Just throwing in my two cents on the continuing discussion about the right wing's latest War on Reality...
It's just one more sign that when they can't defend the merits of their argument, they take on the victims and make the issue about them rather than the issue itself. And when that fails, they go over the edge to the point where words like "lunatic" and "restraining order" enter into the mix.
In an article in the New York Times, Michelle Malkin defends her assault on the Frost family by turning it into an attack on the Maryland SCHIP program and saying that using a 12-year-old kid as a spokesperson for their program makes him fair game; the same sentiment Karl Rove used when he leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press.“The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets,” Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. “Maryland’s S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.”
Ms. Malkin can get away with this because she knows that while the righties have used children as props for everything from stem-cell research to Social Security reform, the Democrats and the progressive blogosphere are not going to hunt down the families of those children, stalk their workplaces, put their addresses on the internet, and send them death threats via e-mail and the telephone, and if they did, they would be shunned and chastised by their allies. Yet this is the tactic that the righties are using on the Frosts, and Ms. Malkin herself has done this in the past. (Ironically, when some leftist bloggers posted her personal information a couple of years ago, she had a meltdown. Sauce for the goose and all that...) Even when she tries to re-focus the discussion on the SCHIP program, she still screams "Take no prisoners!"
As for accusations that bloggers were unfairly attacking a 12-year-old, Ms. Malkin wrote on her blog, “If you don’t want questions, don’t foist these children onto the public stage.”
Ezra Klein sees this as not just an isolated case but a sign that the right wing has gone over the cliff.The shrieking, atavistic ritual of personal destruction the right roars into every few weeks is something different than politics. It is beyond politics. It was done to Scott Beauchamp, a soldier serving in Iraq. It was done to college students from the University of California, at Santa Cruz. Currently, it is being done to a child and his family. And think of those targets: College students, soldiers, children. It can be done to absolutely anyone.
John Cole at Balloon Juice notes that the Frost family is, by every definition, the perfect Republican family:
This is not politics. This is, in symbolism and emotion, a violent group ritual. It is savages tearing at the body of a captured enemy. It is the group reminding itself that the Other is always disingenuous, always evil, always lying, always pitiful and pathetic and grotesque. It is a bonding experience -- the collaborative nature of these hateful orgies proves that much -- in which the enemy is exposed as base and vile and then ripped apart by the community. In that way, it sustains itself, each attack preemptively justifying the next vicious assault, justifying the whole hateful edifice on which their politics rest.
It is a blessing and relief that these mobs, as of yet, do nothing more than smear, that the blood they exult in is figurative and the inflicted harm is emotional or occupational. But they are howling, braying, thirsty mobs nonetheless, and their frequent, communal savagings of chosen representatives of their enemies is ugly and unsettling. It's impossible not to wonder when the first one will drive by a house, and then decide to ring the doorbell, and then. Indeed, it's already come damn close.If you look through this family’s dossier, it appears they are doing everything Republicans say they should be doing- hell, their story is almost what you would consider a checklist for good, red-blooded American Republican voters: they own their own business, they pay their taxes, they are still in a committed relationship and are raising their kids, they eschewed public education and are doing what they have to do to get them into Private schools, they are part of the American dream of home ownership that Republicans have been pointing to in the past two administrations as proof of the health of the economy, and so on.
It is at this point when it becomes pretty obvious that we have gone far beyond the point of reasoned debate and civil discourse. This is no longer a question of whether or not a popular and successful insurance program for middle class children should be expanded or vetoed or a debate about the role of government in providing health care. That has been lost in all the sound and fury which, to their credit, the progressives have left pretty much to the righties; all the lefties have done is stand back and watch in wonder at the viciousness of the attacks from the Free Republic and their minions.
In short, they are a white, lower-middle-class, committed family, who is doing EVERYTHING the GOP Kultur Kops would have you believe people should be doing. They aren’t gay. They aren’t divorced. They didn’t abort their children. They aren’t drug addicts or welfare queens. They are property owners, entrepeneurs, taxpayers, and hard-working Americans. I bet nine times out of ten in past elections, if you handed this resume to a pollster, they would think you were discussing the prototypical Republican voter. Hell, the only thing missing from this equation is membership to a church and an irrational fear of Muslims and you HAVE the prototypical Bush voter.
They are, however, not without fault. They are unable to afford insurance through normal means (and now that they have pre-existing conditions, probably couldn’t get traditional insurance anyway), and managed to get several of their family members injured in a traumatic accident. And, it appears, those are the big blind spots for compassionate conservatism. That, and the real big sin- allowing themselves to advocate for a policy that the Decider was going to veto. Here it is, so you can see their grievous sin that requires they be destroyed...
This is also a precursor to the election if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The attacks on the Frosts and Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" flap is just the right wing clearing their guns, and it's a parody of outrage bordering on the comical. I used to think that if Hillary Clinton was the nominee and elected that it would lead to nothing but four years of this kind of crap and that nothing would get done. Now I'm not so sure; the right wing has become this screaming mass of ineffectual outrage to the point that they're actually fun to watch just for the entertainment value. Meanwhile the grown-ups will get down to work and get things done, leaving the kids to squabble it out in the sandbox.
One can only hope.
Cross-posted -- with minor edits -- from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
Over the Cliff
A Modicum of Perspective
As Stephen mentions in his guest post below, the Frost family has become the target of the rightwing because 12-year-old Graeme served as a spokesman for the SCHIP program. The breadth and viciousness of the smears is rather breathtaking—and if you're feeling masochistic, you can find a round-up of some the nastiest shit to come from the conservosphere in at least a week at Memeorandum. You can also find a lot of excellent, eloquent, and passionate repudiation of those smears, chock full of "facts." (They don't call us the Reality Based Community for nuttin'!) But, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, so you can't beat for brevity this exposition on how completely fucked the rightwingers' smear job is (via John Cole):
Duke and Duchess Frost in the forward gardens of their palatial estate.
(Sun photo by Barbara Haddock Taylor / October 9, 2007)
Dangerous, Hateful, Amoral Scumbags: Right Wing Bloggers and Radio Hosts
by Stephen
So a couple of weeks ago 12 year old Graeme Frost delivered the weekly Democratic radio address, talking about Bush's reprehensible veto of the SCHIP bill - a bill with the overwhelming support of states' Governors and Congressional members of both parties.
The Right Wing Hate Machine, sensing a vulnerability, has kicked into gear, harassing people at the Frost's home and business, digging up their tax returns, investigating where their kids go to school, etc. They've come to the predictable conclusion that the Frosts are scam artists, that their children are pampered little rich kids living large off the government.
The Frosts, of course, have never made more than $50,000/year. They bought their house in Baltimore for $55,000. I don't know much about Baltimore, but in Kansas City a $55,000 house means either no indoor plumbing or that it's in between two crack houses - or both. The family was in a horrible car accident a few years ago, which left their daughter with severe brain damage and their son, Graeme, has had to fight for a couple of years now to get back to health. They do attend private school, but as recipients of scholarships. The family pays about $500/yr for each kid.
George Bush has used "snowflake babies" - extraneous fertilized eggs from fertility treatments that were adopted ahead of already-living kids that need a home, but hey, these kids are all white - to make his stem cell policies unassailable, during the Social Security debacle a while back there was a 9 year old who traveled the country speaking at events to try and convince people to destroy the program, etc. Not one blogger - NOT ONE! - "visited" that kid's family at home, or looked into their finances. Not one blogger has searched out these "snowflake babies" to see what lives they're living.
In fact, I've been surprised at the restraint the media has had regarding George Bush's kids. Chelsea Clinton was never spared any insult the Right Wing Hate Machine could spew out. If the Bush twins could have just behaved themselves a bit a few years ago, we would have never heard anything about them.
Why? Because there is simply no organization, no group, no ethos on the American Left which considers its political philosophy so important and inherently moral that this nation's laws and normal ethics don't apply. There is no such thing as a Left-wing radio host with a program based upon insults and hatred. There are no Left-wing TV show hosts who get on every night and lie lie lie like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Scarborough, Matthews, Russert and all the other hacks and flacks on TV.
I'm not trying to say that all liberals are super-good and moral people, nor can every conservative be characterized as the opposite. But the movements are entirely different.
Moveon.org puts an ad in the New York Times using a nickname from General Petraeus' own career - General Betrayus - and the Right goes nuts. Rush Limbaugh had used that smear against Chuck Schumer months ago, calling him Senator Betrayus in counterpoint to Gen. Petraeus' then-upcoming testimony. Nothing was done.
The above example is just par for the course. The Left in this country is routinely portrayed as being angry, bitter, unhinged. But what proof is there of that? Just like with the fabricated spitting on Vietnam vets incidents, proof of a rabid, angry and deranged Left in this country simply isn't around. But there is an entire media industry that garners a majority of its profits from the perpetuation of that very myth while ignoring the quite real examples of extreme Right-wing fanatics who do commit violence. Violence such as bombing women's health clinics (they usually aren't the clinics that offer abortions) and shooting doctors who perform abortions, like posting journalists' personal information and calling on people to teach their children - there's the children as targets again - a lesson for publishing photos of Dick Cheney's and Donald Rumsfeld's vacation homes, never mind that they had permission. Invasions of privacy, smears, lies, all piped into the homes of millions of Americans simply because someone got on their bad side, or happened to be around when the GOP desperately needed a distraction from the corruption and incompetence that has so taken hold of the party structure and leadership.
I can tell you this: If Michelle Malkin - or anyone else - trespassed on my property in order to harass my family about stuff that's none of her business, I'd smack the hell out of her and be fully within my rights. This is one liberal who, when it comes to his kids, makes the proverbial she-bear protecting her cubs look like an arthritic toy poodle.
(Crossposted from The Thinkery.)
Halloween Dangers!
Everyone knows I love kids. And by "love" I mean "don't like very much but they're everywhere, so what are ya gonna do?" It's with that in mind I bring you this consumer alert. Danger is lurking in the aisles of your favourite Halloween retailer!
I am, of course, talking about tacky costumes in questionable taste. No kid should be allowed anywhere near these things. And if they do ask for one, feel free to spank them.
You're probably relieved to know there's no Dress Your Daughter Like A Whore™ costume this year. That's no reason to drop your guard. There's something just as nefarious hanging on the rack at you local Halloween retailer. I'm talking about the Geisha Girl Costume.
There's no better way to instill the values of limited self-worth, subservience to men, and institutionalized prostitution in your child than with this classic polyester number. What I find particularly amusing about this one is that there are two versions available: The Geisha Girl Costume and the Kids' Geisha Costume. I guess that latter one is a unisex model for fans of M. Butterfly.
Check out the ever-popular Macho Biker outfit (left). It's for every boy that wants to look like he's walked straight out of a Tom of Finland comic. I'm pretty sure I saw someone wearing this exact thing in Querelle. The Sailor Jerry "Mom" tattoo is a nice touch though.
But hey, the creepy sexualization of children isn't all we have to worry about this season. What can be said about the Harem Dog Pet Costume that isn't already covered in the description? "Your pooch will be positively dreamy in this exotic costume!" I don't know what kind of person would buy a harem outfit for a dog, and frankly, I don't think I want to.
And with the pink Jr. Camouflage Suit your daughter can express her dream to serve her country one day. So long as she doesn't forget she's just a girl. Maybe the color scheme will come in handy if she needs to hide in a room full of teddy bears and My Little Pony posters.
So, you've been warned. Between razor blades in apples and these costumes, it's going to be a dicey year for kids. But hey, Halloween is supposed to be scary, ain't it? Oh, and it looks like I was wrong about that Dress Your Daughter Like A Whore™ costume.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Ginraven: "I was shocked (and I do mean shocked) to learn that my little brother (I'm 26; he's 18) has no memory of watching The Cosby Show...or A Different World...or Who's the Boss, etc. My sister and I crack jokes about those shows all the time, and he just has no idea what we're talking about. So my question is: When have you been shocked to discover that someone younger had no idea what you were talking about when discussing something near and dear to your heart?"
Enforcing Corporate Responsibility, Conservative-Style
I've got a new piece up at The Guardian's Comment is Free about the wingnuts going apeshit over Google's logo: "[I]t appears that Google had the unmitigated temerity to honor the 50th anniversary of the Sputnik launch last week, by replacing its second "g" with a drawing of the satellite. But it's not just their honoring of dirty Communist space junk that has conservatives questioning the patriotism of The Google—apparently those search engine scumbags also failed to do some silly rubbish with their logo on the US public holidays of Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Oh, the humanity!"
The whole thing is here. Enjoy!
If You're Not White, You Must Be Black
Today, after reading Melissa's post about the incredibly racist remark made by John Tanner . . . . I quietly mopped my brains off my monitor, and went hunting some stats -- as I was almost certain that not only was this remark racist . . . . . but factually incorrect.
I recollected that Hispanic and Asian populations actually had longer life expectancy than whites in the US (turns out I was right about that) -- but as I sought credible evidence to support my post , a funny thing happened -- I found that it was very, very (no, like VERY!) hard to find detailed life expectancy statistics that display information on all the racial minorities in our nation.
Nearly all the "Life Expectancy by Race" data available online at the Census Bureau and the CDC presented data only about "Whites" and "Blacks" (subdivided by gender in these two races.).
Much as it may shock Bill O'Reilly and John Tanner (our champion of civil rights at the DOJ), the minority races that comprise 31% of our population are not a monolithic group of African Americans who keel over early after screaming for their m-f-ing ice tea.
Our national racial profile is more like the chart at right, with Asians and Hispanics (who outlive white people by 3-6 years) comprising 16% of our population, and Native American women outliving white women by an average of 2 years.
And, of the minority populations that do not typically live as long as whites, (Black men and women, and Native American men), there are vast disparities in life-expectancy depending on where these people live, and their income levels (just google "Eight Americas" to see what I mean) -- cuz, you know, sometimes . . . . (I'm not stating anything definitive here -- just positing a theory) . . . . just sometimes, being kidnapped and forced into slavery, enduring nearly complete racial genocide, and then dealing with several centuries of ongoing crap and present-day institutionalized oppression and endless betrayal and broken promises can be like, kind of stressful, ya know? 'Jus sayin'.
Back to my post title, however. If Tanner's comment didn't clue you in to just how deeply racism is institutionalized in our country, I want to impress upon you the fact that this man (who is, supposedly, assuring the civil rights of minorities in our nation's elections) took a statistic about one race (an appalling statistic) and used it as a broad and sloppy brush -- to justify the further marginalization of anyone who is not white!!!!!!! (Here, let me add a few more outraged exclamation points to that,) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To me, when I plumb the underlying racist assumptions demonstrated in this kind of comment (can't you just hear the not-so-faint echoes of "whites are fundamentally stronger and healthier". . . "people of color don't really matter anyway"?), I honestly ask myself: "What year is it again?"
The 31% of our nation who, according to Tanner, "don't become elderly the way white people do" currently outnumber the dwindling number of people who still support the president.
So, if 29% of The People can keep the Homicider Decider in office, why can't 31% of The People (and their myriad allies) get rid of asshat, racist, government flunkies, "pundits", and elected officials?
(Oh, and while we're at it, how about addressing and amending the factors that decrease the life-span of Black and Native Americans?)
I'm ready to take on the task. Are you?
(cross-posted to Teh Portly Dyke)
Authentic Inclusion, Please
So, as you may recall, I am not totally joyous about Dove's "Campaign for Real Beauty," and one of my specific complaints is that in redefining the borders of what constitutes "real beauty" by mere inches, and then defining the women who fit into this tremendously incomplete range as the "real women," Dove has merely substituted one limited image of beauty for another—and, in the process, by virtue of excluding genuinely plus size women from the spectrum of "real women," is moving our ideas about what constitutes "plus size" in decidedly the wrong direction.
Case in point: This season of America's Next Top Model features "plus size" model Sarah Hartshorne.
Yeah. She's a size 8. She is indeed bigger than the usual size-0 models, but she is not plus-size. Actual plus-size models (like those former plus size model and designer Emme use in her runway shows) start at size 14. She uses size 14, 16, and 18 models.
This is what I'm talking about when I say such meager concessions toward acknowledging the continuum of female body types is trading a short-term positive for a long-term negative. Even as fat acceptance gains traction at long last, our ideas of thin and fat and "normal" and "plus size" women are nonetheless getting increasingly out of whack. No one, and I mean no one, is helped by our beginning to regard the woman pictured above (or the women in Dove's campaign) as "plus size."
Fuck. That.
[Hat tip to SweetMachine.]
Obscure GOP Pervert of the Week
by Blogenfreude
I think it's safe to assume this guy was a Republican:
"An Alabama minister who died in June of 'accidental mechanical asphyxia' was found hogtied and wearing two complete wet suits, including a face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head mask, according to an autopsy report." He also had a dildo up his ass, but it was wearing a condom.And the pastor, Gary Aldridge, once worked for Jerry Falwell. Roll on Cocktober! (We're not even 10 days into the month, and it's a GOP fuckfest already. Imagine what will happen by Halloween!)
And surprise! The fundies don't understand the meaning of "autoerotic."
(Crossposted from Agitprop.)
Bush Admin: Never Mind The Bollocks
Now that we're done with that SCHIP ordeal, Bush would like to show that he still really loves teh childrens, so much so that the message of abstinence is making its way around the horn again.
Here's the latest ad which features kids telling their parents to tell them to wait and stuff.
The mind boggles over the decision to keep this campaign going, considering that:
A) There are federal reports which exhibit the total failure of the administration's abstinence-only policy.
B) The First Lady thinks her husband's abstinence-only policy applies to his abstaining from reality.
C) First Daughter Jenna is also of the opinion that her father is out of his fucking mind.
Really, Mr. President, you should just cut the shit already and get with the program to actually educate kids on what they NEED to know. After all, you said it best: "Childrens do learn."
[H/T to Feministing]
The Conservative Facial Hair Agenda
Apropos of Bill's beardoriffic post, I thought it was a good time to repost the guide to the Conservative Facial Hair Agenda—because it's important to know what to look for!
Other Than the Killing Spree, He Was a Great Guy
Kathy of Birmingham Blues forwarded me this AP story about the Wisconsin sheriff's deputy, Tyler Peterson, who shot and killed six people at a party this weekend, seriously injured another, and then either killed himself or was killed during an exchange of gunfire with police. The story notes that, although the police "declined to provide details of the argument that preceded the shooting," Peterson's friend reports that Peterson "had gone to his ex-girlfriend's house hoping to patch up their relationship" and went on his murderous rampage when her friends began calling him a "worthless pig."
See how easy victim-blaming is? Just find a friend of the killer, who will be happy to suggest that six kids ranging in age from 14 to 20 wouldn't be dead if only they'd not assailed Peterson's manhood. And it gets better.
[Peterson's friend Mike Kegley] said Peterson came to his door about five hours after the rampage early Sunday and calmly told him what happened.Well, that's very pertinent news. It's always important to hear what a great guy a violent killer is from his friends, family, and colleagues, just to drive home the impression that firing 30 rounds into his ex-girlfriend and her loud-mouthed, insolent pals with his AR-15 semi-automatic wasn't his fault; it was that dumb bitch, who not only wouldn't reconcile with him but mocked him, too. Because, otherwise, he was a great guy.
"He wasn't running around crazy or anything. He was very, very sorry for what he did," said Kegley, adding that he gave Peterson coffee and food and later made repeated calls to 911.
I've probably heard no fewer than a dozen different comedians riff on the old "he was such a nice guy; he was so quiet; he kept to himself" chestnut after some maniac loses his shit and goes on a shooting spree or 36 bodies are excavated from his basement-cum-catacomb. It's one of those cultural things of which we're all aware, and so it becomes "funny" merely by virtue of its universality. But that it's a concept with which we're all so intimately familiar speaks to the pernicious twin narratives of victim provocation (she made me do it/goaded me into it/was asking for it/wanted it) and "the dark side"—or "dark half" or "mean streak" or "evil streak" or "Jekyll and Hyde complex" or any one of a rather alarming number of euphemisms for the part of an otherwise Good Man who nonetheless does Very Bad Things.
Something has to set men off, you see. (The same is not true of women killers, for whom the narrative is that they are "psychos" who managed to manipulate people into thinking they were normal when they weren't out killing people, a dichotomy of explanations not dissimilar from the "deep hatred" double standard.) And, at its worst, the legend of the male killer's "dark side" seeks to excuse the male killer altogether by purporting that such ugliness is inherent in the male nature, that every man is capable of the same given the right (so to speak) circumstance.
Recall David Brooks' column "Virtues and Victims" about the association between rape and (no kidding) a loss of chivalry, in which he casually mourns the loss of general acceptance of the belief that "each of us had a godlike and a demonic side, and that decent people perpetually strengthened the muscles of their virtuous side in order to restrain the deathless sinner within." Back in the good old days, he notes, "[educators who … understood that when you concentrate young men, they have a tropism toward barbarism] cared less about academics than about instilling a formula for character building. The formula, then called chivalry, consisted first of manners, habits and self-imposed restraints to prevent the downward slide."
Well, lookee there. In one paragraph, he notes that people (although he means "men") each have an evil side capable of rape (and presumably murder), that men are innately barbarous, and that the only solution is chivalry, which, as I've noted before, is merely benevolent oppression—"In exchange for other inequalities that will be perpetuated against you to maintain our privilege, we'll protect you from the worst of our lot." In other words, if women vociferously challenge male privilege, you can't fault men for what they do in response.
And now we're back to "they called him a worthless pig."
I guess he showed them.
But, having proved himself both worthless pig and murderous scum, we are treated not to a comment on that obvious reality, but instead the analysis of his friend, who assures us he was sorry he killed those kids, even as he yet reminds us they did make fun of him.
To The DemCave!
Updated below the fold.
The New York Times is reporting that the Democrats are expected to grant the White House broad powers to extend the warrantless wiretapping program that they gave them back in August.
Bush administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened wiretapping authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess, and some Democratic officials admit that they may not come up with the votes to rein in the administration.So the Democrats would much rather be seen as being soft on the Constitution and civil liberties than they would on terrorism because heaven forbid that the GOP will run a nasty political ad next year accusing them of being buddies with Osama bin Laden?
As the debate over the N.S.A.’s wiretapping powers begins anew this week, the emerging legislation reflects the political reality confronting the Democrats. While they are willing to oppose the White House on the conduct of the war in Iraq, they remain nervous that they will be labeled as soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on intelligence gathering.
Here's a news flash, Democrats: they will anyway. When it comes to exploiting fear and terrorism for their own good, it doesn't matter what the Democrats do or where they stand; the GOP still come after them like a banshee in heat. Just ask Max Cleland. So why don't they just stand up for the Constitution and for once get some backbone? Most of the American electorate is so tired of the fearmongering and the right-wing terror-campaign bullshit that they'll respect the Democrats a hell of a lot more if they took the stand that there are some things more important than scoring political points.
If sacrificing some of the rights we're supposed to be fighting terrorism for is their way of staying in power, then they don't deserve to be in power in the first place.
Update: Glenn Greenwald says it the revised law being introduced today may not be as bad as the NY Times article portrays it. It will include several provisions that the Bushies will not like, including a requirement that they "reveal to Congress the details of all electronic surveillance conducted without court orders since Sept. 11, 2001, including the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program."
As Glenn notes, this may all be a smokescreen to placate the progressives...
[b]ut there seem to be some genuine opportunities -- with a smart and energized campaign -- to try to exert influence on this process to ensure more positive outcomes. For that reason, declaring defeat and "full capitulation" in advance -- as the NYT article does today -- seems premature.Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
If the Democratic Congress capitulates yet again, there will be plenty of time and opportunity for all sorts of recriminations. I think it is quite encouraging that much of the "netroots" is now devoting its energies and resources not to supporting Democrats, but to opposing Congressional Democrats who merit defeat.
From the You've Got to Be Shitting Me Files
Unbelievably, the Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, John Tanner, contends that while it's "a shame" that elderly voters may be disenfranchised by new Photo ID restrictions at the polls because many don't have driver's licenses, minorities don't have to worry quite as much. Why? Because "minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first."Just to be clear, in case your mind can't quite compute what you've just read, that was the Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice saying not only that disenfranchising elderly voters is a shame and wev to that, but also that minorities don't have to worry their brown little heads about it because, with the Bush administration doing everything it can to ensure that a combination of poverty, lower access to the healthiest, freshest foods, lack of healthcare, and violence lowers minorities' life expectancies, they'll probably be dead, anyhow.
To borrow a phrase from Shark-fu... Blink.
Warner Bros. Lurves teh Ladiez Update
Yesterday, I quoted Deadline Hollywood writer Nikke Finke who was reporting on Warner Bros. president Jeff Robinov's alleged assertion that the studio would no longer make films with female leads. Mickle has dropped an update in comments, which I thought would be of interest:
At least one person has gotten an email response so far. (Go Lisa!)Mickle wonders if so many of their movies tank because they are such asshats it's amazing they manage to make any good movies at all. And I'm beginning to wonder if the root of their financial problems doesn't start in production, because someone over there is really fucking bad at math.
Of course they deny that this is their policy. But here's the kicker (I was so hoping they'd be stupid enough to do this. Let's hope they keep it up.) As exculpatory evidence they assert that their "2008 film slate" includes "at least three motion pictures with female leads and casts."
First of all, notice the switch from "female leads" to "female leads and casts." It's really, really sad that they had to do this in order to get the number up to a whopping three.
Secondly, WB put out 24* films this year. Assuming a similar number next year, that means that only 12% of their movies will feature "female leads and casts."
So, not only do little better than 10% of WB films include "female leads and casts," but the WB thinks that this fact "underscores [their] commitment to telling good stories regardless of gender."
…* I don't know f they are counting their "indie" films. If they aren't, the numbers are 19 and 16%.
women = 52% of population
WB films w/ female leads < 52%
12% ≠ 52% [and/or 16% ≠ 52%]
WB ≠ committed "to telling good stories regardless of gender"Unless, of course, WB is arguing that there are just aren't many "good stories" about women.
Which is naturally what they are arguing. It's what the studios constantly argue, in no small part because they routinely fail to imagine that parts written for men could often just as easily be filled by women. They're insipid morons. After all, these are the same people who still feel completely comfortable publicly registering shock and amazement, as if it's evidence of broad-mindedness and not indicative of their cloistered and ignorant retrofuck jackholery, when Queen Latifah plays a character written for a white woman. ZOMG, the humanity! Praise to Jebus—see how movies have the power to transform the world, people?!
Perhaps nothing more perfectly illustrates the profundity of American studios' collective blind spot regarding women than the story of the United States women's national soccer team. Can you even imagine if the men's team had, in this emerging sport, played its first game ever in 1985, and 22 years later had won two World Cups, two Olympic gold medals, one Olympic silver, five global invitationals, plus the inaugural of a world championship match—and, to top it off, its best-known star and America's youngest World Cup winner was born with a partial club foot?
The question wouldn't be whether a movie would have been made. The question would be how many movies had been made.
