i'm in the midst of helping the third estate sunday review with and i realized that i better grab time to blog or people will start thinking 'that rebecca just takes every weekend off!'
i want to note sad news, peter benenson is dead and if you don't know that name go over and read folding star's tribute to benenson at a winding road.
since a new third estate sunday review will be up within eight hours, i want to point out that the last issue had a sampling of tori amos lyrics and if you are a tori fan like i am you should enjoy reading it. i love how it works together (all these lines from different songs) to form 1 story.
i'd also like to note the piece tries to convey to the new york times that judy miller is not the most important story in the whole wide world:
The Times is not a brave paper. It hasn't been for most of it's history. But it's "official timeline" tendency on each and every story have left the readers indifferent to the paper of record. The paper seems to feel we will rally behind Judy Miller due to a belief in freedom of the press but The New York Times hasn't utilized the First Amendment in years. They want people to get passionate about a principle that they've long ignored.
and i'll share a secret the new york times is addressed again in the upcoming third estate sunday review.
i believe i already noted c.i. interviewing folding star but in case you didn't check, let me recommend it again.
and of course the kids over at cjr daily get a failing grade in a lively and entertaining editorial.
the upcoming issue looks great as well. no links because they aren't posted and who knows what might get killed before it goes to print. but there's a very funny review of the apprentice and of course the new york times is dealt with again as noted earlier. right now the story being nailed down is this week's editorial. who will the third estate sunday review call to the attention of the class this week? for that you'll have to check their site on sunday!
2/25/2005
thoughts on nick watt's reporting tonight, hillary clinton, and the new york times - no happy thoughts here.
nick watt gave an embarrassing report tonight on world news tonight on abc.
i say that because a lot of people e-mailed saying they had given up on broadcast television news and wondering if it was really good.
it's corporate news. do not expect miracles.
nick watt contributed a piece tonight that was propaganda. which is a real shame coz he is a hottie.
but he wants to show us what is on iraqi tv. but he does not want to tell us who runs that news. and he does not want to tell us that if you think we have a problem with broadcast news, the iraqis are even more skeptical when americans are involved in their news.
so the questionable news that iraqis are skeptical of is broadcasting taped interviews with captured insurgents. and these interviews are supposed to turn the tide.
and as evidence, nick watts offers us 1 man on the street. who wants to offer that it will stop the insurgency. is the man sunni? is he shiite? those are serious issues.
and why can he only provide 1 witness?
it was total propaganda not unlike hillary clinton's statements this weekend.
c.i. over at the common ills wrote about that last night as has folding star of a winding road.
i'll weigh in myself by saying we damn well do have a right to question to her.
this is not alice walker, this is not gloria steinem. this is hillary clinton who may be a notch above or below goldie hawn.
as c.i. would say: "translation," goldie can talk a good game for a year or 2 and then fall into the backlash for a couple of years, then come back out of it and suddenly has some new comments to make that are semi-worth listening to.
goldie onscreen is a funny lady most of the time.
but let's be real sure we understand that she made a huge step with private benjamin and the press she did for that and then she completely destroyed that with her later comments. with 1st wives club publicity, she was a font of wisdom all the sudden. then after 9-11 she again started making embarrassing remarks.
i'm not sure if hillary's above her or below her. i'd put hillary below her because goldie onscreen can always make me laugh.
but this is not a great leader of the women's movement.
and the idea that we need to treat her as an icon blows my mind.
she's iconic because she was 1st lady?
she holds an office and like any 1 else elected she has to answer questions. she may not like it, but too bad.
and i'm real sorry bill clinton had his health problems before the election. i'm even sorrier he was a chicken shit for so much of his presidency. the third way always seem to steer us to the right. and the captain of dismantling lbj's great society and fdr's new deal was too often bill clinton.
his comments, reported in newsweek, regarding his advice to john kerry about same-sex marriage were ignorant and belittling to a nation. he does not lift us up. we can see him grin and maybe feel good for a moment because of his personal style but he was not our comeback kid, he was the comeback kid.
and too often it has always been all about bill or all about hillary.
welfare reform = war on poor and working poor women.
and they should both be ashamed for flogging that.
so hillary clinton is not above questioning.
she voted for the war.
she has not been strong in voting against nominations.
she has not been a moral leader in any sense.
she has been some 1 who increasingly tries to drape herself in a god-like pose.
if you haven't figured it out yet, i will not vote for her in the primary if she runs for president.
and i think she would lose big in a general election.
she is so hated.
and she's become the 'safe' player in the senate.
so where's the support going to come from?
she really is becoming the female version of joe lieberman.
the right hates her because they think she's liberal.
the left alternates between indifference and apathy to outright loathing.
so i guess the 2 million people who bought her book are some how going to be enough to get her elected president?
and the jokes that will be in the offing. jay leno asking america 'do we really want to put bill back in the white house?' or 'hillary's 1st announced policy? ban all interns.'
it'll be a nightmare and the democratic party will go down in flames.
but here is a bigger issue and it's this: one full term as senator and and 2 years and that qualifies her to be president?
she'll be running against a governor or god knows what.
'vote for me. i made a great 1st lady!'
there's also the backlash that would come about just because we would be going bush-clinton-bush-clinton.
this isn't a monarcy and 2 families shouldn't have a lock on the presidency.
the only family members of a president i'd vote for currently are bobby kennedy who's done outstanding work on environmental issues and amy carter who has always been the most sensible child to grow up in the white house. i'm sure chelsea's lovely but amy carter has common sense. she's the best of both parents and she's serious.
i would also vote al gore if he ran in the primary because i really like what he's been saying for the last 4 years.
but hillary doesn't excite me.
and i don't buy into the 'she should be president because she wants to be.' i think we've all suffered enough from the clintons doing what they wanted to. often at the expense of the less fortunate in our society.
the compassion she sometimes demonstrated as first lady has been no where to be found in the senate where she's appeared hell bent on demonstrating how much 'like a man' she could be.
the softer side has been silenced as the roar of the hawk has overtaken her being.
barbara boxer and russ feingold are 2 senators who seem to have some true compassion and up against them, hillary doesn't seem that different from joe lieberman.
those are my thoughts on hillary. now here's a question in the e-mails from alan. he wants to know why i subscribe to the new york times if i hate it so much.
because i don't pay for it. it's free for me. i checked and my ex-husband still pays for the paper delivered. i'm less and less impressed with what's in it. and often pass it off to a neighbor unread. if i take the time to read some of it, i usally mention it here. which gives you an idea of how often i read it. but i wouldn't pay for it. it's over 40 bucks a month and it's not worth half that even with the crossword.
on a positive note, janeane's back on the majority report tonight in the studio and sounds like she's feeling better. yea janeane!
i say that because a lot of people e-mailed saying they had given up on broadcast television news and wondering if it was really good.
it's corporate news. do not expect miracles.
nick watt contributed a piece tonight that was propaganda. which is a real shame coz he is a hottie.
but he wants to show us what is on iraqi tv. but he does not want to tell us who runs that news. and he does not want to tell us that if you think we have a problem with broadcast news, the iraqis are even more skeptical when americans are involved in their news.
so the questionable news that iraqis are skeptical of is broadcasting taped interviews with captured insurgents. and these interviews are supposed to turn the tide.
and as evidence, nick watts offers us 1 man on the street. who wants to offer that it will stop the insurgency. is the man sunni? is he shiite? those are serious issues.
and why can he only provide 1 witness?
it was total propaganda not unlike hillary clinton's statements this weekend.
c.i. over at the common ills wrote about that last night as has folding star of a winding road.
i'll weigh in myself by saying we damn well do have a right to question to her.
this is not alice walker, this is not gloria steinem. this is hillary clinton who may be a notch above or below goldie hawn.
as c.i. would say: "translation," goldie can talk a good game for a year or 2 and then fall into the backlash for a couple of years, then come back out of it and suddenly has some new comments to make that are semi-worth listening to.
goldie onscreen is a funny lady most of the time.
but let's be real sure we understand that she made a huge step with private benjamin and the press she did for that and then she completely destroyed that with her later comments. with 1st wives club publicity, she was a font of wisdom all the sudden. then after 9-11 she again started making embarrassing remarks.
i'm not sure if hillary's above her or below her. i'd put hillary below her because goldie onscreen can always make me laugh.
but this is not a great leader of the women's movement.
and the idea that we need to treat her as an icon blows my mind.
she's iconic because she was 1st lady?
she holds an office and like any 1 else elected she has to answer questions. she may not like it, but too bad.
and i'm real sorry bill clinton had his health problems before the election. i'm even sorrier he was a chicken shit for so much of his presidency. the third way always seem to steer us to the right. and the captain of dismantling lbj's great society and fdr's new deal was too often bill clinton.
his comments, reported in newsweek, regarding his advice to john kerry about same-sex marriage were ignorant and belittling to a nation. he does not lift us up. we can see him grin and maybe feel good for a moment because of his personal style but he was not our comeback kid, he was the comeback kid.
and too often it has always been all about bill or all about hillary.
welfare reform = war on poor and working poor women.
and they should both be ashamed for flogging that.
so hillary clinton is not above questioning.
she voted for the war.
she has not been strong in voting against nominations.
she has not been a moral leader in any sense.
she has been some 1 who increasingly tries to drape herself in a god-like pose.
if you haven't figured it out yet, i will not vote for her in the primary if she runs for president.
and i think she would lose big in a general election.
she is so hated.
and she's become the 'safe' player in the senate.
so where's the support going to come from?
she really is becoming the female version of joe lieberman.
the right hates her because they think she's liberal.
the left alternates between indifference and apathy to outright loathing.
so i guess the 2 million people who bought her book are some how going to be enough to get her elected president?
and the jokes that will be in the offing. jay leno asking america 'do we really want to put bill back in the white house?' or 'hillary's 1st announced policy? ban all interns.'
it'll be a nightmare and the democratic party will go down in flames.
but here is a bigger issue and it's this: one full term as senator and and 2 years and that qualifies her to be president?
she'll be running against a governor or god knows what.
'vote for me. i made a great 1st lady!'
there's also the backlash that would come about just because we would be going bush-clinton-bush-clinton.
this isn't a monarcy and 2 families shouldn't have a lock on the presidency.
the only family members of a president i'd vote for currently are bobby kennedy who's done outstanding work on environmental issues and amy carter who has always been the most sensible child to grow up in the white house. i'm sure chelsea's lovely but amy carter has common sense. she's the best of both parents and she's serious.
i would also vote al gore if he ran in the primary because i really like what he's been saying for the last 4 years.
but hillary doesn't excite me.
and i don't buy into the 'she should be president because she wants to be.' i think we've all suffered enough from the clintons doing what they wanted to. often at the expense of the less fortunate in our society.
the compassion she sometimes demonstrated as first lady has been no where to be found in the senate where she's appeared hell bent on demonstrating how much 'like a man' she could be.
the softer side has been silenced as the roar of the hawk has overtaken her being.
barbara boxer and russ feingold are 2 senators who seem to have some true compassion and up against them, hillary doesn't seem that different from joe lieberman.
those are my thoughts on hillary. now here's a question in the e-mails from alan. he wants to know why i subscribe to the new york times if i hate it so much.
because i don't pay for it. it's free for me. i checked and my ex-husband still pays for the paper delivered. i'm less and less impressed with what's in it. and often pass it off to a neighbor unread. if i take the time to read some of it, i usally mention it here. which gives you an idea of how often i read it. but i wouldn't pay for it. it's over 40 bucks a month and it's not worth half that even with the crossword.
on a positive note, janeane's back on the majority report tonight in the studio and sounds like she's feeling better. yea janeane!
2/24/2005
dicks=sam seder & brian williams; cocks=peter jennings & steve earle
i just lost a post. i'd worked 40 minutes on it. i'll blame the new york times.
seriously, i have a friend who's computer buff and she swears to me that the purchase of about blank is the result of the new york times being pissed that people are trashing them online. she says start watching and see if all the sudden when you close an explorer window if you don't end up with an about blank screen.
i don't know whether that's true or not. i use mozilla.
but i'm pissed so i'll blame the new york times.
okay, so i was explaining to you what we were seeing on abc world news tonight and explaining about dean reynolds' series (they did the second installment tonight, the third one airs tomorrow).
i was explaining how we could take nightly news out and teach them to put in place a dick who is bland and in love with rush limbaugh in place of tom brokaw.
and i had a story from yesterday that i found on yahoo but i've lost the link and won't look it up.
but the story had the latest ratings.
remember nightly news with the grip on number 1 and never challenged in recent years?
well it's number 1. by 0.5 viewers. abc's world news tonight had 9.7 million. nightly news had only 10.2 million.
we can knock out .5 million easy.
teach them to go with the bland and boring brian williams.
he's so disgusting. he wrote dick nixon letters as a child, natch.
so i had explained that if you aren't watching network news i do not blame you and that you are probably smarter for not watching. but if you are watching, i was asking that if you watch nightly news, stop watching it. go to abc world news tonight or even cbs's evening news.
we need to knock .5 million and we can do that.
and you can help. you can tell your friends that brian williams is rush limbaugh ditto head. you can tell him rebecca says he acts like the type to frig his own hole between stories on air.
and if you have any ideas on what we can tell our friends e-mail them to me at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and we'll talk about them here. you can be serious or funny. let's get our brains working on this.
brian williams is so unsexy.
and tonight on abc, just a tip, they have a two hour documentary on ufos. don't know what you think there. i would like to believe that there's something out there but just don't have the faith to believe. if you do, good for you.
but the point is, even if you find the topic cheesy, tell me which network is doing any sort of documentary these days.
i'm sure there will be problems with it. i watched peter jennings's documentary on jfk in 2003 and had problems with that. but hey, who else is doing them these days?
and yes, i do find peter jennings sexy.
besides his handsome face, his hands are very sexy and he has a way of handling himself on air that suggests he knows what to do in bed.
so for those keeping score, brian williams = dick; peter jennings = cock.
arbitration was a hot topic today. i heard it three times on npr alone. dean reynolds is doing a three part series on arbitration for abc. i saw tonight's installment on world news tonight and i found it pretty informative. i'm hoping the third installment tomorrow will continue to be as well.
here's the story "Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Reduce Consumer Rights" and the third part airs tomorrow on world news tonight with peter jennings on abc. can i plug that show 1 more time?
that prim and proper stephanie is schilling for the new republic on air america right now telling you that if you want to know about the state of 'liberalism' read their rag.
they ain't liberal, steph. quit lying to people.
a real liberal, katrina vanden heuvel who edits the nation, was on democracy now today. i hope you saw it.
and last air america gripe, they've got poor janeane garofalo on the phone from her sick bed. let the woman have some rest people. yes, the majority report sucks without her but damn the woman is sick. she doesn't need to be taxing herself.
poor janeane.
and carrie e-mailed asking if i was being serious about janeane. yes, i was. i love her. she's a real feminist and a real leftist. the real deal and my praise for her is always sincere.
oh let me do a gripe. sam seder the stupid fuck is on without janeane at the start and talking about danny goldberg of artemis joining the air america staff. and he's listing danny's credits (and got the book title wrong which janeane corrected him on when she came on later). but he's blah-blah-blah-ing in that incessant whine. (does any 1 else notice how his voice has that annoying dipthong thing that sherrif andy taylor's did?) so he's plugging away and saying 'danny put out al franken's album on artemis and it was up for a grammy.'
yeah and it lost. big fucking deal.
but artemis did have an album with a grammy. and it went to an air america host.
who?
steve earle. why is it that sam didn't know that?
how stupid is he?
or does he think steve earle isn't important enough to mention?
the revolution starts now won the grammy for best contemporary folk album.
if you haven't heard it, check it out. i love it.
and i love steve earle. sam apparently never heard of earle or his grammy win.
but that's just another clue about how stupid sam is.
every body have a good night and hopefully tomorrow, if i do a long entry, i won't find computer freezing. again i'll blame the new york times not because it's responsible necessarily, but because it's so damn disgusting.
seriously, i have a friend who's computer buff and she swears to me that the purchase of about blank is the result of the new york times being pissed that people are trashing them online. she says start watching and see if all the sudden when you close an explorer window if you don't end up with an about blank screen.
i don't know whether that's true or not. i use mozilla.
but i'm pissed so i'll blame the new york times.
okay, so i was explaining to you what we were seeing on abc world news tonight and explaining about dean reynolds' series (they did the second installment tonight, the third one airs tomorrow).
i was explaining how we could take nightly news out and teach them to put in place a dick who is bland and in love with rush limbaugh in place of tom brokaw.
and i had a story from yesterday that i found on yahoo but i've lost the link and won't look it up.
but the story had the latest ratings.
remember nightly news with the grip on number 1 and never challenged in recent years?
well it's number 1. by 0.5 viewers. abc's world news tonight had 9.7 million. nightly news had only 10.2 million.
we can knock out .5 million easy.
teach them to go with the bland and boring brian williams.
he's so disgusting. he wrote dick nixon letters as a child, natch.
so i had explained that if you aren't watching network news i do not blame you and that you are probably smarter for not watching. but if you are watching, i was asking that if you watch nightly news, stop watching it. go to abc world news tonight or even cbs's evening news.
we need to knock .5 million and we can do that.
and you can help. you can tell your friends that brian williams is rush limbaugh ditto head. you can tell him rebecca says he acts like the type to frig his own hole between stories on air.
and if you have any ideas on what we can tell our friends e-mail them to me at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and we'll talk about them here. you can be serious or funny. let's get our brains working on this.
brian williams is so unsexy.
and tonight on abc, just a tip, they have a two hour documentary on ufos. don't know what you think there. i would like to believe that there's something out there but just don't have the faith to believe. if you do, good for you.
but the point is, even if you find the topic cheesy, tell me which network is doing any sort of documentary these days.
i'm sure there will be problems with it. i watched peter jennings's documentary on jfk in 2003 and had problems with that. but hey, who else is doing them these days?
and yes, i do find peter jennings sexy.
besides his handsome face, his hands are very sexy and he has a way of handling himself on air that suggests he knows what to do in bed.
so for those keeping score, brian williams = dick; peter jennings = cock.
arbitration was a hot topic today. i heard it three times on npr alone. dean reynolds is doing a three part series on arbitration for abc. i saw tonight's installment on world news tonight and i found it pretty informative. i'm hoping the third installment tomorrow will continue to be as well.
here's the story "Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Reduce Consumer Rights" and the third part airs tomorrow on world news tonight with peter jennings on abc. can i plug that show 1 more time?
that prim and proper stephanie is schilling for the new republic on air america right now telling you that if you want to know about the state of 'liberalism' read their rag.
they ain't liberal, steph. quit lying to people.
a real liberal, katrina vanden heuvel who edits the nation, was on democracy now today. i hope you saw it.
and last air america gripe, they've got poor janeane garofalo on the phone from her sick bed. let the woman have some rest people. yes, the majority report sucks without her but damn the woman is sick. she doesn't need to be taxing herself.
poor janeane.
and carrie e-mailed asking if i was being serious about janeane. yes, i was. i love her. she's a real feminist and a real leftist. the real deal and my praise for her is always sincere.
oh let me do a gripe. sam seder the stupid fuck is on without janeane at the start and talking about danny goldberg of artemis joining the air america staff. and he's listing danny's credits (and got the book title wrong which janeane corrected him on when she came on later). but he's blah-blah-blah-ing in that incessant whine. (does any 1 else notice how his voice has that annoying dipthong thing that sherrif andy taylor's did?) so he's plugging away and saying 'danny put out al franken's album on artemis and it was up for a grammy.'
yeah and it lost. big fucking deal.
but artemis did have an album with a grammy. and it went to an air america host.
who?
steve earle. why is it that sam didn't know that?
how stupid is he?
or does he think steve earle isn't important enough to mention?
the revolution starts now won the grammy for best contemporary folk album.
if you haven't heard it, check it out. i love it.
and i love steve earle. sam apparently never heard of earle or his grammy win.
but that's just another clue about how stupid sam is.
every body have a good night and hopefully tomorrow, if i do a long entry, i won't find computer freezing. again i'll blame the new york times not because it's responsible necessarily, but because it's so damn disgusting.
2/23/2005
get well janeane garofalo
so i turn on the majority report thinking i can laugh with the funny, smart and pretty janeane garofalo but the fates had another plan for me. she's apparently out sick. she's been pretty sick lately and i hope it is just the flu that every 1's getting. i think i was knocked for at least 7 days but it felt so much longer.
so there's sam seder RAH RAH RAH RAH away. can some 1 can get that man on meds? i mean really.
i don't need to hear this shit in that smug voice.
i can tolerate him when janeane's on.
oh this is funny!
go to the blog sometime.
the bloggers love sam seder. (unless he's talking up simon rosenberg and then they hate him.)
what a strange crowd that is.
you got this 1 chick who will always open with something to do with something that happened today, okay?
and from there?
holocaust, holocaust, holocaust. 3 hours straight. sometimes continuing on the post show blog.
and every now and then some 1 will try to cheer her up, 'oh -- it's okay, it'll be okay.' day after day for almost 11 months now holocaust, holocaust, holocaust.
over and over.
this passes for deep thought on the blog, or she thinks it does.
then you get this group of little boys with the tiny weinies who have to say things like 'i bet she's so loose you could drive a mack truck through there.' yeah they are great wits.
on the laura flanders show blog (when it's working) you get people talking about real things. and asking things like 'what can i do' and people are responding to each other with ideas about a petition, a letter, a march, what ever.
that blog is probably the best blog at air america.
(i leave out randi's because her board predates air america and is a bulletin board and not a blog.)
but i do not mean to suggest that the majority report is the worst blog. it's not. there are some really cool people there. sunshine jim and pete moon come to mind. and fish grease though i haven't seen him pop up in a while. but i really do not check that often any more. but those are just 3 and there are a lot more who are intelligent at the majority report.
but they also have a huge number of losers.
so what's the worst blog?
i'd say it's unfiltered and this works in good cause i needed to talk about that from last week any way.
you have some really smart and creative types going there. but you also have idiots who say things like 'mmmm yummy soup.' over and over. or will talk about their cats. you can just picture these ladies (though some may be men) in their caftans with their madras blankets on their lap as they sit at their computers picking cat hairs off their sweaters as they listen to 1 of their own (lizz winstead). and you just know they put the suzanne vega on hold to listen to the show. so for like 3 hours they're waiting to hear the end of 'luka.'
they are people who found npr too 'cutting edge.'
every now and then you'll get some 1 smart or a group of smart people.
and they'll try to get a discussion going but some idiot has to say 'mmmm yummy soup.' and you know that idiot's not getting any and won't unless she finds a way to buy some sort of attachment for her cat!
no brain lizz encourages it by posting pictures of her dog on the blog.
slap a cheap blonde wig (with matted or ratted hair) on edie and i swear it looks just like lizz!
and by the way, on the blog is lizz winstead's photo and name and yet her 'fans' who rush to tell you things like 'a behind the look at liz' spell her name that way. her 'fans' don't even know how to spell her name! (i will point out that c.i. over at the common ills is a fan of lizz and big brain rachel and loves unfiltered the difference is c.i. can spell their names. and c.i. probably doesn't blog there or own a cat!)
but la lizz loves to screech a rant and last week no brain was screaming on air about the need to screen out people on the blog. that would be the blog for the show called (drum roll please) unfiltered!
no brain just doesn't get it.
it's so sad.
at this rate, the only thing that's going to save the show is for rachel to team back up with bill press and let her inner howard stern peak back out again.
she should do that. it was so shocking to see rachel step away from playing mommy to no brain. who knew big brain was a sexual being?
all that talk about her partner susan is so will on will & grace. talk, talk, talk.
but when she was getting down and dirty with bill press talking about the ladies like they were sitting in a locker room, who knew?
they were talking about cartoons today. lizz winstead has to cover all the important issues, natch. so i started thinking about cartoon characters that lizz and big brain could be.
with lizz, rachel's really roo's mommy. can't think of her name. from winnie the pooh. but she's like speedy gonzales when lizz isn't around. (to drag her down.)
but who would lizz be?
i couldn't think of 1.
then it finally hit me, she's the man in the big bird suit on sesame street!
that's so lizz.
so back to janeane. the show sucks with out her.
i hope she gets better. randi's had surgery, mike malloy's had the family thing, it's all pretty sad.
janeane gets sick and i start wondering a) why couldn't it be lizz and b) is there some sort of curse or plan going on here?
seriously, despite the odds, the network's catching on.
i give credit to mark and marc, randi, janeane, mike, laura, steve, kyle, marty and bobby & mike.
those people know how to do radio. now janeane, completely new to radio. but she comes on air and just draws you in.
if there's a voice as annoying as lizz's that would be sam. while lizz screeches, sam whines aggressively.
sam's the guy who's been married 2 years and you're at a party on a saturday night at his house. the hostess, his wife, asks you if you run into the kitchen to grab a bottle of wine. you're at the fridge when he stands behind you.
and he's got 1 eye on the door to make sure his wife doesn't come in and the other eye, the lazy 1, is scanning you up and down.
that's sam.
and the truth is, if you do go to sneak off to the laundry with him, and haven't we all made that mistake at least once?, the first thing you notice is that he's got on tighty-whities and there are skid marks in the seat of them.
ew!
and you're thinking 'i so do not want to do this' but he's come on real aggressive and you're thinking 'oh god just get it over with already' coz you know he's not going to last 2 minutes.
and sure enough he's on you, he's in you and the only surprise you might be getting is if he farts right in the middle. but since guys like that often do, you really aren't that surprised when he does - more irritated at the way he giggles about the fact that he just farted.
and if he thinks he's really smooth, he'll offer his idea of a bon mot about what it would have been like if you'd been going down on him while he farted (usually working in the word 'cheesy').
then at the 1 and a 1/2 minute mark he'll gasp and grunt and maybe holler 'mommy!' after he catches his breath (i swear, after with 1 of those guys, you'd think they'd had an asthma attack)
he'll go back to that smug voice and say something 'heart felt' like 'didn't i tell you i'd rock your world?'
and you're looking at him and thinking for a small guy he is sure is a lot of dead weight on your body. and wondering how this guy who came in less than 2 minutes, who farted in the middle of sex, has skid marks in his briefs and screamed out 'mommy' when he shot his meager load thinks for 1 moment that he's a player.
ladies & gentlemen, that is sam seder.
janeane, get well, we miss you!
so there's sam seder RAH RAH RAH RAH away. can some 1 can get that man on meds? i mean really.
i don't need to hear this shit in that smug voice.
i can tolerate him when janeane's on.
oh this is funny!
go to the blog sometime.
the bloggers love sam seder. (unless he's talking up simon rosenberg and then they hate him.)
what a strange crowd that is.
you got this 1 chick who will always open with something to do with something that happened today, okay?
and from there?
holocaust, holocaust, holocaust. 3 hours straight. sometimes continuing on the post show blog.
and every now and then some 1 will try to cheer her up, 'oh -- it's okay, it'll be okay.' day after day for almost 11 months now holocaust, holocaust, holocaust.
over and over.
this passes for deep thought on the blog, or she thinks it does.
then you get this group of little boys with the tiny weinies who have to say things like 'i bet she's so loose you could drive a mack truck through there.' yeah they are great wits.
on the laura flanders show blog (when it's working) you get people talking about real things. and asking things like 'what can i do' and people are responding to each other with ideas about a petition, a letter, a march, what ever.
that blog is probably the best blog at air america.
(i leave out randi's because her board predates air america and is a bulletin board and not a blog.)
but i do not mean to suggest that the majority report is the worst blog. it's not. there are some really cool people there. sunshine jim and pete moon come to mind. and fish grease though i haven't seen him pop up in a while. but i really do not check that often any more. but those are just 3 and there are a lot more who are intelligent at the majority report.
but they also have a huge number of losers.
so what's the worst blog?
i'd say it's unfiltered and this works in good cause i needed to talk about that from last week any way.
you have some really smart and creative types going there. but you also have idiots who say things like 'mmmm yummy soup.' over and over. or will talk about their cats. you can just picture these ladies (though some may be men) in their caftans with their madras blankets on their lap as they sit at their computers picking cat hairs off their sweaters as they listen to 1 of their own (lizz winstead). and you just know they put the suzanne vega on hold to listen to the show. so for like 3 hours they're waiting to hear the end of 'luka.'
they are people who found npr too 'cutting edge.'
every now and then you'll get some 1 smart or a group of smart people.
and they'll try to get a discussion going but some idiot has to say 'mmmm yummy soup.' and you know that idiot's not getting any and won't unless she finds a way to buy some sort of attachment for her cat!
no brain lizz encourages it by posting pictures of her dog on the blog.
slap a cheap blonde wig (with matted or ratted hair) on edie and i swear it looks just like lizz!
and by the way, on the blog is lizz winstead's photo and name and yet her 'fans' who rush to tell you things like 'a behind the look at liz' spell her name that way. her 'fans' don't even know how to spell her name! (i will point out that c.i. over at the common ills is a fan of lizz and big brain rachel and loves unfiltered the difference is c.i. can spell their names. and c.i. probably doesn't blog there or own a cat!)
but la lizz loves to screech a rant and last week no brain was screaming on air about the need to screen out people on the blog. that would be the blog for the show called (drum roll please) unfiltered!
no brain just doesn't get it.
it's so sad.
at this rate, the only thing that's going to save the show is for rachel to team back up with bill press and let her inner howard stern peak back out again.
she should do that. it was so shocking to see rachel step away from playing mommy to no brain. who knew big brain was a sexual being?
all that talk about her partner susan is so will on will & grace. talk, talk, talk.
but when she was getting down and dirty with bill press talking about the ladies like they were sitting in a locker room, who knew?
they were talking about cartoons today. lizz winstead has to cover all the important issues, natch. so i started thinking about cartoon characters that lizz and big brain could be.
with lizz, rachel's really roo's mommy. can't think of her name. from winnie the pooh. but she's like speedy gonzales when lizz isn't around. (to drag her down.)
but who would lizz be?
i couldn't think of 1.
then it finally hit me, she's the man in the big bird suit on sesame street!
that's so lizz.
so back to janeane. the show sucks with out her.
i hope she gets better. randi's had surgery, mike malloy's had the family thing, it's all pretty sad.
janeane gets sick and i start wondering a) why couldn't it be lizz and b) is there some sort of curse or plan going on here?
seriously, despite the odds, the network's catching on.
i give credit to mark and marc, randi, janeane, mike, laura, steve, kyle, marty and bobby & mike.
those people know how to do radio. now janeane, completely new to radio. but she comes on air and just draws you in.
if there's a voice as annoying as lizz's that would be sam. while lizz screeches, sam whines aggressively.
sam's the guy who's been married 2 years and you're at a party on a saturday night at his house. the hostess, his wife, asks you if you run into the kitchen to grab a bottle of wine. you're at the fridge when he stands behind you.
and he's got 1 eye on the door to make sure his wife doesn't come in and the other eye, the lazy 1, is scanning you up and down.
that's sam.
and the truth is, if you do go to sneak off to the laundry with him, and haven't we all made that mistake at least once?, the first thing you notice is that he's got on tighty-whities and there are skid marks in the seat of them.
ew!
and you're thinking 'i so do not want to do this' but he's come on real aggressive and you're thinking 'oh god just get it over with already' coz you know he's not going to last 2 minutes.
and sure enough he's on you, he's in you and the only surprise you might be getting is if he farts right in the middle. but since guys like that often do, you really aren't that surprised when he does - more irritated at the way he giggles about the fact that he just farted.
and if he thinks he's really smooth, he'll offer his idea of a bon mot about what it would have been like if you'd been going down on him while he farted (usually working in the word 'cheesy').
then at the 1 and a 1/2 minute mark he'll gasp and grunt and maybe holler 'mommy!' after he catches his breath (i swear, after with 1 of those guys, you'd think they'd had an asthma attack)
he'll go back to that smug voice and say something 'heart felt' like 'didn't i tell you i'd rock your world?'
and you're looking at him and thinking for a small guy he is sure is a lot of dead weight on your body. and wondering how this guy who came in less than 2 minutes, who farted in the middle of sex, has skid marks in his briefs and screamed out 'mommy' when he shot his meager load thinks for 1 moment that he's a player.
ladies & gentlemen, that is sam seder.
janeane, get well, we miss you!
2/22/2005
i am the damn beekeeper!
i am the damn beekeeper!
seriously, tori amos had a new cd out today. it's called the beekeeper and it's the best thing i've heard in years from any 1 so please check it out. i read the review of it in yesterday's new york times and e-mail c.i. of the common ills. i say 'wow 3 years!' what the fuck are you talking about, willis, comes the reply more or less. i explain and c.i. says jon pareles is "estimating.'
let me walk you through because i love it when the new york times gets it wrong on even the minor stuff. in 2002, tori amos put out her brilliant cd scarlet's walk. with me so far? today the beekeeper comes out.
c.i. goes, 'rebecca i want to you picture yourself having a child in october of 2003, okay?' well if i must. 'today is february 22, 2005. how old is your baby?'
ok, i get the point. the new york times, egg on it's face as usual.
what's all this filigree talk in the review, seems kind of snide. ci: 'filigree because she's a woman and because parles can't or won't get off the fence, a characteristic of his reviews that dates back for years' and c.i.'s going back to like i think the fall of 1985, over all these rolling stone reviews that parles has written. and i'm like 'shit, c.i. you should write about this stuff.'
and c.i. explains there are 4 e-mails freaking over the simpsons entry yesterday.
that really pisses me off so if there are any common members coming here who dashed off an e-mail on that to c.i., take a breath kids.
it was about journalism. read the item. there's a guy, conservative org (natch), commenting on the episode and he hasn't seen it. he didn't boycott it which might be a story, he just didn't know about it. and then he didn't watch it. and he's presented for 'balance' when he has nothing to say. it's insta-pundit, just add water. and boil, please bring to a boil.
it was in the news section and you had other members e-mailing in. and the topic of the episode was same-sex marriage. so i don't see how with all the above there's a problem with it.
but let me make another point while i'm on this.
yesterday was presidents day. i took the day off. a number of people did.
c.i. could have and probably should have.
late saturday night we were both helping the groovy kids over at the 3rd estate sunday review and that went on until the wee hours. i think it was 7 o'clock when we were done but it may have been 6 a.m.
c.i.'s got a headache, saying stuff about being sick of blogging, and my advice was to take monday off because it was a holiday or, at the very least, focus on something fun.
guys and gals, i squeeze no more than 1 entry a day in between sex romps and other activities.
'but becky! sex romps are your only activities!' almost.
so please people, chill a little. i was asking jesse and ava (3rd estate) if this was normal talk and they were like 'whenever we're up all night like this, it is.' i'd slept in that morning (sex romp from the night before), had more sex and then a long nap, we got out of bed to grab something to eat, came back listened to some music with a little foreplay, ended up back in the bedroom after some strong living room activity, sex romp and i'd just gone to sleep when the phone rings with 3rd estate on the line.
contrast that with c.i. who was up early saturday morning and ends up pulling 24 hours plus before getting any sleep. so really guys, we all love c.i.'s writing and crave more but cut a little slack. it was a holiday. c.i. focused on answering e-mails and did like 6 or 7 posts. i don't see how that's slacking off.
and have you read the entry today? "The New York Times at its worst: Elisabeth Bumiller, Jodi Wilgoren and Juan Forero make the front page on the same day." i love it. i was laughing so hard this morning, i spit out my coffee at 1 point.
i'm quoted in it and proud to be. reading it, i see i had at least 1 typo but i never fix those and never will. i think that things from january and i really don't see the point in hunting down that entry on jodi wilgoren and fixing the word. the new york times doesn't do that kind of correction. if they did, they'd have many more corrections.
oh 1 more thing i saw in the new york times monday that i asked c.i. about. in the business section (hey sexy gals are interested in the business pages too) i saw something.
here it is, this is from monday when they usually run the weekend box office, page 7 of the business section. 'warner brothers will be watching to see how 'constantine,' keanu reeves' latest film does over presidents' day weekend. the actor's film in the supernatural/science-fiction have tended to start strong and finish very strong. only 'bram stroker's dracula' (1992), which opened with $30.5 million its first weekend, finished out of his top 5 movies.'
the paper then lists (in this order) matrix reloaded, the matrix, matrix revolution, something's gotta give and speed. so it was monday and i was trying to think of light topics to e-mail c.i. about and i e-mail that.
i get back a reply about the stupid idiots at the times. something like 'oh only dracula, is that the story? is that the nonsense the paper's spitting out this morning? well 'supernatural/science fiction? i think that would include devil's advocate and it's out of his top 5. and here's 2 more words: johnny mnuemonic! a walk in the clouds opened with a stronger box office than johnny mnuemonic and it 'finished strong' by grossing more as well!'
see, i read it and nod along too often. i think, well it's in the paper, it's been checked, it must be true. but the truth is, the new york times lies and lies and lies and lies.
maybe they don't mean to. maybe they're just tired or lazy. maybe they missed the crash and burn that was johnny mnuemonic (i love keanu but i'd forgotten about that film). but they take the trouble to inform you of something in their official voice, their 'voice of record' and the fact of the matter is they don't know what they fuck they are talking about.
that should be the slogan of the paper. not 'all the news that's fit to print' but 'we don't know what we are talking about.'
it seems like every day, my eyes are opened to increasing errors in the rag of record. if the guy delivering it monday through friday wasn't so damn sexy . . .
sherry has already e-mailed twice this weekend warning me that when i get back to posting i better dish as promised.
so here's the dealio. (stone temple pilots please come back! velvet revolver has about as much going on as the eighties 'group' the power station. robert deleo was hot!) his name is maurice. he looks a little like the guy in the acer ad that i'm still obsessing over. his cock curves to the right (as jim morrison once sang 'the little girls understand'). he's got a ton of energy so it was the perfect weekend!
if you get the beekeeper, i'd suggest you go for the deluxe version. you get a bonus dvd and cute extras including a package of seeds.
on my way i'm just passing you by
but don't be confused
one day i'll be coming for you
from tori amos's 'the beekeeper'
seriously, tori amos had a new cd out today. it's called the beekeeper and it's the best thing i've heard in years from any 1 so please check it out. i read the review of it in yesterday's new york times and e-mail c.i. of the common ills. i say 'wow 3 years!' what the fuck are you talking about, willis, comes the reply more or less. i explain and c.i. says jon pareles is "estimating.'
let me walk you through because i love it when the new york times gets it wrong on even the minor stuff. in 2002, tori amos put out her brilliant cd scarlet's walk. with me so far? today the beekeeper comes out.
c.i. goes, 'rebecca i want to you picture yourself having a child in october of 2003, okay?' well if i must. 'today is february 22, 2005. how old is your baby?'
ok, i get the point. the new york times, egg on it's face as usual.
what's all this filigree talk in the review, seems kind of snide. ci: 'filigree because she's a woman and because parles can't or won't get off the fence, a characteristic of his reviews that dates back for years' and c.i.'s going back to like i think the fall of 1985, over all these rolling stone reviews that parles has written. and i'm like 'shit, c.i. you should write about this stuff.'
and c.i. explains there are 4 e-mails freaking over the simpsons entry yesterday.
that really pisses me off so if there are any common members coming here who dashed off an e-mail on that to c.i., take a breath kids.
it was about journalism. read the item. there's a guy, conservative org (natch), commenting on the episode and he hasn't seen it. he didn't boycott it which might be a story, he just didn't know about it. and then he didn't watch it. and he's presented for 'balance' when he has nothing to say. it's insta-pundit, just add water. and boil, please bring to a boil.
it was in the news section and you had other members e-mailing in. and the topic of the episode was same-sex marriage. so i don't see how with all the above there's a problem with it.
but let me make another point while i'm on this.
yesterday was presidents day. i took the day off. a number of people did.
c.i. could have and probably should have.
late saturday night we were both helping the groovy kids over at the 3rd estate sunday review and that went on until the wee hours. i think it was 7 o'clock when we were done but it may have been 6 a.m.
c.i.'s got a headache, saying stuff about being sick of blogging, and my advice was to take monday off because it was a holiday or, at the very least, focus on something fun.
guys and gals, i squeeze no more than 1 entry a day in between sex romps and other activities.
'but becky! sex romps are your only activities!' almost.
so please people, chill a little. i was asking jesse and ava (3rd estate) if this was normal talk and they were like 'whenever we're up all night like this, it is.' i'd slept in that morning (sex romp from the night before), had more sex and then a long nap, we got out of bed to grab something to eat, came back listened to some music with a little foreplay, ended up back in the bedroom after some strong living room activity, sex romp and i'd just gone to sleep when the phone rings with 3rd estate on the line.
contrast that with c.i. who was up early saturday morning and ends up pulling 24 hours plus before getting any sleep. so really guys, we all love c.i.'s writing and crave more but cut a little slack. it was a holiday. c.i. focused on answering e-mails and did like 6 or 7 posts. i don't see how that's slacking off.
and have you read the entry today? "The New York Times at its worst: Elisabeth Bumiller, Jodi Wilgoren and Juan Forero make the front page on the same day." i love it. i was laughing so hard this morning, i spit out my coffee at 1 point.
i'm quoted in it and proud to be. reading it, i see i had at least 1 typo but i never fix those and never will. i think that things from january and i really don't see the point in hunting down that entry on jodi wilgoren and fixing the word. the new york times doesn't do that kind of correction. if they did, they'd have many more corrections.
oh 1 more thing i saw in the new york times monday that i asked c.i. about. in the business section (hey sexy gals are interested in the business pages too) i saw something.
here it is, this is from monday when they usually run the weekend box office, page 7 of the business section. 'warner brothers will be watching to see how 'constantine,' keanu reeves' latest film does over presidents' day weekend. the actor's film in the supernatural/science-fiction have tended to start strong and finish very strong. only 'bram stroker's dracula' (1992), which opened with $30.5 million its first weekend, finished out of his top 5 movies.'
the paper then lists (in this order) matrix reloaded, the matrix, matrix revolution, something's gotta give and speed. so it was monday and i was trying to think of light topics to e-mail c.i. about and i e-mail that.
i get back a reply about the stupid idiots at the times. something like 'oh only dracula, is that the story? is that the nonsense the paper's spitting out this morning? well 'supernatural/science fiction? i think that would include devil's advocate and it's out of his top 5. and here's 2 more words: johnny mnuemonic! a walk in the clouds opened with a stronger box office than johnny mnuemonic and it 'finished strong' by grossing more as well!'
see, i read it and nod along too often. i think, well it's in the paper, it's been checked, it must be true. but the truth is, the new york times lies and lies and lies and lies.
maybe they don't mean to. maybe they're just tired or lazy. maybe they missed the crash and burn that was johnny mnuemonic (i love keanu but i'd forgotten about that film). but they take the trouble to inform you of something in their official voice, their 'voice of record' and the fact of the matter is they don't know what they fuck they are talking about.
that should be the slogan of the paper. not 'all the news that's fit to print' but 'we don't know what we are talking about.'
it seems like every day, my eyes are opened to increasing errors in the rag of record. if the guy delivering it monday through friday wasn't so damn sexy . . .
sherry has already e-mailed twice this weekend warning me that when i get back to posting i better dish as promised.
so here's the dealio. (stone temple pilots please come back! velvet revolver has about as much going on as the eighties 'group' the power station. robert deleo was hot!) his name is maurice. he looks a little like the guy in the acer ad that i'm still obsessing over. his cock curves to the right (as jim morrison once sang 'the little girls understand'). he's got a ton of energy so it was the perfect weekend!
if you get the beekeeper, i'd suggest you go for the deluxe version. you get a bonus dvd and cute extras including a package of seeds.
on my way i'm just passing you by
but don't be confused
one day i'll be coming for you
from tori amos's 'the beekeeper'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)