blind item -- the he thing

so last night i'm in the middle of sexual olympics and win the gold many times over but, in the process, i miss out on all the drama so many of you caught yesterday.

the post you saw elsewhere has been pulled and and i'll call the person mr. blank because it's not really about 1 person, it's about an attitude that i want to address.

here are the basics. mr. blank co-sets up a new blog on an issue that really means something to him. he's wanting people to help out. though he knows a tracking device is anathema to many, he proceeds to refer them and any 1 else who visits the new site over to 1 with a counter.

then he explodes in a post that's now been deleted.

fuck this and fuck that, throwing out the title of john lennon's 'how do you sleep?' (which kat says he completely misread by the way.) (angry men have been tossing out titles of john lennon a lot this week, haven't they? from all sides.) telling people they are full of shit and on and on and on and on. the way that only a man is really comfortable running on off at the mouth and yelling at people who failed to come to his party.

coz that's what it was. an invitation.

and the invitation was declined.

a good host/ess might trash some 1 in private for failing to show. a good host/ess doesn't leap to the soap box and trash every 1 who failed to party down.

(i didn't party down. i was busy having sex all day yesterday except when posting. truly it was a sexual olympics.)

i read a draft of a response that was passed on to me. i'll quote the part where i'm mentioned:
'and he, as rebecca says, "isn't it always a he?" . . .'

well isn't it?

for all the drag kings like ann coulter, this sort of over the top reaction really is a male thing still.
call it the he thing.

i'm guessing that mr. blank's party either didn't fair to well with other guests or mr. blank is unable to take joy in the fact that some people did show.

but this attitude of i will scream and bellow at people i've courted for not compromising their own beliefs and attending my party is an attitude that goes beyond who's dick is bigger.

mr. blank, we get it. you got a big hairy pair.

now put 'em back in your pants and back the fuck off.

reading that now deleted post (thank you dallas), i was appalled.

this wasn't 'i'm going to try to make a point.' this wasn't 'i'm going to be funny and snide.' this wasn't even 'i'm just going to be bitchy.' this was a full on attack at people who mr. blanks claims to like. if this had happened in my kitchen, i would have grabbed mr. blank's arm, pulled him away from whatever woman he was yelling out while he got red in the face, and told him, 'you need to take a walk.'

there's not an excuse for it.

it was flat about abusive.

i showed it to elaine for her input (due to her medical training) and, no surprise, she'd already seen it. she gave me a 30 minute analysis of it. but what it boils down to, besides control issues and fear of abandonment (among other things) was that nobody is going to have the last word with da big man.

oh hell no. oh fuck no.

i'm truly tired of men who pass themselves off as your friend and then tell you what to do. and if you don't do it, they think they can scream at you.

that's probably why i'm able to remain on good terms with my ex-husband, he never pulled that shit.

elaine didn't attend mr. blank's party. but elaine had already registered her opinions re: the case loudly and clearly. as did many others because the people who were screamed at are resourceful 1s. and if you throw up a road block, they'll find another way to do what needs to be done.

but because it wasn't done via mr. blank's party, it's not good enough. his party, his rules.

you know, al from thinks he can tell us all what to do. and that he can browbeat us and rage at us when we blow him off.

mr. blank did the same thing.

it's the crazy uncle who got drunk at the family picnic and started getting abusive.

no 1 respects that. no 1 wants to be around that.

and i'm damn tired of boys who have to play with their little wenuses thinking they're proving how manly they are when pissed off by pissing on some 1.

the he thing is so destructive because the men involved never want to admit what's it really about which is that because they are such goddamn important men, what they say goes and everybody else better fall the fuck in line.

when i choose my target, as i've noted before, i choose it wisely. i confirm with others that this person who's pushing false notions of democrats is indeed a creep and then i let hurl.

mr. blank chose to tar and feather and entire community not because they didn't care about an issue but because they didn't want to go to a site with counters.

i've heard the arugments from bloggers who write in defending the counters. i've also heard, and maybe the blogger was lying, that thanks to the trackers, not only could he (it's always a he) follow where you came from and where you went after but he also saw an e-mail being composed by someone visiting his site.

so excuse the fuck out of the community is they want to avoid counters and trackers.

third estate sunday review had a good comment that goes something like this: justifying tracking with the comments that corporations do it means that you should now start dumping in the hudson river too.

it's no big deal? then why the fuck doesn't any 1 address it?

while losing my soul to public relations, elaine steered me towards volunteering. i helped out a women's shelter (more than just money) and i didn't need that to open my eyes.

big tough ballsy men who can't leave their own little zone of existence will never know what a woman who's been battered has been through. a visit to your site shouldn't leave them fearful.

ms., years ago, did a story about the warranty cards and how some businesses wouldn't take out ads in ms. ('sex, lies & advertising' by gloria stenimen) because, the business argued, women must not buy their products because they didn't send the cards in.

well women grasp that promises and reality are two different things.

too many of us have gone home with too many loud mouths only to find out that all the action was in their mouth. (and sadly they usually don't do oral -- though of course they expect it to be done to them.)

so a card full of promises that probably won't bear out don't cause women to turn over their personal information.

check with some women outside of 1 of the huge cities, where 2 story apartment complexes are the norm, and ask them 'do you live on the 1st floor or the 2nd floor?' that's a thought that never enters into a big balls brain because they don't usually worry that some 1 is going to break in and rape them.

only a man would demand that you surrender a part of yourself to help them and then turn around and scream at you when you refuse to do so. and to not grasp the power of no is truly a man thing.

women have said no more friday nights than we can count. we realize that we can just lie there and be invaded by some drunken asshole or we can excercise our no.

maybe it wasn't a party we were all invited to? maybe it was an orgy and while pulling out their big hairy balls, certain men were also erect (viagra?) and they had to go home with blue balls because we didn't participate?

like a frustrated teenager who thought he was going to break off a piece, mr. blank needs to realize that he doesn't set the rules. and that we can say no any damn time we want.

these testostroni flashes of rage aren't becoming. and men in the blog world need to realize that no matter how they set themselves up as leaders, we'll decide what we do.

that's women and that's men because thankfully more and more men today realize that no means no.

but drunk, horny and feeling rejected and emasculated, certain men think they can rage and scream and attack and abuse.

it's not appropriate and it's not something that should ever happen again.


know your resources that are out there: danny schechter's news dissector & the rachel maddow show

personal note at the start to some 1 who had a difficult day (medically), hope you're feeling okay and let me know if there's anything i can do.

so let's talk about resources. danny schechter does the news dissector blog over at media channel. if you haven't checked it out, you should. you get a nice overview of the day. not just the day domestically but globally.

and by globally, i don't just mean iraq. there are other countries in this world besides iraq and the united states though sometimes you'd have to wonder by how little is covered online.

maybe that's a reflection of what's happening with our media which has seen non-stop cuts in international coverage. with the tsunami, it looked as though we might be turning a corner and going back to showing some interest in the world. but that really hasn't happened.

if you watch democracy now, you get the world. but tell me how much you know about nepal from anywhere else? pick a country, any country. did you hear about the outbreak and who?
if so, name the country.

as a common ills community member, i can cheat and say 'well i know people can go there for international coverage.' but it's not like i'm commenting on any thing other than iraq here so don't think i'm pointing fingers and unaware of my own failings.

but danny schechter does a strong job of covering the world around us.

i'll also note that if you haven't yet seen his film wmd, you should make a point to.

in the roundtable, over at the third estate sunday review, we were talking and i made this comment:

Fox "News" is bullshit but I think it was Danny Schechter who made the point about how easy it was to dog pile on them and to avoid dealing with the realities at other media outlets.

if you didn't get that, you haven't seen wmd. fox 'news' lies, big surprise. but they were far from the only cheerleaders in this war that's cost the lives of over 1500 americans, an untold number of iraqis, as well as the lives of many whose country decided to be part of the coalition.

the buck doesn't stop with fox 'news.' and it wasn't on fox 'news' that cokie roberts made her idiotic 'none that matter' statement.

for those concerned with privacy, you can sign up for e-mails and never need to visit the site.
just go to the main page and sign up and then you'll get the news dissector e-mailed to you.

i also want to remind you that tomorrow on air america, the rachel maddow show debuts.

she's trying to do a front page of items that should be on the front page and it should be interesting so listen if you have the opportunity. visit the rachel maddow show for more information. you can also go to this entry that c.i. did over at the common ills.


let's talk about social security

just yesterday in the new york times, paul krugman wrote about our ailing health care system and he wasn't talking about medicare. judging by the letters sections of monday's paper, the bully boy's 'nothing but paper' scam didn't play out with readers of the new york times.

so yesterday i'm on the ferry and i'm standing there when a woman with 1 of those mcpapers comes over to chat.

after she's done talking about the pope, she wasn't catholic, and michael jackson, she gets around to social security. and i ask her what she thinks.

she responds 'well the president says social security is in trouble.'

freeze frame right there.

bully boy wins via a lack of information.

this is an important point.

this doesn't mean that she's in need of talking points.

when i addressed social security awhile back, i did it without talking points.

i'm not a social security expert, i've never pretended to be.

but at the time, if you'll remember, we were being flooded with facts, numbers and factoids.

now in advertising, you get 1 fact or 'fact.' for instance, '4 out of 5 dentists.' that's about all some 1 new to the discussion can handle.

so when people were listing off facts, which hopefully they'd come to on their own and weren't cribbing from some 1 else, i was watching that play out and thinking, 'they are going to lose a lot of people.'

here, i'm communicating. i keep it basic and simple which may be a reflection of my knowledge base but it is a reflection of what i learned doing public relations.

there's a phrase we've all heard: keep it simple, stupid.

there's a reason we've all heard it.

people listing facts and factoids (people on the left) did a great job reaching out to people who were able to conceptualize what was being discussed. but readers at this site often complained about feeling like those presentations were beating them over the head or over their heads.

the early battle was won, but if the left wants to win this war bully boy has declared on social security, they might move on to other methods. and i was thinking about that on the ferry.

remember where we left off? let's roll tape.

the friendly woman in her mid-to-late 30s has said to me that the bully boy says there's a problem with social security. i'm about to ask her a question when some 1 invites themselves in (butts in) on our conversation.

pushy man starts lecturing her (hectoring her?) with various facts and figures.

on the 1 hand i'm thinking 'uh, who invited you into this conversation?'; on the other hand i'm thinking, 'you are losing her.'

i don't know if pushy was an economist or if he'd just learned the talking points but you couldn't look over at the woman and not notice her eyes glazing over.

pushy finished his lecture and then stormed off looking quite pleased with himself.

i asked her what she thought of what pushy had said.

'my head is spinning,' was her response.

the left needs to realize what the bully boy already does. the 'it's just paper!' stunt wasn't aimed at the people following the details, it was aimed at the people who haven't paid attention or who
weren't able to follow the ins and outs of economic theory.

think about it a minute and you'll realize most people in this country didn't take economics. if you're lucky, you'll find some that took accounting in high school.

i'm calling on my readers not to deliver talking points or speeches but to sound the people out.
a lot of them are interested but you're going to need to tie it into their own lives or find some other way that they can relate.

this woman, like many of us, couldn't visualize trillions and you're going to lose her if you're not careful.

krugman's column was fresh on my mind because i'd just read it that morning. and i'd read his other columns where the topic was social security. so it would have been really easy to just launch into that.

do yourself and our country a favor, sound people out.

i spoke with her and the thing she got from pushy's lecture, the only thing, was that at some point in the future (2042) social security will face a 'shortfall.'

here's the first tip, don't use 'shortfall.' if your average person knows that term, they know it as something they hear from their municipal government or their state government whenever it's time to raise taxes or cut services.

put it in simple terms. for every dollar that social security pays now, if nothing's done, then by 2042, they'd be paying 75 cents instead of a dollar.

3 quarters she understood. she grasped that. 'so this isn't a crisis, just belt tightening.'

from there, you can talk about how reversing the tax cuts for the very rich will take care of the problem right away.

but you're not going to get to that point by overwhelming people with figures.

and we need to be working on putting a face on the issue if we're wanting to expand beyond the people who are already in the know.

we have won the first battle. but bully boy knows that. what was laughable to many of us was
serious to people who have been left out the conversation. lecturing won't work, you need to engage and you need to use a method other than reeling off facts and figures.

right now we've probably got a slight lead in the debate and it would be very easy to grow overconfident or think we don't need to reach people who haven't been paying attention. but bully boy's doing p.r. 101. and while we laugh about it because we know the 'facts' we need to realize that others don't.

if you think about it, some of our biggest mistakes have come from expecting that every 1 would grasp the facts. afterwards, we're left scratching our heads and wondering how so many people could have fallen for whatever lie.

we have to move the conversation to an area that includes every 1. a defeat for the bully boy is great. an overwhelming 1 would damage his future proposals. so put on your thinking caps and if you find something that works, e-mail me at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com. tomorrow we'll talk about danny schechter and media channel but if you've got a story you want to share, we can do that too. friday, we'll talk some more about the patriot act and i'm leaving thursday open right now.

i'll add that if you haven't read the common ills this morning, don't miss c.i.'s post on how the times still can't bring themselves to inform readers of the full truth about what happened at the protests against the gop convention.


fair, extra, the common ills, the third estate sunday review, powell books, becoming better news consumers

so i'm on the ferry and i get drawn into a conversation. i'll write about it tomorrow, the topic is social security.

but i want to try to stay on top of what we can do and how we define ourselves at least once a week.

after i caught democracy now today, i went online and was catching up on what i'd missed the last few days. sunday i didn't get online until i was getting ready to post.

i have a lot of fun with the gang from the third estate sunday review but after an all nighter i do need sleep. and since that starts on saturday, i'm out of commission web wise in terms of surfing for most of saturday too. so i'm going around and i found a few things. including this at the common ills:

Lastly, we'll note this from Extra! (the magazine put out by FAIR), "Fear & Favor 2004 — FAIR's Fifth Annual Report: How power shapes the news" by Peter Hart and Julie Hollar.It's informative and worth reading. Here's an overview paragraph from the article:
The Fear & Favor report is an attempt to illustrate this growing encroachment on journalism with real examples that have been made public--not an exhaustive list by any means, but a reminder that such pressures exist, and that reporters serve the best interests of citizens and the journalistic profession by coming forward with their own accounts.

so i ended up making a trip to the bookstore and picking up a copy of extra and i want to pass this on because maybe, like me, you aren't that up on fair. fair stands for 'fairness & accuracy in reporting.' c.i.'s highlighted them from time to time over at the common ills and i've enjoyed the highlights but the title of this article (which is available online, use the link) made me want to go out and buy the magazine.

if you've got the money to spare, by all means, go out and buy this issue which costs $3.95. if you can't visit fair's site for extra and you'll find somethings are made available.

but here's something else you can do, you can sign up for e-mailed action alerts at the main page for fair.

since i don't recommend that any 1 do anything i'm not willing to do, i'll note that i signed up today. what's the point of this?

now maybe that's for you and maybe it isn't. but think about it. do it if it's something you're interested in. maybe you think, 'rebecca, do you know how many e-mails i get a day already?'
fine. we'll note them from time to time here.

but i know from c.i. that fair is 1 of the groups that gives you action tips. danny schechter's news dissector over at media channel is another. and after this posts, i'll go sign up there. tomorrow, i'll be writing about social security so hopefully by the day after i'll have an action alert from danny's site and can let you know the sort of things you can find there.

in the third estate sunday review roundtable, c.i. brought up the issue that just because a link's on a page some 1 visits doesn't mean that they'll click on the link. c.i. offered that they may not have the time or they may have privacy concerns.

i understand that. and i'm not asking you to join me in the fight against extending the patriot act to protect your own privacy on the one hand, while on the other hand i'm pouring over various data on you. i don't track. the common ills doesn't track visitors. those of us who were community members of the common ills and then decided to blog had to deal with that issue.
and we've all decided to say 'no' to tracking. that means folding star over at a winding road isn't tracking you, or the third estate sunday review, or blog betty at thomas friedman is a great man.

or me at the site you're reading right now.

last night on the laura flanders show (yes, c.i. has got me interested in that show too) there was a woman on explaining that when you're doing a simple search on amazon.com, you are being tracked by that company - which supported the bully boy in the elections, by the way. she recommended that you use powell's books instead. so i'll recommend that and i'll make a note to make it a permanent link the next time i am in the template.

but my belief is that no 1 has a right to ask you to come visit and then to track you. i feel that way about tracking devices on items i buy as well. if i've just bought some slip at a store in the mall, i don't think a device should be on it that 'readers' throughout the mall can pick up.

did you see minority report? when tom cruise walks through that mall (i think it was a mall) and as he passes there all these hellos to his character using his character's name? i don't believe that.

if you want my business you better tell me that you are tracking if you are tracking. that's an issue that's been raised over at the common ills many times.

people may seem it as harmless, but tell me the justice department doesn't see it as 'harmless' as well. bully boy wants us to trust the government with information they compile. web sites want us to trust them with our information they're compiling.

you have a right to expect privacy online.

it's what we can do. it's about becoming a wiser news consumer. what's that saying, 'won't get fooled again.' it's about increasing your knowledge and saying that you won't just be a passive consumer fed the news but some 1 who wants to be informed.

if you don't check out links, that's fine. i'll be highlighting resources here.

but to those of you who e-mailed me about the roundtable, you were mainly talking about c.i.'s remarks regarding how things played out in the media after september 11, 2001. sherry probably summed it up best when she said, 'c.i. is so right. look how long it took for us to go from that day to even mild criticism of the bully boy. we need to know that other voices are out there. it's arming ourselves to defend democracy.'

sherry is quite right. if something awful happens, we can't count on our tv sets to provide us voices from the spectrum. instead we'll get the far right, the right and the centerists who cave every time. so instead of putting off educating ourselves, the time is now to start.


check out 3rd estate sunday review's editorial, betty's latest and c.i. over at the common ills

i want to start out by noting the third estate sunday review's "Editorial: You say you're doing a Blog Report." as readers here know, there was no thursday post as a result of blogger. but you didn't hear about that from the blog reporters at cjr daily or slate. this editorial asks how you can call yourself a blog reporter and miss one of the biggest stories of last week?

for those of you who e-mailed about posts yesterday, as most of you know, on saturdays, betty, c.i. and i help out the gang at the third estate sunday review in any way we can.

and while we're talking about blog betty, who is just wonderful and amazingly funny, let's note that she has a new post up today. the premise of the column is that thomas friedman opens the paper to learn that the op-ed schedule has been changed and his column no longer runs on sunday but on friday instead. (i belive he has a column running on wednesdays.)

so high tail it on over to blog betty and read 'My husband Thomas Friedman says "The world is going to hell in an Enstrom's Gift Basket."' trust me, you will laugh.

i'll also steer you over to c.i. at the common ills for a number of things.

1st, note "Raymond Bonner's "Australia Uneasy about U.S. Detainee Case" is buried in this morning's New York Times (seek it out)" from today.

i'll quote from it (including the shout out to me!):

"Cardinals Hint At the Profile Of a New Pope" may be on the front page, but "hint" or not, it's not really news. It's speculation. And it will be of interest to some. (Though I think the death pageant has lost its luster at last.) But it's not front page news. (The next Pope, according to NPR, will be announced the Monday after next. Check my math, but that's eight days from now. Hopefully, we're not expected to suffer through public relations releases passing themselves off as news for the entire time, as Rebecca's noted, but who knows?)
"Charles and Camilla, Married at Last, and With Hardly a Hitch" graces the front page, as opposed to the social register. I'm holding my tongue out of respect for our UK community members (some of whom we'll wish I'd let it rip -- Camilla and Charles aren't that popular with out members). But Bonner's story isn't. Bonner's story is on A14. Maybe had one of the the detainees posed for photos wearing a floppy hat like Camilla or a dress whose bottom appeared a slight tribute to Wilma Flinstone, Bonner could have graced the front page.
But regardless of where the New York Timid places Bonner's story today, it is news. They can bury it, but it's still news. Who knows, maybe they'll pull Bonner from his beat if the Bully Boy makes the same sort of noises the Reagan administration did in the eighties?

2nd, note "Let's talk New York Times . . ." building on a number of things (including my entry here friday), c.i. notes:

Ron (Why Are We Back In Iraq?) e-mailed me a story from Editor & Publisher. (Thank you, Ron.)
Joe Strupp's "Fired 'NYT' Foreign Correspondent Angrily DeniesCharges" doesn't paint a picture of a responsible press.

Here's another part:

But I do know that having embarrassed themselves with the Green Zone reporting repeatedly (which is getting as bad as Judith Miller's pre-invasion reporting), the last thing the Times needs is another scandal. But they have it now by firing someone they allege gossipped.
Having pushed the "values debate" (Adam Nagourney) over and over until January rolled around when suddenly they (Adam Nagourney) scratched their heads and seemed to wonder how that false narrative got started (one Frank Rich said at the time was false), maybe they shouldn't fire someone they allege squealed on extra-marital going ons in the Green Zone?
Hey, the Times pushed that "values" nonsense like crazy. They pushed the "red" state/"blue" state narrative like crazy. (Whether they realized it or not, it was in their own interests to do so.
The Times is centerists and the centerists Dems were trying to use that nonsense -- and continue to try to use it -- to push the party to the right.) Having done their part (and then some) to force the "values" debate, if Sachs squealed (if, we're giving her the benefit of the doubt) on affairs (I have no idea if the charges are true) then wouldn't that be her "value" responsibility? Didn't we have a preacher, not all that long ago, get away with squealing on a woman who was having an affair? She spoke to the clergy member in privacy but he felt his duty to the bounds of marriage was to great to remain silent. (Or that's what he said anyway.)
So by the same token, having pushed the "values" narrative, maybe the Times is in no position to fire anyone they think might have passed on extra-marital rumors or news?
But they did that. And now they look silly. And this will be talked about and talked about. (Hey, anything to take the focus of Judith Miller, I guess.) If the rumors were false, then Burns & Filkins should be able to straighten their own personal lives out without anyone being fired.
If they were true, the Times operates under some "what happens in the Green Zone, stays in the Green Zone" policy that's unwritten but long in play at the Grey Lady.Sachs was fired for allegedy outing alleged private behaviors of Dexter Filkins and John F. Burns.
Anyone else raising an eye brow?Anyone else thinking, "But Daniel Okrent outed a private citizen, named him, gave his city and state, over his objection. Over a private e-mail to a reporter for the Times. It wasn't meant for publication, though Okrent quoted from this private correspondence without permission which is legally questionable since he identified the author, and he put the paper of record in a strange position to say the least.
According to Randy Cohen, Okrent was "censured" over that. The paper never saw fit to inform the readers of that. But, if Cohen was correct, he wasn't fired over it. Guess that tells you whom the Times values and whom it doesn't.
Okrent's stepping down (at the pre-arranged end of his tenure) and some of his peers rush up to toss a halo on him and speak of all the great things he did as the public editor, as the readers' advocate. They ignore that he outed a reader, that he behaved in a manner that not only appeared petty but also appeared to place himself and the paper on questionable legal grounds.
Now we learn that Sachs is fired for allegedly outing two alleged cheaters.
If Filkins and Burns are humiliated (or their spouses), blame the Times and not Sachs. If she were guilty (if), the Times botched it (as usual) and thereby allowed the news to travel far beyond anything that whomever wrote the letters and e-mails did.
The New York Times just can't seem to get its act together these days. There are a lot of people putting things into print about the paper. There's the rumor that Judith Miller forced Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.'s hand. (E-mails to this site state his hand wasn't forced. He was backing Miller from day one. Due to the long nature of his and Miller's relationship, I'm inclined to believe those e-mails.)
In the past year, we've seen a lot of journalists make news. Jane Mayer and Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker, for instance. But they made news on the basis of their reporting. More and more, the Times is making news not for anything in the paper but for what's going on behind the scenes. That ought to worry the paper because image is what has always kept it afloat.

that was from late friday. i love it when c.i. rips into the new york timid!

the third thing from the common ills that i'll note is 'Mike Papantonio: "The problem is when we turn on the TV and we think John Stossel or Cokie Roberts or Brit Hume or Tim Russert are on our side."' this is about a hard hitting segment on ring of fire and it's worth reading.

lastly, bronwyn e-mails that she thought that the attention c.i. and i both gave to the patriot act was a bit much and 'just didn't get it.' but then, bronwyn writes, she read the editorial in this morning's new york times and now gets the point. bronwyn, glad to have you on board. my guess on why you didn't get it, you wrote 'none of the other blogs are writing about it.' well that's interesting and i guess it's not an issue to them. i'd love it if you'd written that some blogger wrote about it and convinced you. or that you were listening to the laura flanders show right now, like i am, and were informed there. but sometimes even the new york times gets it right. (i haven't read the editorial. i have finished the style section and plan to look at the magazine next.) so if the times wrote a strong editorial, more power to them. but if you're visiting 'practically every site' (i find that hard to believe but maybe you live in front of your computer) and you weren't hearing about the patriot act at other sites, you might want to ask yourself what you did hear about? you mention that i didn't 'cover the pope really until friday.'
bronwyn, did the world need more chatter about the pope?