give it up for c.i. if you missed it, read this entry.
jim called and told me i had to read it. he said there were probably 8 ideas for sunday's the third estate sunday review alone.
he's not kidding.
if i didn't know c.i. was beyond busy, beyond overbooked today, i would call and say 'f-ing great post.' i'll pass that on tomorrow over the phone, but i'll note it here tonight.
'the obgyn jesus' made me laugh. and the 'ohio?' line as well. jim said, 'i could just hear c.i. giving that as a speech' to which i replied, 'you've been reading mike!'
but seriously, it is like 1 of c.i.'s 'okay, let's all get real people' speeches.
and it's correct. a) don't talk about jill carroll this week and go into what the son of 'midget' said. midget's son didn't write articles floating that jill carroll might be the new patti hearst in the new york times or for the associated press.
sorry, elaine and c.i. covered that last week. pick up the pace, people.
b) abc forced a producer to apologize for a private e-mail where he criticized fearful leader bully boy's repeated use of the same phrase. that's all over the web. but less noted is that the network also apologized to maddy albright. maybe people don't read the washington post? i saw that story on monday.
as c.i. pointed out this isn't 'suck up to bully' it's suck up to the powerful. haven't people read amy good and david goodman's exception to the rulers: exposing oily politicians, war profiteers, and the media that love them? if they have and they're focusing only on bully boy, that's like reading a college text and then returning to see spot run books. let's move the criticism forward, let's build on our knowledge base.
c) a woman wrote that sensible advice was suggesting that waiting periods be imposed upon women wanting abortions, they they view ultrasounds and that parental notification be used. this was supposed to be a pro-choice column. i didn't know that anne archer's character from fatal attraction wrote columns.
c.i. said that if you wanted to see some 1 pissed, forward the column to me or elaine. sherry copied and pasted it and sent it to me.
i am pissed.
and i'm a little sick of women selling out our rights. i'm a little sick of women who do not need the medical procedure offering concessions that aren't their concessions to give.
the woman pissed off t with a column awhile back. t was furious. the woman wrote about two female neighbors in a way that t felt was 'look we have 2 sparrows in our neighborhood' or, more likely, a more exotic bird.
look, if you've got your little family nest, your children and are of a certain age, you probably don't need the procedure. and you probably don't understand why some women do. so do all women a favor and shut the hell up.
i'm serious. i am so pissed when i think about that column. i was pissed at the 1 that used 'exotic' neighbors to make a point when the only point appeared to be 'look how wonderful i am, i grow lesbians and roses in my garden!' but t didn't want me to 'blow a gasket' so she asked me not to write about it.
i'll note it now. and i'll say to donna stone, shut the hell up.
i'm real glad that jeff and mary do so well in school and i know that alex is on his way and you have to go check on the roast in the oven, but before you do that and slip on your hostess dress, take a moment to realize that your life isn't the life of every 1 and that it bears little resemblance to the lives of most women who are currently considering abortions.
maybe she's being hanging out with the weak dems in the senate so long she felt the need to channel them for her column? i don't know, i just know that this pro-choice woman, who has had an abortion, found her column offensive to the extreme.
you know what, she's not donna stone. she's the insufferable hope from 30-something.
that's what she is. she's happily nesting and she wants to lecture ellen and melissa about how to live their lives 'morally.' that's the attitude that comes to me from the column.
if she thought bravery was sticking up for choice while selling it out by agreeing to all the right wing demands, then she's not only not brave, she's crazy.
abortion rights advocates have been 'reasonable' enough. in fact, had they not been reasonable for so long, the current attack wouldn't have gotten so far.
but there's this need to look and see the other side.
guess what, there aren't 2 sides to this issue. there's not my side and then that idiot ralph reed's side. why? because ralph reed can't have an abortion or give birth.
the new york times couldn't have editorialized more weakly on abortion than the way that woman wrote about it. it's disgusting.
i guess we're left with just katha to count on. (and as c.i. has noted, she's finishing her book right now.) that's it in our liberal press (print edition)? (i should say in the liberal press that doesn't have a feminist perspective for the entire magazine.)
so there's katha pollitt to fight for abortion rights and that's it from the non-feminist publications. (in terms of columnists.)
the column couldn't have been weaker or more offensive if she'd written it from an anti-choice perspective.
i might have respected that more, in fact. i can handle the crazies, but god save us from the 'helpers' preaching their compromises.
the 'reasonables' who always skip down easy path and abandon the fight.
they truly disgust me.
they're the sort, that if elected, say 'well i know we need ___ but we're going to focus on this because it's easiest.'
they'll never attempt a political battle, they'll never take a stand.
they will chip away at abortion. they'll say 'well there's more support on this aspect so i'll conceed on the other aspects.'
i don't think that's true (about the support) but what they do damages abortion rights.
think of abortion rights as a square. hope steadman sees a bully coming over saying i want to take '1/4 of that square.' hope steadman hands it over (and is left with a rectangle) and argues, 'but i saved this much.' you didn't save anything, you handed over what they wanted. you surrendered instead of fighting.
and by surrending, you gave them the idea that you'd back down every time so now they're back to grab more from the rectangle, formerly a square. maybe in 3 years we'll be left with a triangle. 3 more years and it may be a tiny dot (circle).
and you'll say 'i fought.' you didn't fight. you handed over. and that's disgusting.
