'rebecca, where are you?' is a question a number of you are asking.
well there were rallies to attend and hot men.
looking around i thought, 'good god! you buried the lead!'
i should have been stressing the pick up factor to those who were on the fence.
and since i had to work tonight with third estate sunday review, i knew i'd have to score big friday night. tell pat benetar to put another notch in the old lipstick case.
i'm really glad to read 1 e-mail. it was from the woman who e-mailed before who wanted to attend a rally in her area but was nervous about going. she went to a candle light vigil last night
and had a great time. she was planning to go to a rally today.
tara e-mailed 'if you are taking time off for the protests, couldn't you have prepared entries in advance like c.i. did?'
tara, i'm not c.i. my name is rebecca. (to paraphrase a really bad country song of 70s.)
seriously, do you think i do a great deal of planning from 1 day to the next about what i'm going to write here? c'mon, tara, you know the answer to that.
the third estate gang and c.i. were also all at protests and to hear every 1 talk, it was great, it was rewarding but every 1's exhausted. there will be a third estate sundy review edition but right now they're tossing around options like not meeting the usual deadline they have set for themselves.
i'm committed to assisting them and i think you'll find something of interest tomorrow if you check.
but in the meantime, let me highlight two things you may have missed from last sunday's edition.
ava and c.i. wrote a hilarious and true review of smallville:
Remember how Lex Luther's father ended up in Clark's body and how we're not going into details. Just know it happened. This gives Tom Welling the opportunity to strut around shirtless for a bit (which seems to be the main purpose of the show). He's wearing pants and nothing else. And he primps in the mirror. Then he pulls out his waistband and sneaks a peak inside the pants to see what's Clark's packing (remember Lex Luther's father is now in Clark's body). (Has been for hours and hours but apparently Clark didn't need to piss at any point so it's news to Lex Daddy what Clark's packing.)
Looking up, Welling does a self-satisified smirk. And we're left thinking, "We are watching a show about Clark Kent, right?" Size queens and shirtless scenes, oh my.
Then it's time to make a phone call to allow for more shirtless time. Lot of flexing of the arms. Then Annette O'Toole enters as Martha.
And the writers apparently didn't think that mother Martha would notice that it wasn't Clark.
Oh sure, he seems a little different. Martha even asks if he's going out since he's all dressed up.
At that point we fell to ground laughing, folks. Why? Well other than the slacks, Clark's not wearing anything. All dressed to go out? What is he, Super Stripper?
and i'll draw your attention to an interview with the lovely, the talented, the sexy, the brilliant kat of kat's korner:
And blame it on radio which is totally corporate and a lot happier playing "songs" that are actually plugs for products. The whole listening hour can be turned into one long commercial.
And that's what we're seeing more and more. You date or fuck as a side story in the song, but you make your purchases first and foremost and then sport them because you're apparently only as good as your brands. The days of introspection are postponed when your Air Jordans or whatever instantly tell the world you've got it.
I can remember when there were actual songs about actual real life events on the radio. I don't hear them on the radio that continues to push the Disney Kids at the expense of real artists.
3/19/2005
3/18/2005
still think the new republic is a "liberal" magazine?
my apologies to any 1 who waited for a post. thursday's already gone and it's friday morning.
i was out on a date last night and hadn't been online once thursday. if i had, i'd have known from e-mails and the common ills site that c.i. had problems with posting. i got back after ten, okay after eleven and thought i'd have enough time to post a last minute entry. but i had nothing but headaches and lost posts.
wednesday, c.i. sent me something from fair and i'm going to quote from that in a minute but while i was installing various software, i was reading the daily howler c.i. e-mailed me about and i want to start there.
i get a number of e-mails each week saying, 'come on rebecca, the new republic isn't that bad. it has a long history of liberalism. aren't you being a little harsh?'
am i?
i have e-mailed each person who's written that to ask them, 'when is the last time you picked up the new republic?' no suprise here, it's been years. (no 1 reads that rag anymore.)
so i'm reading the daily howler that c.i. sent and the topic is about psuedo-liberals who refuse to speak the truth they know. and it is dealing with a number of people but i am going to pull some examples from the new republic staff. and what you need to know when you read the quotes
is that it's dealing with the press slaughter of al gore in 2000 and the people who kept their mouths shut or else lied and pretended no attacks were going on.
So why weren't your interests defended back then -- by, let's say, The New Republic? Chuck Lane was then the journal's editor -- why didn't Lane commission reports? Scarborough knows what he would have done. Why did Lane seem to do different?
Could it be that Lane put his own interests first -- and sold your interests down the river? (Immediate, obvious answer: We don't know.) After all, it was the Washington Post and the New York Times who were leading the "brutal" wilding of Gore (no, it wasn't the Washington Times, a point we'll discuss in more detail tomorrow). And the Post and the Times are big mainstream organs, where young journalists go to build their careers and pocket those nice, fancy pay-checks. Indeed, when Lane left TNR in the fall of 1999, where did he land? Where else? At the Post! At the paper where Ceci Connolly had been trashing Gore ever since March of that year! So here’s our question: If TNR had written about Connolly's work, would Lane would have landed that job at the Post? We'd have to guess the answer is no. No, we don't know why Lane's TNR kept quiet about the War Against Gore. But almost surely, the pattern established in Lane's career move helps explain why so many scribes kept silent while colleagues savaged Gore and eventually put Bush in the White House.
Another example? Dana Milbank wrote about Campaign 2000 for TNR right through December 1999. He also skipped the trashing of Gore. And yes, he also went straight to the Post -- the place where the trashing was occurring.
[...]
When Peter Beinart replaced Lane at TNR, for example, the "liberal" journal kept ignoring the press corps' devolving treatment of Gore. Beinart remains at TNR to this day, but he'll be at the heart of the mainstream press corps for decades (indeed, he's a very bright writer). By the way -- in 2001, Beinart began a lengthy run as a panelist on CNN's weekly show, Late Edition.
Would Beinart have landed that career-building chair if TNR had reported the trashing of Gore? We don't have the slightest idea -- and Beinart never had to find out.
still think i'm too hard on the new republic? bob somerby is telling you that the great "liberal" magazine never found time to tell its readers about the trashing of al gore.
still not convinced?
then let's take a look at something from fair called 'not even the new republic,' okay? this article is written by steve rendall and anna kosseff.
Once TNR , along with The Nation , was indeed a leading journal of left opinion. But when Martin Peretz, a Harvard instructor best known for his outspoken pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian views, purchased it in 1974 with money from his wife's inheritance, the magazine's politics swung unmistakably rightward (Extra! , 8/90).
TNR 's decisive departure from the left is old news, perhaps best illustrated by its editorial support for every major U.S. military intervention in the last two decades: the 1983 Grenada invasion, the 1986 bombing of Libya and the 1989 Panama invasion, as well as both wars against Iraq. The magazine also repeatedly editorialized in support of the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, who deliberately killed thousands of civilians.
A survey of the magazine's weekly unsigned editorials reveals a commitment to middle-of-the-road domestic and trade politics. In 1995, conservative TNR editor Andrew Sullivan (Washington Post , 4/8/95) asserted that his magazine could not be faulted for hypocrisy over its lack of diversity because "we've taken an editorial position against affirmative action." The magazine also supported the roll-back of welfare in 1996 and continues to judge policy-makers based on their record of support or opposition to it (11/24/03).
More recently, TNR (1/19/04) endorsed the presidential candidacy of Sen. Joseph Lieberman
-- the most conservative of the 2004 Democratic presidential hopefuls -- saying that "for over a decade, few Democrats have better embodied the principles we hoped would one day define the party as a whole." TNR has championed Lieberman's centrism throughout much of his career, faltering in its support of him only rarely, as when he changed his position to support affirmative action in 2000 (TNR , 11/13/00).
After the 2002 mid-term elections, the magazine had this advice for the defeated Democrats (11/18/02): "The party needs centrist leaders willing to give the country not merely a Democratic alternative but an attractive one." Consistent with that recommendation, over the past four years TNR has endorsed fast-track trade authorization (12/24/01), criticized Bush's Israel policy from the right (4/5/04) and urged the Democrats to endorse drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a deal with congressional Republicans (5/6/02). Soon after the September 11 attacks, owner Martin Peretz (10/15/01) opined in favor of racial profiling.
want to tell me again how it's a "liberal" magazine?
i know some of you may feel i need to add 'harp' to my blog title. but if you listen to air america, you hear those ads for the new republic. you hear stephanie of the new republic telling you it's a great magazine. you hear al franken schilling for the rag and claiming it's "liberal" and that it's the best in the land. there's no truth in advertising there. (if al franken believes the new republic is liberal, that tells you a whole lot more about al then he may want you to know.)
it's this whole propaganda campaign on a small scale. and it's past time for people to be honest and start saying 'no, the new republic is not a liberal magazine!' until we do that, people will continue to hear that the new republic says whatever and think 'oh it's a liberal magazine, so maybe i'm wrong.' it's the great silencer.
as long as the myth that the new republic is liberal continues to be believed, you will see the discussion on the left pushed to the right over and over. this is not a liberal magazine. and it needs to get honest about what it is and who its audience is. and if you're reading the rag, it's really past time that you stopped.
i was out on a date last night and hadn't been online once thursday. if i had, i'd have known from e-mails and the common ills site that c.i. had problems with posting. i got back after ten, okay after eleven and thought i'd have enough time to post a last minute entry. but i had nothing but headaches and lost posts.
wednesday, c.i. sent me something from fair and i'm going to quote from that in a minute but while i was installing various software, i was reading the daily howler c.i. e-mailed me about and i want to start there.
i get a number of e-mails each week saying, 'come on rebecca, the new republic isn't that bad. it has a long history of liberalism. aren't you being a little harsh?'
am i?
i have e-mailed each person who's written that to ask them, 'when is the last time you picked up the new republic?' no suprise here, it's been years. (no 1 reads that rag anymore.)
so i'm reading the daily howler that c.i. sent and the topic is about psuedo-liberals who refuse to speak the truth they know. and it is dealing with a number of people but i am going to pull some examples from the new republic staff. and what you need to know when you read the quotes
is that it's dealing with the press slaughter of al gore in 2000 and the people who kept their mouths shut or else lied and pretended no attacks were going on.
So why weren't your interests defended back then -- by, let's say, The New Republic? Chuck Lane was then the journal's editor -- why didn't Lane commission reports? Scarborough knows what he would have done. Why did Lane seem to do different?
Could it be that Lane put his own interests first -- and sold your interests down the river? (Immediate, obvious answer: We don't know.) After all, it was the Washington Post and the New York Times who were leading the "brutal" wilding of Gore (no, it wasn't the Washington Times, a point we'll discuss in more detail tomorrow). And the Post and the Times are big mainstream organs, where young journalists go to build their careers and pocket those nice, fancy pay-checks. Indeed, when Lane left TNR in the fall of 1999, where did he land? Where else? At the Post! At the paper where Ceci Connolly had been trashing Gore ever since March of that year! So here’s our question: If TNR had written about Connolly's work, would Lane would have landed that job at the Post? We'd have to guess the answer is no. No, we don't know why Lane's TNR kept quiet about the War Against Gore. But almost surely, the pattern established in Lane's career move helps explain why so many scribes kept silent while colleagues savaged Gore and eventually put Bush in the White House.
Another example? Dana Milbank wrote about Campaign 2000 for TNR right through December 1999. He also skipped the trashing of Gore. And yes, he also went straight to the Post -- the place where the trashing was occurring.
[...]
When Peter Beinart replaced Lane at TNR, for example, the "liberal" journal kept ignoring the press corps' devolving treatment of Gore. Beinart remains at TNR to this day, but he'll be at the heart of the mainstream press corps for decades (indeed, he's a very bright writer). By the way -- in 2001, Beinart began a lengthy run as a panelist on CNN's weekly show, Late Edition.
Would Beinart have landed that career-building chair if TNR had reported the trashing of Gore? We don't have the slightest idea -- and Beinart never had to find out.
still think i'm too hard on the new republic? bob somerby is telling you that the great "liberal" magazine never found time to tell its readers about the trashing of al gore.
still not convinced?
then let's take a look at something from fair called 'not even the new republic,' okay? this article is written by steve rendall and anna kosseff.
Once TNR , along with The Nation , was indeed a leading journal of left opinion. But when Martin Peretz, a Harvard instructor best known for his outspoken pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian views, purchased it in 1974 with money from his wife's inheritance, the magazine's politics swung unmistakably rightward (Extra! , 8/90).
TNR 's decisive departure from the left is old news, perhaps best illustrated by its editorial support for every major U.S. military intervention in the last two decades: the 1983 Grenada invasion, the 1986 bombing of Libya and the 1989 Panama invasion, as well as both wars against Iraq. The magazine also repeatedly editorialized in support of the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, who deliberately killed thousands of civilians.
A survey of the magazine's weekly unsigned editorials reveals a commitment to middle-of-the-road domestic and trade politics. In 1995, conservative TNR editor Andrew Sullivan (Washington Post , 4/8/95) asserted that his magazine could not be faulted for hypocrisy over its lack of diversity because "we've taken an editorial position against affirmative action." The magazine also supported the roll-back of welfare in 1996 and continues to judge policy-makers based on their record of support or opposition to it (11/24/03).
More recently, TNR (1/19/04) endorsed the presidential candidacy of Sen. Joseph Lieberman
-- the most conservative of the 2004 Democratic presidential hopefuls -- saying that "for over a decade, few Democrats have better embodied the principles we hoped would one day define the party as a whole." TNR has championed Lieberman's centrism throughout much of his career, faltering in its support of him only rarely, as when he changed his position to support affirmative action in 2000 (TNR , 11/13/00).
After the 2002 mid-term elections, the magazine had this advice for the defeated Democrats (11/18/02): "The party needs centrist leaders willing to give the country not merely a Democratic alternative but an attractive one." Consistent with that recommendation, over the past four years TNR has endorsed fast-track trade authorization (12/24/01), criticized Bush's Israel policy from the right (4/5/04) and urged the Democrats to endorse drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a deal with congressional Republicans (5/6/02). Soon after the September 11 attacks, owner Martin Peretz (10/15/01) opined in favor of racial profiling.
want to tell me again how it's a "liberal" magazine?
i know some of you may feel i need to add 'harp' to my blog title. but if you listen to air america, you hear those ads for the new republic. you hear stephanie of the new republic telling you it's a great magazine. you hear al franken schilling for the rag and claiming it's "liberal" and that it's the best in the land. there's no truth in advertising there. (if al franken believes the new republic is liberal, that tells you a whole lot more about al then he may want you to know.)
it's this whole propaganda campaign on a small scale. and it's past time for people to be honest and start saying 'no, the new republic is not a liberal magazine!' until we do that, people will continue to hear that the new republic says whatever and think 'oh it's a liberal magazine, so maybe i'm wrong.' it's the great silencer.
as long as the myth that the new republic is liberal continues to be believed, you will see the discussion on the left pushed to the right over and over. this is not a liberal magazine. and it needs to get honest about what it is and who its audience is. and if you're reading the rag, it's really past time that you stopped.
3/16/2005
if there's a peace rally in your area, please consider attending
i want to share a story from democracy now today:
Officer Jailed 45 Days For Tossing Iraqis In River
Meanwhile a U.S. army platoon leader was sentenced Tuesday to 45 days in military prison. Lieutenant Jack Saville pleaded guilty that he ordered his troops to throw two Iraqi prisoners into the Tigris River. One of the prisoners has never been found and is believed to have drowned. Saville is one of the first officers to be tried for abusing prisoners in Iraq. His sentence was kept to just 45 days because he had agreed to testify in another military trial. In that trial, Saville revealed that his captain had once given him a hit list of five Iraqis who were to be executed on the spot if they were captured in a raid.
look at that last sentence: in that trial, saville revealed that his captain had once given him a hit list of five iraqis who were to be executed on the spot if they were captured in a raid.
who were the 5?
does it matter to you?
does it bother you that we have shoot on sight orders?
like me, are you wondering where the captain got his orders?
so we target people in our 'bringing freedom mission?'
does it matter.
it matters if we see ourselves a certain way. it matters if we're still believing the lie that we're doing anything over there except running an occupation.
maybe you do care.
maybe you cared before the war broke out? you were against it and said so in whatever way you were comfortable with.
but the war started, the propoganda got louder, when truth finally started coming out people on both sides were too busy chanting 'support the troops' to deal with reality and you started thinking what difference does it make?
not that you didn't care about the people dying, but you just thought 'i was against it before and it didn't matter, no 1 listens anyway.'
if you're thinking that or feeling that, i want to direct you to the common ills which has an entry today:
While we're noting MoveOn and Sojourners upcoming peace events, let's take a moment to note CodePink's as well:
March 19-20 marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq. After all of the death and destruction and with the Bush administration claiming a mandate to continue their war, there's a new urgency and a stronger determination within the global antiwar movement to bring the troops home now.
CODEPINK will organize vigils, rallies, marches and nonviolent civil disobedience throughout the country to call an end to the needless suffering, devastation, and loss of life. Help us let the Bush administration know loud and clear the world’s mandate has been and continues to be one of peace. Read the renewed Iraq Pledge of Resistance.
Actions:
LOCAL ACTIONS NATIONWIDE
Organize vigils, rallies, marches, or nonviolent civil disobedience in your community and let us know by emailing info@codepinkalert.org and publishing it on the United For Peace and Justice calendar - or join an event near you.
MAJOR REGIONAL PROTEST IN FAYETTEVILLE, N.C.
There will also be a major regional demonstration in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Fayetteville is home to Fort Bragg - ground zero for the 82nd Airborne Division and many of the Army's elite units. Beyond Fort Bragg, North Carolina hosts four other of the nation's largest military bases, making the state one of the friendliest to the military-industrial complex. For more information about CodePink, visit their homepage as well as the CodePink alert notice.
So we've covered the peace events for Code Pink and MoveOn & Sojourners (see previous entry). If you know of an event that we haven't covered, please e-mail this site (common_ills@yahoo.com).
[For those in a hurry: "To participate in a peace vigil they provide a link to Sojourners that will let you know if there's one in your area." Clicking the link will provide you with information on the peace events Sojourners & MoveOn will be holding.]
The Green Party's Green Party Peace Action Committee offers this announcement and information:
March 18-20 marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq.
Greens all over the country are participating in local actions that call for the end of the war and to bring our troops home.
Check back frequently for updated information, Green Party literature and other resources for your local actions.
If you are organizing a local action, please send the information to peace@gp.org, so we can post it on the national online calendar.
For more information: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
Local Peace Calendars:
New York (Capitol area): http://www.social-capital.org/calendar/
Maryland: http://www.mupj.org/pdfdocs/calendar2005january.pdf
Baltimore area: http://www.baltnvctr.org
Pittsburgh/Western Penn: http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org
Seattle are: http://www.scn.org/activism/calendar
Sacramento area: http://www.sacpeace.org/index.cfm
Colorado: http://www.rmpjc.org/
so read that list and find other resources. and ask yourself if there's some way you can participate because you can make your voice heard.
no, i don't expect that the media, outside of democracy now, will do a good job of covering the protests. but you'll see others concerned about peace. and you'll feel glad that you participated.
i know some of you might want to go but have never been to a rally. i don't just mean high school students like wally because according to common ills community member maria, the students are actually more active and involved than other generations.
but maybe you come here and you nod and you think 'i should do something.' but you're thinking that you've never been to a rally and maybe you're trying to find some 1 to go with you so that you won't be there alone. if that's the case, i've been to many rallies so let me clue you in.
you don't need a buddy to go with you. great if you have one, two or whatever. but the people at a rally are going to be concerned about the same thing you are and there will be people there who will make you feel welcome.
i got an e-mail this morning about the common ills post and the woman wrote 'rebecca, i really want to go but i'm really, really nervous in crowds.'
if you're nervous because of a medical condition, consult your doctor. if you're nervous because you're thinking you will be there and every 1 will know each other and no 1's going to talk to you, it's not like that. i was reading the e-mail this morning and it reminded me of the 1st time i went to a concert when i was 13. and i had friends who were going so i wasn't alone.
and i started thinking that maybe there was some 1 else that was feeling like this woman.
i've been there. when i was 13, 3 of us were going to a concert. i don't even remember now who it was. probably it was some guy i thought was hot. but what i remember most was feeling really nervous. i had gotten 'top heavy' very quickly. like over a 3 month period it seemed like i went from a 'training bra' with nothing to train to intense cleaveage.
and believe me, as every girl i knew seemed to be sporting breasts, i really, really wanted some boobs. but to sprout them like that and suddenly have guys staring at them made me nervous.
so here was a night thing with a crowd of people. my parents were out of town and my older sister really wanted me out to throw a party but she also, i think, really wanted me to go to my 1st concert.
i put on a bra, i put a shirt, i put on a plaid shirt over that, a vest and over that a coat.
and still i was thinking that maybe i'd bail. maybe hang out mickey dees for the duration of the concert, come back to the house, pass my sister in the hall (in the crowded hall) and swear it was unbelievable.
i really wanted to go to that concert. but i was so sure that i would stick out and that every 1 would stare and no 1 would talk to me but my friends who would probably get embarrassed at some point themselves and i'd just be sitting there or standing there feeling like the girl who really wants to be out on the floor dancing but no 1 asks.
that didn't happen. my friends were there. we met others there who were nice and friendly.
i had a great time.
but i almost didn't go.
and if some 1's never been in a situation with a lot of people around, maybe they're feeling something like i was then. it's okay to feel that way.
it's okay to be nervous about doing something you want to do.
with the concert, i probably told myself that i had to go because of whichever guy was going to be on stage. so if you're thinking about going and your anxiety is not from a medical condition, i encourage you to think about something else. such as?
coming together with others to show your support for peace. to show people in your area that you believe in peace. focus on that bigger purpose and just go.
i bet you have a great time. if you don't, you can gripe my ass out in an e-mail. you can cuss me out and rip me a new one. sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com is the address. make a note of it. tell yourself, 'oh i'll go, but you better believe i will hold you responsible.' hold me responsible. but i don't think you'll have a bad time.
i think you'll find a lot of really cool people who will make a point to speak to you. and you'll be glad that you stood up for peace but you'll also be really proud of yourself for confronting a fear head on.
i know there's no sex in this entry and there's no attitude and no screed. but i think this is a really important issue so i just want to take a moment to speak to any 1 out there that really would like to go to a peace rally in their area but is nervous.
if we don't do our part to make a difference, then who will? not the bully boy. not the corporate press. so please find out about something in your area. figure out where it is if you don't know and then go.
the occupation will continue as long as we say 'well some 1 else will speak out' or 'some 1 else will march,' or 'some 1 else will attend the peace rally.' this is about free speech and it is about making your voice heard.
Officer Jailed 45 Days For Tossing Iraqis In River
Meanwhile a U.S. army platoon leader was sentenced Tuesday to 45 days in military prison. Lieutenant Jack Saville pleaded guilty that he ordered his troops to throw two Iraqi prisoners into the Tigris River. One of the prisoners has never been found and is believed to have drowned. Saville is one of the first officers to be tried for abusing prisoners in Iraq. His sentence was kept to just 45 days because he had agreed to testify in another military trial. In that trial, Saville revealed that his captain had once given him a hit list of five Iraqis who were to be executed on the spot if they were captured in a raid.
look at that last sentence: in that trial, saville revealed that his captain had once given him a hit list of five iraqis who were to be executed on the spot if they were captured in a raid.
who were the 5?
does it matter to you?
does it bother you that we have shoot on sight orders?
like me, are you wondering where the captain got his orders?
so we target people in our 'bringing freedom mission?'
does it matter.
it matters if we see ourselves a certain way. it matters if we're still believing the lie that we're doing anything over there except running an occupation.
maybe you do care.
maybe you cared before the war broke out? you were against it and said so in whatever way you were comfortable with.
but the war started, the propoganda got louder, when truth finally started coming out people on both sides were too busy chanting 'support the troops' to deal with reality and you started thinking what difference does it make?
not that you didn't care about the people dying, but you just thought 'i was against it before and it didn't matter, no 1 listens anyway.'
if you're thinking that or feeling that, i want to direct you to the common ills which has an entry today:
While we're noting MoveOn and Sojourners upcoming peace events, let's take a moment to note CodePink's as well:
March 19-20 marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq. After all of the death and destruction and with the Bush administration claiming a mandate to continue their war, there's a new urgency and a stronger determination within the global antiwar movement to bring the troops home now.
CODEPINK will organize vigils, rallies, marches and nonviolent civil disobedience throughout the country to call an end to the needless suffering, devastation, and loss of life. Help us let the Bush administration know loud and clear the world’s mandate has been and continues to be one of peace. Read the renewed Iraq Pledge of Resistance.
Actions:
LOCAL ACTIONS NATIONWIDE
Organize vigils, rallies, marches, or nonviolent civil disobedience in your community and let us know by emailing info@codepinkalert.org and publishing it on the United For Peace and Justice calendar - or join an event near you.
MAJOR REGIONAL PROTEST IN FAYETTEVILLE, N.C.
There will also be a major regional demonstration in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Fayetteville is home to Fort Bragg - ground zero for the 82nd Airborne Division and many of the Army's elite units. Beyond Fort Bragg, North Carolina hosts four other of the nation's largest military bases, making the state one of the friendliest to the military-industrial complex. For more information about CodePink, visit their homepage as well as the CodePink alert notice.
So we've covered the peace events for Code Pink and MoveOn & Sojourners (see previous entry). If you know of an event that we haven't covered, please e-mail this site (common_ills@yahoo.com).
[For those in a hurry: "To participate in a peace vigil they provide a link to Sojourners that will let you know if there's one in your area." Clicking the link will provide you with information on the peace events Sojourners & MoveOn will be holding.]
The Green Party's Green Party Peace Action Committee offers this announcement and information:
March 18-20 marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq.
Greens all over the country are participating in local actions that call for the end of the war and to bring our troops home.
Check back frequently for updated information, Green Party literature and other resources for your local actions.
If you are organizing a local action, please send the information to peace@gp.org, so we can post it on the national online calendar.
For more information: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
Local Peace Calendars:
New York (Capitol area): http://www.social-capital.org/calendar/
Maryland: http://www.mupj.org/pdfdocs/calendar2005january.pdf
Baltimore area: http://www.baltnvctr.org
Pittsburgh/Western Penn: http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org
Seattle are: http://www.scn.org/activism/calendar
Sacramento area: http://www.sacpeace.org/index.cfm
Colorado: http://www.rmpjc.org/
so read that list and find other resources. and ask yourself if there's some way you can participate because you can make your voice heard.
no, i don't expect that the media, outside of democracy now, will do a good job of covering the protests. but you'll see others concerned about peace. and you'll feel glad that you participated.
i know some of you might want to go but have never been to a rally. i don't just mean high school students like wally because according to common ills community member maria, the students are actually more active and involved than other generations.
but maybe you come here and you nod and you think 'i should do something.' but you're thinking that you've never been to a rally and maybe you're trying to find some 1 to go with you so that you won't be there alone. if that's the case, i've been to many rallies so let me clue you in.
you don't need a buddy to go with you. great if you have one, two or whatever. but the people at a rally are going to be concerned about the same thing you are and there will be people there who will make you feel welcome.
i got an e-mail this morning about the common ills post and the woman wrote 'rebecca, i really want to go but i'm really, really nervous in crowds.'
if you're nervous because of a medical condition, consult your doctor. if you're nervous because you're thinking you will be there and every 1 will know each other and no 1's going to talk to you, it's not like that. i was reading the e-mail this morning and it reminded me of the 1st time i went to a concert when i was 13. and i had friends who were going so i wasn't alone.
and i started thinking that maybe there was some 1 else that was feeling like this woman.
i've been there. when i was 13, 3 of us were going to a concert. i don't even remember now who it was. probably it was some guy i thought was hot. but what i remember most was feeling really nervous. i had gotten 'top heavy' very quickly. like over a 3 month period it seemed like i went from a 'training bra' with nothing to train to intense cleaveage.
and believe me, as every girl i knew seemed to be sporting breasts, i really, really wanted some boobs. but to sprout them like that and suddenly have guys staring at them made me nervous.
so here was a night thing with a crowd of people. my parents were out of town and my older sister really wanted me out to throw a party but she also, i think, really wanted me to go to my 1st concert.
i put on a bra, i put a shirt, i put on a plaid shirt over that, a vest and over that a coat.
and still i was thinking that maybe i'd bail. maybe hang out mickey dees for the duration of the concert, come back to the house, pass my sister in the hall (in the crowded hall) and swear it was unbelievable.
i really wanted to go to that concert. but i was so sure that i would stick out and that every 1 would stare and no 1 would talk to me but my friends who would probably get embarrassed at some point themselves and i'd just be sitting there or standing there feeling like the girl who really wants to be out on the floor dancing but no 1 asks.
that didn't happen. my friends were there. we met others there who were nice and friendly.
i had a great time.
but i almost didn't go.
and if some 1's never been in a situation with a lot of people around, maybe they're feeling something like i was then. it's okay to feel that way.
it's okay to be nervous about doing something you want to do.
with the concert, i probably told myself that i had to go because of whichever guy was going to be on stage. so if you're thinking about going and your anxiety is not from a medical condition, i encourage you to think about something else. such as?
coming together with others to show your support for peace. to show people in your area that you believe in peace. focus on that bigger purpose and just go.
i bet you have a great time. if you don't, you can gripe my ass out in an e-mail. you can cuss me out and rip me a new one. sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com is the address. make a note of it. tell yourself, 'oh i'll go, but you better believe i will hold you responsible.' hold me responsible. but i don't think you'll have a bad time.
i think you'll find a lot of really cool people who will make a point to speak to you. and you'll be glad that you stood up for peace but you'll also be really proud of yourself for confronting a fear head on.
i know there's no sex in this entry and there's no attitude and no screed. but i think this is a really important issue so i just want to take a moment to speak to any 1 out there that really would like to go to a peace rally in their area but is nervous.
if we don't do our part to make a difference, then who will? not the bully boy. not the corporate press. so please find out about something in your area. figure out where it is if you don't know and then go.
the occupation will continue as long as we say 'well some 1 else will speak out' or 'some 1 else will march,' or 'some 1 else will attend the peace rally.' this is about free speech and it is about making your voice heard.
3/15/2005
cjr daily can kiss my ass (and they can apologize to kathleen hall jameison while they are at it)
i was so thrilled to read the common ills and see wally's kind words. as most of my readers know c.i. & the common ills have the college campuses sewn up so i'll happily take the high school 1s.
wally, i promise not to disappoint the high school readers i just learned i have by toning down the language or the topics. you have my word that my site won't take a turn to pg-13. we're an r-rating here, a hard r. possibly drifting towards nc-17 from time to time.
so let's get going. i'm reading cjr daily today because a reader copied and pasted it into an e-mail. (smart move dolly, i don't visit that site.) and looks who's back, montopoli's back, bri-bri's
back on the blog report.
struck me kind of sad. sad that the great watchdog cjr who calls every 1 else out on their conflicts of interests and plays watchdog doesn't appear to patrol their own backyard.
yes, folks, little bri-bri took a big dump in the dog dish and the great cjr just let the turd float around in the bowl.
at a time when people are finally starting to notice that the mainstream has shut out female bloggers, perhaps it's time to scream, 'bri-bri, get your hands out of your drawers and tear down your gender apartheid wall!'
regardless, bri-bri's back on the blog blog, who put 'em back on the blog, oooh ah, back on the blog report? (as the newly inducted rock and roll hall of famers pretenders might sing.)
let's review.
cjr daily is part of cjr the way touchstone's part of disney. yeah, it can be a little more wicked than cjr the way touchstone can sneak in a topless shot but that's about all.
so cjr's a watchdog but they're so busy watchdogging every 1 else that they can't keep an eye on their own pup bri-bri need a watchful eye.
see bri-bri does some blog reports for pretty much a year and writes about blogs that he's supposed to be noting for some reason like the writing is notable, the topic is noteable, something along those lines. and we get the same blogs over and over in the blog reports done by bri-bri.
you start to wonder, 'gee does bri-bri know these bloggers personally? there are other bloggers after all!'
well it turns out he did know the bloggers he was citing. they are all cluster fuck buddies.
(i wrote about this yesterday.) but they never disclose that.
not only that, they still haven't disclosed it.
they've done no "perhaps we should have informed readers of this site" type note.
there's been no expose all mea culpa. hell, there's not even been a tea leoni! (a pretty excuse that seems to say something but doesn't really.)
and it's ugly. it's really ugly. and it's not living up to the ethics of cjr.
let me put you straight if you're late to out of the gate on this.
blogger a is reported on by cbs news. a reporter feels that blogger a has conducted himself in an unethical manner. cbs does a story on that.
cjr daily doesn't. when they get around to covering it, they reduce ethics expert kathleen hall jameison to kathleen jamieson. which c.i. said, when we were working on a 3rd estate sunday review editorial with the gang from 3rd estate was like a constitutional law class c.i. took where c.i. was supposed to research, another was supposed to type and write and a 3rd was supposed to argue. long story short, c.i. researched, c.i. ended up writing and in the end arguing in moot court -- and won. but this was despite the fact that the team members on c.i.'s team did 1 and only 1 thing and that was to type the brief. and the typist turned in the brief as he dropped the class without letting the team read over it first. the typist reduced j. edgar hoover to 'edgar hoover.' the mock justices reading the brief had no reason to care about any section on edgar hoover -- who is edgar hoover?
it's the same problem when you take the 'hall' out of kathleen hall jamieson. hearing that kathleen jamieson said something doesn't carry the weight that a remark from kathleen hall jameison would.
let's quote from bri-bri because i feel i'm losing you:
We'd like to join the litany of bloggers wondering what, exactly, CBSNews.com senior political writer David Paul Kuhn was thinking when he put together a piece lamenting the fact that there are no government regulations keeping bloggers honest -- a piece that itself was inaccurate.
. . .
What did Kuhn do wrong? It's not so easy to tell now, because CBS has corrected the story since it was first posted -- without noting as much. But we've got a screen grab of the original piece, which includes this passage:
In the case of Duncan Black, this is what happened. The author of the popular liberal blog Atrios, Black wrote under a pseudonym. All the while, he was a senior fellow at a liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America.
"People are pretty smart in assuming that if a blog is making a case on one side that it's partisan," [Kathleen] Jamieson [dean of the Annenberg School for Communications] said. "The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan."
. . .
As Black notes, the name of his blog is "Eschaton," not "Atrios" -- but that's just the start of the problems. "I began writing this weblog in April, 2002," he writes. "MMFA only came into existence in May, 2004. I began working with them in June, 2004." Kuhn's piece -- with its accusatory "all the while" -- not only gets the facts wrong, it suggests an "ethical" problem that simply isn't there.
And what of the quote? "Jamieson's quote has nothing to do with the situation, either as it exists or as CBS seems to lay out," says Pandagon's Jesse Taylor. "You might as well have had someone from the Southern Poverty Law Center talking about the proliferation of racist hate groups on the internet . . .
[then they let atrios speak.]
Ultimately, it's too bad Kuhn's piece contained the flaws, because it's built on a solid hook -- documents that show that the two leading South Dakota blogs, which readers believed to be objective, were run by paid advisors to Republican Senator John Thune . . .
But the inaccuracies are inexcusable, especially coming from "a senior political writer" for a network website. And even more inexcusable is that the corrections took place without the editors of CBS.com informing their readers of the revisions. If either Kuhn or CBS.com wants to try to make the case that the government needs to regulate unprofessional behavior . . .
is bri-bri in a place to lecture any 1?
is bri-bri telling readers that he's clusterfucking with atrios?
no.
is he telling them that jess of pandagon is part of the clusterfuck?
no.
is he telling them that kathleen hall jamieson is the person speaking?
no.
cjr hasn't corrected this item so allow me.
bri-bri should reveal that he's not just writing about an issue that has some blogs upset, cbs commenting on atrios.
bri-bri is writing about 1 of his buds. notice how at the end, bri-bri's all over 2 republican bloggers as though that's the issue. the issue is bri-bri rushes in to defend his bud atrios without telling readers that atrios is his bud.
and if he had, they might wonder why all the sudden bri-bri's bringing up a new issue at the end (2 republican bloggers).
bri-bri goes to another cluster fuck bud, by accident apparently, to back up his first bud atrios.
we never learn that jess is a cluster fuck bud. and i guess it's an accident that kathleen hall jamieson is stripped of 'hall' and any import she might hold with a reader as a result. 'who is this kathleen jameison?' you can hear some readers asking.
he quotes his bud atrios defending himself and bri-bri, again, never says 'we're all part of the same cluster fuck.'
he then goes on to lecture cbs about ethics.
and yet cjr daily has never corrected this entry let alone done an apology for it.
and they damn well should have.
this is not up to journalistic standards.
so tell me why today bri-bri's back on the blog report.
was atrios wrong? i don't know. i don't go to the blog and i'm not given enough information to know. i don't really care.
was jess wrong? if she were (i'm assuming she's a she), i'd be the last to slam another female blogger. (though wonkette may or may not qualify. e-mail me at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and let me know what you think there.)
what i do know is that bri-bri's wrong. what i do know is that this along the lines of jayson blair for cjr. see they are a watchdog. and bri-bri wrote a piece on a bud without disclosing the bud-ness. he wrote a defense of a bud where, at the end, he shifted the attention to 2 republican bloggers that he hadn't mentioned previously. (and atrios' excuse -- if he needs 1 -- is that he's never claimed to be non-partisan. by the excuse atrios offers, why is bri-bri attacking 2 bloggers for doing partisan work? only reason i can see is to shift the spotlight away from his bud.)
and on top of that, he goes to another cluster fuck bud to offer a defense of atrios.
look, c.i., 3rd estate gang, folding star and i all know each other. we've e-mailed. we've never hidden that. and when c.i. and i work with the 3rd estate in any way, it's noted right there in the front note to the readers.
so why doesn't bri-bri have to note that he's writing about a friend and quoting another friend?
why is he allowed to attack cbs and question their ethics when his own are in question?
better question, why does he still have a job at cjr daily?
he didn't just fail to disclose pertinent information though that alone should have been enough consider cjr's ethics policy. he went on to attack the ethics of cbs for doing a correction and not informing readers. if cbs did that, they were wrong. but if you haven't disclosed that you were writing about your buds then maybe you aren't in the position to attack cbs?
that's be like me attacking sherry for writing up a sex fantasy and e-mailing it. sherry, how dare you! in other words, it's total and complete crap.
and cjr daily has not done a correction to his entry nor offered any explanation of this.
and this goes to yesterday's entry because i was talking about how the problem is not so much that no women exist, it's that the mainstream media ignores us. and when they do cover us, they slight us. they slighted kathleen hall jameison and that's a name that cjr (mag, daily, whatever) should never get wrong. and if some 1 at cjr doesn't know who she is, then my gut says they shouldn't have been hired in the first place.
i told you yesterday that it's about who you know and it is. and apparently kathleen hall jameison has to much self-respect to be hot-tubbin in a cluster fuck. (cluster fuck is bri-bri's word. he used it on his own personal blog to describe the fun with the buds in an entry.)
for readers who don't know kathleen hall jameison, every link where her name appears takes you to something that will give you an idea of who she is and why her work is important.
but for those who don't click on links, i'll note this from the last link above (The Institute for Research on Women & Gender presents):
Kathleen Hall Jamieson is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania where she is the Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor of Communication. The author or co-author of twelve books including Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership, Jamieson is a fellow of the American Philosophical Society, The American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the International Communication Association. She has won university-wide teaching awards at each of the universities at which she has taught, The University of Maryland, The University of Texas, and the University of Pennsylvania. She is a past board member of the Ms Foundation and was one of the founders of its White House Project, a project designed to increase the likelihood that the country will elect a woman president. In the 2003-4 academic year, Jamieson has been a fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies at Stanford University.
are you starting to get how important she is to the field of journalism? i hope so.
cjr daily, under bri-bri, couldn't even get her name right. that's shameful. they've never done a correction to that or anything else in the entry i quoted above, that's unbelievable.
i got a really nice e-mail from luke today and he advised me to not go so hard on cjr daily. he thinks 'they're useless with their two to three items a day - from a paid staff! and they appear not to get to work until late since their first-of-the-morning posts pop up at noon. but if you keep this up, they probably won't link to you.'
luke i loved your e-mail all the way through. and i appreciate your concern at the end. but let me be really plain as i wind down here, cjr daily will never link to me. they will never link to the 3rd estate and they will never link to folding star and they will never link to the common ills. we all know that. we all knew going in when we worked on the 3rd estate editorial (folding star did not work on the editorial) that doing it would mean risking that. we were fine with it because somebody needs to speak up when something wrong has been done. we spoke up and i don't think any of us regrets it. i also don't think a lot of people read cjr daily anymore.
when they insulted their readers by acting like they had just heard a criticism that there the blog reports were too closed, they lost a lot of respect. why? the most read posts on their site were the readers commenting on the fact that they always highlighted the same blogs. and those posts go back to december.
trust me, bri-bri knows about 3rd estate. he could have highlighted the editorial and noted that yes, he should have disclosed the truth earlier but since he hadn't, he would do so now. he didn't do that. you will not see 3rd estate covered at cjr daily, you will not see the common ills covered there, you will not see folding star covered there, and you will not see me covered there. we can all live with that.
don't even bother sending items in to that e-mail address they offered their readers when they said they'd be more inclusive. i know things were sent in and i know that cjr daily ignored them.
but so fucking what? we've all got our readers. (c.i. would say 'members! common ills is a community. every 1 there is a member!') and look at the common ills. it was built up from the ground with very little help from the blog community.
yes, fair mentioned it, yes ms. musing's mentioned it, yes, buzzflash usually links to it once a month, yes, offshoring digest has. but it didn't get sung up on the big blogs.
and the fact of the matter is, the post on jeffery dvorkin from november should have been all over the place. that was something that no 1 was talking about. even when they did talk about it, they spoke of it without telling you the real conflict of interest (not that the speaker npr brought on to criticize john kerry was a neocon who supported the war, but that the speaker was married to a woman who works for dick cheney). nobody told you about that. nobody blogged on it and said 'look at this conflict of interest!'
the common ills did so. i saw that article via buzzflash. i didn't hear about it on a blog report or from bloggers who went on air america or any thing like that.
that was a big issue. approaching the election, npr brought on the husband of a woman who worked for dick cheney to criticize john kerry and npr never told you that the man was married to someone who worked for dick cheney. he was presented as a disinterested observer. and when listeners complained to npr ombudsman jeffrey dvorkin, dvorkin's reply never noted this conflict of interest.
this is pretty huge. this was during an election and it was a blatant conflict of interest that was left undisclosed and a lot of people still don't know about it.
so if it's a case of playing nice or telling the truth, i think we'll all go for telling the truth.
c.i. did and that's why the common ills is so huge. you get people in the u.k., for instance, posting it in reviews for dvds and cds. it'll be up for a day or 2 before the companies catch on and pull it. but that's why they have the international audience. and the fact that c.i. told you the truth about simon rosenberg when almost every 1 else was saying 'he's great!' is 1 of the big reasons the common ills is so huge with college kids.
i was in boston the other day talking to a friend who's a college professor and all she wanted to know was 'what's c.i. like?' because her students follow the common ills.
that wasn't the result of a cluster fuck bestowing their approval.
so it's nice of you to be concerned, luke, but trust me, i get enough e-mail and i have enough readers that i don't need to sell out with the hope that i might get a link from cjr daily or a cluster fuck.
and if i did sell out, i'd be no different than cokie roberts and believe me, when i hear her prattling on while she clutches her pearls, i am assured i never want that personal hell so i'll keep telling my truth.
wally and some of the students in his class know this site. reporters i mention know it. and i have so many wonderful readers like sherry who i will always stand by and support until john turek decides he has to choose between us. sherry knows i love her but that when it comes down to the final round for our cornhusker's decision, all bets are off. (though sherry has offered that we could share joint-custody of christian parenti.) (sherry offers that agreement only if she can have dahr jamail all for herself, so at present we have yet to reach a truce.)
and our community isn't a cluster fuck or a circle jerk (to use bill keller's term). we have always disclosed our bond. and there will soon be 1 more of us.
and i think you'll like her. if you visit the common ills regularly, you know that a member asked to have it posted that she was going to start her own blog. i got an e-mail asking me 'where is it?'
she and c.i. are working on it. she wants a portrait of sorts up in her profile. and she's been trying to figure out what she can add that will be different. she's e-mailed me two test columns and they were hilarious. but she wants to find her 'voice' and that's not easy, i know.
i had no desire to blog myself. but then when my friend elaine was slapped down (read my first entry), i had to step up to the plate. i e-mailed c.i. and asked for help. and c.i. talked me through setting up this blog and has been there to try to help with any problem i had with it. in the early days i would e-mail all the time asking 'is this funny?' or 'what's another way i could reference this?' talk to the 3rd estate gang and they'll tell you similar stories.
for me, i really didn't comment to the community that often. i was a member happy to read what others were saying. and though elaine would tell me over margaritas, 'becks, you need to do a blog!' i'd always say no.
i had to have a strong voice to write so i thought about all the anger i felt as my marriage was ending and tapped into that. by the divorce itself, we were fine and i am friends with my ex-husband. a lot of you e-mail asking why i don't spill on him and it may or may not pop up here from time to time but i really have no desire to trash him. if you'd caught me when the marriage was falling apart, that would be another story.
but i was angry about how elaine was treated and i wanted to write about that and really felt 'but what do i do on day 2?' so c.i. and i talked and talked and it came down to the fact that women don't often get to be angry so what if that was my way in, my voice.
and then i thought about what else don't women often write about? sex. in a nonclinical manner. in a way where they talk about men the way we (if we're straight women or gay men) talk about men. so there was the sex to add to the politics and i knew i wanted to keep my attitude. then i said to c.i. 'people are going to read me and say that i just screech' and c.i. said note it in the title. that's how i ended up with sex and politics and screeds and attitude.
and with that title, you should know what you're getting into when you come to this blog.
i'm laying it all out real clear. and people are responding to it.
so let me to try to have 1 of those moments c.i. has that gina labels 'oprah moments' and find the larger lesson not just because i have some younger readers i wasn't aware of until wally's comments but also because this is important.
you will never get any where in this world by being a copy. if you get riches or fame and you've done it by being untrue to yourself it will not mean anything. (and i'm sure my ex would agree with me on this, our marriage probably failed because we both kept trying to be what the other thought was wanted and it just made us both miserable.)
but if you are true to yourself and speak your truth you will be heard. some might not like you. but the 1s who do will appreciate that you are you. and isn't it better to have people like that in your life then people who may only be around because you're acting like who you think they'll like?
so if any 1 reading this is thinking of starting a blog, start it. get out there and get your truth out there. we do need more voices and that does not mean an echo chamber. we need to know your truth as much as we need to hear mine. that's the only way we'll ever be able to see one another as individuals as opposed to stereotypes. that's the lesson for today and don't worry wally, we won't start doing life lessons every day.
wally, i promise not to disappoint the high school readers i just learned i have by toning down the language or the topics. you have my word that my site won't take a turn to pg-13. we're an r-rating here, a hard r. possibly drifting towards nc-17 from time to time.
so let's get going. i'm reading cjr daily today because a reader copied and pasted it into an e-mail. (smart move dolly, i don't visit that site.) and looks who's back, montopoli's back, bri-bri's
back on the blog report.
struck me kind of sad. sad that the great watchdog cjr who calls every 1 else out on their conflicts of interests and plays watchdog doesn't appear to patrol their own backyard.
yes, folks, little bri-bri took a big dump in the dog dish and the great cjr just let the turd float around in the bowl.
at a time when people are finally starting to notice that the mainstream has shut out female bloggers, perhaps it's time to scream, 'bri-bri, get your hands out of your drawers and tear down your gender apartheid wall!'
regardless, bri-bri's back on the blog blog, who put 'em back on the blog, oooh ah, back on the blog report? (as the newly inducted rock and roll hall of famers pretenders might sing.)
let's review.
cjr daily is part of cjr the way touchstone's part of disney. yeah, it can be a little more wicked than cjr the way touchstone can sneak in a topless shot but that's about all.
so cjr's a watchdog but they're so busy watchdogging every 1 else that they can't keep an eye on their own pup bri-bri need a watchful eye.
see bri-bri does some blog reports for pretty much a year and writes about blogs that he's supposed to be noting for some reason like the writing is notable, the topic is noteable, something along those lines. and we get the same blogs over and over in the blog reports done by bri-bri.
you start to wonder, 'gee does bri-bri know these bloggers personally? there are other bloggers after all!'
well it turns out he did know the bloggers he was citing. they are all cluster fuck buddies.
(i wrote about this yesterday.) but they never disclose that.
not only that, they still haven't disclosed it.
they've done no "perhaps we should have informed readers of this site" type note.
there's been no expose all mea culpa. hell, there's not even been a tea leoni! (a pretty excuse that seems to say something but doesn't really.)
and it's ugly. it's really ugly. and it's not living up to the ethics of cjr.
let me put you straight if you're late to out of the gate on this.
blogger a is reported on by cbs news. a reporter feels that blogger a has conducted himself in an unethical manner. cbs does a story on that.
cjr daily doesn't. when they get around to covering it, they reduce ethics expert kathleen hall jameison to kathleen jamieson. which c.i. said, when we were working on a 3rd estate sunday review editorial with the gang from 3rd estate was like a constitutional law class c.i. took where c.i. was supposed to research, another was supposed to type and write and a 3rd was supposed to argue. long story short, c.i. researched, c.i. ended up writing and in the end arguing in moot court -- and won. but this was despite the fact that the team members on c.i.'s team did 1 and only 1 thing and that was to type the brief. and the typist turned in the brief as he dropped the class without letting the team read over it first. the typist reduced j. edgar hoover to 'edgar hoover.' the mock justices reading the brief had no reason to care about any section on edgar hoover -- who is edgar hoover?
it's the same problem when you take the 'hall' out of kathleen hall jamieson. hearing that kathleen jamieson said something doesn't carry the weight that a remark from kathleen hall jameison would.
let's quote from bri-bri because i feel i'm losing you:
We'd like to join the litany of bloggers wondering what, exactly, CBSNews.com senior political writer David Paul Kuhn was thinking when he put together a piece lamenting the fact that there are no government regulations keeping bloggers honest -- a piece that itself was inaccurate.
. . .
What did Kuhn do wrong? It's not so easy to tell now, because CBS has corrected the story since it was first posted -- without noting as much. But we've got a screen grab of the original piece, which includes this passage:
In the case of Duncan Black, this is what happened. The author of the popular liberal blog Atrios, Black wrote under a pseudonym. All the while, he was a senior fellow at a liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America.
"People are pretty smart in assuming that if a blog is making a case on one side that it's partisan," [Kathleen] Jamieson [dean of the Annenberg School for Communications] said. "The problem is when a blog pretends to hold neutrality but is actually partisan."
. . .
As Black notes, the name of his blog is "Eschaton," not "Atrios" -- but that's just the start of the problems. "I began writing this weblog in April, 2002," he writes. "MMFA only came into existence in May, 2004. I began working with them in June, 2004." Kuhn's piece -- with its accusatory "all the while" -- not only gets the facts wrong, it suggests an "ethical" problem that simply isn't there.
And what of the quote? "Jamieson's quote has nothing to do with the situation, either as it exists or as CBS seems to lay out," says Pandagon's Jesse Taylor. "You might as well have had someone from the Southern Poverty Law Center talking about the proliferation of racist hate groups on the internet . . .
[then they let atrios speak.]
Ultimately, it's too bad Kuhn's piece contained the flaws, because it's built on a solid hook -- documents that show that the two leading South Dakota blogs, which readers believed to be objective, were run by paid advisors to Republican Senator John Thune . . .
But the inaccuracies are inexcusable, especially coming from "a senior political writer" for a network website. And even more inexcusable is that the corrections took place without the editors of CBS.com informing their readers of the revisions. If either Kuhn or CBS.com wants to try to make the case that the government needs to regulate unprofessional behavior . . .
is bri-bri in a place to lecture any 1?
is bri-bri telling readers that he's clusterfucking with atrios?
no.
is he telling them that jess of pandagon is part of the clusterfuck?
no.
is he telling them that kathleen hall jamieson is the person speaking?
no.
cjr hasn't corrected this item so allow me.
bri-bri should reveal that he's not just writing about an issue that has some blogs upset, cbs commenting on atrios.
bri-bri is writing about 1 of his buds. notice how at the end, bri-bri's all over 2 republican bloggers as though that's the issue. the issue is bri-bri rushes in to defend his bud atrios without telling readers that atrios is his bud.
and if he had, they might wonder why all the sudden bri-bri's bringing up a new issue at the end (2 republican bloggers).
bri-bri goes to another cluster fuck bud, by accident apparently, to back up his first bud atrios.
we never learn that jess is a cluster fuck bud. and i guess it's an accident that kathleen hall jamieson is stripped of 'hall' and any import she might hold with a reader as a result. 'who is this kathleen jameison?' you can hear some readers asking.
he quotes his bud atrios defending himself and bri-bri, again, never says 'we're all part of the same cluster fuck.'
he then goes on to lecture cbs about ethics.
and yet cjr daily has never corrected this entry let alone done an apology for it.
and they damn well should have.
this is not up to journalistic standards.
so tell me why today bri-bri's back on the blog report.
was atrios wrong? i don't know. i don't go to the blog and i'm not given enough information to know. i don't really care.
was jess wrong? if she were (i'm assuming she's a she), i'd be the last to slam another female blogger. (though wonkette may or may not qualify. e-mail me at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and let me know what you think there.)
what i do know is that bri-bri's wrong. what i do know is that this along the lines of jayson blair for cjr. see they are a watchdog. and bri-bri wrote a piece on a bud without disclosing the bud-ness. he wrote a defense of a bud where, at the end, he shifted the attention to 2 republican bloggers that he hadn't mentioned previously. (and atrios' excuse -- if he needs 1 -- is that he's never claimed to be non-partisan. by the excuse atrios offers, why is bri-bri attacking 2 bloggers for doing partisan work? only reason i can see is to shift the spotlight away from his bud.)
and on top of that, he goes to another cluster fuck bud to offer a defense of atrios.
look, c.i., 3rd estate gang, folding star and i all know each other. we've e-mailed. we've never hidden that. and when c.i. and i work with the 3rd estate in any way, it's noted right there in the front note to the readers.
so why doesn't bri-bri have to note that he's writing about a friend and quoting another friend?
why is he allowed to attack cbs and question their ethics when his own are in question?
better question, why does he still have a job at cjr daily?
he didn't just fail to disclose pertinent information though that alone should have been enough consider cjr's ethics policy. he went on to attack the ethics of cbs for doing a correction and not informing readers. if cbs did that, they were wrong. but if you haven't disclosed that you were writing about your buds then maybe you aren't in the position to attack cbs?
that's be like me attacking sherry for writing up a sex fantasy and e-mailing it. sherry, how dare you! in other words, it's total and complete crap.
and cjr daily has not done a correction to his entry nor offered any explanation of this.
and this goes to yesterday's entry because i was talking about how the problem is not so much that no women exist, it's that the mainstream media ignores us. and when they do cover us, they slight us. they slighted kathleen hall jameison and that's a name that cjr (mag, daily, whatever) should never get wrong. and if some 1 at cjr doesn't know who she is, then my gut says they shouldn't have been hired in the first place.
i told you yesterday that it's about who you know and it is. and apparently kathleen hall jameison has to much self-respect to be hot-tubbin in a cluster fuck. (cluster fuck is bri-bri's word. he used it on his own personal blog to describe the fun with the buds in an entry.)
for readers who don't know kathleen hall jameison, every link where her name appears takes you to something that will give you an idea of who she is and why her work is important.
but for those who don't click on links, i'll note this from the last link above (The Institute for Research on Women & Gender presents):
Kathleen Hall Jamieson is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania where she is the Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor of Communication. The author or co-author of twelve books including Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership, Jamieson is a fellow of the American Philosophical Society, The American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the International Communication Association. She has won university-wide teaching awards at each of the universities at which she has taught, The University of Maryland, The University of Texas, and the University of Pennsylvania. She is a past board member of the Ms Foundation and was one of the founders of its White House Project, a project designed to increase the likelihood that the country will elect a woman president. In the 2003-4 academic year, Jamieson has been a fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies at Stanford University.
are you starting to get how important she is to the field of journalism? i hope so.
cjr daily, under bri-bri, couldn't even get her name right. that's shameful. they've never done a correction to that or anything else in the entry i quoted above, that's unbelievable.
i got a really nice e-mail from luke today and he advised me to not go so hard on cjr daily. he thinks 'they're useless with their two to three items a day - from a paid staff! and they appear not to get to work until late since their first-of-the-morning posts pop up at noon. but if you keep this up, they probably won't link to you.'
luke i loved your e-mail all the way through. and i appreciate your concern at the end. but let me be really plain as i wind down here, cjr daily will never link to me. they will never link to the 3rd estate and they will never link to folding star and they will never link to the common ills. we all know that. we all knew going in when we worked on the 3rd estate editorial (folding star did not work on the editorial) that doing it would mean risking that. we were fine with it because somebody needs to speak up when something wrong has been done. we spoke up and i don't think any of us regrets it. i also don't think a lot of people read cjr daily anymore.
when they insulted their readers by acting like they had just heard a criticism that there the blog reports were too closed, they lost a lot of respect. why? the most read posts on their site were the readers commenting on the fact that they always highlighted the same blogs. and those posts go back to december.
trust me, bri-bri knows about 3rd estate. he could have highlighted the editorial and noted that yes, he should have disclosed the truth earlier but since he hadn't, he would do so now. he didn't do that. you will not see 3rd estate covered at cjr daily, you will not see the common ills covered there, you will not see folding star covered there, and you will not see me covered there. we can all live with that.
don't even bother sending items in to that e-mail address they offered their readers when they said they'd be more inclusive. i know things were sent in and i know that cjr daily ignored them.
but so fucking what? we've all got our readers. (c.i. would say 'members! common ills is a community. every 1 there is a member!') and look at the common ills. it was built up from the ground with very little help from the blog community.
yes, fair mentioned it, yes ms. musing's mentioned it, yes, buzzflash usually links to it once a month, yes, offshoring digest has. but it didn't get sung up on the big blogs.
and the fact of the matter is, the post on jeffery dvorkin from november should have been all over the place. that was something that no 1 was talking about. even when they did talk about it, they spoke of it without telling you the real conflict of interest (not that the speaker npr brought on to criticize john kerry was a neocon who supported the war, but that the speaker was married to a woman who works for dick cheney). nobody told you about that. nobody blogged on it and said 'look at this conflict of interest!'
the common ills did so. i saw that article via buzzflash. i didn't hear about it on a blog report or from bloggers who went on air america or any thing like that.
that was a big issue. approaching the election, npr brought on the husband of a woman who worked for dick cheney to criticize john kerry and npr never told you that the man was married to someone who worked for dick cheney. he was presented as a disinterested observer. and when listeners complained to npr ombudsman jeffrey dvorkin, dvorkin's reply never noted this conflict of interest.
this is pretty huge. this was during an election and it was a blatant conflict of interest that was left undisclosed and a lot of people still don't know about it.
so if it's a case of playing nice or telling the truth, i think we'll all go for telling the truth.
c.i. did and that's why the common ills is so huge. you get people in the u.k., for instance, posting it in reviews for dvds and cds. it'll be up for a day or 2 before the companies catch on and pull it. but that's why they have the international audience. and the fact that c.i. told you the truth about simon rosenberg when almost every 1 else was saying 'he's great!' is 1 of the big reasons the common ills is so huge with college kids.
i was in boston the other day talking to a friend who's a college professor and all she wanted to know was 'what's c.i. like?' because her students follow the common ills.
that wasn't the result of a cluster fuck bestowing their approval.
so it's nice of you to be concerned, luke, but trust me, i get enough e-mail and i have enough readers that i don't need to sell out with the hope that i might get a link from cjr daily or a cluster fuck.
and if i did sell out, i'd be no different than cokie roberts and believe me, when i hear her prattling on while she clutches her pearls, i am assured i never want that personal hell so i'll keep telling my truth.
wally and some of the students in his class know this site. reporters i mention know it. and i have so many wonderful readers like sherry who i will always stand by and support until john turek decides he has to choose between us. sherry knows i love her but that when it comes down to the final round for our cornhusker's decision, all bets are off. (though sherry has offered that we could share joint-custody of christian parenti.) (sherry offers that agreement only if she can have dahr jamail all for herself, so at present we have yet to reach a truce.)
and our community isn't a cluster fuck or a circle jerk (to use bill keller's term). we have always disclosed our bond. and there will soon be 1 more of us.
and i think you'll like her. if you visit the common ills regularly, you know that a member asked to have it posted that she was going to start her own blog. i got an e-mail asking me 'where is it?'
she and c.i. are working on it. she wants a portrait of sorts up in her profile. and she's been trying to figure out what she can add that will be different. she's e-mailed me two test columns and they were hilarious. but she wants to find her 'voice' and that's not easy, i know.
i had no desire to blog myself. but then when my friend elaine was slapped down (read my first entry), i had to step up to the plate. i e-mailed c.i. and asked for help. and c.i. talked me through setting up this blog and has been there to try to help with any problem i had with it. in the early days i would e-mail all the time asking 'is this funny?' or 'what's another way i could reference this?' talk to the 3rd estate gang and they'll tell you similar stories.
for me, i really didn't comment to the community that often. i was a member happy to read what others were saying. and though elaine would tell me over margaritas, 'becks, you need to do a blog!' i'd always say no.
i had to have a strong voice to write so i thought about all the anger i felt as my marriage was ending and tapped into that. by the divorce itself, we were fine and i am friends with my ex-husband. a lot of you e-mail asking why i don't spill on him and it may or may not pop up here from time to time but i really have no desire to trash him. if you'd caught me when the marriage was falling apart, that would be another story.
but i was angry about how elaine was treated and i wanted to write about that and really felt 'but what do i do on day 2?' so c.i. and i talked and talked and it came down to the fact that women don't often get to be angry so what if that was my way in, my voice.
and then i thought about what else don't women often write about? sex. in a nonclinical manner. in a way where they talk about men the way we (if we're straight women or gay men) talk about men. so there was the sex to add to the politics and i knew i wanted to keep my attitude. then i said to c.i. 'people are going to read me and say that i just screech' and c.i. said note it in the title. that's how i ended up with sex and politics and screeds and attitude.
and with that title, you should know what you're getting into when you come to this blog.
i'm laying it all out real clear. and people are responding to it.
so let me to try to have 1 of those moments c.i. has that gina labels 'oprah moments' and find the larger lesson not just because i have some younger readers i wasn't aware of until wally's comments but also because this is important.
you will never get any where in this world by being a copy. if you get riches or fame and you've done it by being untrue to yourself it will not mean anything. (and i'm sure my ex would agree with me on this, our marriage probably failed because we both kept trying to be what the other thought was wanted and it just made us both miserable.)
but if you are true to yourself and speak your truth you will be heard. some might not like you. but the 1s who do will appreciate that you are you. and isn't it better to have people like that in your life then people who may only be around because you're acting like who you think they'll like?
so if any 1 reading this is thinking of starting a blog, start it. get out there and get your truth out there. we do need more voices and that does not mean an echo chamber. we need to know your truth as much as we need to hear mine. that's the only way we'll ever be able to see one another as individuals as opposed to stereotypes. that's the lesson for today and don't worry wally, we won't start doing life lessons every day.
3/14/2005
where are the women bloggers? well stop looking for the mainstream media to tell you about them
well i don't know where to start.
i read a note to maureen dowd for women's history month over at the common ills and while i agree with clara (community member who highlighted dowd), i don't really agree with dowd's column on sunday.
nor do i agree with all the sudden fretting over where are the girl bloggers!
well a lot of us gals are writing. are we all writing about politics, no. but there's jude of iddybud who i discovered through the common ills and there's christine at ms. musing (ditto). there's girl blogger of baghdad burning (ditto). there's katrina vanden heuvel. (ditto.) there's ruth conniff (ditto).
now let me name the male bloggers i know. greg palast (knew of him on my own). dahr jamail (found out about via the common ills). ari what's his name at the nation. (ditto.) no offense to ari for forgetting his last name. but when i look at him i think 'long, lean cock that he really knows how to use.' so that's how i think of him, ari long, lean cock. bob somerby is some 1 i learned about via the common ills. there's ron of why are we back in iraq? and there's luke of wotisitgood4 (ditto and ditto). there's danny schechter (ditto).
so that's 6 men, 5 men.
now maybe if i lived in the echo chamber of the mainstream media, i'd know of more bloggers and maybe they'd all be male, but, hey, maybe it has to do with the company you keep, you know?
could we use a little more publicity? sure. but that's not really any thing i have control over, is it?
i mean, do you see cjr daily highlighting this blog? highlighting the 3rd estate sunday review? highlighting a winding road? highlighting the common ills?
no. no. no. no.
as the 3rd estate noted in their wonderful editorial, you had to apparently "cluster fuck" with the brian and tommy from cjr daily to get mentioned in their 'blog report.'
now, hey, no 1's ever going to call me prude, but i do draw the line at cluster fucks.
the problem isn't that women aren't blogging, the problem is that when the mainstream media elicts to comment on blogs, they go with the same attitude they've always had which is
'does HE look like me?' which is why you see a bunch of white male who may or may not have a receding hairline.
that's got nothing to do with me. it's got nothing to do with ms. musing or katrina or jude or ruth. it has to do with the cjr daily blog report which, for the longest time, was the only blog report around that the mainstream media noted.
if there's a problem, don't slam the women, slam the media. and slam cjr daily because they sat on their fat asses for over 2 months while people were saying 'open up the blog report!' and then they tried to act like the news that there might be something wrong with their blog report had just come to them.
they lied and they also lied when they didn't disclose they were talking up their friends in the blog report. it's called conflict of interest and it's a journalistic no-no.
and these are the watchdogs? the gatekeepers who have created the attitude that there are no women out there blogging (or people of color). they controlled the debate and they need to take the blame for it.
not some woman who's blogging. they have been silent, they have been silenced.
and if you didn't get why there was so much anger about the cjr blog report it was because cjr is supposed to stand for something and not be another cokie roberts doing shout outs to wal-mart because her brother lobbies for the company.
cjr daily needs to do an apology. not a 'hey this just came to our attention.' they still haven't told their visitors that the blog report relied almost completely on brian and tommy's cluster fuck buds.
slate's doing a blog report now. and if you caught cjr daily's whine on that you know that cjr daily feels like they own a patent on the blog report. but slate may be able to make a difference. thus far they've done a better job. (i haven't checked them since friday.)
or how about air america. week after week the majority report gives you bill scher, atrios and kos. where's the woman on there. they had jessica of feministing on once. but every week they offer three 3 known for their blogs. and all 3 are men. is that my fault?
is it my fault that we get more male guests on majority report than we do female?
it's not that women aren't blogging, it's that the same old bullshit standards of who gets picked to play on the team is working the same bullshit way.
back to maureen dowd. here's where i disagreed with her. she mentions the cat fight between susan estrich and michael kingsley. susan's winning that fight because kingsley's such a simp.
dowd and i disagree on that. but here's where i really think she's off base.
she's talking about the attention that estrich has drawn to herself and how 'given the appalling way she's handle herself, susan . . . is the last person michael, a friend of mine, should hire.'
what the fuck, maureen?
estrich wrote some thing. weeks ago. and you're writing about it now.
do you not get it?
that's what op-ed writing is.
estrich wrote some thing that whether you agree with her or not got attention and continues to get attention. simpy, wimpy kingsley should try to suck it up and hire her. she's obviously got what it takes to write an op-ed.
it struck me funny that dowd's entire column is about how clinton and others were mean to her. how they felt she was unwomanly.
and yet, here she is playing taste patrol with susan.
look mo do, i get it, mikey's your pal. point made. but love your writing though i do, you are flat out wrong. estrich proved she can get attention. she got your's. that's what op-ed writing is about. and as a woman who wants to whine (sorry, maureen, it comes off as whining) about a man can criticize a man and it's not the end of the world but when you (maureen) do it, you're a woman so people rush in to slap you on the wrist.
uh, mo do, what did you just do to susan?
and i've never worried about being called a harridan or a harpy or a whore or a slut.
i'm sorry that dowd has. i'm sorry that it paralyzed her early on.
but damn, i put 'screeds' in my title. and 'attitude.' and i did that for a reason.
and there are women who have been at this a lot longer than me.
if they don't get recognition, it's because the media refuses to give them recognition. it's not because they don't exist.
so let's stop hand wringing over why women are afraid to write strongly. ellen goodman hasn't been paralyzed. molly ivins hasn't. ruth conniff hasn't. i think we all owe a strong debt to gloria steinem who long ago publicly said this is who i am and has said so repeatedly since. no, she didn't do 'screeds' (though male reporters - and chicken shit female ones seeking male approval - tried to act as though steinem was literally screeching). but she did say this is who i am. and she's said that repeatedly since.
and it's carved out a space for all of us to say 'this is who i am.' we aren't carbon copies of steinem. some of us are less well spoken, some of us are more vulgar, go down the list. but she
said 'i won't be part of your paper doll world where you cut off my edges and reduce me to just another pretty.' and that cleared the space for us to all be who we were and journey to find out who we were.
maybe if mo do had sought a little less approval from her mikeys (i'm thinking of 2), she wouldn't fret so over male opinions.
i don't. kat doesn't. we talk a lot and every time a review of her's goes up over at the common ills, she can count on being trashed by a number of men who say 'you don't get music!' because she's not going to evaluate on their terms. that's not kat's problem. that's their problem.
i enjoy maureen dowd. i think clara was right to note her for women's history month. but i think dowd would do better by her readers if she wrote about the system and not about her reactions to a system she doesn't really acknowledge.
why is she so concerned if some 1 calls her harridan anyway?
because she's defining herself on masculine terms. it's tired. but it does explain why, when she felt scared, she ran to a daddy figure (howell raines) and not to a friend (male or female).
note: (as c.i. says) when i went back to do links i saw that ruth conniff had a new entry up. she's also addressing this topic. i'd recommend you read what she has to say. we're coming it at the same topic but slightly differently so you could get a fuller picture by noting ruth's entry as well as this 1.
i read a note to maureen dowd for women's history month over at the common ills and while i agree with clara (community member who highlighted dowd), i don't really agree with dowd's column on sunday.
nor do i agree with all the sudden fretting over where are the girl bloggers!
well a lot of us gals are writing. are we all writing about politics, no. but there's jude of iddybud who i discovered through the common ills and there's christine at ms. musing (ditto). there's girl blogger of baghdad burning (ditto). there's katrina vanden heuvel. (ditto.) there's ruth conniff (ditto).
now let me name the male bloggers i know. greg palast (knew of him on my own). dahr jamail (found out about via the common ills). ari what's his name at the nation. (ditto.) no offense to ari for forgetting his last name. but when i look at him i think 'long, lean cock that he really knows how to use.' so that's how i think of him, ari long, lean cock. bob somerby is some 1 i learned about via the common ills. there's ron of why are we back in iraq? and there's luke of wotisitgood4 (ditto and ditto). there's danny schechter (ditto).
so that's 6 men, 5 men.
now maybe if i lived in the echo chamber of the mainstream media, i'd know of more bloggers and maybe they'd all be male, but, hey, maybe it has to do with the company you keep, you know?
could we use a little more publicity? sure. but that's not really any thing i have control over, is it?
i mean, do you see cjr daily highlighting this blog? highlighting the 3rd estate sunday review? highlighting a winding road? highlighting the common ills?
no. no. no. no.
as the 3rd estate noted in their wonderful editorial, you had to apparently "cluster fuck" with the brian and tommy from cjr daily to get mentioned in their 'blog report.'
now, hey, no 1's ever going to call me prude, but i do draw the line at cluster fucks.
the problem isn't that women aren't blogging, the problem is that when the mainstream media elicts to comment on blogs, they go with the same attitude they've always had which is
'does HE look like me?' which is why you see a bunch of white male who may or may not have a receding hairline.
that's got nothing to do with me. it's got nothing to do with ms. musing or katrina or jude or ruth. it has to do with the cjr daily blog report which, for the longest time, was the only blog report around that the mainstream media noted.
if there's a problem, don't slam the women, slam the media. and slam cjr daily because they sat on their fat asses for over 2 months while people were saying 'open up the blog report!' and then they tried to act like the news that there might be something wrong with their blog report had just come to them.
they lied and they also lied when they didn't disclose they were talking up their friends in the blog report. it's called conflict of interest and it's a journalistic no-no.
and these are the watchdogs? the gatekeepers who have created the attitude that there are no women out there blogging (or people of color). they controlled the debate and they need to take the blame for it.
not some woman who's blogging. they have been silent, they have been silenced.
and if you didn't get why there was so much anger about the cjr blog report it was because cjr is supposed to stand for something and not be another cokie roberts doing shout outs to wal-mart because her brother lobbies for the company.
cjr daily needs to do an apology. not a 'hey this just came to our attention.' they still haven't told their visitors that the blog report relied almost completely on brian and tommy's cluster fuck buds.
slate's doing a blog report now. and if you caught cjr daily's whine on that you know that cjr daily feels like they own a patent on the blog report. but slate may be able to make a difference. thus far they've done a better job. (i haven't checked them since friday.)
or how about air america. week after week the majority report gives you bill scher, atrios and kos. where's the woman on there. they had jessica of feministing on once. but every week they offer three 3 known for their blogs. and all 3 are men. is that my fault?
is it my fault that we get more male guests on majority report than we do female?
it's not that women aren't blogging, it's that the same old bullshit standards of who gets picked to play on the team is working the same bullshit way.
back to maureen dowd. here's where i disagreed with her. she mentions the cat fight between susan estrich and michael kingsley. susan's winning that fight because kingsley's such a simp.
dowd and i disagree on that. but here's where i really think she's off base.
she's talking about the attention that estrich has drawn to herself and how 'given the appalling way she's handle herself, susan . . . is the last person michael, a friend of mine, should hire.'
what the fuck, maureen?
estrich wrote some thing. weeks ago. and you're writing about it now.
do you not get it?
that's what op-ed writing is.
estrich wrote some thing that whether you agree with her or not got attention and continues to get attention. simpy, wimpy kingsley should try to suck it up and hire her. she's obviously got what it takes to write an op-ed.
it struck me funny that dowd's entire column is about how clinton and others were mean to her. how they felt she was unwomanly.
and yet, here she is playing taste patrol with susan.
look mo do, i get it, mikey's your pal. point made. but love your writing though i do, you are flat out wrong. estrich proved she can get attention. she got your's. that's what op-ed writing is about. and as a woman who wants to whine (sorry, maureen, it comes off as whining) about a man can criticize a man and it's not the end of the world but when you (maureen) do it, you're a woman so people rush in to slap you on the wrist.
uh, mo do, what did you just do to susan?
and i've never worried about being called a harridan or a harpy or a whore or a slut.
i'm sorry that dowd has. i'm sorry that it paralyzed her early on.
but damn, i put 'screeds' in my title. and 'attitude.' and i did that for a reason.
and there are women who have been at this a lot longer than me.
if they don't get recognition, it's because the media refuses to give them recognition. it's not because they don't exist.
so let's stop hand wringing over why women are afraid to write strongly. ellen goodman hasn't been paralyzed. molly ivins hasn't. ruth conniff hasn't. i think we all owe a strong debt to gloria steinem who long ago publicly said this is who i am and has said so repeatedly since. no, she didn't do 'screeds' (though male reporters - and chicken shit female ones seeking male approval - tried to act as though steinem was literally screeching). but she did say this is who i am. and she's said that repeatedly since.
and it's carved out a space for all of us to say 'this is who i am.' we aren't carbon copies of steinem. some of us are less well spoken, some of us are more vulgar, go down the list. but she
said 'i won't be part of your paper doll world where you cut off my edges and reduce me to just another pretty.' and that cleared the space for us to all be who we were and journey to find out who we were.
maybe if mo do had sought a little less approval from her mikeys (i'm thinking of 2), she wouldn't fret so over male opinions.
i don't. kat doesn't. we talk a lot and every time a review of her's goes up over at the common ills, she can count on being trashed by a number of men who say 'you don't get music!' because she's not going to evaluate on their terms. that's not kat's problem. that's their problem.
i enjoy maureen dowd. i think clara was right to note her for women's history month. but i think dowd would do better by her readers if she wrote about the system and not about her reactions to a system she doesn't really acknowledge.
why is she so concerned if some 1 calls her harridan anyway?
because she's defining herself on masculine terms. it's tired. but it does explain why, when she felt scared, she ran to a daddy figure (howell raines) and not to a friend (male or female).
note: (as c.i. says) when i went back to do links i saw that ruth conniff had a new entry up. she's also addressing this topic. i'd recommend you read what she has to say. we're coming it at the same topic but slightly differently so you could get a fuller picture by noting ruth's entry as well as this 1.
Democracy Now! Exclusive: Arab American Publisher Says Bush Told Him in May 2000 He Planned to "Take Out" Iraq
Democracy Now! Exclusive: Arab American Publisher Says Bush Told Him in May 2000 He Planned to "Take Out" Iraq
Arab American Publisher Says Bush Told Him in May 2000 He Planned to "Take Out" Iraq
OSAMA SIBLANI: I met with the President, and he wanted to go to Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, and he considered the regime an imminent and gathering threat against the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: You met with the President of the United States?
OSAMA SIBLANI: Yes, when he was running for election in May of 2000 when he was a governor. He told me just straight to my face, among 12 or maybe 13 republicans at that time here in Michigan at the hotel. I think it was on May 17, 2000, even before he became the nominee for the Republicans. He told me that he was going to take him out, when we talked about Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
[The segment is read, listen and/or watch. Marcia wonders if the mainstream media will even note this. Let's watch and see.]
the above was posted by c.i. over at the common ills on friday. i assumed this would be huge news. i haven't seen it online anywhere except at democracy now and the common ills.
obviously, i can't control what people link to or talk about ... except at this blog. and i think it's important so i'm posting this (with c.i.'s permission). if you missed it on democracy now please check out the transcript or watch it. or listen to it.
Arab American Publisher Says Bush Told Him in May 2000 He Planned to "Take Out" Iraq
OSAMA SIBLANI: I met with the President, and he wanted to go to Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, and he considered the regime an imminent and gathering threat against the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: You met with the President of the United States?
OSAMA SIBLANI: Yes, when he was running for election in May of 2000 when he was a governor. He told me just straight to my face, among 12 or maybe 13 republicans at that time here in Michigan at the hotel. I think it was on May 17, 2000, even before he became the nominee for the Republicans. He told me that he was going to take him out, when we talked about Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
[The segment is read, listen and/or watch. Marcia wonders if the mainstream media will even note this. Let's watch and see.]
the above was posted by c.i. over at the common ills on friday. i assumed this would be huge news. i haven't seen it online anywhere except at democracy now and the common ills.
obviously, i can't control what people link to or talk about ... except at this blog. and i think it's important so i'm posting this (with c.i.'s permission). if you missed it on democracy now please check out the transcript or watch it. or listen to it.
3/13/2005
so i'm listening to laura flanders because we were all talking about c.i.'s air america post yesterday while we working on the third estate sunday review and which shows had any meaning for people on the left. and we all agreed laura flanders has meaning. i really should listen more but if it's a choice between radio and sex, i'll go with sex. (and i'm sure ms. flanders would back me up on that. she seems like a very sensual woman.)
and i read c.i.'s new york times post when i got up (at noon - it was an all nighter) and having my morning coffee. now i've gone through the paper and i hate to disagree with c.i., but there are some other things of interest. no, not news. but for the hormonally driven like myself ...
i've spent a half hour with the times's style magazine (men's fashion spring 2005).
note page 55 which is a full page black and white photo of ed burns. now i like ed. i think he's sexy. but 1/2 way through she's the 1, i started seeing this archie bunker thing going on. i don't mean politically. i just mean ed should really, really stay away from the carbs because he's got some carroll o'connor in him and just a little packing on of the pounds will make that obvious.
he's a hottie but 1 who better work really hard to maintain his weight because outside of edith, who wants to get in bed with archie bunker? (but i do love those hairy forearms on ed.)
check out the cutie in the kenneth cole ad on page 72. now true, he looks like he has a deviated septum. but those eyebrows and lips combined with those tina fey glasses really get me going.
a supposed football player by the name of greg hopkins, wide receiver and linebacker, comes off a little too christopher street for my taste on page 105. but for those who like their tricks and like them young, check him out.
p. 109 features what could have been a man who looks sexy but he rounds his lower back and it destroys the whole enjoyment of his nude frame.
the black eyed peas are looking their usual cool selves and p. 116 but i couldn't dwell on the photo because the facing page, p. 117, features the apparent child of william hurt and jeremy irons which is scary enough but the man seems to have gotten the worst quality from each of his 2 dads.
can urkel grow up? l.a. reid appears to answer that question on p. 118 and it's not pretty.
pp. 136 - 143 takes a look at the 'boarding school looks graduate to the urban jungle.' as near as i can tell that means edith head bangs are back - for boys.
p. 115 features tony mcleigh announcing that some sort of new-romantic-adam-ant-meets-bar-pub look is . . . not going to cut it.
lastly, p. 165 features the best photo yet. a hunky hunk with some really hot nipples - male nips are sexy! - wearing some low riding red briefs. were it not for the heavy hand used to style the hair and the intense amount of hair spray, i'd pick it as the best photo this week to pull out on a moist day.
and i read c.i.'s new york times post when i got up (at noon - it was an all nighter) and having my morning coffee. now i've gone through the paper and i hate to disagree with c.i., but there are some other things of interest. no, not news. but for the hormonally driven like myself ...
i've spent a half hour with the times's style magazine (men's fashion spring 2005).
note page 55 which is a full page black and white photo of ed burns. now i like ed. i think he's sexy. but 1/2 way through she's the 1, i started seeing this archie bunker thing going on. i don't mean politically. i just mean ed should really, really stay away from the carbs because he's got some carroll o'connor in him and just a little packing on of the pounds will make that obvious.
he's a hottie but 1 who better work really hard to maintain his weight because outside of edith, who wants to get in bed with archie bunker? (but i do love those hairy forearms on ed.)
check out the cutie in the kenneth cole ad on page 72. now true, he looks like he has a deviated septum. but those eyebrows and lips combined with those tina fey glasses really get me going.
a supposed football player by the name of greg hopkins, wide receiver and linebacker, comes off a little too christopher street for my taste on page 105. but for those who like their tricks and like them young, check him out.
p. 109 features what could have been a man who looks sexy but he rounds his lower back and it destroys the whole enjoyment of his nude frame.
the black eyed peas are looking their usual cool selves and p. 116 but i couldn't dwell on the photo because the facing page, p. 117, features the apparent child of william hurt and jeremy irons which is scary enough but the man seems to have gotten the worst quality from each of his 2 dads.
can urkel grow up? l.a. reid appears to answer that question on p. 118 and it's not pretty.
pp. 136 - 143 takes a look at the 'boarding school looks graduate to the urban jungle.' as near as i can tell that means edith head bangs are back - for boys.
p. 115 features tony mcleigh announcing that some sort of new-romantic-adam-ant-meets-bar-pub look is . . . not going to cut it.
lastly, p. 165 features the best photo yet. a hunky hunk with some really hot nipples - male nips are sexy! - wearing some low riding red briefs. were it not for the heavy hand used to style the hair and the intense amount of hair spray, i'd pick it as the best photo this week to pull out on a moist day.
when christian parenti walks in, everybody remember to breathe!
so i'm catching up on my online reading a little while ago and did you catch the common ills yesterday? the entry on bob somerby really says some important stuff. i also went through the archives because I'd meant to note something back on the third of march.
i'd recommend that you read the women's history month salute to amy goodman who reports history. that really is a must read. and for any 1 thinking 'history can be boring,' this isn't 'amy goodman was born on a cold, wintery . . .' it's about the spirit she brings to her job. and i was laughing when i got to a paragraph contrasting goodman's mainstream 'peers.' (cokie roberts alert for all who love to laugh at cokie!)
but (no, i'm not done yet) please, please check out the indy media roundup because there's so much going on that you won't hear or read about in most sources. thursday's were always one of my favorite days to read the common ills (well, read it on friday, i don't often have time to check it out thursday evenings) because each thursday is a round up of the alternative media.
this was always a selection of stories that c.i. and members chose to highlight. originally, it focused solely on alternative weekly papers. and that was interesting to read. but it now pulls in
indy media from around the world. (why? i asked c.i. that awhile back -- many of the alternative weeklies are running the exact same stories and often aren't very alternative at all.)
but you learn so much from the indy round up that you're not hearing from the mainstream news. once i even heard about the politician most likely to win my heart, gavin newsom. well, win my hormones anyway.
and speaking of the sexy, c.i. e-mailed me yesterday to say i had to get the new issue of clamor. i'd read about it having amy goodman on the cover and an interview with randi rhodes but i kept putting off getting it until i got c.i.'s e-mail. again, there's an interview with randi rhodes (whom i love and miss now that's she's recovering from her surgery -- best wishes for randi who'll be back on the air monday). c.i. said that page 24 would probably make me 'especially happy.'
well you know i had to fly out and grab the issue right away.
even randi had to wait while i flipped to page 24. the story isn't available online, nor the picture.
but the funky, hunky, naughty, hottie christian parenti has a two page interview and there is a black and white photo of christian that is to drool over.
now to the ladies and two guys who would love to fight me over christian, please note, with a photo we can all drool equally and in private so get this issue!
before i started blogging, people for the american way had a charity auction. i think it was back before christmas (i remember reading about at the common ills) and there certainly were many nice items to bid for. but pfaw might want to try talking christian parenti into doing a dinner as an auction item because they could clean up big. hell, if they'd offer him stripping, they might end up with enough money to end world hunger! yes, i know parenti has too much integrity to strip for money (even for charity) so most people will never get to witness that act of primal beauty. but we can dream, right?
here's a starter for you on that: all of us lusting over parenti here pool our money and manage to get the winning bid. so parenti comes to my house (well he has to go somewhere and i'm the 1 doing all the heavy thinking on this fantasy) so we pile in here and watch him show his blessings.
afterwards, of course, you all have to leave. but someone's walked off with christian's clothes! (imagine that.) so he has to hang around. undressed. sigh.
you can mix it up and change locations but be generous and let us all at least feast our eyes on his beauty.
i'm working with c.i. and the gang from the third estate sunday review (jim, jess, ava, dona and ty) on their latest issue. there's a lot to read there. right now we're all going through our print copies of this week's times for a story on how they love non-news at the new york times. make sure you check out the third estate sunday review later today. it's feeling like an all nighter by the way. (that's for anyone who's reading this right after it posts and wondering where the stories are from the third estate.)
i'd recommend that you read the women's history month salute to amy goodman who reports history. that really is a must read. and for any 1 thinking 'history can be boring,' this isn't 'amy goodman was born on a cold, wintery . . .' it's about the spirit she brings to her job. and i was laughing when i got to a paragraph contrasting goodman's mainstream 'peers.' (cokie roberts alert for all who love to laugh at cokie!)
but (no, i'm not done yet) please, please check out the indy media roundup because there's so much going on that you won't hear or read about in most sources. thursday's were always one of my favorite days to read the common ills (well, read it on friday, i don't often have time to check it out thursday evenings) because each thursday is a round up of the alternative media.
this was always a selection of stories that c.i. and members chose to highlight. originally, it focused solely on alternative weekly papers. and that was interesting to read. but it now pulls in
indy media from around the world. (why? i asked c.i. that awhile back -- many of the alternative weeklies are running the exact same stories and often aren't very alternative at all.)
but you learn so much from the indy round up that you're not hearing from the mainstream news. once i even heard about the politician most likely to win my heart, gavin newsom. well, win my hormones anyway.
and speaking of the sexy, c.i. e-mailed me yesterday to say i had to get the new issue of clamor. i'd read about it having amy goodman on the cover and an interview with randi rhodes but i kept putting off getting it until i got c.i.'s e-mail. again, there's an interview with randi rhodes (whom i love and miss now that's she's recovering from her surgery -- best wishes for randi who'll be back on the air monday). c.i. said that page 24 would probably make me 'especially happy.'
well you know i had to fly out and grab the issue right away.
even randi had to wait while i flipped to page 24. the story isn't available online, nor the picture.
but the funky, hunky, naughty, hottie christian parenti has a two page interview and there is a black and white photo of christian that is to drool over.
now to the ladies and two guys who would love to fight me over christian, please note, with a photo we can all drool equally and in private so get this issue!
before i started blogging, people for the american way had a charity auction. i think it was back before christmas (i remember reading about at the common ills) and there certainly were many nice items to bid for. but pfaw might want to try talking christian parenti into doing a dinner as an auction item because they could clean up big. hell, if they'd offer him stripping, they might end up with enough money to end world hunger! yes, i know parenti has too much integrity to strip for money (even for charity) so most people will never get to witness that act of primal beauty. but we can dream, right?
here's a starter for you on that: all of us lusting over parenti here pool our money and manage to get the winning bid. so parenti comes to my house (well he has to go somewhere and i'm the 1 doing all the heavy thinking on this fantasy) so we pile in here and watch him show his blessings.
afterwards, of course, you all have to leave. but someone's walked off with christian's clothes! (imagine that.) so he has to hang around. undressed. sigh.
you can mix it up and change locations but be generous and let us all at least feast our eyes on his beauty.
i'm working with c.i. and the gang from the third estate sunday review (jim, jess, ava, dona and ty) on their latest issue. there's a lot to read there. right now we're all going through our print copies of this week's times for a story on how they love non-news at the new york times. make sure you check out the third estate sunday review later today. it's feeling like an all nighter by the way. (that's for anyone who's reading this right after it posts and wondering where the stories are from the third estate.)
3/11/2005
there is a petition to bring lizz winstead back and we're on day 9 of air america held hostage
so what's a gal to do when she's feeling tired and blue?
when the morning's draggin' and and maddow's saggin
and bring you down
with that boring monotone, big brain sound?
why listen to stephanie miller of course. she's a delight. she's funny and smart and doesn't feel
the need to act superior to the audience as meg pointed out in an e-mail she sent.
so it's day 9 of air america held hostage by big brain.
and still they think they don't have to answer to their audience.
that's really sweet, don't you think?
"we don't have to answer!" that's a real progressive attitude, don't you think?
and a show called unfiltered shouldn't clamp down a filter.
i'm reading the common ills this afternoon and see that they've linked to a petition. then elaine's calling me and i find an e-mail from martha.
no worries because i will gladly note the petition. here's the text of the petition:
Bring back Lizz! Rachel and Lizz were great together and we got alot of friends listening to Air America because of THEIR show. Air America has lost more than a few listeners now. When the news is so grim, it certainly is nice to swallow it with some humor. The way Liz and Rachel played off each other was great and it kept us tuning in. Unfiltered had a brilliant formula,of sucking the listeners in with humor and getting in plenty of important information too. Lizz was the most fun person to listen to at Air America. The back and forth between Rachel and Liz was relaxed, playful, and entertaining. Unfiltered was fun. Was. Past tense. We the listeners demand: Bring Lizz Back NOW!
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
you can click on any of the above to sign or read or you can go here.
i signed it. i urge you to sign it as well.
martha writes 'isn't it funny how some blogs want to ask like nothing has happened. it's not just air america it's the people who are covering up for them. i'd be really interested in seeing who has the guts to stand up and be counted.'
good point, martha.
and no worries about me because i will be counted. i was not a lizz winstead fanatic. please, i'd dubbed her 'no name.' the show doesn't work without her. and the way she was 'disappeared' was shameful. no 1 should be treated that way.
so look at the petition and consider signing. if we don't stand up for each other i'm not sure what we will stand up for.
when the morning's draggin' and and maddow's saggin
and bring you down
with that boring monotone, big brain sound?
why listen to stephanie miller of course. she's a delight. she's funny and smart and doesn't feel
the need to act superior to the audience as meg pointed out in an e-mail she sent.
so it's day 9 of air america held hostage by big brain.
and still they think they don't have to answer to their audience.
that's really sweet, don't you think?
"we don't have to answer!" that's a real progressive attitude, don't you think?
and a show called unfiltered shouldn't clamp down a filter.
i'm reading the common ills this afternoon and see that they've linked to a petition. then elaine's calling me and i find an e-mail from martha.
no worries because i will gladly note the petition. here's the text of the petition:
Bring back Lizz! Rachel and Lizz were great together and we got alot of friends listening to Air America because of THEIR show. Air America has lost more than a few listeners now. When the news is so grim, it certainly is nice to swallow it with some humor. The way Liz and Rachel played off each other was great and it kept us tuning in. Unfiltered had a brilliant formula,of sucking the listeners in with humor and getting in plenty of important information too. Lizz was the most fun person to listen to at Air America. The back and forth between Rachel and Liz was relaxed, playful, and entertaining. Unfiltered was fun. Was. Past tense. We the listeners demand: Bring Lizz Back NOW!
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
you can click on any of the above to sign or read or you can go here.
i signed it. i urge you to sign it as well.
martha writes 'isn't it funny how some blogs want to ask like nothing has happened. it's not just air america it's the people who are covering up for them. i'd be really interested in seeing who has the guts to stand up and be counted.'
good point, martha.
and no worries about me because i will be counted. i was not a lizz winstead fanatic. please, i'd dubbed her 'no name.' the show doesn't work without her. and the way she was 'disappeared' was shameful. no 1 should be treated that way.
so look at the petition and consider signing. if we don't stand up for each other i'm not sure what we will stand up for.
3/10/2005
day 8 of air america held hostage by rachel maddow
so let's talk about the great american zero, rachel maddow as the host of unfiltered.
big brain isn't cutting it.
i've got a lot of e-mails coming in on this. i don't think i can read them all. i certainly can't reply to every 1.
but i will quote a line or two from some of them.
rhoda: big brain is a big bust. they're going to have to cancel this show if they don't bring lizz back.
marla: do not tell me that this has nothing to do with air america trying to suck up to the democrats senate campaign pac. they are pushing anti-choice candidates. lizz stood strong against that and was discussing that on air. air america couldn't take the heat from weak ass, bitch fucking cowardly democracts so they canned her.
laura: unfiltered is a joke. the show is filtered and now so is the blog. having tried to disappear lizz they now go through and take off posts they don't like. not because of cursing but for advocating for lizz. this show is full of shit.
stevie: rebecca, i listened to unfiltered. i listened to your comments on the show. both made me laugh and both had their points. i was not lizz winstead's biggest fan (though i could take her easier than self important rachel) but i agree with you that the way she was treated is disgusting.
kate: pull the fucking plug on the show already. it is faux npr now just like you said.
zack: rachel is so irritating. she's like your nightmare lab partner that can't shut the fuck up.
sandra: i laughed so hard at the person you quoted who said that rachel gives lesbians a bad name! too true. i didn't bust my ass fighting for my rights to have conventional, boring rachel stamp her ugly mug on my life with her squaresville lifestyle. she's an elitist prig who fancies herself as the next gertrude stein but she's just a gas bag bore that gives lesbians a bad name.
i am an out and proud dyke and if i met rachel i would just point and laugh at her.
albert: i have no sympathy for rachel. she's not just boring, she's a back stabber. in college i got a friend on at the resort i was working at. this rich bitch had a problem with me and complained and complained. i didn't do any thing wrong. she didn't like the way i talked, walked or breathed. i got fired finally. i went to my friend roger and said 'let's go.' he said 'well, i'm making good money in tips and i like the job . . .' that's a traitor and that's rachel maddow.
holly: corporate radio still sucks! unfiltered sucks now more than ever.
greg: you know when all the layoffs at my company started, they stopped that bullshit of 'we are all a part of a family.' and it's the same fucking thing with air america. they have marketed themselves as a family but they eject lizz and they won't even be honest about it.
jeff: they have to be reading your blog. today all the rachel pushers suddenly have hotmail addresses that they've just created that day. i think you're pointing out that they didn't have real addresses got to them. so they all go out and create e-mail addresses and then start posting. the show sucks. they can put idiots all over the blog all they want like the bitch terry who thinks it's okay for democrats to step away from the pro-choice position, it won't matter.
the show sucks and it will suck no matter how many ringers they send to the blog. this whole thing is about to blow up in their faces. the mainstream media is about to notice. when rush and all those jerks notice, you better believe air america is going to look like total soulless sell outs!
omni: guys, rachel is doing a really good job. not! she's a loser and she's boring. pull the plug on this show and make the bitch go bore some 1 else.
elizabeth: i want to correct something. rachel is not smart. she's like diane chambers on cheers trying to act smart. she's a stupid idiot. she needs to pack it in because without lizz sitting beside her she's just another boring talker with an irritating voice. and that voice is irritating, just the tone.
judy: lesbian here, out for 15 years now. and i gotta tell you rachel is working too hard to be 'normal.' she's so 'normal' that she's boring. and if no 1 else wants to go there, i will: she looks like lyndie england. that's not a compliment.
nancy: paint drying on walls has more personality than rachel maddow. she's like robin williams in that movie where he's a robot.
barbara: it's a sleeping pill. you end up nodding off as she yammers away.
adam: she's terry gross without the sparkle, without the talent, and without the ability to listen.
agnes: i gave up on monday. i can't listen to that thurston howell bullshit. some 1 called her lovely howell somewhere. she's not that interesting. she's thurston just boring you. i refuse to be stuck on an island with her so i stopped listening. most of my friends have stopped as well.
larry: she's not pretty, she's not thin, her voice is irritating and she has no fashion sense. so who knew she'd become the diana ross of air america????? chuck d is going to bail on this show. it sucks and he's got to know it.
jayson: lizz was silly but she usually had a point. rachel trying to 'lighten up' is flat out scary!
it's like watching herman munster smile. it's creepy!
sabina: with lizz by her side, rachel did seem smart and warm. without lizz, she's none of those things. dull is the only word.
those are some of the e-mails that i've read so far today. the show is dead. stick a fork in it's ass.
rachel will go back to doing radio out of some upper crust enclave where she can act like she's smart and pretend she knows what she's talking about and every 1 will give her a pass because of her sexuality. if she were straight, she'd be just as boring.
keep the e-mails coming in at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and i'll try to post some more comments tomorrow.
this isn't the unfiltered blog, we don't censor you for having the basic decency to call them on the bullshit they did to lizz. and as some 1 who's not a fan of lizz winstead i want to repeat that she's been treated like shit and you know it's bad when i'm defending her.
big brain isn't cutting it.
i've got a lot of e-mails coming in on this. i don't think i can read them all. i certainly can't reply to every 1.
but i will quote a line or two from some of them.
rhoda: big brain is a big bust. they're going to have to cancel this show if they don't bring lizz back.
marla: do not tell me that this has nothing to do with air america trying to suck up to the democrats senate campaign pac. they are pushing anti-choice candidates. lizz stood strong against that and was discussing that on air. air america couldn't take the heat from weak ass, bitch fucking cowardly democracts so they canned her.
laura: unfiltered is a joke. the show is filtered and now so is the blog. having tried to disappear lizz they now go through and take off posts they don't like. not because of cursing but for advocating for lizz. this show is full of shit.
stevie: rebecca, i listened to unfiltered. i listened to your comments on the show. both made me laugh and both had their points. i was not lizz winstead's biggest fan (though i could take her easier than self important rachel) but i agree with you that the way she was treated is disgusting.
kate: pull the fucking plug on the show already. it is faux npr now just like you said.
zack: rachel is so irritating. she's like your nightmare lab partner that can't shut the fuck up.
sandra: i laughed so hard at the person you quoted who said that rachel gives lesbians a bad name! too true. i didn't bust my ass fighting for my rights to have conventional, boring rachel stamp her ugly mug on my life with her squaresville lifestyle. she's an elitist prig who fancies herself as the next gertrude stein but she's just a gas bag bore that gives lesbians a bad name.
i am an out and proud dyke and if i met rachel i would just point and laugh at her.
albert: i have no sympathy for rachel. she's not just boring, she's a back stabber. in college i got a friend on at the resort i was working at. this rich bitch had a problem with me and complained and complained. i didn't do any thing wrong. she didn't like the way i talked, walked or breathed. i got fired finally. i went to my friend roger and said 'let's go.' he said 'well, i'm making good money in tips and i like the job . . .' that's a traitor and that's rachel maddow.
holly: corporate radio still sucks! unfiltered sucks now more than ever.
greg: you know when all the layoffs at my company started, they stopped that bullshit of 'we are all a part of a family.' and it's the same fucking thing with air america. they have marketed themselves as a family but they eject lizz and they won't even be honest about it.
jeff: they have to be reading your blog. today all the rachel pushers suddenly have hotmail addresses that they've just created that day. i think you're pointing out that they didn't have real addresses got to them. so they all go out and create e-mail addresses and then start posting. the show sucks. they can put idiots all over the blog all they want like the bitch terry who thinks it's okay for democrats to step away from the pro-choice position, it won't matter.
the show sucks and it will suck no matter how many ringers they send to the blog. this whole thing is about to blow up in their faces. the mainstream media is about to notice. when rush and all those jerks notice, you better believe air america is going to look like total soulless sell outs!
omni: guys, rachel is doing a really good job. not! she's a loser and she's boring. pull the plug on this show and make the bitch go bore some 1 else.
elizabeth: i want to correct something. rachel is not smart. she's like diane chambers on cheers trying to act smart. she's a stupid idiot. she needs to pack it in because without lizz sitting beside her she's just another boring talker with an irritating voice. and that voice is irritating, just the tone.
judy: lesbian here, out for 15 years now. and i gotta tell you rachel is working too hard to be 'normal.' she's so 'normal' that she's boring. and if no 1 else wants to go there, i will: she looks like lyndie england. that's not a compliment.
nancy: paint drying on walls has more personality than rachel maddow. she's like robin williams in that movie where he's a robot.
barbara: it's a sleeping pill. you end up nodding off as she yammers away.
adam: she's terry gross without the sparkle, without the talent, and without the ability to listen.
agnes: i gave up on monday. i can't listen to that thurston howell bullshit. some 1 called her lovely howell somewhere. she's not that interesting. she's thurston just boring you. i refuse to be stuck on an island with her so i stopped listening. most of my friends have stopped as well.
larry: she's not pretty, she's not thin, her voice is irritating and she has no fashion sense. so who knew she'd become the diana ross of air america????? chuck d is going to bail on this show. it sucks and he's got to know it.
jayson: lizz was silly but she usually had a point. rachel trying to 'lighten up' is flat out scary!
it's like watching herman munster smile. it's creepy!
sabina: with lizz by her side, rachel did seem smart and warm. without lizz, she's none of those things. dull is the only word.
those are some of the e-mails that i've read so far today. the show is dead. stick a fork in it's ass.
rachel will go back to doing radio out of some upper crust enclave where she can act like she's smart and pretend she knows what she's talking about and every 1 will give her a pass because of her sexuality. if she were straight, she'd be just as boring.
keep the e-mails coming in at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and i'll try to post some more comments tomorrow.
this isn't the unfiltered blog, we don't censor you for having the basic decency to call them on the bullshit they did to lizz. and as some 1 who's not a fan of lizz winstead i want to repeat that she's been treated like shit and you know it's bad when i'm defending her.
3/09/2005
air america held hostage day 7 as rachel maddow continues to terrorize listeners with her own brand of boredom
so my best friend checks out unfiltered and the blog today and tells me it's hideous.
no surprise there.
she said she really was dreading going to the blog. when she did she saw a lot of new names. and all that talk from ringers earlier in the week about 'guys we need to focus on the real important issues! not on what happened to lizz!' was long gone. they were talking about movies and other non-life alerting things.
'1 idiot, while i was on, tried to say, "lizz likes to leave. she creates something and she leaves. she's happy." and i couldn't believe how bad these ringers will lie. they know nothing about the daily show or why lizz left. another idiot, bonzo who has posted before, said "lizz wants us to support rachel!" i love how lizz hasn't spoken publicly once but you have all these idiots pushing
this shit. and i kept looking for conner or n69 or or ryan or martha or jimmy or james or any 1 i knew. they weren't there. i'll assume they've found some thing better to do with their time then waste it on unfiltered without lizz. pam has always been an idiot and she was still around lusting after rachel, no big surprise there. they're such idiots. judging by the blog today, you've got 1 bonzo who's trying to convince himself that things will get better. you've got pam and a few over the other 1s who always worshipped rachel. that was never a big crowd. rachel didn't read the blog. lizz did. and then you've got some people, a few, i saw 3 who were speaking up for lizz and were long time members. although some idiot, probably pam, had to try to claim that yummy soup was posting under another name. pam's such an idiot. she always insults the blog when she signs off with "now i have to go do important things so you guys have fun!" implying that the ones who stay don't have important things to do. hey pammie, i only had that block of time available because some 1 had to cancel a session. don't tell me about your important life. anyway it's obvious that the blog has died. what i'm talking about is that you have the same people posting so it looks active but it's not. the blog used to have tons and tons of people posting. now it's pretty much 20 people. the show's dying and they don't even know it.
and as i told them, they aren't doing rachel any favors by claiming the show works. it doesn't.
i don't plan to go back unless they fire rachel and then i'll be there to say to pam and the rachel groupies, "hey, we're just listeners! corporations are entitled to privacy!" and all the other bullshit things they type. rachel can't carry the show. that's obvious. and when rachel gets canned all these rachel freaks we'll find out that the ringers air america has been sending to the blog pretending to be listeners will be back and saying "guys we need to move on!" and i have no idea how they'll be able to argue back since they completely rolled on over this. they should be ashamed of themselves.'
what about the lizz fans?
'they're gone. i mean they're done with the show. and there's no way they're coming back for this shit. i wish i had gone on last week or at the start of this week to say goodbye to them because there were some good 1s. but judging by the blog as it was today, the show's lost about over 1/2 their audience. and remember this is with the ringers coming in and chatting up rachel. imagine how much lower the ratings will sink after people realize the show's not getting any better?'
anything else?
'yes, this idiot e-mailed me. wasn't a name i knew from the old days of the blog. wasn't any name that was on the blog today. but realitygirl87 e-mails me to say, "hey, girl, what have you been up to? i haven't seen you in forever. i understand that you miss lizz but she wanted to go. she can't tell people this but she's really sick and wanted to move on to other things. she asked that we all show our support for rachel and get behind her. she said she's happier now and just wants to be sure that we keep supporting rachel." i wrote back, "fuck off you shit head. you haven't spoken to lizz. if she were sick and telling people that, we'd all know it. i don't know if you work for air america or if you're rachel's girlfriend susan or maybe her mommy but don't ever write me and act like we know each other. i've never heard of you and the reason for that is you are a phoney bullshit fake. real cute how you could have posted that to the web for every 1 to see but instead e-mail me privately and act like we know each other and you have some info that you don't have." but that's what someone's doing. and it's sick. lying and saying lizz is ill to try to prop up this lame ass show. who ever is spreading those rumors needs to be ashamed.'
so that's what it's coming to. now, to make it look like rachel can carry the show, some asshole named realitygirl87 is spreading rumors that lizz left because she's sick. as every 1 knows now from the limited press coverage, she didn't leave because she's sick. whether she was fired or quit in the face of pressure - to tone down support for abortion rights (a popular rumor) .
i don't know why lizz left. but people are e-mailing this site saying that certain people in power were complaining that she was pushing a candidate for senator in pennsylvania that wasn't junior-the-chosen 1. and that air america didn't want to offend some powerful democrats.
is it true?
could be. makes more sense than the nonsesne that she chose to leave for health reasons. or that absurd lie that she likes to create something and then move on.
if air america doesn't like the rumor that lizz was pushed out because she offended right leaning democrats in power with her strong support for abortion rights, all they have to do is get honest about why she's no longer with the network.
there are other rumors. and maybe they're true and maybe they're false.
supposedly clear channel is saying they could carry those 3 hours on all their stations if they were hosted by a man. they're supposedly telling air america that early in the morning, listeners want to hear men. (clear channel doesn't air unfiltered on all stations and on some it doesn't play live but late in the night.) so don't be surprised if rachel finds herself with a male host if that rumor is true. or even if rachel gets kicked out on her big brain ass to be replaced by a male or a male and an even weaker ass woman.
see rachel's weak but she's still a lesbian and it's thought by those who believe the clear channel rumors that having forced lizz out, they'll now start claiming data that shows rachel offends listeners and they don't want 'sexual politics' in the morning.
what's going on?
air america knows. they just don't want to tell the listeners and that's pretty disgusting.
it's also pretty disgusting that while arguing about media monopolies, 1s being created that shuts out local programming.
lizz is gone and they don't give a goddamn about the listeners's feelings there.
the e-mail address is sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and if you've got a theory, a fact or a rumor send it in unless you're realitygirl87 because i don't need your lies and justifications.
before i got married (and then divorced) i worked in public relations. any 1 could have told air america that you do not create a vacuum. when you do that, someone comes along to fill it in.
if they're unhappy with the questions people are raising, they have only themselves to blame.
they bungled it. it's a public relations nightmare.
and some idiot is under the impression that it will just go away. that's not reality-based and makes you question the judgement skills of the network. and these were supposed to be media savy people!
rachel maddow continues to induce comas. air america continues to act like nothing happened. unfiltered continues to suck.
no surprise there.
she said she really was dreading going to the blog. when she did she saw a lot of new names. and all that talk from ringers earlier in the week about 'guys we need to focus on the real important issues! not on what happened to lizz!' was long gone. they were talking about movies and other non-life alerting things.
'1 idiot, while i was on, tried to say, "lizz likes to leave. she creates something and she leaves. she's happy." and i couldn't believe how bad these ringers will lie. they know nothing about the daily show or why lizz left. another idiot, bonzo who has posted before, said "lizz wants us to support rachel!" i love how lizz hasn't spoken publicly once but you have all these idiots pushing
this shit. and i kept looking for conner or n69 or or ryan or martha or jimmy or james or any 1 i knew. they weren't there. i'll assume they've found some thing better to do with their time then waste it on unfiltered without lizz. pam has always been an idiot and she was still around lusting after rachel, no big surprise there. they're such idiots. judging by the blog today, you've got 1 bonzo who's trying to convince himself that things will get better. you've got pam and a few over the other 1s who always worshipped rachel. that was never a big crowd. rachel didn't read the blog. lizz did. and then you've got some people, a few, i saw 3 who were speaking up for lizz and were long time members. although some idiot, probably pam, had to try to claim that yummy soup was posting under another name. pam's such an idiot. she always insults the blog when she signs off with "now i have to go do important things so you guys have fun!" implying that the ones who stay don't have important things to do. hey pammie, i only had that block of time available because some 1 had to cancel a session. don't tell me about your important life. anyway it's obvious that the blog has died. what i'm talking about is that you have the same people posting so it looks active but it's not. the blog used to have tons and tons of people posting. now it's pretty much 20 people. the show's dying and they don't even know it.
and as i told them, they aren't doing rachel any favors by claiming the show works. it doesn't.
i don't plan to go back unless they fire rachel and then i'll be there to say to pam and the rachel groupies, "hey, we're just listeners! corporations are entitled to privacy!" and all the other bullshit things they type. rachel can't carry the show. that's obvious. and when rachel gets canned all these rachel freaks we'll find out that the ringers air america has been sending to the blog pretending to be listeners will be back and saying "guys we need to move on!" and i have no idea how they'll be able to argue back since they completely rolled on over this. they should be ashamed of themselves.'
what about the lizz fans?
'they're gone. i mean they're done with the show. and there's no way they're coming back for this shit. i wish i had gone on last week or at the start of this week to say goodbye to them because there were some good 1s. but judging by the blog as it was today, the show's lost about over 1/2 their audience. and remember this is with the ringers coming in and chatting up rachel. imagine how much lower the ratings will sink after people realize the show's not getting any better?'
anything else?
'yes, this idiot e-mailed me. wasn't a name i knew from the old days of the blog. wasn't any name that was on the blog today. but realitygirl87 e-mails me to say, "hey, girl, what have you been up to? i haven't seen you in forever. i understand that you miss lizz but she wanted to go. she can't tell people this but she's really sick and wanted to move on to other things. she asked that we all show our support for rachel and get behind her. she said she's happier now and just wants to be sure that we keep supporting rachel." i wrote back, "fuck off you shit head. you haven't spoken to lizz. if she were sick and telling people that, we'd all know it. i don't know if you work for air america or if you're rachel's girlfriend susan or maybe her mommy but don't ever write me and act like we know each other. i've never heard of you and the reason for that is you are a phoney bullshit fake. real cute how you could have posted that to the web for every 1 to see but instead e-mail me privately and act like we know each other and you have some info that you don't have." but that's what someone's doing. and it's sick. lying and saying lizz is ill to try to prop up this lame ass show. who ever is spreading those rumors needs to be ashamed.'
so that's what it's coming to. now, to make it look like rachel can carry the show, some asshole named realitygirl87 is spreading rumors that lizz left because she's sick. as every 1 knows now from the limited press coverage, she didn't leave because she's sick. whether she was fired or quit in the face of pressure - to tone down support for abortion rights (a popular rumor) .
i don't know why lizz left. but people are e-mailing this site saying that certain people in power were complaining that she was pushing a candidate for senator in pennsylvania that wasn't junior-the-chosen 1. and that air america didn't want to offend some powerful democrats.
is it true?
could be. makes more sense than the nonsesne that she chose to leave for health reasons. or that absurd lie that she likes to create something and then move on.
if air america doesn't like the rumor that lizz was pushed out because she offended right leaning democrats in power with her strong support for abortion rights, all they have to do is get honest about why she's no longer with the network.
there are other rumors. and maybe they're true and maybe they're false.
supposedly clear channel is saying they could carry those 3 hours on all their stations if they were hosted by a man. they're supposedly telling air america that early in the morning, listeners want to hear men. (clear channel doesn't air unfiltered on all stations and on some it doesn't play live but late in the night.) so don't be surprised if rachel finds herself with a male host if that rumor is true. or even if rachel gets kicked out on her big brain ass to be replaced by a male or a male and an even weaker ass woman.
see rachel's weak but she's still a lesbian and it's thought by those who believe the clear channel rumors that having forced lizz out, they'll now start claiming data that shows rachel offends listeners and they don't want 'sexual politics' in the morning.
what's going on?
air america knows. they just don't want to tell the listeners and that's pretty disgusting.
it's also pretty disgusting that while arguing about media monopolies, 1s being created that shuts out local programming.
lizz is gone and they don't give a goddamn about the listeners's feelings there.
the e-mail address is sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and if you've got a theory, a fact or a rumor send it in unless you're realitygirl87 because i don't need your lies and justifications.
before i got married (and then divorced) i worked in public relations. any 1 could have told air america that you do not create a vacuum. when you do that, someone comes along to fill it in.
if they're unhappy with the questions people are raising, they have only themselves to blame.
they bungled it. it's a public relations nightmare.
and some idiot is under the impression that it will just go away. that's not reality-based and makes you question the judgement skills of the network. and these were supposed to be media savy people!
rachel maddow continues to induce comas. air america continues to act like nothing happened. unfiltered continues to suck.
3/08/2005
air america held hostage week 2
for those late to the story, i'll post this from poynter:
From KIRK MONTGOMERY: Last week Lizz Winstead, the co-host of the Unfiltered morning radio show on Air America, was removed from the air. On Monday, she was absent without explanation, Tuesday was a repeat of an old show, Wednesday the remaining host, Rachel Maddow, opened wih this, the only Air America Radio official comment on the situation:
RACHEL MADDOW: Good morning and welcome to Unfilteredhere on Air America Radio. I'm Rachel Maddow. Were online at unfilteredradio.com. Thanks for joining us here this morning.We know that a lot of you have noticed that Lizz Winstead is not here in studio with me; I certainly have noticed this fact.
I know that conspiracy theories are out there and everybody has their tinfoil hats very finely tuned on this matter. but the bottom line is that, uh, we miss Lizz, we wish her all the best, and Unfiltered will be going on without Lizz - uh, with me, and with Chuck D, and of course with you.
So, uh, that's the bottom line, and thank you to everybody who has uh, gotten in touch with us on this matter. And that is uh, the where it stands right now and we appreciate everything that weve heard from everybody and you can certainly join the discussion online should you choose to at uh, airamericaradio.com, just click on Unfiltered.
I'm Rachel Maddow, this is Unfiltered here on Air America Radio, and uh, that is very sad news for me to deliver. I take no pleasure in delivering that. Umm, and uh, just so you know that Im giving you the straight dope - that is the straight dope.
I cannot find any discussion of this anywhere outside the blogospehere, but it seems quite unusual and intriguing, no?
for any 1 concerned about fair use, i've credited kirk and poynter and all but 6 lines above are public -- a transcription of what was heard on the air waves.
i thank kirk for having the guts to raise the question no 1 seems to want to discuss.
so the basic news is that lizz got dropped kicked off unfiltered and out of air america.
and no 1 wants to talk about it.
check the blog where you find idiots like "swing state girl" telling you that 'what if lizz is sick? do you have a right to know!' and arguing that 'as a progressive' it's really important that we respect the corporation's right not to speak.
a blogger bopped her on the head with that and pointed out that progressives stand for transperency with corporations but swing state gal just kept on swingin'.
that's what happens at the unfiltered board.
if you're not familiar with it, read through an old 1 when lizz was on 1st. then read through 1 after she is gone. you'll find names of people who have never blogged before.
i called my friend elaine to ask her about because she used to blog there. i said, 'hey elaine, what's up with this shit?' and i start giving her names and e-mail addresses (like the chuck from world wide pants) and she says, 'i don't know who those people are. i listened and watched the blog every day. i may not have had anything to share all the time but if i did i posted. i know the people. there's n69, for instance, that's some 1 who listened to the show. ryan and martha i know and i think i remember nat.' all three of those people were sticking up for lizz. the new people? the 1 attacking lizz?
'well since they're giving phoney e-mails without real accounts i think it's not real listeners or it is 1 over eager listener trying to act like he or she is many.'
what do you think of the new format?
'when rachel lied last tuesday and said lizz was sick, i listened even though it was boring. when wednesday was a repeat, i listened. on thursday when lizz wasn't on and rachel wasn't telling what was going on, i stopped listening. the show is disgusting now. rachel can't carry it. she never could lighten up and she can get pissy about minor things. she also has a tendency to lecture her audiences. i don't think randi rhodes does that but if randi did, randi's got some life to back that up. rachel's a young woman and when she's trying to tell us how it has to be, you just think "shut up you, nerd!" she's the person you fled in high school. so there's that. but there's also the fact that lizz took the humor and sparkle with her. and what we are left with is rachel trying to do a call in line show that sounds more and more like "yes, you're speaking to doctor fraiser crane." it's impossible to listen to.'
i read some of the statements from supposed long time listeners to her, comments they've posted in the last few days and she says 'those are not long term listeners who have been posting. i don't know if air america's hired people to post or if rachel's called susan and said "post for me, they're beating up on me!" but those are not long term listeners who've been posting.
what is connor saying?'
i read to her what connor's written.
'i'm ashamed of him. he called in and rachel or lizz says "it's a guy called conner from wherever"
and lizz says "oh, it's connor from the blog!" and rachel starts in with "you don't know that" in her self-important tone. turns out it was conner from the blog. and the fact that lizz knew his name and knew it was him should mean some thing to him. i can't believe he is not screaming his head off. he should be ashamed of himself.'
she asks me to read people who've been posting for lizz.
'ryan is making good points and he is correct that he has always like rachel best. that was always obvious from what he would post. i'd say the fact that some 1 who liked rachel better is outraged demonstrates how hideous this has been handled and how much the show sucks now.
what about martha?'
i read her what martha posted.
'good for her. if they have the energy to fight and cause a stink, they should. they are long term listeners. i don't have it in me anymore. they came on like "we're 1 big family." then lizz is gone and they can't even tell you. rachel will only address if the blog presses her. they should stay on her case. i think the show will be cancelled. rachel can't carry it alone. but there's a feeling that lizz was fired because she was the more political 1. she would get hot and angry when people tried to sell out on the choice issue. i wonder if they got complaints from dlc types? rachel's a coward. she should have walked the minute what ever happened to lizz happened. they wouldn't have sued her since air america doesn't want to talk about it. she's like suzette charles!'
who?
'exactly. vanessa williams was the first black miss america. then they strip her of her crown at the end of her reign. and suzette charles comes along to grab it for the last weeks. nobody remembers that back stabbing coward. but if she had said "no, i won't take it." she'd be remembered now as the woman who turned down the crown. rachel's a suzette charles."
what do you think happened?
'there was a thing in the new york daily news yesterday. lizz was either fired or forced to quit. that's obvious. so swing state girl and these other morons need to quit trying to say "it could be her health! you people need to shut up and accept that lizz is gone!" what morons. what cowards. if they really did listen to the show, how dare they not get angry about what happened to lizz. they're acting like lizz came on every 4th week and that was it. lizz was at least 1/2 the show. now she's gone and stupid morons want to say "move on!" and argue it's for the good of the "movement." there is no "movement" without accountability. that's what pissed so many people off about ohio. that people wouldn't fight and they kept trying to tell you to "move on."
it's nonsense. they were never listeners of the show. they've got to be ringers brought in to quiet the discussion on the blog. but it's not going away. i bet the audience is. no 1 wants to hear rachel go on and on in her faux npr manner. she's always wrong about stuff. i remember when some 1 called her on something and she got so damn pissy about it on air.'
that was when they confused harry reid with jack reed and had just done a salute to harry for what jack did. (jan. 27, 2005) instead of talking about jack reed rachel had to go on and on about how 'we always correct our mistakes.' no and you didn't then big brain. correcting your mistake would be doing a thing on jack reed. bragging about the fact that you're an idiot is noting that you got it wrong.
i read through the e-mails and this show is just boring for people now.
sherry: 'i just don't care to hear boring rachel. i always feel like i'm a parent going to a parent-teacher conference and i'm confronted with a first year teacher who can only relate to me as though i was 7 years old. i hate people who talk down to me.'
mel: 'why does she always act like she's doing us a favor by telling us about a news story that's at least a day old and sometimes longer? she acts like we're stupid and says things like "let me explain to you why this is important." i know why it's important, you stupid ass, i got that when i heard it on a real news broadcast. she's just hideous.'
laura: 'they fired the wrong 1. even when lizz pissed me off, at least i felt some thing. with rachel it's like i'm on heavy meds because she leaves me numb.'
trevor: 'i've never heard some 1 try harder to be terry gross and fail so miserably. what big brain maddow doesn't get is that terry gross can connect with listeners and has a great speaking voice. rachel can't connect."
loretta: 'let me be the 1st to say it, as a lesbian, i never would have thought a lesbian on the air could be so goddamn boring.'
bradley: 'they call it unfiltered but it's filtered because they tried to act like lizz never existed and only talk about it now when the blog goes crazy. rachel's coming off bitchy and rude to the listeners. they need to fire her ass.'
it is embarrassing to listen to. it's like the pat sajack show or worse - the chevy chase show.
rachel can not carry a news break, let alone a 3 hour show. when that pompous 'i'm so smart' hectoring tone starts up, listeners have had enough.
a friend swears that there has been a huge drop off in the amount of streaming for unfiltered.
it's like that thing c.i. of the common ills wrote on friday 'Breaking News Sally Struthers to co-host Unfiltered (This is PARODY, PEOPLE).' rachel needs lizz more than lizz needs rachel because lizz is the cher of the duo and rachel's the sonny.
and to answer a question i got asked over and over in the e-mails, i was at a soldier's play last night. i hadn't planned to go out but a friend called with 2 tickets and pointed out that we always say we'll go to plays and stuff but never do. it was a reading of play, not a performance and it was about racism and murder in the military during wwii. it was really great.
i had planned to stay home and blog but at the last minute, my friend ended up with tickets and needed some 1 to go with her.
From KIRK MONTGOMERY: Last week Lizz Winstead, the co-host of the Unfiltered morning radio show on Air America, was removed from the air. On Monday, she was absent without explanation, Tuesday was a repeat of an old show, Wednesday the remaining host, Rachel Maddow, opened wih this, the only Air America Radio official comment on the situation:
RACHEL MADDOW: Good morning and welcome to Unfilteredhere on Air America Radio. I'm Rachel Maddow. Were online at unfilteredradio.com. Thanks for joining us here this morning.We know that a lot of you have noticed that Lizz Winstead is not here in studio with me; I certainly have noticed this fact.
I know that conspiracy theories are out there and everybody has their tinfoil hats very finely tuned on this matter. but the bottom line is that, uh, we miss Lizz, we wish her all the best, and Unfiltered will be going on without Lizz - uh, with me, and with Chuck D, and of course with you.
So, uh, that's the bottom line, and thank you to everybody who has uh, gotten in touch with us on this matter. And that is uh, the where it stands right now and we appreciate everything that weve heard from everybody and you can certainly join the discussion online should you choose to at uh, airamericaradio.com, just click on Unfiltered.
I'm Rachel Maddow, this is Unfiltered here on Air America Radio, and uh, that is very sad news for me to deliver. I take no pleasure in delivering that. Umm, and uh, just so you know that Im giving you the straight dope - that is the straight dope.
I cannot find any discussion of this anywhere outside the blogospehere, but it seems quite unusual and intriguing, no?
for any 1 concerned about fair use, i've credited kirk and poynter and all but 6 lines above are public -- a transcription of what was heard on the air waves.
i thank kirk for having the guts to raise the question no 1 seems to want to discuss.
so the basic news is that lizz got dropped kicked off unfiltered and out of air america.
and no 1 wants to talk about it.
check the blog where you find idiots like "swing state girl" telling you that 'what if lizz is sick? do you have a right to know!' and arguing that 'as a progressive' it's really important that we respect the corporation's right not to speak.
a blogger bopped her on the head with that and pointed out that progressives stand for transperency with corporations but swing state gal just kept on swingin'.
that's what happens at the unfiltered board.
if you're not familiar with it, read through an old 1 when lizz was on 1st. then read through 1 after she is gone. you'll find names of people who have never blogged before.
i called my friend elaine to ask her about because she used to blog there. i said, 'hey elaine, what's up with this shit?' and i start giving her names and e-mail addresses (like the chuck from world wide pants) and she says, 'i don't know who those people are. i listened and watched the blog every day. i may not have had anything to share all the time but if i did i posted. i know the people. there's n69, for instance, that's some 1 who listened to the show. ryan and martha i know and i think i remember nat.' all three of those people were sticking up for lizz. the new people? the 1 attacking lizz?
'well since they're giving phoney e-mails without real accounts i think it's not real listeners or it is 1 over eager listener trying to act like he or she is many.'
what do you think of the new format?
'when rachel lied last tuesday and said lizz was sick, i listened even though it was boring. when wednesday was a repeat, i listened. on thursday when lizz wasn't on and rachel wasn't telling what was going on, i stopped listening. the show is disgusting now. rachel can't carry it. she never could lighten up and she can get pissy about minor things. she also has a tendency to lecture her audiences. i don't think randi rhodes does that but if randi did, randi's got some life to back that up. rachel's a young woman and when she's trying to tell us how it has to be, you just think "shut up you, nerd!" she's the person you fled in high school. so there's that. but there's also the fact that lizz took the humor and sparkle with her. and what we are left with is rachel trying to do a call in line show that sounds more and more like "yes, you're speaking to doctor fraiser crane." it's impossible to listen to.'
i read some of the statements from supposed long time listeners to her, comments they've posted in the last few days and she says 'those are not long term listeners who have been posting. i don't know if air america's hired people to post or if rachel's called susan and said "post for me, they're beating up on me!" but those are not long term listeners who've been posting.
what is connor saying?'
i read to her what connor's written.
'i'm ashamed of him. he called in and rachel or lizz says "it's a guy called conner from wherever"
and lizz says "oh, it's connor from the blog!" and rachel starts in with "you don't know that" in her self-important tone. turns out it was conner from the blog. and the fact that lizz knew his name and knew it was him should mean some thing to him. i can't believe he is not screaming his head off. he should be ashamed of himself.'
she asks me to read people who've been posting for lizz.
'ryan is making good points and he is correct that he has always like rachel best. that was always obvious from what he would post. i'd say the fact that some 1 who liked rachel better is outraged demonstrates how hideous this has been handled and how much the show sucks now.
what about martha?'
i read her what martha posted.
'good for her. if they have the energy to fight and cause a stink, they should. they are long term listeners. i don't have it in me anymore. they came on like "we're 1 big family." then lizz is gone and they can't even tell you. rachel will only address if the blog presses her. they should stay on her case. i think the show will be cancelled. rachel can't carry it alone. but there's a feeling that lizz was fired because she was the more political 1. she would get hot and angry when people tried to sell out on the choice issue. i wonder if they got complaints from dlc types? rachel's a coward. she should have walked the minute what ever happened to lizz happened. they wouldn't have sued her since air america doesn't want to talk about it. she's like suzette charles!'
who?
'exactly. vanessa williams was the first black miss america. then they strip her of her crown at the end of her reign. and suzette charles comes along to grab it for the last weeks. nobody remembers that back stabbing coward. but if she had said "no, i won't take it." she'd be remembered now as the woman who turned down the crown. rachel's a suzette charles."
what do you think happened?
'there was a thing in the new york daily news yesterday. lizz was either fired or forced to quit. that's obvious. so swing state girl and these other morons need to quit trying to say "it could be her health! you people need to shut up and accept that lizz is gone!" what morons. what cowards. if they really did listen to the show, how dare they not get angry about what happened to lizz. they're acting like lizz came on every 4th week and that was it. lizz was at least 1/2 the show. now she's gone and stupid morons want to say "move on!" and argue it's for the good of the "movement." there is no "movement" without accountability. that's what pissed so many people off about ohio. that people wouldn't fight and they kept trying to tell you to "move on."
it's nonsense. they were never listeners of the show. they've got to be ringers brought in to quiet the discussion on the blog. but it's not going away. i bet the audience is. no 1 wants to hear rachel go on and on in her faux npr manner. she's always wrong about stuff. i remember when some 1 called her on something and she got so damn pissy about it on air.'
that was when they confused harry reid with jack reed and had just done a salute to harry for what jack did. (jan. 27, 2005) instead of talking about jack reed rachel had to go on and on about how 'we always correct our mistakes.' no and you didn't then big brain. correcting your mistake would be doing a thing on jack reed. bragging about the fact that you're an idiot is noting that you got it wrong.
i read through the e-mails and this show is just boring for people now.
sherry: 'i just don't care to hear boring rachel. i always feel like i'm a parent going to a parent-teacher conference and i'm confronted with a first year teacher who can only relate to me as though i was 7 years old. i hate people who talk down to me.'
mel: 'why does she always act like she's doing us a favor by telling us about a news story that's at least a day old and sometimes longer? she acts like we're stupid and says things like "let me explain to you why this is important." i know why it's important, you stupid ass, i got that when i heard it on a real news broadcast. she's just hideous.'
laura: 'they fired the wrong 1. even when lizz pissed me off, at least i felt some thing. with rachel it's like i'm on heavy meds because she leaves me numb.'
trevor: 'i've never heard some 1 try harder to be terry gross and fail so miserably. what big brain maddow doesn't get is that terry gross can connect with listeners and has a great speaking voice. rachel can't connect."
loretta: 'let me be the 1st to say it, as a lesbian, i never would have thought a lesbian on the air could be so goddamn boring.'
bradley: 'they call it unfiltered but it's filtered because they tried to act like lizz never existed and only talk about it now when the blog goes crazy. rachel's coming off bitchy and rude to the listeners. they need to fire her ass.'
it is embarrassing to listen to. it's like the pat sajack show or worse - the chevy chase show.
rachel can not carry a news break, let alone a 3 hour show. when that pompous 'i'm so smart' hectoring tone starts up, listeners have had enough.
a friend swears that there has been a huge drop off in the amount of streaming for unfiltered.
it's like that thing c.i. of the common ills wrote on friday 'Breaking News Sally Struthers to co-host Unfiltered (This is PARODY, PEOPLE).' rachel needs lizz more than lizz needs rachel because lizz is the cher of the duo and rachel's the sonny.
and to answer a question i got asked over and over in the e-mails, i was at a soldier's play last night. i hadn't planned to go out but a friend called with 2 tickets and pointed out that we always say we'll go to plays and stuff but never do. it was a reading of play, not a performance and it was about racism and murder in the military during wwii. it was really great.
i had planned to stay home and blog but at the last minute, my friend ended up with tickets and needed some 1 to go with her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)