amy goodman and alfred mccoy discuss kubark

i want to note a long section from democracy now today. this is from "Professor McCoy Exposes the History of CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror:"

ALFRED McCOY: Right, his son Eric Olson insists that his father was murdered by the C.I.A. Eric Olson believes that his father did a tour of Europe, and he visited the ultimate Anglo-American test site, black site near Frankfurt, where they were doing lethal experiments, fatal experiments, on double agents and suspected double agents, and that his father returned enormously upset by the discovery that this research was actually killing people, and that, therefore, Eric Olson argues his father was killed by the C.I.A., that he was pushed.
AMY GOODMAN: And didn't they do experiments in brothels in the San Francisco area?
ALFRED McCOY: They had two kind of party houses. They had one in the San Francisco Bay Area, another in New York City. And what they did in San Francisco was they had prostitutes who go out to the streets, get individuals, bring them back, give them a drink, and there would be a two-way mirror, and the C.I.A. would photograph these people.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the C.I.A. were running the brothel.
ALFRED McCOY: They were running the brothel. They were running all of these experiments, okay? They did that on Army soldiers through the Army Chemical Warfare Division.
AMY GOODMAN: What did they do there?
ALFRED McCOY: Again, they gave them LSD and other drugs to see what effect they would have.
AMY GOODMAN: And what did the soldiers think they were getting?
ALFRED McCOY: They were just told they were participating in an experiment for national defense.
AMY GOODMAN: Prisoners?
ALFRED McCOY: No, these were --
AMY GOODMAN: Right, but also on prisoners, were there experiments?
ALFRED McCOY: There were some in prisons in the United States and also the Drug Treatment Center in Lexington, Kentucky. The Federal Drug Treatment Center in Lexington, Kentucky, had this. All of this research, all this very elaborate research --
AMY GOODMAN: On unwitting Americans?
ALFRED McCOY: Unwitting Americans, produced nothing, okay? What they found time and time again is that electroshock didn't work, and sodium pentathol didn't work, LSD certainly didn't work. You scramble the brain. You got unreliable information. But what did work was the combination of these two rather boring, rather mundane behavioral techniques: sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain.
And in 1963, the C.I.A. codified these results in the so-called KUBARK Counterintelligence Manual. If you just type the word "KUBARK" into Google, you will get the manual, an actual copy of it, on your computer screen, and you can read the techniques [Read the report.] But if you do, read the footnotes, because that's where the behavioral research is. Now, this produced a distinctively American form of torture, the first real revolution in the cruel science of pain in centuries, psychological torture, and it's the one that's with us today, and it's proved to be a very resilient, quite adaptable, and an enormously destructive paradigm.

there are a number of reasons to note the above including that it's a part of the united states' history that we should be aware of. but sherry e-mailed me about someone posting that kooks were drawn to impeachment rallies. the person who wrote that doesn't see himself as a kook. i don't see him as a kook either. i see him as destructive.

i'll leave it at that. this is a short entry because i've just deleted 9 paragraphs. a writer as worthless as the one sherry stumbled upon isn't worth me wasting my website on.

cowboy junkies and guantanamo prisoners

the amazing cedric has what should be the last word on 'no-manners.' i had a heads up to it and was waiting for it to go up before blogging tonight. it's called 'You drop the Trash at the curb and let it go.' well said.

i'm listening to the cowboy junkies right now. i mention that because i had 2 e-mails from people who went out and bought hair. great, it's a wonderful musical. now make a point to check out the cowboy junkies' early 21st century blues.

this is what kat wrote about the cd in her year-in-music-review:

Early 21st Century Blues. This Cowboy Junkies CD actually got national exposure . . . via The Laura Flanders Show. If others had followed Flanders' lead, this might have been one of the more talked about albums of 2005. The album features two original songs and nine covers. Among the covers are songs by Bob Dylan, from his pre-brand days. I have to be in the mood for their version of John Lennon's "I Don't Want To Be A Solider." Wally enjoyed this but Cedric and I felt that the combination of the Junkies' understated approach and Rebel's rap were an uneasy mix. The album ends on a high note, a cover of U2's "One." Unlike on Mary J. Blige's latest album, you don't wait for Bono to shut up and get out the way so that Blige can work her magic. That's because he's not featured. Margo Timmins' voice is haunting on this song and the covers of Bruce Springsteen's "You're Missing" and "Brothers Under The Bridge" should have resulted in saturation airplay. If you missed this CD, locate a copy and listen.

the link in the title takes you to a piece we all worked on.

i think most of my readers know that elaine has to take off thursday nights because she does group on that night. she called this afternoon and asked if i could note something for her. she said, 'if you can't, don't worry, and i'll try to find time to do it myself tonight.' i told her not to be silly, i'd be happy to do it. this is from democracy now.

UN Investigators Call on U.S. to Close Guantanamo
In other news, United Nations investigators have called on the Bush administration to immediately close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba. The UN report urges the US government to "refrain from any practice amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The report goes on to state "In the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, the U.S. executive operates as judge, as prosecutor, and as defense council: this constitutes serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal." About 500 men are being held at the site. Charges have never been filed against most of them. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack dismissed the report. He said the U.N. information was based on "hearsay."

elaine and c.i. have both hit on hard this issue repeatedly. they don't think 'detainees' is a term that should be used. as c.i. said once, 'detainee? that makes it sound like you got stopped in customs for not declaring a taxable item.' they are prisoners. they have been held for years and years now. when does the outrage set in? we've all addressed the topic together at the third estate sunday review.

this is something you'll have to answer for. children in a generation or 2 will ask you, 'how were you able to just stay silent and look the other way?' so if that's your plan to keep on ignoring this, you might use that looking away time to come up with a good excuse. this is a sad thing, this is a tragedy.

being scared senseless immediately after 9-11 might have been understandable for some, goodness knows the bully boy was working overtime - the only time he ever works - to scare the nation. and you may have been grieving and felt like 'who cares?'

well it's past time to care. want to make money in afghanistan? kidnap some 1 and turn him over to the authorities telling them you've captured a terrorist.

some of them were children. they've spent 4 years locked away. if they had any information, it was old long ago. in the meantime, as many of the prisoners realize that they are never getting out, they go on a hunger strike. so we brutalize them. we force feed them in spite of the fact that every patient has the right to refuse treatment.

but we can't have them dying on us, not while the world's condemning us even if our own press isn't paying attention.

this is nonsense and it should have been addressed a long time ago. your children will study in this history classes, their children will study it. the matt dillon of the future will star in a film where he falls in love with 1 of the prisoners or the family of a prisoner (like golden gate). it's a travesty and we willingly tossed aside our own principles to feel 'safe'. then we left our principles in the trash can because it was too messy to deal with.


let me skate on c.i.'s coattails and recommend that you read danny schechter's 'JACK ABRAMOFF'S WHITE MAN'S BURDEN: How the Sleazy Republican Lobbyist Boosted Apartheid:'

Last week, pictures of Abramoff and President Bush, photos whose existence was first denied by the White House, turned up on the internet. Yes, they knew each other and met several times. Ambramoff claims Karl Rove was his buddy.
Still to come are images of Abramoff on his African "liberation" safari taking up the white man’s burden in the name of discrediting Nelson Mandela. The African National Congress leader's freedom was demanded by millions at the time, with the exception of politicians like then Congressman Dick Cheney who voted against a Congressional resolution calling for Mandela's release from prison. (Cheney also opposed overturning Ronald Reagan's ban on sanctions against South Africa, a ban Jack Abramoff personally worked in Hollywood to support as a Pretoria funded agent.)
Don't you think there must be a photo somewhere of young Jack with South Africa’s apartheid-era President, P.W. "The Crocodile" Botha. Putting those two presidential trophy shots side by side, Botha on one side, Bush on the other, will complete this connection between the ongoing fight for truth and racial justice and the Bush Administration's commitment to "Abramoff Family Values" (AFW) designed to enrich "just us." (The LA Times has since reported that Ambramoff considered Karl Rove a friend.)

this is a complicated story, jack abramoff and danny really is one of the few i've read (echoing c.i. here) who has written an easy to follow story on this that engages you as a reader.

lastly read this by wally for laughs and, remember, it is okay to laugh. humorless scolds may tell you otherwise, but it is okay to laugh. (love the martha mitchell appearance - wonder who she is based upon? i don't.)



danny schechter
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
like maria said paz
cedrics big mix
democracy now
kats korner
the cowboy junkies

on 'no-manners' and a story i hope we're following

elaine just called and filled me in on something while begging me to post now and not later because she was going to call mike back. mike's furious about something. he's like a bull seeing red right now.

here's the short version. no-manners, my name for the blogger, slammed the bloggers on the left for the attention to dick cheney shooting a man. she went further telling people who made jokes about the shooting that they should be "ashamed" (thanks to sherry for forwarding me the forward because i never go to no-manners' site). in that entry she says she's delinked from a number of blogs. then she lists a long list of what bloggers should be writing about, 'important stuff.' but the next day, when new abu ghraib photos are released, she's writing about ... a willie nelson country song.

no-manners should tsk-tsk at herself.

so why do i call her no-manners? wait, i'm getting ahead of myself.

among the sites (not blogs, no-manners, the common ills is a resource/review) she delinked from was the common ills. since she's on her huffy bike about dick cheney, i'll note (she has trouble comprehending) that c.i. has talked about the shooting. c.i. has made no joke about the shooting. c.i. has pointed out that overseas coverage notes that cheney has a medical team with him due to his health condition. american press is largely reluctant to note that. for the 1st three days c.i.'s noted the shooting, that's been the focus.

but no-manners has trouble reading the new york times as well. (whole other story.) maybe we should buy her some flash cards?

so this all starts months ago when c.i. makes the mistake of including a link to no-manners that a reader noted. c.i. gets the 1st name wrong and no-manners is in an uproar. so c.i. apologizes at the site and corrects it and notes her again the next day. because c.i. tries to support women bloggers, the community panel decides to include her on the links.

so you'd think she'd be happy that any 1 bothered to note her once let alone repeatedly. doesn't happen. she feels the need to e-mail c.i. and say she doesn't care for the look of the site.

that's why i call her no-manners.

i have enough brains and manners not to walk into some 1's home and say, 'oh i hate your couch.' no-manners has no taste and apparently no brains.

so a member wrote mike about no-manners post and mike's furious. he thinks, according to elaine, that no-manners thinks she's doing heavy lifting. well, if she wants to live in the land of delusion ...

mike's also angry that the only thing resembling a 'joke' about cheney has been c.i. steering readers to wally's stuff. c.i. hasn't quoted wally because c.i. always worries about spoiling a joke.
if that's all it took to set no-manners off, so be it.

but wally's doing great work and no-manners is ... writing about an old willie nelson song.

wally's hilarious. we're all proud of wally and we don't need ms. rudeness's judgement call since she's already demonstrated that she was raised in a manners-free zone.

i remember when c.i. called me and asked, 'rebecca, is this normal?' and then told me about no-manners begruding e-mail (don't like the look of your site). i think it goes to jealousy.

she also slammed an entry by c.i. and ava and c.i. took the high road on that. me, i would've pointed out that she didn't know the 1st thing she was talking about and might want to try reading before writing on something.

so yesterday's she's screaming at the left and telling them how awful they are and how ashamed they should be. if she read a joke she didn't like, anywhere, she didn't have to laugh. did cheney hold a pellet gun to her head? see, that's a joke. 'SOME 1 WAS SHOT!' she'd scream in her attempt to be barbra streisand in the way we were ('her husband is dead!'). as robert redford says in that movie, 'some 1 told a bad joke' that's all, no-manners. at the very worst they told a bad joke.

but wally didn't tell a bad joke. and the fact that he's getting more e-mails than he ever has indicates people are enjoying his humor.

here's a hard reality for no-manners, don't be cjr. don't write what people should be writing about unless you're then going to be writing about that. don't say 'what you should be focusing on is ...' and then jerk off to a post on willie nelson.

but, bloggers of the left be warned, no-manners is taking down names and sure to give you a firm tsk-tsk.

now let's talk about something that does matter. this is from democracy now today.

GAY BAR VICTIM FILES COMPLAINT OVER MEDICAL TREATMENT
Back in the United Sates, one of the men lfet injured in an attack on a Massachusetts gay bar has filed a complaint alleging paramedics gave him poor treatment because of his sexual orientation. Robert Perry was hit in the head and shot in the back when 18-year-old Jacob Robida attacked him and two others earlier this month. Robida later killed himself during a police chase. In his complaint, Perry says paramedics delayed taking him to a hospital, were physically and verbally abusive, and shared medical information without his permission. Perry, who himself directs an ambulance service in Boston, said he had never seen an ambulance crew acting "so cruel and hate-filled."

now, it's not a willie nelson song, but i think it's important.


i really am surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention. no, i'm not scolding bloggers. i'm talking about newspapers, i've got the washington post and the new york times here each day and this hasn't gotten any real attention. more was written over the attacker killing himself (several stories in the new york times) than on the victims. in fact, other than the original article on the attack, i'm not remembering a single article that dealt with the victims at all.

what's changed since matthew shepard died? or is it, as fair's extra wondered the fact that shepard was blond, young and his body found in a such a way that the writers could note 'scarecrow'? from extra's '20 stories that made a difference:'

15. Before Matthew Shepard was beaten and left for dead in Laramie, Wyoming on October 7, 1998, homophobic violence and discrimination received little serious attention in the news or the general public. But the attack on the 21-year-old gay man struck a media nerve -- starting with an AP story (10/9/88) whose lead memorably described Shepard as having been "tied to a wooden ranch fence like a scarecrow" -- marking the first time an anti-gay attack received extensive and sympathetic coverage.
His orientation aside, Shepard's story had many of the elements that commercial media look for in a crime story: a young, good-looking white victim with a dramatic death (whose crucifixion imagery added poignancy). [. . .]

so what's changed? are the victims not seen as sympathetic? if that's the answer, are they seen as less sympathetic because of the direction the bully boy has led the nation in? three men were assaulted in a club for no other reason except that they were gay. where's the press outrage? why the desire to look the other way?

thoughts on taking time

poor elaine and mike. i've heard from both of them, screaming on the phone, wondering 'what is going on!' they're both trying to post quickly and get out the door because it's valentine's day and they have plans. well c.i. noted this morning that blogger/blogspot was acting up. mike's getting the same screen c.i. got when the 2nd post was lost and elaine's trapped in forever publishing. so hopefully mike will be able to recover his post. with elaine? c.i. was trapped in publishing for a 1/2 hour this morning on an entry that never did publish.

for readers who don't blog, let me explain. if you're reading this at my site, it's published. when i'm writing it, i'm in a fairly small square. after a few paragraphs, i can't even see what i've already written. but when i'm done with my post i have 2 options:

1) save as draft
2) publish post

if i'm ready to publish, i click on publish post.

'that's pretty easy' you say.

no, it isn't. and fyi, i just got an error message at the bottom of the screen telling me i wasn't connected to blogger. so after i click on publish, i'm not done. i have to then republish index and republish blog. those are 2 options. the 1st 1 goes quick. the 2nd 1 can take a bit longer. (if you have almost 3,000 posts as c.i. does, it can take 20 minutes or more.) i could probably get away with just doing the 1st 1 (republish index) because technorati has never read my tags. but for mike and c.i., they have to republish blog to be read by technorati.

elaine just called again. she's still stuck in 'republish blog' it's never taken her more than 4 minutes before. i told her to turn the computer off and get her ass out the door. technorati doesn't read her site either. (they also don't reply to her e-mails despite twice sending out an automated message that they'd be contacting her in X number of business days. the 1st time she wrote them was in october. i'm having a hard time believing that they still haven't found time to reply and elaine writes nice e-mails unlike me.)

so there's the error message again. is this happening to everyone on blogger/blogspot or just sites in this community? i don't know. we had huge problems at 3rd estate sunday review in the early hours of the morning and had to call the uk computer gurus in and let them log into the account to see what was going on. they fixed something, not in the account but in the connection to the internet, that's supposed to have made it more secure to log in.

so it's v-day. i'm waiting on fly boy. he'll be late and i know that because he said he would when we made our plans saturday. my gift came mid-day. 4 people he hired to sing some selections from hair to me. i thought that was the nicest gift in the world. (i really do love that musical.)
i just sat on the front porch and enjoyed it.

last valentine's day i didn't have a 'date' and i had fun none the less. so if you don't have a date and you're feeling sorry for yourself, stop it. call up some friends. invite them over or go out. or maybe take some time for yourself. just enjoy some time alone. (c.i.'s got work stuff tonight but i bet if you asked the reply would be 'time alone would be the best gift in the world.')

oh gina called today about the entry c.i. did. she said, this will make members laugh, 'i have been wrong for over a year. c.i. is not oprah, c.i. is jeff probst." i had read the entry and that made me laugh so hard. you probably have to have watched survivor at least once.

c.i.'s writing about a really lame article (that everyone's seen repeatedly but for some reason the nation felt the need to pay the guy to write it 1 more time - i bet it would have been cheaper to have purchased the right to republish 1 of his older pieces) and it's because members were complaining about it. c.i. had some stuff that was important to the community and wasn't able to highlight it in the morning entries (did highlight it in the 2nd 1 but the whole post got lost). so the plan was to highlight it in the mid-day entry.

didn't happen. 43 e-mails had come in that morning about maxy holland's article in the nation. according to ava, the e-mails continued to come in until that entry went up. she's guessing it was 300. that's not even 10% of the community but if members are complaining, c.i. has to write something. so it has a very, the entry, 'the tribe has spoken' quality to it.

that's why gina's joke was so funny.

but, as gina pointed out, there were things planned for that entry. c.i. noted it in the 2nd entry of the morning. that all got scrapped due to the e-mails.

i never have to do that. i'm serving a community. i just write what i want and figure if people like it, cool. if they don't, no problem. that's not slapping c.i. down in any way. but it is noting that c.i. long ago had to become a spokesperson. there's more freedom at the third estate sunday review (for c.i.) but at the common ills, it's always about the community.

the 1 entry c.i. was sure would be written (we're going back to the end of november in 2004) was on privatizing water because c.i. is opposed to that (that's an understatement) and it's an important issue. it's not 1 that there's been time to write. because c.i.'s always writing about the issues that the community wants. i'm not knocking c.i. or the community but i am noting that i don't have that sort of responsibility. (or that mass love. the community loves c.i. they trust c.i. as well. and that comes from serving the needs of the community.)

it's an obligation. i'm sure there are many wonderful things that come with it, but don't kid that it also is an obligation.

i don't want to poke a bear here but the attack on c.i. last year was based on c.i. serving the community. the 2 people who were angry never seemed to get that c.i. was apologizing to the community for sending them, without a heads up, to a site that had features that members don't approve of. so c.i. writes that apology and makes sure not to attack either of the 2 but they seemed to think that they had a right to butt in on what was community business.

i personally think c.i. ate shit on that. both on apologizing to the community and from the response of the 2.

i'm not slamming c.i., i'm not slamming the community and i'm not even slamming the 2. i'm just making the obvious observation that the entry was written clearly to the community, the apology offered in that (by c.i.) was clearly to the community. it wasn't any 1 else business unless they were a community member (i am a community member).

i should note that these are my opinions so c.i. doesn't read this or hear about it and get pissed.
c.i. doesn't talk about. i know the whole thing was frustrating and a nightmare. but the way i see it, it was the business of the community only. no outsiders needed to butt in.

things were written about the community at those 2 sites which, c.i. would argue, is the business of those 2 people because it's their sites. but the thing i won't get over is that 1 of them felt the need to call c.i. a 'liar' for not posting something by that person. 1st off, you have your own site. it's not c.i.'s obligation to post anything by a non-member at the common ills. 2nd of all, i saw the e-mails, the person never asked for it to be posted. there were 2 e-mails in 1 night and there was no request in those 2 of 'please post this.'

it's not c.i.'s job to write a post you want. and this was in the middle of c.i.'s health crisis (knock wood because now things seem fine). but the thing is, that entry that so enraged was not anyone outside the community's business.

i say all that to make the point that most people outside the community don't get the common ills. they don't get what it's about. they'll say it's a 'blog.' it's not. i have a blog. i write what i want when i want. i don't have to do multiple entries each day. i don't have to figure out a way to address an issue that i may have no interest in.

c.i. thought it would be a blog. but that changed because readers weren't readers. they were saying, 'hey this is my issue and no 1 writes about it' or something similar. c.i. was opposed to the war, loudly and clearly, before it changed. the 1st real day of posting at the common ills was when the slaughter in falluja was starting and c.i. had posted 'here comes the madmen' so that was a known. any 1 who joined the community knew the site was going to be opposed to the war. and that's the reason a lot of members joined up to begin with because after the 2004 election, few people wanted to talk about the war.

if they did, on the left, they were often making weak ass statements about how we had to stay in or some such nonsense. they couldn't talk straight then. some of then couldn't a year later.

and that's partly why members expect c.i. to speak for the community. the common ills is always the voice when you've got some others being silent.

but there's not an entry that's gone up in the last month and a 1/2 that i think c.i.'s written for c.i. it's an obligation. c.i. would call it an honor but i would call it an obligation. c.i's a poster child for a movement and can live with that because c.i.'s always been outer-directed. but in july when c.i. announced the common ills would end after the 2008 election, a lot of us were shocked. i was shocked for about 3 minutes and then i thought, 'of course it will.' it's too much work. the e-mails flood the inboxes of both the private account and the public 1.

i told ava when we were talking on the phone today that if it were me, i'd be pulling my hair out and screaming 'what do you people want from me!' but that c.i.'s always been able to handle that kind of pressure. but i wasn't raised to believe that i had obligations. c.i. was raised with that instilled. obligations to others on every level.

the 1st time my mother met c.i., they spoke for 3 hours. afterwards, she said c.i. was 1 of the nicest and most polite people she'd ever met but she hadn't learned a thing about c.i. there's the privacy issue, to be sure, but there's also the fact that c.i. wasn't raised to talk about c.i. there were important topics and talking about yourself wasn't considered 1 of them.

so c.i. can handle this but if it were me, i would've gone crazy a long time ago. and i would have for sure have posted 'i am taking a day off!' each and every day since it began in november of 2004, there's been a post (there have been several actually). now sometimes, due to travel, c.i. can't get to the computer so there will be posts dictated but that's really not time off.

now maybe you're reading this and thinking 'that describes me.' if it does, take time for yourself tonight. if you're alone, think, 'thank god i'm alone' and enjoy the time to do what you want. without guilt.

and that seems like an ending note. i want to repeat i wasn't slamming c.i. (or any 1 else) in this post. c.i. can handle it and juggle a million and 1 things. i can't. i don't think most people could. if you can, i'm not slamming you. you have a great gift and we're all the better for it.

hopefully, you won't push yourself to the point of being burnt out. that's not a veiled warning to c.i. there's no burn out there. give c.i. 5 minutes of quiet and it's time to get going again. recently, on a dicated entry, c.i. quoted stevie nicks. the song 'alice.' about 'get some ribbons and some bows and get back out on the road again.' i couldn't do that. if you can, i'm not envious of you but i am thankful that people like you exist. you do the heavy lifting for the rest of us when we're tired and worn out. so if i've described you, and this was the point of this post, you may be alone tonight because you're always doing for others and tonight's a night where ever 1 plays noah's arc and joins up in 2 by 2s. so if you are like that and you are alone, you have done enough. (that's a reference to stevie nicks' 'jane.') so just kick back and relax for the evening.
(and no, that's not a hint to c.i. either. c.i.'s booked solid for this evening.)

isaiah on signging statements, alice walker and more

i love all of isaiah's the world today jut nuts but this one, from sunday, really made me laugh. hey, where's cokie roberts on signing statements? or lying us into war? remember her (as c.i. calls it) 'clutch the pearls journalism' as she went on and on about how bill clinton's lying about a blow job, 'as a mother', was just a shock to the nation's children and what kind of an example was he setting for children? so when i saw isaiah's latest, i was laughing my ass off. and, fyi, what a hotty daddy. truly, he's a hunk. even with that retro mustache.

if you're in the dark, when bully boy signed the overly applaueded mccain-bill-anti-torture-act, he also signed a statement that said 'we'll do what we want' basically. he'll follow that law of the land if he wants and if he doesn't want to, he won't.

it's a funny comic. and it's monday which is always a drag so let's have a good laugh.

and thank you for the e-mails. everyone wrote 'no, i get what you're saying.' i think what happened was that everyone was willing to 'add water.' but thank you.

back to the laughter, need more? check out wally's "THIS JUST IN! DICK CHENEY HAS A FISHING MISHAP!" i bring that up because sherry wondered why i and others hadn't been noting isaiah's last two comics (prior to the 1 above)?

we were all in disbelief that, given the chance to stand, democrats chose to collectively cave on the alito nomination. then coretta scott king passed away. it was a lot to deal with. and wally took it especially hard. really hard. and there was a feeling that he might stop blogging. c.i. told all of us to back off and give him space (good advice and we followed it) so he could sort things out. 1 thing he always did was note isaiah's comics and none of us wanted to risk posting 1 when he might be thinking 'okay, if nothing else i can post isaiah's comic'. we didn't want to risk stepping on his toes or him thinking 'well rebecca's already posted it so . . .'

wally took a week off and really was ready to go back to blogging on the 5th day but that ended up being the day he phoned c.i. and c.i. said 'kat and i are going to d.c., want to come?' so it got postponed, resuming blogging, until the monday after. at which point, he was still in d.c. and got to see some of the gonzales hearing on the bully boy's warrantless spying on americans. that, and a number of other things, led him to his return post with the dateline of 'd.c.' and the 'bully boy press' tag. (c.i. was pointing out the reporters running to 1 another asking 'what's the lead!' of each other which wally found pretty disgusting to witness.) that's what he's doing now, the bully boy press, at the daily jot but, as c.i. cautioned, that's what he's doing now. he may go with something else tomorrow, next week or next month.

enjoy it while we've got it and, trust me, cheney's latest mishap (wally's created the mishap, it didn't happen) is funny so read it.

here's another thing that's funny and worth reading, "Cowardly Journalism Review (Parody)" as karen would say on will & grace, it's funny because it's true. what sort of watchdog never barks while the house is being robbed? think of the house as our country and you'll see that it's cjr.
as noted in "A Note to Our Readers" ava and c.i. both objected to many features when they were proposed but then got into the swing of things. c.i.'s contributions on this were factual but they were also funny. when we thought something was funny and were all laughing, c.i. would either say (or jess or ava or 2 of them or 3 of them) 'uh-huh, but say it this way' or 'uh-huh, but add this' and then after we did and read back over it, we'd be laughing even harder.

this may end up being nothing but recommendations, but did you watch democracy now today?
if not, please check out:

"I am a Renegade, an Outlaw, a Pagan" - Author, Poet and Activist Alice Walker in Her Own Words
February is African-American History Month. To honor it, we bring you a conversation with the renowned author, poet and activist Alice Walker. She is perhaps best known for her book "The Color Purple" for which she won the Pulitzer Prize in 1983, becoming the first African-American woman to win the Pulitzer for fiction. The novel was adapted into an Oscar-nominated feature length film and has been recently made into a Broadway musical. Alice Walker's latest novel is "Now is the Time to Open Your Heart."
Last month, 1,000 people gathered in the First Congregational Church in Oakland to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Media Alliance. We spend the hour playing Amy Goodman's onstage interview with Alice Walker. [includes rush transcript - partial]

alice walker's a favorite writer of mine. that said, most of you are aware that i sat on reading possessing the secret of joy. c.i. gave me that in hardcover for christmas the year it came out. i did mean to read it, i just never got around to it until the end of last year. it's a great book. i think my favorite walker book, however, (after the color of purple, it's everyone's favorite) was her latest novel now is the time to open your heart. that's about the search for peace and justice and what does it mean. the main character learns early on that it doesn't mean doing yoga in nice environment. and that it doesn't mean denying a range of emotions. i really love that book and bet you will too.

also note robert parry's "Why U.S. Intelligence Failed, Redux:"

Some key officials in George W. Bush's administration -- from former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to Vice President Dick Cheney -- have long been part of this trend toward seeing intelligence as an ideological weapon, rather than a way to inform a full debate. Other figures in Bush's circle of advisers, including his father, the former president and CIA director, have played perhaps even more central roles in this transformation. [More on this below. Also see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]
For his part, the younger George Bush has shown little but disdain for any information that puts his policies or "gut" judgments in a negative light. In that sense, Bush's thin skin toward contradiction can’t be separated from the White House campaign, beginning in July 2003, to discredit retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson for publicly debunking the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. That retaliation included the exposure of Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA officer.
Dating Back to Watergate
Though one cost of corrupting U.S. intelligence can now be counted in the growing U.S. death toll in Iraq, the origins of the current problem can be traced back to the mid-1970s, when conservatives were engaged in fierce rear-guard defenses after the twin debacles of the Vietnam War and Watergate. In 1974, after Republican President Richard Nixon was driven from office over the Watergate political-spying scandal, the Republicans suffered heavy losses in congressional races. The next year, the U.S. -backed government in South Vietnam fell.
At this crucial juncture, a group of influential conservatives coalesced around a strategy of accusing the CIA's analytical division of growing soft on communism. These conservatives -- led by the likes of Richard Pipes, Paul Nitze, William Van Cleave, Max Kampelman, Eugene Rostow, Elmo Zumwalt and Richard Allen -- claimed that the CIA's Soviet analysts were ignoring Moscow’s aggressive strategy for world domination. This political assault put in play one of the CIA's founding principles -- objective analysis.

secrecy & privilege is a great book. all of robert parry's books are worth reading. he's probably my favorite author. in the article above, he's walking you through how intel was fixed.

last week, i did a dream entry about a dream (nightmare) i'd had and i've received a number of e-mails asking for more like that. the problem is that i usually don't remember my names. but i spoke to kat and she recommended a herbal mixture you drink as a tea so i'm headed to the health store tomorrow and hopefully that will help. but remember that the dream was inspired by reading joan mellen's a farewell to justice. that book is a must read but it's a frightening read so i'll repeat what i said before: read in broad daylight. but read it. if you're thinking, 'what's the point?' let me note 1 more time mellen's article "HOW THE FAILURE TO IDENTIFY, PROSECUTE AND CONVICT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINS HAS LED TO TODAY'S CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY." if you're on the fence about reading a farewell to justice, read the article and see if it doesn't make you want to pick up the book.

last recommendation, i swear, c.i.'s "NYT: "Republicans on Hill Add Voice To Dissent Over Eavesdropping" (Sheryl Gay Stolberg)" which addresses more topics than can be named in a brief sentence. just read it.

dick cheney
the third estate sunday review
the common ills
the daily jot
robert parry
a farewell to justice
joan mellen

consider this an add water post

every 1 and their dog e-mailed in to say either 'try this' or 'woof' (okay, no dogs e-mailed). i appreciate the tips but to be honest with you, i'd heard them all before. we're talking about cramping by the way. and tried them all. and yesterday elaine was full of 'do this' and 'try this' so don't think i'm saying anything about readers i wouldn't say about friends.

1 thing did actually work and it didn't come by e-mail. it came by special delivery. i called c.i. and asked, 'what is this crap?' it was preserves, organic. i don't eat preserves generally. i also don't eat raspberry preserves (or jelly). and c.i. prefers red plum preserves (and jelly). so i knew this wasn't just a gift-gift, but 1 that was supposed to 'help.'

'just try it' i was told in a patient voice. 'just try it' i was told 3 minutes later in a voice straining to be patient.

so i did. i don't like raspberries. i made some toast. spread it on the toast. took a bite. something fizzy was happening to the roof of my mouth. i noticed that right away. i wasn't as down on the taste as i thought i'd be. i went ahead and finished the toast.

within 20 minutes, i noticed the cramping was gone. i have no idea what's in it or how it worked, but the pain went from so bad i wanted to curl up in a ball and hold a pillow to my abdomen to no pain at all. that was this afternoon. about an hour ago, i could feel it start to return so i made some more toast and spread some more preserves on it. i'm fine right now.

i have no idea what's in it. it says organic. and that you 'must' refrigerate after opening.

i'd heard all of elaine's suggestions before and tried them before with no luck, ditto the e-mailed suggestions. if that's working for any of you, keep on it. but if not, you might want to look into trying some organic raspberry preserves because the ones c.i. sent did the trick.

crystal haidl didn't offer any suggestions for cramps but she did e-mail to note a project:

(Philadelphia, February 9, 2006) Sexual dialogue in America isn't getting the respect it deserves. Not on Valentines. Not on the airwaves, nor on the Internet-- and only with a little compromise at your local Kinko's. That, according to small press editor and publisher Crystal Syben Haidl, is why she’s challenging 333 Americans to discuss their sexual feelings in individual 33-minute phone conversations with her, beginning February 14. Haidl, whose non-fiction coffee table is about threesomes-- hence the campaign's "three-isms"-- is initiating the person-to person radio-appearance outreach to publicize the importance of sexual freedom of speech against the growing range of businesses-- like Internet behemoth EBay to independent US print shops-- that are choosing to not conduct transactions with sexually themed companies.
"There's a grave paradox and ironic insanity in America's handling of sexual discussion as a kind of contraband," says Haidl. At a time when the Pope recently surprised the world with his poetic embrace of Eros, or sexual love, as primordial and "rooted in man's very nature," America's blatant love affair with sex focuses on economic tease. Sexualizing high-tech, seducing food and beverages, and titillating porn have established flirtatious comfort zones for consumers and companies. But serious sexual discussion makes corporate America and the FCC squirm. Ducking under fears that adult content has high risk return rates (which the Adult industry denies) to citing the Supreme Court's ruling for "community standards"-- as a protection to employees, conservative clients and consumers, alike--sexual content is conveniently blanketed under a one-size- fits- all label. The porn industry can afford higher priced vending options to overcome the restrictive hurdles imposed by banking, corporate and FCC dictates. But less profitable sensual, educational products are left somewhere lost between the bed sheets.
Haidl's nude-imaged socio-erotic anthology III(Three) was banned by PayPal, had to be printed in Canada, and she endured a Kinko's employee's outburst upon seeing one of the book's faxed nudes (later apologized for by management). The majority of other e-commerce ban sexual content, too. Nonetheless, Haidl attests, "Before Janet Jackson's inspired FCC crack-down, radio listeners didn't hesitate to call-in during my interviews and they're still sharing their experiences in 2006. The difference is there are less shows allowing sexual themes. "
A forty-something brunette, who is neither sexologist nor health care professional, Haidl intends to start talking to people as soon as e-mails come in (phonesex@threesomebook.com).
"Talking about sex is as humanizing as you can get. It's both fun and intimidating, and in the end you get to know more about yourself and the world." She hopes her efforts encourage well-known sexologists and celebrities to continue the campaign, and anticipates another book in the making.

i think we're too uptight and prudish about sex. i don't know haidl but if you're interested in sharing your own thoughts, e-mail her. i'm happy to note her project and wish her luck with it.
a lot more honesty about sex would be a very good thing.

i'll give you an example of how we're too uptight. if you make a sex joke about a man and a woman, it's no big thing. if you make it about a man and a man or a woman and a woman, suddenly it's a bad thing. not in my mind because in my mind, sexuality between consenting adults is fine regardless of what the hook up is.

now if the joke is mocking some 1 for being gay or lesbian, then fine, object. but this whole idea of 'oh my god, you told a joke about tom cruise and it said he was gay' or whomever is just nonsense. there's nothing wrong with being gay. and being a celebrity means people will talk about your sex life. (considering some of the movies certain actors and actresses have released in the last few years, they should be glad anyone's talking about them in any way.)

it reminds me of all the 'anne heche and ellen kissed in front of clinton!' i don't believe they did. but if they had, so what? people kiss all the time in public and we rarely even think anything other than 'get a room' unless it's a same-sex couple then all the sudden we turn prudish.

i don't see gay or lesbian as an insult. but there are a lot of people who do. and it's sad when it comes from someone who thinks of themselves as 'advanced' in any sense of the word.

if a guy is acting in a manner we would stereotype as feminine or a woman is acting in a manner we would stereotype as masculine that's not really 'acting gay.' i know that's popular with the younger crowd weened on south park: that's so gay!

if you're talking longing looks or touching that can be read as something more than friendship, then there's nothing wrong with noting the homoerotic subtext.

but it bothers me that 'gay' or 'lesbian' is still by some as 'bad'. i don't mean the 'vangical voters. i'm talking about supposed progressive people. and i'm not talking about using slang terms even. i'm talking about a very basic effort to note the subtext.

i don't think i'm getting my point across here.

let's use an example that happened recently. t and i were eating lunch recently and this woman who knows t, i don't know the woman, comes up and starts talking. we were eating at the bar (yes, we were drinking) and the bartender knows t and knows me. the woman had her arm around t and the bartender asked if she was the new girlfriend (t had just started dating her current girlfriend but most people hadn't met the new girlfriend yet).

the woman was so offended and as soon as the bartender walked off, started insisting he was a homophobe. if so, he's a self-hating gay man because he is gay.

the woman was just convinced that this straight man (she thought he was straight) had just made a homophobic remark. as soon as he asked, she removed her arm from t.

there was nothing homophobic there except in the woman's mind. the bartender didn't mean the question to be insulting because he doesn't think 'lesbian' is an insult.

we had to get a table to calm the woman down. she kept insisting that he was homophobic and then started in on how he didn't assume i was a lesbian. well t and i go there all the time because it's near her salon and he knows we're friends and he's also met my ex-husband who sometimes tags along if it's in the evening.

but when she started bringing me into it, that told me that's what it really was about.

'why did the man think i was a lesbian and not rebecca?' the person was in a panic. she can be friends with t. she can laugh and joke with t. but if some 1 assumes that she and t are an item, her day is ruined because on some level she's not comfortable with her own sexuality. she can't take any 1 mistaking her for a lesbian.

we finally had her calm (though not convinced) when calvin comes in, walks over and says, 'oh so this is the new honey!' and once again the woman is in the midst of a panic. less so than before because calvin fits her stereotype of gay. (she never believed us about the bartender until she realized that calvin was the bartender's boyfriend. the bartender didn't fit her limited vision of what a gay man was.) so since calvin's gay, she's miffed but going to great strides to say she's not t's girlfriend and she's not gay and she's married and she has a child. she got all that out without taking a breath.

and then she kept harping on it. to the point that she was pulling out photos from her purse 'see here's my husband' and 'this is my baby.'

t only knows the woman from the salon and the gym they both work out at. when the woman finally left, announcing loudly that she had to get home before her husband did, t said the woman always introduces her at the gym as 'my gay friend.'

so the woman can take a tiny step and probably figures she deserves a gold star and a nobel peace prize for the effort. but if there's any confusion by someone, she goes into a panic.

before she left, when she was still freaking out and i was beyond bored with her and she'd said 't is just a friend' for about the 20th time, i interrupted her to say 'oh t and i are friends too and we make out all the time.' the woman glares at me and tells me i just made a homophobic joke.

so maybe that's explains what i'm talking about or trying to talk about.

there are plenty of times when some 1 will assume t and i are a couple if they know t and haven't met me before. it's never caused me to panic or to feel the need to say 'we're just friends! honest, we're just friends!'

i think the country needs to grow up. not 'a little' but a whole lot.

t said the woman's better than some who introduce her to their other friends as 'my black, gay friend.' i nearly spit out my drink when t said that. we laughed forever that some 1 could be so whatever that they'd need to say that. we started joking that maybe 'friends' like that were introducing her to people who were blind or had never before seen or heard of an african-american.

so maybe that explains what i'm trying to say better than my earlier attempt. but calvin was telling us about how he had made a 'don't drop the soap' joke once and a straight friend had told him he was making homophobic jokes.

last night on er, i just watched tv last night, i felt so sick. (tonight i'm listening to music, right now the hair album.) a male doctor had been in an bachelor auction and the winning bid had been by another male. so you had all these male nurses and doctors (has er ever had a gay male nurse among their characters?) making jokes that collectively and because of the attitudes of the character could be seen as homophobic.

i don't know the characters well enough to know, to be honest. i quit watching when george clooney left. but that did make me uncomfortable because it seemed that the assumption the guys were operating under was that gay is bad. (and probably the pack mentality added to my assumption, i don't know these characters, that they were assuming gay was bad.)

to assume that gay is wrong or less than straight is homophobic.

if calvin made those same jokes and he were on the show, i probably wouldn't have found them homophobic. if a male friend whom i knew had been 1 of the characters, i wouldn't have assumed his remarks were homophobic.

it's like the difference between the character will or woody harrelson's character on will & grace making a joke and the way the same lines would play on a cbs sitcom. on a cbs sitcom, it would come off homophobic. largely because they don't have gay characters on cbs but also because they're so busy trying to be hyper masculine that it's obvious that gay is a bad thing in the world of cbs.

i was talking to t when she called today (with yet more suggestions for my cramps) and she said she thinks it really depends upon where you're coming from. she said she makes jokes, her friends make jokes, but there's a difference between that and jokes that operate under the assumption of 'gay=bad.'

i don't think i've made my point very well at all tonight.

so let's just note that people need to become more comfortable with sexuality. virgin or experienced lover, sexuality effects us all. it is a part of who each of us are.

moronic mars fans, all 3 of them, had a fit the first time ava and c.i. reviewed that crappy show. 'you're homophobic' 3 of them wrote. why? because ava and c.i. had noted the very obvious homoerotic overtones of an episode of the show. which included an all male poker game that ended with the boys stripping down to their underwear. and included lines of breaking up with one another and lines about one guy not going to the prom with another. or when they reviewed freddie they made the very obvious point that freddie prinze jr and brian austin green weren't exactly the stereotypes of masculinity when they reviewed the episode that ended with freddie and green pretending to be a gay couple. it was an offensive episode and it was offensive because they immediately went to stereotype city.

i can only assume that the 4 people who had a problem with those reviews have a problem with gay men. (and that they can't read very well because in the moronic mars review, ava and c.i. noted that the homoerotic subtext was the only interesting thing about the show and that they wished there was more of it.) in moronic, it was a constant joke. in freddie it was an insulting 'gag' added at the end of a really lame episode (where green had already crossdressed).

ty mentioned those e-mails to me this afternoon when we were tossing around some ideas about things to write about for the third estate sunday review this weekend. and it just really blew my mind. maybe those people are so devoted to their shows that they took insult that very obvious things (like a character crossdressing and then pretending to be the stereotypical wife of the lead character) were noted in the reviews? or maybe in their worlds they're okay with gay as long as no 1 ever mentions it. that whole 'do what you want but don't do it in front of me.'

i've never bought that argument because most of the people i've heard make that argument in person have never said the same thing to straight friends.

so if you can figure out my point, great. i'm going to give up on this post because i don't think i'm getting it across.

cramping so in the words of kat, it is what it is

seth green is really hideous. i've got four kings on and he had a funny line about 1 of the guys dating an elderly woman: 'did you get to drive miss daisy?' but he blew it, just as the audience started to laugh, by doing this weird facial tick, clapping his hands loudly and making a weird, animal like sound. you could just feel the audience recoiling as the laughter stopped.

i'll go with ava and c.i., three kings and a two. all 3 kings are do-able. and then there's seth. not funny, not sexy, turns your stomach.

'the return of dr. carter' a commercial just noted. nbc should be subtitled 'what women don't want.'

and if you thought noah wylie looked bland back when he was a regular on er, be prepared because he now looks bland and haggard.

so what else is going on? i was asked if i had anymore dreams? i wish i did. i don't usually remember them. but joan mellen's a farewell to justice really does leave an impression. i hope people will read it. (sherry, bonnie and betty are already on it.)

my name is earl really does suck. they just did a joke about rudy and lord of the rings which was probably funny when the jamie gertz sitcom, still standing, on cbs did it weeks ago. now they're doing rape jokes. this really is a hideous show. and somebody tell jason lee that his looks sailed out of the harbor sometime ago. he's like the thin ned beatty.

for funny check out wally's site, the daily jot. wally's been on a hot streak all week.

lori asked me what my favorite musical on film was? i don't think i could pick just 1. i didn't care for chicago. i thought catherine zeeta jones and queen latifah were great but felt like i was watching ginger rogers in the lead. (i'm not a ginger rogers fan.) i think renee is funny and charming but felt like she didn't cut it in chicago. and richard gere? don't get me started.

i really loved 8 women but i think lori was asking about american musicals.

cameron diaz could be the lead in a musical. she's got that light spirit and would have been perfect for chicago.

so, point, i have to go back many years. i loved bugsy malone - which stars a very young jodie foster and a very young scott baio. also from the 70s, i love cabaret.

and the 60s have a lot of musicals i love. i love funny girl, of course. and i love the 60s look so i also love a lot of musicals that probably most people don't (thoroughly modern millie is a favorite). when you go further back, there are tons. on the town, singing in the rain, carmen jones, 42nd street, easter parade, an american in paris, cabin in the sky, funny face, the harvey girls, and many more.

and i'm a sucker for the musical we all grew up on in this country, the wizard of oz. when i was a kid, i thought kansas was so boring and couldn't get why dorothy would want to leave the emerald city where everything was so colorful and sparkly. i mean, dorothy didn't even have a good pair of shoes until she left kansas! but now i enjoy the whole movie.

favorite song? i know every 1 says 'somewhere over the rainbow' and it's a great song but i really love 'we're off to see the wizard' best.

i used to sing that and skip around when i was little. and wonder, why doesn't a tornado take me to oz? (something that some of my readers probably wish for.)

it's a powerful movie to this day. and the progressive recently did a cover based on it, parodying the administration. 'don't look behind the curtain.' which is true of every thing the bully boy does. empty words, scare campaigns. we have to be dorothy and not fall for it.

that's probably 1 of the reasons the film continues to hold our attention. a lot of people talk about the desire to get back home but people without that desire admire the film too. i think it's because it works on so many levels. you can laugh, you can sing along, you can be scared (those monkeys always scared me) and there's the whole level of the people realizing their power.

worst musical from that era? pal joey. i love frank sinatra in musicals. my mother used to schedule times for us to watch musicals when they came on. (this is pre-vcr days.) she'd make popcorn balls (not just popcorn because you had to have 'special' when watching a musical - i'm sure my love for them comes from my mother) and rice krispie squares. pal joey was the 1st film i saw rita hayworth in. i still don't get it. she's gorgerous in gilda and other movies. but in pal joey, she looks like susan hayward. i was so disappointed.

i always forget about marilyn monroe's musicals. to me, they are just marilyn monroe movies. but gentlemen prefer blondes is a favorite.

i'm not sure what this entry's about today. my stomach's been killing me all day. cramping. i'm going to go put a heating pad on my stomach and lie down. about twice a year, when i get my period, it's this intense pain. the rest of the time, it's just 'here i am' and no problems. but it's been like this all day and, dope that i am, i kept thinking most of the morning i must have eaten something that disagreed with me. (i'm a few days early this month which is part of what threw me.) i won't bore you by describing my cramps but i think most of my readers will know exactly what i'm talking about.

about when i met jfk, mlk and rfk

i could kill c.i. today! not really. but c.i. recommended a book to me and i was reading it last night and ended up so spooked, it took forever to get to sleep.

the book is by joan mellen and it's entitled a farewell to justice.

it's about jim garrison and john f. kennedy. it's a pretty impressive book but i'd recommend you read it during the day, during broad day light.

it's packed with information from freedom of information requests and all sorts of historical documents.

i had the weirdest dreams all night.

in 1 of them, the only 1 i'll bore you with, i was in dealy plaza (did i spell that right?) in dallas, texas. and i was looking around, i was suddenly in 1963. no every 1 wasn't in black and white!
but fashions, hello! i know fashion styles.

so i'm rushing around and trying to figure out how i can stop it and generally looking like a crazy woman. 'it' being the assassination of jfk.

so i'm asking 'has the president arrived!' and finally, after every 1 looks at me like i'm crazy, and stares at my hair since it's not coated in several layers of hair spray, this guy tells me that the president comes to dallas 'tomorrow.' so i've got time.

i manage to get to him that evening - how? i have no idea, the whole dream was jump cuts with no transition - and being an attractive woman, i manage to meet jfk. immediately i start saying 'i am from the future' and showing my driver's lic. and everything else in my purse. he doesn't believe a word i'm saying.

then i say, 'you slept with marilyn monroe and some woman named judith who was sleeping with the mobster and you're getting shots for your back pain from dr. feel good' and just rattling off everything i've ever read that became public after he died, long after.

so finally he figures out that either i'm the biggest snoop in the world or maybe i'm from the future and he waives the secret service away. so 1st he wants to know what the future's like and i'm going 'excuse me, they're going to try to kill you tomorrow, this is a little more important!' but he wants to hear about the future. then after hearing about computers and civil rights and do we fly in cars (he's very sad that we don't), he finally lets me explain what's going to happen.

after that i tell him how things are today and if he needs to give a speech right now about the cia because he won't live to see through his plans to dismantle it. he's very curious about the bully boy and i tell him about how poppy bush appears at certain interesting times in his own history. he says 'we should have nailed that family for being in business with the nazis in wwii' and i agree but tell him about the texas book depository and lee harvey oswald and the other gunmen and he just wants to talk about jackie, john-john and caroline.

so i start with caroline and tell him she's classy like her mother, she writes books about the bill of rights and other important topics, has a family and appears to be sensible and smart. then i'm trying to get back to what's going to happen the next day and also trying to avoid the whole jackie and john-john issues but he wants to know.

so i tell him jackie dies of cancer. and that makes him sad and then he asks the question that you know he wanted to ask right away, does she ever remarry? what do you say that?

i mean do you say, 'uh, mister faithful, you were not'?

so i say she marries a man and every 1 says she did so to make sure the children are safe. i tell him the man is rich but nothing else because bay of pigs and all, who knows what he might order on ari!

then he asks about john-john. i tell him his son died shortly after jackie but while he was alive, he published a magazine and was considered 1 of the most handsome men on the planet. i leave out the whole needing a few attempts to pass the bar part of the story.

then he wants to know about teddy? i say 'joan becomes an alcoholic, okay? can we move on or do i have to do the full kitty kelley on every 1 you knew? don't even get me started on richard goodwin!' well what about bobby, what about his mother, what about his father, what about . . .

it seemed like he was concerned with everything in the world but what was happening tomorrow. so when i finally do the full entertainment tonight on all the kennedys (the only thing that shocks him is maria is married to a republican intent on undoing all that the kennedy family has supported), i'm thinking we can discuss the next day. but no, he wants to talk frank sinatra.
i tell him, 'he never forgives you for the snub and ends up a republican.'

then he wants to know about angie dickinson and i say 'wait just a minute, buster, i'm the 1 doing all the dishing. angie dickinson will never say whether she had an affair with you or not, so fork it over.' (he says she did.) so he says if what i'm saying is true, take him to future.

i tell him 'uh i'm not 1 of the magical 1s from charmed, i have no idea how i ended up here and am not even sure i can make it back so let's focus on right now' but he wants to see teddy and caroline. and he's so convinced that i can do this, that i end up thinking 'what the hell, i'll try.'
we end up at ted's. he's a very nice host, in the dream.

ted can't belive it and thinks it's some actor until jfk tells him something that happened when ted was 7 and it's never made it into any of the books so ted says 'my god!' then ted's on the phone because before we go back, jfk wants to see caroline.

ted tells her, 'get over here right away' and i say, 'uh excuse me, ted' and grab the phone. 'caroline, rebecca winters here. you don't know me, but "right away" means, take a second to brush your hair, put on some lipstick and wear something nice. you're going to see some 1 you haven't seen in a long time and you'll be upset with yourself if you rush right over. you'll want to be presentable.' because that's just the sort of thing ted would forget. i mean if a woman's going to meet her father that she hasn't seen in years, she's going to wonder what he's thinking about her and not want to show up with something with a food stain on it, or have her hair all over the place because she's had a long day.

so caroline shows up looking very tasteful and ted breaks the new to her about who she's about to talk to and i excuse myself because, hey, private family moment.

they have their meeting and you can tell it really means a lot to both of them but caroline handles it better because she's got her mother's good taste and tendency not to show when she's ruffled. then it's good-byes and back to the past for me and jfk.

so we get back and the morning of and jackie walks into the oval office, sees me, and gives us both a look. i'm like, 'hey lady, i'm a time traveler, not an intern. don't go all hillary on me because i'm not a lewinsky.' she, of course, has no idea what i'm talking about. but, thinking i'm nuts, she assumes i'm with the press and excuses herself.

so here's the deal, jfk goes to dallas. he gets in the convertible. i'm saying 'at least put the bubble on' and he says no. starts talking about the importance of history and how some things have to happen. he says that if his life means anything then it can inspire 'every 1 in your time to fight all the harder.'

i'm shaking my head (and think that pink outfit jackie's wearing looks a lot better in black & white photos then it does up close - and wondering if any 1 ever told her that texas was in the south and it will probably be hot even for november). but off they go.

then, remember jump cuts, i'm all the sudden at mlk's side. 'martin!' i scream and start my whole 'they're going to kill you.' he knows. he doesn't know when or how but he knows. so i start telling him when and how and he wants to know about his family. i know quite a bit about coretta scott king but that's really all. i tell him his children must have kept their noses clean because they don't make the tabloids. i talk about how coretta carries on the fight and that makes him happy and he says 'no 1 ever sees how strong coretta is.' i tell him all about the church committe and how he's been spied upon and plotted against by the government and that doesn't surprise him. he tells me a few things that have happened that he thinks the government's behind and i tell him that some of the stuff from the church committee is still classified.

he asks if we pull out of vietnam. i tell him 'yeah, in the 70s!' that makes him sad. to cheer him up, i offer to try to take him to his family and explain i jsut did the same thing for jfk. he surprise me. he says no. why not?

'i won't have the strength to travel down the road i need to if i see them knowing what's going to happen.'

oh brother.

yes, he's another 1 who doesn't want to muck with destiny and thinks that for his life and his work to mean anything he has to face what's coming.

i'm shaking my head and thinking 'how did i end up jodie foster in the movie somersby? and since when does every man have to be like richard gere ready to die for a principle?' when suddenly, i'm in california, in a hotel lobby and rfk is checking in. i look at him, he smiles at me and i think, 'another 1 destined to keep the date with danger' and wonder why so many die for the cause instead of cheating the odds.

me, i'd have cheated the odds.

so that's 1 of the many dreams i had after reading joan mellen's a farewell to justice. books. read it, it's worth reading, but read it in broad daylight.

you can also check out this speech by mellen "HOW THE FAILURE TO IDENTIFY, PROSECUTE AND CONVICT PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S ASSASSINS HAS LED TO TODAY’S CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY" (as with the book, i recommend broad daylight).

the church committee
joan mellen
jfk
a farewell to justice
mlk
rfk
the common ills

bonnie asked a question (a good 1) and this is what i came up with

a nice e-mail came in from bonnie who wondered, nicely wondered, if maybe i wasn't a little materialistic? bonnie, i'm probably very materialistic. elaine will float off to the after life on a peaceful vibe, c.i. will be martyred into the afterlife and i'll be banging, yelling, 'let me in! let me in!'

bonnie was talking about my remark that i worked my ass off for my money which i made in relation to a jerk that acts like he's c.i.'s friend. the jerk's an adult of many, many, many years and still lives off mommy and daddy. too refined to work and all of that. i don't like mooches and never have. this guy is the type who not only gets his parents to pay the way but expects people he knows to bail him out in addition to that. i have no use for those kinds of people.

i will acknowledge that not every 1 can end up set up even if they work their asses off. i benefitted from a lot including lucky breaks. and some of that may also come from the fact that when i was married to fly boy, the wives of his friends would usually not work and be appalled to find out i worked. i didn't marry him for his money. (i didn't divorce him for it either.) i worked before i knew him, i worked when we dated, i worked while we were married. i just wanted to be clear that i wasn't sitting around on my ass on his money.

we divided up the cars and the real estate but that's really all. i didn't ask him for money. which is probably why he always did stuff like kept up the subscriptions to the newspapers.

a new reader wondered why i called him my ex when 'you're obviously sleeping with him.' he's my 'ex' as in ex-husband. where this is going, who knows? we are together in some way now but i'm not going to label it and i've told him i'm not looking to get married again right now.

that's partly because, if i was really honest, i'm not wanting to go back to work. so marrying him is out of the question unless i want to be 1 of those women whose days start flipping through the catalogues while they work up the strength for a shopping 'jaunt' in the afternoon.

i always paid my own way. with friends who bust their butts but can't manage it, i'm happy to help out. but i'm not like c.i. putting up with a crowd of beggars which is what i think a lot of the people around c.i. are. it's not as bad as it's been in times past. but you just need 1 hard luck story with c.i. and they don't even have to be what most people would consider hard luck stories. saying you spent your rent on a new home entertainment center won't get sympathy for me no matter how much you tell me you 'needed' it, really, really needed it. c.i.'s a soft touch. less so now.

partly due to being too busy for the nonsense but also because you can only be burned by phonies so many times before you start realizing some people just aren't worth it. now it's taken years. and years. but c.i. can see that with some people now. in college, it was always order whatever you want and then when the bill came 'oh, i don't have any money on me' or some other lame excuse and c.i. would take care of the bill for every lame ass that did that. i'd be saying 'stop doing that. no 1 goes out to eat and drink without knowing whether or not they have money. they knew they didn't have money before they ordered.'

there was one little _ who for 3 years got every meal and everything else off c.i. and the most she ever did, when i insisted on it, was to buy a glass of tea. i'm not kidding. she said, after i balled her out, to c.i. 'well i owe you a meal.' you think? after 3 years of mooching? then she orders the most expensive thing for herself and when the bill arrives says she only has the money to pay for c.i.'s glass of tea.

all you have to do with c.i. is play on the guilt. do a 'gee, i wish i had ...' whatever and then c.i. feels bad for you and feels bad about having anything and it's 'how much do you need?'

there are people who are worth it because they're friends. like there is a painter who some day will be, if there's any fairness in the world, 1 of the greats. but the painter is focusing on art, working on it, slaving on it. this nonsense of 'i'm going to sit on my ass and let some 1 else pay my way without ever doing anything but partying' is just nonsense.

or take 'princess' as elaine and i dubbed 1 'friend.' princess thought she had a right to everything. there were times when elaine and i would say 'oh no, we're tired' because just going into a bookstore with princess would mean she'd pull the 'i have to have these magazines' and then pout because she didn't have the money for them and c.i. would roll the eyes and pay. that 1 was pretty obvious from the start. like new albums come out on tuesday. you better believe she'd show up on tuesday with her wish list already in mind and then hint and hint about all going to 'check out the new music.'

now that's another sponge/mooch who lived with her parent (her father was dead, she lived with mommy) and you just think, 'get a job already.' what's so funny is that a friend of mine knows princess and princess is freaking out because her mother's ill and now 'i'm going to have to take care of her!' it's not funny that her mother's ill but her mother's carried her beyond the 9 months, beyond the first 18 years, and now the selfish little princess is stomping her feet that, after all these years, she might actually have to give something back.

by the way, i'm not talking about people with serious problems. there are people that c.i.'s helped 'escape' from bad situations like bad marriages and that's fine. i would do that as well. but the people i'm talking about are spoiled and pampered and they've never done anything with their lives. they've never gotten a job, they've never worked a day in their life, they're not in school or pursuing the arts, they sleep until noon, roll out of bed and expect that everyone else is just so thrilled by their company that their time should be paid for.

princess thought she had a right to everything. she was forever 'borrowing' an item from c.i. and never returning it. she did that to me once with a pair of earrings and after asking for them back a month later, asking 3 times, i just went over to her place, knocked on the door, walked in when the door opened, walked to her bedroom, nodded to her as i walked over to her jewelry box, grabbed my earrings and walked out without ever saying a word to her. she just somehow believed she was entitled to everything.

so that's what i was raging about when i was talking about the jerk yesterday. and did he see the post? yes, he did and wrote me a nasty e-mail that he keeps track of every cent he's been given and plans to pay it all back 'some day.' yeah, some day's never coming because his tab's too high.

i don't think any 1 is their job. i do think that if you're a mooch, you're a mooch.

people can fall on hard times, i understand that and am not talking about that.

but this nonsense of people who are born with every break in the world and think 'instead of making something of my life or even getting a regular job, i'm just going to be a mooch' is nonsense to me.

if someone's lucky enough not to work, fine. i have no problem with it. and if you want to live your life in party town, go for it. as long as you can foot the bill. but if you can't, get a job and quit begging and mooching. if there's 1 thing that amazes me the most about the well to do, it's how lazy they are. and they aren't the well to do, their parents were. i'm not talking about kids here or even people still in their 20s.

like there's this 1 piece of work. years and years ago, she and c.i. were up for the same job and if you know c.i. you know what's coming. because it might be important to her, c.i. offered to bow out. she said no, c.i. got the job and she seems to think c.i.'s got to be her meal ticket for the rest of time. 'if i had gotten that job . . .' she'll bring it up all the time. she wouldn't have and if she had, she would have been fired. she's lazy. and she's been fired from the very few jobs she could get because she wouldn't show up. that's not working. that's not trying for anything.

i'm always amazed at the people c.i. knows, and sometimes it seems like c.i. knows every 1, who delude themselves. there's this 1 woman who marries for money, taps each husband out and suddenly 'things aren't working' she'll tell that husband. do you know what her profession is? she'll tell this to every 1. 'i'm a screen writer.' have i seen any movie you wrote?

no, because none have ever been made. and she's written the same damn script over and over. every year or so, she'll pull it out and say 'i'm working' and rewrite the same script which is a crappy idea written by a crappy writer. now this has been going on for years and years.

but if you met her and you asked her what she did, she'd tell you 'i'm a writer' or 'i'm a screenwriter.' and somehow the fact that for 4 weeks every year, she rewrites that old script each year, she thinks that allows her to say that.

maybe i'm too judgemental but i don't think that makes some 1 a writer. i don't think success makes some 1 a writer necessarily. but if you're a writer, whether you get paid for it or not, whether you ever sell anything or not, it just seems to me that you spend your time writing. not jetting all over the place on your latest husband's money. and some 1 needs to tell her that her looks have faded. the husband before last was a self-made success who went to school with her.
he was a few years behind and she was always the most beautiful in school so he considered it a real feather in his cap to marry her. he had made his money and was done with the rat race. within a year, he was having to go back to work because she'd spent her way through pretty much all of it.

she was fine with that and assumed lightening would strike again and immediately. when he told her they were going to have to be on a budget and she was going to have to step down from the arts board she was sitting on (1 of those get together for lunch and never do anything but gossip about your life), the marriage was over. as soon as i saw her fuming, i knew it was over. and sure enough, within 2 weeks she was hitting c.i. up for money for a mover and money for this and money for that.

what always amazes me is how cheap she is with every 1. even while her husband has money, she's cheap. her friends get cheap gifts (like an airport gift shop t-shirt) and it's the same with her husband of the moment. but for herself, she's spending fortunes.

so maybe that clears up where i'm coming from?

i don't like people like that and i never want any 1 to assume that, because i'm not working, that i am like that. i don't sponge off people and i don't sponge off my ex-husband. i went into that marriage with the money i made and, though he had made his own money and had money from his family, i never assumed that his money was my money. you can say i'm too independent if you want, but i never wanted any 1 to pay my way. that may also come from too many dates in jr. high and early high school where a guy that bought me a burger and fries seemed to think that bought him the right to cop a feel or more. by my junior year, on the 1st dates with any guy, i paid my own way just to avoid some guy thinking 'well i spent 5 bucks so now i get to go to 3rd or home plate.'

i developed early and have big breasts so maybe it's different in other situations? maybe the boys were just in awe of my boobs? but i really got tired of that. to the point that even if i had been thinking of having sex with the guy. if i sensed that he thought 'i'm getting sex because i paid for dinner' - i would do the total freeze out.

there are real difficulties in life and having large breasts isn't 1 of them. but i do think that some of the nonsense guys assumed wouldn't have been assumed if i'd had a normal size or even small chest. and when a guy can't look you in the eyes, as most couldn't until college, i think you become aware that some of them assume you have a price on your head or ass.

to twist a bette davis phrase, i may have seen better days but i'm still not to be had for the price of a burger.

but like elaine, who is beautiful and has those classical looks that i'd kill for, guys always related to her as a person. and i did notice that. and before 1 of the prigs who reads this thinks i need their e-mail about how 'well look at how you talk with your gutter mouth!' i didn't talk like that back then. though i didn't look the part, i would've fallen into the 'good girl' category. elaine was much wilder than i was. (c.i. was off saving the world - then as now. with a legion of lust filled devoted attempting to follow.)

but, point, while elaine was allowed to be considered a person and attractive, i was, or i felt that i was, seen more as a piece of meat. and if you developed early, i'm sure you remember how embarrassing that was. by the end of elemenatry school, i was wearing a jacket year round because of the stares.

i've never really talked in depth about this with c.i. or elaine but i know elaine's take, from statements she's made, would be that she's not pretty. she's not pretty, she's beautiful. she always had the perfect frame, the perfect skin, gorgeous face, gorgeous legs, gorgeous hair and she puts herself down when she's in a rush in the morning and pulls her hair up or back into a ponytail but no 1's looking at her and thinking 'eh.' she's beautiful. i don't think c.i. really thinks about looks. c.i.'s always avoided the mirror. c.i. looks in bits and pieces when the mirror has to be used. or maybe it's because people always made a big deal over c.i.'s look and that sort of thing, making a big deal, makes c.i. uncomfortable so it's just been a non-issue?

but it did effect me. i went from being cute to being stacked and no 1 was saying 'she's cute.' instead, they'd say this in front of me to my mother, 'you are getting her a good bra, aren't you?'
or 'she'll need to dress very modest.' this was when i started developing and it probably played into it, the reactions of these older women. it was like not only was i already embarrassed, wearing my jacket and carrying my books in front of my chest, but these women, adults, seemed to think this was a huge burden.

who knows?

i hadn't planned to write about this so much but boy do i feel better getting that off my chest.

i think i'll call it a night. bonnie wrote the nicest e-mail and kept saying 'i'm not trying to offend you.' bonnie, you didn't offend me and look what your question produced! sherry wondered if c.i. or elaine was bothered when i mentioned them? elaine just laughs. c.i. would prefer nothing go up here that was personal but i don't hear about it. (i know that though because c.i. is very private and always has been. ask a personal question and watch it be deflected so cleverly you don't even realize it until long after.) but as long as every 1 gets that this is my memory or my version, c.i. doesn't say a word to me about it.

i think i'm lucky to have both as friends and for so many years. i know a lot of people i've fallen out of touch with. you say 'we'll keep in touch' but you never do. but elaine and c.i. have been lifelong friends and, as elaine says, 'we're stuck with one another until the grave at this point.'

jeff sessions blames bully boy for 9-11

is jeff sessions' a 'conspiracy' guy?

in the midst of his questioning he felt the need to trot out 1 of his stale phrases that he always uses about 'negligence or failure of will.' it's his catch phrase and he uses it whenever he can.

but he applied it to 9-11 at the hearings.

is jeff pointing fingers at the bully boy?

jeff, step up to the plate, tell us what you really think.

(i know jeff sessions was just being his usual blow hard self; however, when i heard him trot out his catch phrase - he uses it like gary coleman used 'what you talking bout, willis?' - i was suprised to hear him use it for 9/11.)

the hearings, the musical hair and a jerk

c.i. and wally are all over the hearing today and you should make a point to check out c.i.'s comments on the hearings and feinstein in "Democracy Now: Al Lewis; Senate Hearings (Miss Priss Instant Cuckoo and more)" and wally's explanation of alberto gonzlaes in 'THIS JUST IN! "GET MRS. GONZALES HERE PRONTO!"' for critiques and humor.

so what's left you for you, rebecca?

so glad you asked.

well john cornyn managed to pronounce all his words correctly. alberto was slurring like a mean drunk when he got nervous which, sadly, wasn't too often because, with few exceptions, he wasn't seriously challenged. but the howler came from republican senator jeff sessions who some 1 needs to teach how to say 'fascist' because he pronounced it 'fast-ists.' jeff, we're talking about history here, basic history. how can you be so ignorant and be a senator?

although john cornyn proves that brains aren't required to serve in the senate.

did any 1 catch how cornyn left the impression that he was all over the patriot act? of course, he wasn't in the senate at the time. but corny's a glory hog.

there was moment i'll write about right after this goes up in a short post. but i want to talk about music and something else 1st. (the other thing is just something i need to get off my chest so i'm not screaming in frustration all night, plus the asshole visits sometimes and if he sees this, maybe he'll own his own crap when he reads me calling him out.)

sherry wrote and goes 'what gives rebecca? i got an e-mail from c.i. yesterday that started "finally home" and it's pretty obvious that this morning's entry is dictated and that c.i.'s in dc.' what gives? c.i. and wally are in dc with a few others. with all the problems with blogger/blogspot this weekend as well as the problems the weekend of september when we were all in dc and either couldn't get into our sites or were losing posts, the decision was made to leave the impression that all returned home. with c.i., specifically, those posts were typed up by a friend. 'paranoid?' was c.i.'s question to jim when it was proposed in dc. (and i only found that out from jim this evening. i was calling c.i. at home yesterday evening and never getting through. i was thinking 'okay, c.i. doesn't want to talk to anyone, just wants to rest.' after jim told me, i called c.i. on the cell.) but jim said 'better safe than sorry.' so that was what was done.

when do those who stayed leave? how do you know they haven't already? you don't.

so let me talk about the phone call with c.i. because i'm pissed off at some 1. with everything going on right now, you'd think 'friends' would be understanding but this 1 jerk who knows c.i. is having a little fanny fit. for over a month, this 'friend' has been nothing but 'i want . . . i want' and then c.i. makes time and the jerk blows c.i. off to party and play. now the 'friend' has a bad patch and is acting like c.i. blew the jerk off.

elaine and i are friends so let me use us as an example. she won't mind. it would be like elaine calling me up out of the blue after ignoring me for about a month to say 'hey becky, i'm sorry that we've drifted apart' and then wanting to go into all the reasons why on her end. (elaine and i have never drifted apart, for the record.) then elaine would say, 'let's really work at this friendship' and we'd both agree to and then elaine blows me off for a month. then all the sudden her brother's sick and i hear about if rom c.i. and i contact her and she acts like it's my fault. just a real jerk like this has been happening the whole time she was blowing me off and like i was the 1 blowing her off.

i told c.i. if the jerk wants to play it like that, don't lose any sleep over it. but c.i.'s all 'did i do something wrong?' because c.i. will automatically assume that. no, c.i. didn't do anything wrong. some 1 had a new year's resolution and suddenly wants to be best friends, for that 2nd in time, then gets lost in the party scene. then the jerk gets bad news, doesn't call c.i., and when c.i. goes to the trouble to contact the jerk, the jerk has a mini-explosion acting like the bad news is c.i.'s fault and c.i. has been one doing the blowing off.

what happened is some 1 didn't take life or the people around them very seriously. now 1 isn't doing well. the jerk can't own his problems and has to push them off on c.i. i don't take that crap and i wish c.i. wouldn't. i said, 'look, you have so much on your plate right now. if you won't say "screw you" to the jerk, just avoid him until you have time.'

i called elaine and told her what was going on and her response was 'well that's c.i.' and it is. any problem in the world that someone wants to push off, c.i. will grab the blame for. but this jerk has ticked me off and if c.i. lets the jerk push blame off on c.i., some 1's going to see just how angry and nasty i can be. i don't mean c.i. (the jerk sometimes visits my site. so the jerk should read this as a warning.) c.i. could be partying and basically living in la-la land but instead, c.i.'s trying to do something. some lazy ass, pampered prick doesn't need to dump his problems on c.i. boo hoo, you got bad news. so you didn't get to party all week. maybe you're a little too old to be partying all week? maybe it's past time that you grew up? or do you plan to live on your parents' money your whole damn life?

seriously, you're teenage years are long gone. quit being a mooch and grow up. and quit blaming your problems on others. if you're wishing you'd spent more time with the person who was ill, c.i. didn't prevent you from that. your partying prevented you from that. so lose the chip on your shoulder. i've never had a lot of sympathy for people who don't do anything with their lives.

some would accuse me of that. and there are some who think i live off fly boy's alimony but i don't. i made my own money. i did get this house in the divorce but he got the place in the city.
and i worked until an abortion. that's when i quit and went through my withdrawal period. (for non regular readers, i am pro-choice and i do not regret the abortion. i was and still am angry that due to the health issues, i had to excercise that option.)

but even now, i'm not partying all the time. as i've come out of my shell, i've started working with a group of teenagers and volunteering some time there. but i busted my ass for years.

this jerk still depends on mommy and daddy to pay for everything and, when your adult, that doesn't cut it. 'mommy, will you pay for my apartment?' 'daddy, where's my allowance?' i mean grow the hell up already. and you're too old for the party circuit, jerk. when all the people around you are that much younger than you, you should take a hint.

i'm not as nice as elaine or c.i. i feel like people who are just mooches aren't worth hanging around with. elaine will set boundaries but with c.i. it's different because all it takes is 1 hard luck story to pull the heart strings. that was the 1st thing i said to c.i., 'do not give that jerk any money, do not buy that jerk a "cheer up" present.' but knowing c.i. it's now guilt time and wondering 'did i do something wrong?' the world's most emotionally needy tend to regularly show up at c.i.'s doorstep. i don't have time for them. c.i. doesn't have time for them but i bet you anything right now c.i.'s still doing the 'how could i have handled this differently?' dance.

which is 1 of c.i.'s best qualities, to be fair. c.i. will examine personal relationships and will own up to mistakes. but c.i. will also grab blame that's not been earned. if some people are glory hogs for attention, c.i.'s a glory guilt hogging all the blame. and there's really not time for it right now so i'm hoping the pratical side of c.i. trumps the side that's always willing to buy into the 'it's your fault' claim.


on the phone we did have some laughs. c.i.'s still ticked me and we laughed about that. i'm a big fan of the musical hair and was on the fence about going away for the weekend 2 weekends ago. i went. so third estate sunday review did their review of the hair album without me ('Music soundtrack: Hair'). now c.i. says that 'facing a dying nation of moving paper fantasy listening for the new told lies' from 'the flesh failures (let the sunshine in)' is stuck in the head. we were laughing about that during the work on the latest edition of the third estate sunday review. and every now and then jess would offer, in his amazing baritone, 'facing a dying nation.'

i really do love that musical. i'm not huge on musicals, i think most of them are a waste of time because they're a bunch of really bad disney cartoons brought to life. but something like chicago or all that jazz or something that goes beyond 'bring the toddlers! for the whole family!' i can usually enjoy. i loved rent and saw it repeatedly.

by the way, 'Music soundtrack: Hair' noted that hair's being performed next month at 3 different locations so let me plug that. if you're in 1 of the areas, you should check out a production. fly boy and i are talking about seeing the new york production.

1) March 9 through 12 and 16 through 19th, Brown University presents its production of the musical.
2) Glendale College (Glendale, CA) starts its performance on March 10th (concludes March 26th).
3) Rounding out the March performances, the Endicott Performing Arts Center in New York performs their production of Hair on March 10-12 and 17-19.

if you've never seen hair, see if you don't come out of the theatre singing or humming the songs. like 'initials' which is 1 that usually sticks in my head when i'm making drinks with the blender for some reason:

LBJ took the IRT
Down to 4th street USA
When he got there, what did he see?
The youth of America on LSD
The Vietnam War waging.

now after that they start doing this call and response of 'lbj' and 'irt' and other lines. and you'll love what happens at the end of the song, trust me.