Thursday, January 22, 2009 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Is Sarah Palin going to write a book? Or should I say "write" a book? Purportedly, Palin has enlisted the aid of literary agent to the politicos Robert Barnett, a D.C. attorney whose client list includes Obama and the Clintons and who's scored TV deals for Brian Williams and Christiane Amanpour. Barnett's emitted a "no comment"—embarrassed, perhaps? One theory is that all Palin's anti-media griping has driven her to attempt to tell—or should I say sell—her own story in her own words—or should I say the words of her ghostwriter? The rumor reminds me of new rumors of another high-profile aspiring writer who may or may not be seeking a book deal: Britney Spears. My allergic reaction to the idea of a Palin book is as much born out of a deep dislike of—well, I was going to say her politics—but her everything may be a better way to describe it—as it is a sadness that books have become little more than one more crappy product to shill. Regardless of what Palin produces, one can be confident that it won't be worth the paper upon which her fake words are printed.
-
sponsorship
Sweet Sammi, these two girls are already America's sweethearts, and there is not a kid over 5 years old in this country who can't tell you which one of the president's daughters he or she likes best. J. Crew and the makers of Ty Girlz dolls are not the only retailers to take advantage of that. The commercialization of Sasha’s and Malia’s adorableness started the moment their dad was elected. The manufacturers of the dresses the girls wore to Grant Park instantly exploited the connection. I'm surprised www.sashaandmalia.com is not a Web domain for some savvy marketer yet. The Obamas cannot keep their daughters’ popularity in a bottle, and I don't know what their mother will do to protect them. Now that former White House cute kid Caroline Kennedy has an opening in her schedule, maybe she can come help Michelle Obama figure that out.
-
sponsorship
Turns out you don't need to live in the D.C. area to give your kids the joy of playing with Sasha and Malia, thanks to the latest in the mass of Obama-related merchandise: the "Sweet Sasha" and "Marvelous Malia" Bratz-like dolls manufactured by Ty (of Beanie Babies fame). As Amy Benfer wrote on Broadsheet:
This line shares the notorious Bratz dolls infatuation with the letter "z," visible lip liner and skimpy clothing of questionable taste ... Unfortunately, as a post at Packaging Girlhood points out, the dolls are part of the teen line and thus come complete with breasts, which seems a little odd in dolls named after two little girls who are now 7 and 10 years old. The poster at that site asks: "Couldn't they have just portrayed them as they are now, perhaps as two little girls with a dog and a leash?"
I agree that the plush (and womanly) depiction of the Obama girls is a bit unnerving. But equally upsetting to me are these descriptions on the site—not just for Sasha and Malia, but all the dolls. I'm old-school when it comes to kids' toys and favor ones without a prepackaged back story—the kind that require actual imagination to bring them to life. (Note: this theory has not been put into practice. I'm 24 and childless.) I find the American Girl dolls a little overbearing in their descriptions of each doll's interests and lives, but that's refreshing compared to the nonsensical blurbs on the Bratz site, which have to do entirely with clothes and appearance.
I played the "Which XX Factor writers have Ty Girlz dolls in their honor?" game, and here're the findings. They spelled your name wrong, Hanna, but you'll be happy to know that Hip Hannah, in her "pink tennies and white knee-high socks," is "the definition of cool!" The cheerleader Exciting Emily comes close to having your hair, Emily, but her eye color is a little upsetting. Apparently her "team colors (lavender and teal) really bring out the color of her eyes." Oh right. Her lavender and teal eyes. And the Sweet Sammi doll that I can only assume was named after me has a similar ocular malfunction. Clad in an orange hoodie, blue-eyed Sammi is also, apparently, benefiting from an outfit that "really brings out her eyes!"
I wonder how the Ty team would describe Molly, the bespectacled 1950s American Girl doll I grew up with. Obviously they'd do away with that pesky and fairly educational storyline about her dad being off at war. And I have a guess what they'd say about those wire-rim frames of hers.
-
sponsorship
The NYT Style section has a short piece on the puzzling lack of shoppers who showed up for a free makeup giveaway that took place Tuesday at hundreds of department stores nationwide in fulfillment of a class action settlement on cosmetics price-fixing. The article suggests that perhaps lack of selection in the gratis goods was the reason for the poor turnout, but, darling Style section, have you glanced over at the old Business section lately? Beggars can't be choosers. I wonder if low turnout had more to do with the fact that the giveaway coincided with the inauguration, a juggernaut of an event that cast a shadow longer than anything even free Chanel Ombre Essentielle could create. It's a smartly timed news dump by the department stores who didn't want to lose too much inventory but also a testament to how huge a cultural phenomenon this inauguration was. Americans love free stuff, but apparently we love the stuff surrounding our institutions of freedom even more.
(By the way, Hanna, you'll be thrilled to note that to get to the article, you've got to click through a patriotic J. Crew ad touting their goods as "always inspiring." The Obama bump has been great for the retailer. Its Web site—with a new feature on designing for the Obama ladies, how's that for creative interpretation of off-the-rack?—has been swamped to the point of crashing since the inauguration.)
-
sponsorship
It's fairly remarkable that Cindy McCain does not see the irony in complaining about the New York Times' biased reporting during an interview given by her own daughter. The Daily Beast posted this interview of Cindy by Meghan McCain, in which the former tries once again to present herself as a salt-of-the-earth Jane Winebox. She claims not to care about clothes beyond being "comfortable and easy to pack" and shares her gross hotel experiences, like "that one in Iowa that had the bathtub in the middle of the room was pretty bad." This multimillionaires-are-just-like-us posturing is all well and good, but I don't understand why Cindy feels she still needs to do this. From the excellent Ariel Levy New Yorker profile of McCain that came out in September, it seemed that Cindy did not at all relish her time in the public eye, and this sort of thing will only prolong her exposure. Maybe she's just doing it to promote her new nonprofit organizations, but the timing of the article is odd if that was Cindy's intent. Why did she choose this inaugural moment to exonerate herself?
-
sponsorship
Thanks, Dahlia, I knew Cornyn was playing games with Hillary's Cabinet confirmation (first his delay over transparency, then being swayed in a “private conversation”). Now I know why: Just a little demonstration of how we play hardball up on the Hill, Mr. Obama.
Holder’s testimony that waterboarding is indeed torture opened the way for legal consequences for interrogation techniques used under the previous administration. Now Cornyn wants the attorney general nominee to walk back the cat by agreeing to not prosecute. The problem for the Texas Republican senator is he just looks like a thug. Like Secretary of State Clinton, Holder will be confirmed with or without Cornyn’s support. I imagine the torture investigations will make their way through one or two newly constituted committees in the 111th Congress, so the terribly busy new Justice Department won't need to waste resources for a while. Cornyn's weeklong delay of Holder is so bullyish, though, I'm tempted to say, let the witch hunt begin.
-
sponsorship
Switching gears from the recent political appointments (and dropouts) for a moment to talk about Tyler Perry. Full disclosure: I've never seen a Tyler Perry movie, but his box-office dominance and cultural relevance is certainly undeniable. Which is why I found this analysis of the portrayal of women in TP's movies from the race and pop culture blog Racialicious particularly troubling:
There is little to dispute that TP’s target audience is Black women, so let’s look at the message we’ve received so far from the play [Madea Goes to Jail]. A beautiful, ambitious, driven woman is a promiscuous, shrill bitch and a danger to the home. A good woman doesn’t turn heads with her beauty, is soft-spoken, religious, and will wait—sexually and emotionally—for the right man to come along. We see this play out as well in the movie version of Tyler Perry’s Why Did I Get Married. ... TP wants to teach women how to have successful relationships by making sure their male partners are satisfied. His morality plays, on stage and film, scold women: Be quiet, in appearance and voice. Don’t try to be more than what you are. Serious ambition is a danger to the family. Be grateful for “good enough.” Wait for the right man to notice you. Don’t bring attention to yourself. Be appropriately thankful when a man takes care of you.
The commenters who like Tyler Perry at Racialicious argue that TP's embrace of a group so rarely seen in Hollywood movies (African-American church-goers) helps them to ignore the more insidious aspects of his "morality plays." The Root touched on this issue briefly last year, and one has to wonder, especially in light of the media's "momification" of ex-lawyer Michelle Obama, if Perry's portrayal of black women does more harm than good.
-
sponsorship
Just to connect some dots here: Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are holding up the confirmation vote on President Obama’s nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, in large part because they have “questions for Holder about whether he would favor prosecuting Bush administration officials for their involvement in warrantless wiretapping and harsh detainee interrogation practices.” John Cornyn, R-Texas, says he wants assurances in advance that Holder won’t launch a “witch hunt.”
Anyone else bothered by the fact that America’s top prosecutor is being asked to pledge that he will avoid investigating possible criminal conduct, despite the fact that this newly released Washington Post/ABC poll (h/t Glenn Greenwald) shows the majority of Americans (50 percent to 47 percent) would favor investigating abusive interrogation? As Glenn argues, that polling data pretty much sinks a massive meat fork into the unending false claim that there is no public will to scrutinize these matters. But it's worse than that: These numbers also suggest that some Senate Republicans want advance assurances from the nation’s top lawyer that he won’t even look into a crime most Americans want to see investigated.