Friday Open Thread

 

"An Cat Dubh" - U2

A selection inspired by one of our discussions the other day.  I think that part of their great appeal among young people at this time was their unabashed joy in performing and being rock stars.  Many of the important acts who were slightly ahead of them or contemporaries had complex relationships with their audiences and stardom -- acts like the Clash, Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, Graham Parker and contemporaries like REM and the Smiths were sometimes angry, sometimes enigmatic, and often seemed less than fully welcoming despite being great live acts.  U2 pretty much wore their hears on their sleeves and seemed fully prepared to both be adored and adore in return.

-  One of the great dangers of politics is its ability to reduce people to abstractions in such a way that "sending a message" is deemed more important than say letting children die of disease.  Last night former Congressman Robert Wexler (who I have always liked) gve a graphic illustration of this phenomenon on the Daily Show discussing the American decision to cut off funding UNESCO because it has admitted Palestinian representatives.  John Oliver, who is really amazingly good at this kind of devatating humor, just handed Wexler his ass.  It was pretty disturbing to watch but watch it you should.

- Speaking of the world of vicious political abstraction, how do you explain opposing the Violence Against Women Act in a way that doesn't make you sound like an asshole? 

Alright must get to work -- I leave the discussion in your capable hands for a while.    .   

Comments

[low-tech cyclist]

Let's see - they're against the Violence Against Women Act because it would combat violence in same-sex unions, they're against insurance covering contraceptives because it's really about religious freedom (which I guess is the freedom to call women sluts if they want to have a normal sex life), they're against Title X funding because the budget must be cut, you know, and yada yada yada.

Funny how it all seems to come back to actions that certainly seem rather hostile to women who aren't independently wealthy. Of course, poor women get demonized for being poor, and for being women too: two shamings for the price of one!

Speaking of trying to oppose something without looking like an asshole, just for kicks, I wish the Dems would reintroduce the DREAM Act, only with the eligibility standards cut all the way back to young people who are 18 or older now, but have been living in the U.S. continuously since they were under 10 years of age. Only a bunch of assholes would block a bill like that. And of course, that includes just about the entire GOP as presently constituted.

[oddjob]

As of today the Wisconsin Senate no longer has a majority party of any sort. As of today the parties are tied at 16 seats each (with no tie-breaking vote from the Lieutenant Governor allowed).

[nancy]

It's Friday. We needed this news. Go Rush.

:^))

[low-tech cyclist]

oddjob - that's good news! Not just in the obvious ways, but now I don't have to help try to bring about the defeat of a high school classmate. (Yeah, small world.)

[Crissa]

Well, I've been told, 'We need to make sure the 400 million is spent responsibly!'

So I asked, 'Is there a problem with this spending different than any other federal spending, that needs special rules?'

[oddjob]

Keeping it classy (NOT).

[kathy a.]

ok, oddjob. this is a time i can say without exaggeration that my jaw.fucking.dropped.

[beckya57]

I just gasped in horror at that link. I cannot believe anyone would want to be publicly associated with that.

Will somebody please transport me back to the 21st century?

[kathy a.]

an antidote.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

For a solid backgrounder on the recent Texas opting out of the Women's Fealth Program -- a Medicaid special program designed to prevent unwanted pregnacies -- here's a solid piece from the Texas Observer.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Fealth=Health.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One story that seems to have been missed by the blimp is the residence problems Richard Lugar is having. Any long-time incumbent is vulnerable to the attack that 'he's grown away from the District -- or State -- and that he's lost touch with the home folks.'

But Lugar has stretched that a wee bit too far -- and btw, pour yourself a Bushmill's today for me. Lugar was elected in 1976, sold his home in 1977, and hasn't lived i the state since. Until now nobody made an issue out of it, but this year it is being used -- so much so that Lugar has been ruled ineligible to vote from the residence he has always listed -- the same house he sold in 1977.

It's a shame in one way, since Lugar is one of the few Republicans -- like Warren Rudman -- that I could disagree with without losing a basic respect for. (And in a Lugar-Dukakis race I might have broken my string of Democratic votes, despite his conservatism on many matters.)

But this -- and not the waning TP -- might hand Murdock the primary victory and -- again of anyone's awake in any Democratic headquartes -- gives us a solid shot at a win we had no reason to expect. (Like Chrissie did in 2010 when Castle would have won handily.)

Keep an eye on this one.

[beckya57]

Thanks, kathy, I needed that.

[big bad wolf]

that's a great antidote, kathy

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

This one is OT, but directly affects my own State Senate District. We were fortunate that the abominable Carl Krueger -- the corrupt closet queen (who used his lover's mother as his beard) -- was finally kicked from Albany to Attica. The trouble is the replacement special election, and the problem with clerical interference, this time by a bunch of Orthodox Rabbis.

The Democratc candidate is Councilman Lou Fidler, who is pro-SSM, pro-Choice, and against school vouchers (that in the Jewish part of the district would go to Yeshivas). Now I can understand rabbis opposing him and arguing against him, and for his opponent, but the following full-page ad in the Flatbush Jewish Journal signed by 51 rabbis -- and mentioned on the front cover of the paper with the page of the ad -- seems to go too far, and makes me wonder if there is any way of challenging any tax exemption they take. I quote the 'money quote', with the Hebrew included and the translations and emphases supplied by the ad:

It is therefore considered to be a great Chilul Hashem and Assur [forbidden according to Torah law] to vote for or to provide funding, campaign assistance, public recognition or any type of support to Councilman Lewis Fidler. To do so would amount to being mesiy 'ayah ovrei aveirah (abetting transgression of the Torah's commandments).

This is a little over the line, and I am wondering if something could be done involving tax exemptions.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Actually the whole paper is worsethan that, with both the front and back covers and inside covers full-page ads for Starobin -- in fact, anti-Fidler. You can see them and the whole issue (check out page 20) here.

And this is something that appears on every front porch of every house in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, even one such as mine -- three secular and atheistic Jews and me.

[jeanne marie]

Great antidote, kathy a.

That, and I just got back from our St. Paddy's Day parade and festival. Sunny and mid-seventies, corned beef and cabbage, and (only) one Smithwick . . . ready for o'nap.