call it a blog report

call it a blog report

so i get a call from c.i. this afternoon. 'are you blogging tonight?' to which i reply 'are you my parent?' c.i. laughs and says 'i forgot something in the mid-day entry and was wondering if you wanted to grab it if you had space.' i always have space.

what's up for the third estate sunday review? well there will be another 'five books, five minutes' because the readers are really enjoying those. it's a way to highlight 5 books and often a jumping off point for us to discuss a current event or a belief we hold or any other topic in the world. of course, there will be an editorial. what else will be in it?

oh come on, you all know you only have 1 question and that's will there be a tv review from ava and c.i.? yes, there will be. and i know what on. but both would kill me if i told. so instead i'll tell you that i've spoken to both today and yes, they still don't think their recent tv review make room for bully is funny. of course it's funny. the e-mails show people think it's funny. ava and c.i. are too tough on their own work. when jim, dona, ty, jess, kat, betty, mike and myself were all reading it, we were laughing. it's funny.

my personal favorite review that they've written would probably be either the 1 on what i like about you or the 1 on jake in progress. no, wait. it's the 1 they did on smallville. i'll stick with the last 1 as my favorite. they're all funny.

so what else is going on? i'm trying to remember. i was all set to do this and then i got off on a tangent about what my favorite tv review by ava and c.i. was and forgot everything.

well let's just make this a blog report because i got an e-mail from elaine that i agree with whole heartedly. so this will be our blog report.

c.i. forgot to mention what was coming up at third estate but look at that entry and everything in it and you'll understand why, it's long.

is mike not doing an incredible job at blogging? i love his site and i mean what is this, his 3rd week. i love his emphasis on recruiting and on answering questions. he makes me laugh.

now let's run over to betty's site. she's doing a 2 parter and has the 1st part up already. it's a fourth of july with friedman. let me give you a sample because it's hilarious as always:

We had a "roof picnic" Monday. It was a nightmare. Nicky K and Mrs. Kristof were there as well as this woman named Patti Limerick Nelson.
There was Thomas Friedman the not so great man up on our roof wearing a "Kiss the Chef" apron. Did I mention it was over his shorty robe?
I kept begging him to put on some clothes but he insisted on wearing the shorty robe because he wanted an "all body tan" to go with his highlights. He's had more done. Mrs. K again asked if he was getting more gray hairs and Thomas Friedman again pouted.
While he was pouting and on the ledge of the roof insisting that since no one understood him, appreciated him, valued him or even wanted him for their partner in charades (his fault, he can't keep his mouth shut even when he's acting out the clues) he might as well jump, Nicky K, probably because of the heat, launched into a version of Van Halen's "Jump."

the thought of thomas friedman in a shorty robe is both disgusting and hilarious! i love it whenever betty manages to work in the shorty robe.

and let's note kat's brave entry 'i had an abortion.'

and the wonderful ruth has another wonderful post and i'd say it even if she didn't include some yiddish just for me! it's an interesting look at the bombing of london via a trip to the pediatrician with her granddaughter tracey and her infant grandson. here's a slice:

While a few small children played, all the adults were listening to the radio broadcast.
A twenty-three year-old woman named Christy had a son who will be two in October. She whispered to Tracey and I that she had voted for the Bully Boy in November and it was because she believed that we needed to "stay the course" and that invading Iraq had made the world safer. Now, as she hears Donald Rumsfeld saying that we may be occupying Iraq for twelve more years, as the body count continues to mount and as London is bombed, she feels she made a huge mistake in her vote.
She told us she'd been feeling that way since March. What we call Operation Happy Talk no longer works on her. The news of the elections gave her hope and she wanted to believe the statements that the elections would result in peace and stability but that didn't end up being the case. She said when people were speaking of purple fingers she felt some doubts but silenced them. When the violence continued after the elections, she stopped silencing the doubts. Now when she hears people talk up Iraq, she just feels sick to her stomach.

and i want to note common ills community party member, british pru with her remarks on the bombings:

But as I looked around yesterday, I saw grief that was mature and reasoned. There was no need to question, "Why us?" It's perfectly obvious why us. We have engaged with and supported the policies of the United States not limited to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This has been done despite the large objection coming from the people of our country and despite the fact that the objection has only grown as we have been confronted with the reality that there is no "win" in Iraq, not for us, not for the States.
"Why us" does not trip off our tongues because the answer is obvious and frightening.
Equally obvious has been the answer which is that we must pull out of the illegal occupation. Thursday's events make that quite clear and, all around me, that was the sentiment most often shared.
Prime Minister Tony Blair did not shirk the way the Bully Boy did. He was present and accounted for. However, what he had to offer were empty words that, while more eloquent than anything that tumbles out of the Bully Boy's smirking mouth, said very little. Terrorist attacks. Check. Empty words supposed to warm us. Check. The reasons for the attack? Silence.
All around I heard people asking the hard questions and supplying the tough answers that the Prime Minister refused to address. We've grown to expect that from him and there is a sense among some that what is in the best interest of England is not the primary concern of our current Prime Minister.

as for folding star, i don't know what to tell you. i'm reading the e-mails. c.i.'s getting them too. we weren't told ahead of time, any of the community bloggers, that it was happening. i don't know what to tell you. the only 1 who has heard from folding star is c.i. maybe folding star will start blogging again, maybe it's the end of a winding road.

bette davis said aging wasn't for sissies. if she were alive today, she might say that about blogging. but having received attack e-mails repeatedly, i do understand how you can want to give up. folding star made that decision. i haven't. i've kept on. and we actually had a conversation about this, c.i., mike, betty, jim, dona, ty, jess and myself. what does this mean? how do we address it? we've all gotten some questions on it.

here are the questions you've been asking me in e-mails.


what do you think about it?

will folding star blog again?

is this a prank, stunt or drama?

why did fs stop blogging? it's in the only post that's left at the site.

what do i think about it? every 1 has their own opinion. i think, considering that i pushed a winding road over and over here, for me to find out about it by visiting the site was pretty lame.
no head's up and nothing after the entries were deleted.

is it a prank? a stunt? drama? i don't know. if it is any of 3, it should have been executed better.

i will say that if you're having problems with e-mails, you talk about it to others. you can't keep it inside. laugh about it with other people and it seems a lot less important. if you are doubting yourself as a blogger, figure out why. do you need to improve? if you think you do, work at that.

but maybe folding star never wanted to blog? there weren't a lot of posts in june or may. so when a critical e-mail comes in maybe folding star saw it as a way to end a hobby?

i'm being pretty frank here and i'll hear about it from c.i. and possibly others.

if i decided to stop blogging next week, i wouldn't delete what i'd already written. and it's really silly to have deleted everything because folding star still has entries up at the third estate sunday review. those aren't being deleted. they aren't going anywhere.

i would e-mail people like sherry and wally who have been strong supporters of my site and let them know. if i was upset, i might do it after i posted an announcement but they would get a personal e-mail from me because they have been here through good posts and bad posts.

and you better believe that i would call up jim, c.i., kat, betty, ruth and mike to say 'i'm bagging it guys.' they have helped me. (jim would pass it on to dona, ty, jess and ava.) they have plugged my site. when i have been down or confused or hurt, they have been there for me. when things have gone really good, they've shared my joy.

c.i. has gotten e-mails but only because c.i. has e-mailed folding star. folding star didn't even tell c.i. about shutting down a winding road. i was the 1 who told c.i. on monday morning. i was painting my toe nails because i was wearing sandals to the cookout and i was surfing around online while i did thinking i'd find something to blog on before i left. so i am going from site to site and then i land on a winding road and think 'what?'

i call c.i. who had a house full of guests and i could hear most of them over the phone and have to repeat what i'm saying due to the noise. even after i do, c.i. asks, 'rebecca, what did you say?' only this time out of disbelief not because it was hard to hear.

i really thought c.i. would have known. i get off the phone with c.i. and call kat and she doesn't know anything about it. i call jess's mother because i knew he was going there and jess is there but knows nothing about it.

during the phone call mid-week, while we were all discussing how to answer the questions, c.i. said, 'let me see if i can get permission for an answer' because c.i. didn't want any 1 speculating.

i don't know why it happened.

if you make chocolate chip cookies and i'm telling every 1 'oh you have to taste folding star's chocolate chip cookies' over and over and it turns out that there are no cookies being brought to the party and, in fact, folding star has decided not to attend, then i look like an idiot.

so i don't think it was handled well. i'm not supposed to say that. i'll hear about it from others (not just c.i.) but that's how i feel.


talking to c.i.

judy miller is the punching bag today at most sites.

i called c.i. to find out what visitors were saying and, no surprise, they were griping. about
'NYT: "Reporter Jailed After Refusing to Name Source" (Adam Liptak)' and 'The Js: Jane (Mayer), Jude (Iddybud) and Judith (Miller).' in nasty terms filled with accusations.

and c.i.'s response was to laugh. that's something that people might not get. c.i. will say 'i may be wrong' at the site and in conversation. 'to be fair' are 3 words anyone who knows c.i. has grown to expect. so there may be the idea that c.i. can be swayed on something and a number of visitors were saying 'i will never come back here unless you change your position.'

but what they don't get is that c.i. is not bothered by taking an unpopular position. never has been. years ago, i can remember this completely peaceful look that c.i. would get when it was time to take a stand. i could picture that look while speaking on the phone today.

it's the same look we saw before the war when c.i. said it was wrong and we would be stuck there and people would be dying, no cake walk. we were at a dinner party and this guy was just enraged by those comments and red faced and yelling and c.i. didn't care.

i have never known c.i. to say 'i told you so.' but when c.i. takes a stand on something it's usually works out to where c.i. could say 'i told you so.'

i asked c.i. 'do you feel you're right?' and c.i. said absolutely and that 'you didn't grow in the family i did without realizing the importance of a free press. my mother and my grandfather would both haunt me if i took any other position.' and c.i.'s family was in the newspaper business and i think c.i.'s told that at the common ills. if not oops.

and that's where c.i.'s anger comes in at today's press. c.i. is very old school and was very much old schooled by the family.

freedom of the press is not a position c.i. will support half way. nor 1 that c.i.'s grandfather would have supported half way.

'what are you being accused of?' i asked.

'the funniest 1 is that i'm trying to get a job at the new york times as though they'd say "hey you stuck up for us on this so let's forget that you've trashed elisabeth bumiller and that you've trashed dexter filkins and all the rest and come work for us!"'

the other chuckle came from the suggestion that c.i. was trying to position as a moderate since c.i. is extreme on free speech.

you don't apply it just for the people you agree with. and c.i.'s rudith miller is well known as are opinions of judith miller. but you don't toss out your princples just because it might help you score a political victory.

i asked c.i. about members and c.i. noted some members disagree but that they do grasp what's involved and that their position is similar to fair's position which is a respectable position that has thought behind it 'but these i hate judy so she must go to jail' opinions are not based in reality.

c.i. also brought up the point that while miller deserves criticism in terms of the new york times, there are people who want to act as though she is responsible for everything and while others get to 'slink off' she remains the lightening rod.

'miller didn't host nightly news. she didn't even book herself on the programs she appeared on.
others made those decisions but they'll get a pass and it's miller time nonstop.'

and c.i. listed 5 examples and then asked me if i noticed something about the examples?

'they were all men. miller's more fun to bash because she's a woman. the times does have a reach and miller did benefit from it but in terms of tv versus newspaper, more people see tv news than read a paper. to imply that judith miller is responsible for all media is to give a lot of people a pass.'

and that's a point c.i. made awhile back when talking about the paper's mea culpa. that to name judith miller would give everyone an out. where's nbc's mea culpa or cbs's or any 1s?

or the nonsense about dick cheney holding up the times on meet the press. he held it up. there was nothing to prevent tim russert from asking hard questions. there's no rule that you hold a paper and then the questions stop.

'people are dead and dying. miller's reporting is an issue in that but she's not the only 1 though you'd think so to read some of the nonsense. she was a bad reporter. she wasn't the only 1. but focusing on her allows others to get off. there's this argument that there's a circling of the wagons. no. iran-contra, barbara walters one day in the news and then vanishing was circle the wagons. miller's used as an excuse for others to hide behind. there are other reporters and others who pretend to be that were as bad as miller but to read the e-mails you'd think she hosted every evening news program and every morning show. anything she went on, she went on as a guest. if there were not opposing guests, that's a problem with the show. within the times the criticism is sound and the criticism of the paper is sound. when you leave that to do an all media criticism, turning her into the scapegoat so that others can avoid be pressed on their own reporting is an easy out.'

'if the times's reach was so incredible, the runaway bride wouldn't have been the huge nonstory it was. the times can flood the zone and impact what gets covered. but miller was doing bad reporting that others backed up, endorsed or added to. and to make it "judy took us to war" means someone better tell soros and others to stop wasting money on election cycles because cleary that money should be poured into journalism schools instead. it would be lying to say that she and the paper can't impact coverage. they can. but people make those choices in other formats and they need to be held accountable for them. and there's a woman at nbc who never gets named despite the fact that she was even spoken to about her 'reporting' and told to modify it because it was too obvioulsy one sided. people in the control room would burst out in laughter during some of her early reports as she scowled while mentioning some democrat and then beamed her brightest smile as she intoned "the president." no one wants to touch her, left or right. and she covers d.c. she covers the bully boy. and her reports are as bad if not worse than miller. is she taken seriously? probably not by professionals but i doubt most tv viewers question her.'

'i don't care if miller took a brave stand for selfish reasons. some people say that. it doesn't matter to me, the stand was for a free press. whether she meant it or not i don't know and i don't care. it was a brave stand and to deny that is to deny the climate we're in, my opinion.'

'there is fair criticiscm. fair has solid criticism. and people wanting to rejoice about miller should probably bone up on that so that they can have something to argue other than "bad reporter!"
instead they want to turn her into being personally responsible for all media and apparently for decisions made in the oval office. "she lied us into war." even within the context of the times, spread some of that blame on up the chain. her name's not on the masthead as publisher or executive-editor. howell raines went with those stories. and reporters on tv have people who aired their own stories. there's a lot of blame to go around. but since miller's so obviously criticized it's easy to grab that criticism and avoid doing work on others. you can read amy goodman's book, for instance, and then trash judy miller. goodman's writing within the context of the times and dealing with the paper's reach. but some people don't seem to get that and think that judy miller and only judy miller got us to where we are. they must miss it when amy goodman says "people like judith miller" as well. where's any network's mea culpa? i watched tv news during the lead up to the war and i never watched fox news. i saw reports similar to miller's. why aren't those people's known as bad reporters?'

'she's the fall guy for everyone which isn't fair. there were many reporters whose work would not now hold up to scrutiny. i'm not defending her reporting and i've been clear about that at the common ills. but i am saying stop making her the sole sin eater because a ton of people are getting off with a pass as a result.'

'and you can be opposed to her reporting and still defend the rights of a free press. you can also support a free press and argue that she should turn over her source. fair's done that. but a lot of people don't want to do that thought or that work. they want it in black and white terms where there's one villaness and it's all so simple. i don't think it is simple. i can respect fair's stance and see where they are coming from. but others who haven't done the work twist in the wind because they have no foundation to their argument that also supports a free press. it's just bash judith miller for who she is. the case wasn't about her. that's why i criticized the times for treating it like that in some stories. that's what we got at when we were brainstorming. the issue is bigger than miller. if you're going to come out insisting she cough up a name you need to have something to back that position up with. none of the emails did that no matter how long they went on.'


c.i., grace lee boggs, granny d & david sirota

i was talking on the phone to c.i. about the new york times today and we both agreed that judith miller's showing more spine than 'big boy' matthew cooper.

whatever any 1 else feels, miller doesn't back down. that can be a strength and is in this case. it can also be a flaw and maybe the reason why there's been no 'here were things reported that we now know were wrong' piece.

but in a world where people bend and break all the time, i do have to say that i'm admiring miller's strength. and thinking that in terms of the image of the profession she's conducted herself in this case more like a 'newsman' than any of the reporters around her.

so i'll say she's fighting strong and applaud any woman that fights strong. keep giving it to them, judy miller. she's playing it strong and coming off like a maverick and that's always very popular with the public. too bad her newspaper has yet to figure out how they need to come off.

1 of the things i brought up on the phone with c.i. was why jill what's her name? that was in reference to this:

They should continue to fight this. Even if Miller goes to jail, they should continue to fight it. They've done a really bad job getting the issues, as they see them, across to their readers. They need to designate a point person to speak to the press and go on TV. It should be Jill Abramson. She's managing editor and she knows the D.C. beat. She has a level of respect that others may not have and she also would (hopefully) be better at stating the issues. Bill Keller's too close to it and Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. nearly torpedoes Miller any time he attempts to defend her (by offering poor examples that don't help). (Keller gets snippy when questioned on Miller.)
Today doesn't look good for Miller and the Times needs to realize that. The coverage has improved in the last few days (
Seelye* and Liptak). But if Miller goes to jail, they'll want people on the news. Miller's come out fighting (noted in Saturday's report in the Times) and hopefully she'll continue to make her own case strongly. But Fitzgerald is now calling the paper itself into question.

jill abramson covered d.c. and apparently did a good job. but i still wasn't persuaded. then c.i. says 'strange justice' and i'm thinking 'billie holiday remix song?' c.i. says 'rebecca, anita hill.'

alright yeah, it would make a difference. she's got some currency. but i'm not sure she wants to spend it on this.

as managing editor she does have a postion of power and with her own accomplishments, she probably would come off as reasoned and informed. and jane mayer co-wrote the strange justice book with her. at the end c.i. asks, 'did you watch democracy now?' of course i did.
'so you saw abramson's former co-writer?' jane mayer! i was surprised.

anita hill seems so long ago but as c.i. has pointed out the 14 years can't be that long ago if after all this time the only 'change' has been that the judiciary committee now has 1 woman on it. 1 woman. 14 years and that's 'progress.'

c.i. knows i love granny d - and who doesn't - so i was thrilled to check my inbox and find this by grace lee boggs -"AN OLDER ELDER URGES LEADING FROM LOVE:"

Five years ago, at the age of 89, Doris "Granny D" Haddock
walked from L.A. to D.C., to lobby for campaign finance reform.
Now 94, she recently, congratulated Hampshire College graduates
for exercising their power to shape their own lives.
"For it is the loss of faith in our personal power that drives
the woes of the world. When we feel insecure in our power to
direct the future of our own lives, we fall into a kind of social
mental illness that encourages us to distrust and hate other
people. When people are made to feel powerless, they feel despair.
"The current effort by zealots to pass laws against the interests
of gay people is a good example of this. In the Germany of the
1930s, the average German was struggling to survive in a worldwide
"Monetary inflation reached such an extreme that people literally
carried cash around in bushel baskets to pay for groceries.
"That is what is happening in the United States today. The best
jobs of our middle class have been wiped out by big box stores,
the export of jobs. Safety nets, such as Social Security and
our Bill of Rights, are being cut for the financial benefit
of a few."

that's not the end so use the link to read more. and you should read more because

granny d is giving us a wakeup call if we pay attention. the time to say what happened is not after everything's fallen apart, it's while things can still be fixed. and we still have time. but it means paying attention to what's going on. and it also means figuring out what you wish was going on. that means paying attention to cafta and other issues. here's david sirota:

The Washington Post fronts a story about the House wrangling over the Central American Free Trade Agreement(CAFTA) – and the piece offers us a smorgasbord of what's wrong with the Beltway culture.First and foremost, we get the regular comments from faux "centrists" (aka. corporatists) who say voting against the agreement will hurt the party. For instance, former Christian Coalition official Marshall Wittmann, who now hilariously purports to speak for Democrats, says Democrats previously "used pro-trade positions to show moderate voters and business interests they are willing to stand up to their labor union backers..."
There is no mention that those party leaders also helped undermine the party's ability to attract votes from working class districts - many of the same districts that have turned red over the last decade. And there is no mention that polls show Americans overwhelmingly want politicians to stop ramming corporate-written trade deals down our country's throat.Then we get DLC CEO Al From, who – as usual – uses the most hyperbolically inflammatory and dishonest language possible to undermine Democrats (he has made a career in Washington's cocktail party circuit doing this kind of thing). He claims that being against corporate-written trade deals that sell out American workers will make "hard to assume national leadership" because it will mean
Democrats have "a protectionist bent." That's his trick – anyone who opposes a trade deal because it includes no labor, human rights or environmental standards is "protectionist" – even though our country has already shown that
you can actually craft trade deals with those provisions in them, if politicians decide not to just shill for Big Business.

think about it.


judy, judy, judy

c.i. sent me a thing from fair. it's from august of 2004:

FAIR, the national media watch group, encourages the reporters and news outlets who have been asked to reveal their sources in the Valerie Plame and Wen Ho Lee cases to cooperate with investigators. Protecting the identities of confidential sources is a journalistic right that should be recognized by the courts, but only when it protects genuine whistle-blowers, not when it shields government wrongdoing. Plame is the covert CIA officer whose identity was apparently leaked after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, charged the Bush administration with misuse of intelligence. Lee was a scientist falsely charged by the Clinton administration with being a Chinese spy, and officials seem to have leaked selective information about him in an effort to discredit him in the press.
Reporters in both cases are being told by investigators to reveal the specific members of the government who transmitted information. FAIR believes that attorneys' attempts to discover these sources are legitimate, and the ethical journalistic choice is to assist their efforts.The ability to protect confidential sources who reveal government wrongdoing is an important journalistic protection that deserves judicial respect. In both the Plame and Lee cases, however, the journalist's sources were not revealing government wrongdoing, but committing government wrongdoing . In both cases, the alleged crime was the act of revealing protected information to journalists in order to harm the government's enemies. Given that the alleged criminal acts apparently involved oral conversations between government officials and journalists, it is likely that no evidence of these purported acts would exist except for the journalists' potential testimony.
Unless one believes that the government ought to be able to surreptitiously use its enormous information-gathering powers to attack opponents with impunity, investigators must have the ability to ask journalists for their sources in such cases, and to compel them if necessary.

my feelings on the thing are neutral in terms of does judy go to jail or not. i honestly have more pressing things going on in my life and the new york times hasn't made it a 1st amendment case to my satisfaction (or really at all -- they did have one article that c.i. pointed out - i think it was monday).

but c.i. thought i might find something there that would be interesting. i love fair as much c.i. does. and i think they are making a good point above.

is this a case where the leaker was leaking something to help the public? no. it's not that kind of case. valerie plame was outed. not to save the public money, not because she was running some program that was turning the public into test subjects. there was no real reason to reveal her.

and what we're left with was people who had information didn't keep it public.

i'm really neutrel on this. i see fair's point and think they make it beautifully. i'm not sure i see the new york times' case because they've done such a god awful job making the point.

tomorrow the case is heard and judy miller will say she's not talking.

omg, i've got this shooting pain in the side of my head. seriously. it's like a twitch of pain. o.k. it's gone. that was weird.

so judy miller will say she's not talking.

i think fair has a point. i think the paper could make a point. i'm not seeing that they have.

i'm still neutral. i'm glad c.i. brought this to my attention and hopefully it will help some 1 who comes here. and i think fair's a great resource but i'm just not seeing this case as earth shattering. the paper's failed to do the basic work they should have been doing. that's their problem. tomorrow it becomes miller's.

maybe her attornies and she herself know how to fight better than the new york timid?

guess we'll see tomorrow.

what i want to weigh in today on is that ava and c.i. are hilarious and i know it was a pain in the ass for them to do the review saturday/sunday but it is hilarious and i cannot believe that they still can't see that. if you haven't read it, go read it. they send up everything and it's hilarious and has a message. i also will mention that sherry thinks 'operation enduring falsehood' is 1 of the best terms that c.i. alone or with ava has ever come up with. i agree it's a great tag and i'll start using it here:

The character he's playing is infamous not just for "Bring it on" but also for the "brave" sacrifice of giving up sweets when Operation Enduring Falsehood began. Judging by the size of the Bully's gut during the 2004 campaign, that's just one more promise he broke.

read the review!


bbq talk

did ya get sunburned? did ya pig out?

did the heat knock you out?

while i was catching up with friends and family today there were 2 big topics.

1) the downing street memo

2) karl rove

i know the mainstream media seems to think the 1st 1 is going away, but it's not. my grams was talking about it and when news reaches my grams that goes beyond what 1 of the spauldings are doing on the guiding light it's not going away.

there was a great deal of talk about karl rove and whether he outed valerie plame, the c.i.a. agent. that's another 1 that's not going away.

so today, the day that we celebrate our national independence, i saw independent thinking that went beyond any of the cozy comfort the mainstream media tries to shove down our throats.

my uncle had a really good point: how long can the people sit around wondering why the media will not cover the important stories before the media collapses?

it's a good question because my uncle is not what anyone would call political.

among family and friends who were political, the words were much more harsh about the way the media was not covering things.

a cousin brought up the return of 'up next! shark attacks!' and wondered where all that hollow talk from the media about how 9-11 had taught them how important it was to focus on real news went?

my nephew who is 100% behind impeaching the bully boy did a poll asking all of us what we thought?

there were 2 people out of every 1 who felt that we shouldn't impeach the bully boy.

now my nephew is a developing hottie who's going to break a lot of hearts and he is also really likeable so the poll is not scientific by any means. some people may have been humoring him.
but no 1 mounted a real defense of the bully boy.

so maybe on this independence day we're seeing that an independent people can turn on a lap dog press and form their own conclusions?

that's my happy thought today. hope every 1 had fun this weekend and got home safely.