“Communist” Russia and the Health Care Debate

A socialist revolution is brewing in America, and it's coming from that communist country Sarah Palin can see from her shores.

Clearly, much misinformation has been spread about the proposed health care reform.  Obama’s plan is in critical condition, crushed and twisted as it is by so much talk about death panels, nationalized health care horror stories, red revolutions and, by natural extension, Russia.

It is hilarious to me that many of the disgruntled right wing citizens at town hall meetings call on Russia to heighten the pitch of their feverish and delusional worries.

For starters, Bill O’Reilly says the health care debate is about socialism, not health care. This sets the stage for all kinds of interesting things to happen.

A Pennsylvania woman was invited on the Fox show “Happening Now,” after saying to Sen. Arlen Specter at a town hall meeting, “I don’t want this country turning into Russia.” Later, on the show, she appears to be reading from a teleprompter and narrates a little bit about herself, saying that she used to be indifferent to politics, but then she started reading about the “Constitution” and the “founders of this country.” And then she concluded that the country was ripping itself apart and health care was going to turn us into Russia.

Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others also attempted to prove that Obama’s health care plan was leading us swiftly towards the path of communism. Their evidence came straight from the mouth of the beast, or I guess that’s what they hoped we’d think. PRAVDA On-line published an editorial saying that America was turning Marxist. Dobbs, Beck, Limbaugh and others asked hypothetically: who knows Communism better than the former mouthpiece of the Party? If the Russians recognize Marxism in Obama’s policies, it must be there! They’ve lived through it!

The part that sucks was, PRAVDA On-line is not the same thing as Pravda, the communist newspaper which existed 1912-1991. Furthermore, the editorial itself has a number of spelling errors and is surrounded by ads for “Russia’s Most Desirable Single Women,” and an article declaring “Pregnant Baby Girl Born in Saudi Arabia.” Read that headline again. Amazing.

In other words, it’s a classy and reliable news source and should be trusted for its American policy analysis.

It’s not that I am surprised by the slippery slope arguments saying expanded government role in health care = socialism. I expect as much.

But its the conflation between Russia and the Soviet Union that really gets my goat. When these people say Russia, they mean Soviet Union. Hell, if they meant, “I don’t want our health care system to be like the health care system of the Russian Federation,” I would agree with them. It’s not a very good system.

How long will it take for Cold War scare-mongering to die? Apparently, a long fucking time. I feel so bad for Russia. It has just about the worst reputation of any country in the paranoid sector of American cultural imagination.

Fortunately, one crazy out there at least knew the proper name for Communist Russia. “This is the Soviet Union, this is Maoist China,” he said to Senator Specter. Well, not exactly. But we’ll take it one step at a time.

–anna

Maureen Dowd Plagiarizes

You know something? I really don’t like Maureen Dowd. I don’t like her smugness, her hostility towards feminism, her cutesy nicknames and elaborate fictional scenarios involving politicians and Cabinet members. I don’t like the self-congratulatory air pervading her every column, or how she frequently touts her superior experience, name-drops and shamelessly parades her excellent connections.

Indira and I have often shared a laugh in the past about Ms. Dowd, who has written several books, one of them called “Are Men Necessary?” An adapted magazine article that sums up the thesis of her book can be found here.

Dowd blames feminism for her troubles with men, who are apparently intimidated by her beauty and her brains. Feminism, she says, made getting along with men harder. Men now mistake Dowd and her assertiveness for a castrating feminazi and flee in the other direction.

The funny part is that probably she doesn’t get along with men (or anyone? who knows) because she’s likely unpleasant and perhaps a tad boastful. LOOK WITHIN MAUREEN. IT’S NOT FEMINISM’S FAULT THAT YOU HAVE BAD LUCK WITH DUDES.

One other thing I don’t like about her is that she was extremely vicious about Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and was one of her toughest and most unreasonable critics. She often made Chris Matthews’ criticisms look justified.

All this adds up to why I didn’t care when Maureen Dowd was found to have plagiarized a paragraph of another blogger’s work. If at first I found her writing obnoxious and her manner condescending, now I can be justified in thinking that she is an unprincipled journalist and a poor writer.

The Times would do better to stop hiring token conservatives and mix it up by hiring more people of color or an interesting woman or two. To quote my favorite Times critic, Manohla Dargis, I would like to see this happen “not because of some ‘politically correct’ imperative but because it makes the discussion more interesting.” WORD! (Dargis was talking about film critics, but the same principle easily applies here.) Indira once commented that Bob Herbert may be among the best of the bunch, but his genius is doomed to languish in obscurity forever.

Besides Herbert and Dowd (who is the biggest sexist of the bunch), all the other columnists are white men (many with economics backgrounds) in their 50s and 60s. You really know the op-ed page sucks when I enjoy reading David Brooks the most. (I’m not joking. I find him insightful, even if I disagree with him on many occasions.)

So let Dowd take a break to examine her conscience, NYT, and hire Indira or I in the mean time.

Pitchfork Continually Surprised by Talented Women

by anna

Like many music enthusiasts in the world, I have a love/hate relationship with Pitchfork. My most exhilarating encounters with music criticism occurred while reading Brent DiCrescenzo’s outrageous (yet emotionally stirring!!!) reviews while I was still in high school. Pitchfork has informed the way I conceptualize music; it created the first paradigm for richly informed, detailed, obsessive music criticism, thereby driving the blurb-driven snark machines of Rolling Stone and Spin into the bitter, bitter dirt of irrelevance.  Also, Pitchfork has contributed to my vision for a blog like this one, in which I deconstruct a Beyonce single in like 1000 words.

Back in 2005, DiCrescenzo wrote a column chronicling various indie prototypes created in Pfork’s reviews, among them an intellectual female artist known as “The Stef,” and the freak-man-boy known as “The Sloth.” In it, he describes Pitchfork writer’s analyses (both underlying and upfront) of women musicians:

Specifically, writers paint Fiona Apple and Cat Power’s Chan Marshall as hormonally capricious victim-savants and read all their lyrics like Psy.D parents unlocking a daughter’s pink diary, while Devendra Banhart’s jabberwocky skews as fecund genius.

and later…

When convenient, male songwriters slip into omniscient skin to amuse and illuminate, while female songwriters meddle in their first-person emotions, unable to escape the black hole of their romantic astrology. Naturally, emotional analysis always overshadows technical musicianship in Stef reviews.

In other words, reviewers focus on the emotional qualities of women artists’ work, while they are more generous with men, granting them agency over their identity.

Too bad no one ever heeded his words over at the magazine. Despite Pfork’s “Best New Music” section featuring a larger proportion of women-led acts than perhaps ever before, the language of the reviews stirs in me a reaction similar to that of feminist bloggers‘ responses to The New Republic’s recent profile of Sonya Sotomayor. (That’s a whole ‘nother controversy, but one that revolves around the reading of a female subject through a lens of motherhood and unhinged emotionality.) Do a close, or fuck, a distant reading of some of these reviews, and all the acceptable feminine identities are neatly rolled out in a matter of four goddamn sentences, then the woman artist in question will be shoved into each and every niche, until she is a sex symbol, a princess (!!), a mother, and an earth-goddess.

So, czech out the latest example, from the review of St. Vincent’s Actor.

Annie Clark, the musician otherwise known as St. Vincent, projects an aura of eerie perfection– beautiful, poised, good-humored, and well-adjusted to a degree uncommon for rock performers, let alone ordinary people. She’s clearly not oblivious to her disarming qualities. On the covers of both her albums, her wide eyes and porcelain features give her the appearance of a cartoon princess come to life, and in the songs contained therein, she sings with the measured, patient tones of a benevolent, maternal authority figure. The thing that separates Clark from any number of earth mother Lilith Fair types, however, is her eagerness to subvert that effect. Her album covers may showcase her pretty face, but her blank expression and the tight framing leave the images feeling uncomfortably ambiguous. Her voice and arrangements are often mellow and soothing, but those sounds mainly serve as context as she exposes undercurrents of anxiety and discomfort hidden just beneath a gorgeous façade.

Clearly, St. Vincent has an authoritative presence; but the critic here qualifies her assertive vocal tendencies as “maternal,” for no reason I can tell other than Ms. Clark has a woman’s voice. And, Lilith Fair? I don’t hear much 90’s lesbian music going on here; St. Vincent is more akin to those indie musicians pushing the classical envelope. Again, the only thing I imagine would conjure such a comparison would be her womanly voice.

Also, she’s a pretty pretty princess.

If Dicrescenzo is arguing that critics assume an insulting lack of agency on the behalf of women artists’ identities, this review pats St. Vincent on the back for being shifty; she has stealthily avoided all the traps pfork has set up for her.

Behold:

With that in mind, the album is perfectly titled, as Actor proves St. Vincent as an artist capable of crafting believable, complicated characters with compassion, insight, and exacting skill.

“Thanks, guys! I am capable!” I’m certain that’s what Ms. Clark was thinking when she read that.

You know who else is capable? Bat For Lashes’ Natasha Khan. Check out the last sentence of the recent review of Two Suns:

Not only does Khan hold her own, there are moments when she holds his, too [on the song The Big Sleep]. That she’s capable of doing so is evidence enough that we should be paying attention.

Apparently Pfork needs a lot of proof from the women artists they review. I find it uncanny, not to mention lazy, that these two reviews end almost identically. Furthermore, the fact that Khan “holds her own” with a man is supposed to prove to us we can pay attention now? Thanks for the permission.

Then again, I am relieved that the critic even came to that conclusion, given his best efforts to totally undermine the seriousness or aesthetic worth of Bat For Lashes in his opening sentence:

Natasha Khan likes pretty things: fur, gold, melody, the moon, feathers, things that sparkle, chords that resolve.

The thing I am most shocked about is the weird lack of awareness running through these articles. Aren’t these music critic dudes at all sensitive to the potentially cringe-inducing usage of words like, “capable” or “pretty” or “maternal?” Didn’t these hip young men ever take a gender studies class? Don’t their girlfriends get annoyed with them? Have they ever talked to a woman?

I am not proposing censorship, I am proposing a little sensitivity. I am delighted that women artists are being reviewed favorably by Pfork, but I won’t be satisfied until they apply the language they use in reviews of dude bands/acts to the womenfolk.

Case studies in wingnuttery- Savage edition

So, I thought I was having a pretty horrific day yesterday until a friend alerted me to this NPR segment that is just breathtaking. Let me explain. On Tuesday, right-wing bigot Michael Savage was inexplicably invited to appear on Talk of the Nation after it was revealed that Savage had been banned from entering the United Kingdom. Yeah, just take a moment to savor the hilarity of this. Savage is in good company since included on this no-entry list were two leaders of a Russian skinhead gang, ex-KKK Grand Wizard Stephen ‘Don’ Black, the Phelps Church and Hamas terrorists. In making this decision, UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the following-

Coming to this country is a privilege. We won’t allow people into this country who are going to propagate the sort of views… that fundamentally go against our values.

Can we give her a medal already? Predictably, Savage’s NPR appearance was absolute mayhem with his rants about those crazy Britons and their bad food and even worse teeth and of course, those intolerant liberals. Coz you know, the real tragedy here isn’t that Savage is a hate-filled bigot who spews racist/homophobic garbage to millions of listeners and actually gets paid a shit ton of money to do it. Yeah, we crazy liberals with our la-la views about tolerance and respect. The best part of the interview comes at 6:44 when a listener calls in and what follows is just….well, spectacular. Here’s a rough transcript-

Caller: Uhh, if you listen to Michael Savage, if every time he says Islam or Muslim, you insert either Jew or Christian, he would be off the air in one day. I’ve had Muslim…

Savage: Wait a minute, I don’t want to listen to this foaming lunatic. I came on the air to give you an opinion, not to listen to someone in pajamas in a mental asylum in Iowa…

(Crosstalk)

Savage: No no, you listen to me, you’re a nobody and I’m not gonna talk to you. Now, Neal, if you’d like to continue the discussion, I’ll do so. Otherwise I have more important things to do than talk to someone in pajamas in an institution in Iowa. 

Neal Conan: Then go do them. 

Savage: Thank you (hangs up). 

Umm, wow? Now, the irony here is that while Savage blathers on about free speech, he reveals his own intolerance of speech that may differ from his, like with the poor caller. But yeah, you aren’t a real conservative unless you’re a total hypocrite. See, what Savage means is that free speech is protected only if it’s his nonsense. Everyone else can just shove it. Now, instead of retreating to the cave he apparently dragged himself out from, Savage is doing what any rational right winger would do- sue Britain, of course. Yeah, that’ll show them! You know, just this once, I would like to see narcissists like Savage expend the energy they commit to feign outrage at alleged indignities like these and actually give a shit about something legitimate, like you know, the war in Iraq or poverty. But this means that Savage would have to display some intellectual honesty and we all know that’s a losing proposition.      

-Indira

Fuck Bill O’Reilly

Seriously, the dude’s a petty and vicious man but his latest drama is just crossing the line. Here’s the story. A few days ago, ThinkProgress (my favorite site, fyi) blogger Amanda Terkel wrote about O’Reilly speaking at a fundraiser for the Alexa Foundation, an organization that benefits rape survivors and raises support for such issues. As Terkel wrote, O’Reilly’s presence at the event was problematic given his endorsement of victim-blaming, most notably on his radio show when he made some vile comments about Jennifer Moore, an 18-year old woman who was raped and murdered. Here’s the beacon of social consciousness on Moore’s tragic death-

Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning.

But, of course, the helpless men! Enraged that his comments had been picked up by various media outlets, he did what any sensible person would do- Send your producer to stalk Terkel for 2 hours, all while harassing her and demanding an apology for “causing pain and suffering to rape victims and their families.” Are you kidding me, O’Reilly? Just so we’re on the same page, you sexually harassed a coworker and pretty much had to settle after it was revealed that your victim recorded many of your explicit conversations. So yeah, as a vic myself, I can safely state that the absolute last person I want to see an event about sexual violence, rape or abuse is a misogynistic asshat like you.

See, when I write/talk about the evil ways of the far- right wing machine, I’m not exaggerating. These people are vicious and their bullying ways have just gotten worse with Obama’s win. Much of it is their way of lashing out, particularly due to the realization that their ideology is deeply unpopular and marginalized around the country. Others like Limbaugh and O’Reilly are just evil people who can only be bothered with demonizing those unlike them. These people deserve no more publicity but I simply can’t help it.

-Indira

Bill Kristol’s swan song?

I still remember the outrage when neoconservative commentator and professional wingnut Bill Kristol received a prime time columnist gig at the New York Times in early 2008. That Kristol was a rabid conservative, while contributing to the uproar, wasn’t so much the issue as his less-than-kind-words for his future employer, including calls for its “prosecution.” Well, that and the fact that he’s been wrong about everything.  Case in point- Kristol was the genius responsible for “discovering” Gov. Sarah Palin and pushing Sen. John McCain to pick her for the VP slot.

Keeping with this storied tradition, Kristol ended his stint at the NYT yesterday with a meandering column about Obama’s conservative credentials (funny, I remember a different label for him during the election) and how awesome Ronald Reagan was. Rule of thumb for Republicans- if you have to incessantly repeat something- tax cuts are good! We won in Iraq! Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War! George Bush kept us safer!- it probably isn’t true.

The reason for Kristol’s ouster is not surprising- in just a year, the NYT was forced to issue four corrections, including one for his very first column. Still, it’s not all gloomy. Kristol has reportedly been picked up for a monthly columnist gig at the Washington Post. What liberal media, right?

Here’s the thing that always gets me about intellectual lightweights like Kristol- they wouldn’t be any where if it wasn’t for famous fathers. He isn’t alone of course- Fred Kagan, John Podhoretz and Doug Feith come to mind. This dangerous brand of nepotism is particularly ironic considering that while the GOP seems to care a great deal about merit and fairness, many Republican commentators have been able to advance solely due to family connections. Indeed, for a group that seems to loathe affirmative action, they sure seem to be benefit from it.

-Indira