9/23/2005

ladies and gentleman, the president of the united states ... rebecca winters!

hello my readrs. welcome to my inauguration as president of the united states.

how did it happen?

well i am in d.c. and the bully boy is where?

as your president, i promise to be fair to all, so i may confuse americans who've lived through the last five years. but the government can be fair and it can be responsive.

i will not please all americans.

as with the strongest presidents in recent history - jkf and bill clinton - i do not intend to limit myself sexually. i will, however, promise to set my heights higher than bill clinton who was truly egalitarian in his choices. rest assured, i will not sleep with anything sporting a beret.

as the 1st woman president of the united states, i will come up against many new problems. such as 'first lady.' since i'm currently unattached i ask the people's help in selecting an official mate. i will dub him 'first stud.'

i will let america vote my mate (and that is copyrighted, vote my mate, so fox will risk a law suit should they steal from me). i do not mean to influence the campaigning but i will offer a few suggestions.

1) ashton kutcher. the chin's too pointy. but he's a good looking doof and as busy as i will be, it might be easier to have a first stud who can get lost looking at the pattern a window frame makes on a wall. i should warn you that voting for kutchner will mean that i will have to either consign demi moore to a gulag (gitmo will be empty as my first action, so perhaps she would like to go there?) or a lifetime of high fat food. the president may dabble, the first stud may not.

2) ike barinholtz. my beefy boy has been thinning down. as long he keeps strutting in the tighty-whities, i don't care. caution would have to be taken with ike to make sure that when i'm speaking to the top journalists like diane sawyer and mary hart, ike's not making funny faces over my shoulder. i personally feel that ike could live up to the position of first stud but if he was unable to, i would do my part to remind him of his duties with a few well timed smacks to that beefy butt.

i had a list of 10 but i've just learned the bastard mike of mikey likes it! is attempting to stage a coup and declare himself president of the united states.

i feel just like hugo chavez!

this revolution will be blogged!



use your power this weekend

where are you rebecca?

i am in d.c. where are you?

c.i.'s got the usual stacks of notes and passed a quote on to me because there won't be time for it this weekend more than likely so this is from amy goodman & david goodman's the exception to the rulers, p. 10:

It is absolutely critical right now to break the sound barrier when it comes to dissent. The U.S. government has used the war on terror as it's rationale for the biggest crackdwon on civil liberties since the McCarthy era of the 1950s. Right now, people are being thrown in jail without charges. Men from the Middle East and South Asia are being singled out as enemies. Lawyers defending dissidents are under attack.
These are the first warnings. You could be next.

how do you combat that?

1 way is using your voice.

refusing to be silenced.

now i'm in d.c. to take part in the protests this weekend. elaine and c.i. are here. tomorrow mike arrives along with betty, ava, jess, ty, jim and dona, kat and cedric. we're making our voices heard. will you?

i have a lot of readers in high school. i realize that not everyone will be able to visit d.c. this weekend. (i'm glad that 3 will. hope we are able to meet up saturday afternoon.) but there are things going on in many communities so you may be able to participate locally even if you are unable to come to d.c. you can check with your local chapter of now (national organization of women) or with your local peace organization.

but here's what i want from my high school readers most of all. today is friday (i'm posting late) and i want you to speak out at school. i want you to sit down at the lunch table and talk about the protests in d.c. and why they're happening. i want you to pass notes in study hall. i want you to talk about it during the breaks. if you're able to, i want you to talk about it in class. (i had some real pricks and assholes for teachers so i know you'll have to find the teacher who, regardless of whether they agree with you or not, will support free speech in order to have a real discussion on this topic. but you can bring it up even in classes taught by assholes and pricks.)

i do not want to read 1 e-mail that says 'wish i could have been there, rebecca, but i couldn't so i didn't do anything.'

we're here to participate in a mass protest. but the message isn't 'okay when you have something to say, you go to d.c. and the rest of the time you shut up.'

what you can do in your own community is as important, maybe more important, than the protests in d.c.

while i was on vacation a number of you wrote in about the wedding crashers. it was funny, you thought. it was hysterical. you hoped i'd see it.

i'll try to see it on dvd. vince vaughn needs to lose some weight and i'm not real sure about his politics so i'll be slow on the drool there.

but why was that movie a hit?

critics hated it.

who made it a hit?

you did. telling people you knew about it. sending e-mails to people about it. you got the word out on that movie.

so here's the thing. are we going to let the new york times be the critic of the peace movement?
are we going to let those outside the anti-war movement give us 2 thumbs down?

not all of my readers are high school age. but i do have a huge number who are. to you guys and gals i say, week after week you defy conventional wisdom and make a movie, a cd, a tv show, a game a hit. mainstream media and advertising try to get ahead of you week after week and tell you what is a hit. you decide what is a hit and you get the word out on it.

you can do that with anything. you have that power.

so this weekend, i want you to get the word out.

most of you are already talking about the war and that's great but i want to hear that you talked even more this weekend. i want to hear that the friend you thought wouldn't be interested is someone you tried to reach. i'd love to hear that saturday you organized your own party or get together and you all sat around talking about the war. (or danced around talking about it. music is important to a good gathering.)

so if you've got a group of friends or only 1 good friend, i want you to be connecting. if you're someone who goes into chat rooms, i want to hear that you brought up the issue in your favorite chat rooms.

i want you to be able, come monday, to say 'well d.c. or not, i made myself heard.'

if past coverage is any indication, we're not going to be able to count on the mainstream press to talk about the mobilizations as anything serious or important to our country. we're going to need to count on each other.

i have a reader who just broke his leg in practice this week. you know i hope you get better and that having a cast on your leg in this heat is a pain in the ass. i know you're mobility is limited, greg. but i know you can get online. i want to hear from you that you did e-mails to your friends about this, that you shared your opinions and hopes on what this weekend meant with your friends.

so 'i can't come to d.c.' or 'there's nothing going on in my area' is no excuse.

you can do something. you have power that you use every day and maybe don't even realize it.
the teacher who's a pain in the ass and you avoid because of unfair grading, how did you know about it? because you got the word out. the nachos that kyla's whole school knows to avoid when the cafeteria serves them for lunch, how did you know that? kyla's older sister broke it down for her before kyla started high school this year. kyla passed it on to her friends.

that's power. that's using your power.

own your power this weekend. use it.

if you usually discuss the invasion/occupation with 2 friends, increase that.

get the word out.

there's no excuse for doing nothing this weekend. 'i'm not in d.c.' doesn't cut it.

becky shares my 1st name and my love of hot guys. she's got a big date tonight. (and she's going to look incredible.) becky says she's talking about the war. she says if this guy is a bushie, she wants nothing to do with him and she's going to find that out on date 1. sure he's hot, with a tight little butt, green eyes that are like emeralds and a smile that makes her dizzy. but she's making the issue of our invasion/occupation topic 1 on this 1st date.

what are you doing?

are you going to be silent and let the mainstream press tell this story? good god are we in trouble then.

use your power and make yourself heard.

just as i was publishing, elaine hollered 'don't forget to note c.i.'s thing.'

if you're participating in organized events you will be around a wide range of people. so please read c.i.'s 'A quick note on this weekend' and remember the larger message of this weekend and that we're all pulling together to end the war.

9/21/2005

st. patrick's four trial opens

from democracy now:

St. Patrick's Four Trial Opens
In Binghimton New York, the trial has begun for the Saint Patrick's Four - the four anti-war activists facing federal conspiracy charges for spilling their own blood inside a military recruiting station to protest the Iraq war. One of the defendants, Daniel Burns, said in court on Tuesday, " We wanted to make visible the truth of war. We were called by our faith, the law and our moral beliefs to peacefully protest the war." The four protesters face up to six years in prison and $275,000 in fines.

that's it for me tonight. mike conducted a long interview and i'm wiped out. check his site, mikey likes it!, later tonight for the interview.

9/20/2005

meow meow

let me start out by noting kat's post last night which was about a weird dream she had and is called 'Iraq, Batgirl and Catwoman' - the dream made me laugh and probaly it will make you laugh too.

now that we've got a good laugh in, let's get serious with something from democracy now:

30 Disability Rights Protesters Arrested on Capitol Hill
In other news from Capitol Hill, at least 30 activists associated with the national disability rights group ADAPT were arrested Monday for refusing to leave House and Senate offices. They were protesting Congressional plans to slow the growth of Medicaid spending by $10 billion over the next five years. On Sunday about 100 protesters - most of them in wheelchairs - rallied outside Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's Washington home.

question - who pays for those house and senate offices? bill frist?

wrong. we pay for them. so 30 disability rights activists decide to make themselves heard and the response is to arrest them.

maybe alby gonzales can charge them with something under the patriot act?

so who were the cowards? you know there's always 1 idiot who'll make a call like that. he or she is just an idiot. but they're egged on by others who are too cowardly to make the call themselves. i'm interested in knowing who the idiot was that called (i'm sure it was delegated to a flunky) and more interested in which people took part in the 'make the call!' decision.

let's say it was joe blow working for kitty killer billy frist.

joe blow: yes, this is joe blow of senator meow-meow's office ... we have a problem. well there are all these violent protestors here! are they armed? uh ... um ... they're disabled and who knows what they might do! we're scared! senator meow-meow can't even enjoy throwing darts at his garfield dart board this morning! come quick!

let's stop a moment here to think of something really scary - kitty killer frist wants to be president.

maybe he can run with j-ass who's scared of the calico. they could run on anti-cat platform.
the nation's already divided but leave it to the gop to divide us further - into a nation of cat lovers and dog lovers.

watch as some spineless dems step forward, faces bruised and battered, to ask 'can't we all get along?' and hold up photos demonstrating that they have both cats and dogs for pets.

senator meow-meow who felt the need to diagnose terry schiavo via video tape wants to be president. seems to me he doesn't even cut it as a doctor.

i hope, like clarice in the silence of lambs, he's haunted at night with the cries of the slaughtered.
meow-meow. meow-meow.

probably cat food commericals send him into a tizzy.

if he runs, people should show up everywhere he speaks and just meow-meow through his entire speech.

tomorrow night i do an interview with mike for his site mikey likes it!

i've warned him that we both may be late in posting as a result.

i want to thank cedric (who's also a sweetie) for including kind words about me last week and defending my right to be as smutty as i want to be last night.

kat and cedric did something smart last night and i wished i'd been on it too. but we're all in on the following.

this is from c.i. and it's called 'NYT: Narrows the frame & events in "British Army Storms Basra Jail . . ."'

Two British soldiers working under cover were arrested Monday in the southern city of Basra and then freed as a British armored vehicle blasted through the wall of their jail after an angry crowd began rioting outside, an Interior Ministry official said. The official said that the soldiers were undercover officers dressed as Iraqis and that Iraqi police officers had arrested them after the men fired at a traffic police officer.
A British military spokesman in Basra confirmed that "two U.K. military personnel" had been detained early on Monday "in a shooting incident" and that troops had used an armored fighting vehicle "to gain entry" to the police station to release them. He said that more than one vehicle had been in the area and that the police inside the station had refused to obey orders from the Interior Ministry to release the men.
The incident came a day after British forces in Basra arrested three members of the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to the rebellious Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, on suspicion of terrorism.

Sabrina Tavernise's "
British Army Storms Basra Jail to Free 2 Soldiers From Arrest" from this morning's New York Times.
Some questions. Why aren't the rescued "military personnel" identified by the British government? They're rescued, surely their families would want to know. Why are British "military personnel" undercover to begin with?
Why are they identified, by their government, as "military personnel." What was their mission and should we be worried about that?
Anyone else wondering any of that? Why is the military undercover? Usually when it's "undercover," there's a 'reason' for that. As Central America in the eighties could attest.
What's not being told here?
From Terri Judd and Colin Brown's "
Under fire: British soldiers attacked in Basra:Army used tanks and helicopters to storm jail and free captured troops, say Iraqis" (from The Independent, and we noted it here last night if it looks familiar):

British troops were struggling to maintain control in Basra last night after the city exploded into bloody violence following the alleged killing of an Iraqi policeman by a British soldier.
Two British servicemen, dressed in civilian clothes, were held at Basra's main police station after the incident. Outside, rioting began as the city threatened to descend into anarchy.
The events themselves are big news in England. They're one story in the Times.
Gareth, who's read the Times article and calls it "laughable," e-mails to note Helen McCormack's "
The day that Iraqi anger exploded in the face of the British occupiers" (The Independent):

The dramatic events began to unfold just before dawn yesterday, when two British nationals were detained by Iraqi authorities. It emerged later that they were British soldiers. Dressed in plain clothes - according to some they were wearing traditional Arab dress - the two men had been driving in an unmarked car when they arrived at a checkpoint in the city.
In the confrontation that followed, shots were fired, and two Iraqi policemen were shot, one of whom later died. The Iraqi authorities blamed the men, reported to be undercover commandos, and arrested them.


The British government issues "official statements" -- from "official sources," and naturally an anonymice at that -- and the Times can't tell you what happened. But some "official sources" carry greater weight than other "official sources" apparently. Which is why you have to read
McCormack's article to come across this sort of statement:

The British military action was condemned as "barbaric, savage and irresponsible" by Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of the province. "A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act," the governor said.

The governor of the province? Surely he mentions merit in the Times "official sources" loving paper of record, no? No. No, he's not fitting the narrative of this story. And while it's true that any story will have a narrative, the one imposed on this article isn't interested in reality.
A skeptic might respond, "Oh, that's The Independent. The Times doesn't care what they say."
The BBC then? Polly e-mails to note "
UK soldiers 'freed from militia:'"

Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said more than 10 vehicles and helicopters had been used in an operation that was a "barbaric act of aggression".

Yeah, the BBC could note al-Waili's remarks. And they did. It's just in this country that we need to coat half-realities in sugar for them to go down easy.
That's why you get one "fact" after another that's contradicted in reporting elsewhere. That's why you get anonymous claims and on apparent concern as to why the British officers were undercover to begin with. Why we're told, anonymously, that the tank (one) apparently rolls in due to "100 to 200 people" of "rioters." When eye witness reports (naturally not in the Times) report quite differently. A dozen or so is key to the other reporting on this incident. Then the tanks come. And it is tanks from eye witness reports, plural. And helicopters. The Times misses that.
Intentionally?
"More than one" had been in the area, the Times tells us. They don't even use the term "tanks." "Armored vehicle" and "armored fighting vehicle" are popular with the Times today.
To read the Times narrative, two British troops were taken to a jail after being stopped at a check point and reportedly fighting, once in the jail, "100 to 200" people gathered, an "armored vehicle" shot through a wall, and they were released. A soldier lept from an "armored vehicle" that had flames arising from it.
The soldier, as reported elsewhere, jumped with his own uniform on fire. (BBC reports soldiers,
one is visible in their photo.) (The same BBC report also reports two tanks "set alight in clashes.") Reports outside the Times have the number of people estimated as a dozen more or less until the tanks and helicopters rolled in.
Basra has not been "subdued." (See
earlier entry this morning.)
The incident, though you wouldn't know it from the Times, is a big topic in England. And, again, though you wouldn't know it from the Times happy talk version of the incident, it's leading to public comments from "official sources." From
the BBC:

But Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "It is hard to see how relations between the British military and the civilian Iraqi authorities in Basra will ever be the same again.
"This is bound to be seen as a humiliation by many Iraqis - something the insurgents will use to their advantage."


From The Independent:

Calling for Mr Blair to set an exit date, Labour MPs said the scenes from Basra had echoes of the killing of two British soldiers who were murdered by a mob in Northern Ireland during the Troubles after driving into a republican funeral cort├Ęge in March 1988.
Clare Short, the former international development secretary, who resigned over the war, said: "We should negotiate an end to the occupation. They are all saying 'no' because it's such a mess we cannot leave now. But the occupation is the major problem now.


Note to UK members, I've read all the articles you sent. I'm going with the BBC and The Independent for this entry because they were the articles sent in repeatedly. But the overall view all of the articles painted were and are helpful. From Anthony Loyd's "Army storms jail to free seized soldiers" (Times of London), we'll note the following:

The British military sent a small force to rescue the soldiers, but it was beaten off by an angry mob which set fire to two Warrior armoured fighting vehicles. One soldier was seen tumbling from the vehicle in flames, another being pelted with rocks.The second attempt last night was more organised. Before the prison was attacked nearby roads were sealed and reinforcements surrounded the police station. "We are not leaving without our men," said a British commander. The former Iraq commander, Tim Collins, said it was "not a good turn of events", but added that he believed the events did not represent a breakdown of law and order in Basra.British diplomats had demanded the release of the men, reminding the Iraqi authorities that British troops in Iraq were answerable only to British military justice. But the Government in Baghdad had appeared unable to impose its will on the authorities in Basra.
The incident presents an acute problem for Tony Blair. More than 8,000 British troops are deployed to maintain order and to train the very police that were holding the two soldiers prisoner. The coalition’s entire exit strategy depends on Iraqi security forces being able to take over.

There is a wider fear that yesterday’s developments could herald an unravelling of the fragile peace that has prevailed to date in southern Iraq. In the past two months six British soldiers and two British security guards have been killed as Islamic fundamentalists, backed by Iran, have tightened their grip on the region. There was a strong suspicion that the police in Basra were acting in collusion with followers of the populist Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who wants British and American troops out of Iraq and has been increasingly fomenting unrest in the south.

Paints a different story than does the Times of New York. It's some sort of incident that doesn't really matter all that much in the Times of New York. If it did, they'd tell us what the reaction in England was, but they don't . . .
We'll also note Abbas Fayadh, Lucy Bannerman, and Ian Bruce's "
British soldiers freed after tanks 'smashed jail wall'" (Scotland's The Herald):

TWO undercover soldiers seized by Iraqi forces were freed last night when British tanks breached their prison walls, according to reports.
About 10 Warrior armoured vehicles were said to have been involved in the operation, before troops stormed in to release the special forces servicemen.
[. . .]
Dramatic images showed one soldier scrambling out of a burning vehicle, engulfed by flames. Gun battles broke out between the two sides, leaving two civilians dead and 15 injured.
Mohammed al Waili, the governor of the province, said the British jail raid was "barbaric, savage and irresponsible". He said: "A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act."
[. . .]
Sir Menzies Campbell, LibDem deputy leader, condemned the force shown by the army, warning the decision to break into the prison would fuel the insurgency. He said: "It is hard to see how relations between the British military and the civilian Iraqi authorities in Basra will ever be the same again. This is bound to be seen as a humiliation by many Iraqis, something the insurgents will use to their advantage."An operation of this kind must have gone to the highest level. I would be surprised if the prime minister had not been consulted."
[. . .]
Sources say the British soldiers, possibly members of the new Special Reconnaissance Regiment formed earlier this month to provide intelligence for SAS operations, were looking at infiltration of the city's police by the followers of the outspoken Shi'ite cleric, Moqtada al Sadr.


In all, I'm reading through over sixty different articles sent in by UK members (I'd guess it's sixty-three but don't make me swear to it, that's sixty-three different articles -- as often happens, members sometimes note an article that others have noted as well -- The Independent and the BBC were noted repeatedly, I've credited the first person who sent them in according to the time on the e-mails). And when you read the coverage from outside the New York Timid, you get a different view.
Which is why Gareth asks if this is how they honour the journalist who died? On the same day as they note his death, they're also printing a narrow, limited scope of the events that relies on select "official sources" and seems unable to find any eye witnesses at all.
That's the New York Timid. And that's the problem with the Iraq coverage. This isn't an isolated incident that just flared up (Basra) and if the Times wants to report reality, they're going to have to work a great deal harder. I'm saying the Times because we don't know what was in the original draft of this article and what was removed from it. (Note to ____, I did read your e-mail. We've noted that before but thanks for the reminder.)
Does the paper of record set out to censor the news for fear of offending Americans? Or is this part of the problem it has with covering Iraq (which combines their love of "official sources" -- even when not named -- with
'reported live from the Green Zone')?
Whatever the problem is, Basra reported in the Times today is reported differently outside the Times. In England, this is a huge issue. In the Times, it's one article, one very weak article that leaves out key points and only finds "happy talkers" to quote. Even the anonymous ones are part of Operation Happy Talk.
Is the Times? If so, the article on
Fakher Haider was a waste of time this morning. Don't tell us of the realities in Basra in one story and, in another, deny basic reality reported elsewhere (all over the place -- "reported all over the place" might be the better way to put that).
There are quotes in the Times article that aren't presented as having been told to the Times one on one. Which is probably good because those quotes pop up in most of the other reporting. What doesn't pop up in the Times is the non-Happy Talkers. Other news sources report "Happy Talker said this and ___ said this." The Times gives you one view of the events and one view of the impact. Both are limited and both fail to allow readers to grasp what actually happened and what it's impact has been.
Rod e-mails to note today's scheduled topics for
Democracy Now!:
Hugo Chavez: We broadcast the rest of our exclusive interview with the Venezuelan president. An in-studio on the state of African with 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winning Wangari Maathai, of Kenya; and human rights activist and journalist KenWiwa, of Nigeria.







9/19/2005

bully boy goes after environmentalists

does it get worse? you know it does, we live in a bully boy world.

so after inadequate response, after his phoney photo-op and his less than reassuring words, the no-accountability bully boy apparently has a new mission.

this is from democracy now:

White House Tries To Blame Flooding on Environmentalists
The Mississippi Clarion Ledger is reporting that it has obtained internals emails from the Justice Department that indicates the Bush administration may be seeking to blame the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina on environmentalists. The Justice Department is seeking information from various U.S. attorneys offices on whether they have defended any cases involving environmental groups seeking to block the Army Corps of Engineers from working on the levees around New Orleans.

you read that correctly.

why would they do that?

it's all part of the war on the environment.

blame the environmentalist and then what do you need?

restrictions and laws on them.

they're trying to outlaw dissent and protest already, now they want to make life even easier for those who would destroy our environment.

this is step 1. i'm making a prediction here.

if they can run with this, they will use to go after so-called 'eco-terrorists.'

have you heard that word?

lots of little nobodies in congress, little repubes who were excited that their pubes did grow back after shaving, were fond of it in the 90s. it took bully boy staggering into the oval office to make it popular with the administration.

'eco-terrorists' bad. bombers of abortion clinics they remain 'non-committal' on.

so having used the false term repeatedly and gotten many in the press to use it, they'll now begin expanding the term. it'll include the sierra club and on down the list all the way to your aunt sally that wrote her senator saying 'i do not want a nuclear power plant in my backyard!'

fbi agent: did you write this?
sally: i wrote my senator.
fbi agent: with exclamation points. cuff her, we're taking her in.

i'm not really sure what's going on with bob somerby. i think he's in his tangle up in blue period.

i called c.i. this morning and c.i. was about to post and i said, 'you don't mention the daily howler, do you?' and c.i. says yeah, the friday post is quoted because it looked like bob was off that 1 topic. i said, 'the new 1's gone up' and read it over the phone.

i don't know what's going on with bob.

it's like the film what's the matter with bob?

and that film wasn't funny either.

i keep thinking of this line melanie griffith says in the movie in the spirit, 'he's like a really mean cat with a bird.'

c.i. told me that e-mails were coming in to the common ills about people saying how glad they were to see sunday i was feeling better.

i've gotten a few of those here as well. i appreciate the concern. the whole john roberts junior thing really brings me down.

wally asked me to put my stuff up here so i will.

this is from "the third estate sunday review news review:"

C.I.: Thank you, Jess. I'll add that NOW is participating in the D.C. activites as well. Many organizations are, but the reason I mention NOW is that if people are unable to come to D.C. but wish to be heard, they can call their local chapters of NOW to inquire about activities in their area. We now go to Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude with an editorial report on Roberts and the state of Roe.
Rebecca: Disclosure, I've had an abortion and in the same set of circumstances, I would have one again. The dog & pony show that was the John Roberts hearings were disgusting. This is NOW's Kim Gandy cutting through the crap:
But I think it's clear from what he has said, I don't think he has been dishonest in the sense of what "is" is, but he has been misleading. He has very brilliantly -- I agree with the right wing commentator that he has brilliantly given answers that have led some people, including ones on the committee, to believe that he supports the right to privacy and the Roe framework, when infact he has been laying out, and I hope never to need to say, "I told you so," because I hope he won't be confirmed, but if he is confirmed, I think that people will look back and they will say, "Oh, yeah. See here, right here in the hearing, he talked about erosion. He talked about workability. He talked about extensive disagreement as being grounds for reversal, and gee, isn't it interesting? These are the exact grounds they used to reverse Roe."

Rebecca (con't): That was Kim Gandy on Democracy Now! Tuesday stating what the mainstream press wouldn't tell you either because they don't understand Roe or because they don't care about Roe. For those who care about Roe, it was difficult to get through the 'happy-happy, let's all laughs and hey, there's John Roberts Junior listing his favorite movies and what do you know Porky's didn't make the cut.' Those expecting a hard grilling of Roberts from Diane Feinstein, were disappointed. Never has she played it so demure. Listening to her offer "I don't know nothing about no lawyering" and other similar comments, one wondered if she longed for the day when "ladies" wore hats and gloves. When Anita Hill faced the Senate Judiciary Committee, there were no women sitting on the committee. For all of her sunny disposition, Feinstein might as well have not been sitting on the committee. If she thinks that cuts it, she better think again. As Bully Boy begins preparations to fill the other seat, Roberts is up for the late Rehnquist's seat not O'Connor's, Democrats better be more prepared and more combative. And unless Lindsey Graham intends to french kiss the next nominee, perhaps Arlen Specter better put a leash on him. Listening to his annoying dipthong bounce up and down in a pitter-patter motion not unlike the way his heart appeared to flutter over John Roberts Junior, it was difficult to tell which was more annoying "Miss Diane," soft and genteel, or the Senate's apparent Blanche Du Bois fussing over Roberts the way Blanche attempted to make Mitch seem much more than he was. Keep it up, Graham, and people will start saying, "'Lindsey. It's a French name. It means no wood. You can remember it by that!" Watching the nonsense, you were aware that even those participating knew it was nonsense, as when Arlen Specter stated, "They may be misleading, but they are his answers." But was their a method to his misleading?
Kim Gandy, president of NOW:
Roberts in fact appears to be laying out a roadmap for how he would overturn Roe. As grounds for overturning precedent, he cited both "extensive disagreement" and whether a core holding has become "unworkable," both of which are very common arguments made by the right-wing for overturning Roe. Additionally, by repeatedly turning to Casey v. Planned Parenthood while addressing Roe, Roberts suggested erosion of the precedent as additional grounds, since Casey significantly eroded the Roe protections and reasoning, as has subsequent state and federal legislation.

C.I.: Thank you, Rebecca, for that editorial report. For those who missed it, "It means no wood" is a play on Blanche DuBois's lines in A Streetcar Named Desire. We now go to Mike of Mikey Likes It! who will give us what The New York Times doesn't.

a lot of you liked my comments about feinstein and the 'hats' and 'gloves.' but most of you liked my comments about lindsey graham and 'it means no wood' best.

i was in a funk all last week. being with everyone and working on the thing above helped me a lot (so thank you guys!).

now this is what i said at the common ills sunday:

C.I.: Good because between Kat's finding and Dona's I need a bottle of aspirin, Excedrin Tension Headache, and a handful of Tylenols. Rebecca, talk about the men's fashion thing you grabbed.
Rebecca: Well, they go with Joaquin Phoenix as their cover boy but the photos take pains to hide his scar. I think everyone knows he has it. I don't know whom the photographer or the paper thinks they're protecting. I also don't know why in "Men's Fall Fashion 2005" it was needed for a full page ad of a woman's naked back to be run. They do a spread entitled "The Great Rock and Roll Swindle" and I've never seen a group of uglier young men. In uglier clothes. Including one sweater that is so ugly no one would even use it as a bath mat if it was the only thing in the house and they needed to take a shower. This sweater, I'll also note, is worn off one shoulder as though Jennifer Beals popularized a "rock look" for men in Flashdance. I can't figure out the caption on a page in "Mad Togs and Englishmen." It reads ""Fashion Editor: Allan Kennedy." If that means the photo of the aged man in low slung jeans and shirtless is the fashion editor, that certainly explains the fashion disasters that have appeared for two weeks now in this paper. A hint, your pecs sag and you're too old for the outfit you wear. It doesn't look cool, it doesn't look sexy. You look like a homeless man. The only totally do-able man appears in the Supima cotton ad. This is what Matt Lauer would look like if Lauer weren't bald and ugly. The guy in the Macy & Bloomingdale's 2 (x)ist underwear ad was sexy until I noticed his hairy legs. That's not a problem; however, they're very hairy and it's obvious that he must wax his chest and his stomach. As I've stated before, shaving legs is murder for women. We're really not in the mood to go out with a man who finds time to remove more hair than we do.
Jess: How do you know he doesn't just have hairy legs.
Rebecca: Sweet, innocent Jess. When you've seen as many naked men as I have, you learn that when a man's legs are that hairy, that thick with hair as they run up to his crotch, his chest is not usually as hairless as a new borns. In addition, he usually has hair below his bellly button. The model doesn't. He looks like a freshly plucked chicken from above the groin. It's a turn off, even if you can make out, I'm trying to keep this as clean as possible, the head of his unit including the slit through which urine passes. That better have passed the "work safe" standard because I could really go to town at my own site. Also check out how thick his eyebrows are, after they've been shaped. There's no way that his chest doesn't sprout hair. Free Country has one of the ugliest models in their ads and he's not helped by the fact that he's apparently borrowing Donna Mills' fall 1984 hair style. One that looked foolish even on her and was quickly abandoned before winter.
Kat: What about the guy in the Prada ad?
Rebecca: Ick! He looks like he's on psychotropics but hasn't taken them in days. Look at his eyes, what's going on there?
Kat: Check out the All My Children actor, I don't watch the show, it says in the ad for Hathaway shirts that he's on All My Children.
Rebecca: Too much lipstick and he looks like such a Republican.
Dona: Jim likes Jennifer Jason Leigh. She's in a photo and she looks really good.
Rebecca: I didn't even recognize her. "Romanov Holiday" makes Romanov look like it's populated by ugly gay porn performers. What is it? Bel Ami that puts out those videos? Silence. Total silence. I guess I'm the only one who's ever watched two men get it on. (Laughing) Prudes.

we were being silly. we is
**Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ava, Jess, Ty and myself, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It! and C.I. of both The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review. **

we had been up all night having nothing but problems at the third estate sunday review had kept us up even later. the time on that piece is when we started, and a lot got edited out because the decision was made to go funny so we were all looking over it and debating what to leave in and what to take out. jim had a funny bit that he took out and i wished he had left it in.
i'm glad everyone enjoyed the jokes but kat and i weren't the only 1s being silly. maybe next time when we're all that tired (and the thing didn't get done until after meet the press was on because i had the tv on the background and remember thinking 'are we ever going to sleep?' poor mike fell asleep during it) we can be silly again.

kat didn't take out anything. you know kat and her 'it is what it is.'

the other thing i wanted to point out is that we used my site to put up the stuff isaiah did for the
"From the work area of the Bully Boy ("It's Hard Work")" to go up. we ended up putting it up here so my readers did get a treat if they came by sunday. if you missed it you can scroll down.

isaiah was on the phone with us before we spoke to maria and he was at a drug store, i think, naming off the coloring books that they carried. the wiggles was 1 i was pushing for because they make me laugh. isaiah ended up mentioning them in his intentionally crude sketches. (thank you isaiah) but there was 1 that isaiah said something like 'oh there's a hog on the cover' and no 1 was really paying attention there except c.i. who started saying 'you got to get that coloring book!' and so isaiah picks it up and tells us what's in it and there's a pig on a skateboard.

so my readers got 1st glance at the drawings and since there's a problem with that post, i've still go the exclusive if you want to see the illustrations ha ha.