Super Bowl Ads: Misogyny is Cool Again!

So it seems that the folks at CBS hate gay people (apparently money is tainted by the gay and so no commercial for gay dating sites), but they are cool with the creepy anti-choice folks, oh, and they also detest women.

Super Bowl ads have never been the stuff that gender equality are made of, but I don't remember seeing quite so much hating on women in the past. I will never buy a Dodge anything (not sure that I would have anyway, but that commercial was just vile). I'm pretty sure that whatever the mobile tv thing was will never be something I own either.

From watching Super Bowl commercials one would get the feeling that women are evil and out to destroy the happiness of men. What. The. Fuck?!?

Now, I don't doubt that there are women who would kill to get their very own vagina dentata, but the real data out there says that women have it much harder than men: higher rates of depression, lower pay, more likely to be abused (physically, verbally, sexually). And you don't hear much about successful men feeling like their success has made them bad fathers, or that they must chose. Men can have both. Women get either or.

This isn't all to say that men don't have our own areas of excessive misery, but I'll take being more depressed about a layoff over more likely to be beaten by my significant other any day.

Women have far more freedom and opportunity today than they did 50 years ago, but that the most watched television event in the US (with ~50% female viewership) can be so obviously and painfully misogynistic is depressing and frightening.

I have read several comments about the voice actor for the Dodge commercial being Dexter and that has lead to several...jokes?...along the lines of "I put up with your shit so let me drive a Dodge or I'll kill you." Is it any wonder that Chrysler is dying? What dinosaur thought this commercial was a good idea?

Securitization fix

I don't understand why banks don't have non-FDIC insured accounts that they offer (at higher rates) for people who want to really invest in typical borrowers. Maybe that is what money market accounts do.

It would be easier than investing in the stock market. It might give bank customers somewhat more impetus to pay their loans/credit cards/mortgages on time. It could help people understand finances (which is why banks will hate it...they get better profits through ignorance). Most importantly, by having the accounts not FDIC insured it reduces the need and size of the securities market by essentially internalizing a portion of it.

One of the big reasons people invest outside of banks is because banks tend to pay a crappy return, which is partly because they are greedy, partly because they have to offset the statistical uncertainty (standard accounts allow depositors to take and put in money with little to no charge whenever and in whatever quantities they chose, and also most accounts are designed to not ever have losses so the bank has to reduce payouts to offset the fact that some accounts won't be paid) and partly because they have overhead and FDIC insurance. By offering these accounts banks can pass on some losses, not have to pay as much to maintain (no FDIC) and can penalize early withdrawal or charge for any transaction, like with other investing.

So an auto loan account would pay out, say 75% of the return on auto loans outstanding that the bank has. If the bank is taking in an average of 8% the account would pay 6%. The risk here would be low to moderate. Credit card accounts would carry higher risk, but could see return rates >10%.

Oh What the Hell?

I figure I may as well just start cheering on global warming. I mean, it's going to happen, and it is likely to be devastating to millions if not billions of people on this planet, but the shit isn't really going to hit the fan until I am likely gone.

It is abundantly clear at this point that no matter what the world (particularly scientists) agrees should be done, it just ain't gonna happen. We will have warming. It may raise sea levels by a couple inches or several feet. It could destroy small coastal/island nations or not. It may deplete the ocean and it may cause certain species to flourish. It could cause desertification of much of the world's prime agricultural land, and it could make robust agriculture possible in places that don't support it now (like Siberia and much of Canada/Alaska).

No matter how great a calamity it may become, it's sure to be interesting. Humanity will survive, at some level will continue to thrive. Many will suffer. Many may die.

The curious scientist that I am, if I'm not going to see a world that pushes hard for and embraces the changes that will minimize what is to come (which would also make for a very interesting and likely more fun future), then I'll take getting to see what changes we will have wrought.

Status quo is boring; plus, our current slow death just causes mental anguish.

What Don't they Get?

I understand that the insane practice of filibustering everything as only practiced by Republicans when they are in the minority in the past 15 years or so makes operating in the Senate hard. The thing I don't get, is that there are paths around it: get rid of it, use reconciliation (for budget things), or change it somehow (to what it originally was, or Lieberman-of-old's suggestion that cloture would require fewer votes each time).

What (Democratic) Senators who are allowing themselves and bills to be held hostage by Lieberman and to a lesser extent a few others don't seem to understand is that their allowing one Senator (particularly Joe) to have such power means they will lose elections in coming years.

Why the hell should I vote for either of my Senators when they have zero effectiveness compared to Joe? Why should I vote for a Democrat when they are far less productive than Republicans? I may disagree with Republicans on policy issues, and I may think that they will ruin the country (much) faster, but maybe a bullet to the head is more humane than death by a thousand small cuts.

I wasn't particularly starry eyed last election, but I was cautiously optimistic. I had no idea that such an overwhelming victory, and that such large majorities and so much public support would be so poorly utilized by Democrats. And I am a fairly smart, informed, knowledgeable voter. People with less understanding are likely to be even more upset (or ambivalent). If I am considering not voting (for Democrats in office) next election--and I am--then they should be very worried, and they don't seem to be.

If the country is divided 65-35 on opinion, but 90% of the 35 are enegized to vote and only 45% of the 65 are, then 65% of the country loses. 35% wins, and gets to govern, and we all know that when Republicans (35%) are in power, they accomplish things. They will be more than happy to hit the gas and run us back toward that cliff (and over it) reveling in the speed. Democrats don't want to steer away or brake, however, they just let up on the gas pedal. I'll take the spectacle of flaming death over useless futility any day.

Big Bunny

Ok, you should read the article, but I had to post the picture. The article is actually a couple years old. I'm pretty sure this means that by now N. Korea has turned the above into a weapon of some sort for which one would need a Holy Hand Grenade to combat it.

Main reason I post this is because, again, I don't wholly get why we decide some animals are food and others are companions. Despite my having no (fundamental) problem with meat, I actually can sympathize more with people who are vegetarians because they don't want to kill, cook, and eat any animals than I can with people who have no problem with beef or pork but are horrified that someone would eat a dog.

I can also see an argument for eating down the development ladder such that eating mammals is worse than birds is worse than fish is worse than bugs (like lobster). ...I think birds are higher than fish on that scale; could be wrong though.

I do think that we consume far too much animal protein--particularly in this country where too much of that fraction is from cows and pigs--but arbitrary distinctions about what animals we can and can't eat seems silly, and even somewhat counter productive.

Disconnected Synchronization

I was at a loss for a title after reading this and wanting to say something about it. Then I read this and it became a happy day for title writing (for me and my weirdness).

The pervasiveness of making things girly or manly does seem to have extended quite a way and I'm not a very big fan. The shampoo aisle is loaded down with lots of FOR MEN items and lots of things that are not labeled but that smell like various flowers and fruits--because we all know that women like to buy shampoos, so we have to special label the ones for men, and also because women want to smell like flowers and fruit and men want to smell like...well, I don't know, because descriptions for man scented things are never descriptive of actual smells. I mean, what the hell does "sport" smell like? Because I think of sweat and gym bag funk, and those are not really appealing to me.

I'm pretty sure the marketing department consults frat boys to decide what they want to call something: "Essence of pumpkin pie and sandalwood shall henceforth be 'balls' scent."

I just want to smell clean. I used to think "Thank God for Suave" but now they have jumped into this crap, and they seem to be phasing out their neutral(ish) items (which still have bizarre names like "waterfall" and "ocean breeze"). I would be in a euphoric state (not to mention geek heaven) if some shampoo company would release a product named "Surfactant and EDTA for Hair." I'd pay $10 a bottle for that!

Are there really men out there who are so insecure that they need to have it reinforced that all their products are not for women? And who are these women who buy pink...everything?!? Neverminding that pink used to be a masculine color, who wants everything to be the same color (unless it's black, which is always cool, or, you know, whatever, just like an expression of my individuality)? I don't go out of my way to get blue versions of everything because I'm a boy. I just don't get it I guess.

I don't see a gender identity in my shampoo or toothbrush or tissues or... The way I see it any male who does need that identification must have a pretty damned hard time figuring out on his own if his gonads are external.*

*Of course this makes is frustrating as hell when I feel shoehorned into buying something with the big MAN stamp on it...kind of makes me want to get a pink flowery thing to assert that I am truly aware of and comfortable with my external genetalia :)

Optimism Will Destroy America

So I read this rather depressing take on the state of the US. I'll admit a certain degree of shared pessimism here. There is a powerful drive to cling to hope and a belief that things are better than they are that prevents people from facing up to real challenges. This is not a left or right issue but a human one. People have faith in Obama, or in a well of eternal oil located somewhere on US land, or that science will save us from any problems, or that we will recover because we want to or that the earth is too strong to have problems and scientists are liars.

Climate and energy are MAJOR problems. Transportation is connected with both as is food production and distribution.

As a quick aside for one potential reader: there is a tendency among others, myself included, to fail to see positive potential in the face of problems that do not have solutions which can be discerned. I am very on the fence here.

Apocolypse Soon

At least according to this review of (and) this report.

Not Enough Time For Meaningful Post

So apparently Americans see China as an economic threat. The past nearly 10 years has demonstrated rather effectively that Americans tend to be terrified of silly things while real scary shit has us mostly non-plussed (well, until it explodes a la housing bubble).

China is an economic threat like al qaeda is a legitimate military threat to us. China is insanely heavily dependent on us for their economic well being. We buy the crap they make. For China to become a real economic behemoth they would need to be buying our crap. Their growth is insane because they are so far beneath us in standard of living and they have a massive population. Slight improvements in their structure yield massive jumps in GDP.

For all the noise about how much of our debt they own, that is an investment. They buy our debt so we can subsidize our economy when it falters so we can buy their crap. If we end up in some form of contraction, China will be hit hard. Yes, they also trade with Europe, but the only market that could replace us is their own, but that would require more domestic disposable income, meaning higher prices to manufacture, which would mean higher prices and less exports internationally. If they ever stopped pegging their currency to ours that could happen and it would be good for them. It would also lead to (US) domestic goods being relatively more affordable to produce, so it would probably be good for us too.

Now That's an Idea

I don't read Digby as much as others (too often evokes sympathy anger), and I have a feeling that this suggestion is mostly posited as counter to the asinine abortion tagalong to the House's HCR (Health Care Reform) bill. Still, I completely agree with it.

Homebuyer Credit Should End

I know I took advantage of it. It was really conincidental that I was looking to buy my first place when the credit became available. I priced it into the house (and hope that the homeowners did not, but I really can't know if my realtor told theirs that I was a first time buyer; I hope not), and since I didn't think that home prices had fallen enough, it was helpful.

That said, the program is really (like the tax breaks for mortgage interes) a payout to people sufficiently well off to buy/own a house and that don't really need it. Moreover, it becomes counterproductive if it applies to everyone rather than just first time buyers as it looks like it will.

Tax credits/breaks for homeowners artificially raise the price of housing (much like low interest rates). This is not so much a problem if it only applies to a small subset of potential buyers (like first timers or people in the bottom one or two tax brackets or--and I know this would piss a lot of folks off--minorities). When it applies to all homeowners, however, every sale price gets to be bumped by some amount--in this case the whole price of the credit.

Encouraging home ownership is not really bad, but I don't think it much needs encouragement either, and if all the tax code is really doing is encouraging higher home prices, it should be abandoned. I don't want my house to go down in value but it won't bother me much if it does. Prices are currently (still) too high.

Plus sized?

I realize that the world of modeling is severely fucked up, but it still drives me nuts that normal (if that) women are "plus-sized" and "normal" models are thin enough to be almost invisible save for their heads when viewed from the side.

Dumb thing on CNN talking about "women of all sizes" being gorgeous, but they are really talking about normal women ("plus-sized" models). So 1. plus sized modes are not the equivalent of "women of all sizes" and 2. you have got to be fucking kidding me that some meaningful fraction of the people in this country are going to look at a plus sized model and--because of the small amount of excess body fat that is not noticeable at all when clothed other than giving them nicer curves--say or think "Damn, she's ugly!" Seriously? They are normal sized women and they are fucking models. Of course they are gorgeous.

This is news to the 0.000005% of the population that takes fashion and modeling seriously. For most (particularly heterosexual male) viewers it is just a chance to see some nearly naked lovely ladies on CNN, and for the rest it is a complete waste of time.

(Found the video online.)

Yes, I realize that body image issues have been common for women for some time and are becoming more common among men, but calling plus-sized models "women of all sizes" is problem, not solution.

Deficit Hawks are Morons

If the "fiscal responsibility" gurus of the US Senate and House were actually remotely concerned about the deficit and fiscal responsibility they would be screaming bloody murder about the war in Afghanistan and supporting a health care reform bill with the strongest no-profit option (e.g. public) possible.

Too bad we are ruled by people with a 3rd grade understanding of money and economics (and for that matter, war).

Obama's Major Failing

I've said before that unless the Obama administration rights the wrongs of the Bush administration regarding torture, and the often unlawful prosecution of the war on terror in general, I will not vote for him in 2012.

Glenn Greenwald discusses these things frequently and here is discussing more recent rebukes of the present administration from the New York Times and The Nation (two largely pro-Obama publications). Unlike the hate driven, sometimes racist, and more often than not false criticisms from the tea-bagging right, these are not imaginary accusations. They are based on the real actions that this administration has taken.

Modern (Western) civilization is dependent on the rule of law being absolute. No one person or group can be above the law. The law exists to protect society from each other, from ourselves (on occasion), and from government. If the president, whose job is to enforce the law, is not subject to it, then our society has failed. The threat of losing an election is not adequate punishment for permitting--through failure to prosecute--torture, but it's all I am capable of.

The People Who Need To

Will not be the ones who read and comprehend this. Jenny McCarthy, Robert Kennedy Jr., Glen Beck, and more: anti-scientific, illogical, child endangering fools all. The sad paradox is that hoping for this idiocy to end means hoping for many children to get sick and die, because that is the only thing that will stop it. And if the anti-vaccination crusade continues and grows sick and dying children is exactly what will happen. It's already started; it's just not yet enough.

Maybe if we pass a law that states that any parent whose child dies from a disease preventable by a vaccination they refused can be prosecuted for manslaughter. At least the risk of their gamble will be somewhat shared.

Conflicting Thoughts

On the one hand the attention paid to Prejean and her boobs is ridiculous and certainly does say something about our society in that a woman receives a greater platform and can have more influence on the public dialog by being a ditzy, artificially busty beauty pageant contestant than a woman who actually has informed views or expertise, or more than half a functional brain (those women tend to get attacked, unless they are pretty, in which case they are largely ignored while being stared at).

On the other hand "Princess Jesus Boobies" is hilarious.

You Go Bob!

Bob Herbert's op ed in the Times is great. Until you realize that it is not going to be heeded in any meaningful way. The masters on Wall Street own our collective asses, and while many politicians are doing wonderful jobs complaining about their disgusting practices, it is a bare handful that actually have the will to do something. Both parties are owned by Wall Street and other moneyed interests (like, say, health insurance companies).

The sad fact is that unless we have publicly funded elections this will continue to be the norm--the people/groups that fund candidates have a weighted say in policy, i.e. the poor and middle class will always be screwed--but since publicly funded elections are a threat to entrenched political leaders they are not ever likely to exist.

Words that Fail the Heart

Two beats so close to seem as one
She stares, a question asked, a winsome look
He starts, then stops
Hesitancy ends the turn of phrase
Wondering at what's been lost
For fear of what could not be gained
Conversation renews but less
Fading now
The stuttering beat of his heart now one of loss
He wishes he had spoken
He fears for what would be
His heart beat catches in his throat
That refuses to pass the words it wants
Words he knows have failed him

"I love you"

The beating tries to choke out

There she goes

His friend.
His heart's pain.
It's revenge to come when he's once more alone.

primal

friend lover confidant
those words the ghost he seeks
that one's diaphonous visage in his head
his mind melds so with hers
his heart he opens forth
his body she won't touch
he loves
he leaves
he cries
friend and confidant so true
lover not to be
he screams to the cold night

Peace?

On the one hand Obama really hasn't done anything particularly Nobel Peace Prize worthy (detainees still in Gitmo, torturers running free in the US, still in Iraq, soon to be further into Afghanistan...8 yrs in, Israel still defends firing bazookas at those with slingshots, Hamas and many others in the Mid East still want Israel wiped off the map, and violence in this country seems to be up--fueled by the crazy Obama hatred).

On the other hand, you could pretty much hear the entire world release its collective breath when, on election night 2008, the angry warmonger candidate lost and the thoughtful, (somewhat) anti-war candidate won. With nations less concerned that a crazy US Commander in Chief will decide to randomly bomb them, there's a fair chance they will be more open to dialog. I'm not so sure that there would be any more war if McCain had won, but the world would be a whole lot more nervous.

Update: Matt Taibbi explains my thoughts on this way better than I ever could (what with it being his job, and him being good at it and all).