Make this my home page
More buttons
Best of the Day
Page
Turn off that Wi-Fi network - it's disturbing our chakras.
Video

Hot For Words: Lollipop

Blog
Innocent Spam
Game
EA SPORTS Complex on PlayStation Home
Art
Kinetic sculpture is a cross between art and engineering.
Cool tools
Hot links
Dadaist deconstruction of new media, as a flash game.
Everything you need to know about microscopic water bears
News for nerds
For lovers of the Green Fairy
Stories and art from Australia's Yolgnu people
Australia's best science fiction author
Did the earth just move?
Don't discount journalism
Novelist and comic book legend's homepage
Searchable history of the internet
Exposing systematic torture in Iran
Museum of science fiction, utopia and extraordinary journeys
The real story of christianity
Image bookmarking
Developing tech to get the internet to its full potential
Hidden money in America

Hidden Money In America

The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

This is lovely. I can see the value of not naming to the general public which banks are receiving the money-it would be an invitation to have runs begin on those banks. But to refuse to name them to lawmakers, who need to know these things? And to refuse to name non-banking institutions that received the public money? Uh uh, no way. The Bush administration again oversteps it's bounds, and provides further demonstration of how they run America as a tinpot dictatorship.

To read more from Joe Szilagyi click the view button below

View the pageGo back to previous pageLeave some feedbackPrint this pageEmail link to friendsBookmark in del.icio.usAdd to Stumble ThisAdd to your favourite bookmarksDigg this article

Tags

 

Related Stories

   
Next

So, I read today that the designer of Mattel's Barbie doll was obsessed with sex. Seriously? We need a book-length study to tell us that?

We in the land of feminist academics have been teaching the pernicious sexual politics of Barbie for years. The breasts that defy gravity, the hair, the long, long legs and of course the cruel, nipped in waist. Oh, don't forget the tiny clothes, the f*ck-me pumps, not to mention the well-equipped kitchens in every Barbie Dream House. The message of Barbie seems unambiguous to me.

Still, many students (and not a few colleagues) consistently resist seeing Barbie as a miniature sex toy, claiming instead that the doll was a good role model for little girls. (One could, after all, purchase a Barbie doll dressed as a doctor.) Or claiming, equally untenably, that toys had no impact on their ideas about gender roles or their own sexuality.

These students, mostly women, want to rescue Barbie, to protect their own childhoods from academic interrogations of pop culture and what those interrogations might reveal. That's understandable. Yet, many of these same students sit in my class pouring out of tank tops, squeezed into low-rise jeans, or tugging on mini-skirts so short they are nearly impossible to sit down in. That is, dressed like Barbie.

It's an experience I regularly have as a feminist critic of popular culture: a media event, book or news story demonstrates that I'm not wrong, my ideology is not based in "over analyzing," "hyper sensitivity," or "reading too much into things" (the three most common criticisms feminists tend to encounter). It's disappointing, frankly, to stumble so often upon evidence of society's sexism and to keep having to explain that it's there. Disappointing that Barbie was so obviously a sexed-up, misogynist, bad idea for little girls and to realize how thoroughly our culture embraced the toy anyway.

So, here we are again. Feminists were right: no one but a sex-obsessed man with a perverse idea of female anatomy would create a female toy like Barbie. And, as is too too often the case for feminists, being right isn't something to celebrate.

Dr. Bean is an Associate Professor of English at Marshall University, specializing in Gender Studies, Film and Drama. She is the author of "Post-Backlash Feminism: Women and the Media Since Reagan/Bush" (McFarland & Co. 2007). She hosts a blog on mid-life and feminism at kelliebean.com.