the ruth & elijah report

good morning.

let me give an update.

ruth will probably take off next week. she's thinking about that which will mean the whole month of may and feeling bad about it.

she doesn't need to.

this is really the 2nd vacation she's had for her. i'm not counting vacations with her family though she enjoys those and would count them.

for visitors - what the hell are you doing here? ruth does ruth's public radio report at the common ills.

so ruth's had 1 real vacation since her husband passed away and that was when her friend treva insisted she take a road trip. ruth did and will tell you that her heart wasn't really in it, it was too soon after the death.

ruth still misses her late husband, of course, but she's gotten back into the 'swing of events' (a quote - and this is written with her permission). this road trip with treva has been amazing and kat and i have both told her that with pacifica radio in fundraising mode for this month and with community sites noting it, she needs to take some time for her.

before the vacation and currently, c.i.'s encouraged ruth to take as much time as she needs.

so ruth's probably off next weekend as well. (her report usually runs on saturdays at the common ills.)

i've been watching elijah, her grandson, during the day. which ruth said 'needs to be noted' and if it wasn't, 'i'll come back just to note it.' so i told her i'd mention it here.

that wasn't the original plan but the person lined up fell through at the last minute due to a family emergency. i called ruth about her report that had just gone up and to wish her well on her trip that she was due to leave on in a few hours with treva when she said she was probably cancelling it. ruth's children and their spouses work and her grandchildren are in school. if it was the summer, you better believe tracey and jayson could cover for her.

but ruth had just gotten the call that the family friend had to go to florida due to some 1 from their own family having had a stroke the day before. i know tracey and jayson from the various protests that we've attended like dc and nyc and had been helping 1 of her ruth's daughter-in-laws with a cause near and dear to us both. of course in california, we were all there including elijah so i wasn't a stranger to him.

i was nervous about offering because, though i knew ruth would be fine with it, i did wonder if i'd hear back 'we really don't know you well enough.' that would have been understandable but they were desperate enough and i had enough 'ins' that i passed the muster. (i have no idea what the saying 'pass muster' means - do you?)

so that's what i've been doing during the week.

ruth asked, 'tell the truth, rebecca,' if the reason my thursday post was so short was because elijah had exhausted me?

probably. i'd actually planned to do 2 posts thursday. i knew mike was doing the interview with c.i. and that mike is a really, really slow typist. so i figured i'd get something up and come back later and do another post. but i ended up posting and then sitting down to read a book.

ruth has some great books in her house. this was a big, thick 1 that i wasn't aware of. it's the price of power: henry kissinger in the nixon white house and you may know the author - seymour m. hersh.

it's an involving read. i made it to page 52 and fell asleep.

elijah is a handful. a wonderful child. with more energy than you'd expect from such a small person.

i have no idea how ruth ever manages to write down things to quote during the day.

the only problem we've had was on the 1st day. elijah kept walking over to the stereo and pointing.

i put on some of the children's cds thinking that's what he wanted. he wanted the radio on, i finally realized. he misses ruth, it's obvious, but from the beginning, it was obvious that you better have his grandmother's radio on. i laugh every time i think about it.

but it wasn't a laughing matter the 1st monday because he was mad. i kept trying cds and thinking, 'okay, he was happy to see me when he was dropped off this morning, what have i done wrong?' he wouldn't look at me after the 3rd attempt at a cd. he grabbed some of his toys and parked himself as far away from me in the living room as he could.

i tried talking to him but didn't intrude on his space but he just ignored me. finally, i turned the cds off and i could tell he was watching me but he would turn his head everytime i looked over at him. i grabbed a magazine and sat down on the couch at which point he gave me the dirtiest look - a look i'd never expect a child to give.

and he didn't hide it or turn around. this was a long, dirty look.

we just stared at each other for a bit and then he went back to playing with his back to me.

'are you hungry?' got no answer.

nothing did.

then around 10:00 a.m., bored, i grabbed the stereo remote and turned on the radio. when it came on, he turns around and looks at me. he picks up all the toys he's carried over to the wall furthest from me, drops them near the speakers and stands there just looking at me like, 'well?'

i got off the couch and walked over. he sat down and started playing and offered me a toy to play with (not his teddy bear, ruth had warned me, no 1 touches his teddy bear unless he offers it). so we sat there playing and were off to a fine start. when ruth called to check that night, i told her the story and she couldn't stop laughing. she told me that the cabinet under the stereo has pens and steno pads as well as his coloring books and crayons so to take those out at some point and he'll be happy.

i did that the next morning and ended up writing a letter to my grandmother because elijah kept looking at me while he was coloring and i got that i was supposed to be putting something on the paper in front of me.

the backyard is his favorite place and he will let you know when it's time to play in the backyard. 'backyard' is not a question.

during the week, i've been staying here and i'm here this weekend because ruth was still considering coming home this weekend. she decided mid-day friday ('if you're really sure it's not a problem'). so that's what i have been doing with my time.

fly boy's over this weekend (with permission, before any 1 thinks the baby sitter's gone wild!) because i had already made plans to be here this weekend since ruth might be coming in.

sometimes we go to the computer, elijah and i. he likes that and moves the mouse himself. he also insists we use ruth's ipod to listen to. (as ruth often does when she's home.) when she calls, he gets very excited to talk to her. 'what you doing?' is usually his 1st question.

it's been a lot of fun but he does have a lot of energy and the 1st thing i learned quickly is no high heels because forget those when you're keeping up with him.

if he has his coloring book and i'm actually writing something on a steno pad, he'll watch me and keep coloring. but if i put the pen down and look around it must be some sort of sign that we can move around. then he wants to show me something or go to the backyard.

he loves giving me a tour of the house and showing me which rooms are which. 'this is daddy's' room he's told me at least once a day on the tours.

ruth has called each day before nap time to talk to him and to tell him of some treat he'll have after nap. she doesn't tell me where the treat is but right after nap time, when he's fully awake, he'll walk over to something, today it was the hall closet, and wait for me to open it so he can get his treat. i asked ruth if i needed to get some things to hide for next week but she said she'd prepared for 3 weeks because c.i. had told her she would have so much fun with treva that she would take a 2nd and 3rd week off. she didn't believe it, but she stocked up just in case.

so today (or friday, it's saturday now) was a little monkey. he had to show me the sounds a monkey makes. he has a doctor's appointment this coming wednesday and ruth said to remind tracey because she was planning to go with. so that's what i've been doing and there's no need for a thank you because it's been a lot of fun. ruth's children have insisted i come to dinner each night and tracey says it's not a case of 'it's your turn!' which i hope is the case. she has a really wonderful family. (every 1 of which says ruth has more than earned the right to take a lengthy vacation - so ruth better take the full week next week or face the wrath of her family.)

i'm tired but wanted to get in a post so i could sleep in. tracey's coming over at noon and she, fly boy and i are going to see a movie. so if i didn't post this morning, i wasn't going to get five in for the week.

fly boy found an interesting interview with norman solomon (a favorite of ruth's and of many people) so check that out. that's at truth out and, no, there was no announcement that karl rove was indicted friday. i was wrong about it coming friday. but i still have faith in jason leopold's writing and will take a wait and see attitude. by the way, big thanks to c.i.

i asked c.i. to write something about it and c.i. did. (if you missed it, read it.) and c.i. linked to truth out. c.i. was in dc and very busy so i appreciate even more than if it had happened during 'normal busy.' but that did lead to a funny phone call the next morning when i was having my coffee (thursday) as c.i. informed me 'i did do the thing, i did link. guess who forgot to link?' it was me. i hadn't added truth out to my blog roll. i rushed to the computer and did that before elijah's mother dropped him off. i'd intended to do it right after i posted but got lost in wednesday's post and forgot.

rebecca winters has a warning

last night, janis joplin, if i heard her right, said pat robertson needed to have some good sex. also last night, jim morrison, if i heard him right, said pat robertson needed to take up drinking or, if he already has, needs to get sober.

what am i talking about?

god's personal best friend, pat robertson, if he heard the lord correctly, has been told by god, that america is going to be hit with storms and possibly a tsunami.

now the singing nun told me that god's getting really tired of pat robertson.

and mama cass told me a) don't call her 'mama' and b) that god finds pat robertson to be 1 of the worst social climbers in the world and is very weary of the way pat robertson drops HER name all the time.

cass elliot added that god's heard pat robertson even uses HER name to cut in line at amusement parks and bank lines but st. peter, heaven's bouncer, has already been warned that, despite all the name dropping, god is not friends with pat robertson and, in fact, never talks to robertson. st. peter has been instructed to tell pat robertson a) that his name is not on the list and b) there's a thin line between worship and stalking so god's taken out a restraining order to prevent pat robertson from ever being closer to god than 500 feet.

jimi hendrix explained to me that what really ticked god off was pat robertson's attempt to market himself as a weather forecaster off of god's good name.

check out wally's 'THIS JUST IN! DESPERATE CONGRESS MEMBERS!'

michael hayden hearing broadcast live on kpfa thursday

read elaine's 'Live coverage of the Michael Hayden hearing on KPFA (9:00 a.m. ET)' - she's down about this item:

"UNICEF: 25% of Iraqi Children Suffer Malnutrition" (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, a survey carried out by the Iraqi government and UNICEF has concluded a quarter of all Iraqi children suffer from malnutrition.

she just feels that this is a story that's getting overlooked and it's at the heart of the occupation - a feeling of 'so what' that belies the standard mainstream myths of the illegal occupation.

i'd agree with her 100%. if there's 1 person still thrilled with the occupation, or maybe still kidding themselves that a school room being painted (see c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot'), they need to get in touch with reality. 1st step, the children in iraq.

this is as outrageous as the starvation that went on under the oil for food period. just as there was no humanitarian concern on the part of the united states with that program (yeah, mad maddy albright, i'm talking about you), there's none in the illegal occupation.

if the occupation was about helping iraqis, don't you think they would have done something about this?

oh, wait, they have done something as c.i. would point out, they've tried to cut off the subsidies program that existed before the occupation - where flour, sugar and other staples were provided. 'too much like communism!' apparently. 'got to cut it off!'

considering that the illegal occupation has done nothing to provide jobs for iraqis, exactly where are they supposed to earn the money to feed their children?

that's why people join the militias or the iraqi police (some would say it's the same thing).

lot of money to be made off the occupation, if you were a big corporation.

but people need to get serious. nancy pelosi can't even talk about impeachment let alone start screaming for the troops to come home. it's time for 'leaders' to be making the case for turning iraq over to the iraqis.

here's what matthew rothschild had to say about the cowardly stay silent approach to impeachment (on KPFA's The Morning Show - care of c.i.'s "Talking entry"):

This gets to Barbara's point of the grand conception this administration has, really coming out of Cheney's office, for the presidency. President Bush has issued 750 signing statements. That is, he'll sign a bill that Congress has brought before him instead of vetoing it, he will sign it and make it into a law and then put essentially an asterisk at the bottom that says I'm going to enforce this law to the extent that it doesn't conflict with my powers as commander-in-chief or whatever proviso he wants to attend to it. That's not our system. The president is supposed to veto the bill and let Congress try to override it or he's supposed to sign the bill and then see that the laws are faithfully executed. [. . .] This is certainly one ground for impeachment and I don't understand why it's viewed as such a partisan issue because if this is allowed to stand then if and when a Democrat becomes president that person can do just what Bush is going to be doing and then Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. I mean, I think wiser people should prevail here. And look what President Bush is doing to our Constitutional system. It really isn't about who is in control of the White House or in control of Congress.

but nothing seems to get the democratic party leaders' outraged. what's it going to take?

we're seeing the same nonsense with immigration. after all the protests and rallies, the senate wants to push through the filthy, vile bill they had their dirty fingers on before - turning immigrants into 2nd class workers, stripping them of work place rights, making them serfs to their employers. and after 5 years, if they can stay on the boss' good side, well maybe then they can start, START, the process to become a citizen.

that's b.s. and don't let anyone (not the damn new york times which has pushed the crap from the start) that this is about helping people - it's about helping business.

kpfa's flashpoints tonight had a speech by robert fisk on iraq. the sort of thing you won't read in the new york times - too much reality for them. dennis bernstein also noted jason leopold. i called c.i. and truthout is getting added at that site and i'm adding it here. leopold's being trashed. you know who's trashing him? pusedo lefties.

it's the usual b.s. of 'oh, i'm not like him! i better make sure that no 1 thinks i'm like him! i'm reasonable and acceptable!'

i hate to keep harping on it and i didn't even know who leopold was when we worked on the thing sunday ('Editorial: Could it be true? Rove indicted?'). c.i. had to point out what leopold had written and then i was 'oh yeah.' i know robert parry's byline and a few other people's. most of the time, i'm 1/2 way through something before i think to check for the author. jim's question was had c.i. heard about it? the possible indictment of rove? c.i. hadn't heard anything (but was on the road). jim asked me and i hadn't and it was too late to call any 1 i knew. but we all agreed if jason leopold was writing about it, he believed in it. we could sit on the sidelines or we could do something, so we wrote about it.

i think the indictment is coming. (i haven't heard anything but c.i.'s heard some stories that it is happening and some that it isn't and a lot of 'i don't know's.)

dennis talked to jason leopold about it. the way he's being treated is pathetic. (not by dennis, dennis is supporting him.) c.i. thinks that if there's an announcement this week, it will be on friday. that's when fitzgerald announced scooter's indictment. i can see that too and see bully boy asking for that, leaning on fitzgerald in a 'we have so much to deal with this week and we aren't asking you not to announce it, we're just asking you to let us deal with this week and let tony snow get some press conferences under his belt.'

i could see that happening.

swiping from elaine:

Larry Bensky and Mitch Jesserich will cover the Michael Hayden hearing tomorrow live on KPFA. (9:00 a.m. Eastern Time is when it starts.)

9:00 am est, 8:00 am ct, 6:00 am pt. you can listen online. they're dropping their fundraising to cover this, so show some love.

things that make you applaud and the things that make you go 'wtf'?

AMY GOODMAN: Brian Ross, on the issue of the prisons, do you know if these prisons are still operating in Romania and Poland? I remember in one of her overseas trips recently, Condoleezza Rice went to Romania.
BRIAN ROSS: We reported in December that they had rushed to close them before she landed in Europe, so that she could say there are no such prisons in Europe, that they had operated up to a week before, when this word got out. And that was one of the reasons they were so eager for us not to report it was that it embarrassed her further. We reported that they closed down those two prisons and moved the 12 to 14 top al-Qaeda figures being held there to a third country in North Africa. And we did not report the name of that country.

that's from democracy now's "Freedom of the Press Under Attack: Government Begins Tracking Phone Calls of Journalists" and i'm noting it for a reason - others aren't. i'm not talking about people who note (or will note) this or note other things from democracy now, i'm talking about the people who act like the program doesn't exist.

now the right, you'd expect it from them. you'd be surprised if they acted any other way, in fact. too much reality for them.

but where is the support from the left?

do i have to close my eyes and wait for the guilty to come forward? should i name names?

on a different issue, let's name 1. wonkette. the old whore of a bad website that was nothing but sexual tease by a boring woman who only looked hot and exciting standing next to corpses and corpses in waiting. you got 2 men posting there so why do they still show the looks-nothing-like-anne-marie-cox-even-in-her-dreams drawing (in the kind of get up britney spears tossed aside circa 1997)?

who knows. but can the fellows be taught to count?

The far, far, far right British National Party's head starred in a gay "art" flick in 1989, which he also co-wrote, produced, and directed (a triple threat!).

i know they get something like a nickel for each click to their page and with their writing they probably need all the nickels so here's the link to their nonsense.

but let's walk the boys through:

The far, far, far right British National Party's head starred in a gay "art" flick [starred in=acting that's threat 1] in 1989, which he also co-wrote [wrote=writer, threat 2], produced [producer is threat 3], and directed (a triple threat!) [directed is threat four].

quadruple threat, boys of wonkette, quadruple threat.

give them a sympathy click and maybe they can save up for a calculator.

(or maybe they'll just blow it on another peep show.)

betty's posting a hilarious chapter tonight so make a point to visit her site.

want to know what else is hilarious? mary cheney.

c.i. forwarded something to me last week that i'll grab tonight. it's by ari berman who's a really strong writer.

The election is history, but the war between a Cheney (Mary) and a Kerry (John) lives on.
In her new memoir, Now It's My Turn, Cheney's lesbian daughter calls Kerry a "son of a bitch" and his running mate, John Edwards, "total slime," for mentioning her sexual orientation during the campaign debates.
Watching Edwards during the veep debate, Cheney allegedly mouthed the words "Go F*** Yourself." Months earlier, the Vice President had told Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to do the same. Like father, like daughter.

ari made me laugh - he often does. but i really don't have much to say on it. not out of 'respect' for 'i'm gay today!' mary, but because c.i. covered it in "Other Items:"

Mary Cheney's hawking her new book and hoping to fleece your pockets so suddenly it's okay to say she's gay. She was gay, in fact out as gay, for years before John Kerry noted that in a 2004 debate. But we were supposed to be shocked, shocked, shocked. The only thing shocking was how craven or embarrassed her parents were by her and of her as well as her own silence during the attempt to liken her own life to something resembling a drug addiction that we simply don't speak of.
So Mary Cheney's got a new book out. I'm sure it's the nonfiction equivalent of her mother's fictional look at lesbians on the prarie. And sure that it, like her mother's book, is badly written. Were the book a success, she might be able to buy herself a little self-respect.
However, the book's a hard sell. There's nothing "explosive" (or even "interesting") about it. Her flurry of press was in November of 2004, not last month. She's the daughter of one of the least liked men in the world. (Her mother's a big question mark in the minds of many where "bland" is more often the term applied -- other less kind terms are applied by those who follow the news. Her father is known and hated.) Those who stick with her father (and some do, a little over 30% of the public, year after year) are the pro-torture, pro-secrecy, pro-fundy group. Translation, they're not interested in this book.
Destined to be Queen of the Remainders, filling the shelves at outlet malls across the nation (and not selling there either), Mary Cheney learned the lesson about cashing in from her her father -- she just couldn't learn his sense of timing (which, no matter what you think of him, has always been strong -- even this morning, he may be setting up a future book deal on life in prison, don't put it past him).

that says it all and then some. i mean it makes you laugh, it covers everything. her lousy book, her lousy self-image, her lousy self. i love it when c.i. chucks the high road and lets it rip. betty and i were talking about this because it made us laugh. (she's got 'translation' in her latest chapter as a tribute to this criticism. and it's hilarious, so be sure to check her site tonight!)
know what else is hilarious? wally's 'THIS JUST IN! NEDRA PICKLER SEES INSIDE PEOPLE!'
so go read it.

that's it for tonight. i'm rushing because we're all trying to get done as early as possible so that we can do some planning for this weekend. but great speech by michael parenti on kpfa's flashpoints. it was funny (and son christian was mentioned) and political. if you missed it, listen to it because it makes you think and it will make you laugh.

things that make you go 'what the f---!'

'so where was i?'

friday's i don't always blog. i try to grab saturday when i can't catch friday. this friday, fly boy and i went to a concert. saturday?

is any 1 here a part of couple?

that meant fly boy's mother for saturday and my mother for sunday to celebrate mother's day. i was amazed that i was able to help the third estate sunday review at all.

so that brings us today. on kpfa's flashpoints tonight, dennis bernstein spoke with jason leopold.

there seems to be some sort of dog pile effort on leopold.

if you missed it, you can read 'Editorial: Could it be true? Rove indicted?' which covers it and has links to leopold's two stories.

nutshell, leopold's sources tell him that last friday, patrick fitzgerald began or discussed indicting karl rove in the plamegate case. leopold's sources say that rove has told the white house he will be indicted shortly and that when that happens, he will resign.

there's been nothing today and people are up in arms that leopold must be wrong or his sources must be.

leopold told dennis that he didn't believe he was burned by his sources. he stands by his story.

salon has a thing that i'm not linking to (in fact don't expect many links, i'm in a mood tonight) where they fret over what this means for the net if leopold's wrong?

if his sources are wrong, they're wrong. that's all it means. leopold didn't write it for salon so salon needs to calm down.

me? i think leopold's right. that's my opinion. i expect that we'll hear news shortly. i didn't expect it today because bully boy had his let-me-pretend-i'm-president press conference. fitzgerald's been very cooperative with the administration. i wouldn't be surprised if the white house asked that it not happen on monday because of their press conference.

if the story is wrong, then it's wrong.

things happen all the time. it just means, salon, that sometimes things turn out and sometimes they don't.

but i wouldn't write off leopold's story (or leopold).

so let me give my next gripe. there's a story linked to by buzzflash where a deejay admits he was wrong to vote for bully boy and the headline to the link, buzzflash's headline, says - i don't know. they've pulled it so maybe readers complained. the guy trashes democrats on national security and buzz had something in their headline like 'well said' - which says to me that who ever did the link didn't read it all the way through.

i thought the deejay was a tool.

speaking of tools: hillary clinton. read c.i.'s 'other items' to get the latest on hillary.

speaking of c.i., c.i. passed on that kpfa will cover the michael hayden hearings beginnng thursday. larry bensky will be hosting it. i don't know if other pacifica stations will carry it or not and i may forget about it until thursday morning, so mark your calenders. also c.i. said michael parenti will be on, speeches i think, kpfa tomorrow. it's ... i'm trying to think if c.i. gave me my time or the time it airs (kpfa is in berkeley, so that's pacific time, i'm on the east coast). one thirty p.m. and i'm pretty sure that's eastern time. c.i.'s always good at giving the time for when it airs in my area. and i'll assume every 1 knows that you can listen to kpfa on air. so do. and give money if you can to pacifica, the station of your choice. i don't just say that. fly boy and i donated. if you've got the money to spare, donate to independent media.

please read trina's 'Popcorn in the Kitchen' which i so wanted to blog about saturday. it's a wonderful post. i'll go ahead and note, she's talking about an article in the nation. and i'll give katrina vanden heuvel credit for running it. but i think the writers did a really bad excerpt of their book (i haven't read the book). but i do give credit to katrina vanden heuvel for running it. (that's not my attempt to kiss ass - i don't kiss ass. but i have had a few choice words for kvh and i have no problem with that or with saying 'good move' when a good move is made.) work issues effecting women need to be addressed and covered.

i just don't think the excerpt did that. and i don't see those two women who did the excerpt and wrote the book as very helpful. i'm reminded of that scene in tootsie when dustin hoffman's dorothy michaels says 'i wouldn't tell a woman to do that, would you?' so the very 1st story they share just grates - a working woman has a child and a husband and we're hearing about her life.
i'm sorry but i don't say, as trena did, that you nudge your husband awake and tell him to get the kid ready and the breakfast, i say you kick him in the shin and say 'you lazy ass, why the hell am i the 1 getting up every morning while you sleep in! i'm already dropping OUR kid off at school every day! exactly what do you do around here? i'd assume you think i'm your mother here to baby you but we just screwed last night! so wake your sorry ass up!'

i'm serious. i would say that. and until the woman can address that issue, i don't have sympathy for her. her life's rough and that's partly because she won't demand that her husband do his share.

for the authors not to even comment on that makes it a non-feminist study.

so that's what i think about that dopey excerpt. and i won't be reading the book because the excerpt's grated on me so much, i have no interest in the book.

i also don't like how the authors started their promo roll out for mother's day. why does it always seem like when there's some peace activity planned, moveon.org shows up with their own thing? i feel they really stepped on CODEPINK's toes.

the topic needs to be addressed but it will take a serious approach, a feminist 1. i can't imagine susan faludi just writing that first narrative and not pointing out that while the woman feels stressed to the limit, she could be telling her lazy ass husband to wake up and do his part.

it all read like dabbling. like 2 'we care so much' people wanted to dabble in a topic as opposed to exploring it.

i'm just not in the mood tonight to go into all the nonsense that seems to be eating up time.

that includes the attacks on jason leopold.

i think people need to back off and they need to quit asking, 'big picture! what does this mean for me if the story doesn't pan out!'

even chicken little waited to be hit on the head before screaming: 'the sky is falling! the sky is falling!'

read elaine's "We hold the Iraqi government and the occupiers responsible for this brutal atrocity" . she called to say she'd written about college and hoped that was fine. i told her she never needed to check with me. after we got off the phone, of course i had to read it right away. it brought back a lot of good memories and i think she's exactly right that college students are still encouraged to be docile when they need to be encouraged to be empowered. if you haven't read it, i'm speaking of within the unversity structure. college students are encouraged to be docile. i am not saying they are 'docile.' i'm not hillary clinton and, considering the fact that she seems stuck in a pant-suits phase, really ugly pant-suits by the way, i am thankful for that!

seriously, the hair cut, it's not stylish. she needs to change it. and those pant-suits look like she got them at sears. she's paying good money for them so i'll just assume she doesn't have any fashion sense.

if she didn't so obviously care about the way she looks, it wouldn't be an issue. if she were some 1 who didn't care, i'd think good for her. but when so much time is obviously spent on fashion and hair and those are the results, it does bear noting.

i also wish she'd go back to her 1992 eyebrows. who does she think she is these days? julia roberts? with two little sea gulls pasted to her forehead? in 1992, her eyebrows were just fine. but in 1992, she still seemed to have both common sense and a heart.

i'll note something that elaine and mike did (and c.i. as well) because it is important:

"Cindy Sheehan Leads Mother's Day Anti-War Vigil" (democracy now)
In Washington, peace campaigner Cindy Sheehan spent Mothers Day in an anti-war vigil outside the White House along with actress Susan Sarandon, other military mothers and Iraq war veterans.

preaching to the converted

so yesterday, i had some women over to talk about the war. i knew a few of them had expressed (mild) opposition to it. i wasn't sure about the others.

but we need to be taking this topic to the people in our lives (close and more distant) because we need to take the opposition to a new level. i think it worked. there were 2 (out of 30) who were for the war. the rest were against it. we spoke of why we felt the way we did. we spoke of what was going on that bothered us the most.

consider it my attempt to steal goldie's house party.

but what goldie (and her mother marlene) had in mind worked and we all need to be attempting that.

so i did wednesday afternoon and it went very well. i hope you'll try something similar.

until we're all talking, nothing's going to change.

1 woman said it best, for me, when she said, 'we're at war and it's like we can't talk about it but we can spend hours obsessing over american idol.'

you're the 1 who can change that. only you. it doesn't matter what i do. it doesn't matter what someone else does. you have a power and you have a voice.

wednesday night kpfa's flashpoints had 2 women on discussing these sort of gatherings. 1 was an iraqi-american and the other was with christian peacemarker teams. listen to the interview and maybe you'll agree or maybe you'll disagree. but we need to be trying something.

i'm not spitting on the peace movement. i think united for peace & justice and others like codepink have done a wonderful job. but we need to be taking it into our neighborhoods. not just to the big rally in our area or the national rally. this issue needs to be something we discuss.

how are you with children being killed? is it okay to kill some children? that's one of the issues the 2 women addressed.

on monday, ray mcgovern was a guest discussing confronting donald rumsfeld last thursday. that's another thing people should be doing if they have the opportunity and, if they don't, they should be talking about it. even if it's just 'can you believe ray mcgovern confronted donald rumsfeld?' some 1 may ask you why. that's the perfect time to explain.

or some 1 may find some courage hearing of mcgovern.

you never know.

look at what kat's done since saturday:

"Kat's Korner: Pink's not dead or silent"
"Kat's Korner: Need deeper? Check out Josh Ritter's The Animal Years"
"Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection"
"Kat's Korner: Neil Young's Living With War -- key word 'Living'"


the war is in every 1 of those reviews.

i feel like i'm preaching to the converted here.

let me post c.i.'s iraq snapshot from today:


Chaos and violence continue.

Today? The parliament continued to make the issue of who heads the Iraqi oil ministry the main topic. (Does that not demonstrate how important that position is?) As the AFP notes, yesterday was the self-imposed deadline the US backed Iraqi prime minister designate Nuri al-Maliki had set for finaliing his cabinet. The deadline was missed.

This as Rod Barton, an Australian Defence sciene intelligence officer, has made statements that Australia was lied into war. Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Company's Kerry O'Brien, Barton also addressed the issue of US torture:

KERRY O'BRIEN: Why do you believe he was beaten to death and how clear is the evidence that he was beaten to death?
ROD BARTON: I now know, and I didn't know this when I wrote the book, that he underwent a process called purgatory when he was arrested. Purgatory is, again, by this Special Forces 626. When they arrest the person they're trying to disorient the person. They put a hessian bag over the person's head and for three days or more the person is beaten, deprived of food and sleep and so on. There was a lot of stuff he was involved with. He developed poisons for assassination purposes. But I believe, I now know, that he knew about actual operations of assassinations of Iraqi dissidents overseas. And I believe that was the information that they were trying to get from him when they beat him again. The autopsy showed that he died not of a brain tumour or a brain aneurysm, or whatever they told me - not of natural causes, but the autopsy showed he died of blunt force trauma to the head. In other words, someone hit him too hard on the head.

Back in Iraq, as factions move towards the consolidation of militaries, Grand Ayatolla Hli al-Sistani has "ordered all Shi'ite mosques to close for three days" in Zubayr reports the Associated Press. This as AFP is reporting that "official sanction" will be needed for clerics in Iraq. As part of the agreement, "capital and Iraqi forces" cannot raid mosques without US troops being present. Presumably 'sanctioning' of cleric will take place with US permission as well. (US military spokesperson, Rick Lynch, stated of the deal: "That's news to me, that's a surprise to me.")

In Baghdad, as noted on KPFA's The Morning Show newsbreaks anchored by Sandra Lupien and by CNN, roadside bombs have claimed the lives of at least three American troops today (Lupien also noted the death of two Iraqi soldiers from a roadside bomb -- as does Reuters). The Associated Press notes a roadside bomb took the lives of five "municipal workers." (CNN also puts the number of dead at five and notes one wounded.) Reuters, which puts the previous number at four, reports assailents shot and killed a "judicial investigator near a courthouse." Courthouses and schools continue to be the targets for violence. And the corpse of a police officer was discovered ("hands bound, signs of torture and shot in the head").

In Baquba, Reuters notes that a school teacher was killed and her fourteen-year-old nephew wounded by assailants. Is this the same woman, Widad al-Shimri, whose death the AP reports? They identify her as a Shi'ite "history professor" and note that her seven-year-old daughter was also killed. So at least one educator was killed in Baquba, possibly two. Also in Baquba, at least twenty-five men, suspected gunmen, have been arrested "wearing army uniforms" but not with the army.

In Haqlaniyah, US troops have fired on abandoned hotel where resistance fighters were believed to be while, in Kirkuk, assailants "ambushed and killed a police lieutenant colonel."

that's what's going on.

that's what we have brought about.

so let's get creative on getting the word out.

more on hud's lead liar alphonso jackson

it is official. though i have yet to get the promised e-mail, blogger/blogspot has reviewed and decided that i am not a robot.

no more word verification.

now that i've been cleared of the charges, i feel the urge to scream, 'i'm actually part cyborg! like jamie on the bionic woman!'

HUD Secretary Turns Down Contractor Who Criticized Bush
Meanwhile, Housing and Urban Development Department Secretary Alphonso Jackson is coming under scrutiny after he revealed he cancelled a proposed deal with a government contractor who made critical comments of President Bush. According to the Dallas Business Journal, Jackson said the contractor had been selected for a government advertising contract. But the contractor was ultimately not selected after he told Jackson he didn’t like President Bush. Jackson said: "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe." In response, Democratic Congressmembers Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Henry Waxman of California called for a full investigation of Jackson’s contract decisions. In a letter to Jackson, the Congressmemembers wrote: "If this account is accurate, your comments and actions were improper and most likely illegal. Federal contracts should be awarded based on merit, not on whether a contractor likes or dislikes President Bush."

that's from democracy now and i thought i'd start with that because i ended with hud last night.

jackson has a history struggling with the truth, a public history. c.i. passed this on because i'd written about it yesterday. billie had sent this to c.i. to provide a little background on alphonso jackson:


Then there was the Thrilla on Marilla--the lightweight bout between Fielding and Alphonso Jackson which kept us occupied for a few weeks in the winter of 1993. The councilman and the Dallas Housing Authority chief, you may recall, got uniquely physical during a tense meeting in Mayor Bartlett's office. When it was over, no one was at all surprised that someone would want to stomp grapes on Paul Fielding's face--his major in college was, no doubt, the art of bringing out the worst in people. What surprised everyone is that Jackson actually did it.
A diminutive, soft-spoken, horn-rimmed-glasses type, Jackson simply gathered himself into an absolute fury and, like a bull at Pamplona, rammed Fielding face first into the unyielding metal frame of a partially opened door. Blackening eyes. Mangling facial nerves. Sending ears to ringing.
Jackson blew his opportunity to become a sympathetic figure in the eyes of Fielding detractors when he panicked, dissolving into a choke mode--not only denying that he'd beaten Fielding up, but frantically concocting off-the-wall scenarios about what happened. In one, the mayor, who actually witnessed Jackson's handiwork along with half the mayor's staff, was blamed for the bludgeoning.


so he gets into a fight and then lies about it. the author of that piece, by the way, was laura miller who no longer writes for a periodical, she's now mayor of the city of dallas.

and jaime s. jordan provides an update in the dallas business journal, which originally broke the jackson story, that has an interesting footnote:

(On May 3, Tucker told the Business Journal that the contract Jackson was referring to in Dallas was "an advertising contract with a minority publication," though she could not provide the contract's value.)


so on wednesday of last week hud spokesperson dustee tucker was maintaining that the story was true, but yesterday, saying it wasn't.

in congress, house represantives henry waxman and barney frank are asking questions:

In a letter to HUD Secretary Jackson, Reps. Waxman and Frank ask for an explanation of the Secretary's public admission that he decided not to award a contract to a contractor with "a heck of a proposal" because the contractor expressed a negative view of the President.


jackson has more problems. from representative louise slaughter's letter to alphonso jackson:

I was troubled to read recent news reports about the nature of certain contracts awarded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Specifically, I am concerned that a HUD contract has been awarded to a company allegedly involved in illicit activities including bribery, gambling, and prostitution.
Last week, Harper's Magazine's web blog posted an update to its coverage of the federal contracts awarded to Shirlington Limousine and Transportation, Incorporated of Arlington, Virginia. This report indicated that HUD had awarded the company a $519,823 contract. As you may know, the company's president, Christopher D. Baker, has an extensive criminal history including drug possession, attempted robbery, and car theft along with other offenses over the last decade. Additionally, allegations have been bade that suggest that individuals involved in an ongoing Congressional bribery investigation used the limousine service to provide escorts and other services to federal officials in exchange for federal contracts. The fact that a contract from your agency has been awarded to a company embroiled in such a serious criminal investigation raises significant questions about the HUD's procurement process.
This comes on the heels of reports that at an April 28th Dallas real estate forum, you stated that individuals or organizations who had expressed their opposition to President Bush would not be eligible to receive federal contracts. All qualified organizations and businesses should have the opportunity to compete in the federal procurement process, and contract should be awarded to the company that can do the best work at the least cost to the government. Awarding federal contracts based on political affiliation is not only inappropriate, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Therefore, I request that you release all documents and communications in your possession pertaining to any HUD contracts with Shirlington Limousine. Thorough examination of these documents is critical to eliminating suspicion of inappropriate or illegal activity in awarding Shirlington Limousine a federal contract. I also ask you to clarify your comments regarding the eligibility of Administration opponents to compete for federal contracts.
I hope you will swiftly honor my request for the release of all pertinent documents to restore the integrity to the procurement processes of your department.


and just to remember what he said, from an article credited to kutv and associated press:

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.'" Jackson told the group, which promotes business opportunities for minorities in the real estate industry."He didn't get the contract," Jackson said. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

whether he's a lie face or trying to back peddle now (like he did when he got into the physical altercation), he needs to step down or fired.
now kat did another review last night: "Kat's Korner: Need deeper? Check out Josh Ritter's The Animal Years." i really love this cd. 'girl in the war' is, musically, the sort of magic brian wilson probably still wishes he could do.

and tonight? goldie, pay attention. she's reviewing pink's new cd tonight. i know a lot of community members have been waiting for it. she actually had this 1 written (i think the free design is the other 1 left that's already written) but she saw something online and decided to rewrite it. i'm really excited and i bet you are as well. so be sure to check for it. and check at the common ills because she posts her music reviews there, not at her own site: kat's korner (of the common ills). she started there and that's her contribution to the community.

the plan is 7 reviews over the next 2 weeks. she's done 3 so far with the 4th going up tonight. if you missed the other 3, the link to animal years is up above and the other 2 are:

"Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection"
"Kat's Korner: Neil Young's Living With War -- key word 'Living'"

i would like to write about today when i blog tomorrow. (can you follow that?)

but be sure to read c.i.'s "Other Items" and wally's "THIS JUST IN! HILLARY CLINTON LOVES THE BOYZ WHO CHEAT ON HER!" for the latest on hillary. in fact, doesn't she resemble the character of senator in "Head on Home (a musical in four scenes)"?

hud run by a liar

i'm still a 'robot' in blogger/blogspot's b.s. eyes tonight.

the key word to type (when i post, to prove i'm not a robot) is 'ujkqmqa' - and they've got it in drippy b.s. writing.

on the plus side, c.i. and kat's complaints about how hard it was to read this bullshit obviously resulted in the option to hear the letters since it's unlikely many could read their slanted, curved letters.

again, don't they have better things to do? there were 2 outagges last week.

and maybe they should actually read a site before they flag it as done by a 'robot'?

i can't imagine any 1 read my site and would think i was a 'robot.' they might think i was a bitch, or worse, but no 1's ever accused me of being a robot before.

mike's sick. he's got chicken pox. i spent a few hours at his house tonight talking to his parents. he was asleep the whole time. when i got back here, i wasn't even sure i'd blog because i'm so pissed at this 'robot' nonsense.

i really think it's offensive. and i think they need to check a site before they flag it.

kat posted a new review last night, "Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection" and is planning to have another 1 up tonight.

i love richie havens but that's not a cd for me - for all the reasons listed in the review. i have richie havens' albums and this is really more for new listeners. there's a richie havens collection i love. it's called resume: the best of richie havens. it has 17 tracks (1 song's a medley so you get 18 songs) on it, only 6 of which appear on the 'best of.'

did you catch kat's review saturday: "Kat's Korner: Neil Young's Living With War -- key word 'Living'"? that's what i've listened to today, neil young's living with war. i agree that the last track is the 1 you ditch quickly. i'm already over that 1. but the rest of the album is really strong and i'm amazed at how many good cds have come out this year. i hope a lot of other people quit playing 'war got your tongue?' because until they do, the war drags on.

i've got some friends coming over tomorrow afternoon to discuss the war and i'm going to try to serve trina's latest 'Pasta salad with avocado dressing in the Kitchen' - i'm not a good cook. i can be talked through over the phone. but i have found trina's recipes to be practical and becky-proof.

so let's do some news and then i'll post this thing (if blogger/blogspot allows me to).

is alphonso jackson a crook or just a liar? he's the secretary of hud (housing & urban development) appointed by the bully boy. the associated press reports that he gave a talk in dallas, tx and told the group present that he refused to grant a contract to 1 company because the representative of the company didn't support the bully boy:

"He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president,'" Jackson told the group, according to the newspaper.
"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.'" Jackson told the group, which promotes business opportunities for minorities in the real estate industry.
"He didn't get the contract," Jackson said. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

if the story is true, hold on for that, alphonso jackson is 1 more idiot who thinks he works for the bully boy when, in fact, he works for the people of the united states.

dustee tucker, hud spokesperson, says jackson made the whole thing up. so he's a liar?

She acknowledged that Jackson did not tell the audience the story was made up. But, she said, Jackson used the "hypothetical" story to describe the ruthless politics of Washington. She said the secretary was trying to convey that Washington is a place where political opponents, rather than stabbing you in the back, "will stab you in the chest."

i believe the knife was held by jackson and he waved it in a threatening manner. he needs to go. he is not fit to hold that office. is he a liar? let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's a liar. the liar then wants to set a tone where you either love you some bully boy or you get no contracts. jackson knew that his story (lie?) would be repeated. that's why he bragged about it. he is unfit to hold that office and his ass needs to be kicked to the curb.

msnbc plagiarizes the associated press

i've got unexpected company tonight and planned to just highlight something c.i. did this afternoon because it's worth noting. i get into my account and now i'm apparently a 'robot' because i have some stupid ass 'word verification' added at the bottom of this post.

you know, i think blogger/blogspot has a lot more important things to do than harrass real people. unless i'm mistaken, last monday no 1 could post at all until the west coast employees had their lattes (that was up at the discussion boards - it's sarcasm).

seems to me they have a few more important things to focus on.

here's c.i.'s thing about how msnbc decided to 'borrow' from the associated press:

Question for the day? Does MSNBC think it's okay to rip off the Associated Press without crediting them? (This was pointed out to me by someone at one of NBC's rival networks.)

First here's what appears at MSNBC (credited to "MSNBC News Services" and link takes you to the "report"):

Insurgents often try to prevent Iraqi citizens from cooperating with their country's new democratically elected government by attacking government workers and killing men who have been recruited into Iraq's military and police forces.

CBS is running an Associated Press article (no individual author credited at CBS, however it's Sameer N. Yacoub's "Bombs Kill U.S. Soldier and 7 Iraqis"):

Insurgents often try to prevent Iraqi citizens from cooperating with their country's new democratically elected government by attacking government workers and killing men who have been recruited into Iraq's military and police forces.

That's word for word. CBS notes it is an AP article. MSNBC pulls the paragraph and runs it without crediting it to AP. (Note: First paragraph contains a link to a CBS & AP story. That's another article -- one with joint credit.)


if company leaves early, i'll post again. if not, that's it for tonight.

we're in the home stretch at the third estate sunday review. we have a small feature on anthony arnove's book iraq: the logic of withdrawal. dona thought an illustration might liven up the edition. so i've scanned this and am posting it here so that we can use it there. it's an important book, so please read it. new content will start going up at the third estate sunday review shortly. (2 things by ava and c.i. -- something that will excite readers.) 

b.p. (brief post)

brief post tonight.

jim's asked ava and c.i. to scrap the tv commentary they'd already done a rough draft on (and made time to watch the show and call friends working on and around the show). jim thinks a) that they really do amazing writing (ava and c.i.) under pressure and b) the issue needs to be addressed. (stephen colbert.)

i agree it needs to be addressed. this was prompted by counterspin's decision to air the speech with no critique of it (and the implied approval and rah-rah that has upset a number of people).

if it works out, it will probably be 1 of those 'great' moments. but if it doesn't ...

i blame counterspin. they need a women's desk. 1 that is vocal. if they had 1 and sought input from it, that nonsense wouldn't have been on the air today.

jim really didn't grasp that it was putting them both under pressure. dona made that very clear in the long conversation (they bailed on it, ava and c.i.). jim's right that the piece needs to be written and i understand why ava and c.i. are the best choices. it's their beat. they can get people on the phone who saw it live.

and before i wrote my thing on it, i talked to c.i. about it and there are points that c.i. can make that no 1 else is making.

go read wally's 'THIS JUST IN! WHICH RAT WILL BE THE LAST TO LEAVE?' - it's funny and made me laugh.

in fairness to jim, he was his usual energetic self. he gets really jazzed on an idea and doesn't notice that every 1 else isn't going 'awesome!' if ava and c.i. can do this (i think they can) with minimal damage to their weekend (i'm not so sure), it'll be worth reading and worth doing. but ay-yi-yi.

after ava and c.i. left the call (at the same time), betty said, 'well am i the only 1 who wants to cry right now?' it was only when that was said and the long conversations that followed that jim started to grasp he was being a little overbearing. he'll apologize tomorrow night (he's already said he will) and hopefully everything will be fine. by the end of the call, jim was feeling really bad. he's just enthusiastic. and others, including me, could have stepped in and should have. jim thought c.i. was joking but there was no joking on c.i.'s part or ava's. they've both had very long weeks and were hoping that since they made time to knock out most of the work for their review, they'd be able to relax and we'd have a simple session. now that's all been shot to hell.

if it had been approached differently (or broached differently), it wouldn't have gone the way it did. i think every 1 can agree it needs to be dealt with and that ava and c.i. have the following and the abilities to address it.

listening to counterspin today, i was really insulted that they chose to present the 'jokes' the way they did - with no critique of it. they need a strong women's desk and they need to put those sort of items past a woman's desk.

i'll stop here because i want to be sure i don't end up spilling some of the points c.i. made when we were on the phone earlier this week. but there are a number of problems with the 'jokes' and i think it will be tackled wonderfully this sunday.

flashpoints

BC Professors Protest Honoring Condoleeza Rice
In Massachusetts, nearly 100 Boston College professors have added their names to a letter protesting their university's decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree. Rice has been announced as a commencement speaker for graduation ceremonies later this month. The letters' authors, including theology department chair Rev. Kenneth Himes, wrote: "On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice's approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College's commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university's work."

mike asked me if i could work in a headline from democracy now (they really should put him on the payroll of that show - he's always getting the word out).

kpfa's flashpoints? it has had a great week. i was tempted to note it each day but i was afraid i was setting a pattern. i'm happy to get the word out on the show, it's great, every 1 obviously cares. but i don't want to be tied down to something for every post.

so i thought i might be setting an expectation after last week if i did daily entries on kpfa's flashpoints. i did pass on 1 thing to c.i. and c.i. noted it at the common ills. and i did note janis karpinski being on last night (and i called the blog twins - mike and elaine - to ask them to note it at their sites).

monday, flashpoints did an amazing job covering the protests. it was even more powerful because they had breaking news. they didn't get it by calling up the new york times and asking, 'anything happening?' in bakersfield, california, people gathered at a park to begin their march. the police turned out in full force and they were told they couldn't march. a woman participating (or wanting to) went over to the police and asked 1 officer if they could march or not? the 1 guy said basically, 'sure keep it peaceful.' they start trying to bust people. including the woman who was reporting it for the show. it was nothing but bullying and intimidation. so what they decided was that they would not be defeated. they gathered again that night to march and the woman was reporting to dennis bernstein right before their march to city hall started. tuesday, c.i. noted that the incident wasn't in the new york times biased coverage. when i read that entry, i called c.i. and asked, 'you know kpfa's flashpoints covered this?' c.i. didn't know that but was happy to provide a link later in the day to it. so if you spent a buck for your new york times
tuesday, you need to listen to monday's flashpoints for some of what the paper of record couldn't be bothered with telling you. (and though there is no charge to listen to flashpoints, i'll do the plub here, pacifica is about to go into fundraising and it will last for the month, so if you have money to give and you value free speech and radio that gives you the information you need, the information that the corporate media won't provide you with, you should donate. i won't bother you with a plug again. but if you've got the money, you should give.)


tuesday's show featured an interview with craig murray (former uzbekistan ambassador for great britain). murray's book (he discussed it on democracy now) is coming out in the united states but there's some editing going on (british government). murray talked about how it the wmd claim for war with iraq was not believable. he also talked about how torture was going on and evidence of it was ignored. but probably the most interesting thing for readers will be the fact that bully boy was in bed with uzbekistan when it was known by our state department to have a despotic, abusive leadership. our state department labeled it such. that was under bill clinton's presidency. 'wait!' you say, 'bully boy had his own state department.' yes, but this happened while he was governor of texas. he was in bed with them while he was governor of texas. making deals, etc. which, it seems to me, the then state dept. should have been aware of and should have taken action (legal) against the bully boy.

laila el-haddad was also on the show discussing life for palestinians, something you don't hear about very often. she is a regular on the show and i want to get her name in before i forget it. dennis bernstein's name i knew from ruth. but i've had trouble figuring out the names of others.
so laila el-haddad, dennis bernstein and robert knight are 3 names i know so far.


which brings us to wednesday show. janis karpinski, the brigadier general (like c.i., i will call her that because i disagree that she should have been stripped of her title) who was made the fall guy for abu ghraib was interviewed by dennis bernstein. i'm going to assume most people know her story and just add that she wasn't over military interrogations and the actions taking place in abu ghraib were not under her control.

these are some notes i made. i'm not ruth. i don't do short hand. so consider it a very rough transcript. so if you are interested in what you read of the interview, listen to the show.

1 key point was on the testimony of general sanchez where he told congress he didn't know anything about the photographs. karpinski: 'but nobody asked him the real important question' "did you know anything about the authorizations for the techniques that we saw in the photographs?" because he would have to say yes, if he were telling the truth.'

she added, 'he signed an 8 page memorandun ... authorizing a laundry list of techniques ... to include all of those techniques listed on that rumsfeld list stripping them naked, using unmuzzled dogs ... but nobody asked him that question while he was testifying under oath.'

she was very clear that 'he authorized what was going on.' and she clarified that, 'in those photographs ... there wasn't any interrogation taking place in those photographs.
but they were not, those photographs were not taken in the course of interrogations. in fact, those photographs were going to be used interrogations to get the prisoners, the detainees to start talking.'

she said a laptop would be opened, they'd show the person the photos and tell them to start talking or 'tomorrow, you're on the bottom of the pile.'

dennis bernstein asked about the abuse of women prisoners. karpinksi noted that 'there were photographs of women being abused' and that there were 'several pictures of women directed to raise their shirts and show their breasts.'

but most interesting to me was her comments on november 2003 when an investiagtion occurred over 3 military intelligence soldiers (interrogators) who 'went to cell block 1b where the female prisoners were held and 1 stood guard 'while the other 2 went and abused female prisoners . . . some statements that they actually physically raped female prisoners.'

this got out because the 3 men were bragging about what they did. the 3 were given a written reprimand (general papas did this) and sent the men back to the united states. don't you feel safer knowing that?

chain of command? she said, 'secretary of defense does not operate in a vacuum so everything that he was doing to be crystal clear he would have talked to his boss the vice president ... if you recall during his confirmation hearings ... they just rescinded the memorandum and said "it's been rescinded so it's not"' an issue (i think she said 'an issue' at the end, but i'm not sure so i'm leaving it out of the quote). she then traced the authorization gonzles gave (the 'quaint' memo) which went to gonzales and then to the commanders in the field and you trace it back up to the bully boy.

on rumsfeld, she noted that general miller was giving rumsfeld reports, he was informed. he was interested in knowing which techniques worked quickest, etc.

kpfa's flashpoints is on right now and i want to listen. violence is going on in san salvador, mexico. people in san salvador were attacked by the police. a boy was shot in the head. i want to hear this so i'm posting.

thank you to c.i. and wally and mike and readers who got the word out on yesterday's post. i've gotten a great deal of e-mail on it. also thanks to elaine who tossed aside the peace or reality quote she often ends with to suggest that every 1 instead read my post from yesterday.

by the way, read wally's 'THIS JUST IN! AIN'T EASY TO IMPRESS ALBERTO GONZALES!'
because i'm sure the news he's sending up will be all over the place tomorrow.

oh, i just remembered sherry's comment.

goldie's (and marlene's) house party last weekend to end the war

tonight, at last, the story of goldie's (and marlene's), house party.

but first, c.i. forwarded a reply to an e-mail that came into the common ills. a blogger (not in the community) took issue with me for my opinions on stephen colbert and then slammed me for writing about dynasty. c.i. replied that he (yes, it was a he) shouldn't try to 2nd guess me.

'rebecca writes with instinct, with a good sense of p.r. and quite a bit more. while you see "only" talk of a tv show, you miss quite a bit including the point "strong women characters." you also fail to grasp that she's been promoting goldie since last week and drawing it out builds anticipation. the post on "dynasty" is an attention getter that will draw in more than the usual readers. that's what rebecca is all about and what she's always been about. which is why with little help outside of the community, she's managed to become very popular. possibly she could do "cat blogging" or whatever other tired fad/phase has been around for 10 years now? instead, she writes exactly as she wants and, in doing so, has 1 of the most intense and dedicated readerships you can only dream of as you play "from the center" with your dull posts. thanks for sharing. feel free to share again with some 1 who gives a damn. -- c.i.'

that was very nice of c.i. and attached was a note to me that if it were elaine, this might not be forwarded but i would want to know about it. i would.

so some little centrist feels the need to rag on me to c.i.?

1st why did he think c.i. would give a damn?

perfect stranger whines and c.i.'s going to say 'oh perfect stranger, you're right, let me trash a lifetime friendship!'?

what those types never get is that elaine, c.i. and i cannot have a wedge shoved between us. centrist, you're late to the party, all the presents have been opened, the candles blown out and the cake and ice cream all gone.

i wrote about dynasty for a number of reasons last night. 1) i did watch the show. 2) the female characters were strong and that was a breakthrough. 3) joan collins did make a difference in the way women were seen on tv. 4) i knew there were other dynasty fans out there. (i got more e-mails on last night's post then i've gotten on anything.) 5) postponing goldie would build the moment (milk it?). 6) if even 1 reader who dropped by for the dynasty post stayed around it would be a success.

your male concept of what the net is, centrist, isn't mine.

i think i achieved all my intended goals. but i doubt that any 1 trying to get us to all rally behind joe lieberman would grasp that.

so let's talk goldie and marlene.

last weekend, while some were able to go to nyc for the rally and march, many others were not able to. daughter goldie and mother marlene were not going to let the moment pass by without doing something.

goldie's the 1 who usually thinks of things for her friends. this time mom was inspired by her daughter's spirit (i'm inspired by goldie's spirit as well). so they threw a sleep over for young females and women. goldie invited her friends and marlene invited her friends (many of whom were the mothers of goldie's friends). as friday approached a few had yet to r.s.v.p.

turns out there was no need to worry. not only did every 1 r.s.v.p. by friday evening, many of the women asked if they could bring a friend, sister or family member.

they ended up with 62 females gathered together on saturday to talk about the war and the state of the world. (64 counting goldie and marlene.)

they couldn't go to nyc. they could've said, 'oh i can't go, maybe next time. let's stay home and watch gilmor girls!' they didn't do that. they ended up with their own rally right there in their own home.

that's pretty amazing. i don't want to make it all about the numbers and i'm happy for any reader who did something whether they got together with just 1 friend or more than 1, but 64 is amazing.

marlene said the thing she heard most often from her friends was that they had a lot on their mind but never really felt like they had a chance to talk about it. some of them have jobs where anything resembling a 'political discussion' is frowned upon. as marlene pointed out, the country's at war, how can some employers think the topic is off limits? but some do. then the 1s who pick up their children after school are never sure where others stand.

what every 1 found out, marlene said, was how many were opposed to the war. a few had talked to each other about it in groups of 2. that's why 1 woman asked if she could bring her sister. her sister was the only 1 'keeping me sane' during this illegal war.

there were 2 women who didn't work outside of the home and marlene made a point to note that this hadn't freed up their discussions. it had left them feeling as isolated as the women who had an off limits stamp on the topic at their jobs.

goldie's big worry before saturday night was 1 her friends had. most were very against the war because it's an issue that goldie raises and discusses. she's taking a speech class now, the first 1/2 of the term was a foreign language, the 2nd 1/2 is speech. and there's not a speech she gives, improv or rehearsed, that doesn't put the war out there.

they had to give 1 on the founding fathers and goldie didn't just do a history, she took what they said and would apply to the illegal war we're in today. so her friends have had some 1 raising the issue and they've done research on their own and are really up to speed on what's going on.

their concern was that the mothers and other adults wouldn't a) understand where they were coming from and/or b) let them speak.

goldie had to say at 1 point, marlene backed her up on this, 'that's a very important point but ___ had the floor.' the mother, who had interrupted her own daughter, apologized and yielded the floor to her daughter. that only happened the 1 time.

that's pretty amazing when you consider the number present. but goldie is something. she is a force to be reckoned with.

so the evening started with every 1 just saying their name and telling a detail or 2 about themselves. then they munched on snacks while they watched eyewitness in iraq.

that was the perfect choice because a) it's powerful and b) it's only 28 minutes long.

every 1 was more than ready to talk and if it had been a longer movie, they probably would've ended up stopping it. so they then went around discussing, taking turns and listening to each other. goldie said her friends were really impressed with their own moms because they really were worried that they'd be dismissed or not listened to.

goldie had to reassure them that this wouldn't happen. she told them friday during lunch, 'if we're not listened to, we stage a walk out!'

goldie's not even 13, folks. she is amazing.

so the daughters got to share their thoughts and this is a big deal. it was a big deal to them but it would be a big deal to any 1. think about when you were young and something was important to you. did your parents listen to you? some did, some didn't.

saturday night, the mothers (aunts and friends) listened to our future leaders.

it wasn't a 1 way street. the daughters listened to the mothers, and other adults, as well.

the only other potential problem came when, at 11 pm, 1 of the mothers said, 'this has been good but you girls should probably go to sleep now.'

goldie didn't blink, marlene said. goldie informed the woman that she was very happy to have her as a guest and that even though the invitations clearly stated every 1 would stay up until midnight, if the woman was tired, she could go on to sleep.

the woman, to her credit, laughed and said, 'goldie, you are right. tell you what, i think i can handle 1 more hour.'

both goldie and marlene report that each grouping was impressed with the others.

marlene said goldie's best friend's mother told her she felt embarrassed when she heard her daughter speaking because her daughter had put so much time and energy into the issue. she had no idea. she knew her daughter was 'into music and boys' but she'd never seen this serious side before. and she said her daughter had put more time into the issue than she had 'and i'm the adult.'

goldie's friends that were in the speech class had some visuals from speeches they'd given. (1 class, when the students could pick a topic, goldie begged every 1, boy or girl, to talk about the war. and they all did. she's our future president, folks.)

1 grandmother had come along and she was probably the biggest hit with every 1 because she had tales of what she did in high school in the final years the war was waging in vietnam. she'd think she was finished and be asked for another story.

she called marlene on monday to thank her for the party and to say that those are stories she never shares these days because she didn't think any 1 cared.

so it's was a multi-generational meeting of minds.

every 1 ended up realizing that there was no wall on the war between any 1 attending. they all felt a lot stronger from sharing and realizing that they shared an opposition to the war. 30 minutes before midnight, they started brainstorming on what to do next and decided that these house parties needed to continue. the next 1 will focus on females as well and be in june. for that they got 10 volunteers to agree to host at their homes. (64 is a lot of people for a living room. marlene and 2 women ended up having to move the coffee table, the chairs and the counch out into the hall just to have room for every 1.) after that, in august, the plan is to try to bring in the men - 'and boys,' goldie added.

but with ground rules because goldie says boys don't like to just talk about what they think or feel, they like to tell you what they think you think and feel. (i'm not kidding, she's our future president. she knows the score already.)

so 1 of the things the 10 house parties in june will work on is a set of guidelines for august's house parites and they will be included with the invitations so that, if there are any problems, some 1 can do like goldie did when they almost lost an hour of their discussion time -- 'the invitations clearly stated...'

the 1 thing that marlene would do differently is the music. every 1 brought music (they could've brought an article, book or poem) except for 4. they weren't able to listen to all the music so the adults had to narrow down their choices and the young girls had to do the same with their choices. that was fine. but the first 1 to play was a mother and she didn't talk about it. she probably assumed that it would be clear. then the next turn went to 1 of goldie's friends and since the woman hadn't spoken, the girl just said 'this is bright eyes.' then a mother went with the next cd. then goldie jumped in and said, 'okay, bright eyes' and gave a brief speech about the cd they'd already listened to and then introduced the pink cd. after that, every 1, adult or young female, spoke for at least 2 minutes on why the cd had been selected.

marlene thinks that either the young girls were more passionated about the music or more convinced that not every 1 would know the cd. so for june's house parties, they're all going to start with a selection from the younger group. after goldie got every 1 prodded, people were really opening up. they'd talk about the 1 or 2 songs on the cd that made them bring it and maybe 1 of those songs or another 1 was a song they'd slow danced to. which would cause every 1 to laugh. marlene said she thought it was a really good way for both groups to get to know each other.

the question i didn't want to ask was the 1 i saved for last with goldie. i was afraid i'd be discouraging when i asked, 'so what does this mean?'

goldie replied that it didn't mean the war ends tomorrow. and she really paid attention to the stories the grandmother told because she was using them for the examples. she closed with 'it's going to be a long fight.'

goldie for president!

the smartest and coolest person in the nation.

goldie's writing about the house party for this sunday's polly's brew so be sure to check that out. she did her 1st column in the 1 that went out last sunday and it was 'just me saying hi' is how she explained it. it was a lot more than that but you're going to want to read about this. there's 1 story that she shared which is so wonderful that i told her i loved hearing it but i wasn't going to put it up here because she really needs to write about that in her column.

sherry and i had the same question for marlene - why goldie? we figured it either had to be for goldie hawn or the rapper. marlene said that in the final 3 months of her pregnancy, she got so huge it was a major trip just to get off the bed. during that time, she was still responsible for writing the checks and sending out the bills. she wrote the check for the cable bill, put it in an envelope and stamped it. but she asked her husband to mail it because that morning she didn't feel like walking out to the mailbox. he was in a hurry and didn't put it in their mailbox on the way to the car. he planned to mail it from work but then forgot and then lost it (not realizing he'd lost it).

so 1 day a final notice comes in. she asks him, 'did you mail that check in?' of course he did. they probably haven't processed it yet. then, a little bit later, the cable goes off. at which point he remembers that maybe he didn't mail it. maybe.

he told her she'd have to take care of it and her attitude was that she wasn't taking care of it because if he'd just put the envelope in the mail on his way to the car that morning, there'd be nothing to take care of or if he'd remembered, when the final notice came in, that he never mailed the envelope, it would have been taken care of then.

so there was no cable and when others would offer to take care of it, she would say, 'no, he needs to write the check and he needs to mail it. it's his mess.' so her sister brought over some videocassettes. it was a lot of jim carrey and steve martin movies (marlene likes them) and 3 goldie hawn films (housesitter, butterflies are free and protocol). she really didn't know goldie's movies. she knew who goldie was from interviews on tv and in magazines but she doesn't think she'd ever seen a film with goldie hawn.

the movies made her laugh and as she watched them over and over, she decided that was what she wanted her daughter-to-be to be like. 'some 1 who may make a mistake, but picks herself up, has a sense of humor and is going to get through life just fine.' that's why goldie is named goldie.

that may be 1 reason goldie is so cool but 1 reason for sure is the fact that she's got an equally cool mother. by the way, whether her husband took care of it himself or got some 1 to, the cable was back on when she and goldie came home from the hospital. marlene says, 'of course that only happened after i'd given birth and realized iwas making a lot out of the lost envelope.'

kpfa's flashpoints tomorrow (they've had a great week). janis karpkinski is being interviewed by dennis bernstein right now. if you read this and think, 'i missed it!' remember you can hit either link at the start of the sentence and listen to an archived broadcast.

dynasty

okay, tomorrow night goldie. not tonight. we spoke on the phone for about 2 hours and i spoke to her mother for at least an hour. at the end of it, her mother said, 'you probably have too much.' i said, 'no, i'll just sit down, read over everything and pull some together.'

she said, 'well you have more energy than i do, i'm just going to crash in front of the tv and watch dynasty.'

i said, 'oh i used to love that show. i haven't watched it in syndication but i know every episode.'

that's when she says, 'oh, no, this is a reunion special.'

i said 'what!' and i'm grabbing for the papers. i see the arts section of the new york times which i never got to. there it is. i'm reading parts of it to her and i see this 1 part about al corely only on being on the show for a year.

what?

when tv talk 'years' in tv, they usually mean seasons. he was on the first season of dynasty - which wasn't a full season and he was on the second season. that's when he leaves, with 2 seasons under his belt. so goldie's mother and i, her name is marlene by the way, are talking about that and then we're talking about dynasty. she said she had a pint of mint cholocate chip in the freezer that she'd puchased for this and that she used to watch the show with friends. i usually watched it on the phone with friends. she said we should watch together and i did have some ice cream in the freezer too (rocky road).

so we watched and laughed and remembered.

it was really fun and we were talking about alexis and fallon and how big a deal they were. a lot of people compare it to dallas but dynasty was way ahead of dallas. joan collins didn't play a dish rag like sue ellen. she wasn't always the victim. the women on dallas were like house pets until pam left bobby (many, many years later - and after dynasty was a hit). they were useless.

donna reed came on as miss ellie and a lot of people didn't like that. i didn't have anything against barbara bel geddes but i honestly thought donna reed brought a little life to the show.
i really felt like you had to enjoy being a doormat to watch dallas if you were a woman.

marlene didn't believe what i'd said. why? she felt the same way.

'what was the best soap on prime time?' she asked and we both said 'knots landing!' together.

but it wasn't until dynasty that knots landing finally became a decent show.

they didn't know what they were doing with that show. then dynasty came along and showed that women could do a little more than say 'oh bobby' and 'oh j.r.'

or lucy with her prolonged childhood. if it weren't for the sexually acting out, she would have had nothing to offer as a character.

and never det me started on that hideous woman ray krebbs married.

but for awhile, it was the only show in town. then came dynasty and women weren't just sitting on the sidelines while bobby and j.r. and jock duked it out over ewing oil.

dynasty also had hotties. not a lot.

the first year was the best. you had matthew blaisdel who was hot. you had al corley who was hot. and john james who was just so pretty.

i don't think he could act at all but he was very pretty.

after corley left they brought on jack coleman and he was just not my type, that face shape was just not anything i'd be interested in. it was like a box with a little pointy chin attached.

after the first year of alexis (the 2nd season), dynasty had such an impact that abby (donna mills) went from annoyance on knots landing to first class bitch.

we were done with the family type drama and in soap territory.

and then knots landing took off. and women could be front and center.

joan collins, linda evans and pamela sue martin pushed it. give them and dynasty credit. but blake carrington always had to come out on top. on knots landing, abby could win, she could lose.

and once that happened there was real reason for karen to stand up for val. i thought i was the only 1 who never cared for val during all that time of nuttiness but marlene was worse about val than i was. 'she left her kid years ago and she's going to spend her whole life whining?' and we couldn't stand laura until she was about to leave richard. the women were dish rags on that show. even abby was 'little sister' depending on her big brother.

dynasty allowed women to do more than sit around the table shooting glances. sue ellen was so boring. pam was a drip until she left bobby.

so we talked about that and we talked about the scenes that got included and the 1s that didn't.

where was sammy jo? we saw her in 1 scene, for a 2nd.

just because heather locklear didn't want to do the reunion doesn't mean they couldn't use the scenes.

i didn't see kathleen beller sit down with the cast but they showed kirby.

marlene pointed out that they didn't show diahann carroll either. she wasn't invited to the chat. but that's how they treated her character the whole time. the minute that she wasn't playing kirby's mother, they didn't know what to do with her.

i liked joan collins' fire and humor. i did wonder about the fact that alexis wore wigs.

was she supposed to or was that a glitch? in one episode, she had short hair, then we see her at her apartment lifting free weights and wearing this hideous blue body suit and her hair's very long.

joan collins changed tv. there's no getting around it. linda evans, no offense, but she was 1 person. when joan collins came on, suddenly it was 'women.' and women were more than the aunt beas. joan collins showed that a mature woman could be a lead, could be sexy and funny. she didn't have to be some 1 standing on the sidelines. she was powerful, she was mean, she was tender, she was funny and she looked incredible.

but you could love alexis, you just couldn't identify with her. marlene said she always identified with fallon. me too!

as played by pamela sue martin, we both agreed. emma samms was hideous.

they shouldn't have even had her on the show. she was part of the colbys. they brought her back on dynasty just to spin off that show. then what, she got kidnapped by a ufo or something? i didn't watch, no 1 did. the worst thing about it being cancelled was that emma samms came over to dynasty.

she was awful. it was like battle of the bad daytime stars between her and jack coleman. you felt like they'd slashed the budget and moved the show to daytime.

heather locklear was good as sammy jo, we both agreed on that.

but pamela bellwood was always too nutty and creepy.

'1 life ends and another begins, little lindsey,' she said and that was probably her best moment.

sammy jo was so much better after she came back - her voice was lower (i think heather locklear had taken voice lessons) and she was much more complex.

worst guest star?

we think henry kissenger was on and he would be the absolute worst.

after him, we'd say ali magraw.

but we could take her with jeff. it was just when lady ashley was going after blake.

why any woman wanted blake was beyond both of us.

al corley was hot. whether stephen was gay or straight, he was hot.

after dynasty, he ended up on bare essance. marlene watched that religiously. i saw the mini-series. i'm not sure if he was in that or not. but i remember genie francis was and she was in the show. but linda evens, who was in the 'mini-series' (2 episodes) wasn't in the tv series and donna mills wasn't either.

when people watch desparate housewives, they're seeing a bunch of tiny girls. joan collins played a woman. alexis wasn't a bimbo.

we were talking about least favorite storylines. (anything with emma samms.) and it was just amazing how much we could remember.

what would have made the special better? just have pamel sue martin, al corely, linda evans and joan collins talking.

with john james and michael nader (dex) missing, we started wondering what they did that kept them from being on or being invited.

so that's the point of tonight's entry. and if you were a young girl or woman when dynasty came on, you know how much of an impact joan collins, linda evans and pamela sue anderson had on tv.