Saturday, May 10, 2008

A Short HIstory of Mother's Day in the USA

Mother's Day in the US begins after the Civil War as a protest against War in general. The "official" unofficial begins with Julia Ward Howe's "Mother's Day Proclamation" (1870).
Arise, then, women of this day! Arise, all women who have hearts, whether your baptism be that of water or tears!

Say firmly: "We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have taught them of charity, mercy and patience. We women of one country will be too tender of those of another to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the bosom of the devastated earth, a voice goes up with our own. It says, "Disarm, Disarm!"

The sword of murder is not the balance of justice. Blood not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession. As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women, to bewail & commemorate the dead. Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesars but of God.

In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a general congress of women without limit of nationality may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.

Like most good social protests, the establishment stole the symbol of Mother's Day. In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the first official Mother's Day as a day "for American citizens to show the flag in honor of those mothers whose sons had died in war," which seems to counter the original purpose as this legitimizes war.

And now for something completely different:
Yesterday, the House attempted to pass a resolution to celebrate Mothers. This occurs all of the time at the state and federal level. For example, Sue Myrick honored The Nature Boy Rick Flair; Congress honored Islam; Congress honored the Discovery astronauts; Congress honored Mary Eliza Mahoney, America's first African-American Nurse. Usually, this is quick, feel-good legislative work that makes constituents feel better.

Yet, every once in a while, the minority party does something stupid like block one of these ceremonial pieces of legislation to ensure another goal. Since the Republicans delayed the vote on the ceremonial legislation there was not time to debate and discuss the mortgage relief and the war funding bills. This means that Republicans voted against Mothers to delay economic relief for the poor and middle class and to perpetuate the war. Good move!!! And they will be rewarded in the fall.

Friday, May 09, 2008

Republicans Against Mothers

I know what you are thinking Oxymoron but this is not from the Onion. The Washington Post has an article on how republicans are against mothers and, ironically, they voted for it before they voted against it. The title of this article reads, "Republicans Vote Against Moms; No word yet on puppies, kittens."

The story? Read for yourself....

Because I Just Can't Let Eight Belles Go...

and, if you did, here's a reason to think about her again.

Here's a short Time article about almost everything we at the situation have been talking about as of late, with the exception of politics:

But it's only fair to point out that breeders aren't a solitary priesthood. They flip horses the way real estate speculators once flipped condos. With dollar signs in their eyes, they savor 2- and 3-year-old horses, exactly the way the fashion industry looks at long-stemmed 14-year-old girls, exactly the way the celebrity culture gazes on Britney and Lindsay and Miley, exactly the way shoe-company reps scrutinize boys on basketball courts. Horses, fashion models, teen stars--they're all produced for maximum profit.

Every market needs buyers as well as sellers, and that's where the rest of us come in. If horse breeders have stopped raising animals that are sound for the long run, it's because the audience for mature racehorses--like the audience for maturity in general--has vanished. Seabiscuit, over his 89-race career, drew huge crowds season after season. By contrast, this year's Derby winner, Big Brown, will command the public eye for two months at best, retiring after the Belmont Stakes in June. Provided he lives that long.

So it's about our obsession with youth as much as anything else. I think this is spot on. Unfortunately.

Superdelegates

Senator Obama now leads Senator Clinton in pledged delegates, popular vote, and Superdelegates.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

A Comment to Harrogate and His Best Buddy

Well, I'm not sure what it means, but at least Best Buddy has taste in music. Here's Sweet Baby J's current favorite. I'm not impressed:



However, she also likes this one, which is some comfort:

Durand's "Progress (The Advance of Civilization)" (1853)

At the learned suggestion of Paperweight Harrogate checked out this painting early in the week. Interesting to compare with the Gast piece that Harrogate posted a while back. Here is a blurb Harrogate found on the piece:


In “Progress” an imaginary topography suggesting the Catskills and the Hudson River is replete with villages, farms, steamboats and a railroad. A dazzling city sits near the horizon, struck by the light from a benignly expansive sky. In the not-so-pretty foreground, a hardscrabble road leads out of the picture, and a clutch of American Indians survey the alarming scene from a rock in a forest area packed into the lower left corner of the canvas.


Dr. P.W., et. al: Thoughts on the blurb? On the painting?

A Brief Word on Harrogate's Best Buddy and the Ubiquitous Garnett/Gatorade Commercial

So, Harrogate admits it, he has once again against his better judgment subjected himself to the NBA playoffs. There are more reasons not to watch NBA Basketball, according to Harrogate's Aesthetic Rubric, than there are reasons to watch it, though good reasons there be.

Perhaps before this whole weird spectacle mercifully ends in June, Harrogate will elaborate on some of those "Pros and Cons."

But that is not really what this current literary outburst is about. What this is about, mostly, is the ritual Harrogate and his Best Buddy have developed each night, "cuddle time" before bed, watching basketball, cheering at every made shot, helpfully chanting "almost" at every miss, until Best Buddy begins to drowse off for real.

But there is one thing Best Buddy will not stand for, no matter what time of day it is. If the television is on, and this commercial right here comes on, there must be no distracting him. Verily, he stops everything and watches, mouth open. Gee, Best Buddy, thinks Harrogate to himself, the commercial is good, but it aint that good. So what we have here is perhaps the first subtle artistic disagreement betwixt Harrogate and his Best Buddy.

And so. Does his mesmeric state before it mean he will be a great athelete? A great musical composer?

Both?

Harrogate reports. Ye decide.

A VP for Barack (An Open Letter to Senator Obama)

Okay, Barack, it looks like you've wrapped up the nomination. Not that you're taking anything for granted--we know, we know--but still, it's looking better than good. And even if you swear up and down that you haven't thought about it, we all know you're seriously considering candidates for the Vice Presidency.

I've got to tell you, Barack, it took a lot for me not to support the first viable woman for the presidency. It would have felt really great. But I believe in you, Barack, so throw me a bone here. If not Hillary--and I understand that there's some bad blood there, plus the shadow of Bill--then give me a female VP I can get behind.

Here's a suggestion: Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. A two-time Democratic winner in her state,


At the heart of Governor Sebelius’ administration is a commitment to growing the Kansas economy and creating jobs; ensuring every Kansas child receives a quality education; protecting Kansas families and communities; improving access to quality, affordable health care; and taking advantage of the state’s renewable energy assets.
Governor Sebelius serves on the National Governors Association’s Executive Committee and is co-chair of the National Governors Association’s initiative, Securing a Clean Energy Future. Sebelius chairs the Education Commission of the States and as past chair of the Democratic Governors Association, she currently serves on the DGA Executive Committee.


She's already on your side, having endorsed you several months ago. Kansas went for Bush in 2004 and 2000, but Sebelius on the ticket would probably ensure you the state's electorate. (It's only six votes, but you've shown that those smallish Midwestern states really add up.)

So just consider it. And check the comments section for this post. I bet the rest of the Situation bloggers will have other suggestions.

The Michigan Problem....and Electability

First, Michigan Democrats agreed to a plan that would split the Democratic Presidential Delegates 69 - 59 in favor of Senator Clinton, allowing the delegates to be seated at the convention.

The Obama campaign agreed to the terms of the deal. However, the Clinton Campaign rejected this proposal because it would not include the popular vote.

This is a "Heads I win, tails you lose" scenario for her. If she accepted the proposal, then that would guarantee her loss in the primary today no matter what happens between now and the convention. Of course, since she rejected the deal, her argument, and ethos, over seating Michigan and Florida takes a major hit as she rejected a proposal that would seat one of the states. It is hard to argue that you want to make sure the voices have been heard and reject deals that would make that possible. Just ask the Obama campaign.

As long as she argues from a position of weakness, she will most likely not get a better deal on this matter.

Second, the Clinton campaign believes publicly that Senator Obama cannot win in November. Yet, for Clinton to win the nomination, there would need to be intra-party chaos from now until the convention, which conventional wisdom suggest that the Democrats would not be able to win in the General Election. Maybe privately the Clintons believe differently. A Reasonable interpretation of their actions would be that the Clinton campaign believes a Democrat will win no matter who the nominee and no matter when the nomination is secured. If the Clintons are political realists, this would be the only way for them to stay in the race now and jeopardize a possible 2012 run. It appears 2008 may be their best chance for the White House.

The best movie never viewed in the theaters

It is the 15th Anniversary of True Romance. To celebrate the cult flick, Maxim has a interview with the cast. It is a good read.

This has to be one of the best casts to ever appear in a single move. And it has some of the best lines ever for a movie.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Do we really want FL's vote to count after this?

Be careful out there all you educators.

12:11 am: May the General Election Begin

The race is over.

Politico reports that Senator Clinton loaned her campaign more money. On MSNBC, Tim Russert reports that she canceled her TV appearances on the Wednesday morning shows and other public appearances.

At this point, Indiana is too close to call with 8% of the vote left to tally. The problem for Senator Clinton is that Lake County, the northwest corner of the state, has not fully reported its vote tally. With 28% of the vote counted, Obama cut a 40,000+ lead down to 20,000. To say this county will go to Obama is an understatement. Further, there are three more counties out: a sparsely populated county that Clinton will win and two larger counties that Obama will win.

Senator Obama may not win Indiana but Senator Clinton will not continue the race. A few Super Delegates will approach her tomorrow when her campaign meets.

****Update: Senator Clinton still has some public appearances today, with stops in West Virginia and a fundraiser tonight. However, her chances are still grim as not many will be donating to her campaign and her campaign email last night did not ask her supporters for money. The AP, via Politico, reports that Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $6.4 million last month.

In his speech last night, Senator Obama reached out to Senator Clinton to help bridge the divide between the two candidates and their supporters. In her speech, Senator Clinton presented two themes, one on winning and one on unity, though the second theme was not as clear. Look for Senator Obama to continue to ask for reconciliation. As for Senator Clinton, if she desires to continue, she will attack Senator Obama in West Virginia. If she knows that she will not be the nominee, look for her to attack only Senator McCain and graciously walk out of the campaign in case she wants to run at a future time. If she attacks Obama in the next two weeks, knowing that she cannot be the nominee, she will not be able to run again in the future. The negative campaigning is over.

What to expect from here: By May 20th, Senator Obama will win the majority of pledged delegates. To secure the nomination, a candidate needs to win the majority of total delegates 2,025. By the primary in Oregon, look for Senator Obama to clinch the nomination. A deal will be in place for Michigan and Florida by that time.

****Update Two: On a conference call, the Clinton campaign played the racial bloc voting card-- Senator Obama cannot win white voters. This may not be over as the Clinton campaign may try to run up the score in Kentucky and West Virginia.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

A Call For Unity

In light of tonights events, I would like to issue a a call for unity between the esteemed Democratic presidential nominees. This would entail that the senators meet upon some symbolically important location where Sen. Clinton will withdraw from the race and give her "full" backing and support to Sen. Obama. To further seal the deal and in order to appease the their backers, the senators should have metaphoric make-up sex (lets face do you really want to see either of them go at it?) in front of the party representatives and the gathered public to show that they have now kissed and made-up.

The Gas Tax Primaries....

The double-header will be a split as Senator Clinton will win Indiana by an estimated of 4 - 5 % and Senator Obama will win North Carolina by 10 - 15%. With the double-digit lead in North Carolina, Senator Obama will erase most if not all Senator Clinton's advantage in Pennsylvania from 4/22 in both delegate count and popular vote. Senator Clinton will most likely not be able to take the lead in pledged delegates or the popular vote.

Of course, what does this mean?
First, tonight is a victory for Senator Obama. Senator Clinton needed both states to make a claim to the nomination. Further, she needed to avoid a blowout. Neither happened. After tonight, the nomination is further from her grasp as her only argument is "electability" and not pledged delegates or popular vote. In a sisyphean sense, this means that the race for the nomination has not changed since the beginning of March. Though the goalposts seem to be changing, the candidates positions have not.

Second, the exit polls suggest that the divisions between the Clinton supporters and the Obama supporters is growing. Time may heal the division but it will take a lot of time. This suggests that there may be some Super Delegate movement this week. If they were to declare for Senator Clinton they would have done so by now and, with a double-digit loss, Senator Clinton may not be able to hold them in place.

Third, the division and the closeness of the race may suggest a Unity ticket. I still think that because of the apathy between the candidates and the specter of Bill hanging over the ticket, this will not happen as prominent Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi, object to this. If anything, look for the nominee to seriously consider, if not ask, a prominent surrogate from the other party.

Fourth, with losses tonight, if Senator Clinton believes she can still win the nomination she must invoke some "nuclear option" on Senator Obama by Oregon on May 20th or when the DNC credential committee meets on 5/31 to discuss Michigan and Florida. Clinton will win Kentucky and West Virginia in the next two weeks. However, if she loses Oregon and does not do well with Michigan and Florida, her probability of wining will be close to zero. Of course, if Super Delegates commit publicly, then this option becomes meaningless.

Fifth, a few commentators on MSNBC state that Senator Obama can clinch the nomination by May 20th. This means that the delegate count is 2025 (without Michigan and Florida). If this were the case, then the decision on Michigan and Florida does not matter. Symbolically, this is very important as the the DNC prize has been 2025 though Clinton campaign wants the media to adopt a new standard that includes Michigan and Florida. If Obama reaches 2025 before the media and the people acknowledge another threshold, it would be impossible to take the nomination away. Consequently, Senator Clinton must push for Michigan and Florida before Senator Obama announces 25 - 50 Super Delegates. This is the only race that matters.

Sixth, the speaking situations tonight will be interesting as Senator Obama must begin calls for unity. On the other hand, Senator Clinton may continue to attack or she may begin to pull back the reins, though even if she attacks her campaign may reassess in the morning.

McCain's Judicial Philosophy

While most people in the free world anxiously await the results of the Gas Tax Primaries, John McCain delivered a speech at Wake Forest on his Judicial Philosophy. The speech follows the traditional conservative "god-terms" of judicial restraint, activist judges, democratic decisions, and "devil terms" of international law, the constitutions of other nations, the meaning of life, evolving standards of decency, penumbras, and emanations.

If this speech represents his views, McCain does not possess a deep philosophy. For example, though McCain praises the god-terms of judicial restraint and democratic decisions, he derides the Supreme Court for its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, the eminent domain case from Connecticut. While this case certainly seems like an abuse of power by the New London, the city officials proceeded through democratic means and reforms in response to the decision have developed through democratic means. This is how democracy works. Instead of attacking this decision, McCain ought to praise this decision because the Supreme Court followed his god-terms. But that would take intellectual honesty and require him to cross his political backers.

So what does this mean?
First, this speech certainly reflects McCain's need and desire to appeal to the Religious Right. To do this means he may lose some Republicans and Independents by creating rhetorical demons over the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on the currency.

Second, there is no discussion of how to interpret the Constitution. Instead, McCain provides examples of what is right politically and, hence, legally (the Religious cases, Kelo, etc). McCain offers the standard line of Alito and Roberts as a model but does not note how they read the Constitution in any principled method.

Third, if Democrats need a way to create unity, this speech ought to work for the fall.

The Profession of Women

The following is an excerpt from Catharine Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe's The American Woman's Home: or Principle's of Domestic Science; Being a Guide to the Formation and Maintenance of Economical, Healthful, Beautiful, and Christian Homes, which was originally published in 1869.

It is the aim of this volume to elevate both the honor and the renumeration of all employments that sustain the many and varied duties of the family state, and thus to render each department of woman's profession as much desired and respected as are the most honored professions of men.

I read this a little while ago, and it struck me for some reason. Most of Beecher's writings (and Stowe's to a lesser extent) argue that motherhood is as valuable as any male dominated profession (keep in mind she wrote throughout the 19th century). In her time, she was revolutionary for advocating that women needed to be properly educated to complete domestic labor; for her such an education included mathematics, economics, science, and physical education. The rhetoric of it is interesting to me, as Beecher and Stowe focus on equality but maintain that women and men should focus on very different professions.

Pro-Choice Politics

MSNBC reports that the National Right to Life group is Robocalling Indiana voters on behalf of Senator Clinton and against Senator Obama. You can read the transcript of the call at The Huffington Post or listen to the call on You Tube.

The evidence that the Clinton campaign teamed up with NRL is not "official" though pointing out that Senator Obama is pro-choice while not mentioning Senator Clinton and telling voters to vote against Senator Obama and not Senator Clinton seems to help the junior Senator from New York. Since Indiana has strict Robocalling laws this ad may be illegal.

In the beginning of the campaign, the perception was that Senator Obama was not pro-choice enough. Now, the reverse is true.

Monday, May 05, 2008

In "Lizzie" Melville's Words: A Day in the Life

Okay, so this excerpt is really long, so long that Harrogate almost didn't post it. But Harrogate thought it might interest several of the Board Members in terms of the letter's Rhetoric, its provision of an intimate glimpse-at-a-now-famous-couple, &c. Perhaps, too, the letter tangentially intersects with M's research interests in the configurations of domestic space.

Anyway. Harrogate is currently reading Andrew Delbanco's amazing Melville biography, which contains this fully excerpted letter written from Elizabeth Shaw Melville to her stepmother Hope Savage Shaw. Delbanco qualifies this letter with a passage that itself merits a block quote. The letter, dated December 1847, conveys:

the heady mood in those New York days, making as clear as decency would permit that she and her "industrious boy" took domestic but still flirtatious pleasure in each other as she managed the household while he threw himself into his writing


And here is the letter:

We breakfast at 8 o'clock, then Herman goes to walk, and I fly up to put his room to rights, so that he can sit down to his desk immediately on his return. The I bid him good bye, with many charges to be an industrious boy and not upset the inkstand, and then flourish the duster, make the bed, etc., in my own room. Then I go downstairs and read the papers a little while, and after that I am ready to sit down to my work--whatever it may be--darning stockings--making or mending for myself or Herman--at all events I haven't seen a day yet, without some sewing or other to do. If I have letters to write, as is the case to-day, I usually do them first--but whatever I am about, I do not much more than get thoroughly engaged in it, than ding-dong goes the bell for luncheon. This is half past 12 o'clock--by this time we must expect callers, and so must be dressed immediately after lunch. Then Herman insists upon my taking a walk of an hour's length at least. So unless I can have rain or snow for an excuse, I usually sally out and make a pedestrian tour a mile or two down Broadway. By the time I come home it is two o'clock and after, and then I must make myself look as bewitchingly as possible to meet Herman at dinner. This being accomplished, I have only about an hour of available time left. At four we dine, and after dinner is over, Herman and I come up to our room and enjoy a cosy chat for an hour or so--or he reads me some of the chapters he has been writing in the day. Then he goes down town for a walk, looks at the papers in the reading room, etc., and returns about half-past seven or eight. Then my work or my book is laid aside, and as he does not use his eyes by very little by candle light, I either read to him, or take a hand at whist for his amusement, or he listens to our reading or conversation, as best pleases him. For we all collect in the parlor in the evening, and generally one of us reads aloud for the benefit of the whole. Then we retire very early--at 10 o'clock we all disperse.

Eight Belles' Genetic Make-up

According to Washington Post reporter Andrew Breyer, Eight Belles' life-ending accident after Saturday's Kentucky Derby can be blamed on problems associated with breeding. It seems that horse breeders are less likely to breed horses to race them themselves; they now breed horses to sell them, which means they are more interested in a "perfect" horse and less interested in one that can weather the physical demands of horse racing.

Saturday, May 03, 2008

And the campaign goes on

In case anyone was wondering, Senator Clinton wasted her momentum from her 9.4% win in Pennsylvania by losing the Guam caucus by seven, yes 7, delegates.

Senator Obama had a 204 vote lead before Guam counted votes in its most populous village. The final count:
Senator Obama: 50.1%
Senator Clinton: 49.9%

Caucus Delegates:
Senator Obama: 2,264
Senator Clinton: 2,257

DNC Pledged Delegates:
Senator Obama: 2
Senator Clinton: 2

I believe that Obama will win the Super Delegate count in Guam by either 3 - 2 or 4 - 1. But with elections like these we will reach the total of 2,025 in February, right after the inauguration.

Eight Belles

Exciting, wasn't it? Eight Belles, a rare philly in the Kentucky Derby this afternoon. But then--after coming in second--she fell, broke both of her ankles, and had to be euthanized right on the track. Two years ago, Barbaro had a similar fate, after falling and suffering medical treatment for months.

I love the excitement of the Derby as much as the next girl, but one has to wonder about the ethics of a race in which two front-runners have died in three years. So I did a little research. PETA, expectedly, is opposed to horse racing in general. While PETA can sometimes be over the top, its argument on this one is solid:
Thoroughbreds are bred to have unnaturally delicate legs, are forced to run at ever-younger ages, and are drugged to mask injuries, which leads to horrifying and life-threatening injuries like Barbaro's. As a New York Daily News reporter remarked, “The thoroughbred race horse is a genetic mistake. It runs too fast, its frame is too large, and its legs are far too small. As long as mankind demands that it run at high speeds under stressful conditions, horses will die at racetracks.”
If you're interested, here's what PETA recommends, in terms of social action:
PETA is campaigning to get the Breeders' Cup's 2-year-old juvenile race, which is particularly harmful to young horses, canceled; many horses who have won that race have been forced to run injured or became “broken down” within the following year. Please call 1-800-RACE-CUP to voice your objections to this cruel event.

Friday, May 02, 2008

Obscure notes from the edge of the Universe...

If anyone was wondering what was the most useless human gadget ever invented, you can stop now as the contest is over. It appears that a few inventors, and marketing geniuses, in Switzerland created it: a $300,000 watch that does not tell time. From the WSJ:
Swiss watchmaker Romain Jerome just launched the "Day and Night" watch. The watch won’t tell you what time it is. That’s so yesterday. But it does tell you whether it’s day or night — helpful, I guess, for billionaire types who can’t afford windows.

As the company’s Web site boasts: “With no display for the hours, minutes or seconds, the Day&Night offers a new way of measuring time, splitting the universe of time into two fundamentally opposing sections: day versus night.”
What’s most impressive about the Day&Night is its complexity, given its absolute uselessness. The watch features two tourbillons — devices that overcome the ill effects of earth’s gravity on a watch’s accuracy — connected by a differential mechanism. Instead of hands, the watch has a “contemplative tourbillon operation whereby the ‘Day’ tourbillon operates for 12 hours to symbolize working life, while the ‘Night’ tourbillon takes over afterward to represent an individual’s private time.”

Like other Romain Jerome watches, the watch is made in part with steel salvaged from the sunken Titanic, along with material from the shipyard where it was built. That sounds creepy to me, but maybe today’s buyers prefer morbid metals.
And, if you are wondering, the watch sold out in 48 hours.

Oprah says. . .

According to Oprah the upcoming SATC: The Movie does not disappoint. This is one time that I really hope I agree with Oprah.

Appeal to Not Destroying It All

"The Gunner's Dream." Applied to our current moment, is this song a cogent refutation of John McCain and the many others who subscribe to the school of "thought" holding no world at all preferable to a world not thoroughly dominated by American market economy?

Or, just a naive little song?

Harrogate reports, you decide.

Visual Rhetoric and the American West



Yesterday in conversation with his Dissertation Chair, Harrogate said something which reminded his Chair of this lovingly murderous painting by John Gast, rendered in 1872. The Title is American Progress.

Later Harrogate found the following anonymous precis online:

"A DIAPHANOUSLY AND PRECARIOUS CLAD AMERICA FLOATS WESTWARD THRU THE AIR WITH THE "STAR OF EMPIRE" ON HER FOREHEAD. SHE HAS LEFT THE CITIES OF THE EAST BEHIND, AND THE WIDE MISSISSIPPI, AND STILL HER COURSE IS WESTWARD. IN HER RIGHT HAND SHE CARRIES A SCHOOL BOOK--TESTIMONIAL OF THE NATIONAL ENLIGHTENMENT, WHILE WITH HER LEFT SHE TRAILS THE SLENDER WIRES OF THE TELEGRAPH THAT WILL BIND THE NATION. FLEEING HER APPROACH ARE INDIANS, BUFFALO, WILD HORSES, BEARS, AND OTHER GAME, DISAPPEARING INTO THE STORM AND WAVES OF THE PACIFIC COAST. THEY FLEE THE WONDEROUS VISION--THE STAR "IS TOO MUCH FOR THEM."

Thursday, May 01, 2008

File Under Not Bloody Likely

In Campaigns and Elections, Joe Trippi, the former campaign manager for John Edwards, argues, rather unpersuasively, that if Edwards remained in the race he could have amassed enough power to broker the convention and a nomination for himself.
I didn't tell him what I should have told him: That I had this feeling that if he stayed in the race he would win 300 or so delegates by Super Tuesday and have maybe a one-in-five chance of forcing a brokered convention. That there was a path ahead that would be extremely painful, but could very well put him and his causes at the top of the Democratic agenda. And that in politics anything can happen-even the possibility that in an open convention with multiple ballots an embattled and exhausted party would turn to him as their nominee. I should have closed my eyes to the pain I saw around me on the campaign bus, including my own. I should have told him emphatically that he should stay in. My regret that I did not do so-that I let John Edwards down-grows with every day that the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues.
Yep, anything could happen. The Democrats could nominate Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, or AL Franken. However, since Edwards didn't win a state and your polling, self admittedly, looked worse and worse, maybe it was a good idea he dropped out. In 04 he could not win against a weak set of candidates; in 08, he could not win though he polled well against McCain, heh. And I liked Edwards and wanted him to do much better in 04 and 08 than he did. But there is a point...

But my favorite line has to be this, which symbolizes the problem with Edward's campaign:
It's not only painful for those still on staff to part with friends and colleagues, but it's very tough to take the level of your campaign down in order to survive. A campaign gets used to flying around in a chartered jet and using an air-conditioned bus. Now you're looking at staying at a Motel 6.
A Motel 6? No, you couldn't stay there could you because you would have actually have to had been like the average middle class voters you were trying to reach. Nope, it is easier to say there are "Two Americas."

But why this piece, now? Well, it is in the hypothetical:
That would mean Edwards, Obama and Clinton would go into the convention without any of them close to sealing the nomination. You would have had months of Obama and Clinton banging away at each other, with Edwards able to come across to weary Democrats as a welcome, fresh face.? You'd have the electability argument begin to play to Edwards' advantage, since he always did well against McCain in polling. These possibilities and more played through my mind.

If the Supers will be the ones who choose, meaning democracy through elections does not matter, then why not choose the fresh face who polled better than McCain in January. Now that would be democracy...

The HIstory of the Democratic Race

In Seven Minutes. Relive the glory, the agony, the defeat.

Well, Cross off Kentucky,,,

It appears that Senator Obama will not win the Kentucky primary or win Kentucky in the General Election. Any guesses why?

What Obama Wishes He Could say About Clinton

While Senator Obama is "weathering" William Ayers and Rev. Wright, Politico posted an article, "What Obama Wishes He Could Say" but somehow never does.

Back in April, Politico published "What Clinton Wishes She Could Say," which discussed why, according to the Clinton perspective, Obama could not win the general and should not win the primary. The beginning of the new article rehashes some of it.

Now, in the guise of fairness, Politico returned the favor and published an article damning Senator Clinton from the Obama perspective. This articles makes Wright and Ayers seem relatively minor.

I am still waiting for what Obama and Clinton would say against McCain but I do not think that is going to happen any time soon. Cynics may say that Politico may want to damage both Dems and leave McCain out of this struggle.

I still maintain that no matter who wins the Democratic primary, most signs point to a Democratic President. (See here, here, and here). But the games must continue.

May Day- Labour Holiday



Today is an international holiday, though you will probably not read or see too much about it today.

May Day,or International Workers Day, celebrates the social and economic achievements of the labor movement, such as the 8 hour work day.

For some reason, I just can't explain why, it is not a major holiday in the US and it gets more respect in Europe. Usually, there are marches in major cities, such as NYC, New Haven, and Portland.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Some Reflections

I know I have been talking with a few you folks about my experiences with the job search. For those of you who don't know I had ridiculous amount of interviews during this years job search--I should preface this by saying I was not picky about where I applied so there was tremendous variety. Part of the reason I did this, was the fact that I had been through this before last year, while I was ABD at which time I had some interest in my work but nothing came of it--so to my ABD friends on here don't fret it if it does not pan out on the first go around, you all will get the props you deserve when degree is in hand--but I had the bulk of the materials together (again thanks Solon and Southpaw for a bit of help on the job letter) so I just shoveled the information out; I also sent things out very, very early to avoid excessive mailing costs and I sent everything electronically when I could. In hindsight I think my eagerness to apply to any and every job was an utterly stupid idea. For one I never realized how damn difficult it actually would be to have 13 conference interviews followed by 8 campus invites (I did not go to 3, 1 of those if you recall was the CA trip that was terminated that left me a free ticket, 2 I turned down once I received my 2 job offers). I basically spent all my time prepping and traveling (the joke that is). I did not realize how much actual research/work I would not be able to do, nor did I realize how far behind and horrible my classes would turnout to be (a couple of my courses I did not see my students for 3 1/2 weeks). But I guess, as I have been repeatedly told by my colleagues) the job stuff is ok considering that things were on the out at my current institution, despite what guilt I feel for not being an effective teacher.

Despite their reassurances this is still a tough pill to swallow because I do not feel that I have done my job as I should, and likewise, how can I fairly grade my student's when I have not been around to effectively evaluate their performances and give them proper feedback (I still have exams and papers that I'm grading that I received at the beginning of April and finals are in 2 weeks). How do I compensate for this in my grading; do I bump all my class grades up? How can I scold them and stick to the attendance policies (3 days missed letter grade deduction, 6 fail the course) concerning their excessive absences when I have probably missed 6 or 7 days of class if not more? How can it be ok that I missed this much as a result of my job search (which turned out be very successful) when I have not necessarily delivered on the product that my students (ok, their parents) paid for?

There is much more I could say about the whole interview process and the unethical questions that are asked that should not be like: are you married (maybe I'm a homosexual is that ok?); oh what does mrs. weight do (like I can tell you she is an academic too and expect to get a call back); oh you have a lite-weight as well (oh no one has kids here, guess I'm not getting that job either); oh who are you voting for (never mind I just told you that I'm a card carrying member of the NRA)? I know the flip side to this is that they are looking for people that will fit but these questions are not appropriate. But I'm still having issues about what I have put my 200 students through this semester and how it makes me feel as an educator.

Corn Politics

So as we all know our government has made GREAT policies in our increasing efforts to save our planet. Of the bone-headed ideas has been the increased production of bio-fuels--particularly corn-based ethanol--to reduce our dependency on that "evil foreign oil." Curiously these efforts have an unusual effect on the economy: the price of products connected to the corn industry have sky rocketed because corn farmers are now selling their corn bushels to ethanol planets for $5.50 or more --this includes eggs, beef, pork, poultry, salad dressings, pet food, you name it. Moreover, the production of corn ethanol and other forms of agriculturally produced bio-fuels actually causes more damage to the environment due to the increased carbon emissions that are the result of production and manufacturing processes . Although it is nice to see farmers finally make a buck for their hard work, the catch is that commodities increase, famine begins (not in our country but in others throughout the world dependent on our corn exports), and the pressures on the environment increase. Thus, nothing good comes of this: so why the hell are both parties' presidential candidates (I cannot speak for Obama) continuing to fund such ridiculous fuel efforts? I guess we can just take Bush's lead and start drilling oil in Alaska instead of making the automakers and oil companies finally realize that they need to make changes: GM has recorded another quarterly lose with its love for the Suburban and Exxon-Mobil is in the middle of a governing shakeup--the Exxon issue was brought about by the Rockefellers, who founded the company because the company has been paying scientist to create false counter arguments that there is not such thing as environmental damage nor have they explored other fuel alternative energy sources, which will eventually kill the company.

Well must go educate the masses but just had to stand on my soapbox a second and vent!

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

By Request

Solon asked that I post this blurb from a piece I stumbled across at Wondertime (where I faithfully read the Dalai Mama every week). Apparently, it can be found in an anthology, Blindsided by a Diaper. The excerpted essay, "Harried with Children: Communication Breakdown," was written by Kermit Pattison:
I liken my marriage to a once-great civilization that was sacked when a horde of Viking dwarves came ashore and had their way with us. Since then, it's been a saga of trying to communicate while the barbarians are at the baby gate.
Yup. I totally get it! (And the teething-but-still-charming Viking dwarf, by the way, is in large part the reason behind my recent disappearance from the Situation. That, and the necessity of finishing another dissertation chapter--not yet begun--by the end of July.)

It's Called Being Pregnant; or, Celebs are Human Too

Warning: Bitchiness ahead.

MSNBC.com is reporting that Angelina Jolie is having a very difficult pregnancy: “The babies are heavy, and she’s exhausted from the weight. The pressure can make it hard for her to breathe at times, and she tires out very easily.” Really? That's so unusual! I've never heard of a pregnant woman having such experiences. How did things go with Shiloh? Did a stork deliver her?

Newsflash: Pregnancy is physically demanding--for some more than others.

End bitchiness (for now).

Save Knut and the Polar Bears (who lived where it was cold)




According to The New Republic, a California judge ordered President Bush to declare, in the next sixteen days, whether or not polar bears are endangered animals due to global warming.

I do not know what to say.

Debate over the Debate

Here is an interesting take on another Democratic Debate from Mr. Tuesday Morning Questerback (TMQB), Greg Easterbrook.
Record ratings for series finale of "Debate Friends": Jon Stewart says Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debated so many times, their smackdown was a reality series. Now the 21-epsiode series has ended -- but without a series finale. Here is the tear-jerking series finale episode:

Shown: A familiar apartment. Scattered around are various sentimental objects: a foosball table, coffee cups from Central Perk, a deck of pinochle cards, bowling balls, travel brochures to Hawaii, Bibles, camouflage hunting suits and lots of shotguns. Hillary Clinton is seen dabbing back tears.

NBC

In the final reel, they made up and made out. The Barack-Hillary series finale may be somewhat different.

HILLARY: I can't believe I went to the wrong airport! I thought he was arriving at Dulles, but it was Andrews Air Force Base. I went to the wrong airport and missed him! I was going to beg him not to take his new job as president, and just go on debating me forever. (Throws back a shot of Crown Royal.) Maybe I should shoot some ducks to take my mind off this. (Picks up a shotgun.) I wonder which end the bullets go in? (Pours another shot of whiskey and throws her head back.)

(Unseen by Hillary, Barack Obama has stepped into the doorway and has been standing behind her the entire time.)

BARACK: I can't leave you. I just gave my ticket on Air Force One to John McCain. He can be president -- that seems to be what the Democratic National Committee wants, anyway. We'll go on running against each other forever.

HILLARY: Are you bitter?

BARACK: There's a campaign bus outside waiting for us. I heard there's a primary in Manitoba. It's nonbinding -- but let's go!

HILLARY: Oh Barack, promise me there will be sniper fire!

(They leave hand in hand. Schmaltzy music plays, and we see the apartment door close.)

Update on Michigan Vote in Democratic Primary

Democrats in Michigan proposed a 69 - 59 split in favor of Senator Hillary Clinton for the Michigan Delegates. This proposal finds some balance between the original elections in January, the desire of Senator Clinton to seat the elections as is, and the suggestion of a 50-50 split by Senator Barack Obama.

This proposal is an attempt to provided representation for the citizens of the state but there are a few unanswered questions. First, What happens with the popular vote? I am not what happens with the popular vote or the Super Delegates. Since the elections were illegitimate, the popular vote in Michigan cannot contribute to the popular vote total.

Second, will the Super Ds still possess a voice in the process? Since the political officials in Michigan caused the problems to being with, then it may not be a problem if they lose their vote.

Finally, if both the pledged and super delegates are seated, what is the punishment? If the Super Delegates were to be seated, then there will be no punishment for Michigan, making 2012 ripe for problems. This exercise would represent bad parenting on the part of the DNC, which may be just another knock on the Democrats (bad) desire for eternal parentalism.

Neither candidate may desire this though they may need to accept it. If there is no resolution, the DNC credentials committee will decide the fate of Michigan and Florida on May 31st.

Monday, April 28, 2008

The Rhetoric of Miley Cyrus

Because we here at the Situation read all things rhetorical I wonder what my fellow bloggers make of the "controversy" surrounding Annie Liebovitz's recent portrait of Miley Cyrus. It seems that the photos are being read as too sexual for a 15-year-old girl, and Cyrus has publicly stated that she is "embarrassed" by the photos and she has also admitted to being excited to work with Leibovitz. I want to present these photos in the context of the celebrity gossip cites and in the context of the Vanity Fair article.

First, MSNBC is running a headline on its homepage that reads "Miley Cyrus embarrassed by photos." (For the record I clicked on the link because I had read on Vanity Fair's website last week that Liebovitz was photographing Cyrus for May's cover story and wondered if these were the same photos.) When you click on the link you're directed to one of MSNBC's gossip columns which displays this picture. The picture displayed is grainy and oddly cropped. I have to admit that I didn't click on the video link because I assumed it was a clip of one of the entertainment shows and didn't want to see it.

Second, Vanity Fair's website has all the photos from the shoot online. First, in the context of the shoot, it becomes immediately clear that Cyrus was not nude for the photo in question; she was simply made to look as though she was nude. Second, according to Vanity Fair and Leibovitz, Cyrus and both of her parents discussed the concept of the shoot with Leibovitz fairly extensively and agreed to the tone of the shoot. Her parents had been on set most of the day, and although they were not present when the photo in question was taken, her teacher and her grandmother were. From the slide show on Vanity Fair, it seems clear that Cyrus agreed to the shoot, was not pressured in any way, and had fun while taking the shot that has caused all sorts of controversy.

I understand that part of the issue with the portrait is that Cyrus is famous for being a Disney star. She has made her career out of being as wholesome and likable as her television persona. That said, I feel like this story and photo shoot were probably intended to portray Cyrus as capable of taking on more diverse, more difficult, and, possibly, more sexual roles. After all if this young woman intends to make it as an actress, she will have to prove she can do more than star on a Disney show. From that perspective, this seems like a fairly smart move to me. Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine, and Leibovitz is a well known and well respected photographer. What doesn't seem so smart and what confuses the rhetoric of the photograph is Cyrus's decision to say she's embarrassed by the photo and to apologize to her fans. Why the confusing message? Why take the photograph, one that she clearly agreed to, if she is only going to apologize for it as soon as it hits the press? This is one rhetorical move I don't understand.

Mixing News and Fashion

Can any explain the rationality behind CNN Shirts?

According to CNN, you can order T-Shirts with CNN headlines.

My favorite so far is: "Smuggled Workers Turned into Slaves." A close second: "Barracks aswim in feces, ickiness."

Now that is fashion...

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Question of the Day....

Would anyone like to guess the meaning of the phrase, "Vatican Roulette?"

Friday, April 25, 2008

The Race IS Over...

Why you ask? Because Superchunk endorsed Senator Obama. Since the indie rock legends from Chapel Hill have spoken, there is little any one else could say.

To celebrate this endorsement, and this glorious day in the Northeast, here is the video for "Hyper Enough."



Who will Dinosaur Jr. endorse? Buffalo Tom? The cast from My So Called Life?

On a more serious note, Obama's deals with the DNC over a joint fundraising plan and a nationwide voter registration effort adds more speculation about the democratic race.

Also, Politico, as others before them, reports that the Pennsylvania victory for Clinton did nothing for Super Delegates. Clinton has three problems: (1) she will unite Republicans against her; (2) to take the nomination away would alienate the base; and, (3) with the loss of the African-American base, the Dems would suffer great defeats in Congress. If Clinton is to be the nominee, Senator Obama will need to drop out because of a major problem. If Obama wins both Indiana and North Carolina, then the Supers will line up.

Why The Democratic Primary is Important

According to The New Republic, all signs point to the fact that the winner of the Democratic Primary will be the next President of the United States:
There are many factors that point to an across-the-board Democratic victory in November, including the extraordinary unpopularity of President Bush, the deteriorating condition of the economy, the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, and the fact that Americans prefer the Democratic position to the Republican position on almost every major national issue. However, the most important Democratic advantage, and one that has received relatively little attention in the media, is the fact that for the past six years the Democratic electoral base has been expanding while the Republican electoral base has been shrinking.
There may be a few flaws with this article. For example, the article states that citizens that identify as Democrat has increased by 7% while citizens identifying as Republican decreased by 7% and that heavy Democratic turnout in the primary is a sign for heavy turnout in the state. This of course may not be true. For example, even if greater party identification leads to new voter registration and even if new voter registration may favor democrats, unless it occurs in the swing states it may not matter in terms of the electoral college. Also, heavy turnout in the primary may not make a bit of difference for the fall as it is not clear that the primaries serve as any indication for the fall general election.

Nonetheless, there are good signs everywhere.

Also, if true, this makes my last point irrelevant.

Interesting- Why Obama Should Drop Out

From Slate. Since Clinton plans on staying in the game to get the nomination, Senator Obama needs to drop out of the race. This would be the equivalent of turning the tables on the Clintons.
If Clinton had the good of the Democratic Party in mind, she would have given up her bid the day after the Mississippi primary, which Obama won by 25 points. The delegate math was as dismal for her campaign then as it is now, even after Pennsylvania, and she was facing down a six-week gulf before the next election....

Obama, on the other hand, is fully capable of it. And if he’s really serious about representing a new kind of politics, now is the time for him to prove it in the only meaningful way left. Moreover, were he to play it right, dropping out now nearly guarantees that he’ll be elected president in 2012. Here’s the roadmap:

Obama drops out next week, stating that although he could almost certainly win the nomination by fighting it out until the convention in August, he is simply not willing to drag the party through a battle that will cripple its chances against John McCain. He then pledges to help support Sen. Clinton in her bid—with full knowledge that she will not take him up on the offer.

In one stroke, Obama will regain his messiah creds by making the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the party. His followers will be furious. The mere mention of Clinton’s name will provoke unspeakable acts. They will abandon Clinton in numbers sufficient to hand McCain the election in November.

Losing the presidency again after eight years of Bush will ruin the Democratic Party. It will become obvious that Clinton’s decision to stay in the race was the turning point in the election. The base will turn its wrath on party leaders like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, who failed to push Clinton out. Obama, as the de facto head of the party, will broker negotiations to install new leaders loyal to him.


It won't happen, especially if Senator Obama believes in his vision of Democracy. Further, his supporters, especially the new ones, may turn away from politics all together and not wait for four more years. But, the thought is out there...

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Oh No They Didn't!

HBO.com is selling toddler tees that proclaim said munchkins to be "single and fabulous". Wild.


Edited to add: Where's the mini "Mr. Big" t-shirt? I would totally buy one for Supa-T :)

Free Speech and the National Day of Silence

Friday, April 25th is the National Day of Silence, when students attempt to gain recognition for anti-LGTB name-calling and bullying at schools. Throughout the day, students who desire to participate remain silent to show solidarity for those that feel they must remain silent everyday.

Students who participate, and they have the right to participate, may not disrupt education (i.e. they cannot use this as an excuse to remain silent during class though they could make an arrangement with their teacher beforehand).

Students may have a right to wear clothing or certain paraphernalia (buttons) to support the Day of Silence. Students also have the right to wear clothing that speaks out against homosexuality and the day of silence. Both will be subject as to whether or not they disrupt the educational process.

The National Day of Silence is not an official, school sponsored event.

Oddly enough, the Seventh Circuit just decided Nuxol v. Indian Prairie School District, in which the Judges ruled that a student had the right to wear "Be Happy, Not Gay" T-Shirt on the National Day of Silence. The Court ruled that this shirt, "is only tepidly negative"and, as such, would not disrupt the educational process.

In light of other recent decisions about T-Shirts in Schools and "Bong Hits for Jesus," the jurisprudence of free speech in public schools is becoming quite convoluted though I wonder how much education actually happens in schools anyway, regardless of whether or not students involve themselves in the day or protest the day.

Is the race over?

According to an editorial by Danial Henninger at The Wall Street Journal, the race ended when Senator Obama received the endorsements of former Sens. Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma. While neither Nunn nor Boren are Super Delegates, the article suggests that they have sway with the Super Delegates that matter, as opposed to the younger, Freshman members of Congress or State Legislatures who have not declared.

Why Nunn and Boren? The article discusses their credibility by stating:
Both are what some of us nostalgically call Serious Democrats. They represent what the party was, but is no more: sensible on national security, spending and middle-class values. Obama receiving their imprimatur is like hands reaching out from the graves of FDR, JFK and LBJ to announce: "Enough is enough. This man is your nominee. Go forth and fight with the Republicans."

In order to win the general, the Democrats need the center in the ideological spectrum. Senator Clinton attempted this by hedging on Iraq and declaring the need for abstinence [which by the way, when Senator Clinton adopts this position, women do not roll their eyes and claim she is not pro-choice]. Even though she was "inevitable" she could not win the primary.

Why did she lose? Money, Henninger argues.

Only one of the Democratic candidates can reshape the party through fundraising. While Senator Clinton raised $10,000,000 since her win, she needs to purchase airtime in Indiana and North Carolina, her campaign costs on average $1,000,000 a day, she needs to repay a $5,000,000 loan to herself, and has an outstanding dept to Mark Penn for $4,500,000. The article also suggests that the Democratic Party may have grown tired of the prior Clinton fundraising scandals, e.g. Lincoln Bedroom, Bill's 60th birthday gala, the 1996 John Huang-Lippo-China fund-raising scandal, and Hillary's 2007 Norman Hsu.

While her previous fundraising opportunities raise questions and her main donors can no longer contribute, Obama not only has money in the bank but his online, grassroots organization is unparalleled. And this is the key. Senator Obama can expand the party in more ways than the Clintons. And, he represents a new vision of democracy for the Democratic party.

Is the race over? Not yet. Senator Obama could still make a fatal gaffe; Senator Clinton will not back down. However, the signs are there.

The choices and potential between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are very stark, especially for our vision of democracy. However, I think the discussion of electability pales in comparison then fundraising and electoral expansion in the eyes of the Super Delegates, especially if the Supers are convinced the Dems will take the White House in the fall. While I am certainly troubled that this decision may develop because of money, at least Senator Obama's vision of fundraising is much more democratic than Senator Clinton's.

This is why people get plastic surgery

Following up on Supa's post on picture books explaining plastic surgery to little kids, I want to direct everyone to this slide show on MSNBC entitled "How Celebrities are Aging." In this slide show, there are pictures of celebrities, including Nicole Kidman, Diane Keaton, and Clint Eastwood, in their "youth" and in 2008. A well-known plastic surgeon offers his opinion on whether any of these individuals has any surgical or non-surgical procedures and on how good those procedures were. One ostensible purpose of the slide show is to point out how many celebrities look so youthful without surgical intervention. But in these photos, one can see every line, every blemish, every mark on these individuals faces. Thus, it emphasizes that there are in fact ways that we can make ourselves look better, only if we hire the "right" plastic surgeon.

Aliza Shvarts and the Slippery Slope Argument

It is most assuredly not for lack of interest that Harrogate has hitherto stayed out of Situation's discussions about the Yale student's art project. It is that Harrogate still has no idea what he thinks about it. It is, shall we say, fraught with complications.

You hate censorship, but then it is the Slippery Slope argument that does you in, in the end. Yesterday Harrogate asked Sarah, a regular contributor to the Situation, if Yale oughtn't to ban staged suicides by invoking the safety clause. Of course, even a hard-core lover of spectacle like Harrogate was implying that yes, Yale ought to ban the use of its facilities for staged suicide.

And so what Harrogate felt left with, in the end, is his old go-to hatred of slavishness to Rules. There is no such thing as a catch-all rule. As much as possible in the Law and in the enforcement of Rules, and even moreso in the realm of cultural critique, things need to be approached in their own particular context. An 18 year-old getting a blowjob from a seventeen year old assuredly does not deserve to labor for the rest of life with the sex offender tag. An 18 year-old getting the same thing from a twelve year old, on the other hand.....

No law, no law, no doctrine can cover it all, there is always the unforseen chink in the armor, fly in the ointment, choose your cliche. We still need people. When a rule is broken, we need to be honest about it and intercede, rather than hiding behind that rule. Witness the Michigan and Florida debacles, what fools we have as a nation made of ourselves, on that score. Consider Cool Hand Luke's sage words, "Calling it your job don't make it right, Boss."

Rule of law is better than rule of men, this is true. But men and women make the rules, and very, very often fuck things up in the process. It is up to all of us to retain the ability to look at things with our own eyes, instead of bowing to doctrine.

But anywho. The Shvarts case is a unique thing and the Yalies need to treat it as such, rather than desperately looking for a clause to safely apply. And again, crucial to how this phenomenon has been playing out on the blogosphere is the Slippery Slope argument. Here is Ben Shapiro using that argument as part of what can only be described a pro-censorship performance. The article, entitled "No Bodily Fluids in the Public Square," includes many nuggets that Situationers might want to incorporate into their ruminations, such as:

All rights have reasonable limits. The right to bear arms does not include a right to own a nuclear weapon. The right to free exercise of religion does not include a right to ritualistic child sacrifice. The right to free expression in art should not include a right to film yourself having an abortion; neither should it include a right to use feces, urine or any other bodily fluid in public, nor should it include a right to engage in sex acts before live audiences.


All of us will find Shapiro's erudite reflections symptomatic of something very familiar: that is, when it comes to how Americans think about and talk about Art, the traditionalist affect--expressed in part through the strong desire for an objective standard of what constitutes worthwhile artistic expression, is very strong indeed.

In a different context, Harrogate was very recently and (sniff, sniff) brutally reminded how strong that affect is, in the community he currently occupies, although this is to say nothing against that community, which he has in his own way come to affectionately embrace.

Shapiro speaks for a huge chunk of the populace that spans the entire nation, blue, red, whatever.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Breast is ruled best

In a quick turnabout from today's earlier decision to part mother's from the BF babies, the courts ruled in favor of nursing mothers, allowing them to stay with their infants.

Breast is best, except for FLDS?

It's difficult to live in TX and not get swept up with the drama surrounding the FLDS women and children. On one hand, 400+ children have just been separated from their mothers and families and placed in foster care. As a mother, this breaks my heart. On the other hand, 400+ children have just been rescued from a potentially harmful situation as stories of underage marriage and abuse circulate. As a mother, I hope the children are safe.

The situtation raises an interesting question about the rights of nursing mothers in FLDS, who at the moment are innocent-until-proven guilty. Do nursing FLDS women have a right to stay with their children? Or, as they are possibliy complicit in the charges of child abuse is it best to separate them from their children? Texas judge Barbara Walther ruled in favor of the latter, using as part of her argument the excuse that "women every day in this country go back to work after six weeks of maternity leave." Thus, she does not see the big deal in separating a nursing infant from his/her mother. However, those of us who have BF understand that this is a very big deal. Furthermore, many women continue to pump well after they return to work, ensuring that their babies benefit from breast milk. Will the FLDS women be allowed the same privlege? Or, will their infants be forced to wean suddenly and be denied the continued benefits of their mother's milk?

Texas judge Barber Walther responded to the FLDS women's plea by saying that women every day in this country go back to work after six weeks of maternity leave; in other words, get over it, it's no big deal to wean. She then placed the decision making in CPS's hands, who will deal with nursing women on a case-by-case basis. Currently, they'll allow teenage nursing mothers to remain with their infants, but not adult women. A blog of BF advocates has sprung out of this mess: http://fldsbreastmilk.blogspot.com/

More Evidence that Boys are Better than Girls

A recent British study indicates that pregnant women "who skip breakfast and eat less are more likely to give birth to girls, while moms who consume more calories and a wider range of nutrients — including, specifically, those from breakfast cereal — are more likely to deliver sons." Hmmm. So, girls are the product of inferior nutrition? Then they really are the "weaker sex"! Proof at last!

Fortunately, actual scientists have pointed out that the sex of a baby is actually determined by genetics--not sexual positions, the moon's location at conception, the parents' desires, or nutrition. However, I ate the hell out of some breakfast cereal (and everything else), and I did give birth to a boy. Maybe it's true!

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Clinton Wins Pennsylvania

The Final Margin-- 9.4%.

As expected, Clinton wins Pennsylvania though the margin of victory is still unclear at this point, especially in terms of delegates won and final popular vote total. As of now, rough estimates suggest a 6% - 10% victory in terms of popular vote. According to the five
scenarios I suggested earlier, this may fall in the worst scenario, the gray area where no one really wins. As exit polls suggest, the voters in Pennsylvania expect Senator Obama to be the nominee they just wanted to vote for Senator Clinton tonight. That makes sense, maybe.

Before tonight, Senator Obama possessed a 166 (rough estimate) delegate lead and a 700,000+ lead in the popular vote. After tonight, Senator Obama will possess a 150 delegate lead and around a 500,000+ lead in the popular vote if Senator Clinton wins by 10%. FYI- this does not include Florida.

Two weeks until North Carolina and Indiana. One will go to Obama, one is undecided.

So what will we hear from the candidates for the next two weeks?

Senator Clinton:
She is down in the the official standard (delegate count), the unofficial standard (popular vote), and the momentum from Super Delegates is not on her side. Her campaign raised questions on Senator Obama but could not provide a landslide in a state that heavily favors her. Most importantly, she is not only broke but she owes a lot of people & vendors millions. In addition, her campaign costs $1,000,000 a day to run.

But she did win tonight and that means the fundraising opportunities will open up for her. She needs enough to be competitive in Indiana and attempt North Carolina. For her to have a legitimate claim to the nomination, she needs to win both states on May 6th. According to Politico, since the news organizations called the elections, she raised $500,000.

She can only win the nomination by the Super Delegates, mainly on the grounds that only she can beat Senator McCain in the fall. To argue this point, Super Delegates will need to overlook the pledged delegate count, which she cannot conceivable win, and most likely the popular vote, which she will most likely not win as her campaign expects to lose North Carolina by 150,000. Yet, this means that the elections from the past six months matter little. Think about that.

She will also push for a resolution for Florida and Michigan so we can expect to hear arguments on every variation of "Count Every Vote" regardless of the legitimacy of the election. For these states to matter, she needs the popular vote and not the delegate count.

I imagine that she will attempt to push Senator Obama for another debate. Both candidates rejected a debate in North Carolina. If I were her, I would challenge him in her victory speech tonight. She must be aggressive if she wants to win. Tomorrow, The New York Times will publish an editorial, "The Low Road to Victory," that attacks her advertisements in Pennsylvania. As the first two paragraphs suggest, time is not on her side and she is not helping what time she has left.

Yet, while she must watch her techniques, she has to emasculate Obama by showing he cannot "close the deal." Look for every variation of this argument: can't reach Hillary Voters, voters are unsure, there are still questions, etc.

Finally, she needs the support of the Super Delegates. There are roughly 350 undecided right now. She will need well over 60% of them to break her way. If she goes negative though she may lose their support.

Senator Obama
First, hope that the margin of victory is under ten and as close to 6 as possible. If it is under six you still retain a symbolic victory though you lost a few news cycles.

Second, go to Indiana and campaign with your new best friend John Mellencamp. Engage in retail politics and talk to any person that will listen. But avoid the waffles. If you win this state, this ought to be enough to end this nomination process.

Third, ignore Senator Clinton and unofficially declare yourself the winner of the primary. Be very courteous and avoid the attacks on her. If Senator Clinton cannot win the pledged delegates and if some of her close supporters stated that they would support the winner of the pledged delegates at the end of the race, then the dynamics of the race will not change. This may mean ignore calls for debating and ignore the attacks from Senator Clinton. This will be must easier to do after North Carolina.

Fourth, turn your attention to Senator McCain and do a better job of saying that he will be better than Bush. I mean it is not exactly the Commander in Chief/ threshold comment but find other ways to define him.

Fifth, economy is looking to be the issue right now. Work on developing your policy and address it with a major speech. Gain a few news cycles.

Finally, provide a steady stream of Super Delegates beginning with your speech tonight.

Senator Clinton's Speech:
There are a lot of appeals to her audience (her father played football at Penn State) but she seems to be going through the motions. I know that she must be incredible tired but she does lack passion through most of the speech. The appeals to women (grandmothers and daughters) draw the biggest applause. This is the set up for her fundraising appeal- "the future of the campaign is in your hands" or, more literally, in your purse.

She spends the end of her speech attacking President Bush with the typical red meat issues for liberals (science, education, ending war, etc.) At the end of her speech, she has a few good puns with "Yes, We Will." "Hope will be reality." "Words will be solutions."

Too bad this was too late; it would have been effective in February.

Equal Pay Day

While today is Earth Day, it is also Equal Pay Day. What is Equal Pay day you ask? Equal Pay Day is:
Observed in April to mark the point in each year at which an average woman’s wages finally catch up to the wages earned the year before by the average man. And this year women, who make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes (63 cents for African American women and 52 cents for Latinas), reach that point on April 22nd.
According to Anna Marie Cox, Congress is working on legislation to overturn the recent Supreme Court decision that "restricted workers' ability to sue for pay discrimination to 'within 180 days after the original pay-setting decision, no matter how long the unfair pay continues.'" Here is a description of the legislation.

Neighborhood Breakdown of Manhattan



I needed to check out where the location of Hell's Kitchen was in Manhattan. In the process, I found two maps that attempted to explain the the location of neighborhoods. After examining this map, I am just amazed over how many neighborhoods exist in 22.96 square miles.

The Eyes of Texas are upon Pennsylvania?

Today is the day, the first day of the rest of your political lives. Or, maybe not. It depends mostly on how many people will get out to vote today, for whom will the undecideds break for in the primary, and what effect will the newly registered voters (350,000+) in Pennsylvania have on the primary?

If you are interested, The Washington Post has eight questions about the Primary today. Politico has five indicators for today's vote. From Slate, there will be no brokered convention because there are no brokers. Finally, from Ezra Klein at The American Prospect, if moderators were to conduct, a good, soft debate, read interview, (rather than the soft, ABC debate), the questions may focus on why Senator Clinton went from a Goldwater Girl to Wellesley radical (intellectual political development); ask Obama about lessons learned from working in an investment bank ("real world experience"); ask about the last book of fiction they read, an intellectual passion other than politics, a bad boss, major in college & why? These questions would reveal their personalities without focusing on gaffes.

For my purposes, I would like to focus on when is a "win" a "win"?


The scenarios for today are:


Scenario One: A victory by Senator Obama ends this game. This is unlikely. Though Senator Obama closed a 20 point gap from a few weeks ago and 33 from November, it is unlikely he could finish this game here. Senator Clinton has too much name recognition and institutional strength for a full victory. This has been the case for all large, Democratic strongholds (New York, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas) where Senator Clinton began with an incredible institutional advantage. For example, before the election started, Senator Clinton had a 100+ Super Delegate lead. Of her 262 Super Delegates, almost 100 Super Delegates are from New York alone.

Scenario Two: A small, one-point victory by Senator Clinton. In this case, a victory is not a victory as Senator Clinton will win the battle but lose the war. With this "loss," Senator Clinton will lose the ability to raise funds, which is important as she is in severe dept and, according to MSNBC's Chief Political Correspondent, Chuch Todd, she will most likely not contest North Carolina. This means Senator Obama will will push up his totals in North Carolina, which will most likely happen anyways, making the battle moot.

As for the Super Delegates, in scenario one and two, the Super Delegates will jump on mass to Senator Obama, as they will want to focus their attention on the general election. Further, if Senator Clinton does not leave the race, it would be best if Senator Obama acted as if she did and turned his attention to John McCain.

Scenario Three: Senator Clinton wins by 3 - 6 points. A victory in this range could mean anything though it still favors Obama. This may still be considered a victory by Senator Obama as he reduced the polls from a 20 point difference to a small difference. Senator Clinton will gain in the popular vote but this will be rendered moot by North Carolina. Further, it is unclear if Senator Clinton will be able to raise more money. Basically, Senator Clinton will win for another day.

Scenario Four: A Senator Clinton victory between 7 - 9 percentage points. This starts to look like a loss by Senator Obama but it is not a decisive victory by Senator Clinton. As Chuck Todd states, the $9 million spent by Senator Obama on advertising in PA would not have been as effective as it could have been. Maybe it would have been better spent in Indiana. Yet, a 7 - 9 point victory does not mean Clinton will pull ahead in the popular vote, gain more Super Delegates, or be able to gain enough funds to fight on to other states. When you are heavily favored and you receive mixed results, the campaign no longer looks like a wise investment, for political capital or monetary funds. The campaign will continue for another two weeks to await the results in North Carolina and Indiana but, without funds...

Scenario Five: A Clinton win by double-digits. With this, Clinton may seem viable, she may gain funds & Super Delegates, and she may raise doubts about Senator Obama. The most favorable result would be for the Clinton campaign to gain 200,000+ votes to reduce Senator Obama's 700,000+ vote lead and Pennsylvania is her best chance to do this. Further, she will need the "momentum" to win Indiana and decrease Senator Obama's victory in North Carolina. If she does not do the second, even a double-digit lead may not help her. Finally, Senator Clinton must press about Florida and Michigan, a battle she has not won because the elections were illegitimate under basic standards of fair and free elections. Senator Clinton may pick up delegates but they cannot include the popular vote. (Senator Nelson from Florida is on MSNBC now speaking will Mika and Joe and the discussion of Florida is just dishonest as they do not discuss what constitutes fair elections.)

Finally, according to Tim Russert on Morning Joe, in an interview on The Today Show, Senator Clinton stated that Super Delegates, I imagine, should make a judgment based on "feelings" and "history." At this point, when you abandon the official, legitimate standard of delegate count and even disregard the unofficial and inconsistent popular vote standard, you admit you cannot win either or both, disdain the democratic process, and do not have much "hope" for winning. If "feeling" and "history" is your standard, you do not have much argumentative ground left to argue your case. Why bother having elections in the first place?

This comment is just as asinine as former President Bill Clinton stating if the rules were different, the Clinton campaign would be wining.

If it weren't for those pesky rules, aye Bill?

Yale Art Projects

Two days ago, I wrote about s Yale Art Student's controversial art project concerning reproductive rights. According to Yale Daily News, the University will not allow Aliza Shvarts to display her art project unless she defines it as a work of fiction. Th school also disciplined two faculty members to allow the project to continue.

It seems that if Yale forces her to do declare this as fiction, then it diminishes the meaning of the art because, first, it ruins the ambiguity of the project-- is it real, is it not-- and diminishes the "shock value." Originally, I thought the art was only "shock value." Once you attempt to remove the "shock value," it, in a weird way, becomes art. Second, it forces a definition on her project, which reinforces her point about the rhetoric of definition, but eliminates the democratic nature of the work as the University tells us what to think. If the student expected this result, which I do no think she did, then she is very smart. However, I think her statement suggests she desired the shock value only. Third, it reflects why most people do not get to discuss this issue, reinforcing the view that politics, especially the culture wars, is a game only for elites.

Since Yale is a private University there are much different first amendment arguments in place as private universities possess a greater legal ability to restrict speech, though it would be unwise to do so, especially if this becomes "art" after the University's action.

The Volokh Conspiracy writes that first, a school can use content neutral approaches to regulate school projects, such as do not use human blood, protect the health of students, etc., however, because of the nature of modern art, there may not be a clear line; second, the school can employ a "tell the truth" policy i.e. students should state their projects are fiction or a parody, but this is much harder for a work of art (aren't representations, especially abstract representations, "lies") and eliminates the shock value of the message; and three, the university needs to set clear rules beforehand and it is not clear in this case if those rules were in place.

Though it seems that the University is attacking the student for her message and for a perceived lack of taste, I do not think that this will turn into a larger first amendment controversy. It certainly would not find a sympathetic ear with this Supreme Court. In fact, this controversy will soon go away as soon as people like me stop posting on it.

If there are further updates, I will let you know.