I’m curious what other people think of this character. Do you find it offensive?
I think it’s bloody hilarious, because the commentary isn’t really on Kazakhs. The whole point is that everyone watching knows that Sacha Baron Cohen is an English Jew who’s putting on a not-remotely Kazakh-like character to expose people’s ignorance about the rest of the world—and he inevitably uncovers a fair bit of anti-Semitism with pretences of Jew-hating, too. I don’t think the gay German Austrian (thanks, Mr. Shakes) character, Brüno, that he plays is a commentary on Austrians or gays, either—but on homophobia and ignorance. And, again, playing on others’ perceptions of Austrians as anti-Semites is what’s at work, not an attempt to reflect something honest about Austria.
Anyhow, I know the government of Kazakhstan is decidedly unthrilled about Borat, and I certainly don’t want to minimize that, even though I think their worries that people will think Cohen’s Kazakh character is representative of Kazakhstan are unfounded. It’s easy to say that as an American, though, whose country has enough wealth and power to not give a crap about who mocks it, or invokes it to mock someone else, even if the representation is unfair. So, I’m not totally insensitive, but maybe I’m not being sensitive enough, either.
I’m open to criticism and complaint for my amusement at Borat.
The job in the textiles factory outside the Syrian capital would pay $300 (£160) a month, travel for the long journey was already arranged, a place for the girls to stay was ready and waiting and - best of all - Um Ahmad would pay Mona's father one month's salary in advance.
For the 26-year-old eldest daughter of eight children whose parents faced a daily despair of car bombs and poverty in their Baghdad slum, the offer sounded too good to be true.
It was.
Within a week of arriving in Damascus, Mona - whose name has been changed to protect her identity - had been plied with alcohol by Um Ahmad, required to dance for "friends of the factory owner" and had lost her virginity.
…Mona had become another victim of the growing sex trade among an Iraqi refugee community in Syria that local NGOs now estimate at 800,000 people, and to whose plight aid agencies say the international community continues to turn a blind eye.
…The [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] report found that prostitution among young Iraqi women in Syria, some just 12 years old, "may become a more widespread problem since the economic situation of Iraqi families is increasingly deteriorating".
"Organised networks dealing with the sex trade were reported," it said, finding evidence that "girls and women were trafficked by organised networks or family members".
President Bush is constantly reminding us that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it possible for 25 million women and girls to “go to school, vote in elections, and play an active role in their societies.” Which sounds awesome—but it’s total bullshit. Not only are women and girls still being prevented throughout Afghanistan and Iraq from the full participation in society to which Bush claims they now have access, but the women and girls who have—along with their fathers, husbands, and brothers—fled Iraq for fear of their lives are not receiving nearly enough assistance as refugees, and when the men can’t work for lack of proper permits (or lack of available jobs), the women are left to sell their bodies, ever the tradable commodity.
[F]or another 17-year-old from the Shia holy city of Najaf in southern Iraq, an evening's work in an adult bar outside Damascus still brings her shame. But it is the only income her family has.
"No one in my family can shout at me, even though they know what I do, because I am the only one working," said the girl, who has changed her name to Ayman since arriving in Syria in June 2003 and who earns $60 a night dancing and sleeping with wealthy Syrians and Arabs from the Gulf.
"I drink a lot of wine before I have sex with the men. Sometimes I hate myself for doing this job, especially when men ask me to do unusual things to make them happy," said Ayman. "I want to be married to a good husband and to have a family of my own, but the war forced me to come to Syria. I keep thinking I should just run away to start a new life in Europe, or maybe even America."
In America…where she sees the freedom and opportunity that America said it was bringing to her.
Since Katie Couric has taken over the CBS Evening News as the first solo female nightly-news anchor, “women have received 40% fewer assignments than they did under her predecessor, Bob Schieffer. Men, meanwhile, have seen no cutback in their workload.”
Eh, who needs all those other bitchez now that you can point to having given a woman the prime slot? Especially when the token is happy to help.
Fox has also recorded ads for Democrats Ben Cardin of Maryland and Jim Doyle of Wisconsin. According to the Washington Post, "He has also made plans to appear at events for two Democrats, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Tammy Duckworth, a candidate for Congress from Illinois."
C'mon, Limbaugh and the rest of you uber-right bags of douche. Fuck with Doc Hollywood.
You know, the thing I find the most amazing in all this is how starkly it delineates the lives of those who have never had anything bad happen to them that wasn't in their control. Rush Limbaugh gets addicted to drugs, arrested, humiliated...not my fault!Not my responsibility! Every else is to blame! Left-wing conspiracy! Pity me! All he can do is writhe in the shit he created and make a complete arse of himself.
Meanwhile, Michael J. Fox is stricken with a terrible disease, something over which he had no choice and no control, and he endeavors to find a way to fix it, if not for himself, then for others who will come after him. He carries himself with strength and dignity, and puts himself out there in the hope of changing minds, risking ridicule, which is swiftly delivered by pigs like Limbaugh.
The difference between the two men could not be more pointed.
Members of the Manassas City Council are hearing plenty of opinions on whether a gay man should be allowed to open a massage therapy business in his home.
Howard Daniel is a former Marine Corps reservist who is also a certified massage therapist. He wants to open the business in his home, but nearly two dozen Manassas residents have spoken out against his application.
Daniel already offers his massage therapy services at the local hospital and in the homes of clients.
The Washington Post reports that the Manassas City Council has approved two other applications for home-based massage therapy businesses over the past three years. But at least three of the six members of the county council say they vote against Daniel's application.
What the fuck are they worried about? “We don’t want any Gay Happy Endings in our neighborhood!” Seriously, people are cracked.
If I found out I had a gay neighbor who was a certified massage therapist, I’d be arranging some martini-drenched video nights and begging him to rub me down—right after I ran out of town on a rail any puritanical busybodies who tried to stand between me and my hot gay marine massage.
Charming. Republican Representative Barbara Cubin (R-Wyoming) threatened to slap her libertarian challenger after a debate. That candidate, Thomas Rankin, has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair.
"My aide and I were packing up to leave the debate, and Barbara walked over to me and said, 'If you weren't sitting in that chair, I'd slap you across the face.' That's quote-unquote," Rankin said.
Rankin said several people witnessed the exchange, although he wouldn't name them, and that he was getting phone calls about it before he got home Sunday night. The story was first reported Monday night on the Casper Star-Tribune's Web site.
Cubin has not apologized, and, without acknowledging the threat, has nonetheless justified it by accusing Ranking of “misrepresenting her positions and insulting her integrity during the debate.” Her spokesman also said, “She’s over it.”
Good for her. Way to bounce back from threatening someone and demeaning him by saying the only reason you won’t carry through on it is that he’s disabled.
In the "Invoke My Name to Discriminate" contest, there's a clear winner…
Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog takes a look at two recent news stories about discrimination against members of the LGBT community. In the first, a transgendered woman in Minneapolis is having a hard time getting a taxi, because Muslim drivers are refusing her business based on her being transgendered. In the second, a gay couple was refused service by a landscaping company, because they "choose not to work for homosexuals."
Steve's noticed a curious disparity in conservatives' reactions to the two stories.
All sorts of right-wingers—Daniel Pipes, the folks at Free Republic, the folks at Little Green Footballs—came to the transgendered person's defense. But when the gay couple spread the word to friends and acquaintances about the Garden Guy and recommended taking gardening business elsewhere (and some people suggested it might be illegal discrimination), why, right-wingers were incensed!
...So, if Allah tells Muslim cabbies that transgendered people are icky, that's bad. But if Jesus tells the Garden Guy that two gay homeowners are icky, that's wonderful. And even telling gay friends that the Garden Guy hates their sex life is jackbooted thuggery and makes the Baby Jesus cry.
Independents have effectively given up on the GOP's agenda altogether—by a 2 to 1 margin they believe the war in Iraq is not worth fighting, and by a 3 to 1 margin, they disapprove of Congress' job performance and the direction of the country. Moreover, these same voters place the blame for the nation's problems squarely on the Bush White House and congressional Republicans. Independents also trust Dems over the GOP to address terrorism by 14 points.
It's worth noting, of course, that independents appear to be moving towards Dems almost by default—they're voting against the GOP. Nevertheless, it highlights why the right is in such a panic—all the Republicans have left is a far-right base, and even the base isn't exactly thrilled.
In fact, while 95% of Democrats say they will support Democratic candidates for the House, only 88% of Republicans say they will support Republican candidates for the House.
The new USA Today/Gallup Poll finds what may be the key to the Democrats' success, aside from Republican failtures: "voters are more focused on national issues than in any previous congressional election."
For months, Rep. Tom Reynolds, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee and who himself is in a tough race, has insisted that GOP candidates would survive a difficult political landscape because House elections traditionally turn on local issues, not national ones.
However, in the new poll, 43% of likely voters say national issues will make the biggest difference in their vote; 24% say local or state issues. That's the first overwhelming edge for national issues since the question was first asked in a Times Mirror poll in 1994.
TCR says "the Dem strategy of nationalizing the election cycle has largely been a success." That, and "Even the people who desperately want to see same-sex marriage and abortion banned nationally know that it's not a battle worth fighting when the country's falling to shit."
In any case, it's looking good for the Dems two weeks before the election.
The GOP has been using Bush’s mandate and its control of Congress to justify doing whatever in blazes it wants to do for the past six years. Now they’re fixing to use losing their stranglehold on power to justify acting like maniacal banshees. Whatfuckingever. Let’s just call this what it is—further evidence that the GOP has no interest in governing; they just want to win and plunder, or, failing that, serve as obstructionist fuckwits. Either way, they couldn’t have the interests of the average American any less in mind.
The White House is bracing for guerrilla warfare on the homefront politically if Republicans lose control of the House, the Senate or both.
Well, at least they be bothered to brace for guerilla warfare somewhere. Who says the administration hasn’t learned any lessons from Iraq?
Loss of either chamber also could subject his administration to endless congressional inquiries and investigations.
We can only hope.
Bush, in his own get-out-the-vote appeal, told Republicans: "The consequences of not succeeding this fall are dire for our agenda for America."
Or, in English: “The consequences of not succeeding this fall are dire for my ass, which will soon be spanked by Teddy Kennedy or Barney Frank—and that’s not something anyone wants to see, is it?”
Bush even suggested last week that insurgents in Iraq were stepping up their violence in a bid to influence the elections.
Michael J. Fox, who is suffering from Parkinson's Disease, made this ad for Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, a Democrat challenging Republican incumbent Jim Talent who does not support stem cell research:
Or, worse yet, that he was just acting: "I stated when I saw the ad, I was commenting to you about it, that he was either off the medication or he was acting. He is an actor, after all."
(CNN) -- Responding to queries from CNN.com readers, conservative commentator and former Cabinet secretary William Bennett expressed faith in the U.S. government's global standing and doubts about the mainstream media's objectivity and the viability of a strong third political party.
Host of the nationally syndicated radio talk show, "Bill Bennett's Morning in America," the CNN political analyst and Republican strategist touched on several controversial topics raised by readers as part of CNN's "Broken Government" series.
I'm sure you're thinking that Bennett took a long, hard look at himself and at the party he chooses to associate with, and attempted to seriously answer the questions of his viewers, no matter how painful the answers might be. This time, he won't just resort to stroking the egos of his viewers; soothing them with talking points. You're thinking that, since the Bush Administration has been such a complete failure, and America is facing some very serious problems, Bennett might be able to rise above the spin and smoke, and look at these questions with a critical eye, right?
You'd be wrong. (Bolds CNN's. Eye-rolling disgust mine)
Why has the rest of the world pretty much lost faith in our democracy and government? Joaquin Garweg, Houston, Texas
BENNETT: I don't think the rest of the world has lost faith in our democracy and government.
It is fashionable in some precincts to condemn the United States. We have not been popular in the Middle East for many years, and the university class (in Europe, especially) has a "sophisticated" view that is aped by academia in much of the U.S. professoriate.
But many millions of people around the world love America, Americans and the things America represents. If [people] virtually anywhere in the world ... saw a group of soldiers coming over the hill and could pick which flag they were carrying, the American flag would still be the choice of many.
And you're basing this on... what, exactly? Funny, but from what I read and hear, the rest of the world isn't too pleased with us. When was the last time you heard someone say, "We are all Americans," before Bush squandered all of the goodwill created by 9/11? This sounds to me like Bennett pulled this information from somewhere near the seat of his trousers. Permit me to recycle this joke:
Bennett, Bill. Completely Pulled out of My Ass. New York: Bennett, 2006.
After the actions of the Bush Administration, I would think that the sight of a group of soldiers coming over the hill carrying the American flag would create more thoughts of invasion than safety.
Nice little "freedom fries"-esque jab at those snooty Europeans and libbrul college professors as well, Bill. Wouldn't want to let a column go by without dusting off that relic.
How do we as citizens stop our representatives from disregarding the will of the people? April Garlow, Franklinville, New York
BENNETT: Edmund Burke had this answer many years ago: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
The Founders believed there was a distinction between the "representativeness" between the members of the House and the Senate. The former should more directly represent the wishes of their constituents, the latter are supposed to filter those wishes and view them through a national prism. But the short answer: Vote 'em in or out of office as you see fit.
How nice and dismissive of you. This is a legitimate concern of many Americans, especially since Bush has become so drunk with power: How the hell do we stop these maniacs when they ignore the will of the people (remember how they reacted to the anti-war protests?) and our representatives are either powerless or too cowardly to help, without resorting to violence? "Vote 'em out" isn't a very helpful answer, particularly when elections don't exactly roll around that frequently, when black voters are casually being disenfranchised, when fear tactics are used to keep people from voting, and when they're obviously easilystolen. Our government flaunts their disregard for the wishes of Americans; this is a very serious question. When your only "voice" as an American is your vote, and they take that away from you, then what? We don't all have the opportunity to talk on CNN, Bill.
Is there a bias in the mainstream media against the Republican Party? Mike Malloy, Paradise, California
BENNETT: Yes. And it is demonstrable. Survey after survey of powerhouse journalists -- on television, in newspapers and magazines -- show a clear liberal predisposition.
Demonstrable? Then prove it. Where's the "liberal" version of you, answering these same questions in a counterpoint column? Ass.
Isn't it time there is a strong third party? Keith Berkner, Macon, Georgia
BENNETT: No, I don't think so. The history of third parties in America is not distinguished. They don't win, but often spoil. And they tend more to be eccentric than serious.
People can always try, of course. And it's funny and odd, but instructive, that the story of third parties in America doesn't come to much.
Again, how dismissive of you. Those nutballs that feel betrayed by both parties, and are working to break away from the two party system? A bunch of eccentrics, the lot of them. They couldn't have any serious concerns or ideas, therefore, we shouldn't pay the slightest bit of attention to them. It's also difficult for third parties to "come to much" when the two parties in power actively work to keep them out of the political process.
It's much more "distinguished" to stick to a party line, regardless of the facts staring you right in the face, regardless of the fact that your party has destroyed everything that they supposedly stand for, than to actually look at their actions with a critical eye and hold them accountable for actions that harm the country.
It's good to be the Blowhard.
(Give me land, lots of land, and the cross-posts above...)
"The problem is not a sleazy letter campaign to intimidate voters. The problem is talking about it."
GARDEN GROVE, Calif. - A Republican congressional candidate whose campaign is being investigated for sending intimidating letters to Hispanic voters lashed out at his Democratic rival, saying she was fueling the uproar over the mailings.
Tan Nguyen on Sunday rejected calls to drop out of the race to unseat longtime Rep. Loretta Sanchez, and implied the popular congresswoman was behind the probes into the letters warning immigrants they could be deported or jailed for voting in next month's election.
"There has been no crime committed so why is there a criminal investigation three weeks prior to a very important election?" Nguyen asked. "What is going on? Who is fueling this investigation?"
The gall! Of all the nerve. Investigations and whatnot. Snort. Harrumph.
The Counselor to the president blatantly lies on national television, parroting the same lie made by the president himself.
The Associated Press, in covering the White House's "flexibility" on Iraq, states:
Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said he was puzzled by the weekend report in The New York Times. The newspaper said a blueprint to be presented to al-Maliki by the end of this year would not threaten Iraq with a withdrawal of U.S. troops. But it reported that the administration was considering changing military tactics and contemplating possible penalties if benchmarks were not reached. The White House denied that troop strength would be affected by the Iraqis' ability or inability to meet benchmarks.
[...]
Bartlett, appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," said the top commanders there have not asked for more troops, but that Bush has made it clear that if they want them, they'll get them.
Appearing on CNN, he said setting a timetable for troop withdrawals would embolden the enemy, provide sanctuary for terrorists and threaten U.S. security. "That's something the president is not going to accept," Bartlett said.
Somehow, the CBS appearance, the comment, and the lie are never mentioned.
Considering that the lie has beenallovertheblogosphere, i.e., noteasilymissed, you'd think this would be mentioned. All of those examples were just off the top of my head; I'm sure there are tons of blogs talking about this today.
On the left, that is. On the right? Silence. I checked Instapundit, Wizbang, Malkin, LGF, Townhall... not a peep. Color me shocked.
Bush officials were rooting for North Korea to test a nuclear weapon.
Once again, we turn to time-honored tradition of Deduction Via Conservative Projection. When you want to find out what they’re doing, just consider what they’re accusing us of doing. While they accuse us of rooting for foreign policy failures (e.g. losing the war in Iraq), they’re busily rooting for Kim Jung-Il to detonate a fucking nuke.
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
