first thank you for all the great e-mails on the post that went up thursday.
a few wondered why i didn't post friday since i took weds. off. i wasn't off weds. i was writing the thing that went up thursday. i saved it to draft. and on thursday, i was taking part in the community's special programming.
i really loved doing that, by the way.
i love that we can all come together like that and be this group of support.
and that we can do it with laughter because there was a lot of laughter during that.
eli wrote to say my line about 'no pledge drive' made him laugh. thank you, eli. it may not have been my line though. we were all pumped up when c.i. called to say there would be special programming. c.i. was willing to host it at the common ills and invite anyone over. c.i. wasn't sure how many would be interested in participating. when the number became obvious, it became a third estate sunday review thing. and dona said, 'rebecca, you'll be the only thing up until we get this special programming done' so i was really glad that i had that thing saved to draft and that it was so long.
not long enough for sherry who wrote that she'd read it and was waiting and ended up rereading it before the 1st half of special programming went up. but she loved the roundtable which was the 1st of the 2 special programming events.
i hope every1 got something out of it.
it was a long process and it took a great deal of time but i haven't heard any 1 gripe about that.
we were drained at the end and not everyone could do what i did, crawl into bed and sleep as late as you want. so i want to thank every 1 for being there.
and let me point out that was a thursday post. i know that every 1 would love it if there were entries at all the sites every day, several times a day.
that's not going to happen. i honestly wish c.i. would post less because i know the time constraints c.i. is under. but we all have lives and no 1's doing this to make money. we do this because we think we have something to say. if some 1 doesn't think they have something to say, they may not write that day.
but i think, as a whole, the community provides more than enough commentary each week. i think we did that this week because special programming covered a lot of topics.
why are so many on the left and 'left' silent about the war?
that's really something that disgusts me.
c.i.'s idea for 'war got your tongue' almost didn't get heard. everytime c.i. would attempt to explain it, 1 of us would have just got the title and start laughing. it's a great title.
as others have noted at their sites, that's 3 pieces we put together. like lennon and mccartney putting parts of their own stuff into 1 song. we did that due to time but i think the editorial turned out amazing.
we were actually done before we all hung up. but jim wanted to read it. aloud. to all of us.
when he was done, ty said 'i'm satisfied' and we all were.
there are things you do and you can take comfort that you tried. maybe it didn't turn out quite the way you expected but you gave it a try and didn't just sit there wishing some 1 else would do it.
then there are the things you do that turn out differently and you look at them and think, 'i'm not just proud that i took a stab at something, i'm proud of how it turned out.'
that's how i feel about the editorial.
to me, it speaks to the issue that a large number of people have stood up but a larger number has stayed silent. why?
why do they stay silent?
are they afraid that if they took a stand, they'd lose readers. if they came out for the war or against it, they might lose readers?
that's something to wonder about.
is it all about 'will i be liked?'
i think for some it is.
i have more respect for the war cheerleaders that mean it then i do for the 1s who never say anything.
and of course, i agree with the people speaking out against the war.
i don't think even a casual reader would ever get the impression that i was for the war.
but i think a casual reader of a lot of other sites, online mags, might wonder where they stood.
so, for instance, if you put 'politics' in your site title, you don't have an excuse for being silent on the war.
i don't think there's an excuse for not speaking out at this point. maybe if you're a reader and you're shy. but if you've got the guts to weigh in at your own site (blog or magazine) you should have the guts to have an opinion on the war.
it's not the supporters who keep it going at this point, it's the 1s who stay silent.
some supporters are actually starting to question it.
but the war will continue as long as 'good men do nothing.' that's from hannah arendt, i think. the quote section. it's about evil, i believe. i read it in 1 of elaine's posts and it stayed with me.
as long as good men and good women stay silent, the war goes on.
no end in sight because why end it when so many don't seem to care.
and if you're silent, that's how it reads: that you don't care.
there are times when all of us will let an issue slide in terms of posting because who has the time to cover everything? i know elaine will grab something or some 1 else so i'll focus on something different. but i've never been afraid to talk about the war. i've never been afraid to say that i'm against it.
i've written about it often.
now i started this site at a time when people were backing off from talking about it. the election had happened, the inauguration was about to or had just happened. tom hayden had a piece against the war that a supposed left site wouldn't run.
all the sudden we were supposed to just focus on other things.
i didn't buy that.
to me, the war is everything that is wrong with the bully boy.
1) people are dying and the 'compassionate conservative' doesn't care.
now he's comparing iraq to japan. he'll lie to justify his illegal actions.
2) when the government that we've installed comes to more power, life will be worse for women in iraq then it was before. we didn't liberate the women in afghanistan and we've made things worse for women's rights in iraq.
he is no friend to feminists. he's only a friend to women if you're a woman who has no self-respect.
3) we were lied into war.
this is about his refusal to address facts. he doesn't like facts. he likes spin. so he lies and manipulates.
4) the economy still sucks.
we've got the usual happy talk stories that it's better. in a month that'll be over. at christmas time the media always pushes that the economy has gotten better.
you don't get the big ads from department stores and companies if you're telling the truth about the economy, not when we're in the big shopping period.
and the war is 1 of the many excuses he offers for the bad economy. his decisions are why we're still in a bad economy.
5) the silencing of dissent.
without it, he'd have no war today. he pulled that trick from the start. he and his attack dogs think they can bully the whole country, the whole world.
the arrogance, the lies, the destruction, the attacks, it's all there in the war.
so that's why i couldn't be silent about the war.
i'm shocked that so many can.
but, if you watched the wizard of oz, you know that some believe courage, brains and hearts need to be handed out. we've got it all inside of us, if we choose to access it. most of us don't choose to. i don't know who we think our silence helps?
isn't it funny that bernie has nothing of value to offer the world today but he does have the time to bully kat?
isn't it funny that his site can claim poor little bernie had no way to be heard which is a big fat lie because kat had offered to post his whiney crap at her site if he'd write something.
maybe bernie should stop trying to bully women and figure out where he stands on the war?
or are the attacks on anti-war voices like kat and bright eyes supposed to tell us where bernie stands?
bernie's priority is apparently bernie. people dying doesn't upset him. some woman not kissing his ass does. it's all about bernie.
well bridget may have loved bernie, but no 1 in this community does.
he can continue writing his whiney ass, sniveling sucks ups to the new republic and being useless.
now bernie would say 'i don't suck up to the new republic! i wrote my disagrement with them!'
bernie's not real smart apparently.
he doesn't seem to grasp that when he highlights the new republic and links to them and then delivers his kid gloves treatment he's endorsing them.
he's chosen to take seriously a rag that's declared war on peace activists and thinks 'jokes' about arundhati roy being targeted with bunker busts are okay.
any 1 who was outraged by that b.s. wouldn't be highlighting the rag.
he's like a man defending his best friend who beats his wife with 'only when he's drunk. he only does it when he's drunk.'
oh, okay, that's different then.
it probably hurts her a lot less then too, since he'd drunk. right?
there is no difference.
that rag became a rag under the right-wing of the 80s and they still practice their bullshit attacks. there's no difference between the new republic and bill o'reilly except some people think that the new republic is 'high brow.'
they are both bullies. they are both disgusting.
and people are tired of it.
i was so glad to see the community rise up against bernie.
the round-robin friday made me proud to be a part of this community. the work we did at the third estate sunday review thursday made me proud to be a part of this community. what could have been a very destructive moment became a really inspirational 1 for me.
i think that's the lesson in the world we live in now. you stand together on your beliefs and you find strength.
12/08/2005
on the crap women bloggers have to put up with
note this, i can't get into my account. i called t but she's not at her place and won't be for a few hours. i then phoned dallas, who says it's very cold in dallas, and imposed upon him. he's copying and pasting this to the top of this entry for me and posting it. and he's at the ready for tonight's special programming. we all think dallas should do his own site and i don't think any of us can ever thank him enough for all that he does to help out. he really gives his all for the community. so thank you, dallas.
the entry below was written last night. i can't get in so i can't read it. you find a typo, if that's what you were seeking, consider it your reward. (and dallas better not correct anything. i feel like i've imposed enough on what sounds like a cold and dreary day.)
these are my opinions below. the unidentified woman is kat. i didn't have her permission last night to name her. i do now.
my opinions of this are my opinions. i will offer no correction to them. if the jerk who thinks he can make kat correct her opinion wants to try that shit on me, it'll get real ugly. i don't take shit from men who have their feelings hurt because a woman has an opinion and thinks that means they can insist upon a correction. i don't play that bullshit game.
since i wrote this, the man finally responded to kat. or to 'cat' as he wrote. did he finally say 'please post the following as my take on this'? hell no.
and there's a reason. those kind of men never want it to be their words. it's not enough that they get to comment, they want it to look like a woman's changed her mind. if he was quoted and noted, it wouldn't look like kat changed her mind. this is, MY OPINION, about some little minded man getting ticked off that a woman didn't kiss his ass and so he thinks he can come along and insist upon a correction to some 1's opinion. i don't play that game.
i think it's offensive. i think it's disgusting. i don't think women should ever be treated that way and i damn well will never take it.
so if the jerk reads this and is offended, guess what, too bad. it's my opinion. despite what you seem to think a penis is not required to have an opinion. some of us think with our brains. dallas, please put this intro in bold to distinguish it from last night's entry. readers, please note, there will be special programming tonight. check at the common ills for a note on that later tonight. special programming but no pledge drive.
i'm pissed off tonight.
don't expect anything great here.
a friend got an e-mail where someone dumps on her. (should i state the obvious - it's from a man. ain't it always the way?)
she's making excuses for his lack of a reply with she's in california and he may be on the east coast so there may be a time difference.
i think that's a bullshit reason.
if you dump on someone and demand something from them, you need to be ready to reply to them.
i'm sick of men who think they can weigh in on anything but let a woman disagree with them and they want corrections.
it's not as though the man doesn't have an outlet and it's not as though he hasn't already weighed in on what my friend wrote. he has. he's given his opinion at his site.
and defended his commenters including the 1s who attack people with 'deep' comments like 'stupid shit.'
you know what's stupid shit?
some 1 with their own outlet disagreeing with a woman's opinion and thinking he can demand a correction of her opinion.
that's STUPID SHIT.
and that's the STUPID SHIT that women have to put up with.
i'm so fucking pissed right now.
she's not blogging right now.
she's trying to wait to see if she and the guy can come to some understanding.
FUCK UNDERSTANDING.
he tells her to re-read his post.
excuse me, you NEED TO RE-READ HER POST.
she's not even commenting on him. she's talking about the comments that were left when 1 person offered a different opinion.
but HE demands a correction.
i'm sick of the MIND FUCKS.
i'm sick of the BULL SHIT.
HE has his own place to post.
SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO EAT HER WORDS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE HER OPINION.
that's BULLSHIT.
any 1 who knows me knows i'm not afraid to go public with anything.
the only thing i've ever not gone into fully that i wanted to was my abortion and that was because my ex-in-laws were screaming their heads off and i didn't want it to screw over my ex-husband (who is fine with me posting anything about the abortion or any thing else).
but they were worried about their reputations.
because MY ABORTION isn't MY GODDAMN STORY. it's apparently their story.
it happened to ME but i don't have the RIGHT to write about it.
so i am taking this personally, what's happened to my friend.
my friend needed some 1 to talk to.
so i listened.
she doesn't want me to blow this up so i won't name her or him.
but i'm SICK OF THIS SHIT.
i'm going to use wally as example because every 1 knows how cool wally is and that he'd never pull this type of shit.
let's say that i blogged here 'i don't think florida's a big deal.' (i do think it's a big deal.)
wally's got a site. he can post whatever he wants up there.
he would not have the right to contact me and demand a correction.
WOMEN HAVE OPINIONS.
WOMEN CAN EXPRESS THEM.
IT IS BULLSHIT FOR MEN TO PULL THIS CRAP AND THEY DON'T PULL IT WITH GUYS THEY JUST PULL WITH US.
i'm sick of it.
the guy posted his opinion of her opinion at his site.
but that's not good enough for him.
he wants a CORRECTION to her opinions.
that is BULLSHIT.
she's not angry.
she's trying to work through an understanding with the man.
i love her to death but she doesn't need to work through an understanding.
i've read what she wrote. i've read what he wrote.
she didn't weigh in on his opinion.
she doesn't need to correct her opinion of the attack comments.
women, we need to STOP doing this shit.
we need to stop worrying about the hurt feelings of little boys.
we need to stop thinking that because they gripe it's somehow our fault.
it's not our fault.
it's their fault for thinking a woman can't have a DAMN opinion of her own.
it's their fault for thinking they can whine or gripe or demand a correction.
i've so had it with this shit.
i am so sick of men playing mr. macho and telling just what they think online but let a woman disagree and they want a fucking correction which they whine about in private.
he's got his own damn site. he's posted his damn opinion.
he needs to apologize to my friend.
his lack of agreement with her opinion doesn't mean he gets a correction.
there's nothing to correct.
when i briefly worked in the entertainment industry out in los angeles, there were 2 clients who wanted corrections to every story that was written about them.
so you'd have to humor them because unless there's an error, a magazine won't give you a correction. if they print the wrong birthday for you, they'll correct it. if they get your credit wrong, they'll correct it.
if their opinion differs from you, they don't correct it.
i ask male bloggers all the time, 'do you have to put up with shit?' and they don't.
but let a woman write something and men think they can demand whatever changes they want.
take your pissing match into the men's room.
we don't need you to wave your dick.
i told her there's nothing about him in her post that needs correcting.
she could posting today but she's waiting for his reply.
and isn't that just like a man to leave a woman waiting?
i'm so sick of the bullshit.
again, he's posted his opinion at his site.
his opinion doesn't capture what she wrote but is she screaming for a correction?
no.
he's got a site to post at.
he doesn't need to try to force her to do a correction.
that's bullshit.
men like that need to start learning some boundaries.
and women, we need to stop letting them mind fuck us.
it's not our job to kiss their boo-boos or help their wounded egos.
we are not their mothers.
maybe this guy hasn't read her reply yet, like she thinks.
i don't give a damn.
you don't demand a correction and then not reply to the person.
and let's just note the 2 e-mails.
his? all about him. taking her to task for her opinion.
her's? telling him that she didn't take apart his opinion. he wasn't the fcous of her entry. he could have been and she explained where she disagreed with his opinion but noted that she didn't post her disagreements.
women, we need to quite explaining ourselves to men.
with some men, it doesn't do any good.
he fired off his e-mail and probably gave his boner a tug.
now she's fucked over and can't post because she doesnt want to write anything until she's tried to work out some understanding with him.
i don't take this shit. and i know from women bloggers that they say they find that 'inspiring.'
quit being inspired by me and start using your strength.
because until you do this same shit happens over and over.
i respond to every female blogger who writes me with this type of problem.
i know it's not an isolated incident.
i know that women get these e-mails from men all the time.
there are women who won't blog about politics because of this crap. they wanted to, they started to and then some man e-mailed them screaming that they better change this or change that.
as centrist ed learned, i don't grovel, i don't plead.
you didn't like my crack about your hair, ed? too bad, get a grown up hair cut and don't give me a whiney ass reason why you couldn't get your hair cut before you posed for a professional photo.
i don't back down and that's partly because of the hell i went through with my abortion and partly because i hear from women that it really inspires them.
i'm glad if inspires some 1. but we really need to stop this crap.
i can stand up for me and i will stand up for any woman blogger who's got some man sniffing around, growling that she apologize.
but it needs to be more than me or more than few others and me.
when we don't stand up to men, we make it harder for another woman.
i love my friend very much. but her efforts to find an understanding with this man don't help the next woman he demands back off her opinion and give him a correction.
a correction he feels is 'obvious.' not so 'obvious' that he can name it.
it's obvious to him. it's always obvious to men like that.
he can't point to an error because there's not 1.
he just doesn't like her opinion.
and when it's a woman apparently, if you don't like the opinion, you don't just blog that you don't like it, you demand a correction because big bad you won't be pushed around by some woman!
that's a hell of a sense of entitlement.
i'm sick of it.
i have heard from too many women this same story.
we need to stop backing down. we need to stop trying to work through an understanding with men we have no relationship with - men who only show up to tell us 'you are wrong!'
do you catch the shout outs online? men shouting to men.
women don't get shout outs as a rule, they get shouted at.
it is unacceptable.
if he offers an apology tomorrow, i'll let this drop. but i don't think he's going to apologize.
i have a lot of high school readers and i love you but, please, male or female, do not act this way.
if you're a guy and you disagree with a woman do not make the mistake of thinking you can demand that she changes her mind. if you are a woman, do not let some guy do that to you.
if we all stood up just 1 day, this crap would happen a lot less. if we all stood up just 1 month, i bet it would cut it out.
and don't make the mistake of thinking that when a guy tells you that you have made an obvious mistake that you have in fact made any mistake. that's just his opinion. you can blow it off and you should.
he is not ruler of the universe and he is not ruler of your's. you need to own your own universe.
if he calls you a bitch, guess what? you will live through it.
there are many worse things to be called.
in the past, i have suggested to women that they post those e-mails.
these guys don't want to do this in public. they want to bully a woman into changing her mind in private. then when she posts their 'correction' they can claim that she came to it all on her own.
if you knew some of the stories i've heard since i started blogging, you'd know this is not uncommon. and you'd raise an eyebrow when a woman blogger 'clarifies' a previous post.
we need to stop doing that.
i wonder if it happens to women who try to be op-ed writers in print?
i won't cave. i'll stop blogging before i cave.
i'll continue to be here for any women blogger that goes through this shit.
but i want you to know, not all male bloggers are like that. you would actually have a lot of support online if you challenged and outed these men.
there are a lot of male bloggers who weren't aware of what was going on.
there's 1 who has a standing offer to several female bloggers to back them and post on his site, which is a pretty big site, if they want to out these men.
so if you're reading this and you are 1 of those male bloggers that thinks you can have a fit in private and no 1 will ever know, you need to think again. because it's not just me that's getting sick of this crap.
there are men who respect that a woman can have an opinion they disagree with. they can even tell you 'i disagree' and not demand that you change your opinion.
this is a pattern of sexism and it's a new form so i'm glad i've written so much about this because as we spend more and more time online, this will be an issue that's discussd in the future.
and men who are behaving badly better be worried because it won't stay silent forever.
i dealt with 3 female bloggers on this last week who e-mailed me to share the latest demands from a man.
they alway have their own sites, these men, but they always want to contact you privately and tell you to make a correction.
guess what? if you don't make it, they go away.
when ed realized i wasn't going to rewrite my post about his hair, he moved on.
no more of his whining to c.i. about how mean i was and how i needed to change my post and correct it because he was going through a really bad time and he didn't need my mean remarks.
well if he'd gotten his hair cut for a photo he was posing for, 1 that he knew his organization was going to promote, he wouldn't have had a problem to begin with.
if he hadn't tried to act like a friend to social security, while arguing for privatization, he wouldn't have had to deal with me to begin with.
apparently i'm the 1st woman that ever said no to him. (shocking to me as well.) he got over it.
here's some tips for women bloggers:
1) you have a right to have an opinion
2) you have a right to express it
3) you have a right not to back off of your opinion because some guy's feelings are hurt
here's some tips for male bloggers who think they can force a woman to change her mind:
1) you're going to find at some point a woman who won't back down
2) when that happens realize that you are the 1 with the problem
3) try to grasp that women have brains and not just boobs
i love the men who've griped at me while at the same time wanting to know exactly how large my breasts are?
they want me to be their ideal woman, big breasts and no words that ever disagree with them.
boys, when you want that, pick up a playboy because that only happens in your little fantasies.
it's not reality and it's too bad that you haven't been forced to face reality yet in your life.
there's a reason your jerk off fantasy is only a fantasy - in the real world, women have opinions and you won't always agree with them but that doesn't mean you're right or that you can get a corretion to some woman's opinion.
if i've misjudged this man, i'll let it drop. but i don't think i have. a man who can't tell the difference between opinion and fact, a man who tells a woman she needs to re-read his post when she didn't argue his post and when he 'obviously' hasn't read her's is a man i think i can determine pretty well.
the entry below was written last night. i can't get in so i can't read it. you find a typo, if that's what you were seeking, consider it your reward. (and dallas better not correct anything. i feel like i've imposed enough on what sounds like a cold and dreary day.)
these are my opinions below. the unidentified woman is kat. i didn't have her permission last night to name her. i do now.
my opinions of this are my opinions. i will offer no correction to them. if the jerk who thinks he can make kat correct her opinion wants to try that shit on me, it'll get real ugly. i don't take shit from men who have their feelings hurt because a woman has an opinion and thinks that means they can insist upon a correction. i don't play that bullshit game.
since i wrote this, the man finally responded to kat. or to 'cat' as he wrote. did he finally say 'please post the following as my take on this'? hell no.
and there's a reason. those kind of men never want it to be their words. it's not enough that they get to comment, they want it to look like a woman's changed her mind. if he was quoted and noted, it wouldn't look like kat changed her mind. this is, MY OPINION, about some little minded man getting ticked off that a woman didn't kiss his ass and so he thinks he can come along and insist upon a correction to some 1's opinion. i don't play that game.
i think it's offensive. i think it's disgusting. i don't think women should ever be treated that way and i damn well will never take it.
so if the jerk reads this and is offended, guess what, too bad. it's my opinion. despite what you seem to think a penis is not required to have an opinion. some of us think with our brains. dallas, please put this intro in bold to distinguish it from last night's entry. readers, please note, there will be special programming tonight. check at the common ills for a note on that later tonight. special programming but no pledge drive.
i'm pissed off tonight.
don't expect anything great here.
a friend got an e-mail where someone dumps on her. (should i state the obvious - it's from a man. ain't it always the way?)
she's making excuses for his lack of a reply with she's in california and he may be on the east coast so there may be a time difference.
i think that's a bullshit reason.
if you dump on someone and demand something from them, you need to be ready to reply to them.
i'm sick of men who think they can weigh in on anything but let a woman disagree with them and they want corrections.
it's not as though the man doesn't have an outlet and it's not as though he hasn't already weighed in on what my friend wrote. he has. he's given his opinion at his site.
and defended his commenters including the 1s who attack people with 'deep' comments like 'stupid shit.'
you know what's stupid shit?
some 1 with their own outlet disagreeing with a woman's opinion and thinking he can demand a correction of her opinion.
that's STUPID SHIT.
and that's the STUPID SHIT that women have to put up with.
i'm so fucking pissed right now.
she's not blogging right now.
she's trying to wait to see if she and the guy can come to some understanding.
FUCK UNDERSTANDING.
he tells her to re-read his post.
excuse me, you NEED TO RE-READ HER POST.
she's not even commenting on him. she's talking about the comments that were left when 1 person offered a different opinion.
but HE demands a correction.
i'm sick of the MIND FUCKS.
i'm sick of the BULL SHIT.
HE has his own place to post.
SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO EAT HER WORDS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE HER OPINION.
that's BULLSHIT.
any 1 who knows me knows i'm not afraid to go public with anything.
the only thing i've ever not gone into fully that i wanted to was my abortion and that was because my ex-in-laws were screaming their heads off and i didn't want it to screw over my ex-husband (who is fine with me posting anything about the abortion or any thing else).
but they were worried about their reputations.
because MY ABORTION isn't MY GODDAMN STORY. it's apparently their story.
it happened to ME but i don't have the RIGHT to write about it.
so i am taking this personally, what's happened to my friend.
my friend needed some 1 to talk to.
so i listened.
she doesn't want me to blow this up so i won't name her or him.
but i'm SICK OF THIS SHIT.
i'm going to use wally as example because every 1 knows how cool wally is and that he'd never pull this type of shit.
let's say that i blogged here 'i don't think florida's a big deal.' (i do think it's a big deal.)
wally's got a site. he can post whatever he wants up there.
he would not have the right to contact me and demand a correction.
WOMEN HAVE OPINIONS.
WOMEN CAN EXPRESS THEM.
IT IS BULLSHIT FOR MEN TO PULL THIS CRAP AND THEY DON'T PULL IT WITH GUYS THEY JUST PULL WITH US.
i'm sick of it.
the guy posted his opinion of her opinion at his site.
but that's not good enough for him.
he wants a CORRECTION to her opinions.
that is BULLSHIT.
she's not angry.
she's trying to work through an understanding with the man.
i love her to death but she doesn't need to work through an understanding.
i've read what she wrote. i've read what he wrote.
she didn't weigh in on his opinion.
she doesn't need to correct her opinion of the attack comments.
women, we need to STOP doing this shit.
we need to stop worrying about the hurt feelings of little boys.
we need to stop thinking that because they gripe it's somehow our fault.
it's not our fault.
it's their fault for thinking a woman can't have a DAMN opinion of her own.
it's their fault for thinking they can whine or gripe or demand a correction.
i've so had it with this shit.
i am so sick of men playing mr. macho and telling just what they think online but let a woman disagree and they want a fucking correction which they whine about in private.
he's got his own damn site. he's posted his damn opinion.
he needs to apologize to my friend.
his lack of agreement with her opinion doesn't mean he gets a correction.
there's nothing to correct.
when i briefly worked in the entertainment industry out in los angeles, there were 2 clients who wanted corrections to every story that was written about them.
so you'd have to humor them because unless there's an error, a magazine won't give you a correction. if they print the wrong birthday for you, they'll correct it. if they get your credit wrong, they'll correct it.
if their opinion differs from you, they don't correct it.
i ask male bloggers all the time, 'do you have to put up with shit?' and they don't.
but let a woman write something and men think they can demand whatever changes they want.
take your pissing match into the men's room.
we don't need you to wave your dick.
i told her there's nothing about him in her post that needs correcting.
she could posting today but she's waiting for his reply.
and isn't that just like a man to leave a woman waiting?
i'm so sick of the bullshit.
again, he's posted his opinion at his site.
his opinion doesn't capture what she wrote but is she screaming for a correction?
no.
he's got a site to post at.
he doesn't need to try to force her to do a correction.
that's bullshit.
men like that need to start learning some boundaries.
and women, we need to stop letting them mind fuck us.
it's not our job to kiss their boo-boos or help their wounded egos.
we are not their mothers.
maybe this guy hasn't read her reply yet, like she thinks.
i don't give a damn.
you don't demand a correction and then not reply to the person.
and let's just note the 2 e-mails.
his? all about him. taking her to task for her opinion.
her's? telling him that she didn't take apart his opinion. he wasn't the fcous of her entry. he could have been and she explained where she disagreed with his opinion but noted that she didn't post her disagreements.
women, we need to quite explaining ourselves to men.
with some men, it doesn't do any good.
he fired off his e-mail and probably gave his boner a tug.
now she's fucked over and can't post because she doesnt want to write anything until she's tried to work out some understanding with him.
i don't take this shit. and i know from women bloggers that they say they find that 'inspiring.'
quit being inspired by me and start using your strength.
because until you do this same shit happens over and over.
i respond to every female blogger who writes me with this type of problem.
i know it's not an isolated incident.
i know that women get these e-mails from men all the time.
there are women who won't blog about politics because of this crap. they wanted to, they started to and then some man e-mailed them screaming that they better change this or change that.
as centrist ed learned, i don't grovel, i don't plead.
you didn't like my crack about your hair, ed? too bad, get a grown up hair cut and don't give me a whiney ass reason why you couldn't get your hair cut before you posed for a professional photo.
i don't back down and that's partly because of the hell i went through with my abortion and partly because i hear from women that it really inspires them.
i'm glad if inspires some 1. but we really need to stop this crap.
i can stand up for me and i will stand up for any woman blogger who's got some man sniffing around, growling that she apologize.
but it needs to be more than me or more than few others and me.
when we don't stand up to men, we make it harder for another woman.
i love my friend very much. but her efforts to find an understanding with this man don't help the next woman he demands back off her opinion and give him a correction.
a correction he feels is 'obvious.' not so 'obvious' that he can name it.
it's obvious to him. it's always obvious to men like that.
he can't point to an error because there's not 1.
he just doesn't like her opinion.
and when it's a woman apparently, if you don't like the opinion, you don't just blog that you don't like it, you demand a correction because big bad you won't be pushed around by some woman!
that's a hell of a sense of entitlement.
i'm sick of it.
i have heard from too many women this same story.
we need to stop backing down. we need to stop trying to work through an understanding with men we have no relationship with - men who only show up to tell us 'you are wrong!'
do you catch the shout outs online? men shouting to men.
women don't get shout outs as a rule, they get shouted at.
it is unacceptable.
if he offers an apology tomorrow, i'll let this drop. but i don't think he's going to apologize.
i have a lot of high school readers and i love you but, please, male or female, do not act this way.
if you're a guy and you disagree with a woman do not make the mistake of thinking you can demand that she changes her mind. if you are a woman, do not let some guy do that to you.
if we all stood up just 1 day, this crap would happen a lot less. if we all stood up just 1 month, i bet it would cut it out.
and don't make the mistake of thinking that when a guy tells you that you have made an obvious mistake that you have in fact made any mistake. that's just his opinion. you can blow it off and you should.
he is not ruler of the universe and he is not ruler of your's. you need to own your own universe.
if he calls you a bitch, guess what? you will live through it.
there are many worse things to be called.
in the past, i have suggested to women that they post those e-mails.
these guys don't want to do this in public. they want to bully a woman into changing her mind in private. then when she posts their 'correction' they can claim that she came to it all on her own.
if you knew some of the stories i've heard since i started blogging, you'd know this is not uncommon. and you'd raise an eyebrow when a woman blogger 'clarifies' a previous post.
we need to stop doing that.
i wonder if it happens to women who try to be op-ed writers in print?
i won't cave. i'll stop blogging before i cave.
i'll continue to be here for any women blogger that goes through this shit.
but i want you to know, not all male bloggers are like that. you would actually have a lot of support online if you challenged and outed these men.
there are a lot of male bloggers who weren't aware of what was going on.
there's 1 who has a standing offer to several female bloggers to back them and post on his site, which is a pretty big site, if they want to out these men.
so if you're reading this and you are 1 of those male bloggers that thinks you can have a fit in private and no 1 will ever know, you need to think again. because it's not just me that's getting sick of this crap.
there are men who respect that a woman can have an opinion they disagree with. they can even tell you 'i disagree' and not demand that you change your opinion.
this is a pattern of sexism and it's a new form so i'm glad i've written so much about this because as we spend more and more time online, this will be an issue that's discussd in the future.
and men who are behaving badly better be worried because it won't stay silent forever.
i dealt with 3 female bloggers on this last week who e-mailed me to share the latest demands from a man.
they alway have their own sites, these men, but they always want to contact you privately and tell you to make a correction.
guess what? if you don't make it, they go away.
when ed realized i wasn't going to rewrite my post about his hair, he moved on.
no more of his whining to c.i. about how mean i was and how i needed to change my post and correct it because he was going through a really bad time and he didn't need my mean remarks.
well if he'd gotten his hair cut for a photo he was posing for, 1 that he knew his organization was going to promote, he wouldn't have had a problem to begin with.
if he hadn't tried to act like a friend to social security, while arguing for privatization, he wouldn't have had to deal with me to begin with.
apparently i'm the 1st woman that ever said no to him. (shocking to me as well.) he got over it.
here's some tips for women bloggers:
1) you have a right to have an opinion
2) you have a right to express it
3) you have a right not to back off of your opinion because some guy's feelings are hurt
here's some tips for male bloggers who think they can force a woman to change her mind:
1) you're going to find at some point a woman who won't back down
2) when that happens realize that you are the 1 with the problem
3) try to grasp that women have brains and not just boobs
i love the men who've griped at me while at the same time wanting to know exactly how large my breasts are?
they want me to be their ideal woman, big breasts and no words that ever disagree with them.
boys, when you want that, pick up a playboy because that only happens in your little fantasies.
it's not reality and it's too bad that you haven't been forced to face reality yet in your life.
there's a reason your jerk off fantasy is only a fantasy - in the real world, women have opinions and you won't always agree with them but that doesn't mean you're right or that you can get a corretion to some woman's opinion.
if i've misjudged this man, i'll let it drop. but i don't think i have. a man who can't tell the difference between opinion and fact, a man who tells a woman she needs to re-read his post when she didn't argue his post and when he 'obviously' hasn't read her's is a man i think i can determine pretty well.
12/06/2005
peanuts and the press
Judge Upholds Money Laundering Charge Against Tom Delay
Republican Congressman Tom Delay suffered a setback Monday after a Texas judge refused to throw out money laundering charges against him. The judge however did throw out conspiracy charges against Delay, the former House Majority Leader. Delay is accused of illegally funneling $190,000 in corporate donations to 2002 Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature. Money laundering is punishable by five years to life. Despite the indictment the Bush administration remains close to Delay. Last night Vice President Dick Cheney traveled to Houston to headline a fundraiser for the Texan Congressman.
that's from democracy now and i'm noting it because gloria borger (looking washed out and in dire need of hair cut and stylist) spun it a little differently on the cbs evening news monday. gloria was all grins and good humor as she blathered on about how this was good news for tom delay. the way she spoke, 1/2 the charges were tossed out. that's not quite correct. there were 3 charges and only 1 was tossed out.
the mainstream media just gets more and more disgusting.
i've got the tv on and am watching peanuts. i've seen this christmas special every year and i don't think it's ever failed to cheer me up until this year.
it can't be the weather, i love the cold weather.
it can't be the cartoon. i've loved it forever.
snoopy playing the guitar, pig pen playing the base, violet's clumsy dancing - what is she doing with those hands. and who's the kid with the spikes in the orange shirt doing the snoopy dance? he's standing right next to snoopy who, since he's playing the guitar, isn't doing the snoopy dance.
and who's shermy? i never see him except in this cartoon. and why does he look exactly linus 2 years older?
are they cousins? did lucy & linus' father step out? he and linus look so much alike.
i think it's the press that has me so depressed.
so let's focus on the press. this is the third estate sunday review's 'when did woody realize what he knew?' in full:
BOB WOODWARD: We pour garbage on people.
ANNOUNCER: And the press knows it.
ANDREA MITCHELL: I think we are really unpopular.
FRONTLINE Show #1503
Air Date: October 22, 1996
"Why America Hates the Press"
The focus of this piece is Bob Woodward but when Andrea Mitchell tells the truth, it is NEWS so we had to include it.
So aging golden boy Woody's argued that some of the criticsm directed his way of late results from the press' natural tendency to tear someone down in order to build them back up. Woody's arguing that the press needs "a story" and will create one when it has to.We don't disagree. Nor do we think it's a terribly new point that Woody's making. Carly Simon made many similar comments in the eighties. Joni Mitchell's also made similar comments going back to the seventies.But there are two issues that come to mind.
First, does Woody think he is an "artist." We thought he pushed the fantasy that he was a reporter.
Second, when a Carly Simon or Joni Mitchell makes those comments, they're talking about how their latest release is being trashed. "Torn down to build them up later on because otherwise the press has no story" is the argument.
Woody doesn't record, so exactly what "product" does he believe is being trashed?
There's no new book.
Does Woody think he is the product?
We wouldn't be surprised.
But while we can agree that the Woody's comments are sometimes true, we're having a hard time seeing how they apply to Woody.
He is news now. Something he always wants to be.
But he's news not because of anything he did but for failing to a) tell the public that he was informed Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA operative while publicly weighing in with his opinions on the investigation headed by Patrick Fitzgerald and b) failing to inform his editor that he had knowledge of the Plame leak.
It's frequently amusing to watch Woody attempt to defend himself.
His comments reveal more than he means to.
For instance his most recent Larry King Live appearance, how long did it take him to plug his upcoming book?
It was in his third response:
I'm working on a book, "Bush's Second Term." I'm trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. There are things I know that I'm just not going to talk about involving that research.
Not "I'm working on a new book." No, "I'm working on a book" plug title "Bush's Second Term."
Ladies and gentlemen, the aging starlet, Bob Woodward. Jacqueline Susann could not have plugged so shamelessly.It just got better.
According to Woody:
Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.
I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?" And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."
And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion."
Agressive reporting mode"? "Incredibly" or not, we're not seeing it. Agressive reporting mode isn't calling the leak and saying, "We spoke of this!" We're not seeing anything in Woody's narrative indicating he's going to write about it. It reads like Woody's attempt to shoot the breeze. Or possibly to make sure both parties were on the same page. Obviously, they weren't. The source goes to the prosectuion and Woody's disappointment over that development can be inferred from his statement "I realized I was going to be dragged into this . . . "
We chuckled over his talk of his "news juices." We laughed most of all at this:
WOODWARD: It may be but I pressed that source as much as you can and I'm not going to -- if you remember back into Watergate and Mark Felt, the number two in the FBI who was the source "Deep Throat" we kept that secret for 33 years because the source insisted upon it.
Woody's speaking of his "source" for a report he never wrote. He's speaking of the person who leaked on Valerie Plame to him.
Watergate, Woody and Carl Bernstein wrote about. (Woody likes to trot out Carl more these days to hide behind but he's still eager to claim credit for himself.) Mark Felt was kept a secret because he could be retaliated against.
Woody's leak (not source) has informed his superiors of the conversation with Woody. Woody has informed the prosecuters. The only ones who haven't been informed are the public. Woody's seeing commonalities where there are none.
He's also offering a shifting rationale. In the same Larry King interview, he claims initially that it hit him when Scooter Libby was indicted that he had another piece of the story -- one that wasn't known. (Apparently from offhand gossip if his earlier claims are to be believed.) So he picked up the phone to call his leak. But at the end of the King interview, Woody says this:
I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.
This year? Earlier? And in 2004?
When did Woody realize what he knew?
The issue's pressing to him, in some of his accounts, when he learns the date of Judith Miller & Scooter Libby's conversation. In others, he's been trying to get this story out "in the newspaper or a book" as far back as 2004. Since Woody lives by his anonymous, official sources, we're failing to see what "information" he was waiting to be given before writing about it.
But is anyone going to call Woody on the contradictions in his remarks on King's show? Commenting on his minimizing of the investigation on an earlier King telecast (October 27, 2005), Woody states:
At that point and on your show I didn't know what that meant at all because it was such a casual offhand remark.
"I didn't know what all this meant." While claiming, in the same broadcast, that he made efforts earlier this year and in 2004 to press the leak on this matter?
There are a number of journalistic issues that Woody's behavior raises. It's too bad a journalistic watchdog refuses to hunt. Instead of barking, it's preferred to sniff around the old pile of crap that is Judith Miller's career. It's certainly safer. It doesn't even upset The New York Times because the paper doesn't care if Miller's beat up on for her public statements. It's not as though the watchdog's going through Miller's past reporting for the paper. They're just grabbing the stick and hitting the pinata one more time. Pity they're so silent on Bob Woodward.
that was written by: "The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,Mike of Mikey Likes It!,Elaine of Like Maria Said Pazand Wally of The Daily Jot"
'he never got his picture on a bubble gum card? how can you say someone's great when he's never had his picture on a bubble gum card?'
schroeder and lucy. she'll say anything to try to get his attention. she'll make him mad, she'll argue with him. just trying to get him to look at her.
yes, i'm back on peanuts. and while i'm on it, why did lucy and violet look so much alike? if violet didn't wear her hair up, wouldn't they look exactly alike?
when i was little, i used to like linus. now he's just too much of a goody-goody and his voice creeps me out. you just know he's going to grow up to be ned flanders (the simpsons).
the 1 who looks linus and schroeder hold my interest more these days.
1 person i never liked was charlie brown. i don't care if it was in the pumpkin patch or where, charlie brown always bored me to death.
snoopy's always held my interest. so have peppermint patty and marci. but for a different reason. when i was a kid, i just found them funny, especially patty who wasn't taking any crap. as i grew older, i did start to wonder about exactly what was going on there?
if they did a live action peanuts tv special, i'd cast the following:
lucy: shannen dougherty
charlie brown: nathan lane
linus: matthew broadrick
sally: courtney thorne-smith
schroeder: ike barenholtz
pig pen: michael weatherly
peppermint patti: jennifer garner
marci: ellen degeneres
frida: margaret cho
rerun: seth green
violet: alyssa milano
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
the daily jot
kats korner
thomas friedman is a great man
democracy now
Republican Congressman Tom Delay suffered a setback Monday after a Texas judge refused to throw out money laundering charges against him. The judge however did throw out conspiracy charges against Delay, the former House Majority Leader. Delay is accused of illegally funneling $190,000 in corporate donations to 2002 Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature. Money laundering is punishable by five years to life. Despite the indictment the Bush administration remains close to Delay. Last night Vice President Dick Cheney traveled to Houston to headline a fundraiser for the Texan Congressman.
that's from democracy now and i'm noting it because gloria borger (looking washed out and in dire need of hair cut and stylist) spun it a little differently on the cbs evening news monday. gloria was all grins and good humor as she blathered on about how this was good news for tom delay. the way she spoke, 1/2 the charges were tossed out. that's not quite correct. there were 3 charges and only 1 was tossed out.
the mainstream media just gets more and more disgusting.
i've got the tv on and am watching peanuts. i've seen this christmas special every year and i don't think it's ever failed to cheer me up until this year.
it can't be the weather, i love the cold weather.
it can't be the cartoon. i've loved it forever.
snoopy playing the guitar, pig pen playing the base, violet's clumsy dancing - what is she doing with those hands. and who's the kid with the spikes in the orange shirt doing the snoopy dance? he's standing right next to snoopy who, since he's playing the guitar, isn't doing the snoopy dance.
and who's shermy? i never see him except in this cartoon. and why does he look exactly linus 2 years older?
are they cousins? did lucy & linus' father step out? he and linus look so much alike.
i think it's the press that has me so depressed.
so let's focus on the press. this is the third estate sunday review's 'when did woody realize what he knew?' in full:
BOB WOODWARD: We pour garbage on people.
ANNOUNCER: And the press knows it.
ANDREA MITCHELL: I think we are really unpopular.
FRONTLINE Show #1503
Air Date: October 22, 1996
"Why America Hates the Press"
The focus of this piece is Bob Woodward but when Andrea Mitchell tells the truth, it is NEWS so we had to include it.
So aging golden boy Woody's argued that some of the criticsm directed his way of late results from the press' natural tendency to tear someone down in order to build them back up. Woody's arguing that the press needs "a story" and will create one when it has to.We don't disagree. Nor do we think it's a terribly new point that Woody's making. Carly Simon made many similar comments in the eighties. Joni Mitchell's also made similar comments going back to the seventies.But there are two issues that come to mind.
First, does Woody think he is an "artist." We thought he pushed the fantasy that he was a reporter.
Second, when a Carly Simon or Joni Mitchell makes those comments, they're talking about how their latest release is being trashed. "Torn down to build them up later on because otherwise the press has no story" is the argument.
Woody doesn't record, so exactly what "product" does he believe is being trashed?
There's no new book.
Does Woody think he is the product?
We wouldn't be surprised.
But while we can agree that the Woody's comments are sometimes true, we're having a hard time seeing how they apply to Woody.
He is news now. Something he always wants to be.
But he's news not because of anything he did but for failing to a) tell the public that he was informed Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA operative while publicly weighing in with his opinions on the investigation headed by Patrick Fitzgerald and b) failing to inform his editor that he had knowledge of the Plame leak.
It's frequently amusing to watch Woody attempt to defend himself.
His comments reveal more than he means to.
For instance his most recent Larry King Live appearance, how long did it take him to plug his upcoming book?
It was in his third response:
I'm working on a book, "Bush's Second Term." I'm trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. There are things I know that I'm just not going to talk about involving that research.
Not "I'm working on a new book." No, "I'm working on a book" plug title "Bush's Second Term."
Ladies and gentlemen, the aging starlet, Bob Woodward. Jacqueline Susann could not have plugged so shamelessly.It just got better.
According to Woody:
Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.
I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?" And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."
And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion."
Agressive reporting mode"? "Incredibly" or not, we're not seeing it. Agressive reporting mode isn't calling the leak and saying, "We spoke of this!" We're not seeing anything in Woody's narrative indicating he's going to write about it. It reads like Woody's attempt to shoot the breeze. Or possibly to make sure both parties were on the same page. Obviously, they weren't. The source goes to the prosectuion and Woody's disappointment over that development can be inferred from his statement "I realized I was going to be dragged into this . . . "
We chuckled over his talk of his "news juices." We laughed most of all at this:
WOODWARD: It may be but I pressed that source as much as you can and I'm not going to -- if you remember back into Watergate and Mark Felt, the number two in the FBI who was the source "Deep Throat" we kept that secret for 33 years because the source insisted upon it.
Woody's speaking of his "source" for a report he never wrote. He's speaking of the person who leaked on Valerie Plame to him.
Watergate, Woody and Carl Bernstein wrote about. (Woody likes to trot out Carl more these days to hide behind but he's still eager to claim credit for himself.) Mark Felt was kept a secret because he could be retaliated against.
Woody's leak (not source) has informed his superiors of the conversation with Woody. Woody has informed the prosecuters. The only ones who haven't been informed are the public. Woody's seeing commonalities where there are none.
He's also offering a shifting rationale. In the same Larry King interview, he claims initially that it hit him when Scooter Libby was indicted that he had another piece of the story -- one that wasn't known. (Apparently from offhand gossip if his earlier claims are to be believed.) So he picked up the phone to call his leak. But at the end of the King interview, Woody says this:
I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.
This year? Earlier? And in 2004?
When did Woody realize what he knew?
The issue's pressing to him, in some of his accounts, when he learns the date of Judith Miller & Scooter Libby's conversation. In others, he's been trying to get this story out "in the newspaper or a book" as far back as 2004. Since Woody lives by his anonymous, official sources, we're failing to see what "information" he was waiting to be given before writing about it.
But is anyone going to call Woody on the contradictions in his remarks on King's show? Commenting on his minimizing of the investigation on an earlier King telecast (October 27, 2005), Woody states:
At that point and on your show I didn't know what that meant at all because it was such a casual offhand remark.
"I didn't know what all this meant." While claiming, in the same broadcast, that he made efforts earlier this year and in 2004 to press the leak on this matter?
There are a number of journalistic issues that Woody's behavior raises. It's too bad a journalistic watchdog refuses to hunt. Instead of barking, it's preferred to sniff around the old pile of crap that is Judith Miller's career. It's certainly safer. It doesn't even upset The New York Times because the paper doesn't care if Miller's beat up on for her public statements. It's not as though the watchdog's going through Miller's past reporting for the paper. They're just grabbing the stick and hitting the pinata one more time. Pity they're so silent on Bob Woodward.
that was written by: "The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,Mike of Mikey Likes It!,Elaine of Like Maria Said Pazand Wally of The Daily Jot"
'he never got his picture on a bubble gum card? how can you say someone's great when he's never had his picture on a bubble gum card?'
schroeder and lucy. she'll say anything to try to get his attention. she'll make him mad, she'll argue with him. just trying to get him to look at her.
yes, i'm back on peanuts. and while i'm on it, why did lucy and violet look so much alike? if violet didn't wear her hair up, wouldn't they look exactly alike?
when i was little, i used to like linus. now he's just too much of a goody-goody and his voice creeps me out. you just know he's going to grow up to be ned flanders (the simpsons).
the 1 who looks linus and schroeder hold my interest more these days.
1 person i never liked was charlie brown. i don't care if it was in the pumpkin patch or where, charlie brown always bored me to death.
snoopy's always held my interest. so have peppermint patty and marci. but for a different reason. when i was a kid, i just found them funny, especially patty who wasn't taking any crap. as i grew older, i did start to wonder about exactly what was going on there?
if they did a live action peanuts tv special, i'd cast the following:
lucy: shannen dougherty
charlie brown: nathan lane
linus: matthew broadrick
sally: courtney thorne-smith
schroeder: ike barenholtz
pig pen: michael weatherly
peppermint patti: jennifer garner
marci: ellen degeneres
frida: margaret cho
rerun: seth green
violet: alyssa milano
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
the daily jot
kats korner
thomas friedman is a great man
democracy now
obligations
i'm posting late because i had stuff to do. i just called mike on his cell even though it's almost 1 in the morning because he asked me too. i'm supposed to call elaine as well. you're wondering - what, no 1's got an alarm clock?
they do but they want to be sure that they're up.
which is why they asked me and not c.i. because, honestly, c.i. won't do it. not after midnight. not for this reason.
what's the reason? blogger was acting up and they were doing some sort of update to the program.
you couldn't read any of the blog spot sites. not really.
elaine and mike went ahead and wrote their posts for tonight. they both try to post and get a message that a) tells them their posts are not lost - good, but b) won't go up due to blogger maintenance.
elaine just wanted to go to bed and it wasn't even 7pm. which always means she's had a rough day. i started to do a joke here but i know elaine would be pissed and say 'rebecca, some 1's going to think "oh, they do talk about their patients!" and that might stop the person from getting therapy.' whether totally sane or a complete loon, elaine never talks about the people she treats. but i know her well enough to know that when she's wiped out like that, it usually means a very intense day of therapy giving.
which is the same conclusion c.i. would draw. which is why elaine told mike, 'we've got to call rebecca.' if this were some sport or live event or to hit the road to travel or something, c.i. would honor the request. but for blogging?
c.i. would say, 'oh i'm sorry i forgot' because c.i.'s attitude would be 'they need their sleep and this can wait.'
so they call me and i was cool with calling mike because i know he's up, at the computer, publishing and indexing and then crawling right back into bed. but to be honest, with elaine, i am hestitating.
she won't crawl back into bed if she was so exhausted from doing analysis today. she'll finish publishing. make a cup of coffee. probably tea or cocoa due to the hour. and she'll be up for a few hours.
there is 1 issue that always exhausts her. i know that because in college just studying it would exhaust her. she never has to say (and never has) 'i was talking to some 1 about __ today' because it's obvious to me what it is. (and she never would. she doesn't speak in generalities about it with us lay people.) so i'm thinking, do i wake her or not?
she asked me to. it's after 1 now. she'll be up for a few hours if i do.
i will after i post this. i'll let the phone ring twice. if she doesn't answer on the 2nd ring, i'll hang up.
and i'll also blog about the thing that was on tv while i was getting the snack food ready for tonight. i had finger foods, hot and cold, for guests because we're trying to reach out to every 1 we know on this hideous alito nomination.
and t came by early to help me get everything together because she's such a great friend. she turned on the tv in the living room because she wanted to see some coverage on iraq and asked me if there was 1 i didn't want to watch?
i loathe brian williams as everyone who's read for some time knows. so that leaves out nbc. so t puts it on cbs.
the story, which probably was the lead, was saddam's trial.
the reporter was kimberly dozier who i've never seen before or heard the name of but she was such a kimberly and dozier rhymes with croshere and when i was married and 'fly boy' had to watch his basketball, i'd sit there ranking the players. austion croshere is, or was, a forward for the pacers and he was completely do-able. then. he may not be now. now he may have a bald spot. looked like 1 was about to develop at the back of his head.
like the 1 tom delay has now. i didn't know he had it. but he was the 2nd story. they showed him from behind. head of hair is going bald. has a bald spot at the top of the back of his head. that was worth a laugh.
which was needed because kimberly dozier is a total tool and so is old man bob who really just needs to head shady oaks retirement home already.
what happened at the trial?
if you watched cbs, you had no idea.
they threw news standards out the window.
news standards would have meant treating it as a news story.
instead they went for propaganda.
and this is what's so disgusting, they knew they could.
they knew probably no 1 would call them on it.
because who likes saddam hussein?
i don't. you don't. we don't care about him.
and watching kimberly dozier 'report' and bob ask follow up questions, i realized how awful that was: because no 1 cares, they can do what ever they want.
they don't have to tell the truth.
and maybe that's when you judge a 'reporter' or how.
with a story involving some 1 who's not sympathetic or loveable and has no vocal defenders, do they report the truth or do they use the 'report' to score points?
they acted like 2 little vindictive kids.
here's what happened at saddam's trial today: the defense walked out when ramsey clark wsn't allowed to speak. if you watched democracy now or listened to pacifica, you knew that.
if you watched cbs only, you didn't.
here's what you were told if you watched cbs.
they were making a mockery of the court (bob said something to that effect in his exchange with kimberly). kimberly ridiculed clark for asking for protection for saddam's lawyers.
neither bob or kimberly pointed out that saddam's lawyers have been targeted and 1 or 2 killed.
you didn't get to hear ramsey clark speak because kimberly was to busy telling you her spin anytime ramsey came up in the clip.
she lied and let me put that in caps LIED and said that saddam's half-brother threatened a witness. he had an outburst and made a statement that wasn't a threat. but she knows no 1 will fact check her. she knows the world hates saddam so she can say whatever the hell she wants.
bob knew it too. which is why he felt the need to smear ramsey clark and kimberly was happy to join in.
bob offers that lbj once said that his greatest regret was in making clark attorney general and kimberly runs with it.
uh, gulf of tonkin, bob!
we know it was a lie. we know congress' approval was a lie.
so maybe you shouldn't hide behind lbj when you want to trash?
or maybe you shouldn't take delight in trashing some 1 if you want to be an anchor on cbs - maybe you should move over to fox?
reporters are supposed to report.
t and i were watching that and just disgusted.
you see clowning all the time.
but i don't know that i've seen it so naked on a non fox 'news' broadcast.
maybe it was just knowing that they knew no 1 would call them on it.
who wants to be called 'saddam defender' or 'saddam lover'?
no 1.
so they'll probably get away with what was 1 of the most slanted reports to ever bear cbs' name.
what did ramsey clark say? since cbs never told you, let's go to democracy now:
Saddam's Lawyers Walk Out Of Trial In Protest
Earlier today the war crimes trial of Saddam Hussein resumed. The former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark briefly addressed the court on behalf of Hussein's defense team. He said "Reconciliation is essential. This trial can divide or heal. Unless it is seen as absolutely fair, and fair in fact, it will divide rather than reconcile Iraq." Saddam Hussein's entire defense team walked out of the court after the chief trial judge refused to allow Clark to challenge the tribunal's legitimacy. At one point during the session Hussein and his half brother Barazan Ibrahim chanted "Long live Iraq, long live the Arab state." Then Ibrahim stood up and shouted: "Why don't you just execute us and get rid of all of this!"
the story mattered. it mattered for a number of reasons.
1) it served as a test. when they knew they could do whatever they want, because no 1 would object, would they report the news or would they spin propaganda? the answer is that cbs goes for propaganda.
2) the trial is causing tensions in iraq. that does effect a number of things. but you have no idea why kimberly speaks of the need for the military to guard the court house because every person they did let speak, i'm assuming they were all shia, vouches for their belief.
but if you know even a little bit about iraq, you know that a lot of iraqis see the trial as humiliating. they don't feel that iraq is in charge, they don't feel that the trial is anything but a show trial - due to the americans, not saddam's defense - and they find the whole thing humiliating.
that's news america should be aware of.
instead bob and kimberly thought they could act like 2 little mean girls and spin it anyway they wanted to. it was disgusting.
but don't be surprised if no 1 tells you about it. not because people love cbs evening news but because who wants to point out that even someone as vile as saddam is deserving of accurate coverage? no 1.
let me go try to wake elaine (with 2 rings). after i'll probably call c.i. because it's a different time zone and i want to hear how tonight went.
the common ills
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
democracy now
they do but they want to be sure that they're up.
which is why they asked me and not c.i. because, honestly, c.i. won't do it. not after midnight. not for this reason.
what's the reason? blogger was acting up and they were doing some sort of update to the program.
you couldn't read any of the blog spot sites. not really.
elaine and mike went ahead and wrote their posts for tonight. they both try to post and get a message that a) tells them their posts are not lost - good, but b) won't go up due to blogger maintenance.
elaine just wanted to go to bed and it wasn't even 7pm. which always means she's had a rough day. i started to do a joke here but i know elaine would be pissed and say 'rebecca, some 1's going to think "oh, they do talk about their patients!" and that might stop the person from getting therapy.' whether totally sane or a complete loon, elaine never talks about the people she treats. but i know her well enough to know that when she's wiped out like that, it usually means a very intense day of therapy giving.
which is the same conclusion c.i. would draw. which is why elaine told mike, 'we've got to call rebecca.' if this were some sport or live event or to hit the road to travel or something, c.i. would honor the request. but for blogging?
c.i. would say, 'oh i'm sorry i forgot' because c.i.'s attitude would be 'they need their sleep and this can wait.'
so they call me and i was cool with calling mike because i know he's up, at the computer, publishing and indexing and then crawling right back into bed. but to be honest, with elaine, i am hestitating.
she won't crawl back into bed if she was so exhausted from doing analysis today. she'll finish publishing. make a cup of coffee. probably tea or cocoa due to the hour. and she'll be up for a few hours.
there is 1 issue that always exhausts her. i know that because in college just studying it would exhaust her. she never has to say (and never has) 'i was talking to some 1 about __ today' because it's obvious to me what it is. (and she never would. she doesn't speak in generalities about it with us lay people.) so i'm thinking, do i wake her or not?
she asked me to. it's after 1 now. she'll be up for a few hours if i do.
i will after i post this. i'll let the phone ring twice. if she doesn't answer on the 2nd ring, i'll hang up.
and i'll also blog about the thing that was on tv while i was getting the snack food ready for tonight. i had finger foods, hot and cold, for guests because we're trying to reach out to every 1 we know on this hideous alito nomination.
and t came by early to help me get everything together because she's such a great friend. she turned on the tv in the living room because she wanted to see some coverage on iraq and asked me if there was 1 i didn't want to watch?
i loathe brian williams as everyone who's read for some time knows. so that leaves out nbc. so t puts it on cbs.
the story, which probably was the lead, was saddam's trial.
the reporter was kimberly dozier who i've never seen before or heard the name of but she was such a kimberly and dozier rhymes with croshere and when i was married and 'fly boy' had to watch his basketball, i'd sit there ranking the players. austion croshere is, or was, a forward for the pacers and he was completely do-able. then. he may not be now. now he may have a bald spot. looked like 1 was about to develop at the back of his head.
like the 1 tom delay has now. i didn't know he had it. but he was the 2nd story. they showed him from behind. head of hair is going bald. has a bald spot at the top of the back of his head. that was worth a laugh.
which was needed because kimberly dozier is a total tool and so is old man bob who really just needs to head shady oaks retirement home already.
what happened at the trial?
if you watched cbs, you had no idea.
they threw news standards out the window.
news standards would have meant treating it as a news story.
instead they went for propaganda.
and this is what's so disgusting, they knew they could.
they knew probably no 1 would call them on it.
because who likes saddam hussein?
i don't. you don't. we don't care about him.
and watching kimberly dozier 'report' and bob ask follow up questions, i realized how awful that was: because no 1 cares, they can do what ever they want.
they don't have to tell the truth.
and maybe that's when you judge a 'reporter' or how.
with a story involving some 1 who's not sympathetic or loveable and has no vocal defenders, do they report the truth or do they use the 'report' to score points?
they acted like 2 little vindictive kids.
here's what happened at saddam's trial today: the defense walked out when ramsey clark wsn't allowed to speak. if you watched democracy now or listened to pacifica, you knew that.
if you watched cbs only, you didn't.
here's what you were told if you watched cbs.
they were making a mockery of the court (bob said something to that effect in his exchange with kimberly). kimberly ridiculed clark for asking for protection for saddam's lawyers.
neither bob or kimberly pointed out that saddam's lawyers have been targeted and 1 or 2 killed.
you didn't get to hear ramsey clark speak because kimberly was to busy telling you her spin anytime ramsey came up in the clip.
she lied and let me put that in caps LIED and said that saddam's half-brother threatened a witness. he had an outburst and made a statement that wasn't a threat. but she knows no 1 will fact check her. she knows the world hates saddam so she can say whatever the hell she wants.
bob knew it too. which is why he felt the need to smear ramsey clark and kimberly was happy to join in.
bob offers that lbj once said that his greatest regret was in making clark attorney general and kimberly runs with it.
uh, gulf of tonkin, bob!
we know it was a lie. we know congress' approval was a lie.
so maybe you shouldn't hide behind lbj when you want to trash?
or maybe you shouldn't take delight in trashing some 1 if you want to be an anchor on cbs - maybe you should move over to fox?
reporters are supposed to report.
t and i were watching that and just disgusted.
you see clowning all the time.
but i don't know that i've seen it so naked on a non fox 'news' broadcast.
maybe it was just knowing that they knew no 1 would call them on it.
who wants to be called 'saddam defender' or 'saddam lover'?
no 1.
so they'll probably get away with what was 1 of the most slanted reports to ever bear cbs' name.
what did ramsey clark say? since cbs never told you, let's go to democracy now:
Saddam's Lawyers Walk Out Of Trial In Protest
Earlier today the war crimes trial of Saddam Hussein resumed. The former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark briefly addressed the court on behalf of Hussein's defense team. He said "Reconciliation is essential. This trial can divide or heal. Unless it is seen as absolutely fair, and fair in fact, it will divide rather than reconcile Iraq." Saddam Hussein's entire defense team walked out of the court after the chief trial judge refused to allow Clark to challenge the tribunal's legitimacy. At one point during the session Hussein and his half brother Barazan Ibrahim chanted "Long live Iraq, long live the Arab state." Then Ibrahim stood up and shouted: "Why don't you just execute us and get rid of all of this!"
the story mattered. it mattered for a number of reasons.
1) it served as a test. when they knew they could do whatever they want, because no 1 would object, would they report the news or would they spin propaganda? the answer is that cbs goes for propaganda.
2) the trial is causing tensions in iraq. that does effect a number of things. but you have no idea why kimberly speaks of the need for the military to guard the court house because every person they did let speak, i'm assuming they were all shia, vouches for their belief.
but if you know even a little bit about iraq, you know that a lot of iraqis see the trial as humiliating. they don't feel that iraq is in charge, they don't feel that the trial is anything but a show trial - due to the americans, not saddam's defense - and they find the whole thing humiliating.
that's news america should be aware of.
instead bob and kimberly thought they could act like 2 little mean girls and spin it anyway they wanted to. it was disgusting.
but don't be surprised if no 1 tells you about it. not because people love cbs evening news but because who wants to point out that even someone as vile as saddam is deserving of accurate coverage? no 1.
let me go try to wake elaine (with 2 rings). after i'll probably call c.i. because it's a different time zone and i want to hear how tonight went.
the common ills
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
democracy now
12/03/2005
saturday post
a lot of grumbles about "nothing's up on the weekends" have resulted in me attempting, this week and next, to blog on the weekend. i'm not really into it. i like my downtime. and i'm already working with the third estate sunday review for a lot of hours on the weekend so i'm not really into coming up with more thoughts for my own site.
i also don't buy the 'there's nothing up on the weekends' argument. the third estate sunday review posts on sunday and there are always entries there. ruth has postponed her ruth's morning edition report until saturdays both due to her own schedule and also due to the fact that it does result in 1 more saturday entry for the community. maria's thing usually goes up on saturday. and sometimes francisco or miguel do that instead of maria but it is usually maria. c.i. usually does a post on laura flanders and two on the new york times. today there are three on the new york times. kat always blogs on saturday. on sunday you have at least one entry in the morning at the common ills and also two sunday evening.
so i really don't see that the community is silent on the weekends.
but i'll try to pull something together today and next weekend, probably sunday next weekend, just to sample how that day feels. that's not 6 days a week. i'll still do just 5.
so i go to buzzflash and scan their headlines for a feel of what's going on because honestly i'm not in the mood today for the newspaper and c.i's already covered the new york times with 3 entries this morning. 1 headline reads 'hillary clinton accuses bush of mismanaging the war' or something like that. i clicked on the link.
i yawned.
am i supposed to say 'go hillary!'
i don't think so.
hillary's so brave to use something john kerry hammered bully boy on a year ago.
i'm so sick of her and her nonsense and her inability to state reality.
she wants more troops over and she wants the war fought her way.
the thought of her in the white house is truly frightening.
i don't know if she had a late life transformation or if she just has the war lust or if she just wants to prove her national security bonafides but it's disgusting.
it was disgusting to me when ms. profiled madeline albright, another war hawk, and it's disgusting to me when hillary starts trying to prove her cock is as big as any boy's by singing her war songs.
i don't think she's getting the nomination if she runs. i think she'll crash and burn in the primaries in a way that resembles what happened to joe lieberman. in fact, she seems like joe lieberman in female drag more and more.
as now proclaims on their site 'peace is a feminist value.'
i keep waiting for ms. to do something similar. i've been waiting for some time.
i don't know what's going on these days but i'll tell you this, i love ms. though i do, i don't need another celebrity cover of charlize theron or desperate houswives at a time when 2 wars are waging. i need some strong stances.
there's a pbs show 'about women, by women and for women' as sctv would say. last week they had a conservative prig from the chamber of commerce (where she probably has a lot of fellow prigs as friends). prig was saying 'oh feminists don't really support women they only support women who agree with them.'
prig's right. i don't support ann coulter. i don't support the war hawks with vaginas.
i support a woman's right to determine their own lives but that doesn't mean i endorse their choices.
and prig doesn't endorse mine as she made abundantly clear.
if you don't support equality, you're not helping the movement and we shouldn't shed any tears over the fact that we can't get behind you.
i think we're too focused on getting someone through whatever glass ceiling that we're at risk, feminists, of losing what we stand for.
which is why when i visit now's website, it always cheers me up. whether it's an action alert or kim gandy's biweekly column, or just the 'peace is a feminist value' i see now fighting and standing up.
i'm not trying to slag on ms. i'm glad it's around. i read every issue. but i'm not hearing from ms. what i need to lately. i'm getting rah-rah articles on a queen or a madeline albright or some celebrity. when they did the bullshit cover, and sorry that is what it was, on desperate housewives, i almost blogged on that but c.i. said that there was a shake up about to happen and that things were changing.
i love ms. and a month later there was a shake up.
but ms. needs to be more than it is today.
and the website needs to provide new content regularly.
christine provided new content daily or almost daily. eleanor smeal is a personal hero but this blog once in november (it may have been twice) ain't cutting it.
and reproductive rights are huge issues to me but they aren't the only feminist issues. it's past time that ms. started weighing in loudly on this war.
they've had time for a cover story on first ladies. that might have been strong writing. i don't know. i threw that issue into the trash to be honest. without reading it.
i don't know if it was the move to california and away from nyc but ms. seems a lot more laid back these days.
i get e-mails about seth's site, seth in the city, asking why he only posted twice in november? i have no idea. i've never spoken to him. anytime the third estate has tried to bring him in on anything, he's been busy. people have e-mailed asking 'do you guys hate seth?' because in the past every new site has resulted in a blog spotlight and an interview or article on the new blogger. are we supposed to spotlight his entry last week where he said he was back to blogging and apologized for not blogging? that was the whole entry. it wasn't about anything else. and it never had a follow up. it's over a week later and there's still not another entry up.
i'm not calling seth stupid but that's no way to run a site.
i'm not calling ms. stupid but not having new content up regularly is no way to run a web site.
(i will hear from c.i. for my comments on ms. and for my comments on seth. that's cool and i understand c.i.'s point of view on both. i can even hear c.i.'s comments in my head right now. but i'm not going to play nice here or pretty it up.)
the nation and the progressive have both increased circulation by strong commentary. people are hungry for it. cover stories on tv shows and movie stars isn't going to convince anyone that ms. is serious.
we went through this before in the 80s and it nearly killed ms.
c.i. was convinced that the shake up was going to change things. i waited for it to happen. it's happened. i'm not seeing that big of a difference.
it's coming off like a polite magazine the way good housekeeping was decades ago.
that's not ms. and if i'm the only 1 who will say it, then i'm the only 1 who will say it.
i love ms. but it needs to be more. in print and online. it needs to stop the celebrity profiles immediately and return to the issues that matter. 1st among them is the war.
it's glossier these days. the print doesn't get on your hands. but it's also about as hard hitting as a pbs talk show. that's not feminism. people respond to strong voices and ms. needs to find it's strong voice.
i say that out of respect for what it has been in the past.
i also say it because if you no longer need christine at your website then you need someone else regularly putting up new content.
sherry's e-mailed me complaining about the lack of new content.
sherry, i hope you're visiting pop politics because christine (and bernie, and jaclyn and others) are posting there.
eleanor smeal's got a new post (december 1st) and c.i. hasn't noted it. which means no 1's passed it on to c.i. because c.i. will note anything from ms. but once a month isn't going to bring to traffic to ms.'s site.
mike's motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
i also don't buy the 'there's nothing up on the weekends' argument. the third estate sunday review posts on sunday and there are always entries there. ruth has postponed her ruth's morning edition report until saturdays both due to her own schedule and also due to the fact that it does result in 1 more saturday entry for the community. maria's thing usually goes up on saturday. and sometimes francisco or miguel do that instead of maria but it is usually maria. c.i. usually does a post on laura flanders and two on the new york times. today there are three on the new york times. kat always blogs on saturday. on sunday you have at least one entry in the morning at the common ills and also two sunday evening.
so i really don't see that the community is silent on the weekends.
but i'll try to pull something together today and next weekend, probably sunday next weekend, just to sample how that day feels. that's not 6 days a week. i'll still do just 5.
so i go to buzzflash and scan their headlines for a feel of what's going on because honestly i'm not in the mood today for the newspaper and c.i's already covered the new york times with 3 entries this morning. 1 headline reads 'hillary clinton accuses bush of mismanaging the war' or something like that. i clicked on the link.
i yawned.
am i supposed to say 'go hillary!'
i don't think so.
hillary's so brave to use something john kerry hammered bully boy on a year ago.
i'm so sick of her and her nonsense and her inability to state reality.
she wants more troops over and she wants the war fought her way.
the thought of her in the white house is truly frightening.
i don't know if she had a late life transformation or if she just has the war lust or if she just wants to prove her national security bonafides but it's disgusting.
it was disgusting to me when ms. profiled madeline albright, another war hawk, and it's disgusting to me when hillary starts trying to prove her cock is as big as any boy's by singing her war songs.
i don't think she's getting the nomination if she runs. i think she'll crash and burn in the primaries in a way that resembles what happened to joe lieberman. in fact, she seems like joe lieberman in female drag more and more.
as now proclaims on their site 'peace is a feminist value.'
i keep waiting for ms. to do something similar. i've been waiting for some time.
i don't know what's going on these days but i'll tell you this, i love ms. though i do, i don't need another celebrity cover of charlize theron or desperate houswives at a time when 2 wars are waging. i need some strong stances.
there's a pbs show 'about women, by women and for women' as sctv would say. last week they had a conservative prig from the chamber of commerce (where she probably has a lot of fellow prigs as friends). prig was saying 'oh feminists don't really support women they only support women who agree with them.'
prig's right. i don't support ann coulter. i don't support the war hawks with vaginas.
i support a woman's right to determine their own lives but that doesn't mean i endorse their choices.
and prig doesn't endorse mine as she made abundantly clear.
if you don't support equality, you're not helping the movement and we shouldn't shed any tears over the fact that we can't get behind you.
i think we're too focused on getting someone through whatever glass ceiling that we're at risk, feminists, of losing what we stand for.
which is why when i visit now's website, it always cheers me up. whether it's an action alert or kim gandy's biweekly column, or just the 'peace is a feminist value' i see now fighting and standing up.
i'm not trying to slag on ms. i'm glad it's around. i read every issue. but i'm not hearing from ms. what i need to lately. i'm getting rah-rah articles on a queen or a madeline albright or some celebrity. when they did the bullshit cover, and sorry that is what it was, on desperate housewives, i almost blogged on that but c.i. said that there was a shake up about to happen and that things were changing.
i love ms. and a month later there was a shake up.
but ms. needs to be more than it is today.
and the website needs to provide new content regularly.
christine provided new content daily or almost daily. eleanor smeal is a personal hero but this blog once in november (it may have been twice) ain't cutting it.
and reproductive rights are huge issues to me but they aren't the only feminist issues. it's past time that ms. started weighing in loudly on this war.
they've had time for a cover story on first ladies. that might have been strong writing. i don't know. i threw that issue into the trash to be honest. without reading it.
i don't know if it was the move to california and away from nyc but ms. seems a lot more laid back these days.
i get e-mails about seth's site, seth in the city, asking why he only posted twice in november? i have no idea. i've never spoken to him. anytime the third estate has tried to bring him in on anything, he's been busy. people have e-mailed asking 'do you guys hate seth?' because in the past every new site has resulted in a blog spotlight and an interview or article on the new blogger. are we supposed to spotlight his entry last week where he said he was back to blogging and apologized for not blogging? that was the whole entry. it wasn't about anything else. and it never had a follow up. it's over a week later and there's still not another entry up.
i'm not calling seth stupid but that's no way to run a site.
i'm not calling ms. stupid but not having new content up regularly is no way to run a web site.
(i will hear from c.i. for my comments on ms. and for my comments on seth. that's cool and i understand c.i.'s point of view on both. i can even hear c.i.'s comments in my head right now. but i'm not going to play nice here or pretty it up.)
the nation and the progressive have both increased circulation by strong commentary. people are hungry for it. cover stories on tv shows and movie stars isn't going to convince anyone that ms. is serious.
we went through this before in the 80s and it nearly killed ms.
c.i. was convinced that the shake up was going to change things. i waited for it to happen. it's happened. i'm not seeing that big of a difference.
it's coming off like a polite magazine the way good housekeeping was decades ago.
that's not ms. and if i'm the only 1 who will say it, then i'm the only 1 who will say it.
i love ms. but it needs to be more. in print and online. it needs to stop the celebrity profiles immediately and return to the issues that matter. 1st among them is the war.
it's glossier these days. the print doesn't get on your hands. but it's also about as hard hitting as a pbs talk show. that's not feminism. people respond to strong voices and ms. needs to find it's strong voice.
i say that out of respect for what it has been in the past.
i also say it because if you no longer need christine at your website then you need someone else regularly putting up new content.
sherry's e-mailed me complaining about the lack of new content.
sherry, i hope you're visiting pop politics because christine (and bernie, and jaclyn and others) are posting there.
eleanor smeal's got a new post (december 1st) and c.i. hasn't noted it. which means no 1's passed it on to c.i. because c.i. will note anything from ms. but once a month isn't going to bring to traffic to ms.'s site.
mike's motto: The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
12/01/2005
thoughts on racism
c.i. noted this: "Help Make Thursday, December 1st 'Blog Against Racism Day.'" which is a thing by leah at corrente. which just sent me into a panic because i couldn't remember if i'd added them to my blog roll or not. (i had.)
so the thing is to talk about race or racism today.
so here are my thoughts on the matter and you can nod along or spit nails or whatever gets you going. i'm going to focus on an issue where white people who aren't racist enable racism.
'we are we and they are they' is the biggest narrative going. it's how we end up demonizing others. and it depends upon ignorance.
and it depends on our ignoring our commonalities and and not respecting our differences.
instead a difference becomes a reason to demonize.
race is 1 of the easiest ways to play the other (gender is another) because it requires only our eyes to scan quickly and fall for whatever stereotype is being promoted in which ever generation.
we have a bully boy in the white house who loves to play the country against one another and loves to create divisions.
this is also world aids day and that's another example of demonizing. 25 years later the stigma's not as great as it once was. provided you're a child or contracted the disease through blood transfusions.
you saw it with those crappy e-mails from bono's organization always about 'the children' as though that's the only focus for empathy.
ruth in her ruth's morning edition report talks about how 1 of the things she enjoys most is learning about things and i honestly believe that a lot of people feel that way.
but sometimes we act like we don't feel that way because 'what would some 1 say?' i've been amazed at, for instance, the number of people who will say something as stupid as 'i hate that will & grace. they say things like "who's homo?"' but if some 1, usually me, says 'i like that show' the same person fronting 2 minutes ago will suddenly say, 'isn't it funny?'
we're all so worried about what some 1 might think.
that's why bully boy managed to pull off 4 years with so little criticism. we were scared to state the obvious.
so we fear other's reactions. when we find out their reaction, we're usually okay with being open.
and that goes to racism because we fear what we don't know.
and ignorance is encouraged in our culture.
c.i. taught me long ago to say fuck it.
if you're not black and you're around white people fairly often, you've probably been in a group or 1 on 1 with someone that you thought was wonderful only to hear them utter a racist saying.
years ago, it would make me uncomfortable and i'd excuse myself and avoid the person from then on. but c.i. would always say 'that is racist' and not care what their reaction was.
when i was younger, believe it or not, i was not always quick to share my opinion and i was loathe to disagree.
i would see c.i., who really doesn't care - i mean really doesn't care, tell some 1 off for being racist or being sexist or being homophobic or go down the list. it could be any 1 and it never bothered c.i.
it took me awhile to get to that point.
and my silence perpetuated racism. i could tell myself 'well i just won't be around ___ anymore' but that didn't change anything. the person might wonder why i avoided them after the shocked look but they didn't get that their remarks were offensive and wrong.
we need to let people know when they are wrong. if we don't we are perpetuating racism with our silence.
it's easy to say 'well i'm not racist' and go on about your life and i did that with race, gender, you name it.
there was a couple that is friends with my ex-in-laws. they would make the most racist jokes and i would walk away from them. then i would whine to c.i. on the phone. c.i. would always say 'they need to be called on it. it won't change what they are probably, but it will make them twice about assuming that just because every 1 present is white, they can get away with that shit.'
so when we announced our engagement, i was telling myself, i can't be silent tonight.
it was hard for me because back then i really did want every 1 to like me. but that night, when the husband came over to make another 1 of his 'jokes' i let him have it.
the couple avoided me, and our wedding, which is fine. in fact it's better because i didn't have to work to avoid them since they were avoiding me.
and after that, it was honestly easier for me to say to any 1, 'that's wrong.'
for me it was a road to finding my voice and to being able to speak up for what i believe in.
there was a friend that t and i had who we used to do stuff with, us and a group of women. she pulled that nonsense 1 day after we'd all been hanging out for some time.
when i called her on it, she told me i had no sense of humor (they always go there, racists, sexists and homophobes) and started saying stuff like 'you know me, you know i'm not racist.'
i thought i knew you. i thought you weren't racist. then you tell that 'joke.'
and of course she doesn't do it around t.
which is how you know it's not just a 'joke.' if it's just a joke, why say it only when no african-americans are present? this woman was all 'you go, girl!' and 'girlfriend' this and 'girlfriend' that when t was around. (which t always found strange.)
so that's my point for the night.
it's easy for you to tell yourself that since you're not racist, you don't need to worry about it. that turns it into a problem for 'others.' that kind of thinking, for instance, would really push it off on t.
it would be my way of saying, 't, you're african-american, so this is your problem.'
but racism is a problem for every 1 that every 1 needs to address. so if you've grimaced at a 'joke' and said nothing, i want you to think about speaking your mind and calling people out.
maybe it will open some 1's eyes. maybe it will only make them avoid you.
regardless, you'll feel better about yourself. you'll probably also be doing your friends a favor.
i don't mean the ones telling 'jokes.' i mean your own c.i., the person you whine to on the phone about this or that. you'll free up your time to talk about things that really matter instead of constantly needing pep talks. and if you have enough respect to say 'no' you'll be a stronger person.
i'm not sure if this is the sort of thing they were hoping for today but, to quote kat, it is what it is.
and what it is is this: if you're biting your tongue around 'jokes' or worse, you're perpetuating racism.
so the thing is to talk about race or racism today.
so here are my thoughts on the matter and you can nod along or spit nails or whatever gets you going. i'm going to focus on an issue where white people who aren't racist enable racism.
'we are we and they are they' is the biggest narrative going. it's how we end up demonizing others. and it depends upon ignorance.
and it depends on our ignoring our commonalities and and not respecting our differences.
instead a difference becomes a reason to demonize.
race is 1 of the easiest ways to play the other (gender is another) because it requires only our eyes to scan quickly and fall for whatever stereotype is being promoted in which ever generation.
we have a bully boy in the white house who loves to play the country against one another and loves to create divisions.
this is also world aids day and that's another example of demonizing. 25 years later the stigma's not as great as it once was. provided you're a child or contracted the disease through blood transfusions.
you saw it with those crappy e-mails from bono's organization always about 'the children' as though that's the only focus for empathy.
ruth in her ruth's morning edition report talks about how 1 of the things she enjoys most is learning about things and i honestly believe that a lot of people feel that way.
but sometimes we act like we don't feel that way because 'what would some 1 say?' i've been amazed at, for instance, the number of people who will say something as stupid as 'i hate that will & grace. they say things like "who's homo?"' but if some 1, usually me, says 'i like that show' the same person fronting 2 minutes ago will suddenly say, 'isn't it funny?'
we're all so worried about what some 1 might think.
that's why bully boy managed to pull off 4 years with so little criticism. we were scared to state the obvious.
so we fear other's reactions. when we find out their reaction, we're usually okay with being open.
and that goes to racism because we fear what we don't know.
and ignorance is encouraged in our culture.
c.i. taught me long ago to say fuck it.
if you're not black and you're around white people fairly often, you've probably been in a group or 1 on 1 with someone that you thought was wonderful only to hear them utter a racist saying.
years ago, it would make me uncomfortable and i'd excuse myself and avoid the person from then on. but c.i. would always say 'that is racist' and not care what their reaction was.
when i was younger, believe it or not, i was not always quick to share my opinion and i was loathe to disagree.
i would see c.i., who really doesn't care - i mean really doesn't care, tell some 1 off for being racist or being sexist or being homophobic or go down the list. it could be any 1 and it never bothered c.i.
it took me awhile to get to that point.
and my silence perpetuated racism. i could tell myself 'well i just won't be around ___ anymore' but that didn't change anything. the person might wonder why i avoided them after the shocked look but they didn't get that their remarks were offensive and wrong.
we need to let people know when they are wrong. if we don't we are perpetuating racism with our silence.
it's easy to say 'well i'm not racist' and go on about your life and i did that with race, gender, you name it.
there was a couple that is friends with my ex-in-laws. they would make the most racist jokes and i would walk away from them. then i would whine to c.i. on the phone. c.i. would always say 'they need to be called on it. it won't change what they are probably, but it will make them twice about assuming that just because every 1 present is white, they can get away with that shit.'
so when we announced our engagement, i was telling myself, i can't be silent tonight.
it was hard for me because back then i really did want every 1 to like me. but that night, when the husband came over to make another 1 of his 'jokes' i let him have it.
the couple avoided me, and our wedding, which is fine. in fact it's better because i didn't have to work to avoid them since they were avoiding me.
and after that, it was honestly easier for me to say to any 1, 'that's wrong.'
for me it was a road to finding my voice and to being able to speak up for what i believe in.
there was a friend that t and i had who we used to do stuff with, us and a group of women. she pulled that nonsense 1 day after we'd all been hanging out for some time.
when i called her on it, she told me i had no sense of humor (they always go there, racists, sexists and homophobes) and started saying stuff like 'you know me, you know i'm not racist.'
i thought i knew you. i thought you weren't racist. then you tell that 'joke.'
and of course she doesn't do it around t.
which is how you know it's not just a 'joke.' if it's just a joke, why say it only when no african-americans are present? this woman was all 'you go, girl!' and 'girlfriend' this and 'girlfriend' that when t was around. (which t always found strange.)
so that's my point for the night.
it's easy for you to tell yourself that since you're not racist, you don't need to worry about it. that turns it into a problem for 'others.' that kind of thinking, for instance, would really push it off on t.
it would be my way of saying, 't, you're african-american, so this is your problem.'
but racism is a problem for every 1 that every 1 needs to address. so if you've grimaced at a 'joke' and said nothing, i want you to think about speaking your mind and calling people out.
maybe it will open some 1's eyes. maybe it will only make them avoid you.
regardless, you'll feel better about yourself. you'll probably also be doing your friends a favor.
i don't mean the ones telling 'jokes.' i mean your own c.i., the person you whine to on the phone about this or that. you'll free up your time to talk about things that really matter instead of constantly needing pep talks. and if you have enough respect to say 'no' you'll be a stronger person.
i'm not sure if this is the sort of thing they were hoping for today but, to quote kat, it is what it is.
and what it is is this: if you're biting your tongue around 'jokes' or worse, you're perpetuating racism.
11/30/2005
breaking news on breaking 9th circuit
i'm reposting the following (from the common ills) in full because it's that important.
"Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)"
From the December issue of The Progressive, Ruth Conniff's "The Progressive Interview: Bernie Sanders:"[Bernie Sanders]:
In my view this happens to be one of the most dangerous moments in American history. These guys are not just reactionaires. They are changing the rules of the game so they will stay in power for the indefinite futere. We see this abuse of power on the floor of the House. They kept the voting rolls open for three hours to pass the Medicare prescription drug bill. I had an amendment, which won, on the Patriot Act. They kept the voting open twenty minutes longer to defeat it. They break the rules. It's like having a football game go into the fifth quareter because you don't like the results at the end of the fourth quarter. We know what DeLay did in Texas. They have taken chairmen -- yanked them out -- because they defy the leadership of the House. They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country.
Note Sander's last sentence, "They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country." (The article's from the latest issue of the magazine and it's not available online at present.) Why note the last sentence? Zachary Coile's "A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit" (San Francisco Chronicle):
A little-noticed provision in the massive House budget bill would fulfill the longtime goal of conservatives to split the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, creating a new 12th circuit appellate court and allowing President Bush to name a slate of new federal judges.
Conservatives long have claimed that the Ninth Circuit is too liberal, and that reputation was reinforced by the court's 2002 ruling that reciting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
But legal observers say the outcome of such a split is likely to be a more liberal court making decisions for California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and a more conservative court serving seven other Western states now part of the Ninth Circuit -- Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.
In the article, Reagan appointee Judge Alex Kozinski is noted as testifying before the Senate last month:
Dividing a circuit should only take place when: one, there is demonstrated proof that a circuit is not operating effectively, and two, there is a consensus among the bench and bar and public that it serves that division is the appropriate remedy. Neither of those conditions exists today.
The article also notes that: "Of the 28 active judges on Ninth Circuit, only three have expressed support for splitting the court."
Though Diane Feinstein opposes the plan, Bully Boy has signed on to it.And who would pack the newly created circuit? (You know the answer.) It's thought that one of the states effected would be Oregon. (We have several members in Oregon.) Oregon hasbeen very active with measures that Bully Boy's Justice Department has opposed. For instance, Oregon's physician-assisted suicide. From CNN's "Federal judge upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law" (April 17, 2002):
In his ruling, Judge Robert E. Jones criticized U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for seeking to nullify the state law, saying he "fired the first shot in the battle" and had sought to "stifle" a debate on the matter through a Nov. 6 directive.
Jones ordered the federal government to halt any efforts to prosecute Oregon physicians, pharmacists and other health-care providers who participate in assisted suicide of terminally ill patients under Oregon's law.
How bothered is the Bully Boy's Justice Department over this law? When the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon's law, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The case that began as Ashcroft v. Oregon became Gonzales v. Oregon and the Court heard testimony on it in October. (Oral arguments before the Court can be found here.)
The article in the Chronicle focuses on the effects to California. This would impact much more than California. Bully Boy's Justice Department has often proved successful is circuit shopping their cases.
physician-assisted suicide
bernie sanders
ruth conniff
the progressive
death with dignity
ninth circuit
judiciary
that may be 1 of the most important things you need to be aware for the day.
last night i wrote about barbara walters and her boring special. i wrote it before the final 10 minutes or i would have had much more to say. (thanks to wally and c.i. for getting the word out on my post.)
in the last 10 minutes, we worked our ways down to the even less important.
1st we had tom cruise who always, my opinion, comes off gay when he's trying so desperately to convince you that he's in love with some new woman. maybe he's not gay, maybe he is. but when he starts talking 'love' he sounds like some 1 trying real hard to present a front.
though time was limited, each segment lasted about as long as a music video, barbara did have time to go over all the times she'd interviewed tom cruise before; however, she did not have time to ask about the very obvious age difference.
you can be sure she would've asked cher or demi moore about the age issue.
but she's hardly a feminist so it's not too surprising to see her enforcing the sexist status quo.
from there we got the not so great camilla.
barbara walters all but stomped over the late princess diana's grave to run over and ass kiss camilla. it was insulting and it was shocking.
it was nice the way camilla was innocently inserted into charles life. always in the wings but in a platonic measure, of course. what a load of crap.
but it gets stinkier.
the most fascinating person of the year?
to barbara walters it was condi rice. apparently war criminals make barbara's panties moist.
ladies & gentlemen, barbara walters. she's not just a whore for the republican party, she's an old whore.
on that topic, did any 1 watching really think that was her own hair? if you're going to do fake hair, why do it blonde if you're not naturally a blonde?
i couldn't figure out if she picked out the fake, horse hair because it looked so bad and dry that she assumed people would think, 'it looks bad, it must be real' or if it's just further evidence of how she has no taste?
condi has a soft spot, barbara tells us. which means when not lying the american people into war, condi likes to play football.
watching barbara gush over condi, i had to wonder if barbara was hoping to tackle condie on the field?
since colin powell's apparently not running for president ever, barbara walters is all wet and frothy over condi rice.
how that woman can show her face is beyond me.
i meant walters but it applies to both. maybe that's what they bonded over: lack of shame.
the daily jot
the common ills
mikey likes it
mike's new motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
"Target: the 9th Circuit (The Republican war on the judiciary continues)"
From the December issue of The Progressive, Ruth Conniff's "The Progressive Interview: Bernie Sanders:"[Bernie Sanders]:
In my view this happens to be one of the most dangerous moments in American history. These guys are not just reactionaires. They are changing the rules of the game so they will stay in power for the indefinite futere. We see this abuse of power on the floor of the House. They kept the voting rolls open for three hours to pass the Medicare prescription drug bill. I had an amendment, which won, on the Patriot Act. They kept the voting open twenty minutes longer to defeat it. They break the rules. It's like having a football game go into the fifth quareter because you don't like the results at the end of the fourth quarter. We know what DeLay did in Texas. They have taken chairmen -- yanked them out -- because they defy the leadership of the House. They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country.
Note Sander's last sentence, "They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country." (The article's from the latest issue of the magazine and it's not available online at present.) Why note the last sentence? Zachary Coile's "A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit" (San Francisco Chronicle):
A little-noticed provision in the massive House budget bill would fulfill the longtime goal of conservatives to split the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, creating a new 12th circuit appellate court and allowing President Bush to name a slate of new federal judges.
Conservatives long have claimed that the Ninth Circuit is too liberal, and that reputation was reinforced by the court's 2002 ruling that reciting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
But legal observers say the outcome of such a split is likely to be a more liberal court making decisions for California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and a more conservative court serving seven other Western states now part of the Ninth Circuit -- Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.
In the article, Reagan appointee Judge Alex Kozinski is noted as testifying before the Senate last month:
Dividing a circuit should only take place when: one, there is demonstrated proof that a circuit is not operating effectively, and two, there is a consensus among the bench and bar and public that it serves that division is the appropriate remedy. Neither of those conditions exists today.
The article also notes that: "Of the 28 active judges on Ninth Circuit, only three have expressed support for splitting the court."
Though Diane Feinstein opposes the plan, Bully Boy has signed on to it.And who would pack the newly created circuit? (You know the answer.) It's thought that one of the states effected would be Oregon. (We have several members in Oregon.) Oregon hasbeen very active with measures that Bully Boy's Justice Department has opposed. For instance, Oregon's physician-assisted suicide. From CNN's "Federal judge upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law" (April 17, 2002):
In his ruling, Judge Robert E. Jones criticized U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for seeking to nullify the state law, saying he "fired the first shot in the battle" and had sought to "stifle" a debate on the matter through a Nov. 6 directive.
Jones ordered the federal government to halt any efforts to prosecute Oregon physicians, pharmacists and other health-care providers who participate in assisted suicide of terminally ill patients under Oregon's law.
How bothered is the Bully Boy's Justice Department over this law? When the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon's law, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The case that began as Ashcroft v. Oregon became Gonzales v. Oregon and the Court heard testimony on it in October. (Oral arguments before the Court can be found here.)
The article in the Chronicle focuses on the effects to California. This would impact much more than California. Bully Boy's Justice Department has often proved successful is circuit shopping their cases.
physician-assisted suicide
bernie sanders
ruth conniff
the progressive
death with dignity
ninth circuit
judiciary
that may be 1 of the most important things you need to be aware for the day.
last night i wrote about barbara walters and her boring special. i wrote it before the final 10 minutes or i would have had much more to say. (thanks to wally and c.i. for getting the word out on my post.)
in the last 10 minutes, we worked our ways down to the even less important.
1st we had tom cruise who always, my opinion, comes off gay when he's trying so desperately to convince you that he's in love with some new woman. maybe he's not gay, maybe he is. but when he starts talking 'love' he sounds like some 1 trying real hard to present a front.
though time was limited, each segment lasted about as long as a music video, barbara did have time to go over all the times she'd interviewed tom cruise before; however, she did not have time to ask about the very obvious age difference.
you can be sure she would've asked cher or demi moore about the age issue.
but she's hardly a feminist so it's not too surprising to see her enforcing the sexist status quo.
from there we got the not so great camilla.
barbara walters all but stomped over the late princess diana's grave to run over and ass kiss camilla. it was insulting and it was shocking.
it was nice the way camilla was innocently inserted into charles life. always in the wings but in a platonic measure, of course. what a load of crap.
but it gets stinkier.
the most fascinating person of the year?
to barbara walters it was condi rice. apparently war criminals make barbara's panties moist.
ladies & gentlemen, barbara walters. she's not just a whore for the republican party, she's an old whore.
on that topic, did any 1 watching really think that was her own hair? if you're going to do fake hair, why do it blonde if you're not naturally a blonde?
i couldn't figure out if she picked out the fake, horse hair because it looked so bad and dry that she assumed people would think, 'it looks bad, it must be real' or if it's just further evidence of how she has no taste?
condi has a soft spot, barbara tells us. which means when not lying the american people into war, condi likes to play football.
watching barbara gush over condi, i had to wonder if barbara was hoping to tackle condie on the field?
since colin powell's apparently not running for president ever, barbara walters is all wet and frothy over condi rice.
how that woman can show her face is beyond me.
i meant walters but it applies to both. maybe that's what they bonded over: lack of shame.
the daily jot
the common ills
mikey likes it
mike's new motto:
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
11/29/2005
ba-ba-ba ba-ba-boring
'rebecca, why are the posts late these days?'
when john roberts was confirmed, i spiraled into a depression.
alito?
i'm sure his ass will be put on the bench because i don't see any strength in the dems on this. (maybe they're saving up their energy?)
but it won't be because i didn't do what i could.
ava, c.i. and elaine organized on roberts. if you asked them, they'll tell you they weren't surprised that roberts got confirmed. but they knew they had done everything they could to stop it.
if/when alito's confirmed, i want to be sure that i did everything i could to make my voice heard.
i hope you're doing the same.
the editorial i put up here yesterday got a some favorable e-mails.
but it also got questions. 1 was, why isn't anyone talking about this?
i have no idea. maybe everyone was too wrapped up in barbara walter's idea of the ten most whatever people.
interesting?
kayne west is the only 1 who's interesting.
hot?
have you seen some of the people on the special?
i can't think of anything worse than the special.
there's useless babara walters on aruba.
the world really needed that.
am i missing something?
on this 'fascinating' people, where's cindy sheehan.
oh that's right barbara walters carries water for the republicans. hell she probably carried nancy regan's toilet kit.
i'm amazed that this useless piece of fluff has managed to live down iran-contra. but it helps to have a press that doesn't want to question.
she's got all the useless 1s on board.
lance armstrong. peddling fast to escape the french accusations of doping and with his 'pretend i'm a teenager!' girlfriend sheryl crow in tow. did any 1 notice, by the way, that her album tanked?
guess in music you can't be infantile forever. a little spark can get your career going but if you have nothing else to offer and never grow or stretch, you're just boring.
too bad sheryl crow didn't think to go into tv instead. as barbara walters demonstrates, you can be as boring and as infantile as you want and have a long career in tv.
kanye west was the only reason to watch 'instant walters' tonight.
maybe she's as bored with her interviews as every 1 else?
what else could account for this special?
or 'special.'
it's even more superficial than her long winded work.
each 'fascinating' person gets about the time needed for a music video.
probing journalism barbara!
where do old press whores go?
i don't care, i just wish she would get there already.
when john roberts was confirmed, i spiraled into a depression.
alito?
i'm sure his ass will be put on the bench because i don't see any strength in the dems on this. (maybe they're saving up their energy?)
but it won't be because i didn't do what i could.
ava, c.i. and elaine organized on roberts. if you asked them, they'll tell you they weren't surprised that roberts got confirmed. but they knew they had done everything they could to stop it.
if/when alito's confirmed, i want to be sure that i did everything i could to make my voice heard.
i hope you're doing the same.
the editorial i put up here yesterday got a some favorable e-mails.
but it also got questions. 1 was, why isn't anyone talking about this?
i have no idea. maybe everyone was too wrapped up in barbara walter's idea of the ten most whatever people.
interesting?
kayne west is the only 1 who's interesting.
hot?
have you seen some of the people on the special?
i can't think of anything worse than the special.
there's useless babara walters on aruba.
the world really needed that.
am i missing something?
on this 'fascinating' people, where's cindy sheehan.
oh that's right barbara walters carries water for the republicans. hell she probably carried nancy regan's toilet kit.
i'm amazed that this useless piece of fluff has managed to live down iran-contra. but it helps to have a press that doesn't want to question.
she's got all the useless 1s on board.
lance armstrong. peddling fast to escape the french accusations of doping and with his 'pretend i'm a teenager!' girlfriend sheryl crow in tow. did any 1 notice, by the way, that her album tanked?
guess in music you can't be infantile forever. a little spark can get your career going but if you have nothing else to offer and never grow or stretch, you're just boring.
too bad sheryl crow didn't think to go into tv instead. as barbara walters demonstrates, you can be as boring and as infantile as you want and have a long career in tv.
kanye west was the only reason to watch 'instant walters' tonight.
maybe she's as bored with her interviews as every 1 else?
what else could account for this special?
or 'special.'
it's even more superficial than her long winded work.
each 'fascinating' person gets about the time needed for a music video.
probing journalism barbara!
where do old press whores go?
i don't care, i just wish she would get there already.
11/28/2005
editorial
i've got friends over so i'm just going to cross post tonight.
this is from an editorial we worked on at the third estate sunday review and i'm not hearing much media coverage on this court case but maybe i'm just missing it:
'Editorial: Looks Who's Screaming "Special Rights"'
The Gray Lady plays Miss Manners and clucks "Parents are more involved than ever before. So why do children today seem so rude?" in the pull quote to their Week in Review front page story "Kids Gone Wild." Recycling a trend story that's been around longer than The New York Times, the paper's on hot the trail of . . . nothing.
Which is too bad because inside they actually have something worth noting. Page five's "Here's the Problem With Emily Dickinson." The problem with Dickinson, for some, is that she exhibited "a veiled disrespect for authroity in general." Kids today, what you gonna' do?
Apprarently take it to court.
"On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply to admission."
Well boo hoo. They want, to use a term 'vangicals are so fond of, "SPECIAL RIGHTS."
Now maybe we're dealing with parents who never made it through a college system that didn't have a televangist attached, but this editorial is written by enrolled college students and college graduates. Rebecca switched universities. When she did, her short story English course? She didn't get credit for it at her new university. We can list stories like that for a month and a half. Colleges have the right to determine what they will recognize as an accredited course (from high school or another college or a junior college). If someone's planning to attend a univeristy, it's incumbent upon them to know which courses are accepted and which aren't.
Five of us have heard a recent transfer whine for an entire semester, in every class, that some of his courses wouldn't "transfer." No one forced him to transfer. He always intended to transfer. It was his choice to fly blind.
Academic admission standards are decided based on what core knowledge all incoming students should have. There's nothing that prevents the Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta, CA from offering whatever electives they want. However, if the core courses don't receive credit, that's something the private high schools need to address within their own systems.
The article in the paper (by Thomas Vinciguerra) offers excerpts from texts for these non-credited courses. The information imparted in those texts may be useful to someone's spirituality or not. They're not helping to educating the students on the basics that one needs to enter college.
No one's forcing the schools to drop those courses. They can offer them. They just shouldn't whine when colleges refuse to accredit them. We're sure the parents are outraged. They've spent good money sending their children to private schools. That's a problem between the parents and the schools they selected for their children.
Nothing prevents the schools from offering the same information in elective courses. But the courses aren't covering the core information that a student entering college needs.
That's not the fault of university standards.
Text books containing (as fact) statements such as "Second, physics as taught in the schools of the world contradicts the processes that shaped the world we see today" aren't teaching core academic requirements. They're teaching opinion and they can continue to do that. No one's stopping them.
They just shouldn't demand that academic standards be lowered to give them "Special Rights."
Want to attend secular universities? Learn the basics. You can learn anything else you want, but cover the basics.
Elaine and C.I. saw a ridiculous "film" about the "haters" this week. "Haters" try to deny rights, the film argued, they want everyone to believe as they do. Do you know who the haters were? Everyone living in a secular world. (Regardless of their own personal beliefs.) The whole world, according to the film, was out to get evangicals.
Talk about a persecution complex.
No one's insisting that private, religious schools teach anything. If their students wish to attend secular universities, they need to be prepared at the same level as other students. There's no Special-Ed U that we're aware of (jokes aside). Classes don't need to come to a repeated halt because someone's not up to the same level as their peers.
The texts excerted by the paper do not cover one course. They are the science texts, the literature texts, the historical texts.
The students have been taught a lot of faith, they haven't been taught a lot of facts. Maybe they've managed to pick that up on their own, maybe they haven't. But colleges determine whether or not a course receives credit based upon the content taught in the class.
Though those with persecution complexes may want to scream that this is a religious issue, it's not. There's nothing preventing the religious schools from teaching these non-credited courses.
They can teach only those courses and continue enrolling any student whose parents are willing to spend money on an education that won't transfer. Or they can teach those courses as electives and offer core classes that meet the academic requirements.
They shouldn't, however, think they can teach substandard courses and then scream "religious bigotry" when a university refuses to credit those courses.
As electives, the courses could help shape a new generation of op-ed writers and thinkers. We wouldn't care to read their writing but their opinions could be shaped by elective courses. However, these aren't core classes. They do not meet the basic requirements.
The only "haters" are the people who want to reject accepted academic standards for high schools and then receive a waiver allowing them to enter a secular university. There's a variety of religions to be found in the authors of this editorial. This includes people who attended parochial schools. They learned their basics there, not just faith.
That 'vangical schools want to pop up and play by their own academic guidelines is fine. They just can't ignore core comptency and then whine about the fact that the substandard academic education they've provided won't transfer. The only "haters" ares the ones insisting upon "Special Rights." When gays and lesbians ask for equal protection under the law, 'vangicals scream (falsely) special rights. This legal challenge is another example of their refusal to recognize the need for equality, in this case equal standards for admission.
[This editorial was written by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and Wally of The Daily Jot.]
posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, November 27, 2005
this is from an editorial we worked on at the third estate sunday review and i'm not hearing much media coverage on this court case but maybe i'm just missing it:
'Editorial: Looks Who's Screaming "Special Rights"'
The Gray Lady plays Miss Manners and clucks "Parents are more involved than ever before. So why do children today seem so rude?" in the pull quote to their Week in Review front page story "Kids Gone Wild." Recycling a trend story that's been around longer than The New York Times, the paper's on hot the trail of . . . nothing.
Which is too bad because inside they actually have something worth noting. Page five's "Here's the Problem With Emily Dickinson." The problem with Dickinson, for some, is that she exhibited "a veiled disrespect for authroity in general." Kids today, what you gonna' do?
Apprarently take it to court.
"On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply to admission."
Well boo hoo. They want, to use a term 'vangicals are so fond of, "SPECIAL RIGHTS."
Now maybe we're dealing with parents who never made it through a college system that didn't have a televangist attached, but this editorial is written by enrolled college students and college graduates. Rebecca switched universities. When she did, her short story English course? She didn't get credit for it at her new university. We can list stories like that for a month and a half. Colleges have the right to determine what they will recognize as an accredited course (from high school or another college or a junior college). If someone's planning to attend a univeristy, it's incumbent upon them to know which courses are accepted and which aren't.
Five of us have heard a recent transfer whine for an entire semester, in every class, that some of his courses wouldn't "transfer." No one forced him to transfer. He always intended to transfer. It was his choice to fly blind.
Academic admission standards are decided based on what core knowledge all incoming students should have. There's nothing that prevents the Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta, CA from offering whatever electives they want. However, if the core courses don't receive credit, that's something the private high schools need to address within their own systems.
The article in the paper (by Thomas Vinciguerra) offers excerpts from texts for these non-credited courses. The information imparted in those texts may be useful to someone's spirituality or not. They're not helping to educating the students on the basics that one needs to enter college.
No one's forcing the schools to drop those courses. They can offer them. They just shouldn't whine when colleges refuse to accredit them. We're sure the parents are outraged. They've spent good money sending their children to private schools. That's a problem between the parents and the schools they selected for their children.
Nothing prevents the schools from offering the same information in elective courses. But the courses aren't covering the core information that a student entering college needs.
That's not the fault of university standards.
Text books containing (as fact) statements such as "Second, physics as taught in the schools of the world contradicts the processes that shaped the world we see today" aren't teaching core academic requirements. They're teaching opinion and they can continue to do that. No one's stopping them.
They just shouldn't demand that academic standards be lowered to give them "Special Rights."
Want to attend secular universities? Learn the basics. You can learn anything else you want, but cover the basics.
Elaine and C.I. saw a ridiculous "film" about the "haters" this week. "Haters" try to deny rights, the film argued, they want everyone to believe as they do. Do you know who the haters were? Everyone living in a secular world. (Regardless of their own personal beliefs.) The whole world, according to the film, was out to get evangicals.
Talk about a persecution complex.
No one's insisting that private, religious schools teach anything. If their students wish to attend secular universities, they need to be prepared at the same level as other students. There's no Special-Ed U that we're aware of (jokes aside). Classes don't need to come to a repeated halt because someone's not up to the same level as their peers.
The texts excerted by the paper do not cover one course. They are the science texts, the literature texts, the historical texts.
The students have been taught a lot of faith, they haven't been taught a lot of facts. Maybe they've managed to pick that up on their own, maybe they haven't. But colleges determine whether or not a course receives credit based upon the content taught in the class.
Though those with persecution complexes may want to scream that this is a religious issue, it's not. There's nothing preventing the religious schools from teaching these non-credited courses.
They can teach only those courses and continue enrolling any student whose parents are willing to spend money on an education that won't transfer. Or they can teach those courses as electives and offer core classes that meet the academic requirements.
They shouldn't, however, think they can teach substandard courses and then scream "religious bigotry" when a university refuses to credit those courses.
As electives, the courses could help shape a new generation of op-ed writers and thinkers. We wouldn't care to read their writing but their opinions could be shaped by elective courses. However, these aren't core classes. They do not meet the basic requirements.
The only "haters" are the people who want to reject accepted academic standards for high schools and then receive a waiver allowing them to enter a secular university. There's a variety of religions to be found in the authors of this editorial. This includes people who attended parochial schools. They learned their basics there, not just faith.
That 'vangical schools want to pop up and play by their own academic guidelines is fine. They just can't ignore core comptency and then whine about the fact that the substandard academic education they've provided won't transfer. The only "haters" ares the ones insisting upon "Special Rights." When gays and lesbians ask for equal protection under the law, 'vangicals scream (falsely) special rights. This legal challenge is another example of their refusal to recognize the need for equality, in this case equal standards for admission.
[This editorial was written by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and Wally of The Daily Jot.]
posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, November 27, 2005
11/27/2005
11/25/2005
news you can use, so use it!
i talked to elaine and asked her, 'are you just going to post the headlines? because i have a busy night.' elaine said she was just going to post them and a peace quote. i'm sure she was being nice because 'fly boy' (as mike calls my ex) and i have a big evening planned. i'll take kindness.
here are headlines.
We've composed the following twelve headlines dealing with Iraq, peace, global warming, reproductive rights, Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, prisons, the Patriot Act, the media, fatalities and other topics.
1) From Dahr Jamail's MidEast Wire (Iraq Dispatches):
Monday in Iraq, US troops fired on a car in Ba'qubah, killing five, two adults and three children. The US military states that they feared the car "booby-trapped." The family had been returning from visiting relatives when a US convoy approached. The car was fired on from the front and the back. One Iraqi was quoted as saying, "The ones who brought in the Americans are at fault. Those who support them are at fault. All of them are at fault. Look at these. They are all children. All of them of are children. They killed them. They killed my entire family."
2) In the United States the Associated Press reports that Cindy Sheehan returned to Crawford, Texas Thursday and joined what some estimates say were 100 protestors and other estimates say as many as 200.Cindy Sheehan stated, "I feel happy to be back here with all my friends ... but I'm heartbroken that we have to be here again," said Sheehan, who hoped to arrive earlier in the week, but was delayed by a family emergency. "We will keep pressing and we won't give up until our troops are brought home."
3) Since Sheehan and others last gathered at Camp Casey I and Camp Casey II, laws have been passed to prevent further gatherings in Crawford -- "local bans on roadside camping and parking." As protestors returned this week, they were advised they could be arrested. Among those arrested Wednesday were Daniel Ellsberg and US diplomat Ann Wright. Democratic Underground has a report from Carl who was also arrested Wendesday. Carl reports that "The entire [arrest & booking] process took 3.5 hours." Carl advises that the vigils will also take place on Christmas and New Year's Eve as well as that "Donations to the Crawford Veterans For Peace can be mailed to P. O. Box 252, Crawford, Texas, 76638-9998."
4) As the participation of psychologists and psychiatrists in the "BISQUIT" program and other 'interrogation' work raises ethical and professional questions today, CounterPunch is reporting that in WWII, United States anthropologists participated with the Office of Strategic Services in attempts to determine means to destroy the Japanese. David Price reports, in what is a clear betrayal of the profession, anthropologists were instructed "to try to conceive ways that any detectable differences could be used in the development of weapons, but they were cautioned to consider this issue 'in a-moral and non-ethical terms'." Price notes "Ralph Linton and Harry Shapiro, objected to even considering the OSS' request but they were the exceptions."
5) In legal news, as the prison industry has switched to a profit making business, prisoners have found themselves located far from relatives. The distance has proved profitable for long distance companies. The Center for Constitutional Rights argued in court Monday on behalf of "New York family members who pay a grossly inflated rate to receive a phone call from their loved ones in state prisons." CCR notes:
The lawsuit, Walton v. NYSDOCS and MCI, seeks an order prohibiting the State and MCI from charging exorbitant rates to the family members of prisoners to finance a 57.5% kickback to the State. MCI charges these family members a 630% markup over regular consumer rates to receive a collect call from their loved ones, the only way possible to speak with them. Judge George Ceresia of the Supreme Court of New York, Albany County, dismissed the suit last fall, citing issues of timeliness.
6) In other legal news, Cynthia L. Cooper reports for Women's enews that November 30th the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. At issue in this case, is whether or not bans on reproductive freedom enacted by state legislatures must take effect before they can be legally challenged or whether they can be challenged as soon as they are passed. The standard up to now has been that laws can be challenged as soon as they are passed. Cooper notes:
By changing the legal standard for when an abortion restriction can be challenged in court, anti-abortion laws could quickly entangle women across the country, without directly overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that held that states could not criminalize abortion in all circumstances.
7) The Guardian of London reports on a Rutgers University study that has found "[g]lobal warming is doubling the rate of sea level rise around the world, but attempts to stop it by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be futile." Professor Kenneth Miller tells The Guardian's Ashraf Khalil, "This is going to cause more beach erosion. Beaches are going to move back and houses will be destroyed." This comes as the Climate Conference is gearing up to take place in Montreal from November 28th to December 9th. United for Peace and Justiceis issuing a call for action:
This fall let's mobilize a nationwide, grassroots education and action campaign leading up to mass demonstrations in Montreal and throughout the U.S. on Saturday, December 3rd. Help gather signatures for the Peoples Ratification of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.kyotoandbeyond.org), which will be presented in Montreal. Join Climate Crisis: USA Join the World! (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.climatecrisis.us) as we call for:USA Join the World by Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol
Support and Export Clean, Safe, Non-Nuclear Energy Alternatives
End Government Subsidies for Oil and Coal Corporations
Dramatically Strengthen Energy Conservation and Fuel Efficiency Standards
A Just Transition for Workers, Indigenous and Other Communities Affected by a Change to Clean Energy
Defend the World's Forests; Support Community-Run Tree Planting Campaigns
8) With Congress out of session due to the holidays, a number of organizations are attempting to inform the public of pending legislation. The Bill of Rights Defense Center warns to "[e]xpect a vote [on the renewal of the Patriot Act] after Congress returns on December 12th." Of the bill, Lisa Graves of the ACLU states:
The Patriot Act was bad in 2001, and despite bipartisan calls for reform, it's still bad in 2005. Instead of addressing the real concerns that millions of Americans have about the Patriot Act, the Republican majority in Congress buckled to White House pressure, stripping the bill of modest yet meaningful reforms. Congress must reject this bill.
Both the ACLU and the Bill of Rights of Defense Center are calling for grass roots action.
Also asking for action is NOW. Congress failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.You can make your voice heard via NOW's take action page. On their page, you have the option of e-mailing your representatives and/or signing a petition that NOW will present to Congress on December 5th.
9) Meanwhile, as November winds down, American military fatalities have reached 76 for the month, with the Department of Defense reporting 50 Americans wounded thus far this month. The total number of American military killed in Iraq, official count, has reached 2105. Scripps Howard News Service reports that, "U.S. commanders on the ground have already launched plans to close bases and withdraw troops in the coming year, according to two congressmen who returned from Iraq this week." The two congress members are John Kline and Mark Kennedy (Republicans, Minn.).
10) In other Congressional news, Ari Berman reports for The Nation that John McCain is in the midst of makeover. Meeting with The Arizona Republican Assembly in August, McCain slapped some new war paint on as McCain supported the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" side by side with evolution, the state's "ban on gay marriage that denies government benefits to any unmarried couple," hailed Ronald Reagan as "my hero" and was observed "strenuously defending . . . Bush's Iraq policy."
For those who have forgotten, McCain attended Mark Bingham's funeral. Bingham was one of the passengers of Flight 93 on 9/11 in immediate media reports. As the days wore on, Bingham appeared to disappear from many reports. Mark Bingham was gay. Whether that resulted in a "downgrading" by some in the media has been a source of speculation for some time.
11) Focusing on the media, at The Black Commentator, Margaret Kimberly addresses the issue of Bob Woodward, tying him and his editor to the journalistic behaviors of Judith Miller and her editors:
Miller, Sulzberger, Woodward and Bradlee are at the top of the corporate media food chain, and their behavior tells us why Americans aren't being told anything they ought to be told. Woodward uses his access to make a fortune writing about the Supreme Court or various presidential administrations. If a journalist's priority is writing best selling books based on the amount of access gained with the powerful, then truth telling goes out the window.
12) Also addressing the very similar behaviors of Miller and Woodward are Steven C. Day at Pop Politics, Ron Brynaert at Why Are We Back In Iraq?, and Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post. Though still vocal on Judith Miller and weighing in with the "latest," CJR Daily still can't find a connection between the "journalistic" styles of Judith Miller and Bob Woodward. In their most recent 'Judy report', CJR Daily ponders the question of why did Miller go to jail when Scooter Libby and his people maintain that they released her from confidentiality claims. Covering old news and working themselves into another lather over Miller, CJR Daily wonders"Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" and maintains the question "has never been fully answered." The question has indeed been answered.
Whether CJR Daily approves of or believes the argument of Miller, Floyd Abrams, et al, is beside the point. For the record, the answer has been given many times. The argument was that Miller needed more than a form signed possibly under duress. Abrams and others have long been on the record explaining that they sought a release other than the form. In the front page report, Sunday October 16, 2005, Don Van Natta Jr., Adam Liptak and Clifford J. Levy reported:
She said she began thinking about whether she should reach out to Mr. Libby for "a personal, voluntary waiver."
[. . .]
While she mulled over over her options, Mr. Bennett was urging her to allow him to approach Mr. Tate, Mr. Libby's lawyer, to try tonegotiate a deal that would get her out of jail. Mr. Bennet wanted to revive the question of the waivers that Mr. Libby and other administration officials signed the previous year authorizing reporters to disclose their confidential discussions.
The other reporters subpoenaed in the case said such waivers were coerced. They said administration officials signed them only because they feared retribution from the prosecutor or the White House. Reporters for at least three news organizations had then gone back to their sources and obtained additional assurances that convinced them the waivers were genunie. But Ms. Miller said she had not gotten an assurance that she felt would allow her to testify.
Again, from the front page New York Times story on . . . October 16, 2005. Though this was not the first reporting on Miller's position, this front page story of the Times was commented in great detail including at CJR Daily here and here. The latter time by the same writer who now wonders "Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" Repeatedly hitting the designated pinata with articles focusing on her conduct while reducing the conduct of Bob Woodward to asides (whispered asides?) doesn't appear to make for brave "watchdoggery."
Democracy Now! has a special presentation today. The headlines above were composed by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Wally of The Daily Jot and Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix. Thanks to Dallas for his help with links and tags. The above will be reposted at The Third Estate Sunday Review and may also be reposted at the sites of members participating.
here are headlines.
We've composed the following twelve headlines dealing with Iraq, peace, global warming, reproductive rights, Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, prisons, the Patriot Act, the media, fatalities and other topics.
1) From Dahr Jamail's MidEast Wire (Iraq Dispatches):
Monday in Iraq, US troops fired on a car in Ba'qubah, killing five, two adults and three children. The US military states that they feared the car "booby-trapped." The family had been returning from visiting relatives when a US convoy approached. The car was fired on from the front and the back. One Iraqi was quoted as saying, "The ones who brought in the Americans are at fault. Those who support them are at fault. All of them are at fault. Look at these. They are all children. All of them of are children. They killed them. They killed my entire family."
2) In the United States the Associated Press reports that Cindy Sheehan returned to Crawford, Texas Thursday and joined what some estimates say were 100 protestors and other estimates say as many as 200.Cindy Sheehan stated, "I feel happy to be back here with all my friends ... but I'm heartbroken that we have to be here again," said Sheehan, who hoped to arrive earlier in the week, but was delayed by a family emergency. "We will keep pressing and we won't give up until our troops are brought home."
3) Since Sheehan and others last gathered at Camp Casey I and Camp Casey II, laws have been passed to prevent further gatherings in Crawford -- "local bans on roadside camping and parking." As protestors returned this week, they were advised they could be arrested. Among those arrested Wednesday were Daniel Ellsberg and US diplomat Ann Wright. Democratic Underground has a report from Carl who was also arrested Wendesday. Carl reports that "The entire [arrest & booking] process took 3.5 hours." Carl advises that the vigils will also take place on Christmas and New Year's Eve as well as that "Donations to the Crawford Veterans For Peace can be mailed to P. O. Box 252, Crawford, Texas, 76638-9998."
4) As the participation of psychologists and psychiatrists in the "BISQUIT" program and other 'interrogation' work raises ethical and professional questions today, CounterPunch is reporting that in WWII, United States anthropologists participated with the Office of Strategic Services in attempts to determine means to destroy the Japanese. David Price reports, in what is a clear betrayal of the profession, anthropologists were instructed "to try to conceive ways that any detectable differences could be used in the development of weapons, but they were cautioned to consider this issue 'in a-moral and non-ethical terms'." Price notes "Ralph Linton and Harry Shapiro, objected to even considering the OSS' request but they were the exceptions."
5) In legal news, as the prison industry has switched to a profit making business, prisoners have found themselves located far from relatives. The distance has proved profitable for long distance companies. The Center for Constitutional Rights argued in court Monday on behalf of "New York family members who pay a grossly inflated rate to receive a phone call from their loved ones in state prisons." CCR notes:
The lawsuit, Walton v. NYSDOCS and MCI, seeks an order prohibiting the State and MCI from charging exorbitant rates to the family members of prisoners to finance a 57.5% kickback to the State. MCI charges these family members a 630% markup over regular consumer rates to receive a collect call from their loved ones, the only way possible to speak with them. Judge George Ceresia of the Supreme Court of New York, Albany County, dismissed the suit last fall, citing issues of timeliness.
6) In other legal news, Cynthia L. Cooper reports for Women's enews that November 30th the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. At issue in this case, is whether or not bans on reproductive freedom enacted by state legislatures must take effect before they can be legally challenged or whether they can be challenged as soon as they are passed. The standard up to now has been that laws can be challenged as soon as they are passed. Cooper notes:
By changing the legal standard for when an abortion restriction can be challenged in court, anti-abortion laws could quickly entangle women across the country, without directly overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that held that states could not criminalize abortion in all circumstances.
7) The Guardian of London reports on a Rutgers University study that has found "[g]lobal warming is doubling the rate of sea level rise around the world, but attempts to stop it by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be futile." Professor Kenneth Miller tells The Guardian's Ashraf Khalil, "This is going to cause more beach erosion. Beaches are going to move back and houses will be destroyed." This comes as the Climate Conference is gearing up to take place in Montreal from November 28th to December 9th. United for Peace and Justiceis issuing a call for action:
This fall let's mobilize a nationwide, grassroots education and action campaign leading up to mass demonstrations in Montreal and throughout the U.S. on Saturday, December 3rd. Help gather signatures for the Peoples Ratification of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.kyotoandbeyond.org), which will be presented in Montreal. Join Climate Crisis: USA Join the World! (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.climatecrisis.us) as we call for:USA Join the World by Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol
Support and Export Clean, Safe, Non-Nuclear Energy Alternatives
End Government Subsidies for Oil and Coal Corporations
Dramatically Strengthen Energy Conservation and Fuel Efficiency Standards
A Just Transition for Workers, Indigenous and Other Communities Affected by a Change to Clean Energy
Defend the World's Forests; Support Community-Run Tree Planting Campaigns
8) With Congress out of session due to the holidays, a number of organizations are attempting to inform the public of pending legislation. The Bill of Rights Defense Center warns to "[e]xpect a vote [on the renewal of the Patriot Act] after Congress returns on December 12th." Of the bill, Lisa Graves of the ACLU states:
The Patriot Act was bad in 2001, and despite bipartisan calls for reform, it's still bad in 2005. Instead of addressing the real concerns that millions of Americans have about the Patriot Act, the Republican majority in Congress buckled to White House pressure, stripping the bill of modest yet meaningful reforms. Congress must reject this bill.
Both the ACLU and the Bill of Rights of Defense Center are calling for grass roots action.
Also asking for action is NOW. Congress failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.You can make your voice heard via NOW's take action page. On their page, you have the option of e-mailing your representatives and/or signing a petition that NOW will present to Congress on December 5th.
9) Meanwhile, as November winds down, American military fatalities have reached 76 for the month, with the Department of Defense reporting 50 Americans wounded thus far this month. The total number of American military killed in Iraq, official count, has reached 2105. Scripps Howard News Service reports that, "U.S. commanders on the ground have already launched plans to close bases and withdraw troops in the coming year, according to two congressmen who returned from Iraq this week." The two congress members are John Kline and Mark Kennedy (Republicans, Minn.).
10) In other Congressional news, Ari Berman reports for The Nation that John McCain is in the midst of makeover. Meeting with The Arizona Republican Assembly in August, McCain slapped some new war paint on as McCain supported the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" side by side with evolution, the state's "ban on gay marriage that denies government benefits to any unmarried couple," hailed Ronald Reagan as "my hero" and was observed "strenuously defending . . . Bush's Iraq policy."
For those who have forgotten, McCain attended Mark Bingham's funeral. Bingham was one of the passengers of Flight 93 on 9/11 in immediate media reports. As the days wore on, Bingham appeared to disappear from many reports. Mark Bingham was gay. Whether that resulted in a "downgrading" by some in the media has been a source of speculation for some time.
11) Focusing on the media, at The Black Commentator, Margaret Kimberly addresses the issue of Bob Woodward, tying him and his editor to the journalistic behaviors of Judith Miller and her editors:
Miller, Sulzberger, Woodward and Bradlee are at the top of the corporate media food chain, and their behavior tells us why Americans aren't being told anything they ought to be told. Woodward uses his access to make a fortune writing about the Supreme Court or various presidential administrations. If a journalist's priority is writing best selling books based on the amount of access gained with the powerful, then truth telling goes out the window.
12) Also addressing the very similar behaviors of Miller and Woodward are Steven C. Day at Pop Politics, Ron Brynaert at Why Are We Back In Iraq?, and Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post. Though still vocal on Judith Miller and weighing in with the "latest," CJR Daily still can't find a connection between the "journalistic" styles of Judith Miller and Bob Woodward. In their most recent 'Judy report', CJR Daily ponders the question of why did Miller go to jail when Scooter Libby and his people maintain that they released her from confidentiality claims. Covering old news and working themselves into another lather over Miller, CJR Daily wonders"Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" and maintains the question "has never been fully answered." The question has indeed been answered.
Whether CJR Daily approves of or believes the argument of Miller, Floyd Abrams, et al, is beside the point. For the record, the answer has been given many times. The argument was that Miller needed more than a form signed possibly under duress. Abrams and others have long been on the record explaining that they sought a release other than the form. In the front page report, Sunday October 16, 2005, Don Van Natta Jr., Adam Liptak and Clifford J. Levy reported:
She said she began thinking about whether she should reach out to Mr. Libby for "a personal, voluntary waiver."
[. . .]
While she mulled over over her options, Mr. Bennett was urging her to allow him to approach Mr. Tate, Mr. Libby's lawyer, to try tonegotiate a deal that would get her out of jail. Mr. Bennet wanted to revive the question of the waivers that Mr. Libby and other administration officials signed the previous year authorizing reporters to disclose their confidential discussions.
The other reporters subpoenaed in the case said such waivers were coerced. They said administration officials signed them only because they feared retribution from the prosecutor or the White House. Reporters for at least three news organizations had then gone back to their sources and obtained additional assurances that convinced them the waivers were genunie. But Ms. Miller said she had not gotten an assurance that she felt would allow her to testify.
Again, from the front page New York Times story on . . . October 16, 2005. Though this was not the first reporting on Miller's position, this front page story of the Times was commented in great detail including at CJR Daily here and here. The latter time by the same writer who now wonders "Why did Ms. Miller go to jail?" Repeatedly hitting the designated pinata with articles focusing on her conduct while reducing the conduct of Bob Woodward to asides (whispered asides?) doesn't appear to make for brave "watchdoggery."
Democracy Now! has a special presentation today. The headlines above were composed by The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Betty Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Wally of The Daily Jot and Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix. Thanks to Dallas for his help with links and tags. The above will be reposted at The Third Estate Sunday Review and may also be reposted at the sites of members participating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)