In Defense of Downton Abbey

As I may have mentioned recently, I looooove me some TV! I probably failed to mention that one of my favorite shows is PBS's Downton Abbey.   So imagine my consternation when I saw this article on Salon:

“Downton Abbey’s” right-wing worldview: Benevolent rich people caring for servants

It may be a prestige drama beloved by liberals, but "Downton Abbey" is one of the most conservative shows on TV

Yes, Ma'am, they did.

So, first of all it starts out talking about Mad Men and Breaking Bad and anti-heroes for a paragraph, then just goes batshit.

. . . But at least shows like “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad” are made with an awareness that their characters are antiheroes.By contrast, “Downton Abbey,” on PBS, is stunningly tone-deaf. The show depicts a group of actual monsters in a manner that’s explicitly loving

 

Seriously? Monsters? Actual monsters?

 

 Terrifying!

Okay, I'll bit. How is this show about monsters?  Are you sure you're not thinking of The Walking Dead?

Downton Abbey” is a show about how the world was straightforwardly better when an entrenched class system ruled

No. Downton Abbey is a show that takes place in a time period during which an entrenched class system ruled. I don't see anything about Downton Abbey that suggests that this time was preferable. 

 Consider that Julian Fellowes, the writer behind “Downton,” is a private-school graduate and Cantabrigian who holds a seat in the House of Lords. He has good reason to deplore the changes in the world since the era when the wealthy were entrenched and unquestioned.

Yes, he probably does have good reason to deplore the changes in the world. But does he?  Did you ask him? Or did you just assume? Seems like, even with all the changes in the world, he's doing awfully well. Maybe he's just fine with all the changes.

And, indeed, on “Downton Abbey,” those members of the underclass who do not seek to live a life of service to the wealthy are, like Mr. Bates’ estranged wife who interferes with Bates’ sincere desire to be a servant, evil.

Bates' estranged wife is evil because she a) got him thrown in prison for a theft that she actually committed, and b) tries to prevent him from finding happiness with his true love Anna purely out of spite. Her evilness has nothing to do with her choice of vocation or with her interference with Bates' career in service. Shes' just a bad person. 

 Those who seek pleasures forbidden to them are slapped down, as in the sad case of a woman ruined when she has sex with a visitor and becomes pregnant. 

 

Okay, if you watched the Ethel pregnancy storyline, I don't see how you could possibly think that Downton Abbey is at all nostalgic for the Edwardian period. A chambermaid gets impregnated by an Army officer who, because of the times in which they live, is apparently under no obligation to take any responsibility for her or the baby. Then, because of the mores of the times, she is cast out of the Abbey and resorts to a life of prostitution when her condition renders her unemployable by "decent people." 

 That seems like a pretty straightforward condemnation of the era.

But all who serve are in some way redeemable, like the villainous Thomas, who’s forgiven in Season 3, after making a pass at another male servant. 

Which is an odd thing to say, since Ethel was also a servant.

 like the villainous Thomas, who’s forgiven in Season 3, after making a pass at another male servant. (That he is both a conniving villain on the series and the only gay character is, strictly speaking, a coincidence.) Because he is devoted to the wealthy family he serves, everyone, led by Lord Grantham, takes the attitude that they must live and let live. In real life, homosexual acts were not decriminalized in England until 1967.

  

Um, except that Thomas is absolutely not devoted to the family he serves. Thomas is devoted to Thomas.  Thomas  Barrow is only ever out for Thomas Barrow. 

Also, I think it was pretty clear that the family "forgiving" Thomas was unusual for the time. When Thomas is found out, he fears that he will be fired and that no one will ever hire him because of his "affliction."

This lie cuts to the heart of “Downton Abbey” — in the show’s moral universe, all that was good about a system in which the poor were trapped into servitude for the rich remains good. All that was bad floats away and is not worth portraying. As noted by Vulture, Lord Grantham consistently endangers his family by making horrible, arrogantly misinformed decisions; they are always fixed promptly, because the show is intent on portraying positively a wealthy patriarchy even when the facts it requires to spin out the story entirely contradict that.

Okay, I'm really not seeing that.  from the show's beginning, we know that Lord Grantham has run the estate into the ground once before, and was only saved by marrying a wealthy American. Then the estate verges on bankruptcy again, due to Grantham's poor management and is saved by relatively humble small-town lawyer Matthew. Currently, Lord Grantham's eldest daughter Mary is about to implement her ideas for running the estate because even she realizes that Lord G has no idea what he's doing.

 He's basically this.

“Downton Abbey” denies reality in order to keep its vision of a strong and wealthy man doing what is right alive, no matter how counterfactually. It also betrays its characters: Tom Branson, for instance, the husband of the late Sybil, has so far remained a part of daily life and the management of Downton Abbey even in spite of his previously strongly held socialist beliefs. So much for that!

Except that Tom is terribly conflicted. He knows he's betraying his ideals, and he feels guilty about choosing the easy path. He is always on the verge of leaving the estate. he wants to, he knows he should, but he's weak. This is not a betrayal of his character, that's who his character is. He's a bit less two-dimensional than he at first appeared. He's not only the radical political rebel, he's also a father who appreciates having staff to help raise his child and likes raising her in the lap of luxury.

And Sybil’s punishment for having a baby with Branson is death. 

Oh, my God! Look, Downton Abbey is basically a soap opera. It's a really well-made soap opera, but it's basically a really, really good soap opera. So characters die. She's not the only character to die. the wholly innocent Lavinia Swire died of Spanish flu. William died in the service of his country. Surely neither of them was being "punished" for anything. 

Edith is eager to work outside the home and deeply capable — and she pines after men at the intervals the plot demands.

I don't even understand what the objection is here. Because Edith is capable and eager for a career, she shouldn't have romantic feelings? She shouldn't fall in love with men?

And all of the servants, no matter how independent-minded in their pursuit of love or personal happiness, are truly happy to serve. Again and again, to serve is framed as less an obligation forced by economic circumstances than a rare opportunity to become part of the life of a family (even if a family not one’s own).

I don't think that they are so much "truly happy to serve" as they are truly happy to have good jobs. Hell, we know Thomas doesn't give a shit about the family. Ms O'Brien actually injures Lady Granthem intentionally by putting a bar of soap on the floor for her to slip on. I think that service jobs just happened to be some of the better jobs available for people of the "lower" classes. When Mosely loses his job as a butler, we see what kind of options are available. He works briefly as a delivery boy, which is sort of humiliating for this middle-aged man, then  finds work tamping down pavement with a road crew, which is exhausting.

And when Mr. Carson reaches out to Lady Mary who is depressed after the death of her husband, she reminds him in no uncertain terms that he is NOT a part of the family, NOT her peer, and is not to take such familiarities with her. Hardly a portrayal of  "Benevolent rich people caring for servants"

But the perpetually heroic treatment of the servants — cook Mrs. Patmore, for instance, keeps making stupid mistakes, and so her masters perceptively realize she’s going blind and buy her eye surgery! — makes an argument for a system wherein the rich control all but act wisely.  

I don't think it makes that argument at all. I don't see how anyone could see Mrs Patmore being helped by her employers and think that it was a better system than Britain's National health system. Mrs. Patmore was fortunate to have employers who care about her as a person. Her surprise indicates how rare this is. 

In fcat, there are other indications that the Crawley family is something of an anomaly in their treatment of their employees, as when a visitor scoffs at the idea of servants being given Christmas day off.

 There is nothing right-wing about Downton Abbey, it's just a realistic portrayal of a certain time and place.

Washington Post spreads bullshit about minimum wage

While looking for something else, I accidentally stumbled on to the Washington Post's Op/Ed page.

 

And then I saw this:

Robert J. Samuelson

Opinion Writer

Minimum-wage mirage?

And for some reason, I read it.

 

So, it starts out sounding pretty sane.

This minimum wage business is tricky. On its face, raising the wage seems an easy way to fight poverty. Just pay low-wage workers more. After all, some scholarly research finds that, within reasonable limits, there’s no job penalty. A higher minimum doesn’t reduce employment much, if at all.

That's it. Just end it there. We should, of course, raise the minimum wage. There is no downside. That's it. It's really just that simple!

  Unfortunately, it may not be that simple.

Oh, God. . .  Okay, go ahead. How is it not that simple?

Unfortunately, it may not be that simple.
Democrats propose raising the present federal minimum of $7.25 an hour to $8.20 this year, $9.15 in 2015 and $10.10 in 2016. Assuming no job losses, almost 28 million workers would benefit by 2016, estimates the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal think tank. That’s about 17 million who now make less than the proposed minimums, plus 11 million slightly better-paid workers who would get increases to keep them above the minimum. 

Oh, well that does complicate things - oh, wait. no. no, it's still pretty simple.

 Someone working 40 hours a week at the minimum would see annual wages go from $15,080 now to $21,008 in 2016. Today’s annual wage is about 20 percent below the federal poverty line for a family of three, while the 2016 wage would slightly be above the line for a family of three (though not of four), says EPI. Not all workers would receive big increases, because many work part-time (46 percent), don’t stay for a full year or already are above the minimum. Still, wage gains could be sizable. 

Yes, sizable. Going from below the poverty line to just slightly above it. Let's call that "sizable." Sure.

Now, if you're trying to say that $21,000 a year is still a starvation wage, especially  for someone trying to support a family, you'll get no argument here. But since you write for the Washington Post Op/Ed page, I'm guessing that that is not the complicating factor you're referring to.

Economist John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, another left-leaning think tank, says that recent minimum-wage studies find that “modest increases” have “little or no employment effect.” Businesses turn to other ways of absorbing the added costs rather than reducing payrolls or workers’ hours, he says. Better-paid workers mean less turnover. This cuts firms’ recruitment and training costs; it also raises workers’ productivity, because they’re more familiar with their jobs. Finally, firms adopt “small price increases.” 

So, it's a win-win! When does it get complicated?

All this sounds plausible; it may also be incomplete.
For starters, the minimum wage is a blunt instrument to aid the poor because it covers many workers from families that are well above the federal poverty line.

Wait. Your objection is that raising the minimum wage would help too many people?

By the administration’s figures, 53 percent of workers who would benefit from a higher minimum come from families with incomes above $35,000, including 22 percent with incomes exceeding $75,000.  

Okay. If you have two adults working full-time at a paltry $8.45 an hour, that adds up to about $35,000/year. Do you think that couple is going to be able to support a family on that?

Next, economists still disagree on the job effect. In studies — and their review of other studies — economists David Neumark and J.M. Ian Salas of the University of California at Irvine and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve conclude that higher minimums do weaken low-wage employment. Under plausible assumptions, even a small effect (say, a 1 percent job loss for each 10 percent increase in the minimum) implies nearly a million fewer jobs over three years. 

Oh, come on! No one really believes that. Businesses hire only the workers they need. It's not like they've been hiring  extra workers just because they can afford extras. And the amount they have to pay their workers doesn't change the number of workers they need. They may have to raise prices a smidge, or maybe, God forbid, have a slightly smaller profit margin, they aren't going to go without needed employees just because of a small increase in the price of labor. And make no mistake, what is being proposed is a pretty small increase.

First, the proposed increase is huge. By 2016, it’s almost 40 percent.

Oh my God. Huge? Yes, it's almost 405, but it's less than three dollars an hour. Back when I worked fast food, we usually had about 5 or 6 employees on duty at any one time. I think that's still pretty typical. So if an average fast-food restaurant has to make up an extra $15-$20 each hour, how big a deal is that? Maybe the dollar menu needs to become the buck-and-a-quarter menu. I can't see this being a big deal.

By 2016, it’s almost 40 percent. Similar gains usually have occurred when high inflation advanced all wages rapidly. The minimum mainly kept pace. That’s not true today. Compared to average wages, the proposed hike in the minimum appears to be the largest since the 1960s.

So, because the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, that's a reason for not trying to catch up?  There wouldn't need to be this "huge" increase if the minimum wage had kept up. If it had kept up, it would be significantly more than $10.10/hour.

Second, businesses have been reluctant job creators. They curb hiring at the least pretext. They seem obsessed with cost control. 

So if it isn't a minimum wage hike, it will be something else. It will be a bad horoscope or inclement weather, or a hangover. Businesses never like hiring people. Why pretend that keeping wages at subsistence levels is going to change that? The minimum wage has been a poverty wage for a long time and you don't see businesses running out hiring people now, do you? 

Would employers take the minimum’s steep costs in stride — or react by cutting hiring and automating more low-paid jobs (example: supermarket checkouts)? 

You mean, they might do what they're already doing?There is no wage low enough to keep businesses from trying to automate, or try other ways to get more work done with fewer employees. Those of us with regular jobs see this every day.

 Which matters more for low-income workers: added jobs or higher incomes? There’s a powerful symbolism to raising the minimum, but the notion that it can be boosted sharply without any job penalty may be a mirage. 

 Well, here's the thing. Higher incomes will lead to added jobs. Because the people making those higher incomes will have more money to spend, which means increased business. . .you know, it's really just basic Econ 101 stuff. Everybody knows this, except, apparently, for the op/ed section of the Washington Post.

Crazy Candidate of the Day

With the mid-term elections coming up, the crazy candidates are coming out of the woodwork. First up: South Carolina's ironically named Lee Bright.

 

 

Lee is mounting a primary challenge to sitting Senator Lindsey Graham, because Graham is basically the love child of FDR and Emma Goldman, you know. And he's got a snappy slogan:

 

 

Bright: For Liberty, For Senate. I know.

 

I wondered who this guy was who was running to the RIGHT of Lindsey Graham, so I looked him up on Right Wing Watch. Here's the first headline that came up:

South Carolina Senate Candidate: Impeach Pro-Equality Judges, Give Teachers Machine Guns

 

Let's just skip right ahead to the giving teachers machine guns part.

 

"You look over at Israel, and that’s an armed group of folks over there,” he said. “I mean, they are teachers with machine guns on playgrounds, because you got terrorists over there that would choose to harm children and whose teachers are there to protect them. When you’ve got folks that are armed and able to defend themselves, the threat of terrorism goes down drastically."

And as we all know, there is no safer place in the world to be than ISRAEL! They never have any terrorist attacks in ISRAEL!

 Also, I  very much doubt that that is even true. I really doubt that Israeli teachers are walking around with fucking machine guns. Maybe you're thinking of Texas?
Honestly, how much good would a gun even do against a guy wearing a suicide vest? You know terrorists don't come into schoolyards and punch children or jab them with pointed sticks. Terrorists use explosives. Anyway, it took me all of about 30 seconds to find this article from Israel Today:

There is a picture going around the Internet that I have seen about a dozen times today that claims that Israeli teachers are packing heat. Well, are they? The answer is “NO.”

In the picture, the students are on an outing. While it appears that the teacher is holding a rifle, I have never seen such a thing in ten years of living here. Rest assured however, they are under armed protection. In most cases it is an armed guard or a soldier that will accompany a class, not the teacher. And my guess is that the woman with the gun is a security guard, not a teacher.

Secondly, they are not armed in the classroom. Is that really the image you want to imprint on the minds of six-year-olds? (That would be Hamas) On the other hand. I have never seen a school in Israel that was not fenced in. You must go through a locked gate that is guarded by an armed shomer, a security guard.  . .  And he or she would not let you bring a weapon inside.

 

So, yeah. Like I thought. You're full of shit.

Now let's go back to the judge part.

 

Discussing the recent federal ruling legalizing marriage equality in Utah, Bright told Tea Party Express, “Congress ought to stand up and do its job and impeach one of these federal judges. And I think when you do that, being a federal judge is a pretty good gig, and I think if you’ll impeach just one, the rest of them will do the right thing. And they’ll do it out of necessity, because self-preservation is an instinct that so many folks have.”

 

 

 

 

 



 You do know that the Judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, right? And you know about separation of powers, right? It's all in that Constitution thing you teabaggers pretend to worship. The Legislative branch is not supposed to intimidate judges into making decisions that they approve of. You can't impeach a judge because you don't like his decision, and you sure as fuck can't impeach him as a threat to other judges. I mean, you can, I guess, but it's a really horrible idea. The Judicial branch is supposed to be independent. That's how it works. This isn't North Korea, you don't punish judges for reaching the "wrong" conclusion.

 

And here's the most recent Lee Bright headline on Right Wing Watch:

 

SC Senate Candidate Lee Bright Warned of IRS-Obamacare 'Brown Shirts'; Called FEMA A 'Scam'

 

Brown Shirts? Really? I expect that kind of rhetoric from guys in tricorn hats holding misspelt signs, but from a candidate for the United States Senate?

 

 

 

At a speech in August, South Carolina state senator Lee Bright, who is challenging Sen. Lindsey Graham for the Republican nomination, warned that IRS “Brown Shirts” might start enforcing Obamacare with semiautomatic rifles.

 

Oh, Jeezus Christ! How would that even work? Why would they need assault weapons to, um, do whatever it is you think they're going to do, I don't even get it. Why would you think they're going to turn semi automatic weapons on Americans who, what, don't sign up for insurance? Or something?

 

Bright cited a conspiracy theory promoted by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), who started spreading the alarm in June when he witnessed “IRS agents are training with a semi-automatic rifle AR-15.” In real life, this is because the IRS has a criminal investigations unit that has since the 1920s pursued drug traffickers and other criminal organizations, and which during the Bush administration started providing extra support for anti-terrorism efforts – activities which require special agents to be “equipped similarly to other federal, state and local law enforcement organizations.”

But according to Bright, “If that’s true, and they’re going to assault weapons training, the Brown Shirts are next. Because that’s the enforcement group for Obamacare is the IRS. And if you don’t have an IRS, you don’t have Obamacare.”

 

 

Ohhhhh! Now it makes sense! A law enforcement agency enforcing the law! Clearly the next step is Brown Shirts!

 

After Bright presented his theory about the IRS-Obamacare Brown Shirts, an audience member asked him what he thought of various anti-government conspiracy theories, including that “FEMA is training a militia.”

 

Oh, oh! I know this one! The correct answer is "sir, you are clearly insane and here is the number of a qualified psychiatrist." I assume he must have answered something along those lines, right?

 

“Most of the federal government is a scam,” Bright said, adding that “FEMA is the biggest scam in the world.”

 

What? That's not even an answer? I thought this was a Q&A, I guess it was a who can say the craziest thing contest.

 

So, couple of things. First-if the federal government is, as you say, a "scam," why are you so eager to be a part of it?

Second-FEMA a scam? FEMA?

 

 

Does this look like a scam to you?

 

 

Does this?

 

How the hell is FEMA a scam?

 

To make his point, Bright told a story of the mayor of Charleston, South Carolina asking for private donations to help with the relief from an earthquake and getting so many that he had to stop accepting aid – all without the help of FEMA

 

Cool story, bro! Did it ever actually happen? I don't have the time to research that, but the folks at RWW, who presumably do have, say this:

 

We would really like to know what earthquake he is talking about that was small enough that FEMA wouldn’t intervene but large enough that it required a large-scale private donations effort

Yeah, that's what I figured.

Later in the speech, Bright claimed that federal earthquake and tornado relief, along with food assistance, were not the role of the federal government and were just being used to “get votes.”

Yeah, what a scam! What total sellouts!   You gotta just let disaster victims drown or you're just pandering!

 

How a real man handles disaster relief.

 

So, if you live in South Carolina, you may want to consider voting for Lee Bright. I mean, probably not, but you may. If enough people vote for him in the primary, he could become this year's Christine O'Donnell!

Bizarre Bill #4

Or maybe not so much "bizarre" as just "spectacularly assholish."


Wisconsin Republicans propose 7-day work week at behest of business lobby

A pair of Republican legislators in Wisconsin are circulating a draft of a bill that would allow a 7-day work week for the state’s workers. According to the Stephen Points Journal newspaper, the two lawmakers are floating the bill on behalf of the state’s largest anti-union business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.

 It was proposed by state Sens. Glenn Grothman (R) of West Bend and Mark Born (R) of Beaver Dam

.

Well, I'm sure they all have the people's best interests at heart!

Oh, wait. . . Wisconsin Republicans. . . Oh, right. They're huge assholes!

 

And I am their King!





Republicans say that the bill will expand workers’ opportunities to make money by working unconventional hours.

Did you know that in Wisconsin, their word for "opportunity" is the same as the word for "getting fucked over?"

Opportunity? The opportunity to work seven days a week? Who the fuck do you think wants that opportunity? Although. . . I do seem to remember hearing something about some people. . . hmmm. . .

Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R) is attempting to roll back one of the state's progressive labor laws, arguing that workers should be allowed to work without a day off if they so choose.
"Right now in Wisconsin, you're not supposed to work seven days in a row, which is a little ridiculous because all sorts of people want to work seven days a week," he told The Huffington Post in an interview.


Oh, right! That's who wants to work seven days a week, all sorts of people! Like, for instance, people who hate their spouses and want to avoid them. Or, um, people with really serious neuroses. Or people who hate themselves. All sorts of people want to work seven days a week!

Especially this guy:

Lawmakers Grothman and Born told reporters from the Journal that they had heard from a diverse array of businesses that support the 7-day work week

Quelle  Surprise!

 A bunch of businesses support a law that helps businesses screw their employees? Well, why didn't you say so? Oh, hey, this just in: chubby children support the "seconds on ice cream" bill!

“Here’s an opportunity for folks to work together to get things done in a positive way for the employer and the employee,” Born said. “It just seems like a win all the way around.”

Sure, just like being cellmates turned out to be a win-win for Schillinger and Beecher!

Folks working together! (OZ)

 Working together in a positive way, you know, the way where one side gets whatever they want and the other side takes it and likes it.



Oh, and here's something I didn't know:

Wisconsin is one of the few states in the nation where businesses "must provide employees with at least one period consisting of 24 consecutive hours of rest in each calendar week." This doesn't mean that workers get to take off once every seven days; an employee could work for up to 12 consecutive days "if the days of rest fall on the first and last days of the 2 week period."

Really?!?! In most states your employer does not have to give you a single day off? In most states they can work you seven days a week? God, this is a hell of a country!

Bizarre Bill #3

Because Republicans hate the idea of the government telling private businesses what they cna and cannot do, it's Missouri State Senator John Lamping, and his anti-Obamacare bill!


According to the St Louis Post-Dispatch:

The bill would suspend insurance companies’ state licenses if they accepted subsidies offered by the federal government to help pay health insurance premiums for low- and middle-income Missourians.

Yes, you will lose your ability to do business in the great state of Missouri if you commit the grave offense of cooperating with the government of the USA. How does that make sense? Hell if I know. But I'm sure Lamping has a perfectly reasonable rationale for his bill.

Lamping contends the subsidies are illegal and eventually will be thrown out by a federal court. 

And which court is this that will overrule the goddamn Supreme Court of the United Fucking States of America?

 

Lamping contends the subsidies are illegal and eventually will be thrown out by a federal court. By rejecting them, he said, Missouri could remove the trigger in the federal law that, beginning in 2015, will assess penalties against large employers that don’t provide health insurance.

And if that doesn't work, he plans to hold his breath until he turns blue!

 

I mean, seriously, how the hell is that even supposed to work? You forbid insurance companies from accepting federal funds, then that somehow prevents the federal government from enforcing other parts of its law? Is that it? Because I really don't understand how that's supposed to work.

“This is a legislative way by which the state actually could push back” against the law, Lamping said.

No. It isn't.

 Where in the hell would Lamping get such a cockamamie idea?

Lamping said he got the idea for his bill suspending the insurers’ licenses from Michael Cannon, a health policy scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

Ohhhhh, the Cato Institute. I'm sure this Cato Institute guy isn't a total nut or anything.

 Cannon traveled the country, encouraging states not to set up insurance exchanges. He argued that employers would have a solid legal foundation to contest any penalties in states with federally run exchanges.

Yes, even though the Supreme Court has found the Affordable Care Act Constitutional in its entirety, I'm sure that you will have a solid legal foundation from which to challenge it. Yeah, this is totally the guy you want to take advice from.

 Lamping said the Tenth Amendment group “has sorta latched onto this. They think it’s a vehicle for the issues that are important to them, the idea of nullification. It’s far more simple than that. It’s mandating that the insurance companies follow state statutes and follow federal statutes.”

Wait, what? Forbidding your insurers from following Federal Law is "mandating that they follow federaal statutes?" Do you even listen to yourself when you talk?