pacifica radio's flashpoints (you can listen at the site, or find stations that broadcast it like kpfa - which also archives it). that's where i want to start tonight. i was planning on doing 2 things (i'll still do 1, jane fonda) but flashpoints was really amazing so i'll bump the other thing i had planned and grab it tomorrow.
flashpoints had a report on the refugee camps between jordan and iraq from marci/marcy (i'm still learning names and not real good at taking notes). that was very interesting and she couldn't visit all the camps because some do not allow any 1 to report on them.
there was also a really strong interview that fred hampton jr. did with mumia abu-jamal (this was the thing you got a taste of last night). (and i say night because in my area - east coast, i'm hearing it at night.) the uproar over honoring fred hampton (sr.) with a street named after him was addressed. abu-jamal explained the psuedo outrage as a tactic used to supress history: 'it's against the movement. they don't want people to remember or know. they don't want young people to learn' (i believe he then said: 'our history and struggle' but i'm not the quickest note taker). abu-jamal pointed out that a street being named shouldn't be the issue that those opposed are trying to make it but that it's not really about 1 street. it's about a fear that there might be a national movement of fred hampton streets and that people might start learning the history and realizing just how big it was (therfore, how big it could be again). he spoke of how there is a war on history (and has long been) that will only be made worse by the fact that the move is to learning how to pass a standardized test as opposed to genuine knowledge.
so those were 2 things worth listening to but i especially recommend the interview with rita moreno. if you don't know who she is, go to another website right now. i have no use for you.
i'm teasing. younger readers may not know. there used to be a commercial, i forget the product, where it would say 'tony winner, oscar winner, emmy and grammy winner' rita moreno. if you don't realize it, not many can say that. barbra streisand can and i would guess liza minelli could but that may be it. it's a very small, very select group. she was the nun sister peter marie on oz and the voice of carmen in where in the world is carmen sandiego? which might help some young readers. i believe she's still married which i'll note because she got married in 1965 and that's an accomplishment to note. maybe you saw slums of beverly hills. or maybe you know her tv work - including guest starring on the rockford files as rita (several times) or the nanny.
if you don't know her, you missed the jokes of the nanny. that was a take off on 1 of her most famous screen roles (and my favorite) - anita in west side story. that's a great musical and rita moreno is wonderful in it. (she noted tonight that none of them were kids - in the cast.) rita won a best supporting actress oscar for that role.
it was interesting to hear her speak about that and how, although she got along with everyone in the cast, when it was time for the slurs (it's romeo & juliet set against a gang war - gang of dancers, some sniff - between anglos and puerto ricans - and set to music) that were scripted, it really did hurt her.
she's a trailblazer who gave puerto ricans a face on screen. that didn't happen over night and she spoke about her early years and some of the insulting roles she had to play. she also spoke of starting school at 5 years old and being just tossed into it, she didn't speak english and back then it was 'sink or swim' because people making decisions really didn't give a damn. esl, bi-lingual and other programs were not the goal then.
listening to her speak, you realized how rough it was. not from a whine of 'i've had a tough life' (but she did) but just from a really frank and direct way of speaking. and she's generous with her praise which i give her high marks for. she was praising the film salt of the earth and she had kind words for edward james olmos and took time to praise ricardo montalban for his own trail blazing. she was very generous.
she is currently playing amanda in tennessee williams' the glass menagerie (at the berkeley repertory theatre through june 18th). fly boy's wanting us to take a week and go somewhere and i've been thinking, 'right now?' but now i'm thinking, 'okay, if we can see rita.' if you can, you should. you should listen to her interview because she had a great to deal to say including about the immigration rights issue. she didn't shy from the topic and noted that people shouldn't accept the kind of criticism some are trying to dish out. she said you have to take care of your needs: 'when i express what i need for myself, i'm expressing what america needs' (i hope i got the end of the quote correct, i'm a lousy note taker).
now i'll talk a little about yesterday's cover to cover with denny smithson where smithson interviewed jane fonda. that was a thirty minute interview and there wasn't time for everything but i felt like smithson hit some important highlights and also asked some really important questions. 1 story that fonda told, it's in her book my life thus far as well, was about how when her father (oscar winner henry fonda) was 12 years-old, his father took him to his printing press and made him look out the window where a lynching was going on. she thinks that informed her father's awareness and that he used his roles to speak out against injustice. (forever immortalized as tom joad in the grapes of wratch, i think people would have a hard time disputing that theory.) i'm like smithson, i wish she would go on a speaking tour.
i want to note something because i listened to the interview with fly boy and he wasn't aware that jane fonda spoke out against the war before it started. she did. and she got slimed for it by the usual suspects. she has continued to speak out against it. if every 1 who was able to get in front of a mike would, we'd be even further than we are in the movement to end the war. (and if all of us, mike or not, use our voices, we'll get even further.)
she thinks she carries too much baggage because the right wing would make it about her if she did a tour. i can understand her thinking that. and she's doing more than her share, so good for her. (she's speaking out in interviews, she's putting money behind the cause, etc.) but where i am - i wish she would tour. i think she could reach a group of people that may not be reached otherwise.
denny smithson got at that, i think. i think, when he was talking about her importance and at another time, when he was talking about how apethetic some, who like himself and fonda, protested the war in vietnam, i think he was getting at it.
see, here's where fonda could do the most, my opinion. if she's speaking out, some 1 who spoke out during vietnam might be prompted to. if they're still supporting this illegal war and were against vietnam, it might face them to reclaim that past persona and get over the apathy.
i also think that she has tremendous stature and when some 1 like her really throws her weight into the battle, it makes people pay attention.
i understand the attacks and if that was too much personally, i don't blame her. but i don't think the attacks come only from the right.
i think a lot of our 'centrists' and a lot of our psuedo left lead the attacks as well. yeah, i'm talking the pooper, but not just him. they distance themselves. now that's because most of them (neolibs and dlc-ers) were never about anything but how to get corporate money and how to give tax breaks to corporations.
so they prove they're reasonable by slamming her. i remember c.i. going off on a little al gore aid who trashed fonda during the 1992 campaign. the weasel backed down immediately. but this was in front of a group of people and i know i was pissed and wanting to tell the weasel off (but i was more quiet then) and i'm sure others did as well. so we were all glad that c.i. did. and the weasel was taken aback, open mouthed shock, over c.i.'s tongue lashing. as soon as c.i. was done (it was a mini-speech), others started chiming in as well.
point? a lot of people like fonda. a lot of people admire what she has done and what she does. and for those reasons, i'd like to see her out there. for a selfish reason of reclaiming her rightful acknowledgement.
remember i made my bucks from p.r. so i shall a morbid thought. i have these about a lot of people. i once had to do everything but pay for a journalist's kid's college career to get him to sweeten an obit for a the spouse of a client. so i think about obits. i was so glad that fonda did monster-in-law. i know the puff and no politics crowd put out the false lies that the film was a 'bomb.' it wasn't a bomb. it was a hit. and i was so glad because i did wonder what the obits would say when that day came around. i could see all the cautionary tales of 'this is what happens when art and politics mix, after 1990, she never made another film.' now she walked away from the movie industry, but you know they would have spun it differently. so she came back and she had a hit. and it demonstrated that the nation does not loathe her. the right does, the squishy center distances themselves, but non-political types and many on the left don't hate her.
going out on tour would just cement that reality all the more. which would be good for her and good for the left. when jane fonda can be marginalized by the sell-out crowd (forget the right), it means any 1 can (and is). i mean if they do it fonda, who is not that radical, but she is left, they can do it to every 1.
that's part of the problem with the democratic party today. a lot of 'leadership' in office (elected and party office) are people in the center who would sell us (and have) at the meer whiff of money. the left needs to be the left. a lot of democrats still don't get that which is why they think 'i'll outflank!' and then fail miserably. if they put out real ideas, real beliefs, they'd win. instead it's 'i'm just like bully boy except for this 1 thing.'
it turns voters off (and reduces the amount of voters) and given the choice between ___ and some 1 just like blank except for a few things, people don't see a big enough reason to support or vote for you.
but it's also true that when you're in your 3rd act, if you're speaking out and believe that touring would do more harm than good, it's probably better to stick with your guns.
but it was the types like the pooper who attacked. the right wing? was any 1 surprised? i wasn't. but there was the pooper acting like she was ralph nader and he was screaming 'ralph, don't run!' he did a lousy slam on her when she was going to tour.
it's those types that hurt the country.
he can claim he was doing it because he cares about the movement (though many will laugh at that) but the more likely reason is that he's just plain stupid.
as denny smithson said, we need every voice speaking out. the audience she could reach is so different than the audience that a lot of people could reach. and the audience bright eyes can reach is different. every 1 working together to get the message out and to motivate is what we need.
but when you've been slimed by the supposed left (the pooper), you may feel that it's just not worth it because instead of it being about the war, it's going to be about a centrist pig slamming you to get right wingers going to his lame site (apparently just right wingers go there). he should be ashamed of himself. people like him are as much to blame for the war as bully boy. (he's attacked the peace movement since before the invasion of iraq so no 1 should take his food smeared rants on what the peace movement needs seriously.)
so that's it for tonight. tomorrow i plan to discuss juan gonzalez' tv appearnace monday. (no, not on democracy now! but he was on that as well.)
4/25/2006
pacifica radio's flashpoints (you can listen at the site, or find stations that broadcast it like kpfa - which also archives it). that's where i want to start tonight. i was planning on doing 2 things (i'll still do 1, jane fonda) but flashpoints was really amazing so i'll bump the other thing i had planned and grab it tomorrow.
flashpoints had a report on the refugee camps between jordan and iraq from marci/marcy (i'm still learning names and not real good at taking notes). that was very interesting and she couldn't visit all the camps because some do not allow any 1 to report on them.
there was also a really strong interview that fred hampton jr. did with mumia abu-jamal (this was the thing you got a taste of last night). (and i say night because in my area - east coast, i'm hearing it at night.) the uproar over honoring fred hampton (sr.) with a street named after him was addressed. abu-jamal explained the psuedo outrage as a tactic used to supress history: 'it's against the movement. they don't want people to remember or know. they don't want young people to learn' (i believe he then said: 'our history and struggle' but i'm not the quickest note taker). abu-jamal pointed out that a street being named shouldn't be the issue that those opposed are trying to make it but that it's not really about 1 street. it's about a fear that there might be a national movement of fred hampton streets and that people might start learning the history and realizing just how big it was (therfore, how big it could be again). he spoke of how there is a war on history (and has long been) that will only be made worse by the fact that the move is to learning how to pass a standardized test as opposed to genuine knowledge.
so those were 2 things worth listening to but i especially recommend the interview with rita moreno. if you don't know who she is, go to another website right now. i have no use for you.
i'm teasing. younger readers may not.
flashpoints had a report on the refugee camps between jordan and iraq from marci/marcy (i'm still learning names and not real good at taking notes). that was very interesting and she couldn't visit all the camps because some do not allow any 1 to report on them.
there was also a really strong interview that fred hampton jr. did with mumia abu-jamal (this was the thing you got a taste of last night). (and i say night because in my area - east coast, i'm hearing it at night.) the uproar over honoring fred hampton (sr.) with a street named after him was addressed. abu-jamal explained the psuedo outrage as a tactic used to supress history: 'it's against the movement. they don't want people to remember or know. they don't want young people to learn' (i believe he then said: 'our history and struggle' but i'm not the quickest note taker). abu-jamal pointed out that a street being named shouldn't be the issue that those opposed are trying to make it but that it's not really about 1 street. it's about a fear that there might be a national movement of fred hampton streets and that people might start learning the history and realizing just how big it was (therfore, how big it could be again). he spoke of how there is a war on history (and has long been) that will only be made worse by the fact that the move is to learning how to pass a standardized test as opposed to genuine knowledge.
so those were 2 things worth listening to but i especially recommend the interview with rita moreno. if you don't know who she is, go to another website right now. i have no use for you.
i'm teasing. younger readers may not.
flashpoints and the threepenny opera
Blogger Status
Monday, April 24, 2006
Blogger.com will be down on April 24 2006 from 4 pm PDT to 4:45 pm PDT due to planned maintenance. We’re sorry about the one-two unplanned/planned outage punch today, but we need to do some database maintenance. You will still be able to view your blogs during the outage. Be assured that when Blogger.com comes back, it will be shinier and happier than ever.
if you're not pleased about the delay, blame blogger, not me. and let's note something else, this the 'unplanned' outage is why i had so many e-mails asking, 'what's the deal with the common ills?' the deal was c.i. did entries at the regular time. c.i. didn't check to see that they made it to the site (nor do i). c.i.'s working out when the cell phone rings and it's jess asking if he needs to do entries? c.i. says sure if there's something jess wants to note. then jess wonders if c.i. did entries? 'uh, yeah.'
at which point, jess went into the account and pulled them up 1 at a time. using 'preview' he copy and pasted each 1 into an e-mail thinking if he e-mailed them to the site they'd show up (they didn't at that time) and also copy and pasted them over at the mirror site for the common ills. this was a blogger program problem. and there's been no explanation offered for it, nor do i think the 'sorry' for the 'unplanned/planned' covers it, to be honest. when i couldn't find the entries this morning, i went to the mirror site and they were there. i then went to a google discussion page to see what was going on and people using blogger were pissed off. i don't blame them 1 bit. if i posted in the morning, i'd be furious.
robert knight does 'the knight report' on pacifica radio's flashpoints which featured a report on the immigration movement that you really should listen to as well as an interview well as a female journalist who reports on palestine (works for haaratz) and who made some strong points. she spoke of the discrimination and the dispossesion that goes in the united states as well and the importance of journalists using their monitoring power. there was also an excerpt of an interview with mumia abu-jamal which should air in full tuesday. mumia abu-jamal is another way you know you're not listening to the bland and boring npr because npr refused to air him in 1994. they were happy to tape him, you can read about this in amy goodman and david goodman's exception to the rulers, they just wouldn't air them and they wouldn't give the tapes to any 1. they locked them away to this day. npr is such chicken shit and that's why they bore the world with all their cute little stories about life in the latte lane.
i didn't blog friday night, no. people have asked about that in e-mails. fly boy and i went to see the threepenny opera in nyc. we stayed overnight in the big apple and i got back home around 3 pm saturday afternoon. that was a few hours before it was time to start working with every 1 on the latest edition of the third estate sunday review and i took those hours off. alan cummings is wonderful in the threepenny opera and the play's great. anna gasteyer, cyndi lauper, every 1 was great. go see the play if you're in the area and able to get tickets. this is a must see. the costumes are fantastic - really liked lauper's merry widow! and there's so much movement on stage. there's a plan behind that and i'll try to figure it out when i see it next (elaine and i are going to go see it, hopefully fly boy will want to see it again, but elaine and i are going to see it together regardless.)
it's just a really strong production and, i'd argue, a brave 1 because it's not just trying to toss out what's been done in the past and worked before. a lot of thought went into this production. a woman sitting near us kept mumbling (throughout the play) that it was 'shocking.' i didn't see her big ass get up and leave though. if it shocks any 1, other than shocking them with all the life pouring off from the stage, it is just a further sign of how badly disney has hurt the theater with all their lousy 'disney on ice' shows. that's what i call the disney 'plays' where they take their lousy, bland cartoon films and turn them into 'plays.' it really is like 'disney on ice' without the ice skating. so they start of trudge along and maybe you can enjoy, for instance, debbie gibson's singing, but you're never seeing a real play and you never forget it.
that's it for tonight. i'll note more tomorrow - provided blogger doesn't decide to go offline again.
check out c.i.'s "NYT: Tavernise is lost in Iraq and Weisman just lost period," cedric's "Hawaii and we're overrun with Fluff," and trina's "Cookie Marshmallow Cups in the Kitchen."
Monday, April 24, 2006
Blogger.com will be down on April 24 2006 from 4 pm PDT to 4:45 pm PDT due to planned maintenance. We’re sorry about the one-two unplanned/planned outage punch today, but we need to do some database maintenance. You will still be able to view your blogs during the outage. Be assured that when Blogger.com comes back, it will be shinier and happier than ever.
if you're not pleased about the delay, blame blogger, not me. and let's note something else, this the 'unplanned' outage is why i had so many e-mails asking, 'what's the deal with the common ills?' the deal was c.i. did entries at the regular time. c.i. didn't check to see that they made it to the site (nor do i). c.i.'s working out when the cell phone rings and it's jess asking if he needs to do entries? c.i. says sure if there's something jess wants to note. then jess wonders if c.i. did entries? 'uh, yeah.'
at which point, jess went into the account and pulled them up 1 at a time. using 'preview' he copy and pasted each 1 into an e-mail thinking if he e-mailed them to the site they'd show up (they didn't at that time) and also copy and pasted them over at the mirror site for the common ills. this was a blogger program problem. and there's been no explanation offered for it, nor do i think the 'sorry' for the 'unplanned/planned' covers it, to be honest. when i couldn't find the entries this morning, i went to the mirror site and they were there. i then went to a google discussion page to see what was going on and people using blogger were pissed off. i don't blame them 1 bit. if i posted in the morning, i'd be furious.
robert knight does 'the knight report' on pacifica radio's flashpoints which featured a report on the immigration movement that you really should listen to as well as an interview well as a female journalist who reports on palestine (works for haaratz) and who made some strong points. she spoke of the discrimination and the dispossesion that goes in the united states as well and the importance of journalists using their monitoring power. there was also an excerpt of an interview with mumia abu-jamal which should air in full tuesday. mumia abu-jamal is another way you know you're not listening to the bland and boring npr because npr refused to air him in 1994. they were happy to tape him, you can read about this in amy goodman and david goodman's exception to the rulers, they just wouldn't air them and they wouldn't give the tapes to any 1. they locked them away to this day. npr is such chicken shit and that's why they bore the world with all their cute little stories about life in the latte lane.
i didn't blog friday night, no. people have asked about that in e-mails. fly boy and i went to see the threepenny opera in nyc. we stayed overnight in the big apple and i got back home around 3 pm saturday afternoon. that was a few hours before it was time to start working with every 1 on the latest edition of the third estate sunday review and i took those hours off. alan cummings is wonderful in the threepenny opera and the play's great. anna gasteyer, cyndi lauper, every 1 was great. go see the play if you're in the area and able to get tickets. this is a must see. the costumes are fantastic - really liked lauper's merry widow! and there's so much movement on stage. there's a plan behind that and i'll try to figure it out when i see it next (elaine and i are going to go see it, hopefully fly boy will want to see it again, but elaine and i are going to see it together regardless.)
it's just a really strong production and, i'd argue, a brave 1 because it's not just trying to toss out what's been done in the past and worked before. a lot of thought went into this production. a woman sitting near us kept mumbling (throughout the play) that it was 'shocking.' i didn't see her big ass get up and leave though. if it shocks any 1, other than shocking them with all the life pouring off from the stage, it is just a further sign of how badly disney has hurt the theater with all their lousy 'disney on ice' shows. that's what i call the disney 'plays' where they take their lousy, bland cartoon films and turn them into 'plays.' it really is like 'disney on ice' without the ice skating. so they start of trudge along and maybe you can enjoy, for instance, debbie gibson's singing, but you're never seeing a real play and you never forget it.
that's it for tonight. i'll note more tomorrow - provided blogger doesn't decide to go offline again.
check out c.i.'s "NYT: Tavernise is lost in Iraq and Weisman just lost period," cedric's "Hawaii and we're overrun with Fluff," and trina's "Cookie Marshmallow Cups in the Kitchen."
4/23/2006
jane fonda on kpfa's cover to cover with denny smithson monday
jane fonda drawn by the talented isaiah.
if you like fonda, i love her, you may want to check out a program tomorrow.
as noted at the third estate sunday review:
The one and only Jane Fonda. We're fond o' Fonda. And Monday on KPFA she's the scheduled guest for Cover to Cover with Denny Smithson. Fonda wasn't afraid to come out against the war. And last spring, when she spoke out on David Letterman's show, she was greeted with applause.
Last week, it was suddenly NEWS! that she felt Cindy Sheehan was more effective as a speaker against the war than she was. (We love Cindy Sheehan, but we'd line up for hours to hear Fonda speak.) She said it on Good Morning America! It was NEWS!
But, a point we make in our roundtable posted later, it wasn't, in fact, NEWS!
Maybe it was news when she said it to Robin Morgan in the interview Ms. magazine ran in their Winter 2006 issue? But for that to happen, people would have to pay attention to alternative media and we don't think it's getting its due. From "Jane Fonda Talks Sex, Politics, & Religion with Robin Morgan" (page 38):
JF: You know, nobody's asked me to speak about war for over 15 years. I carry too much baggage from Vietnam. Recently I was feeling, "I can't be silent anymore. I'm going to go on tour." I did anti-war tours around the U.S. every year during the 70s, they were amazing. But then, Cindy Sheehan surfaced! I thought, "I don't need to tour, she's the appropriate one!"
OMG! It's just what you heard on Good Morning America last week! But you heard it in Ms. magazine first. If you paid attention. Support your independent media. One way is to listen Monday to:
Cover to Cover with Denny Smithson
One of the most recognizable women of our time, America knows Jane Fonda as actress, activist, feminist, wife, and workout guru. In her extraordinary memoir, Fonda divides her life into three acts: her childhood, early films, and first marriage make up act one; her growing career in film, marriage to Ted Turner, and involvement in the Vietnam War belong to act two; and the third act belongs to the future, in which she hopes to "begin living consciously," and inspire others who can learn from her experiences. Fonda reveals intimate details and universal truths that she hopes "can provide a lens through which others can see their lives and how they can live them a little differently."
It airs on KPFA at 6:00 pm Eastern, 5:00 pm Central, 4:00 pm Mountain and 3:00 Pacific. You can listen online, for free, or you can listen over the airwaves in the Berkeley area on KPFA (94.1 FM) and probably on KPFB (89.3 FM) in Berkeley as well as KFCF (88.1 FM) in Fresno.
4/20/2006
answer to who will save us and recap of flashpoints
another 1? that's what i wrote about quickly last night. blogger was going down. i was rushing and had less than ten minutes to write - you don't just finish, put a period and are done. you have to click on 'publish post' then on 'index' then on publish site or something. unlike c.i., it doesn't take me forever to do that. the last step alone takes c.i. over 15 minutes. it takes about 3 minutes for me. so i started that at ten minutes 'til blogger went down and had to be done 3 minutes before. it was a 7 minute post. but every 1 who wrote that i read this morning (i had volunteer work this afternoon), enjoyed it. i'll be (briefly) continuing it tonight.
who will save women from eric alterman? that's what i asked last night. 1 name i'd like to add, that eric alterman doesn't mention, is janeane garofalo who was speaking out before the invasion and speaking out after. but she doesn't get a mention because no woman is considered worthy of mention.
that's the way it goes with the lisper, always trying to big boy up. always trying to fit in with the boys. you saw it in that wretched book, what liberal media, that repeated the lie about naomi wolf. not only did he repeat the lie that she did fashion for al gore, he offered that the slams were fair, he guessed. the slams weren't fair and they weren't true and that should have been the 1st tip off that the effite elite is a little too convinced of his own opinion to do any research. but then intellectual gods don't need it and the mental midget seems to think he walks on clouds.
what you notice in all of his writing in total is how proud eric alterman is of himself. he's like his own stage mother waiting back stage and saying, 'isn't he wonderful?'
play his own stage mother maybe the only women enter his world. they are ignored in his writing.
i'm counting 13 men he names on his honor roll (that includes his 'honorable mentions') and, as i pointed out last night, no women. this despite his use of the word 'people':
. . . i've picked a short (representative) honor roll of people in a variety of fields . . .
'people'? it's a list of men, a baker's dozen. 'representative'? well maybe he thinks the nod to valerie plame ... she pops up not by name but as 'his wife' - him being joe wilson. she's an unnamed extra - she's sissy spacek in jfk. rather amazing considering that the outing of her has resulted in scooter libby being indicted in the ongoing investigation.
at a time when naomi klein and katha pollitt are on leave (to finish books), the nation can't afford to have no woman on staff. get ruth rosen or some 1 else to write a column. eric alterman's not interested in writing about women - thinks it might make him look 'soft' probably (so he's left looking like sal mineo's plato in rebel without a cause).
when he wrote his column, he probably thought 'what a man i am.' he's something. it probably didn't even occur to him that he left out women. women never enter his mind.
i've named 3 (naomi klein, janeane and arundhati roy) and those aren't the only 1s. there's kim gandy, there's susan sarandon, there's laura flanders, there's alice walker, there's maxine hong kingston, there's barbara lee ... there are plenty of women. but they don't register to a sexist like alternman. that's what he is. he gives space in his lame book for ann coulter's attacks on gloria steinem but never bothers to point out that they're wrong.
why? he's too delighted that a woman's being slammed?
he's a creep. he presents himself as a savior but women need saving from him.
and, the point i didn't have time to make last night, the answer to the question: women will have to save themselves. the boys lining up with him or scared to call him out (and we can all think of 1 man who's made it a point to correct every 1 who repeated the lie on naomi wolf but can't bring himself to note that eric alterman lied) won't save us.
as usual, women will have to carry their weight and some half-assed man who's ego is larger than his ability to make a coherent argument. his view of the country (he lacks a world view or else keeps it hidden) is 1 that only sees men.
we'll have to save ourselves and 1 way to do that is not to mistake him for a friend to women. he's not. we don't register with him. he can't even relate to janeane as an adult. he has to fall back into little school boy mode and do the sort of crap that might be mildly amusing from a third grader but is b.s. from a grown man. (he insults her and does so in a voice he thinks is sexy. for any 1 who ever wanted to have sex with sylvester the cat, the voice may be sexy. i can't imagine that's many women though. maybe men fantasize about having sex with sylvester?)
so we need to know the enemy and we need to not get taken in by claims that he's a brave voice for the left. he's dismissive of women and he doesn't even have the excuse of coming of age in the dark ages. he didn't come up with norman mailer. he has no use for women so women should have no use for him. if he comes on the radio, turn him off. if he's pushing his new book, don't buy it. (since he has no concept of layout, you'll be helping your eyes as well as your brain by avoiding it.)
we don't exist in his writing so we shouldn't support it. put your money and word of mouth behind someone who can acknowledge women and their accomplishments. we can save ourselves - thank god, since i'm not seeing a lot of men rushing to call him out for his sexist writing.
it's thursday so let's talk about flashpoints which airs monday through friday on pacifica radio. flashpoints had a strong week. yesterday, there was a great interview with dahr jamail where dahr talked about how the mainstream media keeps missing the story (intentionally?) and gave an example of edward wong's straight-from-the-pentagon details. (wong writes for the new york times.) the interview was done by a woman and i'm still learning names, so give me time.
tonight, phyllis bennis was a guest dennis bernstein interviewed tonight. she spoke of the need to stop the war on iran and to send a message that we were against it. you can go to united for peace and justice and sign a letter that she recommended. the un security counsel meets april 28th so if you're wanting to sign the letter do it soon. bennis spoke of a number of issues involved including the fact that the fallout from a war on iran would be immense.
tonight also offered some strong reporting from palestine. including noting that 1 child and 2 others were killed. who by? well if was mainstream media, you'd never know would you. that coverage acts as though palistinian children just hop on a gun, held by no 1, and it accidentally goes off. with phyliss, dennis asked about palestine and the ongoing occupation there. i think 1 thing the iraq war is doing is making us wake up to realities of occuapation.
maybe i'm kidding myself? but i think people are beginning to realize self-rule and to realize that under an occupation, no 1 is free. (or safe.) israel needs to leave the occupied territories and the wall is much worse than a joke. chris hedges has written of that and how the wall will, we're all sure just by chance, veer here and there to take the best lands. that's 1 reason for the wall. here's another reason, once they get up a physical barrier, they'll truly be claiming the land in an end-of-story way. talk of returning to pre-1968 borders will go out the window because 'well ... there's a wal there now.'
this is an important issue to dennis bernstein. it's important to me as well but since i'm going to be noting flashpoints, if you're not able to deal with it, you may want to bow out on this site.
tuesday had an intersting report with iraqi voices. that's not something you hear very often on corporate radio (even when it appears to be public like npr - dennis may be more irritated by the fluff on npr than i am.) if none of the above has grabbed you yet, monday's guest was
pratap chatterjee talking about how corporations in iraq profit in the blood bath. in addition, you heard voices from a demonstration speak of anthony soltero, the young boy who took his own life when his school's vice-principal reportedly told him he would be going to prison for taking part in the world can't wait walk outs, that he wouldn't go to the middle school prom and that his mother would face a huge fine. his mother spoke but so did a group of students. they spoke of how there were rumors being put out now that anthony didn't even walk out and that wasn't true because they were there. to me, those rumors are a really awful smear campaign because you're talking about a child and a child that is dead. to strip him of something he did that really mattered to him (and that he should have been able to take pride in) is to deny his very existance.
thursday's highlight is my attempt to raise awareness of pacifica radio. flashpoints is the show i'm going with. i like dennis' passion and the topics covered. if you're some 1 that's not covering your ears and screaming 'did he just criticize the israeli government!' this may be a show you should check out. but you should know about it. i need to learn every 1's name. including the woman who i believe is a co-host. there's also a man who does a report, i think his name is robert. so stick with me on thursdays and we'll try to learn about the show and note some of the topics and guests. but for those who've pledged their all to the israeli government, you aren't going to be happy. either skip thursdays or skip this blog all together. c.i. had a wonderful point (many, but i'm focusing on 1). during the whole uproar over the ports security, c.i. asked every 1 to remember that governments are 1 thing but that people are people. we wouldn't want the world to judge us by the bully boy. don't judge another people by their leader. their leader or their policies may have strong resistance from the people. that's an important point to make. there are israelis who oppose the occupation and the murders that go on in the name of 'security.' don't mistake the israeli government as a reflection on the entire country.
elaine wrote an amazing piece on the darfur screamer who tells you there is only 1 option (force, of course). what is going on there is hideous but screamers would do well to grasp that tragedies are going on every where. pretending that palestinians attempting to live with a gun barrel (or rocket launcher or tank) in their faces isn't reality. palestinians are being slaughtered. i think dennis made the point this week that this was genocide. it is and we need to stop avoiding the issue.
who will save women from eric alterman? that's what i asked last night. 1 name i'd like to add, that eric alterman doesn't mention, is janeane garofalo who was speaking out before the invasion and speaking out after. but she doesn't get a mention because no woman is considered worthy of mention.
that's the way it goes with the lisper, always trying to big boy up. always trying to fit in with the boys. you saw it in that wretched book, what liberal media, that repeated the lie about naomi wolf. not only did he repeat the lie that she did fashion for al gore, he offered that the slams were fair, he guessed. the slams weren't fair and they weren't true and that should have been the 1st tip off that the effite elite is a little too convinced of his own opinion to do any research. but then intellectual gods don't need it and the mental midget seems to think he walks on clouds.
what you notice in all of his writing in total is how proud eric alterman is of himself. he's like his own stage mother waiting back stage and saying, 'isn't he wonderful?'
play his own stage mother maybe the only women enter his world. they are ignored in his writing.
i'm counting 13 men he names on his honor roll (that includes his 'honorable mentions') and, as i pointed out last night, no women. this despite his use of the word 'people':
. . . i've picked a short (representative) honor roll of people in a variety of fields . . .
'people'? it's a list of men, a baker's dozen. 'representative'? well maybe he thinks the nod to valerie plame ... she pops up not by name but as 'his wife' - him being joe wilson. she's an unnamed extra - she's sissy spacek in jfk. rather amazing considering that the outing of her has resulted in scooter libby being indicted in the ongoing investigation.
at a time when naomi klein and katha pollitt are on leave (to finish books), the nation can't afford to have no woman on staff. get ruth rosen or some 1 else to write a column. eric alterman's not interested in writing about women - thinks it might make him look 'soft' probably (so he's left looking like sal mineo's plato in rebel without a cause).
when he wrote his column, he probably thought 'what a man i am.' he's something. it probably didn't even occur to him that he left out women. women never enter his mind.
i've named 3 (naomi klein, janeane and arundhati roy) and those aren't the only 1s. there's kim gandy, there's susan sarandon, there's laura flanders, there's alice walker, there's maxine hong kingston, there's barbara lee ... there are plenty of women. but they don't register to a sexist like alternman. that's what he is. he gives space in his lame book for ann coulter's attacks on gloria steinem but never bothers to point out that they're wrong.
why? he's too delighted that a woman's being slammed?
he's a creep. he presents himself as a savior but women need saving from him.
and, the point i didn't have time to make last night, the answer to the question: women will have to save themselves. the boys lining up with him or scared to call him out (and we can all think of 1 man who's made it a point to correct every 1 who repeated the lie on naomi wolf but can't bring himself to note that eric alterman lied) won't save us.
as usual, women will have to carry their weight and some half-assed man who's ego is larger than his ability to make a coherent argument. his view of the country (he lacks a world view or else keeps it hidden) is 1 that only sees men.
we'll have to save ourselves and 1 way to do that is not to mistake him for a friend to women. he's not. we don't register with him. he can't even relate to janeane as an adult. he has to fall back into little school boy mode and do the sort of crap that might be mildly amusing from a third grader but is b.s. from a grown man. (he insults her and does so in a voice he thinks is sexy. for any 1 who ever wanted to have sex with sylvester the cat, the voice may be sexy. i can't imagine that's many women though. maybe men fantasize about having sex with sylvester?)
so we need to know the enemy and we need to not get taken in by claims that he's a brave voice for the left. he's dismissive of women and he doesn't even have the excuse of coming of age in the dark ages. he didn't come up with norman mailer. he has no use for women so women should have no use for him. if he comes on the radio, turn him off. if he's pushing his new book, don't buy it. (since he has no concept of layout, you'll be helping your eyes as well as your brain by avoiding it.)
we don't exist in his writing so we shouldn't support it. put your money and word of mouth behind someone who can acknowledge women and their accomplishments. we can save ourselves - thank god, since i'm not seeing a lot of men rushing to call him out for his sexist writing.
it's thursday so let's talk about flashpoints which airs monday through friday on pacifica radio. flashpoints had a strong week. yesterday, there was a great interview with dahr jamail where dahr talked about how the mainstream media keeps missing the story (intentionally?) and gave an example of edward wong's straight-from-the-pentagon details. (wong writes for the new york times.) the interview was done by a woman and i'm still learning names, so give me time.
tonight, phyllis bennis was a guest dennis bernstein interviewed tonight. she spoke of the need to stop the war on iran and to send a message that we were against it. you can go to united for peace and justice and sign a letter that she recommended. the un security counsel meets april 28th so if you're wanting to sign the letter do it soon. bennis spoke of a number of issues involved including the fact that the fallout from a war on iran would be immense.
tonight also offered some strong reporting from palestine. including noting that 1 child and 2 others were killed. who by? well if was mainstream media, you'd never know would you. that coverage acts as though palistinian children just hop on a gun, held by no 1, and it accidentally goes off. with phyliss, dennis asked about palestine and the ongoing occupation there. i think 1 thing the iraq war is doing is making us wake up to realities of occuapation.
maybe i'm kidding myself? but i think people are beginning to realize self-rule and to realize that under an occupation, no 1 is free. (or safe.) israel needs to leave the occupied territories and the wall is much worse than a joke. chris hedges has written of that and how the wall will, we're all sure just by chance, veer here and there to take the best lands. that's 1 reason for the wall. here's another reason, once they get up a physical barrier, they'll truly be claiming the land in an end-of-story way. talk of returning to pre-1968 borders will go out the window because 'well ... there's a wal there now.'
this is an important issue to dennis bernstein. it's important to me as well but since i'm going to be noting flashpoints, if you're not able to deal with it, you may want to bow out on this site.
tuesday had an intersting report with iraqi voices. that's not something you hear very often on corporate radio (even when it appears to be public like npr - dennis may be more irritated by the fluff on npr than i am.) if none of the above has grabbed you yet, monday's guest was
pratap chatterjee talking about how corporations in iraq profit in the blood bath. in addition, you heard voices from a demonstration speak of anthony soltero, the young boy who took his own life when his school's vice-principal reportedly told him he would be going to prison for taking part in the world can't wait walk outs, that he wouldn't go to the middle school prom and that his mother would face a huge fine. his mother spoke but so did a group of students. they spoke of how there were rumors being put out now that anthony didn't even walk out and that wasn't true because they were there. to me, those rumors are a really awful smear campaign because you're talking about a child and a child that is dead. to strip him of something he did that really mattered to him (and that he should have been able to take pride in) is to deny his very existance.
thursday's highlight is my attempt to raise awareness of pacifica radio. flashpoints is the show i'm going with. i like dennis' passion and the topics covered. if you're some 1 that's not covering your ears and screaming 'did he just criticize the israeli government!' this may be a show you should check out. but you should know about it. i need to learn every 1's name. including the woman who i believe is a co-host. there's also a man who does a report, i think his name is robert. so stick with me on thursdays and we'll try to learn about the show and note some of the topics and guests. but for those who've pledged their all to the israeli government, you aren't going to be happy. either skip thursdays or skip this blog all together. c.i. had a wonderful point (many, but i'm focusing on 1). during the whole uproar over the ports security, c.i. asked every 1 to remember that governments are 1 thing but that people are people. we wouldn't want the world to judge us by the bully boy. don't judge another people by their leader. their leader or their policies may have strong resistance from the people. that's an important point to make. there are israelis who oppose the occupation and the murders that go on in the name of 'security.' don't mistake the israeli government as a reflection on the entire country.
elaine wrote an amazing piece on the darfur screamer who tells you there is only 1 option (force, of course). what is going on there is hideous but screamers would do well to grasp that tragedies are going on every where. pretending that palestinians attempting to live with a gun barrel (or rocket launcher or tank) in their faces isn't reality. palestinians are being slaughtered. i think dennis made the point this week that this was genocide. it is and we need to stop avoiding the issue.
4/19/2006
eric alterman is disgusting - who will save women from him?
blogger's going down in a bit (more maintance). elaine and mike are still trying to decide on topics from democracy now and won't be able to get anything up before it goes down (they will post after) so fly boy says, 'you can blog quick!' i don't know about that but i'm willing to try.
okay, c.i. wrote today about getting 6 different issues of the nation in the mail. the 1 c.i. was noting (first up on the reading list) was 1 i've been waiting on. i keep going 'have you read it yet?' and c.i. would say, 'it hasn't arrived, none of them have.' so i ask on the phone today, 'have you read it?' and the reply is 'what was i supposed to read?'
eric alterman aka the lisper. he's got another 1 of his awful columns and i was wanting to discuss it. c.i. hadn't read it (and said 'please spare me') but asked the topic. lisper's spitting at the war hawks. 'and you've got a problem with it?' c.i. asks. 'let me guess he's right, they're wrong and he's the only one, wait ...'
i wait. 'okay, does he give shout outs?'
'yes!' i reply.
'and they're all men, aren't they?'
that's correct. no woman was right about the illegal war being a bad idea. just men. who will save women from the supposed left heroes.
he lists 11 or 12 names, all men.
naomi klein, who was RIGHT, doesn't get a mention. arundhati roy, not a mention. when you're a little effite elite you have to pretend you got something impressive hanging between your legs so you cowboy up by running after the boys, lisping 'hey boys don't forget me! i want to play!'
no woman is listed.
so think about that and wonder exactly why so many of our supposed brave left voices can't mention women. it's disgusting.
it's not a reflection of what happened. it does appear to be a reflection of their own thinking and, with alterman, it appears to be sexist thinking.
who will save the women on the left from the sexists on the left?
had more but no time.
okay, c.i. wrote today about getting 6 different issues of the nation in the mail. the 1 c.i. was noting (first up on the reading list) was 1 i've been waiting on. i keep going 'have you read it yet?' and c.i. would say, 'it hasn't arrived, none of them have.' so i ask on the phone today, 'have you read it?' and the reply is 'what was i supposed to read?'
eric alterman aka the lisper. he's got another 1 of his awful columns and i was wanting to discuss it. c.i. hadn't read it (and said 'please spare me') but asked the topic. lisper's spitting at the war hawks. 'and you've got a problem with it?' c.i. asks. 'let me guess he's right, they're wrong and he's the only one, wait ...'
i wait. 'okay, does he give shout outs?'
'yes!' i reply.
'and they're all men, aren't they?'
that's correct. no woman was right about the illegal war being a bad idea. just men. who will save women from the supposed left heroes.
he lists 11 or 12 names, all men.
naomi klein, who was RIGHT, doesn't get a mention. arundhati roy, not a mention. when you're a little effite elite you have to pretend you got something impressive hanging between your legs so you cowboy up by running after the boys, lisping 'hey boys don't forget me! i want to play!'
no woman is listed.
so think about that and wonder exactly why so many of our supposed brave left voices can't mention women. it's disgusting.
it's not a reflection of what happened. it does appear to be a reflection of their own thinking and, with alterman, it appears to be sexist thinking.
who will save the women on the left from the sexists on the left?
had more but no time.
4/18/2006
counter take
ruth does a wonderful ruth's public radio report each week and she usually calls me saturday morning and reads a bit of it that she's not sure about. 'can you follow that?'
i never have any trouble following her. but the result is that we really tried c.i.'s patience saturday. the report was done and ready to go. c.i. was doing the entry on the new york times and noting that as soon as this was done, ruth's report would go up.
but, as c.i. pointed out to me, for the 3rd saturday in a row . . .
i always have these thoughts and i'm happy to share them. i don't mind sharing them here. but i have had 2 issues with counterspin of late.
i support fair, i listen to counterspin. each time i have brought them up, ruth has offered to include them because she's aware that she loves the show and that other people may have criticisms she doesn't catch.
on saturday, c.i. ended up having a 3 way call with ruth and myself. c.i. said either we do this talk on friday or we make an announcement that ruth goes up later in the day on saturdays.
c.i. was nice about it but i got the point. and i shouldn't have needed a phone call to get it because c.i., jess and dallas are hunting down links and doing tags for ruth's reports and every time something changes it's insert a paragraph and find another link or another tag. more importantly an hour after c.i.'s entry, if ruth's report isn't up, the e-mails start coming in wondering if there's a problem with the site or what?
a few weeks back, counterspin had a writer on who did an article for mother jones. this was my 1st issue (i have 2). throughout the interview we heard 'the new york times' had gotten a story wrong. they'd done more than gotten it wrong, the story was the false 1 right after 9/11 about saddam hussein training terrorists to high jack airplanes.
but here's my issue. who wrote the article? i know who wrote the article. but did listeners?
is there some rule that we name some people but don't name others?
chris hedges wrote the article. chris hedges should have been named.
it was interesting because the report was televised by another outlet and we got to hear other people's names but the reporter who wrote the article for the new york times was never named.
now i enjoy chris hedges' books, i enjoy the reporting on israel that he's done for mother jones.
that a reporter like hedges can be fooled (the 'source' had made up credentials and was using another man's name) underscores how successful the propaganda effort was on reporters.
so i'm listening and wondering 'why won't they say chris hedges?'
then i start to wonder. mainly because a number of ex-co-workers have told me that the reason no 1 wants to explore the church committee in print is because bill moyers worked for lbj and was involved in some anti-press activities. now moyers wasn't tapping any 1's phones. he wasn't breaking in homes. i believe all he did was, at lbj's request, make some calls to friends to find out some things about a few reporters. i don't consider that criminal or unethical. i've done it myself when i was in the p.r. game. quite often, in fact. i wouldn't let any 1 schedule an interview (unless they had no other chance of press) until i vetted the reporters out with trusted friends.
i don't know whether that's true or not about moyers being the reason. i know a lot of friends i used to work with in the p.r. biz are convinced that it is true. but listening to chris hedges' story be discussed but him never be named, i thought 'is this the sort of thing that they're talking about?'
chris hedges wrote the article. name him. discuss him. he may or may not be a good friend of the left. but don't bring on a guest to discuss a story in the new york times (that was as wrong as wrong could be and helped create the climate of cheerleading the war on iraq) and never name the person who wrote the story.
here's another issue. in the article in question, chris hedges wrote that he had 2 sources.
now what's the deal there? he was lied to (and any 1 can be, that's no shame for hedges). so he talked to mother jones about his source. 1 source.
but 2 sources lied to him.
what's the name of the other source?
if he's going to come forward with 1 (and if they lie, they have no right to be protected), he needs to come forward with the other.
because he hasn't, there's a feeling on the part of some people (my phone never stops ringing on the theorizing of this topic) that he didn't have 2 sources. that he only had 1 source. but that it sounded better in print to claim 2.
i don't think chris hedges would do that. i hope he wouldn't. but until he can come forward and name the 2nd source, he'll have to expect that people will wonder.
and he may be willing to come forward. no 1's talked to him about it since the mother jones article that i know of. he hasn't been interviewed about it, he hasn't been on democracy now discussing it.
if we mean what we say when we act outraged about the lies of the times then we're outraged period. c.i. wrote about the mother jones story. c.i. likes chris hedges. c.i. mentioned hedges by name and noted that there were 2 sources mentioned in the article.
i asked c.i. about that (and think i can note it here) when i was holding up ruth's report that week. c.i. said that chris hedges has done some wonderful work (agreed) and continues to do so (agreed) but knowing that hedges wrote the article (mother jones noted it in print) and that hedges' 2001 article had stated 2 sources, it would have been hypocritical not to have mentioned it.
'i felt bad about pointing it out because he does strong journalism but this wasn't about attacking him,' c.i. said (i made notes by the way so at 1 point this was okay for quoting), 'this was about holding some 1 to the same standards i would any 1 else at the paper. i wrote that he may be willing to name the 2nd source, i hope that's true, but if you go public because a source burned you, you can't pick and choose. 2 burned hedges. 2 need to be named.'
and about the counterspin interview?
'i didn't hear it. from what you're telling me the issue wasn't raised. it may have been a time factor, it may have been something discussed that got edited out because there wasn't much to offer. if it was a case of the interviewer not wanting to raise the issue, i do understand that. i didn't want to. i twice pulled that entry and then called back a 3rd time and said send it to the site. i went back and forth on it because i knew that it could be used to smear. i wasn't trying to smear. but in the end, if i'm going to criticize elisabeth bumiller or any 1 else, i have to note that a) chris hedges got it wrong, b) it was a propaganda effort and c) there were 2 sources mentioned in the article and only 1 has been named. what went up was dictated. no changes were made. but i did call back and say "don't send it." then i called back and said, "send it." i repeated that pattern again. my 3rd call was when i felt this was so silly. if the right wants to smear him, they will. we've noted him at the site before and will again. he's a good writer. good writers make mistakes too. it was a serious mistake due to the climate of that period. it had to be noted. but that was my decision. i have no idea how much time they have on counterspin before they record an interview. if a host felt that the issue might not be helpful, i can understand that. or they might have intended to have hedges on as well and something came up. he did speak to the writer of the mother jones article. if hedges hadn't spoken, there wouldn't be a story. he's not trying to hide it. but it's complicated and i'd be the last to slam counterspin for that interview because, if it did have to do with hedges, i went back and forth myself.'
so that's c.i.'s take. my take is you don't say 'the new york times' repeatedly. you bring up chris hedges, who wrote the story being discussed, you ask the reporter questions about what chris hedges said.
so that was 1 issue.
the issue i had on saturday was joe conason. i like conason. i've got big lies. i read the new york observer just for his column. but the segment he was on was useless to me.
here's the background. a frequent columnist for the new york post's 'page 6' (the gossip columns) is accused of hustling at least 1 person for good press. give me money, the accusation goes, or you won't get good press.
so conason comes on to talk about this story and offers . . . when ted kennedy ran against jimmy carter in 1980's democratic primaries.
excuse me, i worked in p.r. i made a huge sum in that field because i knew my job.
conason didn't know the topic. he knew what he wanted to talk about and that was trot out an old story, oft told, on rupert murdoch.
the columnist of page 6, if the accusation is true, asked for money. that's usually not done. but other things are sought by gossip columnists. i had to talk a client into attending a party 1 time because otherwise he was going to be slammed by a gossip columnist.
that's 1 area they could have covered. that actually had to do with the allegations agains the post columinst. i can tell you many horror stories. i can tell you about a singer i had to get call a gossip columnist's niece. i can tell you about an event that all my clients had to appear at, had to!, or the gossip columnist was going to pull all mentions of my clients.
that happens and it happens all the time. page 6 guy, if the rumors are true, just got a little greedier than many are.
so that's 1 way they could have gone.
here's another way. rupert murdoch, since they wanted to make it about him, has rumored pattern of using his press to go after those whose politics differ with his own. not drew barrymore because she's young and can be dismissed as 'pretty' and her beliefs just add into that. but others, they'll create rumors, they'll trash.
there's a performer, for instance, who doesn't like bully boy. the performer was asked to do a movie. the performer turned down the movie. (it was a bad part and the film bombed when it came out as the performer sensed it would.) that's not how it played in the new york post. in the new york post (and picked up by the wire services), the performer had tested for the role (not just read for it, screen tested!) and then been turned down. the item told you that the career was over and the performer washed up.
nothing in the item was true. but it was a way to go after someone who wasn't a right winger.
that's not an isolated incident. and here's why it matters.
in the entertainment world, the perception is everything. if the gossip columnist is guilty of what he's accused of, he used that power of perception to shake down some 1 for money. that's the story. it's not about what rupert murdoch did with jimmy carter back in 1980. this is not a story of politicians. it is a story of how people suffer by the right wing echo chamber. careers can be destroyed.
listening, i got the impression that a celebrity and a gossip column was not important enough for counterspin to address. as some 1 who came from p.r., i found that a little insulting, but whatever. however, if you don't want to address it, don't address it. no 1's forcing you too. but don't take a very real story and try to 'upgrade' it to the point that it's no longer the issue. and that's what i felt happened.
again, i like fair. i like counterspin. i'm signed up for fair's action alerts at my site's e-mail (sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com) but i do have those 2 issues and i'm not going to pretend that they didn't happen.
ruth was willing to write about either 1. that's ruth's space and c.i. wouldn't have altered anything (except compliments of c.i., c.i. will fight to get her okay to pull those). c.i.'s problem (and i do have permission to note it was a problem) was that ruth's report was ready and then it wasn't. and that this has happened repeatedly on saturdays after ruth and i talk. it is a pain for c.i. because members are wanting to read it and because it adds works on a saturday when c.i.'s time is already limited. (there's the posting in the morning at the common ills, then by evening, it's work on the third estate sunday review and in between try to squeeze some time for activism and life.)
so what ruth and i have decided is that if i have a problem with something i hear (on counterspin or any other show) i'll note it here. she'll note that i have a different take in her next report.
but i'm the 1 who has been delaying the reports because i've been calling and saying, 'well, did you hear that because it really bothered me.' then ruth will call c.i. and say 'hold the report' (after c.i.'s noted 'ruth goes up right after this.) then ruth and i will discuss it and she'll begin trying to write something to include it in her report and sometimes that can go on for many hours.
i also had a question about last week's show, not an issue. what was janine jackson's remark about the katie couric attention indicating the level of discourse? i couldn't tell what point she was trying to make. if the point was that the coverage was shallow, it was. if the point was that it didn't matter, i disagree. the issue was sexism. (and ava and c.i. noted the sexism in their wonderful essay.) if janine jackson was saying that couric being a '1st' didn't matter in terms of news, i do have a problem with that. not an issue, a problem.
as i remember it, during the confirmation of either alito or roberts, janine jackson interviewed a man who said too much attention was paid to reproductive rights. well a man would say that, wouldn't HE?
if the couric item was meant to downgrade women's issues and accomplishments, i have a real problem with that. peter jennings died and counterspin could note that. in fact a number of people could note that. they weren't interested in covering the death of john j. johnson - who actually had impact on the civil rights movement. they were interested in covering the white MALE anchor.
when laura flanders was at fair, they had very strong coverage of women and women's issues. when you're bringing on a man to say the abortion gets too much attention in a confirmation hearing, it may be time for you to do a self-check.
i'm glad katie couric's broken through the barrier. i've given up on corporate news but i hope she does well ratings wise. i realize that if she doesn't, it will be 'a woman can't do it!'
there's a lot of pressure on her now. she may not have the 'radical ass' that some think peter jennings possessed. (not people who worked with him, but apparently he was good about making some people believe that he really listened to their concerns.) but it does matter.
i'm not 1 who will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. a condi v. hillary matchup, in fact, might find me not voting for that office. but katie couric is not condi or hillary.
i'll note something from the draft ava circulated of her and c.i.'s 1st version of the story. bob didn't come from a morning show that aired five days a week. he came from a sunday chat & chew. where his mistakes (and worse) had been well documented. (including by fair.) i'm not remembering any action alerts on today.
i liked peter jennings as a host and even wrote of my shock when he announced his cancer. but listening to all the fawning coverage really soured me on him. especially when another death, john l. johnson's, wasn't noted. (democracy now noted it.) it's real funny that every anchor (MALE) can get noted. dan rather gets fired and it's fret and worry. peter jennings dies and suddenly he was 2nd only to alexander cockburn as an angry voice on the left.
that's how it played it out.
it's funny whom they claim and whom they don't. for instance, which anchor was the one who knew of the chicago demonstrations in 1968 - before they happened? i'm not saying they should have lined up behind him. i am saying that what some 1 did in the 60s really doesn't matter in terms of today if that's where you have to go to find 'radical ass.'
(or maybe that's not known outside of p.r. circles? having joe conason on to discuss jimmy carter probably wouldn't result in that being noted.)
so that's my beef, screed, what have you.
i never have any trouble following her. but the result is that we really tried c.i.'s patience saturday. the report was done and ready to go. c.i. was doing the entry on the new york times and noting that as soon as this was done, ruth's report would go up.
but, as c.i. pointed out to me, for the 3rd saturday in a row . . .
i always have these thoughts and i'm happy to share them. i don't mind sharing them here. but i have had 2 issues with counterspin of late.
i support fair, i listen to counterspin. each time i have brought them up, ruth has offered to include them because she's aware that she loves the show and that other people may have criticisms she doesn't catch.
on saturday, c.i. ended up having a 3 way call with ruth and myself. c.i. said either we do this talk on friday or we make an announcement that ruth goes up later in the day on saturdays.
c.i. was nice about it but i got the point. and i shouldn't have needed a phone call to get it because c.i., jess and dallas are hunting down links and doing tags for ruth's reports and every time something changes it's insert a paragraph and find another link or another tag. more importantly an hour after c.i.'s entry, if ruth's report isn't up, the e-mails start coming in wondering if there's a problem with the site or what?
a few weeks back, counterspin had a writer on who did an article for mother jones. this was my 1st issue (i have 2). throughout the interview we heard 'the new york times' had gotten a story wrong. they'd done more than gotten it wrong, the story was the false 1 right after 9/11 about saddam hussein training terrorists to high jack airplanes.
but here's my issue. who wrote the article? i know who wrote the article. but did listeners?
is there some rule that we name some people but don't name others?
chris hedges wrote the article. chris hedges should have been named.
it was interesting because the report was televised by another outlet and we got to hear other people's names but the reporter who wrote the article for the new york times was never named.
now i enjoy chris hedges' books, i enjoy the reporting on israel that he's done for mother jones.
that a reporter like hedges can be fooled (the 'source' had made up credentials and was using another man's name) underscores how successful the propaganda effort was on reporters.
so i'm listening and wondering 'why won't they say chris hedges?'
then i start to wonder. mainly because a number of ex-co-workers have told me that the reason no 1 wants to explore the church committee in print is because bill moyers worked for lbj and was involved in some anti-press activities. now moyers wasn't tapping any 1's phones. he wasn't breaking in homes. i believe all he did was, at lbj's request, make some calls to friends to find out some things about a few reporters. i don't consider that criminal or unethical. i've done it myself when i was in the p.r. game. quite often, in fact. i wouldn't let any 1 schedule an interview (unless they had no other chance of press) until i vetted the reporters out with trusted friends.
i don't know whether that's true or not about moyers being the reason. i know a lot of friends i used to work with in the p.r. biz are convinced that it is true. but listening to chris hedges' story be discussed but him never be named, i thought 'is this the sort of thing that they're talking about?'
chris hedges wrote the article. name him. discuss him. he may or may not be a good friend of the left. but don't bring on a guest to discuss a story in the new york times (that was as wrong as wrong could be and helped create the climate of cheerleading the war on iraq) and never name the person who wrote the story.
here's another issue. in the article in question, chris hedges wrote that he had 2 sources.
now what's the deal there? he was lied to (and any 1 can be, that's no shame for hedges). so he talked to mother jones about his source. 1 source.
but 2 sources lied to him.
what's the name of the other source?
if he's going to come forward with 1 (and if they lie, they have no right to be protected), he needs to come forward with the other.
because he hasn't, there's a feeling on the part of some people (my phone never stops ringing on the theorizing of this topic) that he didn't have 2 sources. that he only had 1 source. but that it sounded better in print to claim 2.
i don't think chris hedges would do that. i hope he wouldn't. but until he can come forward and name the 2nd source, he'll have to expect that people will wonder.
and he may be willing to come forward. no 1's talked to him about it since the mother jones article that i know of. he hasn't been interviewed about it, he hasn't been on democracy now discussing it.
if we mean what we say when we act outraged about the lies of the times then we're outraged period. c.i. wrote about the mother jones story. c.i. likes chris hedges. c.i. mentioned hedges by name and noted that there were 2 sources mentioned in the article.
i asked c.i. about that (and think i can note it here) when i was holding up ruth's report that week. c.i. said that chris hedges has done some wonderful work (agreed) and continues to do so (agreed) but knowing that hedges wrote the article (mother jones noted it in print) and that hedges' 2001 article had stated 2 sources, it would have been hypocritical not to have mentioned it.
'i felt bad about pointing it out because he does strong journalism but this wasn't about attacking him,' c.i. said (i made notes by the way so at 1 point this was okay for quoting), 'this was about holding some 1 to the same standards i would any 1 else at the paper. i wrote that he may be willing to name the 2nd source, i hope that's true, but if you go public because a source burned you, you can't pick and choose. 2 burned hedges. 2 need to be named.'
and about the counterspin interview?
'i didn't hear it. from what you're telling me the issue wasn't raised. it may have been a time factor, it may have been something discussed that got edited out because there wasn't much to offer. if it was a case of the interviewer not wanting to raise the issue, i do understand that. i didn't want to. i twice pulled that entry and then called back a 3rd time and said send it to the site. i went back and forth on it because i knew that it could be used to smear. i wasn't trying to smear. but in the end, if i'm going to criticize elisabeth bumiller or any 1 else, i have to note that a) chris hedges got it wrong, b) it was a propaganda effort and c) there were 2 sources mentioned in the article and only 1 has been named. what went up was dictated. no changes were made. but i did call back and say "don't send it." then i called back and said, "send it." i repeated that pattern again. my 3rd call was when i felt this was so silly. if the right wants to smear him, they will. we've noted him at the site before and will again. he's a good writer. good writers make mistakes too. it was a serious mistake due to the climate of that period. it had to be noted. but that was my decision. i have no idea how much time they have on counterspin before they record an interview. if a host felt that the issue might not be helpful, i can understand that. or they might have intended to have hedges on as well and something came up. he did speak to the writer of the mother jones article. if hedges hadn't spoken, there wouldn't be a story. he's not trying to hide it. but it's complicated and i'd be the last to slam counterspin for that interview because, if it did have to do with hedges, i went back and forth myself.'
so that's c.i.'s take. my take is you don't say 'the new york times' repeatedly. you bring up chris hedges, who wrote the story being discussed, you ask the reporter questions about what chris hedges said.
so that was 1 issue.
the issue i had on saturday was joe conason. i like conason. i've got big lies. i read the new york observer just for his column. but the segment he was on was useless to me.
here's the background. a frequent columnist for the new york post's 'page 6' (the gossip columns) is accused of hustling at least 1 person for good press. give me money, the accusation goes, or you won't get good press.
so conason comes on to talk about this story and offers . . . when ted kennedy ran against jimmy carter in 1980's democratic primaries.
excuse me, i worked in p.r. i made a huge sum in that field because i knew my job.
conason didn't know the topic. he knew what he wanted to talk about and that was trot out an old story, oft told, on rupert murdoch.
the columnist of page 6, if the accusation is true, asked for money. that's usually not done. but other things are sought by gossip columnists. i had to talk a client into attending a party 1 time because otherwise he was going to be slammed by a gossip columnist.
that's 1 area they could have covered. that actually had to do with the allegations agains the post columinst. i can tell you many horror stories. i can tell you about a singer i had to get call a gossip columnist's niece. i can tell you about an event that all my clients had to appear at, had to!, or the gossip columnist was going to pull all mentions of my clients.
that happens and it happens all the time. page 6 guy, if the rumors are true, just got a little greedier than many are.
so that's 1 way they could have gone.
here's another way. rupert murdoch, since they wanted to make it about him, has rumored pattern of using his press to go after those whose politics differ with his own. not drew barrymore because she's young and can be dismissed as 'pretty' and her beliefs just add into that. but others, they'll create rumors, they'll trash.
there's a performer, for instance, who doesn't like bully boy. the performer was asked to do a movie. the performer turned down the movie. (it was a bad part and the film bombed when it came out as the performer sensed it would.) that's not how it played in the new york post. in the new york post (and picked up by the wire services), the performer had tested for the role (not just read for it, screen tested!) and then been turned down. the item told you that the career was over and the performer washed up.
nothing in the item was true. but it was a way to go after someone who wasn't a right winger.
that's not an isolated incident. and here's why it matters.
in the entertainment world, the perception is everything. if the gossip columnist is guilty of what he's accused of, he used that power of perception to shake down some 1 for money. that's the story. it's not about what rupert murdoch did with jimmy carter back in 1980. this is not a story of politicians. it is a story of how people suffer by the right wing echo chamber. careers can be destroyed.
listening, i got the impression that a celebrity and a gossip column was not important enough for counterspin to address. as some 1 who came from p.r., i found that a little insulting, but whatever. however, if you don't want to address it, don't address it. no 1's forcing you too. but don't take a very real story and try to 'upgrade' it to the point that it's no longer the issue. and that's what i felt happened.
again, i like fair. i like counterspin. i'm signed up for fair's action alerts at my site's e-mail (sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com) but i do have those 2 issues and i'm not going to pretend that they didn't happen.
ruth was willing to write about either 1. that's ruth's space and c.i. wouldn't have altered anything (except compliments of c.i., c.i. will fight to get her okay to pull those). c.i.'s problem (and i do have permission to note it was a problem) was that ruth's report was ready and then it wasn't. and that this has happened repeatedly on saturdays after ruth and i talk. it is a pain for c.i. because members are wanting to read it and because it adds works on a saturday when c.i.'s time is already limited. (there's the posting in the morning at the common ills, then by evening, it's work on the third estate sunday review and in between try to squeeze some time for activism and life.)
so what ruth and i have decided is that if i have a problem with something i hear (on counterspin or any other show) i'll note it here. she'll note that i have a different take in her next report.
but i'm the 1 who has been delaying the reports because i've been calling and saying, 'well, did you hear that because it really bothered me.' then ruth will call c.i. and say 'hold the report' (after c.i.'s noted 'ruth goes up right after this.) then ruth and i will discuss it and she'll begin trying to write something to include it in her report and sometimes that can go on for many hours.
i also had a question about last week's show, not an issue. what was janine jackson's remark about the katie couric attention indicating the level of discourse? i couldn't tell what point she was trying to make. if the point was that the coverage was shallow, it was. if the point was that it didn't matter, i disagree. the issue was sexism. (and ava and c.i. noted the sexism in their wonderful essay.) if janine jackson was saying that couric being a '1st' didn't matter in terms of news, i do have a problem with that. not an issue, a problem.
as i remember it, during the confirmation of either alito or roberts, janine jackson interviewed a man who said too much attention was paid to reproductive rights. well a man would say that, wouldn't HE?
if the couric item was meant to downgrade women's issues and accomplishments, i have a real problem with that. peter jennings died and counterspin could note that. in fact a number of people could note that. they weren't interested in covering the death of john j. johnson - who actually had impact on the civil rights movement. they were interested in covering the white MALE anchor.
when laura flanders was at fair, they had very strong coverage of women and women's issues. when you're bringing on a man to say the abortion gets too much attention in a confirmation hearing, it may be time for you to do a self-check.
i'm glad katie couric's broken through the barrier. i've given up on corporate news but i hope she does well ratings wise. i realize that if she doesn't, it will be 'a woman can't do it!'
there's a lot of pressure on her now. she may not have the 'radical ass' that some think peter jennings possessed. (not people who worked with him, but apparently he was good about making some people believe that he really listened to their concerns.) but it does matter.
i'm not 1 who will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. a condi v. hillary matchup, in fact, might find me not voting for that office. but katie couric is not condi or hillary.
i'll note something from the draft ava circulated of her and c.i.'s 1st version of the story. bob didn't come from a morning show that aired five days a week. he came from a sunday chat & chew. where his mistakes (and worse) had been well documented. (including by fair.) i'm not remembering any action alerts on today.
i liked peter jennings as a host and even wrote of my shock when he announced his cancer. but listening to all the fawning coverage really soured me on him. especially when another death, john l. johnson's, wasn't noted. (democracy now noted it.) it's real funny that every anchor (MALE) can get noted. dan rather gets fired and it's fret and worry. peter jennings dies and suddenly he was 2nd only to alexander cockburn as an angry voice on the left.
that's how it played it out.
it's funny whom they claim and whom they don't. for instance, which anchor was the one who knew of the chicago demonstrations in 1968 - before they happened? i'm not saying they should have lined up behind him. i am saying that what some 1 did in the 60s really doesn't matter in terms of today if that's where you have to go to find 'radical ass.'
(or maybe that's not known outside of p.r. circles? having joe conason on to discuss jimmy carter probably wouldn't result in that being noted.)
so that's my beef, screed, what have you.
4/17/2006
iraq and 'we're all cheerleaders'
If women learned anything from the trashing of Katie Couric last week, it was that today, we're all cheerleaders. In their eyes, we're all cheerleaders. Our own work isn't addressed and there's no desire to familiarize themselves with it before weighing in. Call us when it's our turn to stand trial at the war crimes tribunal.
that's from ava and c.i. 's "TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader" and, as most know, that was the original title. i begged & pleaded with them to keep it. to me, it sounds like the title to a movie, maybe a musical. annie get your gun, that sort of thing.
following mike's lead, i'll swipe from c.i. for the Iraq report:
Iraq? The Times of India reports that at least 31 Iraqis died on Sunday with an additional 32 wounded. In Baghdad today, Xinhua reports, the corpse of Taha al-Mutlak, brother of Salih al-Mutlak ("top Sunni policitian"), was found. Also in Baghdad, a gun battle between the Iraqi army and the resistance has resulted in seven civilians wounded and one killed according to the Associated Press.. Still in Baghdad, Reuters notes, a doctor was kidnapped. Still in Baghdad, back to Reuters, the corpses of 12 were found -- seven had bullet holes, three had signs indicating torture. The Associated Press is reporting a bomb exploded today in Ramadi "in front of a U.S. observation post." Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports that Jebail has seen the death of at least three Iraqis and the injury of 10 more. The three dead? Two children and a woman. The cause? "Pacification." They, and the ones wounded, according to "security force spokesman" Mustafa Karrim, were guilty of being in their homes.
my head's killing me tonight and i want to call mike so i'm going to post this and call it a night. (i'm also trying to decide whether or not i'm going to write about a topic that bothered me.)
that's from ava and c.i. 's "TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader" and, as most know, that was the original title. i begged & pleaded with them to keep it. to me, it sounds like the title to a movie, maybe a musical. annie get your gun, that sort of thing.
following mike's lead, i'll swipe from c.i. for the Iraq report:
Iraq? The Times of India reports that at least 31 Iraqis died on Sunday with an additional 32 wounded. In Baghdad today, Xinhua reports, the corpse of Taha al-Mutlak, brother of Salih al-Mutlak ("top Sunni policitian"), was found. Also in Baghdad, a gun battle between the Iraqi army and the resistance has resulted in seven civilians wounded and one killed according to the Associated Press.. Still in Baghdad, Reuters notes, a doctor was kidnapped. Still in Baghdad, back to Reuters, the corpses of 12 were found -- seven had bullet holes, three had signs indicating torture. The Associated Press is reporting a bomb exploded today in Ramadi "in front of a U.S. observation post." Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports that Jebail has seen the death of at least three Iraqis and the injury of 10 more. The three dead? Two children and a woman. The cause? "Pacification." They, and the ones wounded, according to "security force spokesman" Mustafa Karrim, were guilty of being in their homes.
my head's killing me tonight and i want to call mike so i'm going to post this and call it a night. (i'm also trying to decide whether or not i'm going to write about a topic that bothered me.)
4/13/2006
flashpoints and indymedia
'black heritage' is what the stamps are called. it's 'black history' month. i'll fix that after i get this entry up but with almost every 1 in the air now and elaine counseling her therapy group tonight, i'm all you got, community. so let me get something posted.
it's thursday and i want to note flashpoints each thursday as part of the effort to get the word out on pacifica radio. flashpoints airs monday through fridays and is an hour long. dennis bernstein is the anchor. i say 'anchor' not host because it is a news program. you can listen to it over the airwaves on many stations or you can listen to it online at the flashpoints website or at kpfa and kpft online. other stations as well and if you listen on a station i didn't mention, drop me a line at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and I'll include it.
'he has lied on issues both big and small. he's lied sometimes when he didn't have to. other times i think he's lied because he wants to make his actions, his behaviors, more reasonable than they were. . . . he's gone out of his way to say things that we now know are false.'
who said that? robert parry on tonight's flashpoints. he's talking about the bully boy. such as bully boy's lie that saddam wouldn't let un inspectors in when we all know they went in and remember them rushing out, on tv, in march 2003 as bully boy geared up for the invasion. to this day 'he has made these claims about saddam hussein choosing war, saddam hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in... another quick example is his claim in 2004 which he brought up unpressured to a crowd in buffalo... where he said any wiretap required getting permission from a court, nothing had changed, when 2 years earlier he had authorized a change.'
'here's a guy who on very significant issues, when he knew he could get away with it, has lied.'
only the great robert parry could have me ape ruth and include direct quotes. i love robert parry, he's 1 of the few brave reporters left. and like the other braves 1s, he's part of the alternative scene. consortium news is the website he created, after too many hassles in the mainstream, and you will find great reporting there so check it out. and check out his books. he's my favorite book author.
maria told me that flashpoints, on friday, has news in spanish so that's another feature to check out. friday's are usually 'date night' and the show airs, in my area, starting at 8:00 pm so that's date time. i always hope to catch up on the weekend, but let's be honest, i never do. saturday nights and sunday mornings are marathon sessions with everyone to work on the third estate sunday review and when that's done most of us are wiped out. i usually miss thursdays live (but listen via archives) due to volunteer work but with everyone delayed in posting due to flying back from california, i cut short my volunteer hours this evening.
tuesday, dennis interviewed greg palast (i wrote about some of that here) and the parents of rachel corrie, young woman killed by israelies, in the occupied terrorties, while attempting to protect a palestinian family. isreal and palestine are regular topics on flashpoints.
yesterday larry johnson was interviewed about the leaking of valerie plame and that was a topic tonight as well. robert parry said that patrick fitzgerald's case against scooter libby is not due to go to trial until 2007 and that the american people deserve answers before the october elections.
fly boy and i were going wild trying to find his stamp collection among the boxes that he's just piled in a closet so i missed the name of a guest on tonight's program but he did an excellent job critiquing the administration and noting how what we're hearing with iran is an echo of what we heard prior to the 2002 elections on iraq and served to distract us on administration scandals including enron.
on that, c.i. asked this weekend while we were working on the third estate sunday review edition if any 1 was hearing much on that trial? it's finally going forward in houston. the defense is presenting their testimony now. there's so much going on that it's hard to keep track of every story but it is amazing how enron has left the front pages. (i'm going by three daily papers i read - the new york times did front page at least 1 article last week.)
matt e-mailed me to say he was listening to flashpoints now (and that he didn't know he had a pacifica in his area until ruth started covering it) and wondered what i was hoping for with this emphasis?
a number of things. 1st, i want to give ruth a damn break. that woman works her butt off trying to listen to as many programs as she can and then trying to pull together her report on saturday mornings. there is way too much worth covering for her to do it all by herself. i told her i'd cover a program and asked her which 1 did she always wants to cover but never had time? it's flashpoints because it airs when she's eating dinner and she'll be listening but think, 'oh, i'll write that in a second' and then something else comes up. the thought that she was about to start eating with a fork in one hand and a pen in another made this my program. ruth really needs a break. i worry that she's always jotting down notes and not able to enjoy listening to shows. it's like every hour is a lecture and saturdays are the finals, week after week.
[correction made friday - day after this posted. 'her' butt off. thanks to sherry for catching that, apologies to ruth. i was rushing through this post when i wrote it to get something up.]
so i'm grabbing flashpoints for that personal reason.
2nd, i want to be sure people are aware of it. if, like matt (who listens to kpft by the way), you are some 1 who reads about it here and checks it out, that's great. but like c.i. always says, you should know it's out there. maybe it's for you, maybe it's not. but you need to know what is out there because it's past time to stop relying on the mainstream media.
maybe you'll listen once and maybe you won't. maybe you'll become a dedicated listener the way matt is. maybe you'll just know it's out there. and maybe you'll hear of a story in the mainstream, say something on israel, and think, 'i want another view. i know, i'll listen to flashpoints!'
3rd, pacifica radio is doing what we supposedly want our mainstream media to do. you hear a lot of whining about 'this didn't get covered' or 'that didn't get covered.' after awhile, the question has to be, 'why are you still trusting those news sources?' we're wanting a strong media that tells the truth or tries its damndest, we'll we got it. we already have it. it's called pacifica. so instead of whining that this didn't make cnn or that didn't make abc, are you doing anything? are you using alternative media? are you supporting it?
i think you should give to pacifica. c.i. always makes the point that just getting the word out is enough. that is a huge step, yes. and c.i.'s very sensitive to the fact that many people do not have money to donate. if that's you, this doesn't apply. if putting food on your table is enough of a task, this doesn't apply. but if you're some 1 who has the money to waste on a subscription to newsweek, people magazine or whatever, you have the money to put into real media, independent media. i'll probably piss some 1 off with that but if you are pissed off, think about it, and i think you'll get my point.
but getting the word out is huge. i've got a little platform here with a nice number of readers and i could jerk off over whatever mainstream press or i can use the space to note something that can really help inform you. for those reasons and more, i'll be noting flashpoints on thursdays.
there are people who can't listen online. i seriously didn't grasp that. c.i. had to point that out to me. that includes people on public computers at libraries and people who are on older computers or have slower connections. the internet highway is leaving many off on the service roads. so another reason is to let people who won't be able to listen to flashpoints know the sort of things it covers.
when i'm at t's salon, i talk up pacifica and there are huge numbers of people who don't know about it. many of those are people who surf the net and know a great deal. when c.i. said, over a year ago, that members could endorse candidates but 'i won't' i thought, 'come on.' but in the months since, i've gotten the point. besides the fact that c.i. isn't try to be a leader or gasbag pundit, there's the fact that a lot of people are fretting over 2006's elections. they matter. but they will be over and we still have the world around us. the common ills, as c.i. has defined it, is a resource/review. it's not an elections update. there are very real issues. if the common ills is doing the job c.i.'s set for it (i think it is) then people will have the information they need to vote and, if they don't, they will know where to go (trusted voices) for help in finding out about candidates.
informing people of pacifica radio would be doing a wonderful service. but pacifica is not a democratic party organ and possibly that's why it's not covered the way it should be online? maybe there's fear that pacifica wouldn't just provide a dem candidate with coverage but also a third party candidate (which is correct)?
i don't know. i do know that there's a lot going on that the democratic party refuses to address. i do know that on key issues like reproductive rights, the dems are failing. while some of them may garner my votes, i'm not running a site that acts as a democratic party organ. if i think ralph nader says something stupid, i'll say so. i won't join in an attack on him just because he decides to run for an office that some people feel the democratics are entitled to.
you hear a lot of people whine 'we need to build an independent media!' i say 'whine' because that's all it is. we have an independent media. we have pacifica and robert parry's site and a lot more. but are we noting them? are we telling people they're out there? i don't think we are.
i'll give an example and i'll use a site i like. buzzflash is a great site. you look at their links and there's pbs, there's this, there's that. yes, democracy now is linked to but where's pacifica? i see air america radio - huge disappointment. when janeane stopped being on the majority report night after night, i stopped listening. i'll listen to laura flanders and i'll listen to randi rhodes and mike malloy but otherwise, i have no need for it. i have no need for baby cries a lot and his aei friends and rush limbaugh loving friends. he really is disgusting and the failure of his last book is fitting. i once asked c.i., who's always great with a phrase, why he's dubbed baby cries a lot instead of 'bob hope'? reason? bob hope could actually be funny.
baby cries a lot has cast himself as the new bob hope (without the early movies that were funny). and he would insist, through tears, that we have to stay in iraq. bring up leaving, on his blog or via a guest, and it was time for him to turn on the tears and talk about how he has kids (none of whom serve in iraq but whatever). congress doesn't want to talk about leaving iraq? how about baby cries a lot?
as the overly promoted host of an air america radio show, he had a platform. he didn't use it. his show is like the dlc with training wheels. they could have promoted randi heavily or laura but they went with baby cries a lot and who on the left needs that? it's a platform for the party leaders in the democratic party and that's all it is. hour after hour of putting forth democratic talking points - from the center of the party. which is why he'll trash palestinians with such delight and why he'll avoid any other real issue. god save us all from centrist, white, overweight, middle aged males who can only relate to their own kind. his playing a 'lech' whenever a woman was a guest (i think he thought it passed for flirting and probably it does - in the playboy mansion) had me ditching that show early on. but i do remember things like jeremy glick not being able to speak. he didn't scream 'shut up!' like bill o'lielly, he just kept changing the topic. we can't talk about what glick never got to say because that makes baby cries a lot uncomfortable. so why bring him on the show? because baby cries a lot wanted to beat up on bill o'lielly. thanks for that, it's a real public service and we're surely all now hugely informed.
so i don't do shout outs or links for the useless. that's why i'm covering a show that matters: flashpoints. i'm only 1 voice. but if you do your part and get the word out as well, we'll quit asking why we don't have a broadcast media we can count on and realize that pacifica is already out there just waiting for you to seek it out. (many wise people already do seek it out.)
last thing, sherry wrote that ava and c.i.'s draft of their latest commentary is 'perfect.' i love it too but it's going to be changed. they wouldn't have circulated it throughout the community if it wasn't - they'd be scooping themselves. consider this the research paper. what will go up sunday will be quite different, less footnotes for 1, and a more humorous look at what's been going on. i do love the title and will lobby both of them to please keep it but i know they're going to rip that thing apart and start from scratch. be sure to check out the third estate sunday review sunday for the final version.
adding this. fly boy reminded me that there were a number of e-mails about the june pointer post. i'm glad so many of you wrote to say you enjoyed it. and i'm glad that so many of us have fond memories of the music of the pointer sisters.
it's thursday and i want to note flashpoints each thursday as part of the effort to get the word out on pacifica radio. flashpoints airs monday through fridays and is an hour long. dennis bernstein is the anchor. i say 'anchor' not host because it is a news program. you can listen to it over the airwaves on many stations or you can listen to it online at the flashpoints website or at kpfa and kpft online. other stations as well and if you listen on a station i didn't mention, drop me a line at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and I'll include it.
'he has lied on issues both big and small. he's lied sometimes when he didn't have to. other times i think he's lied because he wants to make his actions, his behaviors, more reasonable than they were. . . . he's gone out of his way to say things that we now know are false.'
who said that? robert parry on tonight's flashpoints. he's talking about the bully boy. such as bully boy's lie that saddam wouldn't let un inspectors in when we all know they went in and remember them rushing out, on tv, in march 2003 as bully boy geared up for the invasion. to this day 'he has made these claims about saddam hussein choosing war, saddam hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in... another quick example is his claim in 2004 which he brought up unpressured to a crowd in buffalo... where he said any wiretap required getting permission from a court, nothing had changed, when 2 years earlier he had authorized a change.'
'here's a guy who on very significant issues, when he knew he could get away with it, has lied.'
only the great robert parry could have me ape ruth and include direct quotes. i love robert parry, he's 1 of the few brave reporters left. and like the other braves 1s, he's part of the alternative scene. consortium news is the website he created, after too many hassles in the mainstream, and you will find great reporting there so check it out. and check out his books. he's my favorite book author.
maria told me that flashpoints, on friday, has news in spanish so that's another feature to check out. friday's are usually 'date night' and the show airs, in my area, starting at 8:00 pm so that's date time. i always hope to catch up on the weekend, but let's be honest, i never do. saturday nights and sunday mornings are marathon sessions with everyone to work on the third estate sunday review and when that's done most of us are wiped out. i usually miss thursdays live (but listen via archives) due to volunteer work but with everyone delayed in posting due to flying back from california, i cut short my volunteer hours this evening.
tuesday, dennis interviewed greg palast (i wrote about some of that here) and the parents of rachel corrie, young woman killed by israelies, in the occupied terrorties, while attempting to protect a palestinian family. isreal and palestine are regular topics on flashpoints.
yesterday larry johnson was interviewed about the leaking of valerie plame and that was a topic tonight as well. robert parry said that patrick fitzgerald's case against scooter libby is not due to go to trial until 2007 and that the american people deserve answers before the october elections.
fly boy and i were going wild trying to find his stamp collection among the boxes that he's just piled in a closet so i missed the name of a guest on tonight's program but he did an excellent job critiquing the administration and noting how what we're hearing with iran is an echo of what we heard prior to the 2002 elections on iraq and served to distract us on administration scandals including enron.
on that, c.i. asked this weekend while we were working on the third estate sunday review edition if any 1 was hearing much on that trial? it's finally going forward in houston. the defense is presenting their testimony now. there's so much going on that it's hard to keep track of every story but it is amazing how enron has left the front pages. (i'm going by three daily papers i read - the new york times did front page at least 1 article last week.)
matt e-mailed me to say he was listening to flashpoints now (and that he didn't know he had a pacifica in his area until ruth started covering it) and wondered what i was hoping for with this emphasis?
a number of things. 1st, i want to give ruth a damn break. that woman works her butt off trying to listen to as many programs as she can and then trying to pull together her report on saturday mornings. there is way too much worth covering for her to do it all by herself. i told her i'd cover a program and asked her which 1 did she always wants to cover but never had time? it's flashpoints because it airs when she's eating dinner and she'll be listening but think, 'oh, i'll write that in a second' and then something else comes up. the thought that she was about to start eating with a fork in one hand and a pen in another made this my program. ruth really needs a break. i worry that she's always jotting down notes and not able to enjoy listening to shows. it's like every hour is a lecture and saturdays are the finals, week after week.
[correction made friday - day after this posted. 'her' butt off. thanks to sherry for catching that, apologies to ruth. i was rushing through this post when i wrote it to get something up.]
so i'm grabbing flashpoints for that personal reason.
2nd, i want to be sure people are aware of it. if, like matt (who listens to kpft by the way), you are some 1 who reads about it here and checks it out, that's great. but like c.i. always says, you should know it's out there. maybe it's for you, maybe it's not. but you need to know what is out there because it's past time to stop relying on the mainstream media.
maybe you'll listen once and maybe you won't. maybe you'll become a dedicated listener the way matt is. maybe you'll just know it's out there. and maybe you'll hear of a story in the mainstream, say something on israel, and think, 'i want another view. i know, i'll listen to flashpoints!'
3rd, pacifica radio is doing what we supposedly want our mainstream media to do. you hear a lot of whining about 'this didn't get covered' or 'that didn't get covered.' after awhile, the question has to be, 'why are you still trusting those news sources?' we're wanting a strong media that tells the truth or tries its damndest, we'll we got it. we already have it. it's called pacifica. so instead of whining that this didn't make cnn or that didn't make abc, are you doing anything? are you using alternative media? are you supporting it?
i think you should give to pacifica. c.i. always makes the point that just getting the word out is enough. that is a huge step, yes. and c.i.'s very sensitive to the fact that many people do not have money to donate. if that's you, this doesn't apply. if putting food on your table is enough of a task, this doesn't apply. but if you're some 1 who has the money to waste on a subscription to newsweek, people magazine or whatever, you have the money to put into real media, independent media. i'll probably piss some 1 off with that but if you are pissed off, think about it, and i think you'll get my point.
but getting the word out is huge. i've got a little platform here with a nice number of readers and i could jerk off over whatever mainstream press or i can use the space to note something that can really help inform you. for those reasons and more, i'll be noting flashpoints on thursdays.
there are people who can't listen online. i seriously didn't grasp that. c.i. had to point that out to me. that includes people on public computers at libraries and people who are on older computers or have slower connections. the internet highway is leaving many off on the service roads. so another reason is to let people who won't be able to listen to flashpoints know the sort of things it covers.
when i'm at t's salon, i talk up pacifica and there are huge numbers of people who don't know about it. many of those are people who surf the net and know a great deal. when c.i. said, over a year ago, that members could endorse candidates but 'i won't' i thought, 'come on.' but in the months since, i've gotten the point. besides the fact that c.i. isn't try to be a leader or gasbag pundit, there's the fact that a lot of people are fretting over 2006's elections. they matter. but they will be over and we still have the world around us. the common ills, as c.i. has defined it, is a resource/review. it's not an elections update. there are very real issues. if the common ills is doing the job c.i.'s set for it (i think it is) then people will have the information they need to vote and, if they don't, they will know where to go (trusted voices) for help in finding out about candidates.
informing people of pacifica radio would be doing a wonderful service. but pacifica is not a democratic party organ and possibly that's why it's not covered the way it should be online? maybe there's fear that pacifica wouldn't just provide a dem candidate with coverage but also a third party candidate (which is correct)?
i don't know. i do know that there's a lot going on that the democratic party refuses to address. i do know that on key issues like reproductive rights, the dems are failing. while some of them may garner my votes, i'm not running a site that acts as a democratic party organ. if i think ralph nader says something stupid, i'll say so. i won't join in an attack on him just because he decides to run for an office that some people feel the democratics are entitled to.
you hear a lot of people whine 'we need to build an independent media!' i say 'whine' because that's all it is. we have an independent media. we have pacifica and robert parry's site and a lot more. but are we noting them? are we telling people they're out there? i don't think we are.
i'll give an example and i'll use a site i like. buzzflash is a great site. you look at their links and there's pbs, there's this, there's that. yes, democracy now is linked to but where's pacifica? i see air america radio - huge disappointment. when janeane stopped being on the majority report night after night, i stopped listening. i'll listen to laura flanders and i'll listen to randi rhodes and mike malloy but otherwise, i have no need for it. i have no need for baby cries a lot and his aei friends and rush limbaugh loving friends. he really is disgusting and the failure of his last book is fitting. i once asked c.i., who's always great with a phrase, why he's dubbed baby cries a lot instead of 'bob hope'? reason? bob hope could actually be funny.
baby cries a lot has cast himself as the new bob hope (without the early movies that were funny). and he would insist, through tears, that we have to stay in iraq. bring up leaving, on his blog or via a guest, and it was time for him to turn on the tears and talk about how he has kids (none of whom serve in iraq but whatever). congress doesn't want to talk about leaving iraq? how about baby cries a lot?
as the overly promoted host of an air america radio show, he had a platform. he didn't use it. his show is like the dlc with training wheels. they could have promoted randi heavily or laura but they went with baby cries a lot and who on the left needs that? it's a platform for the party leaders in the democratic party and that's all it is. hour after hour of putting forth democratic talking points - from the center of the party. which is why he'll trash palestinians with such delight and why he'll avoid any other real issue. god save us all from centrist, white, overweight, middle aged males who can only relate to their own kind. his playing a 'lech' whenever a woman was a guest (i think he thought it passed for flirting and probably it does - in the playboy mansion) had me ditching that show early on. but i do remember things like jeremy glick not being able to speak. he didn't scream 'shut up!' like bill o'lielly, he just kept changing the topic. we can't talk about what glick never got to say because that makes baby cries a lot uncomfortable. so why bring him on the show? because baby cries a lot wanted to beat up on bill o'lielly. thanks for that, it's a real public service and we're surely all now hugely informed.
so i don't do shout outs or links for the useless. that's why i'm covering a show that matters: flashpoints. i'm only 1 voice. but if you do your part and get the word out as well, we'll quit asking why we don't have a broadcast media we can count on and realize that pacifica is already out there just waiting for you to seek it out. (many wise people already do seek it out.)
last thing, sherry wrote that ava and c.i.'s draft of their latest commentary is 'perfect.' i love it too but it's going to be changed. they wouldn't have circulated it throughout the community if it wasn't - they'd be scooping themselves. consider this the research paper. what will go up sunday will be quite different, less footnotes for 1, and a more humorous look at what's been going on. i do love the title and will lobby both of them to please keep it but i know they're going to rip that thing apart and start from scratch. be sure to check out the third estate sunday review sunday for the final version.
adding this. fly boy reminded me that there were a number of e-mails about the june pointer post. i'm glad so many of you wrote to say you enjoyed it. and i'm glad that so many of us have fond memories of the music of the pointer sisters.
marian anderson
i am blogging tonight. c.i. called because cedric needed a copy of a stamp released last year and c.i. knows fly boy collects stamps. he did have his collection here in some of the boxes he's brought over in our whatever it is phase we're in now but it took us time to locate it. i've scanned it and i know cedric's still in the air. i don't know if he's planning to blog tonight but i'm putting this up for when he does blog next. the stamps are of marian anderson and they were the stamps released last year as part of the united states postal services salute to black heritage for last year's black history month.
democracy now today takes a hard hitting look at the village voice
dona just called. she asked me for a favor and i said, 'dona, anything for you.' which i mean because she's become a great friend and because she's not 1 to ask for favors. she asked if i'd watched democracy now and i had because that's how start my day (that and coffee and cigarettes and save the speeches on smoking). it's a great episode and she asked if i could post something about it.
my brain doesn't work until noon. truly. when i was doing p.r. i would never take a meeting earlier than 10 and i would do everything i could to avoid 1 that early. i need to ease into the day. so i'll just say it's a great broadcast with some debate (and some sparks flying at 1 point) on what the changes at the village voice mean in terms of alternative media.
if you watch it on dish tv like i do, it airs next at 7 and that's on the east coast, don't make me try to do the time zones, i haven't had a whole pot of coffee yet. you can also check it out online at democracy now or at a radio station you listen to the program on or a local tv channel you watch it on or direct tv but i have dish so i have no idea when direct tv airs it. and i can do something else, i can note c.i.'s entry - yes, guys and gals, this episode is so important that c.i. has already done a thing to note it. so make a point to watch. unless you listen, in which case listen. and if you can't listen or watch, you can go to the web site and read transcripts (you can also watch or listen online). and happy birthday to amy goodman, today's her birthday.
'Democary Now!: The Death of the Village Voice?'
We're at Kat's and were planning to pick her up and head out but as we listened to headlines in the car (on Democracy Now!) we made the decision to start later today. Why Democracy Now! is covering the Village Voice. The decay of the Voice. I logged on (to Kat's computer) to do this and give a heads up to Micah (he, regrettably, called the death for this community a few weeks back) but he'd already written to note the topic and to ask that we note today is Amy Goodman's birthday.
If alternative weekly means something other than free paper and "lifestyle" reporting (and it does to this community), you need to make a point to check out today's Democracy Now! James Ridgeway is a guest and this is an indepth look at what's going on at what, for many, was the alternative weekly.
Sydney H. Schanberg states the new owner told him, "If he wanted to read daily critiques of the Bush administration, he'd read the New York Times."Ridgeway notes that the new 'direction' doesn't appear to have a place for stories on abortion or the Minute Men. Ridgeway notes, "It seems to me that the paper is kind of . . . shutting down the national coverage."
Speaking on why what's happening is a national issue, Tim Redmond (editor of San Francisco Bay Guardian) stated, "The alternative press has always been about, independent media, about independent media voices." Noting New Times consolidation efforts Redomond also stated, "if we go that way in the alternative media, that's going to be bad."
Jim just pointed out that it's Thursday, when we note indymedia in our nightly roundup, so we'll go into this more this evening. This isn't the DN! entry for the day. We'll note it again later today. But this is an important issue to the community, especially to members who suffer from New Times' weeklies -- with their teens on drugs! teens on steroids! and other lifestyle "scoops" that pass for investigative journalism, feature writing that they then congratulate themselves over as though they broke hard news.Mark Jacobson is also a guest as is Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy.
James Ridgeway notes that he can't imagine anyone covering NYC and not noting politics. Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman are taking an indepth look at this. Redmond notes the big chain New Times doesn't believe in diversity or in competition. Media does matter and Jim asks that I add, "This is a much more worthy topic than beat-up-on-Katie." And Mike and Wally say to put in, "Happy birthday to Amy Goodman!" (New Times Media is now known as Village Voice Media.)
democracy now
amy goodman
juan gonzalez
the village voice
james ridgeway
tim redmond
mark jacobson
syndey schanberg
jeff chester
the third estate sunday review
kats korner
mikey likes it
the daily jot
my brain doesn't work until noon. truly. when i was doing p.r. i would never take a meeting earlier than 10 and i would do everything i could to avoid 1 that early. i need to ease into the day. so i'll just say it's a great broadcast with some debate (and some sparks flying at 1 point) on what the changes at the village voice mean in terms of alternative media.
if you watch it on dish tv like i do, it airs next at 7 and that's on the east coast, don't make me try to do the time zones, i haven't had a whole pot of coffee yet. you can also check it out online at democracy now or at a radio station you listen to the program on or a local tv channel you watch it on or direct tv but i have dish so i have no idea when direct tv airs it. and i can do something else, i can note c.i.'s entry - yes, guys and gals, this episode is so important that c.i. has already done a thing to note it. so make a point to watch. unless you listen, in which case listen. and if you can't listen or watch, you can go to the web site and read transcripts (you can also watch or listen online). and happy birthday to amy goodman, today's her birthday.
'Democary Now!: The Death of the Village Voice?'
We're at Kat's and were planning to pick her up and head out but as we listened to headlines in the car (on Democracy Now!) we made the decision to start later today. Why Democracy Now! is covering the Village Voice. The decay of the Voice. I logged on (to Kat's computer) to do this and give a heads up to Micah (he, regrettably, called the death for this community a few weeks back) but he'd already written to note the topic and to ask that we note today is Amy Goodman's birthday.
If alternative weekly means something other than free paper and "lifestyle" reporting (and it does to this community), you need to make a point to check out today's Democracy Now! James Ridgeway is a guest and this is an indepth look at what's going on at what, for many, was the alternative weekly.
Sydney H. Schanberg states the new owner told him, "If he wanted to read daily critiques of the Bush administration, he'd read the New York Times."Ridgeway notes that the new 'direction' doesn't appear to have a place for stories on abortion or the Minute Men. Ridgeway notes, "It seems to me that the paper is kind of . . . shutting down the national coverage."
Speaking on why what's happening is a national issue, Tim Redmond (editor of San Francisco Bay Guardian) stated, "The alternative press has always been about, independent media, about independent media voices." Noting New Times consolidation efforts Redomond also stated, "if we go that way in the alternative media, that's going to be bad."
Jim just pointed out that it's Thursday, when we note indymedia in our nightly roundup, so we'll go into this more this evening. This isn't the DN! entry for the day. We'll note it again later today. But this is an important issue to the community, especially to members who suffer from New Times' weeklies -- with their teens on drugs! teens on steroids! and other lifestyle "scoops" that pass for investigative journalism, feature writing that they then congratulate themselves over as though they broke hard news.Mark Jacobson is also a guest as is Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy.
James Ridgeway notes that he can't imagine anyone covering NYC and not noting politics. Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman are taking an indepth look at this. Redmond notes the big chain New Times doesn't believe in diversity or in competition. Media does matter and Jim asks that I add, "This is a much more worthy topic than beat-up-on-Katie." And Mike and Wally say to put in, "Happy birthday to Amy Goodman!" (New Times Media is now known as Village Voice Media.)
democracy now
amy goodman
juan gonzalez
the village voice
james ridgeway
tim redmond
mark jacobson
syndey schanberg
jeff chester
the third estate sunday review
kats korner
mikey likes it
the daily jot
4/12/2006
june pointer 1953-2006
june pointer died. you probably have to be a certain age or else you say 'who?'
june pointer was the youngest member of the pointer sisters. they started out as four sisters (bonnie, ruth, anita and june) then 1 left (bonnie). the three sang together, they were a vocal group.
the 1st song i knew was their hit 'fire' which was written by bruce springsteen.
romeo and juliet
sampson and delilah
if you don't know it by those 2 lines, you don't know it.
they were good for songs and that was really it for most of their career.
'american music' was a hit they had and 'he's so shy' was a mega hit for them.
he's so shy
that's why i love my baby
he's so shy
it's driving me crazy
that sweet little boy who caught my eye
they had a hit with 'slow hand' and maybe some will know that:
i want a lover with a slow hand
i want a lover with an easy touch
i want a man who can spend some time
not come and go in a heated rush
then came 'i'm so excited' which was a hit twice.
it was a hit in the early 80s and then, when they were on a hot streak with break out, it was a hit again.
break out?
their best album. the 1 time they made a real album. richard perry was their producer on almost everything. he produced carly simon (hotcakes, no secrets, playing possum) and barbra streisand (stoney end) among others.
break out was a favorite cassette for me (back then, we bought albums on cassette). i always bought every 1 of their cassettes and was usually disappointed because they had 1/2 an album or less. a lot of filler. break out was great.
and it was a huge hit. so somebody decided, 'hey, they had a hit with "i'm so excited" awhile back, let's put it on the album!' and they reissued the album. on cd you can only get that version.
break out was when they moved away from the pop sound and went after more of a dance feel.
'telgraph your love' was 1 of my favorites on the cd but i also loved 'i need you' and 'easy persuasion.' guess what? those weren't hit singles.
this was a great album. i can't remember but i think 'automatic' was the 1st single. this 1 had ruth on lead and there was a big controversy over whether or not it was ruth's voice natural or manipulated because her voice was so deep. it's a great song and was a huge hit. if that wasn't the 1st single, it was 'jump (for my love)' which was also a huge hit. i loved that song. jump - jump - for my love. so they had 2 hits and 'i'm so excited' got added on for 3. it was re-released and a hit again. 'neturon dance' waas a huge hit from the album and it was also in the movie beverly hills cop. for that video, they were usherettes with flashlights while clips from the movie played. but that wasn't it. 'baby come and get it' was also a hit on dance and urban charts. i believe it also crossed over to pop. five hits off 1 album. it was really big. it came out in 1983 and was still on the charts in 1984.
in the summer of 1985, they came out with contact and the 1st single was 'dare me.' that was a hit as well and had a video with a young model as a boxer. he was hot. i believe he had red boxing shorts but that was so long ago. i just remember thinking 'hot!'
as always, i rushed out and got the album as soon as it came out. the 2nd single was a mistake. they went with a ballad. 'freedom.' it was a hit but i think it killed the enthusiasm for the album.
i liked the song but they really needed to go with something more up tempo. i remember people complaining about 'freedom.' i would defend it and say 'wait for the next 1.'
but that really was it. 'pound pound' was great and should have been the follow up to 'dare me.'
they did another album with richard perry producing and it didn't do very well. they had a hit on the urban charts with the lead single, i don't even remember it.
and that was really it.
they could really sing. they sang with bruce springsteen on the first merry christmas album in 1985 or 1986 (charity album for special olympics). they also performed on 'we are the world.'
of the non singles, i think my favorite song was 'i need you.'
something's wrong (something's wrong)
things ain't right (things ain't right)
and it turns into a silly fight
i walk out (i walk out)
you get mad (you get mad)
and we both just seem to feeling bad
the way their voices mixed on that song just gave me chills.
if you're wondering about song writing credit, they worked with outside song writers. the only hit they had that they wrote was 'i'm so exicted' (with trevor lawrence).
that's a song that always pops up in movies. (the fabulous baker boys, working girl, etc.)
as a 4-some (with bonnie) they had a hit with 'the fairytale' but i never knew that song. when i was buying cassettes, they never had that at any store i went to. i always wanted to hear that song during the 80s but by the time the 90s rolled around, there had been too many bad albums.
break out was their best 1. and they are a part of 80s popular music.
i was really sad to see the news online this evening that june pointer died.
they had at least 14 hits, that i know of, from the 70s to the 80s ('yes we can' was a hit before 'the fairytale') and that may not seem like a huge number today when you put out an album and get the 1st hit, then the 2nd, then the 3rd, then the 4th ... but back then it wasn't uncommon (sad but true) for acts trying to have hits to end up with only 1 or 2 hits per album.
to put break out into perspective it came out after thriller and before tina turner's private dancer and bruce springsteen's born in the u.s.a. music had been a slump, sales were down - so of course the labels were whining 'piracy!'
reality was a recession, rising prices and really bad vinyl. every time i bought a vinyl album, it was like placing a bet. when i got it home, maybe it would play without skips, maybe it wouldn't.
i returned linda ronstadt's living in the u.s.a 4 times before i got 1 that would play correctly.
then came the walkman in the 80s and cassettes became the rage. michael jackson and others revived interest in music (stevie nicks' belladonna was 1 of the huge albums of the early 80s). donna summer had re-discovered god and lost her talent.
along came the pointer sisters.
break out stayed on the charts forever. if you're looking for some where to start with their music, get that on cd.
june pointer was the youngest member of the pointer sisters. they started out as four sisters (bonnie, ruth, anita and june) then 1 left (bonnie). the three sang together, they were a vocal group.
the 1st song i knew was their hit 'fire' which was written by bruce springsteen.
romeo and juliet
sampson and delilah
if you don't know it by those 2 lines, you don't know it.
they were good for songs and that was really it for most of their career.
'american music' was a hit they had and 'he's so shy' was a mega hit for them.
he's so shy
that's why i love my baby
he's so shy
it's driving me crazy
that sweet little boy who caught my eye
they had a hit with 'slow hand' and maybe some will know that:
i want a lover with a slow hand
i want a lover with an easy touch
i want a man who can spend some time
not come and go in a heated rush
then came 'i'm so excited' which was a hit twice.
it was a hit in the early 80s and then, when they were on a hot streak with break out, it was a hit again.
break out?
their best album. the 1 time they made a real album. richard perry was their producer on almost everything. he produced carly simon (hotcakes, no secrets, playing possum) and barbra streisand (stoney end) among others.
break out was a favorite cassette for me (back then, we bought albums on cassette). i always bought every 1 of their cassettes and was usually disappointed because they had 1/2 an album or less. a lot of filler. break out was great.
and it was a huge hit. so somebody decided, 'hey, they had a hit with "i'm so excited" awhile back, let's put it on the album!' and they reissued the album. on cd you can only get that version.
break out was when they moved away from the pop sound and went after more of a dance feel.
'telgraph your love' was 1 of my favorites on the cd but i also loved 'i need you' and 'easy persuasion.' guess what? those weren't hit singles.
this was a great album. i can't remember but i think 'automatic' was the 1st single. this 1 had ruth on lead and there was a big controversy over whether or not it was ruth's voice natural or manipulated because her voice was so deep. it's a great song and was a huge hit. if that wasn't the 1st single, it was 'jump (for my love)' which was also a huge hit. i loved that song. jump - jump - for my love. so they had 2 hits and 'i'm so excited' got added on for 3. it was re-released and a hit again. 'neturon dance' waas a huge hit from the album and it was also in the movie beverly hills cop. for that video, they were usherettes with flashlights while clips from the movie played. but that wasn't it. 'baby come and get it' was also a hit on dance and urban charts. i believe it also crossed over to pop. five hits off 1 album. it was really big. it came out in 1983 and was still on the charts in 1984.
in the summer of 1985, they came out with contact and the 1st single was 'dare me.' that was a hit as well and had a video with a young model as a boxer. he was hot. i believe he had red boxing shorts but that was so long ago. i just remember thinking 'hot!'
as always, i rushed out and got the album as soon as it came out. the 2nd single was a mistake. they went with a ballad. 'freedom.' it was a hit but i think it killed the enthusiasm for the album.
i liked the song but they really needed to go with something more up tempo. i remember people complaining about 'freedom.' i would defend it and say 'wait for the next 1.'
but that really was it. 'pound pound' was great and should have been the follow up to 'dare me.'
they did another album with richard perry producing and it didn't do very well. they had a hit on the urban charts with the lead single, i don't even remember it.
and that was really it.
they could really sing. they sang with bruce springsteen on the first merry christmas album in 1985 or 1986 (charity album for special olympics). they also performed on 'we are the world.'
of the non singles, i think my favorite song was 'i need you.'
something's wrong (something's wrong)
things ain't right (things ain't right)
and it turns into a silly fight
i walk out (i walk out)
you get mad (you get mad)
and we both just seem to feeling bad
the way their voices mixed on that song just gave me chills.
if you're wondering about song writing credit, they worked with outside song writers. the only hit they had that they wrote was 'i'm so exicted' (with trevor lawrence).
that's a song that always pops up in movies. (the fabulous baker boys, working girl, etc.)
as a 4-some (with bonnie) they had a hit with 'the fairytale' but i never knew that song. when i was buying cassettes, they never had that at any store i went to. i always wanted to hear that song during the 80s but by the time the 90s rolled around, there had been too many bad albums.
break out was their best 1. and they are a part of 80s popular music.
i was really sad to see the news online this evening that june pointer died.
they had at least 14 hits, that i know of, from the 70s to the 80s ('yes we can' was a hit before 'the fairytale') and that may not seem like a huge number today when you put out an album and get the 1st hit, then the 2nd, then the 3rd, then the 4th ... but back then it wasn't uncommon (sad but true) for acts trying to have hits to end up with only 1 or 2 hits per album.
to put break out into perspective it came out after thriller and before tina turner's private dancer and bruce springsteen's born in the u.s.a. music had been a slump, sales were down - so of course the labels were whining 'piracy!'
reality was a recession, rising prices and really bad vinyl. every time i bought a vinyl album, it was like placing a bet. when i got it home, maybe it would play without skips, maybe it wouldn't.
i returned linda ronstadt's living in the u.s.a 4 times before i got 1 that would play correctly.
then came the walkman in the 80s and cassettes became the rage. michael jackson and others revived interest in music (stevie nicks' belladonna was 1 of the huge albums of the early 80s). donna summer had re-discovered god and lost her talent.
along came the pointer sisters.
break out stayed on the charts forever. if you're looking for some where to start with their music, get that on cd.
4/11/2006
greg palast on flashpoints
each week, i listen to kpfa to catch flashpoints and i blog on it on thursdays.
i'm jumping in to say you really have to hear tonight's (i don't think it was 'tonight' there) broadcast. there's an interview that dennis does with greg palast that i think most people will enjoy for a number of reasons.
npr hater that i am, i enjoyed it for that reason as greg and dennis discussed 'national petroleum radio.' i think greg's correct, if you're public radio (or television), you're public. you're not taking corporate sponsorship.
he talked about how he was going to be on a media program (it airs saturdays on some npr stations and i believe it's called media matters). he was going to discuss the issue of cynthia mckinney and how the new york times and others had made up a quote for her. (this is covered by greg in his book the best democracy money can buy - i think the chapter is called 'the lynching of cynthia mckinney.') so they bring him on to discuss it and how the times lied. then as he's being miked, they learn that npr also created the quote and they say, 'oh, you've criticized npr, we can't have you on the show. how would that look?' (that's a paraphrase.) and he responds that it will look great and enlarge the discussion and show that npr can critique and welcome other voices but they take off his mike.
that's npr. you can go public radio npr to slam the new york times for lying but if you've also criticized npr for doing the same thing, it's 'you're outta here.'
they also discussed venezuela and issues of class (as well as the fact that greg has a new book coming out). so if it sounds interesting, give it a listen.
i hope you're giving flashpoints a chance because i really do think it's a great show. but if you're not. i know some people don't have the option of listening because they have older systems or they are online at libraries (often with severe time limits like 15 minutes). so if you're not able to listen, i hope i'm giving you enough of a taste that you can get an idea of the show. probably won't happen in 1 entry but over time.
i'll make this the show i follow but if i've got tickets to the theater, i'm using them.
and if i'm wiped out, i'm not forcing myself to blog. god bless c.i. but i will not try to be all things to every 1 offline and on. this weekend, cedric was just shocked by how much is going on in c.i.'s life and i said, 'cedric, think about it - this is the weekend.'
want to know about strong radio you should be aware of? read cedric's 'Law and Disorder addressed covert racism' and mike's 'Leaky Bully Boy, Immigration and Law and Disorder.'
and if you need a laugh - who doesn't - go check out betty's latest chapter "My 'caring' husband Thomas Friedman worries I don't have time to appreciate his 'genius'."
i'm jumping in to say you really have to hear tonight's (i don't think it was 'tonight' there) broadcast. there's an interview that dennis does with greg palast that i think most people will enjoy for a number of reasons.
npr hater that i am, i enjoyed it for that reason as greg and dennis discussed 'national petroleum radio.' i think greg's correct, if you're public radio (or television), you're public. you're not taking corporate sponsorship.
he talked about how he was going to be on a media program (it airs saturdays on some npr stations and i believe it's called media matters). he was going to discuss the issue of cynthia mckinney and how the new york times and others had made up a quote for her. (this is covered by greg in his book the best democracy money can buy - i think the chapter is called 'the lynching of cynthia mckinney.') so they bring him on to discuss it and how the times lied. then as he's being miked, they learn that npr also created the quote and they say, 'oh, you've criticized npr, we can't have you on the show. how would that look?' (that's a paraphrase.) and he responds that it will look great and enlarge the discussion and show that npr can critique and welcome other voices but they take off his mike.
that's npr. you can go public radio npr to slam the new york times for lying but if you've also criticized npr for doing the same thing, it's 'you're outta here.'
they also discussed venezuela and issues of class (as well as the fact that greg has a new book coming out). so if it sounds interesting, give it a listen.
i hope you're giving flashpoints a chance because i really do think it's a great show. but if you're not. i know some people don't have the option of listening because they have older systems or they are online at libraries (often with severe time limits like 15 minutes). so if you're not able to listen, i hope i'm giving you enough of a taste that you can get an idea of the show. probably won't happen in 1 entry but over time.
i'll make this the show i follow but if i've got tickets to the theater, i'm using them.
and if i'm wiped out, i'm not forcing myself to blog. god bless c.i. but i will not try to be all things to every 1 offline and on. this weekend, cedric was just shocked by how much is going on in c.i.'s life and i said, 'cedric, think about it - this is the weekend.'
want to know about strong radio you should be aware of? read cedric's 'Law and Disorder addressed covert racism' and mike's 'Leaky Bully Boy, Immigration and Law and Disorder.'
and if you need a laugh - who doesn't - go check out betty's latest chapter "My 'caring' husband Thomas Friedman worries I don't have time to appreciate his 'genius'."
4/10/2006
waiting for godot on wbai right now
SAMUEL BECKETT 100:
A Special Presentation [on WBAI]
Monday, April 10, from 9:00-11:00 pm: Commemorate Beckett's centenary and the 50th anniversary of the American premiere of his masterpiece, Waiting for Godot, by listening to a special broadcast of the play featuring the original Broadway cast: Burt Lahr, E.G. Marshall, Alvin Epstein and Kurt Kasner. Hosted and with an introduction by Simon Loekle.Heads up to the above.
On WBAI which you can listen to for free online.
i'm posting in parts but elaine just called to ask me if i was listening to the broadcast. i'd forgotten. i'm swiping the announcement above from her and there will be more below this. but i want to remind every 1 of it. the introduction has just started and the play hasn't. so you can turn on the radio and listen right now if you're not already without missing anything.
i'm listening now. of non comedy and non musical plays, waiting for godot is 1 of my favorites. i also enjoy, of the 'classics', edward albee's tiny alice and bernard shaw's saint joan. i also like ibsen and hat tip to c.i. for that. i knew of ibsen in college but wasn't too keen on it because they were set so far in the past - come on, cut me some slack, i was a college freshwoman, and then c.i. demanded that i go see ghosts. we ended up seeing a wonderful production of it and i was hooked.
whenever some 1 says, 'i don't want to rent that, it's a period film' i can understand where they're coming from; however, there are films worth seeing that are 'period films' and if you're lucky enough to see a revival of a great play, regardless of when it was written or what time period it's set in, you should do so.
i want to note that wbai also broadcast a reading of war and peace this year. now you're getting waiting for godot. do you really get that from npr? i don't think so. so if you're not familiar with wbai or the other pacifica radio stations, make a point to be. kpfa does theatre performances each sunday night.
i really want to enjoy this and my typing continues to cease as i attempt to listen. so i'm going to recommend c.i.'s "NYT: Mel's Diner is back in business" (hilarious!) and i'm going to note this from democracy now:
Mass Protests Continue Around the US For Immigrant Rights
Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in cities across the country Sunday urging Congress to pass legislation that would legalize the estimated 12 million undocumented workers in the US. An estimated 500,000 people took to the streets in Dallas. The marchers filled the downtown streets with chants of "Si Se Puede!" -- Spanish for "Yes, we can!". In St. Paul, Minnesota, 30,000 people rallied at the state capitol. In Birmingham, Alabama, demonstrators marched along the same streets where activists clashed with police in the civil rights struggle of the 1960s. Other protests were held in New Mexico, Michigan, Iowa, Alabama, Utah, Oregon, Idaho and California. Michael Martinez, who attended a rally in San Diego, said: "It's not about flags, it's not really about race. It's about just equal opportunities for everybody and nobody being above or below the law and nobody being exploited by the law. It's that simple." More protests are planned for today in nearly 100 cities across the country.
good for every 1 making a difference and great for dallas. i will blog tomorrow night. if you miss the broadcast and want to catch it, remember that programs are briefly archived so check out the wbai archive.
A Special Presentation [on WBAI]
Monday, April 10, from 9:00-11:00 pm: Commemorate Beckett's centenary and the 50th anniversary of the American premiere of his masterpiece, Waiting for Godot, by listening to a special broadcast of the play featuring the original Broadway cast: Burt Lahr, E.G. Marshall, Alvin Epstein and Kurt Kasner. Hosted and with an introduction by Simon Loekle.Heads up to the above.
On WBAI which you can listen to for free online.
i'm posting in parts but elaine just called to ask me if i was listening to the broadcast. i'd forgotten. i'm swiping the announcement above from her and there will be more below this. but i want to remind every 1 of it. the introduction has just started and the play hasn't. so you can turn on the radio and listen right now if you're not already without missing anything.
i'm listening now. of non comedy and non musical plays, waiting for godot is 1 of my favorites. i also enjoy, of the 'classics', edward albee's tiny alice and bernard shaw's saint joan. i also like ibsen and hat tip to c.i. for that. i knew of ibsen in college but wasn't too keen on it because they were set so far in the past - come on, cut me some slack, i was a college freshwoman, and then c.i. demanded that i go see ghosts. we ended up seeing a wonderful production of it and i was hooked.
whenever some 1 says, 'i don't want to rent that, it's a period film' i can understand where they're coming from; however, there are films worth seeing that are 'period films' and if you're lucky enough to see a revival of a great play, regardless of when it was written or what time period it's set in, you should do so.
i want to note that wbai also broadcast a reading of war and peace this year. now you're getting waiting for godot. do you really get that from npr? i don't think so. so if you're not familiar with wbai or the other pacifica radio stations, make a point to be. kpfa does theatre performances each sunday night.
i really want to enjoy this and my typing continues to cease as i attempt to listen. so i'm going to recommend c.i.'s "NYT: Mel's Diner is back in business" (hilarious!) and i'm going to note this from democracy now:
Mass Protests Continue Around the US For Immigrant Rights
Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in cities across the country Sunday urging Congress to pass legislation that would legalize the estimated 12 million undocumented workers in the US. An estimated 500,000 people took to the streets in Dallas. The marchers filled the downtown streets with chants of "Si Se Puede!" -- Spanish for "Yes, we can!". In St. Paul, Minnesota, 30,000 people rallied at the state capitol. In Birmingham, Alabama, demonstrators marched along the same streets where activists clashed with police in the civil rights struggle of the 1960s. Other protests were held in New Mexico, Michigan, Iowa, Alabama, Utah, Oregon, Idaho and California. Michael Martinez, who attended a rally in San Diego, said: "It's not about flags, it's not really about race. It's about just equal opportunities for everybody and nobody being above or below the law and nobody being exploited by the law. It's that simple." More protests are planned for today in nearly 100 cities across the country.
good for every 1 making a difference and great for dallas. i will blog tomorrow night. if you miss the broadcast and want to catch it, remember that programs are briefly archived so check out the wbai archive.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)