by Paul McAleer, founder of Big Fat Blog
Having my jaw drop while watching TV is now a common experience. A few nights ago we were watching something or other and fast-forwarding through the commercials. We caught up with live TV and then saw an interesting ad.
It started with a fat man and his kid goofing around, doing karate moves. The little boy girl is running around being active, and the dad is sitting in place... but both look happy and, uh, really happy! With a voiceover we get text on the screen: "I want" with a blank line after it. Written in a script font on the blank, "to do karate with my little warrior."
We cut to another scene. A fat girl dancing around a room with her boyfriend. They're cute! They're a real couple! Amazing! Voiceover and text: "I dream of kissing him under the Eiffel Tower."
And then the fucking bomb drops.
I'm telling you, I was blown away. Totally blown away. (You can be too!)
We also see a fat woman doing a walk-and-talk with her doctor. I imagine the conversation, if it happened in the real world, would go something like this:
Woman: "So, I notice the chairs in your waiting room have arms."Doctor: "That's right, they do."Woman: "They squish my sides every time I come in."Doctor: "Obviously you need the Realize™©® Adjustable Gastric Lap-Band!"Woman: "But I was here for a cold."
Plus there are screenshots of their website which allows you to graph your weight loss and pulls out My Virtual Model so you can visualize what you'd look like if you somehow became narrower while having an odd look on your face and your arms frozen in a mid-stride pose. Note that the graph shown is multi-year... clever, subtle marketing there.
At the closing, over the warnings, we do get to see our dad and kid again as well as the couple. It's so frustrating because, well, look! Even there, they're happy. Well... not the woman with her doctor. She's engaged in her health, you see.
If this isn't another co-opting of our language I'm not sure what is. The number of stereotypes that get reinforced just in this commercial are stunning and fully reach over to the sexism side of the fence, too.
I'll save the latest Subway ad for another time. This one was really, really bad.
(Cross-posted.)
Shiny Happy People
McClellatron 3000 Testifies Before Congress
Talkbot and former White House press puppet Scott McClellan testified before Congress today and said he does not think that Bush was involved with the Plame leak and does not know if Cheney was.
"I do not think the president had any knowledge" of the revelation of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity, Scott McClellan said at a House Judiciary committee hearing. "In terms of the vice president, I do not know."He also testified he "was reluctant to do it," but, of course, did it anyway, because Libby "assured [him] in unequivocal terms that he was not, meaning the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity to any reporters" and because Andy Card directed him to "[contact] reporters to let them know about that information … at the request of the president and vice president."
McClellan also testified that he was asked at the behest of President Bush and Cheney to provide assurances to the press that Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, was not involved in the leak of Plame Wilson's identity.
According to McClellan, only later did he come to find out it was all a sham and he'd been played like a Stradivarius.
"When I was knowingly misled but only learned that much later, that's really when I started to become disillusioned at the White House."I'm torn between feeling sorry for the guy that he was used and abused by the collection of scumbags generally known as the Bush administration, and feeling contemptuous at how unbelievably dim he was to have ever trusted them in the first place.
…In his memoir, McClellan says the administration became mired in "propaganda" and political spin and played loose with the truth at times.
True believers would be utterly pitiable if they didn't so frequently fuck everything up for the rest of us.
Fat Rant 3!
The fabulous Joy Nash has done it again! Snappy comebacks for assholes! Cute dresses! It's all right here!
(I'll ask Joy for a transcript and post it a.s.a.p.) Update: it's after the jump.
EXT : COFFEE SHOP
MICHELLE
Joy, you’ve got such a pretty face. If you lost just 40 pounds you’d be gorgeous.
JOY
I’m already gorgeous.
REWIND
MICHELLE
You’ve got such a pretty face, it’s a shame about your weight...
JOY
And you’ve got such great style, it’s a shame about your personality.
REWIND
MICHELLE
Joy, you’ve got such a pretty face-
JOY
And this incredible body... trust me I hear it all the time. You know, it’s not easy being this foxxxy.
EXT: NARRATORVILLE
NARRATOR
You know what sucks? Staircase wit. When you think of the perfect thing to say 10 minutes after you need it-- when the moment has passed and you’re heading down the staircase.
EXT: COFFEE SHOP
MICHELLE
You would be just perfect if you lost 30 pounds!
JOY
Oh. My. God. I was JUST about to say the EXACT same thing to you!! That is so weird! Do you get that a lot?
MICHELLE
That’s very rude...
JOY
You just said it to me!!
EXT: NARRATORVILLE
NARRATOR
The secret to turning your staircase wit, into regular old everyday wit is practice. There are only so many things that people are gonna yell at you. Just put together a few things to yell back.
BOB
Fatass!!
NARRATOR
(to BOB) Bite me!!
NARRATOR (CONT’D)
See? It’s easy!
EXT: BUS STOP
JOHNNY
Oh my god... Look at her gut. She should not be wearing that.
JOY
You probably want to keep your voice down. Everybody’s gonna find out what an asshole you are.
REWIND
JOHNNY
Ugh. She’s such a pig.
JOY
Wow, that was rude. Are you not feeling very good about yourself today?
EXT: NARRATORVILLE
NARRATOR
I think we fat people need to start sticking up for ourselves. Bullies get bigger and meaner when we stay silent.
EXT: RESIDENTIAL STREET
BOB
You pregnant?
JOY
Nope! Just fat!
REWIND
BOB
You pregnant?
JOY
No... Are you?
REWIND
BOB
You pregnant?
JOY
No, but the night is young.
REWIND
CHILD
Do you have a baby in your tummy?
JOY
No, I’m just fat. People come in all kinds of shapes and sizes.
CHILD
Okay!
EXT NARRATORVILLE:
NARRATOR
The best is when it comes from your family:
INT: KITCHEN DRYING DISHES
AUNT
Have you thought about getting one of those lap-bands?
JOY
A lap dance? That doesn’t sound very hygienic.
AUNT
Joy, don’t be stupid. I’m talking about surgery.
JOY
You mean the elective surgery where 88% of patients experience complications*? The one that 40 percent of the people who survive it, gain back half of their lost weight in 5 years**? The one that costs anywhere from $15K to $26K, Not counting any therapy or nutritionist fees?
AUNT
I’m just worried about you.
JOY
If you’re concerned about my health, how about paying for my gym membership?
EXT: NARRATORVILLE
NARRATOR
They say fat hate is one of the last forms of prejudice where even the people who are subjected to it think that they are getting exactly what they deserve. We think that this isn’t us.
BETTY
They don’t mean me... They mean the REALLY fat people.
NARRATOR
No. They mean you.
BETTY
But! This isn’t ME! I was so thin when I was 13 years old! There’s a thin person inside of me! She’s just buried under all this flab!!
NARRATOR
Wait. When you were 13... you thought you were impossibly fat, remember? Your arms were too big, your stomach was disgusting... we’re not even gonna talk about your thighs. And today? Travel with me here. Today you look at pictures of your 13-year-old self and are SHOCKED at how CUTE you were! You were so cute! Why didn’t you realize how cute you were?? Guess what. In 10 years, you’ll look at a picture taken today. Right here right now of here together and you’ll think... Oh my God-- look how cute we were!! We were so cute! Why didn’t I act like I was cute?! I should have been wearing hotpants 8 days a week. Why the hell wasn’t I in a tank top? So? The mission? Live today, like you’ll wish you would have 10 years from now. Cause in the future, we'll look at the past, and wonder what the hell our problem was. This is it. You’ve got ONE life. Live it up!
If you missed them, check out Fat Rants one and two now.
Friday Blogaround
Are you aware of this wonderful internetz traditionz? Leave your link in comments!
Recommended Reading:
Kevin: Happy Juneteenth! (Kevin has a brilliant round-up at the link. Right now, only 29 states and the District of Columbia recognize Juneteenth as either a state holiday or state holiday observance; if you live in one of the states that doesn't, perhaps a good way to celebrate would be writing a letter to your state legislators to request its recognition in your state!)
Brandy: Intelligent Design Teacher "Branded" Students
Faith: Rape as a Weapon of War
Tara: As the Waters Recede...What Now?
ACLU: Subcommittee Votes to Continue Funding Disproven Abstinence-Only Programs
Jack: Latina Teacher Fired for not Regurgitating the Same Old Crap
Melissa: Brick Lane Review
And Happy Blogiversary to Yazoo Street Scandal, celebrating one year of scandalizing!
Effectively Political
It's really fascinating to watch the Republicans come to the realization that they are in deep trouble and are staring up the mountainside as the landslide approaches. Seeing how they deal with it now tells you a great deal about how they're going to respond when it actually hits.
My favorite gauge of this deer-in-the-headlights syndrome is David Brooks of the New York Times. He's not one of those over-the-top outragers like Pat Buchanan or any number of jowl-shaking pundits who shout and interrupt people on cable TV; Mr. Brooks is more like the befuddled sit-com dad who just can't seem to understand why everyone doesn't just agree with him because, well, just because. And since Mr. Brooks gets to play the part in the paper and then later on NPR and PBS, he gets three chances to peddle his befuddlement.
Case in point: today he's giving Barack Obama the "split-personality" treatment. (By the way, this is one of his old favorites; he's done it to George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and just about anyone else he discovers has more to them than just the persona portrayed by the media.)God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.
In other words, Mr. Brooks is just figuring out how a young lawyer with political ambitions rose from being a community organizer on the south side of Chicago to U.S. Senator and presidential candidate without having a political machine like Karl Rove or a father's Rolodex to do it for him. This amazes him because that's just not how it's supposed to happen. And he's even more amazed that a Democrat would actually be a politician with sharp instincts; they're not supposed to be like that. (By the way, you can tell that Mr. Brooks is flustered; he doesn't even get the metaphor right: it's "throw someone under the bus", not "the truck.")
But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.
The example Mr. Brooks plays on is Mr. Obama's decision not to accept public financing for his campaign, and he accuses -- albeit with some admiration -- of breaking a promise. He might have a point, but so far no one has been able to produce proof that Mr. Obama made such a promise. He gave a lukewarm conditional pledge to accept public financing only if his opponent pledged to do the same, and since then he's realized that he can do a lot better without it. This has the Republicans freaked out because they know that they are so far behind the curve on fund-raising that the only way they could hope to keep pace with Mr. Obama is if he tied himself to the limits imposed by John McCain's campaign finance reform law (which, by the way, John McCain himself seems to be breaking). They're stunned that he's not falling for their trap, hence the frustration on a par with Wile E. Coyote.
But there's a glimmer of respect for Mr. Obama from Mr. Brooks after all.I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.
That's his way, I suppose, of resigning himself to the fact that he and the Republicans are about to be swept away by the landslide, and instead of running scared like the rest of the Orcosphere and grasping at every twig ("he's a Muslim! and his wife is ... not shy! and ... aughh!") he's awkwardly trying to adjust to the new paradigm of a Democratic candidate who is as good at politics and as ambitious as the Republicans think they are as well as set himself up for the next four years or so of writing columns and doing NPR and PBS commentaries where he can survive off the "grudging respect" line. That's his own way of being "effectively political."
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
(Cross-posted.)
Question of the Day
What's your least favorite advertisement, commercial campaign, sales slogan, or jingle of all time?
Assvertising
Wow, these are the most objectionable adverts I've seen in awhile. Writes Copyranter: "These ads for Coopers Premium Light Lager via Singapore (all male creative team, naturally) hit women with a double shot of misogyny. … And these ads just won the bronze medal in the Press category at the Cannes advertising festival." Of course they did.
[Click images to embiggen. Will open in new window.]
The copy reads "Only 2.9% alcohol." That way, you'll notice that the girl with the pretty face is actually a ZOMG FATTY, and the girl with the nice rack is actually ZOMG UGLY!!!
(I actually think that girl's cute as hell, side from the pathetically photoshopped breasts, but WTF do I know? Shaker Mendacious D, who gets the hat tip, suggests the second girl is maybe supposed to be "nerdy" rather than "ugly," per se—and I can definitely see the "eww, brainy girl" element there, too; guys don't make passes at girls who wear glasses, and all that.)
Basically, Coopers is selling itself as the beer so low in alcohol you won't get so drunk that you'll accidentally fuck a fat or ugly/nerdy chick. Nice.
What I find really curious about the first ad is that the "fat chick" is wearing what appears to be an engagement ring. Doesn't that suggest she'd say no anyway? Is the implication that some poor slob not only fucked her but got engaged to her because he drank beer with a high alcohol content? Ridic.
Discuss.
[Assvertising: 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.]
From the Mailbag
I'm getting sent two stories a lot today.
1. Muslims barred from picture at Obama event:
Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.2. Obama Forgoes Public Funds in First for Major Candidate:
The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.
"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."
Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate's message.
Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.To be quite honest, I don't really have anything in particular to say about either of these items. They both strike me as completely predictable from a middle-of-the-road, mainstream, establishment Democrat, which is what Obama is (and always has been) and are therefore predictably sigh-inducing, at least from this non-partisan progressive. But, ya know, SNAFU and shit. I'm not in the mood to write an entire dissertation on how the entire system's fucked up at the moment. But it is. And these things reflect that.
With his decision, Mr. Obama became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals.
…"The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system," he said. "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations."
[Insert your own snark about ChangeTM here, should you be so inclined.]
I'm going to need a macro for that.
[My friend Steve Benen's got a good post explaining why he thinks Obama made the right decision to opt out of public financing, which I recommend reading even if you're not inclined to agree, just to get the context of the decision.]
Genius
No transcript. It's scenes from Ferris Bueller's Day Off set to music from Requiem for a Dream. Via Chris.
Actual Headline
Lieberman's Democratic ties frayed.
Passed along by Shaker Oddjob with the note: "Gee, ya think?"
Bad Girls
So I'm reading this story about Johnny Depp sending "his" hat, as promised back in April, to a little boy he met while filming his upcoming movie, Public Enemies, in the kid's hometown (yay, Johnny Depp!), and what starts out as a nice story about a celebrity doing something pretty damn cool immediately disintegrates into a piece scolding all those celebrities who are deplorable nogoodniks!
See if you spot anything these horrible people have in common."For [Depp] to do something for an ordinary child is really something," his mother, Kris Brand said. "You hear who is doing drugs, who is sleeping with who, but you never hear a celeb saying 'of course' to an ordinary kid. We don't need to hear about Paris Hilton not wearing clothes, we need to hear about Depp doing something for a kid for no reason."
Stupid girls. It's a good thing that no famous young men would ever do anything to give celebrity a bad name.
But, it's the negative headlines about celebrities that dominate the media: Amy Winehouse in a drug-abusing video, Britney Spears showing up at a nightclub without underwear, Paris Hilton getting arrested for a DUI.
Two weeks ago, the New York Daily News reported that Nicole Richie was dancing with Mary-Kate Olsen at the Crown Bar in Los Angeles, when she saw a fan snap a photo, grabbed the woman's camera and deleted the photos of herself.
Before that, Lindsay Lohan was in the news for allegedly stealing a $12,000 fur coat from a college student at a private New York City party. The co-ed has filed a lawsuit against her.
Look, I'm not going to argue that the young women mentioned above—and the ones not mentioned whose names and faces we all know, whether we want to or not—don't court attention to some extent, but I will argue that none of us has any idea what it's like to grow up inevitably defining your self-worth by the amount of public attention you're getting, and how that fucks with one's head. I've got no idea what it must be like to feel equal parts exhilarated and scared when the paparazzi hounds you and equal parts relieved and lost when they don't, how that must compel people to seek out public attention even when it's the last thing they need, because it's all they feel like they've got.
I'm also reminded of Andy Millman's great monologue at the end of Extras: "You open the paper, and you see a picture of Lindsay Lohan getting out of a car, and the headline is: 'Cover up, Lindsay—we can see your knickers.' Of course you can see her knickers! Your photographer is lying in the road pointing the camera up her dress to see her knickers. You're literally the gutter press."
The whole thing is fucking tragic—and I'm increasingly disturbed not only by how often this is now presented as a uniquely female phenomenon, but how young famous women are being pigeon-holed into extremes more than ever before in my lifetime, whores and saints. I'm also completely grossed out by the fact that nothing can so quickly turn the latter into the former in the press as a baby bump. Be sexy, be out there, be independent, be wild, show your knickers!—until we trash you to fuck for it, then rehabilitate your image by becoming a mother, like all women are meant to do.
Anyone else see a problem with this picture?
Learning to Love (er, Like) Again
Many of you (especially those who know me personally) might recall a time when I adored Barack Obama just as much as everybody else. A time I like to call "before the fucking primaries." And although the man himself did piss me right off repeatedly between then and now, I never had as much of a problem with him as I did with all the bullying assholes among his supporters, from Keith Olbermann to the Kossacks. Unfortunately, the "Obama roolz, Clinton droolz!" crowd managed to taint his image so badly for me that by the time he got the nomination, it was hard for me to separate general primary disgust from Obama-specific disgust.
Now that I'm not subjected to a daily barrage of Hillary hatred and Obama ass-licking, it's a little easier to take a look at the candidate himself and remember what there is to like about him. I can't imagine I will ever find his rhetoric as moving or his persona as inspiring as I once did -- he and his campaign, let alone his supporters, shattered my rose-colored glasses -- but I will say I appreciate stuff like this video of him filling sandbags to help flood victims (via dday at Digby's).
Don't get me wrong -- the first thing I see there is a candidate taking advantage of an image-bolstering photo op. Like I said, the glasses are gone. But I also see two other things that make me remember why I liked Obama in the first place. 1) A candidate who, after all the endless fucking use of this metaphor in the recent primary season (and every election season I can recall), literally rolled up his sleeves and got his hands dirty to help Americans in need. 2) A candidate who -- whether or not I buy him as the hardworking, compassionate midwestern dude this video desperately wants me to believe he is (ehh, sorta) -- at the very least makes an effort to look as if he cares about people who are suffering when the opportunity presents itself. Even just seeing the value of that particular photo op is a point in his favor as a politician. (McCain hasn't done the same, I hardly need to add.)
Now, it would be easy to put on my cynic hat and snark that it's nice to see him doing something for the people of Illinois for like the first time since we sent him to Washington, or speculate as to how many minutes elapsed between the cameras turning off and him leaving in a private jet. But I'm trying not to do that these days. Really. I'm trying to believe in him again. I'm looking for reasons to want this man as my president -- as opposed to just wanting any Dem -- a prospect I couldn't imagine myself being anything but elated over a year ago.
It's slow-going, this learning to like him again. (Realistically, it will never be love.) And I completely respect people who have no interest in trying at this point, people for whom he's permanently lost the credibility that inspires enthusiasm in the voting booth. I get that. But I think it might still be possible for me, and I hope it is. More of this, please.
Damn Dems
Remember this? It's back.
Now, a "bipartisan compromise," which may be voted on in the House as soon as tomorrow, has been reached on the FISA bill, which grants immunity to the telecoms who participated in the Bush administration's unlawful spying program—a point of contention on which the Democratic base does not want their party to cave, but hey, everyone had to compromise, they tell us. And, despite House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's assurance that it "balances the needs of our intelligence community with Americans’ civil liberties," the ACLU begs to differ, "sternly warn[ing] members against voting for the legislation."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has worked closely with the White House and has led the effort to gut the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and give the telephone companies what amounts to a pardon for breaking the law.Write Your Representative and ask them to vote against the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 6304 and demand the telecoms not be given immunity for their complicity with the Bush administration thugs. Shaker Allie notes in comments that the ACLU also has a free fax form to contact your representatives on this issue. I just used it; great stuff!
…This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications. The court review is mere window-dressing – all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole – ‘exigent’ circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all.
The Hoyer/Bush surveillance deal was clearly written with the telephone companies and internet providers at the table and for their benefit. They wanted immunity, and this bill gives it to them.
UPDATE: Laura Rozen writes:
Here's a question for Pelosi at her press conference today:That's a good question for all of our representatives, as a matter of fact.
Reports of the newest FISA compromise indicate that, on telecom immunity, a federal court would be compelled to grant the telecoms immunity if there was substantial evidence that the Bush administration assured them that the warrantless surveillance program was legal. Doesn't that actually endorse and extend to private actors the Nixonian view that if the president says it's legal, it's legal, regardless of what the law says and the Constitution says? Wouldn't that set an awful precedent that an administration could get private actors to do whatever they wanted including breaking the law?
Listen, Dammit!: Annuals - "Sore"
In my list of favorite indie rock acts, Annuals rank high on the list. Their music is complex, vibrant, dark, and ecstatic all at once. Their 2006 album Be He Me is a must if you love bands like Broken Social Scene, Arcade Fire, and the like. They were one of the highlights of last year's Lollapalooza festival in Chicago, but unfortunately many people have still never heard of them while bands like the two I just mentioned continue to cement their status as indie gods.
Annuals, however, deserve a listen.
Below is the video for "Sore" from their recent Wet Zoo EP. It is a bizarre but touching piece of animation, and the song itself is one of the most beautiful pieces I've heard in a long time. Hopefully it is a glimpse of what is to come from their new album due out later this year.
There's No More Racism In America
This is from Tuesday, so apologies if it's old news, but if you're like me and the list of blogs you view has been whittled down to almost nothing, you might have missed this:
Limbaugh: I want to know. I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois—I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans. I see devastation in Iowa and Illinois that dwarfs what happened in New Orleans. I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property…I don’t see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don’t see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don’t see a bunch of people raping people on the street. I don’t see a bunch of people doing everything they can…whining and moaning—where’s FEMA, where’s BUSH. I see the heartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America.Lies, racism, lies, racism and more lies. Whites good, Blacks bad. And apparently, there are no POC in Iowa and Illinois. It makes me fucking sick to hear this evil fuck praising my state for these reasons.
I know we say this every time we highlight this useless sack of shit, or Savage, or Malkin, or Beck, or any of the other poisonous toads on the Right, but what the fuck is this person doing on the air?
Please, don't get in comments and say "Well, it's Limbaugh, what do you expect?" I'll tell you what I expect, I expect outrage when this shit goes out over the air, and I expect this person to be fired. If Imus can get booted off the air for his racist idiocy, why the hell does Limbaugh still have a job?
Christ.
Update: Digby has more.
Only Homos See Chick Flicks
This is what passes for humor these days? For alleged comedian Andy Borowitz it does. He penned a humor column over the weekend titled: "Straight Man Accidentally Sees 'Sex and the City': 'Terrifying' Experience, Says Home Depot Clerk." Wow. Get it? Only a fag would see that chick flick. Not a macho tough guy, not a man who fixes things, not a man with a toolbox. Not a real man.
Hendrick Colton, 34, said that he bought a ticket to the summer blockbuster "Iron Man" at his neighborhood multiplex but wandered into the theater showing "Sex and the City" instead. "The minute the movie came on, I knew something was terribly, terribly wrong," he said.My God, a movie where stuff isn't exploding every three seconds! Oh, the humanity!
Mr. Colton, a sales clerk at a Home Depot in the Akron suburbs, said he tried to leave the theater immediately but was seated in the middle of a row, making it impossible to escape without causing commotion. "All the people around me were laughing their heads off and shouting, 'You go, girl!'" he said. "It was terrifying."Scary girls! What? They have cooties? Christ on a cracker, what are you, twelve? Seriously, is this supposed to be funny? You used to write for The New Yorker? Oh, and hey, you know what? No one says "You go, girl!" anymore.
Borowitz, the man behind Who Moved My Soap?: The CEO's Guide to Surviving in Prison (Oh, ho! Prison rape jokes! Tres clever!) continues:
A spokesman for New Line Cinema, the company that released "Sex and the City," said that the film grossed $55 million over the weekend but that Mr. Colton was the only heterosexual man known to have seen it.Note to any straight men who have actually seen the film: You're gay. If you doubt me:
"A heterosexual man could see that movie and remain heterosexual at its conclusion," Dr. Logsdon said. "Having said that, it's totally gay that he did that."See? Totally gay. Not a real man. We get it. Sure, you can "remain heterosexual" but nudge nudge wink wink, come on, not really… Straight guys shop at Home Depot and watch movies with explosions. Gay men probably shop at Linens and Things, and well, we know what kinds of movies they like.
How Odd!
Part Twelve in an ongoing series…
Shaker Astraea sends me the heads-up that Reuters is at it again:
ROME (Reuters) - An Italian man was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping his ex-girlfriend from a pub, taking her home and forcing her to iron his clothes and wash the dishes, police said Monday.Of course "Guy kidnaps ex-girlfriend to get ironing done" should be filed in Oddly Enough, because it fits in just perfectly with the rest of the kooky and quirky stories that typically fill that section, like "Kung pao chicken made official for Olympics" and "Sometimes it rains cement." If there's anything as wacky as falling cement, it's men who kidnap women to force them into domestic labor! Zany!
The 43-year-old man dragged the woman out of a pub in the port city of Genoa, shoved her into a car and took her to his home where he made her iron and wash dishes after threatening her, they said.
Police arrived at his house after being tipped off by a friend of the woman who watched the scene at the pub.
The man, who was apparently furious at his ex-girlfriend for leaving him, was arrested on charges of kidnapping, police said.
Inevitably, when I post one of these things, someone wants to argue with me that stories about violence against women are included under the definition of "odd" meaning "rare"—and lest this comment thread devolve into the same old horseshit, let me just take a moment to point out right now that there is, unfortunately, nothing particularly rare about women being stalked, kidnapped, and/or brutalized by ex-boyfriends. The sole reason this story was included was because of the "hilarity" that he not only kidnapped her, but kidnapped her to do his chores. Ho ho ho. Wacky!
And even if this story did warrant, by virtue of being "unusual," inclusion in the "Oddly Enough" section, grouping stories about the mistreatment of women with the typical "chocoholic squirrel steals treats from shop" fare inevitably trivializes the former. That's the whole bloody point of this series—the routine trivialization of women's lives and experiences by placing stories about everything from breastfeeding to rape to dismemberment and—hey, lookee here!—more dismemberment alongside ridiculous items about water-skiing rodents.
And all I can think every time I see another story about a woman being kidnapped or beaten or raped or killed in the Odd News section is that it's the head of a snake eating its own tail: That the Odd News trivializes the mistreatment of women is both reflective of a culture that itself already trivializes the mistreatment of women and a reinforcement of that culture—thereby ensuring there will be no shortage of such stories in future. And the beat goes on…and on…and on…
[How Odd: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven.]
Michelle Obama Racism/Sexism Watch, Part 9
Please enjoy conservative talk show host Lars Larson, on MSNBC's Verdict with Dan Abrams, reinforcing the meme that Michelle Obama is unpatriotic; talking about how this country "gave her" an ivy league education and a lucrative "do-nothing job"; then scoffing unapologetically at the zany idea that she actually earned those things.
As Gina says over at Michelle Obama Watch, where I found this, "This time it is NOT Fox News!" And you know, that's what really gets me. I am so fucking tired of supposedly mainstream -- supposedly liberal, even, depending on whom you ask -- media outlets giving fucking yahoos like this airtime in the interest of "balance." Not that I expect much at all from MSNBC these days, mind you, but when you're doing a segment called "Can Michelle Obama overcome the right wing smear machine?" what the hell are you doing giving a proud member of the right wing smear machine equal time to further propagate those smears?
Michelle Obama Sexism/Racism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight.
