On Rihanna and her privacy

I haven’t said much, on this blog, about the Rihanna/Chris Brown situation (let it be known though that this is only reflective of the very real problem with domestic abuse in communities of color), but something has happened, media wise, which really bothers me.  Apparently, someone from the LAPD leaked the photo to gossip site TMZ*, which then proceeded to post it.  While I understand that readers would want more information about the situation, I doubt it’s because they’re actually interested in Rihanna’s well-being, or because the owners of TMZ want to raise awareness about domestic violence by showing its results.  No, the owners of TMZ posted a picture of her, post-abuse, because it’s a great way to boost traffic, make money and earn notoriety.  It’s a show to them.  An exploitative and insensitive show.

*I’m not linking, you’ll have to find it yourself.

Frankly, Broder’s fetish for bipartisanship is kind of weird

Brian Beutler has exactly the right response to David Broder’s most recent ode to “bipartisanship”:

Looked at one way, the stimulus was an extremely partisan effort that succeeded thanks to the Democrats’ near unity and the defection of three Republicans who might not continue to be Republicans if a viable third party emerged. Looked at another, though, it was the triumph of every political faction in the country over the increasingly sclerotic group of tax-averse, socially conservative, pro-corporate politicians who happen to make up the core and husk of the modern GOP. The fact that there’s only one other major party is inconvenient for the word “bipartisan” but it says little about the range of representatives (from Bernie Sanders to Roland Burris to Ben Nelson) who voted for reform.

It never actually hit me how much Broder fetishizes bipartisanship until I read this passage in his column:

It starts from a false premise: that the stimulus bill proves the failure of outreach to Republicans. In fact, had Obama not negotiated successfully with Republican Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter and met most of their terms, his bill would have died. This was a success for bipartisanship, not a failure.

No, this may have been a success for bipartisanship, but it was also a definite failure for the stimulus package.  What’s more, the fact that Obama was forced by the idiosyncrancies of the Senate to negotiate a weaker stimulus package is not a good thing.  This “success for bipartisanship” really only demonstrates the degree to which the Senate is a fundamentally countermajoritarian institution which impedes the ability of the majority to pursue its voter-approved legislative agenda.

Public opinion is really – really – damn important

Now this is something worth thinking about (survey results via Pew Research Center):

As the graph shows,  there is hardly a public consensus on warrantless wiretapping.  Republicans, unsurprisingly, are full-throated supporters of warrantless wiretapping, with nearly 80 percent voicing their approval for the program.  More interestingly is the level of Democratic and Independent support for the policies.  This survey was taken this year, and even after the campaign and the drama associated with warrantless wiretapping, a solid plurality of Democrats and Independents believe that “government surveillance of suspected terrorists without court permission” is “generally right.”  If you look at voters as a whole, support for warrantless wiretapping is pretty much evenly divided, with 50 percent supporting and 45 percent opposed.  And the numbers are similar for other “controversial” expansions of executive power, from torture to Guantanamo.

Of the many reasons for Congress’ unwillingness to restrain executive power – and the Obama administration’s apparent decision to (try to) maintain some of the Bush-era gains in presidential authority – the fact that public opinion is basically split on the issue(s) probably ranks as one of the more important ones.  Nine times out of ten, political pressure is effective; politicians will respond when faced with significant opposition from their supporters, or even potential supporters.  What’s more, if a policy or position is popular, politicians will act (or not act) accordingly.  In the early part of the decade, education “accountability” was popular, and accordingly Congress passed – and President Bush signed – No Child Left Behind.  Conversely, privatizing Social Security was (and again, is) unpopular, and when President Bush attempted to do just that, he was virtually savaged in the court of public opinion.

My (somewhat banal) point is simply that public opinion matters and has a demonstrable effect on the policies and initiatives our politicians support or don’t support.  And that includes issues relating to executive power.  I am fairly confident that Congress would have challenged President Bush’s repeated attempts to expand the power of the presidency if public opinion was firmly against expanded executive power.  As liberals, libertarians and various stripe of conservative work to push back against President Obama’s inevitable attempts to consolidate executive power, we would do well to remember that we can enlist the public in this fight.  If we can win the battle for public opinion, then we’ll have a much easier time winning the battle in Washington.

Credit Where Credit is Due

I spend a lot of time on this blog criticizing conservatives, in fact, I probably spend the majority of my time on this blog criticizing conservatives.  But, I’m also a pretty reasonable person (as far as those things go) and I’m not above giving credit where credit is due (via John Cole):

Despite criticism from fellow Republicans, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina Monday defended his statement that the U.S. should consider nationalizing some banks.

Critics, including the chairman of Charlotte-based Bank of America and many politicians, have slammed the idea. That doesn’t bother the outspoken Graham.

“Politicians are worried about words,” he said Monday. “I’m worried about outcomes.”

Graham said the government has already poured billions into banks with little to show for the economy. Bank of America, which has received $45 billion in bailout money, is currently worth $27 billion in market capitalization.

“The truth is we’ve put more money into the Bank of America than it’s worth,” Graham said. “That’s not nationalization. That’s just stupid.”

Graham broached the idea Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable,” he said then, “but I think we have gotten so many toxic assets … that we’re going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago (and) no one likes.”

His comments surprised many Republicans.

“That’s going above and beyond being a maverick,” said Glenn McCall, York County GOP chairman and a Bank of America executive. “That’s saying that socialism in our country would work better than letting folks use their God-given talent to create and foster economic growth.”

If Lindsay Graham can accept bank nationalization, then there might be hope for the GOP.  Either that, or Lindsay Graham just gave up any hope at winning reelection.

Update: Updated for quality.

A note on Bristol Palin

While we’re on the topic of abortion, I’d like to answer Isaac Choitner’s question in the affirmative: yes, pro-lifers are being hypocritical about the Palins.  But not because they’re applauding Bristol Palin’s choice to keep the child; as Choitner notes, they aren’t applauding the act of choosing as much as “they are registering their happiness that Palin chose to make what they consider the right decision.” Rather, if pro-lifers (and social conservatives more generally) are hypocritical about Bristol Palin, it’s because they are unwilling to apply the same standard to Bristol Palin (shame and social condemnation) as they would to another (browner) unwed teen mother.

links for 2009-02-19

• The Minimalist – Whole-Grain Breakfasts – Your Morning Pizza – NYTimes.com
  I might actually take to eating a more "non-traditional" breakfast.
  (tags: food)

We should remember, of course, that pro-choicers are the unreasonable ones

Although I’m fairly passionate about my political beliefs, I try to shy away from shrillness; it’s A) a hard tone to keep up and B) unreadable unless done well.  In this case though, shrillness is the only appropriate response.  If you haven’t heard, the North Dakota House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion by declaring that a fertilized egg is a “person,” and as such has all the rights of a citizen of North Dakota.  Obviously, this bill is virtually unenforceable.  Earlier this year, in a post discussing an anti-abortion bill introduced by a Virginia legislator, I noted that attempts to put regulations on embryos and such run into a very big problem, namely, that “thirty-one percent of all conceptions end in miscarriage“, the vast majority of which occur before the woman is even aware that she is pregnant.” In order to effectively enforce this law, the state of North Dakota would have to vastly expand the scope of its police services; the legal system would have to be empowered with the ability to monitor and regulate the sexual behavior of every single woman in North Dakota.  What’s more, I should add, this law requires the North Dakota legislature to go about banning various forms of contraception, since (and I’m pretty sure I have my information right here) there are some forms of contraception which force fertilized eggs out of the body.

Of course, this bill isn’t serious (at least not in the sense that it’s intended to actually do anything).  The MSNBC article notes the 51 legislators who voted for the bill understand that it’s simply a means by which they can challenge Roe v. Wade.  Once Roe is overturned, then they can go about restricting women’s reproductive health, not because they’re necessarily concerned with “saving lives” (they must know that this bill would do nothing of the sort), but because they have a Taliban-esque desire to control female sexuality.  Which, really, seems to be the chief thing animating activist anti-choicers.  I mean, we can’t give them too much control over their bodies; they might think they’re people or something, amirite amirite?

More commentary here, here and here.

Is this cartoon racist?

I don’t have much of an opinion, but there’s a good discussion going on at PostBourgie, you should check it out.

“Nation of Cowards”

Contra Ta-Nehisi, I can’t really fault Eric Holder for giving a relatively unremarkable speech on race, because his quip that we are a “nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing race is absolutely on target.  Despite electing an African-American president, Americans (and this includes black people) are still incapable of having an intelligent conversation about race.  Hell, that’s half the reason why the presidential campaign was so frustrating.  Even after his remarkably candid “race” speech in Phildelphia (which I hoped would raise the quality of the dialogue, if only a little bit), Obama still couldn’t reference the fact of his race without risking a backlash from the press.

Update: Predictably, conservatives are clutching their pearls and seeking the smelling salts at the suggestion that America, of all places, might have a problem with discussing race.

Barack Obama really is the Messiah!

Not only can he save America, but apparently, he can resurrect long-forgotten quasi-celebrities from obscurity hell.

I don’t know if anyone remembers this (I didn’t), but early on in the Democratic primaries (before Iowa, in fact) when he was frequently criticized for not being aggressive enough, Barack Obama made some quip about how he wasn’t going to “do a Tanya Harding” on his primary opponents.  There was a little bit of handwringing over Obama’s remark, but not much, since in the scheme of things, it really wasn’t  a big deal.  At least not for Obama.  According to the Swamp, it was a pretty huge deal for Tanya Harding, who now thanks Obama for putting her back in the public eye:

Fifteen years after Tonya Harding became a household name in the breaking of figure skating rival Nancy Kerrigan’s knee, the retired, disgraced and disgruntled skater has returned to television to ask just how long someone must pay for her past.

At the same time, Harding said last night on HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, she owes President Barack Obama a certain debt for his campaign-trail remark that he wasn’t about to “do a Tonya Harding” on his primary opponents. She maintains it helped her find work, paid appearances – “because people forget who Tonya Harding is.”

Here’s a video of the interview: