The Newsweek cover is out with Sarah Palin prominently displayed in runner's attire next to the ingenious headline, "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?". The cover has been called sexist by Palin and a gaggle of Republicans and Palin supporters. One of the most common arguments against the cover is that it undermines her intelligence. Seriously? It seems to me that no one has undermined Sarah's intelligence more than she.
Sarah Palin does not have a competitive advantage in the brains department. How anyone could argue otherwise is beyond me. I would argue that attending 5 schools to get a degree in journalism and repeatedly speaking about the economy, structure of government, and world geography in a fashion that demonstrates she isn't smarter than a 5th grader is irrefutable evidence in support of my statement.
In Sarah's defense, it is obvious that you don't need to be an intellectual or well read to be elected to public office. Sarah Palin's popularity leads me to ask an elitist question: Why don't voters care that idiots are being elected? Why is it that Sarah Palin is popular because she is in touch with "Real Americans"? Why do we have the euphemism "Real Americans" to describe uneducated Americans who don't understand economics, political theory, or the United States Constitution? Why, Why, Why??
Now I do understand why pro-life supporters love her, truly she is the poster child for the movement. I can also understand why Second Amendment supporters love her; where else are you going to find a female politician that shoots Moose? The problem is that guns and abortion are wedge issues, salient with a small fraction of voters, and when politicians focus on these issues they do so at the expense of the issues that really govern the economy and our collective well being. Republicans know this. That is why they don't care if she's smart, she needn't be to serve the purposes of the party.
Because I know Republicans understand what her real role is, I was baffled at first by the notion that these are sexist attacks. Why make it about her intelligence when you cannot win that fight? After some consideration, I am of the opinion that Republicans are doing this to fool people into thinking she is smarter than we think she is. If you talk about her intelligence enough and cry sexism perhaps no one will actually question her intelligence.
In the ultimate irony, its a bit like what has happened with President Obama. Republicans argue that when they criticize Obama they are called racist, even when they have legitimate reasons for their critique. Now Republicans can counter every criticism of Sarah Palin with the argument that it is sexist. Brilliant!
The problem is that criticizing Palin isn't sexist. Criticisms of her are based on fact not sexism, much like most criticisms of Obama aren't racist.
Without sex, Palin doesn't get votes. White middle aged men love her because she is attractive and will help them keep their guns. If she were ugly she would be a political non-starter. She doesn't have the intellect, temperament, or savvy to survive in politics without her looks. That is not sexist, it is fact.
Sexism is better described by a situation where a highly intelligent and competent woman doesn't get the opportunity to succeed because she is a woman. If that woman doesn't get the opportunity to succeed because she is a woman and ugly than I guess that is sexism and uglyism combined. These women do not get elected.
Sarah Palin and the Republican Party should be grateful for sex* and female stereotypes. Without em, she's got nothin, you betcha (;
*And by sex I am of course referring to intercourse between a man and woman in a loving committed marriage with the intention of making babies.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
It's Liberty For All, Not Liberty For Some
In the ultimate irony those comparing Obama to Hitler and suggesting our country is becoming a model of communism and socialism are largely the same individuals fighting for the ultimate move towards totalitarianism in wanting to ban gay marriage.
In Iowa where a ban on gay marriage was ruled unconstitutional, the masses are clamoring for the people of the state to be able to vote to add a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot. This is the ultimate perversion of liberty by the same people that claim to fear the government and embrace liberty.
To let the majority remove the rights of the minority is the most dangerous path this country could go down. Since it is in fashion these days to compare the U.S. to Nazi Germany how is it that the comparison between the rights of homosexuals is not analogous to the systematic violation of the rights of Jewish people, free thinkers, and so called “undesirables” under Hitler’s regime. In Germany’s case the majority decided that the minority was not entitled to the same rights of property and life as the majority with horrific consequences. I am not suggesting we will move toward the grievous violations carried out in Germany against the Jews, but for a country that was based on liberty the violation is ideologically egregious.
In the interest of full disclosure let me state that I am a nerd and I would appreciate if you feign shock here. I carry a copy of the Constitution in my purse and have read it thoroughly multiple times. For those of you who haven’t let me promise you that nothing in the Constitution of the United States suggests that its residents should have the right to remove rights from other citizens.
To illustrate how ridiculous of an idea it is to allow U.S. Citizens to vote to remove the rights of their fellow citizens it is helpful to take homosexuality out of the equation. What if we replace homosexuality with stupid people? Would it be just to allow intelligent people to vote to remove the rights of stupid people to vote, marry, and procreate? Now I know I have friends out there who think this is a genius idea and while they may fantasize about the desirable outcomes of such a ban this would represent a fundamental violation of what the United States is founded on.
Now imagine, shouldn’t be hard to do, that the stupid outnumber the smart and vote to remove the rights of intelligent people. Totally different set of consequences and less palatable to those who would support removing the rights of stupid people. This is a slippery slope to go down and I believe our founding fathers would be appalled to see the perversion of their intentions in allowing votes like this to exist.
As an intellectual exercise you can substitute any group you want here. Imagine Republicans ban Democrats from marriage or vice versa. Attractive people ban ugly people or vice versa. Where you stand on those issues depend on where you sit, and one day you might find yourself sitting in the minority seat and without your civil liberties.
A great solution would be to remove government from marriage altogether and simply ban the role of government in sanctioning or promoting marriage. Since marriage is a contract between two individuals why should the government dictate who can enter into it? We don’t ban homosexuals from getting drivers licenses, entering into employment contracts, or buying homes; all of which are contractual agreements.
If you don’t believe marriage is a contract between two people but rather those two people and God then the argument is even more profound. Let individual religions decide whether they will honor contracts between homosexuals rather than the government. The U.S. was based on freedom of religion not the dominance of one religion and most certainly not the hijacking of the rights and privileges of its citizens by one religion.
It is time to focus on the real issues in this country and I promise you homosexuals are not the cause of them. Homosexuals didn’t destroy our financial markets, they didn’t attack the World Trade Center, and they sure as hell didn’t send us into two highly contentious military actions abroad.
The focus on banning gay marriage in the upcoming elections will do exactly what its proponents want and that is to promote fear and ignorance in the masses. Ironically that is the same formula Hitler used in Germany to carry out an entire platform of destructive social and economic policies.
This country is based on liberty for all, not liberty for some.
In Iowa where a ban on gay marriage was ruled unconstitutional, the masses are clamoring for the people of the state to be able to vote to add a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot. This is the ultimate perversion of liberty by the same people that claim to fear the government and embrace liberty.
To let the majority remove the rights of the minority is the most dangerous path this country could go down. Since it is in fashion these days to compare the U.S. to Nazi Germany how is it that the comparison between the rights of homosexuals is not analogous to the systematic violation of the rights of Jewish people, free thinkers, and so called “undesirables” under Hitler’s regime. In Germany’s case the majority decided that the minority was not entitled to the same rights of property and life as the majority with horrific consequences. I am not suggesting we will move toward the grievous violations carried out in Germany against the Jews, but for a country that was based on liberty the violation is ideologically egregious.
In the interest of full disclosure let me state that I am a nerd and I would appreciate if you feign shock here. I carry a copy of the Constitution in my purse and have read it thoroughly multiple times. For those of you who haven’t let me promise you that nothing in the Constitution of the United States suggests that its residents should have the right to remove rights from other citizens.
To illustrate how ridiculous of an idea it is to allow U.S. Citizens to vote to remove the rights of their fellow citizens it is helpful to take homosexuality out of the equation. What if we replace homosexuality with stupid people? Would it be just to allow intelligent people to vote to remove the rights of stupid people to vote, marry, and procreate? Now I know I have friends out there who think this is a genius idea and while they may fantasize about the desirable outcomes of such a ban this would represent a fundamental violation of what the United States is founded on.
Now imagine, shouldn’t be hard to do, that the stupid outnumber the smart and vote to remove the rights of intelligent people. Totally different set of consequences and less palatable to those who would support removing the rights of stupid people. This is a slippery slope to go down and I believe our founding fathers would be appalled to see the perversion of their intentions in allowing votes like this to exist.
As an intellectual exercise you can substitute any group you want here. Imagine Republicans ban Democrats from marriage or vice versa. Attractive people ban ugly people or vice versa. Where you stand on those issues depend on where you sit, and one day you might find yourself sitting in the minority seat and without your civil liberties.
A great solution would be to remove government from marriage altogether and simply ban the role of government in sanctioning or promoting marriage. Since marriage is a contract between two individuals why should the government dictate who can enter into it? We don’t ban homosexuals from getting drivers licenses, entering into employment contracts, or buying homes; all of which are contractual agreements.
If you don’t believe marriage is a contract between two people but rather those two people and God then the argument is even more profound. Let individual religions decide whether they will honor contracts between homosexuals rather than the government. The U.S. was based on freedom of religion not the dominance of one religion and most certainly not the hijacking of the rights and privileges of its citizens by one religion.
It is time to focus on the real issues in this country and I promise you homosexuals are not the cause of them. Homosexuals didn’t destroy our financial markets, they didn’t attack the World Trade Center, and they sure as hell didn’t send us into two highly contentious military actions abroad.
The focus on banning gay marriage in the upcoming elections will do exactly what its proponents want and that is to promote fear and ignorance in the masses. Ironically that is the same formula Hitler used in Germany to carry out an entire platform of destructive social and economic policies.
This country is based on liberty for all, not liberty for some.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
We'll tell you when its over
Perhaps more economists should watch the movie Animal House. If they did they would realize it is the drunken frat boys of the world who decide when something is over, not the head honchos in charge.
I heard an economist on the radio saying that the recession is over and perhaps it is time to tell the consumer. This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with economists and the economics discipline.
In our Wall Street bashing have we forgotten that consumers run this economy? Consumer spending is two-thirds of our GDP and has been since the 1940's with little fluctuation in its share of economic activity. Economists don't tell consumers when a recession ends, the consumers should tell economists.
Any good economist knows our current "recovery" is based on federal stimulus whether directly in the form of government spending, or indirectly where government spending props up automobile sales like through Cash for Clunkers (Hate it) or housing throught the first time homebuyer tax credit.
Long term growth will totally hinge on the private sector and only long term growth in GDP is a predictor of consumer behavior. Joe the Plumber doesn't care that GDP is rising when his own income is falling: His consumption choices are based on his perception of his wealth and the likelihood it will rise or fall. I don't know anyone who says, "Hey GDP is finally rising, now I can go splurge on a big screen TV".
This is where economists really get things wrong. Describing economic activity in macroeconomic aggregates like GDP, doesn't really tell us what is happening in the short run. And as we know, in the long run we're all the Grateful Dead.
Economists have long forgotten or ignored what the economy is at its most basic level. It is a collection of individuals acting on their own self interest making seemingly unrelated decisions and trades. When these individuals are not worried about losing their jobs or the decline in their wealth due to the housing market and their retirements, they will spurn economic activity.
So as a consumer and an economist, let me tell the others in my profession: We'll let you know when the economy has recovered, and don't hold your breath.
I heard an economist on the radio saying that the recession is over and perhaps it is time to tell the consumer. This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with economists and the economics discipline.
In our Wall Street bashing have we forgotten that consumers run this economy? Consumer spending is two-thirds of our GDP and has been since the 1940's with little fluctuation in its share of economic activity. Economists don't tell consumers when a recession ends, the consumers should tell economists.
Any good economist knows our current "recovery" is based on federal stimulus whether directly in the form of government spending, or indirectly where government spending props up automobile sales like through Cash for Clunkers (Hate it) or housing throught the first time homebuyer tax credit.
Long term growth will totally hinge on the private sector and only long term growth in GDP is a predictor of consumer behavior. Joe the Plumber doesn't care that GDP is rising when his own income is falling: His consumption choices are based on his perception of his wealth and the likelihood it will rise or fall. I don't know anyone who says, "Hey GDP is finally rising, now I can go splurge on a big screen TV".
This is where economists really get things wrong. Describing economic activity in macroeconomic aggregates like GDP, doesn't really tell us what is happening in the short run. And as we know, in the long run we're all the Grateful Dead.
Economists have long forgotten or ignored what the economy is at its most basic level. It is a collection of individuals acting on their own self interest making seemingly unrelated decisions and trades. When these individuals are not worried about losing their jobs or the decline in their wealth due to the housing market and their retirements, they will spurn economic activity.
So as a consumer and an economist, let me tell the others in my profession: We'll let you know when the economy has recovered, and don't hold your breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)