Humming Coming at Ya

From Haaretz:

Shoes hold a special place in the Arab lexicon of insults as a show of contempt – effectively saying, you’re lower than the dirt on my shoes. Even sitting with the sole of a shoe pointed at another person is seen as disrespectful.

The hurling of shoes at Bush on his last visit to Iraq as president made an ironic bookend to one of the first images after the 2003 U.S. invasion, when Iraqi opponents of deposed leader Saddam Hussein toppled one of his statues in Baghdad and hit it with their shoes.

Al-Zaidi attained instant hero status around the Arab world. At one Baghdad elementary school, a geography teacher asked her students if they had seen the footage of the shoe-throwing, then told them, All Iraqis should be proud of this Iraqi brave man, Muntadhar. History will remember him forever.

In Baghdad’s Shiite slum of Sadr City, thousands of supporters of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr burned American flags to protest against Bush and called for the release of al-Zaidi, a 28-year-old Shiite who works for the private Iraqi TV station Al-Baghdadia

[Snip]

“I’ve watched the video over a dozen times on You Tube and was excited very time I see him [al-Zaidi] standing up and calling Bush a dog,” said Tamer Ismail, 23-year-old art student in Cairo. “But I felt so bitter when he missed.”

Among other things, al Zaidi will be charged with “insulting the Iraqi state” even as he is celebrated as a hero in Iraq and throughout the region. But another irony here involves the fact that such laws continues to exits in what Bush insists on calling a democratic and free Iraq.

On a slightly related note, a friend of mine noted in an email recently that al Zaidi “has excellent aim.  I can’t imagine that this was a spontaneous because he was throwing the shoe from 15 feet away with many heads obstructing his view, and got so close to Bush’s head both times.  He must have practiced with various size shoes for years on end for this one moment with various distractions in the background. “

Its all worth another look.

Reactions to Criticism of the Powell Endorsement

Some of the folks at These Bastards had the following to say about conservatives fuming over Powell’s endorsement of Obama:

Immediately Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, George Will, and Dan Billings fired off e-mails and gave interviews alerting the American populace to this chain of events. More intelligent people would have tried to attack Powell’s credibility based on his tenure in the Bush Administration. But to Rush and the like we are in yet another grand year of the glorious freedom experiment in Iraq, so that’s out. So they did the next best thing, kicked open the front door, strode out onto the porch and yelled “The Negroes is congregatin’ and endorsifyin’!” Because I guess Colin Powell and other black figures aren’t allowed to deviate from the standard line of pasty white guys they’ve endorsed since time immemorial.

So, word to the wise black folks. Endorsing a person of the same race is kinda racist, unless you are white. I think it has something to do with the equinox or the Magna Carta. If I understand it correctly, the only way to move race relations forward is for the black community to rally around the old, white guy. For the 44th time in a row. To prove to us you aren’t voting based on race. We promise to return the favor the next time a black guy runs. Honest.

And Morris O’Kelly at the NYT’s Fifth Down had the following reaction:

It wasn’t enough for Colin Powell to have been a professional soldier and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was “irrelevant” that he was once Secretary of State. When it came down to Powell offering his informed, influential and most important, single-minded opinion, the FIRST criticism leveled at him trumpeted race.

Limbaugh didn’t acknowledge his credentials and couldn’t attack his record.

The FIRST criticism leveled at Powell trumpeted race, and Powell’s previous service to America was summarily dismissed. This, despite the fact that Powell had never made any overture to appease or please African-Americans.

Nobody publicly accused Republicans Susan Eisenhower or Christopher Buckley of being “race traitors” when they endorsed Obama, or alleged Joe Lieberman was a race loyalist after switching parties and kowtowing to McCain. So when a respected and reputable black uber-American is first characterized as a race loyalist…it’s at best questionable.

By every Republican measure, Powell (like McCain) had put “country first.”

Others, such as Pat Buchanan, took an even lower road, alleging that other, “more qualified” generals were passed over in favor of Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You know, “affirmative action” at the highest level.

Even after all these years, the credit Powell deserved still escaped him.

No such questions were posed of Dr. Henry Kissinger as to whether his support of Senator John McCain was also based in race. Buchanan didn’t accuse Senator McCain of gender affirmative action with the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Jon Stewart is So Good at What He Does

So good in fact that I only need to point to the two examples below.  Enjoy.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

(H/T: Crooks and Liars)

Chris Rock on Love and Relationships

I had to post this as a Monday please-get-me-through-the-day pick me up.

WTF: Obama Depicted as Terrorist on Cover of New Yorker Mag

As a long time subscriber of the New Yorker, I have to say this week’s cover art was a stupid idea. And to suggest, as the cartoonist responsible for this week’s front page cartoon Bruce Blitt that this was harmless satire is to shirk its responsibility as a news provider. Saying that the cover art merely “satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign,” is to ignore how the satire could be used to perpetuate the very thing it hopes to ridicule.

Of course, the New Yorker magazine has the right to publish material as they see fit, but this is really over the top. And no, this is not about humorless political correctness run amok or a bunch of uptight liberals wanting to play thought police or looking for another excuse to complain about how unfairly their candidate is treated in the press, as some conservative critics will undoubtedly claim.

Most sober thinking people can agree that there are more subtle and effective ways of conveying satire than placing an AK-47 on Michelle Obama’s back dressing her up army fatigue pants, adorning the wall with a portrait of Osama bin Laden as the American flag burns below him, and depicting Obama as some sort of imam eager to celebrate his achievement of getting into the Oval Office in a less than dignified manner. Its as if as if Blitt just was wanted to stir some controversy, by giving the right-wing the kind of fodder its been yearning for well before Obama became the presumptive nominee.

And if that was his intention stirred it he did.

In sum, its important to know your subject before satirizing it and that includes anticipating how it will be received. And the good folks at the New Yorker aren’t exactly known for probing racial and religious prejudices. Like many liberals they just treat it as if its one absurd attitude among others and in the process dismiss its power. Nor did David Remnick and company appreciate how counterproductive such an outlandish depiction could be.

I wonder if this was just ignorance or plain stupidity. Because there is a difference.

Update: In an interview at the Huffington Post, Editor of the New Yorker David Remnick defended the cartoon as “The fact is, it’s not a satire about Obama – it’s a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices about Obama.” That’s rather weak tea considering how the cover art simply exaggerates certain negative ideas to the point of spectacle than it does provoke thought. Again, I think the Remnick and his secular minded liberal white cohorts are underestimating how deeply held certain notions intolerance are in our society. Satirizing those very ideas have to be done with care and quite frankly better execution.

Update II: Check out Ta-Nehisi’s fair minded assessment: “I think the problem is that it’s very hard to satirize the rumors around Michelle and Barack. Satire needs overstatement. But the cover doesn’t actually overstate the beliefs of the scaremongers. Indeed its the sort of image you’d expect to see at one of the nuttier websites or publications, and so in that sense it doesn’t work very well.”

Update III: Check out the Al Jazeera news video on the New Yorker cartoon controversy below, it contains some interesting yet unsurprising polling data on how Obama’s perceived Islamic faith.

Obama Knows Who Lil’ Wayne Is?

Who knew that Obama was up on Lil’ Wayne? Maybe his body man slip some Weezy F. Baby on his iPod when he was not looking.

At any rate, speaking before a packed audience in Georgia of adoring young black supporters he said “You are probably not that good a rapper. Maybe you are the next Lil’ Wayne, but probably not, in which case you need to stay in school.” Remarkably enough, the young folk cheered this very obvious yet somewhat sobering piece of advice.

Of course, if their mamas or pastors had told them that, which they probably do on a regular basis, I doubt the reception would have been the same. I think it would have elicited a real roll of the eyes.

I suppose you cannot separate the message from the messenger.

Take Care of Lupita, Lou

Biggie Must be Turning Over in His Grave

But I have to give it to them this video is entertaining in that pop culture minstrelism kind of way.

The whole Darth Vader reference was a bit too creepy for me.

One day, perhaps a year or two from now, someone is going to make a documentary of all these 2008 election YouTube videos deconstructing race, gender, class and media representation and some old fart of a professor will praise it as a paradigm shifting event in all things pomo.

But until then I am just gonna brush my shoulders off.

(H/T: Andrew Sullivan)

The Cliff Clavins Among Us

On the ’80s hit show Cheers, Cliff Clavin, played by John Ratzenberger, was a chatty know-it-all bar regular spewing trivia at will and correcting others despite the fact that he often got the facts wrong himself. Clavin, provincial postal worker, never hesitated to lecture others about husbandry in Chinese antiquity or inform his fellow drinkards what gave birth to the Bronze Age.

As kid, I watched reruns of the NBC sitcom thinking that surely Cliff Clavin character was a special case. There can’t be that many people so captivated by their own pomposity to want to drivel on and on about the most insignificant things. But my college and work world experience confirms that there are Cliff Clavins’ of all races and classes that walk among us.

Apparently, I am not along in thinking this. A relatively new blog called “Stuff that Educated Black People Like” tell us:

Educated Black People Like correcting others. It does not matter the topic or situation, an EBP will never miss an opportunity to correct someone else. Hell, they’ll probably correct this post. An EBP will stop at nothing to show off their so called “educated” status. Whether it be correcting a co-worker on a point of information, or telling their 90 year old grandmother that it’s pronounced “sink” and not “zink”; an EBP knows no boundaries.

As soon as an EBP has completed one semester of college, they’ll behave as though they have just obtained a Ph.D in Everything; even though their GPA was a 2.0 and they never went to class. They will automatically become an expert on spelling, grammar, rocket science, and of course African studies. These EBP come home from college anticipating the opportunity for a family or church member to make a mistake.

Well, perhaps there is a little Cliff Clavin in all of us.

You Must Be on Cocaine

Ever since the 1980s, it has become common place for people to align fits of insanity or even poor judgment with an addiction to crack-cocaine. We’ve all heard it before.

“Brittney did what to them kids? Oh, she must be on crack.”

“He paid how much for that? He must be on crack.”

“You think that house is going to be worth how much in a few years? Sheeeeeeeeet. You must be on crack.”

But notice how no one ever says you must be on cocaine. Consider the following:

“What do you mean he’s not supporting the troops? He must be on cocaine.”

“You really think the Superdelegates within the Democratic party should decide who the Presidential nominee should be? You must be on cocaine.”

“Do you really think we live in a color blind society? You must be on cocaine.”

Why is that? Obviously, I am being coy. We all know the reason for it. At any rate, I am going to start using the “you must be on cocaine” line until it catches on. IntheKut readers feel free to join in.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

E Trade Baby Superbowl Ad

“and I uh, really underestimated the creepiness”

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

We Need Comprehensive Immigration Reform Now

Does it really have to come to this?

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

“Look at Me Generation” and Political Activism

NYT Laugh Lines blogger Streeter Seidell on why “the look at me” generation isn’t as politically active as their baby boomer generation once were.

It’s easy to be politically active when you’ve got nothing else to do. Your TV was nowhere near as entertaining as ours (Spoiler Alert: Gomer Pyle does something dumb in tonight’s episode) and only NASA had satellite radio back then. We live life as if in an all-you-can-eat buffet of distraction. How are we supposed to find the time to protest when HBO just put the next episode of “The Wire” on demand?

I can definitely sympathize.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Politics is a Contact Sport

We all know politics is a contact sport. But imagine if the candidates in the current slug fest we call the primaries were armed with aluminum bats and just went at each other. I realize that sounds a bit bloodthirsty.

But Sean Mintus at Aporos apparently took this thought experiments seriously enough to offer actual profiles of the strengths and weaknesses each candidate, and, interestingly enough, which bats would be appropriate for whom.

Here is how Mintus sized them up.

Hillary Clinton, Democrat
Weapon of choice: Louisville CB73D TPX Dynasty Adult Baseball Bat
Advantages: Bloodlust (see: Vince Foster); Male candidates reluctant to “smack a lady;”*** If disarmed, equally dangerous with fangs and talons; Capable of summoning tears at will; Frost magic.
*** – Does not apply to Giuliani
Disadvantages: Slightly smaller testosterone level than rival combatants; Lateral movement encumbered by giant wads of corporate money; Equivocation muddles reaction time; Constantly glancing at husband sitting in press box next to portly intern.

John Edwards, Democrat
Weapon of choice: Rawlings BBLMPF Liquidmetal Plasma Fusion Baseball Bat
Advantages: No physical evidence of aging; Teeth made of indestructible Adamantium; Toughness required to stomach sex with Elizabeth Edwards no fewer than four times; Daddy worked in a mill; Daddy worked in a mill; Daddy worked in a mill.
Disadvantages: Fatigued by constant smiling through the pain; Basic third-wheel irrelevancy; Demoralized by opponents’ persistent urge to tussle his hair.

Rudy Giuliani, Republican
Weapon of choice: Rawlings Rush Composite Adult Baseball Bat
Advantages: Mob Boss from Brooklyn; Entirely without scruples; Capable of modifying stance at will; Upper body toned from so much passing of the 9/11 buck; Knows where everyone’s kids live.
Disadvantages: Used to paying for, not doing, dirty work; Disruptive phone calls from various ex-wives and mistresses; Clenched jaw sore from constant, wet-eyed mention of 9/11.

Mike Huckabee, Republican
Weapon of choice: DeMarini Voodoo Youth Baseball Bat
Advantages: Impervious to logic; Shapeshifting; Perfect storm of righteous populist politics and Christian Fundamentalism; Plenty of legislative bat-swinging experience on pregnant teenagers.
Disadvantages: Categorically insane; Fear of science; Tempted by scent of hot dogs wafting down from the stands; Reluctance to acknowledge base, animalistic evolutionary instincts.

John McCain, Republican
Weapon of choice: Combat Virus Balanced Senior League Baseball Bat
Advantages: Trains in dry climate, at altitude; Has trouble remembering what he said ten minutes previous, let alone whom he’s killed; Tight lower body in impeccable shape from walking ever since Straight Talk Express broke down in early 2000.
Disadvantages: Has unpredictable spells where he wanders around telling fire hydrants that his children are ungrateful; Still strides bowlegged courtesy of Rove-led P.R. offensive eight years ago; Oldest living human in Western Hemisphere.

Barack Obama, Democrat
Weapon of choice: DeMarini Half & Half Doublewall Youth Baseball Bat
Advantages: Grew up on mean streets of Jakarta; Rides into battle atop semi-domesticated Oprahsaurus; Natural athletic superiority not discussed in polite society; Sonar.
Disadvantages: Smoker’s fatigue; Stranger to street violence; Tendency toward optimism.

That assessment of John Edwards is hilarious!

To see Sean Mintus’ entire list of candidates and their profiles, click here.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Most Outrageous Funny Commercials

Here is a collection of the most funniest and outrageous commercials created this year. The spot featuring a father breast feeding his kid is hilarious.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

(H/T: Top Ten Videos)