Shakesville

Photo Dump

Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf addresses a join session of Congress, while Don’t Care and Not Interested stare off into space behind her. Someday, here in the Land of Opportunity, maybe we’ll even get a black female president of our very own! (AFP/Paul J. Richards)

Yeesh—an FBI sweatshirt made in China. The actual caption read, “The US current account deficit widened to a colossal new high of 804.9 billion dollars in 2005 as consumers binged on cheap imported goods, the government said.” Consumers including the government, apparently. (AFP/File/Brendan Smialowski)

Awww. How cute is that? I couldn’t help posting it; the cockles of my heart needed warming. “A three-month-old Southern Tamandua, also known as an anteater, walks during a press preview at the Sunshine International Aquarium in Tokyo March 13, 2006. The baby Southern Tamandua was born last November, the first time an anteater has been borne and raised at an aquarium or a zoo in the country, an aquarium official said.” (REUTERS/Issei Kato)

Overdue for a Reckoning

Garrison Keillor on The Current Occupant and the Republican Revolution:

The Republican Revolution has gone the way of all flesh…

Over the course of time, the Chief Occupant has been cruelly exposed over and over. He sat and was briefed on the danger of a hurricane wiping out a major American city, and without asking a single question, he got up from the table and walked away and resumed his vacation. He played guitar as New Orleans was flooded. It took him four days to realize his responsibility to do something. When the tsunami killed 100,000 people in Southeast Asia, he was on vacation and it took him 72 hours to issue a statement of sympathy.

The Republicans tied their wagon to him and, as a result, their revolution is bankrupt…

And now it's up to Republicans to put their country first and call the gentleman to account.

Read the whole thing.

Stirring Call to Arms from Democratic Leadership

Oops. Nope—just a TV character.

"We are waiting for death."

David Bull, the executive director of Unicef UK, is visiting Kenya as part of Unicef’s attempt to address the food shortage crisis in Africa, which is currently affecting large parts of the continent.

Around eight million people are on the brink of starvation in the Horn of Africa due to severe drought, crop failure and depletions of livestock, while around 12 million people in southern Africa need emergency food aid.

The causes are complex: poverty, gender inequality, lack of education and poor child care practices, compounded by drought or flooding, conflict and HIV/AIDS. What is clear is that the food shortages are a potential disaster for millions of children.

He has dispatched a three-part series to the Guardian’s News Blog, and I highly recommend reading it. Each installment is short but powerful, painting a vivid picture of how all those complex causes work in tandem to create and cultivate this appalling crisis.

Part One. Part Two. Part Three.

You'll also find information on how to help, if you can.

(Also of interest: A new ocean is forming in the Afar Triangle near the Horn of Africa with staggering speed—at least by geological standards.)

This Makes Perfect Sense

Because everyone knows that gays are gossipy ninnies who will spill security secrets to a different trick every night of the week.

The Bush administration last year quietly rewrote the rules for allowing gays and lesbians to receive national-security clearances, drawing complaints from civil rights activists.

The Bush administration said security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." But it removed language saying sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a security clearance."

The White House sought to play down the changes, approved by President Bush in December, as an effort to ensure the security clearance rules are consistent with a 1995 executive order about access to classified information.

"The minor language change did not and was not intended to alter the way sexual orientation is treated," National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said Tuesday. "The U.S. government policy has not changed in any way."

If that’s true, then the US government has been taking sexual orientation into consideration as a factor when reviewing someone’s eligibility for security clearance, even though they weren’t supposed to be. Old language: Sexual orientation may not be used as a basis or a disqualifying factor. New language: Sexual orientation may not be used as the sole factor. I call bullshit.

Lesbian and gay advocacy groups recently found the change in an 18-page document distributed by National security adviser Stephen Hadley on Dec. 29, without public notice…

"It looks as if lesbian and gay service members especially may face some additional roadblocks to obtaining their security clearances," said [Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Washington-based Servicemembers Legal Defense Network], whose group advocates on behalf of gays and lesbians in the military.

He said his organization has been getting calls from service members who don't understand the changes. "In the law, subtlety can have even unintended, major consequences. We are very concerned — and curious," he said.

So, just for the record:

Highly-trained, qualified, and gay—May be denied security clearance.

Possessing critical translation skills and gay—Fired.

Administration shill and gay prostitute—Access to press corps and classified info.

Got it.

Sausage Hocker

From an MSNBC Where Are They Now? of political scandals:

Linda Tripp

Tripp became Lewinsky's confidante and secretly recorded her talking about the affair. After becoming a figure of derision, she quit her Pentagon job and now sells bratwurst at her German deli in Middleburg, Va.

Old Dirty Bastard

What the hell is Bush doing in this picture?

Pam suggests he’s “flashing some sort of gang sign to his White House boyz that his Medicare plan blows chunks.”

Either that or sending an OG communiqué to his peeps at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cut his boy Wayans some slack. He’s going to have a need for comfy but stylish casual wear in his near future, and, once he’s out of office, he won’t have any use for that cowboy costume anymore.

It’s hard out there for a pimp.

Fainting Couch Alert!

Bush and Rummy are liars.

Cernig, who sent along the article link by email, says, “Pace says they have absolutely no proof then Rummy goes of on a paranoid warble, again with no evidence in sight, trying to salvage the situation. Pity Bush used the IED claim in his speech yesterday, eh? And where does this leave ABC's investigative reporter Brian Ross and expert Richard Clarke now eh? Looking like Bush stooges, that's where.”

Yep. That about sums it up.

Dodging Dems

The Dems react to Feingold’s resolution:

"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama…

"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson…

"I really can't right now," John Kerry said as he hurried past a knot of reporters…

Hillary Rodham Clinton brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder…

Sen. Charles Schumer, known for his near-daily news conferences, made history by declaring, "I'm not going to comment." Would he have a comment later? "I dunno," the suddenly shy senator said…

"Was it a good idea for Senator Feingold to bring up this resolution?" came the first question, from CNN's Ed Henry.

"He brings up some very important issues," Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) ventured.

Henry was unsatisfied. "So do you support censure, or not?

Stabenow took another stab. "It needs to have hearings," she said.

Mary Landrieu (La.) pursed her lips. "Senator Feingold has a point that he wants to make," she said. "We have a point that we want to make, talking about the budget."

…The number two Democratic leader, Richard Durbin (Ill.), darted out of an elevator and into lunch when he thought nobody was looking.

"I haven't made any judgment," said Jeff Bingaman (N.M.)…

"Most of us feel at best it's premature," announced Sen. Christopher Dodd (Conn.). "I don't think anyone can say with any certainty at this juncture that what happened is illegal."

…"It's a question that's been asked 33 times in the last few hours," [Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid responded to reporters who asked where he stood]. "And so, for the 34th time, I'm going to say the same thing: I'm going to wait . . .''

Credit to Iowa’s Tom Harkin, who is apparently the only Senate Democrat currently supporting Feingold.

"The president broke the law and he needs to be held accountable," he said. "Talk about high crimes and misdemeanors!" Harkin said he'll vote for the Feingold resolution -- if it comes up.

That wasn’t so hard now, was it?

Take this quiz, nigga

Multiple-choice question, 10 points: That Damon Wayans wants to trademark the word 'nigga' so that he can slap it on a bunch of overpriced hoodies and baggy-ass pants is:

a betrayal of the race and it makes the ghost of Coretta Scott King cry
crass commercialism, but no worse than we've seen before
Wayans' admission that he lacks faith in his acting career
a distraction from the many crimes of George Bush

This ain't no educational venture. From the silence of Wayans' paid spokespeople when asked about the patent application, it's clear that Wayans isn't interested in any kind of public debate about 'nigger' and its variants. He just wants to get paid. Looks like he'll have to resort to actual work.

Bonus essay question: Should WaPO writer Darryl Fears should be summarily fired for employing this cheesy line:

But the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office don't play that.

Ten minutes, kids, then pencils down.

(Never a cross-post word...)

Shakes on a Plane

So I recently came across a discussion thread where people were posting fake movie posters. The concept was based on the upcoming Samuel L. Jackson thriller with the laughably simplistic title Snakes on a Plane. Some of the posters are groaners, but some gave me a genuine chuckle.

Two of my favorites are posted below: a spoof of the absurd Batman and Robin and, in the spirit of our previous Natalie Portman love, a more to-the-point title for Leon. Check it out!

Question of the Day

Okay, chaps, so what's your favorite sitcom?

But what about The Button?!

Laura Bush says America is ready for a female president—and you know whatever she says is gold, bitches.

During an exchange with reporters, Mrs. Bush was asked if the United States was prepared to have a woman in the Oval Office.

"Sure, absolutely," she replied. "I'm voting for the Republican woman."

(She also complimented women in the condescending, wow-you’ve-exceeded-my-expectations sort of way that conservatives love—“top-drawer blacks”—while viewing an exhibit at the National Museum of Women in the Arts featuring archaeological finds from Mexico and Peru that reveal women used to be “warriors, governors, artists, poets, and priestesses” long before the Europeans landed on these shores. She noted that the exhibit “really show[s] what a heritage we have in our hemisphere, a really very, very organized and intellectual society.” Wev. Let’s get back to this whole Republican female president thing.)

First of all, the social conservative base of the GOP doesn’t want to give women equality, so I can’t imagine their bestowing the authoritarian leadership they prefer in a president upon a woman in a million zillion years. When patriarchy is your preferred model of societal organization, you vote for Daddy, not Mommy.

But leaving electability concerns aside for a moment, let’s just say that America were ready for a Republican female president. Who the hell would be on that shortlist?

Condi Rice.

That is indeed a very short shortlist.

Maybe, maybe, Elizabeth Dole has the national cachet to mount a halfway viable presidential run. I can’t think of anyone else. There’s no shortage of prominent female wingnuts, but Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and Phyllis Schlafly aren’t exactly presidential material. (Not that that stopped Mr. Laura Bush, but at least he had a faux governorship and an authentic former president for a dad on his scorecard.) I’ve never even heard of either of the two current female GOP governors—M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut or Linda Lingle of Hawaii. I also can’t remember the last time a Republican woman ran in the presidential primaries or was put on a presidential ticket.

Now, granted, the Dems don’t do much better here, but aside from their presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, their House Minority Speaker is Nancy Pelosi, they’ve had a female VP candidate in my lifetime, Geraldine Ferraro, they had a female presidential candidate in the last election, Carol Moseley-Braun, and, with no small thanks to the likes of the O’Reillys, Hannitys, and Limbaughs of the world, Barbara Boxer has gotten lots of national exposure in the past couple of years. I recognize the names of all but one (Ruth Ann Miner) of the six current female Dem governors—the other five being Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Kathleen Blanco, Jennifer Granholm, and Christine Gregoire. It’s not exactly a spectacular record, but it beats the GOP by more than a nose.

So, it’s nice that Mrs. Bush is keen to vote for a Republican woman and all, but I sincerely doubt it’s going to happen anytime soon. Maybe if the GOP stopped being so hostile to women, they might have a wider field from which to choose a female candidate.

Portman

Speaking of V for Vendetta, another reason I’m looking forward to seeing it is Natalie Portman. Every time we talk about actors we like or don’t like around here, she’s one of the people who tends to get a lot of thumbs-down, but I love her. And to anyone who insists the girl can’t act, I refer you promptly to Leon (aka The Professional).

Anyhow, she’s also profiled in April’s issue of Vanity Fair (which you can read here), and here are some more reasons for me to love her rotten:

She wears sneakers every day (usually Converse), and for special events, like the Oscars or Golden Globes, a brand called Beyond Skin, vegan footwear that looks a lot like Easy Spirit. She doesn't wear diamonds to such events, but rather "conflict-free" earrings, such as $3 knockoffs from a place called Claire's that she swears look just the same. She drives a Prius…

Anyone who has spent real time with her invariably comes away mesmerized; first by her exquisite beauty, which she seems oblivious to, and then by the thing that sets her apart from almost every actor in Hollywood—a total, intelligent absorption in everything but herself. Her curiosity about the world knows no bounds. She will talk breathlessly about her old law professor Alan Dershowitz's ideas on justified torture, or about how the New Zealand Moriori tribe's philosophy of nonviolence doomed them to extinction, or how the two-party system is hampering American politics. She never sounds pompous, because it's all punctuated with "like"s, goofy laughs, and the word "super," which she frequently uses as a prefix to adjectives. "She's got a little bit of the spaz going on," says Peter Sarsgaard, who worked with her in 2004's Garden State…

And for the past few years she has thrown herself into her charitable work with the Foundation for International Community Assistance (FINCA), an organization she discovered through a meeting with Queen Rania of Jordan that provides micro-loans to poor women in developing countries who are starting small businesses. Between trips for FINCA to Uganda, Guatemala, and Ecuador, she has had one-on-one sit-downs with members of Congress, including Hillary Clinton and John McCain, to discuss the organization and its issues.

If things seriously go down the crapper big time in this joint, my sincerest hope is that Natalie Portman buys a small island somewhere with her Star Wars residuals and invites us all to live there, where we’ll immediately crown her our progressive princess.

And in case you haven’t seen it yet, here’s some extra NP fun for your viewing pleasure. It's, like, totally superhilarious.

Protest Films Making a Comeback

Revolutionary Ideas are Afoot:

The day before the Academy Awards, a swarm of the people behind this year's amazing crop of politically conscious films were enjoying a warm day in the courtyard of Bob Bookman's Hancock Park home, scene of the CAA agent's annual celebration of his agency's Oscar nominees. In one corner was "Crash" director Paul Haggis, not far away from Grant Heslov, producer of "Good Night, and Good Luck," while across the way were Tony Kushner and Eric Roth, the screenwriters of "Munich."

But what really struck me, as I roamed around, was that virtually every filmmaker I stopped to talk with was at work on a socially conscious film — and these were the other people at the party, not the guys preparing Oscar speeches. Maybe it was the tangy spring air, but it felt as if the '70s were back again. For years, film lovers have waxed nostalgic about the heady days of '70s cinema, when, inspired by the trauma of Vietnam and Watergate, a seemingly endless array of movies offered a bracing critique of American society.

Suddenly that era doesn't seem so distant at all. The socially engaged atmosphere that dominated the Oscars this year is not going away.

Huzzah. As long as they’re good.

There are a few examples of upcoming films in the article, if you’re interested. As for me, I’m looking forward to V for Vendetta, which has a stupid title, but I want to see it nonetheless, since it was written by the Wachowski brothers.

And, you know, for other reasons.

(Hat tip Ezra.)

“Lust Stalks You Like a Beast”

Now, at Shakes Manor, we consider this A Good Thing. Being caught in the grips of the beast of lust is considered An Even Better Thing, for all the reasons you nasty, fellating, clitty-licking, ass-pounding, Kama Sutra-reading, multiple orgasm-having progressives know, resisting as you do the notion that sex is meant to be a ~~beautiful~~ boring thing to be shared by a man and his wife for the express purpose of babymaking in the god-sanctioned missionary position only.

Dr. James Dobson, however, knows that for the chaste and decent sheep in his flock, the stalking lust-beast is a Very Bad Thing. Especially for teenage boys.

Lust stalks you like a beast, attacking at every opportunity, attempting to poison your life with its self-centered cravings. We're convinced that it's a teen guy's No. 1 battle. Some Christian boys even feel defeated, abandoned by God and riddled with guilt for their weaknesses. Yet we've met others - countless others - who are winning the war. What's their secret? How are many teens able to stand strong, while others are giving up?

The answer is consistent wait training.

Wait training! Get it?! Oh, Dr. Dobson—you cunning linguist.

Guys who are victorious have learned to face present and future temptations head-on. They've put into practice a purity game plan that works!

A purity game plan. Just what every teen boy dreams of.

Apparently, it’s too much to ask that teens be treated as more than throbbing, hormone-addled berserkoids who will have sex with anything that moves if they’re not repressed with imagery of fighting their urges in a grand battle of good vs. evil. Most of us, however, managed to make it through our teenage years without becoming sex-drenched nutcases—including those who would have been were it not for a lack of opportunity. A little good (and fact-based) information goes a long way.

As for repression, well, we know where that gets you. Good conservatives, one and all.

Pam’s got more from Dr. Dobson’s Focus on the Family website, Breakaway.

Religion and politics

The Green Knight tracks a food-fight about religion and politics across the blogosphere in a great post. He starts at Amy Sullivan, whose comment regarding Senator Brownbeck seemed to start the latest round.

Finally, a religious candidate who actually deserves the scorn of the knee-jerk left.

Notes the Knight:

It was a fairly dopey quip made in passing, but it prompted a very good response from Digby, who pointed out that in fact, there are plenty of religious people whom the left have supported politically. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a non-religious person whom the left has supported.

From there, he takes us by way of Steve Waldman, Atrios, and Avedon Carol, Faithful Progressive, and back to Atrios again. If, by now, your head is spinning, fear not. The Knight is about to ground us all again.

I too have made the mistake of thinking that there is hostility in the establishment left to religious people. It is indeed a mistake to think that, as Shakes, Digby, Avedon, and others have pointed out again and again. Mea culpa. It just isn't true…

So who's actually to blame? Well, I'm pretty sure that it's actually the right-wing corporate media. I can't help thinking about the way in which the networks refused to run those United Church of Christ ads about tolerance and neighborly love, even while cozying up continually to people like James Dobson and Pat Robertson… And, how much attention does a group like the Christian Alliance for Progress get compared to the cretins at Justice Sunday? You do the math.

The Knight goes on to point out that some lefty bloggers charge the religious left with not being aggressive enough with their counterspin, but finds, quite rightly, that religious progressives don’t fit the media script, so carelessly constructed by years of buying into the nonsensical (and flatly untrue) rightwing insistence that they’ve got the market cornered on religion. Like many progressive voices, religious lefties face a real struggle to get past the media gatekeepers, who don’t know where to put them in their well-rehearsed script that casts conservatives exclusively in religious roles.

Clearly, progressives are not hostile to religion. It would be difficult to find a major party ticket not rife with religiosity anywhere in America. When Democrats don't win, it isn't because lefties are staying home pouting about the lack of atheists to vote for. Progressives, instead, are hostile to the authoritarian and oppressive elements of the particular brand of religion that the media and much of the GOP regards as not only the only religion in America, but as the singular source of morality. And on the occasions when progressives are hostile to religious Dems, it's because they have tried to out-god the GOP by playing the same game, rather than changing the rules.

It's the same old tired moral values issue, and the Dems can't win that game, because it's fixed. I longingly wait for a Democrat to respond to a god-wielding Republican by saying, flatly and plainly, "Your religion is not the singular genesis of morality. There are people who look at the same holy book you do and take away from it a much different set of values--caring for the poor, peacefulness, and equality for all, for a start. There are people who look at different holy books and come away with divergent ideas of morality. There are people who turn to philosophy, or science, or the rule of law for their moral inspiration. Most people derive their morality from a combination of these things, and I refuse to acknowledge your premise that your preferred source is the only source. Many of us consider granting marriage equality to gays moral. Many of us consider extending reproductive choice to all women moral. Many of us consider a social safety net moral. And lots of us who believe those things are Christians. Those who aren't have no less claim to their set of moral values than do you."

If a Democrat actually said something like this during a debate, instead of trying to out-god a Republican, I would faint where I stood from applause exhaustion.

(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)

The Mind Absolutely Boggles

When you read stuff like this:

Why Do Blacks Continue To Support Democrats?

(No bolding, because, well, the whole thing is completely jaw-dropping.)

One of these days before I die, I hope to see a shift in the attitudes of so many of my black brothers and sisters in this great country we share, from perpetual victimhood, to pride in their achievements on the road from slave to American citizen.

Remember Ronald Reagan’s story about the kid who had to shovel a huge pile of manure? He went about it with such joy he was asked why and said, “With all that manure, there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.”

The pony hidden in slavery is the fact that it was the ticket to America for black people. I have long urged blacks to consider their presence here as the work of God, who wanted to bring them to this raw, new country and used slavery to achieve it. A harsh life, to be sure, but many immigrants suffered hardships and indignations as indentured servants. Their descendants rose above it. You don’t hear them bemoaning their forebears’ life the way some blacks can’t rise above the fact theirs were slaves.

Brought to you by Adele Fergusen... apparently, a Black Sister.

Trust me, you MUST read the whole thing.

(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to my buddy Grendel72. You've gotta be cross-posting me!!)

The Liberal Baby Bust

There’s a piece in USAToday that takes a look at the ever-widening parenting gap between progressives and conservatives, something about which I’ve written before, because I find it rather interesting, especially at it regards the future of politics and culture. As one would expect, it’s not just in the US; it’s a global phenomenon.

In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs…

In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont — the first to embrace gay unions — has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.

Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.

The upshot of this disparity is that conservatives worldwide are outpacing progressives. While many of us would probably identify ourselves as progressive products of conservative homes, we often likely reached such an alternative via the influences of books or films which opened doors to new ideas, science classes, travel, and/or progressive people who touched our lives in one way or another. But we’ve already gotten a glimpse into what happens as and when a population at large becomes predominantly conservative—banning of books, refusal to show films, attacking TV shows, the undermining of science, xenophobic nationalism, censorship, demonization of dissent, intermingling religion and governance, legislating morality, etc. Egalitarianism and tolerance are slaughtered on the altar of “tradition,” leaving the society increasingly devoid of cultural and philosophical progressive cues, giving kids raised in a conservative environment less and less opportunity—and incentive—to escape its stranglehold.

Which is, of course, the whole point.

Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.

Some of us just like to think of it as the Rapture in Reverse.

Because, ultimately, there’s nothing any of us can do about it—except have a bunch of unwanted kids in the hopes of evening things out, which doesn’t sound especially wise or enticing. A generation or two of put-upon progressives will have to wait it out, and, one day, the mood will shift again, just as it has before. Ironically, it will happen sooner rather than later if conservatives get their every wish; if they manage to criminalize both abortion and birth control again, progressives will quickly be having just as many kids as they do, hence speeding up the process of getting the wheels of progress out of the ditch.

Poor conservatives. They can’t win for winning.

In the meantime, I just hope we manage to eke out a draw at worst until Mr. Shakes and my childless, progressive arses shrug off this mortal coil.

Claude Allen Saga

Every good soap opera needs an evil twin.