'so where was i?'
friday's i don't always blog. i try to grab saturday when i can't catch friday. this friday, fly boy and i went to a concert. saturday?
is any 1 here a part of couple?
that meant fly boy's mother for saturday and my mother for sunday to celebrate mother's day. i was amazed that i was able to help the third estate sunday review at all.
so that brings us today. on kpfa's flashpoints tonight, dennis bernstein spoke with jason leopold.
there seems to be some sort of dog pile effort on leopold.
if you missed it, you can read 'Editorial: Could it be true? Rove indicted?' which covers it and has links to leopold's two stories.
nutshell, leopold's sources tell him that last friday, patrick fitzgerald began or discussed indicting karl rove in the plamegate case. leopold's sources say that rove has told the white house he will be indicted shortly and that when that happens, he will resign.
there's been nothing today and people are up in arms that leopold must be wrong or his sources must be.
leopold told dennis that he didn't believe he was burned by his sources. he stands by his story.
salon has a thing that i'm not linking to (in fact don't expect many links, i'm in a mood tonight) where they fret over what this means for the net if leopold's wrong?
if his sources are wrong, they're wrong. that's all it means. leopold didn't write it for salon so salon needs to calm down.
me? i think leopold's right. that's my opinion. i expect that we'll hear news shortly. i didn't expect it today because bully boy had his let-me-pretend-i'm-president press conference. fitzgerald's been very cooperative with the administration. i wouldn't be surprised if the white house asked that it not happen on monday because of their press conference.
if the story is wrong, then it's wrong.
things happen all the time. it just means, salon, that sometimes things turn out and sometimes they don't.
but i wouldn't write off leopold's story (or leopold).
so let me give my next gripe. there's a story linked to by buzzflash where a deejay admits he was wrong to vote for bully boy and the headline to the link, buzzflash's headline, says - i don't know. they've pulled it so maybe readers complained. the guy trashes democrats on national security and buzz had something in their headline like 'well said' - which says to me that who ever did the link didn't read it all the way through.
i thought the deejay was a tool.
speaking of tools: hillary clinton. read c.i.'s 'other items' to get the latest on hillary.
speaking of c.i., c.i. passed on that kpfa will cover the michael hayden hearings beginnng thursday. larry bensky will be hosting it. i don't know if other pacifica stations will carry it or not and i may forget about it until thursday morning, so mark your calenders. also c.i. said michael parenti will be on, speeches i think, kpfa tomorrow. it's ... i'm trying to think if c.i. gave me my time or the time it airs (kpfa is in berkeley, so that's pacific time, i'm on the east coast). one thirty p.m. and i'm pretty sure that's eastern time. c.i.'s always good at giving the time for when it airs in my area. and i'll assume every 1 knows that you can listen to kpfa on air. so do. and give money if you can to pacifica, the station of your choice. i don't just say that. fly boy and i donated. if you've got the money to spare, donate to independent media.
please read trina's 'Popcorn in the Kitchen' which i so wanted to blog about saturday. it's a wonderful post. i'll go ahead and note, she's talking about an article in the nation. and i'll give katrina vanden heuvel credit for running it. but i think the writers did a really bad excerpt of their book (i haven't read the book). but i do give credit to katrina vanden heuvel for running it. (that's not my attempt to kiss ass - i don't kiss ass. but i have had a few choice words for kvh and i have no problem with that or with saying 'good move' when a good move is made.) work issues effecting women need to be addressed and covered.
i just don't think the excerpt did that. and i don't see those two women who did the excerpt and wrote the book as very helpful. i'm reminded of that scene in tootsie when dustin hoffman's dorothy michaels says 'i wouldn't tell a woman to do that, would you?' so the very 1st story they share just grates - a working woman has a child and a husband and we're hearing about her life.
i'm sorry but i don't say, as trena did, that you nudge your husband awake and tell him to get the kid ready and the breakfast, i say you kick him in the shin and say 'you lazy ass, why the hell am i the 1 getting up every morning while you sleep in! i'm already dropping OUR kid off at school every day! exactly what do you do around here? i'd assume you think i'm your mother here to baby you but we just screwed last night! so wake your sorry ass up!'
i'm serious. i would say that. and until the woman can address that issue, i don't have sympathy for her. her life's rough and that's partly because she won't demand that her husband do his share.
for the authors not to even comment on that makes it a non-feminist study.
so that's what i think about that dopey excerpt. and i won't be reading the book because the excerpt's grated on me so much, i have no interest in the book.
i also don't like how the authors started their promo roll out for mother's day. why does it always seem like when there's some peace activity planned, moveon.org shows up with their own thing? i feel they really stepped on CODEPINK's toes.
the topic needs to be addressed but it will take a serious approach, a feminist 1. i can't imagine susan faludi just writing that first narrative and not pointing out that while the woman feels stressed to the limit, she could be telling her lazy ass husband to wake up and do his part.
it all read like dabbling. like 2 'we care so much' people wanted to dabble in a topic as opposed to exploring it.
i'm just not in the mood tonight to go into all the nonsense that seems to be eating up time.
that includes the attacks on jason leopold.
i think people need to back off and they need to quit asking, 'big picture! what does this mean for me if the story doesn't pan out!'
even chicken little waited to be hit on the head before screaming: 'the sky is falling! the sky is falling!'
read elaine's "We hold the Iraqi government and the occupiers responsible for this brutal atrocity" . she called to say she'd written about college and hoped that was fine. i told her she never needed to check with me. after we got off the phone, of course i had to read it right away. it brought back a lot of good memories and i think she's exactly right that college students are still encouraged to be docile when they need to be encouraged to be empowered. if you haven't read it, i'm speaking of within the unversity structure. college students are encouraged to be docile. i am not saying they are 'docile.' i'm not hillary clinton and, considering the fact that she seems stuck in a pant-suits phase, really ugly pant-suits by the way, i am thankful for that!
seriously, the hair cut, it's not stylish. she needs to change it. and those pant-suits look like she got them at sears. she's paying good money for them so i'll just assume she doesn't have any fashion sense.
if she didn't so obviously care about the way she looks, it wouldn't be an issue. if she were some 1 who didn't care, i'd think good for her. but when so much time is obviously spent on fashion and hair and those are the results, it does bear noting.
i also wish she'd go back to her 1992 eyebrows. who does she think she is these days? julia roberts? with two little sea gulls pasted to her forehead? in 1992, her eyebrows were just fine. but in 1992, she still seemed to have both common sense and a heart.
i'll note something that elaine and mike did (and c.i. as well) because it is important:
"Cindy Sheehan Leads Mother's Day Anti-War Vigil" (democracy now)
In Washington, peace campaigner Cindy Sheehan spent Mothers Day in an anti-war vigil outside the White House along with actress Susan Sarandon, other military mothers and Iraq war veterans.
