RSS

submit wankness to Wanky2012@gmail.com

Archive

May
10th
Thu
permalink
put down that hot dog, sir. you have lost the right to imitate gay sex acts with carnival food. don’t even think about reaching for that pair of zeppoles.
at least your little hot dog burlesque show was only leading people on unintentionally. i don’t think the same can be said of your phony marriage equality support statement. i’m ok with you being a cock tease. a human rights tease, not so much.
"I think same sex couples should be able to get married." - B.O.
the operative word here is ‘should’. of course, he always could do something to make it happen (and he actually has the power to). but would he? no, as he’s made sure to clarify, he won’t. because this is just his ‘personal opinion’, which apparently has no bearing on his actions, like the militant vegan you run into at outback steakhouse. it’s essentially a useless nugget of trivia, no more significant than his spotify playlist. at least his spotify playlist didn’t infuriate me (although really, TWO darius rucker songs? that’s waaaaay too much hootie, not enough blowfish).
indeed, he still supports states deciding on whether or not there should be equal rights, just like back in the day when states got to decide stuff like if africans were property. some so-called libertarians like to believe that if smaller governments are the ones banning equality, it’s somehow better than the federal government doing so. this is not a farmer’s market - local does not neccesarily mean better. supporting local fascism is not the same thing as buying local produce (unless it’s the park slope food co-op).
right now, only 6 states support marriage equality. that means obama only effectively supports marriage rights for a measly 12% of american queer folks, which doesn’t seem exactly fair for the other shafted 88%. perhaps they could distribute the rights more equally - taking inspiration from the three-fifths compromise, each queer american could get 12% of the rights that come with marriage, regardless of which state they live in. the only question is, which right to choose? the right to visit your dying partner in the hospital? the right to get your immigrant partner citizenship? choose wisely, or you might get stuck with something useless like getting your partner’s veteran’s benefits (these days i think it’s just 2 aspirin and one of those ’hang in there’ kitten posters). 
regardless of obama’s statement’s actual regressiveness, the wanky liberal establishment has gone nuts over it. if it wasn’t already clear that this was a campaign season ploy to solicit donations, a top campaign fundraiser exhuberantly announced that it would make his work “immeasurably easier raising money from LGBT donors and progressives in general.” indeed, 1 in 6 of obama’s top donors who raised 500k or more are gay. hey, with so many same sex couples finding adopting a child elusive under obama’s ‘states rights over gay rights’ policy, that just means more disposable income to donate! as that classic hip hop idiom goes, ‘fuck you, pay me’!
who cares if financially-strapped lgbt homeless shelters are shutting down? throw some more money at president predator drone. at least his wall street backers get results from their campaign bribes. alas, john travolta isn’t the only wealthy homosexual getting denied a 'happy ending'.
on a final note, to liberals who will still ignore all this and insist the prez’s statement is somehow 'brave', remember that it is essentially the same thing dick cheney said back in 2004. so congrats, we now have a president who’s as progressive and courageous as dick ‘blood for oil’ cheney was eight years ago.

put down that hot dog, sir. you have lost the right to imitate gay sex acts with carnival food. don’t even think about reaching for that pair of zeppoles.

at least your little hot dog burlesque show was only leading people on unintentionally. i don’t think the same can be said of your phony marriage equality support statement. i’m ok with you being a cock tease. a human rights tease, not so much.

"I think same sex couples should be able to get married." - B.O.

the operative word here is ‘should’. of course, he always could do something to make it happen (and he actually has the power to). but would he? no, as he’s made sure to clarify, he won’t. because this is just his ‘personal opinion’, which apparently has no bearing on his actions, like the militant vegan you run into at outback steakhouse. it’s essentially a useless nugget of trivia, no more significant than his spotify playlist. at least his spotify playlist didn’t infuriate me (although really, TWO darius rucker songs? that’s waaaaay too much hootie, not enough blowfish).

indeed, he still supports states deciding on whether or not there should be equal rights, just like back in the day when states got to decide stuff like if africans were property. some so-called libertarians like to believe that if smaller governments are the ones banning equality, it’s somehow better than the federal government doing so. this is not a farmer’s market - local does not neccesarily mean better. supporting local fascism is not the same thing as buying local produce (unless it’s the park slope food co-op).

right now, only 6 states support marriage equality. that means obama only effectively supports marriage rights for a measly 12% of american queer folks, which doesn’t seem exactly fair for the other shafted 88%. perhaps they could distribute the rights more equally - taking inspiration from the three-fifths compromise, each queer american could get 12% of the rights that come with marriage, regardless of which state they live in. the only question is, which right to choose? the right to visit your dying partner in the hospital? the right to get your immigrant partner citizenship? choose wisely, or you might get stuck with something useless like getting your partner’s veteran’s benefits (these days i think it’s just 2 aspirin and one of those ’hang in there’ kitten posters). 

regardless of obama’s statement’s actual regressiveness, the wanky liberal establishment has gone nuts over it. if it wasn’t already clear that this was a campaign season ploy to solicit donations, a top campaign fundraiser exhuberantly announced that it would make his work “immeasurably easier raising money from LGBT donors and progressives in general.” indeed, 1 in 6 of obama’s top donors who raised 500k or more are gay. hey, with so many same sex couples finding adopting a child elusive under obama’s ‘states rights over gay rights’ policy, that just means more disposable income to donate! as that classic hip hop idiom goes, ‘fuck you, pay me’!

who cares if financially-strapped lgbt homeless shelters are shutting down? throw some more money at president predator drone. at least his wall street backers get results from their campaign bribes. alas, john travolta isn’t the only wealthy homosexual getting denied a 'happy ending'.

on a final note, to liberals who will still ignore all this and insist the prez’s statement is somehow 'brave', remember that it is essentially the same thing dick cheney said back in 2004. so congrats, we now have a president who’s as progressive and courageous as dick ‘blood for oil’ cheney was eight years ago.

Mar
28th
Wed
permalink
a central pillar of white liberal brooklynites, the park slope food co-op, having previously courted controversy for their stalin-ish rule enforcement and wealthy members using nannies to cover shifts, is now deciding whether or not to join the international boycott of israeli products in protest of their outrageously awful occupation. theoretically, non-violent boycott shouldn’t be such a controversial issue; afterall, the co-op previously boycotted products from south africa, chile, colorodo, general electric, coca cola, and more, everytime with near unanimous support. the only thing different here is the wankiest double standard ever, and yuppies too lazy to make their own hummus.
the results of last night’s vote on whether or not to have a referendum on the boycott (essentially voting on whether to vote, a bureaucratic mindfuck) was 1005 against and 653 for. that’s 1005 kombucha-chuggers (or their nanny proxies) against the democratic process. nevermind the irony of a co-op that values ‘local foods’ coming out strongly in favor of importing their seltzer and vegan marshmallows from halfway around the world.
of course there potentially are legitimate critiques that can be levied against boycott or any tactic, but the tone of park slope’s loco-vores was hysterical and terrifying. pro-boycott shoppers have been “kicked, pushed, and spat upon”; apparently ‘cruelty-free’ only applies to eggs for some people. wanky liberal politicians have also weighed in (as i’m sure they do for all food cooperative purchasing decisions, naturally), such as public advocate bill de basio (“an affront to american values”) and manhattan borough president scott stringer (“an anti-semitic crusade”). the reactionary ‘anti-semite’ slur has been common, despite the boycott being endorsed by israeli human rights orgs, progressive rabbis, and jewish sex icon dustin hoffman. perhaps they’re onto something though - maybe the point of MLK’s famous montgomery bus boycott was just that he hated buses to a ridiculous degree?
clearly, wanky brooklyn liberals have a long way to go before they can accept an idea as radical as free range palestinians.

a central pillar of white liberal brooklynites, the park slope food co-op, having previously courted controversy for their stalin-ish rule enforcement and wealthy members using nannies to cover shifts, is now deciding whether or not to join the international boycott of israeli products in protest of their outrageously awful occupation. theoretically, non-violent boycott shouldn’t be such a controversial issue; afterall, the co-op previously boycotted products from south africa, chile, colorodo, general electric, coca cola, and more, everytime with near unanimous support. the only thing different here is the wankiest double standard ever, and yuppies too lazy to make their own hummus.

the results of last night’s vote on whether or not to have a referendum on the boycott (essentially voting on whether to vote, a bureaucratic mindfuck) was 1005 against and 653 for. that’s 1005 kombucha-chuggers (or their nanny proxies) against the democratic process. nevermind the irony of a co-op that values ‘local foods’ coming out strongly in favor of importing their seltzer and vegan marshmallows from halfway around the world.

of course there potentially are legitimate critiques that can be levied against boycott or any tactic, but the tone of park slope’s loco-vores was hysterical and terrifying. pro-boycott shoppers have been “kicked, pushed, and spat upon”; apparently ‘cruelty-free’ only applies to eggs for some people. wanky liberal politicians have also weighed in (as i’m sure they do for all food cooperative purchasing decisions, naturally), such as public advocate bill de basio (“an affront to american values”) and manhattan borough president scott stringer (“an anti-semitic crusade”). the reactionary ‘anti-semite’ slur has been common, despite the boycott being endorsed by israeli human rights orgs, progressive rabbis, and jewish sex icon dustin hoffman. perhaps they’re onto something though - maybe the point of MLK’s famous montgomery bus boycott was just that he hated buses to a ridiculous degree?

clearly, wanky brooklyn liberals have a long way to go before they can accept an idea as radical as free range palestinians.

Mar
27th
Tue
permalink
invisible children, the group behind kony 2012, has been on self-destruct mode ever since their founder jason russell went on a public masturbating spree. their san diego office has been shut down, and they’re not commenting on whether or not they’re going ahead with their 4/20 day of awareness (perhaps they also realized they chose a national weed holiday for their day of motivating college students to do something). alas, that’s the problem with attaching your cause to a white savior figure - when the savior snaps and starts standing on the corner yelling that they’re jesus (or just masturbating), the cause takes the hit.
this isn’t to say invisible children has been totally inactive. in fact, they’ve been very vocal in attacking notorious human rights abusers…. like jason biggs! the star of ’american pie’ made a video allegedly parodying russell’s visible penis incident, which put the non-profit on the offensive.  commenting to tmz, they said “who’s jason biggs? was he famous once or something?”
in a seperate statement to the hollywood reporter, they commented, “it’s a little surprising that someone would be so cavalier about a serious medical issue just to drum up publicity for a sequel. his last successful movie was 11 years ago, so we’re not worried about this one.”
so what is it? one minute you don’t know who biggs is, the next you’re an expert on his imdb history? all i ask for is some consistancy! regardless, all of this points to the organization as a whole spiraling down into a full-on masturbating meltdown. they’ve switched from going after african warlords to dissing jason biggs on tmz for not being famous enough. additionally, their ridiculous campaign to aggressively recruit celebs, encouraging supporters to message-bomb stars like justin bieber, lady gaga, ryan seacrest, and rush limbaugh (?!), makes them look like desperate fame chasers more than a serious human rights group. 
invisible children, you’ve really fucked the pie on this one.

invisible children, the group behind kony 2012, has been on self-destruct mode ever since their founder jason russell went on a public masturbating spree. their san diego office has been shut down, and they’re not commenting on whether or not they’re going ahead with their 4/20 day of awareness (perhaps they also realized they chose a national weed holiday for their day of motivating college students to do something). alas, that’s the problem with attaching your cause to a white savior figure - when the savior snaps and starts standing on the corner yelling that they’re jesus (or just masturbating), the cause takes the hit.

this isn’t to say invisible children has been totally inactive. in fact, they’ve been very vocal in attacking notorious human rights abusers…. like jason biggs! the star of ’american pie’ made a video allegedly parodying russell’s visible penis incident, which put the non-profit on the offensive. commenting to tmz, they said “who’s jason biggs? was he famous once or something?”

in a seperate statement to the hollywood reporter, they commented, “it’s a little surprising that someone would be so cavalier about a serious medical issue just to drum up publicity for a sequel. his last successful movie was 11 years ago, so we’re not worried about this one.”

so what is it? one minute you don’t know who biggs is, the next you’re an expert on his imdb history? all i ask for is some consistancy! regardless, all of this points to the organization as a whole spiraling down into a full-on masturbating meltdown. they’ve switched from going after african warlords to dissing jason biggs on tmz for not being famous enough. additionally, their ridiculous campaign to aggressively recruit celebs, encouraging supporters to message-bomb stars like justin bieber, lady gaga, ryan seacrest, and rush limbaugh (?!), makes them look like desperate fame chasers more than a serious human rights group. 

invisible children, you’ve really fucked the pie on this one.

permalink
this is debbie wasserman schultz. she’s the liberal chairperson of the democratic national committee. recently, she cancelled an appearance at a fundraising dinner for emerge usa, a group that encourages democratic participation, after a right wing blogger erroneously claimed that the group’s muslim leader has ties to terrorism and advances an islamist agenda (his damning proof: the dinner was ‘halal’ [emphasis his]).
what’s the difference between a blatant racist and someone who does whatever blatant racists tell them to do? i’m not exactly sure. all i know is, it seems like liberals are always ‘caving to the pressures’ from racist far right wing blogs, but nobody, either liberal or conservative, has ever caved to the demands of far left wing blogs. although muslims are the ones who should really feel slighted here, i also feel a little hurt. c’mon debbie, i can rant on the internet too!
on a side note, schultz also happens to be the co-founder of jewish american heritage month, a completely superfluous holiday that few jews are aware of, let alone give a shit about. i’m guessing it involves a white house bagel brunch with rob reiner or something. now that’s multiculturalism - celebrating your own cultural heritage while shunning one that’s less popular. although who knows, maybe she’ll cave to pressure from some far right anti-semitic blog and convert to episcopalian. in the very least she should cave to makeup blogs and learn how to put on eye shadow like a non-crazy person (see above).

this is debbie wasserman schultz. she’s the liberal chairperson of the democratic national committee. recently, she cancelled an appearance at a fundraising dinner for emerge usa, a group that encourages democratic participation, after a right wing blogger erroneously claimed that the group’s muslim leader has ties to terrorism and advances an islamist agenda (his damning proof: the dinner was ‘halal’ [emphasis his]).

what’s the difference between a blatant racist and someone who does whatever blatant racists tell them to do? i’m not exactly sure. all i know is, it seems like liberals are always ‘caving to the pressures’ from racist far right wing blogs, but nobody, either liberal or conservative, has ever caved to the demands of far left wing blogs. although muslims are the ones who should really feel slighted here, i also feel a little hurt. c’mon debbie, i can rant on the internet too!

on a side note, schultz also happens to be the co-founder of jewish american heritage month, a completely superfluous holiday that few jews are aware of, let alone give a shit about. i’m guessing it involves a white house bagel brunch with rob reiner or something. now that’s multiculturalism - celebrating your own cultural heritage while shunning one that’s less popular. although who knows, maybe she’ll cave to pressure from some far right anti-semitic blog and convert to episcopalian. in the very least she should cave to makeup blogs and learn how to put on eye shadow like a non-crazy person (see above).

permalink
a popular new .jpg circulating on the internets is this photo of a soldier raising a rainbow flag on a US military base in afghanistan. in the aftermath of robert bales’ psychotic shooting spree that killed 16 afghan civilians (which is certainly not an anomaly in the war on terror), i’m not sure this is the best association for the lgbt community to make at this time.
indeed, this can’t bode well for non-hetero afghanis, who now have their sexuality associated with the unpopular gringo imperialists who have been crashing in their country for the past decade. can’t they stick to tastefully repping SS flags and leave the gays out of their photo-ops?
i know people are happy that the military no longer has a ‘no homo’ policy, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should, or that it’s something to be proud of. we just got agent scully on our team, isn’t that enough of an accomplishment?
btw, the afghan government that the US installed and our soldiers are there protecting? they have laws that prescribe lengthy prison sentances for sodomy, and lgbt rights organizations are totally illegal. great job spreading that freedom guys. now gtfo.

a popular new .jpg circulating on the internets is this photo of a soldier raising a rainbow flag on a US military base in afghanistan. in the aftermath of robert bales’ psychotic shooting spree that killed 16 afghan civilians (which is certainly not an anomaly in the war on terror), i’m not sure this is the best association for the lgbt community to make at this time.

indeed, this can’t bode well for non-hetero afghanis, who now have their sexuality associated with the unpopular gringo imperialists who have been crashing in their country for the past decade. can’t they stick to tastefully repping SS flags and leave the gays out of their photo-ops?

i know people are happy that the military no longer has a ‘no homo’ policy, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should, or that it’s something to be proud of. we just got agent scully on our team, isn’t that enough of an accomplishment?

btw, the afghan government that the US installed and our soldiers are there protecting? they have laws that prescribe lengthy prison sentances for sodomy, and lgbt rights organizations are totally illegal. great job spreading that freedom guys. now gtfo.

Mar
19th
Mon
permalink
spring is in the air, and as occupy wall street’s attempt to re-conquer zuccotti park this past saturday shows, the grassroots are in bloom. but be wary of opportunistic predators dressing themselves up in similar rhetoric and imagery, hungry to transform vibrant, status quo threatening movements into bland, lifeless astroturf.
'my, what a big budget you have!'
'the better to co-opt you with, my dear'
the ‘99 percent spring' certainly sounds like a good thing, combining the language of occupy wall street with the arab spring, a revolutionary dorito loco taco. but as the smoking gun evidence in this counterpunch article shows, the truth is not nearly as delicious. the so-called ‘99 percent spring’ is actually yet another front group for moveon.org, a democratic party booster organization with a nefarious history of co-opting movements.
although founded in the late 90’s by democratic millionaires for the purpose of defending clinton from the fellatio police (seriously), they’re most well-known for latching onto the anti-war movement while bush was in office. of course, once obama got into office, they stopped protesting the wars that he was continuing and starting. who knows, maybe it wasn’t only because they’ve grossly partisan, maybe dropping bombs on arab children just has to grow on you? they campaigned for kerry in 04, obama in 08, and are set to do so again in 2012. and what better way to recruit obama campaigners than to steal some of those energetic young rabble-rousers by co-opting their cool, trendy lingo? before i was using a wolf metaphor, but ‘99 percent spring’ might actually be the poochie of activism.
nevermind that obama bailed out the banks while refusing to bail out the families they foreclosed upon, or the fact that his largest donors are wall street tycoons. and forget the fact that he’s dealt weapons to many of the despots who have tried to quash the arab spring, such as in egypt, bahrain, and saudi arabia. because moveon.org thinks we’re all idiots. well they can go ‘move on’ to hell. now would an idiot use word play?? huh??? 

spring is in the air, and as occupy wall street’s attempt to re-conquer zuccotti park this past saturday shows, the grassroots are in bloom. but be wary of opportunistic predators dressing themselves up in similar rhetoric and imagery, hungry to transform vibrant, status quo threatening movements into bland, lifeless astroturf.

'my, what a big budget you have!'

'the better to co-opt you with, my dear'

the ‘99 percent spring' certainly sounds like a good thing, combining the language of occupy wall street with the arab spring, a revolutionary dorito loco taco. but as the smoking gun evidence in this counterpunch article shows, the truth is not nearly as delicious. the so-called ‘99 percent spring’ is actually yet another front group for moveon.org, a democratic party booster organization with a nefarious history of co-opting movements.

although founded in the late 90’s by democratic millionaires for the purpose of defending clinton from the fellatio police (seriously), they’re most well-known for latching onto the anti-war movement while bush was in office. of course, once obama got into office, they stopped protesting the wars that he was continuing and starting. who knows, maybe it wasn’t only because they’ve grossly partisan, maybe dropping bombs on arab children just has to grow on you? they campaigned for kerry in 04, obama in 08, and are set to do so again in 2012. and what better way to recruit obama campaigners than to steal some of those energetic young rabble-rousers by co-opting their cool, trendy lingo? before i was using a wolf metaphor, but ‘99 percent spring’ might actually be the poochie of activism.

nevermind that obama bailed out the banks while refusing to bail out the families they foreclosed upon, or the fact that his largest donors are wall street tycoons. and forget the fact that he’s dealt weapons to many of the despots who have tried to quash the arab spring, such as in egypt, bahrain, and saudi arabia. because moveon.org thinks we’re all idiots. well they can go ‘move on’ to hell. now would an idiot use word play?? huh??? 

Mar
16th
Fri
permalink
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
jason russell, the wwg (wanky white guy) who co-founded invisible children and the kony 2012 campaign, has been detained for masturbating in public. this would make it the first time in the history of this blog that a wanky liberal has been caught actually wanking. given his connections to the christian right, the public perversion doesn’t come as much of a surprise. here’s hoping there weren’t any visible children to witness it.
despite the fact that he was also allegedly drunk, disorderly, vandalizing cars, and at times totally naked, the san diego police department decided not to press charges and instead took him to get medical treatment. it’s hard to imagine a black person getting the same sort of ‘aw shucks’ hospitality. of course the racial disparities of the american justice system fall outside of invisible children’s white savior agenda, because injustice happening in your own backyard doesn’t exactly move bracelets.
here’s hoping that jason gets the help he needs. obviously the pressure of having to rescue a continent of perpetual victims from themselves must have gotten to him; either that or he went on a crazy drug binge with all that sweet kony money he’s raised. is there a rehab for wankaholics?
UPDATE: tmz has released video of the incident (nsfw). i was worried that posting it might be exploitative, but given that russell himself is a media star for putting out an exploitative video, i figured it’s fair enough.

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

jason russell, the wwg (wanky white guy) who co-founded invisible children and the kony 2012 campaign, has been detained for masturbating in public. this would make it the first time in the history of this blog that a wanky liberal has been caught actually wanking. given his connections to the christian right, the public perversion doesn’t come as much of a surprise. here’s hoping there weren’t any visible children to witness it.

despite the fact that he was also allegedly drunk, disorderly, vandalizing cars, and at times totally naked, the san diego police department decided not to press charges and instead took him to get medical treatment. it’s hard to imagine a black person getting the same sort of ‘aw shucks’ hospitality. of course the racial disparities of the american justice system fall outside of invisible children’s white savior agenda, because injustice happening in your own backyard doesn’t exactly move bracelets.

here’s hoping that jason gets the help he needs. obviously the pressure of having to rescue a continent of perpetual victims from themselves must have gotten to him; either that or he went on a crazy drug binge with all that sweet kony money he’s raised. is there a rehab for wankaholics?

UPDATE: tmz has released video of the incident (nsfw). i was worried that posting it might be exploitative, but given that russell himself is a media star for putting out an exploitative video, i figured it’s fair enough.

permalink
it was a rude awakening for many liberals this past january. they woke up to tune their beloved apple products to npr’s ‘this american life’ only to find the normally soothing nasal monotone of ira glass introducing a hit piece on the very gadgetry transmitting it. if no ipads self-destructed that cold winter’s morning, surely the brain of a liberal apple user did. the segment, taken from mike daisey’s one man show ‘the agony and the ecstasy of steve jobs’, was about the grueling labor conditions faced by the foxconn factory workers who make apple products.
the epic hand-wringing that ensued must have sprouted a thousand blisters, until everyone was able to reassure themselves that it must be OK since all companies are surely guilty of the same abuses and went about business as usual. now, the traumatic memory of that guilt-ridden half hour broadcast can finally be put to rest as it’s been revealed that the author of the piece used some minor dramatic license (as he was writing for theater, not journalism) and is therefore a lying scoundrel who huckstered ira glass into airing what must have been the first slightly exaggerated anecdote in npr history.
so what were daisey’s horrible slurs against our benevolent tech overlords? he claimed to have spoken to workers poisoned by a dangerous chemical, when in reality, that incident occurred at a different sweatshop than the one he traveled to. he also erroneously claimed to have spoken to underage workers, a well-documented abuse in foxconn facilities. the child abuse, that still happened, but what has ira glass ‘horrified' is a symbolic conversation fabricated for the purposes of theater. all drama must now be fact-checked! it's a shame that the powerful critique of racism in 'raisin in the sun' will be illegitimate when it's exposed that the characters are all 'fictionalized'. the horror!
btw are you totally excited about the ipad 3 coming out?

it was a rude awakening for many liberals this past january. they woke up to tune their beloved apple products to npr’s ‘this american life’ only to find the normally soothing nasal monotone of ira glass introducing a hit piece on the very gadgetry transmitting it. if no ipads self-destructed that cold winter’s morning, surely the brain of a liberal apple user did. the segment, taken from mike daisey’s one man show ‘the agony and the ecstasy of steve jobs’, was about the grueling labor conditions faced by the foxconn factory workers who make apple products.

the epic hand-wringing that ensued must have sprouted a thousand blisters, until everyone was able to reassure themselves that it must be OK since all companies are surely guilty of the same abuses and went about business as usual. now, the traumatic memory of that guilt-ridden half hour broadcast can finally be put to rest as it’s been revealed that the author of the piece used some minor dramatic license (as he was writing for theater, not journalism) and is therefore a lying scoundrel who huckstered ira glass into airing what must have been the first slightly exaggerated anecdote in npr history.

so what were daisey’s horrible slurs against our benevolent tech overlords? he claimed to have spoken to workers poisoned by a dangerous chemical, when in reality, that incident occurred at a different sweatshop than the one he traveled to. he also erroneously claimed to have spoken to underage workers, a well-documented abuse in foxconn facilities. the child abuse, that still happened, but what has ira glass ‘horrified' is a symbolic conversation fabricated for the purposes of theater. all drama must now be fact-checked! it's a shame that the powerful critique of racism in 'raisin in the sun' will be illegitimate when it's exposed that the characters are all 'fictionalized'. the horror!

btw are you totally excited about the ipad 3 coming out?

permalink
the outcry over rush limbaugh’s recent ‘slut-shaming’ has given liberals another opportunity to take part in one of their favorite past times: rigorous, masturbatory back-patting. but as katie roiphe points out in her new piece on slate, liberals slut-shame just as much.
liberals may not always use sluts as a political boogeyman like rush did, but that doesn’t mean the gossip, innuendo, stereotyping, and judgements aren’t there. not to mention the double-standards: can anyone imagine famed playboy and liberal’s infallible golden god hero george clooney getting called a slut?

the outcry over rush limbaugh’s recent ‘slut-shaming’ has given liberals another opportunity to take part in one of their favorite past times: rigorous, masturbatory back-patting. but as katie roiphe points out in her new piece on slate, liberals slut-shame just as much.

liberals may not always use sluts as a political boogeyman like rush did, but that doesn’t mean the gossip, innuendo, stereotyping, and judgements aren’t there. not to mention the double-standards: can anyone imagine famed playboy and liberal’s infallible golden god hero george clooney getting called a slut?

permalink
when tvland (the nostalgia-based cable network dedicated to ensuring that ‘three’s company’ will never be forgotten) decided to pursue the postmodern path of creating their own original nostalgia, no one expected anything groundbreaking or stereotype-shattering. so it’s no surprise that their series ‘happily divorced' is premised entirely around gay male stereotypes, albeit coupled with the liberal value of tolerance (as long as everyone stays in their respective boxes).
the plot involves fran drescher’s husband of almost 20 years, played by john michael higgins (shown here packing kimonos in ‘best in show’), coming out to her as a gay and asking for a divorce. this scene takes place after they’ve just had sex too, yet she never bothers to ask if he might actually be bisexual. perhaps that would be too much nuance in a genre where you’re either normal or flaming (a new, super-butch boyfriend for fran is quickly brought in to comically contrast with the gay ex). the rest of the jokes pretty much write themselves from there:
1) gay husband does something extremely gay (ie singing a song from ‘sound of music’, having nice cuticles, etc)
2) fran or someone else comments “how could i/you have not known!”
now just repeat that winning formula for 30 minutes and you have comedy gold! to be fair, this is supposedly loosely based on drescher’s real life experience being married to a closeted gay man for many years, and her ex actually co-created the show with her. that alone goes a long way towards disputing the old stereotype that gay men are innately talented and funny.

when tvland (the nostalgia-based cable network dedicated to ensuring that ‘three’s company’ will never be forgotten) decided to pursue the postmodern path of creating their own original nostalgia, no one expected anything groundbreaking or stereotype-shattering. so it’s no surprise that their series ‘happily divorced' is premised entirely around gay male stereotypes, albeit coupled with the liberal value of tolerance (as long as everyone stays in their respective boxes).

the plot involves fran drescher’s husband of almost 20 years, played by john michael higgins (shown here packing kimonos in ‘best in show’), coming out to her as a gay and asking for a divorce. this scene takes place after they’ve just had sex too, yet she never bothers to ask if he might actually be bisexual. perhaps that would be too much nuance in a genre where you’re either normal or flaming (a new, super-butch boyfriend for fran is quickly brought in to comically contrast with the gay ex). the rest of the jokes pretty much write themselves from there:

1) gay husband does something extremely gay (ie singing a song from ‘sound of music’, having nice cuticles, etc)

2) fran or someone else comments “how could i/you have not known!”

now just repeat that winning formula for 30 minutes and you have comedy gold! to be fair, this is supposedly loosely based on drescher’s real life experience being married to a closeted gay man for many years, and her ex actually co-created the show with her. that alone goes a long way towards disputing the old stereotype that gay men are innately talented and funny.