Here is your topic: Top Five Favorite Items of Clothing and/or Accessories. Go!
Please feel welcome to share stories about why your Top Five picks are what they are, though a straight-up list is fine, too. Please refrain from negatively auditing other people's lists, because judgment discourages participation.
Top Five
Question of the Day
What did you once think to be true about yourself, which you have discovered is not really true after all?
Nothing to See Here
Mortgage giant Freddie Mac did not keep homeowners trapped in high-interest loans in order to boost profits on billions of dollars' worth of complex financial bets it had made. That's the conclusion reached in a report released today by the inspector general that oversees the agency in charge of Freddie Mac.Ha ha perfect. That sounds like a perfect and super responsible method of making sure the guarantors of most of the mortgages in the US are not exploiting millions of homeowners for profit. "Oh, we just took their word for it." PERFECT.
Last January, ProPublica and NPR reported that Freddie had dramatically expanded its holdings of mortgage-backed securities that would profit if homeowners stayed in their existing high-interest-rate loans. At the same time, the company had taken steps that made it harder for homeowners to refinance at lower interest rates. Our report stated that there was no evidence of a coordinated attempt to bet against homeowners' ability to refinance. The inspector general's report concludes that there was none.
But the inspector general left a key stone unturned: It did not independently evaluate the firewall within Freddie Mac designed to keep Freddie's investment arm from profiting from insider information about the mortgage giant's plans to tighten or loosen homeowners' access to credit. Instead, the inspector general relied on the word of employees it interviewed and conducted no further investigation.
The Latest from the Worst Campaign in Worstville
Today, the Romney campaign released this ad, in which Mitt Romney speaks directly into the camera, making his appeal to voters as a compassionate conservative, or whatever pretending to give a fuck about the 99% is getting called these days:
Too many Americans are struggling to find work in today's economy. Too many of those who are working are living paycheck to paycheck, trying to make falling incomes meet rising prices for food and gas. More Americans are living in poverty than when President Obama took office, and 15 million more are on food stamps.Okay, obviously everything about this is undiluted garbage, but I don't have time to detail in all the ways this one-minute video of the Republican candidate for the US presidency is dishonest, contemptible rubbish, because I'm too busy measuring compassion by how many people are on welfare, which is for sure something real people definitely do.
President Obama and I both care about poor and middle class families. The difference is: My policies will make things better for them.
We shouldn't measure compassion by how many people are on welfare; we should measure compassion by how many people are able to get off welfare and get a good paying job.
My plan will create 12 million new jobs over the next four years, helping lift families out of poverty and strengthening the middle class.
I'm Mitt Romeny, and I approve this message—because we can't afford another four years like the last four years.
I will just point out two quick things:
1. The title of this video is "Too Many Americans." Obviously, Team Romney meant for us to extrapolate that "too many Americans" are suffering under the nightmare rule of the despot Obama, but it reads more like Mitt Romney's proposal to deal with all those goddamn government moochers: "Too many Americans! Let's get rid of some of 'em!"
2. Note that Mitt Romney says his policies "will make things better for them." For them. Those people, who are poor and middle class. Which sort of raises the (rhetorical) question: Just whom, exactly, is this video for? Garance Franke-Ruta observes:
Mitt Romney keeps talking about the people whose votes he needs as "them."There aren't enough derisive snorts in the world for this guy.
In the 47 percent video, it was "those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," Romney said.
...The problem with Romney's campaign is not just a secret video, or media- and PAC-hyped candidate gaffes. It's an approach to talking to and about people in a way that is othering, rather than empathetic -- so much so that in direct appeal to middle-class voters, Romney doesn't think to say (or, rather, no one on his campaign thinks to have him say), "The difference is my policies will make things better for you."
Top Five
Here is your topic: Top Five Favorite Desserts. (And for those of you who prefer savory—e.g. cheese plates—to sweet, or enjoy instead after-dinner beverages, are welcome to treat those as "desserts" for the purposes of this question.) Go!
Please feel welcome to share stories about why your Top Five picks are what they are, though a straight-up list is fine, too. Please refrain from negatively auditing other people's lists, because judgment discourages participation.
Photos of the Day
[Content Note: Violence; police brutality.]
Protesters react during a demonstration organised by Spain's "Indignant" protesters in Madrid. Spanish riot police fired rubber bullets and baton-charged protesters as thousands rallied near parliament in Madrid in anger at the government's handling of the economic crisis. [Pierre-Philippe Marcou/AFP/GettyImages—via]
Protesters clash with riot police during a demonstration organized by Spain's "Indignant" protesters to decry an economic crisis they say has "kidnapped" democracy in Madrid on Sept. 25, 2012. [Pierre-Philippe Marcou/AFP/GettyImages—via]Related Reading: AP: Spain Counts Cost of Anti-Austerity Protest.
AFP: Spain Police Block Protesters' Access to Parliament.
Reuters: Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy Says All Must Sacrifice.
Also at Reuters: Spain to Keep Freeze on Civil Servant Wages in 2013 Budget.
The Guardian: The Shape of Modern Spain Is Being Questioned.
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by sparkles.
Recommended Reading:
Stassa: The Media Tells Female Candidates to Be Nicer
Michele: 'We Do Not Need Any More Proof' [Content Note: The post at this link includes a discussion of challenging the use of rape as a tool of war.]
FMF News: Federal Court Will Hear Walmart Sex Discrimination Case
Pam: Akin's in it…but We Can't Afford for Him to Win it…
Mike: How Class Bias Can Kill
Pam: Paul Ryan in Ohio: Preventing Marriage Equality Is a 'Universal Human Value'
Oly Mike: Ocean Report
Kira: Creepshots and Revenge Porn: How Paparazzi Culture Affects Women [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of stalking, harassment, sexual assault, hostility to consent.]
Jane: The Sikh Woman Who Stood Up to Online Abuse about Her Facial Hair [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of body policing, gender policing, religious ignorance, harassment, misogyny, and hostility to consent.]
Andy: Adam Lambert is an 'Outlaw of Love' for Marriage Equality in Maryland
Spooky: Artist's Hyperrealistic Drawings Look Like Black and White Photos
Jay Smooth: The Tale of the Tapes [video]
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Living, and Dying, Under Drones
[Content Note: War; violence.]
Remember how I said there are things I like and don't like about President Obama, his administration, his policies, his presidency...? I'm fixing to talk about one of the things I don't like, which is a tremendous understatement.
Yesterday, the Stanford International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic, a group comprised of human rights advocates from Stanford and New York Universities, released a report entitled "Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan." I want to quote just a piece of the executive summary of the report:
In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling "targeted killing" of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.Those negative effects, as painstakingly documented in the report, include: Extensive (though unacknowledged) civilian casualties; extensive (though unacknowledged) harm "to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury"; evidence that drone strikes are not, as routinely argued by the Obama administration, making the US safer—to the contrary, the New York Times has reported that "drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants"; continued contempt for and subversion of the rule of law and international legal protections; setting disturbing new domestic and international precedents about when and how war is waged.
This narrative is false.
Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.
Real threats to US security and to Pakistani civilians exist in the Pakistani border areas now targeted by drones. It is crucial that the US be able to protect itself from terrorist threats, and that the great harm caused by terrorists to Pakistani civilians be addressed. However, in light of significant evidence of harmful impacts to Pakistani civilians and to US interests, current policies to address terrorism through targeted killings and drone strikes must be carefully re-evaluated.
It is essential that public debate about US policies take the negative effects of current policies into account.
In light of these concerns, this report recommends that the US conduct a fundamental re-evaluation of current targeted killing practices, taking into account all available evidence, the concerns of various stakeholders, and the short and long-term costs and benefits. A significant rethinking of current US targeted killing and drone strike policies is long overdue. US policy-makers, and the American public, cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counter-productive impacts of US targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan.There is more, so much more, at the link. It is difficult to read. But I cannot recommend enough that you take some time to engage with this report, and the reality of what is being done by this administration in the names of US citizens, whose consent has never been given for waging this secret war, for which there is no oversight or accountability.
In a piece for Truthout about this report, John Knefel notes that drones "are a bipartisan issue. You can't cast a vote for a viable candidate in 2012 who won't continue to — in the words of the report — 'terrorize' the people of Pakistan, of Yemen, of Somalia, with flying robots. The ACLU has called the drone program the 'centerpiece of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies.' Mitt Romney has promised to continue the program on the off-chance he's elected, and has even gone so far as to say Pakistanis are 'comfortable' with drones."
There is no meaningful choice in the upcoming election, on the issue of whether the US should be using drones in a secretive war, irrespective of how many civilians are being killed, and in contempt of the rule of law, and without seemingly the merest regard for the actual efficacy of such campaigns.
Later in his piece, Knefel observes that a Pew survey done earlier this year found 62% approval for drones. He images that's attributable to media coverage that relies almost exclusively on leaked information that is favorable to the Obama administration.
I am certain he's right—but I also believe quite fervently that the approval for drones is reflective of that aforementioned lack of a meaningful choice. When our choice is between a Democratic candidate who will wage war with "targeted" drone attacks, or a Republican candidate who will wage war with troops and tanks and treasure and mercenaries and false promises and no exit strategy, I "approve" of drones, too—but only by default.
I authentically, enthusiastically, desperately choose diplomacy over drones. But that is not the choice I'm given.
I live in a war-mongering empire, and the only choice I'm given is in which way I want to wage war. That I don't want to wage war at all doesn't really matter, not to this president, nor any other.
I don't have any idea, at all, about how to begin to change that. Except to plead with you to read that report, and let it matter to you.
Also see: Charlie Pierce.
In The News
[Content note: fat hatred, war, terrorism]
All The News In Fits and Spurts:
Federal agents and local police are investigating an explosion outside Democratic congressional candidate Brendan Mullen's northern Indiana home.
Mitt Romney has lowered expectations of his performance at next week's debate, noting it is his first time in a presidential debate. Good lord. What a great candidate you have there, Republicans!
Scientific American: Why airplane windows don't roll down.
California Governor Jerry Brown rode to Google headquarters in a self-driving Toyota Prius before signing legislation yeseterday that will allow driverless cars in that state. Neat!
Work has begun on two permanent rainbow-colored crosswalks on Santa Monica and San Vicente Boulevards in West Hollywood, California. Neat!
At the intersection of fat-shaming and war-mongering comes a bizarre public health campaign: an effort by retired generals and admirals to ban sugary sodas and snacks from public schools. The kids today, say the former brass, are too fat to fight for their country.
Nevermore: Baltimore's beleaguered Edgar Allan Poe House will be shutting its doors Friday, with plans to reopen in 2013 under the auspices of a nonprofit group hoping to increase attendance and make the city landmark self-sufficient.
Juvenile joke of the day: AFA is offering yard signs reading "Jesus Came For You".
Here is the new Life of Pi trailer. Neat!
Starting today, you can use Google Maps to find a sea turtle swimming among a school of fish, follow a manta ray, and experience the Great Barrier Reef at sunset. Neat!
Richard Hell and the Voidoids: "Love Comes In Spurts".
Justin Trudeau's Leadership Bid (or Not)
In today's news comes a report that Justin Trudeau, Liberal MP for Papineau (and son of Margaret Sinclair and the late former PM Pierre Trudeau) is throwing his hat into the arena for leadership of the Liberal Party. Then again, there's his announcement of a non-announcement as well.
I've really not had time to digest this information or formulate much analysis of it, but I thought that Canadian Shakers (and other Shakers interested in Canadian politics) might want to discuss the strong-ish possibility of a Trudeau run.
My initial reaction to the idea of a Trudeau leadership is cautiously enthusiastic. I've been impressed with the way he grappled with a family background that inevitably thrust him into the spotlight. He's made a career of trying to wield his influence, his intellect, and his considerable charisma for good at home and abroad. (His official biography, for those who are interested. His Wikipedia entry.) if his enthusiasm and drive could rejuvenate the Libeals, i think that would be for the best. Although my own politics lean more NDP, I do not think it's good for Canada to have a less-than-healthy Liberal Party; it makes it easier for the Harpercons to shift the "centre" steadily rightward.
That's not to say his leadership would be without problems. He's been heavily and bluntly critical of Quebec sovereignty, complicating the party's prospects in francophone Quebec. He's still inexperienced, a quality which has doomed many a politician. I'm not keen on this back-and-forth dance about stepping into the ring, either.
(And he may well have other disadvantages or negative qualities which I am leaving out, not from a desire to whitewash, but because I am (a) not aware of them or (b) because my brain is a leaky sieve of slowly disappearing information and I can't think of them this morning.)
Still: Trudeau makes me feel inspired and optimistic--and that is no small thing in today's world. I very much like the Canada he seems to believe in. It sounds a lot like he one I believe in, too.
Any thoughts, Shakers?
You've Got MittMail(TM)!
Obviously, subscribing to Mitt "Airplanes, how the fuck do they work?" Romney's email list was a brilliant move on my part:
Mitt's a warm, friendly guy -- and a very proud grandpa -- who just happens to be running for president.Tough luck Shakers, "midnight tonight" was earlier this morning!
If you happen to win this "On Board" contest and end up meeting Mitt on the campaign plane at 30,000 feet -- I'm sure you'll find him to be as grounded and down to earth as I do. But the contest ends tonight.So donate $3 before midnight tonight to be automatically enrolled for a chance to join Mitt on the campaign plane.[Image of Mitt presumably joking within some passengers about their portfolios; upon the image "ON BOARD with MITT-- We'll save two lucky winners a seat on the campaign plane" is written, along with the Air Romney logo]
As for me, I'll take my chances with American Eagle. At least this well-timed email reminded me to check Outlook to see if I "just happen to be running for president."
PS: Accord to Outlook, it turns out I'm not running for president, but I just happen to have a doctor's appointment next Monday.
Today in Mitt Romney Is Terrible
Oof. Yesterday, in Ohio, at a campaign event during which both Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan were making an appearance, this happened:
Video Description: At an outdoor campaign event, just after Paul Ryan has left the stage, Mitt Romney takes the stage and says, to the cheering crowd, "It's quite a guy, isn't it? Paul Ryan! Isn't that something?" The crowd waves campaign signs and chants, "Ryan! Ryan!" Mitt Romney interrupts: "Wait a second, wait a second—Romney Ryan Romney Ryan Romney Ryan. There we go, all right, that's great."
Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes.
As Steve Benen notes, "The moment helped capture a larger area of concern for the Republican ticket."
The New York Times reports today that the campaign will have the two men campaign together with increasing frequency, even though it's inefficient to cover less ground, because aides fear Romney is "not generating enough attention and excitement" on his own.Whoooooooooops your campaign!
No wonder Romney didn't like the crowd chanting Ryan's name.
As it turns out, Ryan may not be thrilled, either. Politico's Roger Simon has a column today on the right-wing congressman deciding to "distance himself from the floundering Romney campaign." Ryan has apparently "been marching around his campaign bus, saying things like, 'If Stench calls, take a message' and 'Tell Stench I'm having finger sandwiches with Peggy Noonan and will text him later.'"
The quote is a reference to Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Republican Party of Iowa, telling the New York Times over the weekend, "I hate to say this, but if Ryan wants to run for national office again, he'll probably have to wash the stench of Romney off of him."
The Romney campaign is so horrendo that the latest ABC/WaPo poll (ad with audio begins to play automatically at link) found that 61% of respondents "hold an unfavorable view of how Romney's handling his presidential campaign."
Woof.
Important Announcement
[Content Note: Violence; misogyny.]
I am really grossed-out by the intense, aggressive, irrational hatred of Zooey Deschanel. By which I don't mean people who just aren't fans for whatever reason or people who have valid criticisms about her manic pixie dream career choices, but the people who have responded to her popularity with a seething backlash of epic proportions that manifests in disproportionate levels of ragey hostility.
NO YOU DON'T WANT TO MURDER HER BECAUSE OF HER BANGS, AND IF YOU DO, YOU ARE A MONSTER!
So I'm having a backlash of my own. The more incidents I see of intense, aggressive, irrational hatred of Zooey Deschanel, the more I like her. That's right! I LIKE ZOOEY DESCHANEL OUT OF SPITE! So there.
We'll probably be best friends soon, so WATCH OUT, WORLD!
Zooey Deschanel, actress and not at all my friend, but definitely a human being who seems all right.
Top Five
Here is your topic: Top Five Favorite Bygone Fashion Trends. You know—bell-bottoms, hair crimping, ski vests over denim jackets. Go!
Please feel welcome to share stories about why your Top Five picks are what they are, though a straight-up list is fine, too. Please refrain from negatively auditing other people's lists, because judgment discourages participation.
This is a real thing in the world.
If you haven't signed up for Victory Wallet yet, we have at least three good reasons why you should.Eastsidekate got this in her email, because there's an app for Mitt, and not only did it tell her a nanosecond before Dana Milbank who Mitt Romney chose as his running mate, but it now constantly spams her inbox. Free market, bitchez.
First of all, we are offering a free, limited edition gold "R" pin to those who create a Victory Wallet account today. This is a real collector's item -- as only a limited number of pins have been produced -- so sign up for Victory Wallet to get yours.
Second, Victory Wallet only takes a minute to set up and will save you ample time in the future. Just save your credit card information to your MyMitt account, and you'll be able to make donations instantly online.
Third, it's never been this fast or easy to donate and support Romney Victory. With Victory Wallet, you can make donations in one quick and easy step via email, Web, or mobile phone.
Sign up for Victory Wallet and get your free gold "R" pin today: http://mittromney.com/user/edit/victorywallet.
We have less than 50 days until the election to help get Mitt and the entire Republican team elected -- let's get it done.
Naturally, she immediately forwarded the email to me because: 1. She's at work; and 2. VICTORY WALLET!
OMGLOLFOREVER. Victory Wallet.
VICTORY!
WALLET!
It's never been this fast or easy to donate to Mitt Romney! SIGN ME UP! The thing that's been holding me back from donating ALL THE MONEY to Mitt Romney is that I couldn't do it FAST ENOUGH! Also, that gold pin sounds terrific.
Although I do think an actual wallet made from 100% genuine Romney Family Bootstraps would have been a much nicer freebie.
Finally:
"Victory Wallet is Romney's Secret Service code name."—Eastsidekate. LULZ.
