Category: politics

Canadian Elections

~ Clarissa ~ 46 Comments

So it looks like the Tories are increasingly likely to win the elections in Canada and even get a lead that is big enough for them to form a majority government.

I can’t say I’m too shocked, either. Based on the policy quiz I took, I disagree with Canada’s Conservatives fiercely on pretty much every subject. And yet, if I were voting in Canada, I’d vote for the Tories.

I’ve been observing Canada (Quebec, especially) all throughout the global economic crisis and I can’t pretend that I didn’t see shockingly great prosperity in the midst of economic woes of planetary dimensions. Whoever made that happen, whoever dragged Canada through the crisis (Americans know it as “the Recession”) so well is very hard to defeat in any election.

Also, the Tories are the only ones standing up for women’s rights (shocking, I know) and denouncing, albeit quite timidly, the degrading habit of dragging around shrouded and animalized women. If you are not a woman, I know you are incapable of comprehending the debilitating effect it has on women to see this kind of thing. Even my husband, a passionate feminist, thinks the issue is funny. Just believe me when I tell you that it is painful, offensive, and deeply humiliating. Whoever manages to squeeze out, “This is not OK” is my hero. (Maybe if you are a Jew you can get what this means to me if you imagine having to see, on a daily basis, Jews who walk off the pavement without raising their eyes and wearing a yellow star on the left side of their chest.)

The opponents of the Tories don’t manage to articulate a convincing set of objections, which is another sign they will not find it easy to win. Their objections are all on the level of “But Benghazi! But the emails! But Bush lied!” And we all know that this kind of childishness loses elections.

Putin’s Press-Conference, Part III

~ Clarissa ~ 11 Comments

Putin then heaped praise on the Ukrainian President Poroshenko, saying that Poroshenko was ready to collaborate with Putin but some mysterious members of the Ukrainian government were preventing him from doing that. This limp-wristed attempt at discrediting Poroshenko tells me that Putin fears him and sees him as a political force to be reckoned with.

Then Putin confirmed that the heroes of the Donetsk Airport were still alive and still fighting. This is great news because we’ve been fearing that they were no longer among the living.

There was also a long discussion of how the mean, horrible Ukrainians just had to get into a war (with themselves) on purpose to prevent the Russians from enjoying their massive win at the Olympics. They are really obsessed with those Olympics, folks. It’s been almost a year, and they are still going on and on about the Olympics. There is a huge sense of grievance that is being fostered in Russia about those Olympic Games. I actually started feeling sorry for the Russians after hearing this endless blabber about the Olympics. Poor freaks.

One of the journalists was holding up a pink bunny and a poster that said, “I have a kind question.” I found that to be an interesting journalistic tactic of attracting attention. 

Putin informed the audience that the line between a member of the opposition and a traitor to the nation was very blurry. You’ve really got to appreciate the honesty with which he warned the dissidents of what awaited them.

What I find really funny is that Putin moves, talks and gesticulates exactly like the career criminals in Russian TV series that N. and I love to watch. I think he works with an acting coach to acquire this persona because people watch a lot of these shows and find it easy to relate to this kind of character.

My Analysis of Putin’s Speech, Part IV

~ Clarissa ~ 1 Comment

Ready? Here goes:

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes.

We all know what “one country” Putin has in mind, right? His ideology is pretty simple: it’s unfair that there should be a single global power (the US) that pushes its own recipes (democracy, human rights “Western values,” gay marriage, separation of church and state) on everybody. So it’s only fair, Putin says, that there should be another world power who would promote the exact opposite to create a more balanced system.

The profound cynicism of this position lies in the attempt to convince the world that Putin’s assault on democracy and human rights in Russia and neighboring countries is only done for the benefit of the planet.

“Don’t you see what I’m doing, you dummies?” he says. “I’m killing Ukrainians, rigging elections, and bashing gays (to name just a few favorite pursuits) to benefit you! So that our shared planet is a more objective and just place!”

I knew before starting to read the speech that our dear friend Mr. Snowden would make an appearance and serve a useful purpose. And so he did, even earlier in the speech than I thought:

It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Obviously, I’m no longer naive enough to think that this will in any way influence Snowden’s fans to abandon their hero-worship.

A Theory on Obama’s Approach to Syria

~ Clarissa ~ 18 Comments

Somebody just advanced a theory that Obama doesn’t want to invade Syria and is doing what he can to avoid looking weak while sabotaging the invasion. And this is why he declared he will let the Congress that hates him have the final say. In the end, he won’t have to invade and will be able to blame the Congress for any consequences just as we go into the congressional electoral campaign.

This would be a beautiful world I don’t mind inhabiting.

Do we have any optimists who think this is a likely explanation around here?

Putin Is Elected President in Russia

~ Clarissa ~ 6 Comments

The moment Putin got elected as Russia’s not very new President, look what happened to my Stats page:

Usually I have one or two people per day alight on the blog in search of information on Putin’s Botox treatments. Today, it’s 75 already, and it is only 11 am here.

Russian people have a very unique relationship with their political leaders. They both love them and hate them passionately. They also find it very hard to let them go in any significant way unless they die. They have gone and voted for Putin, and now they will have a blast analyzing his photos and ridiculing his plastic surgery.

I’m sure there were a few falsifications during these presidential elections in Russia. At the same time, it is obvious that Putin won fairly, and that most people wanted him as president. On the one hand, there wasn’t a single viable alternative candidate because a true opposition in the country is non-existent. On the other hand, the people of Russia are not ready to let Putin go yet. They will now get a chance to play out their favorite role of eternal adolescents making fun with their online buddies of the strict father whom they both fear and adore.

Is Having a Lot of Sex Shameful?

~ Clarissa ~ 53 Comments

I have nothing but the most sincere sympathy for Sandra Fluke who testified at a hearing on the medical coverage of contraception and is now at the center of a shitstorm organized by sexually repressed miserable folks on both sides of the partisan divide. Here is what Rush Libmaugh had to say about Fluke:

It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can’t afford it. […] She’s spending $3000, $1000 a year, on pills and she’s going broke and wants us to buy it. […] By her own admission, in her own words, Sandra Fluke is having so much sex that she can’t afford it. […] Does she have more boyfriends? They’re lined up around the block. Or they would have been in my day.

I don’t understand why anybody would listen to the guy who repeats the same thing like a broken record, makes strange logical connections, and is so out of touch with reality that the difference between condoms and other forms of contraception eludes him. From this quote, Limbaugh’s show sounds tedious as hell.

But I don’t see what’s offensive about this particular quote.

I copied it directly from a  progressive website that is scandalized by the quote. Mind you, I have no idea what was said in the parts that the progressive website edited and put in […]. I’m reacting to a reaction, so to speak, and for the purposes of my post, what matters is the text that the progressive website in question found offensive. This is how the progressive blog responded:

And still, with the exception of mealy-mouthed demurring by John Boehner and Rick Santorum, the gutless Republicans have nothing to say about these attacks. If the Speaker’s daughters Lindsay and Tricia had been Limbaugh’s targets for these scummy attacks, would he have just said the guy’s words were “inappropriate.”

Now I want everybody to breathe very deep and look back at the quote from Limbaugh. Yes, we all hate Limbaugh. He is stupid, he is vile, he is an uneducated, stupid jerk. But let’s look at this particular quote because I’m trying to make an important point.

Where precisely are the “scummy attacks” in the quoted text? Is having “so much sex”, “more boyfriends” and people who are “lined up around the block” something bad? What is so offensive about being sexually active and popular? Limbaugh is an idiot and a clown, we all know that. But what about the progressives who take the phrase “she is having so much sex” as some huge insult?

Limbaugh’s position is, at least, very clear: “I can’t get it up any more, so I hate everybody who can.” The author of the progressive post, however, has me very confused. He seems to think that having a lot of sex is something that happens but it is a reality that is so offensive that it should never be mentioned in polite company.

There is a lot of sexual repression going on here on both sides. All that differs is the way in which the conservatives and the progressives manifest how much sex horrifies them. The verbiage changes but the substance remains the same.

Why Do We Need Birth Control?

~ Clarissa ~ 18 Comments

I have to say, I’m getting a little fed up with the “women need birth control not because they want to have sex but because they might have health issues that are corrected with birth control and, in any case, being on birth control doesn’t mean you are having that much sex anyways.”

It’s all true but it’s also completely beside the point. It is the XXI century, folks. It is perfectly fine to need birth control because you are having sex and want to prevent pregnancy. It is perfectly fine to have tons of sex if that’s what you want. Let’s stop buying into this idea that there is something wrong with having sex.

Want birth control for your health issues? Good. Want it because you are having lots of sex? Also good. Neither of these reasons is more or less valid than the other. Let’s just stop being apologetic for what we are doing with our own bodies already.

Kudos to Georgia State Rep. Yasmin Neal!

~ Clarissa ~ 15 Comments

Even in Georgia there are politicians who do good work and call people’s attention towards the stupidity of the anti-abortion and anti-contraception hysteria.

Wouldn’t it be cool to have Rep. Neal as our president?

Now There Is Really Nobody to Vote For

~ Clarissa ~ 41 Comments

Can you guess who said this recently?

We are putting colleges on notice — you can’t keep — you can’t assume that you’ll just jack up tuition every single year. If you can’t stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers each year will go down. We should push colleges to do better. We should hold them accountable if they don’t.

And this (the same person):

We call this — one of the things that we’re doing at the Consumer Finance Protection Board that I just set up with Richard Cordray — (applause) — is to make sure that young people understand the financing of colleges. He calls it, “Know Before You Owe.” (Laughter.) Know before you owe. So we want to push more information out so consumers can make good choices, so you as consumers of higher education understand what it is that you’re getting.

And the following (still the same guy):

 We’re successful because we have an outstanding military — that costs money.

To resume:

– college students are consumers, which makes imposing the business model on academia a must;

– colleges must be forced into even more cuts, which makes the further erosion of the concept of tenure inevitable. One over-extended adjunct can do the teaching of 3 profs. As for research, who the hell needs it anyways? So, adjuncts in, professors out;

– the money that is squeezed out from public universities should be pored into the military because there is always a dinky little war that needs to be waged somewhere to keep Pentagon happy. And private contractors, too. Yippee.

I know that you are all aware that these are excerpts from a recent speech by President Obama. And that’s the most progressive option we get.

OK, so how am I supposed to indoctrinate my students when I’m very disappointed with all of the candidates there are? I have to teach tomorrow, people, so we need to come up with something. I can’t let a whole day of classes go without some nice indoctrination.

Bankers Eager to Donate to Obama’s Campaign

~ Clarissa ~ 11 Comments

Washington Post reports:

Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data. . . As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data. . .

Obama has raised a total of $15.6 million from employees in the industry, according to the Post analysis. Nearly $12 million of that went to the DNC, the analysis shows.

Romney has raised less than half that much from the industry, while Texas Gov. Rick Perry brought in about $2 million. No other Republican candidate has raised more than $402,000 from the finance sector, which also includes insurance and real estate interests.

The ultra-conservative Washington Post uses this information to paint Obama as pro-banks and pro-financial sector in order to make him less attractive to progressive voters. Of course, people who follow politics at least minimally will find this information to be very belated. We all remember how Obama appointed Summers and Geithner, of all people, to key positions two seconds after he was elected. This gave us all the information we could have possibly needed about the new President’s position on the economy. Today, we are reaping the results of those appointments.

In my opinion, the huge support that the financial sector offers Obama today has to do with Wall Street’s realization that Obama is the only candidate who might, if given enough reason to, listen to the #Occupy protesters and start bringing back some of the regulation measures on the financial industry that are the only way of saving us all from complete and utter economic collapse.

At this point, Obama is not listening to his erstwhile progressive supporters. However, he might. Especially, if the protests intensify as the election draws closer. This is why Wall Street is trying to buy him off as fast as possible. Overall, I’d say this is very good news because it demonstrates that the bankers are finally taking the #Occupy protesters seriously. President Obama will be well served to do the same.