[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
See Deeky's archive of all previous Conniving & Sinister strips here.
[In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman (Liss) and a biracial queerbait (Deeky) telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.]
Action Item
[Trigger warning for self-harm.]
I had no idea that the White House has a "policy of not sending condolence letters to the families of service members who commit suicide," which not only dishonors the service of those troops but also stigmatizes mental illness.
It shouldn't need to be said that someone who takes hir own life in a war zone died from combat just as surely as someone who died from a bullet shot from an enemy gun. And given the number of suspicious suicides (see, for example, Pfc. LaVena Johnson) during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, this policy is almost certainly denying condolence letters in cases where soldiers have been assaulted and killed in staged suicides to cover up the crime.
The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and Mental Health America are gathering signatures for petitions to change the policy. You can sign them here and here.
[H/T to Greg Mitchell.]
Really, USA...
I just honestly cannot say this enough: Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels should not be our president.
A VAT? Seriously?!
I know you're thinking: Sure, Liss, but he can't be serious. That idea's as stupid and hackneyed as privatizing state tollways! No one would actually do something so foolish!
Whoooooooooooops.
While We're (Still) on the Subject of Television...
...can we spend a few moments talking about this guy?
[Image Description: A photo of fashion designer Mondo Guerra, who is a contestant on the current and eighth season of the design competition reality show, "Project Runway."]
I really liked Mondo right from the start; his aesthetic totally does it for me, and I thought he seemed—from the highly subjective editing, of course—like a rather nice and interesting guy. But now, as the season winds down to its final episodes, my adoration is in full bloom, and I can tell you the exact moment it happened.
Episode 7: "What's Mine Is Yours." Mondo is paired up with the highly unpopular Michael C, who the other designers have decided is a talentless hack, despite the fact that Michael Kors and Ninagarciafashiondirectorformarieclairemagazine, not to mention Heidi and the guest judges, generally like his work. Mondo's unhappy. But he treats Michael C with professionalism and decency, and, to his surprise, discovers he kinda likes Michael C and thinks he's rather more talented than he's been given credit for.
Cut to Mondo in a talking head segment, looking straight into the camera and saying, matter-of-factly, "Basically, I was being a dick."
Well. I've been there. Though not on national television.
Last night, tasked with naming the two designers he'd choose to go to Fashion Week with him, Mondo again spoke about how he had underestimated Michael C. It taught him something about himself, he explains.
He's graceful and dignified in a way that few people are about their own mistakes. And he's talented as fuck. And funny as hell. And brave. And adorable.
Maude, I hope he wins.
[Commenting Note: Spoilers up to and including last night's episode are okay, but if you know anything about fashion week etc., please leave that out of the thread or include a big ol' spoiler warning.]
Bi-Monthly Reminder & Thank You
This is, for those who have requested it, your bi-monthly reminder* to donate to Shakesville.
Asking for donations** is difficult for me, partly because I've got an innate aversion to asking for anything, and partly because these threads are frequently critical and stressful. But it's also one of the most feminist acts I do here.
So. Here's the reminder.
You can donate once by clicking the button in the righthand sidebar, or set up a monthly subscription here. We first made the Subscribe to Shakesville page available last March, which means most of the subscriptions are running out and have to be renewed if you want to keep your subscription active.
Let me reiterate, once again, that I don't want anyone to feel obliged to contribute financially, especially if money is tight. Aside from valuing feminist work, the other goal of fundraising is so Iain and I don't have to struggle on behalf of the blog, and I don't want anyone else to struggle themselves in exchange. There is a big enough readership that neither should have to happen.
I also want say thank you, so very much, to each of you who donates or has donated, whether monthly or as a one-off. I am profoundly grateful—and I don't take a single cent for granted. I've not the words to express the depth of my appreciation, besides these: This community couldn't exist without that support, truly. Thank you.
My thanks as well to everyone who contributes to the space in other ways, whether as a regular contributor, a guest contributor, a moderator, a transcriber, or as someone who takes the time to send me the occasional note of support and encouragement. This community couldn't exist without you, either.
---------------------
* I know there are people who resent these reminders, but there are also people who appreciate them, so I've now taken to doing them every other month, in the hopes that will make a good compromise.
** Why I ask for donations is explained here.
While We're On The Subject
ABC has struck a deal with popular website Awkward Family Photos to turn the concept into a TV show. For those not aware, Awkward Family Photos is a blog that is made up exclusively of awkward family photos. Just photos, of families, that are awkward. The photos are awkward. The families, not neccesarily so. There are no characters on this website. No stories. Just photos some people might find odd. How does this translate into a television show? (Hint: It doesn't.)
I Write Letters
Dear TeeVee show directors,
When you have two characters in a car talking, the driver still needs to watch the road. Even as s/he addresses the person in the passenger seat. Seriously, it is ridiculous when the driver (usually a man) gazes with oblique intensity as he delivers his monologue while the car hurtles forward smoothly--no tire-squeals, no horn-blares, no crashes, no citations for running red lights.
Come on.
Bones and Dexter, I'm looking at you.
Yeah, I know, Suspension of Disbelief and all. But Suspension of Physics? I think not.
Carry on,
S.
On the Telly
So, last night, I caught a few minutes of The Office, and I'm not sure what was going on, but I'm pretty sure they were jumping a shark and then circling back to blow it up with 10,000 nuclear bombs or something? Anyway, it was bad. Is what I'm saying.
Now in its seventh season, it's gotten to that point that all long-running sitcoms eventually reach, where even within the boundaries of the imaginary, unrealistic, impossibly silly world that the show has established, nonsensical and implausible things start to happen—and you have arguments with friends or siblings that start with your emitting an exasperated sigh and observing that the show has gotten really fake, and then go something like, "The whole show is fake." "Yeah, but that was fake even within the fakeness of the show." "That doesn't make any sense." "Even fictional worlds establish boundaries that come to feel tangible." "Ooh, is that something you learned while getting that English degree you've never used?" "SHUT UP I HATE YOU!" "This is why no one takes you seriously, because you get all mad about sitcoms."
But I digress.
The point is, there is a lot of stupid stuff about this show. But one of the stupidest has to be that they're keeping up the pretense of the "documentary." Several seasons ago, when it was obvious that NBC was going to, as per usual, wring every last ounce of joy out of the show by running it way beyond even the point where all the characters were hateful caricatures of their former selves, the writers should have phased out the talking head interview segments.
Instead, at this point, the viewer is meant to believe that a documentary film crew has been following this office for seven years, but the footage has never been cut into an actual documentary for broadcast.
Which I guess might itself serve as some kind of absurdist joke, if only the show hadn't lost its humor ages ago.
The format was successful for the original UK version on which NBC's show is based, because British television doesn't work the same way US television does. Twelve great episodes and a Christmas special is an acceptable run in Britain; here, that's a miniseries—and the model depends on a show having a long enough run that its producers can make money off endless reruns in perpetuity.
Quantity over quality.
Steve Carell, the star of the US Office is leaving at the end of this season, but they're going to keep the show on the air—keep those cash cows hooked up to the milkers, boys! Yeesh.
It isn't any wonder that the best episodic television these days is on cable, where the model looks much more like the British one—shorter and irregular seasons for shows aspiring to more than the cheapest possible filler between detergent adverts.
Hope and Change, Bitchez
Because I am a stupid ingrate who doesn't understand how politics works, this is the sort of thing that makes me very angry:
President Barack Obama is meeting with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to talk about a pending arms treaty with Russia and other issues.Pathetic. As if this isn't a sop to the conservatives who the administration are INFUCKINGEXPLICABLY convinced will vote for them, if only they throw their base under the bus hard enough and look enough like the detestable Bush administration—a sop that's politically useless unless someone "leaks" it to the wire services.
A White House official said Rice and Obama have a "cordial relationship," and the president looks forward to Friday's meeting covering "a range of foreign policy topics." The official isn't authorized to speak publicly and insisted on anonymity.
Glenn notes why inviting one of the architects of the Bush torture regime to sit at the foreign policy table is evidence of, among other things, a fervent desire to maintain the status quo in Washington, rather than challenge it in even the most cursory way:
I realize this is very childish, shrill and unpragmatic of me. All Serious people know that it's critical to let Bygones be Bygones and that Serious National Security officials must meet with one another across partisan lines to share their wisdom and insights. Still, the fact that Obama is not only shielding from all accountability, but meeting in the Oval Office with, the person who presided over the Bush White House's torture-approval-and-choreographing meetings and who was responsible for the single most fear-mongering claim leading to the Iraq War, speaks volumes about the accountability-free nature of Washington culture and this White House.Let us recall, with bitter irony, that this was eminently predictable, but, when I wrote that post, pre-Disqus commenting system, it garnered about 400 comments, most of which were accusing me of being a racist hysteric who was in the bag for Clinton.
Good times.
[Previously in Third Term of Bush: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, and there are about a zillion more, but you get the drift.]
Quote of the Day
"Comedy and joking about our differences breaks tension and brings us together. ... Drawing dividing lines over what we can and cannot joke about does exactly that; it divides us. Most importantly, where does it stop."—Social justice crusader and professional dudebro Vince Vaughn, defending his right to make gay jokes. Because, you know, of their important unifying quality.
And he's right, obviously. I mean, where does it stop? First a guy can't use "gay" as a hilarious pejorative, and, next thing you know, women will start thinking that maybe they ought to object to "bitch" being used 9,000 times in every comedy vehicle for aging man-children.
Specifically, Vaughn is referring to Universal's decision to pull the trailer for The Dilemma, in which his character refers to electric cars as "gay," after people who aren't the Most Humorless Feminist in all of Nofunnington (i.e. Anderson Cooper) complained about it.
Don't worry, though—it's still in the movie!
Hey Nerdz!
Dear nerdz, wyzzards, LARPers, mathrockers, and technocrats:
You need one of these:
It's a magic wand TV remote control! Wingardium Leviosa! This piece of Old-World-Craftsmanship- (it's made by hobbits!) -meets-the-Technological-Age (made by hobbits in factories!) can learn (like a robot!) up to thirteen "commands"! Such as: Changing the channel, adjusting the volume (both up and down!) and I don't know what else!
Only $89.99!
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Lissie's Crocheted Hats, for all your bedhead-disguising needs.
Recommended Reading:
Andy: Arkansas High School Student Suspended for Gay-Supportive T-Shirt
Echidne: [TW for sexual violence] Fraternity Chanting in the Rape Culture
LeMew: On the Potential Impeachment of Obama
Veronica: When will Chicago get to say Madame Mayor again?
Renee: Sesame Street: I Love My Hair
Tracey: [video] Jackass for Girls
Leave your links in comments...
Of Course They Do
Justice Department says 'don't ask, don't tell' ruling will harm troops:
The Justice Department asked a federal judge Thursday to set aside her decision stopping the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays and lesbians in the military until it can appeal the ruling, saying the decision would "irreparably harm our military and the national security of the United States."A. No.
B. No.
C. No.
D. No.
E. No.
F. No.
G. No.
Nope. (But you know what does ""irreparably harm our military and the national security of the United States"...? This.)
Government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips of Riverside that if she did not lift her order by Monday, they would ask the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to halt it. If the appeals court in San Francisco fails to act, the government probably will ask the Supreme Court to intervene to prevent an abrupt change to the military, which says it is not yet prepared to handle the transition."We haven't even written a huge check to Halliburton to build special gay housing yet!"
The confrontation comes at a politically awkward moment for President Obama. He opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but now — just weeks before the midterm election — risks alienating his liberal base by seeking to halt the judge's order.Aww, it's always so sad when refusing to champion the basic rights and dignity of institutionally marginalized people, despite having made a campaign promise to do so, is "awkward" for the president. Sad face!
LOL. Nope.
Of Bailouts and Bootstraps
So. The latest ginormous economic clusterfucktastrope is foreclosure fraud, caused (of course) by unregulated for-profit financial institutions operating without oversight or accountability because the government decided to trust them to behave honestly and wisely after the invisible hand gave Reagan a handjob with golden bootstraps or whatever. Krugman lays out the basics of the crisis here:
The story so far: An epic housing bust and sustained high unemployment have led to an epidemic of default, with millions of homeowners falling behind on mortgage payments. So servicers — the companies that collect payments on behalf of mortgage owners — have been foreclosing on many mortgages, seizing many homes.But, of course, the Obama administration is more interested in continuing to coddle the same financial institutions that got us into this mess, and the one before, and the one before: "True to form, the Obama administration's response has been to oppose any action that might upset the banks, like a temporary moratorium on foreclosures while some of the issues are resolved. Instead, it is asking the banks, very nicely, to behave better and clean up their act. I mean, that's worked so well in the past, right?"
But do they actually have the right to seize these homes? Horror stories have been proliferating, like the case of the Florida man whose home was taken even though he had no mortgage. More significantly, certain players have been ignoring the law. Courts have been approving foreclosures without requiring that mortgage servicers produce appropriate documentation; instead, they have relied on affidavits asserting that the papers are in order. And these affidavits were often produced by "robo-signers," or low-level employees who had no idea whether their assertions were true.
Now an awful truth is becoming apparent: In many cases, the documentation doesn't exist. In the frenzy of the bubble, much home lending was undertaken by fly-by-night companies trying to generate as much volume as possible. These loans were sold off to mortgage "trusts," which, in turn, sliced and diced them into mortgage-backed securities. The trusts were legally required to obtain and hold the mortgage notes that specified the borrowers' obligations. But it's now apparent that such niceties were frequently neglected. And this means that many of the foreclosures now taking place are, in fact, illegal.
This is very, very bad. For one thing, it's a near certainty that significant numbers of borrowers are being defrauded — charged fees they don't actually owe, declared in default when, by the terms of their loan agreements, they aren't.
Beyond that, if trusts can't produce proof that they actually own the mortgages against which they have been selling claims, the sponsors of these trusts will face lawsuits from investors who bought these claims — claims that are now, in many cases, worth only a small fraction of their face value.
And who are these sponsors? Major financial institutions — the same institutions supposedly rescued by government programs last year. So the mortgage mess threatens to produce another financial crisis.
...The excesses of the bubble years have created a legal morass, in which property rights are ill defined because nobody has proper documentation. And where no clear property rights exist, it's the government's job to create them.
I do understand the concept behind the "too big to fail" mantra, but letting the institutions that are allegedly "too big to fail" to continue to operate in ways that maximize profits but also the risk of failure is incomprehensibly stupid. I mean, we know what happens when you keep bailing out an irresponsible failure over and over.
[Image Description: George W. Bush, who was repeatedly bailed out of bad business deals by his daddy's business associates, before becoming President of the United States.]
That's only half a joke. The truth is, the US government treats the big financial institutions the same way that families like the Bushes treat their very privileged sons: They're too important to fail. And it's the same lack of discipline, unchecked entitlement, and voracious avarice that creates fortunate sons and the financial institutions that make them rich beyond the comprehension of the average US mortgage-holder.
Whose struggles are not worthy of bail-out, but merely admonishments about bootstraps from the people who own the bootstrap factory.
Which was recently relocated to China, because US workers were demanding a livable wage, and the shareholders didn't like the way that was cutting into profits.
[Image Description: A fake newspaper reading: "Invisible hand gives ironic finger to local workforce: After massive layoffs at the local bootstrap factory, workers facing foreclosure are failing to appreciate the irony of their circumstances..."]
We need a fundamental shift in priorities here. The seemingly intractable (hope! change!) insistence on saving the very institutions that are now routinely threatening the economy with their malfeasance, no less saving them without severe restrictions on their ability to continue to do business in such a wildly irresponsible (though highly profitable!) manner, is utterly ludicrous and equally unjustifiable.
Something's gotta give.
And the first thing that can go is the idea that any institution is "too big to fail." No institution is too big to fail: THEY'RE FAILING. If they necessitate bail-out—and, make no mistake, even refusing to take action on behalf of homeowners because the banks might pout and complain is a bail-out as sure as a fat government check—it's not because they're too big to fail; it's because they're too big to not rescue. (No financial institution should be allowed to be that big in the first place, but that's a whole other post.)
"Too big to not rescue" vs. "too big to fail" might seem like it's only a semantic difference, and maybe it is, but it's an important one. "Too big to not rescue," unlike "too big to fail," does not mask the despicable double-standard to which we're holding financial institutions and the people they serve (don't serve)—banks have a social safety net; individual people are on their own.
Well, maybe we can all get together and weave ourselves a safety net out of our fucking bootstraps.
Yet the narratives of irresponsibility are about individual people, rather than the systemic failures that bring us, again and again, to the brink. Which is, of course, precisely backwards—but just the way the emergent corporatocracy wants it.
A change in priorities, a change in narrative, a change in accountability and oversight, and political leadership willing to actually make these changes. That's what we need.
But it ain't what we got.
--------------------
Additional Reading:
Bloomberg: Securitization Flaws May Lead Investors to Fight Mortgage Deals.
WaPo: Lack of proper mortgage paper trail could leave big banks reeling again.
Digby: "Everybody needs to stop worrying about the moral hazard of letting average people off the hook for their mortgages and worry a little bit more about the moral hazard of continually allowing these huge financial institutions to get away with murder."
Question of the Day
Who is the most loathsome candidate, for any office other than US president or other national equivalent, whom you recall running for public office in a viable democracy your lifetime?
(Doesn't have to be in a US election. And no skirting the rules by saying "George W. Bush for Governor of Texas!")
I'm just going to go ahead and name the first dipshit who popped into my head: Rick Santorum.
Shiver.
Top Chef: Just Desserts Open Thread
[Image from last night's episode: Morgan, a heterosexual, likes sexy red shoes.]
Last night's episode will be whipped and folded, so if you haven't seen it, and don't want any spoilers, pack your ice cream scoop and go...
