Newt thinks we need to let it go.

The Republicans continue their rape crisis interventions.

A few thoughts on last night

Last night doesn't deserve a full post. Though I was retweeted twice by a former professor of mine who I greatly respect and admire so I guess I won. 

So we all learned a lot during the foreign policy pissing contest debate:

• Israel is our bestie;
• There is nothing illegal about drones; and
• Women deserve rights even if they upset the religious majority, but only overseas.

At no point last night did I hear anything that differentiated either candidate foreign policy, but I didn't expect much. Blatant fear mongering of China and Iran. The let's save the women talk. Oh, and the inability to stay on point. Also, Bob should have been fired for the hypothetical question.

"Hypothetically, would you support more violence in the Middle East if Israel called after they made the decision?" Personally, I would have talked my bestie down from running an ex over after a break up, but some people you can't talk to. First, of course Romney wasn't going to answer that. Secondly, of course not. Neither candidate would let another country dictate whether the US got in another armed conflict. We bully allies into that not the other way around. 

You know what else he should have got canned for: the divorcing Pakistan comment. How drunk were we when we married Pakistan? Did this happen in Vegas? You know it is just going to hide our enemies. Now, Brazil, there is a country going places with their currency and overall lack of aggression, but this might be first date shine.

I don’t know why we don’t just give both candidates four and a half hours to talk about whatever they want instead of the Muppet show we call debates. They definitely didn’t talk about foreign policy or anything else. To be completely honest, by the end of these I’m so tired of the male posturing. Is it November yet?

Leave poverty to the libertarians

So the socialist rag, the New York Times, had an op-ed today on how to solve poverty by a man who don’t understand it at all. So, next on my agenda I’m going to create the pill for men. I think it would be awesome to have so naturally that makes me qualified to do it, right? Oh, not the logic we’re using. My bad.

Alright, so one Gary MacDougal (adviser to former Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar), starts by talking about the VP debate coming up tonight. He points out poverty will more than likely continue being ignored through the campaign cycle.

Then he lays out some Cato Institute figures. For those of you unfamiliar with Cato, congratulations. Cato believes it is a libertarian research group, but libertarians don’t exist in nature. They are just conservatives who recognize how crazy the rest of their party is getting. So what is the figure?

“Each year, American taxpayers spend nearly $1 trillion trying to help the poor, according to a recent study by the Cato Institute. It’s easy to miss that headline number, though, because the money flows into and out of scores of federal, state and local government programs. In April, Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at Cato, a libertarian research group, compiled a list of 126 federal programs for low-income Americans, which together spend $668 billion of taxpayers money annually. State and local governments allocate an additional $284 billion, he estimated.”

So you see wasteful government spending on 126 different programs. So you’re asking yourself where is this guy going? Bad big government or the need for centralized non-state run programs.
Next MacDougal points out some of these programs help those who are “more than just ‘the poor.’” He never bothers to define the poor though, which is poor writing for the NYTs. He does define who doesn’t cut though, those who benefit from Medicaid for the elderly and disabled also Pell grants for young people in college. He acknowledges that some of us (you can’t see it by I’m pointing at myself) see the Pell grants as attempts to allow low-income young people to go to college.

Finally, he asks his question, “Are we spending this money in truly the best way to help the poor?”

And provides a thought experiment: “Consider a thought experiment: Divide $1 trillion by 46 million and you get around $21,700 for each American in poverty, or nearly $87,000 for a family of four. That’s almost four times the $23,050 per year (the federal poverty line for a family, he doesn’t note, but that is a family of three 1 adult and 2 children). It’s intriguing to think about converting all of this to a cash payment that would instantly lift everyone in poverty up to the middle class.”

Ok, so you follow that, cash payments directly to poor people to lift them out of poverty. Except, he’s not advocating that because it wouldn’t be logistically or politically ok. I actually like that plan. Here, MacDougal advocates Ryan’s Medicaid plan, which I’m pretty sure includes systematic execution of old people, jk, and Clinton welfare reforms. Because the Clinton reforms were good so positive?

Ok, Dems, cover your ears. These reforms lightened the welfare rolls, they didn’t lift people out of poverty. They also introduced a group of people who were dropped from the rolls and still lacked employment. So poverty got worse, TANF recipients were pushed into low wage employment, and the limit results in people receiving no cash assistance. And I’m back.

He cites a Institute for Education Leadership study that identifies 7 Senate committees and subcommittees, 11 House committees and subcommittees, 7 cabinet departments, and 8 other agencies that oversee some aspects of anti-poverty programs. The study claims a typical family is eligible for 20 separate programs, which each has their own rules. MacDougal argues that some fragmentation is necessary, we’re too fragmented. And because of this poor people don’t receive assistance…not backed up with evidence though which is problematic for a generalization like that. It is probably true that people aren’t helped, but a little evidence would be nice, like former welfare recipients who no longer qualify for cash. Though most people who do not receive benefits lack knowledge about the programs themselves not the edibility requirements. MacDougal is arguing for one centralized program to deal with all aspects of need.

Then he starts on advocates. You see we don’t want to do this because we are greedy and power hungry.

Finally he calls for outcome measurements vs. input measurements. I don’t think he actually wants these. We have these at my job, and they show we’re not helping people enough. There isn’t enough money even in Maryland that reluctantly enforces the federal time limit. Also, one of my colleagues is studying the wages of welfare to work, and it is bad. Real bad. Like not making enough to live on and still requires assistance they no longer qualify for bad.

MacDougal says, “Our effectiveness should be assessed, in part, by the per-person cost of moving individuals from dependency to self-sufficiency.”

Maryland and Minnesota are the only states that monitor and assess their welfare programs. More states should do it, but I doubt he’s going to get the results that he’s angling for. It disturbs me MacDougal wrote a book on poverty, though on Amazon there is only one review so there is that. I feel like I’ve been having this argument over and over since Romney and Ryan decided to push the poor are lazy gimmick again. The poor are not dependent because they want to be. They are dependent because the system is broken. And I’m not just talking about the “welfare system” but all social and institutional structures that keep women and people of color in poverty. I wish there was a quick fix, but there isn’t unless we’re going to give the $87k to each family, which by the way is probably an inflated number, but I don’t have time to check the Cato Institute’s findings today. After all I <3 and="and" biden="biden" i="i" joe="joe" must="must" p="p" watch.="watch.">

Romney teaches you how not to win an election

Unbelievable. David Corn at Mother Jones released these gems today. I'm baffled.

President Obama vows to bring justice to the killers in Libya, more violence to follow

The attack in Libya which killed a US ambassador and three other staffers resulted in President Obama condemning the attacks

President Obama went on to vow to work with the Libyan government to “bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” And then devolved into a speech on acts of terror and USA chants.

The attack occurred after a mob swarmed the US consulate in Benghazi and set it on fire. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, two security officials, and a consulate worker died when they were trying to evacuate the building.

The mod gathered due to anger over a US financed film that was believed to be attacking Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. I'm not ready to agree this is all over a movie and a prophet. US foreign policy regularly includes killing kids with drone strikes so it might be a bit more complicated. 

President Obama has increased security at embassies around the world because of the attack. Obama also said that the US does not seek to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, and “[t]here is no justification for this senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”

Naturally, this being an election, Romney decided to make a statement to the effect that Obama has a lack of clarity on foreign policy. Because that’s the kind of man that he wants to be.

While President Obama hasn’t responded directly to Romney, he did note that the US did not seek to  break the bonds between the US and Libya. Obama also praised the work Ambassador Stevens had done, particularly when violence broke out in Libya:

“He worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of this situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps. Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.”

I wanted to end with this instead of the politics of it because four people died, and most of the media is more concerned with Romney dissing the President on foreign policy. 

At last I heard, the attack may have been planned...

I'd rename this article my "institutional rape"

I read a post on Jezebel today, and it gave me pause. Entitled "Workshopping Rape," it summarized a piece written by Elissa Bassist about her experiences of sexual violation. I'm being specifically picky with my words right now because after a lengthy conversation with another women's studies feminist grad this gets complicated. Upfront, V and I took very different approaches to this piece, I took a theoretical approach grounding policy application while V took the legitimization of all individual experiences. Ready? Let's do this. 

Excerpts from Ms. Bassest's piece, "My 'Caffeine-Free Rape'": 

I am in the student health waiting room filling out required forms, writing in my date of birth and social security number and martial status, listing any allergies I have to specific medications, and I reach a box asking if I have ever been sexually assaulted. I either check the box or I don’t.In 2006, I met my first real-deal boyfriend. I was a senior in college, 22, and one of those late-in-life virgins, waiting for the ideal circumstances to have sex. When we had sex the first time, it hurt. When we had sex every other time, it hurt. But I had no way to describe what was happening in the dark, no way to talk about it, no language to explain.In 2008, after we’d graduated and broken up, he e-mailed me confessing he’d cheated with four women (not simultaneously, but just as unimaginable). Like the responsible and terrified educated woman I was, I got tested for AIDS and STIs. During the exam, the gynecologist asked me if I’d given birth. Huh? I’ve never been pregnant. She said my cervix was ruptured, torn in such a way that it looked like I’d given birth to a baby. A human-size baby. I was broken on the inside and nobody knew, not even me.Either I check the box or I don’t. Do the mornings I’d wake up to him thrusting into me count? Does it count that I stopped thinking I was “having sex” and started thinking “I was being had sex with”? A torn cervix, does it count? Check the box or do not check the box.In 2011, I started the second semester of my Masters of Fine Arts program in creative nonfiction, and I workshopped a book chapter about these events — it was my first attempt to describe what happened in the dark, to talk about it, to develop a language to explain. Here are selected passages from the chapter:I never said, "No, no, no." When I’d cry — almost every time we had sex — he asked if he should keep going. Keep going, I’d say. Just finish. And he would. He could. What is the difference between saying “No, no, no,” and praying the man you trust will stop when he sees you crying? How about when he hears you screaming?I would look at him, concentrating every part of me on the mouth that kept saying it loved me … And he didn’t know. I could see that he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong or unusual. He and I could feel things so differently while we were at the center of one another.  A male classmate typed up a one-page single-spaced critique, and in the last paragraph he wrote: “You need to invent a new word for your situation. Diet Rape or Rape II. Caffeine free rape [sic]. A rape substitute. maybe [sic], ‘I can’t believe it’s not rape.’ Just trying to interject a little humor in here. Not sure what to say. I hope your cervix is better.” Nothing but rubber bands go back to normal. I check the box. 

***
The classmate who brainstormed the phrase “Diet Rape” wrote a note in black ink on his critique: “‘Rape’ hints @ a criminal act. Was this criminal?” Do I have to check a box? When I explained to a friend what happened with my first boyfriend, I added the caveat: “I mean, it wasn't like back-alley rape.” Her response: “Yeah, I was not-back-alley raped too.” This was not an isolated, personal problem. 

***The three women in the group, including me, had stories of sexual violence. After a few drinks, the male friend grew frustrated and admitted he didn’t understand why women were “stupid” enough to remain in situations of violence or trauma or pain when no obvious force was forcibly being forced at them, at us. He asked, “Didn't you know he was tearing your cervix? How’d you let that happen? Why didn’t you leave?”Why didn’t I say no, no, no.Instead of answering him, I could have gone into even more silence, a deeper fear, an ever-widening chasm of shame. But I did not. The only way to escape being the victim, acting the victim, or blaming the victim is to stand up for the victims. I gathered up all the questions he asked me and asked them of him, to this man who is no longer my friend: “Would you know when someone you thought you loved for the first time was tearing your cervix? Do you even know what a cervix is? No? Are you stupid? Do you get called stupid because someone made a promise to love you, and you were hurt because you trusted him?”He didn’t understand it. To understand it would be to think about it, which he didn’t want to do. To understand it would mean going through his own history, a history where he might recognize how he hurt someone else or failed to accept what someone else had done because it scared him.“Be kind to the wounded,” I told him. Those who are abused have to deal with (1) abuse; (2) being unable to talk about it because they don't know what happened to them or they are ashamed they'll suffer blame or further distress; and (3) being called stupid for having “let” it happen. 

***
I originally (and regrettably) titled the chapter I workshopped “How Not to Lose Your Virginity.” My classmate titled his critique “How to Make a Guy Cringe,” and when I read that I thought, This is his tragedy, too, and not because reading about what happened to me and what happens in the world made him uncomfortable, but because of the way he’s been socialized to sex and violence against women.I thought the problem was out there, in the back alleys. I believed the classroom was far from the back alley. I hoped the people who used the phrase “Diet Rape” were not in educational institutions, sitting next to me, cringing. It’s his tragedy, too, because the problem is not just out there, it’s also in here, in my classroom, in my relationship, in the way I thought about and talked about and had sex — the problem is in him, Mr. I Can’t Believe It’s Not Rape.

I chopped this up a bit, and encourage you to read the original excerpt. A point of concern for both V and myself is that we were lacking in information to fully understand the situation. So we can all agree this woman deserves our sympathy and understanding, but I'm not sure this is rape. The guy asked if he should stop, and she said no. She gave consent. As V pointed out coercion could be a factor, but the author doesn't say that. So again, V argues Elissa's experience in legitimate, and I agree. I argue that you can't use a word as loaded as rape after the fact, because if she does she isn't the only one impacted: so is her former boyfriend. If she is a victim, then he is a rapist. And he did what we ask men to do, ask for permission. 

This brought our conversation to an impasse. I also expressed concern when misinformed idiots run around talking about "gray rape" and "legitimate rape" then we can't be unclear. One of Elissa's classmates suggested they come up with a word for this; I don't think so. I think when we do we leave the window up for others to come up with their own versions of what counts. Problematic. V then pointed out that coercion requires an awareness and understanding of rape culture, which Elissa may not have had at the time. Additionally, the man involved did say what is expected, but ignored the nonverbal signs. 

This is when we applied "institutional rape." Institutional rape is rape facilitated by institutions, it includes the systematic rape of women in times of war, acts of rape within institutions such as prison facilitated by the state and prison administrators, and we would argue rapes facilitated by rape culture. As you can imagine in some of these cases, the rape is directly and indirectly sanctioned by the institution. Now, institutional rape isn't really recognized outside of women's studies. Often, it is references when we discuss violence against women of color or other marginalized groups. And I'm not aware of a situation when it was applied to rape culture with the working theory that the culture is facilitating the sexual violence. 

So where do we go from here? Was this all an intellectual exercise in understanding or do we use this to continue unpacking rape culture? Well, I know I will continue to unpack this, but I'm not really sure anyone outside my insulated feminist group would think this through at all. 

Cobra subsidy set to end September 1st

Ok, so why didn't I know about this? No idea. Really, I'm pretty on top of these things. I read a lot of blogs.

Cobra, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, is set to end on Thursday. Cobra allows people to continue with their health insurance plans after leaving their employment. This has a variety of subject matter including Title X, which allows the Public Health Services Act to deny income tax deductions to employers for contributions to group health plans.

In 2009, the feds subsidized Cobra reducing the costs for unemployment by 65%. According to The Kaiser Family Foundation the subsidy brought costs under control:

The average monthly cost of maintaining COBRA coverage without the subsidy is about $1,137 for a family policy and $410 for an individual, according to calculations from The Kaiser Family Foundation. With the subsidy, costs plummet to a more affordable $398 per month for a family and $144 for individuals.

Clearly, without the subsidy people are going to go without insurance, which is find because we have a public option...wait that's not right. Cobra enrollment ended in May 2010, but extensions for the subsidies prolonged them for the past 15 months. People would still qualify will lose that benefit on September 1. The $25 billion Cobra subsidy was predicted to help 7 million laid off workers and their families, but Kaiser found that the program doubled after the subsidy was made available. This implies many people couldn't afford insurance without the subsidy so I guess those program numbers will bottom out.

Important stats for this conversation:

In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that nearly 59 million Americans went without health insurance coverage for at least part of 2010. Federal health officials said 4 million more Americans went without health insurance that year compared to 2008.

Currently, about 9.1 percent of Americans are unemployed, according to the most recent statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

This is a serious concern for the unemployed. But then again who cares. They're just poor people. But let's continue to fight for the rich people's rights to keep their money. Without insurance those pesky poor people won't be around for long [sarcasm].

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/204002/20110825/cobra-subsidy-to-end-on-sept-1.htm

Come back to the Fold

Ok, so I've been getting lots of e-mails about why we should support the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest U.S. citizens and be happy about it because unemployment benefits will be extended. Yeah, we should be happy that once again the wealthiest need to get theirs before they'll agree to help the poor.

Well, I say no. I say if the Republicans threaten to filibuster every Democratic bill let them. They're the ones who will have to field the questions about why unemployment benefits haven't been extended when they are so desperately needed. I also challenge they to try because I feel CSPAN isn't watchable enough, and watching McCain trying to filibuster on Christmas day makes me warm inside. Yeah, war on Christmas bitches. Balls to the wall kids, time to do something or at least try. And by that I don't mean cave. If we've given in to them already what will the next Congressional term be like? I don't want to think about it.

I had my final class of the semester last night. One girl in my class said the federal government is too big and needs to be smaller and stay out of states issues. She went on to say the Chinese don't think critically, which is why U.S. education is better. The wonderful woman who sits across from me and I gasped; she met my eyes and mouthed racism. I'm glad the class is over. Though several of us discussed how bad things are going to get in the next two years...Pretty bleak.

Dear Mr. President:

President Obama and White House Staff:

I am writing to express my concern over bending to the will of the incoming Republican leadership. I worry that extending the Bush tax cuts is only the beginning and that it will only get worse. What happened to the leadership we voted for and more importantly organized for?Do you believe in these tax cuts for the wealthiest 3% of the population? If not, then don't pretend that you do, after all this might be the only time public opinion is on your side. You've let women down, you've let gays down, but are you also going to let down the poor for the promotion of the wealthy? If you believe every Democratic backed bill will be filibustered by the Republicans then let them. Let them hold up unemployment benefits and everything else; they'll look like fools and maybe you'll stop looking weak. I've been a supporter even when the rest of the liberals started getting nervous, but now I'm just disappointed. Politics is politics, but this is not why I vote. I believed that you would do something to change the current state of things, and I had no lofty goals that you would single handedly fix the economy, but I expected some return.

Sincerely,

Kari