saluting jane fonda (which means accountability for no brain lizz winstead and big brain rachel maddow)

Before I turned sixy I thought I was a feminist. I was in a way -- I worked to register women to vote, I supported women getting elected. I brought gender issues into my movie roles, I encouraged women to get strong and healthy, I read the books we've all read. I had it in my head and partly in my heart, yet I didn't fully get it.

that's jane fonda in a speech called 'v is volcano' from alternet.

it's women history's month and i didn't even realize it until i was reading the common ills this morning and saw the thing last night on gloria steinem. hey, c.i., i thought you were going to make the entries for women's history month shorter and less challenging. (i'm joking. i thought it was wonderful but there were members who wrote in about the 1st entry for black history month and c.i. had stated that the 1st entry for women's history month wouldn't be a long 1.
while it's not that long, it is very moving and encapsulates why gloria steinem is so important.)

i'd love to tell you that i was going to do something on women's history every month but let's be honest, i'll mean to and then forget. plus i haven't been making 7 days a week of blogging lately.

women's history month is important.

and i am noting it today. maybe i'll do so again. maybe i won't. that's the fun of coming to my blog. will she talk about sex? will she talk about politics? will she talk about attitude? will she just give a long screed?

you honestly never know!

i'm a woman of mystery!

keep 'em guessing!

but if i only highlight 1 woman the whole month, jane fonda is the one i would want to highlight.
for various reasons.

if you are a third estate sunday review reader (and you should be, and if you aren't why aren't you?) you may have seen their dvd review of barefoot in the park. and if you read their note to the readers, you understand why. they're going to do a dvd review of various comedies starring jane fonda as we get ready for the release of monster-in-law.

don't know monster-in-law? it's jane fonda's return to film acting. she plays a woman not thrilled to have jennifer lopez as her daughter. maybe the woman reads the tabloid and was struck by lopez's romance record?

the trailer is hilarious and i'll try to find the link that the common ills provided to it. but this is a movie that i want to see. i do like lopez. michael vartan plays jane fonda's son and he's pretty hot on alias but i truly fell for him in 1 hour photo where he demonstrated not only talent but also his knob. not enough guys flash the eye candy!

and the always funny wanda sykes is in it as well.

so i am primed for this film.

but the main reason is to see jane fonda. women love jane. we see her as a strong, brave woman who's done so much. and she's never been afraid to look back and say 'maybe i should have done that differently.' even in the speech above, she's still questioning, still growing. that's how i hope i live my life.

as a kid, i fell in love with coming home which used to air all the time. jane fonda won her 2nd oscar for that film. it's a drama. about sally hyde who goes to work at a v.a. hospital when her husband bob goes over to vietnam. sally falls in love with luke who is a paraplegic. it's a really romantic movie and i love the soundtrack.

and here's a trivia note for you. sally's husband is played by bruce dern. she falls in love with jon voight. billy bob thornton may have loved coming home too, after all he left laura dern (bruce's daughter) for angelina jolie (jon voight's daughter).

sally starts out the film very prim and as she spends hours at the v.a. hospital and is exposed to the costs of war, she begins a transformation. part of that is letting her hair go wild. and right after i saw that film, i had to have my 1st perm. every 1 said, 'oh becky, it looks just like stevie nicks!' stevie was really popular then. (i still love stevie nicks.) but i got that hair style because of the movie coming home. and jane fonda was my favorite actress.

i ended up seeing most of her films. (c.i. mentioned tout va bien not long ago and i haven't seen that film.) my favorites included klute (her first oscar), the hilarious 9 to 5, fun with dick and jane (which is being remade and i'm not really looking forward to that), julia, agnes of god, the morning after, on golden pond, barefoot in the park, sunday in new york, the dollmaker, a doll's house, cat ballou, old gringo (which i find to be an amazing mosaic), the china syndrome, california suite, eletric horseman, the game is over . . .

you get the idea? there aren't a lot of actresses who have a body of work women can be proud of. i mean melanie griffith was looking ridiculous at the oscars but i could forgive it if she had more than 1 working girl to her credit. melanie's hollywood through and through and the reason that it's so hard to take so many hollywood actresses. i can admire vanessa redgrave and emma thompson, for instance, or any number of french actresses (past and present) but most american actresses seem to really embrace their inner bimbo. not in a way where they are in the forefront but where they are the cup cake and the male lead is the meal.

i love winonna ryder but i'll never forget my shock at edward scissorhands that 1 shove knocks her out for the climatic battle. this is the gal who saved the school in heathers?

there's jodie foster and there's jane fonda. and there's not a lot of other women who come off as intelligent onscreen. if they do, they tend to not reach mega-stardom. blythe danner is an example of a strong actress onscreen but she never became a star.

if there's anything worse than playing a string of bimbos it has to be playing up to stereotypes.
shirley maclaine is a funny actress. but somewhere after terms of endearment, it seemed like she was playing old women (much older than she was) who were these extreme stereotypes.
hey it gave her a new career so good for her.

but other than steel magnolias, i'm not sure there's a film after terms of endearment that i can sit through. maclaine was and remains a pretty woman. but onscreen she's spent far too much time playing the crotchety old woman and looking 10 to 20 years older.

in steel magnolias, it works because of the story. but more often than not (especially surrounded by males), it makes it seem like 1 long 'laugh at the old lady' joke.

i like susan sarandon. and i like her even more when she plays a sexually active character and not 'mommy living her whole life for a kid.'

but jane fonda was the 1st woman over 30 and then over 40 to be a real star. look at some 1 like jessica lange who is immensely talented and you realize how hard that is. maybe only katharine hepburn pulled this off before. (bette davis rallied with all about eve and then began a long descent that was painful for fans.)

she paved the way for susan sarandon and others. and she did it by taking control of her career and forming her own production company (ipc, later fonda films). she wasn't just waiting for hollywood to cast her, she was setting up films like coming home and on golden pond.

so now that this whole 'second act' for women is a big trend story, we need to acknowledge that for actresses, jane fonda already did that.

but most of all i loved her because she was such an amazing actress. this woman studied with lee strasberg and it shows. in their review of barefoot in the park, 3rd estate noted that jane fonda is not just standing there and saying her lines, she's got the movements going on that add to the characterization. and when she's working with a master like anne bancroft (agnes of god) or vanessa redgrave (julia), there time onscreen together is just amazing.

method actors get a lot of attention . . . if they're male. we'll sing the praises of marlon brando and others. but there are method actresses as well and we tend to not notice them.

maybe that's because they tended to not do well in hollywood because of hollywood's limited view of women? if jane fonda hadn't become a producer, she could have ended up playing stereotypical women added to a film for flavor (look at faye dunaway's filmography -- and dunaway is talented).

it was only after i started reading up on jane fonda that i realized how amazing she was off screen. when she and redgrave teamed for julia, it was huge news. along with the turning point (starring anne bancroft and shirley maclaine) these were the first films in some time to star two women. she made films that mattered and still matter that rank among the best of 'new hollywood.'

but let's talk about her life. she has been so involved in so many things. like jean seberg, she went from fluff roles in this country (that she brought so much to as stanley kaufman noted in real time) to france and became an international star due to the films she made over there.

and she spoke out. she's spoken out for working women, for native americans, for black power, for gays and lesbians, for the environment, for a nuclear freeze . . .

most of all she spoke out for peace.

and when you hear rachel maddow unable to stop flapping her jaws about 'support the troops' over and over in any interview, you really start to realize how important and hard it must have been for jane fonda to do what she did.

contrary to the right wing myths, fonda wasn't anti-soldier. she was pro-peace. she helped with the g.i. coffee house movement but the right wing doesn't want to tell you that. but she spoke of peace and didn't do it by saying 'support the troops, support the troops, support the troops!'

yesterday, big brain rachel maddow has a guy on to discuss the town meetings in vermont. she can't focus on them for very long without turning into her usual lame 'support the troops' parroting. (it's strange that such a big brain is unaware of where 'support the troops' derives from or that it was propaganda created by a p.r. group to dilute anti-war messages.) (it's equally strange that a supposed big brain has never apparently read noam chomsky -- especially on this topic.)

wonder where the outrage is after abu ghraib? after the destruction of fallujah? we'll never be able to express that outrage as long as big brain and her ilk keep squawking 'support the troops! support the troops! support the troops! polly want a cracker!' and that's exactly why the slogan was created. you'd think big brain would realize that.

any criticism (and a lot of it is valid) is greeted with 'support the troops!' that's why we're still not expressing the outrage. though i agree with common ills member maria that the kids in high school and college aren't falling for this bullshit.

it's only the middle-aged cowards like rachel maddow who keep having to shut down debate by screaming 'support the troops!'

jane fonda spoke about what was going on. she didn't have the need to say 'we're bombing the dykes and it is outrageous. but support the troops!'

the only person with a public voice that stays on topic these days, that i know of any way, is naomi klein. and you'll note that naomi doesn't pop up on air america that often. (she's more likely to be on the majority report which is the most liberal of the shows during the week.) naomi gets it (and more power to her). people are dying. that's the issue big brain. not squawking 'support the troops' every five seconds.

'she's such a stupid bitch.' that's what my friend kelli said yesterday (after rachel flew solo and embarrassed herself for 3 hours. that may be why unfiltered was a repeat today.)

in 3 years we may still be where we are now because of people like rachel. as my friend elaine says 'i do not support the killing of iraqis. i do not support the destruction of fallujah.' but there's rachel and lizz winstead (big brain and no brain) piping up 'support the troops!' or 'it's tuesday so we've got the lick the balls of some military man! that's right, it's time to ask the vet!'
did you hear the voices of any men who deserted on unfiltered?

hell fucking no. those 2 bitches don't have the guts to put those voices on their dopey shit ass stink show. (amy goodman does.) instead they give us ask a vet and pet talk. they're prats. (i looked up the word.)

silly, know nothing prats.

the bitches went to atlanta last week and i listened because i was hoping after all the hate no brain's repeatedly spewed on people from the south, that some 1 would throw a pie in her overly long face. didn't happen. but i can dream.

in the meantime, we're stuck with lizz and rachel rushing to minimize anything that goes on over there by screeching 'support the troops!'

the 1s who murdered iraqis in torture/questioning? the 1s who humiliated them? which 1s are we suppoed to support? every 1 with your bullshit blanket 'support the troops' statements.

no brain and big brain are the scoop jacksons of this century. they come off like war mongers.

you get the feeling that john lennon and yoko ono would be kicked off unfiltered if it had been on the early 70s. (kind of the way tom hayden has vanished as a guest on the network.)

now there are exceptions. mike malloy expresses outrage. laura flanders never forgets the humanity. janeane garofalo is very left. but then we get 3 hours of meaningless crap chatter from lizz and rachel about pets, the o.c., their love lives (well rachel's, lizz still trolls the unfiltered blog looking for hook ups) and other meaningless crap. meaningless crap, they should change the name to that. 'hey this is no brain with big brain and we're hosting meaningless crap. our guests for the next 3 hours include center right writers for the new republic, mainstream pundints and our bob hope salute to the troops!'

i guess i just don't get how air america is supposed to change anything when big brain and no brain continue to push the center over and over.

these are two gals who think defending hillary clinton is cutting edge for the left. they have no clue.

but jane fonda did. she spoke out. and some people hated her because of it. and still hate her and they make up lies about her. but tough shit people, she spoke out. she stood up and was counted. lizz is too busy hovering like the brainless hummingbird she is and rachel's popping another brewskie from her e-z boy recliner while she scratches her groin.

we need strong voices, real voices. the occupation will not be ended as long as idiots keep repeating blanket statements that were designed to silence dissent.

jane fonda was put on an enemies list by tricky dick nixon. you get the idea that if the bully boy put malloy or flanders or janeane on an enemies list, they'd wear it like a badge of honor. not no brain and big brain, they'd whine about it for 3 hours. 'we support america!' they'd whimper.
they let themselves be boxed into this crap and that's why they are so utterly ineffective.

we need bravery. and when i think of bravery, i think of jane fonda. who fought for peace. who fought bulimia and shared her story with others.

i think of jane fonda and wonder where the strong women of today are?

so if i never get around to highlighting women's history month again this month, i want to take a moment to highlight jane fonda. she had more guts and more drive than most people. more than big brain and no brain combined.

shout outs to 3rd estate sunday review and the common ills

'2 posts in 1 day? rebecca, have you no sex plans for the evening!'

well yes, i do have sex plans.

however, i meant to give well deserved shout outs to my buds ava, dona, ty, jesse and jim at 3rd estate sunday review and c.i. at the common ills. why?

paul mcleary does a magazine report for cjr daily web site. if you've followed 3rd estate and c.i. you know that the magazine report is newsweek, time, u.s. world news . . . and then you get
the weekly standard.

what the fuck say you?

the weekly standard is not a general magazine. it is a partisan magazine.

yes, it is. and the best the left can get is a citation of the new republic (which at least 1 cjr staffer used to work at). the new republic is not left. yes, i have talked about that. but so has marty p and i've documented his comments here. it's not left. relinquish the fantasy as winona ryder
says in reality bites.

well today in the cjr daily magazine report, for the first time i am aware of, they actually highlight the nation. the best selling weekly partisan magazine.

it took forever but it finally happened.

3rd estate and c.i. deserve praise for making sure we knew about this. and a lot of people have apparently shared that sentiment on the cjr daily blog and in e-mails to cjr.

it's a sham they needed prompting but i'll just say way to go to paul mcleary who ever you are. and may this mean that cjr daily is going to start doing a better job.

and shouts to c.i. and 3rd estate for making this issue 1 we were aware of.

reasons not to watch brian williams and the problem with the male actors network suits cast in roles

a drum roll please.
top 10 reasons to tell people not to watch brian williams on nightly news:
10 he practices smell a fart pauses
9 he has dandruff (molly says look close and you can see it)
8 he is an idiot (6 people)
7 he smells like poop (7 people)
6 he eats boogers on air
5 he is uptight and prissy
4 he is the pompous asshole you ran from in school
3 he is a pig
2 he probably hired jeff gannon for 'consultations'
1 he frigs his hole between segments

sherry e-mails me that what i wrote about on thursday a little jaques wrote about on monday in the business section of the new york times. thanks for passing that on sherry. and thanks for saying 'you lead, they follow.'

i do agree it's rather sad that something they should have written about much earlier i address four days prior. sherry says that jacques doesn't even get how close the difference between peter jennings and brian williams is. and that he also has no 'historical perspective' since rather 'when he 1st took over the evening news' only lost a little of the audience but that he continued to lose and to lose.

so the point sherry is making is that brian williams is vulnerable and jaques can't see it.

the whole nbc network is vulnerable because they don't know what the fuck they are doing.

fall 2004 will be remembered as their cnn moment. like cnn who thought aping fox would increase their ratings, nbc thought aping what others were doing would increase their ratings.

for 20 years, nbc has been the home of the comedy and they've given that up. they don't know how to make people laugh lately. joey is a hideous show (as my pals at the 3rd estate sunday review have repeatedly noted). and yet they built thursday night around this.

they may lose will & grace at the end of this year (every 1's contract is up) and it's the last good sitcom on nbc or any where. when it's gone, expect more fat man married to thin woman comedies.

nbc doesn't get it. their viewers weren't the junior high kids. but they also didn't have cbs graying audience. they had the 18 to 49 year olds that advertisers wanted.

they didn't get that with law & order. they didn't get that by having retro bullshit sitcoms.

they got that by having sitcoms that reflected that audience. seinfeld, friends and others.

their biggest mistake in the spring of 2004 was cancelling whoopi because that was a show that was getting attention. you had characters who would only continue to get more interesting, not the bland or bland with a dash of quirk bullshit they push off on you now.

there's no 1 on joey that resembles a human being.

in the 70s you had sitcoms like the classic mary tyler moore show, all in the family, maude, the bob newhart show and others where the comedy was based on things the writers saw in their own lives. the problems with sitcoms today is that they are based on what the writers saw on another show or a movie.

king of queens is a hideous, hideous show. i saw a rerun of it while flipping channels this week. the african-american couple (i don't know any of the names of the characters, sorry) were picking a couple to be the god parents to their children. fat man and thin woman were not picked. at the christening, they went around trying to upset the couple that way. the man who was chosen says he does not watch basketball because 'it's a bunch of pitutary glands . . .'

get the problem? it was a funny line. in 1977 when it was said in the movie annie hall.

you see that all the time. a popular film to steal from is tootsie. 'i said good day' is a line dorothy michaels (dustin hoffman) says in that movie. then 'i said good day, sir.' how often do you hear that on everybody loves raymond? how often do you hear that on every sitcom?

it was funny in tootsie. it's not funny when people who can't write about their own lives steal from movies.

here's another problem nbc might want to consider fixing -- ugly guys.

i really don't think america needs any more fat men, thin wives sitcoms. but they also do not need this bullshit of ugly guys paired up with beautiful women.

you get the idea that the network suits are scared of casting hot guys. they'll cast some 1 slightly better looking. when friends started matt leblanc hadn't turned into big fatty and was actually cute. that's why rachel could say 'you're so pretty.' but they seem to think that women are going to sit through tits and ass on display and not notice that the men are either ugly or plain.

i know women who watched that lame hawaii 5-0 rip off on nbc briefly this fall just to see the hunky ivan sergei. the show's cancelled. get him on a sitcom.

he can't act? so what. do you think we watched dharma and greg because we thought greg was a great actor? no, we watched it because we all wanted to change places with dharma. and when dharma fell for the hercules refugee we recoiled in horror.

i have 3 friends who watch that hideous beastmaster just to see the hottie in the loincloth.

ike barenholtz was in falling around in his underwear on mad tv saturday night. i didn't see it.
but i heard about it from 4 women sunday. he wore tighty whities. and that got a bit of buzz.
i think he's like jimmy fallon in that he's in a cute phase he may leave quickly. but women do find him sexy right now. and we like to see guys in their underwear.

when he's shirtless or has his shirt open while he's doing the abercrombie & fitch spoofs on mad tv, my phone won't stop ringing with friends calling and saying 'turn it on rebecca! he's showing flesh!'

but instead of a hottie, the suits love the jonathan silvermans. we didn't find him hot on gimmie a break and we don't find him hot now. he's a dud, network suits.

we don't lust after him.

abc's getting ready to push john stamos in a sitcom. i can tell you that if it's funny, it will have an audience. if they parade him around in briefs, it doesn't have to be that funny.

and that's not a boxers v. briefs argument. i know women who prefer their men in boxers but want guys filmed in briefs and the reason for that is the boxers they put these guys in onscreen are so nonsexy! unless the guys wearing boxer briefs, you can't even enjoy a butt shot because the boxers are so loose they flap around back there. apparently no 1 wears tapered boxers in hollywood?

put john stamos in briefs and put him in them often and we'll watch. he's sexy. he hasn't yet hit the tony danza wall that charlie sheen's reached where the body is gone and you may as well be in home depot because you'll see that boxy shape on every guy there.

some day the networks may get that just as guys like to look at the sports illustrated swimsuit mag even though they'll never marry a swimsuit model, women like to look at hotties even though they know they'll never get a ck underwear model.

stop putting the stocky guys in the leading roles of these failed shows and we'll pay attention.
there's not a girl i went to school with that didn't drool over the hottest guy on campus. but apparently the suits didn't get that. or understand the meaning of a 'wet day.' (as in, 'oh look at him! i'm having a wet day now!')

did they miss that tom cruise became a star because he danced around onscreen in his bvds?
he left the hot phase long ago, but even women who loathe him remember that dance.

if they signed jimmy fallon for a sitcom tomorrow, made the pilot him being in his briefs for the first 1/2 of the show (maybe he's locked out of the apartment, maybe some woman tricks him into thinking they'll have sex and runs off with his clothes to get back at him), i guarantee you that the ratings would be high.

boos and hisses to joey biden and billy keller

well give it up for c.i. yesterday the common ills had a blog post called 'welcome to the new iraq' which once again took the happy talkers to task. after listing some of what was going on this week, c.i. concludes with:

Now does someone want to do happy talk like last weekend about the new Iraq?

bop. bop hillary on her head if you ask me.

known cheater and speech stealer joe biden was on the sunday talk show circuit yesterday, the chat and chew if i can steal from c.i., and was it just me or is all of america saying 'joe, you're cheating off the wrong person this time!'

i mean come on joe. you want to follow a senator, follow a boxer, a feingold. not hillary as she attempts to morph into joe lieberman.

joe's coming off like hillary's lackey as he pushes the notion that she's electable. as if. apparently he thinks he has a shot at getting on the ticket? bald has gone over so well in the past, right?

oh wrong. in fact, have we had a bald president since lbj? have we had a bald vice president?

but keep hooking yourself onto hillary's falling star joe.

let's move to something a little less sleazy . . . well that leaves just about everything.

but let's shoot high and talk about the wonderful kids putting out the third estate sunday review. please make it a point to check them out.

they are doing some great work. every sunday they put out their 'paper' and there's always something worth reading for information, something for giggles, something to make you think.
jesse, ty, ava, dona and jim are just the greatest.

i got to add some input this weekend on some stuff as they were getting ready to go to 'print' and it's always a lot of fun and a free for all exchange of ideas.

the article i want to highlight today is 'being bill keller-vich.' if you don't know bill keller, he is the executive editor of the new york times. and he's been spouting off a lot lately. bill's the little brat at the pool who wants to splash the other kids but when they splash back goes running to mommy going 'oh my hair! mommy, they got my hair wet!'

he wants to slime bloggers and then run back behind arthur ochs and go 'i'm a newspaper man, make them leave me alone, artie!'

so silly billy decides to weigh in that some bloggers are just like a circle jerk.

now normally, anything anyone from the new york times is supsect in my book. i mean, hello, judy miller! and of course, not having a penis, i've never been invited into a circle jerk. (cue janis ian's 'at 17.') but i'll take keller's word for it on this.

why am i so trusting when it comes to keller? well i'm not. but if figure every 1 has 1 area they are an expert in. and i'm guessing that circle jerks are something billy keller knows a lot about and that's he's participated in quite a few. hell, he may still particpate. 'davey sanger, go get safire! bobby pear, go grab tommy zeller! grab all the guys but that tommy friedman! he always cries when he loses!'

in the good news department: janeane garofalo is hosting the majority report tonight with bill scher and if only that could be the case every night. what a great show.

noting the third estate sunday review and previewing upcoming stories on that site

i'm in the midst of helping the third estate sunday review with and i realized that i better grab time to blog or people will start thinking 'that rebecca just takes every weekend off!'

i want to note sad news, peter benenson is dead and if you don't know that name go over and read folding star's tribute to benenson at a winding road.

since a new third estate sunday review will be up within eight hours, i want to point out that the last issue had a sampling of tori amos lyrics and if you are a tori fan like i am you should enjoy reading it. i love how it works together (all these lines from different songs) to form 1 story.

i'd also like to note the piece tries to convey to the new york times that judy miller is not the most important story in the whole wide world:

The Times is not a brave paper. It hasn't been for most of it's history. But it's "official timeline" tendency on each and every story have left the readers indifferent to the paper of record. The paper seems to feel we will rally behind Judy Miller due to a belief in freedom of the press but The New York Times hasn't utilized the First Amendment in years. They want people to get passionate about a principle that they've long ignored.

and i'll share a secret the new york times is addressed again in the upcoming third estate sunday review.

i believe i already noted c.i. interviewing folding star but in case you didn't check, let me recommend it again.

and of course the kids over at cjr daily get a failing grade in a lively and entertaining editorial.

the upcoming issue looks great as well. no links because they aren't posted and who knows what might get killed before it goes to print. but there's a very funny review of the apprentice and of course the new york times is dealt with again as noted earlier. right now the story being nailed down is this week's editorial. who will the third estate sunday review call to the attention of the class this week? for that you'll have to check their site on sunday!

thoughts on nick watt's reporting tonight, hillary clinton, and the new york times - no happy thoughts here.

nick watt gave an embarrassing report tonight on world news tonight on abc.
i say that because a lot of people e-mailed saying they had given up on broadcast television news and wondering if it was really good.
it's corporate news. do not expect miracles.
nick watt contributed a piece tonight that was propaganda. which is a real shame coz he is a hottie.
but he wants to show us what is on iraqi tv. but he does not want to tell us who runs that news. and he does not want to tell us that if you think we have a problem with broadcast news, the iraqis are even more skeptical when americans are involved in their news.
so the questionable news that iraqis are skeptical of is broadcasting taped interviews with captured insurgents. and these interviews are supposed to turn the tide.
and as evidence, nick watts offers us 1 man on the street. who wants to offer that it will stop the insurgency. is the man sunni? is he shiite? those are serious issues.
and why can he only provide 1 witness?
it was total propaganda not unlike hillary clinton's statements this weekend.
c.i. over at the common ills wrote about that last night as has folding star of a winding road.
i'll weigh in myself by saying we damn well do have a right to question to her.
this is not alice walker, this is not gloria steinem. this is hillary clinton who may be a notch above or below goldie hawn.
as c.i. would say: "translation," goldie can talk a good game for a year or 2 and then fall into the backlash for a couple of years, then come back out of it and suddenly has some new comments to make that are semi-worth listening to.
goldie onscreen is a funny lady most of the time.
but let's be real sure we understand that she made a huge step with private benjamin and the press she did for that and then she completely destroyed that with her later comments. with 1st wives club publicity, she was a font of wisdom all the sudden. then after 9-11 she again started making embarrassing remarks.
i'm not sure if hillary's above her or below her. i'd put hillary below her because goldie onscreen can always make me laugh.
but this is not a great leader of the women's movement.
and the idea that we need to treat her as an icon blows my mind.
she's iconic because she was 1st lady?
she holds an office and like any 1 else elected she has to answer questions. she may not like it, but too bad.
and i'm real sorry bill clinton had his health problems before the election. i'm even sorrier he was a chicken shit for so much of his presidency. the third way always seem to steer us to the right. and the captain of dismantling lbj's great society and fdr's new deal was too often bill clinton.
his comments, reported in newsweek, regarding his advice to john kerry about same-sex marriage were ignorant and belittling to a nation. he does not lift us up. we can see him grin and maybe feel good for a moment because of his personal style but he was not our comeback kid, he was the comeback kid.
and too often it has always been all about bill or all about hillary.
welfare reform = war on poor and working poor women.
and they should both be ashamed for flogging that.
so hillary clinton is not above questioning.
she voted for the war.
she has not been strong in voting against nominations.
she has not been a moral leader in any sense.
she has been some 1 who increasingly tries to drape herself in a god-like pose.
if you haven't figured it out yet, i will not vote for her in the primary if she runs for president.
and i think she would lose big in a general election.
she is so hated.
and she's become the 'safe' player in the senate.
so where's the support going to come from?
she really is becoming the female version of joe lieberman.
the right hates her because they think she's liberal.
the left alternates between indifference and apathy to outright loathing.
so i guess the 2 million people who bought her book are some how going to be enough to get her elected president?
and the jokes that will be in the offing. jay leno asking america 'do we really want to put bill back in the white house?' or 'hillary's 1st announced policy? ban all interns.'
it'll be a nightmare and the democratic party will go down in flames.
but here is a bigger issue and it's this: one full term as senator and and 2 years and that qualifies her to be president?
she'll be running against a governor or god knows what.
'vote for me. i made a great 1st lady!'
there's also the backlash that would come about just because we would be going bush-clinton-bush-clinton.
this isn't a monarcy and 2 families shouldn't have a lock on the presidency.
the only family members of a president i'd vote for currently are bobby kennedy who's done outstanding work on environmental issues and amy carter who has always been the most sensible child to grow up in the white house. i'm sure chelsea's lovely but amy carter has common sense. she's the best of both parents and she's serious.
i would also vote al gore if he ran in the primary because i really like what he's been saying for the last 4 years.
but hillary doesn't excite me.
and i don't buy into the 'she should be president because she wants to be.' i think we've all suffered enough from the clintons doing what they wanted to. often at the expense of the less fortunate in our society.
the compassion she sometimes demonstrated as first lady has been no where to be found in the senate where she's appeared hell bent on demonstrating how much 'like a man' she could be.
the softer side has been silenced as the roar of the hawk has overtaken her being.
barbara boxer and russ feingold are 2 senators who seem to have some true compassion and up against them, hillary doesn't seem that different from joe lieberman.
those are my thoughts on hillary. now here's a question in the e-mails from alan. he wants to know why i subscribe to the new york times if i hate it so much.
because i don't pay for it. it's free for me. i checked and my ex-husband still pays for the paper delivered. i'm less and less impressed with what's in it. and often pass it off to a neighbor unread. if i take the time to read some of it, i usally mention it here. which gives you an idea of how often i read it. but i wouldn't pay for it. it's over 40 bucks a month and it's not worth half that even with the crossword.
on a positive note, janeane's back on the majority report tonight in the studio and sounds like she's feeling better. yea janeane!

dicks=sam seder & brian williams; cocks=peter jennings & steve earle

i just lost a post. i'd worked 40 minutes on it. i'll blame the new york times.
seriously, i have a friend who's computer buff and she swears to me that the purchase of about blank is the result of the new york times being pissed that people are trashing them online. she says start watching and see if all the sudden when you close an explorer window if you don't end up with an about blank screen.
i don't know whether that's true or not. i use mozilla.
but i'm pissed so i'll blame the new york times.
okay, so i was explaining to you what we were seeing on abc world news tonight and explaining about dean reynolds' series (they did the second installment tonight, the third one airs tomorrow).
i was explaining how we could take nightly news out and teach them to put in place a dick who is bland and in love with rush limbaugh in place of tom brokaw.
and i had a story from yesterday that i found on yahoo but i've lost the link and won't look it up.
but the story had the latest ratings.
remember nightly news with the grip on number 1 and never challenged in recent years?
well it's number 1. by 0.5 viewers. abc's world news tonight had 9.7 million. nightly news had only 10.2 million.
we can knock out .5 million easy.
teach them to go with the bland and boring brian williams.
he's so disgusting. he wrote dick nixon letters as a child, natch.
so i had explained that if you aren't watching network news i do not blame you and that you are probably smarter for not watching. but if you are watching, i was asking that if you watch nightly news, stop watching it. go to abc world news tonight or even cbs's evening news.
we need to knock .5 million and we can do that.
and you can help. you can tell your friends that brian williams is rush limbaugh ditto head. you can tell him rebecca says he acts like the type to frig his own hole between stories on air.
and if you have any ideas on what we can tell our friends e-mail them to me at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and we'll talk about them here. you can be serious or funny. let's get our brains working on this.
brian williams is so unsexy.
and tonight on abc, just a tip, they have a two hour documentary on ufos. don't know what you think there. i would like to believe that there's something out there but just don't have the faith to believe. if you do, good for you.
but the point is, even if you find the topic cheesy, tell me which network is doing any sort of documentary these days.
i'm sure there will be problems with it. i watched peter jennings's documentary on jfk in 2003 and had problems with that. but hey, who else is doing them these days?
and yes, i do find peter jennings sexy.
besides his handsome face, his hands are very sexy and he has a way of handling himself on air that suggests he knows what to do in bed.
so for those keeping score, brian williams = dick; peter jennings = cock.
arbitration was a hot topic today. i heard it three times on npr alone. dean reynolds is doing a three part series on arbitration for abc. i saw tonight's installment on world news tonight and i found it pretty informative. i'm hoping the third installment tomorrow will continue to be as well.
here's the story "Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Reduce Consumer Rights" and the third part airs tomorrow on world news tonight with peter jennings on abc. can i plug that show 1 more time?
that prim and proper stephanie is schilling for the new republic on air america right now telling you that if you want to know about the state of 'liberalism' read their rag.
they ain't liberal, steph. quit lying to people.
a real liberal, katrina vanden heuvel who edits the nation, was on democracy now today. i hope you saw it.
and last air america gripe, they've got poor janeane garofalo on the phone from her sick bed. let the woman have some rest people. yes, the majority report sucks without her but damn the woman is sick. she doesn't need to be taxing herself.
poor janeane.
and carrie e-mailed asking if i was being serious about janeane. yes, i was. i love her. she's a real feminist and a real leftist. the real deal and my praise for her is always sincere.
oh let me do a gripe. sam seder the stupid fuck is on without janeane at the start and talking about danny goldberg of artemis joining the air america staff. and he's listing danny's credits (and got the book title wrong which janeane corrected him on when she came on later). but he's blah-blah-blah-ing in that incessant whine. (does any 1 else notice how his voice has that annoying dipthong thing that sherrif andy taylor's did?) so he's plugging away and saying 'danny put out al franken's album on artemis and it was up for a grammy.'
yeah and it lost. big fucking deal.
but artemis did have an album with a grammy. and it went to an air america host.
who?
steve earle. why is it that sam didn't know that?
how stupid is he?
or does he think steve earle isn't important enough to mention?
the revolution starts now won the grammy for best contemporary folk album.
if you haven't heard it, check it out. i love it.
and i love steve earle. sam apparently never heard of earle or his grammy win.
but that's just another clue about how stupid sam is.
every body have a good night and hopefully tomorrow, if i do a long entry, i won't find computer freezing. again i'll blame the new york times not because it's responsible necessarily, but because it's so damn disgusting.

get well janeane garofalo

so i turn on the majority report thinking i can laugh with the funny, smart and pretty janeane garofalo but the fates had another plan for me. she's apparently out sick. she's been pretty sick lately and i hope it is just the flu that every 1's getting. i think i was knocked for at least 7 days but it felt so much longer.
so there's sam seder RAH RAH RAH RAH away. can some 1 can get that man on meds? i mean really.
i don't need to hear this shit in that smug voice.
i can tolerate him when janeane's on.
oh this is funny!
go to the blog sometime.
the bloggers love sam seder. (unless he's talking up simon rosenberg and then they hate him.)
what a strange crowd that is.
you got this 1 chick who will always open with something to do with something that happened today, okay?
and from there?
holocaust, holocaust, holocaust. 3 hours straight. sometimes continuing on the post show blog.
and every now and then some 1 will try to cheer her up, 'oh -- it's okay, it'll be okay.' day after day for almost 11 months now holocaust, holocaust, holocaust.
over and over.
this passes for deep thought on the blog, or she thinks it does.
then you get this group of little boys with the tiny weinies who have to say things like 'i bet she's so loose you could drive a mack truck through there.' yeah they are great wits.
on the laura flanders show blog (when it's working) you get people talking about real things. and asking things like 'what can i do' and people are responding to each other with ideas about a petition, a letter, a march, what ever.
that blog is probably the best blog at air america.
(i leave out randi's because her board predates air america and is a bulletin board and not a blog.)
but i do not mean to suggest that the majority report is the worst blog. it's not. there are some really cool people there. sunshine jim and pete moon come to mind. and fish grease though i haven't seen him pop up in a while. but i really do not check that often any more. but those are just 3 and there are a lot more who are intelligent at the majority report.
but they also have a huge number of losers.
so what's the worst blog?
i'd say it's unfiltered and this works in good cause i needed to talk about that from last week any way.
you have some really smart and creative types going there. but you also have idiots who say things like 'mmmm yummy soup.' over and over. or will talk about their cats. you can just picture these ladies (though some may be men) in their caftans with their madras blankets on their lap as they sit at their computers picking cat hairs off their sweaters as they listen to 1 of their own (lizz winstead). and you just know they put the suzanne vega on hold to listen to the show. so for like 3 hours they're waiting to hear the end of 'luka.'
they are people who found npr too 'cutting edge.'
every now and then you'll get some 1 smart or a group of smart people.
and they'll try to get a discussion going but some idiot has to say 'mmmm yummy soup.' and you know that idiot's not getting any and won't unless she finds a way to buy some sort of attachment for her cat!
no brain lizz encourages it by posting pictures of her dog on the blog.
slap a cheap blonde wig (with matted or ratted hair) on edie and i swear it looks just like lizz!
and by the way, on the blog is lizz winstead's photo and name and yet her 'fans' who rush to tell you things like 'a behind the look at liz' spell her name that way. her 'fans' don't even know how to spell her name! (i will point out that c.i. over at the common ills is a fan of lizz and big brain rachel and loves unfiltered the difference is c.i. can spell their names. and c.i. probably doesn't blog there or own a cat!)
but la lizz loves to screech a rant and last week no brain was screaming on air about the need to screen out people on the blog. that would be the blog for the show called (drum roll please) unfiltered!
no brain just doesn't get it.
it's so sad.
at this rate, the only thing that's going to save the show is for rachel to team back up with bill press and let her inner howard stern peak back out again.
she should do that. it was so shocking to see rachel step away from playing mommy to no brain. who knew big brain was a sexual being?
all that talk about her partner susan is so will on will & grace. talk, talk, talk.
but when she was getting down and dirty with bill press talking about the ladies like they were sitting in a locker room, who knew?
they were talking about cartoons today. lizz winstead has to cover all the important issues, natch. so i started thinking about cartoon characters that lizz and big brain could be.
with lizz, rachel's really roo's mommy. can't think of her name. from winnie the pooh. but she's like speedy gonzales when lizz isn't around. (to drag her down.)
but who would lizz be?
i couldn't think of 1.
then it finally hit me, she's the man in the big bird suit on sesame street!
that's so lizz.
so back to janeane. the show sucks with out her.
i hope she gets better. randi's had surgery, mike malloy's had the family thing, it's all pretty sad.
janeane gets sick and i start wondering a) why couldn't it be lizz and b) is there some sort of curse or plan going on here?
seriously, despite the odds, the network's catching on.
i give credit to mark and marc, randi, janeane, mike, laura, steve, kyle, marty and bobby & mike.
those people know how to do radio. now janeane, completely new to radio. but she comes on air and just draws you in.
if there's a voice as annoying as lizz's that would be sam. while lizz screeches, sam whines aggressively.
sam's the guy who's been married 2 years and you're at a party on a saturday night at his house. the hostess, his wife, asks you if you run into the kitchen to grab a bottle of wine. you're at the fridge when he stands behind you.
and he's got 1 eye on the door to make sure his wife doesn't come in and the other eye, the lazy 1, is scanning you up and down.
that's sam.
and the truth is, if you do go to sneak off to the laundry with him, and haven't we all made that mistake at least once?, the first thing you notice is that he's got on tighty-whities and there are skid marks in the seat of them.
ew!
and you're thinking 'i so do not want to do this' but he's come on real aggressive and you're thinking 'oh god just get it over with already' coz you know he's not going to last 2 minutes.
and sure enough he's on you, he's in you and the only surprise you might be getting is if he farts right in the middle. but since guys like that often do, you really aren't that surprised when he does - more irritated at the way he giggles about the fact that he just farted.
and if he thinks he's really smooth, he'll offer his idea of a bon mot about what it would have been like if you'd been going down on him while he farted (usually working in the word 'cheesy').
then at the 1 and a 1/2 minute mark he'll gasp and grunt and maybe holler 'mommy!' after he catches his breath (i swear, after with 1 of those guys, you'd think they'd had an asthma attack)
he'll go back to that smug voice and say something 'heart felt' like 'didn't i tell you i'd rock your world?'
and you're looking at him and thinking for a small guy he is sure is a lot of dead weight on your body. and wondering how this guy who came in less than 2 minutes, who farted in the middle of sex, has skid marks in his briefs and screamed out 'mommy' when he shot his meager load thinks for 1 moment that he's a player.
ladies & gentlemen, that is sam seder.
janeane, get well, we miss you!

i am the damn beekeeper!

i am the damn beekeeper!

seriously, tori amos had a new cd out today. it's called the beekeeper and it's the best thing i've heard in years from any 1 so please check it out. i read the review of it in yesterday's new york times and e-mail c.i. of the common ills. i say 'wow 3 years!' what the fuck are you talking about, willis, comes the reply more or less. i explain and c.i. says jon pareles is "estimating.'

let me walk you through because i love it when the new york times gets it wrong on even the minor stuff. in 2002, tori amos put out her brilliant cd scarlet's walk. with me so far? today the beekeeper comes out.

c.i. goes, 'rebecca i want to you picture yourself having a child in october of 2003, okay?' well if i must. 'today is february 22, 2005. how old is your baby?'

ok, i get the point. the new york times, egg on it's face as usual.

what's all this filigree talk in the review, seems kind of snide. ci: 'filigree because she's a woman and because parles can't or won't get off the fence, a characteristic of his reviews that dates back for years' and c.i.'s going back to like i think the fall of 1985, over all these rolling stone reviews that parles has written. and i'm like 'shit, c.i. you should write about this stuff.'

and c.i. explains there are 4 e-mails freaking over the simpsons entry yesterday.

that really pisses me off so if there are any common members coming here who dashed off an e-mail on that to c.i., take a breath kids.

it was about journalism. read the item. there's a guy, conservative org (natch), commenting on the episode and he hasn't seen it. he didn't boycott it which might be a story, he just didn't know about it. and then he didn't watch it. and he's presented for 'balance' when he has nothing to say. it's insta-pundit, just add water. and boil, please bring to a boil.

it was in the news section and you had other members e-mailing in. and the topic of the episode was same-sex marriage. so i don't see how with all the above there's a problem with it.

but let me make another point while i'm on this.

yesterday was presidents day. i took the day off. a number of people did.

c.i. could have and probably should have.

late saturday night we were both helping the groovy kids over at the 3rd estate sunday review and that went on until the wee hours. i think it was 7 o'clock when we were done but it may have been 6 a.m.

c.i.'s got a headache, saying stuff about being sick of blogging, and my advice was to take monday off because it was a holiday or, at the very least, focus on something fun.

guys and gals, i squeeze no more than 1 entry a day in between sex romps and other activities.
'but becky! sex romps are your only activities!' almost.

so please people, chill a little. i was asking jesse and ava (3rd estate) if this was normal talk and they were like 'whenever we're up all night like this, it is.' i'd slept in that morning (sex romp from the night before), had more sex and then a long nap, we got out of bed to grab something to eat, came back listened to some music with a little foreplay, ended up back in the bedroom after some strong living room activity, sex romp and i'd just gone to sleep when the phone rings with 3rd estate on the line.

contrast that with c.i. who was up early saturday morning and ends up pulling 24 hours plus before getting any sleep. so really guys, we all love c.i.'s writing and crave more but cut a little slack. it was a holiday. c.i. focused on answering e-mails and did like 6 or 7 posts. i don't see how that's slacking off.

and have you read the entry today? "The New York Times at its worst: Elisabeth Bumiller, Jodi Wilgoren and Juan Forero make the front page on the same day." i love it. i was laughing so hard this morning, i spit out my coffee at 1 point.

i'm quoted in it and proud to be. reading it, i see i had at least 1 typo but i never fix those and never will. i think that things from january and i really don't see the point in hunting down that entry on jodi wilgoren and fixing the word. the new york times doesn't do that kind of correction. if they did, they'd have many more corrections.

oh 1 more thing i saw in the new york times monday that i asked c.i. about. in the business section (hey sexy gals are interested in the business pages too) i saw something.

here it is, this is from monday when they usually run the weekend box office, page 7 of the business section. 'warner brothers will be watching to see how 'constantine,' keanu reeves' latest film does over presidents' day weekend. the actor's film in the supernatural/science-fiction have tended to start strong and finish very strong. only 'bram stroker's dracula' (1992), which opened with $30.5 million its first weekend, finished out of his top 5 movies.'

the paper then lists (in this order) matrix reloaded, the matrix, matrix revolution, something's gotta give and speed. so it was monday and i was trying to think of light topics to e-mail c.i. about and i e-mail that.

i get back a reply about the stupid idiots at the times. something like 'oh only dracula, is that the story? is that the nonsense the paper's spitting out this morning? well 'supernatural/science fiction? i think that would include devil's advocate and it's out of his top 5. and here's 2 more words: johnny mnuemonic! a walk in the clouds opened with a stronger box office than johnny mnuemonic and it 'finished strong' by grossing more as well!'

see, i read it and nod along too often. i think, well it's in the paper, it's been checked, it must be true. but the truth is, the new york times lies and lies and lies and lies.

maybe they don't mean to. maybe they're just tired or lazy. maybe they missed the crash and burn that was johnny mnuemonic (i love keanu but i'd forgotten about that film). but they take the trouble to inform you of something in their official voice, their 'voice of record' and the fact of the matter is they don't know what they fuck they are talking about.

that should be the slogan of the paper. not 'all the news that's fit to print' but 'we don't know what we are talking about.'

it seems like every day, my eyes are opened to increasing errors in the rag of record. if the guy delivering it monday through friday wasn't so damn sexy . . .

sherry has already e-mailed twice this weekend warning me that when i get back to posting i better dish as promised.

so here's the dealio. (stone temple pilots please come back! velvet revolver has about as much going on as the eighties 'group' the power station. robert deleo was hot!) his name is maurice. he looks a little like the guy in the acer ad that i'm still obsessing over. his cock curves to the right (as jim morrison once sang 'the little girls understand'). he's got a ton of energy so it was the perfect weekend!

if you get the beekeeper, i'd suggest you go for the deluxe version. you get a bonus dvd and cute extras including a package of seeds.

on my way i'm just passing you by
but don't be confused
one day i'll be coming for you
from tori amos's 'the beekeeper'

what's the deal with al?

i'm going to move quickly because i've got a date tonight with a man who looks like

i'm getting a number of e-mails about al franken. having spoken the truth about big brain and lizz, people are asking me to weigh in on al franken.

he's probably a nice man and, if i can be really honest, there are times when i think he's a little sexy. but he's also been useless.

here's why.

he's gotten raves for his smack down with bill o'reilly on c-span. but let's be really honest here, he looked like a titty baby. he was on the verge of tears. not in a 'i'm so passionate' manner, but in a weak and ineffectual manner.

this week al's cozying up to the right at some idiotic conference. he thinks bantering with them passes as serious political discussion. he is mistaken.

but he's very cozy with that group. and you need to ask yourself about that.

you need to ask yourself why bob somerby, a brilliant mind that the common ills introduced me to, was on al's show and treated like a stranger who showed up at the door after midnight asking to use the phone. bob somerby knows what he's talking about. he's well spoken. but al wasn't interested in that.

jeremy glick was on. al kept chattering away about how bill o'reilly wouldn't let him speak on the o'reilly factor. (i'll take al's word for it because unlike him, i have better things to do than to listen to rush limbaugh or watching bill o'reilly.) from what i've read, o'reilly had his meltdown almost immediatly with glick but hit the 'shut up shut up shut up' roof when glick attempted to note, rightly, that actions have reactions, that our policies in the 80s could come back to bite us in the ass. and when glick attempted to discuss this on al franken's show, al did not tell him to shut up, he just cut him off and changed the topic.

or take the week long love-fest over reagan. during this non-reality based moment, greg palast (too sexy for his own good - yes, i'd do palast!) attempted to interject reality by discussing the attacks on central america (death squads, etc.) and al nearly had a heart attack.

it wasn't about 'taste' because al can go into the gutter with sexual jokes faster than any 1. it was something else.

fear to speak truth to power?

al feels the need to play a little theme every time david brock comes on. a common ills community member complained about that jingle and i agree. it's insulting and disgusting.

but can you explain to me why there's no 'now he's back in the human race' when al brings on paul peterson?

al treats paul peterson like a patron saint. peterson served under nixon. that's not the issue. john dean did so as well. john dean's gone on to be a productive member of society.

but considering that the issue de jour is social security, shouldn't peterson have to answer for what he did because make no mistake that he attacked social security more than any 1.

when clinton got into office, there was paul peterson decrying the deficit and the need to reduce it. and it was in the new york review of books that peterson attacked social security repeatedly. now al's an 'entertainer' so he may or may not be aware of history. social security, peterson's basic argument, was this huge pac man gobbling up every thing in sight.

has peterson had a transformation? if so, we'd need to address his attacks on social security which have gone on for decades?

i'll allow that al has a mushy brain. this is the man who just doesn't get it.

he's still looking at the world with his elite college eyes of youth and isn't able to discuss anything that really effects our world today. he can make gay jokes that are, quite frankly, offensive. and then reassure you that he likes gays and lesbians. he can do the 'funny' let's make fun of how foreigners speak differently bit. he can do that and so much more because in his formative years, that passed for liberal.

before the black power movement, stonewall, the second wave of feminism, you could stroke your sense of entitlement (provided you were white, male, straight and of a certain economic strata) until you juked your walls and still be a liberal.

that's what people like todd gitlin object to when they bemoan special interests. that women won't shut up and go fetch coffee or type up papers the way it was in the original days of the sds. that women, minorities and others weren't going to sit at the back of the bus waiting for big white male master to pass on a request.

'special interests' are bemoaned by the likes of todd gitlin who seem to think that their view is universal and every 1 else is just squabbling over minor details. had gitlin been born black or a woman, i doubt he'd be so dismissive of the needs of others.

he wants to claim that there are big issues we need to focus on and he wants, as a white male, to define them. we've fractured, according to gitlin. we're losing our focus, accoring to gitlin.

that's true only if your focus was on what mister whitey wants.

todd gitlin wants to control the dialogue and be allowed to establish what is important. i don't think al is thinking it through. i think he means well. but i don't think he possess the intellect to think it through and won't while everyone joins him for a circle jerk.

and that's what his show provides. that and a ton of right wing voices.

a good point was made by a female comedian on the majority report this week. the right doesn't spend their air time obsessing over the left. she compared it to the way some women are always trying to figure out what some man thinks. (i don't do that. if a man can't communicate with me, i settle for sex until that loses its appeal or else i move on.)

all this time spent on right wing guests and center guests (howard fineman is not a guest worth having) prevents al from being exposed to the voices that could challenge him.

now look, i never expect that al will open a segment with 'joining us today is the 1 and only angela y. davis. angela, we're thrilled to have you with us.' but why does he insist on having on people like fineman, for instance? (i'd love it if he'd book angela davis for his show.)

amy goodman is a journalist. a damn good 1. why not highlight her? why not book her on a regular basis? why not bring on naomi klein more often?

i am some 1 who doesn't claim to be the most informed. the common ills did a post about how important it was for us to share voices that speak to us because we never again want to feel we're in the wilderness the way we were after 9-11 when the mainstream media took a hard right like never before. i treasure that post and have to confess that i felt very alone after 9-11.
i had my friends and we would say 'bush is out of control and destroying everything this country stands for.' but i didn't know about voices that were reality based.

thanks to the common ills, i've learned of important voices that speak to me. i know naomi klein is out there, for instance. i know i can count on inspiration from katrina vanden heuvel. i've learned of howard zinn who, sad to say, was some 1 i knew nothing about. matthew rothschild, the editor of the progressive, was a name i had no idea of. i have been turned on to him by the common ills and have gone back and read his 'mccarthyism watch' and his 'this just in' and he is some 1 i could have related to long ago - if i'd have known he was out there.

i've talked about this in e-mails with c.i. of the common ills because i think this is really important. i want to address it here. i could count on gloria steinem. she's a true hero. and i knew of her because i self-identify as a feminist. i knew a little of robin morgan who's equally courageous. and a now leader, i knew about them.

but the mainstream media had excluded voices from the left for some time now. i could see that meet the press didn't offer gloria steinem as a guest and be outraged by that (i still am). but with their pushing of the weekly standard staff, for instance, and other media following that lead, it truly did seem like there was steinem and the brave women at ms.

but i didn't know about the progressive. i didn't know about in these times. i didn' t really know about the nation. as some 1 who had read the new republic (a hideous magazine), i wasn't very curious to pick up the nation. and there was nothing in the mainstream media that would prompt me to do so.

the common ills provided me with a reality i didn't know existed. i am now some 1 who makes a point to watch democracy now. i never even heard of it before the common ills.

i was, maybe like some of you, someone who would turn on nightline and groan at ted koppel's nonsense. but i'd think well he's not pat robertson.

and he's not. but he and nightline do not provide a dialogue. they provide a forum for the right wing and the center to have a dialogue. and the left was left out.

there are rumors now that nightline may be scrapped. or that koppel may be replaced. a year ago, that would have bothered me to no end. these days i realize it truly doesn't matter.

nightline does nothing of real value. unless your goal is to watch as the center and the right find common ground (by going to the center-right).

i had no illusions in the 90s that i was getting to hear the left in the mainstream media. but i was under the wrong impression that my concerns were minority concerns shared by only feminists like myself. i was wrongly under the impression that the most i could hope for was maybe the new york times would do a story, one, on a given week that actually said some thing that spoke to me.

my friend elaine told me about the common ills and kept saying 'you're online all the time, you can make time to visit the common ills.' i resisted because what was the point? more center people chatting up a storm? thank you, but if i wanted that, npr exists already.

but she was on my ass about this. and on thanksgiving she would not shut up to any 1 at the table about how npr had put on the husband of a woman who works for cheney to critique john kerry's campaign and hadn't told their listeners that very important fact.

i, and every 1 else at the table, heard that story over and over. the only thing i can compare it to is when elaine read naomi wolfe's fire with fire and we all had to hear about that over and over.

but i finally got around to reading fire with fire and found it to be a brilliant book.

and npr is treated with kid gloves by too many people i know. we feel like since it does address some real news in between whoring itself out to corporations and the stock market, we can't come down too hard on it.

so i thought i'd do a quick look-see at the common ills. i read that post (when npr fails you, who you gonna call? not the ombudsman) and was blown away. there was a sensibility i could relate to. and i found myself going back to the web site and before i knew it, i was visiting it non stop.
i was seeing some 1 take on the new york times and share my disgust over their appeasement, their disinterest in real news, their fudged facts and all the other problems with the paper of record.

and in the 1st month, i mainly read the pull quote of any article highlighted on the site. (i read the times each morning. not all the way through. i read the front page until i'm pissed off. then i flip through the rest of the paper. and let me be clear that i mean pissed off by pedistrian reporting. i expect that the paper will cover 'bad news,' i expect that the news can be a downer.
but when articles have no basis in reality and exist, as the common ills called, part of some operation happy talk, i'm done with the main section of the paper.)

but i went from noting the headline topics and summaries of democracy now! to actually watching it on my tv. and i started visiting the daily howler and the progressive. and i learned so much.

i learned that i wasn't isolated in my beliefs, it was just that the mainstream media tried to isolate me, tried to isolate us all. i can, and do, listen to the majority report now. janeane garofalo is some 1 i always enjoyed but i wasn't keen to listen to her program because i was so disgusted with what passes for news. but i ended up giving her show a try and it's great. (i don't listen when she's not on.) i learned about laura flanders and i make it a point to listen to her show as well.

at some point in december i was writing these long e-mails to c.i. of the common ills. and c.i. would ask 'can i quote you?' (back then, the e-mail wasn't over 3,000 a week and c.i. could reply to every e-mail.) i would always say no because a) i'm still learning and b) i didn't think i was going to be the next hannah arendt so what was the point?

c.i. kept e-mailing me that it wasn't about every i being dotted or every comma in place, it was about speaking your truth and that we needed more voices not less. c.i. also suggested in 1 e-mail that i should consider blogging to which i laughed my ass off.

then when my best friend elaine was trashed on unfiltered by lizz no-brain winstead, i wrote c.i. and said, 'i am ready to blog, talk me through this.' c.i. spent forever in i.m. with me and i kept saying 'i can't do this, never mind' because it was so beyond my computer skills.

but c.i. kept me focused and now, though i'm still learning, i can do enough to make sure 1 more voice is out there. the al franken show could do what c.i. does.

but instead it treats voices from the left as sidebars and doesn't really allow you to know what resources are out there.

i also mention the common ills because i disagree strongly with c.i. over unfiltered. and a few people have wondered if i was taking swipes at c.i. between that and my comments in the 3rd estate sunday review about how c.i. can face each day with hope.

those aren't swipes at c.i. if you're coming here for that you will be disappointed. i really do think it's great that c.i. can always start off filled with hope each day. that's what makes the common ills so important. if c.i. was as cynical as me, i don't think the common ills would have become huge community it has.

i'm more jaded. and honestly take a fuck-it-all attitude.

and when 3 e-mails came in saying 'you really socked it to c.i.' i immediately e-mailed c.i. and said 'i am sorry if people are seeing it that way and can we talk about this?' and c.i. e-mailed back that we do not have to agree about everything. (similar comments were later posted in reply to people e-mailing c.i. with comments about our 'smack down.')

it really is about more voices being available and that what i say may reach some people that don't go to the common ills. and when the 3rd estate went to work on a story critizing the new york times coverage of the plame gate issue this wednesday, c.i. brought me in on the article as well to add my own feelings as well.

you know that i love the kids at the 3rd estate. they are groovy beyond words. but i was so touched by c.i. bringing me in on that because if there were any hard feelings, that wouldn't have happened.

i'll disagree with c.i. here over unfiltered or any thing else that we might disagree on. but if you're coming here expecting a flare up or an old fashioned cat fight, you'll be disappointed.
i wouldn't be blogging if it weren't for c.i. and the common ills.

there is no hatred, anger or malice towards c.i. and i know most of you get that. but there are 3 people who keep e-mailing wanting a smack down. and if you are 1 of those people, you need to go elsewhere.

and i need to go elsewhere because my date is here! if it turns into an overnight date (fingers crossed, legs uncrossed) there may or may not be an entry tomorrow. but i will focus on sex.
i'm in love with sex again. the lynne stewart thing has me so upset still but i'm going to try to be more positive because i know the only way to help her and ourselves is to utilize my anger and shock. so i will be talking about sex in the next post. and i will also highlight some of the smart, brave and, i'm sure, gorgeous people speaking out for her. we're in this together and we're going to bring about change. it may not happen tomorrow but i am going to stay positive that it will happen.

let's start with the good news.

today is billie joe armstrong's 33rd birthday. best wishes to a cool guy, a sexy guy and one third of one of the rockingest bands (green day). green day took on the bully boy and ended up with a best selling cd and a grammy for best rock album.

now let's do the bad. i'm finishing up with the evening news as i write. and i'm a longtime nbc nightly news viewer. tom brokaw was some 1 i grew up with and trusted. brian williams is just not cutting it.

those eyebrows are too fucking weird. and the look on his face is like he's been fragging his butt hole with his index finger and then sniffing it. (he actually reminds me of a guy named pete that i saw for three weeks. pete did that and would have the same annoying look on his face.)

i gave up on nightly news continuing in the brokaw tradition tonight. i had to suffer through a report by andrea mitchell dressed as though she's stepped off a fashion runway -- for a fashion show for elderly women. then there was the issue of her hair. what is the woman? 80?

is it a wig? is it a weave? i'm finding it hard to believe it's hair. and watching her shake it and toss it i was left with the impression that i was watching not nightly news but a wella balsam commercial from the 70s. (if farrah fawcett-majors had been a really, really ugly woman.)

and it really wasn't the evening for andrea mitchell to be playing bleached blonde floozy on network tv. i've got 1 story that's been e-mailed to me 16 times today. it's from the washington post and if you haven't read it, you should. terence o'hara has written 'records show liberal use of riggs jet: ex-ceo's guests took trips on company tab.'

there's a whole host of people who should be embarrassed. that includes former president jimmy carter. (who i think was a better president then anything we've elected since 1960 but that doesn't change the fact that he should be embarrassed.) but there is embarrassment and there is shame.

feeling shame should be barbara walters (though i doubt she has any -- if she did, star jones probably snacked on it). feeling shame should be the clone or fembot that's replaced diane sawyer. (truly, plastic surgery alone cannot really account for the difference between 90s sawyer and the airbrushed version that sits in front of cameras today, can it?) and then there's maude:

NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell was invited to join Allbritton and his wife on a flight from New York to Washington in December 2002.
Mitchell said Barbara B. Allbritton approached her "at the last minute" in the airport in New York while Mitchell was waiting for the Delta shuttle to Washington.
"Barbara said, 'We're flying back to D.C., would you like to go with us?' " recalled Mitchell, whose husband, Alan Greenspan, is chairman of the Federal Reserve, which regulates Riggs's holding company. She said she knows the Allbrittons socially. "I thought it was their personal airplane. Only later when this whole thing came up did I learn that it was a corporate aircraft. I'm usually very careful about those things."
She described the Allbrittons' offer as "sociable and neighborly."

you're usually very careful about those things? those things? conflicts of interest? it's bad enough that you're the wife of the fed chairman. that alone should have gotten under your wig or fall or whatever that bleached thing on your head is. but you are also a reporter. so you've sinned twice over andrea.

you're usually very careful about those things? those things? conflicts of interest? like when you attacked john kerry in a post-debate chat-fest on msnbc because you felt your husband grandpa munster had been slimed?

and never once did you explain that you were married to grandpa. you just acted as though you were an objective reporter.

andrea's hall of shame time.

and i flip channels on her sixth or seventh hair toss and check out world news tonight. the story she was reporting on? about john negroponte being named as the intelligence chief? much better reported on abc's world news tonight. martha somebody did a wonderful job. let me look up her name. okay it was martha raddatz. and i'm sorry for not knowing it but i never watch world news tonight. i've spent the last 10 years with nightly news. (yes, i thought tom brokaw was sexy.) martha did a great job including details in her report that andrea must have missed while perfecting hair toss.

but the other thing that i enjoyed was that peter jennings actually seemed to know something about the story. his comments before the story and after indicated that he did. whereas brian williams, again, acts as though as soon as the camera goes elsewhere he's got his finger rubbing his prostate.

at 1 point, in jenning's introduction to the story, they lost visual, then they lost audio. when they had it back, jennings cooly dismissed it with 1 sentence. that was a pro at work.

now i don't mistake peter jennings for amy goodman. amy goodman's the real deal. she's the last newsman standing as far as i'm concerned. but of the big three, i'm willing to trust peter jennings. i won't watch bob face the nation with the red eye lids that look like a sick bunny face.
i don't trust him. he always seems too highly amused with himself.

as for williams, if i were to learn that he actually was getting off on prostate massages during the broadcast, i'd applaud his sexual recklessness. but i still wouldn't trust him. he is beyond bland.

so i guess i'll be watching world news tonight from now on. i'll miss the old faces. and other than williams, they're all really old, really, really old. no more wondering if pete williams will crack a hip. no more noting lisa myers' stress eating. and no more majorette moves from andrea mitchell. (i wouldn't be surprised to find out she was a majorette. i'd be shocked to learn she'd been a cheerleader, however.)

so john negroponte will be leaving iraq and moving onto d.c. i hope there aren't any convents in the area. sisters, watch out for the death squads.

saluting janeane garofalo and gerald lefcourt for their bravery on monday's the majority report

on monday night, janeane garofalo did a wonderful interview with noted defense attorney gerald b. lefcourt on the majority report. c.i. of the common ills sent me some notes on that and will be posting a section from it tonight but passed it on so i could salute since i'm keeping track of who is showing real guts and bravery.

utlizing c.i.'s notes and listening to the episode at the air america archive (i was on a valentine's date monday night so i missed the majority report), i'll provide a summary.

lefcourt explained that he thinks 1 of the reasons for indicting lynne stewart to being with was that after the passage of the patriot act, john ashcroft announces that he now has the right to tape attornies and clients discussing their cases in confidence. there was an outcry from the senate which was: we just gave you your wishlist and you didn't put that on it. and attornies and the american bar association were outraged by this new 'policy' - an administrative rule change.

under pressure, suddenly john ashcroft announces his charges of lynne stewart for terrorism. she was the scalp mad dog john wanted to waive around to justify his policy change (one that goes against our basic concepts of law). he was trying to use her to prove that there was a threat to the national security.

lawsuits were in the pipeline to have this declared unconstitutional (which it is) so mad dog john personally announces the indictment against lynne stewart "to say, 'you see why we need this?'"

they charged her with aiding terrorists. and they rest their weak claim on their belief that her work as a lawyer was done.

so, let me ask readers, if that's what the government believes, why did they allow her to continue to visit him. if she wasn't there as a lawyer, she was there as some sort of a friend and in that case, they could have easily prevented her from visiting. they didn't do that because she was there as a lawyer and they know that and people better wake up and see that too.

so by the government's view, lynne stewart wasn't a lawyer, she was a part of the sheik's terrorist organization.

as janeane pointed out there was nothing that tied her to terrorist activities on american soil and nothing to tie her to further violence on foreign soil. this is all about a press release.

lefcourt made a point to emphasize that the "u.s. has often exchanged prisoenrs with other governments, particularly in the spy era.' this goes to the interview stewart had with laura flanders this weekend where she explained that without media attention, the man had no visibility and therefore no use in a trade.

this is about the attorney-client privilege.

she's charged and convicted of speaking to the press.

that's a summary. when reading over c.i.'s notes, i was surprised that sam seder's name didn't pop up often. then i listened to the interview.

sam, here's a tip, when talking about a serious issue (1 you weren't so sure of, as you said prior to the interview), the issues involved are a little more important than hearing yet again how you went to law school and dropped out.

pee wee herman might say 'i never get tired of that story' but i do.

and i'll also note that a crew was in the studio at the start of monday's show. they were doing a 'where are they now' taping to add a bonus feature to the larry sanders show dvd set that will be coming out.

if you don't know, janeane played paula on that show. if you don't know, and sam appears not to, sam was never on the larry sanders show.

i say that coz he couldn't shut the fuck up. over and over he cut off janeane and seemed to be amping it up for the cameras. janeane couldn't get a complete sentence out. and at 1 point when janeane's attempting to explain why they are talking about jeff gannon, sam cuts her off yet again to go into a 'let me explain why this is news' spiel. uh, sam, the people taping - they weren't there for you.

he attempts to dominate any time a woman speaks and some day some woman will call him on it. but he was useless during the interview. janeane had a conversation with lefcourt. sam acted as though he was sitting on the couch of the johnny carson show.

so let me salute janeane and let me salute lefcourt as well. brave, amazing people who grasp the issues and don't publicly waffle the way sam did.

in other news: this just in, nbc's lisa myers is still useless and still fat.

uber fat chick lisa myers is on nightly news right now delivering a report on contractors in iraq. 'contractors who committ crimes can be prosecuted under u.s. law,' myers just said. 'even good contractors sometimes used tactics that can turn iraqis against the u.s.' lisa myers emerging from the local peter piper's where she's spent 4 hours scaring the little kids away from the pizza buffet to deliver the white wash that the hostilities iraqis feel towards us may be the fault of contractors who can be filed under the 'few bad apples' heading apparently. hey big gal, this was news a looooooooooooooonnnnnnngggggggggggg time ago. finally emerging from your feeing trough, you've discovered the story that every 1 else has been covering but not only have you added nothing to it, you've also turned it into a white wash. you've schilled for the administration, lisa, now hurry off to the candy store.

praise for a winding road & the national lawyers guild for speaking out on lynne stewart

well swing out sister, we got another person on the side of right and justice. let's put the spotlight on folding star of a winding road.
from a winding road yesterday:

Another matter that I've been wanting to blog about is the conviction of Lynne Stewart. If you're a member of the Common Ills Community or a reader of Rebecca's over at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, you know that they both devoted more than one post to this matter this weekend. But outside of them, and interviews with Stewart on Democracy Now! and The Laura Flanders Show, I've seen far too little attention paid and far too little outrage expressed.
Stewart is a Civil Rights Attorney who came forward to do a very difficult but very necessary job- to provide a terrorist suspect with his constitutionally guaranteed right to an attorney and a fair trial.
The Bush Administration has demonstrated time and again that fair trials are the LAST thing they believe in, Constitution be damned. They're all about the sort of narrow minded frontier 'justice' that represents one of the most dire parts of our history, glorified though it's been in countless Westerns.
Given these people's overall disgust for the Constitution (except for that right to bear arms thing, now that they love), I wasn't surprised when former Attorney General Ashcroft announced these trumped up charges against Stewart. What better way to get around a fair and legal trial than to go after the lawyer and scare others off from taking on similar jobs in the future?
I was shocked and sickened by the verdict against Stewart, though.We cannot pretend this is anything other than what it is- the latest attempt of the Bush Administration to undermine and destroy our Civil Liberties. If this new path were to follow its illogical but evidently intended course, the very idea of a fair trial in this country is out the window. We have to know that each and every person accused of a crime- and remember, any such person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty- is going to have a fair chance at legal defense.
I see today that the National Lawyers Guild have called for a Day of Outrage on this matter, and I applaud that. You can read their statement here
But really, this should be a matter of outrage for each and every one of us, not just on this specific day but every day.
Lynne Stewart is the latest human face making the Bush Administration's dangerous goals all too vivid a reality.
We've got to fight this. Stewart is appealing her case and we've got to appeal it as well, in our own way. We've got to be writing about this, talking about it, telling people what's going on. The outcry from all of us over this should be deafening. We cannot let these things just happen without being heard, without going out in the streets if we have to in order to be heard.
tell somebody
what happened in the usa?
i wanna read about it in the news
i wanna hear about it on tv, yeah
what happened in the usa?
when they ask you
what happened in the usa?
tell somebody.
they'll wanna know, oh people

the depth of our democracy
is only as good as the voices of protest she protects
voices of protest - rise!

These are lyrics by Rickie Lee Jones that seem fitting on this matter. The song, Tell Somebody, is on her latest cd, Evening of My Best Day, and was written about the Patriot Act.
. . .

so let's take a moment to spotlight folding star of a winding road who has demonstrated bravery. applaud folding star, visit A winding road.

for those keeping track, here are the ones needing applause and thanks: democracy now!, the common ills, the laura flanders show, the third estate sunday review, talk left, a winding road
and the national lawyers guild.

now let's turn to the disgusting. no, i haven't spotted joe lieberman in a speedo, it's much worse.
lizz winstead and rachel maddow the silly gals of unfiltered who never let the facts stand in the way of a cheap laugh.

so today big brain and no brain do this skit about those naughty bloggers. and big brain is her usual joyless self - flat affect any 1? but there's no brain (lizz) screaching and rushing in and out of the skit as though flying a broom.

i'm guessing that listening to lizz's lame skit about ethics had to be painful for even the most devoted unfiltered listener (that would include c.i. of the common ills who loves this show) . playing their lame skit, the gross gals strike the pose of ethics and how important they are. that would be the same dreary duo that can't get their own facts right and, here we focus on no brain lizz, love to fall back on the excuse 'hey, i am a comedian.' well you say you are.

me, i'm still waiting for the laughs.

regardless, no brain built a skit around the fact that bloggers lied about what eason jordan said.
hey, no brain and big brain can go WWF all over the asses of right wing bloggers, i could care less. but they embarrass themselves when they don't know the basic facts.

here's just 1 they should have known: there is no proof that eason jordan didn't make those comments.

but ba-da-ba-da-ba-da-NO BRAIN! rushes in with her theme song to play gatekeeper and make sure that we do not get curious about the actual issue of whether or not reporters are being targeted. my 10 cents? they are.

no brain is no journalist. she's just becoming the screeching schill of the middle class, middle road, close your eyes to reality crowd.

and that point was driven home when i had to hear 'ask a vet' and 'ask a vet for doggies' in the same show. lizz, if you're thinking you're looking less pathetic by crowing over you dog than you would if you were just another old lady with a cat, you're kidding yourself.

what is lizz anyway? 60?

so once again there are 2 'ask a vet's and there are no ask an advocate.

big brain's on some sort of macho trip as she sniffs freely at the crotches of any male who's 'served.' silly no brain lizz thinks 'balance' is talking about animals.

i had this little fantasy while i listened to unfiltered today. here it is. the year is 2015. no brain's career has hit the skids (she's almost there already) and she moves to iraq only thing is she's not funny over there either. but she does her little lame show over there for the 1st time and after she finishes up, she's walking down the streets of, say, najaf. and she has to look at the eyes of all the iraqis who lost loved 1s. she has to know that she was the art buchwald of the left, the saturday review of the 60s, when she could have been making a difference.

let's hope something similar happens and she has to live with that for the rest of her days.

she deserves it.

the common ills is always noting the magazine clamor. i picked it up and it is a great magazine. if you're looking for a new magazine, i'd say start with this 1.

but there's an advertisement in it that made me chuckle. 'radical talk radio now!' highlights many worthy radio hosts. but lizz winstead is radical?

it's funny to read unfiltered fans take on terry gross's interview with lynne cheney and hear them judge it a 'softball.' what do they think lizz is tossing out day after day?

and it's cute as well the way lizz uses the unfiltered blog to plan hook ups. (i'm not suggesting sexual encounters. i am saying there's something a little impersonal about blogging 'am i seeing you this weekend?' for instance.)

but 'radical?' radical???????????????????????

prove me wrong, lizz, do an hour on lynne stewart if you can pull your non-radical ass out of the middle of the road.

we salute the web site talk left

i don't know if you know the web site talk left or not but thanks to kristi, we now know of some 1 else who is speaking out in lynne stewart's defense.

this is what they wrote on thursday, when the verdict came in:

I completely disagree with this verdict. In fact, I'm shocked. And saddened.
More news is here, including this picture of her leaving court after the verdict with her husband.
I think she will get an appeal bond...clearly there are substantial issues of law and fact that would result in a reversal or new trial if decided in her favor. (That's the legal test for getting an appeal bond.)
Also, in light of Booker and FanFan, clearly this is a case calling for non-adherence to the guidelines. The Court can consider them and make a ruling they should not apply in this case.

talk left, you are brave, you are strong and we salute you here and we note that while others were holding their tongues you were already coming out strongly in lynne stewart's defense.
this is the link to talk left's site proper.

i wish i could tell you i knew a lot about them but i know they are brave, i know they didn't wait to see who was going to come out in lynne stewart's defense.

i salute and thank kristi as well for find this brave site and bringing it to our attention.

if you see anyone blogging on this or if you see an article on it, let's highlight and salute. i looked at various sites today trying to find some 1 speaking about lynne stewart and i found none. maybe they're out there and we just need some 1 with skills like kristi to find them.

but let's keep looking because we need to make sure that brave people are recognized. so far it's the third estate sunday review, the common ills, talk left and us.

toni sent me the lyrics to a really great song by carole king called 'chalice borealis.' she said this part about mountains applied to lynne stewart and i agree:

how you gonna explain it to your grandkids, where did the mountains go, how you gonna' tell them you sold them, where did the mountains go?

so when your grandkids ask you what you did to help defend lynne stewart from this governmental attack on her, make sure you have an answer to give them.

i'll toss out my e-mail address again sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and you can always write there about anything but please use it like kristi did if you find any 1 noting what's happening to lynne stewart.

the test of bravery is standing up even when it's not easy or popular. let's hope some more people learn to stand.

bit of a transcript of the lynne stewart interview with laura flanders via the common ills

i'm swiping from the common ills tonight. i've been reading e-mails today hoping some 1 had a link. watching the grammys. green day won one for best rock album so give it up to my little stud muffin billie joe armstrong. take on the bully boy and get a best selling album and a grammy. it's not the death of a career no matter what the right wing echo chamber tells you.
but as the e-mails have been saying, no 1's talking about lynne stewart that they can find. it really makes me sad.

so let me swipe from the common ills:

From the interview, here is transcript (with many errors I'm sure) of one portion of the interview.

Laura Flanders noted that Stewart's trial took place in "the exact same new your court house where the rosenbergs were tried more than half-century ago" and that she'd last had Stewart on the program in July. After thirteen days deliberating, the jury returned a verdict.

Lynne Stewart: I don't think anyone was more surprised than I was on Thursday when the jury convicted on every single count.

Flanders noted that it was "hard to keep track of exactly what it is you were convicted of."

Lynne Stewart: In may of 2000, I visited my client, the government listened in on this entire visit. . . . however, they never moved to prevent anything. I took out a press release . . .

Laura Flanders: . . . you took one from your client and brought it to the press?

Lynne Stewart: Exactly. . . . he asked me to make a press release. It was a call placed toReuters -- hardly clandestine, hardly secret, hardly secret taking it out since they were videotaping and listening to the entire thing. And this indicated that his personal opinion had changed from being in favor of a cease fire to withdrawing his support. But he also went on to say that he was not asking for a stop to it, he was not calling for an end to it.

Flanders then asked about the agreement the government was making the attornies sign (believe they are called the SANDS agreement and that's how I refer to them later -- correct me if I'm wrong).

[This is probably on Lynne Stewart's website but I haven't been able to find it -- admittedly, I'm hurrying.]

Lynne Stewart: We had understood that to mean, everytime you go into a jail, you sign the thing that you have to sign in order to get into the jail. When we signed onto these we understood that they were intended to allow us access to him but we also understood that they would not interfere with our doing what legally needed to be done. I think I relied on that and the fact that over the three years they had been enforced the only thing that had happened was that Ramsey [Clark] had made many many press releases in New York, Abu Dhabi, in Cairo on behalf, carrying his [the client's] words out and nothing had happened not even a letter. When I did it I got a letter saying that I would not be allowed to see him [the client]. That's what we thought the penality could be -- that you would no longer be able to be the lawyer. Instead two years later this massive indictment. . . . You know laura I just got an e-mail from an attorney up in New Hampshire: "I need you to explain why this press release was part of a lawyer's work?". . . We had a client that was convicted who had no place really to go except through some kind of political accommodations. No matter how unlikely it might appear on day one, perhaps on day thirty, it would not be unlikely. Of absolute necessecity to all of us, when I say all of us, the lawyers, was the recognition that the man had to be kept on the world stage, he couldn't be locked in a box because then there would be no opportunity for him to be a willing trade, let us say, for some political goal of the United States.

Flanders: So for him to retain any kind of political negotiating capital, he had to remain on the world stage?

Lynne Stewart: Exactly he was a world figure, he had played a role. His word was listened to. He was no longer in the field, I mean he was a blind sick man. He even said "I don't know what's going on over there, you know what's going on over there. I'm just saying that it appears that this is not working."

Flanders: So even if you felt the government's attempt to silence him was wrong, for all the reasons you've just described, did you not know that you were breaking a rule by taking out that message?

Stewart: You know I've been asked this question both many, many times from the moment I was arrested, on the witness stand, to my answer to the government. My sense of it was yes, we signed on to these things, but, yes, there was sort of a bubble in which we operated . . .in this, because we had operated under them for so long, we had done the things that were on the face perhaps against them but we were never penalized, we were never questioned, we were never sent a letter saying you can't do that, we noticed you're doing this. It was accepted and we thought the government also felt that they would not interfere with what was legally required to represent him.

Flanders: You thought that they were playing their hand, you were playing your hand, but then things changed?

Stewart: Yes.

Flanders: What changed?

Stewart: Well I think the SANDS were basically their ace in the hole, these are these prison regulations that we signed onto. They're basically not directed at the lawyers; all the lawyers are saying is "Yes, I'll respect this." And I think that they held that in abayence until they had an opportunity, or what they saw as a need, to take action because they had never taken any action and actually, after the press release, I signed the SANDS again and went back in to visit him.

Flanders: And yet after you're convicted and after the attorney general Alberto Gonzales says that the conviction has sent an umistakable message that the justice dept. Will pursue terrorists and those that assist them, you're out on the streets. How dangerous are you really?

Stewart: I feel like I should say 'no comment.' Because I don't want to call their attention to this if they really believe that. Well here I am and of course I've been out since the time I was arrested in 2002 as well. So we're talking about from a point of focus, three years almost and likely to remain out, perhaps, pending appeal.

i'm hopeful we'll see more green day on the grammys and that some 1 will e-mail saying 'i found this great thing on lynne stewart.' but i'm not expecting it to happen. i know we've got the outrage and the 'smart' thing to do would probably be to make a point to act as cheerleader but i just am really saddened that there's no 1 weighing in to defend stewart. if there had been 1 more voice today, i would have been thrilled. even 1 more. maybe monday will bring some bravery. today it's the common ills and the third estate sunday review.

the editorial i helped with is up and you can read it at their site.