Quick hit: racial bias in presidential pardons

In analysis of Presidential pardons during the George W. Bush administration, ProPublica has found that whites were four times as likely as non-whites to be granted a pardon. Pardons were granted to 12% of whites, 10% of Hispanics and Asians, and zero percent of Blacks and Native Americans. The disparity remained even when investigators controlled for type of crime.

[sociological images]

Abolish maternity leave in the UK?

Hat tip to redlightpolitics for this piece.

From the article at The Telegraph:

Mr Hilton, the Prime Minister’s strategy director, reportedly suggested the radical ideas during discussions on scrapping red tape and bureaucracy to boost economic growth.

Mr Hilton also suggested to Mr Cameron that he simply ignore European labour regulations on temporary workers, to the alarm of the most senior civil servant in Downing Street.

“Steve asked why the PM had to obey the law,” said one Whitehall insider. “Jeremy [Heywood, Mr Cameron’s permanent secretary] had to explain that if David Cameron breaks the law he could be put in prison”.[…]

According to a report in the Financial Times, Mr Hilton also recommended sacking hundreds of Government press offices and replacing them with a blog for each Whitehall department.

The newspaper quoted a source close to Mr Hilton suggesting that he thought that maternity leave rights were “the biggest obstacle to woman finding work”.

redlightpolitics’ comment: We already have retro fashion, retro design, retro music trends, etc. I don’t see why retro politics wouldn’t eventually make a come back. Next up: do women really need to vote? And other pressing matters.

Yeah really! But in all seriousness, what?! I can’t understand the coalition government’s perspective on women in the workforce at all. On the one hand, it seems to be keen on relegating women to the reserve taskforce again so that the main workforce can comprise of men (because they need to work more than women, don’t you know). It also seems to want to get as many women back into the home as possible so that (1) again, men can have the jobs and (2) society can re-establish a normative family structure – men at work, women at home with the children – and address what Cameron et al see as the degeneracy of youth (the fault of feminism, natch).

Now, however, it seems that the Tories may be suggesting that we abolish or lessen maternity leave so that women can stay in the workplace. So what gives? My first thoughts? The economy is not growing (in fact, it at best remained stagnant and at worst decreased in the last quarter) and when it comes to the economy all other bets are off. If we need women in the workplace to boost the economy and to contribute to fiscal growth, then it’s probably OK. If we need to lower maternity allowance to make that happen, then that’s OK too. If we can frame that in a “we’re doing it for the women and their careers, really” fashion, then that’s probably the best way to make it palatable and may even disguise that we’re actually just using women when it suits us. And if we keep the other plans quiet for now, then all the better. We can get them back into the home when we’re solvent again.

Or maybe I just really am too cynical…

What I’ve been reading – irreverence, SCREAM, Trump for WH, girls before boys, feminism in Poland

Quite the variety today. Well, there is a lot of bank holiday confusion.

• I’ve never actually read anything by James Frey, having gone off the idea of him when I heard that he had half-inched some of the material for this novel entitled A Million Little Pieces. I had a copy of it at the time and promptly threw it into the recycling. But this new novel of his – The Final Testament of the Holy Bible – looks like it could be a corker. According to slate:

Cult American author James Frey’s new novel is both a work of art and a bombshell hurled at the religious right. It tackles the Second Coming of Jesus in modern America – with the promised Messiah enacting the deeds the religious right consider most wicked. He is, for example, an active bisexual who supports his prostitute girlfriend when she aborts her first child.

Crikey. The lapsed Catholic in me always enjoys a good satire/ critique/ ribbing of all things religious so I think I’ll give this a go. Why wouldn’t Jesus, whoever he was, be gay, sexually active, and perhaps even a little bit naughty? Surely even he had his desires. I have no idea if the book will be well written or not, but it’s worth a shot. The comments on the slate article are rather derisory (perhaps predictably), but I won’t pass any remarks on them for now.

• More slate. I tired to read that review of Scream 4 (though who knows why, for I never intend to see it) but my head was sore by the time I got to the third paragraph or thereabouts. Movie within a movie within a sequel within a movie within a sequel. Or something. Wha?! I know that it’s all ironic man and shit but I would like to remind the makers of Scream 4 of a phrase we have in Ireland: yer kicking the arse out of it. (Translation: enough is enough.) Or perhaps that’s another irony. Why I am I still talking about this…?

• In more serious (though no less frightening) news, Donald Trump is running for the White House again (slate). I mean, he hasn’t a chance but oh em gee! Tomasky is right in Comment is Free when he says that Trump would be a horrible president. He really would! (Mind you, I’m not sure what point Tomasky was making in the remainder of that piece. I think it’s something about Trump being racist.) The most that Trump will achieve is increasing support for Obama, I dare say, so it might not be a bad thing overall. That said, Obama better start impressing me soonish or I’m not going to give him my theoretical vote in 2012. Just sayin’…

• I seriously could give two damns about what the royal family (no title case here) but but this is something that I do feel strongly about and I suppose it’s apt at the moment. It is currently possible for a younger brother to accede to the throne before older sisters because the law of primogeniture allows men take precedence. Nick Clegg is, apparently, asking for this law to be examined. I suppose he’s good for something…

• Lastly, in good news for Polish women, it seems that feminism is no longer a laughable cause there (guardian). I never knew it was, per se, but that’s perhaps not saying much.

For a good part of the last two decades, becoming a feminist was a sure way to make oneself ridiculous in Poland. You were viewed as a naive enthusiast of western ideas, supposedly irrelevant to Polish culture, or worse – a fossil from former times, a communist. Well, the days of feminist martyrdom are over: in the runup to Poland’s presidency of the European Union, women’s rights have become a serious and respectable topic of public debate. Feminism is all but a fad, with major celebrities speaking publicly for equality, and attending Women’s Day street demonstrations. The third European Women’s Congress, planned for September 2011 in Warsaw, is presented as one of the presidency’s major events, a showcase of Poland’s successful modernisation. The prime minister, Donald Tusk, recently said in a speech that his government intends to listen closely to the recommendations of the congress.

There is, unfortunately, a counter-article however (also guardian). The second article indicates that women in Poland (and not just the feminist movement) are derided as much as ever:

“A woman at a conference shouldn’t be wearing trousers. Are you sure you don’t have a dress, sweetheart? Come on, we’ll buy you one. Do you think I can’t afford it, madam editor?” These very words were once said to me by a certain Polish diplomat.

Um.

Reet. I’m done blogging until after the bank holiday weekend. I hope you’ll all join me in ignoring the royal nonsense tomorrow. Vive la revolution!

What I’ve been reading – adoption discrimination, higher education fees, Nadine Dorries, and too much Kate

• I was shocked this morning to hear a report on Radio 4 that there is something of an “adoption apartheid” in Britain (reported by thetimes). White children in care are three times more likely to be adopted than black children, and the waiting time for initial decisions about black children is up to six months longer than it is for white children. Delays and discrimination are apparent at every stage of the adoption system, the report says. One would think that as the little brown babies are all the rage nowadays in some circles, young black children would not be discriminated against in this country, but perhaps the little brown babies are only desirable (read: fashionable) if they’re born to mothers more than 1000 miles away. The Times is subscription only these days, of course, but I’m sure there will be several other reports about this story throughout the day.

• How is this going to work? Nearly two-thirds of universities in England want to charge the highest fee available (£9,000) for all of their courses (BBC). Now, far be it from me to pass judgement (ahem!) but I can think of about four institutions in this country who would get away with charging nine grand a year, and the rest can sing for their supper. The government (in its infinite wisdom) initially stated that universities could charge £9,000 only in exceptional circumstances so I have no idea how two-thirds of England’s universities are going to argue that one. But there’s a larger and more important issue at stake here. If it wasn’t already blindingly obvious, higher education has, once again, become the preserve of the elite in England. There is lots of tokenistic chatter about continuing to widen participation and ensuring the less-well-off can still afford higher education, but at £9,000 a pop, we all know how ridiculous that is. The current social mobility rhetoric of David Willets et al is now bordering on offensive.

• Libby Brooks’ Guardian piece – beware the anti-abortionists’ tiny steps towards reform – discusses worrying progress being made by the anti-abortion movement in the UK (which has utilised some of the same movement’s tactics from the US).

The modest group of protesters standing vigil outside the office of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service may not initially appear to embody the alarming infiltration of US anti-choice tacticians into the rather less noxious abortion debate on this side of the Atlantic. But the presence of 40 Days for Life, a Texas-based, church-funded anti-abortion campaign, in London’s Bedford Square over Lent is a reminder that, with a coalition led by the traditionally choice-sceptic Conservatives, peddling a localism agenda that favours the involvement of voluntary, charitable and religious organisations, the concomitant dangers for British women may be more real than they seem.

These campaigns are being helped along, of course, by the now notorious Conservative MP Nadine Dorries who appears to be prepared to say and do anything to get abortion restricted in this country. It’s a pity (for her) that a recent report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists refutes many of Dorries’ favourite lies which claim that abortion always negatively affects mental health. It might not be enough to get her to be quiet but it might be a start.

In other “news”, while looking down my Comment is Free RSS on google reader, I must have noted at least ten pieces about Kate Middelton. Enough already! I don’t care. Who does care?! Seriously!

Purple

I’ve been wrapped up in a white duvet all day wondering what’s going on with my back, stomach, head, legs and and arms (I think I have food poisoning), so the only purple I can attest to wearing is one of the stripes on my pyjamas. But I am there in every other way.

No, wearing purple today is not going to go a terribly long way to decreasing homophobia and discrimination, and no, it’s not going to going to instantaneously end anti-LGBT bullying, but what it will do is raise awareness of the problem. And it is a problem. So today, just one day, shut the fuck up with your prejudices, think of someone other than yourself, and remember that there are some very vulnerable LGBT youth who need more of your support and less of your hatred.

Also, here and here.

Germaine Greer needs to lie down

Darn it, I’m still feckin-well addicted to it. Big Brother that is. I’m watching it and I’m reading about it and I never stop talking about it. Oh my, I wish someone would stop me!

I think that I’m done with it all until I see something else that makes me want to rant. Take the following from Germaine Greer, for example. I’ve never known Greer to be so disparaging of strong and intelligent women, but she gets very scathing in this piece. Look at what she says about Shilpa.

There are no good reasons for watching Celebrity Big Brother and very good reasons for not. Not watching will spare you the nerve-fraying annoyingness that is Shilpa Shetty. Everything about her is infuriating: her haughty way of stalking about, her indomitable self-confidence, her chandelier earrings, her leaping eyebrows, her mirthless smile, her putty nose and her eternal bray, “Why does everyone hate me?” Not to mention the crying jags. What no one seems to have quite understood is that Shilpa is a very good actress. Everyone hates her because she wants them to. She also knows that if she infuriates people enough, their innate racism will spew forth.

So she deserves to be racially abused? Is that the implication here?

She is just the girl to raise the pit bull in a dizzy little drip like Danielle and keep her frothing at the mouth long enough for her nascent career as a sweet little Wag to disappear down the drain. When Shilpa is finished with Danielle even Teddy Sheringham will know what a small, dark heart beats within her fetching chest. This explains the slightly cannibal air of self-satisfaction that never abandons Shilpa. She knows what she is doing. She will shred the nerves of all the other women in that house until even Cleo pulls back her frozen lips and shows the fangs behind her witless Mona Lisa smile.

Oh, so it is all her fault then? Mainly for being able to recognise that she’s not a vapid, talentless idiot, you’re saying?

Wha?!

I’m thinking that this piece probably says more about Greer than it does about Shetty. I’ve always had an admiration for Greer (she was one of the most prominent feminists around as I was growing up), but she’s been letting herself down a lot in recent years. She seems bitter and unhappy about something, and she resorts to attacking women who remind her of who she once was in order to express her discontent. Even when she was on CBB herself last year or whenever it was, I watched her thinking that there was something missing. She’s not fair anymore, and I always remember her being very fair.

Shilpa isn’t nasty like she describes, but she is a reminder to frustrated women the world over that they’re not all they want to be. This is clearly what upset the three ‘ladies’ in the Big Brother house, and I can’t help but think that it’s what’s upsetting Greer too. Nay, think of the BB house without Shlipa, I say! She’s not perfect, no doubt, but she’s smart and funny and kind and generous and interesting. I can’t think of another housemate to whom you could attach those adjectives. But perhaps Germaine doesn’t like such qualities in a person, now that she’s lacking in them herself.

It’s a shame, really, because I think Greer could still be a very influential and important person; feminist or otherwise. If only she’d stop being a moron apologist (and something of a moron herself, truth be told) long enough to realise it…