Showing posts with label culture war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture war. Show all posts
Thursday, April 03, 2014
Family Leave
We should have it, and it should be very much like that in Sweden. Oddly, it's an issue that traditional conservatives should embrace along with the liberals, except that it runs hard up against the corporate conservatism that actually owns the Republican party (and yes, it largely owns the Democratic party as well).
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Horrible People
I'm not sure that the [type of] "men" referenced by Fiona Loyd-Davies were ever in touch with reality when it comes to rape. This isn't new. What is really shocking is that any woman, anywhere, no matter how conservative, can vote for any Republican. I think the GOP has more respect for the gays than the ladies and their lady parts.
Also, the whole Assange thing is just beyond weird. I'm not even sure how to have an opinion on that without a series of if-then statements or sounding like a conspiracy nut or ass hole or something. I will say it is possible that he is both guilty and has legitimate fears regarding extradition to the US.
Also, the whole Assange thing is just beyond weird. I'm not even sure how to have an opinion on that without a series of if-then statements or sounding like a conspiracy nut or ass hole or something. I will say it is possible that he is both guilty and has legitimate fears regarding extradition to the US.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Continued Bad Statistics of the Gender Wage Gap and Why it Shouldn't Matter
Yes, there is a gender wage gap. Yes, some fraction (maybe a lot maybe very little) is due to discrimination. No, I don't think people should harp on the numbers because the statistics in this case are just not very good, and Bryce is a bit misleading in the numbers she casually tosses out in the above linked piece.
The best numbers available are probably from Gov Accountability Office (GAO), where they make a major effort to factor out life choices, and that effort cuts the pay gap by more than 50% (the report covers 1983 - 2000 so you can't compare those results directly to the current gap as she did) so the 21% gap that results is compared to a 44% uncorrected gap, which is much larger than the current 23% gap and could imply that the corrected gap today is anywhere from ~20% to less than 5% to anything between. The infuriating thing is the numbers/statistics squabbling. The issue of fair pay should be an easy one for everyone to get behind. If discrimination is a huge issue then enacting laws that counter that is necessary and will do good things for women and families. If discrimination is a complete non-issue, then enacting laws preventing discrimination will lead to no improvement because there is nothing to fix.
Just pass and enact the damned laws! If the pay gap shrinks, we'll know it works, if it doesn't we will know that there is more going on and we will have information on where to look next.
The best numbers available are probably from Gov Accountability Office (GAO), where they make a major effort to factor out life choices, and that effort cuts the pay gap by more than 50% (the report covers 1983 - 2000 so you can't compare those results directly to the current gap as she did) so the 21% gap that results is compared to a 44% uncorrected gap, which is much larger than the current 23% gap and could imply that the corrected gap today is anywhere from ~20% to less than 5% to anything between. The infuriating thing is the numbers/statistics squabbling. The issue of fair pay should be an easy one for everyone to get behind. If discrimination is a huge issue then enacting laws that counter that is necessary and will do good things for women and families. If discrimination is a complete non-issue, then enacting laws preventing discrimination will lead to no improvement because there is nothing to fix.
Just pass and enact the damned laws! If the pay gap shrinks, we'll know it works, if it doesn't we will know that there is more going on and we will have information on where to look next.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Um...K
So the contraception "compromise" is in and so what? Doesn't change the outcome (women will still get contraception coverage) so it really isn't any different. The cost shifting is more-or-less meaningless as the church still pays for insurance, and that insurance will still have coverage, the church is, effectively, going to be paying for coverage. The insurance companies may redistribute the cost so that other people will pay more and the church pay less, but really, so what?
Mysteriously, however, the compromise made some people (well, pundits) happy. That really doesn't make sense. I'm happy, because, basically nothing changed, and similarly the bishops [should be] unhappy because...basically nothing changed. Their complaint wasn't that the cost was too much but that they oppose contraception (a patently stupid position, particularly for the anti-abortion crowd...who actually object to unapproved fucking and don't really care about women's or children's health at all). They oppose contraception, and were being forced to buy plans that provide contraception. Nothing changed except they pay a little less.
Meanwhile this bullshit problem would never exist if we had done health care properly (Medicare for everyone!) instead of enacting GOP health care reform.
Mysteriously, however, the compromise made some people (well, pundits) happy. That really doesn't make sense. I'm happy, because, basically nothing changed, and similarly the bishops [should be] unhappy because...basically nothing changed. Their complaint wasn't that the cost was too much but that they oppose contraception (a patently stupid position, particularly for the anti-abortion crowd...who actually object to unapproved fucking and don't really care about women's or children's health at all). They oppose contraception, and were being forced to buy plans that provide contraception. Nothing changed except they pay a little less.
Meanwhile this bullshit problem would never exist if we had done health care properly (Medicare for everyone!) instead of enacting GOP health care reform.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Komen Needs a Cure For Stupid
Oh, well. Hopefully this means I will stop seeing pink crap everywhere. In the meantime, read this and donate to Planned Parenthood.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
How To Be Wrong...
A philly.com commenter says:
Paragraph two makes a rather outlandish, though false claim (it's a wonder that anyone not on welfare believes those who are have such a cushy life). Then he asks a rather serious question: why should a poor person work?
This is the real issue, and a real problem. If you are poor, there is actually very little financial incentive to work. There is a self esteem reason to work, but the second that you have, say, a medical emergency even that would go out the window. These programs going away at certain income levels corresponds to an infinite marginal tax rate at that income point.
So this poster clearly understands the problem in how the US handles welfare and it's inherent disencentive to work, so you would think that he would then want to reform welfare programs to fix this, but you would be wrong. He just wants to bitch and moan, and kick anyone he doesn't like off welfare, listing off all the evil money sucking programs that those lucky poor, unemployed people have...Also, free public schools? Really? Because, you know, those are available for everyone, including the children of the 1%. If they aren't good enough for your kids, then maybe you should want to improve them.
This is frustrating because while he clearly understands the problem--other than the school thing--he doesn't actually want to fix it, he just wants to make sure that poor people suffer even more. The thing is that there is a fix, and one that doesn't doom us to a society with a permanent poor class, but it runs counter to just about every bit of conservative orthodoxy out there: expand welfare so that you are not penalized for work/success.
So long as we believe that Americans shouldn't starve, shouldn't be forced to live destitute lives, and shouldn't have to be fortunate enough to be born to not-poor parents to have a chance at a decent life, then we need a welfare system that ensures those things. But if that welfare system is not generous enough to actually help people out, then it will keep them as a permanent welfare class. The only way to get people off welfare is for welfare to be sufficiently generous that that can happen.
The single biggest help to welfare and America would be guaranteed medical coverage for everyone (e.g. single payer). That is the single biggest line item in asshole commenter's bitchy list. Next is to improve education. It is already free through high school--though not very equitably distributed--it should be free through (state) college as well. Most of the rest of his bitchyitems are small potatoes, and are actually pretty well managed and setup compared to the first two. Housing is probably the third thing on the list in terms of dollars, though SNAP is probably higher in terms of priority.
As for his list of things poor people have but shouldn't...
5 year cost of Xbox with a dozen total games plus a 40" lcd to play them on: ~$800
1 year, cost of groceries for a single, relatively thrifty adult: over $1000
Food isn't very expensive, but it costs a lot more to eat than it does to play video games, even on a fancy television. One would think that someone from the 1% would be aware of this...particularly since he probably spends more than $250/month for just his share of the food eaten.
I think this needs to be expanded. Let's look at all assets of food stamp and welfare moochers. Have a social worker show up unannounced and count, the cell phones, LCD televisions, X-Boxes, Designer Clothing, rims, tinting and sound systems on the exempt cars, earrings and chains to come up with the asset test. In addition to drug testing, they should be forced on to birth control.This is an interesting post. Paragraph one hits all the stereotypes for welfare recipients, including plenty of dog whistle ones...perhaps so that poor whites on welfare know this poster doesn't mean them. Also, note that he wants forced birth control then later bitches that they get birth control for free.
Our safety net is now a hammock for the welfare class. Our government has enabled people to be lazy. You have to ask why should these people getting benefits go out and work? Currently with all of the state and federal benefits you can get:
Free Healthcare (Medicade)
Free Housing (Section 8)
Free Food (Food Stamps)
Free Education (Public Schools or Grants)
Free Cash (Welfare Payments)
Free Cellphones (Assurant Wireless)
Free Utilities (LIHEAP)
Free Birthcontrol (Thanks Obama!)
Free School Meals (Federal School Lunch Program)
Not too shabby!! The funny part is people like me an by [sic] wife who are in the evil 1% pay for this stuff. And I am really getting tired of it!
Paragraph two makes a rather outlandish, though false claim (it's a wonder that anyone not on welfare believes those who are have such a cushy life). Then he asks a rather serious question: why should a poor person work?
This is the real issue, and a real problem. If you are poor, there is actually very little financial incentive to work. There is a self esteem reason to work, but the second that you have, say, a medical emergency even that would go out the window. These programs going away at certain income levels corresponds to an infinite marginal tax rate at that income point.
So this poster clearly understands the problem in how the US handles welfare and it's inherent disencentive to work, so you would think that he would then want to reform welfare programs to fix this, but you would be wrong. He just wants to bitch and moan, and kick anyone he doesn't like off welfare, listing off all the evil money sucking programs that those lucky poor, unemployed people have...Also, free public schools? Really? Because, you know, those are available for everyone, including the children of the 1%. If they aren't good enough for your kids, then maybe you should want to improve them.
This is frustrating because while he clearly understands the problem--other than the school thing--he doesn't actually want to fix it, he just wants to make sure that poor people suffer even more. The thing is that there is a fix, and one that doesn't doom us to a society with a permanent poor class, but it runs counter to just about every bit of conservative orthodoxy out there: expand welfare so that you are not penalized for work/success.
So long as we believe that Americans shouldn't starve, shouldn't be forced to live destitute lives, and shouldn't have to be fortunate enough to be born to not-poor parents to have a chance at a decent life, then we need a welfare system that ensures those things. But if that welfare system is not generous enough to actually help people out, then it will keep them as a permanent welfare class. The only way to get people off welfare is for welfare to be sufficiently generous that that can happen.
The single biggest help to welfare and America would be guaranteed medical coverage for everyone (e.g. single payer). That is the single biggest line item in asshole commenter's bitchy list. Next is to improve education. It is already free through high school--though not very equitably distributed--it should be free through (state) college as well. Most of the rest of his bitchyitems are small potatoes, and are actually pretty well managed and setup compared to the first two. Housing is probably the third thing on the list in terms of dollars, though SNAP is probably higher in terms of priority.
As for his list of things poor people have but shouldn't...
5 year cost of Xbox with a dozen total games plus a 40" lcd to play them on: ~$800
1 year, cost of groceries for a single, relatively thrifty adult: over $1000
Food isn't very expensive, but it costs a lot more to eat than it does to play video games, even on a fancy television. One would think that someone from the 1% would be aware of this...particularly since he probably spends more than $250/month for just his share of the food eaten.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Halloween Costumes
Costumes in general are either a "character" costume like Batman, or a "stereotype" costume like an American Indian in headdress (or the every-adult-female costume which can be summed up as sexy-[something]). Costumes that boil cultures down to stereotypes can range from fine, to borderline racist to way over the line. Still, this campaign is a bit off for me. It seems like there are definite lines that can be crossed, but some cultural (inspired) costumes are not inherently stereotypical, and some stereotypical costumes not necessarily cultural (in the same way). Take, for example, a samurai costume.
A samurai is definitely Japanese culture, pretty much in the same way that a cowboy or sheriff is American culture. An American wearing a samurai costume isn't representing the entirety of Japanese society any more than a Japanese person wearing a old west sheriff outfit is representing all of America. (I would argue the same about a geisha costume, which is among the pictures.) In particular, with the increasing popularity of anime and magna, I would expect increasing prevalence of Japanese-culture costumes in coming years. This strikes me as evidence that Japanese culture is becoming more accepted and acceptable...and better understood.
In the article, when Professor Jelani Cobb notes:
I think that it comes down to, not whether a costume is cultural or stereotypical, but whether the spirit behind that stereotype is good or bad is the real issue. A white midwesterner in blackface and bling talking about "slappin' da hoes" is being a jackass at the very least. A white guy in Alabama who spent a year living in Barrow AK dressing as an Inuit in a traditional parka is probably not. And yes, there would likely be people who found that offensive. There are also probably Americans who would find Russians stereotyping us as cowboys offensive. Tough shit.
Stereotypes are often our first introduction to new cultures, in large part because they are distinctive. As such they can be useful and help people start to learn about a new culture, and, frankly, people that see a geisha and think that all Japanese (or worse all Asian) women are like that are morons.
A samurai is definitely Japanese culture, pretty much in the same way that a cowboy or sheriff is American culture. An American wearing a samurai costume isn't representing the entirety of Japanese society any more than a Japanese person wearing a old west sheriff outfit is representing all of America. (I would argue the same about a geisha costume, which is among the pictures.) In particular, with the increasing popularity of anime and magna, I would expect increasing prevalence of Japanese-culture costumes in coming years. This strikes me as evidence that Japanese culture is becoming more accepted and acceptable...and better understood.
In the article, when Professor Jelani Cobb notes:
While Italian-Americans can be stereotyped as gangsters and Irish-Americans as hard drinkers, there are no pervasive stereotypes for whites on the same level that allow for them to be caricatured as a Halloween costume, Cobb said.It is a pretty inside-American view of things that belies a surprising misunderstanding of costuming and stereotyping. Aside from a cowboy (rough equivalent of samurai or Mongol warrior or a nomad from the Middle East or North Africa) a fat-cat, or a gangster (Mob or Ghetto), or a hippie would be an American stereotype outside this country far more than a sub-cultural stereotype that the are in this country. And would he really be upset about someone in China dressed up as a cowboy? Would any thinking person?
I think that it comes down to, not whether a costume is cultural or stereotypical, but whether the spirit behind that stereotype is good or bad is the real issue. A white midwesterner in blackface and bling talking about "slappin' da hoes" is being a jackass at the very least. A white guy in Alabama who spent a year living in Barrow AK dressing as an Inuit in a traditional parka is probably not. And yes, there would likely be people who found that offensive. There are also probably Americans who would find Russians stereotyping us as cowboys offensive. Tough shit.
Stereotypes are often our first introduction to new cultures, in large part because they are distinctive. As such they can be useful and help people start to learn about a new culture, and, frankly, people that see a geisha and think that all Japanese (or worse all Asian) women are like that are morons.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Kind of Scary
Two big articles on CNN. Two comment threads full of hatred and bile. One is on a Muslim comic book, that was initially banned in Saudi Arabia, and is now, effectively, banned in the US, land of...free speech? The other is about an Hispanic family displaced by the xenophobic Alabama law.
Both articles themselves are depressing examples of how much hatred, bigotry and xenophobia have permeated much of US society (yes, particularly older, whiter, more male parts of US society). The comments are a predictable and pretty fucking horrible demonstration of that same bigotry combined with a huge helping of stupid:
Both articles themselves are depressing examples of how much hatred, bigotry and xenophobia have permeated much of US society (yes, particularly older, whiter, more male parts of US society). The comments are a predictable and pretty fucking horrible demonstration of that same bigotry combined with a huge helping of stupid:
...there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist.. because to be one would go against Christian doctrine and there you would not be a Christian. The odd thing is.. to commit acts of violence in Islam, actually goes right along with their doctrine.. I mean look at what happened when Mohamed entered in Medina...After someone pointed out that Timothy McVeigh was, in fact, a Christian terrorist. The "No true Christian..." syndrome. That followed by the historical reference that seems to ignore similar heinous historical events that were undertaken by Christians in the name of Christ. The level of idiot that it would take to write that is mind boggling.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)