graner takes the fall and john turek jiggles up and down the court -- a tale of bad apples and a mighty cornhusk!

so graner's sentenced to ten years and i'm supposed to be happy? a low level flunky following orders takes the fall for a policy decision and i'm too be comforted?

donald rumsfeld remains as secretary of defense after the torture is revealed? look i know the bully boy's cabinet is long on excuses and short on ethics. i never expected them to take a genuine moral standard. but considering all the money they've pumped into marketing, you'd think they know a public relations nightmare when they see one.

instead graner's allowed to be the fall guy.

graner did horrible things and they were acts of torture. i'm not sitting here dashing off a letter to his parole board. however, graner did those things and did those things. as did others. and apparently every one not in on the torture (except for a whistle blower here and a whistle blower there) was just oblivious.

maybe graner and lyndie maced all americans each time before they engaged in torture? maybe that's why apparently no 1 knew what was going on?

or maybe no one was blind to what was going on. seems more likely based upon what we know. maybe the orders from high up were followed (more and more that seems to be the case). and graner pledging love to flag and country followed orders.

that's no excuse for what he or anyone else did. they deserve to be behind bars. but they don't make policy. they were not in charge of the military or even the prison.

'few rotten apples.' anything happens, it's always a few rotten apples. who could've guessed there were so many 'few rotten apples.' they're here, they're over there using tax payer funds as payola to court armstrong williams. look, there they are outing valerie plame! and those 'few rotten apples' were no doubt behind the misinformation about iraq as well, right?

if you ask me, it's not the apples. that tree is rotting at the roots.

moving from the dickless to 'wowie, he packs a package!' i want to do a shout out to the college male basketball team's uniforms. elaine and i went to sports bar to share gossip today. i saw some games and some highlights. numbers 44, 12 and 11 on nebraska, you impress!

watching them rushing up and down the court, elaine and i had the same thought: "they're not wearing jocks!" after years of 'jiggle tv' referring only to women, it was really nice to sit back and admire the male jiggle. not to mention the way those shorts sport the ass. a jiggle and a wiggle.

surrounded by best buy clerks with expanding waists, it was nice to look up to the tv screens and see some fine pieces of male ass.

44 disappointed me a little because he was my pick for one-man-and-an-island.
that's a game elaine and i play. you're stuck on an island for 6 months and you can only have 1 man. who is it?

john turek, thanks clay from best buy for that information but no i wasn't going to trade you my phone number for it, of nebraska.

so how did he disappoint me a little? he was wearing a t-shirt under his jersey. what was that? some sort of sports bra? was he afraid his nipples would get hard? did he get them pierced? (yum to the last two.) i say pull off the shirts and just run up and down in the court in those package pants. sport it in those shorts!

the nebraska cornhuskers indeed!

at 6 ft 9 inches and 240 pounds, john turek may be the ultimate corn husker. (he's number 44.)
since i still can't find out the acer guy's name, turek of the big corn husk is my current fantasy guy to spend 6 months on an island with.

i took yesterday off because i had a date. the common ills was very helpful to me and i want to take a moment to note that. i wasn't sure how i'd find time between work, getting ready for the date, the date and hopefully after (yes, there was an after! a hell of an after!) to blog.
words of wisdom from the common ills gave me the ability to throw off the guilt and fear.
this morning was a lazy stay in the bed morning (and no, i wasn't alone!) but once he left and i started my day, i checked out the blogs i trust.
i found a post by a winding road from yesterday that's dealing with england's prince harry and his decision to dress as a nazi. it says a lot about the culture we're in today and i'd recommend you read it, http://awindingroad.blogspot.com/2005/01/enabling-atmosphere.html.
but what spoke to me most was the start of the post:

So, it's Friday again already. I'm sure you'll have noticed that I didn't end up posting yesterday. I was working on a post that will probably end up going up this Sunday, but in the end I didn't have time to finish it yesterday.
My intention is to blog every day, but as you've already seen, there will be days when something will come up. So, instead of apologizing whenever that happens, let me just say a general "Sorry about that!" right now for all future times I may miss a day. Hopefully, it won't be that often.

folding star worried about missing a post on thursday. i worried in advance of friday about not doing one friday. you know what, the world doesn't appear to have ended for either us.
or for you. so i'm going to remember that sometimes i may be "blocked" and just not post and sometimes i may be too busy and not post. and what happens happens.
kat of kat's korner at the common ills says she's not going to be fixing typos and that "it is what it is." i think i'll use that motto too. it is what it is. some days it will be up, some days it won't. it is what it is.
i want to thank kat for that and for the e-mail where she told me basically "rebecca, get a grip, no one's going to deny you the right to fuck, no one on the left. so go for it, girl, the blog will still be here when you're date is over. hopefully that will be late saturday afternoon!"
i want to thank folding star for the post on a winding road from friday and wish i had read it while i was rushing around trying to get ready for my date because i wouldn't have felt so bad during the start of the date. i did feel like i was not living up to my responsibilities.
and i want to thank the common ills for all the hand holding and advice i've gotten. i'm sure on ci's end it must be like charlie sheen in wall street when he explodes "i'm not your wet nurse!" to a co-worker who's always asking 'what do I do?' but ci was nice and patient and i appreciate that.
i also want to note that when i said calling the new republic left was like saying the washington monthly was ramparts came from ci. 2 people have e-mailed that they thought that was very funny. i was freaking out over that section and couldn't think of a comparison. i e-mailed ci and got a response within the hour saying "use washington monthly to ramparts." i googled ramparts to find out what it was and saw that it worked beautifully.
i'd asked ci if i should attribute and got back, "don't be silly." but with 2 of you hailing it as being funny, i want to give credit where it's due.
this isn't my only post for today. please, where's my smart ass attitude? you don't think i'd post without smart ass attitude do you? this is just me taking a moment to note some thanks to a number of people: the common ills, kat and a winding road.
and i'll thank my best friend elaine who i'll be on my way out of the door to meet shortly and giving her all the details of last night.
but when i come back to post today, don't worry, i'll be back to talking sex and politics with my usual screeds and my usual fuck you attitude.


tucker carlson is a snotty little boy who needs a good spanking

tucker carlson is no more as a host of crossfire. crossfire is no more for cnn. lynda sent me a good article from the san francisco chronicle, http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/13/EDGKAAP9B61.DTL, by david hall.

but while tucker carlson is gone from cnn he's still on pbs. and he's about to start on msnbc. true goodness would be to see tucker carlson stripped from both shows.

lynda asked me what i think of him?

tucker with his shag hair done up like an overgrown leave it to beaver and with his little bow tie is a sexually repressed guy. i don't mean he's gay. i mean he's the kind of guy who really really wants the lady to take the lead but that's a thought in his head that he can't find a voice for.

tucker wants to liberated and in his mind all thoughts of liberation spell dominance. not him dominating anyone. if you've watched tucker argue and go into that sneering little boy tone you get the idea he's just begging to be knocked down a peg or two.

if a woman ever tapped her lap and said, "drop those pants and get your fanny over here" tucker would lurch forward, ass in the air as he attempted to pull those pants down and hop over her lap.

tucker's a naughty little boy missing mommy. you could call him a mother tucker lol. he wants his snotty little ass torn up and then he wants to be forced to the bed, hands held above his head and ridden while he whines like the little boy bitch he is.

lynda says tucker's married. if that's true, his wife needs to lower the boom and she'll quickly find that little boy tucker will go out of his way to come to mama.

there's this little smirk he gets on his face when he's going on about something he knows nothing about that's just begging for a woman to grab him by the ear, lead him to the bathroom and wash that naughty mouth out with soap.

if mrs. carlson does exist and she ever called me up, i'd tell her, "your little boy likes play acting at being a man and gets all hot and horny over the thought that someday someone will call him on it. blow his world and blow his mind by greeting him with a belt in hand and watch that cockiness fade quicker than a pair of stone washed jeans. all that will be left is his constant whine and a few whacks on his saucy rear end and he'll lost that too."

mrs. carlson would be doing the world a favor. tucker seeks 'liberation.' and in his fucked up right-wrong, black-white world that can only come from someone being in charge. tucker knows he's not smart enough or strong enough and he knows that body of his never hit puberty. in tucker's mind you either have power or you don't and he's been pretending to have power for years. each year he grows a little more bratty as he hopes he will finally be called on it.

grab the moppet by that tangled hair and tell him, "you're going to straighten up your act right now little boy" and watch him whimper in desire.

he's looking for a cokie roberts & steve relationship. for a woman to call all the shots so he can celebrate in his immaturity. the little mother tucker needs a mommy.

mrs. carlson should try it out. for 6 months i dated a guy. i was bored and he was someone my grandmother set me up with. "Just give him a chance, rebecca!" robert was a stock broker with the body of a little boy. like tucker, he was a 'soft boy.' he tried to act cocky and strut around like he was all that.

i promised my grandmother i'd give him three dates. by the second date, i'd had it with him as he went on and on about how wall street was america and we had to privatize social security because it would help wall street. i was in the middle of trying to point out that stocks drop, something he knew, and that people could lose the minimum standards they have now with any flucuation on the market when he piped off, "if they lose their money it's because they're stupid and only the strong survive."

we were on the beach having a picnic and my mouth just dropped as he started saying that "old people are fucking idiots who deserve to eat canned dog food if they can't manage their money" and for some reason, my silence said to him: "grope me." he leans in and grabs my tits and starts rubbing them with both hands. all the while he keeps looking at me with these pleading eyes. i slapped him across the face and while he rubbed his cheek, he looked like he was about to blow his wad.

his fumbling attempts at date rape stopped there and every other word was "please" and "sorry." i went home and wondered whether it was worth it to keep my word to my grandmother? i kept thinking about how he was acting like i would make out with him in public view on a beach not far from my house in an area i grew up in where any neighbor would see and then dial up someone in my family to ask them, "do you know what that Becky girl is doing?"

why did he act that way? in college, i had my share of frat boys fumbling attempts at seduction that bordered on attempted date rape. a knee to the groin, a jab to the eyes, any number of things would result in a simmering rage as the guy huffed, "you bitch, get the hell out of my car" or whatever.

robert had no rage, he was seeting with quiet lust and practically pleading with me. for what?

i called my girlfriends and they all said, "beat his ass."

he shows up at my place to pick me up for our third date. i had left a belt lying out on the coffee table. he couldn't take his eyes off it and i acted like it wasn't there.

"uh, what's the belt for?" he finally gulped.

"for your butt."

immediately, he bows his head and starts peaking over at me promising he will be good.


he looks over at me to see if i'm serious and when he sees that i am, he starts tearing off his clothes and kicking off his shoes.

standing before me in tented fruit of the looms and socks, a blush started at his face and spread down his neck. he hopped across my lap and i pulled those fruit of the looms down and went to town on his butt with the belt turning it a deeper shade of red than he had blushed. he was humping my leg like crazy and moaning.

we had some of the wildest sex i've ever had. during the 6 months, bobby (as he now asked to be called) quit his job as a stock broker and asked permission to do what he'd always wanted to: become a graphic artist.

after 6 months, i was bored. i wasn't unhappy, just bored. i mean if he had the body of antonio banderas, it might have been fun. but a grown man who acts like a little boy and looks like one too just doesn't do anything for me. taming a wild beast of passion like banderas might have been fun and kept me interested. but honestly with his sunken, hairless chest, i began to feel like we were bordering on child molestation.

he started dating a girl named tiffany who worked with him after i ended it.

one night, tiffany calls me up and says bobby gave her my number: "i'm sorry to bother you but i really love bobby and he loves me. but something's not working."

"are you spanking him?"

"what!" she said spitting out whatever she was drinking.

"is he there right now?" i asked.


"i want you to look him in the eye and tell him to go to your closet and get a belt."

tiffany thought i was insane. after a little convincing, she said, "hold on. bobby, go to my closet right now and grab my thickest belt."

i could hear him over the phone wimper, "i'll be good."

i told her, "tell him to do it."

"do it!"

then she said to me, "my god, he's really doing it!"

yawning, i told her, "when he gets back, take the belt, tell him to strip down to his fruit of the looms, head to a corner and park himself there to think about the spanking he's about to get."

she did and he did much to her obvious (and vocal) surprise.

we talked for a little bit. then she hung up to take care of bobby and give him what he was too scared to ask for but knew he needed.

3 months later, i was invited to their wedding. it's been a year now and they're both happy. i saw them on the ferry last week and asked her how it was going.

"it's a never ending honeymooon. i just beat his ass every day and everything is perfect."

and bobby doesn't strut around barking out racist or sexist or ageist remarks anymore. he's the sweetest guy in the world because tiffany makes him be. for bobby, that was liberation. if tucker carlson has a wife, she should try it. she'd be doing us all a favor.


a stripped down antonio was the only thing of value the new republic has ever offered

i think i was eight but i might not have been that old the first time i saw a copy of the new republic. i was at my uncle's and he had a copy lying out.
i used to get the magazine after that by whining to my mother who was always so impressed that her little girl wanted to read something so 'deep' at such a young age.
the new republic wasn't worth reading then. it's not worth reading now.
it's 1 of the most hideous magazines. possibly the worst publishing because it pretends to be something it's not: left. how right leaning is the new republic? it makes the washington monthly look like like ramparts.
in the run up to the occupation of iraq, the lead up to the war, a lot has been made about the cheerleading by many publications. judy miller at the new york times was a one woman proganda organ. she's flirted with the neocons for years so that isn't surprising but the new york times should know that they will carry this humilitation until the day they cease publication.
but someone at the new york times will always scream "we were going for balance!" what's the new republic's excuse?
they sold that war in a way that may have surpassed the new york times because the new republic is supposed to be left.
it's not left. i know a little of its history and there have been times in its past where it was left.
but the idea that this is a left magazine has no bearing on the rag.
la times did a story last week talking about the new republic and the nation. the idiot author felt that the nation was too inflamatory. only some 1 who suffers under the belief that the new republic is left would dare say such a thing.
the nation's older than the new republic. it outsells the new republic by the thousands. the new republic has been propped up with the monies of it's owners for some time. martin peretz is the guy who used his wife's money to buy the mag and turn it into a rag.
do you remember the now discredited book the bell curve? which rag pushed that 'scholarship?' if you guessed the new republic, you are right. racism is a given at this rag. it's also a given that time and again they'll find a way to slam the palestinians. so perhaps a war on arabs was just the thing the rag was waiting for?
it's funny to hear hendrick hertzberg act as though when he was in charge of the new republic it was the leading magazine of the left. it wasn't left. and only some 1 like hertzberg could make that claim. why only hertzberg? he has no idea what he's written in the past. during the democratic convention he was on the majority report and janeane garofalo attempted to get him to talk about how the press had corrupted the reporting on campaigns. hertzberg acted like he had no idea what she was talking about which is strange since he was then pimping his book politics. right there in the book you'll find that argument. the book is a collection of long ago columns. hertzberg had no idea what janeane was talking about because he has no idea what he's written or what positions he's taken.
that served him well at the new republic where his time there can best be seen as appeasement.
but as bad as he was he was far from the worst.
andrew sullivan was another criminal. if you know sullivan today it's as the writer of many personals seeking "bareback" action while he himself was already infected with aids. how could he risk putting others in danger with his reckless actions?
well he worked at the new republic so maybe that's where he learned his morals.
there's something really sad about the commercials on air america for the new republic: "i'm stephanie and we tell like it like it is."
really steph? coz i'm thinking most readers don't know that the co-owner of the mag was lobbying bush to go to war with iraq days after 9-11. that would be martin peretz the man who no doubt proudly proclaims "i run a magazine because i married rich."
this is from make them accountable, http://www.makethemaccountable.com/leopold/030221_NewRepublicEditor.htm:

Many of The New Republic’s readers are unaware that Peretz, along with several other journalists and right-wing lawmakers, lobbied President Bush nine days after the September 11 terrorist attacks to start a war with Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, claiming that Iraq may be linked to the attacks, an allegation that the Bush Administration has made many times without a shred of evidence to back it up.

why should you avoid the new republic? here's marty peretz explaining the difference between his rag and the nation:

“We were for the last Gulf War and for aid to the Contras,” Peretz said. Comparing The New Republic to its close competitor The Nation, Peretz said, “Whatever The Nation was for we were against. Whatever The Nation was against we were for. The only thing we share was we were rather soft on Stalin in the late 1930s.”

so true, marty. writing for the jewish world review in october of last year, guess who the co-owner of the so-called left new republic endorsed?
did you guess george bush? you are right. but marty's of the left?
short of his finally exhausting the last of his wife's money (or her patience), little boy marty and his rag mag will never change. they were for the war. they were for the contras. they are not left. if you hear someone say they are, correct them. if you're watching a show and marty pops up looking like herman munster call and e-mail the show to let them know that you never want to hear marty called 'left.'
his rag is completely useless.
the common ills did a great job in the first post i ever read "when npr fails you, who you gonna' call? not the ombudsman." what had npr done? they'd gone and put robert kagan on to "explain" john kerry's remarks. why was that a problem? the ombudsman noted that listeners complained to him that kagan was a war hawk. i'm sure some did. i also complained about the fact that kagan was married to victoria nuland as did four of my friends.
why should being married to nuland disallow kagan from commenting on kerry? because victoria nuland works for dick cheney as his deputy assistant on national security. jeffrey dvorkin, the npr ombudsman, got complaints on that. he chose to ignore them and everyone else remained silent. even a certain so-called watch dog of the "left." (i'll be watching that watch dog and if it fails again, i'll call them to the carpet.)
in a world of cowards and appeasers only the common ills dared to call kagan and npr on the conflict of interest. guess which rag kagan's written for? the new republic. he's also written for the weekly standard. at least that rag doesn't try to pretend to be left.
peter beinart is the perfect new republic editor. he's infamous for declaring war on moveon.org and michael moore, imploring that the left purge itself of these dangerous characters.
the rag isn't worth reading and if it had any balls it would have long ago admitted it was of the right.
balls? why did i ever even bother with the rag?
anyone remember antonio sabato junior? he was a hot stud. and he was the calvin klein underwear model while andrew sullivan was the editor of the new republic. mulitple issues, including the one of my uncle's and every other one i bought, featured a full page, glossy back cover of antonio in his skivies.
black briefs, white briefs, i couldn't take my eyes off him. my favorite shots were the ones where he'd be seated with his legs spread and i study the photos in desperation trying to peer up the leg openings of his those tiny briefs trying to check out the eye candy.
sometimes junior wore socks. sometimes he wore socks and t-shirt with those briefs. somehow i found him most exciting in those little white briefs, socks and t-shirt. he looked so boyish and i held onto those copies of the rag until i was 14. there was also this one full page ad where he wears these little black briefs and is standing in profile so you get a nice shot of junior's junior.
if the new republic put a hot stud on the back cover in tiny briefs, i'd study the photo but i do not think even a hottie stripping down could get me to buy that rag again. well maybe the acer's guy.
every day after school in 8th grade, i'd come home, rush to my bedroom, close the door, pull down my panties and grab those new republics to see sexy antonio sabato junior's pubes. i probably spent an hour on that each day for a solid month. and you know what? i think i gave more thought to what was under junior's briefs and what he could do with that and how it felt and smelt and tasted than the new republic ever gave to anyone of their positions.
it's been the same knee jerk, conservative position in issue after issue as marty peretz has installed 1 editor after another. stephanie sounds really sweet on those air america commercials where she's pimping her rag but despite being given the title of publisher, she is just marty's latest mouth piece. a lot of people have come and gone before her and a lot will come and go after her but they are all just marty peretz's dummies.
the only thing the new republic should be remembered for is those full page, glossy ads of antonio sabato junior. while everything else the rag has done has hurt the nation, those ads of junior in tighty-whites at least taught me the meaning of 'it's a wet day.'


the bad & ugly and hot-hot-hot good

the bad & ugly = unfiltered
the hot-hot-hot good = the acer guy

i want to start out by thanking some people. my very best friend elaine who was trashed today has always been there for me. her friendship gives me so much courage including the courage to finally try putting my opinions out there. thank you elaine.

the second thank you goes to the common ills which has to be the best blog on the web. funny, thoughtful always interesting. buzzflash linked to it thanksgiving weekend (www.buzzflash.com) and that's when i started reading. right before christmas, i started e-mailing. i always got asked "do you want to be quoted?" i e-mailed the site today and they were so helpful about talking me through this. i am a proud member of the common ills community (http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/) and if you haven't checked it out you don't know what you're missing.

if anyone's coming here from the common ills let me warn you that i will use every word in the book and then some. if i am going to blog, i'm not going to censor my thoughts or words.

i am a progressive or leftist or whatever term you want to use.

and it's growing increasing hard to listen to unfiltered. that's an air america radio show hosted by lizz winstead and rachel maddow who are quickly becoming lizz whiney and rachel mellow.
since the election they've mistaken themselves for a lifestyle show and started offering up pet tips and taking calls on that as well as a sexist author who wasn't funny didn't make for good radio. whiney & mellow were at a loss for what to do when that backfired on them and they seemed to pull katherine from al's show out of thin air to try to save that very bad, very ugly friday.

unfiltered wasn't always a bad show. they used to do comedy bits that were funny. these days they trot out their 'fcc assigned clergy' and think it's funny. it's not funny. it might have been funny the first time. but as a 'bit' it's grown very stale.

and the gals just don't seem to know what to do since the election. 1 day they are pushing the ohio vote and the next day they act like maybe it's not an issue at all. or 1 day they rail against people reading wire stories and acting like they know the news. moments later they're talking about the just released cbs report as though they've read all 200+ pages.

and always we hear from whiney 'i'm a comedian!' well then be funny. and when you're not funny what's left for you to be?

the show's basic format is sonny & cher from the 70s. rachel talks to the audience and lizz talks to rachel. sometimes it works.

it doesn't work when lizz attacks the audience. you can usually tell lizz has been reading the blog and for a comedian she's deadly serious about each and every issue that has to do with her.

one monday she's talking to rachel (natch) about the scott peterson coverage and how excessive it is and that's all you can hear. a guy on the blog tells her that it's not just elsewhere, that some air america radio newscaster named frisco made it the lead story twice on the hour on saturday.

instead of being surprised or saying 'i can't believe that happened!' lizz tears into the guy about how there is a difference between mentioning it and focusing on it.

but the news breaks are the news breaks, lizz. and if frisco's news break leads with scott peterson that reflects on air america. maybe instead of having a snit fit and attacking someone you might have asked yourself, 'why does frisco lead with the american music awards? why does he push ford's new line of cars? why is he hawking a bob hope dvd set when he's supposed to be doing news?'

lizz can't be bothered with those questions because any time someone asks a question or shares an opinion, she's off in blog world telling them they are wrong or sending them nasty e-mails.
and then we all have to wait for her get out of her funk.

it drags the show down more than her talk about her dog edie. we get that you are over 40 and obsessed with your dog. this isn't 'dog talk.' it is supposed to be unfiltered.

i finally had it with lizz today when she apparently attempted to attack my best friend elaine. elaine is one of the nicest people in the world. and she schedules her patients around unfiltered so that she can hear some of the show each day. elaine does great work and the majority of it she doesn't charge for because she's committed to helping everyone. she's also dedicated herself to peace.

for some time now, every tuesday elaine's asked why the show doesn't offer a weekly segment called 'ask the peace advocate.' see every tuesday we get 'ask a vet.' if you've read amy goodman's excellent book exception to the rulers you realize the mainstream media relies on the military as well (current members and those who have left the service) and shuts out the voices of advocates for peace. so you might be shocked to know that on the liberal air america network we get 'ask a vet' every tuesday with rachel screeching 'support the troops' repeatedly and lizz spellbound by whomever is speaking.

this is a liberal radio station. so you'd think they be interested in peace. whiney & mellow would probably screech, "we have had medea benjamin on!" and they have. she was on during the democratic convention. maybe during the republican one and right after.

yeah, they've tossed out medea. but do they know about code pink? is it too much expect that with all the peace organizations and peace activists they might be able to build a weekly segment around having one on?

that's been elaine's issue. and she's brought that up repeatedly each tuesday.

today whiny & mellow bring on another vet. he obviously has a few problems with communication. that's not to insult him for that, just to point out that this was a useless interview. amy goodman and juan gonzalez had him on democracy now and they were able to get two interviews out of him. that's because they did their homework and also because amy and juan are journalists so they didn't need feel the need to keep piping in "we support the troops."

listen to him flounder around trying to answer what ever popped into the gals' minds was bad radio. but i noticed lizz was getting that pissy tone in her voice so i pull up the unfiltered blog.
sure enough she's been posting.

things like: come on guys he's had it hard.

she's lecturing the blog again and as usual it's the blog's fault, not the fact that she and rachel are giving us pointless air time.

and at some point the guy starts talking about how he was in iraq to save us and save the country and yadda yadda yadda.

look it, the guy had problems.

i didn't expect lizz and rachel to deal with that. get him on and get him off quick.

but when he's talking about how he was supposed to be a hero and he sacrificed for us yadda yadda yadda elaine blogs something to the effect of: you are not doing this for me. not in my name. don't use me to justify your kills.

lizz blogs back a nasty note and to the wrong person. later she's surprised she hurt someone's feelings. well lizz quit being so damn nasty on the blog.

i think she meant to go after elaine. i e-mailed elaine and asked, 'was she aiming for you?' elaine thought so to.

so lizz you fucking moron don't trash my friend.

and don't call yourself a 'progressive' or 'liberal' if you're too busy sniffing some g.i. jock to realize this guy's talking about falluja. what went down in falluja is not in my name.

and gee, feminist lizz, maybe if you'd done your homework you'd know that he's spoken before about being violent to his wife. 'support our trops!' 'support our wife beaters!'

'support our troops' is the most idiotic statement in the world. even paul krugman is now writing about how it's used to end any kind of discussion. but loony lizz is tossing around it like she's getting ready for a date with rush limbaugh.

what does support our troops mean to lizz? apparently that when someone's bragging about what they did over there in an unjust war it means you aren't even allowed to blog 'oh no, that wasn't done to protect me. iraq didn't attack this country.'

leave it to looney lizz to attack a peace advocate.

she ought to be ashamed of herself.

but she has no shame. if you've heard her fawn over chuck d in that 'little girl' voice and you've thought, "this woman is over 40!" then you know how hard growing older must be for goldie hawn.

lizz told mother jones magazine months ago that unfiltered was a funny show and it wasn't going to be heavy because who wants to listen to a radio show by the nation magazine?

i would. i'd like to hear some informed discussion. and i bet you anything if katha pollitt hosted a show she wouldn't be fawning over nicholas kristoff who's used his new york times column to attack feminist repeatedly.

katha's a feminist. lizz says she is and can be vocal about the issue of choice and even stand up for gays and lesbians. but most of my fellow feminists are also anti-war so excuse me for being shocked that feminist lizz thinks it's okay to attack a peace advocate.

you told mother jones magazine you'd be funny. when? when you're not boring us with talk about your dog, we have to hear about the cute guys on the tv show the o.c. lizz i bet i'm 20 years younger than you and i'm not panting over little boys.

when not doing her little girl voice or her anna nicole voice she likes to screech. operating under the belief that if you yell it fast it is funny.

it isn't. before the show got on their 'ask a vet' kick and started shutting out the left (once upon a time they could have on naomi klein and tom hayden but if either were on today rachel and lizz would probably try to shout them down: 'support our troops!') it was often funny. now it's just stale.

maybe that's just my feeling because lizz whiney attempted to attack my best friend on a blog today? or maybe i'm still amazed that on election night when randi rhodes was trying to discuss voting irregularities, rachel mellow didn't want to listen to randi and kept cutting her off?

randi didn't show up on the scene after kerry conceeded concerned about the issue. she was warning about it before the election and on election night she was passionately trying to address it but rachel mellow was hosting election coverage with katherine from al's show (it was a snooze fest when the two of them got together -- like a really bad version of 'fresh air') and rachel didn't want randi to talk.

at one point you could hear the disgust in randi's voice as she said something like 'ok, fine, i'm trying to tell you something but you don't want to listen.'

rachel didn't want to listen. she's always going on about her education trying to let us know she's a 'big brain.' she's also boring as hell. and you'd think a big brain wouldn't say 'in today's new york times' about a story that ran on the weekend. but rachel's convinced she's a 'big brain' and so if she says it, then it has to be true.

the only time rachel's ever left yawnsville is 1 time when lizz was out and bill press was on the show. talking about women, rachel (who's an out and proud lesbian) showed real spark and came off like howard stern. the subversion of that (a woman doing howard stern) made it interesting.

now we're back to rachel mellow and lizz whiney. maybe they'll get into another argument on air like a few months back? that was interesting. but of course they had to have a love fest after the commercial break was over.

chuck d or mike pappantonio come on and rescue the show. not a lot because lizz always has to try to flirt with them as if she's got to remind everyone "i'm not the lesbian!" if people have trouble telling them apart, it's because they are both so boring.

to help you tell them apart, try to remember this: rachel's the one pontificating like a grad student (or like diane chambers on cheers) and lizz is the one who screeches loudest.

it made me mad to see lizz try to jump my best friend today (no surprise that half-witt winstead got it wrong and aimed it at some looney who later tried to bring up the twin towers to explain how lizz's attack hurt her, how she almost lost her husband; looney, some people did lose loved 1s so quit trying to couch your arguments on their suffering). but it was also kind of funny because the show started with rachel outraged by a soldier. the one who's on trial for the prison abuse.

see it's okay to get outraged about that. it's okay not to say 'support the troops' every five seconds then. but when it comes to innocent children being killed (in real interviews the soldier's noted all the bodies of dead children) and the guy talking has also admitted (elsewhere) to being violent to his wife, rachel and lizz have to trot out 'support the troops support the troops support the troops.'

i'm going to assume rachel gets at least a little sex because she's always talking about her partner. but lizz needs to get laid bad. it would let her stop fussing about her dog and stop acting like she's 12 every time a man comes on the show in that little girl voice she uses.

but now that chuck d is obviously not going to do every show and is more of a guest than a cohost, the air america network needs to figure out what to do with unfiltered. randi's got a point of view and drives her show. mike malloy knows what he's doing. laura flanders shines.
janeane garofalo has yet to feel the need to parrot 'support our troops' and wouldn't be caught dead saying nothing while someone came on her show and tried to tell her that he went to iraq so that she could remain free and people need to be grateful.

the gals of unfiltered seem to think there show, post-election, is auditioning for an npr slot.
if lizz wants to be angry she can find a worthy target and here's a hint for her, it won't be a peace advocate who refuses to repeat some indoctrination about 'support our troops' while some guy is going on about how his service made us free.

it didn't make us free. and it's not helping iraq. someone posted naomi klein on the blog. they probably knew that even a hairbrain like lizz would know better than to dispute klein. we're not bringing peace, we're bringing a civil war. lizz can't see that because she's blinded by 'support our troops.'

the show is the most uninformed thing on the air. even al franken manages to rise above the crap that is unfiltered. each day, the gals reveal new ignorance. when citing some rolling stone magazine list of all time greats, a list they hadn't even read, they both to decide to weigh in on how bob dylan isn't that important and shouldn't be on the list.

ladies if you think music is your strong point, you obviously haven't paid attention to how bad the songs you pick to play on fridays are. and if you don't grasp why bob dylan is a legend you might as well just lean into the mikes and say, "we're professional idiots and we're shallow and uninformed and don't have any real taste."

because my best friend likes your show and because it's hosted by 2 women, i've listend to three hours of crap once too often. and heard 1 time to many how lizz created the daily show. like that's something to brag about!

jon stewart and his people took that show and turned it from a plain canvas bag into a sleek evening purse. lizz created 1 of the most useless shows on comedy central ever (no easy feat).
and then she and craig kilborne left and jon stewart came along to revamp it and give it meaning.

being the creator of the craig kilborne daily show is nothing to brag about and no real credit to flaunt on your resume.

instead of basking in someone else's glory, you might try figuring out what your show is about. right now it's jingoism and your dog and unfunny bits and interviews with centerists (at best) like nicholas kristoff. that's why it's fastly become a piece of shit.

instead of posting angry comments to the blog, maybe you should be working on trying to fix your failing show?

that was the bad and the ugly. (you can figure out who was which.)

let's move on to the good.

i'm going to talk about the new york times. the common ills covers that and i wouldn't dream of stepping on their toes. but the sunday paper had something they didn't mention: an advertising supplement for acer which is some kind of computer i'm guessing.

the front page is drool city. women and men interested in the male form need to check it out.

who is this big dick! the guy on the front is wearing a striped shirt and tie and tell me when you see his picture that you aren't wanting to grab him by the tie and pull him to the nearest mattress. hell, pull him down to the floor.

look at those eyes! that hair looks like he rushed out of bed and didn't have time to comb it.
i could lick salsa off those sideburns! i could lick salsa off his whole body. i just want to grab him by those long curls sticking out of the side of his head and pull him in for a long deep kiss. he looks like he knows how to really use his tongue. hot-hot-hot.

are those not the sexiest lips you've ever seen? he's not a pretty boy sporting foundation like the boys of the o.c. this is a man. so i won't need to say "paws off lizz, i saw him first!" lol

sunday night i was tossing out the paper when i saw him. i've got that photo pinned to the wall over the monitor. who is this sexy stud????????