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.
