Well, as they say, every day's a holiday weekend when you're unemployed! Today I take care of the last medically-related checkup on my list, my annual eye exam. Datsa actually gave me six hours of uninterrupted sleep (I decided to call it an evening about 1 AM, after the top half of the 13th inning in the Mets-Rockies game, as I had a feeling NY would blow it in the bottom of the inning which they did) so my eyes are focusing pretty well at the moment. Onward:
• I must start by asking, has everyone suddenly gone bonkers? Hillary Clinton was trying to make a point yesterday, the same point she made all the way back in March, about the Democratic Presidential campaign, and cited as examples two things that happened in June back in previous such campaigns. Suddenly Keith Olbermann's devoting at least two segments and a Special Comment to bashing her -- the second time this year he's chosen that bully pulpit specifically to attack the same popular Democratic centrist candidate, rather than concentrating on the actual atrocities being committed around the world by our current administration and its buddies. And way too many liberal blogs, as if chomping at the bit for something else to pile on the close-second-place contender, leapt at the chance. Geez, I didn't vote for her, but I'm feeling more and more like I should have on principle. And I hate feeling that way. Clinton and Obama are, I repeat once more to those for whom it hasn't yet sunk in, "much of a muchness" as Robin would say. Their policies are very similar, they're both centrist politicians each of whom would still be better than just about any right-wing Republican (I think an Obama/Edwards ticket would be way more practically progressive than the theoretical and symbolically historical Obama/Clinton one being bandied about) and neither of them is above inappropriate and tone-deaf verbal behavior. If more old-media pundits and liberal bloggers parsed Obama's "sweetie" and "bitter" gaffes with as much menacing enthusiasm as they show for every misstep of Clinton's, it would be a far different campaign and, who knows, Clinton might hold a slight lead instead of Obama. (Interesting factoid via Susie: Clinton has tended to win in the states where turnouts are higher.) And even so I doubt we'd be seeing the equivalent of the "take your boobs and go home" crowd. If this campaign has made anything clear, it's how far we as a country still need to go about responding to endemic and institutionalized sexism. (See Melissa McEwan, again.)
But there are a few bright spots. Mark Kleiman gets it exactly right, to my mind. So does Brad at Sadly, No!, who adds that "you just gotta be really careful when you mention assassinations of any kind. This campaign has been intensely fought by both candidates and emotions on both sides are running really high right now. Any reminder about the painful, horrible assassination of RFK during such a tense time in the political season is just bound to elicit emotional responses from people." Agreed; Clinton should have been able to make her point easily without bringing up either assassination or the memories of the '68 Democratic convention. Susie notes, "this whole trumped-up story is the Dean scream all over again -- that is, unless you worship your candidate instead of merely supporting him. But rational thought seems to go out the window when it comes to the systematic demonization of Hillary Clinton by Obama supporters." (She also notes RFK Jr.'s reaction.) Vastleft despairs of this irrational discourse. Bird asks, "What about her safety?" And Scott Lemieux adds, "The example was poorly chosen, but I think the point she was trying to make is obvious enough: primaries going to June isn't an especially big deal." (Of course, if the Silly Season hadn't started months and months earlier than any past campaigns, many people might not feel as utterly burnt-out on it, but that's a separate issue.) If you're as beyond-tired of this double standard as I am, you might consider signing the Women's Media Center petition about which Echidne writes.
• Speaking of petitions, the Littlest Gator over at the Group News Blog reports that MoveOn.org is gathering signatures for a group card for the progressive community to send to Senator Ted Kennedy.
• Congratulations, Ginmar!
• Mark Morford manages to leave the fatphobia behind again for a dynamite column about the pervasive and ubiquitous PhotoShopping that makes even movie stars look (falsely) beyond perfect.
• Speaking of magazines, are we really so infantile as a culture that we need a magazine to explain to us how to take a shower? Don't people in this country learn this kind of thing when they're, like, around 10 years old? (And even so, I don't agree with their "instructions" anyway.)
• Okay, this just sounds stupid: Tesco not letting you buy liquor if you happen to be shopping with your kids? What are parental caretakers supposed to do, leave them in hot stifling cars instead?
• Kathy at Liberty Street sets the record straight for people who misremember the Cold War, with a little help from Richard Rhodes and his book Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race. The older I get, the more discouraged I tend to become over people who just don't know the facts about stuff that happened in my lifetime.
• Okay, time for some lighter fare. Was Jane Espenson having a bad clothing day (or am I the only one who remembers that "bad hair day" ad with Ringo)? Living as I do with a Beatles trivia maven, I loved the cool update Espenson gives about going to his house to return the clothes.
• Robin just downloaded Momofuku last night. I can hardly wait to hear it!
• Run, Robin, run! It's the dark matter again! Maybe now all their sums will finally add up!
• Until I read it at Lis' blog, I shamefully admit I hadn't given a second thought to how using US money would be difficult for the blind.
• On the heels of Annalee Newitz's magnificent essay about women and science fiction, Tamora Pierce passes along an article about how (mostly male) critics react to female fantasy writers, and Val's fed up again with seemingly endless and insular discussions of cultural sexism. I can't blame her; I wish all this sexism would finally end so we can stop talking about it all the time!
• Budgie checks out 221B Baker Street. Or is that 239 Baker?
• I'm 50; do I qualify as an Elder Blogger, Frank?
• It so makes sense to me that, if you have a bird that can mimic speech and might escape its confines, you teach it to recite your surname and address.
• Yet another "medical finding" designed to confuse: via Susie, now it seems that high-salt diets don't necessarily increase the risk of death. Be that as it may, for me at least a lower-salt regimen has helped lower my BP, so I'm sticking with it.
• Racialicious has started a brilliant campaign in response to Canadian Club's history-whitewashing ads. Also see the Project: Canadian Club entry from Resist Racism.
• Lastly, I'm sure I'm not the only one for whom any programs about Stonehenge are now forever entwined with those wonderful bits from This is Spinal Tap. NatGeo apparently knows this, as (via Matt at the Comedy Central blog) they're publicizing their upcoming Stonehenge special with a series of five short interviews Jim Piddock did with Nigel Tufnel. Hilarious and not to be missed!
That's it for now. Time to get ready for eye stuff!
• I must start by asking, has everyone suddenly gone bonkers? Hillary Clinton was trying to make a point yesterday, the same point she made all the way back in March, about the Democratic Presidential campaign, and cited as examples two things that happened in June back in previous such campaigns. Suddenly Keith Olbermann's devoting at least two segments and a Special Comment to bashing her -- the second time this year he's chosen that bully pulpit specifically to attack the same popular Democratic centrist candidate, rather than concentrating on the actual atrocities being committed around the world by our current administration and its buddies. And way too many liberal blogs, as if chomping at the bit for something else to pile on the close-second-place contender, leapt at the chance. Geez, I didn't vote for her, but I'm feeling more and more like I should have on principle. And I hate feeling that way. Clinton and Obama are, I repeat once more to those for whom it hasn't yet sunk in, "much of a muchness" as Robin would say. Their policies are very similar, they're both centrist politicians each of whom would still be better than just about any right-wing Republican (I think an Obama/Edwards ticket would be way more practically progressive than the theoretical and symbolically historical Obama/Clinton one being bandied about) and neither of them is above inappropriate and tone-deaf verbal behavior. If more old-media pundits and liberal bloggers parsed Obama's "sweetie" and "bitter" gaffes with as much menacing enthusiasm as they show for every misstep of Clinton's, it would be a far different campaign and, who knows, Clinton might hold a slight lead instead of Obama. (Interesting factoid via Susie: Clinton has tended to win in the states where turnouts are higher.) And even so I doubt we'd be seeing the equivalent of the "take your boobs and go home" crowd. If this campaign has made anything clear, it's how far we as a country still need to go about responding to endemic and institutionalized sexism. (See Melissa McEwan, again.)
But there are a few bright spots. Mark Kleiman gets it exactly right, to my mind. So does Brad at Sadly, No!, who adds that "you just gotta be really careful when you mention assassinations of any kind. This campaign has been intensely fought by both candidates and emotions on both sides are running really high right now. Any reminder about the painful, horrible assassination of RFK during such a tense time in the political season is just bound to elicit emotional responses from people." Agreed; Clinton should have been able to make her point easily without bringing up either assassination or the memories of the '68 Democratic convention. Susie notes, "this whole trumped-up story is the Dean scream all over again -- that is, unless you worship your candidate instead of merely supporting him. But rational thought seems to go out the window when it comes to the systematic demonization of Hillary Clinton by Obama supporters." (She also notes RFK Jr.'s reaction.) Vastleft despairs of this irrational discourse. Bird asks, "What about her safety?" And Scott Lemieux adds, "The example was poorly chosen, but I think the point she was trying to make is obvious enough: primaries going to June isn't an especially big deal." (Of course, if the Silly Season hadn't started months and months earlier than any past campaigns, many people might not feel as utterly burnt-out on it, but that's a separate issue.) If you're as beyond-tired of this double standard as I am, you might consider signing the Women's Media Center petition about which Echidne writes.
• Speaking of petitions, the Littlest Gator over at the Group News Blog reports that MoveOn.org is gathering signatures for a group card for the progressive community to send to Senator Ted Kennedy.
• Congratulations, Ginmar!
• Mark Morford manages to leave the fatphobia behind again for a dynamite column about the pervasive and ubiquitous PhotoShopping that makes even movie stars look (falsely) beyond perfect.
• Speaking of magazines, are we really so infantile as a culture that we need a magazine to explain to us how to take a shower? Don't people in this country learn this kind of thing when they're, like, around 10 years old? (And even so, I don't agree with their "instructions" anyway.)
• Okay, this just sounds stupid: Tesco not letting you buy liquor if you happen to be shopping with your kids? What are parental caretakers supposed to do, leave them in hot stifling cars instead?
• Kathy at Liberty Street sets the record straight for people who misremember the Cold War, with a little help from Richard Rhodes and his book Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race. The older I get, the more discouraged I tend to become over people who just don't know the facts about stuff that happened in my lifetime.
• Okay, time for some lighter fare. Was Jane Espenson having a bad clothing day (or am I the only one who remembers that "bad hair day" ad with Ringo)? Living as I do with a Beatles trivia maven, I loved the cool update Espenson gives about going to his house to return the clothes.
• Robin just downloaded Momofuku last night. I can hardly wait to hear it!
• Run, Robin, run! It's the dark matter again! Maybe now all their sums will finally add up!
• Until I read it at Lis' blog, I shamefully admit I hadn't given a second thought to how using US money would be difficult for the blind.
• On the heels of Annalee Newitz's magnificent essay about women and science fiction, Tamora Pierce passes along an article about how (mostly male) critics react to female fantasy writers, and Val's fed up again with seemingly endless and insular discussions of cultural sexism. I can't blame her; I wish all this sexism would finally end so we can stop talking about it all the time!
• Budgie checks out 221B Baker Street. Or is that 239 Baker?
• I'm 50; do I qualify as an Elder Blogger, Frank?
• It so makes sense to me that, if you have a bird that can mimic speech and might escape its confines, you teach it to recite your surname and address.
• Yet another "medical finding" designed to confuse: via Susie, now it seems that high-salt diets don't necessarily increase the risk of death. Be that as it may, for me at least a lower-salt regimen has helped lower my BP, so I'm sticking with it.
• Racialicious has started a brilliant campaign in response to Canadian Club's history-whitewashing ads. Also see the Project: Canadian Club entry from Resist Racism.
• Lastly, I'm sure I'm not the only one for whom any programs about Stonehenge are now forever entwined with those wonderful bits from This is Spinal Tap. NatGeo apparently knows this, as (via Matt at the Comedy Central blog) they're publicizing their upcoming Stonehenge special with a series of five short interviews Jim Piddock did with Nigel Tufnel. Hilarious and not to be missed!
That's it for now. Time to get ready for eye stuff!
0 comments:
Post a Comment