Neoliberalism and the aggressive-passive Tea Party

The Tea Party movement on the Right in the United States has gathered a lot of press over the past year or so, a populist protest against the Obama administration. Yet, at its core, it conceals its utter pointlessness, for it is a violent protest in favor of the economic status quo. To steal a phrase from web comic Mammoth and Mastodon & Friends, the Tea Party is aggressive-passive (as opposed to passive-aggressive): “the aggressive-passive person acts really angry and agitated to cover the fact that they don’t want anything to change.”

Numerous commentators have pointed out the historic parallels with other white American movements in response to black civil rights gains—from the Know Nothings to the Dixiecrats. Yet it is arguable that the movement is also a response to the traumatic stock market crash of October 2008 and the global financial crisis. Continue reading

Before hip-hop died: best of the best in rnb

It’s one of the inevitabilities of music criticism that eventually, someone somewhere declares a formerly beloved genre dead. The movement usually goes something like: underground from first crossover, critically acclaimed innovation, further underground/crossover moments then a final “imperial phase” and then holding pattern as accepted – but not terribly exciting – part of the mainstream’s musical vernacular.

Counter-accusations fly forth from defenders, new evidence for the genre’s liveliness flourished, and so on. Defenders may point out that, like Denholm on British sitcom “The IT Crowd” declaring war on STRESS, the critical declaration may itself be something of an attempt to cause the very thing it is lamented – the death of the genre. Much like Michael Jackson in his final years or The Rolling Stones any time after 1980, living past your prime is just embarrassing. Continue reading

Wikileaks and the Toothless Politics of Exposure

What we didn’t know that we knew about Afghanistan

In his book Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle, philosopher Slajov Zizek laid out an ad-hoc taxonomy for various kinds of knowledge, via a reference to then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld. Zizek says:

In March 2003, Rumsfeld engaged in a little bit of amateur philosophizing about the relationship between the known and the unknown: “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.” What he forgot to add was the crucial fourth term: the “unknown knowns,” the things we don’t know that we know–which is precisely, the Freudian unconscious, the “knowledge which doesn’t know itself,” as Lacan used to say.

Zizek suggests that we know very well on some level what is going on, and that this latent knowledge is tacitly approved of so long as it remains at the level of the unknown known. One of the key differences between Abu Ghraib and previous torture was that the Bush administration had already admitted to the possibility of torture via its arguments about its political effectiveness in preventing further terrorist attacks. Conservative thought-games about “ticking time bomb” scenarios implicitly allowed and normalized the torture of terror suspects and the concurrent suspension of human rights. Continue reading

Australia’s new Prime Minister and a clash of values

Last week in Australia, Julia Gillard became the first female Prime Minister in the country’s history. Three or four months out from an election, Gillard went to (now former) Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and suggested he “spill the leadership.”

Rudd’s fall from grace was, as the ABC reports, precipitous. After sweeping to power in 2007, Rudd was enormously popular for his first two years; however, this year he quickly slid into disfavour—most notably, his proposed heavy taxation of the influential mining industry saw him widely pilloried in the press. With his ousting fairly well assured amongst his Labor party, Rudd took the graceful way out and handed over the leadership and thus the Prime Ministership to his deputy.

Gillard now faces the daunting task of gearing up immediately for the election, an election which perhaps more than usual features a stark contrast between the two party leaders. One the one side, we have Gillard. She has a background working as a lawyer for unions and lives unmarried in Melbourne with her partner, real estate agent Tim Mathieson. The Prime Minister has been criticised for her personal life and decision not to have children, having been described by Liberal senator Bill Heffernon as “deliberately barren” in 2007. Continue reading

What New York can teach us about ENDA: laws aren’t enough

As the ongoing fight about a trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) bill rages on in the United States, a recent report in New York has raised questions about the effectiveness of such bills in tackling discrimination against transgender people in the workplace.

Undertaken by Make the Road New York (the “New York LGBTQ Justice Project”), the “Transgender Need Not Apply” report engaged in a rather stunning experiment. They investigated potential employment discrimination in New York by using the “matched pairs” methodology used in some social science experiments. The matched pairs of job applicants used were alike in every way (race, sex, age, qualifications, interview technique) except transgender status, thus attempting to filter out other variables in discrimination. Two pairs of job-seekers were sent out to the same interviews at high-end Manhattan stores like J. Crew, American Eagle and Virgin Megastore. The results were stunning. Continue reading

Oil spills and economic crises: once more, with feeling

A clip on Rachel Maddow’s show Thursday showed that the oil leak still pouring into the Gulf of Mexico bears an uncanny resemblance to one from 1979. Each one of the failed containment plans (top hat, top kill and junk shot) was tried unsuccessfully in 1979; indeed, both platforms were owned by the same company–Transocean Ltd. Maddow points out that only relief wells eventually plugged the 1979 leak.

Yet the oil spill also obliquely recalls in form the global financial crisis of 2008. In particular, it demonstrates the inability of lawmakers to learn from the mistakes that lead to the crisis.

The first repetition is the unwillingness of American lawmakers and regulatory bodies to regulate private industry. The beginnings of the economic crisis undoubtedly lie in the easing of banking restrictions by Congress in 1999, and the subsequent failure to regulate the arcane and risky derivatives market. Similarly, the Deepwater Horizon was given a “categorical exclusion” from the National Environmental Policy Act. Continue reading

Tony Abbott and the Liberals: Truthiness Down Under

The American satiric comedian Stephen Colbert famously introduced the word “truthiness” into the contemporary English lexicon. Dictionary Merriam Webster named it their Word of Year in 2006, supplying us with two definitions:

1. truth that comes from the gut, not books
2. the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts of facts known to be true.

As Colbert explained in a rare-out-of-character interview, truthiness is a “What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true. It’s not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There’s not only an emotional quality, but there’s a selfish quality.”

Although truthiness has been most strongly associated with former US President George W. Bush, recently the art of truthiness has undergone a revival in Australia with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. Continue reading

Bobby Jindal: The Governor who stole Christmas

For a number of years now, the so-called “War on Christmas” has been a favorite meme of the Christian Right in the United States. As the title of Fox commentator John Gibson’s book goes,we should all be vigilant against The War Against Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.  Liberals, you see, are plotting to ban Christmas. Down here in Louisiana, there’s not a few people who hold this belief.

But as the eyes of the world are once again on Louisiana with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, other important, if less calamitous, noxious political spills are running through the Pelican State. As the state House sits, a number of bills have recently been proposed with religious motivations and implications that bring out the inconsistencies in the conservative worldview dominant in Louisiana politics, most notably that of the notoriously evangelical Republican Governor Bobby Jindal.

Faced with a budget deficit of $238 million this year, Governor Jindal is cutting programs across the board, a not uncommon necessity these days. Health, education and the arts are feeling the pinch hardest, but it is a bill currently in the House that is most suggestive of the dubious priorities of the Republican administration. House Bill 1478 a bill that would, as the Advocate reports, “allow Gov. Bobby Jindal to force state workers to celebrate Christmas or other holidays without pay.”

That’s right, in Louisiana, the Governor wants to have the power to take away Christmas for state workers—or at least, make them celebrate the holiday without pay. For those at the top end of the public service, missing thirteen days of pay annually may not mean much. But for those at the lowest rungs, rather than being a time for family and rest, each public holiday is a potential nightmare. The bill as stands gives workers no options to work the day and thus retain that day’s crucial pay. For many state workers, each unpaid “holiday” will represent an electricity bill not paid, a rent check missed. In December, which has three public holidays, many families will struggle to pay bills, let alone purchase presents.

After some cautious rewrites by state Rep John Schroder (R-Covington), the bill has been curtailed to only being a possibility when the state is in an officially declared downturn. Clearly after the recession of 2008, we are in a downturn now. But as anyone who has ever spent time in Louisiana will tell you, the state, one of the poorest in the nation, is almost always in a downturn.

But if this sounds downright unChristian, compare this to several of the other bills under review in Louisiana. Recently, a State Senate committee has endorsed a bill that requires women to receive an obstretics ultrasound before having an abortion. Unbelievably, this bill was watered down significantly. The Advocate reports:

“Senate Bill 528 originally required the ultrasound screen to be in plain sight of the woman and would have required a detailed explanation that included whether arms, legs or internal organs were visible. The woman also would have been required to receive a photograph of the ultrasound.”

The idea of this bill is, of course, to deter women from having abortions. By looking at the ultrasound and having the fetus’s development narrated by the doctor, the fetus will be perceived as a person, and thus the woman’s mind will be changed. The original requirements of 528 bear a striking similarity to the infamous bill passed recently in Oklahoma (which has been temporarily blocked by an injunction order and will inevitably undergo legal challenges as to its constitutionality). Another bill is currently in the House in Florida, where women will be not only required to undergo an ultrasound but to pay for it, while in Nebraska a bill has been passed banning abortions after 20 weeks. Blogger Melissa MacEwan calls this the “chip, chip, chip” strategy of anti-abortion activists, a slow, steady movement across the country to make access to abortion infinitely more restricted, more expensive, and more inhumane and distressing for the woman involved.

Yet, rather than a lack of attention to the humanity of the fetus, research shows that most abortions are motivated by financial need. As a 2005 report from the Guttmacher Institute [PDF] found, the most common reasons for having an abortion are that a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%) or that the woman could not afford a baby now (73%).  This is the kind of financial hardship produced by, among other things, the free-market absolutism of the neo-conservative era that Republicans like Jindal still cling to even after bringing the country to the brink of financial ruin.

In Louisiana, Christianity is an ever-present reality, from the Baptists in the north of the state to the Catholics in the south, and never more so than in the politics. The pro-life position is very close to state sponsored—for instance, you can purchase pro-life number plates for your car, but not pro-choice. The religious roots of the pro-life movement have been extensively documented, and here it almost goes without saying that a politician is pro-life.

Yet it appears that some forms of Christianity are more important than others. The ability to celebrate Christmas, to spend holidays with your family, these are evaporated by the Christian Right’s free-market absolutism. While the Right on the one hand seeks to push a particularly restrictive conservative Christian interpretation onto women’s bodies, with the other it takes away the ability of families to celebrate the very foundation of Christianity—Jesus’s birth. And there is very little that is less Christian than that.

Mandatory sterilization & trans men in Australia

The fight over reproductive rights keeps dragging on in the United States, but in Australia, hot-button issues like abortion and contraception are rarely a subject for public debate. In Australia, instead, a new front in the fight has opened for a new group – transgendered men. Two recent test cases in New South Wales and Western Australia have seen three trans men fight for the right to be legally male without being sterilized. Continue reading

Gay marriage in Australia? Whoah, not so fast

I was at a wedding several years ago when the celebrant made a comment that pricked up my ears. She said, “in Australia, marriage is between a man and a woman.” I initially thought, Way to state the obvious, thank you for making the queer people here feel even more uncomfortable, but, after talking to the bride, discovered that it was actually a legally required part of the ceremony.

Although it’s rarely noted, like the United States, Australia in 2004 passed a Federal Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. Rhis appears to unequivocally thwart the chance of same-sex couples getting married—and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been reluctant to even implement a separate-but-equal civil unions system as in the UK.

Recently, a story circulated in the Australian media that after July 1st, the Australian government will recognise some same-sex marriages—but only those in which one person is transsexual. The idea was that with the passing of the Same Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Law) act, previously legal marriages would continue to be legal. In contrast to the US. where this situation already exists, this is actually a novel approach in Australian law for same-sex partnered trans people (for instance, a couple with a male-to-female partner and a female partner). Continue reading