Oh, and another thing. . .

Getting back to Downton Abbey and my defense thereof. . .

 

In Daniel D'Addario's un-called for hit piece, he refers to Lady Sybil's death as her punishment for having married below her station. He also claims that the show seems determined to prop up Lord Grantham as a wise patriarch. He is, of course, wrong on both counts.

Lady Sybil dies because Lord Grantham, who is always portrayed as a rather foolish old man, unable to cope with the changing modern world, refuses to listen to the simple country doctor who has treated Sybil since infancy. Instead, he sides with the more prestigious Sir Philip, who turns out to be tragically wrong. Lord Grantham, wedded to the old class system, insists that the doctor from the upper caste, the man with the title, must be right, even when Cora recognizes how wrong he is, and begs Lord Grantham to listen to Doctor Clarkson.

So Lady Sybil dies, not as punishment for her betrayal of the class system, but because of Lord Grantham's fealty to it. Clinging to the class system cost Lord Grantham his daughter, not exactly a ringing endorsement of the class system.

Crazy Candidate of the Day

Today's crazy candidate:  Illinois' Susanne Atanus.

She looks pleasant enough. . .

Like most candidates, Susanne has a website.
According to ABC, it is  www.atanusforuscongress.com
If you click on the link to her website, you get this:

Atanusforuscongress.com

Related Links

Help Paying Utility Bills

Election Map

Election List

Election Results

US Congress Members

Election Signs

Voting Poll

Obama Stimulus Bill

US Senate Bills

Create a Voting Ballot

Election Supplies

So, that's pretty promising!

Although, it's probably better that her real website doesn't come up, because then you might get your brain assaulted by shit like this:

Chicago GOP hopeful: Autism and dementia are God’s punishments for LGBT rights

Yeah, apparently she is!

Candidate Susanne Atanus believes that autism and forms of dementia are punishments sent by God because of the growing support for marriage equality in the country and the prevalence of abortion.

Because no one ever suffered from dementia before Roe?

“I am a conservative Republican and I believe in God first,” Atanus said at an endorsement session with the Daily Herald on Monday. God controls the weather, she said, and tornadoes are evidence of his wrath.

Which is why they always hit those atheist strongholds like Kansas and Oklahoma! You never see a tornado spinning down Castro Street, or knocking down Planned Parenthood Headquarters.

“God is angry. We are provoking him with abortions and same-sex marriage and civil unions,” she said. “Same-sex activity is going to increase AIDS. If it’s in our military it will weaken our military. We need to respect God.”



If elected, Atanus is expected to propose throwing virgins into volcanoes to appease the fire gods and poking pins into dolls made to look like our geopolitical enemies.

Another Republican Anatomy Lesson

Why? Why do creepy old Republican men think they are expert on female biology? Do they not know how stupid they end up looking?

You know, it's not that difficult to research this. You could call up any ob/gyn in the phonebook and ask if she has patients over the age of 50. (spoiler alert: Yes. Yes, she does.)

Or, hey, you're an old guy, you could ask your wife. Or maybe you have a sister? Or, I don't know you must know at least one woman who is over 50!

Or, you know what, if you Google the phrase "woman over 50," this is one of the first things that comes up:

Women Over 50 May Develop Cervical Cancer if Not Screened 

Also, this:

Health screening - women - age 40 - 64

Pelvic exam and Pap smear:

• Pap smears should be done once every 2 - 3 years.
• Pelvic exams may be done more often to check for other disorders.

That's just on the first page of results. It takes like two seconds.

Where would you even get the idea that over 50, women's lady parts stop needing medical attention. Seems like lady parts would be pretty much like any other parts. Like, the older your knees get, the more problems you have with them. Same with your eyes, your ears, your guts. Why would lady parts be any different? I mean, I know, as a heterosexual male it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that pussies are magic! and, yeah, in a way they are, but jeezus, they're still just body parts!

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.