i could kill c.i. today! not really. but c.i. recommended a book to me and i was reading it last night and ended up so spooked, it took forever to get to sleep.
the book is by joan mellen and it's entitled a farewell to justice.
it's about jim garrison and john f. kennedy. it's a pretty impressive book but i'd recommend you read it during the day, during broad day light.
it's packed with information from freedom of information requests and all sorts of historical documents.
i had the weirdest dreams all night.
in 1 of them, the only 1 i'll bore you with, i was in dealy plaza (did i spell that right?) in dallas, texas. and i was looking around, i was suddenly in 1963. no every 1 wasn't in black and white!
but fashions, hello! i know fashion styles.
so i'm rushing around and trying to figure out how i can stop it and generally looking like a crazy woman. 'it' being the assassination of jfk.
so i'm asking 'has the president arrived!' and finally, after every 1 looks at me like i'm crazy, and stares at my hair since it's not coated in several layers of hair spray, this guy tells me that the president comes to dallas 'tomorrow.' so i've got time.
i manage to get to him that evening - how? i have no idea, the whole dream was jump cuts with no transition - and being an attractive woman, i manage to meet jfk. immediately i start saying 'i am from the future' and showing my driver's lic. and everything else in my purse. he doesn't believe a word i'm saying.
then i say, 'you slept with marilyn monroe and some woman named judith who was sleeping with the mobster and you're getting shots for your back pain from dr. feel good' and just rattling off everything i've ever read that became public after he died, long after.
so finally he figures out that either i'm the biggest snoop in the world or maybe i'm from the future and he waives the secret service away. so 1st he wants to know what the future's like and i'm going 'excuse me, they're going to try to kill you tomorrow, this is a little more important!' but he wants to hear about the future. then after hearing about computers and civil rights and do we fly in cars (he's very sad that we don't), he finally lets me explain what's going to happen.
after that i tell him how things are today and if he needs to give a speech right now about the cia because he won't live to see through his plans to dismantle it. he's very curious about the bully boy and i tell him about how poppy bush appears at certain interesting times in his own history. he says 'we should have nailed that family for being in business with the nazis in wwii' and i agree but tell him about the texas book depository and lee harvey oswald and the other gunmen and he just wants to talk about jackie, john-john and caroline.
so i start with caroline and tell him she's classy like her mother, she writes books about the bill of rights and other important topics, has a family and appears to be sensible and smart. then i'm trying to get back to what's going to happen the next day and also trying to avoid the whole jackie and john-john issues but he wants to know.
so i tell him jackie dies of cancer. and that makes him sad and then he asks the question that you know he wanted to ask right away, does she ever remarry? what do you say that?
i mean do you say, 'uh, mister faithful, you were not'?
so i say she marries a man and every 1 says she did so to make sure the children are safe. i tell him the man is rich but nothing else because bay of pigs and all, who knows what he might order on ari!
then he asks about john-john. i tell him his son died shortly after jackie but while he was alive, he published a magazine and was considered 1 of the most handsome men on the planet. i leave out the whole needing a few attempts to pass the bar part of the story.
then he wants to know about teddy? i say 'joan becomes an alcoholic, okay? can we move on or do i have to do the full kitty kelley on every 1 you knew? don't even get me started on richard goodwin!' well what about bobby, what about his mother, what about his father, what about . . .
it seemed like he was concerned with everything in the world but what was happening tomorrow. so when i finally do the full entertainment tonight on all the kennedys (the only thing that shocks him is maria is married to a republican intent on undoing all that the kennedy family has supported), i'm thinking we can discuss the next day. but no, he wants to talk frank sinatra.
i tell him, 'he never forgives you for the snub and ends up a republican.'
then he wants to know about angie dickinson and i say 'wait just a minute, buster, i'm the 1 doing all the dishing. angie dickinson will never say whether she had an affair with you or not, so fork it over.' (he says she did.) so he says if what i'm saying is true, take him to future.
i tell him 'uh i'm not 1 of the magical 1s from charmed, i have no idea how i ended up here and am not even sure i can make it back so let's focus on right now' but he wants to see teddy and caroline. and he's so convinced that i can do this, that i end up thinking 'what the hell, i'll try.'
we end up at ted's. he's a very nice host, in the dream.
ted can't belive it and thinks it's some actor until jfk tells him something that happened when ted was 7 and it's never made it into any of the books so ted says 'my god!' then ted's on the phone because before we go back, jfk wants to see caroline.
ted tells her, 'get over here right away' and i say, 'uh excuse me, ted' and grab the phone. 'caroline, rebecca winters here. you don't know me, but "right away" means, take a second to brush your hair, put on some lipstick and wear something nice. you're going to see some 1 you haven't seen in a long time and you'll be upset with yourself if you rush right over. you'll want to be presentable.' because that's just the sort of thing ted would forget. i mean if a woman's going to meet her father that she hasn't seen in years, she's going to wonder what he's thinking about her and not want to show up with something with a food stain on it, or have her hair all over the place because she's had a long day.
so caroline shows up looking very tasteful and ted breaks the new to her about who she's about to talk to and i excuse myself because, hey, private family moment.
they have their meeting and you can tell it really means a lot to both of them but caroline handles it better because she's got her mother's good taste and tendency not to show when she's ruffled. then it's good-byes and back to the past for me and jfk.
so we get back and the morning of and jackie walks into the oval office, sees me, and gives us both a look. i'm like, 'hey lady, i'm a time traveler, not an intern. don't go all hillary on me because i'm not a lewinsky.' she, of course, has no idea what i'm talking about. but, thinking i'm nuts, she assumes i'm with the press and excuses herself.
so here's the deal, jfk goes to dallas. he gets in the convertible. i'm saying 'at least put the bubble on' and he says no. starts talking about the importance of history and how some things have to happen. he says that if his life means anything then it can inspire 'every 1 in your time to fight all the harder.'
i'm shaking my head (and think that pink outfit jackie's wearing looks a lot better in black & white photos then it does up close - and wondering if any 1 ever told her that texas was in the south and it will probably be hot even for november). but off they go.
then, remember jump cuts, i'm all the sudden at mlk's side. 'martin!' i scream and start my whole 'they're going to kill you.' he knows. he doesn't know when or how but he knows. so i start telling him when and how and he wants to know about his family. i know quite a bit about coretta scott king but that's really all. i tell him his children must have kept their noses clean because they don't make the tabloids. i talk about how coretta carries on the fight and that makes him happy and he says 'no 1 ever sees how strong coretta is.' i tell him all about the church committe and how he's been spied upon and plotted against by the government and that doesn't surprise him. he tells me a few things that have happened that he thinks the government's behind and i tell him that some of the stuff from the church committee is still classified.
he asks if we pull out of vietnam. i tell him 'yeah, in the 70s!' that makes him sad. to cheer him up, i offer to try to take him to his family and explain i jsut did the same thing for jfk. he surprise me. he says no. why not?
'i won't have the strength to travel down the road i need to if i see them knowing what's going to happen.'
oh brother.
yes, he's another 1 who doesn't want to muck with destiny and thinks that for his life and his work to mean anything he has to face what's coming.
i'm shaking my head and thinking 'how did i end up jodie foster in the movie somersby? and since when does every man have to be like richard gere ready to die for a principle?' when suddenly, i'm in california, in a hotel lobby and rfk is checking in. i look at him, he smiles at me and i think, 'another 1 destined to keep the date with danger' and wonder why so many die for the cause instead of cheating the odds.
me, i'd have cheated the odds.
so that's 1 of the many dreams i had after reading joan mellen's a farewell to justice. books. read it, it's worth reading, but read it in broad daylight.
you can also check out this speech by mellen "HOW THE FAILURE TO IDENTIFY, PROSECUTE AND CONVICT PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S ASSASSINS HAS LED TO TODAY’S CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY" (as with the book, i recommend broad daylight).
the church committee
joan mellen
jfk
a farewell to justice
mlk
rfk
the common ills
2/08/2006
2/07/2006
bonnie asked a question (a good 1) and this is what i came up with
a nice e-mail came in from bonnie who wondered, nicely wondered, if maybe i wasn't a little materialistic? bonnie, i'm probably very materialistic. elaine will float off to the after life on a peaceful vibe, c.i. will be martyred into the afterlife and i'll be banging, yelling, 'let me in! let me in!'
bonnie was talking about my remark that i worked my ass off for my money which i made in relation to a jerk that acts like he's c.i.'s friend. the jerk's an adult of many, many, many years and still lives off mommy and daddy. too refined to work and all of that. i don't like mooches and never have. this guy is the type who not only gets his parents to pay the way but expects people he knows to bail him out in addition to that. i have no use for those kinds of people.
i will acknowledge that not every 1 can end up set up even if they work their asses off. i benefitted from a lot including lucky breaks. and some of that may also come from the fact that when i was married to fly boy, the wives of his friends would usually not work and be appalled to find out i worked. i didn't marry him for his money. (i didn't divorce him for it either.) i worked before i knew him, i worked when we dated, i worked while we were married. i just wanted to be clear that i wasn't sitting around on my ass on his money.
we divided up the cars and the real estate but that's really all. i didn't ask him for money. which is probably why he always did stuff like kept up the subscriptions to the newspapers.
a new reader wondered why i called him my ex when 'you're obviously sleeping with him.' he's my 'ex' as in ex-husband. where this is going, who knows? we are together in some way now but i'm not going to label it and i've told him i'm not looking to get married again right now.
that's partly because, if i was really honest, i'm not wanting to go back to work. so marrying him is out of the question unless i want to be 1 of those women whose days start flipping through the catalogues while they work up the strength for a shopping 'jaunt' in the afternoon.
i always paid my own way. with friends who bust their butts but can't manage it, i'm happy to help out. but i'm not like c.i. putting up with a crowd of beggars which is what i think a lot of the people around c.i. are. it's not as bad as it's been in times past. but you just need 1 hard luck story with c.i. and they don't even have to be what most people would consider hard luck stories. saying you spent your rent on a new home entertainment center won't get sympathy for me no matter how much you tell me you 'needed' it, really, really needed it. c.i.'s a soft touch. less so now.
partly due to being too busy for the nonsense but also because you can only be burned by phonies so many times before you start realizing some people just aren't worth it. now it's taken years. and years. but c.i. can see that with some people now. in college, it was always order whatever you want and then when the bill came 'oh, i don't have any money on me' or some other lame excuse and c.i. would take care of the bill for every lame ass that did that. i'd be saying 'stop doing that. no 1 goes out to eat and drink without knowing whether or not they have money. they knew they didn't have money before they ordered.'
there was one little _ who for 3 years got every meal and everything else off c.i. and the most she ever did, when i insisted on it, was to buy a glass of tea. i'm not kidding. she said, after i balled her out, to c.i. 'well i owe you a meal.' you think? after 3 years of mooching? then she orders the most expensive thing for herself and when the bill arrives says she only has the money to pay for c.i.'s glass of tea.
all you have to do with c.i. is play on the guilt. do a 'gee, i wish i had ...' whatever and then c.i. feels bad for you and feels bad about having anything and it's 'how much do you need?'
there are people who are worth it because they're friends. like there is a painter who some day will be, if there's any fairness in the world, 1 of the greats. but the painter is focusing on art, working on it, slaving on it. this nonsense of 'i'm going to sit on my ass and let some 1 else pay my way without ever doing anything but partying' is just nonsense.
or take 'princess' as elaine and i dubbed 1 'friend.' princess thought she had a right to everything. there were times when elaine and i would say 'oh no, we're tired' because just going into a bookstore with princess would mean she'd pull the 'i have to have these magazines' and then pout because she didn't have the money for them and c.i. would roll the eyes and pay. that 1 was pretty obvious from the start. like new albums come out on tuesday. you better believe she'd show up on tuesday with her wish list already in mind and then hint and hint about all going to 'check out the new music.'
now that's another sponge/mooch who lived with her parent (her father was dead, she lived with mommy) and you just think, 'get a job already.' what's so funny is that a friend of mine knows princess and princess is freaking out because her mother's ill and now 'i'm going to have to take care of her!' it's not funny that her mother's ill but her mother's carried her beyond the 9 months, beyond the first 18 years, and now the selfish little princess is stomping her feet that, after all these years, she might actually have to give something back.
by the way, i'm not talking about people with serious problems. there are people that c.i.'s helped 'escape' from bad situations like bad marriages and that's fine. i would do that as well. but the people i'm talking about are spoiled and pampered and they've never done anything with their lives. they've never gotten a job, they've never worked a day in their life, they're not in school or pursuing the arts, they sleep until noon, roll out of bed and expect that everyone else is just so thrilled by their company that their time should be paid for.
princess thought she had a right to everything. she was forever 'borrowing' an item from c.i. and never returning it. she did that to me once with a pair of earrings and after asking for them back a month later, asking 3 times, i just went over to her place, knocked on the door, walked in when the door opened, walked to her bedroom, nodded to her as i walked over to her jewelry box, grabbed my earrings and walked out without ever saying a word to her. she just somehow believed she was entitled to everything.
so that's what i was raging about when i was talking about the jerk yesterday. and did he see the post? yes, he did and wrote me a nasty e-mail that he keeps track of every cent he's been given and plans to pay it all back 'some day.' yeah, some day's never coming because his tab's too high.
i don't think any 1 is their job. i do think that if you're a mooch, you're a mooch.
people can fall on hard times, i understand that and am not talking about that.
but this nonsense of people who are born with every break in the world and think 'instead of making something of my life or even getting a regular job, i'm just going to be a mooch' is nonsense to me.
if someone's lucky enough not to work, fine. i have no problem with it. and if you want to live your life in party town, go for it. as long as you can foot the bill. but if you can't, get a job and quit begging and mooching. if there's 1 thing that amazes me the most about the well to do, it's how lazy they are. and they aren't the well to do, their parents were. i'm not talking about kids here or even people still in their 20s.
like there's this 1 piece of work. years and years ago, she and c.i. were up for the same job and if you know c.i. you know what's coming. because it might be important to her, c.i. offered to bow out. she said no, c.i. got the job and she seems to think c.i.'s got to be her meal ticket for the rest of time. 'if i had gotten that job . . .' she'll bring it up all the time. she wouldn't have and if she had, she would have been fired. she's lazy. and she's been fired from the very few jobs she could get because she wouldn't show up. that's not working. that's not trying for anything.
i'm always amazed at the people c.i. knows, and sometimes it seems like c.i. knows every 1, who delude themselves. there's this 1 woman who marries for money, taps each husband out and suddenly 'things aren't working' she'll tell that husband. do you know what her profession is? she'll tell this to every 1. 'i'm a screen writer.' have i seen any movie you wrote?
no, because none have ever been made. and she's written the same damn script over and over. every year or so, she'll pull it out and say 'i'm working' and rewrite the same script which is a crappy idea written by a crappy writer. now this has been going on for years and years.
but if you met her and you asked her what she did, she'd tell you 'i'm a writer' or 'i'm a screenwriter.' and somehow the fact that for 4 weeks every year, she rewrites that old script each year, she thinks that allows her to say that.
maybe i'm too judgemental but i don't think that makes some 1 a writer. i don't think success makes some 1 a writer necessarily. but if you're a writer, whether you get paid for it or not, whether you ever sell anything or not, it just seems to me that you spend your time writing. not jetting all over the place on your latest husband's money. and some 1 needs to tell her that her looks have faded. the husband before last was a self-made success who went to school with her.
he was a few years behind and she was always the most beautiful in school so he considered it a real feather in his cap to marry her. he had made his money and was done with the rat race. within a year, he was having to go back to work because she'd spent her way through pretty much all of it.
she was fine with that and assumed lightening would strike again and immediately. when he told her they were going to have to be on a budget and she was going to have to step down from the arts board she was sitting on (1 of those get together for lunch and never do anything but gossip about your life), the marriage was over. as soon as i saw her fuming, i knew it was over. and sure enough, within 2 weeks she was hitting c.i. up for money for a mover and money for this and money for that.
what always amazes me is how cheap she is with every 1. even while her husband has money, she's cheap. her friends get cheap gifts (like an airport gift shop t-shirt) and it's the same with her husband of the moment. but for herself, she's spending fortunes.
so maybe that clears up where i'm coming from?
i don't like people like that and i never want any 1 to assume that, because i'm not working, that i am like that. i don't sponge off people and i don't sponge off my ex-husband. i went into that marriage with the money i made and, though he had made his own money and had money from his family, i never assumed that his money was my money. you can say i'm too independent if you want, but i never wanted any 1 to pay my way. that may also come from too many dates in jr. high and early high school where a guy that bought me a burger and fries seemed to think that bought him the right to cop a feel or more. by my junior year, on the 1st dates with any guy, i paid my own way just to avoid some guy thinking 'well i spent 5 bucks so now i get to go to 3rd or home plate.'
i developed early and have big breasts so maybe it's different in other situations? maybe the boys were just in awe of my boobs? but i really got tired of that. to the point that even if i had been thinking of having sex with the guy. if i sensed that he thought 'i'm getting sex because i paid for dinner' - i would do the total freeze out.
there are real difficulties in life and having large breasts isn't 1 of them. but i do think that some of the nonsense guys assumed wouldn't have been assumed if i'd had a normal size or even small chest. and when a guy can't look you in the eyes, as most couldn't until college, i think you become aware that some of them assume you have a price on your head or ass.
to twist a bette davis phrase, i may have seen better days but i'm still not to be had for the price of a burger.
but like elaine, who is beautiful and has those classical looks that i'd kill for, guys always related to her as a person. and i did notice that. and before 1 of the prigs who reads this thinks i need their e-mail about how 'well look at how you talk with your gutter mouth!' i didn't talk like that back then. though i didn't look the part, i would've fallen into the 'good girl' category. elaine was much wilder than i was. (c.i. was off saving the world - then as now. with a legion of lust filled devoted attempting to follow.)
but, point, while elaine was allowed to be considered a person and attractive, i was, or i felt that i was, seen more as a piece of meat. and if you developed early, i'm sure you remember how embarrassing that was. by the end of elemenatry school, i was wearing a jacket year round because of the stares.
i've never really talked in depth about this with c.i. or elaine but i know elaine's take, from statements she's made, would be that she's not pretty. she's not pretty, she's beautiful. she always had the perfect frame, the perfect skin, gorgeous face, gorgeous legs, gorgeous hair and she puts herself down when she's in a rush in the morning and pulls her hair up or back into a ponytail but no 1's looking at her and thinking 'eh.' she's beautiful. i don't think c.i. really thinks about looks. c.i.'s always avoided the mirror. c.i. looks in bits and pieces when the mirror has to be used. or maybe it's because people always made a big deal over c.i.'s look and that sort of thing, making a big deal, makes c.i. uncomfortable so it's just been a non-issue?
but it did effect me. i went from being cute to being stacked and no 1 was saying 'she's cute.' instead, they'd say this in front of me to my mother, 'you are getting her a good bra, aren't you?'
or 'she'll need to dress very modest.' this was when i started developing and it probably played into it, the reactions of these older women. it was like not only was i already embarrassed, wearing my jacket and carrying my books in front of my chest, but these women, adults, seemed to think this was a huge burden.
who knows?
i hadn't planned to write about this so much but boy do i feel better getting that off my chest.
i think i'll call it a night. bonnie wrote the nicest e-mail and kept saying 'i'm not trying to offend you.' bonnie, you didn't offend me and look what your question produced! sherry wondered if c.i. or elaine was bothered when i mentioned them? elaine just laughs. c.i. would prefer nothing go up here that was personal but i don't hear about it. (i know that though because c.i. is very private and always has been. ask a personal question and watch it be deflected so cleverly you don't even realize it until long after.) but as long as every 1 gets that this is my memory or my version, c.i. doesn't say a word to me about it.
i think i'm lucky to have both as friends and for so many years. i know a lot of people i've fallen out of touch with. you say 'we'll keep in touch' but you never do. but elaine and c.i. have been lifelong friends and, as elaine says, 'we're stuck with one another until the grave at this point.'
bonnie was talking about my remark that i worked my ass off for my money which i made in relation to a jerk that acts like he's c.i.'s friend. the jerk's an adult of many, many, many years and still lives off mommy and daddy. too refined to work and all of that. i don't like mooches and never have. this guy is the type who not only gets his parents to pay the way but expects people he knows to bail him out in addition to that. i have no use for those kinds of people.
i will acknowledge that not every 1 can end up set up even if they work their asses off. i benefitted from a lot including lucky breaks. and some of that may also come from the fact that when i was married to fly boy, the wives of his friends would usually not work and be appalled to find out i worked. i didn't marry him for his money. (i didn't divorce him for it either.) i worked before i knew him, i worked when we dated, i worked while we were married. i just wanted to be clear that i wasn't sitting around on my ass on his money.
we divided up the cars and the real estate but that's really all. i didn't ask him for money. which is probably why he always did stuff like kept up the subscriptions to the newspapers.
a new reader wondered why i called him my ex when 'you're obviously sleeping with him.' he's my 'ex' as in ex-husband. where this is going, who knows? we are together in some way now but i'm not going to label it and i've told him i'm not looking to get married again right now.
that's partly because, if i was really honest, i'm not wanting to go back to work. so marrying him is out of the question unless i want to be 1 of those women whose days start flipping through the catalogues while they work up the strength for a shopping 'jaunt' in the afternoon.
i always paid my own way. with friends who bust their butts but can't manage it, i'm happy to help out. but i'm not like c.i. putting up with a crowd of beggars which is what i think a lot of the people around c.i. are. it's not as bad as it's been in times past. but you just need 1 hard luck story with c.i. and they don't even have to be what most people would consider hard luck stories. saying you spent your rent on a new home entertainment center won't get sympathy for me no matter how much you tell me you 'needed' it, really, really needed it. c.i.'s a soft touch. less so now.
partly due to being too busy for the nonsense but also because you can only be burned by phonies so many times before you start realizing some people just aren't worth it. now it's taken years. and years. but c.i. can see that with some people now. in college, it was always order whatever you want and then when the bill came 'oh, i don't have any money on me' or some other lame excuse and c.i. would take care of the bill for every lame ass that did that. i'd be saying 'stop doing that. no 1 goes out to eat and drink without knowing whether or not they have money. they knew they didn't have money before they ordered.'
there was one little _ who for 3 years got every meal and everything else off c.i. and the most she ever did, when i insisted on it, was to buy a glass of tea. i'm not kidding. she said, after i balled her out, to c.i. 'well i owe you a meal.' you think? after 3 years of mooching? then she orders the most expensive thing for herself and when the bill arrives says she only has the money to pay for c.i.'s glass of tea.
all you have to do with c.i. is play on the guilt. do a 'gee, i wish i had ...' whatever and then c.i. feels bad for you and feels bad about having anything and it's 'how much do you need?'
there are people who are worth it because they're friends. like there is a painter who some day will be, if there's any fairness in the world, 1 of the greats. but the painter is focusing on art, working on it, slaving on it. this nonsense of 'i'm going to sit on my ass and let some 1 else pay my way without ever doing anything but partying' is just nonsense.
or take 'princess' as elaine and i dubbed 1 'friend.' princess thought she had a right to everything. there were times when elaine and i would say 'oh no, we're tired' because just going into a bookstore with princess would mean she'd pull the 'i have to have these magazines' and then pout because she didn't have the money for them and c.i. would roll the eyes and pay. that 1 was pretty obvious from the start. like new albums come out on tuesday. you better believe she'd show up on tuesday with her wish list already in mind and then hint and hint about all going to 'check out the new music.'
now that's another sponge/mooch who lived with her parent (her father was dead, she lived with mommy) and you just think, 'get a job already.' what's so funny is that a friend of mine knows princess and princess is freaking out because her mother's ill and now 'i'm going to have to take care of her!' it's not funny that her mother's ill but her mother's carried her beyond the 9 months, beyond the first 18 years, and now the selfish little princess is stomping her feet that, after all these years, she might actually have to give something back.
by the way, i'm not talking about people with serious problems. there are people that c.i.'s helped 'escape' from bad situations like bad marriages and that's fine. i would do that as well. but the people i'm talking about are spoiled and pampered and they've never done anything with their lives. they've never gotten a job, they've never worked a day in their life, they're not in school or pursuing the arts, they sleep until noon, roll out of bed and expect that everyone else is just so thrilled by their company that their time should be paid for.
princess thought she had a right to everything. she was forever 'borrowing' an item from c.i. and never returning it. she did that to me once with a pair of earrings and after asking for them back a month later, asking 3 times, i just went over to her place, knocked on the door, walked in when the door opened, walked to her bedroom, nodded to her as i walked over to her jewelry box, grabbed my earrings and walked out without ever saying a word to her. she just somehow believed she was entitled to everything.
so that's what i was raging about when i was talking about the jerk yesterday. and did he see the post? yes, he did and wrote me a nasty e-mail that he keeps track of every cent he's been given and plans to pay it all back 'some day.' yeah, some day's never coming because his tab's too high.
i don't think any 1 is their job. i do think that if you're a mooch, you're a mooch.
people can fall on hard times, i understand that and am not talking about that.
but this nonsense of people who are born with every break in the world and think 'instead of making something of my life or even getting a regular job, i'm just going to be a mooch' is nonsense to me.
if someone's lucky enough not to work, fine. i have no problem with it. and if you want to live your life in party town, go for it. as long as you can foot the bill. but if you can't, get a job and quit begging and mooching. if there's 1 thing that amazes me the most about the well to do, it's how lazy they are. and they aren't the well to do, their parents were. i'm not talking about kids here or even people still in their 20s.
like there's this 1 piece of work. years and years ago, she and c.i. were up for the same job and if you know c.i. you know what's coming. because it might be important to her, c.i. offered to bow out. she said no, c.i. got the job and she seems to think c.i.'s got to be her meal ticket for the rest of time. 'if i had gotten that job . . .' she'll bring it up all the time. she wouldn't have and if she had, she would have been fired. she's lazy. and she's been fired from the very few jobs she could get because she wouldn't show up. that's not working. that's not trying for anything.
i'm always amazed at the people c.i. knows, and sometimes it seems like c.i. knows every 1, who delude themselves. there's this 1 woman who marries for money, taps each husband out and suddenly 'things aren't working' she'll tell that husband. do you know what her profession is? she'll tell this to every 1. 'i'm a screen writer.' have i seen any movie you wrote?
no, because none have ever been made. and she's written the same damn script over and over. every year or so, she'll pull it out and say 'i'm working' and rewrite the same script which is a crappy idea written by a crappy writer. now this has been going on for years and years.
but if you met her and you asked her what she did, she'd tell you 'i'm a writer' or 'i'm a screenwriter.' and somehow the fact that for 4 weeks every year, she rewrites that old script each year, she thinks that allows her to say that.
maybe i'm too judgemental but i don't think that makes some 1 a writer. i don't think success makes some 1 a writer necessarily. but if you're a writer, whether you get paid for it or not, whether you ever sell anything or not, it just seems to me that you spend your time writing. not jetting all over the place on your latest husband's money. and some 1 needs to tell her that her looks have faded. the husband before last was a self-made success who went to school with her.
he was a few years behind and she was always the most beautiful in school so he considered it a real feather in his cap to marry her. he had made his money and was done with the rat race. within a year, he was having to go back to work because she'd spent her way through pretty much all of it.
she was fine with that and assumed lightening would strike again and immediately. when he told her they were going to have to be on a budget and she was going to have to step down from the arts board she was sitting on (1 of those get together for lunch and never do anything but gossip about your life), the marriage was over. as soon as i saw her fuming, i knew it was over. and sure enough, within 2 weeks she was hitting c.i. up for money for a mover and money for this and money for that.
what always amazes me is how cheap she is with every 1. even while her husband has money, she's cheap. her friends get cheap gifts (like an airport gift shop t-shirt) and it's the same with her husband of the moment. but for herself, she's spending fortunes.
so maybe that clears up where i'm coming from?
i don't like people like that and i never want any 1 to assume that, because i'm not working, that i am like that. i don't sponge off people and i don't sponge off my ex-husband. i went into that marriage with the money i made and, though he had made his own money and had money from his family, i never assumed that his money was my money. you can say i'm too independent if you want, but i never wanted any 1 to pay my way. that may also come from too many dates in jr. high and early high school where a guy that bought me a burger and fries seemed to think that bought him the right to cop a feel or more. by my junior year, on the 1st dates with any guy, i paid my own way just to avoid some guy thinking 'well i spent 5 bucks so now i get to go to 3rd or home plate.'
i developed early and have big breasts so maybe it's different in other situations? maybe the boys were just in awe of my boobs? but i really got tired of that. to the point that even if i had been thinking of having sex with the guy. if i sensed that he thought 'i'm getting sex because i paid for dinner' - i would do the total freeze out.
there are real difficulties in life and having large breasts isn't 1 of them. but i do think that some of the nonsense guys assumed wouldn't have been assumed if i'd had a normal size or even small chest. and when a guy can't look you in the eyes, as most couldn't until college, i think you become aware that some of them assume you have a price on your head or ass.
to twist a bette davis phrase, i may have seen better days but i'm still not to be had for the price of a burger.
but like elaine, who is beautiful and has those classical looks that i'd kill for, guys always related to her as a person. and i did notice that. and before 1 of the prigs who reads this thinks i need their e-mail about how 'well look at how you talk with your gutter mouth!' i didn't talk like that back then. though i didn't look the part, i would've fallen into the 'good girl' category. elaine was much wilder than i was. (c.i. was off saving the world - then as now. with a legion of lust filled devoted attempting to follow.)
but, point, while elaine was allowed to be considered a person and attractive, i was, or i felt that i was, seen more as a piece of meat. and if you developed early, i'm sure you remember how embarrassing that was. by the end of elemenatry school, i was wearing a jacket year round because of the stares.
i've never really talked in depth about this with c.i. or elaine but i know elaine's take, from statements she's made, would be that she's not pretty. she's not pretty, she's beautiful. she always had the perfect frame, the perfect skin, gorgeous face, gorgeous legs, gorgeous hair and she puts herself down when she's in a rush in the morning and pulls her hair up or back into a ponytail but no 1's looking at her and thinking 'eh.' she's beautiful. i don't think c.i. really thinks about looks. c.i.'s always avoided the mirror. c.i. looks in bits and pieces when the mirror has to be used. or maybe it's because people always made a big deal over c.i.'s look and that sort of thing, making a big deal, makes c.i. uncomfortable so it's just been a non-issue?
but it did effect me. i went from being cute to being stacked and no 1 was saying 'she's cute.' instead, they'd say this in front of me to my mother, 'you are getting her a good bra, aren't you?'
or 'she'll need to dress very modest.' this was when i started developing and it probably played into it, the reactions of these older women. it was like not only was i already embarrassed, wearing my jacket and carrying my books in front of my chest, but these women, adults, seemed to think this was a huge burden.
who knows?
i hadn't planned to write about this so much but boy do i feel better getting that off my chest.
i think i'll call it a night. bonnie wrote the nicest e-mail and kept saying 'i'm not trying to offend you.' bonnie, you didn't offend me and look what your question produced! sherry wondered if c.i. or elaine was bothered when i mentioned them? elaine just laughs. c.i. would prefer nothing go up here that was personal but i don't hear about it. (i know that though because c.i. is very private and always has been. ask a personal question and watch it be deflected so cleverly you don't even realize it until long after.) but as long as every 1 gets that this is my memory or my version, c.i. doesn't say a word to me about it.
i think i'm lucky to have both as friends and for so many years. i know a lot of people i've fallen out of touch with. you say 'we'll keep in touch' but you never do. but elaine and c.i. have been lifelong friends and, as elaine says, 'we're stuck with one another until the grave at this point.'
2/06/2006
jeff sessions blames bully boy for 9-11
is jeff sessions' a 'conspiracy' guy?
in the midst of his questioning he felt the need to trot out 1 of his stale phrases that he always uses about 'negligence or failure of will.' it's his catch phrase and he uses it whenever he can.
but he applied it to 9-11 at the hearings.
is jeff pointing fingers at the bully boy?
jeff, step up to the plate, tell us what you really think.
(i know jeff sessions was just being his usual blow hard self; however, when i heard him trot out his catch phrase - he uses it like gary coleman used 'what you talking bout, willis?' - i was suprised to hear him use it for 9/11.)
in the midst of his questioning he felt the need to trot out 1 of his stale phrases that he always uses about 'negligence or failure of will.' it's his catch phrase and he uses it whenever he can.
but he applied it to 9-11 at the hearings.
is jeff pointing fingers at the bully boy?
jeff, step up to the plate, tell us what you really think.
(i know jeff sessions was just being his usual blow hard self; however, when i heard him trot out his catch phrase - he uses it like gary coleman used 'what you talking bout, willis?' - i was suprised to hear him use it for 9/11.)
the hearings, the musical hair and a jerk
c.i. and wally are all over the hearing today and you should make a point to check out c.i.'s comments on the hearings and feinstein in "Democracy Now: Al Lewis; Senate Hearings (Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo and more)" and wally's explanation of alberto gonzlaes in 'THIS JUST IN! "GET MRS. GONZALES HERE PRONTO!"' for critiques and humor.
so what's left you for you, rebecca?
so glad you asked.
well john cornyn managed to pronounce all his words correctly. alberto was slurring like a mean drunk when he got nervous which, sadly, wasn't too often because, with few exceptions, he wasn't seriously challenged. but the howler came from republican senator jeff sessions who some 1 needs to teach how to say 'fascist' because he pronounced it 'fast-ists.' jeff, we're talking about history here, basic history. how can you be so ignorant and be a senator?
although john cornyn proves that brains aren't required to serve in the senate.
did any 1 catch how cornyn left the impression that he was all over the patriot act? of course, he wasn't in the senate at the time. but corny's a glory hog.
there was moment i'll write about right after this goes up in a short post. but i want to talk about music and something else 1st. (the other thing is just something i need to get off my chest so i'm not screaming in frustration all night, plus the asshole visits sometimes and if he sees this, maybe he'll own his own crap when he reads me calling him out.)
sherry wrote and goes 'what gives rebecca? i got an e-mail from c.i. yesterday that started "finally home" and it's pretty obvious that this morning's entry is dictated and that c.i.'s in dc.' what gives? c.i. and wally are in dc with a few others. with all the problems with blogger/blogspot this weekend as well as the problems the weekend of september when we were all in dc and either couldn't get into our sites or were losing posts, the decision was made to leave the impression that all returned home. with c.i., specifically, those posts were typed up by a friend. 'paranoid?' was c.i.'s question to jim when it was proposed in dc. (and i only found that out from jim this evening. i was calling c.i. at home yesterday evening and never getting through. i was thinking 'okay, c.i. doesn't want to talk to anyone, just wants to rest.' after jim told me, i called c.i. on the cell.) but jim said 'better safe than sorry.' so that was what was done.
when do those who stayed leave? how do you know they haven't already? you don't.
so let me talk about the phone call with c.i. because i'm pissed off at some 1. with everything going on right now, you'd think 'friends' would be understanding but this 1 jerk who knows c.i. is having a little fanny fit. for over a month, this 'friend' has been nothing but 'i want . . . i want' and then c.i. makes time and the jerk blows c.i. off to party and play. now the 'friend' has a bad patch and is acting like c.i. blew the jerk off.
elaine and i are friends so let me use us as an example. she won't mind. it would be like elaine calling me up out of the blue after ignoring me for about a month to say 'hey becky, i'm sorry that we've drifted apart' and then wanting to go into all the reasons why on her end. (elaine and i have never drifted apart, for the record.) then elaine would say, 'let's really work at this friendship' and we'd both agree to and then elaine blows me off for a month. then all the sudden her brother's sick and i hear about if rom c.i. and i contact her and she acts like it's my fault. just a real jerk like this has been happening the whole time she was blowing me off and like i was the 1 blowing her off.
i told c.i. if the jerk wants to play it like that, don't lose any sleep over it. but c.i.'s all 'did i do something wrong?' because c.i. will automatically assume that. no, c.i. didn't do anything wrong. some 1 had a new year's resolution and suddenly wants to be best friends, for that 2nd in time, then gets lost in the party scene. then the jerk gets bad news, doesn't call c.i., and when c.i. goes to the trouble to contact the jerk, the jerk has a mini-explosion acting like the bad news is c.i.'s fault and c.i. has been one doing the blowing off.
what happened is some 1 didn't take life or the people around them very seriously. now 1 isn't doing well. the jerk can't own his problems and has to push them off on c.i. i don't take that crap and i wish c.i. wouldn't. i said, 'look, you have so much on your plate right now. if you won't say "screw you" to the jerk, just avoid him until you have time.'
i called elaine and told her what was going on and her response was 'well that's c.i.' and it is. any problem in the world that someone wants to push off, c.i. will grab the blame for. but this jerk has ticked me off and if c.i. lets the jerk push blame off on c.i., some 1's going to see just how angry and nasty i can be. i don't mean c.i. (the jerk sometimes visits my site. so the jerk should read this as a warning.) c.i. could be partying and basically living in la-la land but instead, c.i.'s trying to do something. some lazy ass, pampered prick doesn't need to dump his problems on c.i. boo hoo, you got bad news. so you didn't get to party all week. maybe you're a little too old to be partying all week? maybe it's past time that you grew up? or do you plan to live on your parents' money your whole damn life?
seriously, you're teenage years are long gone. quit being a mooch and grow up. and quit blaming your problems on others. if you're wishing you'd spent more time with the person who was ill, c.i. didn't prevent you from that. your partying prevented you from that. so lose the chip on your shoulder. i've never had a lot of sympathy for people who don't do anything with their lives.
some would accuse me of that. and there are some who think i live off fly boy's alimony but i don't. i made my own money. i did get this house in the divorce but he got the place in the city.
and i worked until an abortion. that's when i quit and went through my withdrawal period. (for non regular readers, i am pro-choice and i do not regret the abortion. i was and still am angry that due to the health issues, i had to excercise that option.)
but even now, i'm not partying all the time. as i've come out of my shell, i've started working with a group of teenagers and volunteering some time there. but i busted my ass for years.
this jerk still depends on mommy and daddy to pay for everything and, when your adult, that doesn't cut it. 'mommy, will you pay for my apartment?' 'daddy, where's my allowance?' i mean grow the hell up already. and you're too old for the party circuit, jerk. when all the people around you are that much younger than you, you should take a hint.
i'm not as nice as elaine or c.i. i feel like people who are just mooches aren't worth hanging around with. elaine will set boundaries but with c.i. it's different because all it takes is 1 hard luck story to pull the heart strings. that was the 1st thing i said to c.i., 'do not give that jerk any money, do not buy that jerk a "cheer up" present.' but knowing c.i. it's now guilt time and wondering 'did i do something wrong?' the world's most emotionally needy tend to regularly show up at c.i.'s doorstep. i don't have time for them. c.i. doesn't have time for them but i bet you anything right now c.i.'s still doing the 'how could i have handled this differently?' dance.
which is 1 of c.i.'s best qualities, to be fair. c.i. will examine personal relationships and will own up to mistakes. but c.i. will also grab blame that's not been earned. if some people are glory hogs for attention, c.i.'s a glory guilt hogging all the blame. and there's really not time for it right now so i'm hoping the pratical side of c.i. trumps the side that's always willing to buy into the 'it's your fault' claim.
on the phone we did have some laughs. c.i.'s still ticked me and we laughed about that. i'm a big fan of the musical hair and was on the fence about going away for the weekend 2 weekends ago. i went. so third estate sunday review did their review of the hair album without me ('Music soundtrack: Hair'). now c.i. says that 'facing a dying nation of moving paper fantasy listening for the new told lies' from 'the flesh failures (let the sunshine in)' is stuck in the head. we were laughing about that during the work on the latest edition of the third estate sunday review. and every now and then jess would offer, in his amazing baritone, 'facing a dying nation.'
i really do love that musical. i'm not huge on musicals, i think most of them are a waste of time because they're a bunch of really bad disney cartoons brought to life. but something like chicago or all that jazz or something that goes beyond 'bring the toddlers! for the whole family!' i can usually enjoy. i loved rent and saw it repeatedly.
by the way, 'Music soundtrack: Hair' noted that hair's being performed next month at 3 different locations so let me plug that. if you're in 1 of the areas, you should check out a production. fly boy and i are talking about seeing the new york production.
1) March 9 through 12 and 16 through 19th, Brown University presents its production of the musical.
2) Glendale College (Glendale, CA) starts its performance on March 10th (concludes March 26th).
3) Rounding out the March performances, the Endicott Performing Arts Center in New York performs their production of Hair on March 10-12 and 17-19.
if you've never seen hair, see if you don't come out of the theatre singing or humming the songs. like 'initials' which is 1 that usually sticks in my head when i'm making drinks with the blender for some reason:
LBJ took the IRT
Down to 4th street USA
When he got there, what did he see?
The youth of America on LSD
The Vietnam War waging.
now after that they start doing this call and response of 'lbj' and 'irt' and other lines. and you'll love what happens at the end of the song, trust me.
so what's left you for you, rebecca?
so glad you asked.
well john cornyn managed to pronounce all his words correctly. alberto was slurring like a mean drunk when he got nervous which, sadly, wasn't too often because, with few exceptions, he wasn't seriously challenged. but the howler came from republican senator jeff sessions who some 1 needs to teach how to say 'fascist' because he pronounced it 'fast-ists.' jeff, we're talking about history here, basic history. how can you be so ignorant and be a senator?
although john cornyn proves that brains aren't required to serve in the senate.
did any 1 catch how cornyn left the impression that he was all over the patriot act? of course, he wasn't in the senate at the time. but corny's a glory hog.
there was moment i'll write about right after this goes up in a short post. but i want to talk about music and something else 1st. (the other thing is just something i need to get off my chest so i'm not screaming in frustration all night, plus the asshole visits sometimes and if he sees this, maybe he'll own his own crap when he reads me calling him out.)
sherry wrote and goes 'what gives rebecca? i got an e-mail from c.i. yesterday that started "finally home" and it's pretty obvious that this morning's entry is dictated and that c.i.'s in dc.' what gives? c.i. and wally are in dc with a few others. with all the problems with blogger/blogspot this weekend as well as the problems the weekend of september when we were all in dc and either couldn't get into our sites or were losing posts, the decision was made to leave the impression that all returned home. with c.i., specifically, those posts were typed up by a friend. 'paranoid?' was c.i.'s question to jim when it was proposed in dc. (and i only found that out from jim this evening. i was calling c.i. at home yesterday evening and never getting through. i was thinking 'okay, c.i. doesn't want to talk to anyone, just wants to rest.' after jim told me, i called c.i. on the cell.) but jim said 'better safe than sorry.' so that was what was done.
when do those who stayed leave? how do you know they haven't already? you don't.
so let me talk about the phone call with c.i. because i'm pissed off at some 1. with everything going on right now, you'd think 'friends' would be understanding but this 1 jerk who knows c.i. is having a little fanny fit. for over a month, this 'friend' has been nothing but 'i want . . . i want' and then c.i. makes time and the jerk blows c.i. off to party and play. now the 'friend' has a bad patch and is acting like c.i. blew the jerk off.
elaine and i are friends so let me use us as an example. she won't mind. it would be like elaine calling me up out of the blue after ignoring me for about a month to say 'hey becky, i'm sorry that we've drifted apart' and then wanting to go into all the reasons why on her end. (elaine and i have never drifted apart, for the record.) then elaine would say, 'let's really work at this friendship' and we'd both agree to and then elaine blows me off for a month. then all the sudden her brother's sick and i hear about if rom c.i. and i contact her and she acts like it's my fault. just a real jerk like this has been happening the whole time she was blowing me off and like i was the 1 blowing her off.
i told c.i. if the jerk wants to play it like that, don't lose any sleep over it. but c.i.'s all 'did i do something wrong?' because c.i. will automatically assume that. no, c.i. didn't do anything wrong. some 1 had a new year's resolution and suddenly wants to be best friends, for that 2nd in time, then gets lost in the party scene. then the jerk gets bad news, doesn't call c.i., and when c.i. goes to the trouble to contact the jerk, the jerk has a mini-explosion acting like the bad news is c.i.'s fault and c.i. has been one doing the blowing off.
what happened is some 1 didn't take life or the people around them very seriously. now 1 isn't doing well. the jerk can't own his problems and has to push them off on c.i. i don't take that crap and i wish c.i. wouldn't. i said, 'look, you have so much on your plate right now. if you won't say "screw you" to the jerk, just avoid him until you have time.'
i called elaine and told her what was going on and her response was 'well that's c.i.' and it is. any problem in the world that someone wants to push off, c.i. will grab the blame for. but this jerk has ticked me off and if c.i. lets the jerk push blame off on c.i., some 1's going to see just how angry and nasty i can be. i don't mean c.i. (the jerk sometimes visits my site. so the jerk should read this as a warning.) c.i. could be partying and basically living in la-la land but instead, c.i.'s trying to do something. some lazy ass, pampered prick doesn't need to dump his problems on c.i. boo hoo, you got bad news. so you didn't get to party all week. maybe you're a little too old to be partying all week? maybe it's past time that you grew up? or do you plan to live on your parents' money your whole damn life?
seriously, you're teenage years are long gone. quit being a mooch and grow up. and quit blaming your problems on others. if you're wishing you'd spent more time with the person who was ill, c.i. didn't prevent you from that. your partying prevented you from that. so lose the chip on your shoulder. i've never had a lot of sympathy for people who don't do anything with their lives.
some would accuse me of that. and there are some who think i live off fly boy's alimony but i don't. i made my own money. i did get this house in the divorce but he got the place in the city.
and i worked until an abortion. that's when i quit and went through my withdrawal period. (for non regular readers, i am pro-choice and i do not regret the abortion. i was and still am angry that due to the health issues, i had to excercise that option.)
but even now, i'm not partying all the time. as i've come out of my shell, i've started working with a group of teenagers and volunteering some time there. but i busted my ass for years.
this jerk still depends on mommy and daddy to pay for everything and, when your adult, that doesn't cut it. 'mommy, will you pay for my apartment?' 'daddy, where's my allowance?' i mean grow the hell up already. and you're too old for the party circuit, jerk. when all the people around you are that much younger than you, you should take a hint.
i'm not as nice as elaine or c.i. i feel like people who are just mooches aren't worth hanging around with. elaine will set boundaries but with c.i. it's different because all it takes is 1 hard luck story to pull the heart strings. that was the 1st thing i said to c.i., 'do not give that jerk any money, do not buy that jerk a "cheer up" present.' but knowing c.i. it's now guilt time and wondering 'did i do something wrong?' the world's most emotionally needy tend to regularly show up at c.i.'s doorstep. i don't have time for them. c.i. doesn't have time for them but i bet you anything right now c.i.'s still doing the 'how could i have handled this differently?' dance.
which is 1 of c.i.'s best qualities, to be fair. c.i. will examine personal relationships and will own up to mistakes. but c.i. will also grab blame that's not been earned. if some people are glory hogs for attention, c.i.'s a glory guilt hogging all the blame. and there's really not time for it right now so i'm hoping the pratical side of c.i. trumps the side that's always willing to buy into the 'it's your fault' claim.
on the phone we did have some laughs. c.i.'s still ticked me and we laughed about that. i'm a big fan of the musical hair and was on the fence about going away for the weekend 2 weekends ago. i went. so third estate sunday review did their review of the hair album without me ('Music soundtrack: Hair'). now c.i. says that 'facing a dying nation of moving paper fantasy listening for the new told lies' from 'the flesh failures (let the sunshine in)' is stuck in the head. we were laughing about that during the work on the latest edition of the third estate sunday review. and every now and then jess would offer, in his amazing baritone, 'facing a dying nation.'
i really do love that musical. i'm not huge on musicals, i think most of them are a waste of time because they're a bunch of really bad disney cartoons brought to life. but something like chicago or all that jazz or something that goes beyond 'bring the toddlers! for the whole family!' i can usually enjoy. i loved rent and saw it repeatedly.
by the way, 'Music soundtrack: Hair' noted that hair's being performed next month at 3 different locations so let me plug that. if you're in 1 of the areas, you should check out a production. fly boy and i are talking about seeing the new york production.
1) March 9 through 12 and 16 through 19th, Brown University presents its production of the musical.
2) Glendale College (Glendale, CA) starts its performance on March 10th (concludes March 26th).
3) Rounding out the March performances, the Endicott Performing Arts Center in New York performs their production of Hair on March 10-12 and 17-19.
if you've never seen hair, see if you don't come out of the theatre singing or humming the songs. like 'initials' which is 1 that usually sticks in my head when i'm making drinks with the blender for some reason:
LBJ took the IRT
Down to 4th street USA
When he got there, what did he see?
The youth of America on LSD
The Vietnam War waging.
now after that they start doing this call and response of 'lbj' and 'irt' and other lines. and you'll love what happens at the end of the song, trust me.
2/05/2006
silence
Joint entry by Kat and Rebecca. Blogger acted up and we figured we'd do a brief, joint post together. We think the joint posts demonstrate that the community works together. We also think it's easier to collaborate than to do a post solo.
There was a news item that we wanted to be sure everyone was aware. From Democracy Now!'s headlines on Friday:
Teen Attacks Massachusetts Gay Bar in Apparent Hate Crime
In Massachusetts, a teenager attacked three men at a gay bar in the town of New Bedford. One victim is in critical condition after sustaining a gunshot wound. The assailant attacked the men after verifying with the bartender that the place was a gay bar. Police have identified the suspect as 18-year old Jason Robida. Police are calling the attack a hate crime.
Bully Boy? Where is he on this? We can remember Bill Clinton decrying the violent murder of Matthew Sheppard. But this is Bully Boy's base. The people who play super-patriots. They love the country . . . just as long as you're not in it.
Where does an 18 year old get the idea that it's okay to murder people who happen to be gay? We can tell you he didn't get it from The Book of Daniel which NBC cancelled under pressure from the right wing group AFA.
As they spew their hate and aren't called on, it becomes easier for people to take the words of violence into the physical plane. A climate was created where it was once again okay to attack gays and lesbians in the media. As the myth of the "values voters" spread, our media backed off from calling this hate what it was. They spoke of reaching out to "Bush country" and of the need to be "tolerant" of . . . hate.
The New York Times was once up for nonstop coverage of a golf club that was closed to women but this story has yet to grace the front page. On Sunday they bored you with a boring story about a perfect attendance plan for schools. It read like a weekly newsletter you get in the mail, not like a major newspaper. It's shameful and so is the continued refusal by the paper to provide an editorial or column devoted to Coretta Scott King. For more on that, see The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Editorial: Does The New York Times editorial board not know that Coretta Scott King died or do they just not care?"
Other recommended readings? To know your history of government abuse check out C.I.'s "On the Dangers of an Unchecked Bully Boy." And don't miss Ruth's "Ruth's Morning Edition Report" which is epic in scope and size.
Remember that Pacifica Radio will broadcast Monday's NSA hearings live. Coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern time and ends at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. You can listen over the airwaves or online. To listen online or to find out if there's a station in your area visit the Pacifica Radio website.
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
the third estate sunday review
democracy now
the common ills
the new york times
ruths morning edition report
pacifica radio
pacifica
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
hate crime
kat and i wrote this together in i.m. and are copying and pasting from that. for those wondering, 'rebecca, where are your caps?'
There was a news item that we wanted to be sure everyone was aware. From Democracy Now!'s headlines on Friday:
Teen Attacks Massachusetts Gay Bar in Apparent Hate Crime
In Massachusetts, a teenager attacked three men at a gay bar in the town of New Bedford. One victim is in critical condition after sustaining a gunshot wound. The assailant attacked the men after verifying with the bartender that the place was a gay bar. Police have identified the suspect as 18-year old Jason Robida. Police are calling the attack a hate crime.
Bully Boy? Where is he on this? We can remember Bill Clinton decrying the violent murder of Matthew Sheppard. But this is Bully Boy's base. The people who play super-patriots. They love the country . . . just as long as you're not in it.
Where does an 18 year old get the idea that it's okay to murder people who happen to be gay? We can tell you he didn't get it from The Book of Daniel which NBC cancelled under pressure from the right wing group AFA.
As they spew their hate and aren't called on, it becomes easier for people to take the words of violence into the physical plane. A climate was created where it was once again okay to attack gays and lesbians in the media. As the myth of the "values voters" spread, our media backed off from calling this hate what it was. They spoke of reaching out to "Bush country" and of the need to be "tolerant" of . . . hate.
The New York Times was once up for nonstop coverage of a golf club that was closed to women but this story has yet to grace the front page. On Sunday they bored you with a boring story about a perfect attendance plan for schools. It read like a weekly newsletter you get in the mail, not like a major newspaper. It's shameful and so is the continued refusal by the paper to provide an editorial or column devoted to Coretta Scott King. For more on that, see The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Editorial: Does The New York Times editorial board not know that Coretta Scott King died or do they just not care?"
Other recommended readings? To know your history of government abuse check out C.I.'s "On the Dangers of an Unchecked Bully Boy." And don't miss Ruth's "Ruth's Morning Edition Report" which is epic in scope and size.
Remember that Pacifica Radio will broadcast Monday's NSA hearings live. Coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern time and ends at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. You can listen over the airwaves or online. To listen online or to find out if there's a station in your area visit the Pacifica Radio website.
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
kats korner
the third estate sunday review
democracy now
the common ills
the new york times
ruths morning edition report
pacifica radio
pacifica
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
hate crime
kat and i wrote this together in i.m. and are copying and pasting from that. for those wondering, 'rebecca, where are your caps?'
2/02/2006
the war on our liberties
poor c.i. immersed in the entry on the church committee yet again tonight. c.i. had five friends read it, 3 who weren't alive at the time and two who lived through it and were targeted. 'what's missing, what's not here?' was the feedback c.i. wanted.
the consensus was it was too factual. 'leave the dry report and offer up more commentary and more examples' was the most repeated suggestion. so c.i.'s reworking the thing and i'm calling every hour to ask how it's going. c.i. will read me a passage and ask, 'can you follow? are you outraged?' and if i'm not outraged or if i can't follow, i'm tempted to say 'sure' just because i know how much work has been put into it. but c.i.'s bullshit detector is too strong for me to get away with that if i wanted to.
i just got off the phone before i logged in here and since the last hour when i'd called, c.i. had scrapped the entire opening and created a new 1. it's more powerful but, as i pointed out, 'you know you are going to have to get some sleep tonight.' last night, working on that entry, resulted in 2 hours of sleep for c.i. i'll point that out when i call back later. c.i. sound exhausted so i'm guessing there will be a point of crashing in a few hours anyway.
let me note that amy goodman and democracy now have gone to qatar to broadcast. i've really enjoyed the last two broadcasts and look forward to more tomorrow. i hope you're watching. (or listening, or reading the transcripts, but i watch it on tv.)
another thing i want to note, that c.i. and elaine have already noted, is that england's passed their milestone of 100 troops killed in iraq. some may look at that figure and think, 'it's not as big as ours!' it's not a competition. this is serious and rallies have already been staged and will continue to be staged. british members of the community will tell you that, for their country, this is similar to our outrage and activism when the united states reached the 2,000 mark.
my sympathies and thoughts are with gareth, polly, pru, james and the other british members of the community as well as with those fighting across the atlantic to stop this illegal war. in the tragic death toll may they find the strength for more activism, more speaking out.
no 1 should have died in this illegal war. after awhile, you start to wonder what it takes to wake up those who live in a self-induced coma? i have no idea. maybe numbers do?
and let me applaud england because their protests have been lively and full from the start. we had a clampdown on ours from some on the left following the 2004 election but, thankfully, many chose to ignore the clampdown in march of 2005 and, thankfully, cindy sheehen showed up in the summer of protest to add new life to the movement.
i'll make mike smile and sleep peaceful tonight by noting 2 headlines from democracy now.
World Can't Wait Protesters Arrested in North Carolina
And in Greensboro, North Carolina, seven protesters are facing charges after being arrested Tuesday night during a State of the Union protest. The protesters reportedly got into an altercation with an undercover police officer who was photographing protesters. The Greensboro demonstration was one of 68 protests held around the country Tuesday night calling on Bush to step down. The main group behind the protests -- World Can't Wait -- is also organizing a protest on Saturday in Washington.
protest saturday in d.c. if you're in the area or can get there. the police sure do love to crack down on peaceful protesters, don't they?
Capitol Police Apologize, Drop Charges Over Sheehan Arrest
One day after Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing an anti-war T-shirt to President Bush's State of The Union address, Capitol police have dropped her charges and apologized. Sheehan, whose son Casey died in combat in Iraq in April 2004, was removed from the House gallery Tuesday night after unveiling a T-shirt that read: "2,245 dead and how many more?" -- a reference to the number of US service members killed in Iraq. In a statement, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said Sheehan should not have been arrested. President Bush began his speech shortly after she was removed.
after you stop someone's free speech, a lame apology of it shouldn't have happened makes up for nothing. terrance gainer needs to figure out how to prevent it from happening again and that's what the press should be asking him. 'what steps are you taking to protect the free speech of americans?' wait and see if any 1 asks that.
by the way, did you catch entertainment tonight and their story about angelina jolie's 'emotional journey'? oh wait, that wasn't entertainment tonight, that was nightline. it's hard to distinguish between the 2. just like it's hard to think of cynthia mcfadden as a reporter.
the consensus was it was too factual. 'leave the dry report and offer up more commentary and more examples' was the most repeated suggestion. so c.i.'s reworking the thing and i'm calling every hour to ask how it's going. c.i. will read me a passage and ask, 'can you follow? are you outraged?' and if i'm not outraged or if i can't follow, i'm tempted to say 'sure' just because i know how much work has been put into it. but c.i.'s bullshit detector is too strong for me to get away with that if i wanted to.
i just got off the phone before i logged in here and since the last hour when i'd called, c.i. had scrapped the entire opening and created a new 1. it's more powerful but, as i pointed out, 'you know you are going to have to get some sleep tonight.' last night, working on that entry, resulted in 2 hours of sleep for c.i. i'll point that out when i call back later. c.i. sound exhausted so i'm guessing there will be a point of crashing in a few hours anyway.
let me note that amy goodman and democracy now have gone to qatar to broadcast. i've really enjoyed the last two broadcasts and look forward to more tomorrow. i hope you're watching. (or listening, or reading the transcripts, but i watch it on tv.)
another thing i want to note, that c.i. and elaine have already noted, is that england's passed their milestone of 100 troops killed in iraq. some may look at that figure and think, 'it's not as big as ours!' it's not a competition. this is serious and rallies have already been staged and will continue to be staged. british members of the community will tell you that, for their country, this is similar to our outrage and activism when the united states reached the 2,000 mark.
my sympathies and thoughts are with gareth, polly, pru, james and the other british members of the community as well as with those fighting across the atlantic to stop this illegal war. in the tragic death toll may they find the strength for more activism, more speaking out.
no 1 should have died in this illegal war. after awhile, you start to wonder what it takes to wake up those who live in a self-induced coma? i have no idea. maybe numbers do?
and let me applaud england because their protests have been lively and full from the start. we had a clampdown on ours from some on the left following the 2004 election but, thankfully, many chose to ignore the clampdown in march of 2005 and, thankfully, cindy sheehen showed up in the summer of protest to add new life to the movement.
i'll make mike smile and sleep peaceful tonight by noting 2 headlines from democracy now.
World Can't Wait Protesters Arrested in North Carolina
And in Greensboro, North Carolina, seven protesters are facing charges after being arrested Tuesday night during a State of the Union protest. The protesters reportedly got into an altercation with an undercover police officer who was photographing protesters. The Greensboro demonstration was one of 68 protests held around the country Tuesday night calling on Bush to step down. The main group behind the protests -- World Can't Wait -- is also organizing a protest on Saturday in Washington.
protest saturday in d.c. if you're in the area or can get there. the police sure do love to crack down on peaceful protesters, don't they?
Capitol Police Apologize, Drop Charges Over Sheehan Arrest
One day after Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing an anti-war T-shirt to President Bush's State of The Union address, Capitol police have dropped her charges and apologized. Sheehan, whose son Casey died in combat in Iraq in April 2004, was removed from the House gallery Tuesday night after unveiling a T-shirt that read: "2,245 dead and how many more?" -- a reference to the number of US service members killed in Iraq. In a statement, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said Sheehan should not have been arrested. President Bush began his speech shortly after she was removed.
after you stop someone's free speech, a lame apology of it shouldn't have happened makes up for nothing. terrance gainer needs to figure out how to prevent it from happening again and that's what the press should be asking him. 'what steps are you taking to protect the free speech of americans?' wait and see if any 1 asks that.
by the way, did you catch entertainment tonight and their story about angelina jolie's 'emotional journey'? oh wait, that wasn't entertainment tonight, that was nightline. it's hard to distinguish between the 2. just like it's hard to think of cynthia mcfadden as a reporter.
2/01/2006
'bush commission' by c.i.
i'm late and i've got a houseful of company. it was 1 of those nights where it just seems like every 1 drops by and before you know it, 'i just stopped by for a minute' turns into a party.
i broke away to get something up. if you missed c.i.'s entry on the bush commission, you're in luck because i'm posting it in full here. if you already read it, read it again.
"The Bush Commission Part I:"
When we first got there, the people that we were relieving, they gave us a training. They said that those who were in charge were three spooks. For those of you who don't know what a "spook" is -- a spook is someone who belongs in a highlly specialized unit. Could be CIA, perhaps FBI, civilian contractor, maybe special forces. Nobody knows who they are. They wear no name tags, no unit badges. They're basically untraceable. They go by codenames. The ones we had, for instance, were Rabbit, Scooter, the other one, I think, they called him Artie.
[. . .]
When we were receiving this training we saw that there was this soldier who was yelling at the detainees telling them to stand up and sit down, telling them to turn around, to roll, to get up, to sit down again. And we asked how come these people understood? Because they did not speak English. And they said "Well if you yell at them enough, they're kind of like dogs, you yell at a dog enough, and the dog will get it. And its the same with these people. You just yell at them enough and they'll get the point."
The above is from Camilo E. Mejia's testimony to the Bush Commission conducting. Mejia gave that testimony in October. Huh? The Bush Commission just happened, right? This was the second of three planned hearings. The first was in October. The second was this month. In fact the verdicts for the second hearing will be announced this week: Thursday, February 2nd.
What's the purpose of the Bush Commission? It's a citizen's tribunal much like the World Tribunal on Iraq. It gathers testimony, it raises awareness. It does so without the aid of the press, in case you missed that. The New York Times hasn't been interested in covering the tribunal, but they weren't interested in covering the Bertrand Russell World Crimes Tribunal in 1967. If they had been, Americans would have been less shocked when ugly truths about Vietnam were later revealed.
Camilo Mejia, a name well known in this community, in the first hearings of the Bush Commission underscored this with his own testimony about what he saw in Iraq as well as in detailing his Conscientious Objector application:
In that application I spoke about the abuse of prisoners, I wrote about the abuse of prisoners, and this application was submitted to the commanding general of the 3rd Infantry Division which was in Ft. Stewart, Georgia. No investigation was conducted at that time. There was no Abu Ghraib scandal back then.
This is an echo of a time before, a time when it was possible to know what was happening but the press wasn't interested. Which is why we need to be interested. But to underscore a point Mejia made, let's note that Congress was aware of what Mejia saw. Their reaction (in the pre-Abu Ghraib days)? They "declined" and and preferred "to wait for the Pentagon to conduct an investigation."
So what do you gain by being aware of the Bush Commission? You gain information, you gaininsight and you raise your own awareness.
You know that Mejia testified, "We started conducting mission in cities. There's no such thing as a trench line in Iraq. This war is being fought in every corner of that country, not in the desert not in the vallies not in the mountains but next to schools, neighborhoods, mosques."
In the most recent set of hearings (January), independent journalist, Dahr Jamail testifited about "War Crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq committed by US forces, acting on orders from their commander-in-chief, George W. Bush."
We'll focus on some of his remarks regarding Falluja because Dexter Filkins may have won an "award" but he seems to have missed everything that happened in his rah-rah reporting (a journalistic war crime).
Jamail: Collective Punishment. I'll use Falluja for the model city for Bush policy in Iraq. The US caused actions to be taken in Falluja in violation of the laws of war. For example,targeting by snipers of children and other civilians, targeting of ambulances, the placement of snipers on the roofs of hospitals and prevention of civilians from getting there for medical attention and also illegal weapons used. Article 48 of the Geeneva Conventions states that the basic rule regarding the protection of the civilian population provides QUOTE "in order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects the party to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives." Article 51 on the protection of the civilian population provides "the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law shall be observed in all circumstances.
It also notes the civilian populations, as such, as well as individual civilians shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. It also notes indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. It should also be noted that the US military, again following orders from their commander-in-chief, declared the entire city of Falluja, a city with a population of over 350,000 civilians, a "free fire zone" meaning once that operation began in November of '04 anything in the city was to be targeted by the US military. [. . . ] It should also be noted that approximately 70% of the entire city of Falluja was bombed to the ground during the US assault on that city in November of '04 which left dead estimates of between four and six-thousand civilians. Water, food and medical aid were cut off from Falluja both before and during the seige of that city. This form of collective punishment, which I've seen first hand in Ramadi and Sumara as well has even led the UN to declare in October of last year that this was QUOTE "a flagrant violation of international law.
Barbara Olshansky, who testified at the first installment, focused on two areas in her testimony for the second round in January. Speaking of Alberto Gonzales' involvement in devising the torture loophole, she noted that:
What becomes torture in the eyes of the administration, if they follow this memo, is really only that which brings a person to the brink of complete organ failure and/or death. So everything that they know, in their mind that does not accomplish that end, is not torture. So even the water boarding torture technique where people think they are about to drown and it's done repeatedly [isn't torture] because from the point of the view of the intent of the torturer they know they are not about to bring about the immenent death or organ failure of the individual and so therefore it does not constitute torture. That is the understanding of that memorandum.
So are you interested? You should be.
Speaking on the first day of the second rounds of hearings, Michael Ratner addressed Bully Boy's signing statement of the torture amendment:
It makes three points and I'll paraphrase. First, speaking as the president, 'My authority as commander in chief allows me to do whatever I think is necessary in the war on terror including use torture. Second, the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by Congress. Third, the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by the courts.' There it is. There you have it. That boring stuff I learned, as a junior high school student, about checks and balances or about limited law or about authority under law? Out the window. Gone. In other words, the republic and democracy is over. In Germany, what did they call that? They called that "the fuhrer's law." Why? Because the fuhrer was the law. That's what George Bush is saying here.
Interested? Grasping the importance?
The Bush Commission is something that the community's interested in (and something some members have already been following). We're going to cover it it a series of installment. The plan was to do it in one entry but I'm running behind due to depression over Coretta Scott King's passing. So we'll focus on getting a series of entries up to explain the importance of the commission.
bush commission
camilo mejia
dahr jamail
barbara olshansky
michael ratner
iraq
the common ills
by the way, i just got off the phone with c.i. that's how i broke away from the party, c.i. called.
the church committee post is a headache but c.i. is working on it. i suggested 'go to sleep and start it in the morning, you know you always solve problems in dreams.'
which, by the way, is true. in college, when i was having trouble with a creative writing assignment, i told c.i. about it and was asked, in a shocked voice, 'well don't you dream about it?'
when c.i. took the same class at my urging (sorry, many years too late to c.i. for that, aced the class but c.i. loathed the prof), c.i. would look at the assignment before going to bed and dream on it, then quickly dash it off that morning. (again, c.i. aced the class. the prof had a jealousy spat over c.i.'s talent and you wouldn't believe the drama the prof pulled. that's c.i.'s story to tell someday if c.i. chooses. i came in at the end because i visited the prof to find out what the problem was? yes, for any 1 wondering, i did sleep with the prof while i was in his class. so the problem was the prof asked to use an essay c.i. did, without credit, in a novel he was writing. he thought c.i. should be 'flattered.' c.i. said no, as c.i. should have. the prof, still semi-sane at that time, apologized to c.i. when i asked him 'what were you thinking?' a few years later, the prof wigged out completely and lost his job. he no longer teaches at any university and, last anyone heard, was outside a fast food place begging for money. so happy ending! but seriously, my apologies to c.i. many, many years too late. that class became a nightmare. i would tell that story but it's not mine to tell. i will note that people who wrongly think 'oh c.i. is so sweet, must be a pushover' don't know c.i. at all. what any 1 writes - about c.i. - has never been an issue, but if it is something that's matters, that is an issue, c.i. can and will fight to bitter end. as many have learned too late and the hard way.)
so if c.i. hits a wall and happens to read this (or if a member wants to say 'i agree with rebecca, you've got a headache, go to sleep'), really, go to bed and sleep on it. you may not have time in the morning to write it but you know that you'll know how to pull it together when you wake up.
and seriously, again, i am sorry for selling that class so hard as 'fun.' it was fun for me. but i'm not a creative person. after this happened to c.i., i remembered some stuff i looked the other way on when i took the class. like the way he destroyed a student for missing a week of classes.
he screamed at her, when she showed up, to get out. and she did. and after she did, it was pointed out to him that the woman had miscarried and that's why she was out for a week. he said something like 'too bad, she needs to keep up in my class.' then he laughed like it was a joke. he was probably on the verge of losing it then but he still had a moments where you felt like you were seeing a genius at work. (and i did speak to him privately about the woman he screamed at. that's about all i could muster in those days. believe it or not, i used to be really quiet and shy around 'authority figures' - unlike c.i. who would always say 'they don't know everything, don't let them push you around') but the issue, looking back, wasn't that she had missed a week of classes, it was that the class was spellbound whenever she had to read something she wrote to the class. (she's a successful writer today and a good friend. if you want to make her laugh, all you ever have to do is bring up that prof being homeless today. whereas c.i., who could tell horror stories about that prof, will always say 'oh let's talk about something else.' too nice? yes. pushover? no.)
i broke away to get something up. if you missed c.i.'s entry on the bush commission, you're in luck because i'm posting it in full here. if you already read it, read it again.
"The Bush Commission Part I:"
When we first got there, the people that we were relieving, they gave us a training. They said that those who were in charge were three spooks. For those of you who don't know what a "spook" is -- a spook is someone who belongs in a highlly specialized unit. Could be CIA, perhaps FBI, civilian contractor, maybe special forces. Nobody knows who they are. They wear no name tags, no unit badges. They're basically untraceable. They go by codenames. The ones we had, for instance, were Rabbit, Scooter, the other one, I think, they called him Artie.
[. . .]
When we were receiving this training we saw that there was this soldier who was yelling at the detainees telling them to stand up and sit down, telling them to turn around, to roll, to get up, to sit down again. And we asked how come these people understood? Because they did not speak English. And they said "Well if you yell at them enough, they're kind of like dogs, you yell at a dog enough, and the dog will get it. And its the same with these people. You just yell at them enough and they'll get the point."
The above is from Camilo E. Mejia's testimony to the Bush Commission conducting. Mejia gave that testimony in October. Huh? The Bush Commission just happened, right? This was the second of three planned hearings. The first was in October. The second was this month. In fact the verdicts for the second hearing will be announced this week: Thursday, February 2nd.
What's the purpose of the Bush Commission? It's a citizen's tribunal much like the World Tribunal on Iraq. It gathers testimony, it raises awareness. It does so without the aid of the press, in case you missed that. The New York Times hasn't been interested in covering the tribunal, but they weren't interested in covering the Bertrand Russell World Crimes Tribunal in 1967. If they had been, Americans would have been less shocked when ugly truths about Vietnam were later revealed.
Camilo Mejia, a name well known in this community, in the first hearings of the Bush Commission underscored this with his own testimony about what he saw in Iraq as well as in detailing his Conscientious Objector application:
In that application I spoke about the abuse of prisoners, I wrote about the abuse of prisoners, and this application was submitted to the commanding general of the 3rd Infantry Division which was in Ft. Stewart, Georgia. No investigation was conducted at that time. There was no Abu Ghraib scandal back then.
This is an echo of a time before, a time when it was possible to know what was happening but the press wasn't interested. Which is why we need to be interested. But to underscore a point Mejia made, let's note that Congress was aware of what Mejia saw. Their reaction (in the pre-Abu Ghraib days)? They "declined" and and preferred "to wait for the Pentagon to conduct an investigation."
So what do you gain by being aware of the Bush Commission? You gain information, you gaininsight and you raise your own awareness.
You know that Mejia testified, "We started conducting mission in cities. There's no such thing as a trench line in Iraq. This war is being fought in every corner of that country, not in the desert not in the vallies not in the mountains but next to schools, neighborhoods, mosques."
In the most recent set of hearings (January), independent journalist, Dahr Jamail testifited about "War Crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq committed by US forces, acting on orders from their commander-in-chief, George W. Bush."
We'll focus on some of his remarks regarding Falluja because Dexter Filkins may have won an "award" but he seems to have missed everything that happened in his rah-rah reporting (a journalistic war crime).
Jamail: Collective Punishment. I'll use Falluja for the model city for Bush policy in Iraq. The US caused actions to be taken in Falluja in violation of the laws of war. For example,targeting by snipers of children and other civilians, targeting of ambulances, the placement of snipers on the roofs of hospitals and prevention of civilians from getting there for medical attention and also illegal weapons used. Article 48 of the Geeneva Conventions states that the basic rule regarding the protection of the civilian population provides QUOTE "in order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects the party to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives." Article 51 on the protection of the civilian population provides "the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law shall be observed in all circumstances.
It also notes the civilian populations, as such, as well as individual civilians shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. It also notes indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. It should also be noted that the US military, again following orders from their commander-in-chief, declared the entire city of Falluja, a city with a population of over 350,000 civilians, a "free fire zone" meaning once that operation began in November of '04 anything in the city was to be targeted by the US military. [. . . ] It should also be noted that approximately 70% of the entire city of Falluja was bombed to the ground during the US assault on that city in November of '04 which left dead estimates of between four and six-thousand civilians. Water, food and medical aid were cut off from Falluja both before and during the seige of that city. This form of collective punishment, which I've seen first hand in Ramadi and Sumara as well has even led the UN to declare in October of last year that this was QUOTE "a flagrant violation of international law.
Barbara Olshansky, who testified at the first installment, focused on two areas in her testimony for the second round in January. Speaking of Alberto Gonzales' involvement in devising the torture loophole, she noted that:
What becomes torture in the eyes of the administration, if they follow this memo, is really only that which brings a person to the brink of complete organ failure and/or death. So everything that they know, in their mind that does not accomplish that end, is not torture. So even the water boarding torture technique where people think they are about to drown and it's done repeatedly [isn't torture] because from the point of the view of the intent of the torturer they know they are not about to bring about the immenent death or organ failure of the individual and so therefore it does not constitute torture. That is the understanding of that memorandum.
So are you interested? You should be.
Speaking on the first day of the second rounds of hearings, Michael Ratner addressed Bully Boy's signing statement of the torture amendment:
It makes three points and I'll paraphrase. First, speaking as the president, 'My authority as commander in chief allows me to do whatever I think is necessary in the war on terror including use torture. Second, the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by Congress. Third, the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by the courts.' There it is. There you have it. That boring stuff I learned, as a junior high school student, about checks and balances or about limited law or about authority under law? Out the window. Gone. In other words, the republic and democracy is over. In Germany, what did they call that? They called that "the fuhrer's law." Why? Because the fuhrer was the law. That's what George Bush is saying here.
Interested? Grasping the importance?
The Bush Commission is something that the community's interested in (and something some members have already been following). We're going to cover it it a series of installment. The plan was to do it in one entry but I'm running behind due to depression over Coretta Scott King's passing. So we'll focus on getting a series of entries up to explain the importance of the commission.
bush commission
camilo mejia
dahr jamail
barbara olshansky
michael ratner
iraq
the common ills
by the way, i just got off the phone with c.i. that's how i broke away from the party, c.i. called.
the church committee post is a headache but c.i. is working on it. i suggested 'go to sleep and start it in the morning, you know you always solve problems in dreams.'
which, by the way, is true. in college, when i was having trouble with a creative writing assignment, i told c.i. about it and was asked, in a shocked voice, 'well don't you dream about it?'
when c.i. took the same class at my urging (sorry, many years too late to c.i. for that, aced the class but c.i. loathed the prof), c.i. would look at the assignment before going to bed and dream on it, then quickly dash it off that morning. (again, c.i. aced the class. the prof had a jealousy spat over c.i.'s talent and you wouldn't believe the drama the prof pulled. that's c.i.'s story to tell someday if c.i. chooses. i came in at the end because i visited the prof to find out what the problem was? yes, for any 1 wondering, i did sleep with the prof while i was in his class. so the problem was the prof asked to use an essay c.i. did, without credit, in a novel he was writing. he thought c.i. should be 'flattered.' c.i. said no, as c.i. should have. the prof, still semi-sane at that time, apologized to c.i. when i asked him 'what were you thinking?' a few years later, the prof wigged out completely and lost his job. he no longer teaches at any university and, last anyone heard, was outside a fast food place begging for money. so happy ending! but seriously, my apologies to c.i. many, many years too late. that class became a nightmare. i would tell that story but it's not mine to tell. i will note that people who wrongly think 'oh c.i. is so sweet, must be a pushover' don't know c.i. at all. what any 1 writes - about c.i. - has never been an issue, but if it is something that's matters, that is an issue, c.i. can and will fight to bitter end. as many have learned too late and the hard way.)
so if c.i. hits a wall and happens to read this (or if a member wants to say 'i agree with rebecca, you've got a headache, go to sleep'), really, go to bed and sleep on it. you may not have time in the morning to write it but you know that you'll know how to pull it together when you wake up.
and seriously, again, i am sorry for selling that class so hard as 'fun.' it was fun for me. but i'm not a creative person. after this happened to c.i., i remembered some stuff i looked the other way on when i took the class. like the way he destroyed a student for missing a week of classes.
he screamed at her, when she showed up, to get out. and she did. and after she did, it was pointed out to him that the woman had miscarried and that's why she was out for a week. he said something like 'too bad, she needs to keep up in my class.' then he laughed like it was a joke. he was probably on the verge of losing it then but he still had a moments where you felt like you were seeing a genius at work. (and i did speak to him privately about the woman he screamed at. that's about all i could muster in those days. believe it or not, i used to be really quiet and shy around 'authority figures' - unlike c.i. who would always say 'they don't know everything, don't let them push you around') but the issue, looking back, wasn't that she had missed a week of classes, it was that the class was spellbound whenever she had to read something she wrote to the class. (she's a successful writer today and a good friend. if you want to make her laugh, all you ever have to do is bring up that prof being homeless today. whereas c.i., who could tell horror stories about that prof, will always say 'oh let's talk about something else.' too nice? yes. pushover? no.)
1/31/2006
mrs. king
Coretta Scott King, 79, Dies
In Georgia, Coretta Scott King - the widow of Martin Luther King Junior - has died at the age of 79. She had spent her life fighting for civil rights and preserving her late husband's legacy. In April of 1968 she led a march through Memphis just days after Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. Later that year she led the Poor People's March in Washington, D.C. She continued working for equality, peace and economic justice for the remainder of her life, both in the United States and abroad.
is bully boy even speaking right now? i have no idea. that news was like a punch to the gut.
i sit down with my coffee and turn on democracy now and there it is.
i've felt numb ever since.
i put on otis for a few moments but ended up turning off the stereo and spent most of the day in silence.
i'd planned to take care of several things today but i just ended up sitting on the sofa and at some point, it was pointed out to me that it was nighfall and that i was sitting in the dark.
shortly after that, the phone rang. it had rung all day apparently.
i was really out of it.
but it was betty and my reaction is nothing compared to her's. coretta scott king was probably betty's greatest hero outside of her own family. by the way, big thank you to betty for blogging here on friday. she did an excellent job.
she was planning to post and had 2 different views on it. 1 was coretta scott king carried on so she should blog. the other was that she wasn't in the mood to be funny.
i asked her what she really wanted to do and she said she really felt like crawling under the covers as soon as she got her kids to bed. i think that's what she should do.
i'm wiped out by the loss and betty's torn apart by it. betty said c.i. told her the same thing and said 'i'd be going to bed right away too if i hadn't posted that i'd be doing the bush commission post.' i really think that's the smartest thing to do (and wish c.i. would but doubt that will be the case).
'partners in marriage' is the jargon we like to bandy about now days. but the fact is coretta scott king was a partner in mlk's work. she was involved in the fight for equality before she met mlk and she continued to fight after he passed. they both believed in equality and they both fought for it. she continued the work and . . . what do you say?
classy woman, strong fighter, trail blazer and inspiration. rest peacefully mrs. king.
In Georgia, Coretta Scott King - the widow of Martin Luther King Junior - has died at the age of 79. She had spent her life fighting for civil rights and preserving her late husband's legacy. In April of 1968 she led a march through Memphis just days after Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. Later that year she led the Poor People's March in Washington, D.C. She continued working for equality, peace and economic justice for the remainder of her life, both in the United States and abroad.
is bully boy even speaking right now? i have no idea. that news was like a punch to the gut.
i sit down with my coffee and turn on democracy now and there it is.
i've felt numb ever since.
i put on otis for a few moments but ended up turning off the stereo and spent most of the day in silence.
i'd planned to take care of several things today but i just ended up sitting on the sofa and at some point, it was pointed out to me that it was nighfall and that i was sitting in the dark.
shortly after that, the phone rang. it had rung all day apparently.
i was really out of it.
but it was betty and my reaction is nothing compared to her's. coretta scott king was probably betty's greatest hero outside of her own family. by the way, big thank you to betty for blogging here on friday. she did an excellent job.
she was planning to post and had 2 different views on it. 1 was coretta scott king carried on so she should blog. the other was that she wasn't in the mood to be funny.
i asked her what she really wanted to do and she said she really felt like crawling under the covers as soon as she got her kids to bed. i think that's what she should do.
i'm wiped out by the loss and betty's torn apart by it. betty said c.i. told her the same thing and said 'i'd be going to bed right away too if i hadn't posted that i'd be doing the bush commission post.' i really think that's the smartest thing to do (and wish c.i. would but doubt that will be the case).
'partners in marriage' is the jargon we like to bandy about now days. but the fact is coretta scott king was a partner in mlk's work. she was involved in the fight for equality before she met mlk and she continued to fight after he passed. they both believed in equality and they both fought for it. she continued the work and . . . what do you say?
classy woman, strong fighter, trail blazer and inspiration. rest peacefully mrs. king.
1/30/2006
dear katrina
dear katrina,
what should i write about tonight?
i see you handed out home work sunday night.
well i don't blog on sundays.
where's the assignment for monday?
let me know what to do, will you?
sincerely,
rebecca winters.
i asked c.i. before i wrote about this. i had 2 things that really bothered me. katrina vanden heuvel's sunday night column and naral. c.i. said the common ills was late in going up with the democracy now post because there were 6 paragraphs on this that c.i. finally deleted. c.i. likes katrina, i do as well. c.i.'s comment, for the record, was 'any 1 can make a really bad mistake and, in retrospect, i think she'd agree that was a really bad mistake.'
so katrina made a really bad mistake. c.i. gave me a piece of advice that i did follow, 'becky, take a nap before you write anything. we're all upset about the senate, if you're going to write about this, make sure you're writing about this and not using kvh to get back at the lazy senate.'
so i did. i put on otis, billie holiday and eartha kitt and took a long, long, long nap while they sang lullabyes to me.
i'm calmer.
so here are my problems with katrina's column.
where's alito?
you suggest 4 topics. the day before the vote in the senate.
in fact, where is anything you've written on abortion?
(no, the piece that got you an award from planned parenthood in the 80s doesn't count. i mean in terms of alito. a piece where you focused on abortion for the entire piece.)
not where was katha's? katha was there. katha's always there. katha can be counted on.
have i missed my checks from the nation?
no 1 needs a check less than me, so that's not a plea for money. i'm not hurting, i'm never going to be hurting. (that said, don't hit me up for money, not after that post.) but did you mistake the bloggers for your paid staff who work under you?
i don't work for you. i'll write about whatever i want.
i thought you were a free speech advocate. i assumed, when i heard of your assistant trashing alexander cockburn, that you were okay with that on the basis of 'free speech.'
when your assistant stopped whining semi-privately and took a public shot at cockburn, there was not a word from you on the matter.
if you're going to call out an entire portion of the web on what they say, where's your post calling out your assistant?
do you think your magazine has done anything to promote blogs?
are there any women even listed at the puny resource the magazine's website offers?
it's not just women who aren't listed. bill scher, whom you know from the majority report, can't even catch a break. now you'll link to pretend bloggers like the gawker and wonkette, but for the 'nobody owns the nation' there's no real effort to support any independent blogs. it's almost as bad as cjr daily.
(and wonkette didn't count. she never counted because 'she' didn't run the site.)
having done nothing for blogs, why do you think any blogger should care what you think of their focus?
yes, let's do get real here.
you write: 'let's get real here. 1. it doesn't really matter who gives the reply, since no one listens and it's an impossible task. 2. this is slightly less important than whether house minority leader nancy pelosi chooses to wear blue or red to listen to the speech. . . .'
in terms of #2, that would be your magazine that focuses on what women wear. specificially on geena davis, in that moronic show, and her lipstick color.
in terms of #1, if that's true, why did you even waste your time on the topic to begin with?
who is tim kaine that he can rouse you enough to write a sunday blog? katrina, you write sunday entries about as often as i do. and any 1 who doesn't write on sunday that decided to write, i would assume, would be weighing in on the issue of abortion since the alito vote was taking place monday. but you didn't write about alito.
so do i need to worry? are you the new gatekeeper? cokie got a little long on the tooth and now the keys to the gate will be handed to you?
abortion.
i've noted already that this hasn't been an issue you've chosen to write about at length. i've noted that in the 80s, you were happy to have an award from planned parenthood. you want to talk about tim kaine but what about where he fits in, something you don't bother to address.
before media matters has a heart attack, tim kaine is for legal abortion. he just feels the need to speak of his faith-based opposition to it. so it fits in with the party's overall stepping away from strong support for reproductive rights. just like running little casey junior for the senate, just like making harry reid the minority leader in the senate.
let's remember kaine's 1 of the people who thinks 'just say no to sex, kids' is a workable program, 1 that deserves funding. now last time i checked, katha and patricia could call that for what it is: bullshit.
but we're supposed to take comfort, according to you, in the fact that he's 'a proponent of racial justice.' a proponet! what a brave stand. if this were the 50s. i don't think that even rates a mention today, quite frankly. that, to me, is akin to writing 'and he believes in oxygen and breathing!' i kind of expect that any elected leader in the democratic party, would support racial justice at this late date.
you also point out that republicans, when he was running for governor, called him "the most liberal candidate who's ever run for governor in the commonwealth of virginia's history." yeah, and they also call hillary clinton a liberal. doesn't make it so. since when are smear cries from the opposition supposed to pass for facts? and since when does the nation make their arguments based on political attacks from republicans?
tim kaine is a bad speaker.
that was arianna's beef with him. i didn't write about him. i had things more important to me to focus on. that was alito and abortion. that's not putting down any blogger who chose to write about him. as c.i. says over and over, people should write about whatever they want. why? because that's being true and that's being independent.
considering that the nation promotes it's slogan of 'nobody owns the nation' i'm confused as to why you think you own or can direct what bloggers write about.
since you've made tim kaine an issue, here's my 2 cents. he has no chin. the man has no chin. he's not telegenic, he can't speak, so why was he chosen?
you offer nonsense about it's an off-year election and blah blah blah states need to put forward this and that and we need to have this in place and blah blah blah. this really is the most boring part of your post. you start off like ann coulter tossing a bomb at the left and then you seem to lose your train of thought.
but you said it doesn't matter who delivers the speech. maybe you should have stopped your post there?
i'll write about whatever i want to write about. i haven't needed your suggestions and, lord knows, i haven't had any support from the nation. they've never sent me a check, nor have they ever linked to me. i've made it on my own by being part of an independent community and by speaking my own mind.
you haven't been there for the blogs and now you want to show up and tell every blogger on the left what we should and shouldn't write about?
c.i. thinks you realize the post was a mistake. i hope you do.
it was a huge mistake.
bloggers do not exist for you to harness them. they do not await your direction or your orders. you promoted some conference the week before last. as laura flanders pointed out, women were hardly represented at that conference. did i miss your post on that?
i don't think i did. i don't think you said 1 word to criticize the conference. laura flanders did.
now you usually go for that inspiring talk so it didn't surprise me that you would write a 'the glass is half full' type post. but if your new role, as you see it, is calling out and providing direction, why don't you start with that conference?
or is that a problem? is it a problem for you to address any issue that effects women because, as a female editor, you don't want to be seen as a 'female editor'? if that's the case, let me break it to you bluntly, you still have to sit down to pee. you're still like every other woman whether you want to play the asexual card or not.
i hope this is not true of you, but there are a number of women who break that glass ceiling and immediately turn their backs on women. 'i can't do that, i can't write that, i'm' whatever position they have reached 'now and i have to write for every 1.' which usually means they write for men. they'll turn in some dopey nascar piece or some other crap and they'll maintain that it's gender neutral while never being there for women.
it doesn't cut it.
i hope that's not where you're coming from.
i wasn't able to work with the third estate sunday review this weekend but they made a good point (was that what so enraged you) which was if the party had any guts, they'd have al gore deliver the rebuttal to the state of the union. here's what they wrote:
If the Democrats had any guts, they'd have Al Gore deliver the rebuttal to the State of the Union speech Tuesday. But instead they're still stuck in the myth that "values voters" decided the election (and loathe to address the realities of the Ohio vote). The fact of the matter is that the votes (counted) didn't provide Bully Boy with a "mandate" (unless, possibly, Bully Boy meant some evening plans he had with Jeff Gannon).
i don't see tim kaine's name mentioned in it. that's the most any 1 in this community has written about the rebuttal to the state of the union. i'd guess, i could be wrong, that's pretty much true of the left bloggers because tim kaine's not really an issue to the left. now democratic bloggers (not bloggers who are democrats, but bloggers who blog from a democratic perspective) probably have written more. but some of us on the left had other things to focus on.
what should i write about tonight?
i see you handed out home work sunday night.
well i don't blog on sundays.
where's the assignment for monday?
let me know what to do, will you?
sincerely,
rebecca winters.
i asked c.i. before i wrote about this. i had 2 things that really bothered me. katrina vanden heuvel's sunday night column and naral. c.i. said the common ills was late in going up with the democracy now post because there were 6 paragraphs on this that c.i. finally deleted. c.i. likes katrina, i do as well. c.i.'s comment, for the record, was 'any 1 can make a really bad mistake and, in retrospect, i think she'd agree that was a really bad mistake.'
so katrina made a really bad mistake. c.i. gave me a piece of advice that i did follow, 'becky, take a nap before you write anything. we're all upset about the senate, if you're going to write about this, make sure you're writing about this and not using kvh to get back at the lazy senate.'
so i did. i put on otis, billie holiday and eartha kitt and took a long, long, long nap while they sang lullabyes to me.
i'm calmer.
so here are my problems with katrina's column.
where's alito?
you suggest 4 topics. the day before the vote in the senate.
in fact, where is anything you've written on abortion?
(no, the piece that got you an award from planned parenthood in the 80s doesn't count. i mean in terms of alito. a piece where you focused on abortion for the entire piece.)
not where was katha's? katha was there. katha's always there. katha can be counted on.
have i missed my checks from the nation?
no 1 needs a check less than me, so that's not a plea for money. i'm not hurting, i'm never going to be hurting. (that said, don't hit me up for money, not after that post.) but did you mistake the bloggers for your paid staff who work under you?
i don't work for you. i'll write about whatever i want.
i thought you were a free speech advocate. i assumed, when i heard of your assistant trashing alexander cockburn, that you were okay with that on the basis of 'free speech.'
when your assistant stopped whining semi-privately and took a public shot at cockburn, there was not a word from you on the matter.
if you're going to call out an entire portion of the web on what they say, where's your post calling out your assistant?
do you think your magazine has done anything to promote blogs?
are there any women even listed at the puny resource the magazine's website offers?
it's not just women who aren't listed. bill scher, whom you know from the majority report, can't even catch a break. now you'll link to pretend bloggers like the gawker and wonkette, but for the 'nobody owns the nation' there's no real effort to support any independent blogs. it's almost as bad as cjr daily.
(and wonkette didn't count. she never counted because 'she' didn't run the site.)
having done nothing for blogs, why do you think any blogger should care what you think of their focus?
yes, let's do get real here.
you write: 'let's get real here. 1. it doesn't really matter who gives the reply, since no one listens and it's an impossible task. 2. this is slightly less important than whether house minority leader nancy pelosi chooses to wear blue or red to listen to the speech. . . .'
in terms of #2, that would be your magazine that focuses on what women wear. specificially on geena davis, in that moronic show, and her lipstick color.
in terms of #1, if that's true, why did you even waste your time on the topic to begin with?
who is tim kaine that he can rouse you enough to write a sunday blog? katrina, you write sunday entries about as often as i do. and any 1 who doesn't write on sunday that decided to write, i would assume, would be weighing in on the issue of abortion since the alito vote was taking place monday. but you didn't write about alito.
so do i need to worry? are you the new gatekeeper? cokie got a little long on the tooth and now the keys to the gate will be handed to you?
abortion.
i've noted already that this hasn't been an issue you've chosen to write about at length. i've noted that in the 80s, you were happy to have an award from planned parenthood. you want to talk about tim kaine but what about where he fits in, something you don't bother to address.
before media matters has a heart attack, tim kaine is for legal abortion. he just feels the need to speak of his faith-based opposition to it. so it fits in with the party's overall stepping away from strong support for reproductive rights. just like running little casey junior for the senate, just like making harry reid the minority leader in the senate.
let's remember kaine's 1 of the people who thinks 'just say no to sex, kids' is a workable program, 1 that deserves funding. now last time i checked, katha and patricia could call that for what it is: bullshit.
but we're supposed to take comfort, according to you, in the fact that he's 'a proponent of racial justice.' a proponet! what a brave stand. if this were the 50s. i don't think that even rates a mention today, quite frankly. that, to me, is akin to writing 'and he believes in oxygen and breathing!' i kind of expect that any elected leader in the democratic party, would support racial justice at this late date.
you also point out that republicans, when he was running for governor, called him "the most liberal candidate who's ever run for governor in the commonwealth of virginia's history." yeah, and they also call hillary clinton a liberal. doesn't make it so. since when are smear cries from the opposition supposed to pass for facts? and since when does the nation make their arguments based on political attacks from republicans?
tim kaine is a bad speaker.
that was arianna's beef with him. i didn't write about him. i had things more important to me to focus on. that was alito and abortion. that's not putting down any blogger who chose to write about him. as c.i. says over and over, people should write about whatever they want. why? because that's being true and that's being independent.
considering that the nation promotes it's slogan of 'nobody owns the nation' i'm confused as to why you think you own or can direct what bloggers write about.
since you've made tim kaine an issue, here's my 2 cents. he has no chin. the man has no chin. he's not telegenic, he can't speak, so why was he chosen?
you offer nonsense about it's an off-year election and blah blah blah states need to put forward this and that and we need to have this in place and blah blah blah. this really is the most boring part of your post. you start off like ann coulter tossing a bomb at the left and then you seem to lose your train of thought.
but you said it doesn't matter who delivers the speech. maybe you should have stopped your post there?
i'll write about whatever i want to write about. i haven't needed your suggestions and, lord knows, i haven't had any support from the nation. they've never sent me a check, nor have they ever linked to me. i've made it on my own by being part of an independent community and by speaking my own mind.
you haven't been there for the blogs and now you want to show up and tell every blogger on the left what we should and shouldn't write about?
c.i. thinks you realize the post was a mistake. i hope you do.
it was a huge mistake.
bloggers do not exist for you to harness them. they do not await your direction or your orders. you promoted some conference the week before last. as laura flanders pointed out, women were hardly represented at that conference. did i miss your post on that?
i don't think i did. i don't think you said 1 word to criticize the conference. laura flanders did.
now you usually go for that inspiring talk so it didn't surprise me that you would write a 'the glass is half full' type post. but if your new role, as you see it, is calling out and providing direction, why don't you start with that conference?
or is that a problem? is it a problem for you to address any issue that effects women because, as a female editor, you don't want to be seen as a 'female editor'? if that's the case, let me break it to you bluntly, you still have to sit down to pee. you're still like every other woman whether you want to play the asexual card or not.
i hope this is not true of you, but there are a number of women who break that glass ceiling and immediately turn their backs on women. 'i can't do that, i can't write that, i'm' whatever position they have reached 'now and i have to write for every 1.' which usually means they write for men. they'll turn in some dopey nascar piece or some other crap and they'll maintain that it's gender neutral while never being there for women.
it doesn't cut it.
i hope that's not where you're coming from.
i wasn't able to work with the third estate sunday review this weekend but they made a good point (was that what so enraged you) which was if the party had any guts, they'd have al gore deliver the rebuttal to the state of the union. here's what they wrote:
If the Democrats had any guts, they'd have Al Gore deliver the rebuttal to the State of the Union speech Tuesday. But instead they're still stuck in the myth that "values voters" decided the election (and loathe to address the realities of the Ohio vote). The fact of the matter is that the votes (counted) didn't provide Bully Boy with a "mandate" (unless, possibly, Bully Boy meant some evening plans he had with Jeff Gannon).
i don't see tim kaine's name mentioned in it. that's the most any 1 in this community has written about the rebuttal to the state of the union. i'd guess, i could be wrong, that's pretty much true of the left bloggers because tim kaine's not really an issue to the left. now democratic bloggers (not bloggers who are democrats, but bloggers who blog from a democratic perspective) probably have written more. but some of us on the left had other things to focus on.
1/27/2006
Betty here, weighing in on Alito and the Democratic Party
Hello, Rebecca's out of pocket tonight and I'm filling in for her. Betty here and I spent the last two hours getting advice. Mike said open with a greeting and everything's easy from there. Kat told me I was making it too hard.
So let's get started.
I've got not sex to talk about, three young children may be the best known birth control, so let's move on to politics. Politics? How about this from Feminist Daily Wire?
Group of Senate Democrats Launch Filibuster on Alito
A group of Democratic Senators, led by Massachusetts Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, has launched a filibuster to block the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has called for a cloture vote on Monday at 4:30 p.m. to end debate and move to a vote on Alito. To win a cloture vote, Frist has to muster 60 votes in favor of ending debate."
Millions of people have called and emailed their Senators, urging them to save the Supreme Court for women's rights, civil rights, environment protections, civil liberties, separation of church and state, disability rights, and to stop a Bush power grab. The Democrats have heard this message loud and clear," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. "This filibuster is historically important because it is sending a message to the President -- people will not tolerate his packing of the Supreme Court."
TAKE ACTION Urge your Democratic Senators to filibuster Alito!
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
So Monday looks like the big test. Are we going to give it our all and let our Senators know we won't stand for this? And will the Democratic Party listen to us?
This really is a line in the sand.
For Alito and for the Democratic Party.
I'll start with Alito. As a Black woman and a mother, I don't see a thing worth getting excited about. His record indicates a hostility to civil rights. Or maybe you think justice can be served without black people? Alito doesn't seem to think that we have a right to sit on juries. I guess Black people aren't necessary to justice. Or is it that we just can't understand things like "guilty" or "innocent?"
Here's one thing I can understand. If a police officer doesn't have a warrant to search a ten-year-old girl, you don't strip search her. And this isn't like CAPS. That's Concerned Alumini for Princeton which Alito was a member of as late as 1985 when he was putting it on a job application. He claims he has no recollections of it today.
Which is sort of funny if you think about how much time he spent at the hearings telling everyone why he probably signed up. If someone doesn't remember, you'd think, "I don't remember" would say it all. But CAPS wasn't happy that Princeton was opening enrollment to women and felt that people of color, along with gays and lesbians, were forgetting their place which, CAP seemed to think, was the back of the bus.
Back to the ten-year-old girl. Doe v. Grody was about the police being given a search warrant to search a house and the decision by the police that somehow a search warrent meant pull the clothes off a ten-year-old girl.
I was surprised that the press didn't attempt to go with this story. Every woman I know who is a mother responds to this story with, "He did what?" Because Alito was the judge hearing this issue and he didn't see a problem with it. And it was in 2004. Not in the eighties, not in the seventies.
Then there's the issue of who decides about our bodies. Women, of all races, may find themselves back on the plantation as our bodies stop being our own. Reproductive rights are women's rights. I'm glad, happy, thrilled when any male supports us on this but, in the end, this is about our having the final say about our bodies.
I've never had to face the decision of having an abortion. But the option is out there. And no one, male or female, should be able to take it away from the woman who finds herself pregnant.
Ava and C.I. were hoping to a do a piece, last week at The Third Estate Sunday Review, on how abortion is portrayed on TV but time ran out while everyone was working on that edition.
There has been this demonizing of a medical procedure. It used to be you'd see men on TV screaming about it but they seem to have learned that it's better to create a front group of women to push their words through.
So now we get "concerned" women. Any woman who is truly concerned about another woman doesn't try to limit her options. It's a medical procedure and unless you're the one contemplating it, you've really got no say in whether a woman has it or not. It's about as much your business if Jane Roe has one as it is whether she has her tonsils removed. It's her medical decision.
But instead, it's being demonized. A very good friend told me last week that she was opposed to abortion. I was shocked. Because she's very pro-choice. We were talking about Alito and about how reproductive rights need to be protected. In the course of conversation, she said she was going to tell me something she'd never told anyone. Right away, I'm curious. That's when she said that for her, she couldn't ethically have an abortion. (Ethically was the word she used.)
"But you're so pro-choice," I replied.
She is. And she's reached her own personal decision. But she thinks that's what you do, you keep the procedure legal and available and women who want to utilize it, can. She said she never talks about it because she fears it would be misunderstood and someone would lump her in with the anti-choice crowd.
She's not anti-choice. But she feels that a woman needs to make her own decisions. She's not for any limitations or erosions on reproductive rights. I have a family member who's the same way.
Abortion has been a huge issue in conversations I've taken part in during the last two weeks. I've always been pro-choice and I'd usually leave it at that. It's the sort of thing you toss out and that's really all for a lot of women my age. Abortion has always been legal in our lifetime.
Alito's anti-choice positions have resulted in many women who never went beyond "pro-choice" in their conversations having some serious discussions about it. I found out about two friends abortions in the past week. I wasn't aware them because I didn't know them when they made their decisions. One has four children and was nearing graduation. Her ex popped back into her life during spring break of her last semester. He'd "changed" and wanted to be with her and his children. He hung around for about half the week before he disappeared again. Right before graduation, as she was lining up job interviews, she learned she was pregnant.
He was out of the picture, again, and she was looking at not being able to find a job and having five children one of which would be an infant. She made her decision and she didn't regret it then or now. (And for anyone wanting to scream "Birth control!" she was on birth control pills.)
Women make these choices not because they're bored or wanting to try something new (like a hair cut) but because they seriously weigh the realities.
Another friend told me about why she had divorced. I never knew anything except for the fact that it wasn't a happy marriage. He liked rough sex. He liked a show of force. He raped her. She'd wake up in the middle of the night to him forcing himself on her. Before they married, they had slept together and it was never a problem. They got married and all the sudden everything she did was wrong and he'd tell her, "My mother . . ."
She thinks he had some issues with his mother and that's why he ended up not being able to have sex without it being rough or rape. He really had a need to degrade to get in the mood.
She ended it and kicked him out. (It was her house. She'd bought it before they were married.)
He whined about having left something at the house and kept calling her at work. She finally left the door in the garage unlocked and called him from work to tell him to get his stuff and get out.
She came home that night and was making dinner when it turned out he was still there. He raped her.
She told me her story and asked me to mention it if we did a roundtable on abortion at The Third Estate Sunday Review. When Rebecca asked me if I'd like to grab one of her blog days, I called my friend to see if it was okay to share it here and she was fine with it.
She wanted the man out of her life. She wasn't on birth control because she wasn't having sex. She had filed for divorce and was not in the mood to be around any man. After he raped her and left, she had a fear that she'd end up pregnant and that is what happened.
"Is it my obligation to explain to the world how bad my marriage was?"
That was her question. She didn't think so. She was embarrassed that it had gone on while they were married and that she had made excuses for it for three months. She'd talk to him about not liking the rough sex and he'd apologize but then he would do it again and the rough sex quickly turned to rape. That's when she knew she had to end her marriage.
She went into therapy to deal with the pain of her marriage and that was incredibly hard for her because she's a very private person. She didn't want a child with this man. She didn't want any connection to him, she just wanted him out of her life.
She had the abortion before the divorce was granted because she didn't want him trying to use her pregancy to get back into her life and she was told that the judge might ask her, as a formality, if she was pregnant before he granted the divorce.
She said that there are people like her who do not go on Oprah and spill every detail of their lives for public consumption.
I'll tell one more story. It involves a cousin of mine. We were all so proud of "Ralph" (not his real name) because he seemed to have his head together. He had goals and was pursuing them.
And among his friends, to be over 21 and not have one or more children was a big thing. My grandmother felt he was really responsible and mature "focused on the future."
Four months ago, Ralph became a father. None of us knew anything about it until after. He doesn't do anything he doesn't have to do. The child has some medical problems and that's how we found out. The mother of the child called my grandmother's one Sunday to ask that Ralph please show up at the hospital because the baby was having trouble breathing. That was our introduction to our newest member of the family.
Ralph does nothing for the child. He gives nothing to support the baby. He goes out of his way to avoid the mother and the child. We knew the mother when he was dating her. He dropped her shortly after she got pregnant. She is a nice young woman. We've seen her go from the most put together, turned out young woman to someone who has time only to focus on her sick child. Ralph still dresses nice. He just bought a new car two months ago. He's living fine.
She's had to quit her job because her child is in and out of the hospital and her employer told her she needed to think about her "priorities." She is struggling so hard.
We've welcomed her into the family as we should. We all try to help out. If the child goes back to the hospital, which is a weekly thing, we always try to make sure at least one of us is there with her. We're helping out as a family with money and time and we'd be doing that anyway if Ralph was stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility. But he's not doing that.
Which is one reason she's struggling. Another reason is, of course, because of the child's medical condition. She has support but it's still really hard. My grandmother has finally convinced her that she and the baby should move into my grandmother's house and hopefully that will lessen the load.
But these are the realities that women face and these are the realities they have to think through when they make their decisions. A lot of toads pass themselves off as Prince Charming. They turn back into a toad and leap frog away and women are left to do it all by themselves.
She's at the point right now where if Ralph showed back up, my grandmother has told him that until he can start contributing some money and spending some time with his child to stay away from her house, and was making promises, she would be willing to give it another try.
That's because she's tired. She's really worn out. Even when we watch the child and tell her to go take a nap or go see a movie or just get some time for herself, she's still worrying about her baby. And usually when we are at our weakest is when a boy like "Ralph" (he's no man), starts thinking it might be fun to be a daddy or starts getting ragged on too much by his friends, so he shows up all full of promises and sometimes carrying flowers. Most women I know, and maybe this is just true for Black women but I doubt it, can tell you that within a week or two the Ralphs split. They can't handle the reality, even if the child is healthy.
But when you're doing it all yourself and the father of your child suddenly tells you, "I made a mistake, I want to be here for you and my child" you don't say, "Yeah, right." You say, "Thank God." You trick yourself into believing it's true. And yes, it's happened to me too.
A guy at work was running down this woman and saying she was "tough." She'd shot him down when he'd asked her out. She's been through this cycle of Ralphs and she knows the score. I do as well which is why my focus is on my children and I don't date. When I shared that in an interview with The Third Estate Sunday Review, a few people took offense to that. A few thought I was saying, "This makes me a better mother than it does mothers who date." It does make me a better mother than I would be if I was dating. It makes me be a better mother. It doesn't make me be a better mother than any other mother.
That's the choice I had to make. Not because my family suggested it. They think I should be dating. I made the decision because I get too caught up in "romance" and fall for anything and everything. So, like the woman the guy was running down at work, I'm sure I'm seem as "tough." But we have to make the choices we make based on what we know.
And if a woman knows that she can't manage various things, she needs to make her decision and not be questioned on it. Whether it's my decision to postpone dating until my children are older and I'm a bit wiser or whether it's a woman's decision to postpone motherhood (or never become a mother). Reality is always around but circumstances make us evaluate and address it.
No woman owes anyone an explanation as to why they decide to terminate a pregnancy. She's made her decision and she's weighed the options and odds. No woman owes anyone an explanation of why she decided to have a child either. These are basic decisions and they should belong to us because we are the ones who live with them.
You can support a decision of whether or not to have a child but I don't think it's your right to question it. And when I see what Ralph's done, someone my whole family thought was responsible and was mature, I'm only reminded all the more of how the decision must be the woman's and only her decision.
Now let's deal with the Democrat. But let me apologize first because I started this entry late and I've gone on and on so it will post even later.
The Democrats have said they'd fight. They were going to make sure that "never again" would voters be disenfranchised after Florida 2000. Then, in the very next presidential election cycle, voters were disenfranchised in Florida and Ohio and there was no fight. They caved. I'm sure candidates will go before Black voters in 2008 and make promises of "never again" all over again. We're getting real tired of empty promises. We're getting real tired of a Democratic Party that won't fight.
Some pundits are saying that to fight when you might lose would hurt the Democratic Party. Did MLK hurt the party when he lost some rounds? No. His being in the Birmingham jail could be seen as loss. But he proved he was a fighter and he inspired us all with his dedication.
Anyone can win the easy battles. They're meaingless. Winning the easy win is like breathing, we expect that everyone will do that. But courage is what we're looking for and we haven't seen it in abundance from the Democratic Party.
If the party is attempting to send the message that they will buckle and give in, message received. But don't expect us to fight for you if you won't fight for us.
As a mother, I'm fighting every day. I'm fighting to make sure there's food on the table for my children, I'm fighting to make sure they're getting what they need. Those are the battles that I should win. But that's not where the fighting stops. If something happens that calls on me to stand up to entire school system for one of my children, I should be willing to fight that fight. I shouldn't say, "Well, I'll probably lose so I should save my energy."
You fight for a principle, not for an easy win. If your convictions are so hollow that you'll stay silent and roll over, that's sad. If you're an elected official who rolls over, you don't need to be in office. Black History is full of fighters and they didn't always "win." They didn't always live to see change. But they fought because it was the right thing to do. By fighting, they laid the groundwork for others. They inspired and they educated by struggling.
There's nothing inspiring in a member of Congress who won't stand up. Don't come to someone like me, a working woman with three kids, and expect me to give up my lunch hour at work to go down to the polls and vote for you if you aren't willing to stand up for me. We don't have a national holiday for voting (we should). I do have to sacrifice to stand in line on election day and vote. I go to that trouble because it's what I should do. It's part of standing up for democracy.
So Senators who think that they shouldn't filibuster because they might lose better think about the message they're sending out.
On election day in November 2006, maybe my candidate of choice could lose? By their logic, since I have other battles to fight, I should stay away from the polls and not vote. It's not "wise" for me to waste my time on a fight that I might not win, by their logic.
If they want to inspire me, if they want me to feel that I'm not just doing my duty but doing something worthwhile by voting, they need to show some fight and some spirit.
And, as C.I. said to me on the phone Thursday night, they're missing the best campaign moment. Filibuster Alito because it's the right thing to do. And don't be scared of losing. If you lose, that's your campaign moment. That's what you use to make the case to the American people for returning the Congress to the Democrats. "Look what happened in the Senate! If we'd been the majority party, we could have stopped the confirmation of Alito! That's why you need to help us take back the Senate!" That's your campaign slogan.
(And thanks to C.I. for letting me have that. When we were talking on the phone last night, I said, "Oh that's so great. Write it up so I can link to it when I fill in for Rebecca." C.I. said I was so impassioned about the slogan that I could have it. I will take it but, please note, it was C.I. who thought it up.)
You get on every chat & chew and you say, "Well if we'd be in control, we would have won the fight on Alito. We didn't have the seats to win it, but America saw that we will fight regardless and America liked what they saw which is why they're going to be returning the Senate to Democratic control." You repeat that at every campaign stop. "Why do we need to be in charge? Because we are fighters. We showed you we were fighters. What we need from you is the support to get enough of us back into office so that we can keep fighting and can actually win."
I'll say I'm sorry one last time for the fact that I started late and for the fact that I ran off at the mouth. Thank you to Rebecca for letting me have this opportunity. There's so much that I'd like to note at my site but never can because I'm dealing with an outline and writing in character. Rebecca told me that I'd enjoy this and she wasn't kidding. Thank you to her readers for putting up with my rants. I know her readers are already active on stopping Alito's confirmation and that they don't need me to tell them what to do or how to do it. So I'll just close by saying that I'm in this fight with you and honored to be standing with so many fighters who don't play the odds but stand up for what is right. Thank you.
So let's get started.
I've got not sex to talk about, three young children may be the best known birth control, so let's move on to politics. Politics? How about this from Feminist Daily Wire?
Group of Senate Democrats Launch Filibuster on Alito
A group of Democratic Senators, led by Massachusetts Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, has launched a filibuster to block the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has called for a cloture vote on Monday at 4:30 p.m. to end debate and move to a vote on Alito. To win a cloture vote, Frist has to muster 60 votes in favor of ending debate."
Millions of people have called and emailed their Senators, urging them to save the Supreme Court for women's rights, civil rights, environment protections, civil liberties, separation of church and state, disability rights, and to stop a Bush power grab. The Democrats have heard this message loud and clear," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. "This filibuster is historically important because it is sending a message to the President -- people will not tolerate his packing of the Supreme Court."
TAKE ACTION Urge your Democratic Senators to filibuster Alito!
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
So Monday looks like the big test. Are we going to give it our all and let our Senators know we won't stand for this? And will the Democratic Party listen to us?
This really is a line in the sand.
For Alito and for the Democratic Party.
I'll start with Alito. As a Black woman and a mother, I don't see a thing worth getting excited about. His record indicates a hostility to civil rights. Or maybe you think justice can be served without black people? Alito doesn't seem to think that we have a right to sit on juries. I guess Black people aren't necessary to justice. Or is it that we just can't understand things like "guilty" or "innocent?"
Here's one thing I can understand. If a police officer doesn't have a warrant to search a ten-year-old girl, you don't strip search her. And this isn't like CAPS. That's Concerned Alumini for Princeton which Alito was a member of as late as 1985 when he was putting it on a job application. He claims he has no recollections of it today.
Which is sort of funny if you think about how much time he spent at the hearings telling everyone why he probably signed up. If someone doesn't remember, you'd think, "I don't remember" would say it all. But CAPS wasn't happy that Princeton was opening enrollment to women and felt that people of color, along with gays and lesbians, were forgetting their place which, CAP seemed to think, was the back of the bus.
Back to the ten-year-old girl. Doe v. Grody was about the police being given a search warrant to search a house and the decision by the police that somehow a search warrent meant pull the clothes off a ten-year-old girl.
I was surprised that the press didn't attempt to go with this story. Every woman I know who is a mother responds to this story with, "He did what?" Because Alito was the judge hearing this issue and he didn't see a problem with it. And it was in 2004. Not in the eighties, not in the seventies.
Then there's the issue of who decides about our bodies. Women, of all races, may find themselves back on the plantation as our bodies stop being our own. Reproductive rights are women's rights. I'm glad, happy, thrilled when any male supports us on this but, in the end, this is about our having the final say about our bodies.
I've never had to face the decision of having an abortion. But the option is out there. And no one, male or female, should be able to take it away from the woman who finds herself pregnant.
Ava and C.I. were hoping to a do a piece, last week at The Third Estate Sunday Review, on how abortion is portrayed on TV but time ran out while everyone was working on that edition.
There has been this demonizing of a medical procedure. It used to be you'd see men on TV screaming about it but they seem to have learned that it's better to create a front group of women to push their words through.
So now we get "concerned" women. Any woman who is truly concerned about another woman doesn't try to limit her options. It's a medical procedure and unless you're the one contemplating it, you've really got no say in whether a woman has it or not. It's about as much your business if Jane Roe has one as it is whether she has her tonsils removed. It's her medical decision.
But instead, it's being demonized. A very good friend told me last week that she was opposed to abortion. I was shocked. Because she's very pro-choice. We were talking about Alito and about how reproductive rights need to be protected. In the course of conversation, she said she was going to tell me something she'd never told anyone. Right away, I'm curious. That's when she said that for her, she couldn't ethically have an abortion. (Ethically was the word she used.)
"But you're so pro-choice," I replied.
She is. And she's reached her own personal decision. But she thinks that's what you do, you keep the procedure legal and available and women who want to utilize it, can. She said she never talks about it because she fears it would be misunderstood and someone would lump her in with the anti-choice crowd.
She's not anti-choice. But she feels that a woman needs to make her own decisions. She's not for any limitations or erosions on reproductive rights. I have a family member who's the same way.
Abortion has been a huge issue in conversations I've taken part in during the last two weeks. I've always been pro-choice and I'd usually leave it at that. It's the sort of thing you toss out and that's really all for a lot of women my age. Abortion has always been legal in our lifetime.
Alito's anti-choice positions have resulted in many women who never went beyond "pro-choice" in their conversations having some serious discussions about it. I found out about two friends abortions in the past week. I wasn't aware them because I didn't know them when they made their decisions. One has four children and was nearing graduation. Her ex popped back into her life during spring break of her last semester. He'd "changed" and wanted to be with her and his children. He hung around for about half the week before he disappeared again. Right before graduation, as she was lining up job interviews, she learned she was pregnant.
He was out of the picture, again, and she was looking at not being able to find a job and having five children one of which would be an infant. She made her decision and she didn't regret it then or now. (And for anyone wanting to scream "Birth control!" she was on birth control pills.)
Women make these choices not because they're bored or wanting to try something new (like a hair cut) but because they seriously weigh the realities.
Another friend told me about why she had divorced. I never knew anything except for the fact that it wasn't a happy marriage. He liked rough sex. He liked a show of force. He raped her. She'd wake up in the middle of the night to him forcing himself on her. Before they married, they had slept together and it was never a problem. They got married and all the sudden everything she did was wrong and he'd tell her, "My mother . . ."
She thinks he had some issues with his mother and that's why he ended up not being able to have sex without it being rough or rape. He really had a need to degrade to get in the mood.
She ended it and kicked him out. (It was her house. She'd bought it before they were married.)
He whined about having left something at the house and kept calling her at work. She finally left the door in the garage unlocked and called him from work to tell him to get his stuff and get out.
She came home that night and was making dinner when it turned out he was still there. He raped her.
She told me her story and asked me to mention it if we did a roundtable on abortion at The Third Estate Sunday Review. When Rebecca asked me if I'd like to grab one of her blog days, I called my friend to see if it was okay to share it here and she was fine with it.
She wanted the man out of her life. She wasn't on birth control because she wasn't having sex. She had filed for divorce and was not in the mood to be around any man. After he raped her and left, she had a fear that she'd end up pregnant and that is what happened.
"Is it my obligation to explain to the world how bad my marriage was?"
That was her question. She didn't think so. She was embarrassed that it had gone on while they were married and that she had made excuses for it for three months. She'd talk to him about not liking the rough sex and he'd apologize but then he would do it again and the rough sex quickly turned to rape. That's when she knew she had to end her marriage.
She went into therapy to deal with the pain of her marriage and that was incredibly hard for her because she's a very private person. She didn't want a child with this man. She didn't want any connection to him, she just wanted him out of her life.
She had the abortion before the divorce was granted because she didn't want him trying to use her pregancy to get back into her life and she was told that the judge might ask her, as a formality, if she was pregnant before he granted the divorce.
She said that there are people like her who do not go on Oprah and spill every detail of their lives for public consumption.
I'll tell one more story. It involves a cousin of mine. We were all so proud of "Ralph" (not his real name) because he seemed to have his head together. He had goals and was pursuing them.
And among his friends, to be over 21 and not have one or more children was a big thing. My grandmother felt he was really responsible and mature "focused on the future."
Four months ago, Ralph became a father. None of us knew anything about it until after. He doesn't do anything he doesn't have to do. The child has some medical problems and that's how we found out. The mother of the child called my grandmother's one Sunday to ask that Ralph please show up at the hospital because the baby was having trouble breathing. That was our introduction to our newest member of the family.
Ralph does nothing for the child. He gives nothing to support the baby. He goes out of his way to avoid the mother and the child. We knew the mother when he was dating her. He dropped her shortly after she got pregnant. She is a nice young woman. We've seen her go from the most put together, turned out young woman to someone who has time only to focus on her sick child. Ralph still dresses nice. He just bought a new car two months ago. He's living fine.
She's had to quit her job because her child is in and out of the hospital and her employer told her she needed to think about her "priorities." She is struggling so hard.
We've welcomed her into the family as we should. We all try to help out. If the child goes back to the hospital, which is a weekly thing, we always try to make sure at least one of us is there with her. We're helping out as a family with money and time and we'd be doing that anyway if Ralph was stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility. But he's not doing that.
Which is one reason she's struggling. Another reason is, of course, because of the child's medical condition. She has support but it's still really hard. My grandmother has finally convinced her that she and the baby should move into my grandmother's house and hopefully that will lessen the load.
But these are the realities that women face and these are the realities they have to think through when they make their decisions. A lot of toads pass themselves off as Prince Charming. They turn back into a toad and leap frog away and women are left to do it all by themselves.
She's at the point right now where if Ralph showed back up, my grandmother has told him that until he can start contributing some money and spending some time with his child to stay away from her house, and was making promises, she would be willing to give it another try.
That's because she's tired. She's really worn out. Even when we watch the child and tell her to go take a nap or go see a movie or just get some time for herself, she's still worrying about her baby. And usually when we are at our weakest is when a boy like "Ralph" (he's no man), starts thinking it might be fun to be a daddy or starts getting ragged on too much by his friends, so he shows up all full of promises and sometimes carrying flowers. Most women I know, and maybe this is just true for Black women but I doubt it, can tell you that within a week or two the Ralphs split. They can't handle the reality, even if the child is healthy.
But when you're doing it all yourself and the father of your child suddenly tells you, "I made a mistake, I want to be here for you and my child" you don't say, "Yeah, right." You say, "Thank God." You trick yourself into believing it's true. And yes, it's happened to me too.
A guy at work was running down this woman and saying she was "tough." She'd shot him down when he'd asked her out. She's been through this cycle of Ralphs and she knows the score. I do as well which is why my focus is on my children and I don't date. When I shared that in an interview with The Third Estate Sunday Review, a few people took offense to that. A few thought I was saying, "This makes me a better mother than it does mothers who date." It does make me a better mother than I would be if I was dating. It makes me be a better mother. It doesn't make me be a better mother than any other mother.
That's the choice I had to make. Not because my family suggested it. They think I should be dating. I made the decision because I get too caught up in "romance" and fall for anything and everything. So, like the woman the guy was running down at work, I'm sure I'm seem as "tough." But we have to make the choices we make based on what we know.
And if a woman knows that she can't manage various things, she needs to make her decision and not be questioned on it. Whether it's my decision to postpone dating until my children are older and I'm a bit wiser or whether it's a woman's decision to postpone motherhood (or never become a mother). Reality is always around but circumstances make us evaluate and address it.
No woman owes anyone an explanation as to why they decide to terminate a pregnancy. She's made her decision and she's weighed the options and odds. No woman owes anyone an explanation of why she decided to have a child either. These are basic decisions and they should belong to us because we are the ones who live with them.
You can support a decision of whether or not to have a child but I don't think it's your right to question it. And when I see what Ralph's done, someone my whole family thought was responsible and was mature, I'm only reminded all the more of how the decision must be the woman's and only her decision.
Now let's deal with the Democrat. But let me apologize first because I started this entry late and I've gone on and on so it will post even later.
The Democrats have said they'd fight. They were going to make sure that "never again" would voters be disenfranchised after Florida 2000. Then, in the very next presidential election cycle, voters were disenfranchised in Florida and Ohio and there was no fight. They caved. I'm sure candidates will go before Black voters in 2008 and make promises of "never again" all over again. We're getting real tired of empty promises. We're getting real tired of a Democratic Party that won't fight.
Some pundits are saying that to fight when you might lose would hurt the Democratic Party. Did MLK hurt the party when he lost some rounds? No. His being in the Birmingham jail could be seen as loss. But he proved he was a fighter and he inspired us all with his dedication.
Anyone can win the easy battles. They're meaingless. Winning the easy win is like breathing, we expect that everyone will do that. But courage is what we're looking for and we haven't seen it in abundance from the Democratic Party.
If the party is attempting to send the message that they will buckle and give in, message received. But don't expect us to fight for you if you won't fight for us.
As a mother, I'm fighting every day. I'm fighting to make sure there's food on the table for my children, I'm fighting to make sure they're getting what they need. Those are the battles that I should win. But that's not where the fighting stops. If something happens that calls on me to stand up to entire school system for one of my children, I should be willing to fight that fight. I shouldn't say, "Well, I'll probably lose so I should save my energy."
You fight for a principle, not for an easy win. If your convictions are so hollow that you'll stay silent and roll over, that's sad. If you're an elected official who rolls over, you don't need to be in office. Black History is full of fighters and they didn't always "win." They didn't always live to see change. But they fought because it was the right thing to do. By fighting, they laid the groundwork for others. They inspired and they educated by struggling.
There's nothing inspiring in a member of Congress who won't stand up. Don't come to someone like me, a working woman with three kids, and expect me to give up my lunch hour at work to go down to the polls and vote for you if you aren't willing to stand up for me. We don't have a national holiday for voting (we should). I do have to sacrifice to stand in line on election day and vote. I go to that trouble because it's what I should do. It's part of standing up for democracy.
So Senators who think that they shouldn't filibuster because they might lose better think about the message they're sending out.
On election day in November 2006, maybe my candidate of choice could lose? By their logic, since I have other battles to fight, I should stay away from the polls and not vote. It's not "wise" for me to waste my time on a fight that I might not win, by their logic.
If they want to inspire me, if they want me to feel that I'm not just doing my duty but doing something worthwhile by voting, they need to show some fight and some spirit.
And, as C.I. said to me on the phone Thursday night, they're missing the best campaign moment. Filibuster Alito because it's the right thing to do. And don't be scared of losing. If you lose, that's your campaign moment. That's what you use to make the case to the American people for returning the Congress to the Democrats. "Look what happened in the Senate! If we'd been the majority party, we could have stopped the confirmation of Alito! That's why you need to help us take back the Senate!" That's your campaign slogan.
(And thanks to C.I. for letting me have that. When we were talking on the phone last night, I said, "Oh that's so great. Write it up so I can link to it when I fill in for Rebecca." C.I. said I was so impassioned about the slogan that I could have it. I will take it but, please note, it was C.I. who thought it up.)
You get on every chat & chew and you say, "Well if we'd be in control, we would have won the fight on Alito. We didn't have the seats to win it, but America saw that we will fight regardless and America liked what they saw which is why they're going to be returning the Senate to Democratic control." You repeat that at every campaign stop. "Why do we need to be in charge? Because we are fighters. We showed you we were fighters. What we need from you is the support to get enough of us back into office so that we can keep fighting and can actually win."
I'll say I'm sorry one last time for the fact that I started late and for the fact that I ran off at the mouth. Thank you to Rebecca for letting me have this opportunity. There's so much that I'd like to note at my site but never can because I'm dealing with an outline and writing in character. Rebecca told me that I'd enjoy this and she wasn't kidding. Thank you to her readers for putting up with my rants. I know her readers are already active on stopping Alito's confirmation and that they don't need me to tell them what to do or how to do it. So I'll just close by saying that I'm in this fight with you and honored to be standing with so many fighters who don't play the odds but stand up for what is right. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)