"A good disguise"?

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Norwegian Muslish Gunman's Islam-Esque Atrocity
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Can't journalists just say, "this was a terrible tragedy", and leave it at that? Because it was a terrible tragedy.

.

"I speak American."

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

Harry Potter Stars Learn To Speak American, by Margaret Hartmann, Jezebel.

"It's the freedom language."


.

I've addressed this question multiple times,

but some people can't take "institutionalized racism" as an answer:

Why is the Universe full of White people? by the angry black woman.

...maybe SciFi channel just sucks ass. I think that might be the case.

What else can you say about a network that allowed the guy who made the Earthsea movie turn all of the people white except for that one guy? On Stargate the black people are all slaves, but the white people might be slaves or they might be rulers or they might be accountants. On Atlantis they gathered together scientists and military folks from countries all over the world, and yet the only person of color from Earth is the one military guy. All of the other black folks come from another galaxy. From backwards, tribal planets no less. Oh, except for that one Asian chick in that one episode...

...it’s very easy for those who don’t have to think about race (read: white men) to say that ethnic minorities should stop counting how many ethnic minorities are represented in the media they watch (not to mention how they are represented) and just enjoy the fact that there are some. That’s just ignorant, people. Ignorant.

White, heterosexual men have the luxury of being able to turn to 99% of the channels beamed into their TVs and see themselves portrayed in a manner that makes them comfortable and happy. Most white women, do, too. Minorities of most any stripe do not have that luxury. This is especially true of ethnic minorities. Why do we ‘bean count’? Because we can. That’s not flippancy, that’s a fact. I can look at my TV and count the number of black people I see because there are so few of them and they tend to stand out in the sea of whiteness. I’m getting sick of it, myself. How about the rest of you?

I will continue to address the rest of the comments (Thank you, readers!) in the section under my previous post, Don't ask, don't tell....

Don't ask, don't tell...

...and don't give the colored folks anything significant to do or say.

That's what came to mind when I first heard the following news: J.K. Rowling Explains Why Uncle Dumbledore Never Got Married, from EW.com via Defamer.

Responding to a question from a child about Dumbledore's love life, Rowling hesitated and then revealed, "I always saw Dumbledore as gay." Filling in a few more details, she said, "Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald.... Don't forget, falling in love can blind us."

The second thing that came to my mind was this: Law and Order's Southerlyn Comes Out on Her Way Out, by Sarah Warn at AfterEllen.

In one of the most famous—and puzzling—conclusions to a Law and Order episode ever, Assistant D.A. Serena Southerlyn (Elizabeth Rohm) was unexpectedly outed at the end of “Ain’t No Love,” which aired on January 12, 2005, when she reponsdeed to her dismissal with the question, “You're not firing me because I'm a lesbian?”

Southerlyn’s unexpected outing is one of the few episodes in Law and Order’s 15-year history that has included a lesbian or bisexual character. Although Law and Order aired episodes about gay men beginning in its very first season, lesbians rarely made appearances on the crime drama until its ninth season in 1999...

To out Southerlyn in her final scene on the series feels a little like having your cake and eating it too: Law and Order gets to expand its diversity of characters and lay claim to a token lesbian among its cast, but avoid the ramifications of it because the character leaves the series immediately after her sexuality is revealed.

In the words of Stephen Colbert--after finding out John Edwards would be challenging his favorite son status in his one-state Presidential bid in South Carolina: What the bleep, y'all?

It's convenient that Ms. Rowling reveals this 1) with hesitation 2) after being asked by a child, 3) after the seventh and final book came out three months ago, and 4) after Dumbledore was killed in Book 6 by the gayest villain since Scar in The Lion King. Apparently it was a-okay for every other character in the Harry Potter series to be as straight as they want to be. But God forbid anyone in the books display any homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender identity, or hint of queerdom at all. It was fine for Ron to whore it up all through Book 6, having a purely physical relationship with Lavender Brown, while unfairly chastising Hermione because she had one date two books ago with Viktor Krum. Dumbledore could have at least alluded to a past relationship, or the special feelings he had for this Grindelwald guy.

I own all seven books, along with the four DVDs that have been released. That doesn't mean I have to like the WASPy, heteronormative patriarchal regressive world that J.K. Rowling ripped off from other books, movies, myths and legends. How original is it to write a fantastical story about an orphaned white Anglo boy who has to save the world? Yes, there's Hermione, the token girl; Kingsley, the big black guy in the Order of the Phoenix who functions as a bodyguard; and Cho and Dean, the vaguely ethnic love interests whose entire existences have been erased by Book 7, so that [SPOILER ALERT!] Harry and Ginny (who has no real personality of her own) can be together in holy white matrimony. The straight white guys get to have all the fun.

What She Said.

Remember, kids: just because you put someone on a pedestal, it doesn’t mean you get to keep them there if they want off, by zuzu on Feministe.

...Mind you, the person [Vanessa Hudgens] sent this picture to was not only her boyfriend, but her co-star, Zac Efron (who looks not at all like a real person). And yet where is the outrage over this squeaky-clean teen looking at dirty pictures (or, for that matter, his role in it getting onto the internet from his email)? For that matter, does anyone remember that the person who actually ripped off Janet Jackson’s bodice was Justin Timberlake? About the only guy I can remember anyone getting all het up about doing something naughty was Daniel Radcliffe, and that probably had more to do with him being so closely associated with Harry Potter than with “Daniel Radcliffe is a role model.”...

I do remember how JT left Janet hanging in the breeze when that wardrobe malfunction happened. I was well angry when she apologized, because she had no need to. It was a fake boob that was on the screen for maybe three seconds. During that same Super Bowl broadcast, there were at least two commercials for two separate erectile dysfunction medications. There was also a football game, where big sweaty men throw each other to the ground, then pat each other on the behind. Janet should not have apologize for anything. It was Justin's fault, and even so, it was an accident. The people who called into CBS were mad because Justin is white and Janet is black, and interracial sex still scares certain people. You know who those certain people are, I don't need to name names. As some comic said at some point in time, the wardrobe malfunction wouldn't have been such a big deal if it had been Britney's boob.

Onto Daniel Radcliffe and Vanessa Hudgens. Daniel chose to get naked on stage at 17 in Equus. In that role, he also simulated gouging out the eyes of horses. He now wants to inflict his nude, animal-abusing self on American theater-goers and movie audiences. Everyone knew about those choices from the preproduction of the fifth Harry Potter movie till the moment it opened in theaters this summer. I'd heard nary a word about whether the individual portraying the title character in a ubiquitous franchise aimed at children should make such controversial choices; he's a role model for kids all around the world. I mean, horse gouging? Really?

But let one unauthorized image come out of "that girl from High School Musical"--no, not that one--and American parents are up in arms. Technically, it's only two LA mothers, who have so much more to worry about considering they're raising their kids in Los Angeles: the mecca for the superficial and self-absorbed. Vanessa is 18 years old. She is not a "wonderful, pure innocent person;" she is an actor playing a part in two Disney movies. She sent a photo of herself, sans clothes, to her boyfriend. Her boyfriend then leaked the private photo onto the internet, without her consent. Who is the actual poor role model in this situation? Hint: this guy!

From the Yahoo! front page:

'Potter's' payday: Life's magic as Daniel Radcliffe turns 18.

Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe gains access to a reported 20 million pounds ($40 million) fortune when he turns 18 [today], but he insists the money won't cast a spell on him.

Happy Birthday to the rest of you, too!

For Immediate Release:

US to freeze assets of those threatening Iraq, from news.com.au.

PRESIDENT George W. Bush has signed an order enabling the US government to freeze the assets of people who threaten Iraq's stability, the White House announced overnight.

That doesn't apply to you readers, right? Uh-oh...

New Executive Order Stomps on the Fifth Amendment, from gambling911.com (emphases mine).

...By executive order, the Secretary of the Treasury may now seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. The Secretary may make his determination in secret and after the fact...

...The White House will decide if you are in any way “undermining efforts” in Iraq, or related to Iraq or pretty much anything else, the Treasury Department is authorized to seize your money, property, stocks, etc...

...As an example, if it appears that if you, say, donate to a charity that the Bush administration determines, without any proof, is trying to undermine the Iraqi government, all of your assets can be frozen. No due process, do not pass go...

...The scope of the order has raised civil-liberties concerns. "Certainly it is highly constitutionally questionable to empower the government to destroy someone economically without giving notice," says Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "This is so sweeping it's staggering. I've never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population. This covers stabilization in Iraq. I suppose you could issue an executive order about stabilization in Afghanistan as well. And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose 'a significant risk' of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you've committed a crime if there's significant risk that you might commit a crime."...

I thought we had covered the heinous results of enacting such a law in Minority Report.

Here are the actual press releases from the White House website:

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.

Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Here is the text from the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You can read further explanations at FindLaw and at Wikipedia.

#

For additional aggravating news, I turn your attention to the following stories:

Bush Threatened To Veto Same Military Pay Raise That He Now Uses To Attack Anti-War Critics, from Think Progress.

In his Rose Garden address this morning, President Bush criticized the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to pull the Defense Authorization bill from consideration, saying the move would deny a pay raise to soldiers serving in Iraq...

...In May, he threatened to veto a House defense spending bill over the exact same 3.5 percent pay increase that he is now touting:

Bush budget officials said the administration "strongly opposes" both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases "unnecessary."...

Executive privilege -- Bush's new twist: President insists his authority trumps all in attorney firings, by Dan Eggen, Amy Goldstein, Washington Post, via The San Francisco Chronicle.

Bush administration officials introduced a bold new assertion of executive authority Thursday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege...

Merlin's beard!

I didn't originally hear about all this from CNN or MSNBC or Fox News (ha!). One could argue that's because I don't watch any of those channels... Anyways. I heard about most of these stories on The Stephanie Miller Show this morning. This morning! If you clicked on the links, you'll see that those White House press releases were dated June 17, 2007, which was three days ago. I'm learning about important national events--nay, Constitutional crises--from a radio show that features the song "You're a Lying Sack of Crap," along with guest appearances by a dirty old man named "Squeezy McFeelPants." I then had to find the articles on websites for gambling and Australians.

To drive home my point about the wretched state of the US mainstream news media, here is the top story on CNN.com front page right now: Waiting for 'Potter's' end.

Midnight can't come soon enough for Harry Potter fans. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," the last in the seven-book series, goes on sale at 12:01 a.m. local time. Fans in London braved rain and long lines to find out if the young wizard and his friends vanquish their evil foe.

Here is the story CNN has relegated to tiny print off to the side: Cheney to become president…briefly.

President Bush will undergo a routine colonoscopy Saturday, and will transfer power to Vice President Dick Cheney during the procedure, expected to take about two and a half hours, the chief White House spokesman said.

I like Harry Potter as much as the next 25-year-old. But he's not real! He's not even American! Dick Cheney, a man whose colon is the least of his many health concerns, a man who shot someone's grandpa in the face, is going to (officially) assume control of the United States this weekend. Shouldn't that story take priority over a magical orphan who doesn't exist?

Date Rape and Name Changing

I love this cake!

I found this video from The Onion on today's Pajiba Love: J.K. Rowling Hints At Harry Potter Date Rape. I have my own thoughts about it, but I'd like to hear yours, too. Second opinions are nice when they're requested. Subsequently, I found this video,
Onion News Network : Panda Demands Abortion, which I actually found amusing. I guess abortion can be funny. But rape? No.

#

In marital news, What's in a name? by Jessica on Feministing:

...Even before identifying as a feminist, the whole changing your name thing never really made sense to me. I mean, what's the point outside of upholding an antiquated sexist tradition? You want to share a last name with your partner for feeling-like-a-family and kid purposes? Ok. What about hyphenation? Or taking the woman's last name? And I'm sorry, I don't buy the "it's just easier" argument. What's easy about changing your name and all that paperwork? Ugh.

I'm in the minority opinion on this one, 81 percent of women getting married intend to change their last names. (An aside: Can I just how much I love that National Review writer and IWF's token young woman Alison Kasic says that I'm crazy radical for my opinion on name-changing? The day the National Review doesn't think I'm radical, I'll have a problem.)...

As I have told my friends and associates, I'm not changing my name unless I go into the Witness Protection Program. I'm not sure what I'm going to do about my kids if I have them with someone else, especially someone with a hyphenated last name like mine. That'll be fun. I know I'd be hard-pressed to not give my kids my name. I don't care who it ticks off, they're getting my name. The question isn't whether there will be a hyphen, but how many.