Not surprisingly to anyone who saw the video of the incident, the report concludes that “the pepper spraying incident that took place on November 18, 2011 should and could have been prevented.”  More amazingly, it identifies failures on nearly every level of planning and execution–in their words, “many breaches of protocol and procedures and a considerable lack of leadership.”

What many of us didn’t realize at the time of the pepper-spray incident is that Chancellor Katehi did not call in law enforcement in a moment of desparate panic: the University had been notified in advance of the planned demonstration, and had time to devise its own careful response.  The Chancellor, however, acting from the start on a mistaken assumption about who comprised the group of protesters ( outsiders vs. students and faculty), did not consider more prudent alternatives and instead initiated what the report concludes was an unecessary, unwise, and possibly illegal action by police.

The report describes how, once she had made the questionable decision to order a raid, the Chancellor failed to communicate her goals and priorities–such as the expectation that no force whatsoever should be used against the protesters–to the police chief, who then failed to communicate the concerns and reservations of the police force–for example, that the Chancellor’s insistence on clearing the tents in the afternoon rather than the middle of the night would mean a much larger crowd to clear, or that the likelihood of the escalation of force was extremely high to inevitable in procedures such as this one.  Not to mention the concern that the entire raid might not be legal, but more on that point later.

Once they had received the Administration’s “order,” the police department failed in a number of ways to follow “national or state-mandated rules regarding incident/event planning,” and then “notwithstanding the deficiencies in the operations plan, the operation was not managed according to the plan.”  In advance of the action, the Chief instructed her officers NOT to wear riot gear onto campus, an instruction they apparently openly defied, and just for good measure, the officers further prepared for the operation by ordering special military-grade pepper spray cans, which are not actually legal for law enforcement in California to use or carry (and which therefore they were not trained to use properly).

Once the operation was underway, chain of command was abandoned, conflicting orders were being given, individual officers were making decisions independent of any orders, and the Chief stood nearby “filming the police actions with her cell phone.”  Since no plan had been made to transport their arrestees back to the station, the police were forced to hang around in the center of a circle of chanting protesters–which, in the absence of an incident commander in a position to see that no actual threat existed, led to the incorrect feeling by the officers that they were “surrounded” by a “hostile crowd.”  When the pepper-spraying did occur, the officer who used it indeed failed to use it safely, since it is intended for dispersal over a large crowd, from a minimum distance of six feet–not directly into the faces of individuals, at close range.  But in any case, the report also found that the “decision to use pepper spray [at all] was not supported by objective evidence and was not authorized by policy.”

Perhaps the most frustrating part of the whole incident is this: this use of excessive force was employed to end a perfectly legal protest.  This was not a case of a justified operation going astray in the moment; since the protesters in question were students at UC Davis, there was no law which even permitted the University to order their removal by police.  Even if they hadn’t been students, it’s tough to argue that the protesters were practicing overnight camping at 3:00 in the afternoon.  The agency which conducted the initial investigation has said that “At the time the operation was mounted (and continuing until the present) it was not clear what legal authority existed for the campus police to remove the tents and arrest those who opposed them.”  Apparently the officers on the raid knew this; the report describes how “the officers in charge…were uncertain as to the legal grounds for the action they were taking and consulted with University Counsel on the issue. “   But instead of responding to this uncertainty by resisting their orders or by treating the protesters gently once they got there, they allowed their frustration to vent through violence directed at those demonstrating–i.e., the people whose rights they believed were being infringed.

But the question of legal rightness really couldn’t be made a priority, given the University’s other important responsibilities– such as protecting the virtue of innocent undergrads.  The report quotes statements by members of the administration aimed at explaining the motivation for their decision to call in the police:

Chancellor Katehi stated, “We were worried at the time about that [nonaffiliates]
because the issues from Oakland were in the news and the use of drugs and
sex and other things, and you know here we have very young students . . . we were
worried especially about having very young girls and other students with older people
who come from the outside without any knowledge of their record . . . if anything
happens to any student while we’re in violation of policy, it’s a very tough thing to
overcome.”
Vice Chancellor Meyer expressed similar concerns in an interview conducted on Dec. 7.
He explained, “our context at the time was seeing what’s happening in the City of
Oakland, seeing what’s happening in other municipalities across the country, and not
being able to see a scenario where [a UC Davis Occupation] ends well . . . Do we lose
control and have non-affiliates become part of an encampment? So my fear is a longterm
occupation with a number of tents where we have an undergraduate student and a
non-affiliate and there’s an incident. And then I’m reporting to a parent that a nonaffiliate
has done this unthinkable act with your daughter, and how could we let that
happen?”

I guess they only felt the need to protect the undergrads from a specific type of “unthinkable act”–not, for example, from the unthinkable act of unprovoked police violence.  Apparently a *hypothetical* risk of rape is grounds for *actual* violations of individuals’ personal rights and basic physical safety…even if some of those who end up violated or injured are very same vulnerable daughter/undergrads they are trying to protect.  It’s as if the woodsman, finding Little Red Riding Hood in the woods, was worried about even the *possibility* of a wolf–so he cut HER in half with his axe to keep her from being compromised.

In case you hadn’t already deduced from the sheer frequency of these incidents lately, what we have here is not a single bad decision but a whole structure that failed spectacularly at nearly every level.  Did you think we had a system in place that made sure our rights are protected not just in the abstract, but in actual practice?  Did you think we had a police force rigorously trained to manage high-pressure situations with objectivity and dispassion?  Did you think the whole idea of law enforcement was to “protect  and serve” individual rights and personal safety, or that the police were supposed to be the ones enforcing the laws, not breaking them?  If you took comfort in the thought of that system, then the Reynoso report will not sit well with you.   Perhaps we can still have those things, but it seems we’re going to have to insist on it.

The right of the President to make appointments while Congress is in recess is indeed specifically outlined in the Constitution, and many Presidents before him have taken advantage of this authority. Apparently, the issue here is whether Congress was actually in “recess” or not: though Congress is on break until January 23, the Republican-held House of Representatives did not agree to a formal recess, opting to hold seconds-long “pro forma sessions” every few days. This strategy is specifically designed to prevent the President from making recess appointments—a strategy the Democrats themselves tried near the end of Bush’s last term—but no consensus exists about whether this blocks the President’s authority in any official way. When the Democrats tried this play during Bush’s presidency, Bush never attempted to make further recess appointments, so no precedent was set. The White House’s legal counsel has apparently advised President Obama that the pro forma sessions are a “gimmick” which he can ignore, and there are plenty of arguments to back up that opinion: see the New York Times’ The Caucus blog, John Elwood (a member of Bush’s Office of Legal Counsel), and the Washington Post for discussions of the question.  Basically, the whole issue hinges on whether you take a “functional” view (Congress is in de facto recess if they are unavailable to carry out their business) or a “formalist” view (Congress is in recess only if they have jumped through the procedural hoops to declare themselves Officially In Recess).

The discussion of whether these appointments is legal is fair.   The practice of avoiding formal adjournment in order to prevent recess appointments is relatively new (as far as I can tell); the question will eventually be decided by the courts–or it won’t, and the next Republican president will do exactly the same thing.  Either way, I think Obama’s gamble is better than doing nothing.  The amazing part about the whole controversy for me is the Republicans’ mock-outraged response and the incredible claim by conservatives that the decision “gives the Republicans the upper hand in their argument that Obama is interested not in governance, just in naked partisan power plays.”  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell bemoaned Obama’s appointments, saying “Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power.” Funny, I’ve been thinking that all along! Maybe Congress should actually get to work on that, Mitch! Mitt Romney, meanwhile, opined that “President Obama’s preference for partisan politics over economic growth will only hurt the millions of middle class families across the country who lose out every time the union bosses win.” Even aside from the up-is-down logic of “union bosses” somehow opposing the interests of middle class families, Romney’s comment brazenly ignores reality: that Obama was merely responding to the Republicans’ long-established preference for partisan politics over economic growth—or any other form of progress.  Obama is attempting, here, to govern; Republicans are attempting to prevent governance.  In other words, Republicans are criticizing Obama for the very behavior they are engaged in (and which, incidentally, he is really not guilty of).  Republicans have proven again and again their willingness to obstruct any and all Congressional business in the interest of tarnishing Obama’s reputation; Mitch McConnell has gone on record stating that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Obama, faced with such a Congress, finally did the one thing he could to get business underway. Those of us who thought his promise of “change” referred to Actually Getting Shit Done rather than Bending Over Backward to Be a Nice Guy to My Opponents were cheered by this tactical change.

What I would like to know is whether there is a single Republican politician or talking head out there who sincerely believes the stream of bullshit that comes out of their mouths (McConnell’s one moment of shocking honesty aside), or whether they are engaged in a shameless campaign to say whatever it takes to shape public opinion in their favor, truth be damned. Unfortunately, it works: there are voters out there still unjaded enough to take them at their word. Take a few of the comments to The Hill’s article about the appointments:

Just a matter of time before B.O. suspends the Constitution and declares himself Dictator for Life (for our own good, of course).
BY Avenger on 01/04/2012 at 16:58

The dictator is on the move.
This is the line in the sand.
BY Roger on 01/04/2012 at 16:59

If we allow this to stand, we have a dictatorship, period.
BY borntobepolitical on 01/04/2012 at 17:02

Well, let me know when the Chamber is “Ready to Litigate” and i will donate to the Chamber to fight this in court.
Obama thinks he is King. He needs to be sent back to Chicago in November…BY Dave on 01/04/2012 at 17:02

A dictator? Are you kidding me? I was getting used to his opponents deriding him as a “Socialist” while the rest of us are bitching that he’s not nearly far enough to the Left, but this “dictator” thing is news to me. Obama has been the most milquetoast leader in recent memory, still begging the Republicans to play nice long after it was obvious that bipartisan cooperation was impossible. He has issued far fewer recess appointments than any other President in my lifetime; these most recent ones are “unprecedented” only by taking place within a context of unprecedented obstructionism. And yet Republicans are claiming “an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice” (Boehner), and the faithful keep believing what they’re told. The ease with which conservatives are reinventing reality would be comical if it weren’t so sinister.

Defining wealth as a simple issue of who has earned it and who has not obviously overlooks those who don’t fall easily into either category—those who inherited their wealth, as well as those who have acquired it through criminal behavior or other forms of exploitation. I doubt most vocal critics of Occupy Wall Street would publicly defend criminal activity as a way to “earn” one’s wealth, but they tend to ignore this group as a primary target of the protests (which it certainly is). Ramsey, for example, claims that “When someone takes my money and gives me no say in the matter, that’s called theft—whether they’re using a gun or the government,” but for some reason he applies this logic only to the protesters, not to the powerful few who “used the government” (among other things) to create the profound economic inequality we now face. One might expect conservatives to try to distance themselves from the worst offenders, but in order to characterize a diverse group of protesters as uniformly lazy and envious, the country must be divided into two mutually exclusive categories: those who work hard and succeed, and those who do not and fail. It is easier to pretend that the protesters simply hate all rich people than to acknowledge that they have a point.

The idea they are clinging to is that our society is a meritocracy: those who succeed have done so because of their “merits”—typically intelligence, education, perhaps ingenuity (and perhaps also, though not necessarily, outstanding work ethic and dedication). It is furthermore assumed, I guess, that if someone has not succeeded, they either do not possess the necessary merits or they have just not persisted long enough yet. (Lots of long-suffering people believe their hard work will pay off eventually, despite all evidence to the contrary.) I think this is also wildly wrong, but I want to hold off on that point for now to consider whether even a well-functioning meritocracy is fair. Now, at the micro level, everyone is in favor of meritocracy. It is hardly controversial that any given job, for example, should go to the most qualified candidate. But Michael Young, who coined the term in 1958, meant it as a bad thing, and I too would argue that it is an unsustainable model for an entire society.

The problem is that this idea of “earning” your wealth obscures the fact that a meritocracy is not really an open system, no matter how hard one works at it. Millions of people work extremely hard every day and still barely get by (or don’t). It is not simply hard work that determines monetary rewards, or our economic demographics would look considerably different. There is a hint of acknowledgement of this in the comment of my Facebook friend, above. He says that the Occupy movement is guilty of “Protesting greed while you want what you haven’t earned,” and then says, “Life is not fair, those with the intelegence and capacity for making money make it.” These two adjacent sentences perfectly highlight the tension in this idea of wealth as necessarily earned: the protesters haven’t earned it, and the way they have failed to do so is by lacking “intelligence” and “capacity for making money.” But intelligence and aptitude are not earned or learned qualities. Many people simply don’t have them, and there is nothing they can do to change that.

Even to the extent that you can increase your intelligence or capacity—through schooling, for example—the ability to do this is greatly determined by the economic status you were born into. If you’re really poor, you won’t even make it to college; if you are middle class, a state university might be within reach, but not Harvard Business school and the connections and prestige that comes with it. Sure, the Harvard Business school graduate must do certain things to get accepted in the first place and to earn his success once he gets there—it doesn’t just come automatically. But it is false to imply his success is simply earned. Most of us could jump through all the same hoops he did, and we would not end up a senator or the CEO of Merryl Lynch. Even when a meritocracy works, it leaves a lot of people out.

So why should we care about this? As my Facebook friend says, life isn’t fair; “meritocracy” implies that not everyone can succeed. The problem is that we’ve become an all-or-nothing sort of system. If your hard work doesn’t make you successful, not only will you never be wealthy, but you may not be able to find a job at all, or if you do, you may not make enough money to get by. The only people who can succeed are those who possess certain merits——and we KNOW not everyone is able to possess those merits. In other words, if you have the misfortune to be born stupid, you may just have to die. If you were born poor, have no connections, or simply lack the willingness to exploit others, you may be in the same boat. There are no viable alternatives for many of those who don’t have the “capacity” for making lots of money–you have not “earned” the right to be rich, and therefore (in our current system) you have earned no rights at all.

Now, stupidity may be one of the few natural attributes it’s still accepted to make fun of, but are we really comfortable saying that stupid people (or disabled people, or idealistic people, or yes, even lazy people) actually deserve to starve? Or to watch their families become homeless?

This is what the protest is about: despite the fact that millions of Americans work their asses off every day, for most of them there is no possibility to get ahead. They are losing their jobs; they are losing their homes and their savings even if they still have jobs. Meanwhile, our government gave away money—our money, taxpayer money—to “bail out” the big banks and reckless investors who caused the economy to tank in the first place. Not only is there no such thing as a “bailout” for struggling Americans, there’s not even a such thing as a living wage for many: people are working long hours at difficult jobs, and their work is creating profit—but instead of passing this prosperity along in the form of decent wages, companies choose to pay more and more to their top executives. It’s not someone else’s money the protesters want, it’s THEIR money, and it’s already been “redistributed” to the wealthy.

This is where the logic of the Occupy Critics completely breaks down. Negotiating for a bigger share, for a better life, isn’t the same thing as begging for a handout. It’s a form of working within the “market,” of using their strategic acumen to maneuver for what they need. The factory worker who demands a larger salary isn’t thieving someone else’s money, he is a business partner negotiating: his labor helped create that profit. The 1% used their influence and intelligence to get what they wanted for themselves; the protestors have finally found their own way to do the same. And they only want what’s fair. After all, they’ve earned it.

[1]“Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself!” Cain said. “It is not a person’s fault because they succeeded, it is a person’s fault if they failed. And so this is why I don’t understand these demonstrations and what is it that they’re looking for.” Bingham, Amy.  “Herman Cain Tells Occupy Wall Street Protesters to ‘Blame Yourself.’” 5 Oct 2011.

[2] Ramsey, Dave.  “Dear Occupy Wall Street …A Message From Dave Ramsey.”  19 Oct 2011.

Sandell explains in the Preface that she “deliberately chose not to invite [Bernie] to participate in [the] book,” wanting it to be “his family’s story—not his.”  This decision seems reasonable until you get to know the family, which is full of self-centered assholes.  They can offer little insight into Bernie’s fraud, since they were apparently ignorant of it, but neither do they provide much useful context.  The story they chose to tell is strictly about their own life choices and feelings: they are not much interested in shedding light on Bernie’s character or helping us understand what makes such a far-reaching deception possible.  Much is said in the book about the sons’ marriages, their in-fighting, and their wives’ affairs, for example, but only very little about their relationship with their father.  We learn more about Madoff’s in-laws than we do about Bernie himself.  And when the scandal finally breaks, we really see the family’s true selves: Ruth, Bernie’s wife, is more angry at her friends for not contacting her (though they are legally forbidden from doing so) than at her husband for creating the situation; elder son Mark spends all day reading news and blogs about the case in order to gauge his own reputation, and finally commits suicide to “make Mom and Dad understand what they’ve done to me,” though he has four kids of his own that he is abandoning.

The book itself, meanwhile, mimics the subjects’ lack of perspective.  Many of the details Sandell offers seem more arbitrary than revealing, rarely working together to present a clearer picture of either Madoff or his family.  There is more than one reference to “the underwear that Bernie had custom-made due to his aversion to elastic.”  Normally, quirky details like this are meant to provide color or depth, but in the absence of actual substance, they merely perplex.  Is this meant to reveal Bernie as hopelessly demanding?  Prone to pointless luxury?  Or just suffering from OCD?  Sandell attempts no interpretation.

Similarly, when the Madoffs bump into Saul Katz, co-owner of the Mets and a long-time friend and investor of Bernie’s, Katz showers Madoff with gratitude and offers to buy the family’s dinner.  When he leaves, Bernie grumbles, “I did everything for that guy….  Everything he has, he owes to me.  The clients can be so ungrateful.”  Other than having Andrew explain to Catherine that this sort of thing is “just his rap,” Sandell refuses to probe this incident at all. It might suggest a deluded feeling of importance and entitlement, which could go far to explain Madoff’s motives; then again, Katz is one of the investors who has been alleged to be in on the scheme (not that the book mentions this), so perhaps Bernie was responding to hidden drama.  We’ll never know–the potentially telling episode is simply dropped.

Sandell has chosen to present much of the narrative from the perspective of Catherine Hooper, Andrew Madoff’s fiancé, who barely knows Bernie and can therefore venture no conclusions about his behavior.  All her observations of him are presented as indecipherable, framed simply in terms of her learning to fit in with the family.  Hooper is preoccupied with pleasing Andrew’s parents; when we meet her, she is:

mov[ing] through the living room, trying to find her shoes.  They were black patent-leather lace-up Gucci booties, and she planned to wear them to her fiancée, Andrew’s office Christmas party that night…. She was running late and had two hours of professional hair and makeup appointments ahead of her.  Being a part of Andrew’s family meant looking the part.

This may be meant to paint Bernie and Ruth as cruel or superficial, but mostly it makes Hooper seem painfully vain. Worse, by using the couple’s romance as a narrative vehicle, Sandell has turned a tale of colossal betrayal and theft into merely a series of obstacles for a budding romance.  She glosses over the hundreds of lives that were ruined by the fraud, lamenting instead how long Catherine and Andrew have to wait to get married.

What little remains of the story is only interesting (to the extent that it is at all) for the shocking egotism and total lack of perspective it portrays—not of Madoff himself, since he remains opaque, but of his family, who are nearly all unable to see the “consequences” for anyone but themselves.  Back in the “Preface,” Sandell explains that the book “is not meant to be a piece of investigative journalism,” but rather “the human side of a tale that has, so far, been told only in terms of dollars and cents.”  This is a laugh, since Sandell fails spectacularly at humanizing; Andrew is the only one in the book who even comes across as human.  It is hard for me to imagine that the family approved of this version of their “story,” unflattering as it is, but perhaps they really are just that self-absorbed.  Which I suppose explains a little about Bernie Madoff’s chutzpah after all.

As it turns out, what makes Contagion unique is its refusal to be sensational.  The film follows an outbreak which begins when a woman from Minneapolis (Gwyneth Paltrow) returns home from a business trip to Hong Kong with an unexpected souvenir—a new deadly virus—and quickly infects nearly everyone she comes in contact with.  We see exactly nothing about her relationships with her husband or her family before the woman is suddenly dead, along with her young son immediately after her, and the scope of the film widens to include the army of professionals who are orchestrating a response to the disease: a WHO epidemiologist (Marion Cotillard), various employees of the CDC, a private researcher (Elliott Gould), etc.  Though we continue to follow Matt Damon, who plays the grieving husband of Paltrow’s index patient, the film is less about the horror of the epidemic than the response to it by medical and governmental authorities.

Though the virus moves quickly, the film does not.  Sober and deliberate, the film is like a checklist for each step of the response as it develops.  In a sense, this is the film’s greatest strength, but it is also where it stumbles: though the public becomes hysterical, the viewer is made to identify with the necessary coldness of the experts who navigate that hysteria in order to contain the disease, partly because that coldness is mirrored in the tone and focus of the film, which avoids sentimentalizing even its central “heroes,” suggesting that sentimentality is the enemy of successful control.  So far so good, but with only the barest of character development and rather broad procedural strokes, the experience of the film is rather cold for viewers as well.  And though the pace of Contagion may be deliberate, the film is far from meticulous: despite its focus on process, it reveals its major breakthroughs only after they’ve occurred off-screen, and we are neither given details of what the accomplishments required nor let in on the private motivations of those who achieved them (something which has often stood in for scientific specificity in films such as this).  This lack of detail, made more or less necessary by the sheer number of characters the film follows, can be maddening.

In the absence of melodrama, characterization, science, and narrative detail, I found it a little hard to discern what the film was getting at.  Though it indulges in a hint of old-fashioned slut-shaming with Paltrow’s character, who has slept with an old boyfriend during a layover on her trip, the film mostly restrains from moralizing to explain the danger we’re in; and aside from a few painful, nonsensical proclamations (e.g., “We don’t have to weaponize the bird flu—the birds are already doing that”), it resists irrational alarmism.  For a time, the film seems to be building toward an indictment of government agencies such as the CDC, suggesting corruptibility by corporate money and personal interests, but when the character who represents this viewpoint is suddenly and utterly undermined, it becomes unclear whether there exists a point at all.  Not that this is unusual for Soderbergh – Traffic pulled its punches to the point of being insulting, and the Ocean’s films were barely veiled masturbation; don’t even get me started on the confused “feminism” of Erin Brockovich.   The man is intent on making “serious” films (you can tell by his filters that he means business), but he is allergic to actually saying anything (which, you know, might offend someone).  More than anything, Contagion seems to be a feature-length vote of confidence in our government and its agencies: while the lay-public falls into panic and chaos, it is the wise and selfless experts at the CDC and elsewhere that will save our society from destruction in the face of disaster.  Which, you know, is fine. I sort of like the idea that the film is a response to the Tea Party, dramatizing the need for government spending.  But, more likely, it’s another well-made but witless Soderbergh attempt to bring a highly stylized genre under the tent of Serious Film.

Hardee’s Cheater Ad

The ad involves a young, attractive guy waiting around a car repair shop while his classic car gets a working-over.  The car, we see from several quick, close shots, has apparently been attacked by vandals—there is spray paint on nearly every body panel.  Our hero, though, seems unperturbed; he eats his french fries and burger eagerly as he looks on, with a smug, even amused, expression on his face.  We wonder about this guy’s calm and sense of humor about the whole thing; how can he be so cool when someone trashed his beautiful car?  Though the connection is not initially clear, the narrator tells us, “Sometimes, having three girlfriends is great.”

Then, as Joe Burger finishes his sandwich, the narrator goes on to say that “other times, it’s just expensive.”  At this point, we finally see the bigger picture of the damage: scrawled across the side of the car is the large, angry word, CHEATER.  In this moment, we are united with Joe Burger in his amusement about the clearly hysterical woman who has done this to his ride, and how much it must have been worth it, though the woman who did this is obviously devastated.  By this time we’re thoroughly identified with Joe, so we think, Oh man. That sucks, but that’s the tradeoff you signed up for.  The camera cuts to one of the men buffing the car, who glances up at Joe and shakes his head with a smile.  Boys will be boys.

Isn’t it interesting that Hardee’s uses this kind of behavior as the model for viewer identification, while the absent woman in the ad is dismissed as, at best, unimportant, and at worst, maniacal?  The word on the car makes an unmistakable accusation against Joe, which the narrator confirms as true, but he nonetheless remains the sympathetic figure, and rather than wondering at the circumstances—whether he broke her heart or gave her an STD or maybe just promised things he never meant to do—instead we feel united in our understanding that men will simply do whatever they must to obtain frequent and varied sex, and that women sure can be crazy bitches.  Isn’t that funny, we think; he is just a typical guy, and her response is just so female.

My husband reassures me Hardee’s never intended for viewers to think so deeply about the whole thing.  Of course not: if you think too much about it, the ad won’t work.  It relies on our identification with Joe, and an instant, unthinking solidarity with him.  Why would Hardee’s use a lying philanderer to represent their product unless they expected you to relate to him rather than judge him?  You are like Joe, the ad trusts: you’d like to have as many women as possible; maybe your own girlfriend goes nutso sometimes, but it’s nothing to get too worked up about—a good burger will make the whole thing a minor amusement. Thankfully, they seem to have misjudged at least a few of us, since there has been some amount of backlash to the ad online.  (For example, YouTube user Caprese7777 comments that “The subtext is that it’s cool for young men to ‘consume’ women the same way they’d enjoy a burger, without regard to the womens’ feelings, which can be wiped away like so much paint.”)  Still, the fact that this goes over as well as it does is a fairly sad statement on our lingering ideas about gender norms and relationships.

But this sort of thing is especially sinister, I think, because ads like these don’t just rely on shared “knowledge” about gender and culture, they create it.  How do we know that men are hopelessly promiscuous and women are hysterical over-reactors, except that we’ve seen it on TV?  Have you ever known a jilted woman who actually trashed some guy’s car, aside from fast food ads and Carrie Underwood videos?  Our culture establishes certain “truths” as commonplace, and then uses those same “truths” as an easy way to get the viewer to relate.   It’s a fantastically successful tactic; I saw the ad maybe ten times (with the sound off, admittedly,) before I moved past amusement and started to be annoyed.  But the success of these ads is unfortunate, because it’s not just burgers they manage to sell.

I’ve applied to more than 30 jobs at this point, in six different cities (though concentrated in three), and so far I haven’t gotten so much as an interview.  It’s starting to feel pretty bleak, this total lack of response, particularly as I get further away from the little work experience I actually had.  It’s not that I’m worried about getting by—I have a spouse who can pay the bills, and in that I know I am luckier than most.  I know many others have been looking for work much longer with less support, and a new tide of graduates this month can only make the “market” that much more crowded. But it’s beginning to feel that I will never break into a “career,” and that, to me, is terrifying.

It has been endlessly discussed what this dearth of jobs means for “the economy”: lower tax revenues, higher demand for depleted services, wimpy buying power and confidence–etc.  But my own situation makes me wonder something different.  How much talent and enthusiasm is wasted as young people (and others, too,) flounder about, unable to gain access to their chosen careers—or even their second- or third-choice careers?  How much potential for good, or for progress, or simply productive energy in general is our nation losing out on as smart, motivated people find they have no outlet for their efforts?

I don’t mean to imply that I think I, specifically, am some colossal loss.  I might not be the next Noam Chomsky or Foucault, or even the next Mary Kay Henry or Cecile Richards.  But I do think I’m someone with the capacity to do some good in the world, and I’m sure there are many others like me.  I got great grades in school, had considerable success and made some fondly supportive advisors.  More importantly, I’m passionate and want to do work that matters.  My sense of myself has always been deeply entangled with continual success and perceived potential: it’s not that I thought I could do ANYTHING, but I always assumed I would do SOMETHING.  But right now, I can’t even find someone to give my skills away to.

I have often expressed anger at the barriers facing those who would choose to do something valuable for society—economic barriers, emotional ones, and otherwise.  But now, even after you’ve accepted the prospect of lifelong financial sacrifice and completed the preparatory gauntlet, there’s still not much chance of landing even these traditionally undesirable jobs.  And even aside from the loss we’re experiencing right now, I wonder how strong a cautionary message it will send to future generations considering what path to take with their lives.

I thought when I first lost my job that unemployment would be an opportunity to do all the work I most wanted to do; I have long said I would love to be a “freelance scholar.”  But to do work, it turns out, costs money, even if you’re doing it on your own time.  If you paint, if you sew, even if you do research or make music, there are supplies you need to do those things, and in the absence of a patron or employer, you have to supply those materials yourself.  In my case, we’re getting by, but we don’t exactly have a hefty surplus of funds; for those in worse straits, they need that money to pay the rent, if they have money at all.  It turns out that there’s a financial disincentive to do work on your own.  I create a greater financial drag if I’m doing something productive than if I do nothing at all.

And I guess what seems the saddest to me is how this is likely to resolve.  When the economy ultimately “recovers,” even if all the lost jobs were eventually restored (which is unlikely), many of us will long ago have had to make a decision.  Those who needed money the most will have taken whatever job they could get, in spite of any plan they might have had for their “careers.”  Some with fewer imperatives will simply settle into unemployment–become homemakers or accept various other compromises.  And it’s hard to imagine a route back to the fire and enthusiasm we had for doing something valuable.  Whatever the permanent effects of the recession on “the economy,” our society will have lost out on the benefits of thousands of lives committed to good work.  And I can’t help thinking, what a waste.

In a time where facts are scarce and all “truths” considered equal, it’s like someone is sending a message to settle our debates once and for all.

It happened with the financial crisis.  For years, conservatives and economists (though not all) argued that the “market” polices itself and its interests are ours, so government intervention in the form of regulations was not just unnecessary but ostensibly dangerous.  So despite all the warnings that, like any boom, ours would eventually bust, legislators kept deregulating and banks risked more and more–until, suddenly, we were standing at the edge of an economic abyss.  It’s almost as though Someone wanted to say, “You want unfettered markets?  Let me show you just how well that works.”

And as if to remind us that nothing’s been done since the last mining disaster, an explosion in West Virginia killed 25 coal miners earlier this month.  Massey Energy’s CEO has been calling mine safety regulation “as silly as global warming”; now he’s got the worst industry disaster in 25 years on his hands.

The latest sign-from-above relates to the safety of offshore drilling.  During the ’08 elections, Repubs were feverishly chanting “Drill, Baby, Drill,” and even Obama resisted taking an oppositional stance, instead preferring to pursue “every option” for achieving energy independence, even as we seek ways to reduce our overall need.  As recently as this month, he announced his support for offshore drilling, touting it as safe and repeating the old yarn that none of the spills during Katrina came from the oil rigs themselves.

And then, resoundingly, we have an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.  If you’ve been watching the right news, this would seem to answer any lingering questions about offshore drilling’s ultra-safe “technological advancements,” since the blowout preventer failed, and the site began leaking 210,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico per day.  [Update: According to Wikipedia, this estimate was eventually revised to around ten times this number.]  Even after the initial explosion, which also killed 11 workers, the backup mechanisms for controlling such a spill have failed, and BP has now turned to the government to help it get control of the ongoing disaster.  The spill, which originated 50 miles from shore, is in danger of reaching the coast as early as tonight, and officials have begun attempts to set it on fire to burn off as much oil as possible before it reaches the Mississippi delta.

Depending what news you’re watching, though, you might think these debates are alive and well.  The Repubs have been trying to block financial reform all week, repeating the same old argument that the market is its own best boss; and even after these events with the Deepwater, we hear that Obama’s support for offshore drilling is unchanged.  (I shudder to imagine what Sarah Palin’s take on it will be.)

How is it that, in the face of unmistakeably contrary evidence, certain positions still persist in our country?  I’ll tell you how: it has everything to do with who’s controlling the narrative.  Who frames our discussions, and how?  I’m convinced that Americans aren’t indifferent to facts or willingly uninformed–it’s just that the side of truth is losing the battle of presentation.  The average American still has faith in the basic integrity of broadcast “information”–or they’re so jaded, they don’t think any source more trustworthy than another.  They’re not stupid (or evil), but they’re easily manipulated by those willing to brazenly make up “truths.”  If there’s such convincing “evidence” to support what you’d rather believe anyway, why take the more difficult stance?

Who out there is working out how to present the Progressive case to the American public?  What’s right doesn’t have a chance if it’s never compellingly conveyed.    It is URGENT that those of us who do value truth learn to get our message across.  We can’t take many more signs from God.

Broder, John M. “Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for the First Time.”  30 March 2010.  <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html>.  The New York Times.  29 April 2010.

Wonk Room.  “Citing Katrina Myth…”  28 April 2010.  Think Progress.  <http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/28/obama-katrina-spill/>.  29 April 2010.

Wonk Room.  “Conservatives Peddle Hurricane-Spill Lie…”  16 July 2008.   Think Progress.  <http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/07/16/hurricane-spill-lie-repeated/>.  29 April 2010.

Robertson, Campbell and Leslie Kaufman.  “Size of Spill in Gulf of Mexico is Larger Than Thought.”  28 April 2010.  The New York Times. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/us/29spill.html?pagewanted=1>.  29 April 2010.

NPR Staff.  “Officials Dispatched to Gulf as Spill Worries Grow.”  29 April 2010.  NPR.org. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126373753>.

Spetalnick, Matt.  “Obama Unchanged on Offshore Drilling Despite Spill.”  23 April 2010.  Reuters. <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63M3JV20100423..  29 April 2010.

Also,

<http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/12/blankenship-silly-safety/>

<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-06/massey-coal-mine-explosion-kills-25-four-missing-correct-.html>

A contest like this is like an outsized, publicized catcall.  And as always happens with catcalls, someone will surely rush to defend the Contest as merely a “compliment,” or simple admiration.  In fact, the Sexy Sarah Palin event (“less taxation, more flirtation!”) purports to be “supporting the Tea Party movement,”  donating a portion of the proceeds to the cause.  But how can you possibly explain the sentiment behind such an event without addressing the belittlement of Palin herself?  Okay, so you find her attractive.  That is not, in itself, injurious.  But to subject her to sexual scrutiny (by proxy and without her consent), during the very same evening she is giving a political lecture, is to suggest, loudly, that you disregard whatever she has to say and offer her physical appearance as the more proper means of assessing her.  That however she intends to define herself, she cannot escape her role as the object of YOUR sexual fantasy.  Even if you say you’re on the side of her political project, there’s no way to get around the fact of your subverting her intended role.

This is how catcalling always works, on the street, in the officeplace, or through an orchestrated media event: the message to the catcalled woman is not just, “I find you attractive,” but, “whatever else you are, remember you are still the object of male desire.”  That’s why it’s offensive, even threatening, when it happens.  And the organizers at the Admiral aren’t leaving it as a joke amongst their audience–they’ve invited Palin to be a “celebrity judge,” making damn sure she’s aware of exactly how they’ve pigeonholed her.  (She hasn’t responded, surprise surprise.)  This is a hostile act, no matter how you slice it.

Ad for the Admiral Event

My guess is that the donation to the Tea Partiers is an afterthought and a joke; Admiral Director Sam Cecola apparently sponsored a similar event in Vegas right before the 2008 election, and I simply can’t imagine that kind of undercutting coming from an ally who supports her supposed “message.”  (If it really is, then I guess that says a lot about the status of women in the Republican Party.)  Still, it’s not fair play, even for her detractors; and that the Huffington Post reports it, sans commentary, as though it’s simply an amusing item is a low blow, I think, too.  Don’t get me wrong: I’ll be the last person to take Sarah Palin seriously, but on the basis of her ideas, her ideology– her ignorance.  Even if you think she’s wacko, it’s not acceptable to undermine her simply on the basis of being an attractive woman–any more than it was to undermine Hillary for being an *un*attractive woman.  We deserve to be regarded according to the roles we’ve chosen for ourselves (to the extent that we can even talk about women’s roles in terms of “choice,” unproblematically).  If I’m a porn star, then that’s one thing–at least I’ve consented in some way to being sexually objectified; but if I’ve entered the public sphere as a politico or a pundit, then evaluate the strength of my positions, not my ladylumps.  If you think Sarah Palin is insane or reprehensible, say so; don’t divert the whole discussion by simply calling her a MILF.  Friend or foe, it’s still offensive to keep directing attention back to her sex.

The Huffington Post.  “Sarah Palin Lookalike Contest Being Held at Chicago Strip Club the Day Palin Speaks at GOP Fundraiser.”  27 April 2010.  HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.  <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html>.  29 April 2010.

The Admiral Theatre.  “Sarah Palin Contest – $5,000 Cash.”  AdmiralX.com.  <http://www.admiralx.com/sarah_palin_contest.htm>.  29 April 2010.

The Onion AV Club.  “Admiral Theatre to Hold Sarah Palin Lookalike Contest.”  Onion, Inc.  27 April 2010.  <http://www.avclub.com/chicago/articles/admiral-theatre-to-hold-sarah-palin-lookalike-cont,40524/>.  29 April 2010.

Ticketmaster.  “An Evening with Sarah Palin Tickets.”  <http://www.ticketmaster.com/An-Evening-with-Sarah-Palin-tickets/artist/1405857>.  29 April 2010.

Steelers quarterback Roethlisberger (Michael Henninger/Post-Gazette)

This morning on his regular NPR spot, sports commentator Frank Deford lamented the recent events involving Steeler’s quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.  Roethlisberger was accused of raping a young woman during a night of barhopping in Georgia, and though charges were not pressed, the details of the investigation, which have been released to the public, indicate clearly unacceptable behavior not just from Roethlisberger and his entourage, but from the police who handled the report and investigation.  This behavior isn’t what Mr. Deford is worked up about, though–it’s the fact of the apology and suspension, which Deford claims has no “earthly benefit.”  “Why are we expending so much angst worrying about the character of our well-muscled celebrities?” Deford asks.  “What always confounds me is the premise that Commissioner Roger Goodell cited — as do the other so-called czars of sport — that their players ‘have to be held to a higher standard.’”

Are we really talking about holding players to a “higher standard” of morality here?  It’s not as though Roethlisberger was suspended for a speeding ticket or an extramarital affair.  A woman was sexually assaulted by someone who is both worshipped and richly compensated in our culture, and yes, I do think it risks sending a message to “impressionable tykes.”   The message is that, should you become rich and successful, being surrounded by attractive young women to consume and throw away–willing or no–is both a goal and an inevitability.   Several witnesses apart from the accuser suggest that he exposed himself, made lewd comments, and ultimately barred their access to the bathroom where the alleged assault took place, and he was helped in his exploits by a throng of off-duty law enforcement officers who accompanied him from bar to bar.  When the young women reported the crime to the police, the officer who took her statement immediately visited the bar and sought out Roethlisberger–not to investigate, apparently, but to warn him of the accusation:

“Hey, I need to talk to you guys,” Sgt. Blash reportedly told Officer Barravecchio, the off-duty
Coraopolis officer [who was part of Roethlisberger's entourage].

“We have a problem. This drunken bitch, drunk off her ass, is accusing Ben of rape,” Officer
Barravecchio said Sgt.  Blash told him. “This pisses me off. Women can do this. It’s[bull] but
we’ve got to do this, we’ve got to do a report. This is BS. She’s making [stuff] up.” (Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette)

What we’re talking about here is hardly a higher moral standard; it’s athletes being held above the law.  When everyone around an athlete conspires to provide his every whim, even if it means violating a young woman; when the police themselves refuse to take seriously an accusation, simply BECAUSE it’s lodged against a pro athlete, then YES, I think we should have some “angst” about athletes’ behavior, and about what it communicates to children, to adults, and to the rest of the world.  About our values, about our legal system, and about the status of women in our society.  Roethlisberger is unquestionably performing a certain role (as Deford suggests)–and apparently forcing women into theirs–and thousands of admirers are watching.  It’s the specific roles they’re playing that I tend to find troubling.  And it’s a little hard to say to myself, “just let the thugs play.”

Deford, Frank.  “Not all role models need be positive.”  NPR.  28 April 2010.  <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126311757#commentBlock>.  28 April 2010.

Silver, Jonathan D. and Dan Majors.  “Roethlisberger documents give details.”  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  16 April 2010.  <http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10106/1050884-84.stm>.  28 April 2010.