Deja Vu
Nothing needs to be said; just watch.
Deja Vu
Nothing needs to be said; just watch.
Media Matters gives Sarah Palin Award
Media Matters for America gave Sarah Palin The 2010 Glenn Beck Misinformer Of The Year Award:
A Message from Mark Fucking Zuckerberg
Will was kind enough to send this excellent SNL clip to me. Let’s have a look, shall we:
It is absolutely brilliant, apart from being very funny. When Time gave “Person of the Year” to Mark Zuckerberg, I was not surprised. In 2001, they did not give it to Osama bin Laden—the clear choice. Instead they gave it to Rudy Giuliani—a lesser villain, but one with more power, I think. At that time, I decided that Time (never much more than a reasonable-sounding conservative mouthpiece—still the Faux News of its day), had lost all its credibility. Why does the mainstream media give a shit who Time thinks is person of the year? There is no doubt Julian Assange had a much greater impact on the world this past year than fucking Zuckerberg. In fact, I can’t think of anything particularly important that Zuckerberg did this year other than be the subject of a popular film.
For those of you soulless masses who lead unimaginably boring lives, I will explain that Kory Stamper is an editor at Merriam-Webster. I have a terrible crush on her as well as her two colleagues at the dictionary company: Associate Editor Emily Brewster and Editor-At-Large Peter Sokolowski. How do I know about these people? Well, I might know Mr. Sokolowski because of his mention in a recent NPR article about the top ten words of the year. And I might know Ms. Brewster from her “Minced Words” column at CookThink. And I might have known about Ms. Stamper because she has her own fan club on Facebook. But I only found out about these things because I find myself on the Merriam-Webster website several times per day, and each of these editors is featured in short videos about word-related issues. I would embed one for you, but alas, Merriam-Webster is still living in 2001 in many ways.
I have reflected on the fact that Kory Stamper has her own fan club (with 179 members, no less), while I have found no fan clubs for the other editors. In a general sense, Stamper is cute—a descriptor that I doubt she, or any intellectual would be terrible happy with. This is not to say that Brewster and Sokolowski aren’t also attractive; I doubt they would have been chosen to make the videos if they looked more like, say, me. Stamper also appears to be the youngest of the three and we all know how much we love youth. But I don’t think either of these are the main issue. The truth is that Stamper is, for reasons that are not at all clear to me, very real on camera. I get the impression that she is talking to me and not a camera. And thus, I think that a lot of people feel they really connect to her—even though they don’t, any more than they do with Peter Sokolowski and Emily Brewster.
Having said this, I find that I am very disturbed about what Stamper has done to her hair. Throughout our relationship, she has always looked like this:

And then—suddenly, without any warning—she lightens her hair! Here she is now:

I shouldn’t care—I know. But hey, what’s going on here? There is so little stability in life. Is it really asking so much for the Merriam-Webster editors to ossify their appearances? Next thing you know, Sokolowski will grow a beard—going for that Shel Silverstein look, and Brewster will start wearing contact lenses, for whatever reason someone would do that. And I know how this all ends: just when I get used to Stamper’s new hair color, she’ll change it back. Thanks Kory! I really needed that!
For those men and women pining away for Kory Stamper, I feel as a public service I must tell you that as of 2006 she was married to a man who is the very definition of cool: a jazz musician. I’m not sure of the etymology of “cool” used in this way—undoubtedly Ms. Stamper could help in this matter—but I always think of Miles Davis with Birth of the Cool and Kind of Blue as what defines “cool.” She also has two children.
I know all of this because of an article that she wrote for Knitty called Extreme knitting: 2 socks in 1. She also wrote a blog called Harmless Drudge: abusing of God’s patience and the King’s English, which she discontinued in early 2007. I have two things to say on this matter. First: she doesn’t seem to follow The Chicago Manual of Style or even Fowler for her titles—most disappointing, but forgivable. Second: I believe our own Andrea English has a better site for such matters—Needlecrafter.com—which she too has abandoned (as of late 2008). Of course, I’m not very clear on the differences between all these different needle-crafty sorts of things. I’ve been meaning to research it and write an article here. Soon perhaps. But in the mean time, I did explain how a sewing machine works.
I noticed that one person recently made it to this page by searching Google for, “Emily Brewster and Kory Stamper are hot.” Does this mean we will soon see an “Emily Brewster Fan Club” on Facebook? Let me know if this happens. In the mean time, I will be watching for anyone searching for, “Peter Sokolowski is hot.”
Want to know more about Kory Stamper, Emily Brewster, and the whole Merriam-Webster crowd? Then you are in luck (and in need of a proper life). Here are some other articles that may interest you.
The Mendacity of Hope
Roger Hodge has a new book out called The Mendacity of Hope. I haven’t read it. I don’t even have it, but I will after the holidays and I’m sure I’ll write about it. Until then, I bring you a couple of videos of the former editor of Harper’s Magazine making a lot of sense about President Obama. Here’s the first clip; I will have something to say after it.
The one place where I disagree with him is in saying that the angry left (progressives?) and the angry right (tea-baggers) have much in common. I agree that when I talk to tea-baggers, they do pretty much agree with me on what the problems are. However, they have this great super-power that allows them to deflect any facts that come near them. The angry left is mad about what is actually happening in this country. The angry right is just mad (in both common senses of the word). I think it is possible to get the AL and the AR together on some issues, but not one on one. Perhaps in a group, we might find one tea-bagger who, for whatever reason has a weakened “fact deflector.” If you could convince this person that he or she should support something sensible, it might work its way through the group. Think of it as finding a back-door into a super-secure Unix system.
Just in case you think that Hodge (or I) think that all these relatively minor accomplishments this month make up for Obama’s betrayal of us progressives over the past two years, he’s a clip from The Last Word with Laurence O’Donnell. Not that Hodge doesn’t have much to say, but it is well worth hearing.
Freedom’s Just Another Word for Not Having a Party
Today, The Alaskan Supreme Court threw out Joe “I Desperately Need a Shave or a Time Machine” Miller’s challenge to Lisa Murkowski’s write-in win of the Alaska Senate race, according to The Washington Post. In their POLITICS Digest, they report:
That’s good news, of course; but the really good news is that Murkowski is “going rogue” according to Meredith Shiner at Politio—contrasting her sardonically with Palin by noting that Murkowski does not gun down, “caribou on national TV.” She’s gone rogue in a meaningful sense:
The election it would seem, has freed Murkowski from the need to vote in lockstep with the Republican leadership and vote the way politicians in the minority used to vote. You know: before Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, and Karl Rove gave us the modern Republican Party.
Take the Millions, Skip the Thousands
One of the Deficit Commission’s ideas for saving Social Security was to means test it. But by this, they didn’t mean depriving rich people from getting it. Instead, people making over a million dollars per years (not made: currently making) would not get Social Security benefits until they were 70 and then they might not get as much as they normally would. Gasp! Say it ain’t so! The people who have made the most money already pay the least as a percentage of their income. Then, when they retire, they get the maximum benefit amount. In other words: from each according to the inverse of his ability, to each according to the inverse of his needs.
How about this as a Social Security reform (I make no claims to this being original to me, not that I didn’t come up with it on my own): no cap on the Social Security tax (there is currently no tax on income above $106,800—making it a highly regressive tax); means test the hell out of the program: if you are making a bunch of money (amount to be determined), you don’t get any benefits; and means test the hell out of it again: if you have a bunch of money, you don’t get any benefits. Similar changes could be made to Medicare, but since I believe in a single-payer—Medicare for all—system, I’m not going to get into it.
Jeff Sharlet’s C Street, the follow-up to his best-seller The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power is a must-read, even though it is not as good as it should be nor what its title implies. The book is not tightly written, and not really about C Street, the $2 million three-story brick building in Washington D.C. Nor is it primarily about The Family that runs C Street—legally as a church, but practically more as a boarding house and bordello. The book starts and ends with C Street and The Family, but its heart is only interested in this subject on the margins. Still, the follow-up to The Family is frightening, motivating, and informative—the best researched political book I’ve read since Naomi Klein’s 2007, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. But C Street is better thought of by it’s subtitle: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy.
C Street begins with an overview of The Family, which explains more about the Christian Conservative movement than any book in recent history. The guiding philosophy of this secret and powerful group is an interpretation of the Bible that is not only bizarre, but also counter to what the vast majority of Christians (liberal and conservative) believe. To members of The Family, Christianity has nothing to do with the poor, the needy, the marginalized—not directly, anyway. Instead, it is all about helping “the chosen” (read: “the powerful”) create a Christian world.
In one of the clearest examples of this mentality, Sharlet explains why Family members reject welfare programs. If the government takes care of the poor, how can the chosen show their worthiness by feeding crumbs to the poor? Sharlet destroys such thoughts with great ease:
If this line of reasoning sounds repulsive to you, then you are a long way toward understanding The Family. But if you wish to fully understand The Family, you are better to read Sharlet’s earlier book, The Family. (There is surprisingly little over-lap between C Street and The Family, so there is no reason not to read both.)
After the brief introduction to the group and the building, Sharlet spends a chapter on the sex scandals that brought The Family out of the shadows. It is basically his take on this recent history. The chapter unfortunately assumes that the reader is already well aware of the cases of Senator John Ensign, Governor Mark Sanford, and Representative Chip Pickering; I was not; conservative sexual hypocrisy is not exactly news. So I was often confused, and it was only thanks to many Internet searches that I got things sorted out. After this, however, I found Sharlet’s treatment wonderfully humane—especially in the case of Mark Sanford.
The core of C Street is contained in the next two chapters that have relatively little to do with The Family and nothing to do with C Street itself. The first is the heartbreaking story of the anti-gay movement in Uganda, where David Bahati—a Family apostle in the Ugandan Parliament—is trying to make homosexuality a capital offense. It has been widely reported that Bahati’s bill is dead. This is largely due to Peter Boyer’s whitewash of The Family in his 13 September 2010 article, Frat House for Jesus in the New Yorker Magazine. This is not the case as discussed on Jeff Sharlet’s blog, Call Me Ishmael (with a follow-up the next day) and elsewhere.
Sharlet reports on a conversation he had with “a pretty girl named Sharon, at a weekly abstinence rally” at Uganda’s premiere college:
Those claiming that this anti-homosexual legislation comes from “the people” are clearly wrong. How is it that this young girl believes it is right to kill a “homosexual”—a creature she has never even seen? Her understanding of this mythical creature is highly reminiscent of Borat’s understanding of Jews with their horns that he can “hardly see.” But this is not parody; this is reality in Uganda and Sharlet reports on it brilliantly.
The second important chapter concentrates on evangelicalism in the U.S. Military. It focuses on Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and its work to protect the rights of military personnel of all faiths. Most of those who the MRFF helps are Christians—96% of them, in fact. They are simply not the right kind of Christians. Sharlet explains the origins of the problem:
These two chapters make up almost half of C Street, and they bring vividly to light major problems we face today, moving forward: one domestic and one international. Both are related directly to The Family, but Sharlet never makes the case that this relationship is primary. He takes it as given that the philosophy of The Family is at the root of these problems, and that it is only at the margins (outside the United States and in the military) that this philosophy can be seen in its uncensored form.
C Street ends by coming back to where it started: the red-brick “church” on C Street in Washington, D.C., and a symbol for the all but invisible attack on the principles that we were taught to believe the U.S. stood for. And it gives us hope in the form of two unlikely Christian protesters at the 2004 RNC convention in New York City. One of them wears a paint-by-numbers Jesus, saying, “That’s not what I meant.” It serves as a perfect symbol of what is wrong with The Family and C Street. It also provides a relatively hopeful ending to a book that is relentlessly disturbing.
As much as I am sure that Jeff Sharlet is not interested in the C Street sex scandals, he is most assuredly using them to get an audience for a subject he is interested in—a subject we should all be interested in: the future of our secular democracy. The lurid appeal of these scandals certainly caused the book to be rushed to print before it was ready. There is no question that Sharlet did an impeccable job researching this book. But its prose is bloated and sometimes confusing; its style makes sudden changes from objective journalism to autobiography to awkward polemic; and its structure is a mess that never manages to coalesce into a cohesive whole. These are all editorial problems, of course; C Street reads like a first-draft—but a first-draft of a very good writer. The book still manages to be an engrossing and entertaining read. What is most important, however, is that the content is vital—even explosive: news we should use.
John McCain Was Never a Maverick, but He Was Always…
For years, I’ve been saying that John McCain is no maverick. He’s vengeful: after losing to George W. Bush, he did what he could to poke him in the eye, and that sometimes meant not holding extremist conservative views—which were and still are his stock and trade. But this made him look like a maverick when, in fact, he was just pissed off. Last night on Countdown, Dan Savage said something that McCain is, however. When Keith Olbermann asked Savage why the military leaders’ opinions and this huge military study are not enough for McCain on the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Savage responded bluntly, “Because, not to put too fine a point on it, McCain is a bigot.”
Perhaps the McCain/Palin ticket would have done better if they had not stressed what mavericks they were—since that was clearly bullshit—and instead have gone with, “We’re the bigot team! Vote for us! Vote for intolerance!” Gooo team!