Economic stimulus is bad: or, why the two major parties suck

December 4th, 2008 by Brianna

As I believe I’ve said before, I support both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Here’s why:

For last week, most of the economic talk has been about either the pending auto industry bailout, or Obama’s purposed new stimulus plan. (And the fact that we are now ‘officially’ in a recession, but that’s not a policy question.) Everybody has their own opinion on these two plans. Most of the liberals say that the auto industry bailout is just the same thing that was done for the financial industry, except that the auto industry counts as ‘main street’, so now, it’s okay. The stimulus plan is supposed to have the same effect as the tax refund – increase spending, and get the economy ‘moving’. The difference? It’s supposed to be better, because the states will have more control of the money. The conservative answer to all of this? “Where’s the money going to come from.”

They’re all wrong.

Yes, I realize I simplified in the above paragraph. But here are the problems with the above plans:

The auto bailout: Cars are wasteful and horrible. The use immense amounts of resources to manufacture. They pollute the environment. They use huge amounts of energy. An electric car, which is at least not polluting directly (there is, of course, coal and nuclear pollution!) likely uses more energy than a gasoline car! Americans buy cars far more often than we need too – leading to even more waste. And cars kill a tremendous number of people during operation! We don’t need more cars. That money would be much better spent in finding way to help people avoid needing cars, not to prop up a mismanaged industry. Find some other way to help the auto employees.

Of course, we needed the wall street bailout even less than we needed this one, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

Economic Bailout. We don’t need to spend more! Spending is what got us into this mess to begin with. Americans consume more per capita than any other country, and that is:

1. Unfair and exploitive, and

2. Impossible to sustain without resorting to force, to keep the other countries giving us stuff for free.

What we need is to consume less, and keep the percentage of the population who consumes a disproportionate amount of value from doing so. More spending is not the answer!

I wish that, instead of the Democratic and Republican parties being the two major parties, that the Libertarian and Green parties were the major parties. I think that they would balance each other out nicely.

Here’s what the Libertarian Party has right:

  1. Small government. The smaller, the better.
  2. Economic theory. supply and demand really does work out. Debt is a bad thing.
  3. Military isolation. We have absolutely no business playing world policeman.

And the Green Party?

  1. Social policy. The government exist the serve the people – and especially those who are being exploited.
  2. Economic practice. Those with power (capital), abuse that power, and all the free markets in the universe can’t stop that.
  3. General foreign policy. Fair trade. The idea that the world does not revolve around the US.

I think it would be a great improvement if the power were to shift to those two parties, rather than the present state.

Gunfights and Stickfights

November 18th, 2008 by Brianna

I’ve been watching a lot of old Charmed episodes lately. It’s not Buffy, it’s not Xena, it’s not even the L Word – but I like it. It has (usually) strong female characters, decent writing, and fair production values. But something about Charmed always bothered me, and it’s not that they had a penchant for making the occasional ‘Very Special Episode’ – (or that they killed Prue, though I wish they hadn’t!)

I think I’m bothered by the mechanics behind the magic.

Let me explain: I’m not usually given to fanboy tendencies (You know the type. “Spiderman is way cooler than the Incredible hulk, and here’s why!”, or “The Enterprise could totally beat the Battlestar Galactica,” or “Here are all of the different types of Pokeman, organized by color, personality and intelligence.”) I do care about realism, though. Not of the ‘that couldn’t really happen’ type, but of the ’suspension of disbelief’ type. So despite all of Xena’s crazy physics, random messing with the show’s mythology, and out-of-character comedy moments, it still suspends disbelief, because at the end of the day, Xena and Gabrielle are still soulmates – and that makes sense.

The plots of Charmed revolve around various magical events. Those events usually involve some random new demon with some random new ‘power’ who is stopped by the sisters’ reciting a silly rhyme! The extant of the sister’s power are never really explained. The way by which the spells work are confusing, and seemingly made up for each given plot. What saves the show is that whatever demonic threat they face,it makes sense to them, and helps them grow as people/overcome some personal problem/generally serve some emotional point. So, you just have to go along with the cheesy magic, and enjoy the characters! Or so I thought…

I noticed something, oddly enough, while watching Bound the other day. Several people get shot in Bound – but curiously, the victor in the fight is not the strongest, the smartest, or even the best prepared. When Caesar kills the mafia bosses, he wins, simply because he got his gun out first. It was three against one (I think), and he was rather whimpy – but he shot the others without much difficulty because he made the first move. This, of course, is a feature of most movies that contain violence, but which are not action movies., In an action piece, it takes forever to kill someone – giving lots of time for explosions, taunting, and cool poses. Buffy, for example, alternates punches with quips, faces reoccurring trouble without any sense of closure, and generally seems to be in one continual fight. Xena comes back from the dead whenever she pleases. Even your random cop show has extended gun fights for coolness’ sake. But that’s not how real violence usually works. It only takes one moderate wound to incapacitate a person for days. Most serious fights – gun fights in particular – are over before they begin. And the person who was goes first usually wins.

It’s gunfights vs. stickfights. In an action piece, the character’s might as well be fighting with sticks, for all the damage they do – but we like it, because it looks cool and doesn’t remind us of real violence.

Real violence isn’t pretty, it’s sudden and horrible.

And that was my problem with Charmed. I expected another Buffy-type show. It’s magical, it’s semi action oriented, and the character’s generally kill (demons, of course!) without compunction.

But Charmed is really more realistic than I thought. Sure, the rhymes are still cheesy, but the suddenness, the thin line between being killing and being killed, the fear of the moment that the sisters exhibit, is perhaps more realistic that the vast majority of shows. The real fight of the show, is to be ready for the actual fight.

Either that, or they cut fights short because their effects budget really sucked…

Well, the election is over…

November 5th, 2008 by Brianna

And now, we’ll find out that the government is still broken, Americans are still in debt, big corporations still run the world, people are still suffering and being exploited, and the president can’t really do anything about most of it.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m very glad Obama was elected – but an election always seems to be far more important than it really is. Congress is still the same weird inefficient mess, lobby interests are still far too important, the voice of the people still ignored. People are still stupid and ignorant and biased. Obama likely won’t be able to pass most of the legislation that he really wants to, and four years from now, the US will still be in about the same place it is now. I hope it will be better, but that remains to be seen.

It’s just another election.

A couple of important things happened, though. One is very bad, and the other very good. Hopefully, the good outweighs the bad:

The bad: California’s Proposition 8. It failed. The effects from this will last far, far longer than almost anything else in this election. It’s just incredibly depressing. I still can’t believe it passed – in fact, my conservative parents were surprised it passed! The message is clear. If California can’t defeat a marriage amendment, nobody can. I’m guessing Massachusetts and Connecticut will both pass amendments as soon as they can. (Side note: I have this theory on ballot measures. It seems like it is much easier to pass them than to defeat them, almost as if a certain number of people just vote ‘yes’ without actually reading it first! I think that some LGBT rights organization should get an amendment started somewhere that allows gay marriage – it just might work! I have no real evidence to support this, though…)

The good: We just elected the first Black president! Irrespective of any policies, legislation, judiciary appointments, or other actions that Obama and the new Congress might make, this fact alone will have a wonderful effect. I can’t count the number of times that I heard someone say how “terrified” they were of Obama being President. When pressed, they would always say that they thought that Obama was a socialist. That wasn’t it, of course. Most people don’t have an irrational fear of socialists – and Obama isn’t any more socialist than other Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter!) anyway. Heck, Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist! No, people are scared of Obama because he’s Black, pure and simple. And I’m excited about the effect that having a Black president will have on the country, on rights for people of color, for women, for any marginalized group.

Bigoted people will see that they were fools. People with latent and subconscious racism or sexism will be pushed toward a better viewpoint. Everyone will realize that the country is better when it’s not just being run by White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants. And most importantly, when people say, “In America, anyone can try to accomplish whatever they want. Anyone can be elected President.”, it will not just be an expression, a legal technicality.

It is now the truth.

(Crossposted at Fourth Wave Feminism)

Write to Marry Day: also for the anti-gay!

October 30th, 2008 by Brianna

Write to marry day logo

Here’s a fun blog game that’s actually worth while! Write to marry day.

Now, I believe that I’ve already given my opinion on marriage in general – I think that the government should stay out of it, and leave it as a personal or religious statement. But here’s the thing – if the government is going to define and regulate marriage, it must be available for gay people.

It’s not a moral issue.

It’s not an ethics issue.

It’s not going to ‘undermine the family and hurt the children’ – even if gay marriage were somehow magically detrimental to the family, around half of all people are divorced! The family is already dead.

Now, I’m sure that those of us who are gay, gay-friendly, etc. already know this; we’re already voting no on the appropriate issue. So here’s something for anyone who might read this who might think that being gay is unnatural or morally wrong:

If you think that being gay is wrong, you probably think that adultery and fornication is morally wrong. Are those illegal? (Adultery is grounds for divorce – but little else) Should they be? No, they shouldn’t – we don’t like it when the government legislates morality! How is gay marriage different? Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of your own sex. Your life will not be affected. But think about this: There are thousands of people out there who aren’t allowed to receive benefits on their partner’s medical plans, who should. They are denied the right to be a part of a dying loved one’s care. They are denied tax benefits that others receive. The list could go on and on.

By not allowing gay marriage, the government is saying, “Look, there is something wrong with that group of people!” The government is telling people what is right and wrong. There is not obvious consensus, like there is with, say, murder. Do you want the government doing this. Next, it will be saying that something you do is wrong. Go ahead and believe, preach, try to convince people whatever you want to about gay marriage. But please don’t vote to have the government force people to behave a certain way.

Vote no on 8, 102, and whatever other amendments!

More stereotypical characters, please!

October 18th, 2008 by Brianna

How many times have you heard or read these phrase: “<Random strong female character> is a good character because she’s strong without giving up her femininity.” or maybe, “It’s good that <random female character> isn’t just a male character in a woman’s body, because that is boring and stereotypical.”

I can’t seem to come up with any links to this kind of thing right now, but I keep hearing this kind of talk, over and over again – especially when I’m discussing something like Buffy with male friends. I just have one question: When has this ever been done? When have we seen a ‘male character in a female body’, and where can I find it?

Alien? Terminator? Ripley/Sarah Conner are cast in a mother role.

Alice or Jill in the Resident Evil series? Maybe. Some of Elizabeth Moon’s characters? I suppose.

I’m sure that there are more examples, but I think that we can agree – such characters are very, very rare.

Now, I love the complex, wonderful characters that are created when strong female characters are ‘done right’ i.e., not stereotypes. I wouldn’t have Buffy, or Ripley, or Xena, or Elizabeth Bennett, or whomever written any other way. Writers should strive to create complex, well-rounded characters of all genders. Sometimes, however, it just doesn’t happen. And sometimes, I’m just not up to digesting a complex, realistic character – I just want something simple. And stereotypes, ideals, are important to out cultural mythmaking…

But, where are these stereotypes? It seems like even the toughest female action-oriented characters resort to seduction on a regular basis. (c.f. Max from Dark Angel, Xena) And those that don’t are still supposed to be sympathetic to family members, spouses/boyfriends, starving orphans, etc, to a degree unheard of by their male counterparts. We wouldn’t want them seeming any less female, now would we? And if they are less female, they’re invarabily evil.

So here’s what I want:

I want a female western hero, Lone Ranger style. The kind that comes into town on a big white horse, defeats the bad guys, and rides of into the sunset. No weird former relationships, no serious love intrest, no noticeable weaknesses.

I want a female James Bond clone. Not an Alias-type female spy, but the whole masculine-fantasy Bond. Suave, perfect gentleperson, yet an amazing detective and fighter, who has an astonishing sense of luck, inept sidekicks, and who gets all the girls without trying, but who remains cooly detached throughout. For even more bonus points, make her straight and give her feminine, ‘woman in a man’s body’, male love interests.

(Side note: why is it that male characters often have love interests that are weak and girly, but female characters always dispise and reject weak male love interests, only accepting those that are close to their quality?)

I want a female buddy comedy. Baby Mama doesn’t count. It couldn’t have been made with male characters.

I want a romance movie with the roles reversed. Completely. Enough said.

I could go on and on.

We probably won’t ever get any of these things. There’s been such a rejection of cliched characters of any gender, that nobody’s going to try anything this different, but I can wish! Still…

The male ideal stereotype, the ‘White Knight’ if you will, is still pervasive in the culture. Even if modern fictional characters tend to be less idealistic, less heroic, the ideal is still there, and the modern characters still approximate it, even if they remain human. By refusing to create female characters who embody the masculine stereotype, even the strongest women will invarabily be compared, not to that stereotype, but to the existing feminine stereotype. This tendancy leads to a rejection of certain roles for women and men in real life. By denying this stereotype, we essentially deny half of human expression for half the human race.

And let’s not even start on feminine male characters…

(Crossposted from Fourth Wave)

Whedon and Feminism

September 18th, 2008 by Brianna

I’ve been thinking about making a “Buffy Episode Guide” type of section – sort of like the Xena guide at Whoosh! – with commentary and other information. So, to perhaps start things moving that way, here’s a little something about feminism in the buffy/firefly-verse.

With inspiration from The Hathor Legacy.

Read full post »

Feminism and Capitalism: Part 4 – Individualism

September 10th, 2008 by Brianna

Well, I had intended to keep my mouth shut on this for a while, but …
There are many feminists on the internets that despise ‘individualists’.

The criticism seems to fall along the lines of: “Individualists think that people are responsible for their own actions, that each person is in charge of their own life, such that if a person’s life is bad, it’s their own fault. Since we know that people can rarely help their circumstances, and that most of the time a person’s suffering is NOT their own fault at all, individualists are selfish, privileged people who don’t understand how the world works.”

I don’t know what other people mean by individualism, but I can’t help but think that only a fool – or worse – would believe that brand of individualism. When I say that i am an individualist, I’m not saying that people are responsible for their own fates, but that they should be. It is obvious that most people are not.

For me, this is what feminism is about, to a large extent. Women should be able to control their own lives, their own bodies, be able to choose their own relationships. Women deserve the be treated as individuals in their own right – not as property, or as a homogeneous group, or as the embodiment of all evil*. I cannot imagine feminism without this concept.

That is what I mean by individualism. Others are welcome disagree.

*I’ve been reading Women Hating by Andrea Dworkin, thus the evil – highly recommended, by the way, if you haven’t already.

(Jump back to the first part of this series)

Feminism and Capitalism: Part 3 – What is Oppression?, and a Conclusion

September 2nd, 2008 by Brianna

So, does capitalism cause oppression?

Now, I don’t think that anybody is denying that capital can cause oppression, or that our current capitalist system perpetuates oppression, or that people use capitalism to exploit others. This is undeniable. These facts, however, do not mean that capitalism must cause oppression, that it always leads to oppression. More importantly, they in no way show that there exists another system which by nature causes less oppression than capitalism. I will attempt
to argue not only that capitalism does not always cause oppression, but that capitalism is in fact neutral – it can be easily used by an oppressor, but it also places no barrier to those who would stop oppression.

Read full post »

Feminism and Capitalism: Part 2 – feminist objections to capitalism

August 26th, 2008 by Brianna

So, what are the possible feminist objections to capitalism?

The two that I was able to find easily – outside of some ecofeminists whose beliefs are tantamount to religion – were:

1. Capitalism encourages racial discrimination, and
2. Capitalism is inherently exploitive, leading to oppression.

These objections depend, of course, on the assumption that feminists should be anti-racist and anti-oppression. An excellent explanation of this concept, called intersectionality, can be found in the Feministe post linked in the first part of this series.

Read full post »

Feminist Capitalism: Part 1 – What is capitalism?

August 23rd, 2008 by Brianna

Introduction

Inspired by this post on Feministe, I am going to attempt to write about feminism and capitalism until I either make some sense of it, or run out of things to say. Here is my intent in writing: I purpose to show that feminism and capitalism are compatible.

Read full post »