Possibly my all-time favorite American sit-com.1 It fizzled out towards the end, but I think there’s something to admire even in failure, when that failure is based on a determination to keep on pushing boundaries rather than repeating past successes.
Leigh posted on the subject, focusing on Darlene and how well the show handled the teen girl characters. I loved all the characters, but Jackie and Dan were my favorites, probably due to the incredible performances of Laurie Metcalf and John Goodman.
Also worth noting: Joss Whedon got his start as a TV writer on Roseanne.
My all-time favorite sit-com is Black Adder. Although this is always a bit hard to say, because the truth is I have five or six different all-time number one favorites. (back)
From Ethan Pollack, at the Economic Policy Institute:
As money is spent, it creates beneficial ripples through the entire economy. The evidence is that most of the money from the recent tax rebate was saved rather than spent, thus blunting its stimulative benefit.1 By comparison, other options—such as infrastructure spending, aid to states, food stamps, and unemployment insurance (UI) benefits—are much more cost-effective because they target the needs most likely to channel money back into the economy. Mark Zandi from Moody’s Economy.com estimates that each dollar of refundable tax rebates only boosts GDP by about $1.26, while each dollar of infrastructure spending could provide a $1.59 boost. Not only are many of these stimulus options more effective, but they also have the added benefit of assisting those hardest hit by the downturn and tackling long-standing infrastructure needs that would lower transportation costs, decrease traffic, and increase business productivity.
Zandi’s analysis also shows what doesn’t work as stimulus: a variety of tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals, which cost over twice as much as they return to the economy.
The speaker is Brad Dacus, the president of the anti-gay-marriage Pacific Justice Institute.
There was another time in history when people, when the bell tolled. And the question was whether or not they were going to hear it. The time was during Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler. You see he brought crowds of clergy together to assure them that he was going to look after the church. And one of the members, bold and courageous, Reverend Niemand (sp?) made his way to the front and (inaudible) said “Hitler, we are not concerned about the church. Jesus Christ will take care of the church. We are concerned about the soul of Germany.” Embarrassed and chagrined, his peers quickly shuffled him to the back. And as they did Adolf Hitler said, “The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me.” And they did, and because they did bombs did not only fall upon the nation of Germany, but also upon the church and their testimony to this very day. Let us not make that mistake folks. Let us hear the bell! Vote on Proposition 8!
If you’re in San Francisco, please stop by and say “Hi!” I’m alllll the way in back, and if all goes well there will be a big “Hereville” sign behind my table.
I really like this one, which is not terribly slick, because of this point it makes: “Even though we pay the same taxes as everyone, when it comes to our relationships, our families, we’ve been treated like second-class citizens.” It really is as simple as inequality versus equality.
Ten Reasons Gay Marriage Is Wrong
Gay Marriage… NO!
I like this one especially for the tagline at the end.
A “no on 8″ commercial modeled after the “I’m a mac, I’m a PC” commercials. Plus, it’s got Molly Ringwald. I’m 40, so I’m legally required to love anything with Molly Ringwald in it.
Barbara West, a right-wing reporter with WFTV in Florida, surprised Joe Biden by asking him questions from the far-right-wing — which is to say, questions that pretty much reflect the framing of the McCain campaign.
West: “You may recognize this famous quote: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” That’s from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?”
Biden: “Are you joking? Is this a joke?”
West: “No”
Biden: “Is that a real question?”
West: “That’s a real question”
The liberal blogosphere has reacted to West with disdain, demands for an apology, and calls for West to be fired. And the Obama campaign blackballed WFTV from any further interviews before November 4.
Embarrassing and painful are two words that quickly come to mind to describe West’s interrogation of Biden last week. [...]
Whatever she was going for, it certainly wasn’t straight-ahead journalism. Where was the balance or the attempt at fairness?
Most journalists have their points of view and political leanings. We’re citizens. We’re allowed that.
But any journalist who’s covered politics and politicians long enough knows it’s important to keep a certain distance. You don’t want to drink the Kool-Aid of either political party.
I disagree. I thought it was a good interview, and I want to see more like it.
Don’t get me wrong — West clearly has guzzled the kool-aid until its running out the nostrils. And despite her denials, she’s ridiculously biased. But what’s wrong with that?
On November 4, 2000, then-President Bill Clinton was making get-out-the-vote calls to radio stations, one after the other. And some assistant had failed to vet the calls properly, so Clinton ended up on the phone with Amy Goodman (of Democracy Now) and Gonzalo Aburto. What followed was a half-hour interview — one that Clinton clearly was astonished to find himself giving — and the only time Clinton was interviewed by unapologetic left-wingers in his eight years of presidency. Goodman and Aburto asked about “Leonard Peltier, Racial Profiling, the Iraqi Sanctions, Ralph Nader, the Death Penalty and the Israeli-Palestinian Con,” among other subjects.
I remember listening to the interview with astonishment and glee. I felt… included. I felt represented. For almost the first time in my life.
It shouldn’t have taken eight years before Clinton was asked questions from the left. And it should have happened more than once in eight years. My concerns aren’t so worthless that they shouldn’t ever even be addressed by the conceited, arrogant people who think so much of themselves that they think they’re qualified to rule over us, but at the same time, are shocked and appalled if they have to answer a single question from outside the comfortable circle of mainstream political concerns. And neither are Barbara West’s concerns.
Probably 20-30% of Americans think that the questions Barbara West asked Joe Biden are serious questions, and are are eager to hear Biden (and Obama) answer them. 20-30% isn’t a trivial number of Americans. There are likewise probably 20-30% of voters who, like me, share a lot of Amy Goodman’s and Gonzalo Aburto’s views.
There are some views that are so extreme that they needn’t be included; I don’t want to see KKK members interviewing major candidates, or folks who think the moon landing was faked. But Barbara West’s views are shared by millions of voters.
When Obama (or, if disaster strikes, I suppose, McCain) becomes President, they won’t be President of only the middle-ground 40% or so of America. They’ll be President of the entire country; they’ll be my president, Amy Goodman’s president, Barbara West’s president. Why is it a given that they should only have to face questions from the middle 40%?
A week or so ago, the legislature held a hearing regarding Proposition 8, the anti-marriage measure. These hearings are required by law to be held for every proposition, but this one, of course, was a bit more interesting. A future Assemblyman, John Perez, an openly gay community and union leader running to replace the termed out Fabian Nunez, spoke of the inherent discrimination of seperate but equal. Samuel Thoron spoke of the importance to families of marriage equality.
On the other side, you had Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse basically said, “Why do you hate the children? THink of the Children who will be forced to grow up in a loving stable home where two parents love and support them?”
Ok, maybe not so much with the second part of that quote. I’ve dutifully captured that video (after much labor with a corrupted DVD…let’s just say I spent way too much time on this) and offer it up to you. Sincere Kudos go out to Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sac) who absolutely put Dr. Morse in her place. Exposing her argument as completely devoid of logic, and that is essentially a pretext.
Asm. Dave Jones: Would you then tell the older heterosexual couple that they should not get married.
Dr. Morse: No, no I would not say that they shouldnt get married, but what I would say is that if the only kind of couples we had in society are elderly couples who are sterile we wouldnt need an institution of marriage. You know, we wouldnt need it. So the point is, there are ways to solve–the problems that those couples face as elderly persons who arent going to have any kids
Jones: Well, why didnt you craft this legislation to allow older gay couples to marry, if kids are the only concern
Morse:Well we thought it was simpler just to go back to the old man-woman definition.
Jones: Or maybe this isnt about children after all
Morse: Right after this thereès some crazy stuff she gets into about in vitro fertilization becoming an entitlement. The Rep asks her if she would outlaw In Vitro if the child knowing the biological parent is so important, and she says no.
Jones: So let me sum this up. You wouldnt ban infertility centers even though the children there wont know who their biological parents are, you dont agree with baning adoption even though in those circumstances children are not necessarily being raised by their biological parents, youre ok with, um, the adoption of children by gays and lesbians, you dont believe in banning divorce, even though by your own arguments theres been all sorts of analogous studies that indicate that divorce is very very harmful on children. Um, its hard for me not to conclude that this isnt about protecting children… I am utterly unconvinced that thats whats going on here. What s going on here is fundamentally, I believe, an effort to discriminate against a class of people and deprive them of something that everybody else has.
But this is what Prop 8 supporters are attempting to sell both to the loyal flock of the Mormon Church and to the greater state of California. An argument only thinly veiling its real purpose: to discriminate against one group of Californians, to only exclude those whom you don’t like. And the lies only continue. The proponents argue that a failure of Prop 8 will lead to churches rocking house remixes of Madonna every Sunday because they have to let the gays take over. And not the good Madonna stuff…the new stuff! Boogy-Boogy-Boogy.
In fact, the Yes on 8 Campaign has gone through and come up with 6 Whole Ways Gay Marriage Will Ruin Your Life and the Life of All Straight Couples With Children. It’s basically a run down of everything you’ve seen in their commercials. You know, children will get taught gay marriage in schools, churches will be forced to marry teh gayz, Churches won’t be able to say anything about teh gayz being evil, and it will cost you tons of money (huh?).
Well, I’m sure I could go through point by point on this ridiculous list. But fortunately, it’s already been done. Morris Thurston, a lifelong Mormon, long-time partner at Latham & Watkins (a big LA-based law firm), has already gone through point by point and taken them all down. You can find a mini-post at Mormons for Marriage with the full PDF here or over the flip.
Mr. Thurston goes through each point, and completely rebuts them legally and also from a general logical standpoint. Take Reason #2, for example, churches will lose tax-exempt status if they don’t do same-sex marriages. Nope, says Mr. Thurston:
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
Response: This false “consequence” is based on the misrepresentation of a case in New Jersey involving an association affiliated with the Methodist Church. In considering that case, it is important to remember that New Jersey does not permit gay marriage, so that case had nothing to do with Proposition 8.
* * *(More info on the New Jersey lawsuit)* * *
The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision. The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self-evident because of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
I’ll let you read the full smack-down of the “6 Reasons” but suffice it to say there’s not much left of the “Reasons” to argue with. Which isn’t to say that you won’t be seeing them repeated over and over again on TV commercials and from silly talking heads like Dr. Morse, the Right isn’t really known for bowing to the reality of logic.
So, on this Sunday, consider giving to Equality for All, No on Prop 8, through the Calitics ActBlue Page, where we are just $1,500 from hitting $50K. (We’ve also given $2,000 from the Calitics CaliPAC, and another $5K+ from other Calitics pages). You can also do so over at Big Orange, where the Hell to Pay fundraisier has now raised well over $100K to fight back Prop 8. Thanks to every who has given money to oppose Prop 8. And to everybody who hasn’t, time is of the essence. If you are considering, please do it as soon as possible.
The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent.
For those of us on the left, anti-Obama madness on the right is bewildering. We think Obama is a centrist Democrat who will disappoint us once he’s in office. They think Obama is an all-consuming demon god, with twenty waving arms and each arm has forty hands and each hand is giving Jesus the finger while his mile-wide feet crush small pro-American towns with every step.
Did I mention this man hates me? You and me? Yes he does. Why? Because he can. Yes He Can. Beneath that cool persona is a megalomaniac. Cool? Like Stalin after a purge, emotionally and sexually spent. Like Saddam after a torture session, dozing in his chair with someone’s genitals curled in his fist. Like Pol Pot after a petit mal seizure, mumbling a litany of the dead. Cool that way.
So I will cast my pathetic vote, and ramp up my relocation to the mountains. Reduce my footprint. Carbon? That will be a nice byproduct, but I mean my personal footprint. My credit footprint. My interface with authority footprint. I’m researching micro-hydro water turbines for that stream, windmills for water, a half-acre patch for vegetables, a few goats, and a bison. Just because I want a fucking bison. My address? Fifty rounds up that gravel road.
I do hate to sound Randy Weaverish. But this is the fundament of my world view right now.
And he’s not that far out there — or, rather, he is, but he’s nevertheless only a few feet down the road from what some mainstream conservatives are saying.
EconomistMom, who I’ve linked positively in the past, introduces a guest post:
Here is a post by DirectorDad in response to a Dean Baker critique of the movie “I.O.U.S.A.” that recently appeared on Huffington Post:
But what follows isn’t a response to Baker’s critique, which is lengthy and serious. Instead, DirectorDad (aka Patrick Creadon, the director and co-writer of “I.O.U.S.A.”) furiously attacks a strawman.
After reading Dean Baker’s critique of our documentary “I.O.U.S.A.”, I am left pondering one important question: How could Mr. Baker have possibly come to the conclusion that our film is “one-sided”? [...]
We were very fortunate to get the following people to participate: Warren Buffett and Peter G. Peterson are both interviewed in the film (a Democrat and a Republican, respectively), as are former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Paul O’Neill (a Democrat and a Republican), the two heads of the Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and Ranking Member Judd Gregg (one from each party…) [...] Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan (a Democrat and a Republican) [...] praised by dozens of film critics for being balanced. The New York Times called our film “resolutely non-partisan.”
This is just sad.
Baker did indeed criticize the film for being “one-sided,” but — contrary to what Creadon seemingly believes — the only two sides in the world aren’t “Democrat” and “Republican.” It’s completely possible for an argument to be “one-sided” and nonetheless be supported by both Democrats and Republicans. For instance, if I had a forum on the Iraq War and my invited speakers were Joe Lieberman and John McCain, Creadon might criticize my forum for being “one-sided,” and it would be ludicrous to me to reply that I can’t be one-sided, because I had “one from each party.”
The subject under discussion — how important is the budget deficit, and what should we do about it? — is important. Baker’s critique of the film is substantive and lengthy, and people should read it. It’s a shame Creadon didn’t answer the critique in any serious fashion.
Years ago, I argued that any eventual Watchmen movie would be full of suck, because I didn’t imagine that a major studio would be willing to finance it as a period piece, and the story only makes sense during the cold war.
Obviously, I was wrong: the upcoming Watchmen movie is going to be a period piece, as it should be. And from what I’ve seen, the production design is beautiful.
Nonetheless, it’s not going to be as good as the comic. And it’s not going to be faithful, no matter how slavishly it reproduces the original comic book’s plot.1
First of all, judging from the preview, the movie is flashy. Look at how beautiful the lighting is! Oh, cool, she fell down through the flaming roof and glared at the camera! And another shot I’ve seen (I don’t think it’s in this preview) uses that neat-looking effect from Matrix, where time is slowed down and then suddenly speeds up during action scenes. How dated will that look 10 years from now?
Watchmen the comic was deliberately drawn in an old-fashioned, nine-panel grid with flat coloring. No elements jumped out of panels, and although the comic is full of striking visuals, the drawing style is extremely sedate for a superhero comic. Stylistically, Watchmen the comic rejected most of the then-current trends of superhero drawing. The movie, on the other hand, looks like every other superhero movie that’s come out in the last few years.
Watchmen, the comic, was effectively a meta-comic. It was a comic about comics.
Moore and Gibbons designed Watchmen to showcase the unique qualities of the comics medium and to highlight its particular strengths. In a 1986 interview, Moore said, “What I’d like to explore is the areas that comics succeed in where no other media is capable of operating”, and emphasized this by stressing the differences between comics and film. Moore said that Watchmen was designed to be read “four or five times,” with some links and allusions only becoming apparent to the reader after several readings. Gibbons described the series as “a comic about comics”.
So what is the movie about? It’s not a movie about comics, because it can’t be; it has no panels, no word balloons. But it’s not about movies, either. Mainly, from what I’ve seen, it’s about a bunch of fans who loved the comic and want to make a Watchmen movie.
The story of Watchmen is a melodramatic plot with better-than-average plotting and characterization for a superhero comic; what made it outstanding was how it was told. The statico rhythm of the nine-panel grid, held to so rigorously that even a single double-sized panel felt momentous. The ever-growing pile of repeating visuals and background details, possible to appreciate because in comics, the reader can take all the time they want to examine a panel. The layout effects that simply could never be done in another medium (most famously, the entire chapter in which the layouts were mirror images of each other — so the last page of the chapter was the first page reversed, the second-to-last was the second page reversed, and so on). The comic book that a character in Watchmen was reading — and which the readers eventually saw all of, a few panels or pages at a time, spread out over the entire comic.
Don’t get me wrong: I’ll see, discuss (obviously) and probably enjoy the movie. But I’ll probably enjoy it because it’s effectively a well-done, high-budget piece of fan art. I’ll “ooh” and “ah” all the pretty sets they’ve built, and the scenes they’ve recreated. But Watchmen can’t work as well as movie as it did as comics, because Watchmen is comics. A Watchmen movie is a self-contradiction. And if there is, someday, a superhero movie which does for the form what Watchmen did for superhero comics, it won’t be an adaptation of anything.
Hearing fans enthuse about the Watchmen movie, I suspect they’re hoping for legitimization. This’ll show the world that comics are a real art form! And that superheroes can be real art! Well, I say: screw that. Comics are an art form. Superhero comics can be good.2 And we can move past this tedious desire to have our tastes given a gold star by Entertainment Weekly. Can’t we?
Which can’t be all that slavish because, let’s face it, they don’t have 10 hours to work with. (back)
I really like this ad, and hope they have the money to put it on the air. I honestly want to vomit when anti-equality bigots say that they care about the children. One thing that helps is giving money to no on 8; their minimum donation is just $5.
(Note that the children’s images used in this ad were used with their parents permission. Unlike Proposition 8’s backers, who use children’s images without permission and against the wishes of their parents.)
When social scientists first started using detailed opinion surveys to study the attitudes and behavior of ordinary voters, they found some pretty sobering things. In the early 1950s, Paul Lazarsfeld and his colleagues at Columbia University concluded that electoral choices “are relatively invulnerable to direct argumentation” and “characterized more by faith than by conviction and by wishful expectation rather than careful prediction of consequences.” [...]
In 1960, a team of researchers from the University of Michigan published an even more influential study, The American Voter. They described “the general impoverishment of political thought in a large proportion of the electorate,” noting that “many people know the existence of few if any of the major issues of policy.” Shifts in election outcomes, they concluded, were largely attributable to defections from long-standing partisan loyalties by relatively unsophisticated voters with little grasp of issues or ideology. A recent replication of their work using surveys from 2000 and 2004 found that things haven’t changed much in the past half-century.
The good news, if you can call it that, is that apparently the ability to buy lots and lots of ads in the last week before the election can make a big difference. Advantage for Barack “moneybags” Obama.
The bad news is, there’s probably no hope of an intelligent political discourse, ever. “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” –Winston Churchill1 Even those of us who are “informed” are hopelessly biased; one study quoted found that high-information voters nonetheless got facts wrong in ways that systematically served their political bias.
I’ve become increasingly unsure that there is any point to political discourse and debate. Trying to be rational about policy, or the vote, belies the fact that rationality has nothing to do with who is elected or what policies get enacted. It’s kind of depressing, frankly.
Churchill’s more famous quote about democracy also applies, of course. (back)
UPDATE: Tekenya has been found! From a comment left by Renee:
I am happy to report that she was found this morning at 11:45 am. This story really had an effect on me both as a WOC and a mother. I cannot tell you how many times I have looked at my children and thought to myself, if something happens to you who will care beyond your father and I? Who will sound the alarm and let the world know that you are worth something? I know that I am not unique in anyway in this worry.
Tekenya’s story reminds us all just how vulnerable black children are in this world. I cannot help but think that had it not been for the amazing efforts of Gina from What About Our Daughters that she might have simply disappeared into the mass of humanity never to be heard from again. This shows me that we need to push harder for our missing children. We need to demand that the media and police make them a priority.
What’s APE? It’s the 
