Apparatchicks

Entries categorized as ‘Politics’

Obama: Part I

May 16, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Jacob Weisberg posted an interesting summary judgment of Obama’s qualities today on Slate. It is an early attempt to break down what kind of president he is.

It’s worth taking a look at, even if we are all/have been sick to death of analyzing this man’s character. In the age of the Internetz, we don’t wait for history “to write itself” (as the saying goes), we write it and debate it and revise it while the events are still going on. I for one think this is a good thing, even if it gives us a headache. By the time history gets canonized for future generations, there will be lots and lots of information to draw from, and the old adage of “the winners write history” will perhaps by then be untrue.

–anna out

Categories: Barack Obama · Politics

Where have I been?

April 28, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Hi there! I’m actually still alive and functioning so I don’t really have an excuse for my prolonged absence from this blog except let’s see, I’m graduating in less than 2 weeks!! Life has been getting in the way of scholarly and professional obligations but obviously, I have no regrets. In a few short months, I’ll be a school teacher so I’m savoring these last weeks of freedom. Regular blogging on my end will commence shortly but in the meantime, here’s my final opinion column for the Indiana Daily Student. In it, I discussed the return of intellectual thought and my conservative past. An excerpt-

While I was still impressionable, I read a book by John Rawls titled “A Theory of Justice,” and to say that it changed my life is an understatement. After finishing the often-complicated text, I realized two things.

One: Conservatism had deluded me into accepting the very worst of humanity as not simply an outlier but the very apotheosis of our existence. This led me to my second realization: I was mistakenly embracing an ideology that rejected the notion of human dignity and compassion as the source of our progress.

As I mulled over these ideas, I witnessed the manifestation of these ruminations, beginning with Hurricane Katrina and the governmental response to it. The conservative principles of self-reliance and callousness were on wondrous display then, and in the months following that disaster, I no longer identified with the movement.

You can read the whole thing here. Enjoy! 

-Indira

Categories: Education · George Bush · Higher Education · IDS · Politics · Vanity

Feminism and the Philosophy of Relativity

April 13, 2009 · 2 Comments

by anna

Not too long ago I read Katha Pollitt’s “Learning to Drive,” a collection of essays and memoirs by The Nation columnist and prominent feminist.

I was particularly struck by a few lines, something I have consistently mulled over during my past years as a feminist activist, and something I believe worthy of all feminists’ consideration:

“These days anything is feminist as long as you ‘choose’ it … no matter how dangerous or silly or servile or self-destructive it is.”

This was quoted last week in Linda Hirshman’s article for Slate,  “Crazy Love, Crazy Choices.” Hirshman, in her characteristically assertive manner, took the hard-line on how women should act when they find themselves in abusive relationships. She was responding to Leslie Morgan Steiner’s new book Crazy Love, which chronicle’s the author’s experiences with an abusive husband.

To be precise, Hirshman says, “The current love affair with understanding stops feminists from calling victims on taking responsibility for their own well-being.”

I know Hirshman is very controversial and comes across as a tad intolerant (especially when it comes to her commentary on women’s career issues). But what I admire about her is her willingness to take a strong, unequivocal position on certain issues. However, her ideas can sometimes look like Stalinism to feminism’s current “anything goes” policy.

But what both Pollitt and Hirshman have responded to in some form or another is the relativity of popular feminist thought. To rephrase both Hirshman and Pollitt, I think what they are objecting to is the idea that “if a woman makes a choice, it’s right because a woman made that choice.” This idea is intellectually lazy, a tautology, an emptiness at the hole of feminist thought.

Feminism no longer is a united ideology; feminists can hardly agree on common goals, much less a common system of thought that might guide us to a better philosophy. We don’t need angry judgment against women from feminism, but we do need more dramatic guidelines to help us figure out where we’re going. We are becoming an umbrella party for all liberal causes; I would like us to remain potent and strong, with focused, marked criticisms and policy proposals for our society.

As Hirshman’s utterances were pretty much a condemnation and judgment of one woman’s actions in regards to her abusive husband, let me just distance myself and say I still don’t know how to approach that topic. I do think the victim has a responsibility to take care of him/herself, but I also don’t think we can universally declare that the abused party is wrong and stupid when they do not to leave their abusers.

I know feminism has distanced itself from the world of black and white moral thinking, and for good reason. Certain types of old logic are contrary to feminism and women’s progress. But in our efforts to destroy old categories, it seems we have destroyed a lot of other things too, among them the ability to come up with a coherent ideology. More on this later.

Categories: Feminism · Politics

Hating on Ayn Rand

March 10, 2009 · 6 Comments

I’m too exhausted to post anything substantial today and I’d really like to do a recap of Jessica Valenti’s lecture, atleast for Anna’s sake, but I’m going to wait until I’ve caught up on some sleep. I do have a new column up on the IDS website in which I mock the latest fad among the ever-crazed and delusional libertarians/Randites- “going galt,” a reference to one of the worst books ever written, Atlas Shrugged. An explanation below [and no, this is NOT made up]-

Some conservatives and libertarians are threatening to curtail economic production in homage to the book. The loose movement, termed “going galt,” is a reference to an uprising led by John Galt, the novel’s antagonist, where the “productive” class of society goes on strike to protest governmental actions. Miraculously, this strike bleeds the government dry, capitalism is saved and the world is whole again!

If indeed people are planning on “going galt” to escape Obama’s taxes for the rich, I say good for them. People who actually like Ayn Rand and glean life lessons from her works are probably brain-dead anyway, so it isn’t like they’re contributing much to society.

God, I hate these people. Read the rest of the piece here.

-Indira

Categories: Barack Obama · Economics · Free markets · Politics · Stupidity

Republicans go urban!

March 9, 2009 · Leave a Comment

A few weeks ago, in an interview with the Washington Times, newly-minted RNC chairman Michael Steele discussed his plans for remaking the Republican Party’s image, particularly in order to appeal to the “youth” vote.

We need messengers to really capture that region – young, Hispanic, black, a cross section … We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-suburban hip-hop settings.”

Well, dear readers, I am proud to announce the unveiling of the first of (hopefully) many “urban-suburban hip-hop” videos by Steele. Who knew South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford could rap?!

Ok, while the video was clearly a joke, it makes a point that all Republicans should take note of- not all blacks are rap-listening gangstas. Like every minority group, they’re a fairly diverse group (shocker, I know!) and instead of superficial and offensive campaigns, perhaps Steele’s party can actually begin supporting policies that benefit young black people, instead of blaming them for all the miseries befalling them. Steele’s belief that recruiting some rap artists and planning “off the hook” pr campaigns (an actual quote) can miraculously erase the party’s pathetic record on civil rights just shows how out of touch he is with the black community (and reality).

-Indira

Categories: Barack Obama · Humor · Politics · Racism

A rightful claim to Gandhi?

March 7, 2009 · Leave a Comment

A major controversy erupted in India recently when it was revealed that some of Mahatma Gandhi’s possessions would be auctioned off by a New York Agency. Up for sale were his iconic metal-rimmed glasses, his sandals, a pocket watch, bowl and plate (Incidentally, the pocket watch was given to the leader by Indira Gandhi, who my parents proudly named me after).

The owner of these items, James Otis, promised to donate all the money raised from the auction to charity causes and even offered to return some of Gandhi’s belongings to the Indian government provided it increased spending on healthcare for the poor. Predictably, the government was having none of it and tried to stop the auction but to no avail. The items went on sale this weekend and the crisis was averted after Indian Vijay Mallya, United Breweries Chairman, bought the 5 items for a whopping $1.8 million and offered to donate said items to the Indian government. I wonder what Bapu would say if he knew that his “legacy” rested in the hands of a beer baron, given his strong prohibitionist stance!

That being said, it has been difficult to understand what exactly the opposition to the auction could be. It is true that Bapu abhorred material belongings and he would probably be horrified by the thought of his possessions garnering such material value. But, is it so terrible when we consider that the money raised was benefiting the underprivileged in India? Plus, it’s not like his things would be in a private collection. Thanks to Mallya’s generosity, people will now be able to view and enjoy Bapu’s belongings in a public setting.

This brings me to the point on Gandhi’s reach. His influence, while once contained within India, has affected civil rights movements around the world, including the U.S. So, is it right for Indians to claim that his belongings are a matter of national pride and consequently, belong in Indian hands? Of course not. Bapu’s ideology is for everyone, not just Indians. The other issue here is the danger in romanticizing Bapu. Like many freedom fighters at the time, the man had his flaws and he made mistakes. The most serious in my mind was his support for the partition of India into Muslim and Hindu entities, a wound that continues to affect normalcy in the region.

By placing so much value on Bapu’s material things, we are essentially devaluing everything he stood for. And don’t even get me started on the hypocrisy here. The Indian government (and even a large chunk of the population) has just stood by while millions of Indians sink into deeper poverty and I find it laughable that we suddenly care about Bapu’s moral teachings. Instead of feigning concern about acquiring his things, the larger question Indians should be asking is, do they deserve them?

-Indira

Categories: Culture Wars · India · International · Politics