Sandy

Lots of wind so trees down (image is ~3 blocks from me).  Less rain than I expected (dry basement is nice, particularly when there would not have been power to pump it out).  Power out for 27 hrs.  Frozen foods now safe. 

And this leads me to this article by Kevin Drum, and this one (that I don't agree with quite as much) by George Lakoff.

Yes, hurricanes like Sandy are more likely and more violent as a result of global warming, and yes there is a systemic causation similar to but weaker than smoking and lung cancer (i.e. you can get lung cancer without ever having smoked or even been exposed to smokers, but it is much less likely).  Yet, we are not going to do anything about it because politics...

If you were teaching a graduate seminar in public policy and challenged your students to come up with the most difficult possible problem to solve, they'd come up with something very much like climate change. It's slow-acting. It's essentially invisible. It's expensive to address. It has a huge number of very rich special interests arrayed against doing anything about it. It requires international action that pits rich countries against poor ones. And it has a lot of momentum: you have to take action now, before its effects are serious, because today's greenhouse gases will cause climate change tomorrow no matter what we do in thirty years.

It's depressing, but this will keep happening, and it will get worse, and rather than act to slow or stop it, we will just have to deal.

Winged Angels of Death

No comment.

Cost of College

This post and this followup by John Holbo are pretty depressing reads.  They did make me think a bit about the cost of college and where it [maybe] comes from. 

While I have mostly felt that a sizable portion of the increase in college cost was due to [state] governments cutting or at least not increasing their funding, there is a real cost associated with adding departments/schools/courses and a smaller one with adding and improving other living aspects (the notorious climbing walls). 

John is very pessimistic about the possibility that state funding will ever come back.  I am not really optimistic on that front, but I am somewhat less pessimistic.

Something that wasn't really mentioned and that I do see happening at small levels now is private sponsorship of university.  The current extreme is well represented by Nike's involvement with the University of Oregon, and smaller scale has been happening for quite a while (I'd guess that most people who attended university in the past 20 years found either Coke or Pepsi products in the cafeteria but not both).

I don't really think that that is a particularly good deal either, but as it gets more expensive, it becomes more obvious a route for companies to get good employees.  Granted in our depressed economy this incentive is far less since there are more job seekers than positions, but in times of full employment it makes sense for companies to offer to pay for school in exchange for 5 years at a set salary after graduation.  More likely, as it is more flexible, would be companies offering to pay student loan payments in addition to stated salaries up to a certain amount per year (or to match payments as with 401k's).

Hell, if I were an employer I would consider buying out the student loan entirely to offer a lower interest rate for repayment (though this could be an issue for employees that leave or are laid off).  My guess is that our student loan and tax systems are sufficiently screwed up that a savvy employer could actually profit from this if managed correctly.

So Lots of Inequality is Bad, But What About a Little?

At some level it seems largely self-evident that large inequality (and for that matter widening inequality) is bad for the broader economy.  But that doesn't mean that no inequality is good.  It seems like there should be an optimum, though I've no idea where it would be or whether it would correlate to any other factors.

I'm pretty liberal in a lot of ways, but if we lived in a society where everyone was perfectly equal (like in The Dispossessed) then we would have little incentive for anyone to do their best.  I don't begrudge success, I just don't think that anyone can possibly be worth $1 billion while others starve.

As I see it the solution is pretty simple: much more progressive taxation, especially for very high income individuals, combined with more generous social insurance programs that improve the baseline living conditions for the poorest among us.  People that can't or simply don't want to work shouldn't own mansions but they shouldn't starve on the streets either.

We are wealthy enough as a nation that we should be able to provide shelter with basic amenities, food, clothing, (public) transportation, and medical care to everyone.  A little work can afford a few low end luxuries (TV, alcohol, PS3, nicer furniture, car), and major innovation/development would still allow someone to buy a redicu-house and a few Ferrari/Hummers.

Parsing Reasons

Should a progressive vote for Obama?  Until the choice of Paul Ryan the answer was, at best, "maybe".  There were very good reasons to vote for and to not vote for (there were and are no good reasons for any human being to vote for Romney...well, maybe family).  Still there is some pretty bad thinking in this realm, and I've seen lots of "reasons" that were not.  This comes from an email and was written (afaik) by Paul and/or Karen Barton.

Supreme Court
If Mitt Romney becomes President, he will be choosing the next one, two or three Supreme Court Justices.  Appointing Supreme Court Justices may be the single most significant action any President takes.  It profoundly steers law, public policy and culture for perpetuity.  If progressive voters don’t go to the polls to re-elect President Obama they might find themselves losing rights and privileges that they have taken for granted their entire lives.

The most compelling reason is the supreme court.  Those are lifetime nominations and the most lasting way that a president affects policy in the United States.

Congress
A Romney victory would likely bring with it a large GOP majority in the House and quite possibly a Republican Senate as well, and hence a tsunami of regressive legislation.

This is bad cause and effect.  This is only a true statement if everyone who votes for Democrats down ballot also votes for Obama and Romney wins.  If Romney wins because progressives do not vote for Obama, but they do vote down ballot, then the statement no longer holds. 

Health Care/Affordable Care Act
Democrats, under President Obama, believe health care is a right and want all Americans to be covered by health insurance.  The Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not achieve that goal but it moves the ball a lot closer to the goal line than it was before the ACA was enacted.  Universal coverage is not a goal for Republicans.  Mitt Romney has vowed to begin dismantling the ACA as one of his first actions as President.  This would mean the return of the “donut hole,” the loss of coverage for adult children up to the age of 26 and those with pre-existing or high risk conditions, the loss of free preventive exams, the loss of contraception with no co-pay and the reinstatement of lifetime and annual limits on coverage.

Meh.  It was also Romney's fucking health care bill.  Not sure if he'll really walk it back, especially since he keeps pointing to things he would keep, but if he does: it will be a Republican plan taken down.

Medicare
President Obama’s proposed Medicare savings are achieved through payment reductions to vendors, service delivery innovations and increased efforts to reduce fraud, waste and abuse.  There will be no reduction in benefits to seniors under his plan and the money saved will be turned back into the health insurance system, delaying insolvency and extending the fiscal security of Medicare for eight years.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) agrees that the ACA actually reduces the deficit.

Mitt Romney will raise the eligibility age to 67 and turn Medicare into a voucher system...The money saved from current levels of Medicare spending under the Romney plan would be spent on tax cuts for the rich.

Meh.  Again, Romney isn't proposing anything that will take effect in his administration.  Funny thing about congress: just because they pass a law today doesn't mean it will still be the law tomorrow.

Medicaid
Mitt Romney would eliminate the existing matching-grant financing structure of Medicaid and would instead give each state a predetermined block grant.  States would be forced to reduce their spending and lower the size of their Medicaid programs by such measures as cutting payment rates for doctors, hospitals, or nursing homes; reducing the scope of benefits covered; or limiting eligibility. 

An Urban Institute analysis of the Ryan budget proposal from last year found block grants would lead states to drop between 14 million and 27 million people from Medicaid by 2021 and cut reimbursements to health care providers by 31%.

Medicaid is issue 2 where I see a meaningful difference.  Maybe not as lasting, and easier to undo, but it will hurt people in the meantime.

Social Security
Mitt Romney’s Social Security plan would, by 2032, raise the normal retirement age from 67 to 70, and adopt “progressive price indexing” which would reduce the future growth rate of benefits for the top 60 percent of earners. (Their initial retirement benefits would partly reflect inflation but not overall wage growth during their careers.)  Wealthy retirees would get fewer benefits.  Vice-President Biden has pledged, “Number one, I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security.”

Right now, I trust neither party to maintain SS, Biden's comment notwithstanding.  It was part of the shitty "Grand Bargain" that Obama spent a fucking year distracted by and pushing for. 

LGBT Rights
President Obama believes in a future where no one is denied rights because of who they are or whom they love.   He supports LGBT rights including the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and marriage equality and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOM).  Mitt Romney opposes ENDA and will actively push for a constitutional amendment to take away the rights of states to voluntarily extend marriage equality to same-sex couples. The GOP platform calls for a ban on marriage equality nationwide.

I think this is a meaningful difference, but without substance.  Society has become much more accepting of LGBT people and rights in the past decade and the trend seems to be accelerating.  If the GOP tried to do this it would only hasten their demise.  That said, it could certainly make a very large difference to individuals.

Immigration
President Obama supports creating a legal immigration system that reflects American values and diverse needs.  In contrast to Mitt Romney who wants undocumented immigrants to “self-deport,” the Obama administration has developed a program of deferred action for childhood arrivals, a discretionary determination to defer removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion so that children of undocumented immigrants can work, attend school or serve in the US military without fear of deportation.  Mitt Romney has stated he would repeal the Dream Act  --  which President Obama supports  --  should it pass and the GOP platform states that federal funding should be denied to universities that provide instate tuition rates to illegal aliens.

Similar to LGBT rights, but not as clear cut.  The GOP has in the past (their last president) supported pretty good comprehensive immigration reform: better than anything I've heard from Obama, who has bragged about deporting more illegal immigrants than his predecessor.

Equal Pay for Women
President Obama supports women’s rights to equal pay and signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as one his first acts as President.  It took Mitt Romney days to say he would not repeal the Act.

Reproductive Justice
Unlike Mitt Romney who as recently as the Fall of 2011 expressed support for legislation which would declare a fertilized egg a person and vowed to defund Planned Parenthood, President Obama supports a woman’s right to reproductive freedom including access to safe and legal abortions and birth control.  To this end, the ACA includes a provision now in effect that contraception be covered by health insurance without co-pay.  This year's GOP platform calls for a federal ban on abortion without an exception for rape or incest, supports a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorses legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.  The Romney campaign website states that “the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

Ok, women's rights are the next biggest reason to vote Obama (between Supreme Court and Medicaid)

Education
Obama recognizes the importance of education in assuring individuals are self-sufficient and productive.  President Obama wants to improve ALL the schools, especially the lowest-achieving.  The center piece of Mitt Romney’s education policy is school choice.  He wants to take existing funds which are given without conditions to the states and use them to encourage vouchers, charter schools, and the use of online learning technology, and use federal incentives to have high-stakes tests be a major determinant for the allocation of funds.

Education is a major issue and Democrats really aren't doing much better there than Republicans at the federal level.  The single best thing that could be done is massive, temporary increase in aid to states so that they can hire back some of the fired teachers.  Neither party is really advocating that, and both are talking reforms that are questionable at best.

Home Foreclosures
President Obama has designed programs to assist homeowners whose houses are in danger of foreclosure.  Mitt Romney would not act to prevent foreclosures and he advocates letting housing “hit the bottom.”

...Um, no, he didn't.  Sorry but HAMP was useless and the gift to banks who illegally foreclosed in the one settlement was just insane.  Obama has done effectively zero, Romney just admits he wants to do zero.

Environment
President Obama supports regulations to protect our air, water and food.  Mitt Romney advocates removing many of the existing protections.  He has stated “The idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us." He would seek to have Congress amend the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to assure that costs are taken into account and that, when regulations are really necessary because of “compelling human health reasons,” industry is given an extensive lead time to come into compliance so that corporate interests are not sacrificed at the altar of human health.

Mitt Romney’s website does not contain the words “environment,” “global warming” or “climate change” and the biggest laugh line of his nomination acceptance speech mocked President Obama’s promise to address the negative effects of climate change.

There has been more advancement in oil drilling under Obama than there was under Bush.  Toss in fracking, and a continued use of the oxymoronic phrase "clean coal" and we currently have a regressive president on the environment.  Romney may be worse, but, frankly, that would be a challenge. Special note: the GOP denial of fact here is insane, so minor point to Obama, but he really hasn't done or advocated for anything that gives him marks here.

Unions
President Obama has fought hard and weighed in firmly in favor of unions.  He championed the Employee Free Choice Act and secured a more politically sympathetic National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  He issued an executive order that federal agencies should consider requiring union-friendly Project Labor Agreements and he weighed in during the Wisconsin labor standoff in support of collective bargaining rights.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has stated he would, mostly via executive order, on Day One, end preference for unionized companies in government contracting; end Project Labor Agreements; fight to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act; oppose the Employee Free Choice Act; fight for right-to-work laws; undercut the ability of the NLRB to do its job; and prevent unions from being able to spend member dues on political activity without the express approval of the individual members.

Two words: "card check".  In a neutral world Obama gets a C- for this, as a Democrat he deserves an F.  Yea, Romney would be worse, but it isn't like unions have been doing great under Obama.

Finance Reform/Wall Street
President Obama supports regulations to protect consumers from abuse by financial institutions as evidenced by passage of the Dodd-Frank Act which included the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Mitt Romney advocates the repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act and its replacement with a “streamlined, modern regulatory framework” that “creates a simple, predictable, and efficient regulatory system.”  No details are provided on what this “modern regulatory framework” would look like or how he could get such a system through the new Congress.

Seriously?  No.  The extent to which Obama's administration has been captured by Wall Street is offensive. Romney would probably be worse, but after Obama that is almost not possible.

Campaign
President Obama supports a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, the DISCLOSE act which would force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, and legislation prohibiting the bundling of campaign contributions from lobbyists.  While Mitt Romney, legendary in his support of expansive corporate power, originally stated Citizens United was "the right decision," he later stated that laws limiting political donations are too restrictive.  He prefers supporters contribute directly to campaigns rather than to super PACs that do not always act as the candidates wish.

Meh.  Roll this one into Supreme Court and toss it.  We are not going to get any new amendments under either and there is zero chance of major restructuring to campaign finance. 

Social Safety Network
Mitt Romney rants against a “culture of dependency” or an “entitlement society” and advocates huge cuts in social programs such as heating/cooling assistance, WIC, employment training, day care and mental health services in order to maintain or bolster the military and give tax breaks to the “job creators.”  The GOP program has been referred to as Social Darwinism, a model which was rejected in the 20th century: reward the rich, penalize the poor and let everyone else fend for themselves.  The inevitable excesses of free-market greed are freed from regulation in their plan.

President Obama believes that a just society cares for children, the sick and the disabled, feeds the hungry, and shelters the homeless.  He rejects the notion that each of us is on our own in a competitive contest for survival.  He supports the social safety network which includes such protections as Unemployment Insurance and Food Stamps.

President Obama has learned from the tragic consequences of the draconian reductions in spending that we have seen in Europe and rejects that path.  He believes, as do Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and other Keynesian economists, that if we stimulate the economy through aid to the states and infrastructure spending, the debt will take care of itself.  Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics; the CBO; the Center of Economic and Policy Research; and the Economic Policy Institute believe that every dollar spent on such benefits as Unemployment Insurance and Food Stamps generates more than a dollar in near-term GDP because people in need spend these grants immediately.

For example, every dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates an estimated $1.63 in near-term GDP.   Boosting food stamp payments by $1 increases GDP by $1.73.

Yea but...when he had the chance to do right here, he gave us a stimulus with 40% tax cuts.

Taxes
Among the series of tax changes Mitt Romney has proposed are: reducing individual income tax rates across the board by 20 percent, maintaining the Bush administration-era tax rate of 15 percent on investment income from dividends and capital gains (and eliminating this tax entirely for those with annual incomes less than $200,000), cutting the top tax rate on corporations from 35 percent to 25 percent, and eliminating the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax.  Under the Ryan budget Mitt Romney would pay less than 1% on his income.

Unlike the examples above in which social safety net dollars spent generate increases in GDP,  the tax cuts Mitt Romney proposes generate decreases in near-term GDP.  Making the Bush tax cuts permanent as he proposes generates only $0.31 in near-term GDP,  cutting the corporate tax rate generates only $0.30 and making dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent generates only $0.38.  Non-partisan analyses of Romney’s tax plan have estimated that it could add more than $3 trillion to the federal deficit, and would favor the highest-earning Americans, possibly raising annual taxes on middle-class earners by as much as $2,000.

In keeping with his understanding that a budget is a moral document, President Obama believes that the deficit is best addressed by reasonable progressive taxation and responsible economic stimulus.  In addition to eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000, calling on the wealthiest Americans to pay more in taxes, President Obama’s plan would lower the nation’s corporate tax rate to 28 percent while at the same time boosting overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.

Tax cuts for rich people is the only thing Republicans truly believe.  Unfortunately Obama's counter is weak and doesn't leave him in any position to compromise.  I don't think it is so terrible to suggest raising taxes even on people making only $100k/yr (note: snark), but I'm not nearly as conservative as Obama.

Energy
Mitt Romney's energy plan is a rehash of the top priorities of the Big Oil and Big Coal representatives who recently joined him at a fundraiser: the end of numerous safeguards for public health, the gutting of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the surrender of our public lands and offshore areas to drilling and mining, and the destruction of tens of thousands of American clean energy jobs.

The Obama Administration has launched the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and gas regulation and oversight in U.S. history to ensure that our nation can safely and responsibly expand development of offshore energy resources.  President Obama supports more efficient cars, trucks, homes, factories and other buildings. The Obama administration has just announced a new fuel efficiency standard of 54.5 MPG for new vehicles sold in 2025.  These new standards will result in 570,000 new jobs, reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day, save $1.7 trillion at the pump, and reduce carbon pollution by more than 6 billion metric tons, a 10% drop.  Under President Obama’s leadership greenhouse gas emissions are down to their lowest level in 20 years. We're using less oil; U.S. wind power has doubled over the last four years; and solar has grown by a factor of five.

Ok, fuck you, and see above on the environment. 

The Arts
In a recent interview in Politico, Mitt Romney stated his intention to cut all federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, PBS and NPR.  While President Obama has decreased allocations for the principal cultural agencies in recent budgets in a recession-inspired attempt to reduce overall expenses, he has included a modest increase in the allocations for the NEA, NEH and other cultural organizations in his 2013 budget.  There is a clear impetus to use innovative programming and educational efforts to achieve Obama administration goals in this area.

Ok, I'll bite...no, I won't.  I strongly believe in NEA and think that we should have public television and radio, and there is a meaningful difference, but it is a small big picture issue (though, again, large to some individuals).

All these points also ignore Obama's reprehensible kill-random-people-with-drones-then-just-label-all-the-males-"enemy combatants"-because-we-said-so program.  For any liberal the "wars" on terror and drugs provide plenty of reasons not to vote for this president (and Romney would be exactly the same).

The selection of Ryan pushed things a bit over the edge for me on a combination of taxes, regulation and the roll of government in the lives of people, but the fact remains that Obama has been really bad on all those issues, and until the selection of Ryan, Romney had been pretty much at the exact same point as Obama.  Not better, but not really much worse either. 

A Post That Could Only Have Been Written by a Harvard Grad

While I understand and follow everything Dylan says in this piece I'm pretty sure that it takes a pretty pretentious ass to come to his conclusion.  The data out there says that with the exception of Harvard and to a much lesser extent Yale and a handful of top top tier universities, where you go to college (provided you graduate) makes approximately zero difference in your earning potential, and there is no fucking way that all those people who take advantage of the scholarship would have ended up at Harvard instead.

Maybe the people who took the scholarship were less enthused about college than those who did not.  Maybe those who took the scholarship were more likely to be in the bottom part of that top 25% and had fewer scholarship options outside of the Massachusetts one, and so didn't actually fare worse than if they hadn't taken it.  Maybe they are happier as a result (I know student loan debt pisses me off).

It's just a really bad bit of writing.  There are plenty of real reasons that Romney would be a horrible president, you don't need to try and twist crap like this around to use against him.

Pet Peeve

I do not understand hotel in room entertainment decisions.  Hotel rooms have TV's, most now days are the flat screen models that come (standard) with HDMI inputs.  I have a small laptop computer with an HDMI jack.  I should be able to plug that into the TV, switch the input over, and watch my computer on the TV to play a game or stream Netflix or just browse the web from bed.  But often this is not possible because hotels have either blocked access to the ports or restricted the ability for the TV input to be switched over to them.

If many/most of the TV's made today lacked HDMI ports then this could be seen as saving them money, but that isn't the case.  These are specially setup TV's just for the hotels that are deliberately preventing me from using them in some way that makes them useful to me: basically the hotel is going out of its way to provide a worse service/product.  If the hotel provided some alternative that they charged for that might make sense, but they don't.  My computer entertainment options are not available through the hotel, so they are not making things worse to get a bit more money out of me, they are just making things worse. 

Mini-fridges that are not useful because they are stocked with crap I won't buy, and internet access that costs way too much are at least somewhat different.  These piss me off too, but at least there is a "hotel can get some money from this" side to it.  Just because I am not going to take a $7 beer out of that doesn't mean someone else won't. 

And of course, the more the hotel room costs the more likely it is you have to put up with this crap.  Super 8's are not the height of, well, anything, but free internet, free breakfast (mediocre, but free), useful fridge (when they have one, maybe, it's been a while), accessible TV's (again, maybe not anymore), and the ability to stay there with my dog make them a whole lot more customer oriented than any Hilton or Westin I've stayed at.

Of course, cheap hotels can also be a crap shoot.  In small towns where they are the only chain hotel they are often nicer, while in bigger/destination cities, they are much more likely to be nasty.

Also, Too, Technocrats

I actually do understand the sentiment Atrios mentions here, particularly among a subset of the well educated.  The thought process is fairly simple:

Really smart, capable people can come up with some solution X to problem Y, but most people won't understand it so wouldn't it be great if we just had a system where said really smart capable person were also pushy enough to get whatever she wants and just implements great ideas?

It actually seems really convincing at some level, but it ignores a few things. The biggest is that two different but equally smart and capable people could come to different solutions to the same problem.  This is even more likely if the problem and/or solution is complex.

So what happens when both are also really pushy and get their way?  The answer is either gridlock, or compromise, or taking turns trying things, with voters switching things off if they go poorly, i.e. the system we have.

There are still problems of course, and since it seems one of them is that Republicans have way more pushy people who get their way, the idea the Democrats need some of those too makes sense.  In the past 20 years (some may say >30) Republicans have managed to get a lot of their policy passed by being assholes.  I don't think that putting Democratic assholes in is necessarily the right answer, but the alternative seems to be people who roll over and give Republicans more wins than they should get.

[Another big flaw with the thought is: what happens when an idea that seems smart actually has a major flaw--like with the Euro--but the implementer is the pushy one who gets his way?]

Seems Like A Bad Idea

Apple's new "Lightning" connectors seemed like a bad idea out of the box to me, but the way they are designed to make it very unlikely to get good, inexpensive spares and replacements really seems bad.

Up through the 4s, it didn't make too much difference between Android and Apple.  The top of the line androids were faster and had more features, and better access (file transfer issues) but there wasn't really a practical difference for 99% of users.  The 5 however seems to have screwed themselves over. Nevermind their new garbage maps program replacing Google, the new connector is a real head-scratcher.

Already people who have accessories for older Apple devices are no longer locked into future Apple products which won't be compatible (without adapter).  But the expense of buying a few extras is a little obscene.  I like to have at least 4 charging/usb cables: one for home, one for work, one for the car and one for travel.  For Android phone those are standard micro-USB and you can get a dozen for less than $20.  For the previous Apple jacks, the non-branded ones were close in price.  Now instead of $10 for all the connectors you want it is likely to cost >$100.

I've never been a huge apple fan, but I got an iphone (3g), I thought the ipods were excellent, and I even liked some of their computers (other than the very overpriced aspect).  Really, though, Apple products mostly offer a high cost premium for user friendly but often substandard otherwise products and so are primarily for people with plenty of spare cash who don't actually care about performance. 

(I was tempted to use the term "Rich idiots" but that really isn't fair: there is no meaningful performance difference for the vast majority of people, and apple does have more apps, but it does speak to a selection of style over substance and a willingness to light a couple hundred dollars on fire for it.)

Things I can't get too excited about...

Ikea removing women from ads.  Ads exist to sell things.  If showing women in a bikinis helps to sell, then companies do that.  If adding a dog or cat helps to sell, then companies do that.  So it seems pretty obvious that a company trying to sell into a very misogynistic society that finds images of women to be highly offensive, would not show images of women.  I suppose they could have removed all the people so that it was less...obvious?...but if people in the ads helps sales, and women hurt, then you will see ads with people but not women. 

Now, the anti-woman attitude in Saudi Arabia is certainly highly offensive, and anyone who is really offended about this should be offended that Ikea is selling there at all, not that they removed women from the ads.  Maybe Ikea should be trying to change the world by opening a store then publishing an ad that will offend the people who could shop there?  Maybe by offending some, Ikea could have reaped huge rewards from all the women who would come to purchase things there in support?  ...Or maybe it's all a clever ruse, and after they sell a certain amount they will announce that the entire supply chain producing furniture for Saudi Arabia was composed of lesbians...lesbians who had sex on all the furniture before it shipped infecting it with the highly contagious lesbianacervix bacterium which makes male dangly bits turn to sand and fall off.

Or maybe Ikea wants to make money and it's cheap and easy to Photoshop out the women...

Large companies can--and it is admirable when they do--challenge the status quo and be a force for good, but I don't really expect it of them--though maybe I should--and I get a little confused when other people do.  In reality the bigger the company, the less concern it has for anything other than profit.  Smaller companies and businesses care about their workers because the CEO has to see them every day.  They care about the community because it affects their workers and because they live there (or at least have to drive through).

Feel the Love

I think Philly.com has the absolute worst people on the planet populating their comment section.  An article about feeding kids breakfast at schools and the entire comments section is populated with people bitching about "their tax dollars" spent on kids whose parents suck.  Now, even if all those parents are drug-addled, child-endangering miscreants, how shitty a person do you have to be to think that feeding hungry children is a waste of money?

Update: It seems they have removed all the comments. Not sure scrubbing off the vile is the appropriate response, but whatevs