All posts by Steve Stern

The Senate and democracy (with a small “d”)

The Senate is not a democratic institution, nor was it set up to be. If I remember correctly from The Federalist Papers or Henry Steele Commager or High School Civics or something, the Senate was set-up to balance the passions of the people’s House.

The Founding Fathers were elites. They wanted a democracy, but their idea of democracy – while perhaps enlightened for a time of monarchs – would not be considered democracy today. In most States, only white property owners had the vote and even that select pool was considered too volatile not to have a check on their power. That check was the Senate which, originally represented the States. States as in separate Governments. When James Madison wrote about equal suffrage in the Senate, he was writing about equality between States, not people.

As representatives of the States, the Senators were presumed to be elites and, as such, they treated each other cordially (my guess is that it was an even bigger shock, in 1856, when Representative Preston Brooks – very un-cordially – beat Senator Charles Sumner with a cane). If a Senator had something to say, he was allowed to say it. That evolved into the filibuster and that distorted into the super-majority.

When James Madison wrote about equal suffrage in the Senate, he was writing against it. Not against it in practice but against it as being anything but an exceptional solution to the problem at hand (very similar to the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision to give the election to Bush when Scalia said Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances only). Madison and others agreed to  equality between states – as an exceptional compromise – in the Senate because they were afraid that states that didn’t join the Union might form other Unions, possibly with European powers. Just as the 3/5ths clause was put in the Constitution as a sop to slave states, the formation of the Senate with two Senators from each state no matter their size or population was a sop to the small states.

But, in 1800, the states were pretty close together in population compared to today. Rhode Island had a population of 69,122, more than 1/9th that of Pennsylvania with 602,545 souls. Today Rhode Island has a population of 1,052,567 people compared to California with a population 37,253,956. Both have two Senators and both States have equal political power in the Senate.

Because rural states which, by definition have smaller populations, are more conservative, the conservatives carry much more political power per capita. I haven’t done the numbers, but James Surowiecki of the New Yorker has and he says assuming that each senator represents all of the people in his or her state and that the currently open Senate seats (like Delaware, Illinois, and New York) will be filled by someone from the same party. And what you find, if you do the math, is that Republican senators actually represent about thirty-seven per cent of Americans.

Before the filibuster change, 45 Senators, representing 37% of the population could hold up any legislation they wanted. This is not Democracy. This is not Government of the people, by the people, for the people, even if we pretend it is. This is a Government setup by our Founding Fathers, a group of Elitist with, at least, some fear of the hoi polloi – the Great Unwashed as my mother called them – and they setup a government of elites that would be hard to change.

President John Kennedy was killed fifty years ago, today

Kennedy Brothers-63

 

Several months ago, Ed Cooney said that the shooting of President Kennedy changed the United States. That it was the day we lost our innocence. I told him that I thought he was wrong, but I was wrong. Everybody who was old enough to be there, remembers where they were when they first heard that the President was killed. That shocking moment – the moment they heard about that beautiful man being shot – is indelibly burned into our collective mind.

I was 23 on November 22, 1963 and stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas. Without a TV. What, looking back on it now, seems almost instantly, we were told we might be shipped to Cuba to provide air defense for the 101st Airborne which might be sent to Cuba because Castro might have been behind the killing. We spent the next couple of days packing up our equipment and then waiting to be shipped out. When we stood down, I – the whole unit, really – was disappointed and the funeral was over.

Watching Mad Men several years ago, I was struck by how much the country was glued to their televisions during the couple of weeks after the killing and how I missed most of it. How I missed little John John saluting his father’s Caisson as it passed by, I missed the widow, dressed so fashionably, in black. I missed the grandeur of a state funeral.

images (2)

 

I also missed the bonding driven by that common experience. I missed out on the transformation of President Kennedy to Martyr Kennedy and have been a little mystified ever since by the adoration.

It wasn’t the day that I lost my innocence, but I am ready to believe it was a day that transformed The United States.

150 years ago

S8208-lg

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863

Disney Princesses and the right of the insulted to decide if it is an insult

Princesses-

I am not an expert on Disney princesses, I don’t think that I have seen any of the princesses in a movie except for Cinderella (front row, second from the left). I am pretty sure that the redhead, second from the left in the top row, was originally a Pixar princess from Brave, and the princess on the far right might be Pocahontas. It is my understanding that at least some of the princesses – Cinderella and Snow White (where is she?) for sure – came from old  European fairy tales.

The European fairy tales, in turn, came from earlier folk tales that were rooted in the deep humus of the collective European past. According to Robert Bly, those classic fairy tales lay out stages of initiation into adulthood which we’ve entirely forgotten, that our ancestors apparently knew a lot about. However, the new Disney Princesses, and the fairy tales they are in, are not rooted in a deep wisdom, they are made to sell dolls or amusement park rides. Additionally, they do damage to susceptible little girls by setting an impossible standard of what a woman should look like (a Barbiesque caricature of European homogeny).

As a protest to this, an English artist, David Trumble, Disneyfied a group of women who he considered real feminist heroes. As I understand it, he thought that, by showing how the Disney treatment trivialized these very real, heroic, women, it showed how Disney trivialized all women by their depiction of Princesses. I drew this picture because I wanted to analyze how unnecessary it is to collapse a heroine into one specific mold, to give them all the same sparkly fashion, the same tiny figures, and the  same homogenized plastic smile.

David Trum Princesses

Artist-Turns-Female-Role-Models-Into-Disney-Princesses-600x450

But a funny thing happened, not everybody thought the Disneyifacation of real women was bad. Some women liked it, at Feminist Disney, one woman said Of course it’d be nice if there was more diversity (they have one less WOC than the actual disney princess lineup!), less western-centric, more modern women, and women who are not cis hetero, as well as disabled and/or fat women. But I thought it was a cool take. I am here for Princess Malala Yousafzai. One woman started complaining and then, sort of, turned around.  In an article in Women You Should Know, Marijayne Renny said, Sadly, (my daughter) was immediately drawn to the sparkly dresses, but on the flip side it made her ask questions about these women and she was genuinely excited to know each and every one of their back stories. 

I first ran into the Princesses in an article in Atlantic, Why Shouldn’t Gloria Steinem Be a Disney Princess?, whose title, more or less, is self explanatory. Disney Princesses are not something that I think about very much, but, when I do, they do seem somewhat pedophilic what with the big eyes and all. But I am not a woman and either is the artist who made these satirical images and that is the problem.

A couple of years ago, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a blog post on the backhanded apology to an insult that is actually a new insult, Oh, I’m sorry if you feel insulted by the way I said what I said, I didn’t mean to insult you. The assumption here is that the  person feeling insulted is wrong because the insulter didn’t mean to be insulting and that, somehow, that makes the insult non-op. Coates argued, and I agree, that the insulted party should have the right to feel insulted. I think that the reverse is the case here, it seems that Trumble felt women should be insulted when alot of them were not.

His drawings, designed to show how insulting Disney is, turned out to not say that to many women who don’t necessarily  regard Disney as insulting. Answering that, Trumble said, I feel like good satire shouldn’t be understood by everybody. Some people were angry at me because they thought I was reducing the women, which was obviously the point. But if it gets children interested in these real women and what they do, is it so bad? Leaving aside that I agree that good satire should be close enough to the truth that some people don’t see it as satire and it is is great if these cartoons end up making children, especially little girls, want to know the back stories of these remarkable women, a man shouldn’t be deciding if the original Princesses are objectionable.

As a postscript to this, there are now drawings and cups of the Princesses available at søciety6 for only $15.oo. They seem to me that they would make a good gift, but what do I know?

Princesses Cups--2

 

The Honda Insight, Al-Qaeda, ad hominem thinking, projection, and blogging

Honda Insight-

As I was driving down to Menlo Park the other day, I waited at a stoplight behind an old Honda Insight. This was the 2000 Insight that looked a little goofy – in the best way – got great gas mileage, and didn’t sell very well. This Insight had a bumper sticker that said Al-Qaeda hates this car and I thought, That’s wrong, Al-Qaeda loves that car. The bumper sticker was strangely annoying.

At first, it struck me that our different reactions were based on how we see Al-Qaeda sees us. That the bumper sticker indicated that Honda Harry thinks Al-Qaeda hates us because of who we are and I think that Al-Qaeda hates us because of what we do. I think that, if we all drove cars that got great mileage, if we didn’t need middle eastern oil, if we didn’t have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda would be happier.

I understand that Al-Qaeda hates us and if we pulled our troops out of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Yeman, Egypt, Libya, and – especially – Saudi Arabia, they would still hate us. We have poisoned that well. I understand that if we didn’t reflexively back Israel, they would still hate us. Still, I don’t think that they hate us for who we are, I think that they hate us for what we have done – stationing troops in Islamic countries, their countries, among other things – and that has informed what they think of us.

I also think that we all make ad hominem arguments where we argue that the person is wrong because of who they are, not what they have said that might be wrong. I get five emails a day telling me about some stupid thing a Conservative has said like Obama being wrong about Libya because he is a Muslim. Aside from the fact that Obama isn’t a Muslim, why can’t a Muslim be right about Libya? But of those five emails, usually in one or two of them, it seems to me that what the Conservative is saying, maybe inexpertly saying, is sensible. The assumption of the email is that what is being said must be wrong because the guy saying it is a Conservative.

The ad hominem argument that the bumper sticker tries to make – the guy who put it on, really – is that  My Insight is good because Al-Qaeda doesn’t like it. Of course, everything that Al-Qaeda doesn’t like is not necessarily good. A-Qaeda doesn’t like killing male babies, that doesn’t make killing male babies good. Saying Al-Qaeda hates this car is not really an  argument and looking at it angered me.

We all see ourselves in others. Sometimes we see what we know about ourselves, sometimes we see what we didn’t notice or have forgotten, often we see what we find hard to see in ourselves. I am a big believer that projection is a way to look back at the projector. Why I was angry over  Al-Qaeda hates this is, eventually, more interesting, enlightening, and – surprise – more disturbing than if the bumper sticker is accurate or why the Honda guy put the bumper sticker on in the first place.

In this case, what bothered me is the assumptive superiority of the Honda guy. The assumption that what he had to say about Al-Qaeda and his car is of interest, or, even, importance. It was much easier to see that assumptive superiority on the bumper of the Insight than in myself and turning that thought back on myself gives me the shivers. The self-reproach of that assumptive superiority makes it hard to accept it in myself and easy to be irate with the Honda guy. That is the yin.

The yang is, if I didn’t have that assumptive superiority, I wouldn’t have a blog and I probably wouldn’t even pick up a camera. That yin and yang are the struggle when doing this blog and showing my pictures. I think it is a struggle we all have.

Even with all of that, I don’t think that Al-Qaeda hates the Honda Insight, and yeah, they probably do hate the guy driving it.