My sister is awesome!

Check out the Obama love over at Mabel Hand Bags:

I ♥ Obama Hand Bag - in blue and in red
Obama Rocks My Socks Hand Bag in blue and in red


I do have to stop myself for a second and appreciate the fact that someone who got upset when my parents and I had political discussions at dinner is now so excited about a politician. I just wish the excitement was about policy and issues and not just his charisma. Either way, the bags are freakin' awesome. Don't you want one?

Some Articles on Obama's Terrible Economic Choices --

Considering that I am both doing NaNoWriMo AND have just moved, I don't have time right now to formulate my utter (although predicted) disappointment in Obama's cabinet choices, especially his economic choices. Instead I'm offering my dear readers (are there any really??) a smattering of articles that might give some insight - especially for progressives who think Summers & Geithner are good choices (and I'm not even taking into consideration the fact that Summers thinks that women just aren't good at science):

About the Advisory Board - Paul Krugman's suggested picks. Why oh why Paul won't you do it??
Return of Wall Street Hustlers - Think that Rubin & Clinton aren't partially responsible for this economic mess? Think again.
State Banks Could Solve Financial Crisis - why not get the good part of 'socialism' (i.e. control) instead of the bad (i.e. the debt)?
Surprise! This Bank Refuses Fed Bailout - See? Integrity is possible.
Obama's Wall Street Woes - I don't agree that there is any evidence that Obama "gets this" but I agree that he "seems perilously close to following the same course as Bush in the banking bailout" (which is to say the same course ALL presidents have been following for the past 28 years).

That's just a smattering. Also, take a peek at some quotes from On the Wealth of Nations, Book 1. Not quoted is the part where Smith argues that corporations which take government subsidies will soon spend all their time and energy getting free money and not actually do anything else.

Even the Wall Street Journal called this crisis "Minsky's moment," so why aren't we putting post-Keysians or, hell, even a Keysian into positions of power? Hello?

Just for FYI --
Banks panics in the US:
1819
1837
1857
1873
1893
1907
Great Depression
80s & 90s Savings & Loans Crisis
1987 Black Monday
Tech Bust of 2000/2001
2008

Hmm ... seems like there is a large period missing from this list? 1945-1980? And yet, New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America gets prominent billing in the Union Square Barnes & Noble. Seriously? Yes, America was so damaged by the New Deal that we became a singular super power and the most prosperous country in the world until Milton Friedman came along and made that same argument - and we are currently seeing just how well THAT worked out.

Well this went longer than planned ...

Obama & McCain on Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math

This is an issue close to my heart:

Campaign Responses to Questions from The Association for Women in Science & The Society of Women Engineers

Obviously I'm biased, but McCain really comes off and not knowing anything about the issue. His answers are much shorter than Obama's, he doesn't show that he even knows what the initiatives they are asking about are, and his focus seems generally to be on education. What about female scientists, engineers, and mathematicians working right now? McCain's only real input is to say that he will create a presidential commission to study the issue. Why? There is a plethora of research out there on these issues. To me, this just says that he doesn't care enough to get informed and he doesn't want to committ to a decision.

At the very least, it becomes clear that this is an issue that the Obama/Biden campaign either already was somewhat knowledgeable about or they did some research before answering the questions. McCain comes off as if this is just a waste of his precious time and he'll just delegate all the work to "commissions."

Hillary didn't win; she just didn't lose ...

Last night, CNN was covered with talk of 'Hilary Won!' and peppered with 'Why did Hilary win?' and 'Why did Obama lose?'

Here's the thing: Hilary did not "win" any votes yesterday. In fact, she lost many.

Prior to election day, Obama was polling at around 20% in Texas and Ohio. (Now we could go into a diatribe about how polling is bullshit but I'll hold off). Which means that, since Obama got around 45% of the vote , he won 25% of Hilary's voters or, put in another way, Hilary lost 25% of her voters.

Now I'm no Obama lover, but my hatred for simplistic media coverage trumps all political affiliations.


One guest on CNN finally got it right around midnight: The media (and perhaps the country) is treating this election like a general election, in other words, we are treating it like it is 'winner take all.' It's not. The delegate difference remains virtually unchanged.

Frankly, that delegate difference is the real issue and could result in another riot like the one in 1968 (i.e. if the super delegates don't vote for the popularly elected canidate or Hilary fights for Michigan and Florida's votes to count even though no one else campaigned or was even on the ballots there.)

The primary system is failing us!!

I just found out that Edwards is dropping out of the presidential race. This right after Kucinich - by far the best progressive candidate and the only politician i know with the balls to risk his career to do what's right - dropped out due to a fierce re-election campaign.

I'm heartbroken and I blame the primary system. Here's why:

• Having primaries on different days in different states gives more weight to those states that come first. Super Tuesday hasn't happen yet. Four states - count them four - have voted. (Well technically 6 states have voted but since the democratic party has used its corrupted weight to disenfranchise Michigan and Floridian democrats and not count their votes, I won't either). Only 8% of the country has weighed in on primary candidates and already 4 candidates (Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, andBiden) have dropped - one of them (Edwards) even had a real shot. Moreover, none of the states that have voted are states significant enough to swing an election. Plus I don't want Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to make voting decisions for me. Do you?
  
• Caucus's are bullshit. The caucus system (used in Iowa and I think Nevada), just like th electoral college, are fucking us time and time again. They are complex and time-consuming - we can't even get people to come out and pull a lever, let alone show up at a specific time to play musical chairs. Moreover, it gives a skewed perception of people's votes. If my candidate doesn't get enough people standing in the corner, then I have to more all my voting power to another candidate that I don't want. It makes it an all or nothing race and convinces people that a) certain policies are more popular than they are and b) that they can never vote for a long shot candidate because they'll have to pick the mainstream choice anyway. I do understand the motivation behind caucusing - it gives some semblance of a second choice. However, there are better options out there - like Instant Run-Off which allows you to rank candidates giving the politicians and the media and you a better picture of what Americans really want.
• The god damn media. Something needs to be done about the FCC and it's total unresponsiveness to the American people. (Don't believe me? The FCC recently ruled to open up media companies to even more conglomeration despite holding hearings across the country in which citizens overwhelmingly said NO to this proposal.) The media has talked about 2, maybe 3, democratic candidates - Clinton, Obama, and somtimes Edwards. And what do they talk about? Clinton's tear; whether race or gender will cause one or the other to win. It's ridiculous. Maybe, for once, CNN could mention some of their policies?
  
• Debates not being debates. This plays into the above topic. Kucinich - despite meeting their set criteria - was not allowed in multiple televised debates. Remember when we had fair access laws? Think we still do? Thanks to Reagan the media can favor a single candidate - even in a debate - for no reason what so ever. The American public - we included - tends to think that debates are run by the government or some non-partisan organization. Not so. Debates are run by the Democratic party and the Republican party period. So what you might say? So this means that they are not going to include third parties or even their own candidates if they seek to create change.

Ahh. I'm so fucking pissed about this. Now who am I going to vote for? Mrs. Corporate interests or Mr. I talk the talk but never show up for Senate votes?