monster-in-law is now playing don't miss it

jane fonda is hilarious in monster-in-law. i saw it this afternoon with some friends and will be see it again this evening with some more friends. don't believe the bullshitters, it's fucking funny. you'll laugh your ass off. the theater this afternoon was packed and everyone was laughing like crazy. there's not a bad performance in the entire cast.

jennifer lopez has never been better. jane fonda and wanda sykes make a hilarious team riffing off 1 another. c.i. sent some of the bullshit reviews yesterday including 1 by little lisa who writes for entertainment weekly.

i read that and though 'oh no, it's not going to be funny.' c.i. had noted how little lisa bitches about everything and told me the film was not the film little lisa was describing. i'm guessing little lisa last laughed in 1991.

see the movie. it's hilarious. jane fonda is amazing. and i'm seeing now why ava and c.i. highlighted things in their reviews of 9 to 5 and their reviews of the electric horseman. they had bullshit critics nailed and they prepared you for the bullshit that was coming down the pike out of the droll mouths of idiots who review movies for the new yorker and entertainment weekly.

it's a movie that will make you laugh like crazy. i've already e-mailed jim to suggest that the bullshit david and little lisa (david & lisa - now that's a dreary pair) be addressed. i'll save my other comments for when that happens. but i know ava and c.i. will have just the right thing to say because unlike little lisa and ditsy david, they know what they're talking about.

see the movie and prepare to laugh your ass off. take some friends who like to laugh with you. but if you're surrounded by david & lisas in your own life, do yourself a favor. ditch the wet blankets and see it by yourself. you won't be sorry.

c.i. has posted isaiah's drawing of jane fonda again because shirley wanted to be sure every 1 remembered the film came out today. if you missed the drawing before, check it out now. isaiah's very talented.

c.i. also noted peter travers' review of monster-in-law from rolling stone:

Fonda, like Robert De Niro -- her co-star in her previous film, 1990's Stanley and Iris -- is on the low-comic road to a Meet the Fockers pot of gold. Snobs be damned. It's a hoot to watch Fonda cut loose and mix it up with J. Lo, even when the laughs turn mean-spirited. Broadway legend Elaine Stritch is killer funny as Viola's own monster-in-law. Fonda, be it as Hanoi Jane or workout queen, keeps springing surprises. Knockabout comic is just the latest incarnation in Fonda's life so far. Let her rip.

don't believe the hype or some idiot's baggage.

fonda's excellent in the film and you won't stop laughing. go see monster-in-law this weekend.


jill is moving from third wave agenda to feministe

if you've ever checked out third wave agenda, you know jill is a smart woman. i don't do a great deal of links but c.i. did tell me, repeatedly, to check out jill. when i finally did, i put her on the blog roll. though third wave agenda will go on with occasional posts, jill is now going to be posting at feministe.

martha and maria both e-mailed me heads up and c.i. phoned me.

i agree jill is an important voice and i'm happy to link to her. i will also congratulations to her for graduating college and getting into duke. a lot of us have huge hopes for jill and, fortunately, she's a strong enough woman to carry those expecations. she's 1 to watch and i'm sure she'll surprise and delight us in ways we can't even imagine right now.

i almost did a thing here on jill's last column but i saw c.i.'s thing at the common ills and felt i had nothing more to add. c.i. and maria have already spotlighted jill's last regular blog at third wave agenda:

Maria e-mails to note Jill's latest at Third Wave Agenda:
Third Wave Agenda, as we know it, is over.
Lauren of Feministe has asked me to co-blog with her, and because she and her blog are so amazing, there was no way I could turn down that offer. I'm really excited to be posting over there, and I hope that all the great, loyal commenters will follow me!
I'm not sure what the future of Third Wave Agenda will be. I'll probably keep posting on it, but posts will probably be few and far between and it will likely turn into something a bit more personal and much less political -- the interesting political stuff will go on Feministe, while the stupid crap about "feelings" and what I did today will go here. So, it will probably be very boring to anyone who doesn't know me (and honestly, most people who do know me will probably be bored with it too). And while I hate going all Livejournal on people, hopefully when ya'll see how rad Feministe is, you'll get over it and will spend lots of time there to fill the hole in your heart that TWA's demise has certainly created.
So... this is my semi-official farewell. I graduate tomorrow and will probably be sad, so I'll post something about that here so that I can start getting into the new "personal blog" format. We'll see how it all works out.
Maria asks if we can provide a link to Feministe. I've been able to reach half the panel plus one and explain Maria's argument (which I agree with): Jill passed the panel, the community likes her blog, she's stopping her blog and going to Feministe, since she's been approved, can we go ahead and provide a link to Feministe. All that I was able to reach were fine with it. So we will provide a permalink to Feministe tonight (and, as Maria requested, put it right under Third Wave Agenda's link). (I've also advised Rebecca as Maria requested and she says she'll add Feministe to Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude later today.)

what's left to say after that? well i can note that jill already has her first post up at feminite:

First posts are so intimidating.
I’m really thrilled to be here at Feministe with Lauren, and very flattered that she asked me to co-blog with her. This blog has been at the top of my favorites list for a long time, and so it’s a real honor to be asked to post on it.

jill goes on to give a run down of herself and you'll see she's a pretty cool woman. as readers of ava and c.i.'s tv reviews at the third estate sunday review know, they loathe everybody thinks they like raymond. so does jill which is one more reason that makes her eternally cool in my book.

while i'm spotlighting, the article on common ills community member ruth went up sunday at the third estate sunday review. ruth is a wonderful woman and that comes across in each of her ruth's morning edition reports at the common ills. if you haven't checked out the article on ruth, please go read it.

ruth is only one of the many wonderful members of the common ills. kat of kat's korner is beyond groovy. and she'll have a cd review tomorrow up at the common ills so look for that. isaiah is another groovy community member. isaiah does the illustrations. and i spat out my coffee this morning when i saw isaiah's latest. it's a comic of john bolton attempting to come on the united nations by suggesting a three way - yes, we've now all heard the rumors of bolton's sex life. i really loved that one and it totally caught me by surprise. i saw the 1 that will go up sunday and it's funny as well. isaiah's comic strip is called 'the world today - just nuts.' so true.

and let me note community member and senate chronicler folding star of a winding road who posted on bolton and bernie sanders. sander is completely cool and i'm going to spotlight that part of folding star's entry:

Representative Bernie Sanders, the progressive Independent member of the House and one of the 38 who voted against the Bill in February, has something to say about this:
President Bush and his right-wing colleagues in Congress have launched a full-scale effort to limit and control the programming Americans are able to see and hear over the airwaves and the Internet. In short, they're going after your computer, your radio and your remote control. ...
If [they] have their way, it means goodbye to "The Sopranos," goodbye to Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," goodbye to the boys of "South Park," goodbye to "Deadwood," goodbye to Dave Chappelle and goodbye to many other shows enjoyed by millions. Faced with strict FCC censorship rules, all of these programs will be removed from television altogether, substantially rewritten, or banished to late night.

i'll close by noting that jill graduates tomorrow and wishing her all the best.


polio and matthew miller both appear here to stay and we are the worse for it

online the new york times delivers this headline "Polio Outbreak Grows in Yemen, Indonesia."

Six million doses of vaccine are on their way to Yemen for a second round of immunizations and a vaccination campaign is under way in Indonesia, but experts expect several more polio cases to emerge before the outbreaks are contained.
''The more countries that are free of the disease, the greater the risk is that we will have sporadic outbreaks,'' said Oliver Rosenbauer, spokesman for the WHO's polio eradication program.
This happens because polio immunization campaigns often stop once the disease has been beaten. That leaves babies vulnerable to infections brought into the country.

i blogged about polio on monday and hadn't thought i'd have to address the topic again this week. but the outbreak grows.

i wonder at what point we see it, as a nation, as something that happens to 'them' but something that is happening to us. 'they' are us. but maybe we won't care unless or until it crosses our borders?

until then we, as a nation, can just cluck and put it off as something that happens over 'there.'

maybe so because talking about it might cause 'unrealistic' views of what is happening. some sort of bullshit is john tierney's justification for asking the media to not report on violence in iraq.

can some 1 just tell him to pack it in? has any journalist ever so publicly acted the fool?

there is abdicating your profession and then there is pleading others to do the same.

c.i. has some comments about matthew miller at the common ills via an excerpt from bob somerby's the daily howler. as he so often is, somerby is on the money. but c.i. raises another issue and it's worth raising. matthew miller (a neo-liberal) is a temp columnist for the new york times for 4 weeks. whose shoes is miller filling? if i asked 'whose pumps?' would it be more obvious?

no, not thomas friedman! leave betty's 'husband' alone for now. matthew miller is filling in for maureen dowd.

mo do is the only woman of the columnists. bob herbert's the only person of color. when 1 of them takes a vacation, the times should make a point to be representative and not bring on another white man. and does the op-ed pages really need another neoliberal? aren't thommy friedman and kicky nicky k more than enough?

for 4 weeks, the new york times will provide 2 daily op-eds from 'columnists.' regular 1s which includes office temp matty miller. and for 4 weeks, not 1 woman will be allowed to make a continuous argument. a woman may pop up as a guest. as a 1 day thing. but there will be no larger view because the times seems to think that it's more important to have more of the same.

that's really sad.

and matty miller is a 'triangulator.' he's also a hawk for war. since dowd was skeptical of the war you can note that as well. he's not a woman, he's not some 1 who was opposed to the invasion of iraq. what he is is more of the same crap this country, and the democratic party, have suffered under for more than long enough.

today matty miller attempted to provide cover for dems who want to sell our social security system down the river. who knows what other damage he'll do in the coming weeks?

note to the common ills community

'recover post' my ass. that's an option blogger has added.

this evening i worked on a post. i go to post and instead of being taken to the publishing process, i am taken to an announcement that blogger will be down for 1 hour for scheduled maintenance.
it was down for more than 1 hour.

i was upset and kept reminding myself that the 'recover post' feature had been added. this was added to help people who got error messages when attempting to post. i log in, i go to create post and see 'recover post.' thank god! my long entry isn't lost after all.

i click on recover post and nothing.

so it's down the tubes and lost.

gina and krista sent out an alert this morning advising people of some 1 who was piggy backing on c.i.'s fame. to do my part, i have entitled this entry 'note to the common ills community' as gina and krista asked. (and have no problem with doing so. let me know anytime you think i can help with something.)

i was in 100% agreement with gina and krista and had discussed my own feelings regarding the 'piggy backing' (which can be boiled down as it's really sad but not surprising that some 1 with few readers would attempt to make a 'name' for themselves off c.i. i'd noted how i'd dealt with that prior and that's why in my response a few weeks earlier i refused to name the piggy backer since it appeared that's what he wanted -- to get a little attention via picking a fight).

i'd also offered my thoughts on the huffington post and steered you to several posts there.
i will note (as c.i. did at the common ills) that rob reiner has a post. and i'll note john conyers jr.'s post because that was my favorite of all the ones up:

After reading this article and the leaked memo, I immediately crafted a letter to the president asking him to respond, and asked all of my House Colleagues -- both Democrats and Republicans -- to join me in signing the letter. So far, 88 Members, but not a single Republican, have joined me in putting truth to power. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has been slow to pick up on this important story.
My own blog includes much additional information on the topic, including an audio of my discussion with Stephanie Miller on Progessive Talk Radio on the subject. It has been covered on the Web by independent sites such as Daily Kos, Raw Story, Brad Blog , Salon, Scoop Independent News, Progressive Democrats of America, and Atrios. Finally, on Thursday, the mainstream media, in the form of Knight Ridder, picked up on the disclosure and my letter. I need your help to encourage others in the media, be they tv, cable, newspapers, and radio to cover this momentous matter.

in the lost post, i'd commented on the memo that congressman conyers is blogging on. instead i'll just link to the sunday times of london and offer your a sample of it. if you're interested, please read it in full:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

this is big news. it's real news. and as c.i. and ava noted sunday, the times, the new york times, just doesn't want to know. (come on, i love fleetwood mac as much as anyone and stevie nicks wrote a great song with 'i don't want to know,' but i expect a newspaper does want to know and does want to inform.) from the common ills:

We'd like to recommend Douglas Jehl's "Tug of War: Intelligence vs. Politics" as worth reading. We can't. While it's true that it has some strong analysis, we've considered the first sentence and what's not in the article. Here's the first sentence:
For more than two years, critics who accused the Bush administration of improperly using political influence to shape intelligence assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge stick.
Doesn't that sentence beg the reader to believe that the story The Times of London broke last week will be included in the "analysis" of this article. (The Times has labeled this "analysis." We're not mocking Jehl.)
We'll refer you to BuzzFlash's "Impeachment Time: 'Facts Were Fixed'" by Greg Palast:
Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.
The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."
For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a " high crime or misdemeanor."
And if this ain't it, nothing is.
The Times (the Times refers to the New York Times) hasn't mentioned The Times of London's reporting and still manages to overlook it this morning. Do you think that they're unaware of it? Don't kid yourself. As with Naomi Klein's story about James Baker (which ran in The Guardian and The Nation), the Times is choosing to ignore what's what.
That is their choice. But the next time Bill Keller wants to hop on his high horse about what a great job the Times does and how mean bloggers pick on it for no reason, he might want to consider the fact that whether the Times puts it in print or not, people are aware of what's being covered and what's not being mentioned.

do me a favor, wally, discuss this in class today. everyone, discuss this with your friends. our press isn't getting this story out so we're going to have to get it out ourselves. we can do that.

wally e-mailed how happy he was that folding star was posting again and i see that there's no entry for today. i'll assume blogger maintenance effected folding star as well but i'll send you to this post at a winding road on harry reid.


polio hasn't been eradicated

i considered blogging late, late sunday but thought about the previous post on the code pink book stop the next war now and figured i'd leave that as the front piece for monday. i don't care if you buy the book from buzzflash or from code pink or from powell's books or from your local bookstore or if you check it out at the library. but i do care that you know about this book and i hope that you will take the time to consider reading it.

this deals with methods and means other than the obvious bully boy "plan" of bomb the hell out of some 1. this is a conversation that ava, jess, ty, dona, jim (all of 3rd estate sunday review), c.i. (the common ills), folding star (a winding road), betty (thomas friedman is a great man), kat (kat's korner), gina, krista (gina & krista's round-robin) and i have been having and i can't believe that other people aren't having it as well. the mainstream media's not having the conversation, but people are having it. and we need to be having it. so please read the book or at least read up on it.

and here's something else to think about. the new york times has been addressing the increase in polio in the third world for the last two weeks. saturday they ran an article "health officials say gulf nations should give more to fight polio." the author was donald g. mcneil jr. and i want to note a part of the article here:

With polio surging rapidly through Muslim countries, public health officials trying to eradicate it are expressing frustration that wealthy Islamic nations contribute so little to the effort, despite repeated requests.
Fighting the disease has cost nearly $4 billion since the eradication campaign began in 1985, and the campaign is urgently trying to raise another $250 million to handle this year's new outbreaks, but the Persian Gulf states have given less than $3 million so far.

[. . .]
The largest donors to polio eradication are Rotary International, which has given more than $600 million since 1985, and the United States, which has given more than $500 million plus the use of staff and laboratory services from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Britain and Japan have given more than $250 million each, and the European Union, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and the World Bank have given more than $100 million each. Other European countries, Russia, Australia, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Nations Foundation have been major donors.

before we all start feeling real proud of ourselves for being americans, let's think about how much we've spent on the occupation & invasion of iraq: $168,559,862,181
as i type this but it's still mounting. $500 million given over 20 years comes to 25 million each year. that's really not a great deal of money.

polio is like some diseases today (cancer, aids, etc.), we do have a vaccine for it. and we've had it for some time. and as betty's lunatic 'husband' thomas friedman would point out (rightly on this point) what happens in x affects a and b and c. so if people aren't outraged at the idea that a disease we thought we had stamped out continues to rage and harm women, men and children else where in the world, maybe they could think of their own self-interests and how an outbreak in x could affect other areas.

let's paint a picture of a past period:

In America in the 1950s, summertime was a time of fear and anxiety for many parents; this was the season when children by the thousands became infected with the crippling disease poliomyelitis, or polio. This burden of fear was lifted forever when it was announced that Dr. Jonas Salk had developed a vaccine against the disease. Salk became world-famous overnight, but his discovery was the result of many years of painstaking research.

need a celebrity face to care about the issue? joni mitchell, neil young and mia farrow all caught polio as children. joni mitchell has explained that the reason she's moved from acoustic guitar to a lighter, electrical 1 is because of the polio. any 1 who's hummed along with 'all i want' or any of her other guitar based classics, or has heard jimmy page rave on about mitchell's guitar playing realizes that although mitchell's adapted (and continues to create art), 'something's lost but something's gained in living every day' ('both sides now').

we, and i include myself in 'we,' have been so proud of ourselves and how we stamped out polio. but we didn't. we could. we could really invest in monies to stamp this out globally. but we haven't done that.

we're happy to bomb women, men and children. but we can only spare the equivalent of $20 million a year to stop polio. there's something wrong with that picture.