Tampilkan postingan dengan label Democrats. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Democrats. Tampilkan semua postingan

Senin, 22 Maret 2010

Spring Break Is Here! + Health Insurance Bills Pass + Immigration Reformers Rally in DC

My grades are now in, which means that Spring Break week begins. It's more of a symbolic break--and brake--than a real one, though, since I still have to finish a syllabus for a new course I'm teaching next quarter, but that's always an enjoyable task. (Well, all except the document-scanning part.) I'm hoping the weather stays beautiful here so that we can start planting by this weekend, before I head back to Chicago, where, I read and heard, it snowed. Yikes. It was 70F here on Saturday, and between the scaling of prose I did get out and about. Spring, please, hang around.

===

The Democratic Leadership
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi celebrates
with other Democrats after
the health care reform
bill passed through the House
of Representatives by a vote
of 219 to 212 Sunday.
(Kevin Dietsch/UPI)
Perhaps it was always so, but politics these past few years have sometimes seemed more thrilling than the most artfully created dramas. To put it another way, there's an art and some farce to--and tremendous artifice in--our political system that was greatly on display yesterday. As I read short and marked up stories and essays and cooked, and C did his thing, we periodically would stop and watch the speechifying and punditizing and all the other lead ups to the dramatic vote last night for the terribly flawed, Republite, but still necessary Senate Health Insurance Reform and Reconciliation bills which passed last night, 219-210 and 220-209 respectively, in the US House of Representatives. We should all give great credit to President Barack Obama and his administration, and to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her caucus's leadership, for pulling off this major and longtime-coming accomplishment.

The recent path to last night's momentous events, easily the most important of President Obama's presidency and one of the landmark non-military votes of the last 35 years, involved ugly scenes and behavior of the sort that have been all to common in our history. Tea Party protesters massed outside the Capitol Building called civil rights hero Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) and a fellow Democrat, Indiana Congressman Andre Carson "nigger"; they spat on black Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO); and hollered "faggot" at out gay Congressional leader Barney Frank (D-MA).  In addition someone hurled bricks through the windows and doors of Representative Louise Slaughter's upstate New York office, and someone shattered a window at Congresswoman Gabrielle Griffiths's (D-AZ) Tucson-area office window.  These acts mirrored some of the most hideous racist, homophobic, and violent rhetoric that emerged during the 2008 campaign, and which has reappeared in various forms in the Teabaggers' protests and gatherings over the last year; in all cases, fear, ignorance and hatred of the Other is motivating these people as much as any economic or economically ideological concerns.



In the House chamber itself, GOP supporters had to be escorted from the gallery, and some of its leaders repeatedly used extremist rhetoric to denounce a bill that in essence was produced by a right-wing think tank and heavily drafted by an insurance company lobbyist.  Things reached such a feverish, unreal pitch last night, in keeping with the GOP's testeria over doing anything to help the less fortunate using GOP-friendly approaches, that after diehard anti-abortionist Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI, and Michael Moore's Congressperson!) who had repeatedly misstaked the facts about the Senate bill's abortion provisions and attempted to take the bill down completely, shifted his position to vote for the legislation based on an agreement with Obama, who issued an executive order setting the Hyde Amendment as the law of the land, an even more extreme Republican, Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), shattered what little decorum remained and screamed out "baby killer." This echoed GOP behavior during the President's address to the joint session of the Houses of Congress last September, when Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelled out "You lie!" Neugebauer apologized today, but his actions made clear how difficult any real bipartisan comity or agreement with the extremist-dominated Republican Party rump that now sits in Congress, unless the topic is warmonger and warmaking.

But back to the bill: it falls far short of many of the goals Obama outlined during the campaign. There is no affordable, government-funded public insurance option. There is no drug importation, nor can Medicare negotiate for lower prices. The bill bans rescission based on pre-existing conditions for adults, but not for several years. The bill does not halt the profit-making motives or slash waste and overhead for private insurance companies enough. It includes some well-known and some last-minute giveaways to the insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industries. It also incentivizes (a horrible word, I know) higher-deductible plans at the cost of more ample, affordable ones. It mandates that all American adults buy often costly private insurance at penalty of an IRS fine. For some individuals and families who don't qualify for Medicaid or fall at the lower, subsidy-ready end of the spectrum, or, conversely, at the top, the costs will be a burden. As the 18% non-enrollment level in the structurally close Massachusetts health care program, introduced by Republican Mitt Romney when he governed that state, demonstrates, affordability should have been a greater consideration. And, despite the deranged outbursts by Wilson, Neugebauer and others, this bill strikes a severe blow to abortion rights, particular for working-class and poor women, and to equality for all US residents, particularly undocumented immigrants. Firedoglake lays out some six of the bill's most egregious flaws here.

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and senior staff react in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, as the House passes the health care reform bill, March 21, 2010.  (Official White House/Pete Souza)
The bill is riddled with problems. And yet...it was worth passing, because it does improve in some key ways on the status quo even as it doesn't challenge or undermine some of the serious structural problems affecting US health care, chief among them reining in corporate interests and the for-profit model of health insurance and coverage. Linguist and critic Noam Chomsky stated in a Raw Story interview today that were he in Congress he would have "held his nose," given how awful this bill is compared to what it could and should have done, and voted for it. Deferring again to Firedoglake, here are some of the realities of what's just been passed: Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill. Ugh! So what good does it do? Among its immediate benefits, it bans insurance companies from dropping children with pre-existing conditions (adults must wait until 2014); it ensures that people with pre-existic conditions will be able to get insurance through a temporary high-risk pool; it offers small businesses tax credits to provide insurance for workers; it does remove lifetime cost caps; it closes the prescription drug "doughnut-hole" for seniors; it allows parents to carry their children on their plans until the age of 26; it ends recissions; insurance must pay out 80% of premiums in claims; and they have to create greater transparency in their operations.

Now that the bill is passed, where do we go? First, we should keep in mind that, once the Reconciliation sidecar bill passes the US Senate, this historic bill is still only a first step. Its flaws need to be fixed. Second, what we who care about real, progressive health care reform can do is to push our Senators to hold an up-or-down vote for a robust government insurance plan, a true public option. Not only President Obama, but several score US Senators claimed to support a public option, and the initial House bill also included a weakened but viable public insurance option. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said he'd bring a public option bill up for a vote, but I don't trust him as far as I can throw him; demanding unrelentingly that he, Obama (who dealt away the public option on the gaming table of insurance industry concessions), and so-called progressives in the Senate and House support, pass and sign into law a public option is the main way to make this happen.  US health care costs per person are double or in some cases nearly triple those of comparable industrialized nations; cost-effective care, alongside expanded coverage, must be a goal, and a public option--or single-payer insurance--is the road to ensuring this. At the state level, pushing for changes that allow a public option or to ensure one is also a needed move. Also pushing for expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, drug reimportation, and Medicare drug negotiation also are important. And having more people speak out about the crucial importance of abortion rights and equality of funding, across class lines, and for fair and humane treatment of immigrants, including coverage for them if they become ill, neither of which is popular right now, will also be important.

Nevertheless, it marks the major achievement of Barack Obama's presidency thus far. It also is the major achievement of the post-2006 Congressional Democrats, and huge credit goes to the leadership of the first woman Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.  The president and Congress were able to push through a form of social legislation that over a dozen predecessors, including President Bill Clinton in 1994-95, and several past Republican presidents, could not, and did so with the support of a majority of his party members in both houses of Congress and without any support of the opposition party. It is a victory for the country, and the GOP's "Waterloo." Now it'll be up to President Obama and Congressmembers to sell this new legislation, to ensure that it runs smoothly, and to steadily and regularly improve it. Above all they cannot run away from it; once its decent provisions start to kick in, it will become as popular and vital as Social Security or Medicare, neither of which many opponents of this legislation are willing to give up, especially once they've started to rely on it.

===

Protesters waved signs from a flatbed truck on Sunday during the March for America immigration rally in Washington Luke Sharrett/The New York Times
Overshadowed by the health insurance reform votes yesterday was the massive march yesterday in Washington, DC, for immigration reform.  More than 200,000 immigration reform supporters called for action on the US's broken system, in which many millions of immigrants now resident in the country are undocumented, living in a legal limbo and thus open to exploitation by businesses and citizens who've gamed the situation to their benefit.

While the rhetoric on the right, and sometimes at the center and on the left often paints the immigrants as the source of the problem, what's less often broached, particular in the mainstream media, are the larger issues of what a functioning, enforceable immigration system for the 21st century United States would look like, and what corporate America's role in such a system would and should be.  The result over the last 10 years was a massive influx of immigrants, often lured by businesses of all sizes to work for lower wages, thus depressing the earnings of US citizens, without protections either for the immigrants or native workers, accompanied by an increasingly strident attack against those same immigrants, and minimal inforcement whatosever against businesses via the nation's standing immigration laws.

The result has exacerbated the country's already severe economic problems, both for the immigrants and for US citizens, and, after George W. Bush's failed effort at immigration reform, left immigrants as targets for even more abuse and exploitation, detention, sometimes severing families and leaving children without their parents, and deportation.  Under Obama, enformcement has taken the form of rising detentions and deportations, slightly increased enforcement against businesses, and pantomime on the border.  If it and the nation's ports and airports aren't as porous as they were 5 years ago, they are still quite open. In short, not much has changed for the better, though many things have gotten worse. I don't know whether Obama is serious about immigration reform; what I'd look for is where businesses fall on this issue. Wherever that is, we should expect that the Obama administration will follow. Given the Republicans' behavior surrounding the utterly Republican bill that Obama just pushed through, I cannot see them working with the administration much, if at all, on this issue, which some of their best known Congressional figures, entertainers and intellectuals, and their Teabagger base have demagogued the issue beyond reasonability, so it'll be up to the Democrats, who view many of the potential new Americans as their constituency, to lead. The question on this issue, as on all others, remains: Will they? Let's see.

More rallies are planned for April 10, the final day of the Congressional recess, and according to Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, immigrant groups will be releasing scorecards of every Congressmembers record on immigration issues on May 1.

Senin, 08 Februari 2010

Illinois: Can't Touch This + Some Lit Links

(Updated with YouTube video below)

One of the big non-Super Bowl buzzes yesterday was the suggestion that New York governor David Paterson was going to resign, because of a sex-related scandal, which the New York Times was set to reveal today, only Paterson denied he was resigning, he met with the NY state Democratic caucus in a closed-door session to tell them he wasn't resigning or something like that, and no Times article appeared. My thought was, if the man did not commit a crime and his actions involved his private life, why should anyone care? Evidently some in the media are still hot and bothered by, as the British wonderfully call them, "sex romps" and
"sex rows," but given all the other crises this country faces, and the Woods/Sanford/Ensign/Spitzer/Craig, etc. scandals, does anyone really care about Paterson's love life or who he shtups, especially if his wife doesn't? At least for now, no, it seems, and so Love Gov #2 will remain in office, until he loses his primary to Andrew Cuomo, and heads off for fun and assignations in the sunset.

But--New York has nothing on Illinois. As I told C today, yesterday, political theater unfolded in a Chicago bar during the Super Bowl half-time when Illinois's newly elected Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor, Scott Lee Cohen offered his "resignation"--let me stop there, and repeat, "nominee" for Lt. Gov.--by which I mean, he was dropping out of the race, leaving his slot open for the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, current governor Pat Quinn, to replace him. Quinn had replaced the impeached Rod Blagojevich, aka Blago, who tried to sell Barack Obama's former Senate seat to the highest bidder. Blago, remember, was elected twice after the departure of George Ryan, who is now in jail on multiple corruption charges.

Now, you may ask, why did Scott Lee Cohen, who was only selected for his candidate slot by voters over several different party-annointed hacks a few weeks ago, decide to "resign"? Why was he in tears, at the Hop Haus bar, with his family around him and son lying in his lap, announcing in the midst of the 44th Super Bowl, that for the good of the "people of Illinois" and the "Democratic Party," that he was stepping down? Why did most of the Congressional Democrats, and many other party brokers, want this millionaire pawnbroker (I'm not making this up), to remove himself so as not to sink Quinn's chances in the general election (against who knows which Republican, since that race has still not been declared)?



Chicago Sun-Times, take it away:

Over the past year, my husband has been taking injectable anabolic steroids, including but not limited to Winstrol, Cretine, and Steen. And as a result, he has an erratic, explosive temper," she alleged.
Okay, a little roiding going on. Not illegal. But uh oh:
The court documents alleged that Cohen tried to force his ex-wife to have sex with him.
"On May 9, 2005, after having confessed to several affairs he had, he tried to have sex with me, and despite my refusals, he tried to force himself on me until I pushed him away and emphatically told him no," his ex-wife alleged. "In fact, I had been having family members, including my mom and sister, stay with me for the past several weeks because I'm afraid to be home alone with him."
Five days earlier, Cohen "came home around 2 a.m., and he could not find his keys to the house. He called the house, but no one answered because we were all sleeping, so he kicked in the garage door disturbing everyone in the house," she said.

Okay, that's horrendous. But it gets worse, because this was the initial knock against Mr. Cohen:

Earlier today, Quinn said that if Cohen can't adequately explain charges against him revealed Wednesday — that Cohen allegedly held a knife to the throat of a prostitute ex-girlfriend.
Say what?

Last week, Cohen publicly called for [ex-girlfriend] Eneman to come forward to discuss his Oct. 14, 2005 arrest. A police report from the incident shows she accused him of placing a knife up to her neck and pushing her head against a wall, causing scars and a bump on her head. The charges were later dropped when Eneman failed to show up to a court hearing.
You get the picture. So Cohen's out, and now some other not impressive person, I imagine, will get his nomination. I know I sound like a broken record when I ask this question, but how is it that in a state of 12.9 million people--the fifth most populous US state--with one of the major intellectual hubs in the country and world, Chicago, and its suburbs, these are the people who end up winning elections and standing to represent the people at the local, state and national levels? I used to ask this about New York, and New Jersey, and in past years, when I lived in Virginia, Missouri, and Massachusetts, about those states too.  I guess we do end up with the politicians we deserve, but as the Cohen election, and subsequent withdrawal shows, deserving or not, we're dealing with a system that's close to broken, if not already so, and it should give pause to anyone who sees fit to comment negatively on "democracy," particularly by using the US as a standard, anywhere else in the world.

Update: The New York Times's Lede enters the mix with an informative writeup. My thanks to them for the link to the YouTube video below, which is...priceless.



°°°

I've mentioned that the students in one of my classes are tweeting links to great articles on publishing, and I can see they're gathering followers, but if you aren't on Twitter, here are some of the recent links they've culled. Enjoy!

One online publisher's take on authors and the digital world. http://www.staythirstymedia.com/bookpublishing/index.html

Article on group v. individual reading experience and how social networking fits into the reading experience http://tinyurl.com/ybt7noa

Printing your e-book? That's a deal breaker. http://tinyurl.com/y9spng3

Review of Azar Nafisi: "She doesn’t presume to provide rounded psychological portraits of her students." (or does she?) http://bit.ly/4DrHco VR

Hamid Dabashi article trashing Nafisi's book. He's an Iranian Professor at Columbia who is her main critic. http://bit.ly/bZTex2 --JN

Twitter: The death of tween blogging? http://scneilson.com/test/blogging-long-winded-and-so-last-year-for-us-teenagers-says-study-3/ AK

An interview w/ azar nafisi. heard her speak last fall and she was great: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1391487 MW

And some DFW FTW - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP9TWD5QaRY - this and the last being SW


Great tool for creating further nonsense http://www.crummy.com/software/eater/eater.cgi see example: http://bit.ly/bErRoI 3:17 AM

TWITTER AUTHORS ACCIDENTAL POETRY WITH FEW CHARACTERS http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/magazine/31FOB-onlanguage-t.html - SW

Notes from Gordon Lish's seminars. http://bit.ly/9nFMri JH 12:09 AM

Don't need to sell books to be a best-selling author: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/books/23kindle.html JAB 11:53 AM

Bask in the splendor of visual data. http://xkcd.com/657/ -dre

Interesting letter from Salinger about movie rights to "Catcher": http://tinyurl.com/yjuxqwm JAB

Loss of one of lit's most fascinating recluses; RIP J.D. Salinger: http://tinyurl.com/y8rhftx

Apple to write the future of publishing with its new tablet? http://tinyurl.com/yjujab7 - AM

how can you discuss widows' and artists' rights without thinking of these two? http://techdirt.com/articles/20090910/1713046154.shtml

Selasa, 19 Januari 2010

Tea Partier Brown Wins Massachusetts Senate Seat

Brown_CoakleyWhen will they learn? Just a few days ago I posted on how President Barack Obama is governing like a moderate Republican.  The Democrats in Congress, to their detriment, also have decided to cast their lot with their corporate masters rather than the people. At no point have the leaders (except Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, on rare occasions) made any attempt to defend this approach, or liberalism or progressivism in general, leaving a void that has been amply filled by the tiny minority of the country that agrees with the Tea Party activists, and exploited by the GOP, with their corporate media allies. And now we see the tangible result in tonight's Massachusetts special election to fill Teddy Kennedy's former seat. By a 52%-47% margin, Bay State voters installed a Tea Party-identified, Birther-linked, pro-torture, anti-LGBTQ, sexist, right-wing corporatist Republican masquerading as a "independent" everyman named Scott Brown. (I guess that means Marco Rubio will not be the first Tea Party Senator if he's elected.) He defeated establishmentarian Democratic state attorney general, Martha Coakley, a lackluster campaigner who wasn't helped by the situation in Washington. Brown's election seriously endangers the seriously flawed health insurance reform bill, echoing the debacle of 1993-94. If they fail to pass this bill, the damage to Obama and the Democrats will be incalculable.

Do I think that President Obama and the Democrats will draw the proper conclusions from this election? Will they see through the cries against higher taxation (Obama has not raised taxes, and his "stimulus" bill unfortunately cut them instead of devoting the money towards better job-creating programs), deficit spending (most of the deficit was created under Bush, and in the current economic climate, government spending and a deficit are necessary), and anti-health care reform (Massachusetts has a public health care system, and would benefit under a more robust national system, with a public health care option, Medicare buy-in, or best of all, single payer system)? It doesn't appear so. Between Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Jim Webb, and what appears to be coming out of this administration, it appears they are going to go the Clintonian route, which might have worked (well, after 1994), two decades ago, after a prior ineffectual Bush administration, but it isn't going to work now, on basic economic grounds (Hooverism is a prescription for disaster), but also because it is only going to drive away the base and will not draw alienated independents or the recalcitrant GOP.  It also doesn't help that Rahm Emanuel, a chancre on the face of this administration, began slamming Coakley before the polls had even closed.  This is no way to operate and you'd never see this from the GOP, but then again, why should anyone be surprised? Emanuel was a corporate sellout as a Congressperson, and loose at the lips when he worked under Clinton.

Changing course towards real change, towards real progressivism that would turn the economy around and show people that the government was not an annex off Bowling Green and countless multinationals, alongside shedding the likes of Emanuel, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and all the other WallStreetbots and plants in the administration would be a great way to start. Bush cut Paul O'Neill ("the genius of capitalism!") loose when he showed he wasn't conservative enough (and a bit incompetent and loose at the mouth); since he's taking pointer after pointer from his predecessor, Obama might want to try this option out. He should also make more of an effort to get out of Washington and visit people across the country as he did for two years before he won. The bubble is cutting off his air supply, and the mirror of lobbyists, yes people, gladhanders, and the airheaded mainstream Washington media aren't helping one bit. Popular anger may be incoherent, but it's real, and he had better think carefully about and then try to address it. If not, and we keep listing towards the muddle of the middle, with more pro-Wall Street/corporate welfarist and right-wing policies, 1994 will look like 1936.

Award-winning blogger Digby, who's been writing quite a bit about the Pete Peterson Foundation's plans for gutting Social Security and Medicare, summarizes what's predictably coming next, and it doesn't look good.

John Stewart on the Democrats' having only an 18-vote majority now.
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor
Health Care Crisis

Sabtu, 21 November 2009

Dems Proceed on HCR09 + US in Shambles + Blade Closes + Partió Blas Jiménez

I'm glad that the last two holdouts in the Democratic caucus, Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-AR), have decided to vote with the rest of their caucus and allow the debate on the combined health care bill Harry Reid (D-NV) debuted earlier this week to proceed. Recalcitrants like these two, as well as Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) have repeatedly dispelled the illusion of party cohesion that the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Senate Campaign Committee love to sell; while the Senate Democrats have helped to pass some important, mostly small-bore legislation since taking power in 2006, they continue to slog along as if the GOP were still in control, failing again and again to show real leadership on any of the major issues that face the country. Instead, what the public sees is a glacially moving body, full of right-wing ranters and moderate milquetoasts, taking a scattered and often seemingly ineffective approach to everything. Above all, the needs of Congress's corporate masters come first.

Perhaps it has often, if not always, been this way, but the close-but-unfinished health care reform effort, the ongoing wars and related national security issues, and the economic crisis all throw into high relief how ineffective the United States' upper house continues to be. That said, it increasingly looks like the Democrats will pass a health care reform bill that, while not perfect, will be better than earlier indications suggested. Though the single-payer option is going, the final bill probably will have a public insurance plan; it probably will allow people to opt out of terrible current plans instead of being locked into them; it probably will provide adequate subsidies for a sizable portion of working- and lower-middle families; and it will stop insurance companies from some of their worst practices, such as dropping people because of "pre-existing" conditions, jacking up rates when people get sick, and turning the entire process of dealing with the health care system into a free-for-all lottery. The Senate bill, like the House bills, also includes horrendous anti-immigrant and anti-reproductive rights provisions, and it does not adequately address the for-profit nature of the system, which means that US consumers spend anywhere from twice to three times as much per capita per year as our industrialized peers, and it doesn't have enough in it to drive down insurance costs or drug prices, another baleful aspect of the current American healthcare landscape.

As the bill undergoes continual weakening and diminishment, it makes me wonder whether the Democrats, despite getting so far, will be able to pass it, either by majority with or without a single Republican vote, or by reconciliation, thereby taking a page from the GOP, and if they do so and President Obama in the end signs it, whether it will anything more than a mostly hollow victory. Continual public pressure on the Congress seems to be the only way ensure even minimal fidelity to the people's business, so you know what we all must do:

Call/write/fax your Representative
Call/write/fax your Senators

Urge everyone you know to do so to. Now is a very perilous period for the health care reform bill, and anything progressive.

===

Things are really grim economically across the US and much of the world; this isn't news. I see and feel it in varying ways, and often have to force myself not to dwell on how it's affecting so many people I know well, as well as those I don't. Then I read an article like the ones below and I start to feel more than a little worried; things are much, much worse than they seem, and yet the people running the government, corporate heads, the mainstream media all seem so blasé, indifferent, or incapable to getting their acts together.

Alternet.org: 15 Signs the Country Is Coming Apart at the Seams

Longer piece: Amped Status: The Critical Unraveling of US Society

Despite all the grim indicators--including the 123 banks that have failed so far this year--believe the country will turn around, but given the approach of those leading the government and many corporate leaders, it's going to be a painful process, and there's no guarantee that we won't be even worse off if the main perpetrators--their enablers remain in power--behind the mess we're in somehow inveigle their way back to full power using false-populism, lies, propaganda, and anything else that works.

One issue I've thought about a lot is the Congress's inability to reform the financial industries or sector. One key issue is the "too-big-too-fail" problem. As I've mentioned before on this blog, my first post-undergrad job was in banking, when commercial and investment banks were forbidden by law from merging or sharing certain key functions, when banks could not operate across state lines, and when certain other regulatory controls dating from the period of the New Deal were still strongly in place. Even with those safeguards, in October 1987, one month after I began my very brief banking career, stock markets across the world witnessed their biggest crashes in decades. This was also during a period when the US dollar was comparatively weak, and the country was struggling with the deficits that had built up during the previous 8 years of massive tax cuts, defense spending binges, rising deregulation, and gross underinvestment in public and private infrastructure. The US had seen two recessions under Reagan, I believe, and would see an even worse one in a few years under HW Bush. And yet a little over a decade later, in the late 1990s, after the economic upswing, financial policymakers led by Robert Rubin and Larry Summers would do everything they could to gut what remained of the New Deal safeguards, working hand-in-glove with people like Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) to repeal the Glass-Steagall Acts of 1932 and 1933, which had maintained one of the last walls prevent a return to 1920s-style laissez-faire capitalism. Many of these policymakers and their adepts are in place today; we have a libertarian Republican as Fed Chair. We have a neoliberal centrist from the Rubin school, who made disastrous bets at his previous job, coordinating economic policy for the administration. We have a lackey for longtime financial megagambler Goldman Sachs as Treasury Secretary. The already big banks are considerably bigger, and several will be handing out more in bonuses--record bonuses--this year than some states' budget deficits. How it all will shake out, I don't know. But as the Alternet piece suggests, things are pretty grave and could get ugly. Very, very ugly. I hope and pray they won't.

===

I recently participated in some heavy backchannel lamenting about the collapse of the Washington Blade, one of the nation's premier LGBTQ newspapers which had just celebrated its 40th birthday; its sibling newspaper, The Southern Voice in Atlanta, and of its parent company, Window Media, the owner of several other LGBTQ-focused newspapers and periodicials in the country.

The culprit, from what I can tell, is the current dismal economic environment. Several publications in New York and other cities have also fallen by the wayside over the last year. I agree with the argument that with the ongoing development of the Internet and new online media have come a range of new means for disseminating news, conducting investigations, and fostering advocacy and knowledge production around LGBTQ issues, but I also think we shouldn't underestimate the value and necessity of traditional news organizations, including the much smaller but once vital issues and identity-oriented ones, like the Blade. It and newspapers like it have played and continue to play an important role especially during a period when some certainties about how far the society has shifted on LGBTQ and other issues are being called into question. At her David R. Kessler lecture several weeks ago, Sarah Schulman noted, among her many wise points, that "we are dismantling" many of our longstanding institutions--or we are allowing them to be dismantled--at the very moment that we may need them more than ever. Perhaps these vivid manifestations of ongoing struggles remind us that we aren't yet in the post-everything (post-gay, post-race, etc.) worlds that have been proclaimed for quite some time.

Some articles suggest that the Blade may resume publication under different auspices, perhaps as an employee-owned paper or as a not-for-profit, the latter being a model I'm surprised isn't discussed even more as journalism in general takes hit after hit.

===

Blas JimenezA friend, translator, scholar and librarian Herbert R., recently sent word of the passing of one of the Dominican Republic's important poets, Blas Jiménez (at left), on November 13. One of the most stalwart expositors and champions of the DR's African heritage--90% of Dominicans have African ancestry, a higher percentage than almost every other country in the Americas except Haiti, Jamaica, and the predominantly Black Caribbean islands--Jiménez had a rich and varied career, as an award-winning journalist; essayist; professor at the Pontificia Universidad Catolica Madre y Maestra; TV producer and host of Página Abierta, radio producer and host of La Mañana en Antena; as Secretary General of the DR's national commission for the United Nations Organization for Education, Culture and Communication (UNESCO). For over a decade he worked at the International Education Resource Center, where he developed courses on Afro-Dominican and Caribbean culture and literature.

Amidst all of this great work, he was also and perhaps best known as a poet, and especially as a "poeta de negritud." His works include the volumes Aqui... Otro Español (Here...Another Spanish), Caribe Africano en Despertar (African Caribbean Waking Up), Exigencias de un Cimarrón (Exigiences of a Maroon), and El Nativo (The Native). With highly regarded scholars Silvio Torres-Saillant and Ramona Hernández, he co-edited the book Desde la Orilla: hacia una nacionalidad sin desalojos (From the Edge: Towards a Nationality Without Evictions). His death, as this very brief note makes clear, is a major loss for Dominican, Caribbean, and African Diasporic literature and culture.

Rabu, 08 Juli 2009

July Lethargy + Franken Makes 60 + Linzy & Shonibare in NYC

While I did manage to update my book selection for July shortly after the new month began, I haven't been able to break out of my general feeling of lethargy, which has translated into an inability to begin, let alone end, blog entries. I have been writing, I'm glad to say, and working on other projects with deadlines that loom, but I am going to try to complete some of the many posts I've left hanging soon(er rather than later).

So much has transpired since my last post, on LGBTQ Pride Weekend (and the horrendous raid that Sunday in Fort Worth), but I guess what's loomed largest is the mass mourning, approaching a kind of mass hysteria, surrounding Michael Jackson's death. As I posted, I was very saddened to learn of his passing, and eagerly acknowledge his talent and greatness--as well as his flaws--but as I've also suggested to C and others, I think people are using his death as a vessel into which to transfer and transmute a wide range of emotions for which they have no or only inadequate other outlets, particularly as we move nationally and globally through a period of instability and financial and social crisis. The news media's obsessive focus on and creation of the spectacle of Jackson's death, the particulars of his children's patrimony, the raft of scandals that attended him, and so on, have contributed to this. I heard a Harlem resident say last night on the TV that she found herself crying over MJ's death whenever she was alone in her apartment, so she was taking comfort in hanging out at the Apollo Theater on 125th Street and other spaces filled by Jackson fans, such as the plaza at the Adam Clayton Powell Building just down the street. My initial question was what was going on in her life that she was bursting into tears when alone at home (I know people who're on the verge of weeping at losing their jobs or not getting hired at ones they applied for, paying their rents and medical bills, and so on), but the TV reporter didn't go near such a question, instead subsequently interviewing several other people who expressed similar sentiments. This is what I've seen them do again and again over the last few days; and the media, which knows a cash cow when it sees it, is going to milk this tragedy as much as it can. Do we really need to see the tearful tribute of Jackson's only daughter, Paris, over and over? What does genuine interest shade into the macabre? Perhaps it is good that this is where this affective energy is being directed, rather than towards more obvious and less positive ends. For a split second I thought that it might end after the tribute yesterday, which I didn't watch, but I realized this morning how wrong I was. There's too much "story" that remains to be created, told and transformed into a commodifiable spectacle, not least about the circumstances of Jackson's death itself, and then there're the will, the children, Neverland, the music catalogue, the ex-wife...I already feel myself get transported right back into the maw!

***

Al FrankenToday Al Franken (at right, minnesotapublicradio.org) was seated as Minnesota's junior senator and becomes the 60th member of the Senate Democratic caucus, which includes 2 independents and one recent party-changer. Given the large number of conservadems (1 of the 2 independents; the recent party flipper; a handful of "moderates"/"centrists" and corporatocrats who take their bidding not from the party leadership, what little exists, or their constituents, but from big business and lobbyists), I think it's fanciful to think that the Democrats will be pushing through anything approaching truly liberal, let alone progressive, legislation of any substance. Most of the legislative achievements since President Obama took office have been symbolic or heavily watered down. Most notable might be the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, most notorious the Stimulus package, about which we're now hearing whispers that we'll need another. Of course we will! In fact, on Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Vice President Joe Biden blurted out the administration's recognition of its conceptual and practical blunder, suggesting that it misread the economic situation, though many major economists (Paul Krugman, George Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, Brad DeLong, etc.) had entreated for a far larger stimulus until their faces turned blue. Getting that second (and very likely a third or even fourth, etc.) massive spending package will take a herculean effort, however, and even with Franken on board, I think it's going to be extremely difficult, especially if Obama keeps sending out mixed signals and listening to much to his chief financial advisors, who continue to share more than a rib with Wall Street (Goldman Sachs). Republicans have demagogued about the stimulus since before it passed, and now that they've got the budget hawks circling--why is Pete Peterson on TV at least once every week?--their skewed perspective could start to take root, as it has many times in the past. The mainstream media haven't given any real sense of how the original stimulus bill was supposed to, let alone whether or not it is working, and why, from a basic economic standpoint, it's necessary. Instead, as I saw tonight on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, there was the usual tit-for-tat, involving a Republican spouting nonsense (but adjudged as reasonable) and a Democrat fumbling to make his case (thus equaling their positions out). There was also a "non-partisan" economist who was careful not to tip his hand either way.

The president ought to be taking pointers from Bill Clinton (for a change) and traipsing all over the US, publicizing the bill's effects and showcasing how things could be much worse. Instead, he's utterly, totally, completely focused on the health care bill, which keeps threatening to turn into a debacle as the insurance industry, conservadems, the GOP...well, you know where that's going. All in all, it makes me think that beyond marking a moment of real political relief for Minnesotans, Franken's seating will be, at least for the near term, mainly a symbolic triumph, like so much of what's transpired since this past January 20.

***

Below are some photos from a Kalup Linzy conversation and performance, part of his Kalup Linzy: If It Don't Fit show that C and I caught at the Studio Museum in Harlem the evening we learned of Michael Jackson's death, and from the Yinka Shonibare MBE show I attended, with Tisa, at the Brooklyn Museum. For both of these artists, these shows mark their first New York retrospectives.

I'd never seen Linzy live, though I've caught many of his performances, such as All My Churen (2003) and Da Young and Da Mess (2005) on YouTube, but I don't think I'd be stretching to say that he is one of the most highly touted younger American or African American artists today. Friends have been singing his praises, and some bloggers, like Frank Leon Roberts (who I saw briefly after the event) have posted about Linzy's art. Calling the work a highly stylized and original cross between soap operas, dramatic music videos, "chitlin circuit" dramaturgy, comedy skits, and a young artist's highly personal and savvy take on contemporary pop and art culture, performance, and spectacle only begins to credit Linzy's work adequately. Just when I think I have a handle on what he's up to, I see pieces like the ones on display at the talk, music videos/short films for "Sampled and LeftOva" and "F**k U," which presented unexplained but quickly involving dramas in which Linzy, as "Taiwan," first played witness to a confrontation between exes, one of whom was actress Chloe Sevigny, and second ended up telling off and then being told off by Sevigny. The centrality of the "drama"--or perhaps I should say, "the drama," is one of the things I like about Linzy's work, along with the fact that he writes, directs, and performs in all of them, which unfold like a series of related but often independent riffs. The conversation originally was supposed to include both SMH director Thelma Golden and writer Hilton Als, who potential presence alone made me want to attend it, but, alas, neither was able to make it. Instead, a young woman whose last name I didn't get (her first name was Aisha/Ayesha) asked Linzy, who seemed a little nervous and uncomfortable, questions about his background and practice, and then turned the floor over to the audience, several of whom also engaged him.

Ultimately, though, the Q&A, which refreshingly preceded his performance, was too brief; while he noted his knowledge of Golden's landmark and controversial 1995 Whitney Museum exhibit, The Black Male Show, momentarily discussed his use of the pre-recorded voices to transform our sense of what was going on, and talked about his watching soap operas, I really wanted to hear more about the origins of these pieces, how the evolving televisual media facilitated what he was doing, and what he felt about how his work was playing with issues of gender, sexuality, race, class, performance, and so on, all of which his work plumbs provocatively. Instead, after a short break, Linzy returned and, as the image below shows, performed a series of songs in the persona of "Taiwan," with accompaniment. The songs--among them "A*******" and "were inventive, funny, very black-and-queer (one includes a line about God "throwing shade"), and made me want to purchase his 2008 CD, SweetBerry Sonnet, on which many of them appear. (It, and his new joint, Sampled and LeftOva, are available on iTunes.)

What I told Tisa when we hung out a week later was that what struck me about Linzy's performance--as opposed to the videos--was that 20 years ago, it might be taking place in a small gay club, art space, or, I could even imagine, the Apollo Theater just down the street, rather than an art museum. On the one hand, this is certainly an achievement worth noting, and Linzy appears to be quite aware and comfortable with his relationship with the art world, which rightly adores him. On the other hand, I wondered to Tisa, is anything lost when what was once so outside the art world and (potentially) oppositional is incorporated into it, or is this really just a dead letter at this stage in the...game? The SMH show ended on June 26, so look around because I think it is traveling.
Kalup Linzy in conversation @ SMH
Kalup Linzy in conversation with a member of the Studio Museum staff
Kalup Linzy as Miss Taiwan, SMH
Kalup Linzy performing as "Taiwan"

About a week later I hit the Yinka Shonibare show at the Brooklyn Museum, one of my favorite museums in New York (or anywhere else). It's a hidden gem that I always curse myself for not taking great advantage of. Shonibare (1962-) is a contemporary British artist born to Nigerian parents in London, though he returned to Nigeria at 3, spent considerable time in Britain growing up, spoke both Yoruba and English, and then received his art education in London. His work primarily mines the tensions produced at the nexus of this background, though extrapolated far outwards from his own personal story. Certainly aesthetics, history, race, class, sexuality, and colonialism and post-colonialism are front and center in his art. That might sound like a well-trod mix, but Shonibare has some surprises up his sleeve, as I learned at the exhibit. I primarily knew him from his headless mannikins sporting Victorian costumes in brilliantly-colored Dutch wax fabric (itself ironic, as it immediately strikes the eye as "African," yet the most expensive versions are produced, as Shonibare has noted, "in Holland" and exported back to Africa (and were initially inspired by Javanese batik prints), thus encapsulating the colonial/post-colonial dynamic in vivid historical and material form), some of which have become iconic, but he also is a painter, photographer, sculptor, video filmmaker, actor, and installation artist, whose images and artefacts share with Linzy's some debt to and a sense of play with tableaux vivants. The two videos on the first floor To me the most striking aspect of this show was the site-specific installations (we missed several of them, I think) in the period rooms, which the Brooklyn Museum has a sizable number of, and which are worth seeing just on their own.

This portion of the exhibit, entitled Mother and Father Worked Hard So I Can Play, features headless child-sized, Dutch wax-fabric clad mannikins, as shown below. The headless figures are a bit eerie, especially in miniature form, but what I also found myself doing, as Tisa did, was both trying to find them in room after room--turning the exhibit into a bit of a scavenger hunt, which was exciting and made me realize after a certain point that I was engaging in a form of "play," even going so far as to peer up at ceilings and into corners in order not to miss one--and also concentrating carefully on the periods depicted and how the presence of these "children" cast every aspect of these allegedly neutral staged historical displays into relief. Fred Wilson's brilliant critical installation work came immediately to mind; I began wondering what about the specific rooms, the time periods (several were anterior to the Victorian period) and regions (such as a 18th century South Carolinian room), had drawn Shonibare's eye, and what the figures' forms of play meant in light of the "meanings" the rooms started to assume. Though it was less clear that Wilson's work, my experience of these pieces was really quite invigorating. I was initially bummed that more of Shonibare's work, such as the "Diary of a Victorian Dandy" series, which I saw in the paper and which appear in the catalogue, did not seem to be part of this show, but Tisa told me today that in fact we'd missed a a section of the 4th floor galleries, meaning I'll have to go back and see it again. I'll have time, and so will you: the Shonibare show runs from June 26, 2009 through September 20, 2009.
Yinka Shonibare show, Brooklyn Museum
One of Shonibare's installation pieces, from Mother and Father Worked Hard So I Can Play, in a Brooklyn Museum period room
Yinka Shonibare show, Brooklyn Museum
One of Shonibare's installation pieces, from Mother and Father Worked Hard So I Can Play, in a Brooklyn Museum period room
Yinka Shonibare show, Brooklyn Museum
"A Scramble for Africa" (2003)