brief post tonight.
jim's asked ava and c.i. to scrap the tv commentary they'd already done a rough draft on (and made time to watch the show and call friends working on and around the show). jim thinks a) that they really do amazing writing (ava and c.i.) under pressure and b) the issue needs to be addressed. (stephen colbert.)
i agree it needs to be addressed. this was prompted by counterspin's decision to air the speech with no critique of it (and the implied approval and rah-rah that has upset a number of people).
if it works out, it will probably be 1 of those 'great' moments. but if it doesn't ...
i blame counterspin. they need a women's desk. 1 that is vocal. if they had 1 and sought input from it, that nonsense wouldn't have been on the air today.
jim really didn't grasp that it was putting them both under pressure. dona made that very clear in the long conversation (they bailed on it, ava and c.i.). jim's right that the piece needs to be written and i understand why ava and c.i. are the best choices. it's their beat. they can get people on the phone who saw it live.
and before i wrote my thing on it, i talked to c.i. about it and there are points that c.i. can make that no 1 else is making.
go read wally's 'THIS JUST IN! WHICH RAT WILL BE THE LAST TO LEAVE?' - it's funny and made me laugh.
in fairness to jim, he was his usual energetic self. he gets really jazzed on an idea and doesn't notice that every 1 else isn't going 'awesome!' if ava and c.i. can do this (i think they can) with minimal damage to their weekend (i'm not so sure), it'll be worth reading and worth doing. but ay-yi-yi.
after ava and c.i. left the call (at the same time), betty said, 'well am i the only 1 who wants to cry right now?' it was only when that was said and the long conversations that followed that jim started to grasp he was being a little overbearing. he'll apologize tomorrow night (he's already said he will) and hopefully everything will be fine. by the end of the call, jim was feeling really bad. he's just enthusiastic. and others, including me, could have stepped in and should have. jim thought c.i. was joking but there was no joking on c.i.'s part or ava's. they've both had very long weeks and were hoping that since they made time to knock out most of the work for their review, they'd be able to relax and we'd have a simple session. now that's all been shot to hell.
if it had been approached differently (or broached differently), it wouldn't have gone the way it did. i think every 1 can agree it needs to be dealt with and that ava and c.i. have the following and the abilities to address it.
listening to counterspin today, i was really insulted that they chose to present the 'jokes' the way they did - with no critique of it. they need a strong women's desk and they need to put those sort of items past a woman's desk.
i'll stop here because i want to be sure i don't end up spilling some of the points c.i. made when we were on the phone earlier this week. but there are a number of problems with the 'jokes' and i think it will be tackled wonderfully this sunday.
5/05/2006
5/04/2006
flashpoints
BC Professors Protest Honoring Condoleeza Rice
In Massachusetts, nearly 100 Boston College professors have added their names to a letter protesting their university's decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree. Rice has been announced as a commencement speaker for graduation ceremonies later this month. The letters' authors, including theology department chair Rev. Kenneth Himes, wrote: "On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice's approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College's commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university's work."
mike asked me if i could work in a headline from democracy now (they really should put him on the payroll of that show - he's always getting the word out).
kpfa's flashpoints? it has had a great week. i was tempted to note it each day but i was afraid i was setting a pattern. i'm happy to get the word out on the show, it's great, every 1 obviously cares. but i don't want to be tied down to something for every post.
so i thought i might be setting an expectation after last week if i did daily entries on kpfa's flashpoints. i did pass on 1 thing to c.i. and c.i. noted it at the common ills. and i did note janis karpinski being on last night (and i called the blog twins - mike and elaine - to ask them to note it at their sites).
monday, flashpoints did an amazing job covering the protests. it was even more powerful because they had breaking news. they didn't get it by calling up the new york times and asking, 'anything happening?' in bakersfield, california, people gathered at a park to begin their march. the police turned out in full force and they were told they couldn't march. a woman participating (or wanting to) went over to the police and asked 1 officer if they could march or not? the 1 guy said basically, 'sure keep it peaceful.' they start trying to bust people. including the woman who was reporting it for the show. it was nothing but bullying and intimidation. so what they decided was that they would not be defeated. they gathered again that night to march and the woman was reporting to dennis bernstein right before their march to city hall started. tuesday, c.i. noted that the incident wasn't in the new york times biased coverage. when i read that entry, i called c.i. and asked, 'you know kpfa's flashpoints covered this?' c.i. didn't know that but was happy to provide a link later in the day to it. so if you spent a buck for your new york times
tuesday, you need to listen to monday's flashpoints for some of what the paper of record couldn't be bothered with telling you. (and though there is no charge to listen to flashpoints, i'll do the plub here, pacifica is about to go into fundraising and it will last for the month, so if you have money to give and you value free speech and radio that gives you the information you need, the information that the corporate media won't provide you with, you should donate. i won't bother you with a plug again. but if you've got the money, you should give.)
tuesday's show featured an interview with craig murray (former uzbekistan ambassador for great britain). murray's book (he discussed it on democracy now) is coming out in the united states but there's some editing going on (british government). murray talked about how it the wmd claim for war with iraq was not believable. he also talked about how torture was going on and evidence of it was ignored. but probably the most interesting thing for readers will be the fact that bully boy was in bed with uzbekistan when it was known by our state department to have a despotic, abusive leadership. our state department labeled it such. that was under bill clinton's presidency. 'wait!' you say, 'bully boy had his own state department.' yes, but this happened while he was governor of texas. he was in bed with them while he was governor of texas. making deals, etc. which, it seems to me, the then state dept. should have been aware of and should have taken action (legal) against the bully boy.
laila el-haddad was also on the show discussing life for palestinians, something you don't hear about very often. she is a regular on the show and i want to get her name in before i forget it. dennis bernstein's name i knew from ruth. but i've had trouble figuring out the names of others.
so laila el-haddad, dennis bernstein and robert knight are 3 names i know so far.
which brings us to wednesday show. janis karpinski, the brigadier general (like c.i., i will call her that because i disagree that she should have been stripped of her title) who was made the fall guy for abu ghraib was interviewed by dennis bernstein. i'm going to assume most people know her story and just add that she wasn't over military interrogations and the actions taking place in abu ghraib were not under her control.
these are some notes i made. i'm not ruth. i don't do short hand. so consider it a very rough transcript. so if you are interested in what you read of the interview, listen to the show.
1 key point was on the testimony of general sanchez where he told congress he didn't know anything about the photographs. karpinski: 'but nobody asked him the real important question' "did you know anything about the authorizations for the techniques that we saw in the photographs?" because he would have to say yes, if he were telling the truth.'
she added, 'he signed an 8 page memorandun ... authorizing a laundry list of techniques ... to include all of those techniques listed on that rumsfeld list stripping them naked, using unmuzzled dogs ... but nobody asked him that question while he was testifying under oath.'
she was very clear that 'he authorized what was going on.' and she clarified that, 'in those photographs ... there wasn't any interrogation taking place in those photographs.
but they were not, those photographs were not taken in the course of interrogations. in fact, those photographs were going to be used interrogations to get the prisoners, the detainees to start talking.'
she said a laptop would be opened, they'd show the person the photos and tell them to start talking or 'tomorrow, you're on the bottom of the pile.'
dennis bernstein asked about the abuse of women prisoners. karpinksi noted that 'there were photographs of women being abused' and that there were 'several pictures of women directed to raise their shirts and show their breasts.'
but most interesting to me was her comments on november 2003 when an investiagtion occurred over 3 military intelligence soldiers (interrogators) who 'went to cell block 1b where the female prisoners were held and 1 stood guard 'while the other 2 went and abused female prisoners . . . some statements that they actually physically raped female prisoners.'
this got out because the 3 men were bragging about what they did. the 3 were given a written reprimand (general papas did this) and sent the men back to the united states. don't you feel safer knowing that?
chain of command? she said, 'secretary of defense does not operate in a vacuum so everything that he was doing to be crystal clear he would have talked to his boss the vice president ... if you recall during his confirmation hearings ... they just rescinded the memorandum and said "it's been rescinded so it's not"' an issue (i think she said 'an issue' at the end, but i'm not sure so i'm leaving it out of the quote). she then traced the authorization gonzles gave (the 'quaint' memo) which went to gonzales and then to the commanders in the field and you trace it back up to the bully boy.
on rumsfeld, she noted that general miller was giving rumsfeld reports, he was informed. he was interested in knowing which techniques worked quickest, etc.
kpfa's flashpoints is on right now and i want to listen. violence is going on in san salvador, mexico. people in san salvador were attacked by the police. a boy was shot in the head. i want to hear this so i'm posting.
thank you to c.i. and wally and mike and readers who got the word out on yesterday's post. i've gotten a great deal of e-mail on it. also thanks to elaine who tossed aside the peace or reality quote she often ends with to suggest that every 1 instead read my post from yesterday.
by the way, read wally's 'THIS JUST IN! AIN'T EASY TO IMPRESS ALBERTO GONZALES!'
because i'm sure the news he's sending up will be all over the place tomorrow.
oh, i just remembered sherry's comment.
In Massachusetts, nearly 100 Boston College professors have added their names to a letter protesting their university's decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree. Rice has been announced as a commencement speaker for graduation ceremonies later this month. The letters' authors, including theology department chair Rev. Kenneth Himes, wrote: "On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice's approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College's commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university's work."
mike asked me if i could work in a headline from democracy now (they really should put him on the payroll of that show - he's always getting the word out).
kpfa's flashpoints? it has had a great week. i was tempted to note it each day but i was afraid i was setting a pattern. i'm happy to get the word out on the show, it's great, every 1 obviously cares. but i don't want to be tied down to something for every post.
so i thought i might be setting an expectation after last week if i did daily entries on kpfa's flashpoints. i did pass on 1 thing to c.i. and c.i. noted it at the common ills. and i did note janis karpinski being on last night (and i called the blog twins - mike and elaine - to ask them to note it at their sites).
monday, flashpoints did an amazing job covering the protests. it was even more powerful because they had breaking news. they didn't get it by calling up the new york times and asking, 'anything happening?' in bakersfield, california, people gathered at a park to begin their march. the police turned out in full force and they were told they couldn't march. a woman participating (or wanting to) went over to the police and asked 1 officer if they could march or not? the 1 guy said basically, 'sure keep it peaceful.' they start trying to bust people. including the woman who was reporting it for the show. it was nothing but bullying and intimidation. so what they decided was that they would not be defeated. they gathered again that night to march and the woman was reporting to dennis bernstein right before their march to city hall started. tuesday, c.i. noted that the incident wasn't in the new york times biased coverage. when i read that entry, i called c.i. and asked, 'you know kpfa's flashpoints covered this?' c.i. didn't know that but was happy to provide a link later in the day to it. so if you spent a buck for your new york times
tuesday, you need to listen to monday's flashpoints for some of what the paper of record couldn't be bothered with telling you. (and though there is no charge to listen to flashpoints, i'll do the plub here, pacifica is about to go into fundraising and it will last for the month, so if you have money to give and you value free speech and radio that gives you the information you need, the information that the corporate media won't provide you with, you should donate. i won't bother you with a plug again. but if you've got the money, you should give.)
tuesday's show featured an interview with craig murray (former uzbekistan ambassador for great britain). murray's book (he discussed it on democracy now) is coming out in the united states but there's some editing going on (british government). murray talked about how it the wmd claim for war with iraq was not believable. he also talked about how torture was going on and evidence of it was ignored. but probably the most interesting thing for readers will be the fact that bully boy was in bed with uzbekistan when it was known by our state department to have a despotic, abusive leadership. our state department labeled it such. that was under bill clinton's presidency. 'wait!' you say, 'bully boy had his own state department.' yes, but this happened while he was governor of texas. he was in bed with them while he was governor of texas. making deals, etc. which, it seems to me, the then state dept. should have been aware of and should have taken action (legal) against the bully boy.
laila el-haddad was also on the show discussing life for palestinians, something you don't hear about very often. she is a regular on the show and i want to get her name in before i forget it. dennis bernstein's name i knew from ruth. but i've had trouble figuring out the names of others.
so laila el-haddad, dennis bernstein and robert knight are 3 names i know so far.
which brings us to wednesday show. janis karpinski, the brigadier general (like c.i., i will call her that because i disagree that she should have been stripped of her title) who was made the fall guy for abu ghraib was interviewed by dennis bernstein. i'm going to assume most people know her story and just add that she wasn't over military interrogations and the actions taking place in abu ghraib were not under her control.
these are some notes i made. i'm not ruth. i don't do short hand. so consider it a very rough transcript. so if you are interested in what you read of the interview, listen to the show.
1 key point was on the testimony of general sanchez where he told congress he didn't know anything about the photographs. karpinski: 'but nobody asked him the real important question' "did you know anything about the authorizations for the techniques that we saw in the photographs?" because he would have to say yes, if he were telling the truth.'
she added, 'he signed an 8 page memorandun ... authorizing a laundry list of techniques ... to include all of those techniques listed on that rumsfeld list stripping them naked, using unmuzzled dogs ... but nobody asked him that question while he was testifying under oath.'
she was very clear that 'he authorized what was going on.' and she clarified that, 'in those photographs ... there wasn't any interrogation taking place in those photographs.
but they were not, those photographs were not taken in the course of interrogations. in fact, those photographs were going to be used interrogations to get the prisoners, the detainees to start talking.'
she said a laptop would be opened, they'd show the person the photos and tell them to start talking or 'tomorrow, you're on the bottom of the pile.'
dennis bernstein asked about the abuse of women prisoners. karpinksi noted that 'there were photographs of women being abused' and that there were 'several pictures of women directed to raise their shirts and show their breasts.'
but most interesting to me was her comments on november 2003 when an investiagtion occurred over 3 military intelligence soldiers (interrogators) who 'went to cell block 1b where the female prisoners were held and 1 stood guard 'while the other 2 went and abused female prisoners . . . some statements that they actually physically raped female prisoners.'
this got out because the 3 men were bragging about what they did. the 3 were given a written reprimand (general papas did this) and sent the men back to the united states. don't you feel safer knowing that?
chain of command? she said, 'secretary of defense does not operate in a vacuum so everything that he was doing to be crystal clear he would have talked to his boss the vice president ... if you recall during his confirmation hearings ... they just rescinded the memorandum and said "it's been rescinded so it's not"' an issue (i think she said 'an issue' at the end, but i'm not sure so i'm leaving it out of the quote). she then traced the authorization gonzles gave (the 'quaint' memo) which went to gonzales and then to the commanders in the field and you trace it back up to the bully boy.
on rumsfeld, she noted that general miller was giving rumsfeld reports, he was informed. he was interested in knowing which techniques worked quickest, etc.
kpfa's flashpoints is on right now and i want to listen. violence is going on in san salvador, mexico. people in san salvador were attacked by the police. a boy was shot in the head. i want to hear this so i'm posting.
thank you to c.i. and wally and mike and readers who got the word out on yesterday's post. i've gotten a great deal of e-mail on it. also thanks to elaine who tossed aside the peace or reality quote she often ends with to suggest that every 1 instead read my post from yesterday.
by the way, read wally's 'THIS JUST IN! AIN'T EASY TO IMPRESS ALBERTO GONZALES!'
because i'm sure the news he's sending up will be all over the place tomorrow.
oh, i just remembered sherry's comment.
5/03/2006
goldie's (and marlene's) house party last weekend to end the war
tonight, at last, the story of goldie's (and marlene's), house party.
but first, c.i. forwarded a reply to an e-mail that came into the common ills. a blogger (not in the community) took issue with me for my opinions on stephen colbert and then slammed me for writing about dynasty. c.i. replied that he (yes, it was a he) shouldn't try to 2nd guess me.
'rebecca writes with instinct, with a good sense of p.r. and quite a bit more. while you see "only" talk of a tv show, you miss quite a bit including the point "strong women characters." you also fail to grasp that she's been promoting goldie since last week and drawing it out builds anticipation. the post on "dynasty" is an attention getter that will draw in more than the usual readers. that's what rebecca is all about and what she's always been about. which is why with little help outside of the community, she's managed to become very popular. possibly she could do "cat blogging" or whatever other tired fad/phase has been around for 10 years now? instead, she writes exactly as she wants and, in doing so, has 1 of the most intense and dedicated readerships you can only dream of as you play "from the center" with your dull posts. thanks for sharing. feel free to share again with some 1 who gives a damn. -- c.i.'
that was very nice of c.i. and attached was a note to me that if it were elaine, this might not be forwarded but i would want to know about it. i would.
so some little centrist feels the need to rag on me to c.i.?
1st why did he think c.i. would give a damn?
perfect stranger whines and c.i.'s going to say 'oh perfect stranger, you're right, let me trash a lifetime friendship!'?
what those types never get is that elaine, c.i. and i cannot have a wedge shoved between us. centrist, you're late to the party, all the presents have been opened, the candles blown out and the cake and ice cream all gone.
i wrote about dynasty for a number of reasons last night. 1) i did watch the show. 2) the female characters were strong and that was a breakthrough. 3) joan collins did make a difference in the way women were seen on tv. 4) i knew there were other dynasty fans out there. (i got more e-mails on last night's post then i've gotten on anything.) 5) postponing goldie would build the moment (milk it?). 6) if even 1 reader who dropped by for the dynasty post stayed around it would be a success.
your male concept of what the net is, centrist, isn't mine.
i think i achieved all my intended goals. but i doubt that any 1 trying to get us to all rally behind joe lieberman would grasp that.
so let's talk goldie and marlene.
last weekend, while some were able to go to nyc for the rally and march, many others were not able to. daughter goldie and mother marlene were not going to let the moment pass by without doing something.
goldie's the 1 who usually thinks of things for her friends. this time mom was inspired by her daughter's spirit (i'm inspired by goldie's spirit as well). so they threw a sleep over for young females and women. goldie invited her friends and marlene invited her friends (many of whom were the mothers of goldie's friends). as friday approached a few had yet to r.s.v.p.
turns out there was no need to worry. not only did every 1 r.s.v.p. by friday evening, many of the women asked if they could bring a friend, sister or family member.
they ended up with 62 females gathered together on saturday to talk about the war and the state of the world. (64 counting goldie and marlene.)
they couldn't go to nyc. they could've said, 'oh i can't go, maybe next time. let's stay home and watch gilmor girls!' they didn't do that. they ended up with their own rally right there in their own home.
that's pretty amazing. i don't want to make it all about the numbers and i'm happy for any reader who did something whether they got together with just 1 friend or more than 1, but 64 is amazing.
marlene said the thing she heard most often from her friends was that they had a lot on their mind but never really felt like they had a chance to talk about it. some of them have jobs where anything resembling a 'political discussion' is frowned upon. as marlene pointed out, the country's at war, how can some employers think the topic is off limits? but some do. then the 1s who pick up their children after school are never sure where others stand.
what every 1 found out, marlene said, was how many were opposed to the war. a few had talked to each other about it in groups of 2. that's why 1 woman asked if she could bring her sister. her sister was the only 1 'keeping me sane' during this illegal war.
there were 2 women who didn't work outside of the home and marlene made a point to note that this hadn't freed up their discussions. it had left them feeling as isolated as the women who had an off limits stamp on the topic at their jobs.
goldie's big worry before saturday night was 1 her friends had. most were very against the war because it's an issue that goldie raises and discusses. she's taking a speech class now, the first 1/2 of the term was a foreign language, the 2nd 1/2 is speech. and there's not a speech she gives, improv or rehearsed, that doesn't put the war out there.
they had to give 1 on the founding fathers and goldie didn't just do a history, she took what they said and would apply to the illegal war we're in today. so her friends have had some 1 raising the issue and they've done research on their own and are really up to speed on what's going on.
their concern was that the mothers and other adults wouldn't a) understand where they were coming from and/or b) let them speak.
goldie had to say at 1 point, marlene backed her up on this, 'that's a very important point but ___ had the floor.' the mother, who had interrupted her own daughter, apologized and yielded the floor to her daughter. that only happened the 1 time.
that's pretty amazing when you consider the number present. but goldie is something. she is a force to be reckoned with.
so the evening started with every 1 just saying their name and telling a detail or 2 about themselves. then they munched on snacks while they watched eyewitness in iraq.
that was the perfect choice because a) it's powerful and b) it's only 28 minutes long.
every 1 was more than ready to talk and if it had been a longer movie, they probably would've ended up stopping it. so they then went around discussing, taking turns and listening to each other. goldie said her friends were really impressed with their own moms because they really were worried that they'd be dismissed or not listened to.
goldie had to reassure them that this wouldn't happen. she told them friday during lunch, 'if we're not listened to, we stage a walk out!'
goldie's not even 13, folks. she is amazing.
so the daughters got to share their thoughts and this is a big deal. it was a big deal to them but it would be a big deal to any 1. think about when you were young and something was important to you. did your parents listen to you? some did, some didn't.
saturday night, the mothers (aunts and friends) listened to our future leaders.
it wasn't a 1 way street. the daughters listened to the mothers, and other adults, as well.
the only other potential problem came when, at 11 pm, 1 of the mothers said, 'this has been good but you girls should probably go to sleep now.'
goldie didn't blink, marlene said. goldie informed the woman that she was very happy to have her as a guest and that even though the invitations clearly stated every 1 would stay up until midnight, if the woman was tired, she could go on to sleep.
the woman, to her credit, laughed and said, 'goldie, you are right. tell you what, i think i can handle 1 more hour.'
both goldie and marlene report that each grouping was impressed with the others.
marlene said goldie's best friend's mother told her she felt embarrassed when she heard her daughter speaking because her daughter had put so much time and energy into the issue. she had no idea. she knew her daughter was 'into music and boys' but she'd never seen this serious side before. and she said her daughter had put more time into the issue than she had 'and i'm the adult.'
goldie's friends that were in the speech class had some visuals from speeches they'd given. (1 class, when the students could pick a topic, goldie begged every 1, boy or girl, to talk about the war. and they all did. she's our future president, folks.)
1 grandmother had come along and she was probably the biggest hit with every 1 because she had tales of what she did in high school in the final years the war was waging in vietnam. she'd think she was finished and be asked for another story.
she called marlene on monday to thank her for the party and to say that those are stories she never shares these days because she didn't think any 1 cared.
so it's was a multi-generational meeting of minds.
every 1 ended up realizing that there was no wall on the war between any 1 attending. they all felt a lot stronger from sharing and realizing that they shared an opposition to the war. 30 minutes before midnight, they started brainstorming on what to do next and decided that these house parties needed to continue. the next 1 will focus on females as well and be in june. for that they got 10 volunteers to agree to host at their homes. (64 is a lot of people for a living room. marlene and 2 women ended up having to move the coffee table, the chairs and the counch out into the hall just to have room for every 1.) after that, in august, the plan is to try to bring in the men - 'and boys,' goldie added.
but with ground rules because goldie says boys don't like to just talk about what they think or feel, they like to tell you what they think you think and feel. (i'm not kidding, she's our future president. she knows the score already.)
so 1 of the things the 10 house parties in june will work on is a set of guidelines for august's house parites and they will be included with the invitations so that, if there are any problems, some 1 can do like goldie did when they almost lost an hour of their discussion time -- 'the invitations clearly stated...'
the 1 thing that marlene would do differently is the music. every 1 brought music (they could've brought an article, book or poem) except for 4. they weren't able to listen to all the music so the adults had to narrow down their choices and the young girls had to do the same with their choices. that was fine. but the first 1 to play was a mother and she didn't talk about it. she probably assumed that it would be clear. then the next turn went to 1 of goldie's friends and since the woman hadn't spoken, the girl just said 'this is bright eyes.' then a mother went with the next cd. then goldie jumped in and said, 'okay, bright eyes' and gave a brief speech about the cd they'd already listened to and then introduced the pink cd. after that, every 1, adult or young female, spoke for at least 2 minutes on why the cd had been selected.
marlene thinks that either the young girls were more passionated about the music or more convinced that not every 1 would know the cd. so for june's house parties, they're all going to start with a selection from the younger group. after goldie got every 1 prodded, people were really opening up. they'd talk about the 1 or 2 songs on the cd that made them bring it and maybe 1 of those songs or another 1 was a song they'd slow danced to. which would cause every 1 to laugh. marlene said she thought it was a really good way for both groups to get to know each other.
the question i didn't want to ask was the 1 i saved for last with goldie. i was afraid i'd be discouraging when i asked, 'so what does this mean?'
goldie replied that it didn't mean the war ends tomorrow. and she really paid attention to the stories the grandmother told because she was using them for the examples. she closed with 'it's going to be a long fight.'
goldie for president!
the smartest and coolest person in the nation.
goldie's writing about the house party for this sunday's polly's brew so be sure to check that out. she did her 1st column in the 1 that went out last sunday and it was 'just me saying hi' is how she explained it. it was a lot more than that but you're going to want to read about this. there's 1 story that she shared which is so wonderful that i told her i loved hearing it but i wasn't going to put it up here because she really needs to write about that in her column.
sherry and i had the same question for marlene - why goldie? we figured it either had to be for goldie hawn or the rapper. marlene said that in the final 3 months of her pregnancy, she got so huge it was a major trip just to get off the bed. during that time, she was still responsible for writing the checks and sending out the bills. she wrote the check for the cable bill, put it in an envelope and stamped it. but she asked her husband to mail it because that morning she didn't feel like walking out to the mailbox. he was in a hurry and didn't put it in their mailbox on the way to the car. he planned to mail it from work but then forgot and then lost it (not realizing he'd lost it).
so 1 day a final notice comes in. she asks him, 'did you mail that check in?' of course he did. they probably haven't processed it yet. then, a little bit later, the cable goes off. at which point he remembers that maybe he didn't mail it. maybe.
he told her she'd have to take care of it and her attitude was that she wasn't taking care of it because if he'd just put the envelope in the mail on his way to the car that morning, there'd be nothing to take care of or if he'd remembered, when the final notice came in, that he never mailed the envelope, it would have been taken care of then.
so there was no cable and when others would offer to take care of it, she would say, 'no, he needs to write the check and he needs to mail it. it's his mess.' so her sister brought over some videocassettes. it was a lot of jim carrey and steve martin movies (marlene likes them) and 3 goldie hawn films (housesitter, butterflies are free and protocol). she really didn't know goldie's movies. she knew who goldie was from interviews on tv and in magazines but she doesn't think she'd ever seen a film with goldie hawn.
the movies made her laugh and as she watched them over and over, she decided that was what she wanted her daughter-to-be to be like. 'some 1 who may make a mistake, but picks herself up, has a sense of humor and is going to get through life just fine.' that's why goldie is named goldie.
that may be 1 reason goldie is so cool but 1 reason for sure is the fact that she's got an equally cool mother. by the way, whether her husband took care of it himself or got some 1 to, the cable was back on when she and goldie came home from the hospital. marlene says, 'of course that only happened after i'd given birth and realized iwas making a lot out of the lost envelope.'
kpfa's flashpoints tomorrow (they've had a great week). janis karpkinski is being interviewed by dennis bernstein right now. if you read this and think, 'i missed it!' remember you can hit either link at the start of the sentence and listen to an archived broadcast.
but first, c.i. forwarded a reply to an e-mail that came into the common ills. a blogger (not in the community) took issue with me for my opinions on stephen colbert and then slammed me for writing about dynasty. c.i. replied that he (yes, it was a he) shouldn't try to 2nd guess me.
'rebecca writes with instinct, with a good sense of p.r. and quite a bit more. while you see "only" talk of a tv show, you miss quite a bit including the point "strong women characters." you also fail to grasp that she's been promoting goldie since last week and drawing it out builds anticipation. the post on "dynasty" is an attention getter that will draw in more than the usual readers. that's what rebecca is all about and what she's always been about. which is why with little help outside of the community, she's managed to become very popular. possibly she could do "cat blogging" or whatever other tired fad/phase has been around for 10 years now? instead, she writes exactly as she wants and, in doing so, has 1 of the most intense and dedicated readerships you can only dream of as you play "from the center" with your dull posts. thanks for sharing. feel free to share again with some 1 who gives a damn. -- c.i.'
that was very nice of c.i. and attached was a note to me that if it were elaine, this might not be forwarded but i would want to know about it. i would.
so some little centrist feels the need to rag on me to c.i.?
1st why did he think c.i. would give a damn?
perfect stranger whines and c.i.'s going to say 'oh perfect stranger, you're right, let me trash a lifetime friendship!'?
what those types never get is that elaine, c.i. and i cannot have a wedge shoved between us. centrist, you're late to the party, all the presents have been opened, the candles blown out and the cake and ice cream all gone.
i wrote about dynasty for a number of reasons last night. 1) i did watch the show. 2) the female characters were strong and that was a breakthrough. 3) joan collins did make a difference in the way women were seen on tv. 4) i knew there were other dynasty fans out there. (i got more e-mails on last night's post then i've gotten on anything.) 5) postponing goldie would build the moment (milk it?). 6) if even 1 reader who dropped by for the dynasty post stayed around it would be a success.
your male concept of what the net is, centrist, isn't mine.
i think i achieved all my intended goals. but i doubt that any 1 trying to get us to all rally behind joe lieberman would grasp that.
so let's talk goldie and marlene.
last weekend, while some were able to go to nyc for the rally and march, many others were not able to. daughter goldie and mother marlene were not going to let the moment pass by without doing something.
goldie's the 1 who usually thinks of things for her friends. this time mom was inspired by her daughter's spirit (i'm inspired by goldie's spirit as well). so they threw a sleep over for young females and women. goldie invited her friends and marlene invited her friends (many of whom were the mothers of goldie's friends). as friday approached a few had yet to r.s.v.p.
turns out there was no need to worry. not only did every 1 r.s.v.p. by friday evening, many of the women asked if they could bring a friend, sister or family member.
they ended up with 62 females gathered together on saturday to talk about the war and the state of the world. (64 counting goldie and marlene.)
they couldn't go to nyc. they could've said, 'oh i can't go, maybe next time. let's stay home and watch gilmor girls!' they didn't do that. they ended up with their own rally right there in their own home.
that's pretty amazing. i don't want to make it all about the numbers and i'm happy for any reader who did something whether they got together with just 1 friend or more than 1, but 64 is amazing.
marlene said the thing she heard most often from her friends was that they had a lot on their mind but never really felt like they had a chance to talk about it. some of them have jobs where anything resembling a 'political discussion' is frowned upon. as marlene pointed out, the country's at war, how can some employers think the topic is off limits? but some do. then the 1s who pick up their children after school are never sure where others stand.
what every 1 found out, marlene said, was how many were opposed to the war. a few had talked to each other about it in groups of 2. that's why 1 woman asked if she could bring her sister. her sister was the only 1 'keeping me sane' during this illegal war.
there were 2 women who didn't work outside of the home and marlene made a point to note that this hadn't freed up their discussions. it had left them feeling as isolated as the women who had an off limits stamp on the topic at their jobs.
goldie's big worry before saturday night was 1 her friends had. most were very against the war because it's an issue that goldie raises and discusses. she's taking a speech class now, the first 1/2 of the term was a foreign language, the 2nd 1/2 is speech. and there's not a speech she gives, improv or rehearsed, that doesn't put the war out there.
they had to give 1 on the founding fathers and goldie didn't just do a history, she took what they said and would apply to the illegal war we're in today. so her friends have had some 1 raising the issue and they've done research on their own and are really up to speed on what's going on.
their concern was that the mothers and other adults wouldn't a) understand where they were coming from and/or b) let them speak.
goldie had to say at 1 point, marlene backed her up on this, 'that's a very important point but ___ had the floor.' the mother, who had interrupted her own daughter, apologized and yielded the floor to her daughter. that only happened the 1 time.
that's pretty amazing when you consider the number present. but goldie is something. she is a force to be reckoned with.
so the evening started with every 1 just saying their name and telling a detail or 2 about themselves. then they munched on snacks while they watched eyewitness in iraq.
that was the perfect choice because a) it's powerful and b) it's only 28 minutes long.
every 1 was more than ready to talk and if it had been a longer movie, they probably would've ended up stopping it. so they then went around discussing, taking turns and listening to each other. goldie said her friends were really impressed with their own moms because they really were worried that they'd be dismissed or not listened to.
goldie had to reassure them that this wouldn't happen. she told them friday during lunch, 'if we're not listened to, we stage a walk out!'
goldie's not even 13, folks. she is amazing.
so the daughters got to share their thoughts and this is a big deal. it was a big deal to them but it would be a big deal to any 1. think about when you were young and something was important to you. did your parents listen to you? some did, some didn't.
saturday night, the mothers (aunts and friends) listened to our future leaders.
it wasn't a 1 way street. the daughters listened to the mothers, and other adults, as well.
the only other potential problem came when, at 11 pm, 1 of the mothers said, 'this has been good but you girls should probably go to sleep now.'
goldie didn't blink, marlene said. goldie informed the woman that she was very happy to have her as a guest and that even though the invitations clearly stated every 1 would stay up until midnight, if the woman was tired, she could go on to sleep.
the woman, to her credit, laughed and said, 'goldie, you are right. tell you what, i think i can handle 1 more hour.'
both goldie and marlene report that each grouping was impressed with the others.
marlene said goldie's best friend's mother told her she felt embarrassed when she heard her daughter speaking because her daughter had put so much time and energy into the issue. she had no idea. she knew her daughter was 'into music and boys' but she'd never seen this serious side before. and she said her daughter had put more time into the issue than she had 'and i'm the adult.'
goldie's friends that were in the speech class had some visuals from speeches they'd given. (1 class, when the students could pick a topic, goldie begged every 1, boy or girl, to talk about the war. and they all did. she's our future president, folks.)
1 grandmother had come along and she was probably the biggest hit with every 1 because she had tales of what she did in high school in the final years the war was waging in vietnam. she'd think she was finished and be asked for another story.
she called marlene on monday to thank her for the party and to say that those are stories she never shares these days because she didn't think any 1 cared.
so it's was a multi-generational meeting of minds.
every 1 ended up realizing that there was no wall on the war between any 1 attending. they all felt a lot stronger from sharing and realizing that they shared an opposition to the war. 30 minutes before midnight, they started brainstorming on what to do next and decided that these house parties needed to continue. the next 1 will focus on females as well and be in june. for that they got 10 volunteers to agree to host at their homes. (64 is a lot of people for a living room. marlene and 2 women ended up having to move the coffee table, the chairs and the counch out into the hall just to have room for every 1.) after that, in august, the plan is to try to bring in the men - 'and boys,' goldie added.
but with ground rules because goldie says boys don't like to just talk about what they think or feel, they like to tell you what they think you think and feel. (i'm not kidding, she's our future president. she knows the score already.)
so 1 of the things the 10 house parties in june will work on is a set of guidelines for august's house parites and they will be included with the invitations so that, if there are any problems, some 1 can do like goldie did when they almost lost an hour of their discussion time -- 'the invitations clearly stated...'
the 1 thing that marlene would do differently is the music. every 1 brought music (they could've brought an article, book or poem) except for 4. they weren't able to listen to all the music so the adults had to narrow down their choices and the young girls had to do the same with their choices. that was fine. but the first 1 to play was a mother and she didn't talk about it. she probably assumed that it would be clear. then the next turn went to 1 of goldie's friends and since the woman hadn't spoken, the girl just said 'this is bright eyes.' then a mother went with the next cd. then goldie jumped in and said, 'okay, bright eyes' and gave a brief speech about the cd they'd already listened to and then introduced the pink cd. after that, every 1, adult or young female, spoke for at least 2 minutes on why the cd had been selected.
marlene thinks that either the young girls were more passionated about the music or more convinced that not every 1 would know the cd. so for june's house parties, they're all going to start with a selection from the younger group. after goldie got every 1 prodded, people were really opening up. they'd talk about the 1 or 2 songs on the cd that made them bring it and maybe 1 of those songs or another 1 was a song they'd slow danced to. which would cause every 1 to laugh. marlene said she thought it was a really good way for both groups to get to know each other.
the question i didn't want to ask was the 1 i saved for last with goldie. i was afraid i'd be discouraging when i asked, 'so what does this mean?'
goldie replied that it didn't mean the war ends tomorrow. and she really paid attention to the stories the grandmother told because she was using them for the examples. she closed with 'it's going to be a long fight.'
goldie for president!
the smartest and coolest person in the nation.
goldie's writing about the house party for this sunday's polly's brew so be sure to check that out. she did her 1st column in the 1 that went out last sunday and it was 'just me saying hi' is how she explained it. it was a lot more than that but you're going to want to read about this. there's 1 story that she shared which is so wonderful that i told her i loved hearing it but i wasn't going to put it up here because she really needs to write about that in her column.
sherry and i had the same question for marlene - why goldie? we figured it either had to be for goldie hawn or the rapper. marlene said that in the final 3 months of her pregnancy, she got so huge it was a major trip just to get off the bed. during that time, she was still responsible for writing the checks and sending out the bills. she wrote the check for the cable bill, put it in an envelope and stamped it. but she asked her husband to mail it because that morning she didn't feel like walking out to the mailbox. he was in a hurry and didn't put it in their mailbox on the way to the car. he planned to mail it from work but then forgot and then lost it (not realizing he'd lost it).
so 1 day a final notice comes in. she asks him, 'did you mail that check in?' of course he did. they probably haven't processed it yet. then, a little bit later, the cable goes off. at which point he remembers that maybe he didn't mail it. maybe.
he told her she'd have to take care of it and her attitude was that she wasn't taking care of it because if he'd just put the envelope in the mail on his way to the car that morning, there'd be nothing to take care of or if he'd remembered, when the final notice came in, that he never mailed the envelope, it would have been taken care of then.
so there was no cable and when others would offer to take care of it, she would say, 'no, he needs to write the check and he needs to mail it. it's his mess.' so her sister brought over some videocassettes. it was a lot of jim carrey and steve martin movies (marlene likes them) and 3 goldie hawn films (housesitter, butterflies are free and protocol). she really didn't know goldie's movies. she knew who goldie was from interviews on tv and in magazines but she doesn't think she'd ever seen a film with goldie hawn.
the movies made her laugh and as she watched them over and over, she decided that was what she wanted her daughter-to-be to be like. 'some 1 who may make a mistake, but picks herself up, has a sense of humor and is going to get through life just fine.' that's why goldie is named goldie.
that may be 1 reason goldie is so cool but 1 reason for sure is the fact that she's got an equally cool mother. by the way, whether her husband took care of it himself or got some 1 to, the cable was back on when she and goldie came home from the hospital. marlene says, 'of course that only happened after i'd given birth and realized iwas making a lot out of the lost envelope.'
kpfa's flashpoints tomorrow (they've had a great week). janis karpkinski is being interviewed by dennis bernstein right now. if you read this and think, 'i missed it!' remember you can hit either link at the start of the sentence and listen to an archived broadcast.
5/02/2006
dynasty
okay, tomorrow night goldie. not tonight. we spoke on the phone for about 2 hours and i spoke to her mother for at least an hour. at the end of it, her mother said, 'you probably have too much.' i said, 'no, i'll just sit down, read over everything and pull some together.'
she said, 'well you have more energy than i do, i'm just going to crash in front of the tv and watch dynasty.'
i said, 'oh i used to love that show. i haven't watched it in syndication but i know every episode.'
that's when she says, 'oh, no, this is a reunion special.'
i said 'what!' and i'm grabbing for the papers. i see the arts section of the new york times which i never got to. there it is. i'm reading parts of it to her and i see this 1 part about al corely only on being on the show for a year.
what?
when tv talk 'years' in tv, they usually mean seasons. he was on the first season of dynasty - which wasn't a full season and he was on the second season. that's when he leaves, with 2 seasons under his belt. so goldie's mother and i, her name is marlene by the way, are talking about that and then we're talking about dynasty. she said she had a pint of mint cholocate chip in the freezer that she'd puchased for this and that she used to watch the show with friends. i usually watched it on the phone with friends. she said we should watch together and i did have some ice cream in the freezer too (rocky road).
so we watched and laughed and remembered.
it was really fun and we were talking about alexis and fallon and how big a deal they were. a lot of people compare it to dallas but dynasty was way ahead of dallas. joan collins didn't play a dish rag like sue ellen. she wasn't always the victim. the women on dallas were like house pets until pam left bobby (many, many years later - and after dynasty was a hit). they were useless.
donna reed came on as miss ellie and a lot of people didn't like that. i didn't have anything against barbara bel geddes but i honestly thought donna reed brought a little life to the show.
i really felt like you had to enjoy being a doormat to watch dallas if you were a woman.
marlene didn't believe what i'd said. why? she felt the same way.
'what was the best soap on prime time?' she asked and we both said 'knots landing!' together.
but it wasn't until dynasty that knots landing finally became a decent show.
they didn't know what they were doing with that show. then dynasty came along and showed that women could do a little more than say 'oh bobby' and 'oh j.r.'
or lucy with her prolonged childhood. if it weren't for the sexually acting out, she would have had nothing to offer as a character.
and never det me started on that hideous woman ray krebbs married.
but for awhile, it was the only show in town. then came dynasty and women weren't just sitting on the sidelines while bobby and j.r. and jock duked it out over ewing oil.
dynasty also had hotties. not a lot.
the first year was the best. you had matthew blaisdel who was hot. you had al corley who was hot. and john james who was just so pretty.
i don't think he could act at all but he was very pretty.
after corley left they brought on jack coleman and he was just not my type, that face shape was just not anything i'd be interested in. it was like a box with a little pointy chin attached.
after the first year of alexis (the 2nd season), dynasty had such an impact that abby (donna mills) went from annoyance on knots landing to first class bitch.
we were done with the family type drama and in soap territory.
and then knots landing took off. and women could be front and center.
joan collins, linda evans and pamela sue martin pushed it. give them and dynasty credit. but blake carrington always had to come out on top. on knots landing, abby could win, she could lose.
and once that happened there was real reason for karen to stand up for val. i thought i was the only 1 who never cared for val during all that time of nuttiness but marlene was worse about val than i was. 'she left her kid years ago and she's going to spend her whole life whining?' and we couldn't stand laura until she was about to leave richard. the women were dish rags on that show. even abby was 'little sister' depending on her big brother.
dynasty allowed women to do more than sit around the table shooting glances. sue ellen was so boring. pam was a drip until she left bobby.
so we talked about that and we talked about the scenes that got included and the 1s that didn't.
where was sammy jo? we saw her in 1 scene, for a 2nd.
just because heather locklear didn't want to do the reunion doesn't mean they couldn't use the scenes.
i didn't see kathleen beller sit down with the cast but they showed kirby.
marlene pointed out that they didn't show diahann carroll either. she wasn't invited to the chat. but that's how they treated her character the whole time. the minute that she wasn't playing kirby's mother, they didn't know what to do with her.
i liked joan collins' fire and humor. i did wonder about the fact that alexis wore wigs.
was she supposed to or was that a glitch? in one episode, she had short hair, then we see her at her apartment lifting free weights and wearing this hideous blue body suit and her hair's very long.
joan collins changed tv. there's no getting around it. linda evans, no offense, but she was 1 person. when joan collins came on, suddenly it was 'women.' and women were more than the aunt beas. joan collins showed that a mature woman could be a lead, could be sexy and funny. she didn't have to be some 1 standing on the sidelines. she was powerful, she was mean, she was tender, she was funny and she looked incredible.
but you could love alexis, you just couldn't identify with her. marlene said she always identified with fallon. me too!
as played by pamela sue martin, we both agreed. emma samms was hideous.
they shouldn't have even had her on the show. she was part of the colbys. they brought her back on dynasty just to spin off that show. then what, she got kidnapped by a ufo or something? i didn't watch, no 1 did. the worst thing about it being cancelled was that emma samms came over to dynasty.
she was awful. it was like battle of the bad daytime stars between her and jack coleman. you felt like they'd slashed the budget and moved the show to daytime.
heather locklear was good as sammy jo, we both agreed on that.
but pamela bellwood was always too nutty and creepy.
'1 life ends and another begins, little lindsey,' she said and that was probably her best moment.
sammy jo was so much better after she came back - her voice was lower (i think heather locklear had taken voice lessons) and she was much more complex.
worst guest star?
we think henry kissenger was on and he would be the absolute worst.
after him, we'd say ali magraw.
but we could take her with jeff. it was just when lady ashley was going after blake.
why any woman wanted blake was beyond both of us.
al corley was hot. whether stephen was gay or straight, he was hot.
after dynasty, he ended up on bare essance. marlene watched that religiously. i saw the mini-series. i'm not sure if he was in that or not. but i remember genie francis was and she was in the show. but linda evens, who was in the 'mini-series' (2 episodes) wasn't in the tv series and donna mills wasn't either.
when people watch desparate housewives, they're seeing a bunch of tiny girls. joan collins played a woman. alexis wasn't a bimbo.
we were talking about least favorite storylines. (anything with emma samms.) and it was just amazing how much we could remember.
what would have made the special better? just have pamel sue martin, al corely, linda evans and joan collins talking.
with john james and michael nader (dex) missing, we started wondering what they did that kept them from being on or being invited.
so that's the point of tonight's entry. and if you were a young girl or woman when dynasty came on, you know how much of an impact joan collins, linda evans and pamela sue anderson had on tv.
she said, 'well you have more energy than i do, i'm just going to crash in front of the tv and watch dynasty.'
i said, 'oh i used to love that show. i haven't watched it in syndication but i know every episode.'
that's when she says, 'oh, no, this is a reunion special.'
i said 'what!' and i'm grabbing for the papers. i see the arts section of the new york times which i never got to. there it is. i'm reading parts of it to her and i see this 1 part about al corely only on being on the show for a year.
what?
when tv talk 'years' in tv, they usually mean seasons. he was on the first season of dynasty - which wasn't a full season and he was on the second season. that's when he leaves, with 2 seasons under his belt. so goldie's mother and i, her name is marlene by the way, are talking about that and then we're talking about dynasty. she said she had a pint of mint cholocate chip in the freezer that she'd puchased for this and that she used to watch the show with friends. i usually watched it on the phone with friends. she said we should watch together and i did have some ice cream in the freezer too (rocky road).
so we watched and laughed and remembered.
it was really fun and we were talking about alexis and fallon and how big a deal they were. a lot of people compare it to dallas but dynasty was way ahead of dallas. joan collins didn't play a dish rag like sue ellen. she wasn't always the victim. the women on dallas were like house pets until pam left bobby (many, many years later - and after dynasty was a hit). they were useless.
donna reed came on as miss ellie and a lot of people didn't like that. i didn't have anything against barbara bel geddes but i honestly thought donna reed brought a little life to the show.
i really felt like you had to enjoy being a doormat to watch dallas if you were a woman.
marlene didn't believe what i'd said. why? she felt the same way.
'what was the best soap on prime time?' she asked and we both said 'knots landing!' together.
but it wasn't until dynasty that knots landing finally became a decent show.
they didn't know what they were doing with that show. then dynasty came along and showed that women could do a little more than say 'oh bobby' and 'oh j.r.'
or lucy with her prolonged childhood. if it weren't for the sexually acting out, she would have had nothing to offer as a character.
and never det me started on that hideous woman ray krebbs married.
but for awhile, it was the only show in town. then came dynasty and women weren't just sitting on the sidelines while bobby and j.r. and jock duked it out over ewing oil.
dynasty also had hotties. not a lot.
the first year was the best. you had matthew blaisdel who was hot. you had al corley who was hot. and john james who was just so pretty.
i don't think he could act at all but he was very pretty.
after corley left they brought on jack coleman and he was just not my type, that face shape was just not anything i'd be interested in. it was like a box with a little pointy chin attached.
after the first year of alexis (the 2nd season), dynasty had such an impact that abby (donna mills) went from annoyance on knots landing to first class bitch.
we were done with the family type drama and in soap territory.
and then knots landing took off. and women could be front and center.
joan collins, linda evans and pamela sue martin pushed it. give them and dynasty credit. but blake carrington always had to come out on top. on knots landing, abby could win, she could lose.
and once that happened there was real reason for karen to stand up for val. i thought i was the only 1 who never cared for val during all that time of nuttiness but marlene was worse about val than i was. 'she left her kid years ago and she's going to spend her whole life whining?' and we couldn't stand laura until she was about to leave richard. the women were dish rags on that show. even abby was 'little sister' depending on her big brother.
dynasty allowed women to do more than sit around the table shooting glances. sue ellen was so boring. pam was a drip until she left bobby.
so we talked about that and we talked about the scenes that got included and the 1s that didn't.
where was sammy jo? we saw her in 1 scene, for a 2nd.
just because heather locklear didn't want to do the reunion doesn't mean they couldn't use the scenes.
i didn't see kathleen beller sit down with the cast but they showed kirby.
marlene pointed out that they didn't show diahann carroll either. she wasn't invited to the chat. but that's how they treated her character the whole time. the minute that she wasn't playing kirby's mother, they didn't know what to do with her.
i liked joan collins' fire and humor. i did wonder about the fact that alexis wore wigs.
was she supposed to or was that a glitch? in one episode, she had short hair, then we see her at her apartment lifting free weights and wearing this hideous blue body suit and her hair's very long.
joan collins changed tv. there's no getting around it. linda evans, no offense, but she was 1 person. when joan collins came on, suddenly it was 'women.' and women were more than the aunt beas. joan collins showed that a mature woman could be a lead, could be sexy and funny. she didn't have to be some 1 standing on the sidelines. she was powerful, she was mean, she was tender, she was funny and she looked incredible.
but you could love alexis, you just couldn't identify with her. marlene said she always identified with fallon. me too!
as played by pamela sue martin, we both agreed. emma samms was hideous.
they shouldn't have even had her on the show. she was part of the colbys. they brought her back on dynasty just to spin off that show. then what, she got kidnapped by a ufo or something? i didn't watch, no 1 did. the worst thing about it being cancelled was that emma samms came over to dynasty.
she was awful. it was like battle of the bad daytime stars between her and jack coleman. you felt like they'd slashed the budget and moved the show to daytime.
heather locklear was good as sammy jo, we both agreed on that.
but pamela bellwood was always too nutty and creepy.
'1 life ends and another begins, little lindsey,' she said and that was probably her best moment.
sammy jo was so much better after she came back - her voice was lower (i think heather locklear had taken voice lessons) and she was much more complex.
worst guest star?
we think henry kissenger was on and he would be the absolute worst.
after him, we'd say ali magraw.
but we could take her with jeff. it was just when lady ashley was going after blake.
why any woman wanted blake was beyond both of us.
al corley was hot. whether stephen was gay or straight, he was hot.
after dynasty, he ended up on bare essance. marlene watched that religiously. i saw the mini-series. i'm not sure if he was in that or not. but i remember genie francis was and she was in the show. but linda evens, who was in the 'mini-series' (2 episodes) wasn't in the tv series and donna mills wasn't either.
when people watch desparate housewives, they're seeing a bunch of tiny girls. joan collins played a woman. alexis wasn't a bimbo.
we were talking about least favorite storylines. (anything with emma samms.) and it was just amazing how much we could remember.
what would have made the special better? just have pamel sue martin, al corely, linda evans and joan collins talking.
with john james and michael nader (dex) missing, we started wondering what they did that kept them from being on or being invited.
so that's the point of tonight's entry. and if you were a young girl or woman when dynasty came on, you know how much of an impact joan collins, linda evans and pamela sue anderson had on tv.
5/01/2006
stephen colbert spits on women (past and present) and the web and e&p don't see the problem
oh that stephen colbert, he so damn funny. so crazy.
open a window so we can all get a breath of fresh air.
we need it.
we really need it.
stephen colbert's been praised across the web (will the offenders please step up?).
anybody notice a problem?
no?
okay, how about this, you ever heard of helen thomas?
anybody?
that's 1.
that's 1 dc reporter who doesn't leave the white house to go "make love to your wife."
this is from editor & publisher - presumably a thinking press organ (write up's credited to e & p staff):
Addressing the reporters, he said, "Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know -- fiction."
somehow, in their intrepid write up, they can't note the thing that should be obvious to them - women do work for editor & publisher, don't they? what are they all queen bees or just to damn scared to stand up and say 'that's wrong'?
read that b.s. and you'll realize why the work ava and c.i. do is so sorely needed. e & p offers commentary in spots. they never question the sexist remark, the sexist assumption that all reporters are male (or straight and married). must be a pretty diverse crowd over at e & p - what, you've got the white man who drinks jack daniels, the white man who drinks beer and the white man who doesn't drink anything?
that's a pretty observant bunch, huh? supposed reporters that can say a damn word when the 'funny' guy renders all women invisible with that remark - pretty damn disgusting.
helen thomas doesn't go home to her wife.
and guess what? she's not alone.
not anymore.
in the old days, it was helen thomas, sarah mcclendon and a smattering of others like may craig.
when they started out they had to prove they could do the job because, back then, it was assumed that reporters were naturally male.
back then.
back when?
last night.
to pretend that stephen colbert did not utter an insulting remark is surely an act of desperation and those rushing to applaud him might want to check themselves real damn quick.
it's not funny. it's not cute.
in a room full of a large number of female journalists, he insulted all women.
in a room that was only open to the female gender because of mavericks like thomas and mcclendon, he insulted all women, past and present, living and dead.
'oh but it's so damn funny!'
what colbert did was not funny.
it was insulting.
and i'm not that desparate for giggles that i have to pretend it wasn't insulting.
colbert could have as easily said 'spouse.'
he didn't. why not?
well he's never appeared all that aware.
but let's be real clear here, what he did should have been greeted with howls. in the old days, women's groups would be coming down on him and the guys and gals giggling right now would think twice. they'd probably still titter in private. but they'd realize it was too insulting and had made people too angry for them to chuckle in public.
it's the sort of 'joke' they'd tell about african-americans when none were in the room.
so they'd avoid people like me and make sure they kept their chuckles private.
that our supposed left wing net wants to act like we had a gift from heaven via our lord stephen colbert last night is disgusting. but hey, e & p paved the way.
they're picking & choosing.
what they're picking is 'colbert so funny! he insulted bully boy so we should rush to applaud him even if he just stripped women of decades of accomplishments in the process.'
it sure is nice to know that while the anti-bully boy movement claims to want every 1, it's still okay to act as though women are invisble. that says a lot about 'priorities.' or maybe just a lot about what's important to you.
for all the chuckle heads, out there, you want to explain the women's national press club and how about eleanor roosevelt's press conference association?
want to explain to me why they were created in the 1st place?
oh, i know why they were created. i don't need the lesson. but maybe some of the howling with laughter set do.
women had to fight for the right to cover dc. they had to fight for the ability to ask a question. i'm not joking.
colbert made light of their struggle and light of the female reporters present.
i won't. it's not funny to me that he stood up at a press club function with members who were male and female and thought it was 'funny' to just address the men.
it's disgusting.
'spouse' to 'husband' was it would have taken for him to be inclusive. 1 word but that was too much for him. and apparently, it's too much to expect that our brave left males will step up to the plate and say, 'hey, that wasn't funny.'
i will. women came before me, they came before you (whether you are female or male). i won't devalue their contributions or forget their struggle.
but i'm not a silly comic making stupid films about being a 40 y.o. virgin.
if i could act, i doubt i'd be convincing as some 1 scared of sex - another difference between myself and stephen colbert.
he's gotten a lot of mileage out of this 'i can't relate to women' shit.
maybe at some point he'll be called on it?
probably not. it's easier to giggle along and, in the process, say it's okay to destroy and spit on the accomplishments of women. yeah, we're so starved for funny that it's okay to spit on women and it's okay for males (and some women i'm sure) to go along with it. for the 'cause' - obviously.
editor & publisher is supposed to be a press trade journal. their organ. when it won't speak up for women in its ranks, what use is it?
if you don't get how insulting his 'bit' was, this is from adam bernstein's january 8, 2003 obituary of sarah mcclendon that ran in the washington post:
As one of the few women after World War II writing about politics in the nation's capital, Ms. McClendon was pitted against discrimination, condescension and exasperation among politicians and her peers. It wasn't uncommon for her to be reproved by presidents who did not want to be bothered with her because of her sex, brusque manner and the small circulation of the papers for which she wrote.
that was a fighter. i doubt colbert's fought for anything besides the right to offend. apparently editor & publisher just wants to fight for their right to be pig headed and chuckle when half the ranks get insulted. and our left web is eager to go along.
open a window so we can all get a breath of fresh air.
we need it.
we really need it.
stephen colbert's been praised across the web (will the offenders please step up?).
anybody notice a problem?
no?
okay, how about this, you ever heard of helen thomas?
anybody?
that's 1.
that's 1 dc reporter who doesn't leave the white house to go "make love to your wife."
this is from editor & publisher - presumably a thinking press organ (write up's credited to e & p staff):
Addressing the reporters, he said, "Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know -- fiction."
somehow, in their intrepid write up, they can't note the thing that should be obvious to them - women do work for editor & publisher, don't they? what are they all queen bees or just to damn scared to stand up and say 'that's wrong'?
read that b.s. and you'll realize why the work ava and c.i. do is so sorely needed. e & p offers commentary in spots. they never question the sexist remark, the sexist assumption that all reporters are male (or straight and married). must be a pretty diverse crowd over at e & p - what, you've got the white man who drinks jack daniels, the white man who drinks beer and the white man who doesn't drink anything?
that's a pretty observant bunch, huh? supposed reporters that can say a damn word when the 'funny' guy renders all women invisible with that remark - pretty damn disgusting.
helen thomas doesn't go home to her wife.
and guess what? she's not alone.
not anymore.
in the old days, it was helen thomas, sarah mcclendon and a smattering of others like may craig.
when they started out they had to prove they could do the job because, back then, it was assumed that reporters were naturally male.
back then.
back when?
last night.
to pretend that stephen colbert did not utter an insulting remark is surely an act of desperation and those rushing to applaud him might want to check themselves real damn quick.
it's not funny. it's not cute.
in a room full of a large number of female journalists, he insulted all women.
in a room that was only open to the female gender because of mavericks like thomas and mcclendon, he insulted all women, past and present, living and dead.
'oh but it's so damn funny!'
what colbert did was not funny.
it was insulting.
and i'm not that desparate for giggles that i have to pretend it wasn't insulting.
colbert could have as easily said 'spouse.'
he didn't. why not?
well he's never appeared all that aware.
but let's be real clear here, what he did should have been greeted with howls. in the old days, women's groups would be coming down on him and the guys and gals giggling right now would think twice. they'd probably still titter in private. but they'd realize it was too insulting and had made people too angry for them to chuckle in public.
it's the sort of 'joke' they'd tell about african-americans when none were in the room.
so they'd avoid people like me and make sure they kept their chuckles private.
that our supposed left wing net wants to act like we had a gift from heaven via our lord stephen colbert last night is disgusting. but hey, e & p paved the way.
they're picking & choosing.
what they're picking is 'colbert so funny! he insulted bully boy so we should rush to applaud him even if he just stripped women of decades of accomplishments in the process.'
it sure is nice to know that while the anti-bully boy movement claims to want every 1, it's still okay to act as though women are invisble. that says a lot about 'priorities.' or maybe just a lot about what's important to you.
for all the chuckle heads, out there, you want to explain the women's national press club and how about eleanor roosevelt's press conference association?
want to explain to me why they were created in the 1st place?
oh, i know why they were created. i don't need the lesson. but maybe some of the howling with laughter set do.
women had to fight for the right to cover dc. they had to fight for the ability to ask a question. i'm not joking.
colbert made light of their struggle and light of the female reporters present.
i won't. it's not funny to me that he stood up at a press club function with members who were male and female and thought it was 'funny' to just address the men.
it's disgusting.
'spouse' to 'husband' was it would have taken for him to be inclusive. 1 word but that was too much for him. and apparently, it's too much to expect that our brave left males will step up to the plate and say, 'hey, that wasn't funny.'
i will. women came before me, they came before you (whether you are female or male). i won't devalue their contributions or forget their struggle.
but i'm not a silly comic making stupid films about being a 40 y.o. virgin.
if i could act, i doubt i'd be convincing as some 1 scared of sex - another difference between myself and stephen colbert.
he's gotten a lot of mileage out of this 'i can't relate to women' shit.
maybe at some point he'll be called on it?
probably not. it's easier to giggle along and, in the process, say it's okay to destroy and spit on the accomplishments of women. yeah, we're so starved for funny that it's okay to spit on women and it's okay for males (and some women i'm sure) to go along with it. for the 'cause' - obviously.
editor & publisher is supposed to be a press trade journal. their organ. when it won't speak up for women in its ranks, what use is it?
if you don't get how insulting his 'bit' was, this is from adam bernstein's january 8, 2003 obituary of sarah mcclendon that ran in the washington post:
As one of the few women after World War II writing about politics in the nation's capital, Ms. McClendon was pitted against discrimination, condescension and exasperation among politicians and her peers. It wasn't uncommon for her to be reproved by presidents who did not want to be bothered with her because of her sex, brusque manner and the small circulation of the papers for which she wrote.
that was a fighter. i doubt colbert's fought for anything besides the right to offend. apparently editor & publisher just wants to fight for their right to be pig headed and chuckle when half the ranks get insulted. and our left web is eager to go along.
peace, participation & immigration rally
c.i. called earlier to say 'i'm still in demonstrations.' i said don't worry about it, i'll do 2 entries tonight. and people can just deal or not.
seriously, you're dealing with a community that's active. we're not sitting in front of cnn waiting for it to explain the world around us to us.
and we all bring our own unique thing to the table. which is true of all community members as well. both bringing their own unique thing to the table and also getting out in the world around them.
friday, we all got together in nyc. by plane, train or automobile to be dinonne warkick about it. ('planes, trains and automobiles.') i didn't go to dc on sunday. i was wiped out from saturday's peace activities and working on the third estate sunday review. c.i. did. and today? is still at the immigration rights demonstrations.
so if some 1 in the community feels robbed, don't. (i think it's mainly nonmembers who complain now.) if you want people who just watch the news and tells you about that, then you can get that anywhere.
we're not doing that.
we're not 'arm chair warriors' who fondle our remotes lovingly.
so what's the trade off?
that you're not going to have dozens of posts. live with it. cedric called me to see if i thought he should post tonight? his regular days are tuesdays and thursdays. he's doing volunteer work, he's got a job, he's got friends (including 3 cool old guys) and family. i asked him why he felt he needed to post and he brought up that every 1 was tired after nyc and he thought it might take some pressure off. great idea but he needs to take some time for him.
me? i'm in courtney love mode. i'm smoking my cigarettes raging on the internet. (i've always pictured courtney doing that since the mid 90s. i may be wrong but if i am don't spoil the illusion for me.)
my next post is going to be a 'what the hell is every 1 thinking?' post. treva, ruth's friend, is wonderful. i love her. i saw this weekend why ruth thinks we are so much alike. she really doesn't care. she's going to speak her mind.
i have to force that sometimes but we do have speaking our minds in common.
so what did you do today? t and me were at demonstrations. we were so tempted, after, to get some drinks but not spending was also something that was advised. so instead, we went to her apartment where all she had was soft drinks. we really could have used something stronger to celebrate but, for the cause, we stuck with that.
as i noted before, she closed her shop down for today. hair and nails would just have to wait.
what did we see?
people who gave a damn.
in the united states of apathy, that was pretty damn amazing. young and old. we saw people marching to support the cause and people marching because the cause was their lives.
it was pretty powerful and i ended up with goose bumps during a few of the speeches.
here's a section of "Music Roundtable"' (third estate sunday review):
Ruth: You know, I want to toss this to C.I. I heard a story about something earlier this week.
C.I.: Are you talking about the conversation I told you about?
Ruth: Yes.
C.I.: Okay. A lazy ass, I won't say "friend," bothered me on the phone. Ruth, I've forgotten the conversation so give me a moment or jog my memory.
Ruth: You'd stated something about the immigration protests.
C.I.: Right, thank you. Okay, so it's a call from out of the blue from someone who attends no anti-war, peace rallies. Someone who does nothing but sit on their ass and complain. I was commenting about the diversity at the rallies, with people speaking in so many voices and from their own personal experiences. To which L.A., "Lazy Ass," replied, "I know what you mean! I can't believe we're focusing on this issue!" That wasn't what I meant and I corrected that. But LA's feelings were that the immigration protests were drowning out the peace movement, of which LA is not a part of. That's not the case and people need to get over that. This, the immigration rights movement, isn't this top-down movement. It's a case of something very important that effects so many on a very personal level. The driving force is a different thing. It's not a threat to the peace movement. If there's a fault with the peace movement, it's the inability to connect more people on a personal level. But it's not a competition. I think what L.A. and anyone else feeling that way fails to grasp is the factors that distance the war, factors that the peace movement is working to overcome, which are less in place with immigrant rights. On the most basic level, broadcast media, in English, can distance people from the war, and does. It can try that with the immigration issue. But it's less successful there because you just have to look around and there's your friend it effects, or your family member or you. The media can't lie on this issue and get away with it. There's no need for a fact check online or anywhere else because you have your own eyes and your own experiences. It's an immediate rejection of the mainstream's portrayal of "the Senate proposal is good." No, it's not. It may be good for big money, but it's not good for the people. Those attempting to use the mainstream airwaves to sell this crap to the public forgot that this isn't the unions that they've demonized forever, or some government program or government agency that they've long attacked. This is very real and very immediate. And very personal. Add in that the mainstream media has long ignored immigrant concerns and issues so there's no "base" they can build on. You watch whatever chatty fool say, "This is the good proposal" into a mike and you know they're lying. It took how many months for the public to face up to the fact that both the Bully Boy and the media lied to them [about the war]? It didn't take that stretch of time with regards to immigration because, though the media rendered that portion of the population invisible, it is a fabric of life in the United States. There are connections between immigration and the war -- Camilo Mejia has done an amazing job giving voice to the connections -- but this issue [immigration] wasn't a 'wait and see' one. A lot of people could, and did, sit out before the invasion and in the early months of it. "What if I speak out and it goes wonderful?" Or, "What if WMD is found!" Or planted. What if? You can't play what if when lives are at stake and it was immediately clear that we were talking about lives, even if the mainstream wasn't, when this scape goating of immigrants started up. For the people taking part in those protests, it is very real and very immediate.
Dona: So what does that mean for the peace movement?
C.I.: Well, I'm not sure that's the right question. I understand what you're getting at but I don't want anyone reading that question and misunderstanding it as these protests that are going on are something that gets done and "Now we focus!" I know you're not saying that, but I want to be clear on that because I know a lot of people giving their everything to the immigration issue and I don't want to do or say, or not say, anything that devalues their incredible contributions, work and heart. In terms of any movement, when people speak out, it leads to more speaking out. That's why you have clampdowns and compromises. Which is really the only choices that governmental powers have [other than addressing the concerns]. They think they can ignore, and try to, but that's rarely the case. So -- and this is why it's important for musicians to speak out to make sure everyone's not saying, "I thought this was a musical roundtable!" -- any time people come together to fight for a cause, it helps other causes. The civil rights movement helped sparked a number of movements. The questioning and speaking out in recent past and more distant past, impacted the peace movement today as surely as it did, and does, the immigrantion protests. At the protests, to compare and contrast with the peace movement, you're hearing stories that are spoken of with the same sort of intensity that Cindy Sheehan speaks. And, like her voice before Camp Casey, these are voices and stories that the media hasn't given voice to. Take the nonsense about the Mexican flag. Talk to students and they'll tell you, "So what?" As they should. Why wouldn't they bring a Mexican flag or any other flag to a rally on immigration? There hasn't been a lot of second guessing from the movement itself. Now people outside of it, including that hideous man who was on Democracy Now! trashing them for using the flag, second guess it. But it got attention. That wasn't the goal, the goal was to honor heritage. And though some on the fringes and some outside clucked over the flag, the ones involved that I know, have no second thoughts and no, "We better ban flags!" attitude. There is very much a sense of ownership of the movement. Not singular ownership, but a group ownership. And the support that is given to one another participating is amazing. That's because it is a personal issue, and I'm speaking of what's going on in California, I can't say that it's the same elsewhere. I'd hope it would be but I don't know that. It's very personal and very real. The challenge for the peace movement, and Naomi Klein has pointed this out for over two years now, is to bring the war home. You say that and some freak out. When she was debating the issue of protest on Democracy Now!, Toad freaked out and went to Chicago '68 immediately. That's not what she's talking about and people would do well to lose the Nervous Nelly quality. She's speaking of a very hard task, which is demonstrating that it's not "over there" and it's not something that only effects some people. I wish I'd heard the people that Elaine, Wally and Jayson spoke with or the one that Rebecca did because I'm not sure this is what they were getting at. The movement is successful and growing each day. But for it to really drive the message home, the connections need to be made, the war, like the troops, needs to be brought home. That's not a cry for violence. That's saying we need to connect what the media and the government don't: what goes on "there" is here. This is effecting everyone. Not just Iraqis, not just troops, not just the families of troops. That connection is still not being made. And until it is, the numbers will continue to grow but not to the size that is needed. By the way, I've gone on way too long, but screw it. I had an e-mail from a woman who felt that no one was noting the children of the fallen. She's one and it's her issue. We have noted it at The Common Ills before and we will work it in as soon as I can again. But that's her issue and she was very straightforward about it so I want to toss that out now since I don't know when I'll be able to get to it. Each death in Iraq of a parent, Iraqi, British, American, what have you, does impact. And for children, and Cedric and Wally lost their fathers at young ages so they could speak to this better than I can, it's a different level of impact. It's awful when anyone loses someone they love but to lose someone when you're still getting to know them or before you are able to is a disaster, I can't think of a better word, sorry, that isn't always noted. I'm not minimizing the effects on a parent or a spouse, or a friend or lifetime partner or anyone. But with children, there's an added level.
consider that a rough draft because i spoke to ava today and she said that she wanted to go into it with the notes and fix the typos. i said 'not tonight!' she was participating in the rally in nyc.
people need to slow down and take time for themselves.
(i'm the warrior woman - roar! - i can handle anything!)
i put that in because i really saw it today. i'd visited with every 1 in california last month. but i could only stay the weekend (i had to come back for a christening). i got to meet a few people involved in the immigration movement and they were wonderful. but today, it wasn't just hearing about it, it was witnessing it. and it was pretty damn amazing.
by the way, while i'm talking the third estate sunday review, if time permits, the upcoming edition should be pretty amazing. there are some really wild ideas being tossed around and i'm really excited about it.
the peace events in nyc?
the thing that still stands out to me is this cage that was pulled around to drive home the point about guantanamo and the way the prisoners there are treated. we need a lot more of that kind of creative, in your face, theater.
there were some wonderful speeches. you can always count on that. but what stood out to me besides the energy and passion from the crowd is the the cage. it drove the point home.
where's goldie?
i called her this afternoon and she told me, in a very grown up voice, 'rebecca, we're not supposed to use long distance today. we have to show solidarity with the immigrants.' i replied in an equally serious voice, 'my bad. i'll call back tomorrow afternoon to get the update.'
goldie is the future of our nation. forget condi, hillary or any other woman some 1 wants to toss out. our future president is alive and well and in middle school. she's going to change the world.
she's so much more together now than i did at her age. and i bet more than a lot of adults do today.
i've got a glass of wine, a cigarette going and otis singing from the speakers so let me stop here and work on the 2nd entry. 2 entries tonight. so don't feel cheated if c.i. doesn't post. it's been a busy day for all of us but it's been a killer 3 days for c.i.
forget president, goldie's the future c.i. that's how amazing goldie is. i'll call her tomorrow and get the news on how her and her mother's house party went this weekend.
be sure you read c.i.'s "NARAL advocates the rest cure" that went up early saturday morning. it's amazing.
seriously, you're dealing with a community that's active. we're not sitting in front of cnn waiting for it to explain the world around us to us.
and we all bring our own unique thing to the table. which is true of all community members as well. both bringing their own unique thing to the table and also getting out in the world around them.
friday, we all got together in nyc. by plane, train or automobile to be dinonne warkick about it. ('planes, trains and automobiles.') i didn't go to dc on sunday. i was wiped out from saturday's peace activities and working on the third estate sunday review. c.i. did. and today? is still at the immigration rights demonstrations.
so if some 1 in the community feels robbed, don't. (i think it's mainly nonmembers who complain now.) if you want people who just watch the news and tells you about that, then you can get that anywhere.
we're not doing that.
we're not 'arm chair warriors' who fondle our remotes lovingly.
so what's the trade off?
that you're not going to have dozens of posts. live with it. cedric called me to see if i thought he should post tonight? his regular days are tuesdays and thursdays. he's doing volunteer work, he's got a job, he's got friends (including 3 cool old guys) and family. i asked him why he felt he needed to post and he brought up that every 1 was tired after nyc and he thought it might take some pressure off. great idea but he needs to take some time for him.
me? i'm in courtney love mode. i'm smoking my cigarettes raging on the internet. (i've always pictured courtney doing that since the mid 90s. i may be wrong but if i am don't spoil the illusion for me.)
my next post is going to be a 'what the hell is every 1 thinking?' post. treva, ruth's friend, is wonderful. i love her. i saw this weekend why ruth thinks we are so much alike. she really doesn't care. she's going to speak her mind.
i have to force that sometimes but we do have speaking our minds in common.
so what did you do today? t and me were at demonstrations. we were so tempted, after, to get some drinks but not spending was also something that was advised. so instead, we went to her apartment where all she had was soft drinks. we really could have used something stronger to celebrate but, for the cause, we stuck with that.
as i noted before, she closed her shop down for today. hair and nails would just have to wait.
what did we see?
people who gave a damn.
in the united states of apathy, that was pretty damn amazing. young and old. we saw people marching to support the cause and people marching because the cause was their lives.
it was pretty powerful and i ended up with goose bumps during a few of the speeches.
here's a section of "Music Roundtable"' (third estate sunday review):
Ruth: You know, I want to toss this to C.I. I heard a story about something earlier this week.
C.I.: Are you talking about the conversation I told you about?
Ruth: Yes.
C.I.: Okay. A lazy ass, I won't say "friend," bothered me on the phone. Ruth, I've forgotten the conversation so give me a moment or jog my memory.
Ruth: You'd stated something about the immigration protests.
C.I.: Right, thank you. Okay, so it's a call from out of the blue from someone who attends no anti-war, peace rallies. Someone who does nothing but sit on their ass and complain. I was commenting about the diversity at the rallies, with people speaking in so many voices and from their own personal experiences. To which L.A., "Lazy Ass," replied, "I know what you mean! I can't believe we're focusing on this issue!" That wasn't what I meant and I corrected that. But LA's feelings were that the immigration protests were drowning out the peace movement, of which LA is not a part of. That's not the case and people need to get over that. This, the immigration rights movement, isn't this top-down movement. It's a case of something very important that effects so many on a very personal level. The driving force is a different thing. It's not a threat to the peace movement. If there's a fault with the peace movement, it's the inability to connect more people on a personal level. But it's not a competition. I think what L.A. and anyone else feeling that way fails to grasp is the factors that distance the war, factors that the peace movement is working to overcome, which are less in place with immigrant rights. On the most basic level, broadcast media, in English, can distance people from the war, and does. It can try that with the immigration issue. But it's less successful there because you just have to look around and there's your friend it effects, or your family member or you. The media can't lie on this issue and get away with it. There's no need for a fact check online or anywhere else because you have your own eyes and your own experiences. It's an immediate rejection of the mainstream's portrayal of "the Senate proposal is good." No, it's not. It may be good for big money, but it's not good for the people. Those attempting to use the mainstream airwaves to sell this crap to the public forgot that this isn't the unions that they've demonized forever, or some government program or government agency that they've long attacked. This is very real and very immediate. And very personal. Add in that the mainstream media has long ignored immigrant concerns and issues so there's no "base" they can build on. You watch whatever chatty fool say, "This is the good proposal" into a mike and you know they're lying. It took how many months for the public to face up to the fact that both the Bully Boy and the media lied to them [about the war]? It didn't take that stretch of time with regards to immigration because, though the media rendered that portion of the population invisible, it is a fabric of life in the United States. There are connections between immigration and the war -- Camilo Mejia has done an amazing job giving voice to the connections -- but this issue [immigration] wasn't a 'wait and see' one. A lot of people could, and did, sit out before the invasion and in the early months of it. "What if I speak out and it goes wonderful?" Or, "What if WMD is found!" Or planted. What if? You can't play what if when lives are at stake and it was immediately clear that we were talking about lives, even if the mainstream wasn't, when this scape goating of immigrants started up. For the people taking part in those protests, it is very real and very immediate.
Dona: So what does that mean for the peace movement?
C.I.: Well, I'm not sure that's the right question. I understand what you're getting at but I don't want anyone reading that question and misunderstanding it as these protests that are going on are something that gets done and "Now we focus!" I know you're not saying that, but I want to be clear on that because I know a lot of people giving their everything to the immigration issue and I don't want to do or say, or not say, anything that devalues their incredible contributions, work and heart. In terms of any movement, when people speak out, it leads to more speaking out. That's why you have clampdowns and compromises. Which is really the only choices that governmental powers have [other than addressing the concerns]. They think they can ignore, and try to, but that's rarely the case. So -- and this is why it's important for musicians to speak out to make sure everyone's not saying, "I thought this was a musical roundtable!" -- any time people come together to fight for a cause, it helps other causes. The civil rights movement helped sparked a number of movements. The questioning and speaking out in recent past and more distant past, impacted the peace movement today as surely as it did, and does, the immigrantion protests. At the protests, to compare and contrast with the peace movement, you're hearing stories that are spoken of with the same sort of intensity that Cindy Sheehan speaks. And, like her voice before Camp Casey, these are voices and stories that the media hasn't given voice to. Take the nonsense about the Mexican flag. Talk to students and they'll tell you, "So what?" As they should. Why wouldn't they bring a Mexican flag or any other flag to a rally on immigration? There hasn't been a lot of second guessing from the movement itself. Now people outside of it, including that hideous man who was on Democracy Now! trashing them for using the flag, second guess it. But it got attention. That wasn't the goal, the goal was to honor heritage. And though some on the fringes and some outside clucked over the flag, the ones involved that I know, have no second thoughts and no, "We better ban flags!" attitude. There is very much a sense of ownership of the movement. Not singular ownership, but a group ownership. And the support that is given to one another participating is amazing. That's because it is a personal issue, and I'm speaking of what's going on in California, I can't say that it's the same elsewhere. I'd hope it would be but I don't know that. It's very personal and very real. The challenge for the peace movement, and Naomi Klein has pointed this out for over two years now, is to bring the war home. You say that and some freak out. When she was debating the issue of protest on Democracy Now!, Toad freaked out and went to Chicago '68 immediately. That's not what she's talking about and people would do well to lose the Nervous Nelly quality. She's speaking of a very hard task, which is demonstrating that it's not "over there" and it's not something that only effects some people. I wish I'd heard the people that Elaine, Wally and Jayson spoke with or the one that Rebecca did because I'm not sure this is what they were getting at. The movement is successful and growing each day. But for it to really drive the message home, the connections need to be made, the war, like the troops, needs to be brought home. That's not a cry for violence. That's saying we need to connect what the media and the government don't: what goes on "there" is here. This is effecting everyone. Not just Iraqis, not just troops, not just the families of troops. That connection is still not being made. And until it is, the numbers will continue to grow but not to the size that is needed. By the way, I've gone on way too long, but screw it. I had an e-mail from a woman who felt that no one was noting the children of the fallen. She's one and it's her issue. We have noted it at The Common Ills before and we will work it in as soon as I can again. But that's her issue and she was very straightforward about it so I want to toss that out now since I don't know when I'll be able to get to it. Each death in Iraq of a parent, Iraqi, British, American, what have you, does impact. And for children, and Cedric and Wally lost their fathers at young ages so they could speak to this better than I can, it's a different level of impact. It's awful when anyone loses someone they love but to lose someone when you're still getting to know them or before you are able to is a disaster, I can't think of a better word, sorry, that isn't always noted. I'm not minimizing the effects on a parent or a spouse, or a friend or lifetime partner or anyone. But with children, there's an added level.
consider that a rough draft because i spoke to ava today and she said that she wanted to go into it with the notes and fix the typos. i said 'not tonight!' she was participating in the rally in nyc.
people need to slow down and take time for themselves.
(i'm the warrior woman - roar! - i can handle anything!)
i put that in because i really saw it today. i'd visited with every 1 in california last month. but i could only stay the weekend (i had to come back for a christening). i got to meet a few people involved in the immigration movement and they were wonderful. but today, it wasn't just hearing about it, it was witnessing it. and it was pretty damn amazing.
by the way, while i'm talking the third estate sunday review, if time permits, the upcoming edition should be pretty amazing. there are some really wild ideas being tossed around and i'm really excited about it.
the peace events in nyc?
the thing that still stands out to me is this cage that was pulled around to drive home the point about guantanamo and the way the prisoners there are treated. we need a lot more of that kind of creative, in your face, theater.
there were some wonderful speeches. you can always count on that. but what stood out to me besides the energy and passion from the crowd is the the cage. it drove the point home.
where's goldie?
i called her this afternoon and she told me, in a very grown up voice, 'rebecca, we're not supposed to use long distance today. we have to show solidarity with the immigrants.' i replied in an equally serious voice, 'my bad. i'll call back tomorrow afternoon to get the update.'
goldie is the future of our nation. forget condi, hillary or any other woman some 1 wants to toss out. our future president is alive and well and in middle school. she's going to change the world.
she's so much more together now than i did at her age. and i bet more than a lot of adults do today.
i've got a glass of wine, a cigarette going and otis singing from the speakers so let me stop here and work on the 2nd entry. 2 entries tonight. so don't feel cheated if c.i. doesn't post. it's been a busy day for all of us but it's been a killer 3 days for c.i.
forget president, goldie's the future c.i. that's how amazing goldie is. i'll call her tomorrow and get the news on how her and her mother's house party went this weekend.
be sure you read c.i.'s "NARAL advocates the rest cure" that went up early saturday morning. it's amazing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)