So immature that I started giggling in the midst of a very serious article about trials into the effectiveness of male circumcision as a way to limit the spread of HIV because the World Health Organization's HIV director is named Kevin De Cock.
"V" is for very disappointing
So M picks me up from work yesterday, and we drive home. We pull up in the driveway. M puts the car in park, looks over at me and says, "You know, V could have been a whole lot better."
"I've been thinking about that all day," I replied.
There are pros and cons to seeing movies late, well after their theatrical releases. You miss the communal effect that adds a lot to the filmwatching experience, and you miss riding the whole zeitgeist wave of a flick like V is for Vendetta - and it was a pretty big wave. On the other hand, there's something to viewing a film as just a film, apart from the attendant hoopla. None of that worked in favor of V, which M and I finally saw on DVD this week.
Neither of us had read the Alan Moore comic on this the movie was based, which is just fine. Adaptation or no, a film should be judged on what actually makes it onto the screen. We are fans of all of the notable actors in the movie, especially Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman, and thought they did fairly well with the material they were given. We don't fault the players for what turned out to be an empty, disappointing film.
So who gets the blame? This falls on the shoulders of the entity that calls itself The Wachowski Brothers (and also director James McTeigue). They managed some interesting visuals and a great deal of hyperbole, but might as well have populated the set with store mannequins. Imagery has its place, but sooner or later you have to use words when you talk to people, and the script for V is just uninspired. Andy and Larry W. delivered flat, lifeless dialogue that gasps for literary CPR and saddles decent actors with a heavy burden. But even that isn't the crime here, bad as it is.
The theme of a society freighted with the crushing gray mantle of totalitarianism is only toyed with in this movie. It's suggested but hardly explored, and seems to be given less thought than the musical score (which I can't remember now, not any of it). This is a Britain in which art has been outlawed, joy has been made a crime, privacy and personal liberty made sneering jokes - except that little of that actually made it to the screen! We see glimpses of people in pubs, families at home, but spend no time with them to get the evidence of everyday lives trodden down by a repressive government. Where's the fear? Where's the frustrated rage? What the hell kind of dystopia is this, anyway?
If you're going to make a movie about changing society, you have to show us the society. In real time, preferably.
We don't spend time on that with V. Instead, we spend a lot of time watching whatever kind of relationship exists between the titular character and Evey - a deliberate choice made by the filmmakers, and a bad one because it's made at the expense at everything else there is to see. In the end, you have a second-rate love story, a population whose collective mind was somehow changed while standing off in the wings somewhere, and an Parliament whose destruction seems at once both melodramatic (that is, unearned drama) and anticlimactic.
I read a critical comment on this movie that paraphrased Gertrude Stein's slam of Oakland: There's no "there" there. Something else came to my mind as V came to an end: Revolution is no business for dilettantes. The makers of V wanted to change the world, but changing the world is dirty work. I guess the Wachowskis preferred playing with marketing to soiling their hands.
(Apologies for rant. I will purge myself by seeing Snakes on a Plane. Cross-posted.)
Caption This Photo
Conservatives have begun petitioning Bush to include provisions
for gnome containment in any future immigration legislation.
(Btw, the actual caption for this photo was itself quite strange: “Garden gnomes relax in a garden. A Philippine judge who allegedly claimed to have psychic powers and communicate with imaginary 'dwarf friends' has lost his appeal to keep his job. AFP/File/Joel Saget”)
Sleepytime
I’m not going to question Montana GOP Senator Conrad Burns’ commitment to his plethora of odious pet issues just because he got the sleepy head-bobs on the job, because that would be like my throwing stones from my glass house, right after my nap. But I will post the video so we can all laugh at it, because he’s an asshole. (Hat tip Gideon.)
The mea culpa season
What airborne agent or waterborne pathogen or conjunction of celestial objects is responsible for this rash of public figures saying remarkably stupid things which they have to disavow ten seconds later?
Mel "Fucking Jews" Gibson. George Felix "Macaca" Allen. Tramm "Blacks are not the greatest swimmers" Hudson. And now Andrew Young:
The civil rights leader Andrew Young, who was hired by Wal-Mart to improve its public image, resigned from that post last night after telling an African-American newspaper that Jewish, Arab and Korean shop owners had “ripped off” urban communities for years, “selling us stale bread, and bad meat and wilted vegetables.”
Hired by Wal-Mart to improve its public image. Hey, guys, how's that working out for you? CEO Lee Scott must have choked on his Cutty Sark when he heard the news.
Mr. Young, 74, a former mayor of Atlanta and a former United States representative to the United Nations, apologized for the comments and retracted them in an interview last night. Less than an hour later, he resigned as chairman of Working Families for Wal-Mart, a group created and financed by the company to trumpet its accomplishments.“It’s against everything I ever thought in my life,” Mr. Young said. “It never should have been said. I was speaking in the context of Atlanta, and that does not work in New York or Los Angeles.”
I cannot imagine a city in the world in which the "context" would have made his remarks any less outrageous. It's a strange and pathetic turn for a public career like Young's; I can't wait to hear what his former boss has to say about it.
Seriously, though: what's up with people's mouths these days?
(Cross-posted.)
Hear Them Roar
"This year, more than 200 women began bids for Congress," reports USA Today. "Of those still in the race, 163 are vying for seats in the House and 18 for the Senate. Most are Democrats with 113 running in House races and 13 in Senate contests."Good stuff.
It shouldn’t matter, in terms of having women’s issues addressed—from reproductive rights to securing funding for female-specific health issues—what the percentage of progressive women in Congress is, but it does. (It even makes a difference whether male representatives have daughters.) It always matters, for every minority demographic.
Unfortunately, we live in a very lopsided and still largely segregated culture, where a white person, for example, can go their entire lives never having to know blacks on a personal level. That situation inevitably begets ignorance, which can manifest in overtly malicious expressions of racism or unintentional (but not innocuous) offense.
As I’ve said before, multiculturalism—including a deeper integration of the sexes in positions of influence—benefits not just minorities or the marginalized, but those of privilege, by providing them with opportunities to expand their understanding of others. When considering legislation to fund research, a Congressman who sits beside a colleague who is a breast cancer survivor every day, and has heard her firsthand accounts of her treatment options (and, perhaps, lack of options), is more likely to have a personal investment in pushing through the bill than a Congressman who only regards breast cancer as “bad” in an abstract way. That’s just the way humans work. It’s the same principle behind the studies showing that straight people who know openly gay people are less likely to be homophobic, and people who have active friendships with people of other races are less likely to hold racist attitudes toward any race.
There is an understandable knee-jerk negative reaction among some straight, white men to the complaint about national leadership (or party leadership, or corporate leadership, blogosphere leadership, et. al.) being primarily straight, white, and male. I’ve known men who were bitter about what they perceived as the “guilt” they were expected to feel, or were angry that such complaints (or celebrations of increased participation of women, minorities, gays) somehow assailed their intrinsic characteristics. And I get that—I really do. But that’s not the point. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being white, or straight, or male. What’s wrong is the cultural preference that has conferred privilege upon those characteristics—a privilege from which anyone who falls into any of those categories benefits.
Though I myself, if charged with hiring employees, would never discriminate on the basis of race, when I apply for a job, I might benefit, even unbeknownst to me, from being white. That’s what privilege is really about—not just what you choose to do with it, but what others choose to do with it, and how their decisions might work in your favor. Of course it’s not something over which I have control in any one specific circumstance, but that’s why it’s important for me, as part of my rejection of racism, to advocate for more opportunities for minorities. It’s not enough for me to just “not be racist” myself, because I may still benefit from the racism of others so long as it’s endemic in our society. So, when I argue for the breaking of a straight, white male tradition in any venue, it’s not because I am hostile to straight people, or whites, or males. I’m not self-loathing or wracked with “liberal guilt.” Instead, I am aware that people are naturally self-interested, often unless they are forcibly exposed to people who are different than they are, and I am aware that as long as people of my race (or sexuality) dominate, I am likely to be the beneficiary of undeserved privilege.
Saying there’s a problem with disproportionately male representation doesn’t mean that you’re a man-hater (if you’re a woman) or that you’re self-loathing (if you’re a man). It’s simply a recognition that most men, because of our culture, aren’t compelled to familiarize themselves with women’s issues. Being a white person who says there’s a problem with disproportionately white representation doesn’t mean that you’re self-loathing. It’s simply a recognition that most white people aren’t compelled to familiarize themselves with the issues of other races. I’ve never had a black boss (or a Hispanic boss, or an Asian boss); how many people of color who have worked in corporate America in a major city could say they’ve never had a white boss? How many women could say they’ve never had a male boss, versus how many men who could say they’ve never had a female boss? Privilege is, in its rawest form, the ability to live one’s life without ever having to interact in a myriad of meaningful ways with The Other.
Losing my privilege as a white person or as a straight person doesn’t worry me. Benefiting unfairly because I’m white or straight does. Not having my concerns as a woman addressed satisfactorily by legislators does. So I celebrate diversity, not because I resent any gender, or race, or sexual orientation, but because, given time, it will mean that irrespective of the gender, race, or sexual orientation of the person representing me, s/he will understand my issues—no matter how different we may seem.
I Know I’m Getting Old
Because last night, I actually muttered, “Gor blimey! Once upon a time, you actually played music videos, MTV.”
Deliberate Failure v. Spectacular Incompetence
Kathy Kattenburg’s got an interesting post responding to the theory that Iraq was a deliberate failure. It’s a good read. And I generally agree with her conclusions, btw.
He Who Ha-Ha's Last, Ha-Ha's Best
See what happens when you don't read the fine print, Dubya? (bolds mine)
PENSION LAW INCLUDES IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES UNDER FEDERAL LAWOh, the base is not going to like this...
Human Rights Campaign Helps Secure Key Provisions to Assist GLBT and Other Americans
WASHINGTON — The Federal Pension Protection Act passed by Congress and signed into law today by President George W. Bush contains two key provisions that will extend important financial protections to same-sex couples and other Americans who leave their retirement savings to non-spouse beneficiaries. The bipartisan provisions in the bill are a step forward in equality and stem from a continuous effort led by the Human Rights Campaign.
“There is a large group of Americans that are left behind in traditional pension benefit models. We need to do better to keep these groups from falling through the cracks,” said Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore. “I am pleased that the pension reform legislation takes an important step to fill this gap by equalizing treatment in retirement savings vehicles for non-spouse beneficiaries.”
“We need to address the economic and legal barriers that affect many American families — from providing equal access to family law, to equal opportunities in the workplace. All families need to be able to plan and save for their future,” said Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md.
“For gay couples and all Americans with non-spouse beneficiaries, death and taxes weren’t only certain, but also times of great and unequal financial difficulty. Today marks an important day for fairness under the law in America,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “For four years, the Human Rights Campaign worked closely with members of Congress to secure these provisions and carefully guide them through the political process. In a challenging political climate, we persevered and helped to secure critical federal protections that will make difficult times for domestic partners a little easier.”
(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to Pam. If there's a smile on my cross-post, it's only there trying to fool the public...)
Insecurity Moms
“Married women with children, the ‘security moms’ whose concerns about terrorism made them an essential part of Republican victories in 2002 and 2004, are taking flight from GOP politicians this year in ways that appear likely to provide a major boost for Democrats in the midterm elections, according to polls and interviews.”
Weirdly, many of them apparently still consider terrorism their primary daily fear, which goes to show you: A) how effective the GOP’s fearmongering has been; and B) how poorly their strategy to combat terrorism is actually regarded.
Honestly, I think if I were a mother, I’d be a lot more concerned about protecting my children from global warming and crushing national debt than worrying about terrorists. In fact, I’d be more worried about their getting hit by a car than hit by a dirty bomb. But that’s just me.
Kerplunk
So much for that little bounce. Glub...glub...glub...
The conventional wisdom was so widely believed, there hardly seemed any point to questioning it. The alleged terrorist plot would be a political boon for the Bush White House, the timing would hurt Democrats, and the story had the ability to completely reshape the last 12 weeks of the campaign cycle.The saturation point has been reached; people simply aren't falling for the hysteria anymore. Sure, people are still worried about terrorists and terrorist attacks (including us folks on the Left, although several pants-wetters insist it isn't so), apparently more than the Bush Administration (who, true to form, are more interested in protecting themselves than protecting Americans). But at this point, the only people that are in hysterics over "terrorist plots" are Conservatives that are panicking as their house of cards tumbles. And I see Michelle Malkin has groomed some guest bloggers and is keeping the Fear of Brown People fires burning:
Since the story captured the nation's attention, however, seven national polls have been conducted. If there was a bump for Bush, it's hiding well.
* Zogby: the president's job approval rating dropped from 36% to 34%.
* Gallup: his approval rating fell from 40% to 37%.
* CBS News: the president's support remained flat at 36%.
* Newsweek: Bush's approval rating improved to 38% from 35%.
* Fox News: the president's support remained flat at 36%.
* AP/Ipsos: his approval rating fell from 36% to 33%.
* Harris: the president's support remained flat at 34%.
In six of the seven national polls, the president's support dropped or remained the same since Americans heard about the alleged terrorist plot. In other words, the story that would obviously help Bush's standing isn't helping him at all.
The woman that disrupted the London-NY flight on Wednesday appeared in federal court yesterday.
The word is that she's simply crazy, and not a terrorist, although her circumstances are more than a little suspicious:Ms. Mayo'’s 31-year-old son, Josh, told reporters in Vermont that his mother was a peace activist who had been visiting a Pakistani pen pal and that she had just had a "“bad time" on the flight. It is unclear how long she had been in Pakistan, but she worked as a journalist there, writing columns for the Daily Times of Pakistan, assailing the war and American political policy.
Visiting a Pakistani pen pal? That's sure odd.
Yeah, what's up with that? No real American could possibly have a friend in Pakistan! She must be a terrorist!
Also, the woman had a screwdriver in her carry-on bag.Of course, mental illness, panic or simple paranoia couldn't explain the screwdriver. It had to be a terrorist plot!
The story seems to be that she was feeling claustrophobic and went into some sort of panic attack. But then, why did she have the screwdriver? That implies some level of thought before boarding this flight. Stay tuned for developments....
Really, this is just getting embarrassing.
(My cross-post and your grandma... sittin' by the fire...)
Friday Blogrollin'
The Wonderful Wacky World of Wil
Nihilix
One Big JackGoff
Ersatz Express
Ex-Lion Tamer
Alfred Glenstein
As always, if I ought to be reading you and adding you to Ye Olde Massive Blogroll, drop your link in comments. Never be shy to toot your own horn!
Add Kurds, Turks, and Iranians; bring to boil
Back in May, I remarked that the White House didn't seem to have any strategy regarding the Kurds in Iraq except to hand off that whole sticky autonomy thing to the next administration. Unfortunately - and fittingly - it looks like George Bush may have to deal with that explosive situation on his watch. Iran and Turkey, tired of living next door to a haven for Kurdish rebels, are now lobbing shells into northern Iraq and massing troops.
Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory.
Some displaced families have pitched tents in the valleys behind Qandil Mountain, which straddles Iraq's rugged borders with Turkey and Iran. They told the Guardian yesterday that at least six villages had been abandoned and one person had died following a sustained artillery barrage by Iranian forces that appeared designed to flush out guerrillas linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who have hideouts in Iraq.
Turkey - an American ally, a member of NATO, and wannabe European Union member - has long awaited the help of the United States on the matter of the PPK hiding out in Iraq, but to no avail. Now Iran - which cares little for the US or its concerns - is demonstrating to Turkey that waiting on America is a fool's game. The threat that both countries see in an independent Kurdistan can only further destabilize an already tumultous Iraq. What Bush plans to do in answer to their concerns is anybody's guess. As Josh Marshall says, "things can always get worse."
(Cross-posted from Greater St. Louistan...)
Question of the Day
The logical follow-up to yesterday's question is: What turns you off?
Physically: Beady eyes, especially if they're really close together. (See: Bush, George.) No teeth. Raggedy fingernails. (Raggedy toenails are even worse.) Comb-overs. Hair sprouting out of ears. Radically disproportinately-sized foreheads and chins. I'm sure there are other things that just aren't coming to mind at the moment. And even these things aren't deal-breakers. Mr. Shakes' nails forever look as though he trimmed them with a cheese grater.
I don't think there's anything I dislike of a personality nature that would be of any surprise.
Dig it, Diggs
Ezra: “US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has declared Bush's wiretapping program illegal and unconstitutional, a clear violation of FISA. What 'Judge Diggs' clearly forgets is that FISA was an unconstitutional abrogation of President Bush's right to do whatever the fuck he wants. Can't argue with that reasoning, Judge. It's science.”
*snort*
I’m not sure it’s science, though. You know how President Garden O’Eden doesn’t like the science. His right to do whatever the fuck he wants when it comes to smokin’ out the terrorists is probably best filed under “Intelligence” Design.
WTF?
No, no, surely not, no. The Republican Party is not a party of racists. It’s just coincidence that yet another douchebag has said something completely ridiculous about people of color and he, too, happens to be a member of the Grand Old Party. Meet Tramm Hudson, currently the frontrunner for the Congressional seat vacated by Katherine Harris:
I grew up In Alabama, and I understand, and I know this from my experience, but blacks are not the greatest swimmers or may not even know to swim.(Watch the video here.)
Tell that to Enith Brigitha.
Hudson later made a statement of apology:
I said something stupid. I apologize for it and would apologize in person to anyone hurt by my comments. To those who are understandably offended, you have my deepest apologies and I want you to know that it was out of character for me and those who know me know that to be a fact. This was a thoughtless remark that does not reflect my lifetime commitment to treating everyone fairly and without bias. I apologize to everyone who is offended by this comment.Isn’t is always just totally out of character? Don’t people who know these pricks always vouch for what splendid egalitarians they are? Yeesh.
How We Should Be Feeling Today According to Tony Snow
Scared of dying at the hands of terrorists: “Last week America and the world received a stark reminder that terrorists are still plotting to attack our country and kill innocent people.”
Angry that a judge would undercut an important tool in combating terrorism: “Today a federal judge in Michigan has ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program ordered by the President to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the American people is unconstitutional and otherwise illegal. …The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out. That’s what the American people expect from their government, and it is the President’s most solemn duty to ensure their protection.”
Grateful that the Bush administration has a way to ignore the ruling and keep on protecting us from terrorists and activist judges: “We couldn’t disagree more with this ruling, and the Justice Department will seek an immediate stay of the opinion and appeal. Until the Court has the opportunity to rule on a stay of the Court's ruling in a hearing now set for September 7, 2006, the parties have agreed that enforcement of the ruling will be stayed.”
Sympathetic for our president who has to look at the ugly results of the war he launched: “’The president thinks about these things every day,’ Snow said. ‘Look… he sees stuff far more horrifying than you and I see, because he gets the briefings every day. And it is impossible to be a president in a time of war without being reminded of the nature of the threat and also the costs of fighting it.’”
Awed by our president’s soul-searching: “’Without having cleared this with the president, I think it's safe to say that any president in a time of war does constant soul-searching,’ said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, in response to a query about Bush’s soul-searching, ‘because he understands the human toll of sending people into harm's way. And any president who has held the office will tell you the same thing. It is a deeply personal and very difficult thing to do.’”
Impressed by the burden the president has to carry, like his administration being called crap: “’So the president's been called a lot worse, and I suspect will be,' he added. ‘There will be piquant names sort of hurled his way from time to time, but, you know, that's part of the burden of leadership.’”
Amused by the thought of anyone deigning to question the administration’s unyielding resolve against terrorists: “The president will not ‘walk away’ from Iraq, Snow insisted. So, he was asked, when will the mission in Iraq be accomplished. ‘You tell me,’ he replied. ‘You don't do this by a clock. The president has to practice strategic patience. The term, ‘the long war,’ has been used. If you can tell me when terrorists are suddenly going to turn their swords into plowshares, we will settle upon that as the date.’”
Quite the emotional roller coaster, feeling what the Bush administration wants us to feel at any given moment. I’m scared! I’m proud! I’m pissed! I’m patriotic! The terrorists will kill us! Bush will save us! I’m awed! I’m amused! I’m pissing my pants! I’m waving a flag!
It’s no wonder conservatives are crackpots.
(Thanks to The Swamp, here and here.)
