I know, I know—I just did a redesign not too long ago. The truth is, I really liked the smoke-filled room thing we had going on, but, combined with nothing but shitty news lately, it was starting to feel a bit dreary, so I thought I’d better lighten things up.
A couple of notable changes: There are now (obviously) pictures of the regular Shakes contributors, with dropdown links to list of some of their best posts. (For the record, Paul hates that picture of himself, even though I love it, so it’s only a place holder until he provides me a new one.) And below that is a “Big Props” blogroll—logo links to contributors’ own blogs, guests’ blogs, and some other folks who have provided special support to me in one way or another. That list will no doubt expand just like the blogroll, so please don’t feel hurt if you think you ought to be there and aren’t. It’s not a finite list, and I certainly don’t intend to upset anyone in the process of trying to extend a thank-you to others.
The regular blogroll, archives, and media links are now in the upper right, and permalinks have been moved to the tops of posts—along with the post authors’ name.
As always, apologies to those not using IE; the spacing is a little funny in Firefox and Opera. But, according to my stats, IE users are still the majority, and I figured I might as well celebrate democracy as long as it lasts.
(I’ll get the comments matching again soon…)
Carry on, Shakers.
You’re in the Right Place, I Promise
Mmm…Tastes Like Chicken
Sometimes headlines aren’t just badly written. Sometimes they’re so badly written as to become disturbing.
Disturbing...but funny.
This reminds me, btw, of an Eddie Izzard bit about The American Dream:
[In Britain] there was a spirit of ex-empire, this thing of “things can't be done,” whereas in America, I thought there was a spirit of “can be done!” The pioneer thing.If you don’t know who Eddie Izzard is, you must find out immediately.
“Go do it! What do you want to do?”
“I want to put babies on spikes.”
“Go then! Go! It's the American Dream!”
“Hi! I'm Crazy Eddie! I put babies on spikes. Do you want a rack of babies? We've got babies on racks! Mmm, they taste of chicken!”
They do! Babies taste of chicken! Cannibals say that human flesh tastes of chicken, so babies must taste of chicken. And chicken tastes of humans.
(More Eddie here, here, and here.)
A Million Dollars Worth of Irony
Back in June, I mentioned a reality show called “Welcome to the Neighborhood,” in which three white, self-described "Christian" families in Texas got to pick their new neighbors from among a group of minority families, including an African-American family, a Korean family, a Latino family, a gay family, one family in which husband and wife were heavily tattooed, and another in which the parents were Wiccans. The very premise was rather stomach-turning; the families who were selected to choose their new neighbors were making shockingly biased generalizations and hateful statements about the families competing for the nearly million-dollar prize in the Austin suburb. It seemed rife with the potential to be exploitative, minimizing the realities of very serious issues like racism, homophobia, and housing discrimination.
Nonetheless, the show went on, and after four weeks of filming, the Wrights, a gay couple, won. The show was scheduled to air in July, but it never showed up.
ABC cites “protests by the National Fair Housing Alliance, which had expressed concern about a competition in which race, religion and sexual orientation were discussed as factors in the awarding of a house.” Funny, but back in June, when I wrote about it, similar concerns being raised were being dismissed by ABC, who promised that they had both legal standing to give away the house under the stated premise and that the subject would be treated with dignity. Prejudice would not be exploited for laughs, but used to educate, etc. But then, when that actually happened, and some of the formerly homophobic couples “pronounced themselves newly open-minded about gays and other groups,” the show got axed.
[T]he neighbor who was the Wrights' earliest on-camera antagonist - Jim Stewart, 53, who is heard in an early episode saying, "I would not tolerate a homosexual couple moving into this neighborhood" - has confided to the producers that the series changed him far more than even they were aware.So what’s the story? Why would a show that ostensibly existed specifically to prove that prejudices could be overcome be cancelled when it fulfilled its mission? ABC says they were worried that some of the overt intolerance expressed by the white Christians toward the competitors, whose fates they held in their hands, may have turned off viewers before their evolutions into being, you know, nice. But if that was the entire premise of the show, and ABC was still defending the show and their decision to air it in June, well after they knew the scope of intolerance expressed, such an abrupt about-face seems awfully peculiar.
No one involved in the show, Mr. Stewart said, knew he had a 25-year-old gay son. Only after participating in the series, Mr. Stewart said, was he able to broach his son's sexuality with him for the first time.
"I'd say to ABC, 'Start showing this right now,' " Mr. Stewart said in an interview at his oak kitchen table. "It has a message that needs to be heard by everyone."
Bill Kennedy, a co-executive producer of the show, thinks there was something more sinister at work, and dismisses ABC’s cited concerns as a diversion. Instead, Kennedy believes that the Walt Disney Company, ABC’s owner, scrapped airing the completed project because it:
could have interfered with a much bigger enterprise: the courting of evangelical Christian audiences for "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." Disney hoped that the film, widely viewed as a parable of the Resurrection, would be the first in a profitable movie franchise.ABC denies the charges. Kennedy, who has no definitive proof of the connection between their decision to preempt the show and Narnia, notes, however, that “ABC's stated reasons for canceling the series unconvincing,” (an assertion with which I have to agree), and says, “I don't believe in coincidences.”
In the months and weeks before "Welcome to the Neighborhood" was to have its premiere, as Disney sought to build church support for "Narnia," four religious groups lifted longtime boycotts of the company that had been largely prompted by Disney's tolerance of periodic gatherings by gay tourists at its theme parks. Representatives for two of those groups now say that broadcasting "Neighborhood" could have complicated their support for "Narnia." One, the Southern Baptist Convention, with more than 16 million members, lifted the last of the boycotts against Disney on June 22, a week before ABC announced it was pulling the series…
Richard Land, an official with the Southern Baptist Convention involved in the negotiations with Disney last year to end the group's boycott of the company, said he did not recall any mention of "Neighborhood." He added, however, that had the show been broadcast - particularly with an ending that showed Christians literally embracing their gay neighbors - it could have scuttled the Southern Baptists' support for "Narnia."
"I would have considered it a retrograde step," Mr. Land said of the network's plans to broadcast the reality series. "Aside from any moral considerations, it would have been a pretty stupid marketing move."
Paul McCusker, a vice president of Focus on the Family, which had supported the Southern Baptist boycott and reaches millions of evangelical listeners through the daily radio broadcasts of Dr. James Dobson, expressed similar views.
"It would have been a huge misstep for Disney to aggressively do things that would disenfranchise the very people they wanted to go see 'Narnia,' " he said.
What can be said about such irony? Develop a show about overcoming bias, defend it against those who worry it might perpetuate bias, then cave to those who worry it won’t. Nicely done.
(Crossposted at Ezra’s place.)
Question of the Day
If there were no limitations on your decision—not money, nor law, nor employment, nor anything else—where would you choose to live? And no, it doesn’t have to be permanent; if you’ve always fancied giving Paris or Portugal or Portland a try, even though you’ve never been there, that’s cool, too…
I’ve only one answer: Fair Isle.
It’s a teensy wee island which lies halfway between Orkney and Shetland, owned by the National Trust for Scotland, and is known for three things: birds, knits, and shipwrecks. It has a population of about 70, who get about 85% of their winter and 50% of their summer energy requirements from wind, meaning they also have almost no pollution. It’s a perfect little haven for progressive, hermetic little weirdos like me and Mr. Shakes. Give us our own ickle croft and a satellite for internet access, and we’ll be good to go.
As an aside, Mr. Shakes would probably have a very different idea about this. He’d probably either choose Chicago or Edinburgh (either of which would be okay by me, too, having lived in both), or go somewhere else altogether—although I bet he’d be willing to give Fair Isle a go.
This is News?
GOP to Use Terror as Campaign Issue:
Embattled White House adviser Karl Rove vowed Friday to make the war on terrorism a central campaign issue in November…Like how they were wrong about Saddam having WMDs and ties to al-Qaida? Like how they thought we’d be greeted as liberators in Iraq? Like how they thought the whole thing would take six months and pay for itself? Yeah.
"Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world," Rove told Republican activists. "That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong — deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."
I can’t believe “GOP to Use Terror as Campaign Issue” is even a headline. In other news, humans need oxygen to survive and Michael Jackson’s sorta odd.
Random Announcement
I'm not moving. There's a post below from Misty who notes that she'll be offline for awhile during a move, and there's some confusion that it's me. Unfortunately, it isn't.
I'm still right where I am, and posting from Shakes Sis will continue as usual, for good or ill, lol.
You Tell ’Em, Peaches
Peaches Geldof is appealing to celebrities to stop giving their children ridiculous names.Rumer, Scout, and Tallulah Belle Willis, Racer, Rebel, and Rocket Rodriguez, Jermajesty Jackson, Pilot Inspektor Riesgraf Lee, Apple Martin, Dandelion Richards, Bijou Phillips, Alchamy Henriksen, Coco Arquette, Banjo Griffiths, Jett Travolta, Zowie Bowie, and Moon Unit, Ahmet Emuukha Roden, Dweezil, and Diva Zappa were all unavailable for comment.
Peaches, the daughter of Sir Bob Geldof and the late Paula Yates, says her own name has made her life hell.
Her given name in full is Peaches Honeyblossom Michelle Charlotte Angel Vanessa Geldof.
She said: "I hate ridiculous names, my weird name has haunted me all my life.
"I hate being famous; people claim to know me because of my surname."
Peaches has three sisters named Fifi Trixabelle, Pixie and Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lilly. (Link.)
Random Thought
We know how liberals are treated by Fox News. MSNBC and CNN haven’t been quite as bad, but now they’ve given up all pretext of being anything but openly hostile to liberals. CNN has just hired Glenn Beck, who (“jokingly,” of course) condoned the murder of Michael Moore and called Cindy Sheehan a “pretty big prostitute” and a “tragedy pimp.” And of course MSNBC, though they keep around token Keith Olbermann, lets their other on-air personalities mock gays and compare Michael Moore to Osama bin Laden with impugnity.
Personally, I think progressives should forego donations to candidates during this mid-term election and instead contribute into one big pot the express purpose of which is to purchase either CNN or MSNBC or start a whole new cable news network altogether. And yes, I know it’s heresy to suggest not supporting candidates, but the reality is that even if the Dems did manage to scrape out a thin majority in the House and/or the Senate, the tone of the media is not going to change. Unless, of course, it becomes more hostile to liberals. (And, frankly, it would send a pretty clear message to the Dems that they need to start paying more attention to their progressive base.) As a long-term strategy, openly progressive ownership of a major media outlet is undoubtedly a better investment for liberals than the 2006 midterm elections.
I’d love to see some enterprising progressive with even a small public platform start such a campaign. I suspect such a grassroots campaign, if even moderately successful, would catch the eye of big donors, who would either contribute to the cause or increase contributions to Dem candidates to make up for the difference. Or both.
Just a thought.
OMG
Nancy in NYC over at Big Brass Blog reports that after issuing a report entitled "Republican Abuse of Power," which singled out 33 Republican senators for various ethical violations, Harry Reid has apologized for going too far.
"The document released by my office yesterday went too far and I want to convey to you my personal regrets," Reid said in a letter.Whatfuckingever. I’m going back to bed.
"I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it."
Reid came under attack Wednesday over the report, which was issued by his staff on Senate letterhead, even as he and fellow Democrats released ethics overhaul proposals.
"Researching, compiling and distributing what amounts to nothing more than a campaign ad on the taxpayers dime raises serious ethical questions," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, one of the lawmakers named.
The 27-page report criticized Republican lawmakers over their ties to disgraced ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, questionable campaign contributions and other issues.
Kaine Not Able
Arianna’s got more on why Kaine is a dreadful choice:
So the Democrats have chosen Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to deliver the party's response to President Bush's State of the Union speech. Chalk up another one for the What the Hell Are They Thinking? file.PSoTD also notes:
On the same day that Osama Bin Laden's chilling warnings make it Red Alert clear that Bush's obsession with Iraq has not made us safer here at home -- and, indeed, has caused us to take our eye off the real enemy -- the Dems decide that the charge against Bush shouldn't be led by someone who can forcefully articulate why the GOP is not the party that can best keep us safe, but by someone whose only claim to fame is that he carried a red state.
Talk about clueless…
Don't ask me why, but I actually watched Kaine's inaugural address on C-SPAN, and I was stunned to hear him dare compare the cause of Virginians like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson to our cause in Iraq: "They stood here at a time, just as today, when Virginians serving freedom's cause sacrificed their lives so that democracy could prevail over tyranny."
Iraq as a war to ensure that democracy can prevail over tyranny is George Bush's talking point. God help us if it's also the talking point of the man the Democrats have chosen to respond to him after the State of the Union.
And during Kaine's run for Governor, he adopted another Bush talking point -- that it would send "a horrible message" to "cut and run" in Iraq.
He isn't a national leader. He isn't a national name. He hasn't done anything on a national scale. His political track record isn't extensive.Yeesh. An all-but-unknown gay-baiting war hawk. It sounds to me like there's something for every progressive to hate about this guy. What a splendid choice.
Anti-gay Dem Tim Kaine tapped for response to SOTU
My head’s just going to fucking explode today.
PageOneQ has excerpts from the announcement in the registration restricted RollCall:
National Democratic leaders today will ask Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) to deliver the party’s response to the president’s State of the Union address, believing that the new governor can best deliver their 2006 message of inclusiveness, American values and high ethical standards.Really? Americans from all walks of life? See, because, I happen to consider the LGBT community part of America, too, and how, exactly, does someone who ran an unnecessary gay-baiting campaign against the even more odious homobigot Kilgore in the Virginia governor's race, and who has pledged to sign off on an onerous marriage amendment that enshrines bigotry into the state's constitution, best represent them?
Sources said that Senate and House Minority Leaders Harry Reid (Nev.) and Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who chairs the Democratic Governors’ Association, plan to call Kaine today to offer him the assignment. Kaine was sworn in as Virginia’s governor last weekend, succeeding fellow Democrat Mark Warner, under whom he served as lieutenant governor.
A Democratic House aide called choosing Kaine “a no-brainer,” adding that the new governor also provides a fresh face for a party running on a message of change and reform.
Kaine is viewed as one of the Democrats’ strongest examples of how the party can appeal to an electorate even in a conservative state. Kaine ran on an independent-minded, value-themed message during his hard-fought campaign against Republican Jerry Kilgore.
Another Democratic source said that Kaine “just got elected on a winning message. He talks about values and serving all the people. Certainly, as Democrats, that’s one of our themes. We represent all Americans from all walks of life, not the wealthy special interests that the Republicans represent.”
I’m so fucking sick to my stomach that I can barely compose my thoughts, so I’ll turn it over to Pam:
Any gay Dem should be sick to their stomach at this pick. Kaine is just another Republican-lite clone from a Red state, and that's where the Dem leadership has indicated it wants to move the party. We are on notice -- homos are going to be tossed overboard -- again -- in search of the elusive win. They haven't figured out that voters need and want to see a party that has values it actually believes in and is willing to defend -- and they won't get a dime from me with this bullsh*t…Some of the commenters at Pam’s place are arguing, “Gay rights isn’t the only issue.” True enough. But let me respond to that notion with this: Taxation without representation was an important enough issue for this country to declare its independence and fight a Revolutionary War. Equal rights was an important enough issue for this country to split into two and fight a Civil War. If you enjoy representation and equality as a result, you need to take a long look in the mirror and consider what it means that you’ll gladly give up someone else’s rights to the same without a fight.
For gays living under Kaine and his endorsement of a marriage amendment, it's a clear message that your life partner relationship has no legal footing or recognition in the state -- and it will NEVER be recognized. Oh, and keep paying taxes for that luxury.
Yet that's fine and dandy with the Democratic Party establishment, which tacitly endorses Kaine's position with this pick. Defenders will say: "just ignore that and look at 'the whole package' or 'the long view'. "
Well, I'm looking at the long view, and so far all I see are states falling, one by one, passing marriage amendments because Dems are silent. I take that as either an endorsement of the bigotry, or complete impotence and incompetence on how to counter the message coming out of the right wing.
That's when you know that civil equality is not a core value in this party.
And if that still doesn’t make you give a flying shit about this, then consider instead that in the Dems’ move rightward as they chase an elusive victory, they’re willing to throw gays to the wolves—and women’s right to choice is next on the chopping block. Already we’re seeing Dems who support disastrous legislation like parental notification laws or are openly pro-life, if not explicitly anti-choice. What’s next? Who’s next? What will be your turning point before you finally stand up and say enough as enough?
If you’ve ever wondered why moderate Republicans and genuine conservatives didn’t do more to stop their party from disintegrating into the sorry state of hateful anti-Americanism it has become, maybe it was just because they were willing to sacrifice too much to win, and realized only after it was too late at what a steep cost such a victory comes.
As for me, I’m writing letters to Reid and Pelosi to tell them they stink.
Chris Matthews Needs to Be Fired
Aside from being a useless shill, in the past couple of days, he’s viciously mocked gays with nasty slurs, and now he has compared Michael Moore to Osama bin Laden.
On Hardball today, Chris Matthews compared Michael Moore to Osama Bin Laden while discussing the newly released tape with Joe Biden.Unbelievable bullshit. Peter Daou:
Matthews: I mean he sounds like an over the top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore. You think that sells...
"Bin Laden sounds like Clint Eastwood" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Ron Silver" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Rush Limbaugh" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bill O'Reilly"-- "Bin Laden sounds like Mel Gibson" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bruce Willis" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Michelle Malkin"... Imagine the outrage on the right and in the press (but I repeat myself) if a major media figure spat out those words. Well, on Hardball, Chris Matthews just blurted out that Bin Laden sounds like Michael Moore. Simple: Matthews should apologize. On the air. This has NOTHING to do with Michael Moore and everything to do with how far media figures can go slandering the left. And last I checked, Michael Moore didn't massacre thousands of innocent Americans.This has NOTHING to do with Michael Moore and everything to do with how far media figures can go slandering the left. Absolutely right. And last I checked, not only did Moore not massacre thousands of innocent Americans, but it was Bill O’Reilly who offered up San Francisco to al-Qaida:
O'REILLY: And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.Did Chris Matthews—or any prominent media figure—suggest that O’Reilly sounds like Osama bin Laden? Of course not.
The playing field is not even. The rules of the game are not even the same for both sides.
And now that the Left is finally beginning to wake up and realize that we can’t just continue to ignore the eliminationist rhetoric, the marginalization of the progressives, and the steady stream of vitriol designed to demonize mainstream liberalism, the Right’s best counter is to reinforce the fallacy that a figure like Michael Moore is as dangerous for America as Osama bin Laden.
And the fact that Michael Moore is not as dangerous for America as Osama bin Laden is only half of the lie. The other half is that Michael Moore is part of the institutional Left, which he isn’t. Michael Moore is a filmmaker, and a media personality at best. He’s not entrenched in the political process. He doesn’t, for example, sell access to “unnamed members of Washington’s Power Elite”—and doesn’t have that access himself. He doesn’t host a cable news show, and is rarely asked to be a guest on one, and he certainly hasn’t been asked to guest host, like Pat Buchanan. From the looks of it, he has appeared on Hannity & Colmes once, the O’Reilly Factor once, Charlie Rose once, Real Time five times, and The Daily Show four times. By way of comparison, Ann Coulter has appeared on Your World with Neil Cavuto twice, Hannity & Colmes sixteen times, the O’Reilly Factor six times, Real Time six times, Larry King Live once, At Large with Geraldo Rivera once, Fox and Friends once, and has co-hosted The View once. Did you get that? Ann Coulter has been on Real Time with Bill Maher, considered a liberal program, more times than Michael Moore. That’s the same Ann Coulter who has argued that the most effective way to talk to liberals is with a baseball bat, that her “only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,” that we need to “execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too,” and that the only debate about Clinton should have been “whether to impeach or assassinate.”
And yet someone with less media access than Ann Coulter, who does not enjoy regular access to (or even recognition from) prominent Democrats, who has never remotely said something as inflammatory about the president as “the only debate should be whether to impeach or assassinate,” is construed as being as dangerous to America as Osama bin Laden by a major media figure.
Kudos to John Kerry for being the first Dem to issue a response and attempting to redirect this appalling conversation:
You'd think the only focus tonight would be on destroying Osama Bin Laden, not comparing him to an American who opposes the war whether you like him or not. You want a real debate that America needs? Here goes: If the administration had done the job right in Tora Bora we might not be having discussions on Hardball about a new Bin Laden tape. How dare Scott McClellan tell America that this Administration puts terrorists out of business when had they put Osama Bin Laden out of business in Afghanistan when our troops wanted to, we wouldn't have to hear this barbarian's voice on tape. That's what we should be talking about in America.(A personal perspective on Michael Moore from The Green Knight.)
Friday Blogrollin'
Political Sapphire
Dadahead
Daffodil Lane
Excuse the Mess…
Bitty’s Back Porch
Question of the Day
The QotD comes courtesy of Carla at Preemptive Karma, who, linking back through Michael Stickings to Kevin Drum, comes up with a question about the bombing last week in Pakistan.
Drum:
For the sake of argument, let's assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let's also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let's assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists.Stickings:
Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? I think the answer is pretty plainly yes, but I'd sure like to see the liberal blogosphere discuss it. And for those who answer no, I'm curious: under what circumstances would such an attack be justified.
An important question, to be sure. And what is the answer? I encourage you to come up with your own. For whatever the realities of the war on terror and the inevitable loss of civilian life, this is a profoundly personal issue that comes down to this: What means are justified by the end (the end of the war on terror, the end according to your own personal perspective of the war on terror)? How many deaths are worth it?Carla:
This is an important question. Is it worth killing 18 innocent civilians to possibly get one bad guy? Where does it cross the line? How many innocents must die before it becomes unacceptable?I don’t actually know if I have a good answer to this question, mainly because I think it’s predicated on a belief that terrorism is best fought militarily (at least in part), which I’m not remotely convinced that it is. State-sponsored terrorism, e.g. the war in Afghanistan, I can understand (as James Woolsey noted, that was, in effect, a terrorist-sponsored state), but beyond that, I’d much rather see a comprehensive plan combining fuel independence, coalition-based diplomacy, working with willing governments of nations with high propensity for breeding terrorists to solve root problems like poverty, joblessness, and lack of education and opportunity, and a host of other nonviolent solutions, with military options a genuine last resort.
Because I believe that taking out 18 innocent civilians to get two terrorist operatives is likely to spawn at least two new terrorists in its wake, dealing with terrorism this way just seems utterly counterproductive to me—and, in fact, we’d be better off doing nothing at all aside from strengthening our intelligence operations than continue as we are.
So, I guess my answer is that I find it unacceptable, by virtue of its futility, to kill any number of innocents in the pursuit of the bad guys, if that’s essentially the plan in its entirety.
What do you think?
Stephen Baldwin Saves the World!
No, unfortunately, he’s not quitting acting. He is, however, on a one-man crusade to shut down a porn shop in that hotbed of iniquity—Nyack, NY.
The born-again Christian has been taking photographs of construction workers working on the building and he told the New York Post he plans on taking down the license plate numbers of patrons and publishing their names in the local newspaper to embarrass them from again patronizing the store.Yeah, weren’t you in Bio-Dome? Shut the fuck up.
"We're going to notch it up and notch it up until we run this guy out of business," Baldwin told The Post.
The store will sell sex toys, porn and feature viewing booths where patrons can watch adult films in privacy.
"These guys want to do this business, God bless 'em. That's between them and God. They'll have to deal with that for eternity.”
Oh, a quick search of IMDb also reminds me you were in Threesome and The Sex Monster, and…what’s this?…the host of a show called In a New Light: Sex Unplugged. Jag.
I’d be more impressed if he went town to town pulling copies of The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas off of video store shelves. They have the capacity to do much more damage to the nation’s youth than one porn shop in Nyack. Do it for the children, Stephen!
Dumb Pundits, Gay Cowboys, and Admired Ice Skaters
MATTHEWS (1/18/06): Have you gone to see it yet? I’ve seen everything else but that. I just—(Daily Howler, via Atrios.)
IMUS: No, I haven’t seen it. Why would I want to see that?
MATTHEWS: I don’t know. No opinion on that. I haven’t seen it either, so—
IMUS: So they were—it was out when I was in New Mexico and—it doesn’t resonate with real cowboys who I know.
MATTHEWS: Yeah—
IMUS: But then, maybe there’s stuff going on on the ranch that I don’t know about. Not on my ranch, but you know—
MATTHEWS: Well, the wonderful Michael Savage, who’s on 570 in DC, who shares a station with you at least, he calls it [laughter]—what’s he call it?—he calls it Bare-back Mount-ing. That’s his name for the movie.
IMUS: Of course, Bernard calls it Fudgepack Mountain...
I’m not even going to comment on the hateful absurdity of these comments. (Bareback Mounting, btw, is very funny indeed when Mr. Furious and I come up with it, but that’s the thing about comedy—it’s all about context. Inclusiveness. Exclusivity. Having fun. Making fun. Laugh at. Laugh with. It’s a distinction the likes of these two knob-ends don’t make, but it’s a selective blindness. It’s probably safe to assume they understand why black people can use the N-word and they can’t.)
Anyway, the thing that’s really getting in my craw is this whole “Why would I want to see that?” thing. I’ve heard even some progressive straight men say the same, though they always issue the caveat that they’re not homophobic—they’ve just got “no reason” to see a movie about two dudes in love. I don’t get it. Who only sees movies that feature people just like them? I’m not a drug-addled porn star, but you know, I quite enjoyed Boogie Nights, and I’m not a black Yuppie, but I quite enjoyed Brown Sugar, and I’m not a member of a rebel alliance fighting an evil empire…okay, strike that one. You get my point.
“Why would I want to see that?” smacks of the idiotic notion that a straight man has nothing to learn from or enjoy about a story focusing on gay men. It’s the same principle behind employing “chick flick” as a tool of denigration.
Last night, Mr. Shakes was explaining why he loves watching ice skating (OMG—that’s so gay!), and he said, “I enjoy watching football and rugby and American football because those are sports I’ve played, and I can play them well and enjoy playing them. But I like watching ice skating because I can’t do it. I’m so uncoordinated and ungraceful, and I’m just amazed at people who can ice skate so well. It’s like watching a concert pianist—I couldn’t begin to do it, and I watch them in awe and wish that I could.”
There’s something in that I find quite beautiful, something about being open to the world. Difference as a means of connection, rather than distance.
“Why would I want to see that?” Maybe the inability to find an obvious reason is a reason in itself.
Oof
On Day 15 of the White House’s Abramoff stonewall, Think Progress digs up this little gem. I don’t know about the picture (the hairline looks a little off to me), but honestly, if Abramoff was a member of the president’s transition team, specifically “for the Interior Department, which regulates the Indian casinos that paid Abramoff his inflated fees,” does it really matter whether the president knows him personally? Does it matter if they lunched together a thousand times or no times? Does it really bloody matter what their personal relationship was at all? Someone appointed to help with Bush’s transition into the presidency flagrantly abused his position. Does the buck stop with the president or doesn’t it? That’s the only question that needs to be asked.
If I Were Martha Stewart, I’d Be Pissed
After a comment by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) on Air America's Majority Report Wednesday evening, RAW STORY has learned that House Democrats are pushing the ethics committee to investigate allegations of congressional offices providing privleged information to Wall Street investors.Can we just impeach Congress? Let’s just throw everyone out of the Beltway and start over. John Conyers, you can stay.
On Air America, Slaughter alleged that "day traders" in the offices of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) had aided such investors. She mentioned as a specific example that individuals got advance notice that an asbestos bill was not going to emerge from the Senate (Audio here).
…Independently, RAW STORY has received word that such activity -- which involves passing on information to stock brokers on how the House is going to vote on legislation that affects large companies, such as Defense Appropriations bills -- is a practice that may go beyond a single individual or congressmember's office. Individuals on Capitol Hill have pointed to others already ensnared in the Abramoff probe as possibly having engaged in "day trading."
RAW STORY has acquired a letter sent by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) in November of last year to the House Ethics Committee requesting a formal investigation into the matter. Meghan O'Shaughnessy, Baird's press secretary, confirmed that the committee had received the letter but has not responded to the Democrats' request.
Happy 60th Birthday, Dolly!
I love Dolly Parton. I love her big voice, her big hair, and her big boobs. I love Steel Magnolias and 9 to 5, and lordy if I’ll even admit I own Straight Talk on DVD. (Not to mention one of her favorite films, Harold and Maude.) She is an adorable sasspot, and I just love her to pieces.
I also really admire her. She’s passionate about education, particularly early childhood education, and has done amazing things to give kids who are born in the Appalachian county in which she was born a good start, not to mention kids all over the world. She raises at least a quarter of a million dollars a year doing concerts which support her Dollywood Foundation, which, in part, runs the Imagination Library, providing children who register a new book every month until their fifth birthdays. (So cool.) The foundation has helped her build schools and hospitals, and she regularly performs benefit concerts to support other scholarship and educational programs.
Dolly’s also been an outspoken proponent of women’s rights, and her status as a gay icon (come on—who’s attended a drag show and not seen a Dolly?) is well-deserved beyond her voice and style. A Christian, like Tammy Faye, who seems to have actually read the Bible, she supports gay marriage, and has appeared on the cover of Out, among others. Her production company, Sandollar Productions, which she started with her former longtime manager, business partner, and close friend Sandy Gallin (a gay man), chose as its first project the 1989 Oscar-winning documentary about the making of the AIDS quilt, Common Threads.
Basically, she’s an all-around cool chick.
Dolly likes to say she’s more patriotic than political. Wink wink. Happy birthday to my favorite closet liberal.
Bin Laden Offers Truce
A new audiotape purportedly issued by al-Qaida and featuring the voice of Osama bin Laden says they are still planning attacks in the US but are offering a truce to the American people.
The voice on the tape said he was directing his message to the American people after polls showed that "an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq but (Bush) opposed that desire."Well, yeah, there is shame in that solution, which, although, true enough, would prevent wasting billions of dollars that have lined the pockets of war profiteers, would also leave millions of women, gays, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, and others at the hands of madmen who believe God’s their waterboy. And this exemplifies why Bush’s plan for the war on terror is so bloody bad—it’s left us between a rock and a hard place without a good solution. Endless warmongering in which innocent people suffer, or endless oppression by religious fanatics in which innocent people suffer. I don’t know if there is a good plan at this point to extricate ourselves, and, more importantly, those innocent people, from this madness. We probably just need to hand the reins to Juan Cole and hope for the best.
He said insurgents were winning the conflict in Iraq and warned that security measures in the West and the United States could not prevent attacks there.
"The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of European nations," he said "The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission."
The speaker did not give conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by Al-Jazeera.
"We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war.
"There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America," he said.
Feds Seek to Oogle Your Google
More data-mining, this time in the name of protecting the children. (Heavens, Myrtle! We’ve got to protect the children!)
The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.Dear Government,
The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.
It’s, like, 99% of the time. Because 99% of internet searches are for porn. That’s just a guesstimate, but I think it’s a pretty good one. If all you need to know is how often porn shows up, just go with that and save us all your bull-headed intrusion.
Love,
Shakespeare’s Sister
Meanwhile, Google is refusing to comply. (Good on ya, Google!) They have promised to vigorously fight the government’s request for 1 million random web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period. The government claims that it requires the records in its ongoing effort to defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (struck down as unconstitutional in 2004), which they argue is “far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn.” But, gee—I thought that conservatives believed that the government wasn’t supposed to operate as everyone’s nanny, and that the market will solve all of our problems. How can it be that the government will do a better job protecting children from the horrors of naked people than their own parents? Than the corporations who develop online filters?
Hmm. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that the law is so broad it could easily prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites, too. What a conundrum.
The King of Zembla notes: “No word yet on how the DoJ plans to ascertain which Google porn searches were typed in by minors as opposed to, say, John Ashcroft.“
Cisneros
Wev. Go read Maha for the lowdown. She's got a great post up, and I’m too annoyed to bother.
Breaking News: Jay Leno Has a Big Chin
Oh, and he’s a total ass, too.
Now don’t get me wrong—I don’t expect much from the Lord of Unfunny Late Night, but a segment on last night’s show was so appalling, that it left Mr. Shakes and I both with our mouths hanging open in shock. First of all, I only tuned in because I wanted to see Colin Firth, who was the first guest (and who, by the way, was ever so charming and looking more Mr. Shakes-like than ever with his new beard, thereby deepening my existing crush). So, I watched The Colbert Report, waiting for Leno’s six-hour jokeless monologue to be over, and then flipped over. He still hadn’t gotten to the first guest, but was starting some skit called “Products of Tomorrow,” which should have been called “Jokes of Yesteryear.”
Product #1: A French Army Knife—complete with corkscrew…and white surrender flag! Ho ho ho. Trite; marginally xenophobic. Moving on…
Product #2: The self-healing computer—delivered with an Indian-in-a-box, who said (in a thick Indian accent) that his name was Brandon even though he hailed from New Delhi. “Brandon?” “There are more of us named Brandon all the time!” (Get it? Get it? Ha ha. Outsourcing is so silly!) Complete with red-dotted forehead, he was quite the computer-fixer-upper, who fixed Jay’s computer by slapping it. At the end, he asked Jay if he could do anything else for him. “Yeah,” the comedy maestro replied, “get me a burger and fries.” Somehow the retelling of this skit doesn’t quite manage to evoke how shockingly offensive it actually was. Neither Mr. Shakes nor I find race-based humor inherently offensive (hello, Dave Chappelle); this, however, was not humor—it was just flat-out racism, and left us looking at each other in slack-jawed disbelief. It was just…unbelievable. Racist; xenophobic.
[It was at this point I said, “When do we make fun of women?”]
Product #3: Breast implants attached to The Clapper. Just clap—and they inflate! (I actually may have been more offended by the use of a “Clapper” joke, whose sell-by date was 1987, than the product itself.) The audience was so thrilled with this hilarious Product of Tomorrow that they applauded wildly…thereby causing the implants to explode! Ha ha ha ha ha! Isn’t that hilarious? The best part was the close-up of the disembodied boobs blown to pieces. Hackneyed; sexist.
[It was at this point I said, “When do we make fun of gays?”]
Product #4: Brokeback Mountain saddle from Banana Republic. Modeled on a horse strewn with a hot pink feather boa, the gay saddle featured saddle bags (purses) from Louis Vuitton, a faux leopard skin saddle blanket (“Faux fur,” lisped Jay, “because we’re cowboys!”), a hair dryer instead of a rifle, and a disco ball saddle horn. It was at this point that Mr. Shakes said, “Oh my fucking God,” with a horrified look on his face. The audience laughed uproariously. Homophobic; sexist (so much homophobic humor is also sexist, using women’s items, like handbags, to mock gay men, as if to suggest they’re so ridiculous that they’re almost women!).
Honestly, I cannot even believe this shit is going on in 2006. It’s so infantile. And the thing that really bothers me is that Leno, though resolutely unfunny and annoying, seems to be a pretty nice guy. He has a reputation for being generous—and, at least in his stand-up act, for not relying on sexism or racism for laughs. His wife, Mavis, is the Chair of the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan. Yet here he is, mocking other cultures, minorities, women, and gays for his fat paycheck. And America laughs right along with him.
Well, not all of us.
Get it together, Jay Leno. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
(And yes, I know that there are other things to worry about, but it’s bullshit exactly like this all throughout our culture that aids in the promulgation of all the other stuff we fight against every day.)
I've got a monopoly to maintain! I own the electric company, and the water works... plus the hotel on Baltic Avenue!
Well... look who's come crawling back.
Disney in Talks to Buy Pixar
NEW YORK - The Walt Disney Co. is in serious talks to buy Pixar Animation Studios Inc., the maker of the hit movies "Toy Story" and "Finding Nemo" among others, following months of exploring how to continue their profitable film distribution partnership, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
-snip-
Disney and Pixar have been partners for more than 12 years, allowing Disney to distribute and co-finance popular and profitable Pixar movies that have also included "The Incredibles." But Jobs said two years ago, amid squabbles with then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner, that he would end that relationship when it expires later this year and seek a new distribution partner.
Disney's current CEO Robert Iger, who took over last October, has reportedly made continuing the companies' relationship a priority. Iger last fall allowed Disney TV shows like "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost" to be made available in a format that could be downloaded and played on iPods.
There has been weeks of speculation that Disney might try to take a stake in Pixar or buy it outright.
The Journal said the companies are still haggling over a price, and any major moves in Pixar's stock price could disrupt negotiations. The newspaper said the two sides could decide on a less-ambitious plan, including an agreement for Disney to distribute movies that Pixar finances and makes.
I don't think it came as any big shock to anyone when Pixar dumped Disney. They've been making films far superior to the drek that Disney has been churning out year after year after year. I guess the farm got a little lonely once the cash cow left.
Pixar's films are brilliant; one aspect of them that I really love and appreciate is that they very rarely indulge in the lame attempts at humor and "being hip" that Dreamworks and Disney seem unable to give up.
Fart jokes and belches right in the trailer? That's probably the best joke in the movie. Not a Pixar film.
Lame pop culture references jammed in to the script, presumably so "the parents have something too?" Not a Pixar film.
Maudlin moments that never bring about a genuine emotional response from an audience, but are simple, overly-sentimental heartstring-tugging that more or less leaves you cold? Not a Pixar film.
If you ask me, Pixar is the reason that the "Best Animated Feature" award was created. "Real" actors obviously couldn't take the blow to the ego by being beaten by a cartoon, but Pixar's films are so goddamned good, they became impossible to simply leave out of the Oscars. I'm a big fan of Animation, but I must say, I find the "Animated Feature" award a little insulting. Best Picture should be Best Picture, regardless if it's made with human beings, or zeroes and ones. But I digress.
I suppose the underwhelming response to Chicken Little helped to spur this buying bid.
Citing unnamed people familiar with the plan, the Journal said Disney would pay a nominal premium to Pixar's current market value of $6.7 billion under the deal being discussed in a stock transaction that would make Pixar chief executive Steve Jobs the largest individual shareholder in Disney.
-snip-
Pixar shares were up $3.24, or 5.7 percent, to $60.50 in premarket trading while Disney shares were down 22 cents at $25.
Jobs is the largest shareholder in Pixar, with more than 60 million shares, or 50.6 percent, according to Pixar's filings with securities regulators last year. At its current share price, his stake is worth about $3.44 billion.
Jobs is already a force in the media business as he also heads Apple Computer Inc., which reported Wednesday that first-quarter income nearly doubled on record revenue and big demand for its iPod music players.
You know, it would really do my heart good to see Steve Jobs tell Disney to take a flying leap off the Matterhorn. They obviously don't need the partnership, and Pixar seems to be one of the few movie studios left that believe in the film first, profit second.
Just once, it would be nice to see art trump cash... know what I mean?
G'day, Disney... fancy a chat in my cave?
(Cross-posts are your best entertainment value.)
Syria? Whosit? Whassat?
The McClellatron 3000 is back in action.
QUESTION: There are allegations that we sent people to Syria to be tortured…Can’t you just hear the sneer and feel the spittle as he sputtered out “bloggers” with all the contempt your mother attached to the name of a friend who was always allowed to do everything you weren’t allowed to do?
MCCLELLAN: To Syria?
QUESTION: Yes. You’ve never heard of any allegations like that?
MCCLELLAN: No, I’ve never heard that one. That’s a new one.
QUESTION: Syria? You haven’t heard that?
MCCLELLAN: That’s a new one.
QUESTION: Well, I can assure you it’s been well publicized. My question is…
MCCLELLAN: By what, bloggers?
“But Joey’s allowed to sleep over on school nights!”
“Well, Joey will probably turn out to be a dodo-headed lunatic who has to rob liquor stores to feed his family.”
Or spin Bush administration bullshit like a whirling dervish while Satan swallows his soul in itty, bitty pieces every day.
Abramoff Charged for Face Time with Pres
Bleh:
Although the White House insists President Bush never met Jack Abramoff -- except maybe at large gatherings -- the Texas Observer reports that in May 2001, Abramoff "charged two of his clients $25,000 for a White House lunch date and a meeting with the President."I'd pay $25k to never have to see his sneering mug again. He can go clear brush in Crawford to his heart's content, and I'll just stay out of Texas.
Blunt
Quote of the Day at Political Wire:
"The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren’t a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."Good for him. And the Dispatch reports today that after Ohio Republican Party Chairman Robert T. Bennett said Hackett should apologize, Hackett refused.
-- Ohio U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett (D), quoted in the Columbus Dispatch.
"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it," he said.
“Brokeback Mountain humbled me.”
The following message was left on IMDb, under the title “I’m a Conservative Christian and This Film Changed My Mind.”
I've always been somewhat reluctant to come down hard on homosexuals (in social situations with other church-goers or with my Republican friends at political events). I'm just not the type to judge others out of spite. I've never really known anyone close to me that's gay, although I've met a few people here and there at my work that later I was told were.(Hat tip Broadsheet.)
Last weekend, I was in Dallas and - to make a long story short - I ended up "having" to see this film. It definitely was NOT my choice to do so, but to avoid a confrontation, I relented. Everybody makes this sort of compromise sooner or later, right? If the film we wanted to see hadn't been sold out, I don't think I'd ever have seen "Brokeback Mountain."
It's been four days since I saw the film, and progressively, day after day, I have been forced to admit that I am ashamed of the way I felt about homosexuals. I literally had no concept of what life is truly like for these individuals, and must continue to be. In my heart I know that good, wholesome, long-standing friends of mine - true-believing Christians - have made life horrible for these people when they go out of their way to bad mouth them behind their backs (no one I know I think would get in someone's face), tell their children homosexuals are going to Hell, etc etc.
I can't explain what I'm feeling, but I haven't had this kind of doubt (about the church I go to) since I made the decision a long, long time ago to leave the family business against my father's wishes. I also didn't go into the same branch of the armed forces that he went into. Which is another story. In a way, I guess, my own personal history and my relationship with a disapproving (and uneducated) father somehow made me "get" what Heath Ledger's character goes through. Let me just say that a lot of heartache was involved. The God I believe in, that I teach my kids to trust, would never wish the kind of pain that I went through on anyone, which really I now know for real, is the same kind of pain homosexuals must go through just to live what for them is an honest life, and the choice they must make. I'd never had my eyes opened to this before, not ONE IOTA.
Tonight, winding down, I said a little prayer. It was more or less the same thing that's been going round and round inside my head since I saw this movie... who am I to judge? I honestly was trembling at one point during the credits before we got up to leave, and I had to struggle to re-gain my composure. Now that I am remembering that, it reminds me of the way I trembled when I first asked God to forgive me of my sins and accept me as I am.
"Brokeback Mountain" humbled me.
The thread predictably disintegrated into arguments about whether homosexuality is a sin, whether the poster is “really” a Christian, and if the poster is even real. And though the debates rage on, the poster did come back with a follow-up:
Wow. You all can't imagine the shock I had today of coming back to this comment board and finding all of the responses since I saw the movie last month. Thank you all for the kind things you had to say. Frankly, I'd forgotten all about this website. The holidays were very busy, and I've just gotten back into the swing of things. Also, something happened over Christmas that's been on my mind, and I thought I should share…
"Brokeback Mountain" came up one day while two of my brothers-in-law, father-in-law, and another son-in-law like myself (plus his 18 year old eldest son, a freshman in college) and I went out to breakfast early one morning after some quail hunting. My wife's youngest brother said something about the movie as a joke and everybody else chuckled along like you'd expect. I'd already decided what I was going to do if anybody mentioned it, and I said, "I saw it when I was in Texas. And you know, it was damn good." They all shut up, and it was pretty quiet for awhile. I just kept eating like nothing happened…
It's the same old crap I grew up with. It's like moving a mountain, sometimes, and again that's why I think I connected with this movie so deeply. I don't know how to express it really, but I have to say that the more I think about it and after that breakfast table bit, what with all that gay people have to put up with and still don't give up, stick up for themselves or do the best they can, the more I respect THEM than the people who wish they'd go away or who want to shut them down…
I hope this movie makes a boatload of money. Those two cowboys deserve every cent they get.
Thanks, and hang in there.
Oy, Dems
Well, if you had your hopes up that the Dems would at least present a united front in voting against Alito, even if they weren’t going to filibuster his deserving ass, wave goodbye to that hope. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska has announced his intention to vote affirmatively for Alito’s confimation.
"I have decided to vote in favor of Judge Samuel Alito," Nelson said in a statement issued by his office.Yeah, and the rest of the story talks about Kennedy’s membership in the Owl Club. Awesome.
"I came to this decision after careful consideration of his impeccable judicial credentials, the American Bar Association's strong recommendation and his pledge that he would not bring a political agenda to the court," Nelson said.
In an interview on Fox News Channel, Nelson said Alito made a commitment not to become a judicial activist.
"I have to take him at his word at the moment," Nelson said. "But I think that he will take to the bench his decision-making based on facts and based on cases."
[…]
"I think there won't be a filibuster. I have not heard very many people even talking about it," Nelson told Fox News.
Progressives Still Not Getting It
Shaker Merciless pointed me in the direction of this post by Garance Franke-Ruta at Tapped, which discusses the "Saving Our Democracy" conference scheduled for Jan. 21, described as “a major colloquium to rescue our democracy from the far right” and sponsored by The Nation Institute and The New Democracy Project. Out of the 24 scheduled speakers, only two are female. Says Franke-Ruta:
This may seem like one of those small intra-New York left controversies, and yet it is the kind of thing that happens so frequently in so-called progressive circles around the country that it's worth noting, because it's just this kind of thing that makes people wonder if the men of the left actually prefer being a small, insular clique of out-of-power individuals above adopting the values they publicly espouse.
…I've watched too many male organizers and funders rolling their eyes from the backs of rooms as women raised similar concerns at other forums to think questions like this are unique to the New Democracy Project or this particular conference…
[C]ontroversies like this benefit no one. They make women feel diminished and excluded, and men feel like they're never going to be able to organize a simple public conversation with their professional friends without getting hit over the head with identity politics. And yet the same sad script keeps playing out, over and over again, until everyone feels like throwing up their hands in despair.
(The post includes written responses from The Nation’s Katha Pollitt and Lisa Jervis, the publisher of Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture, which I recommend reading, too.)
Some of the comments left in response to the post tell the story of why this is a problem that needs to be addressed (emphasis mine).
more circular firing squad style headcount based dissent within the ranks of the left. How many black people are on the panel? Is there an outspoken lesbian poet? Jesus, it's no wonder we can't get anything done. I don't care if the only good ideas that occur to the left for the next 20 years come from men or women, or talking dogs. What needs to happen is we need for the good ideas to be heard above the din of everyone wanting to be heard because they are so enthralled with the sonorous tones of their own voices…What I love about all three of those comments is the assertion that the Left needs new “ideas,” but doesn’t need to concern itself with diversifying its inner sanctum. Not a shred of recognition that perhaps the ideological stagnation from which the Left suffers may be a result of its major power players still being predominantly white, straight, and male—which, by the way, wouldn’t be a problem if those particular straight, white males could and did speak eloquently to progressive issues of concern to women, gays, and minorities, but they don’t. And it’s not because they can’t—Paul the Spud can speak just as passionately about women’s issues as I can, and I can speak just as passionately about gay issues as he can. Extricating oneself from the responsibility of speaking to issues beyond one’s own demographic is a choice, and marginalizing the concerns of women (for example) as “identity politics” is indicative of nothing more than the unwillingness to identify with women.
The prescription is for Democrats to start promoting ideas that benefit liberalism and not paralyzing themselves with absurd infighting on ridiculous issues like gender and ethnicity-counting…
It sounds to me as if "vigilance" here is code for "quotas" -- or at least something similar. Nothing good can come of that. Nothing in this earth will change while identity politics rules. Nothing. Until we start respecting only ideas and action and refusing to acknowledge what kind of "identity" is bringing it forward, we will be beating each other up continually instead of the turning our passions against the true enemies…
The idea that “a major colloquium to rescue our democracy” doesn’t actually look like our democracy is patently absurd. And, frankly, I no longer have the slightest tolerance or sympathy for men who “feel like they're never going to be able to organize a simple public conversation with their professional friends without getting hit over the head with identity politics.” I couldn’t organize a meeting of my friends and colleagues without including both men and women, straights and gays, and people of all colors—not because I have a love of “quotas,” but because my life is rich with people different than me by virtue of living in America, and my appreciation of a spectrum of experience.
No more excuses. If you want to avoid being head-thumped with identity politics, then start identifying.
Question of the Day
I thought this QotD was a little silly, but Shakes liked it, so here we go:
What film do you think should have won the Oscar for Best Picture that was never nominated for the award? (And didn't have much of a chance in the first place?)
It's such an easy answer: Shaun of the Dead.
What? That's my choice. Stop laughing.
Look... not only do you have a great zombie movie with some genuine scares (longtime readers will know that I have a particular weakness for zombie flicks), but there are some genuine, heartfelt moments that never slide into complete sap. The acting is top-notch, there isn't one joke that falls flat, and it even made me tear up at one point.
Seriously, if you've never seen it, rent it. Even if you "don't like horror movies." Because this is a lot more than a horror movie. It's a romantic comedy (the ads billed it as "A romantic comedy... with zombies"), it's a buddy picture, it's scary, it's funny, it's sweet, it's wry, it's got a killer soundtrack, it's a hell of a good time...
Dammit, it's why you go to the movies in the first place.
Shaun of the Dead: Best Picture of 2004. Robbed at the Oscars.
How 'bout you?
Breaking News: King Dick Gets Fitted for Throne
Oh, my mistake. He’s actually just lounging in a gilded chair while hanging out with his peeps in Oil Land. Ya know—when in Rome. Or something.
(Seriously, what the eff look is that on his face? Is he smiling? Grimacing? Passing a stone? Passing wind? I hope someone got him an aspirin in case it was another heart attack. Honestly, the man of a thousand disturbing faces, he is.)
Now, Lord Fashion Tragedy is known for inappropriate attire, but I’m hoping someone can please explain to me what the deal is with these shoes. The man’s like a freaking gazillionaire. Can’t he afford something a little spiffier than Hush Puppies?
Wev
House Republicans Unveil New Ethics Plan:
House Republicans moved to seize the initiative for ethics reform Tuesday with a comprehensive package of changes, including the banning of privately sponsored travel like that arranged by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.So, in other words, the biggest abuse isn’t getting addressed. Well, knock me over with a feather.
The package also includes a virtual ban on gifts, except for inconsequential items like baseball caps, and a provision that will affect few people: elimination of congressional pensions for anyone convicted of a felony related to official duties.
[…]
Current congressional rules prohibit lobbyists from paying for travel for members of Congress and their staff.
But qualified private sponsors can pay for food, transportation and lodging when lawmakers travel to meetings, speaking engagements or fact-finding events in connection with official duties. Abramoff's clients had contributed to his nonprofit organizations, allowing those groups to sponsor congressional travel.
Abramoff was cited for arranging lavish trips for DeLay, R-Texas, to the Northern Mariana Islands and to Scotland, where he played golf at St. Andrews. DeLay has said he did not know Abramoff paid for the travel and asked the House ethics committee to look into the trips. The panel has taken no action.
"Supporting" the Troops
I wonder what Michelle Malkin would have to say about this little story?
Nothing, I'm sure. Unless Hillary Clinton makes a statement about it.
Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.
-snip-
On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that "all" commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.
"We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) is heavy, but it is made so we have mobility and the best ballistic protection out there. This is crazy. And they are threatening us with our benefits if we don't comply." he said.
But they don't really want body armor, right Michelle?
(Energy dome tip to Crooks & Liars)
(Come cross-post through the tulips with me...)
Dems on the Go-Go
Vacation...all I ever wanted!
Vacation...had to get away!
Via John at AMERICAblog comes this dire snippet from a Sunday Times article:
Democratic aides said there had been even less strategy than usual in trying to coordinate the questioning by the eight Democratic senators. The situation was complicated because senators and staff were out of Washington before the hearing.I was pretty outraged, until I found out they couldn’t be reached by email, fax, phone, or any other modern means of instant communication because they were in Australia doing individual walkabouts in the outback. Apparently, Karl Rove suggested to them it would be a good teambuilding activity.
Twits.
Last Friday, Pam excerpted a transcript from an episode of Anderson Cooper 360 on which Alan Dershowitz appeared. Based on Alito's claim that his personal views have no bearing on how he would rule on cases, Dershowitz suggested a line of questioning that, as Pam noted, "would have blown the hearings wide open."
DERSHOWITZ: Well, you know, if I were a senator, I'd ask them the following question. I would say, "You have said that your personal views are utterly irrelevant to how you will decide cases. We don't agree with you on that. But since you've said that, let's ask you some really hard questions about your personal views."Even if they knew how, they weren't prepared.
"Is your mother right when she says that you personally strongly oppose a woman's right to choose abortion? What do you personally think of gay rights? What do you personally think of affirmative action?"
He couldn't say, "Well, I can't give you those answers because it will come before me." No, no, no, no. You've told us that your personal views are irrelevant. We think they're relevant, so give us the answers. I think it's a very, very hard question for him to duck.
[...]
Some of the best appellate court judges tell us in advance what their views are. There is nothing inconsistent with a judge expressing his views but keeping an open mind. And they ought to demand of every nominee, Republican or Democrat, "Tell us what your current views are or what your past views were."
[...]
Senators don't know how to ask these hard questions.
Do I sympathize with Senators needing a vacation? Yes. And yet I don't think I've ever had a vacation from work during which I wasn't called at least once by my employer. I was called on my honeymoon. I was called when out of town for my grandmother's funeral. I had a boss who used to like to call me to brainstorm at 2am. (I didn't accommodate him, but it didn't stop him from ringing anyway and leaving rambling voicemails on my answering machine.) And I don't think my situation is that unusual. Lots of people can't ever totally get away, and most of us don't have the very future of the country depending on us.
The University of Sugar, Spice, and Everything Nice
The lovely Jessica at Feministing points us in the direction of The Nation's Katha Pollitt's response to logic-impaired NY Times columnist John Tierney's blathering screed on the feminization of education, "Male Pride and Female Prejudice," which contained such gems as:
Advocates for women have been so effective politically that high schools and colleges are still focusing on supposed discrimination against women. You could think of this as a victory for women's rights, but many of the victors will end up celebrating alone.One might suggest to Tierney that the choice to celebrate one's personal success alone, granted by the freedom that self-sufficiency allows, is in itself indeed a victory for women's rights, but I suspect the thought of a woman who prefers independence to a life attached to a strawman who is only available to her if she's uneducated is a concept he has trouble grasping. I understand; it's tough to wrap one's mind around such convoluted and implausible hypotheticals. Ahem.
Pollitt notes in her response to Tierney:
If the mating game worked fine when women were ignorant and helpless and breaks down when they smarten up, that certainly tells us something about marriage.An excellent point. Clearly, the education of women is threatening the sanctity of marriage. Are you listening, Karl Rove? I suggest you dispatch Tierney, Brooks, O'Beirne et al to write columns to this effect at once, and set a Protection of Marriage Amendment in motion STAT.
(Related reading: Mannion starts a series on gender and education.)
Good Lord
Ted Kennedy was outed as a member of the Owl Club, “a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership.”
In an interview with WHDH Channel 7’s Andy Hiller that aired last night, Kennedy said, “I joined when I . . . 52 years ago, I was a member of the Owl Club, which was basically a fraternal organization.”The Owl Club is simply not of the same ilk as Conservative Alumni of Princeton—the group which Alito had on his résumé but has no recollection of ever being a part of—who sought to keep women and minorities out of Princeton altogether. Yet, in being an exclusively male group from whom Harvard disassociated itself after legislation endorsed by Kennedy himself, it’s got the whiff of similarity, and that’s, as we all know, enough these days. And, quite honestly, Kennedy should have given them the old heave-ho long ago, and he sounds like a jackass when he says stuff like “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”
Asked by Hiller whether he is still a member, Kennedy said, “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”
He then said of being a member in a club that discriminates against women, “I shouldn’t be and I’m going to get out of it as fast as I can.”
The Harvard Crimson reports that, in 1984, the university severed ties with clubs like the Owl, citing a federal law championed by Kennedy.
Meanwhile, Kennedy admitted to Hiller that he himself probably couldn’t pass Judiciary Committee muster.
“Probably not . . . probably not,” Kennedy said.
Democrats can’t run on a platform of integrity unless they are willing to have integrity. That simple.
(This story is all over the conservative blogosphere, btw—and I see by doing a search that now Limbaugh and O’Reilly are on it, too. Too bad. Another blow for liberals because Dems can’t walk the walk.)
How Do You Defend the Indefensible?
Well, you don't of course. It's much easier to engage in cheap character attacks. After all, that's what Tiggers the Bush team does best.
White House Rejects Gore Assertion on Eavesdropping
I know. You're shocked. Sit down and drink some ginger ale; you'll feel all right in a moment. (Bolds mine)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday rejected Al Gore's assertion that President George W. Bush broke the law in authorizing domestic eavesdropping and said the former vice president's comments showed "hypocrisy."
Ahem.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended Bush's authorization as legal and aimed at detecting and preventing attacks.
"This is aimed at international communications involving someone who is associated with al Qaeda. This is about connecting the dots and preventing attacks from happening," McClellan said. "It is a vital tool in our efforts to preventing further attacks inside the United States."
Gore, the Democratic challenger who lost to Bush in the 2000 presidential election, made the comments at the start of a congressional election year in which the domestic eavesdropping flap has become an issue.
First of all... Scotty... no one is saying that Bush doesn't have the right to protect Americans. That's part of his "job," after all. No one is saying that Bush can't spy on people suspected of terrorism. The warrant policies have been in place since the 70's, after all, and it would be foolish to assume that no spying has been done after your favorite date in the whole wide world, 9/11.
The point, dear Scotty, is that this was done without a warrant. Bush broke the law. That is the problem here. I would expect the government to do some spying in order to "protect Americans." However, if the President is going to do some spying on Americans, he'd better have a damn good reason.
And he'd better have a warrant.
And please don't give me that "What if there was no time? We don't have time to wait to get a warrant" silliness. It's just pathetic, really.
Second... can we please stop saying that Gore lost to Bush in the 2000 election when he makes statements that are critical of Bush and his administration? This is not a simple issue of sour grapes. Thank you.
"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore.
How exactly is stating that Bush has broken the law hypocritical? Has Gore somehow committed a crime against the Constitution and the American people?
"I'd just say if Al Gore is going to be the voice of Democrats on national security matters, we welcome it," he said.
You know what? If that would mean more speeches like yesterday, I'll welcome it too. Now get back to your LiteBrite and let the grownups talk, Scottie.
Fortunately, the ACLU is not being blinded by the 9/11 smokescreen, and has filed a lawsuit.
NEW YORK - Civil liberties groups filed lawsuits in two cities Tuesday seeking to block President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program, arguing the electronic surveillance of American citizens was unconstitutional.
The U.S. District Court lawsuits were filed in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights and in Detroit by the
American Civil Liberties Union.
The New York suit, filed on behalf of the center and individuals, names President Bush, the head of the National Security Agency, and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA's surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization.
It seeks an injunction that would prohibit the government from conducting surveillance of communications in the United States without warrants.
Which is, of course, the way Bush was supposed to behave in the first place. We're suing the president to require him to get a warrant before spying on Americans... when he already needs a warrant before spying on Americans.
I'm living in a cuckoo clock.
So, now that the ACLU is involved, I'm sure Bill O'Reilly will be frothing at the mouth over this. Although a supposed "independent thinker" really should be more concerned with the fact that the President is breaking the law. But that's expecting a bit much of falafelboy.
What about Malkin? I'm sure she had some scathing words for Gore.
Gee... not a word. What a shock.
Of course, there's plenty of time and bandwidth to further bash Hillary Clinton for daring to suggest that soldiers should have more, or better body armor. By the way, she's still using examples of soldiers saying they "don't want more" by only quoting men in the army, ignoring the Marines; the soldiers that the Pentagon report was about in the first place.
Malkin: All Hillary-Bashing, all the time.
I guess a President that breaks the law isn't worthy of her precious "sober analysis."
(I knew a girl named cross-post, I guess u could say she was a sex fiend...)
Daddy Depp
Last night, when he was being interviewed on the red carpet on his way into the Golden Globez, Johnny Depp told whichever generic presenter was shoving a mic in his face that he came up with Willy Wonka’s voice while playing Barbies with his daughter. I thought that was the cutest thing ever (even though I’m not a particular fan of Barbies, for all the expected reasons). It’s not the first time Depp has talked about playing Barbies with his little girl, and although I know it causes all sorts of eye-rolling among certain people, I think his willingness to talk so openly and honestly about engaging his daughter through activities she likes—activities in which dads especially don’t tend to engage with their daughters—is really laudable.
Traditionally, dads—if they engaged much with their young children at all—restricted their interaction with daughters to high-energy activities like learning to ride a bike, sports, general roughhousing, etc. Now, I think dads are much more engaged generally with their children, but it’s still a shock (if a pleasant one) to hear a father talking about playing with dolls with his daughter.
It’s valuable for girls to have their fathers spend time immersed in their daughter’s interests, which generally happens more frequently with mothers and sons, as moms drive their boys to Little League games or attend chess club matches, whatever. A father showing an interest in a “girlish” pursuit is important not only to validate its worth, but to reinforce the notion that don’t have to suppress their own interests in favor of a male partners’ in order to spend quality time with him. A lot of girls learn from a very young age that male attention is held more easily if they do something a man enjoys, rather than the other way around. It’s no surprise to me that straight daughters raised by two parents of the same sex tend to show this inclination less.
Limted, Bitches! Limited!
If there’s anything this administration has taught us, it’s that the more Bush and his minions say something, the less likely it is to be true. (See: WMDs; Plame leak didn’t come from White House; the GOP is a big tent. That ought to get you started, and once your mind stops spinning, I can give you further suggestions for investigation, if you like.) So I really like Bush’s most recent defense of his spy program:Monday, January 16, 2006:
President Bush on Sunday strongly defended his domestic spying program, saying it's a limited program that tracks only incoming calls to the United States…
"This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America and, I repeat, limited," he said.
In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.Now, I recognize that the president and I define some words very differently. Freedom. Democracy. Equality. Legal. But I never suspected we’d find ourselves in contention about a word as basic a limited, the definition of which I’ve always considered to be rather straightforward.
But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.
F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.
In truth, I’m less concerned about the encroachment of civil rights (although that is, clearly, a concern) than the utter uselessness of usurping so many agents’ time with twaddle. Hundreds of agents checking out dead-end tips the source of which were deliberately blurred so as to keep them ignorant of the illegality of their sourcing—what a time waster. What a perilous distraction from real threats to national security.
Those who rabidly defend the administration’s right to engage in warrantless eavesdropping and data mining—because it’s “necessary” to keep us “safe”—are fooling themselves. We’re not safer. Indeed, we may be less safe, because such untargeted nonsense doesn’t make finding the proverbial needle in the haystack any easier; it makes the haystack even bigger.
(More from The Heretik, Brilliant at Breakfast, and Ezra.)
