Labels

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

What you hear is the world's tiniest violin . . .


Everyone seems to be oozing sympathy for the fumbling vice-presidential nominee. Please. Cry me a freaking river.

By Rebecca Traister

Sep. 30, 2008 Is this the week that Democrats and Republicans join hands -- to heap pity on poor Sarah Palin?

At the moment, all signs point to yes, as some strange bedfellows reveal that they have been feeling sorry for the vice-presidential candidate ever since she stopped speaking without the help of a teleprompter. Conservative women like Kathleen Parker and Kathryn Jean Lopez are shuddering with sympathy as they realize that the candidate who thrilled them, just weeks ago, is not in shape for the big game. They're not alone. The New Republic's Christopher Orr feels that Palin has been misused by the team that tapped her. In the New York Times, Judith Warner feels for Sarah, too! And over at the Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates empathizes with intelligence and nuance, making clear that he's not expressing pity. Salon's own Glenn Greenwald watched the Katie Couric interview and "actually felt sorry for Sarah Palin." Even Amy Poehler, impersonating Katie Couric on last week's "Saturday Night Live," makes the joke that Palin's cornered-animal ineptitude makes her "increasingly adorable."

I guess I'm one cold dame, because while Palin provokes many unpleasant emotions in me, I just can't seem to summon pity, affection or remorse.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just like all of the rest of you, part of the bipartisan jumble of viewers that keeps one hand poised above the mute button and the other over my eyes during Palin's disastrous interviews. Like everyone else, I can barely take the waves of embarrassment that come with watching someone do something so badly. Roseanne Barr singing the national anthem, Sofia Coppola acting in "The Godfather: Part III," Sarah Palin talking about Russia -- they all create the same level of eyeball-squinching discomfort.

But just because I'm human, just because I can feel, just because I did say this weekend that I "almost feel sorry for her" doesn't mean, when I consider the situation rationally, that I do. Yes, as a feminist, it sucks -- hard -- to watch a woman, no matter how much I hate her politics, unable to answer questions about her running mate during a television interview. And perhaps it's because this experience pains me so much that I feel not sympathy but biting anger. At her, at John McCain, at the misogynistic political mash that has been made of what was otherwise a groundbreaking year for women in presidential politics.

In her "Poor Sarah" column, Warner writes of the wave of "self-recognition and sympathy [that] washed over" her when she saw a photo of Palin talking to Henry Kissinger. Palin -- as "a woman fully aware that she was out of her league, scared out of her wits, hanging on for dear life" -- apparently reminded Warner of herself. Wow. Putting aside the massively depressing implication that Warner recognizes this attitude because she believes it to be somehow written into the female condition, let's consider that there are any number of women who could have been John McCain's running mate -- from Olympia Snowe to Christine Todd Whitman to Kay Bailey Hutchison to Elizabeth Dole to Condoleezza Rice -- who would not have provoked this reaction. Democrats might well have been repulsed and infuriated by these women's policy positions. But we would not have been sitting around worrying about how scared they looked.

In her piece, Warner diagnoses Palin with a case of "Impostor Syndrome," positing that admirers who watched her sitting across from world leaders at the U.N. last week were recognizing that "she can't possibly do it all -- the kids, the special-needs baby, the big job, the big conversations with foreign leaders. And neither could they." Seriously? Do we have to drag out a list of women who miraculously have found a way to manage to balance many of these factors -- Hillary Clinton? Nancy Pelosi? Michelle Bachelet? -- and could still explain the Bush Doctrine without breaking into hives? This is not breaking my heart. It is breaking my spirit.

The Atlantic's Coates takes a far smarter, but ultimately still too gentle, approach to Palin in his blog. He writes, compassionately, "There are a lot of us lefties who are guffawing right now and are happy to see Palin seemingly stumbling drunkenly from occasional interview to occasional interview." Coates asserts that McCain "[tossed] her to the wolves" and notes that while she surely had some agency in this whole mess, "where I am from the elders protect you, and pull you back when you've gone too far, when your head has gotten too big."

Where I come from, a woman -- and especially a woman governor with executive experience -- doesn't have to rely on any elder or any man to protect her and pull her ass out of the fire. She can make a decision all on her own. (Palin was more than happy to tell Charlie Gibson that she made her decision to join the McCain ticket without blinking.) I agree with Coates that the McCain camp was craven, sexist and disrespectful in its choice of Palin, but I don't agree that the Alaska governor was a passive victim of their Machiavellian plotting. A very successful woman, Palin has the wherewithal to move forward consciously. What she did was move forward thoughtlessly and overconfidently, without considering that her abilities or qualifications would ever be questioned.

Christopher Orr writes sympathetically about the scenario that Palin may have envisioned, in which she tours the country on the wave of adoration that buoyed her out of St. Paul and through a post-convention victory lap. In his mind, she might well have continued to give winning, grinning interviews, charming the pants off regular folks all across the country, if the accursed McCain campaign hadn't nervously locked her in a no-press-allowed tower. Orr compares Palin to a talented athlete who, as a result of being over-coached, doesn't soar to new physical heights but instead gets "broken down, [loses] confidence in his game, [becomes] tentative, second guessing himself even to the point of paralysis."

Surely if Palin's political muscles were as taut and supple as Orr suspects, the campaign would not have been so quick to put her on a special training regimen.

It was so predictable that we would get to a pity-poor-helpless-Sarah phase. The press was already warming up for it on the day McCain announced her as his running mate, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell speculated that McCain's choice was designed to declaw scrappy Joe Biden, whose aggressive style would come off as bullying next to the sweet hockey mom from Alaska. Now, of course, we know about the hockey moms and the pit bulls; the more-powerful-than-expected Palin juggernaut forestalled the pity/victim/mean boy/poor Sarah phase.

So here it is, finally. And as unpleasant as it may be to watch the humiliation of a woman who waltzed into a spotlight too strong to withstand, I flat out refuse to be manipulated into another stage of gendered regress -- back to the pre-Pelosi, pre-Hillary days when girls couldn't stand the heat and so were shooed back to the kitchen.

Sarah Palin is no wilting flower. She is a politician who took the national stage and sneered at the work of community activists. She boldly tries to pass off incuriosity and lassitude as regular-people qualities, thereby doing a disservice to all those Americans who also work two jobs and do not come from families that hand out passports and backpacking trips, yet still manage to pick up a paper and read about their government and seek out experience and knowledge.

When you stage a train wreck of this magnitude -- trying to pass one underqualified chick off as another highly qualified chick with the lame hope that no one will notice -- well, then, I don't feel bad for you.

When you treat women as your toys, as gullible and insensate pawns in your Big Fat Presidential Bid -- or in Palin's case, in your Big Fat Chance to Be the First Woman Vice President Thanks to All the Cracks Hillary Put in the Ceiling -- I don't feel bad for you.

When you don't take your own career and reputation seriously enough to pause before striding onto a national stage and lying about your record of opposing a Bridge to Nowhere or using your special-needs child to garner the support of Americans in need of healthcare reform you don't support, I don't feel bad for you.

When you don't have enough regard for your country or its politics to cram effectively for the test -- a test that helps determine whether or not you get to run that country and participate in its politics -- I don't feel bad for you.

When your project is reliant on gaining the support of women whose reproductive rights you would limit, whose access to birth control and sex education you would curtail, whose healthcare options you would decrease, whose civil liberties you would take away and whose children and husbands and brothers (and sisters and daughters and friends) you would send to war in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and wherever else you saw fit without actually understanding international relations, I don't feel bad for you.

I don't want to be played by the girl-strings anymore. Shaking our heads and wringing our hands in sympathy with Sarah Palin is a disservice to every woman who has ever been unfairly dismissed based on her gender, because this is an utterly fair dismissal, based on an utter lack of ability and readiness. It's a disservice to minority populations of every stripe whose place in the political spectrum has been unfairly spotlighted as mere tokenism; it is a disservice to women throughout this country who have gone from watching a woman who -- love her or hate her -- was able to show us what female leadership could look like to squirming in front of their televisions as they watch the woman sent to replace her struggle to string a complete sentence together.

In fact, the only people I feel sorry for are Americans who invested in a hopeful, progressive vision of female leadership, but who are now stuck watching, verbatim, a "Saturday Night Live" skit.

Palin is tough as nails. She will bite the head off a moose and move on. So, no, I don't feel sorry for her. I feel sorry for women who have to live with what she and her running mate have wrought.

-- By Rebecca Traister

Monday, September 29, 2008

Friday, September 26, 2008

Padding her resume

the other day SS invited me to join the facebook group "i have more foreign policy experience than sarah palin."



but i couldn't join in good conscience, because indiana is almost landlocked.

Only Jew can make a difference

Co'dia offered:


Click on above.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Devil's playground


Click on image.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Defeat

we have mice.

What's the 419?


I almost missed this email because it was diverted to my spam folder. But apparently Paulson is sending this around:

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully,
Minister of Treasury Paulson

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Doggone it

DJ wrote:
pajiba wrote: "The Anonymous group has declared war on Sarah Palin and hacked into her personal email. I’m guessing they’re sorting through a bunch of forwards about angels and shit as we speak."

Jerf wrote:
Heh heh! Did you hear how they did it? Apparently Cerberus's password is her ANNIVERSARY AND BIRTHDAY. God. And America wants this woman to be vice president?

LW wrote:
No. NO! OH MY LORD.

(Cerberus---nice.)

DJ wrote:
*avoids eye contact*
*defensive*
some very smart people use their birthdays for passwords. it frees up the gray cells to, you know, be creative and stuff.
*life is hacked*

Jerf wrote:
Don't worry, cow. Ain't no one suggesting you should be veep.
DJ: *is not mollified*

DJ wrote:
was going to try and make joke about palin referencing paris hilton's blackberry being hacked. am too lazy.

. . .

could somebody chew this for me? it's kinda hard.

LW wrote:
D, can you take a cab and come with me to Starbucks?

DJ wrote (and then logged off):
i have the barouche today. i'll be there in two hours!!

LW wrote:
GET OUT! Are you kidding me? You can actually come?

Two hours later DJ logged back on, read LW's email, and wrote:
*sheepish* no.

LW wrote:
Evil, evil woman. I have been seriously expecting you for an hour. DO NOT TOY WITH ME WHEN IT COMES TO COFFEE!

DJ is ashamed

LW continues:
Furthermore, I was so excited you were coming, I had prepared an entire performance of Olivia Newton-John's classic hit "I Honestly Love You" to express my gratitude.

However, you can make it up to me by heading down here for coffee. (Kidding.)

DJ wrote:
okay! i'll be there in two hours!

*LW smacks DJ on the mouth*

LW wrote:
Sad truth: the real response would be *LW excitedly readies her purse*

Okay, to punish you further, I send you this unflattering jpeg of Viggo.



DJ wrote:
*gasps* *eyes narrow* *hisses* you SADIST.
*shakes head in disbelief**eyes well with tears*

. . . two hours later . . .

LW: *purse on lap* *waits expectantly at desk for call that DJ is in lobby* *like pointer* *unwavering cheer* *trust*

LW wrote:
Me: cheerful, loyal, trusting dog
You: devious, emotionally detached cat (cf. hissing below)

Friday, September 19, 2008

Dubya's spiritual child

The Bush/McCain/Palin contempt for subpoenas and the rule of law

Bill O'Reilly, Wednesday night, calling for the arrest of Gawker's owners and managers:
The website knows the law, and says "you know -- I'm going to do it anyway. I dare you to come get me."
Associated Press today, on Todd Palin's refusal to comply with the Alaska State Senate's subpoena:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband has refused to testify in the investigation of his wife's alleged abuse of power, and key lawmakers said Thursday that uncooperative witnesses are effectively sidetracking the probe until after Election Day.

Todd Palin, who participates in state business in person or by e-mail, was among 13 people subpoenaed by the Alaska Legislature. Palin's lawyer sent a letter to the lead investigator saying Palin objected to the probe and would not appear to testify on Friday. . . .

Ignoring a legislative subpoena is punishable by a fine up to $500 and up to six months in jail under Alaska law. But courts are reluctant to intervene in legislative matters and the full Legislature must be in session to bring contempt charges, Wielechowski said. The Legislature is not scheduled to convene until January.
It is illegal in the State of Alaska to fail to comply with legislative subpoenas. But Todd Palin has announced he will do exactly that which the law prohibits for one simple reason -- because nothing can be done about it until after the election, and even then, it's unlikely much will be done to punish him for breaking the law. Sarah Palin has similarly ordered all of her aides to refuse to comply with these subpoenas even though doing so is illegal, because she, too, doubts there will be consequences for this illegal behavior. Or, as Bill O'Reilly put it in his righteous Rule of Law tirade: "I'm going to do it anyway. I dare you to come get me."

There is no doubt that the Legislature has the right to investigate and that these Subpoenaas are lawfully issued. Before Palin was selected as McCain's running mate, virtually everyone in Alaska -- including her -- agreed that the Legislature could and should investigate these allegations.

From The Anchorage Daily News, July 29, 2008:
"The governor has said all along that she will fully cooperate with an investigation and her staff will cooperate as well," [Palin spokeswoman Sharon] Leighow said. . . .

Supporters as well as detractors of the Republican governor generally agreed the legislative investigation is needed into the circumstances leading up to Monegan's dismissal. . . .

Sen. Gene Therriault of North Pole, leader of the small Republican Senate minority that generally has backed Palin's policies, said he expects the governor will cooperate, and if she's cleared, the investigation could strengthen her. . . . Senate President Lyda Green, a Wasilla Republican and member of the Legislative Council, said the investigation is "absolutely" needed.
In August, Palin even praised herself for only suspending, rather than firing, one of her top aides who demanded -- in a recorded telephone call -- that the Police Commissioner fire her ex-brother-in-law by making this argument: "'While he is a state employee the governor can direct him to cooperate with [the Legislature's investigator], fulfilling her pledge that the administration will cooperate fully with the investigation,' [Palin spokesman] McAllister said."

But now, with the heavy involvement of the McCain campaign, Gov. Palin has embraced core GOP "principles" -- political officials can unilaterally exempt themselves from the rule of law and the people, through their elected representatives in the legislature, are powerless to learn what their political leaders have done. That, of course, has been the guiding principle of the Bush administration -- as one Bush official after the next has simply refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas as part of investigations into serious allegations of lawbreaking and other wrongdoing -- and the McCain campaign and the Palins are leaving no doubt that they are full-fledged believers in these corrupt and lawless prerogatives.

This sort of lawless arrogance doesn't merely insulate political officials from any accountability, though it does do that. It also destroys the crux of representative democracy. The ability of a legislature to investigate what the Executive Branch is doing isn't some ancillary Congressional function, but is as important -- arguably more so -- than the legislative power to enact laws. It's how the people ensure that Executive Branch officials are accountable and are required to adhere to the law. In his chapter he entitled On the Proper Function of Representative Bodies, John Stuart Mill explained why:
Instead of the function of governing, for which it is radically unfit, the proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government: to throw the light of publicity on its acts: to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any one considers questionable; to censure them if found condemnable, and, if the men who compose the government abuse their trust, or fulfill it in a manner which conflicts with the deliberate sense of the nation, to expel them from office, and either expressly or virtually appoint their successors.
And in his widely-cited 1885 essay on the proper role of Congress, Woodrow Wilson made clear:
It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. . . .

Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.
That compliance by political officials with legislative subpoenas is a linchpin of how our government was designed to function was explained quite clearly long ago by the Supreme Court in its 1927 decision in McGrain v. Daugherty:
We are of opinion that the power of inquiry -- with process to enforce it -- is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. It was so regarded and employed in American Legislatures before the Constitution was framed and ratified. . . . Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry, with enforcing process, was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate-indeed, was treated as inhering in it.
These are the vital safeguards, the core democratic functions, which the Bush administration and now the McCain/Palin campaign are flagrantly subverting.

Anyone with doubts about the seriousness of this abuse of power investigation should just listen to the audio recording of Gov. Palin's top aide, Frank Bailey, calling the Police Commissioner's office and badgering them about firing Palin's ex-brother-in-law, repeatedly suggesting he was doing so on behalf of Palin. The sleaze and impropriety oozes off the audio. That was but one of dozens of similar communications made by close Palin associates, including her husband, prior to the time Palin fired the Police Commissioner. Palin quite implausibly denies that they did so at her behest, and has offered an endless series of shifting explanations for the firing. That's what the Legislature is trying to investigate by questioning her husband and top aides -- and that is what the Palins are now overtly impeding by breaking the law: i.e., refusing to comply with legislative subpoenas.

* * *

All of this unmistakably signals that a McCain/Palin administration would mean a continuation of the worst abuses of the Bush/Cheney administration. Worse, it signals their commitment to the ongoing disappearance of Congress from how our country is governed, in lieu of all-powerful and unchecked Executive leaders (that is to say nothing about what an Obama/Biden administration would mean for any of that).

Much of that trend is due to the willingness of Congress to make itself powerless and worthless. Much of it is due to an increasingly authoritarian elite class that is eager to be ruled by unchecked executive Daddy-figures -- benevolent monarchs -- who rule without limits but for our own Good (see, as but one illustrative example, this celebration from George Mason University Law Professor over the fact that the people (i.e., Congress) are playing no role in the ongoing, extraordinary, and almost entirely secret nationalization of the financial services and insurance industries and the forced assumption by citizens of their debt):
The other day, I offered my view that Congress today is fundamentally a silly place stocked with silly people. This latest situation illustrates the principle. I don't know whether Paulson and Bernanke are doing the right thing (I tend to think not). But I know for certain that I'd rather that they be making these decisions than Congress. . . .

As Congress has become more dysfunctional and unable to address matters of public importance, the Executive Branch has stepped in to fill the gap. In turn, this allows Congress to behave in an even less-serious manner, which in turn necessitates further action by the Executive Branch. If the Executive waited for Congress to do anything, nothing would get done. So Congress essentially spends its time bloviating and posturing, while the unelected beavers in the bowels of the bureaucracy crank
out federal regulations. . . . Put more generally, Congress's ridiculousness has increasingly caused it to forfeit its status a co-equal branch of government. . . .

In the abstract, I am no fan of the administrative state and see the theoretical value of political accountability. But if I have to choose who I'd trust to deal with the big decisions, it is hard to make the case that Congress as it actually exists is who we want in charge.
And it's that precisely this anti-democratic mentality -- "the people don't need any say in what our Government does; it's best if the President rules without any political accountability" -- that has enabled Bush officials and now their would-be GOP successors simply to decide that they're above the law and that they can exempt themselves from investigation and accountability.

It ought to be striking to read an article that reports this:
(a) X is illegal under the law, punishable with fines and prison;
(b) Political official P just announced that s/he will do X;
(c) The reason is that P knows there will be no consequences for X.
That's the elimination of the rule of law and core democratic processes expressed in elementary logical terms, and that's what the AP just reported yesterday about the Palins' refusal to comply with subpoenas, and what media outlets have been reporting for years about what Bush officials have done. But it's not striking. It's now the standard way our lawless government functions.

For serious, people?

From CNNMoney.com:
Why down may be the new up

Pay attention

From FactCheck.org:

Summary
McCain's new ad puts another stitch in what we've called his pattern of deceit on Obama's tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward "painful tax increases on working American families" and that they will bring about "years of deficits," "no balanced budgets" and "billions in new government spending." The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama's economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for "years of deficits," exactly the same claim could be made about McCain's program. It's unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.

Analysis
We've already reported on at least three other ads, in both Spanish and English, from Sen. John McCain's campaign that distort his rival's tax policy. The ads claim that, for example, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would raise taxes "on the sale of your home" and that he has a "history of raising taxes" and that he wanted to raise taxes on "families" making just $42,000 a year. Claims like these have led us to say that McCain's campaign is engaging in a "pattern of deceit" when it comes to describing Obama's tax plan. This most recent ad fits right into the template.

Such as


Glide on the peace train


Asesinato



Plank Castle Palin

http://personal-space.com/script/script.php



Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Accolades

LILLIAN S.

Lillian is a wonderful student! She works hard in class and tries her hardest! Lillian is very articulate. She is trying her best to be a good listener every day. We are very proud of you, Lillian! Keep up the good work. According to Lillian, "Apples are fruits. Apples are good for you. They grow on trees. Apple pies are made out of apples. I love apples."


Monday, September 15, 2008

Pucker up

Lipstick on a Turd

I am in a pickle, ladies and gentlemen. One of those real Vlassic motherfuckers that you discover in the back of your fridge, pruned and shriveled by a three-year bath in some rank-ass vinegar. I am stuck between a rock and a saline implant. Damned if I do, fucked if I don’t. This is some real Joseph Heller shit here, folks.

See: Three weeks ago, this review would’ve been simple. I’d have suffered through two hours of chick-centered hideosity; I’d have come home; sat down; and puked up all the adjectives, real and made-up, floating around in my swollen brain during the experience (words like hideosity, for instance).

But the world has changed in three weeks. Suddenly, we’re not allowed to criticize women. We’re not even allowed to raise substantive questions about women. I mean, at first I thought we in the media weren’t allowed to attack women personally, in which case I would’ve censored myself before commenting on the fact that Meg Ryan looks as though she swallowed a blowfish that exploded in her cheeks. I might have made mention of how rich it was that, in the movie, she actually had a few lines where her character poked fun at women with bad facelifts. But apparently, pointing out a woman’s hypocrisy is taboo---the right of a woman to make her own decisions, even ones that are bad for the country her face, is sacrosanct and not up for debate (except when it comes to abortion, of course. Women shouldn’t have a choice in that matter---we should only allow men in robes appointed by other men to make those decisions). Or I might have said something about how the sight of Debra Messing makes my toenails retract, or that watching her attempt to act was like watching a random governor of a state with thirteen people and a few caribou answer questions about foreign policy. Awkward and uncomfortable, to say the least.

But that stuff is off limits. And now I’m realizing that you can actually get in hot water for questioning a woman’s intelligence, or for questioning the content of her statements. And here I am stuck reviewing a movie called The Women. Where the fuck does that leave me? Obviously, if I call it like I see it, I’m going to be accused of being a sexist. You look over on Rotten Tomatoes right now, and you’ll notice that The Women only has a 10 percent approval rating. Why? Obviously, because 90 percent of movie critics are misogynistic pigs.

Oh shit, did I say pig? Sorry.

Fortunately, I do have an out. Not a big one, mind you. But I have an out. No no . . . it’s not that The Women is any damn good. Brother, please. It’s cinematic pus on the end of an ass pimple. No. It’s that, in this new world order of ours, where a woman should be shielded from questioning by male handlers and hidden away at all times (except to occasionally look pretty and deliver scripted speeches from a teleprompter), The Women actually jibes with how we're supposed to view women in September of 2008 (hand it to the G.O.P., huh? Only a Republican could nominate a woman to be the second-most powerful person in the United States and still set back women’s rights two decades). Because the women in The Women loooove to shop; they love handbags, and having babies, and wearing frilly things, and discussing their feelings over brightly colored alcoholic beverages. We live in a Sex and the City world now, folks. A woman can go out and do anything she wants, so long as we understand that all of her motivations are actually driven by men.

Such is the case in The Women, a remake of a 1939 classic (I won’t mention that the original, directed by a man---George Cukor---was not only superior but felt more modern; that might be perceived as a slight against women). Meg Ryan plays Mary Haines, mother, wife, and career girl. Her life, however, is turned topsy turvy when she discovers---while getting a manicure after doing some very PTA-ish things (nominate her!)---that her husband is having an affair. With the spritzer girl at Saks (Eva Mendes), of all people.

At first, she refuses to confront her husband about the adultery, choosing instead to play doormat to his boots in the hopes that the whole thing will blow over. The affair, however, prompts Mary to do a little self-reflection, which she does with the assistance of her three female friends, Sylvia (Annette Benning), an editor for a fashion magazine who ultimately would rather quit her job than screw over her sisterhood; Edie (Debra Messing), a woman who insists on having babies until she finally has a boy; and Alex (Jada Pinkett Smith), a sassy black lesbian (the filmmakers apparently decided that, as long as they were conforming to gender stereotypes, they may as well go ahead and conform to racial ones, too). Mary is also having some difficulty with her teenage daughter, who is upset because her mother is too solipsistic. [*Spoiler*] Eventually, however, Mary manages to work through her problems by designing dresses and, ultimately, taking back her philandering husband (female-centric comedies have to have happy endings, and a happy ending is impossible unless the man and woman get back together. Natch). [*End Spoiler*]

The conceit in The Women is that there aren’t actually any men in the movie---not a single one in a single frame (save for the obvious ending). The irony, however, is that you can feel the presence of a man off screen for most of the film (in fact, you feel like you know the man you don’t see even better than some of the women you do see), and---despite his absence---the plot revolves around him. The other irony is that the only women in the film that aren’t caricatures are the old-school ones (Cloris Leachman and Candace Bergman, both of whom could shit Palin bricks while applying their lipstick in the morning), who bring some occasional dimensionality to The Women and remind you of better times (say, August 2008).

But, please: I don’t want you to think that the gendered, 1950s humor in The Women, or the female stereotypes, are a bad thing. The females in The Women are empowered, and by empowered I mean completely self-involved, vapid, shallow, and unsympathetic, the sort of women who make Carrie Bradshaw look like Gloria fucking Steinem. But as a man I feel I have a duty to protect the movie from criticism, because a woman should not be called upon to answer for herself. She should just stand there and look pretty. If it’s good enough for a vice-presidential nominee, it’s good enough for the cast and director of The Women.

---Dustin Rowles

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Monday, September 8, 2008

Seeing red

A PARTIAL LIST OF DO-NOTHING COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS:
-Barack Obama
-Harriet Tubman
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
-Susan B. Anthony
-Gandhi
-Jesus

Logiks

THOUGHT: if sarah palin deserves the veep nod because she carried baby trig to term, shouldn't my friends at l'arche at LEAST get cabinet positions?


Obtuse

KBS wrote:
One political note:

Sarah Palin about Barack Obama: "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America. . . . He's worried that someone won't read them their rights?"

Was anyone else disturbed that the running mate of the former POW casually dismissed prisoners' rights?

In a pinch

so, G dismantled our master bed frame and wants me to help him bring it up to the third floor. he said, "i want you to put on shoes and socks. and a bra."
"why a bra?"
"because i don't want those things getting stuck in anything."
*DJ pisses pants*
*emails entire e-address book*

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

In re: Meep

Odd gushed about Masterpiece Classics' "Northanger Abbey":
Well, that was delightful! I thought Catherine actually looked and acted seventeen/eighteen, which isn't always the case, and I liked the hero immediately. Favorite moment: when Catherine is taking her nighttime carriage ride and the man across from her is simultaneously drinking and stroking his goose. No euphemisms there, by the way.

Also, the guy who wrote the screenplay also adapted P&P and Bridget Jones. No wonder I liked it!

DJ wrote:
I LOVE: how odd'ball appropriated excited northanger enthusiasm in this email. (see: liberal and energetic use of italics!!)

where's that one test we'cubes took back in the pre-prodigal'cube-joined-book-club, pre-we-all-flicked-off-our-jobs-at-the-publishing-house-except-for-LW days? you know---the one that told you which austen heroine you are, and odd was becky thatcher (!), and KBS and LW were kitty "Spastic" morland. you know which one i mean, 'cubes-who-are-not-beX.

*beams with self-satisfaction*

*i* was jane bennett.

'CUBES: you mean spineless milquetoast?
DJ: *ruffled* NO. i mean gracious and godly.
'CUBES: *snort* yeah. no comment.

LW wrote:
Odd'ball, I agree! A very welcome surprise after Persuasion. I didn't think there was a wrong step anywhere. Thought: Catherine Morland is the anti-Anne Elliot. She *always* knows her mind.

DJ wrote:
d'accord! and wasn't isabella totally channeling ex mrs. heath ledger? i mean, completely.

kitty was DARLING. i coveted her clothing, and i loved that her personal wet-man-blouse guy was totally believably handsome in a he-wouldn't-really-stand-up-to-brad-pitt-but-i-could-totally-see-running-into-his-type-in-the-pump-room kind of way. no?

ONE DIG:
-papa grouchy's wig was distracting. looked too wiggy.

I LOVE:
-that hollywood (read: the CW) has regency-era hair. that longish, scruffy thing, sort of combed forward? too darling.
-and that we chicas are wearing the empire-waist, tulip-skirted, be-ballet-flated thingy, just like our girl kitty morland. yay, regency!

TEASER FOR MANSFIELD PARK:
-at a glance, their Prudence (<-- fannie price's spiritual name) seemed a titch chesty (burlesque?) for me. i was expecting to see someone a little oilier and mousier (see: elliott, anne). less dita van teese in a blond wig. no?

Ulterior motives

Attempting to select a book and date for the next meeting of the Best Ever Book Club, KBS wrote:
I'm pretty open in March, so any weekend should work for me. I am also unencouraged by 800+ pages. Unless of course y'all would like me to bake something. A-HA! And it becomes clear to me now! Bex will choose a book that she knows none of us will finish and be rewarded with numerous baked goods! Nefarious!

DJ wrote:
BEX: *looks cagey* *eyes dart, side to side* *makes hurried exit*
OTHER'CUBES: *begin generally roaring as one* *become mob* *amass tar, feathers*
OR: not really.

but don't you sort of love the universe where people take their book clubs/baked goods so seriously?

no? just me?

Derivative

DJ wrote:
MY FAV: "there there, old lady. . . . there's no need to freak out anymore."

LW wrote:
MY FAV: TAYLOR KITSCH: *brightens noticeably*

DJ wrote:
he's just such a sweet, sweet . . . ah, coaster. (<-- no idea. am thinking he'd be really generous about holding your Diet Coke.)

LW wrote:
coaster = human version of BSG toaster?? A little mechanical and dumb?

Of course, in true life he's probably a Shakespeare scholar and could kick our asses in Scrabble. Just like little hometown Matt is an ice-climber and world traveler in real life.

DJ wrote:
i know! i was thinking the same thing! he's never been PARTICULARLY inarticulate.

though, i did tell you, didn't i, that Just Because I'm Pretty Don't Mean I'm Deep was inspired by mister kitsch, didn't i? kibble?

though, quite possibly, any impressive displays of intellect on Our Hero's part would likely be lost on us. think about it.

*taylor kitsch joins RSC* *gives critically acclaimed turn as Hamlet*
TAYLOR KITSCH: *holds skull* *is pensive* to be or not to be . . . that is the question. . . .
DJ: *stage whisper* *earnestly* THANK you, L'eggs for men.
LW: *nods, wordlessly* *peers through shaking opera glasses*

To do


1. Learn about al-Qaida.
2. Learn about Washington, D.C.
3. Order Bristol's dress (Elastic waist!!! Is white inappropriate after six months?)
4. Fire brother-in-law.
5. Learn about Russia/Georgia/S. Ossetia (Locate Abkhazia???)
6. Nurse Baby Trig.
7. Order flowers for wedding.
8. Fire people who haven't fired brother-in-law.
9. Learn about ethics rules.
10. Fire at brother-in-law? (Option: aerial shooting?)
11. Nurse Baby Trig.
12. Learn about Iran.
13. Learn about U.S. Senate.
14. Learn about contraception. (Too late???)
15. Investigate homes for foundlings?
16. Govern Alaska.
17. Life insurance on J.M.?

Elucidating

I just read this at Slate.com and love, loved:


Slate's Jim Ledbetter sends in the following guest post:
The irony struck me while watching cable television from my Denver hotel room on Friday morning: A kind of token feminism had finally hit the Republican Party, and was immediately being questioned by—of all people—cable television commentators. Does anyone believe that the blowdried blonds (male and female, but for purposes of this argument, female) who read newscasts from teleprompters are chosen strictly for their journalistic skills? Putting women in front of the camera—like putting women on the covers of magazines—is a proven way of attracting the attention of media consumers both male and female. It should come as little surprise that the McCain campaign—which has never come anywhere near 50 percent support in any credible national poll—sought to apply this same media logic to politics. Don’t get me wrong: I share completely the view that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be the vice president of the United States, and that McCain’s choice is a world-class act of cynical political calculation, rather than any attempt to put “Country First.” At the same time, neither liberals nor conservatives have figured out the right balance between rewarding “qualified” women and sheer representation of women in places where it is deemed to matter. The logic of affirmative action is that given equal or near-equal conditions, preference should be given to members of historically underrepresented groups. The current contortions through which Republicans are trying to argue that Palin is qualified can be read as an argument that gender representation trumps experience, an argument not unfamiliar on the democratic left, and certainly not on cable television. And anyway, if McCain and Palin end up losing, who doubts that CNN and Fox will be competing to offer her a show?

Rebate mania

LW wrote:
When you asked how my Friday is, I forgot the best part---my huge tax refund was deposited in our checking account this morning!! Maybe that's why I weathered those minor trials so well.

DJ wrote:
\o/ time to buy DJ Swarovski bling for her cell phone!!

LW wrote:
Yes, I'm going to take my money and set up a foundation . . . to provide cell phone decorations for the poor of our depressed city.

DJ wrote:
plz don't forget my glamour-lenf nail fund.

Bits and pieces

LW wrote:
Do you want it to go in your blog or mine?

DJ wrote:
you go ahead.

would it bug you if i put it up ALSO on mine later?

LW wrote:
Not a bit.

DJ wrote:
LW: *passive aggressively listens to "Tambourine Solos" on repeat while cutting up photographs of DJ with child-proof scissors*

LW wrote:
*mutters to self* "The tambourine is SO the backbone of our sound . . . "

DJ wrote:
. . . MEANWHILE, IN A COTTAGE ACROSS STATE, . . .

DJ: *spoon feeds indigents warm broth* *trills to blue jay perched on hand* *tithes 11 percent*

LW wrote:
It's that extra 1 percent that really rankles.

DJ wrote:
i know, right? goodie effing two shoes.

how now, kibble? what's friday been like so far? share time.

LW wrote:
You'll enjoy this. I had a long dream last night that you were a part of. It had to do with an office party and various other adventures, but here is the part I remember most clearly. You and I were going out somewhere (sunny), and I was wearing long shorts but I couldn't find any shoes I was happy with to go with them. So I put on white socks and white tennis shoes and thought, "I'm just going to walk into DJ's office and see what she thinks." I walked into your office, stood there for two seconds, didn't even say anything, and you just looked over at my outfit and said, "No."

My Friday is great so far! I did fall in the bath as I was trying to stand up using only one hand, which happened to have a bar of soap in it. Then when I was using the scissors to cut the bandage that I had just redressed my hand with, I cut my finger with them and had to bandage THAT. Then when I arrived at work, I was trying to get in the door with entry card, purse, bag lunch, umbrella, and full cup of latte in hand: swipe beep stuck, swipe beep stuck, swipe beep stuck, pull pull pull, SPLAT. And the latte ended up all over my sweater and nice new white shirt. So . . . pretty good so far! Actually, I did think as I was walking up the stairs after my splat, If this is the worse that happens to me today, I'm very fortunate.

DJ wrote:
oh. my god. i am like the patron saint of Good Taste. EVEN IN YOUR DREAMS! *congratulates self* may i blergh?

re: splat
*sighhhhhhhh* sort of the "it's good luck if it rains on your wedding day" type logics? i can get on board this choo-choo. sorry 'bout the stained blouse, nonetheless.

re: master debaters
*twelve-year-old-boy snee* it was wonderful. VERY substantive. without vitriol they actually elucidated their differences on policy issues as important as immigration, the war in iraq, health care, and Other Stuff. it was great. hills had a few great zingers that were far more funny than evile. and they both made a concerted effort to stop being asinine and start talking issues, not batting impotent insults. VERY heartening. at the very end, wolf blitzer said something along the lines of, "i imagine what we're seeing on stage tonight would very well be considered by democrats everywhere to be a dream ticket." *uproarious, prolonged applause* *kodak theater pees its pants* *josh from west wing gives birth to puppies* *jerf thinks she spies buddy garrity in crowd* *dj weeps openly* *but not because of buddy* *because of the sentiment in that auditorium the bled through the 'tube into my living room* then wolf asked them if they would veep for the other. they both said variations of, "it's too soon to talk about that." i agree. because i am CERTAIN that if hills said, "i'd totally take barry as my veep," many, many people who are more familiar with hills but like what they see of barry would vote for her, thinking, "i get two for one!" glad they both demurred.

POINTED DIRECTIVE: describe, in detail, your shoe-sock combo this afternoon, kibble. *glares at you*

LW wrote:
Blergh at will. I believe I am well within the bounds of good taste this afternoon. Black trousers socks, black clogs, and dark gray jeans---wow, I am the queen of monotones, aren't I?Your description of the debate last night is one of the most heartening things I've heard in a long time.

DJ wrote:
i oft sport the monotones.

So quiet you could hear a

Odd wrote to LW, KBS, Bex, and DJ:
If anyone needs the new pick for book club, I recommend buying the hardcover, putting the dustjacket and receipt in a safe place, and then returning the sucker. D-vious, I know, but I can hardly weep for Barnes and Noble.

LW wrote to Odd:
Odd, have I ever told you that you remind me of my friend Kim? From early on, there was something about your manner and personality that made me think of her strongly, and she's kind of an unusual person. And this dustjacket stunt? Is EXACTLY something Kim would recommend. She's very New England frugal.

DJ wrote to LW:
LW, have i ever told you that you remind me of my friend bex? she also used to work at this one editing house where we all used to work! (hi, bex!)

LW wrote to KBS:
KBS, have I ever told you you remind me of my friend DJ? She's also a 'lancer who dabbles in popular culture and high-octane snark.

DJ wrote to Odd:
Odd, have i ever told you about my friend bex? she is really into leather'sport.

*pin drops audibly*

Hold me closer, tiny dancer(s)

Odd wrote:
DJ! I got some old photos developed and looky-look what I found[—pics from our recent outing]:



DJ wrote:
if i could? i swear i would walk around all day wearing one of those irish dance wigs. i LOVE big hair.

*dj slurps morning coffee*
*wears yesterdays pjs*
*snort-laughs over latest joss post at whedonesque.org*
*picks teeth*
*lovingly arranges wig*
*is happy as clam*

V14gr4

LW wrote:
So at the pan-department meeting today J was complaining about how when art is evaluated Graphics doesn't provide enough information about size. Because sometimes a tiff file may be "printable" but only at 1-inch squared size. And couldn't Graphics email the editor when that was the case? And I responded, "J, haven't you gotten the emails about this? The ones called 'Worried about Size'??"

DJ wrote:
*snort* how . . . "ballsy"?

Salve

DJ wrote:
did i tell you i sprained my ankle a few days ago? true story. the day it rained. what was that---wednesday? anyhoo, i'd gone to the grocery store, and i was walking on the kitchen linoleum in my driving shoes, and i slipped and put all ninety-five pounds of my petit frame on my right ankle. hurt like an em effer. i saw stars. happily, it's hardly swollen at all, and i can put all of my weight (see: ninety-five pounds) on it. it's sore, especially when i don't move it for a while, but am less martyr-like today than yesterday or day before.

CONCLUSION: no need to amputate.

LW wrote:
Oh, that's terrible! And right before you have to move. (Why, you won't be able to do anything at ALL on moving day!) No, really, that sounds very painful and the last thing you needed as you're trying to put your house together. I will send Riggins over a.s.a.p., to tag-team your care with Rocky the Beagle. Remember: warmth must be applied to the area, preferably in the form of a hot-blooded mammal.

DJ wrote:
DJ: *whistles*
TAYLOR KITSCH: *comes running over* *pulls off shirt* *applies self to wounded area*
DJ: *brightly* it feels better already!

LW wrote:
Okay, I could make a really crass joke here about yeast infections, but I'll just let you form it in your own mind . . .

DJ wrote:
*insert snort-screaming*

Stay out of the daylight!

Odd wrote:
From a new acquaintance: I think we should host a Jane Austen party where everyone comes as a JA character. . . .

Um, you bet your Pemberly we should! And, if we didn't all have empire-waist dresses, we could update for modern-day. Imagine Catherine Morland as obsessed by Anne-Rice style erotica and the allure of seedy bars, eh?

LW wrote:
Oooh, oooh, addendum! We CAN'T come as a heroine. I intend to be Wickham.

. . .

Partly because I like to say "Whick-kam!"

What women want

DJ wrote:
there are several insignificant e-mails in your other in-box from my person. repondez vous, when you wish.

LW wrote:
Will do, probably tomorrow. The cleaning service that came to the house today knocked out my Comcast connection, and I couldn't figure out how to restore it. I had to wait for a man to come home.

*sigh*

PERSON #1: Awkward revelation: have crush on Zac Efron.

PERSON #2: High School Musical Zac Efron or Hairspray Zac Efron?

PERSON #3: Doesn't he, like, wear eye makeup in public?

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Auspicious

DJ wrote:
so, my bff JK's little sister C is getting married in the dominican republic in july, and JK's husband can't go. so she figured she would bribe me with plane fare to accompany her, help mary poppins her spawn, and otherwise sherpa the event. how tempting is that?! i love it. i'll have to run it by my Caro Sposo. that will be a very busy time for us. . . . but the dominican republic, LW. i *looooooooooove* mexicans. . . .

LW wrote:
*sigh* Yes, and I know you've always wanted to go to South America.

Entreaty

LW wrote:
Why, WHY, is your entire family not working for The Onion?

DJ wrote:
TOP SEVERAL REASONS WHY ENTIRE J___ CLAN IS NOT WORKING FOR THE ONION:
-patriot act
-have tacit relationship with rival rag, the scallion
-does not offer mental-health coverage
-allergic to allium cepa
-bedbugs
-washing my hair that day
-because as long as this is happening, i'm on general strike from the world

LW wrote:
Response has hit level 4: projectile spitting of coffee. The Scallion!!!

Yes, we could

DJ wrote on Tuesday, June 3, 2008:
that is all, ladies.
oh, the fun has *just* begun.

Jerf wrote:
I for one celebrated last night. The spouse and I raised our glasses to toast our amethyst-lipped hero while the laundry and the household detritus remained untouched.

TRUE STORY: C-Matt's voice broke when he announced Barry as the presumed nominee.

DJ wrote:
did you note that shelley was wearing We Love The Red States And The Blue States And All The United States Of America purple?

Jerf wrote:
Wheeeeee!

State of the union

FOUND: poundcake, hiding in plain sight near Overdue kiwi
BOO: no icing

Mortality bites


Christian pharmacy

DJ wrote:
i figured you needed to see this.

KBS wrote:
"Take these twice daily with a full glass of water. Do this in memory of me."

DJ wrote:
*heave*

Our little thing

DJ wrote:
so, after you guys left the house today, i checked my email to find a note from our landlords (who live in geneva, as you may recall), inviting us to stay at their apartment for two weeks while they're in the states visiting family. !!! sooooo generous. so kind.

LW wrote:
SO un–Cosa Nostra.

Between a rock and a hard place

LW wrote of *her* anniversary celebrations:
At one point J asked me if I would stay married to him for another seventeen years and when I agreed pulled out a diamond ring! I was flabbergasted. Very nice presentation.

DJ swooned:
what a romantic!

LW wrote:
Indeed. For my thirtieth birthday he had funded a trip to NYC by surreptiously taking $20 bills out of my wallet over the course of a year.

DJ wrote:
ROMANTIC OR ACTIONABLE?: buying you a present from bills stolen from your wallet

Setting the bar

DJ wrote:
today G and i celebrate our four-year anniversary. four more years! four more years!

Jerf wrote:
. . .