Greg Mitchell just tweeted that Rush Limbaugh feted the outgoing (and first female) Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, by playing "Ding Dong, the Witch Is Dead."
Stay classy, Rush.
Of Course
Remember
Wandering through Baltimore Sunday night, I happened upon The Baltimore Holocaust Memorial. It's stunning, and harrowing, and in the coldness of the Fall night air, it enveloped me, as each piece of the memorial revealed its significance.
At the front, facing Lombard street, is the sculpture I photographed below. I started reading the words cut into it, "Those who do not remember the past are destined to repeat it" nearly wrapping around the entire piece. I wasn't much looking at the top of the sculpture, focusing instead on the words. When my eyes finally went up, I froze, as the full horror of the work settled into my consciousness.
(N.B.: the image below the fold (for most browsers) may be upsetting to some people.)
Not too far away is a quote, taking prominence over the square, from Primo Levi. And somewhere between that, and the sculpture, is a plaque with a short essay on the Holocaust.
It's unflinching, unforgiving, perhaps as it should be. Here is the text in its entirety:
THE HOLOCAUST
The German attempt to annihilate European Jewry between 1933 and 1945, took the lives of six million Jews. Although genocide was not unprecedented, the Holocaust was unique not just in its numerical magnitude. Never before had a state government attempted to annihilate an entire people who were not military enemies but a defenseless civilian population. Gypsies and German handicapped were marked for death as part of the holocaust. Nazi Germany tyrannized homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish nationalists and resistance fighters. Millions died as a result.
Elected by the German people in 1933, the Nazi party quickly instituted a totalitarian regime built on pseudo-scientific racial and anti-Semitic principals. The German people ardently supported the Nazi regime until the latter stages of World War II, when defeat was imminent. Hundreds of thousands of German citizens and nationals of other countries allied with the Germans were involved in the killing process either as guards at camps, members of mobile killing units, architects who designed gas chambers, engineers who built crematoria, railway personnel and bureaucrats who oversaw the distribution of the victims possessions’ including the gold in their teeth. Although many perpetrators claimed they had no choice, there is no record of anyone being punished for refusing to participate in the killings.
Though the Holocaust occurred as part of World Was II, it was in fact something distinct. Its objectives often directly impeded the military effort. Trains, materiel, soldiers and munitions needed for the war were used instead to deport Jews and kill death camp inmates. During the last twelve months of the war, when it was obvious that Germany was going down to defeat, the pace of killing continued and in certain cases increased in intensity.
Many countries and neutral international agencies were aware of what was being done to Jews and other victims. Few, if any, were willing to speak out in protest. To compound the horror, most countries closed their doors to those who tried to escape the Holocaust.
Deborah E. Lipstadt
Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies
Emory University
There is more information on the memorial here.
Quote of the Day
"There was a spirited discussion in my office elevator this morning about inequality and injustice, but unfortunately I think it dealt with who got bounced from Dancing With the Stars. So we've got another four years of GOP leadership (term loosely defined) in Texas."—Shaker norbizness, in comments.
The Most Important News On Election Night
Most of last night, and continuing into today, Yahoo News' most emailed story is about the return of McDonald's pressed-meat-garbage nightmare sandwich, the McRib. I am glad we, as a culture, are paying attention to the important things going on around us.
RIP Democracy
When the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which granted corporations, unions, and nonprofits the latitude to donate freely to political campaigns and thus effectively bankroll federal elections, I grimly mused: "It is not hyperbole to say this decision is paving the way for America to become a fully-fledged corporatocracy, which, depending on your perspective, is a sibling to fascism or a version of it. ...This decision further diminishes any voice that isn't backed with a fuckload of money. Someday, we may look back on this day and realize it was the day our democracy died."
Last night, three-term Democrat and stalwart progressive Russ Feingold (Wisconsin) lost his US Senate seat. And even the conservative Wall Street Journal notes the terrible irony that Feingold, who co-authored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation that made accepting and making unlimited soft money contributions a federal crime, was defeated by a Republican opponent on whose behalf outside groups spent nearly $3 million.
A WaPo analysis shows 92 percent of the outside spending has supported the Republican. The impact has been obvious: The Wesleyan Media Project said there have been more commercials about the Senate race in Wisconsin than in any state outside Nevada.The untold story of this election is that the Tea Partiers are nothing but useful tools for corporate interests and conservative billionaires. It's just the Moral Majority/Religious Right/Conservative Christian and other alliterative religious euphemisms repackaged for an era in which Jesus isn't playing in Peoria like he used to.
"I've always been a target in this stuff," Feingold said during a recent campaign stop. "And this year, I'm getting the full dose: over $2 million in these ads [criticizing him] that used to not be legal."
Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman who was the attorney for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaigns, said there was already a "boatload of spending" by corporate interests in elections before Citizens United. But the ruling made clear that there were no legal obstacles to their participation, he said. "Citizens United put a Supreme Court Good-Housekeeping-seal-of-approval on corporations being allowed in elections."
The same damn ignorant fools who never stopped to question the economic wisdom of voting for a Republican because of kissing boys are now not stopping to question the economic wisdom of voting for a Republican because the Muslim Socialist Obama wants to give them more of the government entitlements they actually really like but don't want anyone else to have because BOOTSTRAPS!
And the hilaritragic thing is that this story will go untold because of another terrible, terrible decision: The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, which opened the floodgates for partisan, for-profit nooz, ownership of which was consolidated under huge corporate monopolies who now pour money into the elections covered by their media branches. Gold.
Meanwhile, most USians probably can't tell you what the fuck the Fairness Doctrine or Citizens United even are, despite their being the two key turning-points in turning this flawed-but-great democratic republic into a giant sweatshop to line the pockets of Garbage Corp.
RIP Democracy. It was nice knowin' ya.
That's Your Liberal Media
Iowa voters oust justices who made same-sex marriage legal. Sadface.
Of course, that's a dishonest headline from our dishonest media (CNN, in this case). It's not "Iowa voters" who ousted the justices, which disappears all the progressives, including the very people whose marriage equality was granted by the justices, who voted to retain them. It's "Homophobic Iowa voters." Or "Anti-Gay Iowa voters." Or "Anti-Equality Iowa voters." Or any variation on that theme which doesn't seek to turn bigots, whose bigotry was fueled by a hate group special interest group pouring money into a campaign to vote the justices off the ballot, into The Voters while erasing the existence of everyone else.
This is how it works. Privileged people are normalized, and non-privileged people (and their allies) are marginalized.
By the simple exclusion of an adjective. Over and over.
No one even bothers to question it. And then we wonder why the Protectors of Privilege keep getting voted in to run the nation, despite their overt antipathy for so many of its people.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for body policing, fat hatred, heterocentrism, ciscentrism, misogyny, racism, disablism.]
Another awesome entry from repeat offender Psychology Today: The Truth About Beauty.
I'll just quote a short passage from the opening paragraph to give you the flavor (Spoiler Alert: It's garbage-flavored!):
If you want to snag a fish, you can't just slap the water with your hand and yell, "Jump on my hook, already!" Yet, if you're a woman who wants to land a man, there's this notion that you should be able to go around looking like Ernest Borgnine: If you're "beautiful on the inside," that's all that should count. Right.I'll also note, one again, that it is feminists, of course, who have the terrible reputation, but it isn't we who consider all men to be mindless servants to their reproductive parts.
The Unwelcome Return of Mondo Fucko
I thought we got rid of this guy, but here he comes again, to haunt us with his sneering visage and petulant whinging, like some kind of ornery specter.
President George W. Bush says that when he heard Kanye West say, "George Bush doesn't care about black people," "it was one of the most disgusting moments in my Presidency."In fact, according to his his forthcoming memoir, Decision Points, he told Former First Lady Laura Bush at the time that it happened that it was not "one of the" worst moments of his presidency, but THE worst. Which is interesting, because, let us recall, Kanye West famously uttered that criticism after Bush's catastrophic megafail responding to the Katrina disaster.
So: Letting an American city drown comes second in Worst Moments Evah! to being called a racist by Kanye West. Okay.
Maude bless Matt Lauer for pointing out this irony:
Bush has taped an interview [to promote Decision Points] with Matt Lauer that will air on a special prime time Matt Lauer Reports on NBC Nov. 8. ... The subjects of the interview are wide-ranging, but the former President is very passionate on the subject of West's criticism of the way Bush handled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. NBC has released some quotations from the interview.Charming as ever.
"He called me a racist," Bush tells Lauer. "And I didn't appreciate it then. I don't appreciate it now. It's one thing to say, 'I don’t appreciate the way he's handled his business.' It's another thing to say, 'This man's a racist.' I resent it, it's not true."
Lauer quotes from Bush's new book: "Five years later I can barely write those words without feeling disgust." Lauer adds, "You go on: 'I faced a lot of criticism as President. I didn't like hearing people claim that I lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or cut taxes to benefit the rich. But the suggestion that I was racist because of the response to Katrina represented an all-time low.'"
President Bush responds: "Yeah. I still feel that way as you read those words. I felt 'em when I heard 'em, felt 'em when I wrote 'em and I felt 'em when I'm listening to 'em."
Lauer: "You say you told Laura at the time it was the worst moment of your Presidency?"
Bush: "Yes. My record was strong I felt when it came to race relations and giving people a chance. And it was a disgusting moment."
Lauer: "I wonder if some people are going to read that, now that you've written it, and they might give you some heat for that. And the reason is this — "
Bush [interrupting]: "Don't care."
Lauer: "Well, here's the reason. You're not saying that the worst moment in your Presidency was watching the misery in Louisiana. You're saying it was when someone insulted you because of that."
Bush: "No, and I also make it clear that the misery in Louisiana affected me deeply as well. There's a lot of tough moments in the book. And it was a disgusting moment, pure and simple."
Mr. President, you are racist. Without rigorous self-examination, we're all racists (and sexists and homophobes and transphobes and disablists and fat-haters and…) by default, by virtue of our socialization in a culture steeped with negative stereotypes; we internalize those messages so profoundly that even those bigotries that target us get turned in on ourselves. The question is not whether we have biases; we all do. The question is whether we leave them unexamined.
And a person who can't even hear the accusation without getting so defensive that he shuts down isn't someone who's likely to have engaged in a lot of rigorous self-examination. I'm just saying.
Open Election Thread
The GOP has recaptured the house, in what (anti-choice! and anti-gay! not that THAT has any relevance, ahem) Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine describes as "a message that change has not happened fast enough."
"Victories Suggest Wider Appeal of Tea Party" says the New York Times, which the Democrats should be reading as: "Victories Suggest Widespread Disillusionment with Republican-Light Policies, and, Hey, Don't a Lot of Those Tea Partiers Show Up in Videos Actually LIKING Medicare and Social Security, Which Suggests They're Really in Favor of MORE PROGRESSIVE Policies, and Are Really Just Enamored With a Movement That Appeals to Their Sense of Frustration, Irrespective of the Actual Policy Positions, So Maybe We Should MOVE FUCKING LEFT FOR A CHANGE?!"
Naturally, they will not read it that way. Right, Evan Bayh?
Have at it.
UPDATE: Greg Mitchell's got a shit-ton of good election links here.
[H/T for Kaine quote to Shaker Kevin Wolf.]
Question of the Day
What is your favorite non-political blog?
I realize there will be a lot of blogs that are borderline political, and discuss politics and/or political/cultural issues even if not explicitly or regularly, so don't be too concerned about exact delineations. If you don't think of a blog as "a political blog," it counts.
Seen
[Trigger warning for image of violence below fold (in most browsers).]
On the church sign near my house, which I pass several times a day while walking Dudley:
Holiness is doing God's will with a smile.Really? There is a lot I could say about why that's wrong, even within a Christian paradigm, but a picture's worth 1,000 words and all that.
"Turn that frown upside down, Sonny!"
Daily Dose o' Cute
"Whoa. Too much spinning!"
(Dudley hadn't actually been spinning before I snapped this, but I thought he looked like I used to feel when I was a little kid, and I'd get all dizzy and want to grip the floor after spinning around in circles like a dipshit for ridiculous amounts of time, lol.)
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.]
Eight Great Years
[Image Description: A billboard put on display in Wyoming, Minn. last February, with a picture of former president George W. Bush asking, "Miss me yet?" which was later vandalized to add "No" beneath the question (as well as to give Bush a mustache).]
This is probably not so the worst thing you'll read all day, but it's gonna be up there: The Bush Rehab Begins, by Bryan Curtis.
You know how I feel about that.
What's interesting to me about this piece is that "Bush himself has long disdained grand, Nixonian plans to rescue his reputation." Which is true, I suppose, and that much stranger given Bush's widely-acknowledged obsession with his "legacy" while in office. He openly (and frequently) talked about what he wanted his legacy to be, and his cabinet and advisers and staff would talk about the Bush Legacy, too, from very early in his presidency.
More than five years ago now, I wrote this piece, ruminating on what Bush's legacy might be—and wondering who would really define it.
President Bush is widely (and probably correctly) regarded as having been fixated with shaping his legacy from the moment he stepped into the Oval Office. He would like nothing more than to be The Man Who Democratized the Middle East, but it's a dubious hope at best, at the moment. His adulators put his name on their cars and his initial on baseball caps, and when he has served out his time as our leader, they will put his face on silver coins and petition to rename schools and highways in his honor—his legacy is already well-defined among them. I can't imagine hearing such hogwash for the rest of days; I fear as I am constantly reminded of how he managed to hoodwink so many people, it will overshadow what I want to take with me from this time.Those would frame the Bush administration as Eight Great Years have begun their campaign in earnest.
I want to remember this time as one where the few who were never enchanted by his determined, bow-legged march toward historical prominence eventually won the day. I want to recall the optimism I still feel that this is a time which won't forever change us all for the worse. I want to look back from someplace further ahead and think of the friendships that were forged in this troubled time, between people who found solace in each other's worries and complaints and passion and madness and humor, between people whose names and faces might never have been known to one another. I want these to be more vivid in my memory than the visceral revulsion I had from his sneer, or my exasperation and embarrassment at his representation of us abroad, or my dread that the Middle East will be ever so much worse for our folly. Because I have such hope for remembering this time fondly, I feel like I am in competition with the president—will he be the one to define his legacy, or will I?
It's a silly question, of course (for many reasons), but it's how I feel sometimes nonetheless. In the end, neither of us will matter, nor the people who fervently admire him, nor the people who feel the same as I do. What will matter is what his legacy becomes in our national memory, determined by what falls in between now and then, whenever then may be.
I'm holding firm on NO.
Quote of the Day
"John Boehner: Stop using my dad's name as a punchline, you asshat."—Singer-songwriter Rosanne Cash, daughter of singer-songwriter Johnny Cash, in response to that shitty joke House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Eprobate) keeps telling: "Remember when Ronald Reagan was president? We had Bob Hope. We had Johnny Cash. Think about where we are today. We have got President Obama. But we have no hope and we have no cash."
Swell Fella
I recently horrified Deeky by saying I sorta fancy Justin Long. Cute, I said, but mostly strikes me as a nice guy. Rightfully, Deeks nonetheless protested with evidence like those atrocious Mac commercials and Exhibits A-L (at least) He's Just Not That Into You. And I totally know. The closest thing to a movie I've liked that he's been in is probably The Sasquatch Gang (oy). But I find him diggable anyway.
And seemingly, it turns out, deservedly so.
His last film, Going the Distance, was not well-received (I didn't see it), and one reviewer, Michelle Orange, not only savaged it, but included in her review a nasty comment about Long's appearance: "How a milky, affectless mook with half-formed features and a first day of kindergarten haircut might punch several classes above his weight is a mystery, as my colleague pointed out in her review of Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, we are increasingly asked to accept on screen."
Ouch.
Long happened to see Orange's review, and recited, from memory, the scathing line on Jimmy Fallon's show, calling it, with begrudging admiration, "so bad it set the bar […] for insults."
Orange, who says she had regretted publishing the line almost immediately, later wrote this self-reflective essay about criticism generally and her role in it, in which she recounts the incident and her remorse over it. The piece ends thus:
[T]he task-oriented, deeply professional part of me is fulfilled by nailing my response to a film or book to the table. In the moment I feel no compunction about anything but getting it right, which is its own satisfaction. The second part is finite and expendable, I am finding, while the first will go only when I do.
The fifth comment in response to the piece is from none other than Justin Long, who leaves what is, as described here by Jenna, "what must be the kindest, humblest comment in an Internet fight, ever."
Am I a critic? Certainty #1: I am a writer who needs to make a living and is allergic to half-assing, which means if I have to write about your bad movie, you better duck and cover. Certainty #2: I worry more about what I do than how I do it. I don't know if I'm really that busted up about hurting an actor's feelings, although, as my colleague Stephanie Zacharek pointed out when I whinged to her about the incident, it can be helpful to remember that they have them.
Before he recited from memory the very sentence that I dithered and fretted over as an example of the way he internalizes negative criticism, Justin Long set the stage: "I actually kind of appreciate this woman—Michelle Orange, wherever you are, at Movieline. I remember it. I remember the quote, and this is word for word."
I mean, I remember it too, Justin. I do.
Michelle, since stumbling onto your article during a narcissistic and regrettable search, I've been following and really enjoying your articles (and not to worry, not only the film-oriented ones – I now know better than to categorize you that way). Of course it's difficult to read hurtful things about yourself (though my skin is getting thicker by the movie), it makes it a lot easier when the article is so eloquently composed and genuinely insightful.
There's a lot I love about that comment, and only one thing with which I disagree: I don't believe people who choose a career in entertainment (or any other public career, for that matter) "relinquish their immunity to attack" at the door. Certainly criticism is part of the deal, but there is a not remotely difficult to distinguish difference between criticism and attack; that line, and crossing it, is what this entire incident is about, really. No one should be expected to bear the burden of unfair and unjustifiable personal attacks as "just part of the job," no matter how fat their paychecks or vast their privileges.
And there's also considerable truth in what [previous commenters] wrote (again, as damaging to the ego as it may be) – I did choose to put myself in that position, therefore relinquishing any immunity to attack – whether it's about my acting or my face. I brought it up on Jimmy's show because I thought it was somewhat amusing just HOW harsh it was (again, in a very well-articulated way) – and I meant what I said, it really did set the bar. I've heard a lot of negative things about myself over the years but rarely are they said with such a thoughtful and insightful tongue. Now I'll be able to withstand more slings and arrows thanks to the armor of humility you've forged for me. Please know too, I'm in no way being sarcastic – the fact that I read this piece should be testament to that.
Michelle, I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd get to be in one movie, let alone several over the course of the last ten years – never had any delusions of grandeur. I always wanted to be a theatre actor like my mom, always assuming the movie roles were relegated to the good looking people. Which is not to say my Mom's not good looking – she's beautiful (though clearly it's all subjective – you are not a fan of our gene pool so you might not agree) – she just had kids and never got that "lucky break". Then I started idolizing guys like Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, Sam Rockwell, Woody Allen, and Philip Seymour Hoffman – I found myself relating (I hope you're not wincing at my use of that word now) to them and formulating some wild fantasy of one day pursuing a career in movie acting – if guys that looked like that could do it, I thought, maybe this milky mook could role the dice.
So while there's no defense for my performance in the movie (everyone is obviously entitled to their opinion), I have to say, I'm surprised by the amount of stock you seem to invest in my looks. I absolutely agree with you too, I'd be hard-pressed to hold a candle to even a fraction of Drew's beauty – in my humble opinion, she's the most beautiful girl in the world. Is that a message you want to proliferate though? That people of higher aesthetic echelons should stick to their own? Maybe you're frustrated because it so rarely works the other way – I don't remember the last time I was asked to accept a female romantic lead who was "punching above her weight class" – though it does happen (I just don't want to name names at the risk of offending – I leave that to the experts). I suppose if it were more commonplace though you, as a woman, wouldn't be so offended and might have taken it a bit easier in pointing out the disparity of our looks in "going the distance".
Regardless, I really meant what I said about your writing – I love film too and I love reading about it – so keep up the good work and I'll try to pick better projects (though I did love filming that one) but short of some reconstructive surgery, unfortunately there's nothing I can do about my mug (blame god and/or my parents on that one). Take care and hopefully one day our paths will cross so I can compliment you in person. Until then, best wishes and be proud and confident in your role as a film critic – you're a damn good one.
-Justin Long
ps I swear to god it's me and I swear (as emphatically) that I'm not being sarcastic.
I understand why Long argued otherwise, however. We expect as evidence of humility submission to the idea that celebrities exchange privacy and dignity and basic kindness for fame and fortune. With adoration comes excoriation, and, if you don't like it, no one's making you be a star, we sneer.
Well. That's one way of looking at it. But I've never quite understood why we want to impose such a heavy emotional burden on people we admire or whose work we enjoy (or even on unpleasant people whose celebrity is a downright mystery, for that matter). Expecting people to weather a constant onslaught of personal attacks, as if money or popularity insulate them from emotional damage, is to expect of them a superhumanness that robs them of their real humanity.
Justin Long, you have a right not to be attacked. And not that it really matters what the fuck my opinion (or any other stranger's) is of your appearance, but in the interest of balance, I think you're adorable.
And I hope you make a movie I really want to see the fuck out of someday.
