the ruth & elijah report

good morning.

let me give an update.

ruth will probably take off next week. she's thinking about that which will mean the whole month of may and feeling bad about it.

she doesn't need to.

this is really the 2nd vacation she's had for her. i'm not counting vacations with her family though she enjoys those and would count them.

for visitors - what the hell are you doing here? ruth does ruth's public radio report at the common ills.

so ruth's had 1 real vacation since her husband passed away and that was when her friend treva insisted she take a road trip. ruth did and will tell you that her heart wasn't really in it, it was too soon after the death.

ruth still misses her late husband, of course, but she's gotten back into the 'swing of events' (a quote - and this is written with her permission). this road trip with treva has been amazing and kat and i have both told her that with pacifica radio in fundraising mode for this month and with community sites noting it, she needs to take some time for her.

before the vacation and currently, c.i.'s encouraged ruth to take as much time as she needs.

so ruth's probably off next weekend as well. (her report usually runs on saturdays at the common ills.)

i've been watching elijah, her grandson, during the day. which ruth said 'needs to be noted' and if it wasn't, 'i'll come back just to note it.' so i told her i'd mention it here.

that wasn't the original plan but the person lined up fell through at the last minute due to a family emergency. i called ruth about her report that had just gone up and to wish her well on her trip that she was due to leave on in a few hours with treva when she said she was probably cancelling it. ruth's children and their spouses work and her grandchildren are in school. if it was the summer, you better believe tracey and jayson could cover for her.

but ruth had just gotten the call that the family friend had to go to florida due to some 1 from their own family having had a stroke the day before. i know tracey and jayson from the various protests that we've attended like dc and nyc and had been helping 1 of her ruth's daughter-in-laws with a cause near and dear to us both. of course in california, we were all there including elijah so i wasn't a stranger to him.

i was nervous about offering because, though i knew ruth would be fine with it, i did wonder if i'd hear back 'we really don't know you well enough.' that would have been understandable but they were desperate enough and i had enough 'ins' that i passed the muster. (i have no idea what the saying 'pass muster' means - do you?)

so that's what i've been doing during the week.

ruth asked, 'tell the truth, rebecca,' if the reason my thursday post was so short was because elijah had exhausted me?

probably. i'd actually planned to do 2 posts thursday. i knew mike was doing the interview with c.i. and that mike is a really, really slow typist. so i figured i'd get something up and come back later and do another post. but i ended up posting and then sitting down to read a book.

ruth has some great books in her house. this was a big, thick 1 that i wasn't aware of. it's the price of power: henry kissinger in the nixon white house and you may know the author - seymour m. hersh.

it's an involving read. i made it to page 52 and fell asleep.

elijah is a handful. a wonderful child. with more energy than you'd expect from such a small person.

i have no idea how ruth ever manages to write down things to quote during the day.

the only problem we've had was on the 1st day. elijah kept walking over to the stereo and pointing.

i put on some of the children's cds thinking that's what he wanted. he wanted the radio on, i finally realized. he misses ruth, it's obvious, but from the beginning, it was obvious that you better have his grandmother's radio on. i laugh every time i think about it.

but it wasn't a laughing matter the 1st monday because he was mad. i kept trying cds and thinking, 'okay, he was happy to see me when he was dropped off this morning, what have i done wrong?' he wouldn't look at me after the 3rd attempt at a cd. he grabbed some of his toys and parked himself as far away from me in the living room as he could.

i tried talking to him but didn't intrude on his space but he just ignored me. finally, i turned the cds off and i could tell he was watching me but he would turn his head everytime i looked over at him. i grabbed a magazine and sat down on the couch at which point he gave me the dirtiest look - a look i'd never expect a child to give.

and he didn't hide it or turn around. this was a long, dirty look.

we just stared at each other for a bit and then he went back to playing with his back to me.

'are you hungry?' got no answer.

nothing did.

then around 10:00 a.m., bored, i grabbed the stereo remote and turned on the radio. when it came on, he turns around and looks at me. he picks up all the toys he's carried over to the wall furthest from me, drops them near the speakers and stands there just looking at me like, 'well?'

i got off the couch and walked over. he sat down and started playing and offered me a toy to play with (not his teddy bear, ruth had warned me, no 1 touches his teddy bear unless he offers it). so we sat there playing and were off to a fine start. when ruth called to check that night, i told her the story and she couldn't stop laughing. she told me that the cabinet under the stereo has pens and steno pads as well as his coloring books and crayons so to take those out at some point and he'll be happy.

i did that the next morning and ended up writing a letter to my grandmother because elijah kept looking at me while he was coloring and i got that i was supposed to be putting something on the paper in front of me.

the backyard is his favorite place and he will let you know when it's time to play in the backyard. 'backyard' is not a question.

during the week, i've been staying here and i'm here this weekend because ruth was still considering coming home this weekend. she decided mid-day friday ('if you're really sure it's not a problem'). so that's what i have been doing with my time.

fly boy's over this weekend (with permission, before any 1 thinks the baby sitter's gone wild!) because i had already made plans to be here this weekend since ruth might be coming in.

sometimes we go to the computer, elijah and i. he likes that and moves the mouse himself. he also insists we use ruth's ipod to listen to. (as ruth often does when she's home.) when she calls, he gets very excited to talk to her. 'what you doing?' is usually his 1st question.

it's been a lot of fun but he does have a lot of energy and the 1st thing i learned quickly is no high heels because forget those when you're keeping up with him.

if he has his coloring book and i'm actually writing something on a steno pad, he'll watch me and keep coloring. but if i put the pen down and look around it must be some sort of sign that we can move around. then he wants to show me something or go to the backyard.

he loves giving me a tour of the house and showing me which rooms are which. 'this is daddy's' room he's told me at least once a day on the tours.

ruth has called each day before nap time to talk to him and to tell him of some treat he'll have after nap. she doesn't tell me where the treat is but right after nap time, when he's fully awake, he'll walk over to something, today it was the hall closet, and wait for me to open it so he can get his treat. i asked ruth if i needed to get some things to hide for next week but she said she'd prepared for 3 weeks because c.i. had told her she would have so much fun with treva that she would take a 2nd and 3rd week off. she didn't believe it, but she stocked up just in case.

so today (or friday, it's saturday now) was a little monkey. he had to show me the sounds a monkey makes. he has a doctor's appointment this coming wednesday and ruth said to remind tracey because she was planning to go with. so that's what i've been doing and there's no need for a thank you because it's been a lot of fun. ruth's children have insisted i come to dinner each night and tracey says it's not a case of 'it's your turn!' which i hope is the case. she has a really wonderful family. (every 1 of which says ruth has more than earned the right to take a lengthy vacation - so ruth better take the full week next week or face the wrath of her family.)

i'm tired but wanted to get in a post so i could sleep in. tracey's coming over at noon and she, fly boy and i are going to see a movie. so if i didn't post this morning, i wasn't going to get five in for the week.

fly boy found an interesting interview with norman solomon (a favorite of ruth's and of many people) so check that out. that's at truth out and, no, there was no announcement that karl rove was indicted friday. i was wrong about it coming friday. but i still have faith in jason leopold's writing and will take a wait and see attitude. by the way, big thanks to c.i.

i asked c.i. to write something about it and c.i. did. (if you missed it, read it.) and c.i. linked to truth out. c.i. was in dc and very busy so i appreciate even more than if it had happened during 'normal busy.' but that did lead to a funny phone call the next morning when i was having my coffee (thursday) as c.i. informed me 'i did do the thing, i did link. guess who forgot to link?' it was me. i hadn't added truth out to my blog roll. i rushed to the computer and did that before elijah's mother dropped him off. i'd intended to do it right after i posted but got lost in wednesday's post and forgot.


rebecca winters has a warning

last night, janis joplin, if i heard her right, said pat robertson needed to have some good sex. also last night, jim morrison, if i heard him right, said pat robertson needed to take up drinking or, if he already has, needs to get sober.

what am i talking about?

god's personal best friend, pat robertson, if he heard the lord correctly, has been told by god, that america is going to be hit with storms and possibly a tsunami.

now the singing nun told me that god's getting really tired of pat robertson.

and mama cass told me a) don't call her 'mama' and b) that god finds pat robertson to be 1 of the worst social climbers in the world and is very weary of the way pat robertson drops HER name all the time.

cass elliot added that god's heard pat robertson even uses HER name to cut in line at amusement parks and bank lines but st. peter, heaven's bouncer, has already been warned that, despite all the name dropping, god is not friends with pat robertson and, in fact, never talks to robertson. st. peter has been instructed to tell pat robertson a) that his name is not on the list and b) there's a thin line between worship and stalking so god's taken out a restraining order to prevent pat robertson from ever being closer to god than 500 feet.

jimi hendrix explained to me that what really ticked god off was pat robertson's attempt to market himself as a weather forecaster off of god's good name.



michael hayden hearing broadcast live on kpfa thursday

read elaine's 'Live coverage of the Michael Hayden hearing on KPFA (9:00 a.m. ET)' - she's down about this item:

"UNICEF: 25% of Iraqi Children Suffer Malnutrition" (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, a survey carried out by the Iraqi government and UNICEF has concluded a quarter of all Iraqi children suffer from malnutrition.

she just feels that this is a story that's getting overlooked and it's at the heart of the occupation - a feeling of 'so what' that belies the standard mainstream myths of the illegal occupation.

i'd agree with her 100%. if there's 1 person still thrilled with the occupation, or maybe still kidding themselves that a school room being painted (see c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot'), they need to get in touch with reality. 1st step, the children in iraq.

this is as outrageous as the starvation that went on under the oil for food period. just as there was no humanitarian concern on the part of the united states with that program (yeah, mad maddy albright, i'm talking about you), there's none in the illegal occupation.

if the occupation was about helping iraqis, don't you think they would have done something about this?

oh, wait, they have done something as c.i. would point out, they've tried to cut off the subsidies program that existed before the occupation - where flour, sugar and other staples were provided. 'too much like communism!' apparently. 'got to cut it off!'

considering that the illegal occupation has done nothing to provide jobs for iraqis, exactly where are they supposed to earn the money to feed their children?

that's why people join the militias or the iraqi police (some would say it's the same thing).

lot of money to be made off the occupation, if you were a big corporation.

but people need to get serious. nancy pelosi can't even talk about impeachment let alone start screaming for the troops to come home. it's time for 'leaders' to be making the case for turning iraq over to the iraqis.

here's what matthew rothschild had to say about the cowardly stay silent approach to impeachment (on KPFA's The Morning Show - care of c.i.'s "Talking entry"):

This gets to Barbara's point of the grand conception this administration has, really coming out of Cheney's office, for the presidency. President Bush has issued 750 signing statements. That is, he'll sign a bill that Congress has brought before him instead of vetoing it, he will sign it and make it into a law and then put essentially an asterisk at the bottom that says I'm going to enforce this law to the extent that it doesn't conflict with my powers as commander-in-chief or whatever proviso he wants to attend to it. That's not our system. The president is supposed to veto the bill and let Congress try to override it or he's supposed to sign the bill and then see that the laws are faithfully executed. [. . .] This is certainly one ground for impeachment and I don't understand why it's viewed as such a partisan issue because if this is allowed to stand then if and when a Democrat becomes president that person can do just what Bush is going to be doing and then Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. I mean, I think wiser people should prevail here. And look what President Bush is doing to our Constitutional system. It really isn't about who is in control of the White House or in control of Congress.

but nothing seems to get the democratic party leaders' outraged. what's it going to take?

we're seeing the same nonsense with immigration. after all the protests and rallies, the senate wants to push through the filthy, vile bill they had their dirty fingers on before - turning immigrants into 2nd class workers, stripping them of work place rights, making them serfs to their employers. and after 5 years, if they can stay on the boss' good side, well maybe then they can start, START, the process to become a citizen.

that's b.s. and don't let anyone (not the damn new york times which has pushed the crap from the start) that this is about helping people - it's about helping business.

kpfa's flashpoints tonight had a speech by robert fisk on iraq. the sort of thing you won't read in the new york times - too much reality for them. dennis bernstein also noted jason leopold. i called c.i. and truthout is getting added at that site and i'm adding it here. leopold's being trashed. you know who's trashing him? pusedo lefties.

it's the usual b.s. of 'oh, i'm not like him! i better make sure that no 1 thinks i'm like him! i'm reasonable and acceptable!'

i hate to keep harping on it and i didn't even know who leopold was when we worked on the thing sunday ('Editorial: Could it be true? Rove indicted?'). c.i. had to point out what leopold had written and then i was 'oh yeah.' i know robert parry's byline and a few other people's. most of the time, i'm 1/2 way through something before i think to check for the author. jim's question was had c.i. heard about it? the possible indictment of rove? c.i. hadn't heard anything (but was on the road). jim asked me and i hadn't and it was too late to call any 1 i knew. but we all agreed if jason leopold was writing about it, he believed in it. we could sit on the sidelines or we could do something, so we wrote about it.

i think the indictment is coming. (i haven't heard anything but c.i.'s heard some stories that it is happening and some that it isn't and a lot of 'i don't know's.)

dennis talked to jason leopold about it. the way he's being treated is pathetic. (not by dennis, dennis is supporting him.) c.i. thinks that if there's an announcement this week, it will be on friday. that's when fitzgerald announced scooter's indictment. i can see that too and see bully boy asking for that, leaning on fitzgerald in a 'we have so much to deal with this week and we aren't asking you not to announce it, we're just asking you to let us deal with this week and let tony snow get some press conferences under his belt.'

i could see that happening.

swiping from elaine:

Larry Bensky and Mitch Jesserich will cover the Michael Hayden hearing tomorrow live on KPFA. (9:00 a.m. Eastern Time is when it starts.)

9:00 am est, 8:00 am ct, 6:00 am pt. you can listen online. they're dropping their fundraising to cover this, so show some love.


things that make you applaud and the things that make you go 'wtf'?

AMY GOODMAN: Brian Ross, on the issue of the prisons, do you know if these prisons are still operating in Romania and Poland? I remember in one of her overseas trips recently, Condoleezza Rice went to Romania.
BRIAN ROSS: We reported in December that they had rushed to close them before she landed in Europe, so that she could say there are no such prisons in Europe, that they had operated up to a week before, when this word got out. And that was one of the reasons they were so eager for us not to report it was that it embarrassed her further. We reported that they closed down those two prisons and moved the 12 to 14 top al-Qaeda figures being held there to a third country in North Africa. And we did not report the name of that country.

that's from democracy now's "Freedom of the Press Under Attack: Government Begins Tracking Phone Calls of Journalists" and i'm noting it for a reason - others aren't. i'm not talking about people who note (or will note) this or note other things from democracy now, i'm talking about the people who act like the program doesn't exist.

now the right, you'd expect it from them. you'd be surprised if they acted any other way, in fact. too much reality for them.

but where is the support from the left?

do i have to close my eyes and wait for the guilty to come forward? should i name names?

on a different issue, let's name 1. wonkette. the old whore of a bad website that was nothing but sexual tease by a boring woman who only looked hot and exciting standing next to corpses and corpses in waiting. you got 2 men posting there so why do they still show the looks-nothing-like-anne-marie-cox-even-in-her-dreams drawing (in the kind of get up britney spears tossed aside circa 1997)?

who knows. but can the fellows be taught to count?

The far, far, far right British National Party's head starred in a gay "art" flick in 1989, which he also co-wrote, produced, and directed (a triple threat!).

i know they get something like a nickel for each click to their page and with their writing they probably need all the nickels so here's the link to their nonsense.

but let's walk the boys through:

The far, far, far right British National Party's head starred in a gay "art" flick [starred in=acting that's threat 1] in 1989, which he also co-wrote [wrote=writer, threat 2], produced [producer is threat 3], and directed (a triple threat!) [directed is threat four].

quadruple threat, boys of wonkette, quadruple threat.

give them a sympathy click and maybe they can save up for a calculator.

(or maybe they'll just blow it on another peep show.)

betty's posting a hilarious chapter tonight so make a point to visit her site.

want to know what else is hilarious? mary cheney.

c.i. forwarded something to me last week that i'll grab tonight. it's by ari berman who's a really strong writer.

The election is history, but the war between a Cheney (Mary) and a Kerry (John) lives on.
In her new memoir, Now It's My Turn, Cheney's lesbian daughter calls Kerry a "
son of a bitch" and his running mate, John Edwards, "total slime," for mentioning her sexual orientation during the campaign debates.
Watching Edwards during the veep debate, Cheney allegedly mouthed the words "Go F*** Yourself." Months earlier, the Vice President had told Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to do the same. Like father, like daughter.

ari made me laugh - he often does. but i really don't have much to say on it. not out of 'respect' for 'i'm gay today!' mary, but because c.i. covered it in "Other Items:"

Mary Cheney's hawking her new book and hoping to fleece your pockets so suddenly it's okay to say she's gay. She was gay, in fact out as gay, for years before John Kerry noted that in a 2004 debate. But we were supposed to be shocked, shocked, shocked. The only thing shocking was how craven or embarrassed her parents were by her and of her as well as her own silence during the attempt to liken her own life to something resembling a drug addiction that we simply don't speak of.
So Mary Cheney's got a new book out. I'm sure it's the nonfiction equivalent of her mother's fictional look at lesbians on the prarie. And sure that it, like her mother's book, is badly written. Were the book a success, she might be able to buy herself a little self-respect.
However, the book's a hard sell. There's nothing "explosive" (or even "interesting") about it. Her flurry of press was in November of 2004, not last month. She's the daughter of one of the least liked men in the world. (Her mother's a big question mark in the minds of many where "bland" is more often the term applied -- other less kind terms are applied by those who follow the news. Her father is known and hated.) Those who stick with her father (and some do, a little over 30% of the public, year after year) are the pro-torture, pro-secrecy, pro-fundy group. Translation, they're not interested in this book.
Destined to be Queen of the Remainders, filling the shelves at outlet malls across the nation (and not selling there either), Mary Cheney learned the lesson about cashing in from her her father -- she just couldn't learn his sense of timing (which, no matter what you think of him, has always been strong -- even this morning, he may be setting up a future book deal on life in prison, don't put it past him).

that says it all and then some. i mean it makes you laugh, it covers everything. her lousy book, her lousy self-image, her lousy self. i love it when c.i. chucks the high road and lets it rip. betty and i were talking about this because it made us laugh. (she's got 'translation' in her latest chapter as a tribute to this criticism. and it's hilarious, so be sure to check her site tonight!)
know what else is hilarious? wally's 'THIS JUST IN! NEDRA PICKLER SEES INSIDE PEOPLE!'
so go read it.

that's it for tonight. i'm rushing because we're all trying to get done as early as possible so that we can do some planning for this weekend. but great speech by michael parenti on kpfa's flashpoints. it was funny (and son christian was mentioned) and political. if you missed it, listen to it because it makes you think and it will make you laugh.


things that make you go 'what the f---!'

'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.