Hosted by watercolors.
This week's open threads have been brought to you by art supplies.
Open Thread
Hosted by watercolors.
This week's open threads have been brought to you by art supplies.
Happy Birthday, Iain!!!
It's my burfday!
(And not just any birthday, but his 35th birthday, which is the age that really felt Officially Grown Up to me. And, as I discovered after previously mentioning the significance I'd attached to that number, to a lot of other people, too.)
Once upon a time, I mentioned to my friend Mannion that Anne Bancroft and Mel Brooks had always been my favorite Hollywood couple. "Not Bogart and Bacall?" he asked. "Not Newman and Woodward?"
"Nope," I replied. "Definitely Anne Bancroft and Mel Brooks."
He asked why. It was because of something Anne Bancroft once said. Yes, that Brooks made her laugh. And this: "When I hear his key in the lock at night my heart starts to beat faster. I'm just so happy he's coming home. We have so much fun." I can totally relate.
I'll never get over my crush on Iain.
There will never be anyone with whom I more want to share good news, with whom I most want to celebrate my successes or lament my failures, with whom I more want to see a movie I'm dying to see, or passionately discuss a book I loved, or play Rock Band until my fingers are ready to fall off.
(True Fact: I am composing this Friday evening. I just at this very moment got a text from Iain, who is on the train on his way home from work. It reads: "Totes wanna play some Rock Band with you tonight if you feel like it!" I do. I do I do I do.)
Tonight I will take him to dinner at his favorite restaurant, and, nearly ten years after our first dinner date, I am still excited to gaze at him across a table and have a tumbling conversation about interesting things.
Which reminds me of something else Anne Bancroft once said about Mel Brooks. "I'd never had so much pleasure with another human being. It was that simple."
I can totally relate to that, too.
I love you, Iain. Happy Birthday.
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!
Open Thread on Olbermann
So, as you may have heard, Keith Olbermann has been suspended from MSNBC indefinitely without pay because he made three campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.
There is a shit-ton of coverage at Memeoradum, and I've been retweeting a lot of good stuff worth checking out.
Frankly, I don't give a fuck about Keith Olbermann on a personal level, but the principle of this thing is ridiculous. FAIR rightly asks:
A journalist donating money to a political candidate raises obvious conflict of interest questions; at a minimum, such contributions should be disclosed on air. But if supporting politicians with money is a threat to journalistic independence, what are the standards for Olbermann's bosses at NBC, and at NBC's parent company General Electric?Here's the thing: Keith Olbermann doesn't pretend to be objective, nor is he required to be. So who gives a fuck if he makes campaign contributions? No one was busily thinking Keith Olbermann wasn't liberal. He isn't an anchor on the evening news. I don't give a fuck if Glenn Beck is making contributions to SarahPAC, either.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, GE made over $2 million in political contributions in the 2010 election cycle (most coming from the company's political action committee). The top recipient was Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman from Ohio. The company has also spent $32 million on lobbying this year, and contributed over $1 million to the successful "No on 24" campaign against a California ballot initiative aimed at eliminating tax loopholes for major corporations (New York Times, 11/1/10).
Meanwhile, Boehlert amusingly notes: "Note there are no [asinine] cries that Olbermann has been 'censored.' (Cuz one side is smarter than the other.)" Heh.
Daily Dose o' Cute
"Ahhhhhhhhh, yesssssssssss, that's the spot!"
"Why did you stop, Two-Legs? MUSH!"
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.]
Pro-Choice
Here are some reasons that a straight, married feminist/womanist woman might have taken her husband's name:
1. Because she was not a womanist/feminist when she got married.
2. Because it was a huge point of contention with her in-laws, or maybe even her own parents, and she was picking her battles.
3. Because a name change makes it more difficult to be found by a violent ex, a stalker/rapist, or anyone else by whom a woman might not want to be found—and a marriage-related name change is easy and doesn't create a public court record.
4. Because she or her husband immigrated for the express purpose of their marriage, and proving that they are a "real" couple to a government still steeped in patriarchal traditions is made significantly easier if she takes his last name.
5. Because she works in a field or at an employer or in a location where not changing her name risks revealing an ideological leaning that could affect her career or target herself/her family for ostracization.
6. Because her maiden name was her father's name and keeping it did not feel like any more a rejection of the patriarchy than taking her husband's name did, and she liked her husband's name better.
7. Because her maiden name was her father's name, and she likes her husband a lot more than her father.
8. Because her family was abusive and her husband's family is wonderful to her, and she wants actively to become a part of it and feels taking their name is a symbol of that joyful joining.
9. Because she and her husband want the same last name, but the law makes it infinitely easier for her to change her name to his than for him to change his name to hers, or for both of them to choose a new name they share altogether.
10. Because despite knowing it comes from a weird, fucked-up patriarchal tradition, there's still some weird, fucked-up place inside her that likes the idea of taking her husband's name—and no feminist/womanist lives a life free of compliance, consciously or not, with weird, fucked-up patriarchal narratives and expectations. But unlike privately calling another woman a bitch or playing the role of Exceptional Feminist with a group of male coworkers or secretly doing all the housework in her own home, the name thing is there for everyone to see and question, every day of her life.
This is hardly a definitive list. Not everyone who reads this selection will consider each (or any) item a legitimate reason for a woman to opt to take her husband's name. Still, few of us would feel inclined to directly tell a womanist/feminist woman who's survived and escaped a profoundly abusive family of origin and found a wonderful partner whose family she adores, and who adore her right back, that her desire to take their name is a betrayal of The Sisterhood.
Few of us would directly tell a rape survivor, whose attacker the justice (ha) system declined to prosecute thus allowing him to continue to stalk and harass her, that she's a traitor to feminist kind if she opts for a quick and quiet name change upon getting married.
Few of us would directly encourage a woman whose immigration status (or whose husband's immigration status) could be imperiled or delayed or made any more difficult than an already-labyrinthine process to prioritize her name over her entire future.
Et cetera.
Yet that is most assuredly what we're doing every time we publicly castigate or question women who have taken their husbands' last names—because there are reasons, not always evident and none of our fucking business, for that choice which can and sometimes do trump political statements on a personal, individual level.
This is not to argue that taking one's husband's name is inherently a feminist choice (although I'm not sure it's inherently not a feminist choice, either, depending on the circumstances). It is merely to say that we cannot (and should not) axiomatically assume anything about a woman who has taken her partner's name, rendering this yet another subject on which the casual passing of judgment is a pernicious affair indeed.
Quite evidently, we each have a responsibility to think critically about our individual decisions, and not pretend they happen in a void even when we make choices for no one's pleasure or security but our own. just because one is doing something for herself doesn't magically turn it into a choice without cultural implications.
But it's eminently possible to critique the culture in which individual choices are made, and the cultural narratives that may affect our decision-making processes, without condemning those individual choices. Or the womanists/feminists making them.
Not every feminist/womanist will make the same choice, nor should they be thus obliged in order to prove feminism's value. Feminism has sufficiently demonstrated its own worth by providing that spectrum of choice in the first place.
And even though not every one of those conceivable choices is implicitly feminist, having a choice is evidence of feminism's reach.
Today in !!Free Markets!!
In light of all the new Congresspeople devoted to keeping government from getting between patients and their doctors/wallets/freedom!!!!!, I thought today was as good a time as any to issue a friendly reminder.
1) In the absence of government intervention, the free market is rapidly changing the healthcare many folks in the US experience. Or don't. Whichever. (The freedom! Why won't somebody think of the freedom?!?)
2) Despite what you may have heard, free markets are, at best amoral. I'd go farther than that, but my therapist says I really need to work on making friends.
The big Catholic hospital here in Syracuse just bought the area's largest private practice. [I wish I had enough money to buy doctors :sigh:] Earlier this year one of the other 3 hospitals in town (which also has a working arrangement with the area's state-owned hospital) bought up another large medical group.
Economies of scale, efficiency, all that crap.
Permit me to lay out two scenarios:
1) The US becomes a double un-secret Muslim socialist dystopia, in which an all-knowing government controls every aspect of healthcare.
2) Some guys (Catholic Health LLC, perhaps?) control every aspect of healthcare.
Furthermore, permit me to make an argument in favor of scenario 1 (the dystopian one). In theory, the people run the government. No, really, I learned about this in school (but see this). Interestingly enough, this seems to be a point that the Tea Partiers really like making. Well, they usually phrase it in terms of 'black/lady people are running the country, and we should put Americans in charge', but you get the idea.
The people, especially the black/lady people do not generally run HealthCo Ltd. That's up to boards of directors, shareholders, all-knowing Messiahs, whichever. Okay, that last one's a bit of a joke, but it's less funny when you think about the possibility reality of healthcare providers refusing to provide healthcare due to self-imposed religious mandates.
There are those of us who choose our doctors and emergency rooms very carefully, on account of how badly we were treated (or :ahem: not) those times we really needed medical care, what with the gender non-conformance/ladybusiness/virulent non-Christianness/fatness/queeritude/lack of privilege.
There are also those of you who don't get to chose your doctors at all, because:
1) You live in a place where the market will support only one (or less!) healthcare provider.
2) Economies of scale, efficiency, all that crap*.
In both of the scenarios I laid out above, there's a lack of choice. In only one of the scenarios above, do people theoretically have any control over the quality (and quantity) of medical care.
In scenario 1, an unsatisfied (non)-patient has the option to write a letter to a Congressperson, and theoretically, to vote to elect leaders who will improve the healthcare system. In scenario 2, you're either likely to get Ernestine or a confused 'have you even read The Bible?'
I choose dystopia.
--
*Which includes the fact that it's just not profitable to give you healthcare.
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Lissie's Knit Hats for Autumn. Perfect for keeping heads warm and hiding fuckhair.
Recommended Reading:
Shark-fu: The New Reality
Echidne: The Trouble With Compromises
Lisa: Truthout About Kyriarchy: An Open Letter To "Feminist" Writers, Bloggers, and Journalists
Fannie: "Human" and "Female" as Mutually Exclusive Categories [TW for sexual violence]
BTD: The Lost Decade Will Continue
Renee: Angelina Jolie, Appropriation, and Dangerous Rape Narratives [TW for sexual violence]
Andy: Queer Kiss Flashmob to Greet Pope Benedict in Spain
Leave your links in comments...
Shakers Are So Dreamy
Shaker TheDeviantE emails (which I am sharing with permission):
I had a dream a few weeks back that we were gchatting. I was also a vampire being pursued by corrupt vampire hunters (though that may be besides the point). I believe in the dream you were trying to make me feel better about being pursued/chased (quite nice of you, thanks ;-).Hee!
I asked E if I could publish his email as a jumping-off point for another thread about how frequently I and the other contributors and other Shakers appear in each other's dreams. Shakes-related dreams come up in comments fairly regularly, and one of the most common subjects among reader emails is telling me that they dreamed about me and/or another contributor. (And, no, the vast majority of these are not the least bit creepy.)
So: Fess up. Have I appeared in your dream as your first-grade teacher? Has a fellow Shaker met you for drinks on the moon in your sleep? Has Deeky come to you in the night as a gummi-worm wielding organ grinder? Did I just invent the quadruple entendre with that last sentence...?
Tell the tales of your Shakesville Dreams here.
The First Step Is Admitting the Problem
Let us fervently hope this is not merely giving lipservice to an idea he thinks a disillusioned and alienated base wants to hear, but an authentic self-reflection that will result in fundamental stylistic changes over the next two years:
President Obama tells "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft that one of the reasons the electorate has become disenchanted with him was his failure to properly explain his policies and persuade people to agree with them.Yes, that's right: Leadership really isn't just legislation. It is about laying narrative groundwork for legislation, about branding legislation simply and boldly, about selling it and standing behind it. All of those are things the administration needs to do better.
..."You know, I think that over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand. And I think that we haven't always been successful at that," Obama replied.
"And I take personal responsibility for that. And it's something that I've got to examine carefully as I go forward. You know, now I will say that when it comes to some of my supporters, some of my Democratic supporters who express some frustration," the president added.
But there's a piece here that Obama is still missing: Leadership is also listening.
Not just "persuading people" and "making an argument that people can understand." But listening to what they have to say, so that you pursue the legislation they want in the first place, and so you don't fall into the trap (over and over and fucking over) of assuming that a lack of support is axiomatically down to people being too goddamned stupid to understand your sophisticated and awesome legislation.
Sometimes people fail to support you because they do understand the legislation and don't like it.
And there's still no evidence that reality is penetrating the rampart of arrogance that has been built around this White House.
Because they still aren't listening.
Great leaders listen. Hard.
Obama's a great talker, but he's a terrible listener. And he still doesn't even seem to realize that's a problem. He'll never be a great leader until he does.
Good News!
In August, Shaker Andy wrote a guest post about the campaign "directed at Stonewall, the UK's, and indeed Europe's, largest LGB lobbying organisation" to advocate for marriage equality.
Andy just emailed to let me know the campaign succeeded: Stonewall says it will campaign for gay marriage.
Gay lobbying charity Stonewall says it will campaign for lesbian and gay couples to have civil marriages in the UK.Huzzah! As Andy says, "Now we can get on with the real work of, you know, actually campaigning for same-sex marriage." Which, naturally, will be easier with the UK's biggest gay rights organization on board.
...In a statement posted on its website, the group said: "Stonewall is pleased to be widening its campaigning objectives to include extending the legal form of marriage to gay people. We seek to secure marriage for gay people as a civil vehicle on the same basis as heterosexual marriage, available in a registry office but without a mandate on religious organisations to celebrate it."
Halloween Parade
Description: Video I shot with my camera phone of the annual Halloween Lantern Parade at Patterson Park in Baltimore last Saturday. The theme of the festivities this year was "Grow!", hence the giant, glowing gourd leading the parade. Note the giant Día de los Muertos skeletons at around the three-an-a-half minute mark!
Senator Patty Murray Wins Reelection
Thank Maude.
Senator Murray is a progressive ally on many issues, and, most importantly, is a strong women's advocate in the Senate where there are vanishingly few vocal advocates for women. (Check out her pro-choice ratings.) It would have been a terrible loss for women if she'd been defeated, and her reelection is a huge relief.
Greys
[Trigger warning for animal cruelty.]
Just a harmless sport: "A greyhound trainer is facing a charge of animal cruelty and may face additional charges as the investigation into the deaths of at least 20 dogs at Ebro Greyhound Park continues. ... It is not immediately known exactly how many dogs died or when and how it happened. Officials have said they are waiting on necropsy results, but the complaint that triggered the investigation was spawned by underweight dogs being turned over to Greyhound Pets of America."
If there's anyone in the NWI/Chicagoland area who's interested in fostering or adopting a greyhound, email me. Our rescue currently has over three dozen retired greyhounds in foster care or in the "2nd Chance at Life" prison program, all of which are awaiting adoption, and the more that are adopted, and the more homes opened up to foster, the more dogs that can be rescued.
If you're in another location, go here to find out about rescues in your area.
There are a lot of tracks closing right now, because of the economy, which means a lot of dogs are being retired. But that's only a good thing if they've got somewhere to go.
Please consider adopting a retired racer today.
Bill Moyers: "Plutocracy and democracy don’t mix. Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder."
If you thought this post was hyperbole, watch this Bill Moyers speech, delivered at Boston University on October 29, 2010, as a part of the Howard Zinn Lecture Series. A complete transcript of his speech is here. The Harper's article he recommends is here.
[If the video embed doesn't work for you, you can watch it here.]
I really cannot encourage you to watch/read this speech strongly enough. This is what's happening in the US. This is what you need to know and understand about our system, and what it means for our future.
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.]
Fat Ladies UK
So, Iain and I have been watching Law & Order: UK on BBC America, because, for evident reasons, US-UK mash-ups are rather popular at Shakes Manor.
It's actually quite a good show, and it's fun to see how some of the early episodes of the original Law & Order have been Britishized for a UK (and anglophile) audience.
One of the interesting things I've noticed about the show is its fat people.
Notably, it has them.
Particularly fat women. You can always find a fat guy or two in the US version—"Casting call for portly Italian to play butcher on national crime drama"—but fat women are few and far between, and, when they do show up, they are fat not because Fat People Exist, but because fat is routinely used as a lazy shorthand to convey negative attributes to American audiences.
"You can tell she's a bad mother instantly because she's FAT and wearing unstylish clothes!"—The writers of Law & Order. Etc.
But on Law & Order: UK, fat women are just another part of the population. Across four episodes, I've seen a fat female cop, a fat female witness, a fat female attorney, and a fat female forensics analyst (and possibly some I'm forgetting), all of whom were fat for no other reason than because Fat People Exist.
And not inbetweenie fat—not "Bridget Jones" fat. But actually fat. Like me kinda fat.
It was remarkable to see these women on my television. Which is terribly sad, really. That shouldn't be remarkable, since the existence of fat women (and men), even in New York, is not remarkable.
(Shh, don't tell Karl Lagerfeld!)
I felt good seeing women who look like me in a show I was watching.
And then I felt bad, thinking about all the reasons I have so few opportunities to see women who look like me, and so many women I adore, in US-made entertainment, except as cautionary tales and punchlines.
Daily Dose o' Cute
Potter plays tag.
Or, if you're more into fish, rays at the National Aquarium, Baltimore:
[Note: The video descriptions are as described. In the first, Potter the cat runs around the backyard. In the second, fish and rays swim around a tank at the aquarium.]
Fat Math on Film
You know, I really liked Due Date the first time I saw it, when it was called Planes, Trains and Automobiles.
Glad to see that Fat Math still works:
Skinny Handsome Guy = Not All That Funny
Skinny Handsome Guy + 1 Fat Socially Awkward Guy = HILARIOUS!!!!!!!
Although I note that the variables have changed slightly.
2010 Fat Guy < 1987 Fat Guy.
Because controlling for OH NOES OBESITY CRISIS!
Fat = Gross.
Therefore:
Basically Trim Guy with Beer Belly and Beard should be substituted for Fat Guy.
It's science. McEwan's Theory of Fat Rollativity. Look it up.
A Halloween Story
[Trigger Warning for trans/homophobia]
A few days back Liss laid down an [TW: body policing] epic post about the way in which people police themselves and each other against the perception that they eat a culturally inappropriate amount of ground beef. Having a body (particularly a female body that eats food) is a good way to disappoint strangers.
Two of my favorite ways to disappoint strangers who should really mind their own business are being queer and having a child. Gender non-conformance (and/or transsexuality and/or GLBQ-ishness) will get you some lectures and stern looks. If you have a kid, you've also probably experienced other people's disappointment, ranging from your doing pregnancy wrong to 'your kid does/doesn't do what for a living'?!? If you've decided not to have a kid, you've probably been lectured on that, too.
Thus enters the story of Boo and Cop's Wife, currently making the rounds on the internet.
Cop's Wife's child, Boo, is 5. This Halloween, Boo dressed up as Daphne, from Scooby Doo. Lots of kids dress up as lots of things, right? However, since folks are assuming that Boo is Cop's Wife's son, it wasn't that straight-forward. :sigh:
Boo was scared. Cop's Wife was supportive. Therefore, other moms chose to lecture Cop's Wife. She was [TW: homo/transphobia, ableism] having none of it.
Maude bless parents who get it. Parenting is not easy, nor is gender non-conformance. A 5 year-old dressing as Daphne is a 5 year-old dressing as Daphne. (I would have gone for Velma, but it's none of my business either). As Boo's mother said, maybe Boo's gay, maybe not. What matters is that zie rocked the orange wig.
Torturer-in-Chief
I'm shocked; SHOCKED, I tell you: In new memoir, Bush makes clear he approved use of waterboarding.
Human rights experts have long pressed the administration of former president George W. Bush for details of who bore ultimate responsibility for approving the simulated drownings of CIA detainees, a practice that many international legal experts say was illicit torture.Ha ha. Consequences for George W. Bush? Cute.
In a memoir due out Tuesday, Bush makes clear that he personally approved the use of that coercive technique against alleged Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an admission the human rights experts say could one day have legal consequences for him.
Seen
[Image: A sign for Park Central Presbyterian that reads Sunday 10:30 am, Holy Ping Pong. There's also a website, and if you go to the website you can see that it's actually the title of this Sunday's sermon about God and life, but it's my camera, and do I look like I care? No, I don't.]
I hear The Lutherans play holy table tennis. Do not mess with The Lutherans.
Photo of the Day
WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND - NOVEMBER 04: The United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton receives a Hongi (Maori Greeting) during a welcome ceremony at Parliament on November 4, 2010 in Wellington, New Zealand. Hillary Clinton is on a three day visit to New Zealand as part of a tour of the Asia Pacific region, which includes Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Papua-New Guinea, New Zealand and Australia. [Getty Images]I love this picture so hard.
Clinton is pictured in the photo with Rose White–Tahupārae, Kaumatua of Parliament. (Thanks to Shakers The Bald Soprano and decodevo in comments.)
Of Course
'Two and a Half Men' ratings go up:
Since actor Charlie Sheen had a headline-making stay at the Plaza in New York and confirming that he's heading back to divorce court, ratings for Sheen's CBS hit "Two and a Half Men" have gone up.Sure. Why wouldn't people tune in to see a self-destructive, violent, misogynist, racist, privileged jackass in a hilarious! sitcom the scripts for which are written with farts from the 1950s?
According to the Hollywood Reporter, the show saw a 7 percent increase for Monday's episode, with 13.6 million tuning in.
"Hey, Minerva—you read about this naked cocaine-face who held a woman hostage in his hotel room bathroom? Turns out he's got a sitcom. I gotta check that out!"
Who wouldn't?
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for ageism and disablism.]
I know it's early, but I'm reasonably confident that nothing will be more deserving of the title than this piece of shit: Letter to a whiny young Democrat.
You know, just last week I was talking to a young friend of mine, a 21-year-old straight, white, cis man who knew going into the 2008 election that much of Obama's Hope and Change rhetoric was just that, but was still excited to cast a vote for him and was optimistic about his presidency. Two years later, he's profoundly disillusioned, not because he hasn't been paying attention or doesn't understand how politics work, but because he has and he does.
He's paid attention to the way Obama has governed, and to the hippie-punching. And—surprise!—after the Obama administration's strategy of alienating progressive voters (of any age) with not-progressive policies and contempt for the Democratic base, my young friend feels alienated. Huh.
And given that Obama was elected on the back of a promise to "change the way Washington works," and now he and his staff openly admit they were arrogant to believe they could do that, and have failed, why the fuck is anyone getting blamed for being disillusioned? His most significant campaign promise was made with foolish bombast. Blaming the people who believed him, particularly young liberals whose entire experience with politics had been the grim horror of the Bush administration and were longing desperately for something better, seems entirely misplaced.
And, frankly, as an experienced political observer who had no illusions about the nature of this president, but was eminently willing to give him a chance, I'm still disappointed with what he's done.
So scolding political n00bs for (alleged) apathy when they've been demonstrably let down is just seven layers of bullshit.
When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility. Blaming progressives whose support, enthusiasm, idealism, loyalty, and trust were sold out in favor of pointless bipartisanism is not just a shitty thing to do; it's illogical as well.
[H/T to Shaker Neintales.]
Top Chef: Just Desserts Open Thread
[Image from last night's episode: Chefjudicators Shinmin Li and Gayle Simmons point out all the flaws in Danielle's edible flower arraignment.]
Last night's episode will be whipped and folded, so if you haven't seen it, and don't want any spoilers, pack your cream filling and go...
Question of the Day
What one person who has never held public office would you like to see run?
It can be any public office (though you're not required to specify which), and the person you'd like to see run does not have to be someone famous. Obviously, we'd all like to see Chuck Norris run for president (no, we wouldn't), and those sorts of answers are very fun, but please feel welcome to answer that you'd love to see your mom or your brother or your BFF run for office, too.
The Next 60 Days (*Give or Take)
Given the political make-up of the coming 112th Congress (which will convene on Jan. 3, 2011), I have a suggestion for you Democratic members of the Disablist-Slur-Involving-Poultry Session of the 111th Congress:
Make Sweeping Campaign Finance Reform Job One!!!!!eleventy-one!!!!
Personally, I'd prefer the following (for a start):
- All television, radio, and print ads must disclose the name(s) of the purchaser(s) and the creator(s), and any purchasing group(s) must disclose all sources of funding publicly at or before the time of airing. Period. No full disclosure -- no air-time/print-space.
- Any single corporation and all of its subsidiaries are limited to contributing the same amount as an individual is allowed to contribute to a candidate, political party, or organization which involves itself in a political campaign. After all -- if corporations are treated as individuals legally, they should be treated as individuals.
- The limit on individual contribution to a campaign also applies to the candidate themselves (h/t to Lassarina in comments).
- Campaigning is limited to 30 days before the election (h/t to 'Liss in comments).
That Is All.
*Note: Yes, I'm aware that there are four federal holidays within the stated 60-day period, and that Congress doesn't work every Maudedamn day (even though, given the circumstances, you'd think they might consider it).
Daily Dose o' Cute
It's a wonder Dudley was retired from racing before he was even two years old. Just LOOK AT HIM go after that fuzzy white thing!
In all seriousness, it's not that Dudley doesn't have any targeting instincts; he does. (Just ask his dogpark BFF Sheba.) It's just that he's awesome with his kitteh sisters. Earlier this afternoon, everyone got a little bit of roasted turkey, and even though Matilda and Sophie are the slowest eaters on the planet, Dudz will stand aside and let them finish what's been given to them.
Olivia has started occasionally playing with his tail while he's dozing, and Matilda, for reasons unknown, loves to sniff at his paws, whether he's awake or asleep. Ever indulgent and polite, he doesn't seem to mind at all, and frequently sniffs her back in a friendly exchange that seems to say, "I will try to speak your language."
The other day, Dudz and Sophs were drinking out of his water bowl at the same time, and I thought I might explode from the cuteness. Later, she curled up in his bed (!) and fell asleep, and when he noticed her in there, he did the most hilarious double-take I've ever seen, looked at Iain and me with the best WTF look of all time, and then backed away slowly, with a body language that suggested he might have been contemplating the canine equivalent of the Twilight Zone.
Interspecies cuddling is, I believe, inevitable. But perhaps not quite imminent.
Obama Press Conference Open Thread
The president held a press conference this afternoon to discuss the relationship between his hat and his hands. I give Obama a zero for stealing off of other people's papers.
There were so many highlights things that happened that it's hard to focus linger, glassy-eyed at one of them. That said, I'm really fond of the part where Obama said the economy wasn't going well in part because the mean old Democrats professional left somebody or other had made businesses feel like the "bad guys." He used BP as an example.
NPR followed coverage of the press conference with a story about the Department of Labor's efforts to shut down a coal mine in Kentucky because the dudes who run Massey Energy are, in fact, bad guys. The web version of the story includes a photo of what I presume is President Obama contemplating the deaths of 29 workers at Massey's Upper Big Branch mine. Oops your timing position sucks.
So Obama and other Democrats have responded to their worst drubbing since Benjamin Grumbles was vigorously matriculating at Emmett Q. Crumblecorn's Preparatory School for Fancy Lads. But what do you think?
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.]
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by wheat-ear pennies.
Recommended Reading:
Andy: Lesbian Couple Challenges UK's Ban on Gay Marriage
The Advocate: Obama's Latest DADT Promise
Angry Asian Man: On DVD: The Goonies 25th Anniversary Edition
Digby: Reflexive Hippie Bashing For A Thousand
Archie McPhee: Bon Appetit
Leave your links in comments...
Of Course
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.
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.
Open Election Thread
Have at it.
[If you're going to discuss voting, please familiarize yourself first with Shakesville's policy on voting discussions. You are welcome to discuss how you voted, or didn't vote, but evangelizing is unwelcome.]
Question of the Day
From a conversation that KBlogz, Iain, and I had last night...
With whom would you least like to be stuck in an elevator for three hours?
After quite a bit of discussion, I eventually settled on Bill O'Reilly. Ugh. Not only is he a professional font of diarrheic invective who disgorges a continual torrent of contemptible rightwing rhetoric, nor is he merely a loathsome sexual harasser and despicable, unconscionable victim-blamer, nor just an unapologetic racist, but I strongly suspect that he is, at all times, a belligerent jackass to everyone around him, too (in a way that, say, the weepier and vocationally theatrical Glenn Beck probably isn't), an authentically disagreeable and aggressively entitled shithead whose company would be more unpleasant than even my darkest fears could conjure.
Ugh
To Pay for Mortgage and Health Care, Woman Forced to Sell Handwritten Letter from Obama Saying 'Things Will Get Better.'
Autograph dealer Gary Zimet, who is giving Jennifer Cline $7,000 for the letter, says: "The letter is a historical document, and it is very hard for her to part with it. It's very timely considering the elections. But I don't think she's disillusioned with Obama—this is just about surviving and practicality."
Sadface.
Congratulations, Brazil!
On electing your first female president, continuing a growing trend in Latin America.
What's notable about President Dilma Rousseff's victory, is that she is a leftist, socialist, populist politician. Women who break the glass ceiling on national or state leadership in Europe and North America are frequently more conservative than their average countrywomen at the time of their election (see: Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel, as examples). Rousseff, however, bucked that convention. Cool.
Which has not stopped her opponents (and some of her allies intending to be complimentary) from dubbing her the Iron Lady for her "somewhat brusque manner and reputed short temper." Of course.
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.]
Quote of the Day
"It is in taking [the line that what women were experiencing as a 'downturn' was a 'catastrophe' for men] that the myth of the 'mancession' most clearly links up to a larger narrative that, in its starkest expressions, presents a story of female ascendancy and male decline. Indeed, news reports of the mancession almost invariably come wrapped up in a bundle of statistics suggesting that women are outdoing men in all sorts of other 'historic' and 'unprecedented' ways, from higher numbers of college and post-graduate degrees to larger shares of consumer spending and growing importance, if not yet outright leadership, as breadwinners in the household economy. Men, in the zero-sum logic that underlies the larger narrative, are losing out, not just in terms of relative economic position, but in the sense of authority and, well, manliness that once anchored their sense of identity."—Alice O’Connor, in a great piece for AlterNet titled "The Recession's Hit Women Hard, but the Myth of the 'Mancession' Won't Die."
[H/T to Shaker Abra.]
Action Item
So. The Washington Post is having a contest to search for "America's Next Great Pundit." And it's down to the final three, one of whom is my friend (and former colleague) Nancy Goldstein.
You can read all three of the finalists' sample op-eds here, and I can say in all honesty that Nancy was absolutely the most deserving of my vote. I believe you'll find she's most deserving of your vote, too.
Tough times and election cycles intensify the desire for heroes and villains, good and evil - for simple story lines, quick resolutions and vengeance. And actors all along the political spectrum have eagerly fed that desire, at a price that once looked reasonable but is turning out to be too high. Nothing good can come to a democracy whose alleged defenders are seeing democracy's founding concepts as nuisances - mere obstacles to be overcome or sidestepped. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell ferociously defends her electorate from "government interference," which she has famously located in the First Amendment. She thinks it stinks that church-state separation forbids public school boards from giving the green light to teaching creationism: Why can't majority rule be the law of the land? For Paul's minions, free speech is the right of the mob to silence dissent by force.Go, Nancy!
Clearly what the Tea Party really wants to "Take America Back" from is silly concepts such as equal protection, or the minority's right to be free from the will of the majority.
It is no less frightening or dangerous that President Obama is undermining the balance between democracy and presidential power in the name of national security. As a constitutional law professor, he ran against his predecessor's record of preventive detention, military commissions and extraordinary rendition. As president, he has held tight to every scrap of executive power the Cheney gang claimed for President George W. Bush.
People do strange things when they are scared, want to win elections or are desperate for results. Shove past the minority. Revert to force. Set the Constitution aside - just this one time - in the name of the greater good. But when political figures, whether by exhortation or example, encourage a frightened, frustrated public to think of fundamental constitutional or governmental principles as impediments rather than the foundation of our democracy, their victories are built on earth that they have dug out from beneath our feet.
Vote here.
Today in Depressing Headlines
Gallup: Republicans Appear Poised to Win Big on Tuesday.
FiveThirtyEight: 5 Reasons Republicans Could Do Even Better Than Expected.
MSNBC: Poll suggests Dems will face 'hurricane winds'.
Many of the people voting Republican will be voting not affirmatively for the GOP's vision, but as a repudiation of Obama's (socialist, anti-American, secret Muslim) agenda. Many of the people voting Democrat will be voting not affirmatively for the Democrats' recent record, but as a defensive measure to try to keep the GOP out of power.
This is what we've come to: A nation voting against what we perceive to be the worse of two terrible options.
Or maybe that's what we've always been.
But it feels terrible and futile to me in a way it hasn't quite before.
Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by eighty-seven metric fucktons of leftover Halloween candy.
Recommended Reading:
Maria: Another Ad Attacking Latino Immigrants: Senator Vitter Appeals to White Racism [Trigger warning for racism and anti-immigrant sentiments]
Tami: The Hair Up There
Alicia: Ableism and the Language of Suffering
Jess: Oh, Stephen Fry
Andy: Lawyers For Students Who Broadcast Tyler Clementi's Intimate Encounter Claim No Sexual Contact On Webcam Video [Trigger warning for suicide, sexual assault, and homophobia]
Cara: Media Employ Tabloid Tactics to Report on Rape Allegations Against Candidate [Trigger Warning for descriptions of sexual violence, rape apologism, and homophobia]
Leave your links in comments...
