s got two options: She can either resign from the Administration over some matter of principle — and ipso facto become the presumptive nominee (doing to this one-term Carter what Teddy couldn’t do to the first one) — or she can choose to ensure his re-election by accepting his desperate plea to run with him as Veep in 2012… and then get elected President on her own in 2016.

Kinda reminds me of Wanda Sykes on “Clinton panties”:

As for Lady Gaga, I’m very pleased to see that she’s evolved from her earlier “I’m not a feminist, but…” stage to “Of course I’m a feminist!” By 2012 she’ll be leading Take Back The Night marches (wearing a phosphorescent bodysuit and fishnet stockings, I’m sure). We all saw last year that fame, youth, and a good voice is what packs ‘em in at the polls, so put Gaga on the ticket!

But seriously (and yes, I’m kidding about Lady Gaga), let me circle back now to this business of Obama’s alleged incompetence. Incompetent at what? At good government? At enacting progressive policies? Yes, if such a thing was ever his intention. But I don’t think it was. I’ve been saying since March 2008 that he’s a Republican in everything but name. Obama’s great gift is his ability to pretend he’s on the side of the progressive angels. And in our sound-bite culture, pretending is apparently enough.

Did you all see that news item the other day about the White House issuing a directive for government transparency? If you’re a political junkie and you know that behind the scenes Obama is pushing hard to renew the Patriot Act, then you know that the “Open Government Directive” is just bread and circuses. But most people aren’t political junkies. Most people probably don’t know about the Patriot Act renewal. All they see is a headline about Obama calling for transparency in government, and they think, “Gosh, he’s doing exactly what he promised! What a great guy!”

Same thing with healthcare. My own mother says, “Isn’t he trying to get real reform? Isn’t it the Republicans who are stopping him?” That’s certainly what Obama wants us to believe:

“As we head into the final stretch on health reform, big insurance company lobbyists and their partisan allies hope that their relentless attacks and millions of dollars can intimidate us into accepting the status quo.

“So I have a message for them, from all of us: Not this time. We have come too far. We will not turn back. We will not back down.”

Gawd. It’s soul-stirring, isn’t it? Obama’s emails should come with embedded mp3s of the theme from Ben Hur. But Jane Hamsher sets the record straight:

It’s time that people took off the rose colored glasses and faced the fact that Obama’s “leadership” on health care was empty and passive. He went for the corporate-friendly “win” that enriches the insurance and drug companies, just as he has enriched the banks and failed to hold them to account. Those who look first to others as scapegoats for his actions have apparently not come to grips with the fact that as President of the United States, he’s a very powerful man who is not using that power to advance the progressive agenda they attribute to him.

I’m not sure about the “empty and passive” bit; in that same post Jane stresses that Obama has been closely involved in the healthcare reform process all along. It seems to me he’s pretty active — just not on behalf of progressive interests.

And now the banking regulation deal looks like the same thing. The Huffington Post reports that “the Obama administration” is pushing for tougher regulation of the financial services industry. The administration is opposed, allegedly, by a group of pro-bank Democrats led by Representative Melissa Bean. But it turns out that Melissa Bean is part of the same money-soaked Chicago circle as Obama (hat tip to lambert). As Little Isis summarizes:

Regardless of who Bean is taking her marching orders from, Obama’s inner circle retains significant leverage over the Representative from Illinois. To understand her as a rogue element within her party, doing Wall Street’s bidding and crossing senior leadership, is to completely disregard the roots of power in the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

This kind of two-faced strategy reminds me of the Obama campaign in 2008: nice on the outside, nasty as shit behind the scenes. That was one reason it was so hard to get dazzled Obama fans to understand how awful his team really was. “He’s such a lovely man!” people would say. Yeah, right.

It’s Dude Day here at the Reclusive Leftist, wherein we acknowledge the work of various dudes who are more or less on the side of The Good. This is a totally new thing which I just now came up with mostly because I need a theme for this post. Arthur Silber Link + Hilarious Dalai Lama Quote = Dude Day. I’m telling you, folks: blogging at this level is not for candy asses. There’s a reason I am where I am.

First off, His Holiness The Dalai Lama:

His Holiness the Dalai Lama at a press conference in Dharamsala on March 18, 2008.
Manan VATSYAYANA/AFP/Getty Images.

The Dalai Lama is a great guy. Seriously. Read his books. Anyway, he’s in the news today because of his remarks on Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize:

DALAI LAMA: I think if you are realistic, it may have been a little early but it doesn’t matter, I know Obama is a very able person, sometimes these individual persons rely on different advice from different people so like former President Bush junior, as a human being I really love him, really wonderful person, very honest, very truthful but I think due to his advisors views, some of his policies have been a disaster, so it happens.

Do you not love the stinger in that tail? Obama is a wonderful person; too bad his policies have been a disaster.

Now for the Arthur Silber link: Gutter Politics, with Tomatoes and Other Garbage. Arthur takes on the Sarah Palin tomato-throwing incident and the paroxysm of online misogyny it sparked. He refers back to a post by Vast Left (who is also a dude — see how the theme is pulling together nicely?) on the same topic: “Progressive” citizens united, not timid, in cheering violence against Sarah Palin. Read them both.

Meanwhile, lambert is having a snort-laugh at Markos’s belated epiphany in Kos joins the PUMAs, only a year late. The post in question over at Daily Kos is HOLY SHIT WHAT IS UP WITH THE GIANT BACKGROUND IMAGE? What the fuck is that over there? I feel like those goddamn windmills are gonna come swooshing out my computer screen and poke my eye out. How long has this been going on? Does Siemens, like, own Daily Kos now?

You know, I totally take back what I said a few months ago about keeping this blog resolutely ad-free. Fuck that. I’m gonna shop this thing out for the biggest-ass background-image advertisement I can find. Viagra! They like to advertise. Unfortunately, their ads are completely shitty. Aren’t you sick of those little sidebar things with old white-haired dudes shaking hands with their doctors? I mean, come the fuck on. How about a big field of green grass like the Seimens ad at Daily Kos, but instead of windmills sticking up…

Okay, I totally lost my train of thought. Something about dudes.

*****

UPDATE: Speak of the devil! Good Dude lambert needs help.

I was skimming around the blogs and news sites this evening while waiting to hear if Martha Coakley won in Massauchussets, when this post from Riverdaughter made me snort-laugh. She quoted the following Urban Dictionary definition of Christianity:

The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Sounds right to me.

Unfortunately, some of Riverdaughter’s commenters were not amused. They felt that their religion was being mocked, and that by extension they were being mocked, and so forth.

So, to quote Jon Favreau, let me be clear: I believe it’s possible to think Christianity is a hilarious bag of intellectual nonsense, yet at the same time to respect individual Christians and their personal faith commitments. More than that: I think it’s possible to respect the Church, its traditions, and its intellectual history.

I believe that because that’s how I feel. You can click on the Godbags or Religion categories on this blog to see my attitude towards Christianity as a thought system, and if you’re a believer you’ll probably be offended. But know this: I’ve also spent a surprising chunk of my life studying Christian theology and Church history. I decided when I was 13 that I would do my dissertation on Pauline soteriology (this, like so many things I planned as a youngster, did not come to pass). And I have enormous affection for Catholic customs, for the radical feminist nuns I’ve known, and even for the freaky Franciscans at that one place I stayed who were still rocking the whole barefoot thing. Also, I’m a fanatic for Christmas and every year I put a beautiful little Nativity scene under the tree, complete with a sweet Mother Mary and her little Cosmic Jewish Zombie baby.

The thing is, it’s really important to cultivate an atmosphere where people are free to mock religion mercilessly. See, you thought that sentence was going to end differently, didn’t you? You thought I was going to stress the importance of respecting each other’s religious beliefs, no matter how bizarre. And it is important, unquestionably, to respect everyone’s right to believe whatever they wish. Freedom of religion, freedom of worship, freedom of thought. But I maintain that reverence for religion in general is frankly dangerous. Dig it: religious beliefs are some of the most pernicious things on earth. It is amazing the shit people think they’re entitled to do when God is talking in their ear. As Voltaire said, “As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.”

So let’s all be friendly and respect each other’s right to believe in Jewish zombies or flying prophets or talking snakes or whatever, and also respect each other’s right to laugh like a nut at all that crazy bullshit. Square?

Shannon Drury (who, in addition to being an infuriated mama, is also the president of Minnesota NOW):

I’m currently of the opinion that the Affordable Health Care for All Act, in its current form, is an embarrassment and ought to be death paneled immediately……Minnesota state senator (and ‘10 gubernatorial candidate) John Marty told me of an essay he just wrote in which he admonished progressives for being stupid enough to put up with this crap. As he puts it:

If 21st Century Progressives led the 19th Century Abolition Movement, we’d still have slavery, but we’d have limited it to 40 hour work weeks, and we’d be so proud of the progress we’d made.

“RIGHT ON!!!” Cathy (of Cathy & the PUMAs fame) and I raved. I am OVER compromise. I am DONE with bipartisanship. I will NO LONGER be told I have to take my health care medicine like a good little girl. Barackistan Obombya will NOT get my vote in 2012 unless he has the sense to pull this Titanic away from the iceberg–nor will Amy Klobuchar if she doesn’t show some loyalty to the women who worked so hard to make her Minnesota’s first woman Senator.

Tell it, sister.

I personally don’t expect Obombya (love that) to save the healthcare ship; I’m sure he’s too busy planning troop surges and lobbying for the Patriot Act renewal. Well, maybe by 2012 we’ll have some other options. A lot of folks seem to be waking up.

On the other hand, this is what denial looks like:

After all, the reason we don’t have universal health care is that Americans keep electing Republicans, and a big reason Americans keep electing Republicans is that conservative pundits endlessly beat the sexism-and-racism drum, scaring angry white men into voting for Republicans, who they (correctly) see as their allies in the war on female liberation and anti-racism.

Is Amanda the only person in the country who doesn’t know that we have a Democratic president and overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and Senate?

She’s right, though, when she observes that “hatred of female sexuality” is a key problem:

Misogyny is a powerful political force in our culture today, which is why politicians like Stupak and Nelson make it their go-to strategy when looking to derail progressive efforts to help all people. Without misogyny, we’d be much further along in this health care reform process. Without misogyny, it’s arguable that we would have had universal health care a long time ago.

I agree.

Unfortunately, Amanda thinks the best way to fight this sexist disdain for women is to refer to the 2008 Republican candidate for vice-president as “Bible Spice” and “Caribou Barbie.”

This is also what confusion looks like.

Thank you, everyone, from the bottom of my heart.

This is a purely personal request, nothing to do with fundraising or anything like that. If you’ve ever thought about throwing a few bucks in the tip jar, this would be an excellent time. I’ve been stiffed by a client on a major invoice and am in deep shit. (Merry Christmas!) Why is this happening? Because the client is, in turn, flat broke and defaulting on all their debts. And why are they flat broke? Because their business is gone. Long story short — and believe me, I know all about doing what I can to collect — there is no money. So sorry. Talk to the hand.

This is all very understandable — I’m sure there are a million stories out there just like it right now — but how in the hell do I pay my bills? I’m scrounging around like a chicken, but we’re not exactly floating in cash down here.

If you’re broke too or in debt or whatever, please just ignore this. In fact, I hope I can send you money someday. But if you’re flush and have a couple of bucks to spare, this would be a lovely, lovely time for a little Christmas gift to me and the rest of my imaginary friends here in the Smoking Lounge.

Thank you so very, very much.

Lady Justice, depicted as she was originally, with eyes open to see

For past few weeks, we’ve been talking about the need for a new feminist-progressive movement or party in this country. The Democrats, as is all too clear, are merely Republicans under a different name. From the Stupak Amendment to the Af-Pak surge, from the Wall Street bailout to the healthcare debacle, we might as well be in Bush’s third term. Many of us have spent our lives voting for Democrats and sending them money and even volunteering on their campaigns, and for what? For this?

After several online working sessions to explore what a new movement or party might look like (starting here, and continued with posts tagged ‘diocletion‘), I’d like to share a proposal that I think distills the best of what we’ve discussed. This would be a feminist-progressive-populist party — though we wouldn’t call it that. This is what I think we should call it:

The Justice Party.

I’m thinking of an inside-outside party, as I explained here:

Another possibility, and one I’m proposing for consideration here, is a new third party designed to co-opt the Democratic Party from within. Since the two-party system has an entrenched death grip on our government, attacking it purely from the outside is a Sisyphean task. Why not tackle it from the outside and the inside? Create a third party that has an external independent existence and a matching bloc within the Democratic caucus. In the past, strong blocs have been able to function almost as rogue parties: the Copperheads, the Radical Republicans. The Copperheads (a notorious example, I realize) even had associated societies and booster clubs in the states.

For example, let’s say we created a third party called the Ponies (not really, but just as an example). We would also work on developing a Pony bloc within the Democratic Party, comprised of politicians who espouse the Pony message and vote Pony on every issue. Kind of an insider mole version of the formal Pony party. Meanwhile, the Pony party proper could work on ballot access, electoral fusion, etc.; nominate its own candidates where possible; and endorse Pony Democrats when appropriate. We would also need to develop a media presence, or at least a blogular presence, firmly identified as Pony.

Now just substitute “Justice” for “Pony,” and go from there. I’ll sketch out some basic themes and ideas for what the Justice Party/Justice Democrats might look like, but I’m going to try to keep it brief so the post won’t get too massive.

Bear in mind that this is still working-session brainstorming type stuff.

Why the “Justice Party”

1. The name is simple and resonates with traditional American values: Justice for All.
2. “Justice” expresses the concept of fairness that is at the heart of what we want and believe in: gender equality, economic fairness, social and global justice, etc.
3. There isn’t already a Justice Party in this country, as far as I can tell, nor has there ever been one.
4. The image of Lady Justice encodes female power as part of the core symbolism of the project. (Yes, that matters.)

Note that Lady Justice in her original guise has her eyes open to see and judge with intelligence, fairness, and compassion. In terms of political iconograpy, I think she could be a potent figure. Anyone who lived through the 2008 election — or who has a passing acquaintance with the great political movements of the 20th century — knows the importance of cultural memes and artistic expression. (For example, what if Lady Justice were re-imagined as an African-American woman? A Hispanic woman? What if different cultural communities created their own versions of Lady Justice? What symbols would she hold?)

EDITED TO ADD: In the comments, naturally the question of the name “Justice Party” came up right away. So I’ll repeat what I said there: I actually love “justice” as a unifying concept. I love it as a basis to build a platform. And I love Lady Justice as a symbol: she’s a she, but she’s also American and traditional. But I can see how “Justice Party” as a name could sound a little scary.

Well, we’ll see how it goes. Names are hard. I want to avoid a name that could be turned around or goofed on, and anything that sounds Communist, and anything the right has already co-opted (liberty, for example)…

Key Values

These are the six key Justice values that I see as comprising the heart and soul of a new movement. This isn’t a platform, but rather a set of precepts. After each value I’ve given some examples and specifics to explain what I mean. (ETA: see also my expository comment here.)

I think the first two are the most critical and timely, and probably the ones we should stress. But they’re all important.

1. Economic Justice. Healthcare reform. Jobs creation. Wall Street clean-up. A tax system that helps the middle-class and working folks, instead of making the rich richer. Freedom from poverty. FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” (modernized and inclusive-ized).
2. Gender Justice. ERA. Equal pay, equal opportunity, equal representation. Autonomy and choice. Ending violence against women and sexual exploitation. Eliminating gender bias. Creating a culture that respects and values women as persons. How about a “Second Bill of Rights” for women?
3. Global Justice. An end to wars of conquest and empire. An end to oil wars and corruption. An end to exploitation of poor countries by rich.
4. Social Justice. Equal rights and opportunities for all people. The freedom to live, love, and marry as you choose. Continuing the fight against racism and bigotry. Diversity and tolerance.
5. Environmental Justice. A clean, healthy world for everyone. Green technology and solutions.
6. Democratic Justice. Cleaning up government. Campaign finance reform. Fair elections. Grassroots democracy. Ballot access and fusion.

Each of these key values could and would be developed into a platform of specific goals and programs. For example, both Adrienne and Kali posted thoughtful comments (to this thread) that really amount to draft platforms for the gender justice category.

It’s possible to make interesting acronyms with these values, by the way. Notice that the first four spell EGGS. Heh.

Immediate demands/rallying cries

General values are good, but they aren’t usually enough to galvanize the electorate. People vote for specifics, like “repeal Prohibition” or “get out of Vietnam.” We’ll need to focus on a few key issues with immediate relevance. Here are some possibilities, depending on what happens in the coming months:

1. Medicare for All: Yeah, I know.
2. Medicare for Kids: If we can’t do Medicare for All, how about Medicare for everyone under 18? The Medicare risk pool would instantly be expanded to include lots of very healthy people. And it would be a great boon for parents, since they wouldn’t have to pay much for their kids’ health insurance (just minimal Medicare rates).
3. Repeal Stupak-Nelson: At a minimum, we’ll need to remove whatever godawful monstrosity is going to get passed by Congress.
4. Get out of Af-Pak. Get out of Iraq. Bring our people and our money home. No more blood and treasure for endless wars with no victory or end in sight. Besides, we need that money HERE.
5. A new WPA or other federal job creation program. Instead of sending billions to the Middle East, how about we spend some of that money right here? Create jobs, pump up the economy, maybe actually fix some stuff while we’re at it.
6. A bailout for the rest of us: I don’t have a specific plan yet, but I’m sure that when the vampire squids get their year-end bonuses here in a couple of days, something will come to me.

Other ideas?

Working strategy to develop the Justice Party

Very briefly, since I don’t want to overstuff this post:

1. Form a working group of key activists, bloggers, thinkers.
2. Create a list-serve or forum (or both) for planning.
3. Refine and hone our message.
4. Develop rules, procedures, and policies to safeguard our core values (read: women’s rights).
5. Cultivate contacts in politics and government (see also political strategy below).
6. Develop a public website for The Justice Party to promulgate our platform and ideas.
7. Recruit bloggers, contribute op-eds, cultivate media outlets, plan events, create videos, etc. — in other words, develop a media strategy.

Political strategy

Extremely brief; there are worlds contained in each of these:

1. Convert: Identify sympathetic Democrats ripe for conversion to “Justice Democrats.”
2. Challenge: Identify Democrats, like Blue Dogs and Stupak supporters, to be primaried and pulverized.
3. Demand: No Justice, No Votes!
4. Appoint: Work to get Justice Democrats appointed (what I call “fusion or coalition by appointment.”)
5. Build: Build an external Justice Party with local cells; start Justice clubs or organizations with local chapters.
6. Elect: Run our own Justice Party candidates, work for ballot access and fusion in all states.

Okay, throwing the floor open for discussion.