Shakesville

Assvertising

The new Hyundai ad, via Cheryl.

Didja catch anything missing in that ad, by any chance?
Here's the actual transcript: Smart. Who in the world doesn't want to be smart? The whole human race wants to be smart. Even guys who aren't smart wish they were smart. Being smart is the highest compliment you can be paid, and while some things are cool for a moment in time, smart has never gone out of style. Smart people are whom we've always counted on and admired the most. When stranded on a desert island, whom did everyone turn to? The smart guy. Even in athletics, the smart guys always come out on top. To be smart, you don't need to be rich and successful, but, if you are rich and successful, you're probably pretty darn smart. One thing you'll consistently find in smart people is they make smart choices. That's because smart people do their homework, which allows them to make educated, smart decisions. Now, when it comes to buying a car, there's nothing smarter than buying a Hyundai. [Then a bunch of junk about awards Hyundai has won.] So when you think about everything, when you think about quality and warranty and awards, when you think about safety and features and value for your hard-earned money, it's all clear that choosing a Hyundai is the smartest way to go. Hyundai: Smart move.

Here's what I hear: Sexist. Who in the world doesn't want to be sexist? Sometimes it seems like the whole human race is sexist. Even guys who claim they're not sexist are often sexist. Being sexist is one of the most offensive traits to have, and while sometimes people get called on their sexist shit, sexism has never gone out of style. Sexist people are whom I always revile and disdain the most. When stranded on a desert island, who would most likely turn me into a cannibal? The sexist guy. Even in athletics, sexism still flourishes. To be sexist, you don't need to be ignorant and privileged, but, if you are ignorant and privileged, you're probably pretty darn sexist. One thing you'll consistently find in sexist people is they make sexist choices. That's because sexist people are narcissistic twits, which allows them to make selfish, sexist decisions. Now, when it comes to buying a car, there's nothing that could make me buy a Hyundai. When I think about everything, when I think about the writing and producing and filming of this ad, when I think about people who equate intelligence with having a penis but want my hard-earned money, it's all clear that choosing a Hyundai will never fucking happen. Hyundai: Sexist turds.

Friday Cat Blogging

Classic pix, because the girls and I are too tired for a photo shoot today...

Matilda

"Go fuck yourself."

--------------------

Olivia

"This door is mine now."

So I Thought She Could Dance

[WARNING: Spoilers ahead for anyone who might have last night's SYTYCD TiVoed and doesn't want to know who got the boot. If you don't know what SYTYCD is, trust me, you don't have it TiVoed.]

Okay, where are my So You Think You Can Dancers? We need to talk.

First, the Girls: What the hell happened last night? Jessi was one of my favorite girls; in fact, I think she was a favorite of lots of people. Could the judges (Cat: YER JIDJIZ!) not have given one fucking second of explanation as to why she was being kicked off the show? Mr. Shakes and I were seriously pissed.

Second, the Boys: Last week, when they didn't kick off Cedric, I grumbled to Mr. Shakes: "Just watch. Next week, they'll draw contemporary, where shitty partnering isn't so noticable, and he'll flail his way through it, not hit the bottom three, and cause one more deserving guy to get kicked off." Did I call it or what? The only thing I didn't correctly predict was that he'd be given the opportunity to give a heart-wrenching, vote-pulling speech for five bloody minutes, too! Gah!

I loved it when Danny just broke into hysterical laughter that he and Anya were in the bottom three, but Cedric and Shauna were safe. That pretty much summed it up.

Anyway, I'm going to miss Jessi, who I just adored and looked for all the world like a young Katherine Hepburn. Here's Pasha's and Jessi's jazz number from last week.

Bad Laws Beget Bad Behavior

Angelos passed on this video, found at NetworkWorld, where it was introduced by Paul McNamara with: "Watch this video and keep it in mind the next time you hear a high-tech industry titan such as Bill Gates complain that he simply cannot find qualified American employees and therefore the country needs more H-1B visas: You'll see a panel discussion that looks like a sit-down with 'the families' on The Sopranos, only instead of talking about organized crime these lawyers are discussing the ins and outs of helping employers side-step immigration law."

The thing about this is that it's a really common practice in corporate America, not necessarily to avoid hiring Americans (although that's clearly the case here), but to retain H-1B workers. When a position is taken by someone on an H-1B employment visa, the employer must "prove" once a year that no Americans want/are qualified for the job. But wanting the job, and having the appropriate technical qualifications, isn't really the issue in a lot of creative positions. Unsurprisingly, our rubbish immigration laws have absolutely no provisions for unquantifiable skills, like design aesthetic, which are integral to the creative jobs (graphic design, game design, product design, fashion design, interior design, architecture, advertising, marketing, branding, packaging, filmmaking, music, writing, etc.) that comprise an ever-increasing percentage of American jobs.

A company that may in totally good faith hire a worker on an H-1B visa to fill an imporant creative position (e.g. design director), then spend time and resources developing a program/department around that person, is up shit creek if they can't retain that person. So they resort to the loopholes we see exploited in that video, because god forbid we write laws that make sense, like quite genuinely proving no one else wanted/was qualified for the job when you first hire an H1-B visa worker, but then letting them stay as long as they're doing the job. The law is garbage because, like most immigration law, it's meant to look like the government's actually doing something to protect American workers, while providing all kinds of loopholes for corporations.

Many, if not most, companies exploit the loopholes only to retain H1-B workers that they hired in good faith. But it was inevitable that there would emerge assholes like the ones in the video when the law was built in a way that there could be assholes like the ones in the video. Provide the opportunity, someone's going to take it.

Devo Was Right

We must repeat!

We must repeat!

We must repeat!

We must repeat!

Okay, let's go!

WASHINGTON, June 28 — With competing blocs of justices claiming the mantle of Brown v. Board of Education, a bitterly divided Supreme Court declared Thursday that public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race.

Voting 5 to 4, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., invalidated programs in Seattle and metropolitan Louisville, Ky., that sought to maintain school-by-school diversity by limiting transfers on the basis of race or using race as a “tiebreaker” for admission to particular schools.

Both programs had been upheld by lower federal courts and were similar to plans in place in hundreds of school districts around the country. Chief Justice Roberts said such programs were “directed only to racial balance, pure and simple,” a goal he said was forbidden by the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” he said. His side of the debate, the chief justice said, was “more faithful to the heritage of Brown,” the landmark 1954 decision that declared school segregation unconstitutional. “When it comes to using race to assign children to schools, history will be heard,” he said.

This is what the Bush Supreme Court gets us; five people who believe protecting white privilege is somehow combating racism. (Well, I'm sure they know it's all horseshit. Let's say that they're good at saying they're combating racism.) I'm sure we'll be hearing all kinds of screaming from the right about "activist judges" on this one, right?

Oh, wait. They're loving this. Stupid me. (Malkin: "Equality wins!" Excuse me while I puke.)

I love how "color blind" Conservatives are when they're racing to protect their stuff, while conveniently forgetting that, contrary to Tony Snow's beliefs, racism is still a big goddamn problem.

In September 2006, a group of African American high school students in Jena, Louisiana, asked the school for permission to sit beneath a "whites only" shade tree. There was an unwritten rule that blacks couldn't sit beneath the tree. The school said they didn't care where students sat. The next day, students arrived at school to see three nooses (in school colors) hanging from the tree...

The boys who hung the nooses were suspended from school for a few days. The school administration chalked it up as a harmless prank, but Jena's black population didn't take it so lightly. Fights and unrest started breaking out at school. The District Attorney, Reed Walters, was called in to directly address black students at the school and told them all he could "end their life with a stroke of the pen."

Equality wins.

More at Lawyers, Guns and Money and Pandagon. (Update: Look at Feministing, as well.) If that didn't depress you enough, take a look at Think Progress to see how well Bush's little elves "I have no agenda" Roberts and Alito have done in their first year. Expect many, many more of these "5 to 4's" in the future.

Questions for all you who don't know much better, but should
Maybe the time's come to use what you've got for some good.

Waveflux ala The Simpsons

Terrence at The Republic of T. is completely to blame for my having wasted the time it took to render a Simpsonized version of myself.

Eerily accurate, actually.

These interactive movie sites are often more entertaining than the films themselves. Does anyone know which film was the first to exploit the Web in this way?

(Cross-posted.)

Adoption and Fat

Last night, a reader named Becky drew my attention to Broadsheet's coverage of Kylie Lannigan's fight to adopt a child. Lannigan and her husband spent three years jumping through bureaucratic hoops and were deemed potentially wonderful parents -- except that Lannigan weighs 277 pounds. The last hoop they want her to jump through? Losing more than 110 pounds.

In addition to how outrageous that is on its face, one reason Lannigan is fat is the same reason she's trying to adopt: PCOS. She has a medical condition that causes weight gain (and, in some cases, infertility), but no other health problems. She's been tested for heart disease and diabetes and is fine. She exercises. But she's fat. That's all it takes to mark her as an unfit parent.

And this is currently the first Google result for her name. Just FYI.

While the Broadsheet coverage (by Thomas Rogers) isn't quite as infuriating as that, it's pretty fucking bad -- especially since I usually love Broadsheet. Money quote:

Does a fat woman have the right to be a mother? It's not a question with any easy answers, but given the rates of obesity in most Western countries, it's not one that's going away anytime soon.

Emphasis mine. As I said in my first letter over there, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Okay, I left out the caps and the "fucking," but that's what I meant. Also:

Dear Thomas,

That is a question with one very easy answer: yes.

Love, Kate

P.S. For Christ's sake. I mean, really.

I went back and wrote another letter later when I noticed this almost throwaway line:

Some studies have shown that obese parents tend to have overweight children, even when the child is adopted...

He doesn't tell us what those studies are, though I'm sure they exist. Problem is, they undoubtedly do not take into account whether the children's biological parents were fat. In the U.S., because of closed adoptions, it would be impossible to organize such a study on a large enough scale to produce meaningful results. But guess what? In Denmark, they did a study comparing adoptees' weights to those of both their adoptive and biological parents.

Here's what they found:

[T]here was a strong relation between the body-mass index of biologic parents and adoptee weight class and no relation between the index of adoptive parents and adoptee weight class. Furthermore, the relation between biologic parents and adoptees was not confined to the obesity weight class, but was present across the whole range of body fatness - from very thin to very fat."

And the upshot was this:

"We conclude that genetic influences have an important role in determining human fatness in adults, whereas the family environment alone has no apparent effect. "

Emphasis mine once again.

(Hat tip to Gina Kolata, who mentioned that study in Rethinking Thin, which was the first I'd heard of it. I'm telling you, there's a lot to learn in that book.)

In light of that study's results, let's take a moment to consider the physical and mental health consequences of letting thin people adopt children who have fat biological parents, in a culture that insists that A) fat is horrid, and B) the home environment has the greatest influence on a child's weight.

The Rotund has written movingly about that very subject many times. Her thin adoptive mother started putting her on diets -- and promising to reward her if she lost weight, but only if she lost weight -- when she was seven years old. And as she puts it:

I love my mother, I really do, quite deeply. But we have not had a good or simple relationship. Our interactions have always been negotiated through the meaning of my fat and our differing… viewpoints on just what it means for me to be fat. Because to my mom? Me being fat means I am going to die alone and unloved and miserable. And probably young. To me, my being fat means that I am fat.

The Rotund has also written movingly about how, after dieting for most of her life, her metabolism is fucked beyond belief, she's battled disordered eating for a long time, and how even now, she cannot bring herself to enjoy food-- and while weighing over 300 lbs., she struggles to make herself eat more than 1,000 calories a day. (And no, she's not losing weight.)

She doesn't know who her biological parents were or are. She doesn't even know for sure what her racial make-up is, let alone her family medical history. But I'd bet everything I own on this: one or both of her biological parents had fat genes.

The woman who raised her didn't, and furthermore didn't believe that genes had anything to do with it -- why would she, given all the messages that parents' habits and role modeling are almost solely to blame for children's fatness? So the Rotund might very well spend the rest of her life trying to undo the physical and psychological damage that issued from having an adoptive mother who could not accept the natural state of her child's body, who taught her child to hate herself, to be ashamed of herself, and to blame herself.

Yet many, many people, including those who make the policies, believe that having thin parents who won't stand for raising fat kids will always be in the child's best interest.

Yeah, obviously.

(Cross-posted to Shapely Prose)

The Malfoy Syndrome

Glenn Greenwald shares with us a manly chat between Tucker Carlson and Jonah Goldberg about Dick Cheney:

In just two minutes of chatty, giggly Cheney worship, the following tough-guy cliches flew from their mouths:

* Cheney "doesn't bother talking the talk, he just walks the walk";

* he's "a politician who doesn't look at the polls. . . another Harry Truman";

* "love to have a beer with the guy";

* "a smart, serious man in American life";

* "Have you ever seen Dick Cheney give a speech? I mean, the contempt for the audience is palpable" -- "I know, I -- see, I love that. He looks like he should be eating a sandwich while he's doing it, eating lunch over the sink . . I love that";

* "I can just see him yelling, hey you kids, get off my lawn. I love it."

As always, the pulsating need among the strain of individual represented by Tucker Carlson and Johan Goldberg to search endlessly for strong, powerful, masculine figures so that they can feel those attributes and pose as one who exudes them (Jonah Goldberg: "love to have a beer with the guy") is its own stomach-turning though vitally important topic. The same is true of the fact that the movement of which they are a part virtually always venerates as Icons of Courageous Sandwich-Eating Masculinity precisely those figures who so transparently play-act at the role but whose lives never exhibit any such attributes in reality. That, too, is its own rich and abundant topic.

This sort of man-crush is typical toady behavior. Every bully has his toadies; vide Draco Malfoy in Harry Potter who has Crabbe and Goyle to serve as enforcers and lickspittles; Carlson and Goldberg fill those roles nicely for Cheney.

The reason they're such sycophants is because they have too little talent or self-respect to stand on their own, or they're too much the coward to do anything but go along with the bully, afraid to stand up for themselves. So they overcompensate for their own short-comings (and all the Freudian implications that go along with them) by acting all butch and tough themselves when you know that they're completely incapable of playing the part themselves.

Friday Feminist Fun

Which Western feminist icon are you?

You are Angela Davis! You were the THIRD WOMYN
IN HISTORY to appear on the FBI's Most Wanted
List. You are a communinist, black power-lovin'
lady who shook up the United States when you
refused to lie down quietly to oppression. You
WENT TO JAIL! Wow. You kick so much more ass
than Foxxy Brown.

Take this quiz.

-------------------

Fucking awesome. I love Angela Davis!

"Progressive art can assist people to learn not only about the objective forces at work in the society in which they live, but also about the intensely social character of their interior lives. Ultimately, it can propel people toward social emancipation."

[Via TigTog.]

Obama Opposes Impeachment

Despite being distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of the Bush administration, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes impeachment:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

…"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches [sic], and intentional breeches [sic] of the president's authority," he said.

Seriously, what the fuck does he think has been going on at the White House for the past six years? The president's use of signing statements alone is a grave, intentional breach of his authority—and those are the mere tip of the massive, ship-of-state-wrecking iceberg that is his administration's profound contempt for the law.

Obama is completely off base here. As Maha points out, it would have been one thing if he "had he just made some noises about impeachment being a serious matter and not something to speculate about without thorough vetting, or something like that," but he didn't. And he didn't merely say something like Pelosi's infamous "impeachment is off the table" dipshittery, either—which was bad enough. No, Obama took it a step further and said that impeachment should be reserved for "grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches," then said he doesn't support it for the Bush administration, ergo suggesting that the Bush administration has not engaged in grave, intentional breaches of presidential authority. Swell.

Worse yet, he uses "playing politics" as an excuse, solidifying yet further the idea that impeachment is not about lawbreaking, but political game-playing: "I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction. We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus." Jebus.

You know, I'm not even objecting to Obama's statements from a place of necessarily disagreeing with an anti-impeachment position; there are good arguments for and against impeachment, and I quite genuinely respect positions on both sides of that debate. I object to everything else that he's saying. I mean, he can't seriously believe that ridding the White House of criminals isn't "attending the people's business," and yet it sure as shit sounds like he does, because he's so intent on staying above the fray. Bully for you. Wouldn't want you to damage your presidential aspirations by doing anything kooky like trying to rescue our country from its insane hijackers.

Obama's big solution is to "vote the bums out." As if to highlight what a truly ridiculous statement that actually is, the next paragraph in the story is: "The term for Bush and Cheney ends on Jan. 20, 2009. Bush cannot constitutionally run for a third term, and Cheney has said he will not run to succeed Bush."

Meanwhile: Pelosi also still opposing impeachment; says Bush isn't "worth impeaching." Yeah, I'm not sure acting as though the guy still leading the country (and prosecuting a devastating war that's undermining our security and reputation and robbing our treasury every single day) is beneath contempt is really the way to go here. Yeesh.

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

The Krofft Supershow

Birthday Greetings

Mel Brooks is 81.

Mel speaks:

"My movies rise below vulgarity."

"Oh, I'm not a true genius. I'm a near genius. I would say I'm a short genius. I'd rather be tall and normal than a short genius."

"I'm the only Jew who ever made a buck offa 'Hitler' !"

"Humor is just another defense against the universe."

And boy, do we need it today.

Question of the Day

Inspired by this email exchange between Bill Wolfrum and me:

Bill: All the stuff out of SCOTUS today has pretty much sapped my will to live, let alone write anymore today.

Liss: I know. Between SCOTUS and the goddamn nutbags in the White House, I seriously could not be more glad that I'm married to a citizen of the E.U.—just in case we've got to make a run for it.

------------------

Which branch of the government is officially the worst? Judiciary (SCOTUS—ugh!), Legislative (Congress—bipartisan ugh!), or Executive (which, for our purposes will include Dick Cheney, until Gonzo sorts out that grand Constitutional mystery)?

I honestly can't decide. It's like choosing which smells worse—shit, poop, or turds.

Because Melmanda Marcewan Exists, Ann Coulter is A-OK!

In response to Mrs. Edwards’ comments, MRC President Brent Bozell issued the following statement:

“Elizabeth Edwards should look close to home when it comes to ‘hatefulness and ugliness’ for it was her husband’s Democratic presidential campaign that hired two official bloggers who attacked ‘Christofascists’ and insulted Christians and their faith in the most repulsive words imaginable, which I won’t repeat here. Go Google Amanda Marcotte and Holy Spirit.

Yeah! I'm so totally Ann Coulter, bitchez. I have my own syndicated column, and I'm a regular guest all over cable news, and I've written a bunch of books. So, too, Melissa Marcotte! I mean, Amanda McEwan! I mean...wait, which one am I again? What did I say? Who am I?

Thanks loads to Bill Wolfrum for the heads-up.

...she said, totally making this face:

I'm looking at you, World.

Entertainment Weekly doesn't know robots

Any purported top ten list of cinematic robots that overlooks Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still (while somehow making room for the "fembots" from Austin Powers) must be considered suspect.

Sheesh.

EW does earn points, however, for remembering Ash from Alien.

(Cross-posted.)

Pink Beach

Bluestockingsrs sent me this article about a women-only beach in Italy, and I literally keep reading it over and over, and I don't even know what to do with it. It's, like, frying my brain. A women-only beach, which is good in many ways (e.g. body consciousness), but a women-only beach because men can't behave themselves, which is stupid. Lessons in deportment (zuh?!). Fitness classes, manicures, pedicures, and cooking lessons—which can all be great, but are sort of omg-ish, too, in the sense that they're the only things being offered, seemingly making the women-only beach also a "girly-girl only, learn-how-to-serve-your-man-and-be-pretty beach," too.

And a male lifeguard natch, because, according to the "businessman behind the idea" of Pink Beach, "It’s a question of muscles."

Fuck me.

Oh, also, I like how the "businessman behind the idea" of Pink Beach made sure to note "This is not a lesbian beach." Gee, thanks. Because lord knows I wouldn't accidentally want to wander on to one of those lesbian beaches!

Maybe he'll follow up Pink Beach with Lavender Beach for the lesbos.

Bush To Congress: Fuck You Deux

It looks like Shirky McShrugsalot has figured out another way to demonstrate he doesn't give a shit:

A House Appropriations Committee report accompanying legislation funding the Department of the Interior shows that Bush requested 93 of the 321 earmarks in the bill. A panel report for the financial services and general government spending bill showed that Bush requested 17 special projects worth $947 million, more than any single member of Congress.

Senate appropriators have identified more than 350 earmarks in the military construction spending bill requested by the president.

That's a lot of earmarks from someone who, only a few months ago, had this to say on the subject:

Earmarks often divert precious funds from vital priorities like national defense. And each year they cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.

And this:

And Congress needs to cut the number and cost of earmarks next year by at least half.

What's that? Executive privilege? Earmark reform only applies to the legislative branch? Douchehoundsayswhat? Well, never mind that. I've an award to present! Ahem.. now then..

For the brazen disregard of his own spoken words, we would like to present to you, Shirky, the official Shakesville Hairy Balls Of Hypocrisy award. Display them proudly as you already do, Mr. President!

Can't Keep a Good Blog Down

Lizard just left this in comments, and it's far too awesome not to post on the main page. Thanks, Lizard!

Every Shaker in Shakesville liked blogging a lot--
But the trolls, who lived just south of Shakesville, did NOT!
The trolls hated discourse and logic and reason;
Perhaps, in their troll brains, they thought it was treason,
Although the most plausible reason of all
May be that their troll dicks were two sizes too small.
The more that they stewed over Shakesville's success,
The more they determined to stop the whole mess.
"That's it!" said the trolls, "Now they're blogging on rape.
Our tiny troll dicks need a plan of escape!"
So they slouched in their basements one dark summer night,
Bombarded the server, and shut down the site.
"We've silenced the Shakers!" they crowed all in chorus.
"Our cool Freeper friends are now sure to adore us!"
But when next they logged on, oh, alas and alack!
The Shakers were blogging despite their attack!
The trolls said "What's this? They're back up and running?
But how can this be? Our plan was so cunning!
They picked up and moved to a new online space--
Who knew that the Internets were such a big place?
Their blog is still witty, their blog is still brainy,
Their blog is still ruthless to Bush and to Cheney,
They write about eagles and Mitt Romney's dog--
My god, this is one indestructible blog!"
And what happened then? Well, in Shakesville they say
That the trolls' dicks just fell off completely that day.
Let the lesson be learned, all you trolls in Troll-town:
You can shake up the Shakers...but not keep them down.

Bush to Congress: Fuck You

Bush Won't Supply Subpoenaed Documents:

The White House said today it would not comply with congressional subpoenas for documents and testimony relating to the firings of federal prosecutors last year, setting up a potential constitutional confrontation over its claim of executive privilege.

In a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees, President Bush's counsel, Fred F. Fielding, said the White House refuses to turn over documents that were subpoenaed by the two committees on June 13. The deadline for handing over most of them was today.

"I write at the direction of the President to advise and inform you that the President has decided to assert executive privilege and therefore the White House will not be making any production in response to these subpoenas for documents," Fielding wrote in the letter to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Leahy and Conyers vow to press on, with Leahy quite correctly noting the obvious: "This White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred."

I literally don't know what to say anymore.

Immigration bill deader than fried chicken

Shot through the heart, and you're to blame. You give immigration reform a bad name. Extravagant language like "crushing defeat" and "fell dramatically short" in popular use. Elements of a Bush legacy reduced now to disastrous foreign wars, bumbling response to natural catastrophes, erosion of individual liberties, subversion of the Constitution, and diminution of the Republican Party. Does that about cover it?

(Cross-posted.)