i'm going to take a moment to highlight a post of mine: "a stripped down antonio was the only thing of value the new republic has ever offered" (http://sexandpoliticsandscreedsandattitude.blogspot.com/2005/01/stripped-down-antonio-was-only-thing.html).
in that post i highlighted some of the problems with the new republic. a hideous magazine that gets worse every day. i got three e-mails from straight men bothered by interest in antonio (why do the prudes even come to a sight called 'sex and politics and screeds and attitude?'). basically they were reading from the same playbook: 'the new republic is a great magazine, a landmark magazine! how dare you say these mean things about it.'
how dare i?
how dare i?
how dare you defend it.
little petey bienart (who the fellows felt i was too rough with) doesn't just write for the magazine, he also gives autographs. like on this letter to congress:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm
from the letter:
In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.
that's right folks, petey of the new republic is arguing the 'tough case' of increasing military spending, cause lord knows we don't spend enough! (i'm being facetious.)
and did we mention it's pnac? little peter beinart is the perfect fit for the new republic.
and i would urge everyone to check out this web article:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_15502.shtml
it's "United States Divided: How much do some Pro-Bush crazies hate those who oppose the war?" by dave zirin:
New Republic Writer Calls For Anti-Bush Left-Wingers To Be Killed
The words "libelous" and 'the New Republic" have a proud history of walking arm-in-arm. Now, in the esteemed tradition of [former TNR writer who peddled fiction as fact] Stephen Glass, The New Republic has stooped to a new low, publishing a piece that calls for violence, torture, and even death for leading leftists who dare oppose Bush's war on terror and the slaughter in Iraq.
Author Tom Frank -- clearly from the Glass School of Journalism the New Republic has made famous -- described sitting in on an anti-war panel sponsored by the International Socialist Organization, the Washington Peace Center, the DC Anti-War Network and other groups.
After having heard the 100 plus attendees cheer sentiments like "Money for Jobs and Education Not For War and Occupation," Frank became so riled up, he unloaded a deranged harangue about the suffering he would like to rain upon people daring to organize against this war. After Stan Goff, a former Delta Forces soldier and current organizer for Military Families Speak Out, expressed sentiments like "We ain't never resolved nothing through an election," Frank's jag began. Clearly too doughy to do it himself, Frank started to fantasize about a Teutonic strongman who could shut Goff up.
...
This piece is yet another effort to intimidate and silence people who aren't willing to toe the "party line" espoused by Democrats and Republicans alike that the death of 1,400 US troops and 100,000 Iraqi civilians is somehow justified. Frank's piece is an exercise in hate and intimidation. To be quiet in its face is to give ground in a period when we have precious little to give.
Therefore, this is a call for people to e-mail The New Republic and let them know what you think about humorous musings on killing Arundhati Roy or torturing Stan Goff. Let them know that a disgraced magazine will not intimidate us, especially one with the credibility of The National Enquirer. Let them know that we will publicly debate Tom Frank or any of their 20 something post-graduate hacks on the merits of this war anytime and any place. This is the only way to deal with darkness: shine as bright a light as possible -- right in it's face.
E-mail letters@tnr.com to let them know what you think. We are also considering a picket of the New Republic Offices, for those interested.
i wonder how that will play on air america which just seems to love those new republic writers.
if you buy ad time, does air america book you? matthew rothschild and the staff of the progressive can't seem to get on but good god if the new republic writers aren't on about as much as their damn ads. (barbara ehrenreich was on the majority report. ehrenreich was filling in for maureen dowd at the new york times and she also writes for the progressive. ehrenreich is also the author of the best seller nickle and dimed.) in these times may as well not exist in air america's eyes. (david sirota has contributes pieces to in these times. when he's on the show al franken's show, franken stresses that he's with the center for american progress.) the progressive and in these times haven't bought air time.
or how about sam seder's war with daniel okrent, public editor of the new york times? he was all over that story. then the new york times bought ad time (and continue to do so) and the outraged sam seder is no longer so outraged. has he even mentioned that okrent declared war on a reader in months? that was a big deal to him and he promised that they would stay on this. hey i forget things all the time myself. maybe he just forgot.
but when the non-left that is the new republic can get booked on pretty much every show that features guests and people from magazines not advertising on the network can't get on, i think it's a question worth asking.
i think another question worth asking is how many majority report listeners were pissed off last night due to sam taking calls from people attacking janeane - but praising him, naturally.
it wasn't funny. it wasn't cute. sam may think he's 'da man' but reality check would tell most people that the show wouldn't exist without janeane. one caller bragged about how janeane was too left but sam's a moderate. that's what we need, a few more moderate voices in this country because lord knows the media just lets the right and the left talk. oh wait, they don't do that.
no, they put centerists on the tube and call them the 'left.'
janeane's not yammering "uh ... uh ... uh." she's also got a name. seder's lucky to be her co-host and should the show attempt to go on without her, it will crash and burn. it's dumbed down npr without janeane. it was disgusting to hear sam chuckling at the callers griping about janeane. he may be carving out a future for himself at the new republic at this rate.
2/05/2005
2/04/2005
simple simon smells the wind and it's not just his crackatoa that's stinking things up
simple simon smells the wind and it's not just his crackatoa that's stinking things up. simon rosenberg is out of the dnc chair race. officially out because it was over for him a long, long time ago. oh sure you had people praising him in astroturf all over the leading "blog" sites.
you had joe trippi endorsing him. josh micey marshy came out for simon.
it should have been deb simon's big coming out party. especially with sam seder and bill scher giving him air kisses during an interview that turned into soft-core porn.
but he couldn't pull it off. because 'third way' is the high way.
because we're tired of sell outs and we're tired of creeps.
and because when others wanted to waffle, the common ills called it like it was.
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2004/12/questions-for-questionable-simon.html
that takes you to 'questions for a questionable simon rosenberg.'
did you read about it from an old school blog star? hell fucking no.
did you see it linked all over the net? no shit way.
but if you were grass roots you probably were e-mailed it.
i sent it out to 6 friends and within 2 weeks it was being sent to me by casual friends writing 'get a load of this! we have to stop rosenberg!'
what killed simon rosenberg's chances for dnc chair?
the damn truth.
and in a blogosphere that is supposed to be so open to the truth you might want to ask yourself why you saw it by visiting the common ills or because someone e-mailed it to you but you didn't see it linked all around blog land.
you might want to ask yourself about the people who made comments about simon's not so bad.
let me quote from an e-mail a blogger sent out to 1 person who complained about the kissing up to slimey simon:
I don't have a strong opinion of Simon Rosenberg. I'm not at the point where I believe Simon is out to get us liberals, despite what he has said in the past. Granted, I have gotten most of my info about him from Kos and Mydd (I've never met him or anything), but the impression I've gotten is that he is a so-called "centrist," but one who understands that you have to work with your base (as opposed to guys like Beinart, Lieberman, etc.).
that's from a blogger. (i scored that e-mail via a trade off.) 1 who could have told the truth about simon but didn't because he got his info, according to him, 'from kos and mydd.'
we're not done with the e-mail:
He ended up giving answers that were vague, designed not to alienate or offend. You can interpret that as a weak, but well-intentioned, attempt to unify the party (and appeal to GOP moderates), or as a nefarious attempt to snow liberals. Considering that he did not join the Stop Dean bandwagon in the primaries, I lean to the former, but of course, you could look at his past comments and lean the other way.
yeah, you fucking could look to his former comments and lean the other way because so many people didn't want to do a reality-check on slimon.
people took passes on seriously addressing simon. you need to ask yourself why that was? why your blog stars wouldn't take the time to look into simon rosenberg's record? why they'd chat him up without ever checking him out? or did they check him out?
let's note the astroturf that surfed on to so many sites:
Simon Rosenberg should NOT be the DNC Chair.
The Blogsphere should NOT support him.
Here is why:
1. Vision
2. National Majority
3. Charisma
4. Youth
5. Internet savvy
6. Integrity
7. Centrism
8. Message
9. Broadmindedness
any 1 of the 9 is fucking laughable. 'integrity?' did they check out his slimey record?
what made them get behind this man tutored by al frum, this man who claimed he was former dlc?
people either lied to you or they didn't do basic research.
what was simon's record? well 1 thing was his support for the war in iraq. before the war started and after. he went on unfiltered and made that statement. he repeated it on the majority report.
that bloggers missed that is amazing because the blogs for both shows exploded in anger at simon. but did any 1 of our big blogs tell you that?
did they tell you that rosenberg felt hugo chavez was a threat? that's really in line with bush-think and that's because the line between neo-con and neo-lib is a very fine line.
you heard a lot of people pushing 1 line and it was 'simon's so cool.' lot of blog bullshit.
and you need to ask yourself why that was?
are they naive? do they support the war?
you might remember some of these bloggers went on the radio after the election and told you ohio was nothing to focus on and that we needed to move on.
cokie fucking roberts couldn't have been more of a gatekeeper than this crowd.
with simon rosenberg they either didn't do their home work (surprising considering all the blog space rosenberg took up) or else they elected not to inform you. they played gatekeeper with you. fuck that shit.
simon had plans to bridge the blogs with the dnc. gee, didn't we see elisabeth bumiller give air kisses to bush for access? and weren't we outraged by that?
i'd hate to think that are blog stars were selling out their readers for possible "access."
so i'm just going to assume they didn't do their basic work. maybe they were too blown away
with the fat dough-boy (charasmatic? come on!!!!!!) to do the work that is expected of them.
there's a lesson here: fuck a "left" wing echo chamber. the truth works more than lies and it always will. simon rosenberg's out and he should be. all the blogs that pushed him (and god almighty the number for that is huge!) couldn't put humpty dumpty simon into a bonafide candidate.
they could astroturf and they could air kiss but they couldn't get over the hump because the hump was a big 1: a mountain of ugly truths.
slimon's out of the race, democracy won.
think of c.i. as buffy the hype slayer. because that's what c.i. does. and c.i.'s the only 1 that told you the truth about simon rosenberg. c.i. looked at slimey's public statements over the years and wrote the post that was a stake in the heart of rosenberg's chances to be dnc chair.
if you didn't read the post before, read it now. and then take that and compare it to what you were told on other blogs.
you need to think too about the lies you were told about the so-called red states. about how you were encouraged to stereotype everyone in those states. because that was management, people. that was trying to take your eyes off the ball. the nation ran several stories on that in the last 2 months - about how the party structure has been allowed to wither across the country. so let's take a moment here to sing the praises of the nation - a great mag and 1 that doesn't silence itself to gain access.
who pushed that shit off on us? the gop started it, the mainstream press ran with it, but bloggers on the "left" damn well should have known better. it sure worked like a charm to make us think we were too "left" for the nation, didn't it? it sure worked when dlc babies like rosenberg tried to take leadership of our party and steer us into a 'third way.'
the new republic was all over the hype, spreading that shit like it was truth. why it got legs in the land of blogs is a question that you need to ask.
david sirota called it, the nation called it and c.i. called it. any 1 coming here knows i'm no fan of big brain and over-forty-and-under-weight. but let's take a moment to note that rachel maddow and lizz winstead asked slimey tough questions. let's take a moment to note that they had more balls than sam seder and bill scher.
i've ragged on the gals before and i'll rag on them again. but big brain and lizz showed guts and committment when they interviewed simon rosenberg. give it up for the ladies and for every 1 who questioned slimon. today democracy scored a victory. and it wasn't a cake walk because you had too many people telling you slimey's cool and neat and wowie.
i read over this and want to clarify something. janeane garofalo was on vacation when slimon oozed onto the majority report. i don't for a minute believe she would have sat silent through that non-inclusive interview. and she sure as hell wouldn't have attacked howard dean after the interview to defend blowing air kisses on simon's belly throughout the interview.
you had joe trippi endorsing him. josh micey marshy came out for simon.
it should have been deb simon's big coming out party. especially with sam seder and bill scher giving him air kisses during an interview that turned into soft-core porn.
but he couldn't pull it off. because 'third way' is the high way.
because we're tired of sell outs and we're tired of creeps.
and because when others wanted to waffle, the common ills called it like it was.
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2004/12/questions-for-questionable-simon.html
that takes you to 'questions for a questionable simon rosenberg.'
did you read about it from an old school blog star? hell fucking no.
did you see it linked all over the net? no shit way.
but if you were grass roots you probably were e-mailed it.
i sent it out to 6 friends and within 2 weeks it was being sent to me by casual friends writing 'get a load of this! we have to stop rosenberg!'
what killed simon rosenberg's chances for dnc chair?
the damn truth.
and in a blogosphere that is supposed to be so open to the truth you might want to ask yourself why you saw it by visiting the common ills or because someone e-mailed it to you but you didn't see it linked all around blog land.
you might want to ask yourself about the people who made comments about simon's not so bad.
let me quote from an e-mail a blogger sent out to 1 person who complained about the kissing up to slimey simon:
I don't have a strong opinion of Simon Rosenberg. I'm not at the point where I believe Simon is out to get us liberals, despite what he has said in the past. Granted, I have gotten most of my info about him from Kos and Mydd (I've never met him or anything), but the impression I've gotten is that he is a so-called "centrist," but one who understands that you have to work with your base (as opposed to guys like Beinart, Lieberman, etc.).
that's from a blogger. (i scored that e-mail via a trade off.) 1 who could have told the truth about simon but didn't because he got his info, according to him, 'from kos and mydd.'
we're not done with the e-mail:
He ended up giving answers that were vague, designed not to alienate or offend. You can interpret that as a weak, but well-intentioned, attempt to unify the party (and appeal to GOP moderates), or as a nefarious attempt to snow liberals. Considering that he did not join the Stop Dean bandwagon in the primaries, I lean to the former, but of course, you could look at his past comments and lean the other way.
yeah, you fucking could look to his former comments and lean the other way because so many people didn't want to do a reality-check on slimon.
people took passes on seriously addressing simon. you need to ask yourself why that was? why your blog stars wouldn't take the time to look into simon rosenberg's record? why they'd chat him up without ever checking him out? or did they check him out?
let's note the astroturf that surfed on to so many sites:
Simon Rosenberg should NOT be the DNC Chair.
The Blogsphere should NOT support him.
Here is why:
1. Vision
2. National Majority
3. Charisma
4. Youth
5. Internet savvy
6. Integrity
7. Centrism
8. Message
9. Broadmindedness
any 1 of the 9 is fucking laughable. 'integrity?' did they check out his slimey record?
what made them get behind this man tutored by al frum, this man who claimed he was former dlc?
people either lied to you or they didn't do basic research.
what was simon's record? well 1 thing was his support for the war in iraq. before the war started and after. he went on unfiltered and made that statement. he repeated it on the majority report.
that bloggers missed that is amazing because the blogs for both shows exploded in anger at simon. but did any 1 of our big blogs tell you that?
did they tell you that rosenberg felt hugo chavez was a threat? that's really in line with bush-think and that's because the line between neo-con and neo-lib is a very fine line.
you heard a lot of people pushing 1 line and it was 'simon's so cool.' lot of blog bullshit.
and you need to ask yourself why that was?
are they naive? do they support the war?
you might remember some of these bloggers went on the radio after the election and told you ohio was nothing to focus on and that we needed to move on.
cokie fucking roberts couldn't have been more of a gatekeeper than this crowd.
with simon rosenberg they either didn't do their home work (surprising considering all the blog space rosenberg took up) or else they elected not to inform you. they played gatekeeper with you. fuck that shit.
simon had plans to bridge the blogs with the dnc. gee, didn't we see elisabeth bumiller give air kisses to bush for access? and weren't we outraged by that?
i'd hate to think that are blog stars were selling out their readers for possible "access."
so i'm just going to assume they didn't do their basic work. maybe they were too blown away
with the fat dough-boy (charasmatic? come on!!!!!!) to do the work that is expected of them.
there's a lesson here: fuck a "left" wing echo chamber. the truth works more than lies and it always will. simon rosenberg's out and he should be. all the blogs that pushed him (and god almighty the number for that is huge!) couldn't put humpty dumpty simon into a bonafide candidate.
they could astroturf and they could air kiss but they couldn't get over the hump because the hump was a big 1: a mountain of ugly truths.
slimon's out of the race, democracy won.
think of c.i. as buffy the hype slayer. because that's what c.i. does. and c.i.'s the only 1 that told you the truth about simon rosenberg. c.i. looked at slimey's public statements over the years and wrote the post that was a stake in the heart of rosenberg's chances to be dnc chair.
if you didn't read the post before, read it now. and then take that and compare it to what you were told on other blogs.
you need to think too about the lies you were told about the so-called red states. about how you were encouraged to stereotype everyone in those states. because that was management, people. that was trying to take your eyes off the ball. the nation ran several stories on that in the last 2 months - about how the party structure has been allowed to wither across the country. so let's take a moment here to sing the praises of the nation - a great mag and 1 that doesn't silence itself to gain access.
who pushed that shit off on us? the gop started it, the mainstream press ran with it, but bloggers on the "left" damn well should have known better. it sure worked like a charm to make us think we were too "left" for the nation, didn't it? it sure worked when dlc babies like rosenberg tried to take leadership of our party and steer us into a 'third way.'
the new republic was all over the hype, spreading that shit like it was truth. why it got legs in the land of blogs is a question that you need to ask.
david sirota called it, the nation called it and c.i. called it. any 1 coming here knows i'm no fan of big brain and over-forty-and-under-weight. but let's take a moment to note that rachel maddow and lizz winstead asked slimey tough questions. let's take a moment to note that they had more balls than sam seder and bill scher.
i've ragged on the gals before and i'll rag on them again. but big brain and lizz showed guts and committment when they interviewed simon rosenberg. give it up for the ladies and for every 1 who questioned slimon. today democracy scored a victory. and it wasn't a cake walk because you had too many people telling you slimey's cool and neat and wowie.
i read over this and want to clarify something. janeane garofalo was on vacation when slimon oozed onto the majority report. i don't for a minute believe she would have sat silent through that non-inclusive interview. and she sure as hell wouldn't have attacked howard dean after the interview to defend blowing air kisses on simon's belly throughout the interview.
2/03/2005
thoughts on joe lie-berman, the mainstream press, npr, nightline and the new york times
so much to deal with today.
i want to start with joe lieberman who's gone from useless to dangerous. ol' lie-berman supports alberto gonzales and finds denying human rights to those at guantanamo bay. what a whiff of sewage he is.
this is the same lie-berman who's made his public image about 'morality.' the same lie-berman who's attacked hollywood at every opportunity for (his belief) promoting violence. but here is actual violence, real violence, and ol' joe finds it 'progressive.'
here's what would be progressive -- voting his priggish and hypocritical ass out of the senate. conn. get on it. get this idiot of the senate.
he's always been a hypocrite. but today it comes home in living, breathing colors.
'bravery' is standing against violence in video games. 'progressive' is torturing people, detaining them without charges. how long are they going to be kept there?
any 1 who's followed the british press even slightly, or democracy now! in this country, is fully aware that the rosy lies are far from true. detainees have tried to kill themselves because they're held in this horrible conditions with no hope of release. people have been tortured there.
but joe's just concerned with video violence. confronted with real world violence, he's quick to dub it 'progressive.' there are many words for ol' lie-berman and the most tactful is hypocrite.
he needs to be called on his bullshit. and the next time he tries to argue that he's a moral person, people need to chant "guantanamo bay, the horrors won't go away! guantanamo bay, the horrors won't go away!"
he was the joke of the democratic primaries. he's gone from silly, useless fool to outright dangerous.
he is not moral by any sense of the word. and he needs to quit speaking of morality and when he tries to, he needs to be called on it.
history will not be kind to joe lie-berman and we shouldn't wait for history to be written.
i've got a lot of e-mails today from so many of you sharing about the woman or man in the office who volunteers, the person on the train or bus, your family, your friends.
you've written wonderful e-mails and i hope you will do more than that. you have done what the media refuses to do and that is to put a face on social security. it's time to take those stories out into our circles. share these wonderful stories not just with me but with the people you know because we are our own media.
which is my main point tonight. we are our own media.
we might not like that but with the mainstream media shirking their responsibilites and unable to do their jobs, we have to. there was a poll they mentioned on npr about how a poll of high school students found that the students didn't trust the media. the 'discussion' brought up cbs and other things. it didn't deal with the reality that students see through the bullshit.
maria's written me two e-mails about her students. and how they've seen the reality of events and the lies of the media.
i think it's very healthy that students don't trust the media. they shouldn't. npr whores for wall street on a regular basis but never has time to address worker's issues on a regular basis.
maria's students see that. at the end of the 2nd hour of morning edition we get some sort of ass wipe 'market watch' every episode.
that's not why npr was created. it was created to provide voices not heard elsewhere. market voices are heard everywhere. finding about the average worker isn't everywhere.
and having accepted funding from wal-mart and running those bullshit commercials for wal-mart means something to me - i never have to donate to npr again. never.
pbs caved last week over postcards from buster. if you've watched arthur, you know that segment. buster is a cartoon bunny rabit. he goes all over the country meeting kids. i remember him meeting 2 young girls who were teaching dance classes. the parents pop up as an after thought. buster was not going to say '2 mommies, wow. well what do they do in bed together?'
pbs caved. and when they did that, they left the children of gay parents invisible. that's not why pbs was created. pbs is not living up to it's mission statement.
it's a lot like nightline in 1 way. people say 'oh ted koppel's such an apologist for kissenger and such a suck up but at least we get serious discussions on nightline.' no we don't. quit kidding yourself. we get the extreme right and the right leaning and the center. that's not a serious discussion.
when the story broke that kissinger had taped or had his secretary transcribe his phone calls when he was secretary of state, i thought 'this is koppel's death blow.' koppel has made kissenger his most frequent guest and always tried to justify it because kissy-poo is so knowledgable (perhaps some day in a war crimes trial, a prosecutor will get to test kissy-poo on his 'knowledge'). but here we had evidence of 'journalist' ted koppel's working with public servent kissinger to get certain stories out.
and it was a yawn.
ted koppel doesn't need your defense. if jimmy kimmel replaced him it would not be a great loss of discussions or conservations. yes, kimmel is tasteless. no, he's not well spoken. but so what? ted koppel is a fake. he plays at news, he doesn't really address news.
and while we're at it, stop defending all the nixon administration cronies. that's ted koppel, diane sawyer, william safire, etc.
the kids are getting it. they realize what a joke our mainstream media is. they realize that the new york times exists not to report the news but to cater to the investment class that saved the paper's ass years and years ago. they didn't break 'watergate.' they didn't break the stories on el salvador or iran contra. they exist to mollify the investment class.
each day, we see more and more "reporters" not reporting. we're all aware of the "news articles" based on what got said on meet the press. or what got written by the washington post.
are we aware that they do not have reporters in afghanistan? (they have "stringers.) they are a joke. they will never break a story.
elisabeth bumiller is their ideal reporter. some 1 totally frivilous who writes mind numbing prose that never reflects reality. the times exists to rush in and say 'nothing to see here, move on.' they are a calming agent, not a news source.
that's why judith miller was never fired. she sold the war and the paper was quite happy to let her. if you know your history, you know that they knew of the bay of pigs ahead of time but elected not to write about it. that's the 'paper of record' for you. they will never break a story because they exist to maintain the status quo.
they will go out of their way to attack people who report news. not just gary webb but sy hersh as well. (hersh used to work for the new york times.) they'll attack molly ivins because she's a populist and they are very much elitists.
i like bob somerby of the daily howler but i sometimes wonder when he gets upset by their reporters using elitist terms to describe some 1. i'm not sure that's meant as an insult. they are elitists. and in their world, those terms are compliments.
you didn't hear them talk that way about bill clinton. they hated him because he was 'common.'
and whitewater and the sex scandals took hold at the new york times because the elitists saw that as confirming how common he was; how unlike them.
their hatred for bill and hillary is not about being 'left' (neither are left), it's about them being common. jodi wilgoren's been shunted off to the chicago division because, frankly, she's at odds with the term 'photogenic.' the human cod liver pill that is adam nagourney is no rose but he comes off as 'educated.' jodi comes off, in speaking and visuals, like roseanne barr's younger sister. short of living off slim fast for a few years and taking speaking lessons, she'll never get very far at the times.
she's kidding herself if she thinks she'll ever fit in. she was used as the bomber to take to out howard dean and she proved to be quite adept at that task. but jodi never seems to note that while every 1 else uses the main entrance, she's using the servents. while every 1 eles shows up for dinner, she's doing the clean up. she's the hazel to their moneyed class.
which actually delights me because she's proven she's a killer. she's dropped her bombs on dean and kerry to curry favor with the 'elites' at the paper. she's felt they were behind her. and that she was fitting in. they were supportive of her attacks, but they were using the fat, frumpy, squawking wilgoren. and when that reality sets in, when she realizes she's hit the unattrative ceiling reserved for the 'common man' and 'common woman,' she'll probably explode and hopefully turn that anger into an expose.
wilgoren works for a paper that regularly celebrates trophy wives in the business section. in the business section! the paper's never supported feminism and gail collins probably already realizes that from the editorial attack on now. if she were seen as classy and having married up the way judith miller has, wilgoren might be okay. but she's married a guy in the theater who's last name isn't sondheim. she might as well have married the first survivor reject to be voted off the island.
if that awakening ever comes for jodi wilgoren, i hope her inner rage is directed not at the people she's reporting on but at the paper itself, i hope she's smart enough to not make a right-left attack on the paper. it's a class issue. and if she turns all that rage into documenting the 'elite' mindset at the times and what they really think of their readers, she could take the paper down.
i want to start with joe lieberman who's gone from useless to dangerous. ol' lie-berman supports alberto gonzales and finds denying human rights to those at guantanamo bay. what a whiff of sewage he is.
this is the same lie-berman who's made his public image about 'morality.' the same lie-berman who's attacked hollywood at every opportunity for (his belief) promoting violence. but here is actual violence, real violence, and ol' joe finds it 'progressive.'
here's what would be progressive -- voting his priggish and hypocritical ass out of the senate. conn. get on it. get this idiot of the senate.
he's always been a hypocrite. but today it comes home in living, breathing colors.
'bravery' is standing against violence in video games. 'progressive' is torturing people, detaining them without charges. how long are they going to be kept there?
any 1 who's followed the british press even slightly, or democracy now! in this country, is fully aware that the rosy lies are far from true. detainees have tried to kill themselves because they're held in this horrible conditions with no hope of release. people have been tortured there.
but joe's just concerned with video violence. confronted with real world violence, he's quick to dub it 'progressive.' there are many words for ol' lie-berman and the most tactful is hypocrite.
he needs to be called on his bullshit. and the next time he tries to argue that he's a moral person, people need to chant "guantanamo bay, the horrors won't go away! guantanamo bay, the horrors won't go away!"
he was the joke of the democratic primaries. he's gone from silly, useless fool to outright dangerous.
he is not moral by any sense of the word. and he needs to quit speaking of morality and when he tries to, he needs to be called on it.
history will not be kind to joe lie-berman and we shouldn't wait for history to be written.
i've got a lot of e-mails today from so many of you sharing about the woman or man in the office who volunteers, the person on the train or bus, your family, your friends.
you've written wonderful e-mails and i hope you will do more than that. you have done what the media refuses to do and that is to put a face on social security. it's time to take those stories out into our circles. share these wonderful stories not just with me but with the people you know because we are our own media.
which is my main point tonight. we are our own media.
we might not like that but with the mainstream media shirking their responsibilites and unable to do their jobs, we have to. there was a poll they mentioned on npr about how a poll of high school students found that the students didn't trust the media. the 'discussion' brought up cbs and other things. it didn't deal with the reality that students see through the bullshit.
maria's written me two e-mails about her students. and how they've seen the reality of events and the lies of the media.
i think it's very healthy that students don't trust the media. they shouldn't. npr whores for wall street on a regular basis but never has time to address worker's issues on a regular basis.
maria's students see that. at the end of the 2nd hour of morning edition we get some sort of ass wipe 'market watch' every episode.
that's not why npr was created. it was created to provide voices not heard elsewhere. market voices are heard everywhere. finding about the average worker isn't everywhere.
and having accepted funding from wal-mart and running those bullshit commercials for wal-mart means something to me - i never have to donate to npr again. never.
pbs caved last week over postcards from buster. if you've watched arthur, you know that segment. buster is a cartoon bunny rabit. he goes all over the country meeting kids. i remember him meeting 2 young girls who were teaching dance classes. the parents pop up as an after thought. buster was not going to say '2 mommies, wow. well what do they do in bed together?'
pbs caved. and when they did that, they left the children of gay parents invisible. that's not why pbs was created. pbs is not living up to it's mission statement.
it's a lot like nightline in 1 way. people say 'oh ted koppel's such an apologist for kissenger and such a suck up but at least we get serious discussions on nightline.' no we don't. quit kidding yourself. we get the extreme right and the right leaning and the center. that's not a serious discussion.
when the story broke that kissinger had taped or had his secretary transcribe his phone calls when he was secretary of state, i thought 'this is koppel's death blow.' koppel has made kissenger his most frequent guest and always tried to justify it because kissy-poo is so knowledgable (perhaps some day in a war crimes trial, a prosecutor will get to test kissy-poo on his 'knowledge'). but here we had evidence of 'journalist' ted koppel's working with public servent kissinger to get certain stories out.
and it was a yawn.
ted koppel doesn't need your defense. if jimmy kimmel replaced him it would not be a great loss of discussions or conservations. yes, kimmel is tasteless. no, he's not well spoken. but so what? ted koppel is a fake. he plays at news, he doesn't really address news.
and while we're at it, stop defending all the nixon administration cronies. that's ted koppel, diane sawyer, william safire, etc.
the kids are getting it. they realize what a joke our mainstream media is. they realize that the new york times exists not to report the news but to cater to the investment class that saved the paper's ass years and years ago. they didn't break 'watergate.' they didn't break the stories on el salvador or iran contra. they exist to mollify the investment class.
each day, we see more and more "reporters" not reporting. we're all aware of the "news articles" based on what got said on meet the press. or what got written by the washington post.
are we aware that they do not have reporters in afghanistan? (they have "stringers.) they are a joke. they will never break a story.
elisabeth bumiller is their ideal reporter. some 1 totally frivilous who writes mind numbing prose that never reflects reality. the times exists to rush in and say 'nothing to see here, move on.' they are a calming agent, not a news source.
that's why judith miller was never fired. she sold the war and the paper was quite happy to let her. if you know your history, you know that they knew of the bay of pigs ahead of time but elected not to write about it. that's the 'paper of record' for you. they will never break a story because they exist to maintain the status quo.
they will go out of their way to attack people who report news. not just gary webb but sy hersh as well. (hersh used to work for the new york times.) they'll attack molly ivins because she's a populist and they are very much elitists.
i like bob somerby of the daily howler but i sometimes wonder when he gets upset by their reporters using elitist terms to describe some 1. i'm not sure that's meant as an insult. they are elitists. and in their world, those terms are compliments.
you didn't hear them talk that way about bill clinton. they hated him because he was 'common.'
and whitewater and the sex scandals took hold at the new york times because the elitists saw that as confirming how common he was; how unlike them.
their hatred for bill and hillary is not about being 'left' (neither are left), it's about them being common. jodi wilgoren's been shunted off to the chicago division because, frankly, she's at odds with the term 'photogenic.' the human cod liver pill that is adam nagourney is no rose but he comes off as 'educated.' jodi comes off, in speaking and visuals, like roseanne barr's younger sister. short of living off slim fast for a few years and taking speaking lessons, she'll never get very far at the times.
she's kidding herself if she thinks she'll ever fit in. she was used as the bomber to take to out howard dean and she proved to be quite adept at that task. but jodi never seems to note that while every 1 else uses the main entrance, she's using the servents. while every 1 eles shows up for dinner, she's doing the clean up. she's the hazel to their moneyed class.
which actually delights me because she's proven she's a killer. she's dropped her bombs on dean and kerry to curry favor with the 'elites' at the paper. she's felt they were behind her. and that she was fitting in. they were supportive of her attacks, but they were using the fat, frumpy, squawking wilgoren. and when that reality sets in, when she realizes she's hit the unattrative ceiling reserved for the 'common man' and 'common woman,' she'll probably explode and hopefully turn that anger into an expose.
wilgoren works for a paper that regularly celebrates trophy wives in the business section. in the business section! the paper's never supported feminism and gail collins probably already realizes that from the editorial attack on now. if she were seen as classy and having married up the way judith miller has, wilgoren might be okay. but she's married a guy in the theater who's last name isn't sondheim. she might as well have married the first survivor reject to be voted off the island.
if that awakening ever comes for jodi wilgoren, i hope her inner rage is directed not at the people she's reporting on but at the paper itself, i hope she's smart enough to not make a right-left attack on the paper. it's a class issue. and if she turns all that rage into documenting the 'elite' mindset at the times and what they really think of their readers, she could take the paper down.
2/02/2005
the bully boy speaks -- check for the ear piece and transmitter
the bully boy speaks tonight. check for the ear piece and transmitter as he drones on about social security is headed for ruin.
why? coz he wants to please wall street by turning over our monies that would go to social security over to them. it's a windfall for them. it's a loser for us. i lost money in 2002. i have friends who lost money in 2002. including 1 who thought she could retire in 2003. she's still working. trying to rebuild the money that is lost.
privatizing social security will remove the safety net that is supposed to be part of an advanced society. this is not just about the elderly, this is also about the handicapped.
i know you hear a lot of numbers and sherry says they are mind numbing and over her head. forget the numbers for a moment and just look around you. that's what i want you to do tomorrow. look at the people around you.
there's that senior you see every morning in her jogging suit out walking. there's the kid in the wheel chair who always waves at you. who's helping them?
who is going to help them?
and i want you to ask yourself why did we ever start up the social security program to begin with? we started it because it was necessary because so many elderly people were living in poverty. some of them had invested in the stock market. the great depression isn't all that long ago.
right now we have guaranteed benefits. all of us. and the bully boy wants to trash that. he wants to give us the "right" of "ownership." we already own social security. it is our program and it has lifted so many up from extreme poverty. 'personal accounts' will not lift us up.
i want you to think about some stories that the center for american progress has highlighted
at http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=312901 like this 1:
"I live on $700 a month in Social Security disability, no food stamps, no welfare, just a $700 Social Security check each month. I worked from the time I was 14 years old, I am now 50 and can no longer work. I depend on the Social Security system to survive."
to any who say 'oh, but, rebecca, the bully boy is talking about younger generations' i say there's no such fixed thing. none of us stay young forever. maybe cher, god bless her, but the rest of us are getting older. today's 17 year old thinking she can invest in a 'personal account' is tomorrow's 62 year old finding out she better like wearing a blue smock because she'll be a wal-mart greeter for the rest of her life since the market wasn't her 'buddy.'
how about this woman's story, also from the center for american progress:
I am 10 years older than the letter writer. I remember when some older folks without funds lived out their days at a county poor farm. Some older women had to work as domestics for little or no pay wherever they could find a place to sleep, perhaps as caretaker for a disabled person or as housekeeper in a single man's home…
is that how you see yourself on down the line? is that your idea of 'quality of life.'
randi rhodes has this great line about the anti-choice wing nuts: "support the fetus, hate the child!" the bully boy's plan can be summed up as 'support the market, starve the elderly and disabled.'
if you're some 1 who needs talking points, the center for american progress has them, http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=309712:
Social Security privatization refers to the replacement of part of Social Security with a system of individual accounts. Part of workers' payroll would go into individual accounts, instead of paying for promised benefits.
With individual accounts, the risks of saving for retirement are privatized.
Workers are no longer protected from large stock market fluctuations, from the risk of running out of money in the middle of retirement, and from unforeseen spells of unemployment and low earnings during their working careers.
there are more there if you need talking points to understand the issue.
i don't need talking points and i honestly don't think you need them. all you need is your own eyes and the desire to use them. look around your own neighborhood. think of how many people are effected. look in the mirror too coz i don't care if you're 16 or 70, you've got some wrinkles. if you're young and can't picture yourself ever effected, go stand in the front of the mirror and study those fine lines closely. it may seem like retirement is something that will never happen to you. i used to feel that way about death myself.
but we are all getting older and this effects us all.
the bully boy can spin and lie all he wants. but he cannot stop the aging process and neither can you. this is not something for the elderly to worry about alone or something the baby boomers need to focus on only. this is about all of us. and it is about the kind of country we want to have and the kind of people we want to be.
if you're all for destroying the safety net that has lifted so many, i seriously wonder how you relate to any 1. if we are a caring people, a humane people, then we have to strive to make sure that we are all protected. that is what social security has done. that is what it can continue to do.
it is not going bankrupt. for it to do that, the whole country would have to go bankrupt. the bully boy wants to scare you so bad that you tremble and scream, 'good lord, save us!' there's nothing to save you from. this is as trumped up as one of homeland security's warnings during the election cycle. there is no crisis.
no 1's saying 'we're headed for a crisis on national defense spending!' they never say that. there's always money for that. after 9-11, you'd think some might ask what all that money went to since in the end it didn't buy us any protection at all. but they'll continue to find money for that.
it's more nonsense from the bully boy who thinks if he scares enough we'll ignore reality and march in lock step with him while pleading 'save us, save us.'
reality is all around you. use your own eyes tomorrow. if you need more than that, ask around. talk to people who's lives have been lifted and are lifted by social security. you might find out 1 of your best friends depended on social security because she lost her father before she was 10.
you might find out that a neighbor who's struggling to make the increased fuel payment in this cold winter is barely getting by but wouldn't even be making it without social security.
the bully boy is using scare tactics. as usual. and when people are scared, they don't think clearly. so take a breath and look around.
sherry says that all the facts and figures tend to overwhelm her. that happens with a lot of people. so if all the talk of numbers is just confusing you, find real life examples in your area. it's not hard to do. this is a successful program that has helped many and it is a necessary program.
he lied us into war and now he wants to lie us into extreme poverty in our old age. remember that. and do what the mainstream media won't do for you, put a face on the issue so that it's not just numbers but actually has meaning to you.
why? coz he wants to please wall street by turning over our monies that would go to social security over to them. it's a windfall for them. it's a loser for us. i lost money in 2002. i have friends who lost money in 2002. including 1 who thought she could retire in 2003. she's still working. trying to rebuild the money that is lost.
privatizing social security will remove the safety net that is supposed to be part of an advanced society. this is not just about the elderly, this is also about the handicapped.
i know you hear a lot of numbers and sherry says they are mind numbing and over her head. forget the numbers for a moment and just look around you. that's what i want you to do tomorrow. look at the people around you.
there's that senior you see every morning in her jogging suit out walking. there's the kid in the wheel chair who always waves at you. who's helping them?
who is going to help them?
and i want you to ask yourself why did we ever start up the social security program to begin with? we started it because it was necessary because so many elderly people were living in poverty. some of them had invested in the stock market. the great depression isn't all that long ago.
right now we have guaranteed benefits. all of us. and the bully boy wants to trash that. he wants to give us the "right" of "ownership." we already own social security. it is our program and it has lifted so many up from extreme poverty. 'personal accounts' will not lift us up.
i want you to think about some stories that the center for american progress has highlighted
at http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=312901 like this 1:
"I live on $700 a month in Social Security disability, no food stamps, no welfare, just a $700 Social Security check each month. I worked from the time I was 14 years old, I am now 50 and can no longer work. I depend on the Social Security system to survive."
to any who say 'oh, but, rebecca, the bully boy is talking about younger generations' i say there's no such fixed thing. none of us stay young forever. maybe cher, god bless her, but the rest of us are getting older. today's 17 year old thinking she can invest in a 'personal account' is tomorrow's 62 year old finding out she better like wearing a blue smock because she'll be a wal-mart greeter for the rest of her life since the market wasn't her 'buddy.'
how about this woman's story, also from the center for american progress:
I am 10 years older than the letter writer. I remember when some older folks without funds lived out their days at a county poor farm. Some older women had to work as domestics for little or no pay wherever they could find a place to sleep, perhaps as caretaker for a disabled person or as housekeeper in a single man's home…
is that how you see yourself on down the line? is that your idea of 'quality of life.'
randi rhodes has this great line about the anti-choice wing nuts: "support the fetus, hate the child!" the bully boy's plan can be summed up as 'support the market, starve the elderly and disabled.'
if you're some 1 who needs talking points, the center for american progress has them, http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=309712:
Social Security privatization refers to the replacement of part of Social Security with a system of individual accounts. Part of workers' payroll would go into individual accounts, instead of paying for promised benefits.
With individual accounts, the risks of saving for retirement are privatized.
Workers are no longer protected from large stock market fluctuations, from the risk of running out of money in the middle of retirement, and from unforeseen spells of unemployment and low earnings during their working careers.
there are more there if you need talking points to understand the issue.
i don't need talking points and i honestly don't think you need them. all you need is your own eyes and the desire to use them. look around your own neighborhood. think of how many people are effected. look in the mirror too coz i don't care if you're 16 or 70, you've got some wrinkles. if you're young and can't picture yourself ever effected, go stand in the front of the mirror and study those fine lines closely. it may seem like retirement is something that will never happen to you. i used to feel that way about death myself.
but we are all getting older and this effects us all.
the bully boy can spin and lie all he wants. but he cannot stop the aging process and neither can you. this is not something for the elderly to worry about alone or something the baby boomers need to focus on only. this is about all of us. and it is about the kind of country we want to have and the kind of people we want to be.
if you're all for destroying the safety net that has lifted so many, i seriously wonder how you relate to any 1. if we are a caring people, a humane people, then we have to strive to make sure that we are all protected. that is what social security has done. that is what it can continue to do.
it is not going bankrupt. for it to do that, the whole country would have to go bankrupt. the bully boy wants to scare you so bad that you tremble and scream, 'good lord, save us!' there's nothing to save you from. this is as trumped up as one of homeland security's warnings during the election cycle. there is no crisis.
no 1's saying 'we're headed for a crisis on national defense spending!' they never say that. there's always money for that. after 9-11, you'd think some might ask what all that money went to since in the end it didn't buy us any protection at all. but they'll continue to find money for that.
it's more nonsense from the bully boy who thinks if he scares enough we'll ignore reality and march in lock step with him while pleading 'save us, save us.'
reality is all around you. use your own eyes tomorrow. if you need more than that, ask around. talk to people who's lives have been lifted and are lifted by social security. you might find out 1 of your best friends depended on social security because she lost her father before she was 10.
you might find out that a neighbor who's struggling to make the increased fuel payment in this cold winter is barely getting by but wouldn't even be making it without social security.
the bully boy is using scare tactics. as usual. and when people are scared, they don't think clearly. so take a breath and look around.
sherry says that all the facts and figures tend to overwhelm her. that happens with a lot of people. so if all the talk of numbers is just confusing you, find real life examples in your area. it's not hard to do. this is a successful program that has helped many and it is a necessary program.
he lied us into war and now he wants to lie us into extreme poverty in our old age. remember that. and do what the mainstream media won't do for you, put a face on the issue so that it's not just numbers but actually has meaning to you.
a prying lying ass e-mails me
i'm going to share an e-mail i got and i'll be kind and not the name person:
Greetings,
Great piece on Marty Boring And Bald Frost! Read it, loved it. Here's my question: how do you know the man or woman who runs The Common Ills? Are you employed by him or her? Is he or she employed by you? Since you have given out your first name, Rebecca, I think you should give out your last name as well. You write a lot about sex so I think it is pertinent if you are having sex with him or her, please disclose. Reading over your posts, I notice how frequently you refer to loving him or her and that you even say that he or she "may be the last living genius on the globe." Reading that I had to wonder what your relationship was. You've written of trips with him or her so you should disclose not only where you went but who paid for what. Exactly when did you two meet and what is the nature of your current relationship? You say that you were in D.C. at the protests. Were you with the man or woman who runs The Common Ills?
These questions go to basic fairness and the free flow of information so I will hope you will take them in the spirit they are asked in.
Salutations,
***********************
i don't have a policy like the common ills and if you ever e-mail me again with lies, i will name you.
i have praised the common ills, c.i., and i am a community member of the common ills. that's been disclosed from the start on both blogs.
i have never written of a trip with c.i. i have never claimed that c.i. and i were lovers. i have never written that c.i. is 'the last living genius on the globe.' i wouldn't even say 'on the globe.'
if i were to write that, which i didn't, i would write, like most people, 'on the face of the planet.'
you are not quoting or referencing anything i have written.
it seems to me you are on some sort of fishing expedition and you're willing to lie to try to trick some 1 into revealing something. i have revealed the nature of my relationship. i have never gone on a trip with c.i. nor have i slept with c.i. when you say that not only have i done that but i have written about that you are lying. and i did not go to d.c. and i never wrote that i did. you are lying. lying. lying. lying.
you seem to think that i will read your e-mail and reveal something in my reply to you. there is nothing to reveal. and you are either mental or you are a liar.
i understand now why c.i. is frustrated with your questions (no, c.i. didn't tell me that, it's obvious though if you read the common ills blog).
you lie and think your lies throw some 1 for a loop and they'll end up saying something while they try to explain. i do not know what you are fishing for but do not ever pull that shit with me again. i will print your 1st name and your last name.
you do not have questions because that's not really what it's about. you're on some info seeking mission. and you think by lying about what i blogged you will trip me up and make me slip.
i haven't been blogging for months now. that's where you made your mistake. i also do not blog several times a day. and i have missed days since i started. it would take me 30 minutes tops to read through my blog.
but i don't have to. i know what i wrote. and i know what has happened in my life. you are lying to try to trip me up about something. maybe you just want info on c.i. maybe you want it on me too. i don't know.
but i do not like this type of shit and if you ever try to pull it on me again, i will out you. i'm trying to figure out if you're just some nosy asshole who gets her kicks from prying out info or if you are some sort of j-ass worker. you don't even lie well. and my name is rebecca winters and it is up and has been up since i started blogging. you do not even have to go to 'more about me' because it is right there up on the main page. so you aren't just a liar, you're a stupid liar.
do us both a favor and do not ever write me again. and if you try to under another name, i'll know it's you. i know what i write about and i don't need you to lie about what i wrote. so take your lies and shove them up your ass and mind your own goddamn business.
Greetings,
Great piece on Marty Boring And Bald Frost! Read it, loved it. Here's my question: how do you know the man or woman who runs The Common Ills? Are you employed by him or her? Is he or she employed by you? Since you have given out your first name, Rebecca, I think you should give out your last name as well. You write a lot about sex so I think it is pertinent if you are having sex with him or her, please disclose. Reading over your posts, I notice how frequently you refer to loving him or her and that you even say that he or she "may be the last living genius on the globe." Reading that I had to wonder what your relationship was. You've written of trips with him or her so you should disclose not only where you went but who paid for what. Exactly when did you two meet and what is the nature of your current relationship? You say that you were in D.C. at the protests. Were you with the man or woman who runs The Common Ills?
These questions go to basic fairness and the free flow of information so I will hope you will take them in the spirit they are asked in.
Salutations,
***********************
i don't have a policy like the common ills and if you ever e-mail me again with lies, i will name you.
i have praised the common ills, c.i., and i am a community member of the common ills. that's been disclosed from the start on both blogs.
i have never written of a trip with c.i. i have never claimed that c.i. and i were lovers. i have never written that c.i. is 'the last living genius on the globe.' i wouldn't even say 'on the globe.'
if i were to write that, which i didn't, i would write, like most people, 'on the face of the planet.'
you are not quoting or referencing anything i have written.
it seems to me you are on some sort of fishing expedition and you're willing to lie to try to trick some 1 into revealing something. i have revealed the nature of my relationship. i have never gone on a trip with c.i. nor have i slept with c.i. when you say that not only have i done that but i have written about that you are lying. and i did not go to d.c. and i never wrote that i did. you are lying. lying. lying. lying.
you seem to think that i will read your e-mail and reveal something in my reply to you. there is nothing to reveal. and you are either mental or you are a liar.
i understand now why c.i. is frustrated with your questions (no, c.i. didn't tell me that, it's obvious though if you read the common ills blog).
you lie and think your lies throw some 1 for a loop and they'll end up saying something while they try to explain. i do not know what you are fishing for but do not ever pull that shit with me again. i will print your 1st name and your last name.
you do not have questions because that's not really what it's about. you're on some info seeking mission. and you think by lying about what i blogged you will trip me up and make me slip.
i haven't been blogging for months now. that's where you made your mistake. i also do not blog several times a day. and i have missed days since i started. it would take me 30 minutes tops to read through my blog.
but i don't have to. i know what i wrote. and i know what has happened in my life. you are lying to try to trip me up about something. maybe you just want info on c.i. maybe you want it on me too. i don't know.
but i do not like this type of shit and if you ever try to pull it on me again, i will out you. i'm trying to figure out if you're just some nosy asshole who gets her kicks from prying out info or if you are some sort of j-ass worker. you don't even lie well. and my name is rebecca winters and it is up and has been up since i started blogging. you do not even have to go to 'more about me' because it is right there up on the main page. so you aren't just a liar, you're a stupid liar.
do us both a favor and do not ever write me again. and if you try to under another name, i'll know it's you. i know what i write about and i don't need you to lie about what i wrote. so take your lies and shove them up your ass and mind your own goddamn business.
2/01/2005
bald and boring drops out of race after getting the message and the human cod liver oil pill adam nagourney missed it
so bald and boring dropped on out of the race. if you read the common ills monday, you read that ol' ad nags, adam nagourney, the human cod liver pill, got it wrong. i e-mailed c.i. and said what did ad nags get wrong? not because i doubted c.i. but because i was curious.
c.i. wrote back the story isn't donnie fowler or howard dean, the story is that behind the scenes martin frost was being rejected. that's what was going on. so reading ad nags over after that e-mail it was obvious he was back pedaling the real story.
ol' ad nags wanted to frame it as 'howard dean is on the ropes' or donnie's on the rise coz of his pops. that was not the story. the story was that bald and boring was rejected.
why?
because he represents the failure that is the party. because he represents the insider culture that is grossly out of touch. because people have been weighing in about his refusal to proudly proclaim 'i am a democrat.' and mainly because frost can go on the attack and the party wanted to avoid that.
so did ad nags lie?
c.i. said either ad nags had bad information or he chose to distort it.
why would he choose to distort it?
because he was doing payback to frost. that part is me, not c.i. ad nags has sucked up so hard into the ruling class that he can't tell the truth because there's not an elected dem that can't call in a marker.
or maybe because he's just lazy and has bad sources. if so, he shouldn't be the chief political correspondent for the paper but it's a crappy paper so maybe it doesn't matter.
and had cod liver oil's writing is better than reading anything that jodi wilgoren could wrap her sizeable girth around.
but he got it wrong.
that really doesn't seem to matter much to the new york times. they get it wrong all the time. but they're a nice lap dog so they are happy as long as it does not enrage the power structure.
before any 1 e-mails -- you took c.i.'s scoop, i did have permission. i was asked to wait until bald and boring made it official by dropping out of the race. c.i. wanted to protect the source who provided the info and said that this way it was once removed - c.i. has info, c.i. passes it on to me and we're all in the clear.
i'll e-mail this entry to c.i. so they can link to it.
what happened sunday was not about dean or about fowler, the story - the one ad nags didn't tell you about on monday - was that martin frost was being forced out of the race.
donnie's supporters did lobby frost supporters. they were never going to for dean.
but it was explained and argued at length that bald and boring was not the 1 to sit in the dnc chair.
and ad nags turned it into a war against howard dean when it was really a message of 'drop out frost.'
c.i. knows fowler and asked that when i write about this i stress that although donald fowler is admired the support for donnie was not coz he was 'donald's son.' donnie fowler is impressive in his own right. and the point was to get frost out of the race because if dean does get the chair, they did not want frost doing his usual slash and burn.
bald and boring did his slash and burn when he was briefly competing with nancy pelosi for the minority post in the house. started playing by the gop handbook and calling her a 'san francisco democrat.' the thought that he might start labeling dean in a similar way worried the party leaders.
that was the main point that pulled the frost supporters over into donnie's camp because dean stands a real chance of winning and the party didn't want to risk bald and boring going nasty and handing over ammo that could be tossed out for the next 4 years: 'yes anchor person i hear what dr. dean is saying but as martin frost pointed out when he was running against you, dr. dean ...'
the message being sent was clear to frost. so ad nags missed it in his story. maybe he owed frost a favor? maybe he had an axe to grind against dean? maybe he just knew 'shock to dean' would attract more readers than the truth 'bald and boring pushed out.' but he missed the story.
either ad nags can't get the inside info or else he's willing to distort for some reason. whatever.
point is that when you see ad nags's name, you should remember this and realize that just because he puts it in print does not make it true.
c.i. wrote back the story isn't donnie fowler or howard dean, the story is that behind the scenes martin frost was being rejected. that's what was going on. so reading ad nags over after that e-mail it was obvious he was back pedaling the real story.
ol' ad nags wanted to frame it as 'howard dean is on the ropes' or donnie's on the rise coz of his pops. that was not the story. the story was that bald and boring was rejected.
why?
because he represents the failure that is the party. because he represents the insider culture that is grossly out of touch. because people have been weighing in about his refusal to proudly proclaim 'i am a democrat.' and mainly because frost can go on the attack and the party wanted to avoid that.
so did ad nags lie?
c.i. said either ad nags had bad information or he chose to distort it.
why would he choose to distort it?
because he was doing payback to frost. that part is me, not c.i. ad nags has sucked up so hard into the ruling class that he can't tell the truth because there's not an elected dem that can't call in a marker.
or maybe because he's just lazy and has bad sources. if so, he shouldn't be the chief political correspondent for the paper but it's a crappy paper so maybe it doesn't matter.
and had cod liver oil's writing is better than reading anything that jodi wilgoren could wrap her sizeable girth around.
but he got it wrong.
that really doesn't seem to matter much to the new york times. they get it wrong all the time. but they're a nice lap dog so they are happy as long as it does not enrage the power structure.
before any 1 e-mails -- you took c.i.'s scoop, i did have permission. i was asked to wait until bald and boring made it official by dropping out of the race. c.i. wanted to protect the source who provided the info and said that this way it was once removed - c.i. has info, c.i. passes it on to me and we're all in the clear.
i'll e-mail this entry to c.i. so they can link to it.
what happened sunday was not about dean or about fowler, the story - the one ad nags didn't tell you about on monday - was that martin frost was being forced out of the race.
donnie's supporters did lobby frost supporters. they were never going to for dean.
but it was explained and argued at length that bald and boring was not the 1 to sit in the dnc chair.
and ad nags turned it into a war against howard dean when it was really a message of 'drop out frost.'
c.i. knows fowler and asked that when i write about this i stress that although donald fowler is admired the support for donnie was not coz he was 'donald's son.' donnie fowler is impressive in his own right. and the point was to get frost out of the race because if dean does get the chair, they did not want frost doing his usual slash and burn.
bald and boring did his slash and burn when he was briefly competing with nancy pelosi for the minority post in the house. started playing by the gop handbook and calling her a 'san francisco democrat.' the thought that he might start labeling dean in a similar way worried the party leaders.
that was the main point that pulled the frost supporters over into donnie's camp because dean stands a real chance of winning and the party didn't want to risk bald and boring going nasty and handing over ammo that could be tossed out for the next 4 years: 'yes anchor person i hear what dr. dean is saying but as martin frost pointed out when he was running against you, dr. dean ...'
the message being sent was clear to frost. so ad nags missed it in his story. maybe he owed frost a favor? maybe he had an axe to grind against dean? maybe he just knew 'shock to dean' would attract more readers than the truth 'bald and boring pushed out.' but he missed the story.
either ad nags can't get the inside info or else he's willing to distort for some reason. whatever.
point is that when you see ad nags's name, you should remember this and realize that just because he puts it in print does not make it true.
1/31/2005
panting over parenti
just heard that green day will be on the grammys. i hope that means performing. any 1 know for sure?
in other good news, i read a 2 great interviews with christian parenti (thank you sherry for the 1 from digger, thank you common ills for the mother jones one).
dahr jamail or christian? christian or dahr?
it's such a hard decision to make.
those of you who cited the other christian, the 1 from cnn, have it so much easier.
today, i was thinking dahr might not be a good shot. he'd be wanting to rush off and save the world but not from the bedroom and he'd be off in some dangerous place. he's like chris hedges only more so. (chris hedges has to be the hottest man at the new york times and he may be the only 1. change that to only 1 under 40. i think they have some policy that says they'll only hire you if your overweight or ugly when you're under 40. adam nagourney looks like a cod liver pill come to life for instance.)
and reading the common ills post about the late john hess really made me think:
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/articles-by-john-l-hess-that-you.html
here's what had me thinking:
Tori : Howard Zinn is still an important voice but he and Chomsky are not getting any younger. Gloria Steinem looks wonderful but she's getting older as well. The voices I looked to ten years ago as a teenager have largely remained strong but I'm not finding a lot of new voices to replace to them. And when we do have a new voice, it's someone like Dahr [Jamail] who's reporting from Iraq and we could lose at any minute. You asked for us to provide voices who speak to us. My voices have been covered on the blog and I've learned of Amy Goodman, Nancy Chang and Naomi Klein. But I'm hungry for additional new voices that matter so please share if you find someone who speaks to you. We'll all end up better because you do.
tori is so right. christian risks his life but comes back to this country all the time. dahr's over there hunting down the truth.
i read that last night and had the weirdest dream.
christian and dahr were 'cock knocking' around iraq. i have no idea what that term is supposed to mean but it still gives me tingles.
they were hunting down stories and trying to figure out what to do about me. 'rebecca is waiting.' and then dahr says 'i know but this is where the story is. this is where the action is.'
and christian's nodding. then dahr starts talking about my body and christian's sticks his hand in his pocket and while they're walking and talking about me, racks up a damn impressive score in pocket pool.
christian's only half listening to dahr extoll my virtues (body, mind & soul). his eyes are fluttering and his face is sweating and he's picturing me waiting back here.
dahr's saying 'it's good we're both committed to getting out this story' and christian snaps out of it and starts making up this excuse about not feeling well.
dahr looks over at him and notices he's covered in sweat. 'dude, you don't look. the sun set forever ago and you're sweating like a pig.'
christian says 'yeah, i should head back.'
and before dahr can respond, christian's out of sight and on his way to me.
tossing principals out the window, he storms into my home and announces that dahr's fallen in love with some woman in jordan and will be marrying shortly.
angry and upset, i make wild passionate love to christian.
i woke up feeling so guilty.
but then, almost a like a sign, on democracy now today, there's christian.
CHRISTIAN PARENTI: Well, I mean, yeah. Who knows what's going to happen? I can't predict. It seems that the strategy at this point is to make the Shia political leadership feel threatened by the Sunni insurgency. There's been this spate of assassination and assassination attempts and probably to essentially blackmail the Shia into continuing to accept US occupation as the price of their survival. But the fact of the matter is that the Shia leadership and the Shia rank and file, all Iraqis, want the US out and that problem is not going to go away for the US. So, how far it plays out, I don't know. But I don't think it's going to be -- I don't think this is an easy victory for the Bush Administration.
to watch the hot hot hot christian go to: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/31/1517212
so see, we got a little music, a little politics and a little sex. if you've ever heard the term "cock knocking" e-mail me because i still can't figure that 1 out.
in other good news, i read a 2 great interviews with christian parenti (thank you sherry for the 1 from digger, thank you common ills for the mother jones one).
dahr jamail or christian? christian or dahr?
it's such a hard decision to make.
those of you who cited the other christian, the 1 from cnn, have it so much easier.
today, i was thinking dahr might not be a good shot. he'd be wanting to rush off and save the world but not from the bedroom and he'd be off in some dangerous place. he's like chris hedges only more so. (chris hedges has to be the hottest man at the new york times and he may be the only 1. change that to only 1 under 40. i think they have some policy that says they'll only hire you if your overweight or ugly when you're under 40. adam nagourney looks like a cod liver pill come to life for instance.)
and reading the common ills post about the late john hess really made me think:
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/articles-by-john-l-hess-that-you.html
here's what had me thinking:
Tori : Howard Zinn is still an important voice but he and Chomsky are not getting any younger. Gloria Steinem looks wonderful but she's getting older as well. The voices I looked to ten years ago as a teenager have largely remained strong but I'm not finding a lot of new voices to replace to them. And when we do have a new voice, it's someone like Dahr [Jamail] who's reporting from Iraq and we could lose at any minute. You asked for us to provide voices who speak to us. My voices have been covered on the blog and I've learned of Amy Goodman, Nancy Chang and Naomi Klein. But I'm hungry for additional new voices that matter so please share if you find someone who speaks to you. We'll all end up better because you do.
tori is so right. christian risks his life but comes back to this country all the time. dahr's over there hunting down the truth.
i read that last night and had the weirdest dream.
christian and dahr were 'cock knocking' around iraq. i have no idea what that term is supposed to mean but it still gives me tingles.
they were hunting down stories and trying to figure out what to do about me. 'rebecca is waiting.' and then dahr says 'i know but this is where the story is. this is where the action is.'
and christian's nodding. then dahr starts talking about my body and christian's sticks his hand in his pocket and while they're walking and talking about me, racks up a damn impressive score in pocket pool.
christian's only half listening to dahr extoll my virtues (body, mind & soul). his eyes are fluttering and his face is sweating and he's picturing me waiting back here.
dahr's saying 'it's good we're both committed to getting out this story' and christian snaps out of it and starts making up this excuse about not feeling well.
dahr looks over at him and notices he's covered in sweat. 'dude, you don't look. the sun set forever ago and you're sweating like a pig.'
christian says 'yeah, i should head back.'
and before dahr can respond, christian's out of sight and on his way to me.
tossing principals out the window, he storms into my home and announces that dahr's fallen in love with some woman in jordan and will be marrying shortly.
angry and upset, i make wild passionate love to christian.
i woke up feeling so guilty.
but then, almost a like a sign, on democracy now today, there's christian.
CHRISTIAN PARENTI: Well, I mean, yeah. Who knows what's going to happen? I can't predict. It seems that the strategy at this point is to make the Shia political leadership feel threatened by the Sunni insurgency. There's been this spate of assassination and assassination attempts and probably to essentially blackmail the Shia into continuing to accept US occupation as the price of their survival. But the fact of the matter is that the Shia leadership and the Shia rank and file, all Iraqis, want the US out and that problem is not going to go away for the US. So, how far it plays out, I don't know. But I don't think it's going to be -- I don't think this is an easy victory for the Bush Administration.
to watch the hot hot hot christian go to: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/31/1517212
so see, we got a little music, a little politics and a little sex. if you've ever heard the term "cock knocking" e-mail me because i still can't figure that 1 out.
1/30/2005
when love walks in the room everybody stand up
when love walks in the room everybody stand up
it's good, good, good
say it over and over again
that's a song by pretenders (i won't say "the pretenders" since that was cleared up by the common ills) called "message of love."
a number of you have worried about my latest activities possibly detracting from my blogging. paul asks if i saw the movie dick and warns me about how terri garr gets set up with a spy in that film by the nixon administration and cautions me to be careful.
how could i not with so many caring people watching out for me? and i mean that. the ones who expressed concern were not prudes and i appreciate their concerns.
but i'm not planning to stop blogging. on the weekends i may blog late or brief but the guy i'm currently seeing isn't able to make the trip in to see me during the week and that's more than fine with me since i don't like to be crowded.
i'd also advise you that my love affairs tend to be like viral infections - they come on with intensity and then quickly vanish.
so let's talk politics because today was the elections and common ills e-mailed me asking what i thought.
here's what i think. the elections were corrupt. that was no surprise.
any 1 who lost their cherry on that has lived a truly sheltered life.
but the reason the elections needed to be held was that we had promised them and promised them. over and over yet somehow we always postponed them -- dangle the carrot and then pull it back.
they've had their elections. that doesn't solve much. that does however give iraqis a sense of ownership. they can press their leaders who may or may not listen.
that's not a problem peculiar to iraq - take a look at our own congress.
there's no such thing as a little democracy or a little pregnancy is something i was always told.
i think it's true. having voted, they will press even more. and maybe with them pressing, us pressing, the entire world pressing, we can end the occupation finally.
this is their country and our presence there only increases the tensions and the violence.
while we've raided their resources and held a tag sale on pretty much everything (in violation of international law) we've treated them like slow children incapable of making their own decisions.
i don't doubt that they have a puppet government in place now. but they can press that government and we just lost a solid excuse for staying. they have an elected body. why are we still occuyping their country?
and iraqis will look at leaders who are not responsive and get vocal against them. having participated in a flawed election, they will demand accountability. the puppet government, installed by us, will either listen or not.
do not listen to the hype. these weren't the first elections. in fact the british supervised elections many years prior. having shown up at the ballot box will not bring democracy to iraq but it will underscore the need for changes both in terms of leadership and in terms of kicking us out because it's past time that we left.
iraq's been through this before. they are not stupid people. quite the contrary, they are an educated people who can trace major developments in civilization to the area.
it's past time to stop playing bwana and act like we are somehow helping an unenlightened mass of people. i have hopes that they will demand accountability. if the newly elected leaders refuse to be accountable to them (which is very likely) i am hopeful they will not shrug their shoulders and scratch their heads. (the way many of us did regarding the election of 2000 and 2004 in this country. many of us, not all of us.)
they will chart their own way and we will no doubt see efforts by the bully boy to snap them into line. but they are a strong people and they are a wise people. having finally granted elections, the bully boy will quickly find that it's a bit harder to be a puppet master. we'll also see some heady with their own victories begin to stand up to the bully boy.
those are my hopes. i may be idealistic. i'm sure some 1 will e-mail, 'becky you are so blinded by your latest sexual romps that you have no idea what you're talking about.' possibly. but hey, what sexual romps. it is often you find a guy who is not just willing to go down on you but eager to as well, 1 who doesn't need prompting.
too much information? no such thing!
it's good, good, good
say it over and over again
that's a song by pretenders (i won't say "the pretenders" since that was cleared up by the common ills) called "message of love."
a number of you have worried about my latest activities possibly detracting from my blogging. paul asks if i saw the movie dick and warns me about how terri garr gets set up with a spy in that film by the nixon administration and cautions me to be careful.
how could i not with so many caring people watching out for me? and i mean that. the ones who expressed concern were not prudes and i appreciate their concerns.
but i'm not planning to stop blogging. on the weekends i may blog late or brief but the guy i'm currently seeing isn't able to make the trip in to see me during the week and that's more than fine with me since i don't like to be crowded.
i'd also advise you that my love affairs tend to be like viral infections - they come on with intensity and then quickly vanish.
so let's talk politics because today was the elections and common ills e-mailed me asking what i thought.
here's what i think. the elections were corrupt. that was no surprise.
any 1 who lost their cherry on that has lived a truly sheltered life.
but the reason the elections needed to be held was that we had promised them and promised them. over and over yet somehow we always postponed them -- dangle the carrot and then pull it back.
they've had their elections. that doesn't solve much. that does however give iraqis a sense of ownership. they can press their leaders who may or may not listen.
that's not a problem peculiar to iraq - take a look at our own congress.
there's no such thing as a little democracy or a little pregnancy is something i was always told.
i think it's true. having voted, they will press even more. and maybe with them pressing, us pressing, the entire world pressing, we can end the occupation finally.
this is their country and our presence there only increases the tensions and the violence.
while we've raided their resources and held a tag sale on pretty much everything (in violation of international law) we've treated them like slow children incapable of making their own decisions.
i don't doubt that they have a puppet government in place now. but they can press that government and we just lost a solid excuse for staying. they have an elected body. why are we still occuyping their country?
and iraqis will look at leaders who are not responsive and get vocal against them. having participated in a flawed election, they will demand accountability. the puppet government, installed by us, will either listen or not.
do not listen to the hype. these weren't the first elections. in fact the british supervised elections many years prior. having shown up at the ballot box will not bring democracy to iraq but it will underscore the need for changes both in terms of leadership and in terms of kicking us out because it's past time that we left.
iraq's been through this before. they are not stupid people. quite the contrary, they are an educated people who can trace major developments in civilization to the area.
it's past time to stop playing bwana and act like we are somehow helping an unenlightened mass of people. i have hopes that they will demand accountability. if the newly elected leaders refuse to be accountable to them (which is very likely) i am hopeful they will not shrug their shoulders and scratch their heads. (the way many of us did regarding the election of 2000 and 2004 in this country. many of us, not all of us.)
they will chart their own way and we will no doubt see efforts by the bully boy to snap them into line. but they are a strong people and they are a wise people. having finally granted elections, the bully boy will quickly find that it's a bit harder to be a puppet master. we'll also see some heady with their own victories begin to stand up to the bully boy.
those are my hopes. i may be idealistic. i'm sure some 1 will e-mail, 'becky you are so blinded by your latest sexual romps that you have no idea what you're talking about.' possibly. but hey, what sexual romps. it is often you find a guy who is not just willing to go down on you but eager to as well, 1 who doesn't need prompting.
too much information? no such thing!
sex tonight, no real posting
long date and he's staying over so it's still on going. i'll write tomorrow and fortunately am feeling better.
but while he's showering, i got on to surf quickly and do a brief blog entry.
i see that the third estate sunday review is up with their sunday edition at http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/.
you'll find a lot of to read. i read the will & grace tv review and really enjoyed that. i also read an interview with al who has 2 mothers and is rightly offended by bush's comments and the dopey new york times running the comments without providing readers information on reality. in addition, there are other features i'll be reading tomorrow including the common ills' 'when npr fails you who you gonna call? not the ombudsman.' if you're a common ills community member, and most of you who come here are, you may be familiar with the entry but if you weren't visiting the common ills in november take the time to read it because it's really worth reading.
and you'll also find the interview i did with them. (yes, i read that as soon as i saw it online!)
they are very funny and some of the silly bits didn't make it into the interview but trust me they are as funny as they are committed to "truth to power."
you can read the interview at http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2005/01/interview-with-rebecca-winters-of-sex.html.
i hope you have all had as much fun as i have and intend to have again shortly.
but while he's showering, i got on to surf quickly and do a brief blog entry.
i see that the third estate sunday review is up with their sunday edition at http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/.
you'll find a lot of to read. i read the will & grace tv review and really enjoyed that. i also read an interview with al who has 2 mothers and is rightly offended by bush's comments and the dopey new york times running the comments without providing readers information on reality. in addition, there are other features i'll be reading tomorrow including the common ills' 'when npr fails you who you gonna call? not the ombudsman.' if you're a common ills community member, and most of you who come here are, you may be familiar with the entry but if you weren't visiting the common ills in november take the time to read it because it's really worth reading.
and you'll also find the interview i did with them. (yes, i read that as soon as i saw it online!)
they are very funny and some of the silly bits didn't make it into the interview but trust me they are as funny as they are committed to "truth to power."
you can read the interview at http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2005/01/interview-with-rebecca-winters-of-sex.html.
i hope you have all had as much fun as i have and intend to have again shortly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)