Hi everyone.
I've tweaked the blog's template a bit. Please comment as to whether the page seems to load better now. In addition, if there any other tech issues with the new template that you are experiencing, please leave them in comments and we'll take a look.
Thanks for hanging in there!
Blog Note: Update
Friday fun
It can be tricky with some of the countries being so small in the quiz! I've only managed level 8 with an IQ score of 98 so far, LOL.
Charming
Obama's key foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, calls Hillary Clinton "a monster."
"She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything. ...You just look at her and think: ergh.And then, to boot, she goes on to imply that poor, working class Americans are daft.
"But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."As opposed to calling her a monster, which is lovely.
Powers has apologized to Hillary Clinton and to Obama, her boss, "who has made very clear that these kinds of expressions should have no place in American politics" and "decries such characterizations which have no place in this campaign." One would think he'd thusly be unwilling to employ an aide so rude (not to mention daft and incompetent) as to call his opponent "a monster" during an on-the-record interview, though Powers continues to serve as an advisor (so far).
Personally, I don't think someone should be shitcanned for that sort of thing, but Obama's run on a platform of transcendence, change, unity, blah blah blah, as if he isn't willing to get in the muck as deep as anyone (which he is), so he's painted himself into a corner and looks like a hypocrite if he keeps her on staff. Which is why I've hated this "above it all" posture from the beginning; it ties his hands, and it's tough to deal with the mudslinging GOP without getting your hands dirty.
UPDATE: Powers has resigned. Well, that's too bad. I really think that if Obama hadn't been singing that "new kind of politics" song, an apology would have been sufficient.
Blog Note
Please bear with me as I update the template. Things may look a little funny for a few minutes…
Update 1: Okay, things are pretty much a go now. Few things with which Space Cowboy and I still need to tinker, but overall, it's pretty much there. Let me know in comments if you're having problems with anything.
Update 2: For those who aren't aware of the context for the teaspoon reference, it started with my post on International Human Rights Day, when I said: "Today is the final day of the 16 Days of Action Against Gender Violence, during which I suppose I have blogged exactly as often as always about violence against women, in America and abroad. Sometimes it feels like it's all I ever write about; sometimes it feels like I can't possibly write about it enough to do the issue justice; often, those feelings exist within me simultaneously. All I ever do is try to empty the sea with this teaspoon; all I can do is keep trying to empty the sea with this teaspoon."
From that came the Shakesville Silver Teaspoon for Random Acts of Feminism, and a whole lot of subsequent references to teaspoons in these pages, when we are feeling crushed by the vastness of the work to be done.
Update 3: We're still tweaking the template and working on some of the issues that have been raised in comments, particularly as regards load time. Please bear with us as we iron out the kinks. And keep letting us know of any problems you experience with the new layout.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Evil Fizz: What actor makes you refuse to see a film?
I can think of a lot of celebrities cum pseudo-actors (a la Paris Hilton) whose personas, despite my best attempts to always try to separate the artist from her/his work, I find so obnoxious I wouldn't want to see any film in which they'd been cast, but they tend to make the type of shit I wouldn't want to see, anyway.
Of serious actors, I can't really think of anyone so objectionable I'd flatly refuse to watch any film that included them in the cast, although it would have to be an incredibly compelling project for me to spend money or time on anything featuring Mel Gibson.
Quote of the Day
Screwing in a Tropical Paradise
The Boston Globe reports that a top Iraqi contractor -- and former Halliburton subsidiary -- has avoided paying taxes on their U.S. employees working in Iraq by hiring them through a shell company in the Cayman Islands.
How efficient: screw the government that gave you the no-bid contract in the first place, and screw the employees at the same time. That's KBR's way of living up to Dick Cheney's mantra.
Kellogg Brown & Root, the nation's top Iraq war contractor and until last year a subsidiary of Halliburton Corp., has avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies based in this tropical tax haven.
More than 21,000 people working for KBR in Iraq - including about 10,500 Americans - are listed as employees of two companies that exist in a computer file on the fourth floor of a building on a palm-studded boulevard here in the Caribbean. Neither company has an office or phone number in the Cayman Islands.
The Defense Department has known since at least 2004 that KBR was avoiding taxes by declaring its American workers as employees of Cayman Islands shell companies, and officials said the move allowed KBR to perform the work more cheaply, saving Defense dollars.
But the use of the loophole results in a significantly greater loss of revenue to the government as a whole, particularly to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. And the creation of shell companies in places such as the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes has long been attacked by members of Congress.
[...]
With an estimated $16 billion in contracts, KBR is by far the largest contractor in Iraq, with eight times the work of its nearest competitor.
The no-bid contract it received in 2002 to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure and a multibillion-dollar contract to provide support services to troops have long drawn scrutiny because Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive from 1995 until he joined the Republican ticket with President Bush in 2000.
The largest of the Cayman Islands shell companies - called Service Employers International Inc., which is now listed as having more than 20,000 workers in Iraq, according to KBR - was created two years before Cheney became Halliburton's chief executive. But a second Cayman Islands company called Overseas Administrative Services, which now is listed as the employer of 1,020 mostly managerial workers in Iraq, was established two months after Cheney's appointment.
[...]
Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for KBR, acknowledged via e-mail that the two Cayman Islands companies were set up "in order to allow us to reduce certain tax obligations of the company and its employees."
Social Security and Medicare taxes amount to 15.3 percent of each employees' salary, split evenly between the worker and the employer. While KBR's use of the shell companies saves workers their half of the taxes, it deprives them of future retirement benefits.
In addition, the practice enables KBR to avoid paying unemployment taxes in Texas, where the company is registered, amounting to between $20 and $559 per American employee per year, depending on the company's rate of turnover.
As a result, workers hired through the Cayman Island companies cannot receive unemployment assistance should they lose their jobs.
(Cross-posted.)
A Dispatch from the Frontlines of Ben Stiller's Quest to Single-Handedly Ruin Movies
I just realized that film that Petulant mentioned this morning, Ben Stiller's Tropic Thunder, in which Robert Downey, Jr. plays a black character (or a white character playing a black character or wev), is the same film for which Tom Cruise dons a fat suit:
You know, there are a lot of hot young struggling white dudez in Hollywood. Ben Stiller's really onto something, getting rid of all the brown people and fatties and just dressing up the hot young white dudez like brown people and fatties instead. I mean, there aren't even that many non-hot non-young non-white and/or non-dude roles in movies, anyway.
It's positively Shakespearean, really. Back in "ye olde day," white dudez played all the roles—bitchez and all.
I hope it's not too late for Stiller to recast all the female roles with Wayans brothers.
In whiteface.
Yeah, That's Me
Melissa suggested that I swap out my Shakesville bio picture of Sam with a real one of me. After a little hesitation, I agreed, if only for the reason that Sam is the mascot of Bark Bark Woof Woof and that after a year as a contributor at Shakesville, some of you might wonder what I look like. Well, there I am, cheesy grin and all.
Sorry to disappoint those of you who thought I looked like the stage version of Bobby Cramer, but as minstrel boy once noted, when you're a playwright, you get to do some stunt casting.
Doing My Patriotic Duty
Space Cowboy's earlier post evoked once again my eye-twitching abhorrence to Bush's idiotic habit of talking about policy (or the lack thereof) as if he not only isn't the president, but isn't even an American ("America has got to change its habits"). The unmitigated temerity of constantly talking about problems facing Americans as if he's helpless to do anything about it—as if his hands are tied because we gosh-dern citizens don't spontaneously just up and stop using oil, or stop being poor, or stop being unemployed—makes me want to put my fist through a wall. That, in turn, reminded me of an old post of mine from 2006 on the same topic, in which I helpfully offered some assistance to our president:
You think Americans need to be less dependent on oil? Then propose a serious solution and direct 1/10th of the bloody attention you've given to clearing brush and photo ops with snowflake babies to making it happen. If you need some help, maybe you can contact Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Or Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson. Or me, at which point I'll prepare a presentation complete with easily understandable note cards.
I'm happy to help, Mr. President, because I'm an American patriot. Just let me know what I can do to help you do your fucking job.
The Asshole McCain
Thank you to the Boston Globe for reminding me of a classic example of McCain's calamitous intemperance: In 1998, just after Chelsea Clinton's 18th birthday, he said at a Republican fundraiser that the reason she is "so ugly" is because "she's the child of Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton." Later, he said, "I made a very unfortunate and insensitive remark. It was the wrong thing to do, and I have no excuse for it." (Translation: Oops, I got busted, but whatevs—grow up!)
The thing about people who love to make nasty "jokes" like this, as McCain does, is that they inevitably smear people they didn't mean to and offer highly revealing, if unintentional, commentary. In this case, McCain was probably trying to hit Janet Reno, but his grazing shot was buried underneath his leaking contempt for strong women, ugly women, gay women, and trans women (by way of the tired "Reno's a dude in a dress" chestnut), which he couldn't contain even in a feeble attempt to throw a little Reno-hatin' red meat to the partisans. He's like a sniper using buckshot.
And after being mean and careless and rude, he's unapologetic to boot. Like I've said before, as incredible and horrifying a thought as it may be, McCain really and truly has the potential to make George Bush look like a master of considered diplomacy.
Women Were Designed to Multitask: Bra-Burning and Blowjobs for a Better Tomorrow
This AP article, about on a report released this morning by the Council on Contemporary Families summaraizing trends in men's contributions to housework and child care, is such a total clusterfuckastrope, I hardly know where to begin. In no particular order:
• The inordinate focus on men being "rewarded" with sex if they do housework. Despite the fact that the report (a term I use loosely) quotes one psychologist as saying, "Equitable sharing of housework is associated with higher levels of marital satisfaction—and sometimes more sex too!" both the article lede and headline (which may have been bestowed by the Times) are all about more sex for dudez, yo!
Headline: Men Who Do Housework May Get More Sex
Lede: "American men still don't pull their weight when it comes to housework and child care, but collectively they're not the slackers they used to be. The average dad has gradually been getting better about picking himself up off the sofa and pitching in, according to a new report in which a psychologist suggests the payoff for doing more chores could be more sex."
• Sadly, that's not the worst part of article. The worst part is that it probably shouldn't have been written at all, given the report authors' apparent agenda. Sociologists Scott Coltrane of the University of California, Riverside and Oriel Sullivan of Ben Gurion University cite their report's conclusions in such a way as to suggest they were also the report's raison d'être, which is of course a cardinal sin of the social sciences.For thirty years, researchers studying the changes in family dynamics since the rise of the women's movement have concluded that, despite gains in the world of education, work, and politics, women face a "stalled revolution" at home. According to many studies, men's family work has barely budged in response to women's increased employment. The typical punch line of many news stories has been that even though women are working longer hours on the job and cutting back their own housework, men are not picking up the slack.
"Typical punch line" is, suffice it to say, not what a serious social scientist considers appropriate language for a report abstract, no less a full report. Similarly, the editorializing about "unrealistic hopes for instant transformation" is just laughably unserious. If the authors' intent was not to suggest they were scolding women for their unrealistic expectations and constant bitchin', Mssrs. Coltrane and Sullivan have failed in their mission.
Our research suggests that these studies were based on unrealistic hopes for instant transformation.
• The article repeats the notion that the perception men have failed to "pick up the slack" is rooted in "unrealistic expectations" and a compulsion to underestimate "the degree of change 'going on behind the scenes' since the 1960s." And, seemingly like the report, it does so without even a passing attempt at an explanation about why it is "unrealistic" for women who adjusted "instantly" to increased responsibilities outside the home to expect men to adjust "instantly" to increased responsibilities inside the home.
• And then we come to the actual numbers, introduced earlier in the article with this tantalizing intro: "One [study] found that men's contribution to housework had doubled over the past four decades; another found they tripled the time spent on child care over that span." Yes, men's average contribution to housework has doubled from 15% to just over 30% of the total. Wheeeeeee!
And men in two-parent homes (an important if glossed-over qualifier) tripled their time engaging in childcare and interaction with children—while women merely doubled theirs. Shockingly, actual figures are not provided, but if, in 1965 men spent 5 hours a week on childcare (probably high), and women spent 10 (probably low), that means that by 2oo3, men were spending 15 hours a week on childcare while women were spending 20. The authors suggest, "This mutual increase in child care appears to be related to higher standards for both mothers and fathers about spending time with children," but fail wholly to acknowledge that including "and interaction with children" as part of "childcare" suggests, as other studies have found, that fathers in two-parent homes have increased the average time they spend with their children not by taking on additional parenting responsibilities, but by participating in more fun family activities. Which is not to denigrate that extremely important part of parenting, but it is a shockingly mendacious misrepresentation of engaging in "childcare."
So we've got figures like 30% of housework and increased-but-still-likely-far-less-time-than-women spent on childcare backing up Coltrane's and Sullivan's ever more dubious conclusions. Awesome.
• The article ends with Carol Evans, founder and CEO of Working Mother magazine noting, quite rightly and optimistically, that "There's a generational shift that's quite strong. The younger set of dads have their own expectations about themselves as to being helpful and participatory. They haven't quite gotten to equality in any sense that a women would say, 'Wow, that's equal,' but they've gotten so much farther down the road."
Great news. But the idea that finding women are still doing 70% of the housework (and more yet if one includes ''invisible'' housework like "scheduling children's medical appointments, buying the gifts they take to birthday parties, arranging holiday gatherings" etc.) is an occasion on which to celebrate men's forward movement, no less obliquely suggest that women should be rewarding men with "more sex" for their measly 30-year improvement, is appalling.
And how unbelievably bloody insulting to the men who are great contributors around the house, not to mention that this whole attitude of "Hey, you can't expect men to adjust to the idea that they've got to do their fair share overnight—they need at least five decades or so (or lots of blowjobs to motivate them)!" is a spectacular affront to men generally. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Yeesh. One wonders how gay men manage to keep their homes clean without women to reward them with sexual favors.
(Thanks to Mustang Bobby for passing that along.)
Legacy of Loony
Yesterday, our esteemed knucklehead of state gave a keynote address at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference. The speech was so full of keepers that it's really quite a task to choose favorites; but I'll try my best.
I welcome -- listen, let me start first by telling you that America has got to change its habits. We've got to get off oil. And the reason why is, first, oil is -- dependency on oil presents a real challenge to our economy.Yes, you're right. We have indeed heard that tune before. I've always liked how he adopts a scolding tone on this topic, as if we have given him this problem due to our unwillingness to come up with alternative energy sources on our own. Had we done that sooner, then he wouldn't have to scold us while taking credit for the great strides in energy independence that we would have achieved.
Now, look, I understand stereotypes are hard to defeat. People get an image planted in their head, and sometimes it causes them not to listen to the facts. But America is in the lead when it comes to energy independence; we're in the lead when it comes to new technologies; we're in the lead when it comes to global climate change -- and we'll stay that way.In the lead? How could we be in the lead in new technologies when the first mass-market hybrids on the scene came from Japan almost 10 years ago? How could the only industrialized country that refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol be in the lead on global climate change, when only a couple of years ago this administration was censoring NASA and NOAA climate scientists and editing climate change reports?
And, just like clockwork, he manages to work in what all of this is really all about:
You know, there's a lot of politicians who just talk. I hope when history is written of this administration, we not only talked, we actually did positive things and constructive things.Legacy, legacy, legacy. It's a damn broken record already. Even someone on a month-long diet of peyote would sooner understand that Bush's administration will not be remembered for doing positive or constructive things.
I think it's safe to say at this point that George W. Bush has finally let the other shoe drop. He has now unequivocally proven that he's a master of batshit crazy dumbfuckery. And by crazy, I mean:
Crazy as a: loon, bat, bedbug, beetle, barn owl, peach orchard boar; un- hinged; off her rocker; one brick short of a load; a bun short of a dozen; not playing with a full deck; got a hole in his bag of marbles; doesn't have both oars in the water; has bats in his belfry; squirrel food; nutty as a fruitcake; got toys in the attic.And there's your legacy, Mr. Bush. A legacy of loony.
Bloody pillock.
[H/T to ThinkProgress]
Before You Go Go
Two whole nights of Eighties music and no one sang "Ghostbusters"? Wev. So, who's going home tonight? Well, if it were up to me they'd all go for not busting out Ray Parker Jr.'s masterpiece. Sadly, it's not my decision, so you'll just have to deal with it when America's teenage girls decide these four aren't up to snuff.
Luke Menard
Listen, I like Luke, but before he became a contestant on AI, he was in an a cappella group and the universe will have to punish him for that. His rendition of "Wake Me Up Before You Go Go" was brutal. That song sucked in 1984 and it sucks now. He should be voted off for that alone. Luke can sing, he's a good looking gent, and even seems a nice enough fellow. What he doesn't have is stage presence. Too bad.
Amanda Overmyer
She can't win. And she can't really sing, which is part of the reason why. Plus she's kind of scary looking. Oh, sure, she can belt out a blues-rocky Janis Joplin pastiche, but that's only gonna get her so far. To right about here. If she goes home now, we won't have to suffer through her inevitable attempt at balladry. Hey, she can still spend her Saturday nights singing in a bar somewhere in Indiana. It would suit her just fine. Maybe Melissa will catch one of her shows and report back.
David Hernandez
David was a one-time go-go boy, which would normally mean he'd get my vote. Not this time. I can't even remember what he sang on Tuesday. (I looked it up, and still can't recall it.) That's a problem. He's largely forgettable, and he knows it. Bye-bye, David, it's back to lap dancing for you.
Kady Malloy
Kady, Kady, Kady… *sigh* You don't want to hear this, but you're not as good a singer as you think you are. You're not as good a singer as anyone thinks you are. You're cute and all, but your performances are, as Simon put it, robotic. You are completely charmless behind the mic. Not a good quality in a performer. Oh, well, it was a nice run, wasn't it?
Until next week, keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars…
Blogrolling
[Just popping this up to the top for a bit so no one misses it. I'm about halfway through adding/editing the links left in comments so far, so if you're not there yet, don't worry. I'll get there. Also, please feel free to recommend other blogs, aside from your own, that you'd like to see on the blogroll.]
I've been neglecting Ye Olde Blogroll of Massive Proportions for far too long, and I'm about to go through and cull defunct blogs and add blogs that have been waiting for an age to get added. If your blog should be on the blogroll, let me know in comments.
I can't promise it will get added if you're a rightwinger or a spam blogger (the former of which is not an automatic disqualification and the latter of which is), but the blogroll at Shakesville is designed to be inclusive, so speak up, Shakers! Leave me a link!
No Terrorism Since 9/11
In an article about a "small, pre-dawn explosion" at a military recruiting station in Times Square, which caused no injuries, I read this:
The blast is similar to two other incidents in New York, one in October and one in May 2005. Both times an explosive device was detonated around 3 a.m.In those cases, as in this one, authorities were also "looking for a person spotted riding a bicycle in the area."
In the October incident, a bomb was detonated near the Mexican consulate, shattering windows. At that time the authorities said the explosive device was similar to the ones used in a May 2005 blast at the British consulate.
And I suppose we're meant to believe that three IEDs all set off around the same time in the same city on three different occasions, with three separate sightings of a man on a bike in the vicinity, is just a zany coincidence. Or something. But definitely not terrorism. Because there hasn't been any terrorism in America since 9/11. I know, because my president keeps telling me so, and he wouldn't lie…
Meanwhile, the rightwing wants to know which one of us troops-hating lefty terrorists are responsible. Cuz you know how we also hate Mexico. And Britian.
'Fess up, Shakers!
