Get your bloglinks running; head out on the highway…
Recommended Reading:
Marcella: Nun Who Wanted To Expose Sex Abuse Dies
Matttbastard: ZOMG PANTSUIT!!!11
Aulelia: In Britain News: Girl starved to death in Birmingham.
Jessica: Because sex should not be pleasurable under any circumstances
Tom: Whisper Campaigns for Fools Who Listen
And in the Department of Please Let This Happen Because It Would Just Delight Me to No Fooking End: Tucker Carlson for President?
Leave your links in comments.
Friday Blogaround
Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch Part Forty-Goddamn-Six
I must admit that even with my dark and unrelenting cynicism toward the media that I'm a little bit shocked to see op-ed pieces appear in quick succession in two of the nation's most prestigious newspapers calling Barack Obama a "Muslim Apostate." They don't make the assertion that Obama is a Muslim, which he certainly isn't, only that Osama bin Laden and other Islamic fundamentalists consider him one since his father was "born a Muslim." This apparently means that bin Laden will be able to rally the Muslim world against America because Obama has abandoned the true faith.Well, I've got two ideas. The first one is pretty boring: Because that's what they've got handy with which to smear him. As we all know, it is the job of the MSM to smear all Democratic candidates with one hand while fluffing Republican candidates with the other, and, if we know anything else about the MSM, it's that they're lazy and stupid; it's thusly supercool for them that the whole "Muslim Apostate" meme dovetails nicely with preexisting anti-Democrat memes about Dems being not sufficiently Christian/religious, not sufficiently patriotic, and not sufficiently tough on brown-skinned threats to white American children.
I'm sure I don't need to explain how silly this is. The last I heard bin Laden wasn't exactly enamored of any of us Murkins, so I find it hard to believe that this news will make him even more hostile than he already is. It's absurd on its face. So why are the Christian Science Monitor and the NY Times printing similar op-eds on the topic? I don't know.
The second idea has to do with the Sexism Watch, the MSM's sudden interest in discussing after-the-fact what role sexism played in what they've now deemed Clinton's total annihilation, and that little tidbit of truth John Judis dropped in our laps yesterday: Seeking to restore balance after their promulgation of sexism against Clinton, and (ref. aforementioned laziness and stupidity) recognizing their patent inability to maturely and intelligently address sexism head-on, they're just going to try to prove they weren't unfair to Clinton by being equally shitty toward Obama.
It's the Two Wrongs Make a Right Principle, and the MSM lives by it. I could see it coming a mile away—which is why I have said about half a dozen times now when comparing coverage of Obama and Clinton that I didn't want the media to start being unfair to Obama, but start being fair to Clinton. But it just doesn't work that way.
Cable news, for example, doesn't address complaints about giving too much time to religious extremists by chucking Bill Donohue and Pat Robertson et. al., but by inviting Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, too. Irrespective of your opinion of Dawkins and Harris, that's not an effective solution to the complaint that religious moderates who are political secularists are not represented on cable news. But that's the sort of typical "solution" we can expect from the MSM. Their notion of "balance" almost always involves making everything worse.
If the bar's crooked, they lower one side, not raise the other.
So what that means, basically, is that we're going to have a lot of work to do. And this series is about to get longer.
But you already knew that.
(H/T to Shaker JMonkey, by email.)
[Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five.]
How Feminism Works
Echidne (emphasis mine):
I have not written about the sexism in these Democratic Primaries in order to protect Hillary Clinton. She looks fairly well equipped to protect herself. I have written about it because sexism hurts all women, all little girls, all old ladies, women everywhere.Because that's how sexism works. Remember the xkcd cartoon?
That's what we've seen over and over and over again during this primary. Not "Wow, this presidential candidate has positions and strategies I really don't like" but "Wow, Hillary Clinton is an unlikable Machiavellian devil with a voice like a buzzsaw who's so manifestly evil that neither she nor her supporters are even real Democrats."
(And, yes, I could link to posts I've written countering all those precise assertions about her; I wish it were hyperbole. And, yes, I acknowledge the argument that none of that has anything to do with Clinton being a woman and naturally it's just a tremendous coincidence that those criticisms neatly fit into historical themes used to marginalize powerful women. Moving on.)
Not that it matters, but Clinton (obviously) wasn't my first choice, and she wasn't my second, and she wasn't even my third, when this primary started eight million years ago. (And what if she had been my first choice? Would it change the veracity of my arguments?) That she wasn't my first choice never had anything to do with why I've written about sexist attacks on her—and it sure as shit never crossed my mind to use it as an excuse to not write about sexist attacks on her.
Curiously, when I've defended Ann Coulter from gendered attacks, no one accuses me of being a closet Ann Coulter fan. They get that I'm making a point that sexism hurts all women, not trying to declare my allegiance to Coulter. But some people do argue that she doesn't deserve my defense, and I've seen the same excuse being used for failing to defend Clinton from misogyny during his primary.
Not only does that justification make me wonder what it would take to earn one's defense if "human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all" doesn't qualify, but it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how feminism works. Individual women don't have to earn a feminist's defense from sexist attacks; it is offered because a feminist recognizes how sexism works—against the collective. As Echidne says, it "hurts all women, all little girls, all old ladies, women everywhere."
If you understand how sexism works, and you fail to defend Hillary Clinton, you don't understand how feminism works.
Echidne again:
The sexist comments and the racist slurs are bad, because they are being washed, re-clad in Armani, presented back in high society, made to look innocent, and after all this they will be cropping up much more frequently everywhere, aimed at everyone who qualifies to be their victim. THAT's what is bad about them.I defend Hillary Clinton, because I am defending myself. And Mama Shakes. And my sister. And my girlfriends. And all the Shaker women. And women I will never know. And all the men, especially gay men and bi men and trans men and intersex men, who will be demeaned with misogynist slurs, too.
How can I make that any stronger and clearer? It can be any of us women or any person of color or both that will suffer from the new domestication of sexist and racists taunts. Any Of Us.
That's how feminism works.
And I am a feminist.
Holy Smoke
John McCain has now dumped both of the crazy pastors who endorsed him.
Republican John McCain on Thursday rejected endorsements from two influential but controversial televangelists, saying there is no place for their incendiary criticisms of other faiths.Of course, being the political animal that he is, Mr. McCain couldn't resist trying to draw a distinction between his situation and that of Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
McCain rejected the months-old endorsement of Texas preacher John Hagee after an audio recording surfaced in which the preacher said God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land. McCain called the comment "crazy and unacceptable."
He later repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has sharply criticized Islam and called the religion inherently violent.
He added that his relationship with Hagee did not compare with Obama’s lengthy association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright's extreme views. But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today,” said McCain.Nice try. The real difference is that Sen. McCain didn't know John Hagee from a load of hay before his campaign actively went out and sought his endorsement because he was so desperate to suck up to the Religious Reich. As for Mr. Parsley, Mr. McCain referred to this venom-spitting hater as his spiritual adviser. Now he's acting like he doesn't know either of them; kind of like a guy who walks past the rent boy he hooked up with the night before and pretends like he has no idea who he is.
Of course, you do have to give the GOP credit for being able to out-do the Democrats once again: whereas Mr. Obama had one fiery pastor, they have two. I'll say this for Barack Obama; at least when he dumped Jeremiah Wright -- and over a lot less controversial statements than Hitler being the arm of God's relocation plan or the defeat of Islam being the impetus of the American Revolution -- he did it with a lot of soul searching and the pain that someone goes through when they have to disassociate themselves from someone in their lives and who, at one point, was a guiding light in his life.
As for Mr. McCain and the pastors, it's not personal, it's just business. But makes you really wonder how long it's going to take the evangelicals to figure out that once again they're being played as useful idiots by the Republicans. It's not like the bible-voters will turn around and vote for the Democrats en masse, but it might make them aware of the fact that there are more important things at stake in this election than whether or not Ellen DeGeneres gets married.
(Cross-posted.)
Question of the Day
In yesterday's QOTD, Shaker Thunderbird mentioned that Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was the Movie That Changed Their Life, and it made me remember my experience when I saw that particular film. I was a cartoon loving child, and I always used to wish that cartoons and "real life" could exist together. Seeing it happen on screen actually made me a little emotional.
So here's my question: What kind of cartoon character would you like to be?
I'm not specifying your favorite cartoon character; mine is Daffy Duck, and let's face it, I wouldn't want to be him. I'd rather not get my beak blown off every few seconds.
I want to be the black cat from the famous Tex Avery cartoon, "Bad Luck Blackie." That way, if anyone irritated me, I could cross their path and a steamroller would fall on their heads. Muahaha!
Or, I'd like to be a cartoon skeleton. That way I could play jazzy music all the time. On my ribs!
Tonight!
Liss! Are you ready?! It won't even interfere with Lost. ;) My favorite "reality" show debuts for season four tonight--So You Think You Can Dance?
And more favorites:
Anya & Danny, Jive
Allison & Ivan, Contemporary
Happy Birthday, Mozza
Don't forget the songs that made you cry
And the songs that saved your life
Yes, you're older now
And you're a clever swine
But they were the only ones who ever stood by you
The passing of time leaves empty lives waiting to be filled
I'm here with a cause
I'm holding a torch
In the corner of your room
Can you hear me?
And when you're dancing and laughing and finally living
Hear my voice in your head and think of me kindly...
I'm incredibly busy today, but I had to make time—just a moment!—to wish a happy (49th!) birthday to the man whose songs I once described as, quite sincerely, "as familiar, as much a part of me, as my own thoughts. I sing Smiths songs in my sleep." It was Morrissey whose song "Shakespeare's Sister" sent me off during my teenage years to find a Virginia Woolf essay called A Room of One's Own, which would later have a particular relevance in my life—and possibly yours.
Happy Birthday, friend. You've meant the world to me and still do.
Who Lives With You?
A few weeks ago, PortlyDyke wrote a brilliant piece entitled "Take My Arm, My Love." If you haven't read it, I highly recommend giving it a look.
I was very struck by this piece; as I said in comments at the time, my partner and I censor ourselves all the time in public, particularly with affection and terms of endearment. It's become so ingrained in us that I don't think we even notice most of the time. Well, we're not huge on PDA in the first place, so it's not like this is a constant reminder of a heterosexist society, and it's not like it's a huge bother. It sucks, like PD stated, but it's not like it weighs on me.
But occasionally, something else does.
I got called for jury duty. This was the district court, not county, so it worked a little differently. For a two week period, I had to call in every evening to see if I would be called in the next day. I actually found this rather convenient; I'm more than happy to call in rather than go and sit in some stuffy jury room from nine to five every day. I managed to dodge a bullet for a full week and a half, then I was called. Report on Wednesday morning at 8:30AM. (For the record, I'm a believer in jury duty; I don't try to get out of it when I'm called unless it's absolutely necessary.) So, yesterday I dragged my butt downtown, ready to serve. I've been called several times, here in Chicago and in New York City, but I've never served on a jury. By either the luck of the draw, or on one occasion, being "too one-sided," I've always been sent home.
I was waiting in a room with about 20 to 25 other potential jurors, when we were all called up into the courtroom. The jury box was filled, and the rest of us sat in the audience while we were briefed on the duties of a juror by the judge. Then, the questioning began.
One by one, the judge went down the line and asked each potential juror a handful of questions. They were fairly typical; where do you work, what's your highest level of education, where do you live, and the like.
The one that shocked me was "Who lives with you?"
I began to get really nervous. One by one they went down the line, and it was rather obvious that I was the only apparent queer person in the room. "I live with my husband." "I live with my wife." Sure, there was one woman that stated she had a roommate, but later did make a "boyfriend" comment.
My head was spinning. What do I say? I'm not comfortable lying to the judge; and even if I did, what if I'm chosen and the truth comes out later? Do I say I live with a roommate? No, I can't accept saying that; I came out of the closet so I wouldn't have to say that shit. What do I call him? My partner? My spouse? Christ, I hate "spouse;" how about domestic partner? What if I say "partner" and the judge says "What does she do for a living?" Do I correct him? What if he thinks I mean business partner; do I correct him then? Is it hot in here? You know something, this room is huge. It's a perfect square, how weird is that? You know something, now that I think about it, that latticework on the ceiling covering the fluorescents makes this look a lot like the deathtrap in that movie Cube. Great, just what I need to be thinking about; Paul, you watch too many crap movies. One of the lawyers looks kind of butch; is it possible she's queer? Nice, you idiot, way to stereotype while panicking and looking for allies. Just calm the fuck down and go with your first thought.***That was an eye-opener. I live in a very liberal area in a very liberal city, and I'm extremely fortunate to have a very supportive family, along with a group of very supportive friends. It's so rare that I come into these situations that I'm really thrown for a loop when I'm suddenly confronted with the fact that I'm being othered. I benefit on a daily basis from white male privilege, but I'm not always in the majority.
And being more or less forced to out yourself in a room full of forty people is, well, pretty fucking scary.
I didn't get chosen. Oh well, that's over... until the next spotlight.
(For the record, I stated I live with my partner. To his credit, the Judge, a very pleasant and friendly man, never blinked an eye. He asked what my partner did, I stated "He is a blah de blah," and we went on. I thought I sensed a change in attitude towards me from the other jurors after that, but it was probably just my paranoia talking.
Melissa thinks I should have shrieked "I live with my husband! Or I will, as soon as the law allows us to marry!" then acted out a long, drawn-out histrionic fainting scene, requiring me to be carried from the room. Damn, that's a good idea. I'll have to do that next time.)
Now...Let's not get too excited just yet, okay?
by Ginmar—liberal pinko commie hippie feminist female combat veteran who loves zombies and werewolves and hates trolls, twits, and MRAs.
There are qualifications to this announcement. I just wanted to make sure that people don't get too excited.
I won my case against the VA.
The qualifications are these: I still have my symptoms. That's the big thing. I couldn't figure out why I felt so numb after I got the email this morning.
I haven't gotten the official paperwork so I'm kind of afraid I'm jinxing it. It could take several weeks to get that. Nor is this permanent. However, I can pay all my bills every month, and I swear, the first thing I'm going to do is get my house insulated for what will surely be a ghastly winter heat bill.
It took three years, seven appeals, a US Congressperson, a US Representative, a lawyer, internet friends who 'knew people' and three hospitalizations to get the VA to take me seriously. I had the DAV refuse to appeal my case last year because there was no new evidence. As it turned out, there was lots of evidence, they'd just overlooked it. There are so many veterans in trouble that I expect they have a hard time going through every file with the attention it merits.
So...I'm kind of stunned. It hasn't hit me yet and I don't think it will till I get the paperwork. I still have a fight with SSDI on my hands but now I can take cabs to my civilian therapist.
I think there is a vardo in my future, too.
I just want other vets to know you can do it. Don't give up.
UPDATE: Many, many thanks to TheHolyFatman for her help putting me in contact with someone who was integral to this process. I conked out before asking if she wanted to be in the post.
(Cross-posted.)
Hillary Sexism Watch, Part Ninety-Goddamn-Nine
Wow.
The best part about this is that it's filed in the News Section. Unlike stories about Ethiopian teenagers dying horrifically during childbirth, which belong in Life and Style.
[H/T to Shakers Terri and Dutchmarbel.]
[Hillary Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Eighty-Five, Eighty Six, Eighty-Seven, Eighty-Eight, Eighty-Nine, Ninety, Ninety-One, Ninety-Two, Ninety-Three, Ninety-Four, Ninety-Five, Ninety-Six, Ninety-Seven, Ninety-Eight.]
Non-headless Non-fatty (and Hillary Sexism Watch, Part Ninety-Goddamn-Eight)
by Shapeling and Shaker Sweet Machine
As Jessica at Feministing notes, the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of…something, has launched a new "women's" section online. Three guesses what kind of topic is considered Suitable for the Ladies. Okay, to be fair, there are some career and politics-oriented articles, but there are also the obligatory articles on shopping, exercising, and dieting. The dieting article is almost HAES in drag: it's about mindful eating and its potential to help chronic dieters or those with eating disorders. Sounds good, right? Well, it would be if it didn't emphasize the weight loss of one participant, and if it didn't include this delightful quote from a psychotherapist:
"I've worked with lots of obese people—you'd think they'd enjoy food. But a lot of them say they haven't really tasted what they've been shoveling down for years."Use of "obese"? Check. Stereotypes about fat people? Double check! Fatties both loooove food AND can't enjoy it because they're shoveling it down too fast to have normal human experiences like "taste." Mind you, the article does discuss binge-eating disorders in a reasonable way, but that's not what our friend the psychotherapist is talking about—she just means any old "obese people" out there. You just can't stop tear them away from the baby-flavored donuts!
But what really burns my cookies is the picture used to illustrate it. I was expecting a Headless Fatty, natch, but oh no, they've gone one better:
Hillary Clinton is not mentioned once in this article. Is she a binge eater? A chronic dieter? Does she practice mindful eating? Who knows? Who cares! It doesn't matter. She's a Lady, you see. And the WSJ is all about The Ladies. I'm sure running an unflattering picture of the first major female presidential candidate next to a headline about being "mindless," for an article that reminds us that sometimes women eat cake! and then they get fat!, is just a random pairing that has nothing to do with WSJ's notoriously stodgy editorial stance.
This article, which actually delivers what could be a fat-positive or at least fat-neutral stance, is framed as a way to keep all those silly fatties and mindless women from devouring the world. No woman is immune from public scrutiny of her diet: not even if you are rich, white, able-bodied, post-menopausal, and a US Senator can you avoid being used as a cautionary tale of The Dangers of Women Eating.
(Cross-posted.)
[Hillary Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Eighty-Five, Eighty Six, Eighty-Seven, Eighty-Eight, Eighty-Nine, Ninety, Ninety-One, Ninety-Two, Ninety-Three, Ninety-Four, Ninety-Five, Ninety-Six, Ninety-Seven.]
Nice
UK to US: I'll see your phone records and raise you all internet activity.
Britain is considering a massive government database to store the e-mails, Internet information, phone-calls and text messages of all residents to help security forces in the fight against crime and terrorism.[H/T to Carolyn Kay]
At the moment, records of phone-calls and text messages are kept up to 12 months by telecoms companies in compliance with an EU anti-terrorism directive.
But a new Home Office (Interior Ministry) proposal would see Internet service providers (ISPs) and telecoms companies handing over records containing billions of e-mails as well as Internet usage and voice-over-Internet calls, media reports said on Tuesday.
Police and security services would be able to have access to the information after seeking permission from the courts.
Another Woman Held Captive and Raped by Own Father
[Trigger Warning]
In a case reminiscent of the recent case of Austrian Josef Fritzl, a 73-year-old Argentine man held his daughter captive for 11 years, repeatedly raped her, and sired two children with her, using psychological terror and threats at gunpoint to keep her compliant.
Prosecuting Attorney Sergio Antin said the case of Eleuterio Soria had "similarities" to that of Josef Fritzl, the Austrian man arrested last month for locking his daughter in a basement for 24 years.And it's not just the world inside, which I suspect the poor girl realized quite pointedly on the occasions she ran away. Young women on their own with no foundation or means do not generally fare well, in Argentina or anywhere else—a reality driven home by Maria Elen Leuzzi, founder of Help for Rape Victims, who notes that the problem of intra-family rape is "much bigger than society is willing to admit" and says: "Here we have many Josef Fritzls."
"If we're talking about sexual subjugation, and we take into account that the victim did not leave the house, yes, there are similarities" to the Fritzl case, government prosecutor Sergio Antin said after Soria was sentenced on Tuesday.
Soria's trial revealed that he began abusing his daughter in 1992, when she was 12 years old. The following year she became pregnant by her father, prompting her mother to leave their home in La Matanza, a working-class Buenos Aires district.
The family's five other siblings eventually left as well, abandoning the daughter to Soria.
The daughter, whose name was not released, had a second child by her father in 1997. Unlike Fritzl, Soria used psychological domination rather than physical restraints to keep her in the house. She did flee on various occasions, but would return home after he threatened their two children — often at gunpoint.
She finally escaped for good in 2003 and denounced her father to authorities. Argentine psychologists weren't surprised that it took her more than a decade to tell authorities.
"If the world inside was so perverted, how could she think that the world beyond would help her?" Cristina Castillo, a family psychologist in Buenos Aires, asked Wednesday.
Here, too.
Soria has been sentenced to 16 years in prison.
The AP coverage of this story refers to Soria's daughter as his "sexual prisoner." MSNBC's headline is "Argentine incest dad kept girl as sex prisoner." Alarmingly pithy.
[H/T to Shaker Bethany, via email.]
Top Chef Open Thread
Chef Tom Colicchio will drink. your. milkshake!!!
He will also feed you grapes by a roaring fire before ever so lovingly eating your cherry cobbler.
Question of the Day
Well, since we haven't done this one since 2005 (!), and since I referenced it today and I'm feeling nostalgic, I'll bring this one back:
What's the movie that changed your life?
My life-changing film was, and still is, Time Bandits. As I said in my old post:
Time Bandits had a profound effect on the way I view film, "stories" in general, and the world. I was ten when it was released, and I don't know how I managed to do it, but I got my parents to take me to see it in the theatre.That scene still makes me shiver. So, how about you?
Here was a film "starring" a young boy that suddenly finds himself thrust into a bizarre, otherworldly situation with a number of eccentric companions, and he is trying to find his way home. This wasn't necessarily a new concept; "children's movies" had been working with that theme for years. But there were a number of differences with this film. For example, the "companions" weren't friendly. They didn't immediately take Kevin under their wing and protect him from the dangers of his new situation. They bickered, they were violent, and at first, they seemed to be a genuine danger to him. Within minutes of meeting him for the first time, they're threatening to eat him, for chrissakes. At this point, I'd also never been exposed to British humor (my first viewing of Monty Python would come about a year later), so the fact that I could be amused by something so dark was completely new to me.
Then, they lean against Kevin's bedroom wall. And it moves.
Soon, the Time Bandits (along with Kevin) are pushing the wall down a seemingly endless hallway, a hallway that incredibly has the same wallpaper as Kevin's room, pursued by an enormous, glowing face intoning "Return the map... return what you have stolen from me... It will bring you great danger..."
Then... the wall falls away. And they plunge into darkness.
I was in heaven, let me tell you.
...And the Inquisition Was Just a Fishing Trip
Rev. John Hagee says that Hitler was fulfilling God's will.
John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God's behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph [sic] Hitler was a "hunter," sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God's will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.
Going in and out of biblical verse, Hagee preached: "'And they the hunters should hunt them,' that will be the Jews. 'From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.' If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can't see that."
He goes on: "Theodore Hertzel is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew who at the turn of the 19th century said, this land is our land, God wants us to live there. So he went to the Jews of Europe and said 'I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel.' So few went that Hertzel went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the holocaust.
"Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended. I didn't write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."
This is the guy whose endorsement the McCain campaign sought out. Mr. McCain has tried to distance himself from Rev. Hagee, but he does appreciate what he's done for Israel.
Appearing on ABC's "'This Week" in late April 2008, McCain criticized Hagee's past remarks on the Catholic Church, but said that, "I admire and appreciate his advocacy for the state of Israel, the independence of the state of Israel."Oh, look! Rev. Jeremiah Wright left the seat up in the bathroom!
There's No Heaven
Yesterday I wrote a piece about the American Idol finalists where I brushed on some of the reasons for my dislike of David Archuleta, the squeaky-clean young man from Utah and presumed winner. The first draft of that piece included the following few lines:
Take his rendition of John Lennon's "Imagine." He skipped straight to the last verse thereby eviscerating the heart of the song. No surprise really, with it's opening lyric "Imagine there's no Heaven, it's easy if you try." Not the stuff good Mormon boys sing about.I cut that bit out because I'd already spent two paragraphs lambasting him, and thought enough was enough already (and if anything, subtlety and nuance are my watchwords). What I didn't know at the time was that Archuleta had decided to reprise his performance in last night's show.
When he originally sang the song a couple months back, judge Randy Jackson asked him why he skipped the opening verses of the song. Archuleta responded he only had a minute and a half and could only sing one verse, so he picked his favorite. He added, as he would do countless other times during the course of the show, that he thought the song had "a great message."
When he announced last night he was singing the song again, as his final performance, the first thing I asked was "Is he going to sing all three verses this time?" Not surprisingly, the answer was no.
For those not familiar, here are the verses of the song Archuleta chose not to sing:
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Archuleta opted instead to sing the third verse, the safe verse, and repeat the chorus three times. I wonder if he thinks the line about "no religion" is one that has "a great message" too.
(Cross-posted.)
