the bad & ugly and hot-hot-hot good

the bad & ugly = unfiltered
the hot-hot-hot good = the acer guy

i want to start out by thanking some people. my very best friend elaine who was trashed today has always been there for me. her friendship gives me so much courage including the courage to finally try putting my opinions out there. thank you elaine.

the second thank you goes to the common ills which has to be the best blog on the web. funny, thoughtful always interesting. buzzflash linked to it thanksgiving weekend (www.buzzflash.com) and that's when i started reading. right before christmas, i started e-mailing. i always got asked "do you want to be quoted?" i e-mailed the site today and they were so helpful about talking me through this. i am a proud member of the common ills community (http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/) and if you haven't checked it out you don't know what you're missing.

if anyone's coming here from the common ills let me warn you that i will use every word in the book and then some. if i am going to blog, i'm not going to censor my thoughts or words.

i am a progressive or leftist or whatever term you want to use.

and it's growing increasing hard to listen to unfiltered. that's an air america radio show hosted by lizz winstead and rachel maddow who are quickly becoming lizz whiney and rachel mellow.
since the election they've mistaken themselves for a lifestyle show and started offering up pet tips and taking calls on that as well as a sexist author who wasn't funny didn't make for good radio. whiney & mellow were at a loss for what to do when that backfired on them and they seemed to pull katherine from al's show out of thin air to try to save that very bad, very ugly friday.

unfiltered wasn't always a bad show. they used to do comedy bits that were funny. these days they trot out their 'fcc assigned clergy' and think it's funny. it's not funny. it might have been funny the first time. but as a 'bit' it's grown very stale.

and the gals just don't seem to know what to do since the election. 1 day they are pushing the ohio vote and the next day they act like maybe it's not an issue at all. or 1 day they rail against people reading wire stories and acting like they know the news. moments later they're talking about the just released cbs report as though they've read all 200+ pages.

and always we hear from whiney 'i'm a comedian!' well then be funny. and when you're not funny what's left for you to be?

the show's basic format is sonny & cher from the 70s. rachel talks to the audience and lizz talks to rachel. sometimes it works.

it doesn't work when lizz attacks the audience. you can usually tell lizz has been reading the blog and for a comedian she's deadly serious about each and every issue that has to do with her.

one monday she's talking to rachel (natch) about the scott peterson coverage and how excessive it is and that's all you can hear. a guy on the blog tells her that it's not just elsewhere, that some air america radio newscaster named frisco made it the lead story twice on the hour on saturday.

instead of being surprised or saying 'i can't believe that happened!' lizz tears into the guy about how there is a difference between mentioning it and focusing on it.

but the news breaks are the news breaks, lizz. and if frisco's news break leads with scott peterson that reflects on air america. maybe instead of having a snit fit and attacking someone you might have asked yourself, 'why does frisco lead with the american music awards? why does he push ford's new line of cars? why is he hawking a bob hope dvd set when he's supposed to be doing news?'

lizz can't be bothered with those questions because any time someone asks a question or shares an opinion, she's off in blog world telling them they are wrong or sending them nasty e-mails.
and then we all have to wait for her get out of her funk.

it drags the show down more than her talk about her dog edie. we get that you are over 40 and obsessed with your dog. this isn't 'dog talk.' it is supposed to be unfiltered.

i finally had it with lizz today when she apparently attempted to attack my best friend elaine. elaine is one of the nicest people in the world. and she schedules her patients around unfiltered so that she can hear some of the show each day. elaine does great work and the majority of it she doesn't charge for because she's committed to helping everyone. she's also dedicated herself to peace.

for some time now, every tuesday elaine's asked why the show doesn't offer a weekly segment called 'ask the peace advocate.' see every tuesday we get 'ask a vet.' if you've read amy goodman's excellent book exception to the rulers you realize the mainstream media relies on the military as well (current members and those who have left the service) and shuts out the voices of advocates for peace. so you might be shocked to know that on the liberal air america network we get 'ask a vet' every tuesday with rachel screeching 'support the troops' repeatedly and lizz spellbound by whomever is speaking.

this is a liberal radio station. so you'd think they be interested in peace. whiney & mellow would probably screech, "we have had medea benjamin on!" and they have. she was on during the democratic convention. maybe during the republican one and right after.

yeah, they've tossed out medea. but do they know about code pink? is it too much expect that with all the peace organizations and peace activists they might be able to build a weekly segment around having one on?

that's been elaine's issue. and she's brought that up repeatedly each tuesday.

today whiny & mellow bring on another vet. he obviously has a few problems with communication. that's not to insult him for that, just to point out that this was a useless interview. amy goodman and juan gonzalez had him on democracy now and they were able to get two interviews out of him. that's because they did their homework and also because amy and juan are journalists so they didn't need feel the need to keep piping in "we support the troops."

listen to him flounder around trying to answer what ever popped into the gals' minds was bad radio. but i noticed lizz was getting that pissy tone in her voice so i pull up the unfiltered blog.
sure enough she's been posting.

things like: come on guys he's had it hard.

she's lecturing the blog again and as usual it's the blog's fault, not the fact that she and rachel are giving us pointless air time.

and at some point the guy starts talking about how he was in iraq to save us and save the country and yadda yadda yadda.

look it, the guy had problems.

i didn't expect lizz and rachel to deal with that. get him on and get him off quick.

but when he's talking about how he was supposed to be a hero and he sacrificed for us yadda yadda yadda elaine blogs something to the effect of: you are not doing this for me. not in my name. don't use me to justify your kills.

lizz blogs back a nasty note and to the wrong person. later she's surprised she hurt someone's feelings. well lizz quit being so damn nasty on the blog.

i think she meant to go after elaine. i e-mailed elaine and asked, 'was she aiming for you?' elaine thought so to.

so lizz you fucking moron don't trash my friend.

and don't call yourself a 'progressive' or 'liberal' if you're too busy sniffing some g.i. jock to realize this guy's talking about falluja. what went down in falluja is not in my name.

and gee, feminist lizz, maybe if you'd done your homework you'd know that he's spoken before about being violent to his wife. 'support our trops!' 'support our wife beaters!'

'support our troops' is the most idiotic statement in the world. even paul krugman is now writing about how it's used to end any kind of discussion. but loony lizz is tossing around it like she's getting ready for a date with rush limbaugh.

what does support our troops mean to lizz? apparently that when someone's bragging about what they did over there in an unjust war it means you aren't even allowed to blog 'oh no, that wasn't done to protect me. iraq didn't attack this country.'

leave it to looney lizz to attack a peace advocate.

she ought to be ashamed of herself.

but she has no shame. if you've heard her fawn over chuck d in that 'little girl' voice and you've thought, "this woman is over 40!" then you know how hard growing older must be for goldie hawn.

lizz told mother jones magazine months ago that unfiltered was a funny show and it wasn't going to be heavy because who wants to listen to a radio show by the nation magazine?

i would. i'd like to hear some informed discussion. and i bet you anything if katha pollitt hosted a show she wouldn't be fawning over nicholas kristoff who's used his new york times column to attack feminist repeatedly.

katha's a feminist. lizz says she is and can be vocal about the issue of choice and even stand up for gays and lesbians. but most of my fellow feminists are also anti-war so excuse me for being shocked that feminist lizz thinks it's okay to attack a peace advocate.

you told mother jones magazine you'd be funny. when? when you're not boring us with talk about your dog, we have to hear about the cute guys on the tv show the o.c. lizz i bet i'm 20 years younger than you and i'm not panting over little boys.

when not doing her little girl voice or her anna nicole voice she likes to screech. operating under the belief that if you yell it fast it is funny.

it isn't. before the show got on their 'ask a vet' kick and started shutting out the left (once upon a time they could have on naomi klein and tom hayden but if either were on today rachel and lizz would probably try to shout them down: 'support our troops!') it was often funny. now it's just stale.

maybe that's just my feeling because lizz whiney attempted to attack my best friend on a blog today? or maybe i'm still amazed that on election night when randi rhodes was trying to discuss voting irregularities, rachel mellow didn't want to listen to randi and kept cutting her off?

randi didn't show up on the scene after kerry conceeded concerned about the issue. she was warning about it before the election and on election night she was passionately trying to address it but rachel mellow was hosting election coverage with katherine from al's show (it was a snooze fest when the two of them got together -- like a really bad version of 'fresh air') and rachel didn't want randi to talk.

at one point you could hear the disgust in randi's voice as she said something like 'ok, fine, i'm trying to tell you something but you don't want to listen.'

rachel didn't want to listen. she's always going on about her education trying to let us know she's a 'big brain.' she's also boring as hell. and you'd think a big brain wouldn't say 'in today's new york times' about a story that ran on the weekend. but rachel's convinced she's a 'big brain' and so if she says it, then it has to be true.

the only time rachel's ever left yawnsville is 1 time when lizz was out and bill press was on the show. talking about women, rachel (who's an out and proud lesbian) showed real spark and came off like howard stern. the subversion of that (a woman doing howard stern) made it interesting.

now we're back to rachel mellow and lizz whiney. maybe they'll get into another argument on air like a few months back? that was interesting. but of course they had to have a love fest after the commercial break was over.

chuck d or mike pappantonio come on and rescue the show. not a lot because lizz always has to try to flirt with them as if she's got to remind everyone "i'm not the lesbian!" if people have trouble telling them apart, it's because they are both so boring.

to help you tell them apart, try to remember this: rachel's the one pontificating like a grad student (or like diane chambers on cheers) and lizz is the one who screeches loudest.

it made me mad to see lizz try to jump my best friend today (no surprise that half-witt winstead got it wrong and aimed it at some looney who later tried to bring up the twin towers to explain how lizz's attack hurt her, how she almost lost her husband; looney, some people did lose loved 1s so quit trying to couch your arguments on their suffering). but it was also kind of funny because the show started with rachel outraged by a soldier. the one who's on trial for the prison abuse.

see it's okay to get outraged about that. it's okay not to say 'support the troops' every five seconds then. but when it comes to innocent children being killed (in real interviews the soldier's noted all the bodies of dead children) and the guy talking has also admitted (elsewhere) to being violent to his wife, rachel and lizz have to trot out 'support the troops support the troops support the troops.'

i'm going to assume rachel gets at least a little sex because she's always talking about her partner. but lizz needs to get laid bad. it would let her stop fussing about her dog and stop acting like she's 12 every time a man comes on the show in that little girl voice she uses.

but now that chuck d is obviously not going to do every show and is more of a guest than a cohost, the air america network needs to figure out what to do with unfiltered. randi's got a point of view and drives her show. mike malloy knows what he's doing. laura flanders shines.
janeane garofalo has yet to feel the need to parrot 'support our troops' and wouldn't be caught dead saying nothing while someone came on her show and tried to tell her that he went to iraq so that she could remain free and people need to be grateful.

the gals of unfiltered seem to think there show, post-election, is auditioning for an npr slot.
if lizz wants to be angry she can find a worthy target and here's a hint for her, it won't be a peace advocate who refuses to repeat some indoctrination about 'support our troops' while some guy is going on about how his service made us free.

it didn't make us free. and it's not helping iraq. someone posted naomi klein on the blog. they probably knew that even a hairbrain like lizz would know better than to dispute klein. we're not bringing peace, we're bringing a civil war. lizz can't see that because she's blinded by 'support our troops.'

the show is the most uninformed thing on the air. even al franken manages to rise above the crap that is unfiltered. each day, the gals reveal new ignorance. when citing some rolling stone magazine list of all time greats, a list they hadn't even read, they both to decide to weigh in on how bob dylan isn't that important and shouldn't be on the list.

ladies if you think music is your strong point, you obviously haven't paid attention to how bad the songs you pick to play on fridays are. and if you don't grasp why bob dylan is a legend you might as well just lean into the mikes and say, "we're professional idiots and we're shallow and uninformed and don't have any real taste."

because my best friend likes your show and because it's hosted by 2 women, i've listend to three hours of crap once too often. and heard 1 time to many how lizz created the daily show. like that's something to brag about!

jon stewart and his people took that show and turned it from a plain canvas bag into a sleek evening purse. lizz created 1 of the most useless shows on comedy central ever (no easy feat).
and then she and craig kilborne left and jon stewart came along to revamp it and give it meaning.

being the creator of the craig kilborne daily show is nothing to brag about and no real credit to flaunt on your resume.

instead of basking in someone else's glory, you might try figuring out what your show is about. right now it's jingoism and your dog and unfunny bits and interviews with centerists (at best) like nicholas kristoff. that's why it's fastly become a piece of shit.

instead of posting angry comments to the blog, maybe you should be working on trying to fix your failing show?

that was the bad and the ugly. (you can figure out who was which.)

let's move on to the good.

i'm going to talk about the new york times. the common ills covers that and i wouldn't dream of stepping on their toes. but the sunday paper had something they didn't mention: an advertising supplement for acer which is some kind of computer i'm guessing.

the front page is drool city. women and men interested in the male form need to check it out.

who is this big dick! the guy on the front is wearing a striped shirt and tie and tell me when you see his picture that you aren't wanting to grab him by the tie and pull him to the nearest mattress. hell, pull him down to the floor.

look at those eyes! that hair looks like he rushed out of bed and didn't have time to comb it.
i could lick salsa off those sideburns! i could lick salsa off his whole body. i just want to grab him by those long curls sticking out of the side of his head and pull him in for a long deep kiss. he looks like he knows how to really use his tongue. hot-hot-hot.

are those not the sexiest lips you've ever seen? he's not a pretty boy sporting foundation like the boys of the o.c. this is a man. so i won't need to say "paws off lizz, i saw him first!" lol

sunday night i was tossing out the paper when i saw him. i've got that photo pinned to the wall over the monitor. who is this sexy stud????????