what happened today and what didn't?
my forehead's sweating like crazy which probably means i caught a cold from ella. ella calls me up groaning to say she can't come to the lunchean i'm throwing tomorrow. she's never sick but she sounds like hell. her voice was so tortured you'd think albie gonzales had been in her throat.
so like the good friend my mother taught me to be, i whipped a batch of chicken soup and headed right over.
she looked as pasty and color drained as the photo i'm pretty sure i saw online today of michael powell. chairman mao, er powell, is stepping on down from the fcc. looking like a sweaty, teary scott peterson, his face was splashed all over the net today.
poor little titty baby. wonder which corporation will hire him as a lobbyist?
you know he's not going to do anything noble. he's no jimmy carter. there's no habitat for humanity in his future.
while ella was coughing up phlegm and running through a thing of tissues, i asked, 'ella, what happened? you never get sick.'
this gal at work, donna bush -- of course it would be a bush, that family will infect us all sooner or later -- called in thursday: 'i'm sick. i'm coughing. i'll try to come in.' the boss is saying, 'no, ella. stay home. we don't need for every 1 to get sick.'
but living up to her surname, she shows up at noon determined that if she's going down, she'll take every 1 else with her. i told you her surname was fitting -- that family will surely sink us all unless we remain vigilante.
so ella, who was neither elderly or high risk, wasn't able to get a flu shot. remember that 'crisis'?
remember how basically no 1 could get flu shots last october?
is any 1 else outraged that so many of us were denied those shots and now it turns out that there's actually a surplus because of poor planning and poor crisis management on the part of the administration?
well little miss donna bush hung around her cubicle for an hour, coughing spreading germs, before she decides she will take 1 of the over 30 sick days she has saved up.
ella called off friday and the boss said, 'you too?' seems half the office was infected.
ella looked so bad. honestly though, she may have had more color in her face than michael powell. but she still looked bad.
i cleaned up her apartment a little, made sure she downed some chicken soup and listened as she muttered about that 'damn bush' -- a conversation that's going on all across the country in different forms, i'm sure.
after all that what's a gal to do but come home, kick off her shoes and put on otis blue. did any 1 ever do 'i've been loving you too long' better than otis redding did on otis blue?
and isn't that song close to a national anthem at this point?
between the policy of torture and the patriot act alone (but there's so much more) aren't we all looking at our country with a little sadness but thinking 'i've been loving you too long, i don't want to stop now?'
it's our country. it's still our country. the bush family will make us all sick, but we can weather this storm and we can reclaim our country.
our country cares about humanity. bush implemented torture, america didn't. if america had, albie gonzales wouldn't have kept saying 'i don't recall' over and over at his non-hearing. condi rice wouldn't have had to play dumb at her confirmation -- okay, maybe she wasn't playing. but these very unamerican things they do, they get away with them because we have a lazy press more interested in sucking up to power than in protecting the country. when something does leak out, we need to show our moral outrage. i said moral outrage because those of us who voted against the bully boy showed true values. we said no to unjust wars, we said no to torture, we said no to pulling the safety net out from under our elderly and handicapped. (what, you think social security only serves the elderly?)
we are the snow ball rolling down the hill and i believe we will grow larger as we continue to roll, picking up others who maybe were too scared to speak out or maybe too unaware of what is going on. we may not have pulled the rug out from under the bully boy in november, but we are a movement now.
that's right, a movement. we stand for justice and equality. and no matter how dark it might seem right now, we are a part of something larger and we will find others joining us. in 40 years, our grandkids won't ask, 'why weren't you able to defeat the bully boy in 2004?' they'll say, 'grandma/grandpa, tell me about how when the country seemed to embrace evil and criminal behavior, you were able to turn it back?'
we're making history. when we get discouraged, we'd do well to remember that women weren't given the right to vote. it was a long struggle. african-americans weren't given rights, it was a long struggle. gays and lesbians, the environment, any issue you want to pick, to help the country move towards progression, we all had to struggle and keep pushing.
we're part of a movement now. and we will take back our country. and like otis is singing right now 'what a wonderful world this could be.'
1/20/2005
bully boy's big day peters out
Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." But he didn't have Dick Cheney creating from his bunker a government which is little more than a Wal-Mart of Fear: midnight snatchings of citizens for uncharged crimes, wars to hunt for imaginary weapons aimed at Los Angeles, DNA data banks of kids and grandmas, the Chicken Little sky-is-falling social security spook-show, and shoe-searches in airports. Fear is your only product.
that's the one only and greg palast from an e-mail a friend fowarded. you can find the column, 'oaf of office', at http://www.gregpalast.com/ and you should read the whole thing.
four more years? it won't be a cake walk. he saw today we won't shower him with flowers. a number of us, too many, are now wide awake in dreamland, to be pat benetar about it. he won't have it as easy as he did in his first stolen four years.
the bully boy pranced and minced and swaggered and staggered. in what should have been his finest hour, he never looked more incompent, more half-assed, more like the neighborhood drunk who leers in your windows.
the little boy cheerleader still isn't accepted. they had to steal the vote and, even with that, he stands at a 49% approval rating. even on his big day, he had to journey in a pope mobile and still couldn't block out the protests. even on his big day, he had to face the fact that for all his attempts at penis augmentation (two wars and counting) he's still not the big cock.
anyone else betting he doesn't get any tonight? that our overly botoxed first lady says through frozen lips, "oh george, really, today wasn't anything to be proud of."
the common ills notes that laura enjoys seeing her daughter humiliated. how much you want to bet laura's thinking, "kill my poetry reading will you! fuck off!" as she chain smokes and swills down some american made liquor?
poor dunce cap george. he's already had the best four years he could ever have. the voices against him are mounting. the questions refuse to go away.
he thinks he trumped poppy (trust me, beating daddy is a big deal to small dicks) but in a few months, he may find himself wishing he had lost. knowing that, in losing, he could have been enshrined the way poppy was.
at this rate, he'll have to wait thirty-plus years for president jenna to make him look better by comparison.
he's got no plan for iraq other than to sing "don't nobody bring me no bad news." (who knew he was a fan of the wiz?) the january 30th election will only embolden iraqis to demand america leaves and bush won't go along with that. he can't go along with it because there's no victory to claim in departure.
there's no victory there at all, only a sad loss of life (on both sides) and any sane leader looking at the intelligence would have pulled us out long ago. but he can't do that until he can find a way to declare "victory." and there's no victory there.
(the iraqis could make their own victory, americans can't. and the longer we stay, the more damage we do.)
iraq was the elephant in the room as bush gave his dopey speech. almost 1400 americans have lost their lives. we've been over there almost 2 years. he strong armed our way in. and yet he couldn't say the word, he couldn't mention the country.
if he thinks he can just will it away, he's mistaken. this is his mess and with a second term, he completely owns the mess. people are angry that there were no wmd. people are outraged at the casualities. iraq's not going away. it's a blood stain on his record.
the failing economy, the attacks on civil rights, reproductive rights, all of that matters. but what's turning people in his own camp away from him now is the simple fact that he's put our sons and daughters, our husbands and wives, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers in harm's way for no good reason.
this was supposed to be his big day and even that was taken from him as protestors made sure he knew there was no mandate. on tv, i saw a woman holding up a sign that said something like 'no more lies! no more deaths!' bully boy, you stole the presidency twice, you never won the hearts & minds. in that pea brain mind of your's, even you know that.
that's the one only and greg palast from an e-mail a friend fowarded. you can find the column, 'oaf of office', at http://www.gregpalast.com/ and you should read the whole thing.
four more years? it won't be a cake walk. he saw today we won't shower him with flowers. a number of us, too many, are now wide awake in dreamland, to be pat benetar about it. he won't have it as easy as he did in his first stolen four years.
the bully boy pranced and minced and swaggered and staggered. in what should have been his finest hour, he never looked more incompent, more half-assed, more like the neighborhood drunk who leers in your windows.
the little boy cheerleader still isn't accepted. they had to steal the vote and, even with that, he stands at a 49% approval rating. even on his big day, he had to journey in a pope mobile and still couldn't block out the protests. even on his big day, he had to face the fact that for all his attempts at penis augmentation (two wars and counting) he's still not the big cock.
anyone else betting he doesn't get any tonight? that our overly botoxed first lady says through frozen lips, "oh george, really, today wasn't anything to be proud of."
the common ills notes that laura enjoys seeing her daughter humiliated. how much you want to bet laura's thinking, "kill my poetry reading will you! fuck off!" as she chain smokes and swills down some american made liquor?
poor dunce cap george. he's already had the best four years he could ever have. the voices against him are mounting. the questions refuse to go away.
he thinks he trumped poppy (trust me, beating daddy is a big deal to small dicks) but in a few months, he may find himself wishing he had lost. knowing that, in losing, he could have been enshrined the way poppy was.
at this rate, he'll have to wait thirty-plus years for president jenna to make him look better by comparison.
he's got no plan for iraq other than to sing "don't nobody bring me no bad news." (who knew he was a fan of the wiz?) the january 30th election will only embolden iraqis to demand america leaves and bush won't go along with that. he can't go along with it because there's no victory to claim in departure.
there's no victory there at all, only a sad loss of life (on both sides) and any sane leader looking at the intelligence would have pulled us out long ago. but he can't do that until he can find a way to declare "victory." and there's no victory there.
(the iraqis could make their own victory, americans can't. and the longer we stay, the more damage we do.)
iraq was the elephant in the room as bush gave his dopey speech. almost 1400 americans have lost their lives. we've been over there almost 2 years. he strong armed our way in. and yet he couldn't say the word, he couldn't mention the country.
if he thinks he can just will it away, he's mistaken. this is his mess and with a second term, he completely owns the mess. people are angry that there were no wmd. people are outraged at the casualities. iraq's not going away. it's a blood stain on his record.
the failing economy, the attacks on civil rights, reproductive rights, all of that matters. but what's turning people in his own camp away from him now is the simple fact that he's put our sons and daughters, our husbands and wives, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers in harm's way for no good reason.
this was supposed to be his big day and even that was taken from him as protestors made sure he knew there was no mandate. on tv, i saw a woman holding up a sign that said something like 'no more lies! no more deaths!' bully boy, you stole the presidency twice, you never won the hearts & minds. in that pea brain mind of your's, even you know that.
1/19/2005
cowards to my right side, cowards on my left side, cowards in the middle and you're not here
yeah, that means you biden. that means you dodd. that means every democrat on the committee who doesn't have the last name "boxer" or "kerry."
if you're name is barbara boxer or if you're name is john kerry, you can hold your head high. you can know you served democracy and stood and were counted while the cowards ... well, cowered.
these are the ones who are going to lead us? when they can't even stand on their own?
i think they've confused "loser" with "leader."
after this vote and the ohio one, barbara boxer could probably run for president and raise a healthy war chest. on the ferry ride back this evening, that's all i heard: "barbara boxer" this,
"barbara boxer" that.
now i'm not saying some didn't gripe. boxer is scarying the hell out of some republicans. it's called power and she's got it.
but more importantly, she's got people talking about her "leadership," her "guts," her "strength," her "directness," her "standing tall."
i'm sure people knew of barbara boxer before this month, but she is the topic of month. if capitol hill published a hot list, boxer would be at the top because her name is everyone's lips.
it's power. people know her. she's stood out from the crowd and she's building a following.
there's an enthusiasm for her like no one in the party.
hillary clinton better find a spine quick or watch her presidential hopes in 2008 fade away.
there is so much excitement around her right now. people are watching her, people are paying attention.
and let's note john kerry because the easy thing to do (as so many of his fellow senators demonstrated) would be to just go along.
a lot of people are still hurt that he didn't demand every vote was counted. but a vote like today goes a long way in demonstrating that he can stand up.
2 people on the ferry were noting how happily surprised they were by his vote against condi rice.
kerry wasn't there for the ohio vote but other people were. that they saw boxer standing after it was over should have damn well told them it was time to start taking stands and stop being little cowards. they didn't learn the lesson.
but the common ills was saying back then something like 'today we got 1, next time maybe we'll get 2.' we got 2 today. maybe next time we can get 3?
this is how movements are started, this is how the party is rallied. by giving us something to believe in.
by not just going through the motions and being a "good sport" but by staking your ground and taking a stand.
i hope kerry and boxer are flooded with e-mails. i hope when they walk around the senate, they're rushed by groupies. i hope hillary sulks in silence. feeling like the heavy eyebrowed gal she was in high school -- "oh look a party, and . . . i'm not invited."
get used to watching from the outside, hillary, until you're ready to become the fighter you used to be.
1 vote last time, 2 this time. and it wasn't even the full vote of the senate, just the committee.
we can rally, we can make a difference.
and barbara boxer is showing real leadership.
joe biden, you start off so great, then all the sudden you're that guy i had a fling with -- 1 thrust patrick. 1 thrust and it was over. i'm lying there thinking, 'what the fuck was that?' he's all sweaty and smiley and waiting to be praised.
1 thrust biden. that's what i'm going to call you until you start learning to take a stand for more than a second.
you blew your wad in the questioning and then you were too exhausted to stand and be counted when it was time to vote.
we had 2 senators show leadership today: barbara boxer and john kerry. may they be showered with the kind of attention reserved for rock stars because those two rocked the house, er senate, today.
your efforts are noted. you showed the leadership the party has been lacking.
if the party is going to turn it around in 2006, it's going to need to show some guts, show some courage and show some leadership. 2 today.
u can see it as we added 1 today. or, if you're an optimistic fool like me, you can see it as we doubled the vote. so maybe we can hope for four leaders on the next vote.
yellow streaks seem to spread easily. is it too much hope that real leadership could spread as well?
the blog title is from tori amos. 'caught a lite sneeze.' 'boys on my right side, boys on my left side, boys in the middle and you're not here.'
let's hope boxer and kerry are infectious and that they spread their courage around. if we could have a pandemic of courage in the senate, we could take the country back. let's hope this is a sign of hope and not a sign that boxer and kerry will be the only 1s standing up all year.
if you're name is barbara boxer or if you're name is john kerry, you can hold your head high. you can know you served democracy and stood and were counted while the cowards ... well, cowered.
these are the ones who are going to lead us? when they can't even stand on their own?
i think they've confused "loser" with "leader."
after this vote and the ohio one, barbara boxer could probably run for president and raise a healthy war chest. on the ferry ride back this evening, that's all i heard: "barbara boxer" this,
"barbara boxer" that.
now i'm not saying some didn't gripe. boxer is scarying the hell out of some republicans. it's called power and she's got it.
but more importantly, she's got people talking about her "leadership," her "guts," her "strength," her "directness," her "standing tall."
i'm sure people knew of barbara boxer before this month, but she is the topic of month. if capitol hill published a hot list, boxer would be at the top because her name is everyone's lips.
it's power. people know her. she's stood out from the crowd and she's building a following.
there's an enthusiasm for her like no one in the party.
hillary clinton better find a spine quick or watch her presidential hopes in 2008 fade away.
there is so much excitement around her right now. people are watching her, people are paying attention.
and let's note john kerry because the easy thing to do (as so many of his fellow senators demonstrated) would be to just go along.
a lot of people are still hurt that he didn't demand every vote was counted. but a vote like today goes a long way in demonstrating that he can stand up.
2 people on the ferry were noting how happily surprised they were by his vote against condi rice.
kerry wasn't there for the ohio vote but other people were. that they saw boxer standing after it was over should have damn well told them it was time to start taking stands and stop being little cowards. they didn't learn the lesson.
but the common ills was saying back then something like 'today we got 1, next time maybe we'll get 2.' we got 2 today. maybe next time we can get 3?
this is how movements are started, this is how the party is rallied. by giving us something to believe in.
by not just going through the motions and being a "good sport" but by staking your ground and taking a stand.
i hope kerry and boxer are flooded with e-mails. i hope when they walk around the senate, they're rushed by groupies. i hope hillary sulks in silence. feeling like the heavy eyebrowed gal she was in high school -- "oh look a party, and . . . i'm not invited."
get used to watching from the outside, hillary, until you're ready to become the fighter you used to be.
1 vote last time, 2 this time. and it wasn't even the full vote of the senate, just the committee.
we can rally, we can make a difference.
and barbara boxer is showing real leadership.
joe biden, you start off so great, then all the sudden you're that guy i had a fling with -- 1 thrust patrick. 1 thrust and it was over. i'm lying there thinking, 'what the fuck was that?' he's all sweaty and smiley and waiting to be praised.
1 thrust biden. that's what i'm going to call you until you start learning to take a stand for more than a second.
you blew your wad in the questioning and then you were too exhausted to stand and be counted when it was time to vote.
we had 2 senators show leadership today: barbara boxer and john kerry. may they be showered with the kind of attention reserved for rock stars because those two rocked the house, er senate, today.
your efforts are noted. you showed the leadership the party has been lacking.
if the party is going to turn it around in 2006, it's going to need to show some guts, show some courage and show some leadership. 2 today.
u can see it as we added 1 today. or, if you're an optimistic fool like me, you can see it as we doubled the vote. so maybe we can hope for four leaders on the next vote.
yellow streaks seem to spread easily. is it too much hope that real leadership could spread as well?
the blog title is from tori amos. 'caught a lite sneeze.' 'boys on my right side, boys on my left side, boys in the middle and you're not here.'
let's hope boxer and kerry are infectious and that they spread their courage around. if we could have a pandemic of courage in the senate, we could take the country back. let's hope this is a sign of hope and not a sign that boxer and kerry will be the only 1s standing up all year.
1/18/2005
how can you . . .
how can you
not love billie joe armstrong.
he's a cuddle bug with just enough of the nasty to make bedtime interesting!
he's got that pouty rock star going on.
how can you
confirm condi rice?
she's so evil!
did anyone other than john kerry and barbara boxer ask her hard questions today?
barbara boxer rocks!
if she were a musician she'd be mama michelle, she's that cool.
condi's not pouty, she's petulant.
how can you condone torture?
that's what you're doing if you confirm alberto gonazles.
now there's a guy who looks like he suffers from bad crackatoa.
how can you
think that aimee mann isn't one of the best songwriters around?
how can you
think that she sounds better solo if you heard 'til tuesday's last 2 albums before they broke up?
how can you
watch billie joe armstrong jumping around the stage
and not remember the great days of the 90s
when he used to do so nekkid!
bille you're hotter than ever
you've proven that green day can make a masterpiece
with the new album american idiot!
how can you
deny your mulititude of drooling fans
one more look at that curvy, meaty ass?
how can you
watch condi do her i'm lying stammer
and believe a word she says?
how can you
make nice-nice with her senator dodd?
you had some good points, why'd you have to blow them?
how can you
not want to see billie joe armstrong naked?
not love billie joe armstrong.
he's a cuddle bug with just enough of the nasty to make bedtime interesting!
he's got that pouty rock star going on.
how can you
confirm condi rice?
she's so evil!
did anyone other than john kerry and barbara boxer ask her hard questions today?
barbara boxer rocks!
if she were a musician she'd be mama michelle, she's that cool.
condi's not pouty, she's petulant.
how can you condone torture?
that's what you're doing if you confirm alberto gonazles.
now there's a guy who looks like he suffers from bad crackatoa.
how can you
think that aimee mann isn't one of the best songwriters around?
how can you
think that she sounds better solo if you heard 'til tuesday's last 2 albums before they broke up?
how can you
watch billie joe armstrong jumping around the stage
and not remember the great days of the 90s
when he used to do so nekkid!
bille you're hotter than ever
you've proven that green day can make a masterpiece
with the new album american idiot!
how can you
deny your mulititude of drooling fans
one more look at that curvy, meaty ass?
how can you
watch condi do her i'm lying stammer
and believe a word she says?
how can you
make nice-nice with her senator dodd?
you had some good points, why'd you have to blow them?
how can you
not want to see billie joe armstrong naked?
the importance of kitty kelley and a response to the man who refuses to stop sending the same bossy e-mails over and over
so the common ills did a book list of people's favorites and i weighed in. check it yourself at http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/books-that-spoke-to-you.html and you'll find me weighing in with valley of the dolls.
i got e-mail on that. it usually went along the lines of 'rebecca, i love that book but would never have the guts to admit it publicly!' yeah well i did and i do. this wasn't a list of great literature -- obviously since it included non-fiction books (my picks: amy goodman's exception to the rulers and mama michelle philips' california dreamin' about the history of the mamas and the papas).
the list was 'favorites' and those are my favorites.
i'm right above someone reeling off a mammoth list of books that read less like favorites and more like diane chambers trying to impress the gang at cheers. they may be great books (and i assume the person enjoyed them) but i wouldn't take one of those books to the beach.
the point was to name 3 books fiction and 3 books nonfiction that were your favorite. i'm not embarrassed or ashamed to say what i enjoy. (even if it might be "abridged.")
1 book i forgot to mention that i should have is kitty kelley's the family where she probes the bush family with the same keen eye towards popular interests (sex, drugs, back stabbing) that she brought to bear on elizabeth taylor and frank sinatra among others.
i really wish i had named the book.
in case you haven't heard, some woman is having a hissy fit and is either suing kelley or threatening to sue her.
see the woman wrote about the bully boy's alleged cocaine and a few other things in an article.
and goodness me, it's in kelley's book!
bitter woman screams 'i have been ripped off!'
but if you check the sources at the back of the book, the woman and her story are credited.
sorry to break it to bitter, but that's how it goes in the kind of book kelley writes.
there aren't footnotes. she does interviews and uses the public record to flesh out her portraits. there's nothing new about that.
but a few people want to treat the family as though it just rolled off the university of chicago press.
get a grip, bitter.
let's do a history lesson.
in kelley's day you didn't have a maureen dowd. you didn't have most women who now write books about politics. if they did write, they tended to write academic books. women were largely left to write fiction (literature or not), diet books, celeb exposes, etc. the only exceptions were the women writing scholarly tomes for academic presses.
times have changed and thank god for that.
it's not that women couldn't write the books, it's that no one was interested in opening the gates to the boys club.
kelley's a scrapper. she came up in the hard knocks school and made it her own way, tromping onto the best seller list where she's remained for decades.
and she didn't do that via footnoted books.
with her ususal zeal, she charges after the bush family. now some bitter journalist is upset that the text doesn't come to a grinding halt to say 'and now let's deal with what bitter journalist wrote.'
kelley's success is built upon the fact that she mixes in various sources, blending it all together to make it sound like some whispered secret you heard about wanda while waiting to get your hair done.
she's enlarged what women can make the best seller list with.
is she scholarly? no and she never will be.
good or bad, she is what she is: a woman who made it onto the bestseller nonfiction list without writing about poodles, diets or beauty. and over the years, she's wandered beyond the hollywood scene to comment directly on the people in power. (they usually popped up in earlier books as supporting characters.)
so cut her some slack.
no, you won't feel like you've just learned darwin when you emerge from one of kelley's books but you won't feel bored either. kitty kelley writes in a chatty, breezy way.
and at a time when cbs buckles under pressure from the administration and the mainstream press shakes in their booties over covering any hint of scandal in the bush family, kelley just barges through the door and onto the best seller lists.
don't underestimate kelley's power. she's an author for people who won't pick up paul krugman or maureen dowd or michael walzer or any number of more 'respectable' writers.
and guess who'll make more difference?
when the family comes out in paperback, look around you, see who's reading it.
back in october, in chicago, i went to get a pedicure at a place elaine swears by. scanning the room as i waited, i saw women of various ages (okay, no one elderly) scanning through the family.
i asked this 1 peroxide blond, tanning bedded tanned, crest stripped teeth gal, who we'll call skipper, if she read a lot of books.
'oh yeah, i read tons. at least 1 romance novel a month,' skipper chirped brightly.
'do you read a lot of books in hard covers?' i asked.
'no, they're too expensive but i wasn't going to wait for this to come out in paperback. can you believe what a bitch barbara bush is?'
kelley reached skipper.
kitty kelley made the bestseller list in hard cover. her real power will be demonstrated when the book comes out in paperback and most of her readers snap it up.
and they will. this book will reach people that various books on bush never stood a chance of reaching.
robert parry has an article online at consortium news, http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/011705.html, about the blowback that faces people who actually look into the reality of the bush family.
it doesn't list kitty kelley. it shouldn't. she bush-proof. 'she's writing about scandals!' yeah, so what else is new?
the most they could do to kitty kelley, which they did do, was make sure that she wasn't on larry king -- kelley whose been a fixture on that show. a new book and she can't even get on.
didn't hurt her book sales.
she did get booked on al franken's show. and the surprise there was that, after the interview (when kelley wasn't around to respond), katherine lanpher had to indicate her distaste for kelley's career choices. lanpher is usually stuck playing mommy to al's naughty boy and it can be irritating. but here she was objecting to kelley being on the show.
sorry katherine, i know she's not serious enough for you, not respectable enough. but it's women like kitty kelley who enlarge the scope for all women.
when she started, how many women could have a successful career writing nonfiction that made the bestseller list? again, i'm not talking about a diet book and then three follow ups to how to perfect that diet book is. or make up book or or a book on your poodle or whatever.
yeah, kelley's books are loud and tawdry celeb exposes but exactly who else has made a successful career out of that?
kitty kelley, if nothing else, could go on a talk show and be introduced as "the best selling nonfiction writer." it's not so uncommon now. it was when she busted down the door to the boys club.
so maybe instead of making it a point to draw a line between yourself and kitty kelley, you should realize that even if she isn't your style, she helped women.
i'm not trying to make her out into a feminist hero. i have no idea if she is or isn't a feminist.
and i seriously doubt she was focused on much more than herself for the bulk of her career.
but her success did help, in some way, other women.
the common ills rightly pointed out the new york times desire to 'air kiss' the adminstration today in a must read post, http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/democratic-leadership-and-times-appear.html.
when the times continues to offer ridiculous "society" pieces on the upcoming inauguration as "hard news" it only underscores how important the work of a "frivilous" writer like kitty kelley is. the paper of record had four years to examine the administration's record, had time in 1999 and 2000 to examine the bully boy. and yet they're still writing pieces that lack perspective and are historically ignorant.
who's the embarrassment? kitty kelley who doesn't present herself as a journalist or the new york times? who probed the record of the bush family more? kitty kelley in one book or the new york times in their day to day coverage? if you guessed kelley you're right. and that goes to the problem with the media today. (another point the common ills addresses.)
i don't give a flying fuck about framing and think far too much time has been spent discussing this issue. i don't care about looking serious. or about whether or not my book list impresses someone. i'm going to speak plain and in my own voice.
there's something very undemocratic about insisting we all get on the same page and all speak in the same voice. it wasn't the universal voices that brought attention to the bully boys missteps.
it was the kitty kelleys, the michael moores, and others.
we don't need one voice all chanting the same message. we need as many voices possible speaking out in as many ways as possible.
1 person e-mailed me: "you're drooling over men is adolescent and completely boring. i don't know who you think you're reaching."
that man, and yes, it was a man, wants me to buy lakoff's book and work on framing.
guess what mister man, i have visitors. i have readers. i have women sharing with me about guys that they think are hot, i have gay men sharing with me about guys that they think are hot, i have straight men asking me to explain their wives (here's a hint for all husbands, try talkling to her instead of writing me).
i'm not going to please the framing audience. big deal. i'm not trying to reach them.
at the end of a fantasy of what she'd do to john turek (the huskiest of all the corn husks), my new best friend sherry writes: "i was all gung hu this week on graner being punished. now i'm starting to wonder if his trial wasn't a show trial to detract from the crimes of the people above him."
those are my people. and we're communicating just fine, thank you very much.
i'm a woman who enjoys sex and really enjoys sexy men. that's what i'll talk about and go on about and, in the midst of that, we'll take a moment or two to address other things that are going on.
the people e-mailing me? you aren't reaching them. your lakoff strategies won't reach them. that's because the population is a diverse one. so instead of urging me to change my ways and march lock step with you (is this the communist party?) just stop coming by my web site and realize that others enjoy what's being discussed here.
and i'll add that there's sexist mentality involved if you think you can e-mail this woman and tell her what to talk about and what not to talk about. if you, mister big man, think you know how to better communicate with women than i do because you read some book (by a man) on framing, you've led a very sheltered life.
like kitty kelley, i'm not footnoting here. i'm not interested in exploring the deeper meanings of policy. i'm not a wonk or a wonkette. i'm talking about issues that matter to me and yes, that might include my date friday night. or it might include having sex. or a fantasy of antonio sabato junior that i had as a child.
is it really the "off message" that's offending you or the fact that i'm engaging in conversations that you've apparently never heard before in your life?
mister big britches writes: "i would never let my wife go to your site."
let your wife? let? maybe you should put down the book on framing and grab 1 on relationships in the last century because we're living in the 21st century, mister know it all, and you're going on like it's the 1800s.
mister big britches has a web site which he shared with me. i went to it.
i didn't see anything all that deep. true, he's addressing social security. but he's also talking about basketball games. (no hot photos or talks about the bouncing pouches of the nebraska cornhuskers, so i won't bore you with his site.)
so it's okay for you to go on and on about some big ten team and that's being "politically serious" (as you claim you are but I'm not)? yet if i comment on michael phelp's butt crack i've "lost sight of the reason you should be blogging?"
get it through your sexist brain, my interests do not have to reflect your interests. and i really feel sorry for your wife if she's only able to go where you "let" her go online. maybe you think you're doing her a favor because, as a man, you just know so much better than she does what is "important."
but if you think talking about how a game on saturday reminded you of a game you played on jv in high school is "important" or "politically serious" maybe you shouldn't be tossing stones?
that's the problem with any craze. it starts out as something valuable for a few and then it becomes something we're all being forced to do and practice. and why is it always a book by a man, or men, that we're being told we have to follow?
you're view of "universal" is a limited one, mister bossy, if you're idea of "universal" is to bother me with your harrasing e-mails (ten since Saturday) telling me that "ladies shouldn't speak that way" and that "this focus on sex destroys the frame we're all working so hard to show america that we have morals."
newsflash, mister prude, most people in america are having sex or wanting to. it's a basic desire.
i'll keep focusing on sex as much as i want and you go preach to your group and i'll keep talking to the women (straight and gay) and the men (gay and straight) who enjoy this kind of talk.
mister universal closes one e-mail by informing me: "liberation isn't about sex. most women don't care about sex and you're propagating a myth of feminists as sex obsessed."
oh, are we sex obsessed this year? is that this year's myth? i missed the issue of time (or was it newsweek's turn this year?) on "the death of feminism" so i didn't realize we were back to being called sex obsessed as opposed to prudes.
but get it through your pea brain, some women do care about the sex. probably the same number as men who care about sex. (your wife may not be one of them. but then she's had to put up with a lot if she's married to you.) and i've already stated that i'm not trying to speak for all women. i'm speaking my truth in a plain spoken manner. i'm not hiding behind any device (framing or otherwise) to make myself or my words more appealing.
as a feminist, i recognize that women believe in a variety of things and discuss a vareity of things and i know that some women will have no interest in the topics i discuss. i don't dash off angry e-mails to them telling them what women should do or talk about.
i respect their choices and their options and their interests and only ask that they do the same with mine. that's what feminism is about (and maybe you should try reading up on that!). the women's movement in the last century was built not by one voice but by many. and we respect the diversity in the population. gloria steinem's not faxing us talking points and slapping us on the wrists if we go "off message." now isn't spaming us with e-mails to tell us that we're betraying the cause. so i don't know where you get off sending me ten e-mails demanding that i write on the topics you listed, that i stop talking about sex, that i use the "frames that will further the cause" and that i "buy a bar of soap for your filthy mouth."
your advice was not useful to me so i was ignoring you. your attitude was insulting. in your house you may be able to 'lay down the law' on how things will be done and how people will speak (i really feel sorry for your wife) but this isn't your house and i don't take orders from you.
go back to waxing over your j.v. years (never made varsity, huh?) and quit bothering me with your e-mails.
and to tie this back to kitty kelley, for the readers of this site who come here because they enjoy my thoughts -- half-baked, sex obsessed and otherwise -- i'm sure this is the sort of crap kelley's had to put up with. men coming along and telling her: "you shouldn't write that!" or "you can't talk about that!"
the next time someone tells you what you can or cannot say, i don't care if you are a woman or a man, look them in the eye and say, "it's called free speech. now get out of my face."
there's always going to be some self-important blow hard who thinks he can control the conversation (and my apologies to my male readers -- gay, bisexual, bicurious and straight -- but it's generally a man who wants to come along and "lay down the law"). that's not free speech. that's not democracy. it's nice that you enjoyed a book (by a male author of course),
but don't try to convert me to your religion.
my advice to the people who come to this site, whom i'm sure all our beautiful and kind souls,
don't let anyone try to browbeat you. read kitty kelley if you want. read valley of the dolls.
read whatever you want. including george lakoff if that's what you want to read.
but speak in your own voice. you may not "get out the message" but people will understand what you're saying and realize you're trying to be genuine. that's why some people respond to kitty kelley's writing -- she's "keeping it real."
i got e-mail on that. it usually went along the lines of 'rebecca, i love that book but would never have the guts to admit it publicly!' yeah well i did and i do. this wasn't a list of great literature -- obviously since it included non-fiction books (my picks: amy goodman's exception to the rulers and mama michelle philips' california dreamin' about the history of the mamas and the papas).
the list was 'favorites' and those are my favorites.
i'm right above someone reeling off a mammoth list of books that read less like favorites and more like diane chambers trying to impress the gang at cheers. they may be great books (and i assume the person enjoyed them) but i wouldn't take one of those books to the beach.
the point was to name 3 books fiction and 3 books nonfiction that were your favorite. i'm not embarrassed or ashamed to say what i enjoy. (even if it might be "abridged.")
1 book i forgot to mention that i should have is kitty kelley's the family where she probes the bush family with the same keen eye towards popular interests (sex, drugs, back stabbing) that she brought to bear on elizabeth taylor and frank sinatra among others.
i really wish i had named the book.
in case you haven't heard, some woman is having a hissy fit and is either suing kelley or threatening to sue her.
see the woman wrote about the bully boy's alleged cocaine and a few other things in an article.
and goodness me, it's in kelley's book!
bitter woman screams 'i have been ripped off!'
but if you check the sources at the back of the book, the woman and her story are credited.
sorry to break it to bitter, but that's how it goes in the kind of book kelley writes.
there aren't footnotes. she does interviews and uses the public record to flesh out her portraits. there's nothing new about that.
but a few people want to treat the family as though it just rolled off the university of chicago press.
get a grip, bitter.
let's do a history lesson.
in kelley's day you didn't have a maureen dowd. you didn't have most women who now write books about politics. if they did write, they tended to write academic books. women were largely left to write fiction (literature or not), diet books, celeb exposes, etc. the only exceptions were the women writing scholarly tomes for academic presses.
times have changed and thank god for that.
it's not that women couldn't write the books, it's that no one was interested in opening the gates to the boys club.
kelley's a scrapper. she came up in the hard knocks school and made it her own way, tromping onto the best seller list where she's remained for decades.
and she didn't do that via footnoted books.
with her ususal zeal, she charges after the bush family. now some bitter journalist is upset that the text doesn't come to a grinding halt to say 'and now let's deal with what bitter journalist wrote.'
kelley's success is built upon the fact that she mixes in various sources, blending it all together to make it sound like some whispered secret you heard about wanda while waiting to get your hair done.
she's enlarged what women can make the best seller list with.
is she scholarly? no and she never will be.
good or bad, she is what she is: a woman who made it onto the bestseller nonfiction list without writing about poodles, diets or beauty. and over the years, she's wandered beyond the hollywood scene to comment directly on the people in power. (they usually popped up in earlier books as supporting characters.)
so cut her some slack.
no, you won't feel like you've just learned darwin when you emerge from one of kelley's books but you won't feel bored either. kitty kelley writes in a chatty, breezy way.
and at a time when cbs buckles under pressure from the administration and the mainstream press shakes in their booties over covering any hint of scandal in the bush family, kelley just barges through the door and onto the best seller lists.
don't underestimate kelley's power. she's an author for people who won't pick up paul krugman or maureen dowd or michael walzer or any number of more 'respectable' writers.
and guess who'll make more difference?
when the family comes out in paperback, look around you, see who's reading it.
back in october, in chicago, i went to get a pedicure at a place elaine swears by. scanning the room as i waited, i saw women of various ages (okay, no one elderly) scanning through the family.
i asked this 1 peroxide blond, tanning bedded tanned, crest stripped teeth gal, who we'll call skipper, if she read a lot of books.
'oh yeah, i read tons. at least 1 romance novel a month,' skipper chirped brightly.
'do you read a lot of books in hard covers?' i asked.
'no, they're too expensive but i wasn't going to wait for this to come out in paperback. can you believe what a bitch barbara bush is?'
kelley reached skipper.
kitty kelley made the bestseller list in hard cover. her real power will be demonstrated when the book comes out in paperback and most of her readers snap it up.
and they will. this book will reach people that various books on bush never stood a chance of reaching.
robert parry has an article online at consortium news, http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/011705.html, about the blowback that faces people who actually look into the reality of the bush family.
it doesn't list kitty kelley. it shouldn't. she bush-proof. 'she's writing about scandals!' yeah, so what else is new?
the most they could do to kitty kelley, which they did do, was make sure that she wasn't on larry king -- kelley whose been a fixture on that show. a new book and she can't even get on.
didn't hurt her book sales.
she did get booked on al franken's show. and the surprise there was that, after the interview (when kelley wasn't around to respond), katherine lanpher had to indicate her distaste for kelley's career choices. lanpher is usually stuck playing mommy to al's naughty boy and it can be irritating. but here she was objecting to kelley being on the show.
sorry katherine, i know she's not serious enough for you, not respectable enough. but it's women like kitty kelley who enlarge the scope for all women.
when she started, how many women could have a successful career writing nonfiction that made the bestseller list? again, i'm not talking about a diet book and then three follow ups to how to perfect that diet book is. or make up book or or a book on your poodle or whatever.
yeah, kelley's books are loud and tawdry celeb exposes but exactly who else has made a successful career out of that?
kitty kelley, if nothing else, could go on a talk show and be introduced as "the best selling nonfiction writer." it's not so uncommon now. it was when she busted down the door to the boys club.
so maybe instead of making it a point to draw a line between yourself and kitty kelley, you should realize that even if she isn't your style, she helped women.
i'm not trying to make her out into a feminist hero. i have no idea if she is or isn't a feminist.
and i seriously doubt she was focused on much more than herself for the bulk of her career.
but her success did help, in some way, other women.
the common ills rightly pointed out the new york times desire to 'air kiss' the adminstration today in a must read post, http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/democratic-leadership-and-times-appear.html.
when the times continues to offer ridiculous "society" pieces on the upcoming inauguration as "hard news" it only underscores how important the work of a "frivilous" writer like kitty kelley is. the paper of record had four years to examine the administration's record, had time in 1999 and 2000 to examine the bully boy. and yet they're still writing pieces that lack perspective and are historically ignorant.
who's the embarrassment? kitty kelley who doesn't present herself as a journalist or the new york times? who probed the record of the bush family more? kitty kelley in one book or the new york times in their day to day coverage? if you guessed kelley you're right. and that goes to the problem with the media today. (another point the common ills addresses.)
i don't give a flying fuck about framing and think far too much time has been spent discussing this issue. i don't care about looking serious. or about whether or not my book list impresses someone. i'm going to speak plain and in my own voice.
there's something very undemocratic about insisting we all get on the same page and all speak in the same voice. it wasn't the universal voices that brought attention to the bully boys missteps.
it was the kitty kelleys, the michael moores, and others.
we don't need one voice all chanting the same message. we need as many voices possible speaking out in as many ways as possible.
1 person e-mailed me: "you're drooling over men is adolescent and completely boring. i don't know who you think you're reaching."
that man, and yes, it was a man, wants me to buy lakoff's book and work on framing.
guess what mister man, i have visitors. i have readers. i have women sharing with me about guys that they think are hot, i have gay men sharing with me about guys that they think are hot, i have straight men asking me to explain their wives (here's a hint for all husbands, try talkling to her instead of writing me).
i'm not going to please the framing audience. big deal. i'm not trying to reach them.
at the end of a fantasy of what she'd do to john turek (the huskiest of all the corn husks), my new best friend sherry writes: "i was all gung hu this week on graner being punished. now i'm starting to wonder if his trial wasn't a show trial to detract from the crimes of the people above him."
those are my people. and we're communicating just fine, thank you very much.
i'm a woman who enjoys sex and really enjoys sexy men. that's what i'll talk about and go on about and, in the midst of that, we'll take a moment or two to address other things that are going on.
the people e-mailing me? you aren't reaching them. your lakoff strategies won't reach them. that's because the population is a diverse one. so instead of urging me to change my ways and march lock step with you (is this the communist party?) just stop coming by my web site and realize that others enjoy what's being discussed here.
and i'll add that there's sexist mentality involved if you think you can e-mail this woman and tell her what to talk about and what not to talk about. if you, mister big man, think you know how to better communicate with women than i do because you read some book (by a man) on framing, you've led a very sheltered life.
like kitty kelley, i'm not footnoting here. i'm not interested in exploring the deeper meanings of policy. i'm not a wonk or a wonkette. i'm talking about issues that matter to me and yes, that might include my date friday night. or it might include having sex. or a fantasy of antonio sabato junior that i had as a child.
is it really the "off message" that's offending you or the fact that i'm engaging in conversations that you've apparently never heard before in your life?
mister big britches writes: "i would never let my wife go to your site."
let your wife? let? maybe you should put down the book on framing and grab 1 on relationships in the last century because we're living in the 21st century, mister know it all, and you're going on like it's the 1800s.
mister big britches has a web site which he shared with me. i went to it.
i didn't see anything all that deep. true, he's addressing social security. but he's also talking about basketball games. (no hot photos or talks about the bouncing pouches of the nebraska cornhuskers, so i won't bore you with his site.)
so it's okay for you to go on and on about some big ten team and that's being "politically serious" (as you claim you are but I'm not)? yet if i comment on michael phelp's butt crack i've "lost sight of the reason you should be blogging?"
get it through your sexist brain, my interests do not have to reflect your interests. and i really feel sorry for your wife if she's only able to go where you "let" her go online. maybe you think you're doing her a favor because, as a man, you just know so much better than she does what is "important."
but if you think talking about how a game on saturday reminded you of a game you played on jv in high school is "important" or "politically serious" maybe you shouldn't be tossing stones?
that's the problem with any craze. it starts out as something valuable for a few and then it becomes something we're all being forced to do and practice. and why is it always a book by a man, or men, that we're being told we have to follow?
you're view of "universal" is a limited one, mister bossy, if you're idea of "universal" is to bother me with your harrasing e-mails (ten since Saturday) telling me that "ladies shouldn't speak that way" and that "this focus on sex destroys the frame we're all working so hard to show america that we have morals."
newsflash, mister prude, most people in america are having sex or wanting to. it's a basic desire.
i'll keep focusing on sex as much as i want and you go preach to your group and i'll keep talking to the women (straight and gay) and the men (gay and straight) who enjoy this kind of talk.
mister universal closes one e-mail by informing me: "liberation isn't about sex. most women don't care about sex and you're propagating a myth of feminists as sex obsessed."
oh, are we sex obsessed this year? is that this year's myth? i missed the issue of time (or was it newsweek's turn this year?) on "the death of feminism" so i didn't realize we were back to being called sex obsessed as opposed to prudes.
but get it through your pea brain, some women do care about the sex. probably the same number as men who care about sex. (your wife may not be one of them. but then she's had to put up with a lot if she's married to you.) and i've already stated that i'm not trying to speak for all women. i'm speaking my truth in a plain spoken manner. i'm not hiding behind any device (framing or otherwise) to make myself or my words more appealing.
as a feminist, i recognize that women believe in a variety of things and discuss a vareity of things and i know that some women will have no interest in the topics i discuss. i don't dash off angry e-mails to them telling them what women should do or talk about.
i respect their choices and their options and their interests and only ask that they do the same with mine. that's what feminism is about (and maybe you should try reading up on that!). the women's movement in the last century was built not by one voice but by many. and we respect the diversity in the population. gloria steinem's not faxing us talking points and slapping us on the wrists if we go "off message." now isn't spaming us with e-mails to tell us that we're betraying the cause. so i don't know where you get off sending me ten e-mails demanding that i write on the topics you listed, that i stop talking about sex, that i use the "frames that will further the cause" and that i "buy a bar of soap for your filthy mouth."
your advice was not useful to me so i was ignoring you. your attitude was insulting. in your house you may be able to 'lay down the law' on how things will be done and how people will speak (i really feel sorry for your wife) but this isn't your house and i don't take orders from you.
go back to waxing over your j.v. years (never made varsity, huh?) and quit bothering me with your e-mails.
and to tie this back to kitty kelley, for the readers of this site who come here because they enjoy my thoughts -- half-baked, sex obsessed and otherwise -- i'm sure this is the sort of crap kelley's had to put up with. men coming along and telling her: "you shouldn't write that!" or "you can't talk about that!"
the next time someone tells you what you can or cannot say, i don't care if you are a woman or a man, look them in the eye and say, "it's called free speech. now get out of my face."
there's always going to be some self-important blow hard who thinks he can control the conversation (and my apologies to my male readers -- gay, bisexual, bicurious and straight -- but it's generally a man who wants to come along and "lay down the law"). that's not free speech. that's not democracy. it's nice that you enjoyed a book (by a male author of course),
but don't try to convert me to your religion.
my advice to the people who come to this site, whom i'm sure all our beautiful and kind souls,
don't let anyone try to browbeat you. read kitty kelley if you want. read valley of the dolls.
read whatever you want. including george lakoff if that's what you want to read.
but speak in your own voice. you may not "get out the message" but people will understand what you're saying and realize you're trying to be genuine. that's why some people respond to kitty kelley's writing -- she's "keeping it real."
1/17/2005
crack and crackatoa
the common ills had an interesting post about dnc chair on saturday, http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/opinion-guide-for-picking-through.html, at the bottom of which they did a disclosure on who they knew:
Disclosure: I've encountered the following: Donnie Fowler, Martin Frost, Tim Roemer and Joe Trippi. Fowler is someone that I found knowledgable. Trippi is someone I've defended and will continue to do so but when I feel he's wrong, I say so. I do not believe that I've encountered Simon Rosenberg. A number of you have e-mailed wanting to know the story that my friend swears is true. Here is her version (which I question).At a party, Rosenberg was annoying her (flirting technique based on self-boasts) and he was wearing a cheap suit that badly needing cleaning. (The odor was what she deems "Crackatoa" and, if you think about it, you should be able to deconstruct that term yourself.) According to her, I walked over to tell her something and in the middle of my speaking, Rosenberg interrupted with some inane remark and I glared at him and made a rude comment. (Right away, I say that draws her recollection into question because I'm far more prone to issue a non-stop string of rude comments.) At which point, I turned back to her and asked loudly, "What is that smell?"Then, according to her, Rosenberg huffed off. I question pretty much every point in her story but I've been wrong before. (As has she. And her recollection fits no memory I have. I've tried to figure out who she could be confusing him with but I can't remember any such party.) (The behavior, except for a single rude remark, is perfectly in keeping with any story of me. But I honestly do not believe this incident took place with Rosenberg. Again, I could be wrong.)
"crackatoa"? i know just what the friend was talking about.
i remember a college class where a portly guy (not unlike simon rosenberg) used to sit on the front row. no one wanted to sit behind him.
it smelled like he hadn't bothered to wipe ... that week!
looking at simple simon's photos online (yes, i'll spare you!), he just the type to suffer from crackatoa. he has that look about him that says "my butt crack stinks."
i don't know how a guy can not notice.
is he going around sniffing and saying, "gee, something around here smells bad?"
i mean with that kind of smell, you'd think he'd know it was him.
i love the splash commercials with the half naked men playing basketball or strumming a guitar (bod for men?) but if the grooming industry wanted to make a product that's really needed they could make a male hygene spray for the butt crack.
of course if guys suffering from crackatoa would bother to wipe good, it wouldn't be needed.
a butt on a sexy guy is hot.
and i'm sure michael phelps (don't drool too much, rumor is he's a republican and tried to date one of the bush twins -- hope it was the mousy 1 and not the other 1 who looks like mare winingham's ugly sister) has a crack that smells lovely. all that time in the chlorine has to pay off.
and michael, even if you are a republican, i'll still drool over you. i might not if i didn't feel sorry for you about the probation. of course i'd drool more of you if you looked a little more like a man. i've never been overly fond of fucking guys who shaved off more hair than i did and it looks like you try to make a clean sweep of everything.
i know it's the 'in thing' to do. (don't give me that it's just sports. i've searched for hours for photos and ended up enlisting the common ills, begging "help me find some ass photos of michael phelps if you're online! i've got a post i want to do but i must have butt photos!" after looking through all those in season and off season photos, it's obvious the boy spends more time with the epi-lady than i do.) but just because it's the 'in thing' doesn't make it the right thing.
some guys look good with a hairy chest, some guys don't. but when i'm looking at bare arm pits, it freaks me out. and the 1 time i went out with a guy who shaved off all his pubes (not trimmed, not shaved some, shaved it all off) it freaked me out long before he asked me if i would diaper him.
i don't sleep with guys who look like they've yet to hit puberty.
and as most of my girlfriends admit, it can be fun to play with guys' hairs.
you stroke it or twist it.
so phelps i will applaud your body and those nice and juicy nipples. i will applaud your decision to make the butt crack the new cleavage. i will even drool over you despite the fact that you may be a republican. (you're 19, you could still grow out of it.) but sport a little hair in the off season.
markus rogan does. that is one hot stud. yes, he shaves it down when it's swim meet time. but otherwise, he's au natural and who wouldn't want to stroke that sexy chest with those little hairs? ladies, am i wrong? gay men, am i wrong? bisexual and bicurious people, am i wrong?
i got 3 e-mails today from self-identifying straight men who tell me they come to this site because they like my "smutty mouth" and enjoy hearing what women really think.
i am not all women. but i can tell you 3 that if you're mowing the grass, that might be fine. if you're doing a little "manscaping" (as my friend sharon calls it) that's fine too as long as you don't take it too far. but if you've killed all the weeds, gentlemen, we don't like that.
as women, we've been shaving our legs for years and it's not fun. we've done our own womenscaping "down there." we've shaved our armpits and dealt with the irritation when it starts to grow out.
it's a pain in the ass.
you think we're wanting to bed down with a guy who looks like he's done even more work than we have?
elaine slept with a guy for 3 weeks before she broke up with him. he shaved his legs and chest and his pubes. (the fact that he at least had pit hair gave her reason for hope.) she kept thinking, "in another day or two, it will grow in a little." it didn't.
how is she supposed to compete with that?
when you guys finally do something, you do it all out.
and here we are hoping we can grab time after work and before a date to do some touch ups but there you are doing it as religiously as you shave your faces. it's just too much pressure.
i can take almost anything but shaved arm pits.
i think it's because i always used to cut myself everytime i would shave mine. (no, i haven't decided to sprout chia pets under each arm. i went ahead and had them taken care of permanently.) but knowing what a pain is the ass it used to be when i had to shave, i just do not enjoy being with a guy without pit hair.
and they always bring it up. they'll raise one arm above their head and take a hand to their exposed arm pit while saying "smooth."
uh, fellows, when you're half-naked on the way to full or when you're already naked, what's going on there? i mean are you so used to lonely nights that you forget there's a woman in the room and start playing with yourself?
it's like, "hey, there, big boy, remember me? i'm the one you were going to have sex with? you don't have to play with yourself tonight."
shaving my arm pits was a real bitch. and the idea that some guy is shaving his and apparently enjoying it enough to brag about it just turns me off.
markus rogan wears his pants low enough to sport butt crack but sadly i couldn't find any photos of him from behind. if any 1 has any, please send them my way.
above this post you'll find 2 photos of him. 1 from the olympics where he's shaved his chest. the other from before the olympics where he didn't. i can understand needing to cut down speed for the olympics but markus is smart enough to sport his manliness during the off seaons. michael might want to think about that.
simon rosenberg might want to make sure he doesn't have crackatoa.
but i'll wind up this post by saying thank you to my new best friend sherry who not only provided me with a new photo of my dream castaway john turek, she also shared some fantasies she has about him. fortunately turek's corn husk is big enough for the both of us. the rest of you, back off! and simon, i'm serious, check that crack. a chubby guy like yourself who is balding can't really take a third strike at this point.
Disclosure: I've encountered the following: Donnie Fowler, Martin Frost, Tim Roemer and Joe Trippi. Fowler is someone that I found knowledgable. Trippi is someone I've defended and will continue to do so but when I feel he's wrong, I say so. I do not believe that I've encountered Simon Rosenberg. A number of you have e-mailed wanting to know the story that my friend swears is true. Here is her version (which I question).At a party, Rosenberg was annoying her (flirting technique based on self-boasts) and he was wearing a cheap suit that badly needing cleaning. (The odor was what she deems "Crackatoa" and, if you think about it, you should be able to deconstruct that term yourself.) According to her, I walked over to tell her something and in the middle of my speaking, Rosenberg interrupted with some inane remark and I glared at him and made a rude comment. (Right away, I say that draws her recollection into question because I'm far more prone to issue a non-stop string of rude comments.) At which point, I turned back to her and asked loudly, "What is that smell?"Then, according to her, Rosenberg huffed off. I question pretty much every point in her story but I've been wrong before. (As has she. And her recollection fits no memory I have. I've tried to figure out who she could be confusing him with but I can't remember any such party.) (The behavior, except for a single rude remark, is perfectly in keeping with any story of me. But I honestly do not believe this incident took place with Rosenberg. Again, I could be wrong.)
"crackatoa"? i know just what the friend was talking about.
i remember a college class where a portly guy (not unlike simon rosenberg) used to sit on the front row. no one wanted to sit behind him.
it smelled like he hadn't bothered to wipe ... that week!
looking at simple simon's photos online (yes, i'll spare you!), he just the type to suffer from crackatoa. he has that look about him that says "my butt crack stinks."
i don't know how a guy can not notice.
is he going around sniffing and saying, "gee, something around here smells bad?"
i mean with that kind of smell, you'd think he'd know it was him.
i love the splash commercials with the half naked men playing basketball or strumming a guitar (bod for men?) but if the grooming industry wanted to make a product that's really needed they could make a male hygene spray for the butt crack.
of course if guys suffering from crackatoa would bother to wipe good, it wouldn't be needed.
a butt on a sexy guy is hot.
and i'm sure michael phelps (don't drool too much, rumor is he's a republican and tried to date one of the bush twins -- hope it was the mousy 1 and not the other 1 who looks like mare winingham's ugly sister) has a crack that smells lovely. all that time in the chlorine has to pay off.
and michael, even if you are a republican, i'll still drool over you. i might not if i didn't feel sorry for you about the probation. of course i'd drool more of you if you looked a little more like a man. i've never been overly fond of fucking guys who shaved off more hair than i did and it looks like you try to make a clean sweep of everything.
i know it's the 'in thing' to do. (don't give me that it's just sports. i've searched for hours for photos and ended up enlisting the common ills, begging "help me find some ass photos of michael phelps if you're online! i've got a post i want to do but i must have butt photos!" after looking through all those in season and off season photos, it's obvious the boy spends more time with the epi-lady than i do.) but just because it's the 'in thing' doesn't make it the right thing.
some guys look good with a hairy chest, some guys don't. but when i'm looking at bare arm pits, it freaks me out. and the 1 time i went out with a guy who shaved off all his pubes (not trimmed, not shaved some, shaved it all off) it freaked me out long before he asked me if i would diaper him.
i don't sleep with guys who look like they've yet to hit puberty.
and as most of my girlfriends admit, it can be fun to play with guys' hairs.
you stroke it or twist it.
so phelps i will applaud your body and those nice and juicy nipples. i will applaud your decision to make the butt crack the new cleavage. i will even drool over you despite the fact that you may be a republican. (you're 19, you could still grow out of it.) but sport a little hair in the off season.
markus rogan does. that is one hot stud. yes, he shaves it down when it's swim meet time. but otherwise, he's au natural and who wouldn't want to stroke that sexy chest with those little hairs? ladies, am i wrong? gay men, am i wrong? bisexual and bicurious people, am i wrong?
i got 3 e-mails today from self-identifying straight men who tell me they come to this site because they like my "smutty mouth" and enjoy hearing what women really think.
i am not all women. but i can tell you 3 that if you're mowing the grass, that might be fine. if you're doing a little "manscaping" (as my friend sharon calls it) that's fine too as long as you don't take it too far. but if you've killed all the weeds, gentlemen, we don't like that.
as women, we've been shaving our legs for years and it's not fun. we've done our own womenscaping "down there." we've shaved our armpits and dealt with the irritation when it starts to grow out.
it's a pain in the ass.
you think we're wanting to bed down with a guy who looks like he's done even more work than we have?
elaine slept with a guy for 3 weeks before she broke up with him. he shaved his legs and chest and his pubes. (the fact that he at least had pit hair gave her reason for hope.) she kept thinking, "in another day or two, it will grow in a little." it didn't.
how is she supposed to compete with that?
when you guys finally do something, you do it all out.
and here we are hoping we can grab time after work and before a date to do some touch ups but there you are doing it as religiously as you shave your faces. it's just too much pressure.
i can take almost anything but shaved arm pits.
i think it's because i always used to cut myself everytime i would shave mine. (no, i haven't decided to sprout chia pets under each arm. i went ahead and had them taken care of permanently.) but knowing what a pain is the ass it used to be when i had to shave, i just do not enjoy being with a guy without pit hair.
and they always bring it up. they'll raise one arm above their head and take a hand to their exposed arm pit while saying "smooth."
uh, fellows, when you're half-naked on the way to full or when you're already naked, what's going on there? i mean are you so used to lonely nights that you forget there's a woman in the room and start playing with yourself?
it's like, "hey, there, big boy, remember me? i'm the one you were going to have sex with? you don't have to play with yourself tonight."
shaving my arm pits was a real bitch. and the idea that some guy is shaving his and apparently enjoying it enough to brag about it just turns me off.
markus rogan wears his pants low enough to sport butt crack but sadly i couldn't find any photos of him from behind. if any 1 has any, please send them my way.
above this post you'll find 2 photos of him. 1 from the olympics where he's shaved his chest. the other from before the olympics where he didn't. i can understand needing to cut down speed for the olympics but markus is smart enough to sport his manliness during the off seaons. michael might want to think about that.
simon rosenberg might want to make sure he doesn't have crackatoa.
but i'll wind up this post by saying thank you to my new best friend sherry who not only provided me with a new photo of my dream castaway john turek, she also shared some fantasies she has about him. fortunately turek's corn husk is big enough for the both of us. the rest of you, back off! and simon, i'm serious, check that crack. a chubby guy like yourself who is balding can't really take a third strike at this point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)