Charlie Sheen / The Disposable Woman

This column in the NY Times is pretty powerful. It points out the difference between how Chris Brown was treated when he assaulted Rhianna (his girlfriend at the time) and how Charlie Sheen has been treated after assaulting his various wives and girlfriends.

The author suggests that the difference is in how society sees the women. Rhianna of course is a talented musician. In Sheen's case, his women are less sympathetic and therefore almost deserving of the abuse.

But there’s something else at work here: the seeming imperfection of Mr. Sheen’s numerous accusers. The women are of a type, which is to say, highly unsympathetic. Some are sex workers — pornographic film stars and escorts — whose compliance with churlish conduct is assumed to be part of the deal. (For the record: It is not.)

Others, namely Ms. Richards and Ms. Mueller, are less-famous starlets or former “nobodies” whose relationships with Mr. Sheen have been disparaged as purely sexual and transactional. The women reside on a continuum in which injuries are assumed and insults are expected.

[Edit]

It’s these sorts of explicit and implicit value judgments that underscore our contempt for women who are assumed to be trading on their sexuality. A woman’s active embrace of the fame monster or participation in the sex industry, we seem to say, means that she compromises her right not to be assaulted, let alone humiliated, insulted or degraded; it’s part of the deal. The promise of a modern Cinderella ending — attention, fame, the love and savings account of a rich man — is always the assumed goal.

The only other reason for the difference in treatment is just as appalling: the difference in race between him and Chris Brown.

Either way, we should be focusing much more on his behavior towards women - as we should have all along - and less on his absurd rants and drinks of tiger juice.

McCain's Grudges

I have no idea if this is true - that McCain's politics can be explained by his grudges. True, he did move to the center after losing the primary to Bush II in 2000. And now he has moved far to the right after losing to Obama in 2008 (granted he started that move during the election).

So it seems perfectly plausible. But then again, we should remind ourselves that correlation does not imply causation. Either way, it is interesting to think about.

Huckabee on Single Moms

Huckabee has had some bad press lately - after having some good press. I don't feel the need to talk about his Kenya comments - they are ridiculous and speak for themselves. But I do want to talk about his comments about single moms.

Actually, first, let me say I don't care that much about his insult (whether it was or not) of Natalie Portman. I think she is a great actress and seems to be a decent person. But if she was offended, she can take care of herself.

What concerns me more is what his comments about single moms say about the policies he supports. He recognizes that single mothers receive, and he says rightly so, government subsidy because without it they might not be able to feed themselves and their kids. But his solution to this dependency is judgment and a strong wish for them not to have babies.

Let's be clear, there are many reasons why women are having babies before or without getting married, but I can bet it isn't because they think they are, or want to be like, Natalie Portman. In fact, I would say that the reason many women are not married has to do with social conditions facing the men in their world like lack of jobs and over-incarceration for minor drug offenses.

Huckabee would rather these women not have kids. I would rather there were jobs for everyone in their community; I would rather there were better education services; I would rather we didn't penalize people of color for dealing drugs to rich people and addicts. I would rather they lived in a world where they could have kids and raise them in a happy and healthy environment.

Having said that, I do recognize that there are people that have kids that clearly cannot care for them. The city has a whole (very expensive but still underfunded) agency to deal with that - the Administration for Children's Services. But that isn't what Huckabee is talking about. He is referring to parents receiving public assistance. I would rather that the parents that abuse or neglect their kids would not have kids. But I don't know how to stop that.

The bottom line is that I don't think poor people should have to forgo the beauty and joy of having kids just because we are failing to serve them. Huckabee seems to think differently.

Brooks: Two Good Columns

David Brooks wrote two good columns recently that I want to touch on. Here is a quote from the first one:

A second austerity principle is this: Trim from the old to invest in the young. We should adjust pension promises and reduce the amount of money spent on health care during the last months of life so we can preserve programs for those who are growing and learning the most.

So far, this principle is being trampled. Seniors vote. Taxpayers revolt. Public employees occupy capitol buildings to protect their bargaining power for future benefits negotiations. As a result, seniors are being protected while children are getting pummeled. If you look across the country, you see education financing getting sliced — often in the most thoughtless and destructive ways. The future has no union.”

I think he is absolutely right that it is terrible policy to disinvest in education and our future. Republicans are portraying it as taking money from overpaid and greedy teachers, which we all know is absurd. We can tweak salary and benefits for teachers, but the real cuts that are coming to education are coming to staffing levels.

I will say though that I don't completely agree with his comment to cuts for the old. I think the only humane policy will support both the young and the old. But maybe it is his tone that strikes me more than his actual proposal. Tweaking pension payouts can make sense, and if that is what he is saying, than I can agree. Although I don't know if we can make a dent with the future cuts through tweaking.

Here are quotes from his second column that I liked:

In retrospect, I’d say that Huntington committed the Fundamental Attribution Error. That is, he ascribed to traits qualities that are actually determined by context.

He argued that people in Arab lands are intrinsically not nationalistic. He argued that they do not hunger for pluralism and democracy in the way these things are understood in the West. But it now appears as though they were simply living in circumstances that did not allow that patriotism or those spiritual hungers to come to the surface.

It now appears that people in these nations, like people in all nations, have multiple authentic selves. In some circumstances, one set of identities manifests itself, but when those circumstances change, other equally authentic identities and desires get activated.

[Edit]

In some ways, each of us is like every person on earth; in some ways, each of us is like the members of our culture and group; and, in some ways, each of us is unique. Huntington minimized the power of universal political values and exaggerated the influence of distinct cultural values. It’s easy to see why he did this. He was arguing against global elites who sometimes refuse to acknowledge the power of culture at all.

I like this, and I like that it is coming from a relative conservative. I think many people overplay culture when talking about peoples' demand for democracy (ie China and Confucius, Muslims, etc). But culture plays a role, especially in what form democracy can take. So yes, we are unique, yet shaped by our culture, but also share many things with others in the human race. And all people want freedom and self-rule.

Obama and the Economy

I agree with this post by Robert Reich. But I think Obama needs to be less moderate on budget cuts for policy as well as political reasons. Instead, Obama has decided to go moderate on the budget and the economy and I think could lose because of it.

I don’t get why businesses aren’t more vocal about the need for government spending. Or do they not believe that cuts in government jobs will decrease consumer spending (or prevent increases in government spending)?

Also - Obama seems just as quiet as during the health care debate. There are real debates going on right now and he is largely silent. Filling the void are Scott Walker in WI and Chris Christie in NJ - both attacking unions - and Congressional Republicans cutting necessary programs.

I will say this again: President Obama, we need leadership. You have so much power over the agenda yet I don't feel like you use it. And this means no one is articulating the other side, my side, our side. We lost the health care debate. Now we are going to lose the government funding debate. For someone that gives such good speeches, you don't seem to do it often enough.

Be more than a great speech-giver. Be a great communicator. Like Reagan - but for the right side.

On the Muslim Brotherhood

I know this is late, but I don’t think the Brotherhood will stay out of the news. Juan Cole describes the Muslim Brotherhood.

Dear Conservative: Compassion

Dear Conservative,

I bet you wonder sometimes why I am a liberal. Maybe you think about how I was raised and wonder where things went wrong.

If you do think that, I would actually argue that things are the other way around; my liberalism fits perfectly with the way I was raised. Your conservatism however does not.

Let's look at the recent battles that conservatives have decided to pick. Since December, Republicans have said that people making $250,000 are not that rich and need protection (ie lower taxes), teachers making $50,000 make way too much money, and social programs for the poor are too generous. In other words, they protect the rich and attack the poor.

I would argue that my upbringing, which included lessons about sharing, selflessness and helping those in need, and not passing judgment has lead me to oppose conservatives.

Believing in sharing and selflessness means that I am not overly greedy about my money; taxes are necessary as long as they are fair. Since I was taught to helping those in need, I support funding for social programs. And having an attitude that is non-judgmental means I don't judge or blame poor people for their condition but instead want to help.

So after reading this, how do you feel about your party? Your party argues that rich people are victims and the low and middle class people have more than they need. It seems to me you have two possible responses: that I shouldn't have been taught so much about sharing and helping, or that you should follow those teachings and be a better advocate for poverty programs.