Too clever by half a. A phrase coined in George J. Whyte-Melville's 1858 book, ''The Interpreter,'' and means ''too smart for one's own good.'' (Defininition taken from an article in the New York Times) b. A blog about culture, politics, and whatever catches my eye. Read me first
So, I'm one of the folks that my union keeps inviting to events, and today I got to go to the greater Boston Labor Council Labor Day breakfast, which was a big freakin deal this year since Ted Kennedy's seat is open. Every speaker mentioned Kennedy several times, talking about how he was a champion of the working class, and how we needed to continue the struggle for healthcare for all which includes a public option. the streets were lined with folks supporting people for the senate race, the race for mayor of Boston, and city council
and the room was packed (it was at the park plaza hotel, which was fancy!)
there were some pretty good speeches. Martha Coakley essentially gave a stump speech. The director of the labor council is always a crowdpleaser, and I particularly enjoyed Jim Capuano's speech (he just announced today he will be running for Kennedy's seat as well).
After the speachifying and shmoozing (where one of the union muckity mucks encouraged me to consider running to be a delagate for my ward in somerville to the state democratic convention), we walked down to the common for a rally, which then became a march down Boylston to Copley Square
Rep Stephen Lynch got shouted down by the crowd chanting "public option" during the rally when he spoke.
here are some pictures of my union brothers and sisters in the march
People over Profits! Healthcare for ALL!
Rally in Copley Square
I had to explain what a lolcat was to my field rep. he saw this sign and asked what was wrong with the guys poster that the words were spelled wrong and what did a cat have to do with healthcare
We have all read recently about the threat of possible closure faced by the Boston Globe. A number of Boston-based bloggers who care about the continued existence of the Globe have banded together in conducting a blog rally. We are simultaneously posting this paragraph to solicit your ideas of steps the Globe could take to improve its financial picture:
We view the Globe as an important community resource, and we think that lots of people in the region agree and might have creative ideas that might help in this situation. So, here's your chance. Please don't write with nasty comments and sarcasm: Use this forum for thoughtful and interesting steps you would recommend to the management that would improve readership, enhance the Globe's community presence, and make money. Who knows, someone here might come up with an idea that will work, or at least help. Thank you.
Also, if you aren't that familiar with the Globe, or are from another area of the country, think about the problem in a more global scale. Cities all over the country are going from two papers to one, or from one to none. A study done by Princeton found that a decrease in newspapers in Cincinati led to a decrease in participation in politics by those affected (there is a blog entry that talks about the results at Reflections of a Newsosaur, and it was covered by NPR's On The Media program)
(P.S. If you have a blog, please feel free to reprint this item and post it. Likewise, if you have a Twitter or Facebook account, please add this url as an update or to your status bar to help us reach more people.)
here is an article in the globe that talks about a blog rally
Parenthood is one of those things I've been ambivalent about. And some of it is because I chafe at "The cult of motherhood". This ideal that my life isn't complete until I get married and have a baby. Some of it is the defensive reaction against a society that wants to tell me how to live every aspect of my life. That onsie above is a good example. I mean, is the child supposed to supplant the husband in the mother's life? Is that good for anyone? I mean, it seems like the husband gets completely shut out of the picture (and a lot of times traditional views of parenting do just that, and look at daddy as an ATM, or another child in the house). I doubt it really works for the mother (although media images make it seem like once you're a mommy, then that's all you are so why would you want a husband/adult male companion or friends or anything else?). And it can't possibly be good for the kid. I know we talk about kids being the center of a parent's life, and it's true that a lot of decisions get made with the welfare of the children at the heart...but as someone who has worked with lot of kids who have difficulty dealing with distress, making kids feel like they are the absolute center of the universe isn't really doing them any favors.
The "self esteem" movement backfired, and you wind up with a lot of kids who have been told their whole lives that they are absolutely perfect and they deserve every good thing in the world just for being them. And when they get older and are faced with the truth that there are going to be people who are faster/smarter/prettier/ect than they are, and that sometimes you lose, and sometimes life isn't fair...they can't deal. Kids with HEALTHY self esteem can fall down, and know that they have the ability to get back up. Kid's who've been sheltered from failure don't know this, and it leaves them bereft of any distress tolerance skills.
And that doesn't even touch the hetero-normative nature of the shirt.
Anyhow, this onsie is creepy at best, and the message behind it makes me worried for the parents who buy them, and the kids who wind up wearing them.
Stephen Colbert and the remixed clips of RNC Chairman Michael Steele throw down in a rap battle. Stephen has the skillz to pay his childrens' private school billz...
So, Michael Steele wants the Republican party to be relevant to today's youth, by bringing it into an "urban/suburban hip-hop context". He uses words like "bling-bling", and "off the hook", which don't exactly seem to roll off his tongue with ease.
Now, when you get past the choice of lingo...the man has a point. The Republican party as it has been in (at least the recent) past, has not had a lot to offer a more urban audience, and in African Americans in particular.
Steele and D.L. Hughley make a good point...the ideals behind the Republican party: Self Reliance and Self Determination with minimal government intervention and fiscal conservatism...are ideals that many American's can get behind. Yet, the coalition that the Republican party has built has at times taken it away from that ideal, and in so has become a party that seems to have a split personality. It's a party that wants you to keep your laws of our guns, but has no problem getting the law all up in my girl bits, as well as marriage equality. It's a party of populist rhetoric, of "the american dream" and the Horatio Alger myth, that takes a very pro-big-business stance in its policy making. It's a party that talks about cutting government spending, but has driven up the deficit with interventionist wars and tax cuts. It's a party that talks about being "pro-family values", but tends to cut supports for working families (SCHIP is a good example).
Partly this is an example of why the two party system doesn't make sense, and Jon Stewart's analysis of this in America, the Book is a great illustration of it. I mean, how did the anti-abortion and pro-death penalty positions get lumped into one political movement? Or anti-abortion and pro-gun? Or anti-death penalty and pro-choice? How do people who believe that government should not be telling us how to run our lives get along with people who want a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage? It's political red-rover, which is a fun game when you're 6, but not a great way to decide how to lead the nation.
I am a loyal democrat, living in one of the most liberal states in the country (gay marriage, decriminalized pot, AND universal health care...take THAT California :P) And yet at times I chafe at the "nanny state". If I want trans-fats with my french fries, who are you to say I can't, Brookline? It's especially hilarious when in the same 12 month period we ban trans fat but decriminalize pot.
In an ideal world, we would have many more parties, and open up the debate to more potential leaders with a variety of views. With this two party system, things become so entrenched. Bill Clinton got in some hot water for saying he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare". Now Michael Steele is having problems around his stance on abortion. With just two parties it is unlikely that we would ever have a pro-choice Republican (even though it fits with the reduced government intervention that small-government folks would be in favor of), and it is unlikely that we would have an anti-choice Democrat (even though there is a large portion of liberals who are anti-death penalty, and might feel the same about life after conception). With more parties there would be room for more diversity.
Having said that, right now we have a two party system, and while supporting more parties is important, we also need to figure out how to make the system we have as workable as possible. The party loyalist in me is taking...not joy....but is not exactly saddened to see the Republican party struggle to find it's identity after the recent losses in the elections, and in the view of the electorate. As a Democrat during the Bush years, it was painful at times to see my party divided by bickering, and sidelined by infighting. It is much less painful to watch it happen on the other side of the isle. And yet we need a viable Republican party to keep things in check. The biggest downside of living in Boston, is that my political views aren't challenged that often in my social circle. We all have essentially the same views about how government should be run. It makes for less awkwardness at cocktail parties, but it's not the best way to govern. I wondered why MA often had a republican Governor, even though it is a predominantly democrat state. Now I see the strength in having that balance. I like Patrick much more than Romney (and I think he would make a TERRIBLE candidate for president, especially against Obama), but it's good to have people challenging you on your positions so you can think about them more critically. The trick is for both sides to really THINK, and not just have an entrenched shouting match.
The other thing that is interesting about Steele is the issue of race. There aren't a lot of African American Republicans. D.L. Hughley described the RNC this year as looking like "Nazi Germany". For a racial breakdown of the parties, the Kansas City Star broke down the demographics of the nation, and the two national conventions.
Delegates to the 2008 Republican convention: 93% white, 1.5% African-American, 5% Hispanic, 32% women.
Delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention: 65% white, 23% African-American, 11% Hispanic, 50.1% women.
And I think some of that has to do with the legacy of the republican party and segregation. To this day there seems to be more racial insensitivity coming from the republican party (although one could argue that "Liberal White Guilt" and policies born out of unexamined race/class stereotypes are just as harmful, if more covert). And I think this lack of sensitivity may express itself in policy that is build from a position of privilege, and doesn't recognize just how uneven the playing field actually is. Even Condalezza Rice pointed out the difficulty we have in dealing with racism and the legacy of slavery here.
RICE: [T]hat’s not a very pretty reality of our founding, and I think that particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront [race], hard for us to talk about [race], and hard for us to realize that [race] has continuing relevance for who we are today. … [D]escendents of slaves, therefore, did not get much of a head start. And I think you continue to see some of the effects of that. (from thinkprogress.com)
As much as we would like to believe that Obama signals a "post racial society", I don't think we're there yet. Rice, Powell, and Steele are exceptions that prove the rule. If things truly were equal, there would not be the performance gaps in school, and inequalities in incarceration and the death penalty.
Interestingly, when Steele spoke to Chuck D about hip-hop, he assumed that Chuck came from "the streets", as opposed to someone who was raised in the suburbs of Long Island by political activists, and who went to college. What does it mean that Steele, who is the first African American leader of the Republican party assumes that an African American hip-hop star was from "the street"? Is it about race? Dose Steele see himself as the exception that proves the rule? I think some of it might be an outdated understanding of the larger culture and the culture of hip-hop. The republican message (especially the one that Sarah Palin delivered) focused on "small town america" and the values of an America that I think exists more in the mind than anywhere else. It's not just kids from "urban/suburban settings" that are listening to hip hop. Three of the top five songs in the hot 100 are hip-hop/R&B songs. I don't think they realize how much of hip-hop culture is out there in "small town america".
The interview with Steele has me intrigued. It will be interesting to see how the GOP will respond to him, and any changes he might try to institute. And it will be interesting to see if he is interested in enacting real change in the party platform, or just covering the old planks with some new "bling"
I would LOVE to have some Video of the UMass Drumline rendtion of Paranoid Android. Possibly one of my favorite covers ever (scroll down 3/4 of the way, it's from the 2003 season)
This American Life has done a fantastic job covering the economic crisis with the Planet Money folks. After listening to their three episodes on the situation I feel like I actually understand what is being said on the news. I highly recommend checking it out to get a straightforward explanation of what is happening and how it came to be this way.
The Giant Pool of Money explains how people got mortgages they couldn't possibly afford, and how the inevitable foreclosures have affected Wall Street.
Bad Banks talks about the bank bailouts, how banks work, and how maybe it wasn't shady mortgage lenders after all (Did you know that we currently have a 1:1 debt to GDP ratio? Did you know that the last time that happened was 1929? Are you a little nervous yet?)
Each program is around 1hour, and it's told in a way that is understandable to the average layperson, and is interesting (and not dry). It's definitely time well spent. Or don't, and talk about something you don't really understand, like in the episode A little bit of Knowledge (one of the favorite TAL episodes among my friends)
So, I feel like I should write something, but I'm sick. I went to the emergency room thursday night, and then went to my doctors today. Turns out I have bronchitis.
So, lets examine how much getting bronchitis runs when you have a good, union negotiated, health insurance: 1 trip to ER: $50 1 pro air inhaler $30(!!!) 1 script for cough meds $10 1 pcp visit $15 1 steroid inhaler $30 1 script antibiotics $10
so....that just ran me $145 (and that's not counting the $110 the insurance costs me monthly)
One of the things that is interesting about Asthma is how it is affected by your environment, and that is to some degree a result of your economic status. Kids who grow up in poorer neighborhoods tend to live with more environmental triggers.
So, what does this have to do with anything? Well, just thinking about how much this cost, and how many folks out there DON'T have insurance, I really hope we are able to manage getting health care reform through, so that everyone has access to affordable health care (the US has the 4th highest mortality rate due to respiratory disease out of 16 "developed" countries). Asthma is a condition that can be pretty successfully treated on an outpatient basis, but without insurance the medication is prohibatively expeinsive (I used to take over a hundred dollars worth of inhalers a month, and again, that was WITH good, union negotiated health insurance).
It also makes me grateful for the sacrifices that union members in the past made to make sure that health care was considered a standard benefit. Even if you're not in a union, most of the things that make work life better (standard workweeks, overtime pay, paid sick and vacation time, health coverage) was fought for by unions before you and I punched our first time clock.
Posts
