i'm defending lizz winstead so you know that means she's been shit on

well i'm sad. i didn't post yesterday and i'm working with third estate sunday review right now and they're highlighting my salute to jane fonda for women's history month and wanted me to say something about that entry.

i blanked on fonda completely and just talked about how lizz winstead, no brain, is no longer part of air america's unfiltered.

it's like i'm batman and i just heard that catwoman was dead. there's just this huge void that's left. there's still the joker lurking around but let's be honest, audiences always like catwoman more and i bet batman did too.

unfiltered. they seem to think rachel maddow, big brain, can now carry the show herself. as bad as i thought lizz was (and it was bad), she wasn't boring. rachel maddow is snooze time as she tries to demonstrate to us all just how big her brain is.

can some 1 please tell her to shut up. she's like a frankenstein awkwardly veering around.

unfiltered's over if lizz is gone. i'm not sure that's a bad thing.

but i think the way lizz was treated is hideous. and i'm no fan of lizz winstead.

the common ills mocked the direction unfiltered seems to going in. i couldn't agree more. when the duo is sonny & cher, you don't put the money on sonny.

and the audience is enraged. you can't check out the unfiltered blog without seeing people pouring out their anger. there's a subtext here that seems to have especially enraged listeners which is you don't matter 1 fucking bit!

when randi rhodes gets better, will there still be a slot for her show? who knows now!

for some reason, people loved lizz. and now she's gone. and air america didn't explain it to the listeners. they just pulled her photo off the web site on friday. the same day big brain showed how out of it she was with listeners when she spoke of 'tin foil conspiracy nuts.' you know, the sort of shit you expect to hear from scotty at a white house briefing.

rachel has no on air charisma. she's so lame. blah, blah, blah she drones on. never wanting you to forget that she's considered smart.

or as audrey once said on ellen about ted koppel, 'it's like there's only 1 opinion in the world, and it has to be ted's.' that's rachel. pontificating at length repeatedly in her colorless voice, her dull monotone.

and the lesson for listeners is don't get too attached to janeane garofalo or mike malloy or laura flanders because the air america family is not really a family. it's the same old corporate bullshit where the corporation doesn't feel that they have to explain a damn thing to the 'consumers.'

on monday, lizz is on the air doing her usual shit. tuesday she's gone with no explanation but some lame 'lizz is off today.' wednesday is a repeat. thursday rachel's boring us going solo (as she did on tuesday) and still nothing. friday starts out with just rachel and still no word on lizz.
but on the web site, lizz's photo has been pulled and her bio removed.

she's been erased. she's been scrubbed. she might as well have never existed. again, i am not a lizz winstead fan so it's got to be pretty bad when i'm defending her. no 1 deserves that sort of bullshit.

and air america gave the listeners nothing. no excuse and certainly no send off for lizz.

there's a message here and it's that you don't matter and neither do the hosts. you're expendable and so are they. if you don't like it 'fuck you and go elsewhere.' and this is our progressive network?

fans of lizz winstead can send a message to air america by refusing to listen to unfiltered. change your dial or, if you listen online, try stephanie miller's show instead. they've treated you like shit. if that excites your inner masochist, keep listening. if you're not into degradation, find something else besides unfiltered to listen to.

rachel maddow, e-mails and things you should be following online

holy crap! all i can tell you is do not miss the 3rd estate sunday review this sunday. trust me, you won't be disappointed.

i've never been accused of being a tease before (snicker, laugh) but accuse me this time. i'm looking at their draft (i think c.i. is as well) and let me tell you it is something to read.

now maybe it won't make it into print. if that's the case, if they kill it, i will fill you in on what it was unless it's not killed and just pushed back 1 week.

but now we will move on to other topics. (remember do not miss 3rd estate sunday review this sunday!)

abc world news tonight remains the quality broadcast. i've gotten so many e-mails from people who say things like 'if i have to watch a televised news, it's going to be world news tonight.'

i understand what people mean. outside of democracy now (which is televised) the news is so awful. i do not mean 'where is the good news? why don't they give us the good news?' what i mean is it is so damn hard to get the truth on your television set.

and i've gotten e-mails saying, 'rebecca, i am so over tv news.' i can understand that and i'm not saying, 'come back, come back.' but if some 1 is watching tv news, i do urge that you check out abc's world news tonight because it's the best there is on network or cable from the mainstream media.

of course if you have time to spare, you should go with democracy now which is the best hour of news -- on radio, on tv or online. i watch it on tv. if i miss it, i'll usually go to the transcripts via the common ills which i'm checking out anyway.

if you missed the common ills today, you may not be aware that we reached 1,500 american solider deaths in iraq. now democracy now covered it and abc world news tonight did (i'm guessing the other evening news did as well) but there wasn't a word about it in the new york times today. i'm sure they will have some excuse like 'time constraints' but i'm not buying that. they have a staff that's overnight.

hopefully, they'll cover it today. i agree with c.i. that the new york times was pretty useless today. there was one pretty strong editorial and there was maureen dowd who was quite to the point and very funny. but the main section was so sorry. i will echo (echo-echo-echo) the praise of jodi wilgoren. i don't know what's gotten into that gal but she's actually turning out some real journalism.

kelefa had a half-way decent review of a new cd from 50 cent. it could have been great. she started off so strong. but then she went into what the sexy, smart and witty kat of kat's korner has been pointing out to many reviewers do drain the life out.

i don't need to know about every track on a cd. i do need an impression. at the start of her piece kelefa did a great job and it popped back in and out throughout.

but the that was it for the new york times today.

and if you missed kat's review of tori amos's latest cd the beekeeper, please check it out. (i am so loving this cd! remember, i am the damn beekeeper!)

and i hope you're following folding star's discussions on the bankruptcy bill at a winding road.

and as many of you pointed out in e-mails, rachel maddow was apparently back on the air live and flying solo.

or as calvin asked in his e-mail 'is she live? i think she's computer generated and that's why she is so god awful bland.' calvin, you could be right.

markus (who sadly is not markus rogan but markus does say he 'can really fill out a set of swim trunks') wondered why i call her big brain when she's so stupid?

good question, markus. well it's because big brain can't stop trying to tell us how smart she is.
sometimes no brain helps her out. but we're always being told that big brain is just the smartest person in the whole wide world.

she may test well, but i agree with markus and the taste partol of tiffany who says 'she's a fucking idiot!'

tiffany tells us that as a lesbian, she always has to reassure people she meets that 'not all lesbians are as boring as rachel.'

larry e-mails to say he's heard rumors that there may be some serious shake ups at unfiltered.
one can only hope. and with southern affiliates being added, lizz winstead will either have to stop trashing the south or else air america will have to put her in a muzzle. (would 1 fit over that long face and pointed beak?)

but my favorite e-mail today (though i loved them all) was from my good friend sherry who went into a long fantasy of what would happen if she was with the one and only cornhusker john turek after a game (hint, he's very sweaty) alone in the locker room. let's hope he has the stamina that sherry and i both dream of!

but at the end of that narrative (which should be published, it's that good), sherry offers that rachel maddow is actually a clone of . . . paul harvey! i am so seeing it, sherry!

saluting jane fonda (which means accountability for no brain lizz winstead and big brain rachel maddow)

Before I turned sixy I thought I was a feminist. I was in a way -- I worked to register women to vote, I supported women getting elected. I brought gender issues into my movie roles, I encouraged women to get strong and healthy, I read the books we've all read. I had it in my head and partly in my heart, yet I didn't fully get it.

that's jane fonda in a speech called 'v is volcano' from alternet.

it's women history's month and i didn't even realize it until i was reading the common ills this morning and saw the thing last night on gloria steinem. hey, c.i., i thought you were going to make the entries for women's history month shorter and less challenging. (i'm joking. i thought it was wonderful but there were members who wrote in about the 1st entry for black history month and c.i. had stated that the 1st entry for women's history month wouldn't be a long 1.
while it's not that long, it is very moving and encapsulates why gloria steinem is so important.)

i'd love to tell you that i was going to do something on women's history every month but let's be honest, i'll mean to and then forget. plus i haven't been making 7 days a week of blogging lately.

women's history month is important.

and i am noting it today. maybe i'll do so again. maybe i won't. that's the fun of coming to my blog. will she talk about sex? will she talk about politics? will she talk about attitude? will she just give a long screed?

you honestly never know!

i'm a woman of mystery!

keep 'em guessing!

but if i only highlight 1 woman the whole month, jane fonda is the one i would want to highlight.
for various reasons.

if you are a third estate sunday review reader (and you should be, and if you aren't why aren't you?) you may have seen their dvd review of barefoot in the park. and if you read their note to the readers, you understand why. they're going to do a dvd review of various comedies starring jane fonda as we get ready for the release of monster-in-law.

don't know monster-in-law? it's jane fonda's return to film acting. she plays a woman not thrilled to have jennifer lopez as her daughter. maybe the woman reads the tabloid and was struck by lopez's romance record?

the trailer is hilarious and i'll try to find the link that the common ills provided to it. but this is a movie that i want to see. i do like lopez. michael vartan plays jane fonda's son and he's pretty hot on alias but i truly fell for him in 1 hour photo where he demonstrated not only talent but also his knob. not enough guys flash the eye candy!

and the always funny wanda sykes is in it as well.

so i am primed for this film.

but the main reason is to see jane fonda. women love jane. we see her as a strong, brave woman who's done so much. and she's never been afraid to look back and say 'maybe i should have done that differently.' even in the speech above, she's still questioning, still growing. that's how i hope i live my life.

as a kid, i fell in love with coming home which used to air all the time. jane fonda won her 2nd oscar for that film. it's a drama. about sally hyde who goes to work at a v.a. hospital when her husband bob goes over to vietnam. sally falls in love with luke who is a paraplegic. it's a really romantic movie and i love the soundtrack.

and here's a trivia note for you. sally's husband is played by bruce dern. she falls in love with jon voight. billy bob thornton may have loved coming home too, after all he left laura dern (bruce's daughter) for angelina jolie (jon voight's daughter).

sally starts out the film very prim and as she spends hours at the v.a. hospital and is exposed to the costs of war, she begins a transformation. part of that is letting her hair go wild. and right after i saw that film, i had to have my 1st perm. every 1 said, 'oh becky, it looks just like stevie nicks!' stevie was really popular then. (i still love stevie nicks.) but i got that hair style because of the movie coming home. and jane fonda was my favorite actress.

i ended up seeing most of her films. (c.i. mentioned tout va bien not long ago and i haven't seen that film.) my favorites included klute (her first oscar), the hilarious 9 to 5, fun with dick and jane (which is being remade and i'm not really looking forward to that), julia, agnes of god, the morning after, on golden pond, barefoot in the park, sunday in new york, the dollmaker, a doll's house, cat ballou, old gringo (which i find to be an amazing mosaic), the china syndrome, california suite, eletric horseman, the game is over . . .

you get the idea? there aren't a lot of actresses who have a body of work women can be proud of. i mean melanie griffith was looking ridiculous at the oscars but i could forgive it if she had more than 1 working girl to her credit. melanie's hollywood through and through and the reason that it's so hard to take so many hollywood actresses. i can admire vanessa redgrave and emma thompson, for instance, or any number of french actresses (past and present) but most american actresses seem to really embrace their inner bimbo. not in a way where they are in the forefront but where they are the cup cake and the male lead is the meal.

i love winonna ryder but i'll never forget my shock at edward scissorhands that 1 shove knocks her out for the climatic battle. this is the gal who saved the school in heathers?

there's jodie foster and there's jane fonda. and there's not a lot of other women who come off as intelligent onscreen. if they do, they tend to not reach mega-stardom. blythe danner is an example of a strong actress onscreen but she never became a star.

if there's anything worse than playing a string of bimbos it has to be playing up to stereotypes.
shirley maclaine is a funny actress. but somewhere after terms of endearment, it seemed like she was playing old women (much older than she was) who were these extreme stereotypes.
hey it gave her a new career so good for her.

but other than steel magnolias, i'm not sure there's a film after terms of endearment that i can sit through. maclaine was and remains a pretty woman. but onscreen she's spent far too much time playing the crotchety old woman and looking 10 to 20 years older.

in steel magnolias, it works because of the story. but more often than not (especially surrounded by males), it makes it seem like 1 long 'laugh at the old lady' joke.

i like susan sarandon. and i like her even more when she plays a sexually active character and not 'mommy living her whole life for a kid.'

but jane fonda was the 1st woman over 30 and then over 40 to be a real star. look at some 1 like jessica lange who is immensely talented and you realize how hard that is. maybe only katharine hepburn pulled this off before. (bette davis rallied with all about eve and then began a long descent that was painful for fans.)

she paved the way for susan sarandon and others. and she did it by taking control of her career and forming her own production company (ipc, later fonda films). she wasn't just waiting for hollywood to cast her, she was setting up films like coming home and on golden pond.

so now that this whole 'second act' for women is a big trend story, we need to acknowledge that for actresses, jane fonda already did that.

but most of all i loved her because she was such an amazing actress. this woman studied with lee strasberg and it shows. in their review of barefoot in the park, 3rd estate noted that jane fonda is not just standing there and saying her lines, she's got the movements going on that add to the characterization. and when she's working with a master like anne bancroft (agnes of god) or vanessa redgrave (julia), there time onscreen together is just amazing.

method actors get a lot of attention . . . if they're male. we'll sing the praises of marlon brando and others. but there are method actresses as well and we tend to not notice them.

maybe that's because they tended to not do well in hollywood because of hollywood's limited view of women? if jane fonda hadn't become a producer, she could have ended up playing stereotypical women added to a film for flavor (look at faye dunaway's filmography -- and dunaway is talented).

it was only after i started reading up on jane fonda that i realized how amazing she was off screen. when she and redgrave teamed for julia, it was huge news. along with the turning point (starring anne bancroft and shirley maclaine) these were the first films in some time to star two women. she made films that mattered and still matter that rank among the best of 'new hollywood.'

but let's talk about her life. she has been so involved in so many things. like jean seberg, she went from fluff roles in this country (that she brought so much to as stanley kaufman noted in real time) to france and became an international star due to the films she made over there.

and she spoke out. she's spoken out for working women, for native americans, for black power, for gays and lesbians, for the environment, for a nuclear freeze . . .

most of all she spoke out for peace.

and when you hear rachel maddow unable to stop flapping her jaws about 'support the troops' over and over in any interview, you really start to realize how important and hard it must have been for jane fonda to do what she did.

contrary to the right wing myths, fonda wasn't anti-soldier. she was pro-peace. she helped with the g.i. coffee house movement but the right wing doesn't want to tell you that. but she spoke of peace and didn't do it by saying 'support the troops, support the troops, support the troops!'

yesterday, big brain rachel maddow has a guy on to discuss the town meetings in vermont. she can't focus on them for very long without turning into her usual lame 'support the troops' parroting. (it's strange that such a big brain is unaware of where 'support the troops' derives from or that it was propaganda created by a p.r. group to dilute anti-war messages.) (it's equally strange that a supposed big brain has never apparently read noam chomsky -- especially on this topic.)

wonder where the outrage is after abu ghraib? after the destruction of fallujah? we'll never be able to express that outrage as long as big brain and her ilk keep squawking 'support the troops! support the troops! support the troops! polly want a cracker!' and that's exactly why the slogan was created. you'd think big brain would realize that.

any criticism (and a lot of it is valid) is greeted with 'support the troops!' that's why we're still not expressing the outrage. though i agree with common ills member maria that the kids in high school and college aren't falling for this bullshit.

it's only the middle-aged cowards like rachel maddow who keep having to shut down debate by screaming 'support the troops!'

jane fonda spoke about what was going on. she didn't have the need to say 'we're bombing the dykes and it is outrageous. but support the troops!'

the only person with a public voice that stays on topic these days, that i know of any way, is naomi klein. and you'll note that naomi doesn't pop up on air america that often. (she's more likely to be on the majority report which is the most liberal of the shows during the week.) naomi gets it (and more power to her). people are dying. that's the issue big brain. not squawking 'support the troops' every five seconds.

'she's such a stupid bitch.' that's what my friend kelli said yesterday (after rachel flew solo and embarrassed herself for 3 hours. that may be why unfiltered was a repeat today.)

in 3 years we may still be where we are now because of people like rachel. as my friend elaine says 'i do not support the killing of iraqis. i do not support the destruction of fallujah.' but there's rachel and lizz winstead (big brain and no brain) piping up 'support the troops!' or 'it's tuesday so we've got the lick the balls of some military man! that's right, it's time to ask the vet!'
did you hear the voices of any men who deserted on unfiltered?

hell fucking no. those 2 bitches don't have the guts to put those voices on their dopey shit ass stink show. (amy goodman does.) instead they give us ask a vet and pet talk. they're prats. (i looked up the word.)

silly, know nothing prats.

the bitches went to atlanta last week and i listened because i was hoping after all the hate no brain's repeatedly spewed on people from the south, that some 1 would throw a pie in her overly long face. didn't happen. but i can dream.

in the meantime, we're stuck with lizz and rachel rushing to minimize anything that goes on over there by screeching 'support the troops!'

the 1s who murdered iraqis in torture/questioning? the 1s who humiliated them? which 1s are we suppoed to support? every 1 with your bullshit blanket 'support the troops' statements.

no brain and big brain are the scoop jacksons of this century. they come off like war mongers.

you get the feeling that john lennon and yoko ono would be kicked off unfiltered if it had been on the early 70s. (kind of the way tom hayden has vanished as a guest on the network.)

now there are exceptions. mike malloy expresses outrage. laura flanders never forgets the humanity. janeane garofalo is very left. but then we get 3 hours of meaningless crap chatter from lizz and rachel about pets, the o.c., their love lives (well rachel's, lizz still trolls the unfiltered blog looking for hook ups) and other meaningless crap. meaningless crap, they should change the name to that. 'hey this is no brain with big brain and we're hosting meaningless crap. our guests for the next 3 hours include center right writers for the new republic, mainstream pundints and our bob hope salute to the troops!'

i guess i just don't get how air america is supposed to change anything when big brain and no brain continue to push the center over and over.

these are two gals who think defending hillary clinton is cutting edge for the left. they have no clue.

but jane fonda did. she spoke out. and some people hated her because of it. and still hate her and they make up lies about her. but tough shit people, she spoke out. she stood up and was counted. lizz is too busy hovering like the brainless hummingbird she is and rachel's popping another brewskie from her e-z boy recliner while she scratches her groin.

we need strong voices, real voices. the occupation will not be ended as long as idiots keep repeating blanket statements that were designed to silence dissent.

jane fonda was put on an enemies list by tricky dick nixon. you get the idea that if the bully boy put malloy or flanders or janeane on an enemies list, they'd wear it like a badge of honor. not no brain and big brain, they'd whine about it for 3 hours. 'we support america!' they'd whimper.
they let themselves be boxed into this crap and that's why they are so utterly ineffective.

we need bravery. and when i think of bravery, i think of jane fonda. who fought for peace. who fought bulimia and shared her story with others.

i think of jane fonda and wonder where the strong women of today are?

so if i never get around to highlighting women's history month again this month, i want to take a moment to highlight jane fonda. she had more guts and more drive than most people. more than big brain and no brain combined.

shout outs to 3rd estate sunday review and the common ills

'2 posts in 1 day? rebecca, have you no sex plans for the evening!'

well yes, i do have sex plans.

however, i meant to give well deserved shout outs to my buds ava, dona, ty, jesse and jim at 3rd estate sunday review and c.i. at the common ills. why?

paul mcleary does a magazine report for cjr daily web site. if you've followed 3rd estate and c.i. you know that the magazine report is newsweek, time, u.s. world news . . . and then you get
the weekly standard.

what the fuck say you?

the weekly standard is not a general magazine. it is a partisan magazine.

yes, it is. and the best the left can get is a citation of the new republic (which at least 1 cjr staffer used to work at). the new republic is not left. yes, i have talked about that. but so has marty p and i've documented his comments here. it's not left. relinquish the fantasy as winona ryder
says in reality bites.

well today in the cjr daily magazine report, for the first time i am aware of, they actually highlight the nation. the best selling weekly partisan magazine.

it took forever but it finally happened.

3rd estate and c.i. deserve praise for making sure we knew about this. and a lot of people have apparently shared that sentiment on the cjr daily blog and in e-mails to cjr.

it's a sham they needed prompting but i'll just say way to go to paul mcleary who ever you are. and may this mean that cjr daily is going to start doing a better job.

and shouts to c.i. and 3rd estate for making this issue 1 we were aware of.

reasons not to watch brian williams and the problem with the male actors network suits cast in roles

a drum roll please.
top 10 reasons to tell people not to watch brian williams on nightly news:
10 he practices smell a fart pauses
9 he has dandruff (molly says look close and you can see it)
8 he is an idiot (6 people)
7 he smells like poop (7 people)
6 he eats boogers on air
5 he is uptight and prissy
4 he is the pompous asshole you ran from in school
3 he is a pig
2 he probably hired jeff gannon for 'consultations'
1 he frigs his hole between segments

sherry e-mails me that what i wrote about on thursday a little jaques wrote about on monday in the business section of the new york times. thanks for passing that on sherry. and thanks for saying 'you lead, they follow.'

i do agree it's rather sad that something they should have written about much earlier i address four days prior. sherry says that jacques doesn't even get how close the difference between peter jennings and brian williams is. and that he also has no 'historical perspective' since rather 'when he 1st took over the evening news' only lost a little of the audience but that he continued to lose and to lose.

so the point sherry is making is that brian williams is vulnerable and jaques can't see it.

the whole nbc network is vulnerable because they don't know what the fuck they are doing.

fall 2004 will be remembered as their cnn moment. like cnn who thought aping fox would increase their ratings, nbc thought aping what others were doing would increase their ratings.

for 20 years, nbc has been the home of the comedy and they've given that up. they don't know how to make people laugh lately. joey is a hideous show (as my pals at the 3rd estate sunday review have repeatedly noted). and yet they built thursday night around this.

they may lose will & grace at the end of this year (every 1's contract is up) and it's the last good sitcom on nbc or any where. when it's gone, expect more fat man married to thin woman comedies.

nbc doesn't get it. their viewers weren't the junior high kids. but they also didn't have cbs graying audience. they had the 18 to 49 year olds that advertisers wanted.

they didn't get that with law & order. they didn't get that by having retro bullshit sitcoms.

they got that by having sitcoms that reflected that audience. seinfeld, friends and others.

their biggest mistake in the spring of 2004 was cancelling whoopi because that was a show that was getting attention. you had characters who would only continue to get more interesting, not the bland or bland with a dash of quirk bullshit they push off on you now.

there's no 1 on joey that resembles a human being.

in the 70s you had sitcoms like the classic mary tyler moore show, all in the family, maude, the bob newhart show and others where the comedy was based on things the writers saw in their own lives. the problems with sitcoms today is that they are based on what the writers saw on another show or a movie.

king of queens is a hideous, hideous show. i saw a rerun of it while flipping channels this week. the african-american couple (i don't know any of the names of the characters, sorry) were picking a couple to be the god parents to their children. fat man and thin woman were not picked. at the christening, they went around trying to upset the couple that way. the man who was chosen says he does not watch basketball because 'it's a bunch of pitutary glands . . .'

get the problem? it was a funny line. in 1977 when it was said in the movie annie hall.

you see that all the time. a popular film to steal from is tootsie. 'i said good day' is a line dorothy michaels (dustin hoffman) says in that movie. then 'i said good day, sir.' how often do you hear that on everybody loves raymond? how often do you hear that on every sitcom?

it was funny in tootsie. it's not funny when people who can't write about their own lives steal from movies.

here's another problem nbc might want to consider fixing -- ugly guys.

i really don't think america needs any more fat men, thin wives sitcoms. but they also do not need this bullshit of ugly guys paired up with beautiful women.

you get the idea that the network suits are scared of casting hot guys. they'll cast some 1 slightly better looking. when friends started matt leblanc hadn't turned into big fatty and was actually cute. that's why rachel could say 'you're so pretty.' but they seem to think that women are going to sit through tits and ass on display and not notice that the men are either ugly or plain.

i know women who watched that lame hawaii 5-0 rip off on nbc briefly this fall just to see the hunky ivan sergei. the show's cancelled. get him on a sitcom.

he can't act? so what. do you think we watched dharma and greg because we thought greg was a great actor? no, we watched it because we all wanted to change places with dharma. and when dharma fell for the hercules refugee we recoiled in horror.

i have 3 friends who watch that hideous beastmaster just to see the hottie in the loincloth.

ike barenholtz was in falling around in his underwear on mad tv saturday night. i didn't see it.
but i heard about it from 4 women sunday. he wore tighty whities. and that got a bit of buzz.
i think he's like jimmy fallon in that he's in a cute phase he may leave quickly. but women do find him sexy right now. and we like to see guys in their underwear.

when he's shirtless or has his shirt open while he's doing the abercrombie & fitch spoofs on mad tv, my phone won't stop ringing with friends calling and saying 'turn it on rebecca! he's showing flesh!'

but instead of a hottie, the suits love the jonathan silvermans. we didn't find him hot on gimmie a break and we don't find him hot now. he's a dud, network suits.

we don't lust after him.

abc's getting ready to push john stamos in a sitcom. i can tell you that if it's funny, it will have an audience. if they parade him around in briefs, it doesn't have to be that funny.

and that's not a boxers v. briefs argument. i know women who prefer their men in boxers but want guys filmed in briefs and the reason for that is the boxers they put these guys in onscreen are so nonsexy! unless the guys wearing boxer briefs, you can't even enjoy a butt shot because the boxers are so loose they flap around back there. apparently no 1 wears tapered boxers in hollywood?

put john stamos in briefs and put him in them often and we'll watch. he's sexy. he hasn't yet hit the tony danza wall that charlie sheen's reached where the body is gone and you may as well be in home depot because you'll see that boxy shape on every guy there.

some day the networks may get that just as guys like to look at the sports illustrated swimsuit mag even though they'll never marry a swimsuit model, women like to look at hotties even though they know they'll never get a ck underwear model.

stop putting the stocky guys in the leading roles of these failed shows and we'll pay attention.
there's not a girl i went to school with that didn't drool over the hottest guy on campus. but apparently the suits didn't get that. or understand the meaning of a 'wet day.' (as in, 'oh look at him! i'm having a wet day now!')

did they miss that tom cruise became a star because he danced around onscreen in his bvds?
he left the hot phase long ago, but even women who loathe him remember that dance.

if they signed jimmy fallon for a sitcom tomorrow, made the pilot him being in his briefs for the first 1/2 of the show (maybe he's locked out of the apartment, maybe some woman tricks him into thinking they'll have sex and runs off with his clothes to get back at him), i guarantee you that the ratings would be high.

boos and hisses to joey biden and billy keller

well give it up for c.i. yesterday the common ills had a blog post called 'welcome to the new iraq' which once again took the happy talkers to task. after listing some of what was going on this week, c.i. concludes with:

Now does someone want to do happy talk like last weekend about the new Iraq?

bop. bop hillary on her head if you ask me.

known cheater and speech stealer joe biden was on the sunday talk show circuit yesterday, the chat and chew if i can steal from c.i., and was it just me or is all of america saying 'joe, you're cheating off the wrong person this time!'

i mean come on joe. you want to follow a senator, follow a boxer, a feingold. not hillary as she attempts to morph into joe lieberman.

joe's coming off like hillary's lackey as he pushes the notion that she's electable. as if. apparently he thinks he has a shot at getting on the ticket? bald has gone over so well in the past, right?

oh wrong. in fact, have we had a bald president since lbj? have we had a bald vice president?

but keep hooking yourself onto hillary's falling star joe.

let's move to something a little less sleazy . . . well that leaves just about everything.

but let's shoot high and talk about the wonderful kids putting out the third estate sunday review. please make it a point to check them out.

they are doing some great work. every sunday they put out their 'paper' and there's always something worth reading for information, something for giggles, something to make you think.
jesse, ty, ava, dona and jim are just the greatest.

i got to add some input this weekend on some stuff as they were getting ready to go to 'print' and it's always a lot of fun and a free for all exchange of ideas.

the article i want to highlight today is 'being bill keller-vich.' if you don't know bill keller, he is the executive editor of the new york times. and he's been spouting off a lot lately. bill's the little brat at the pool who wants to splash the other kids but when they splash back goes running to mommy going 'oh my hair! mommy, they got my hair wet!'

he wants to slime bloggers and then run back behind arthur ochs and go 'i'm a newspaper man, make them leave me alone, artie!'

so silly billy decides to weigh in that some bloggers are just like a circle jerk.

now normally, anything anyone from the new york times is supsect in my book. i mean, hello, judy miller! and of course, not having a penis, i've never been invited into a circle jerk. (cue janis ian's 'at 17.') but i'll take keller's word for it on this.

why am i so trusting when it comes to keller? well i'm not. but if figure every 1 has 1 area they are an expert in. and i'm guessing that circle jerks are something billy keller knows a lot about and that's he's participated in quite a few. hell, he may still particpate. 'davey sanger, go get safire! bobby pear, go grab tommy zeller! grab all the guys but that tommy friedman! he always cries when he loses!'

in the good news department: janeane garofalo is hosting the majority report tonight with bill scher and if only that could be the case every night. what a great show.