who is the hottest foreign correspondent? the votes are in

still sick and had to cancel my plans for this evening. (yes, the same hot hunky.)
15 of you said christian parenti was hotter and 9 of you said dahr was hotter while 1 of you voted for john f. burns and 15 of you voted for christian amanpour. but myra and jodie both made the same point: you have a hot weekend with christian parenti, you marry dahr jamail and live happily ever after.
so the christians won the hottest foreign correspondent contest with a tie - parenti and amanpour.
so i was listening to the majority report tonight and where the heck was janeane during the last 1/2 hour?
but the real news? sam seder likes simon rosenberg. why is that news? when janeane was on vacation, sam and bill scher of the liberal oasis did a weak ass, bullshit interview with simon rosenberg. and the blog went wild so sam felt the need to defend himself (mainly by trashing howard dean). he said that he wasn't supporting simon, he was just interviewing him. but tonight we learn that he's enamored of simon. that explains the star fucking he and bill gave him.
the other thing we learned? bill doesn't know a lot. he didn't know that the hideous mel gibson's passion of jewish hatred marketed as psuedo catholicism was oscar nominated and he didn't know that the phones of the senate were almost shut down due to the large amount of calls on the day stephanie tubbs jones was looking for 1 senator to support her on the ohio stolen vote.
if you remember barbara boxer stepped out. she stepped up again last week with tough questions for condasleeza rice and again this week on the vote.
as i said before barbara boxer is so cool if she were a rock and roller, she'd have to be mama michelle phillips of the mamas and papas.
i'm listening to mike malloy right now and he always makes me laugh. i have friends who say 'he just screams and screams!' i think he modulates well. and he has never failed to lift my spirits.
but he might tonight because i feel so sick.
george w. bush the bully boy prevented me and others from getting flu shots and if you're suffering like i am now or if you have suffered, you really hope some 1 in the press will start pointing out the disaster that was his administration's "planning" when it came to dealing with flu shots last fall.
i'll blog tomorrow even if i don't feel better. but i'm just going to lie on the bed now and listen to malloy with the hope that he'll make me feel better. (if he can't, i may be beyond medical help!)

saluting jack reed

is it wrong to kick the ladies when they're down? yes, i'm talking about lizz and rachel again. this morning they confused senators harry reid and jack reed.
this wasn't just a slip of the tongue. a friend called me and said 'turn on unfiltered! they're so wrong it's funny!' so i listen and there's lizz talking about how harry reid voted against condi rice's nomination. and then it's skit time (to the tune of 'wind beneath my wings') and big brain's reading a list and let's us know "reid of nevada" voted against condi rice.
only problem is that he didn't.
jack reed voted against her, harry reid voted for her.
but harry got shout outs and a skit. and jack?
when the ladies finally realized their mistake (it was all over the unfiltered blog according to my friend, including before the skit started) after the commercial break, they did own up to it and i will give them credit for that.
but in owning up, they went on and on about how they correct and how other's don't and big brain pops off with her favorite part of the new york times is the corrections and starts into this long story about her favorite correction . . . but what does this have to do with jack reed being shortchanged?
all the others got praised at length and in skit. then it's back from commercial, "we made a mistake, here's why . . ." but no where was there any need to discuss jack reed.
so yes, the ladies did do a correction, but they might as well have ignored it considering how little attention they gave to jack reed.
and for a 55 year old man, jack reed's kind of cute. he's got nice eyes. he's got a sexy kind of senator thing going on. as of 2003, he had a 100% rating by naral so he's got some coolness going on. he's rated 95 by the lcv so he cares about the environment. no 1's record is perfect but he's taken brave votes before. and anyone voted 0% by the christian coalition is certainly date worthy.
and he probably should have gotten a little attention today once the gals realized their mistake.
mistakes happen and when my friend called me, i said 'they are talking on air and the last name is the same so it's easy to mean 1 person but think another' but my friend was saying 'turn it on.'
so i did and my excuse for the ladies flew out the window when they made the same mistake in a skit that was prepared. it's fine to make a mistake in conversation but the skit was prepared ahead of time.
and it's still fine to make a mistake and give the gals credit for owning up to it.
but i was just surprised that poor jack reed stood up against condi and was overlooked prior to them realizing their mistake and then after they realized their mistake.
when they thought it was harry reid, they couldn't say enough things about harry reid. but when they came back and did their correction, it was 'that was jack reed' and then a dicussion on corrections.
poor jack reed.
well we'll recognize him here. and i'm sure that will just make his day! that's sarcasm. i doubt he'd be heavily impressed. 'senator you were praised on a blog!'
reed: really? which 1?
aide: let's see, it's called . . . uh, you were praised.
reed: what's it called?
aide: sex and politics and screeds and attitude.
reed rolls his eyes.
aide: but they really praised you. they said you had a great record.
reed: what was their last entry?
aide: let's see they did 1 called . . . uh, 'cocks and dicks.'
reed shakes his head.
aide: but this rebecca woman said you had nice eyes, kind of cute and sexy.
reed is already walking away.

that's how i think any alerting to reed about his praise here would go.
which is cool. we're not for everyone.
i made that point today when i was doing an interview with the wonderful people at the third estate sunday review.
that was a lot of fun. i think it goes up this sunday.
annie e-mailed me to ask me if i was over the flu yet. and the answer is no and i think it is mutating.
i was so cold today and i didn't check the temperature once because if it wasn't a cold day, i didn't want to know because that would mean i was sicker than i thought. (i have natural gas heat so there's no temperature thermostat, i just turn the knobs to a number between one and ten and today i had them all up to ten because i was freezing.)
i didn't even go outside to check the mail. and no, not because i had tina turner hair again. i brushed and styled first thing in the morning hoping that would give me some energy for the day but it didn't and i was so tired after that i sat down on the couch for what i thought was a second but ended up waking up 2 hours later.
then i caught democracy now! but fell asleep before it was over because i'm just so tired and so cold. i did have a pretty hot dream about dahr jamail who was on the 1st 1/2 of democracy now! today.
but then it got silly ("oh, dahr, embed me! embed me!") and i woke up pissed off.
question i'll toss out, who is the hottest international correspondent?
sometimes i think it has to be dahr and sometimes i think it has to be christian parenti.
but i did read the common ills this evening and clicked on the story john f. burns did for the new york times. i've seen him on tv and he's a little older than i like them but after today's article, i would so totally do him!
so let me know who you think is hot. let me check my e-mail address because i'm that out of it from this ever mutating flu.
it's sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com so let me know if you've been eyeing any hot international correspondents -- print, tv or radio. and yes, you can pick a woman as well. and no, international does not just mean iraq.
i hope every 1 is feeling better than i am right now. and i hope we all take a moment to recognize jack reed who showed real guts (yet again) in voting against condi rice.

the dicks: joe lieberman, hillary clinton, and lizz & big brain

it's official, joe lieberman is the ultimate dick. who in the world ever thought this man was qualified to be a vice-president on a democratic ticket. i saw over at the common ills that a guy from lieberman's state had written in to note that not every 1 was happy with him. is any 1?
and what is up with that lizz winstead on unfiltered?
i'm bored today, so i listen and big mistake.
remember i told you how she uses the blog to vent and gripe about people. well she went off on some guy who'd made some comment about air america. i have no idea what it was.
who could tell with her ranting and screaming.
i believe the guy's name was robert.
so she's in banshee territory when she starts talking about how she created the air america radio network.
what is up with that?
when randi rhodes talks, i know what she means. she'd proven that she could be successful in any market clear channel would let her in. (they refused to syndicate her show properly because she was too much competition for the house pet rush limbaugh.)
randi was looking for a way to take her show nation wide.
i'm sure she was very vocal when meeting the potential air america investors.
i understand what she's talking about completely.
and let's be real honest, she's one of the few (though not the only 1) who proved that liberal radio shows could get high ratings.
but la lizz?
i'm sure she made some key decisions, though radio wasn't her resume high point (the high point, sadly, was the craig kilborne daily show on comedy central).
but to hear her raging and screaming 'i created this network!' i honestly worried for rachel's safety. she was bellowing like faye dunaway in mommie dearest!
i kept picturing her grabbing a thing of comet cleaner and whacking rachel over the head with it while she continued screeching 'i created this network!'
does she really need to take credit like that. 'i!'
and if she does, can she do it nicely?
is there a reason to scream and yell, via the radio, at some guy on the blog?
p.m.s. much, lizz?
maybe her screech fest is why the blog was so dead. i went to it and tried to figure out who offended her so. 51 posts total. the day before there was over 400.
maybe people don't care for that screaming shit?
or maybe they're just tired of bullshit.
the ladies who laugh took it upon themselves to defend hillary clinton.
proving how uninformed they both are. yeah, that includes the big brain rachel.
to hear the chatty cathys tell it, hillary clinton was the world's biggest supporter of abortion rights.
that's why she voted in favor of the ban for late term abortions? is that the party line you're pushing?
ladies, ladies, lay off the yucks long enough to get informed.
maybe then you'd realize that hillary's actions have a context and the context is the party's attempt to back off from reproductive rights.
now lizz supports abortion rights. i'd never try to imply that she didn't. she believes in choice and she defends the right.
so how come she can't call hillary on bullshit?
and how come she and big brain are so unaware of triangulation -- the key clinton legacy?
any 1 with basic history, who isn't a clintonista, is well aware of the war on the poor conducted by bill (and sold via hillary) to triangulate with the republicans, to try to find common ground.
hillary even sold out her supposed friend marian wright edelman over that issue.
hillary's always been religious. that's the kind of in depth analysis the ladies gave us today.
see they think you can't criticize hillary because apparently they don't spend a lot of time in the feminist world.
despite the right's tarring hillary with the term feminist (or "feminazi") none of my feminist friends see hillary as a feminist.
she holds some progressive views, some. but she's not a feminist. that's like calling diane feinstein a feminist.
she's the first first-lady to become a senator. okay, well that's a record for hillary but like most of her records, they're about her. i don't see any uplifting of women.
and if we want to talk about how she's always been a church goer, let's talk about how she started out a goldwater girl as in barry. how even after her 'transformation' she still had barry to the white house.
i think we see that goldwater girl creep out a little too much in the current hillary.
and that they'd ignore reality (the dems push to the right on the abortion issue) and defend her after her husband was reported in the press to have told john kerry to basically disown civil unions is really amazing since big brain is a lesbian.
spit on me once, shame on you; spit on twice, i'm into water sports?
i mean come on rachel show a little pride.
common ground. that's what the ladies told us that hillary was going for.
common ground?
that's the excuse for all the triangulation in the clinton administration.
so when hillary starts heading to the "common ground," the left should worry.
and why do we want to make common ground with people radically opposed to a woman's right to choose?
this was a point that lizz made at 1 point during the show.
that's reality lizz and i'll applaud you for it.
but that nonsense about hillary, all those 'stop questioning her.'
aren't they the same ladies who were telling us that we'd have to keep the pressure on?
but when it comes to hillary it's 'back off bitch' time.
maybe they're still starry eyed that hillary graced them with a brief, very brief, appearence prior to the election?
that was fluff time all the way.
remember when bill clinton tried to softball amy goodman in 2000? goodman didn't stand for it because she's got integrity. she didn't say 'oh well it's not a bush so i need to fuss and flatter.'
she held him accountable. and he needed that and we should have been doing that all along.
but the ladies go weak knee-ed when hillary is the issue.
which is really funny because what has hillary done for the party this month?
uh, she's refused to vote with boxer on ohio. and today she refused to vote against condi rice.
let me repeat that last part because it's still news today - hillary voted to confirm condi rice as secretary of state.
this is our feminist hero?
ladies, ladies, buy some common sense and, if they're having a two-for sale, pick up some integrity while you're at it.
today was just disgusting.
people are trying to hold hillary accountable, people on the left, and you 2 rush in to say 'back off!' are you her body guards?
hillary's a grown up, she's responsible for her actions. to hold her accountable or to question her, that's part of what a democracy is.
now lizz would go off into her 'i'm just a comedian' nonsense.
whenever lizz is wrong or still smarting over some 1 calling her out on being wrong, she'll launch into that lame excuse.
i don't care what you are lizz, you're filling up three hours monday through friday talking about current events (for the most part). either educate yourself or shut up.
quit whining.
and i happened to catch al franken today as well.
he's doing this mocking of bill o'reilly (thank god) for o'lielly implying he'd served in the military.
hey lizz, what's going to happen when o'lielly puts together a tape of you, randi and al all claiming to have created the air america network?
you think you won't look stupid then?
quit being such an ego maniac and if some 1 feels you made fun of mark dayton, don't turn around and say, 'i created this network! don't lecture me! and i'm from . . .'
who cares lizz? really.
you sold out on hillary. you made her more important than reproductive rights. big brain was right there with you.
you can't even whisper you were following marching orders from on high, i mean, you created the network after all!
grow up.
hillary's trying to move the debate over. she's against late term abortions (and that's on the record but since you're a 'comedian' maybe you don't think you have to know that fact -- i have no idea what big brain's excuse is) and while feminists are loudly decrying the party's softening stance on reproductive rights, hillary clinton chooses to give the speech she gave.
to abortion rights supporters no less!
who was she trying to reach out to in that crowd?
and abstinence only is a waste of time as studies have shown. we don't need to throw any more money out on that bull shit. it's less effective than that stupid dare program.
but you both want to act as though moses has come down the mountain and we all need to fall in line.
get real. hillary's feminist credentials, such as they were, vanished during her husband's first term.
i'm not going to play rally around hillary.
if a man made those statements, the 2 ladies would rip him apart.
but because it's hillary they rush to tell us to stop questioning, to stop demanding accountability.
if this is the way it's going to be, they might want to change the name of the network from air america to clinton america.
ladies, today you were both dicks.
remember readers, i warned you that ladies could be dicks as well. condi rice, for instance.
today, big brain and over-forty-and-underweight were dicks.
maybe by tomorrow morning they'll have stopped off at a tag sale and picked up some common sense.

cocks and dicks

shelley e-mailed and asked me if that guy who kept e-mailing me telling me to stop writing about sex and men's bodies had made me decide to stop.
no. he's just a blow hard who thinks he can push a woman, any woman, around. maybe he pushes his wife around the way he bragged about how he wouldn't "let" her go to this site, but he doesn't push me around.
i did write about the very hot hottie billie joe armstrong. and i find otis redding's voice very sexual. but i was sick this weekend and besides my hair looking like a tossed aside tina turner wig, i wasn't feeling very sexy or sexual.
don't worry though, i won't shy from talking about men and their bodies no matter how many wack jobs e-mail me screaming, 'get thee to a nunnery!'
but in case anyone else was concerned, i figured i'd make that clear and hopefully the title does.
cocks and dicks.
do we know the difference?
straight ladies? gay guys? bisexuals?
a cock can be a beautiful thing if you're attracted to men. and a dick is just a dick.
bill frist, for instance, is a dick. that's not a compliment. richard nixon was a dick.
while i was at the drug store getting flu medicine this morning, this bland nightmare in dockers -- natch -- calls out 'little dick, get over here!'
little dick?
i must have looked at mr. dockers strangely because he felt the need to explain that he and his son were both williams. his son was 'little dick' and he was 'big dick.'
how some men won't torture their own children to feed their massive egos.
i made a point to study his docker encased pouch (and i had to study it because there was very little bulge) before i said, 'i think you may have gotten the names backwards.'
anyho, so jim morrison, for instance, had a cock. pat boone has a dick and is a dick.
does that make sense?
a cock is an organ that can do these wonderful things. it's nice to look at and always eager for your touch.
a dick's just a dick. and someone who is a dick is so because they just bascially piss on every 1 they know.
hence, bill frist, dick. john turek has a cock.
are you feeling me?
turek appears to have a mighty, might corn husk. but a cock doesn't have to be large to be beautiful. in fact, i've been with some guys who've had smaller cocks and they've had their own beauty.
and it can also be a nice relief not to have one going down your throat into, apparently, your belly. no offense to fellows with big ones. (which are their own reward in other ways.)
a smaller or smallish cock can get me excited. i guess it's the same way that small breasts can excite some guys. no, despite the media and hooters talk to the contrary, all straight men aren't into big breasts.
so cocks come in all shapes and sizes and a range of colors. i don't just mean black and white. or black, brown and white.
any woman who's enjoyed sex without guilt probably gets what i'm talking about.
but a dick is just a dick.
markus rogan has a cock. 1 that i've dreamt of often.
tom delay has and is a dick.
now some might say, 'rebecca, where is the politics in this!'
i say the politics in this is that it's important for everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) to understand the difference.
for instance, condi rice is a dick. she doesn't have 1 (nor does she have a cock) but she's a dick because she pisses on everyone around her.
she's a tool.
avoid the dicks regardless of your sexual orientation.
if you like the male form, embrace the cock.
you hear the word 'dick' all the time. sometimes referring to the sex organ, sometimes referring to some 1 being a tool.
but cock?
i can remember in the 90s, forget which year, when it was the year of the cock. elaine told me that some chinese food places weren't saying 'cock.' we called around and would ask what year it was and the man or woman on the other end of the phone would say 'year of the rooster.'
cock!
it's a lovely word.
and if from my sick bed and fevered delirium i've done nothing else today but helped us all understand the difference between a cock and a dick, i'll sleep soundly tonight.
i hope i'm over the flu tomorrow. but ella, whom i caught it from, only started feeling better this morning. i'll try to write something else regardless. maybe i'll feel good enough to hunt down a photo. if any of you has a photo of john turek or markus rogan that you're holding out on me, take pity on a gal in her sick bed and send it on in. i won't post any fully nude guys but i still can enjoy them privately. the e-mail address is sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com so feel free to share your hotties with me. and don't bogart the rogan and turek!

manohla dargis, 'manohla tile,' rushes to flaunt her ignorance and the times happily assists

not a good day. i've caught emma's flu.
i slept in until noon, went to the bathroom to brush my teeth and nearly screamed. tina turner's wigs have never stood up at so many angles.
so then i open the increasingly useless new york times and see andy sullivan trying to prop up his boy donnie rummy with his 'by gosh it all, the military was looking into this!' white wash.
the times feels sully's so goddamn important that they let him go on and on. considering that he understands brevity -- those personal ads seeking bareback sex for instance -- it's shocking that they turn over so much space to so questionable a writer.
but just when you're done with granny sully telling you there really is a santa clause, you have to take on the prat that is manohla dargis.
apparently manohla's never read one of those star biographies. you know that this self-proclaimed lover of valley of the dolls has read everyone she could get her hands on.
manohla eats up space in the times book review section by weighing in on a star gazer tome aimed at sean penn.
and apparenlty manohla's new to these type of books. (they often sell well but they rarely grace a best seller list).
manohla's shocked, just shocked, that a writer would write such a glossy treatment of penn. as someone who's flipped through books "about" sharon stone, goldie hawn, cher, johnny depp, river phoenix, warren beatty and countless others, i know when i pick up one of those books that we're looking at a subject without warts. kitty kelley's 1 of the few who's ever felt the need to show warts. and 1 of the few who's sold a book that explored the warts. even those loons who've develped a cottage industry out of their hatred of jane fonda haven't been able to land even a modest selling success. why is that?
because now that these books are no longer stocked in large numbers at the supermarkets or box stores, the only 1s buying them are fans of the star.
you don't make any money with a warts and all portrayal.
and no one even tries. which is why a biography on sharon stone works overtime to reassure us of all how she's one of the strongest critical thinkers of our time. yeah, there's sartre and then there's stone.
either manohla is ignorant of the book genre or she's so eager to trash sean penn that she plays dumb.
either way, the book isn't worthy of a review in the times and her "review" isn't worth printing.
she feels the need to tell us that "penn's resume is clogged with pretentious schlock like 'state of grace' and the ghastly 'i am sam.'" while praising mystic river, no less. (if pauline kael were alive, she's slap manohla's face!) that would be his oscar nominated performance in 'i am sam.'
as for pretentious, manohla might not want to throw stones.
sean penn, and a film critic should know this, is a character actor. as such, like every other character actor, he selects a film based upon the role he's offered. he's not giving a great deal of thought to the film's success or even it's merits. he's focused on whether the role gives him (as an actor) a chance to explore something.
for the record, i'm no fan of sean penn's. i've read countless biographies on madonna and wasn't impressed. nor have i ever found him sexy.
but i do not have the need to slam and distort his career. manhola apparently does.
it's not enough that she smear penn himself, she also goes after his dead father leo penn:
"he had been blacklisted, though he wasn't sure anyone had actually named his name. (in fact, he may have hit a wall as a screen actor. either way, the blacklist would become an important part of the penn family story.)"
would that be the same new york times family story manhola?

His film career had just begun when Penn was blacklisted after attending a pro-union meeting with other actors. That the group was actively supporting the first blacklistees, the Hollywood Ten, only worsened matters.
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=106025&mod=bio

yeah, manohla tile, that's your own damn paper.

you might want to consider researching a little before you spew your venum. you're exactly the sort of 'critic' that kat was talking in thursday's kat's korner -- you mistake criticism for an appearence on crossfire!

maybe manohla tile is unaware of this too:

When he was called before the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee, and asked to expose Hollywood Communists, Leo Penn refused to name names.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20050118.html

or maybe the dumb ass just doesn't grasp how the blacklist worked, maybe she's historically ignorant as well as a bad writer?

you sure are quick to absolve the blacklisters and question the documented claims of a victim, manohla tile.

your piece shouldn't have been printed and someone needs to do something about the garbage that is the new york times book review.

facts don't matter, people say whatever they want. it's bullshit and it needs to stop.

when the bush family makes you ill put on otis blue

what happened today and what didn't?
my forehead's sweating like crazy which probably means i caught a cold from ella. ella calls me up groaning to say she can't come to the lunchean i'm throwing tomorrow. she's never sick but she sounds like hell. her voice was so tortured you'd think albie gonzales had been in her throat.
so like the good friend my mother taught me to be, i whipped a batch of chicken soup and headed right over.
she looked as pasty and color drained as the photo i'm pretty sure i saw online today of michael powell. chairman mao, er powell, is stepping on down from the fcc. looking like a sweaty, teary scott peterson, his face was splashed all over the net today.
poor little titty baby. wonder which corporation will hire him as a lobbyist?
you know he's not going to do anything noble. he's no jimmy carter. there's no habitat for humanity in his future.
while ella was coughing up phlegm and running through a thing of tissues, i asked, 'ella, what happened? you never get sick.'
this gal at work, donna bush -- of course it would be a bush, that family will infect us all sooner or later -- called in thursday: 'i'm sick. i'm coughing. i'll try to come in.' the boss is saying, 'no, ella. stay home. we don't need for every 1 to get sick.'
but living up to her surname, she shows up at noon determined that if she's going down, she'll take every 1 else with her. i told you her surname was fitting -- that family will surely sink us all unless we remain vigilante.
so ella, who was neither elderly or high risk, wasn't able to get a flu shot. remember that 'crisis'?
remember how basically no 1 could get flu shots last october?
is any 1 else outraged that so many of us were denied those shots and now it turns out that there's actually a surplus because of poor planning and poor crisis management on the part of the administration?
well little miss donna bush hung around her cubicle for an hour, coughing spreading germs, before she decides she will take 1 of the over 30 sick days she has saved up.
ella called off friday and the boss said, 'you too?' seems half the office was infected.
ella looked so bad. honestly though, she may have had more color in her face than michael powell. but she still looked bad.
i cleaned up her apartment a little, made sure she downed some chicken soup and listened as she muttered about that 'damn bush' -- a conversation that's going on all across the country in different forms, i'm sure.
after all that what's a gal to do but come home, kick off her shoes and put on otis blue. did any 1 ever do 'i've been loving you too long' better than otis redding did on otis blue?
and isn't that song close to a national anthem at this point?
between the policy of torture and the patriot act alone (but there's so much more) aren't we all looking at our country with a little sadness but thinking 'i've been loving you too long, i don't want to stop now?'
it's our country. it's still our country. the bush family will make us all sick, but we can weather this storm and we can reclaim our country.
our country cares about humanity. bush implemented torture, america didn't. if america had, albie gonzales wouldn't have kept saying 'i don't recall' over and over at his non-hearing. condi rice wouldn't have had to play dumb at her confirmation -- okay, maybe she wasn't playing. but these very unamerican things they do, they get away with them because we have a lazy press more interested in sucking up to power than in protecting the country. when something does leak out, we need to show our moral outrage. i said moral outrage because those of us who voted against the bully boy showed true values. we said no to unjust wars, we said no to torture, we said no to pulling the safety net out from under our elderly and handicapped. (what, you think social security only serves the elderly?)
we are the snow ball rolling down the hill and i believe we will grow larger as we continue to roll, picking up others who maybe were too scared to speak out or maybe too unaware of what is going on. we may not have pulled the rug out from under the bully boy in november, but we are a movement now.
that's right, a movement. we stand for justice and equality. and no matter how dark it might seem right now, we are a part of something larger and we will find others joining us. in 40 years, our grandkids won't ask, 'why weren't you able to defeat the bully boy in 2004?' they'll say, 'grandma/grandpa, tell me about how when the country seemed to embrace evil and criminal behavior, you were able to turn it back?'
we're making history. when we get discouraged, we'd do well to remember that women weren't given the right to vote. it was a long struggle. african-americans weren't given rights, it was a long struggle. gays and lesbians, the environment, any issue you want to pick, to help the country move towards progression, we all had to struggle and keep pushing.
we're part of a movement now. and we will take back our country. and like otis is singing right now 'what a wonderful world this could be.'

bully boy's big day peters out

Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." But he didn't have Dick Cheney creating from his bunker a government which is little more than a Wal-Mart of Fear: midnight snatchings of citizens for uncharged crimes, wars to hunt for imaginary weapons aimed at Los Angeles, DNA data banks of kids and grandmas, the Chicken Little sky-is-falling social security spook-show, and shoe-searches in airports. Fear is your only product.

that's the one only and greg palast from an e-mail a friend fowarded. you can find the column, 'oaf of office', at http://www.gregpalast.com/ and you should read the whole thing.

four more years? it won't be a cake walk. he saw today we won't shower him with flowers. a number of us, too many, are now wide awake in dreamland, to be pat benetar about it. he won't have it as easy as he did in his first stolen four years.

the bully boy pranced and minced and swaggered and staggered. in what should have been his finest hour, he never looked more incompent, more half-assed, more like the neighborhood drunk who leers in your windows.

the little boy cheerleader still isn't accepted. they had to steal the vote and, even with that, he stands at a 49% approval rating. even on his big day, he had to journey in a pope mobile and still couldn't block out the protests. even on his big day, he had to face the fact that for all his attempts at penis augmentation (two wars and counting) he's still not the big cock.

anyone else betting he doesn't get any tonight? that our overly botoxed first lady says through frozen lips, "oh george, really, today wasn't anything to be proud of."

the common ills notes that laura enjoys seeing her daughter humiliated. how much you want to bet laura's thinking, "kill my poetry reading will you! fuck off!" as she chain smokes and swills down some american made liquor?

poor dunce cap george. he's already had the best four years he could ever have. the voices against him are mounting. the questions refuse to go away.

he thinks he trumped poppy (trust me, beating daddy is a big deal to small dicks) but in a few months, he may find himself wishing he had lost. knowing that, in losing, he could have been enshrined the way poppy was.

at this rate, he'll have to wait thirty-plus years for president jenna to make him look better by comparison.

he's got no plan for iraq other than to sing "don't nobody bring me no bad news." (who knew he was a fan of the wiz?) the january 30th election will only embolden iraqis to demand america leaves and bush won't go along with that. he can't go along with it because there's no victory to claim in departure.

there's no victory there at all, only a sad loss of life (on both sides) and any sane leader looking at the intelligence would have pulled us out long ago. but he can't do that until he can find a way to declare "victory." and there's no victory there.

(the iraqis could make their own victory, americans can't. and the longer we stay, the more damage we do.)

iraq was the elephant in the room as bush gave his dopey speech. almost 1400 americans have lost their lives. we've been over there almost 2 years. he strong armed our way in. and yet he couldn't say the word, he couldn't mention the country.

if he thinks he can just will it away, he's mistaken. this is his mess and with a second term, he completely owns the mess. people are angry that there were no wmd. people are outraged at the casualities. iraq's not going away. it's a blood stain on his record.

the failing economy, the attacks on civil rights, reproductive rights, all of that matters. but what's turning people in his own camp away from him now is the simple fact that he's put our sons and daughters, our husbands and wives, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers in harm's way for no good reason.

this was supposed to be his big day and even that was taken from him as protestors made sure he knew there was no mandate. on tv, i saw a woman holding up a sign that said something like 'no more lies! no more deaths!' bully boy, you stole the presidency twice, you never won the hearts & minds. in that pea brain mind of your's, even you know that.

cowards to my right side, cowards on my left side, cowards in the middle and you're not here

yeah, that means you biden. that means you dodd. that means every democrat on the committee who doesn't have the last name "boxer" or "kerry."
if you're name is barbara boxer or if you're name is john kerry, you can hold your head high. you can know you served democracy and stood and were counted while the cowards ... well, cowered.
these are the ones who are going to lead us? when they can't even stand on their own?
i think they've confused "loser" with "leader."
after this vote and the ohio one, barbara boxer could probably run for president and raise a healthy war chest. on the ferry ride back this evening, that's all i heard: "barbara boxer" this,
"barbara boxer" that.
now i'm not saying some didn't gripe. boxer is scarying the hell out of some republicans. it's called power and she's got it.
but more importantly, she's got people talking about her "leadership," her "guts," her "strength," her "directness," her "standing tall."
i'm sure people knew of barbara boxer before this month, but she is the topic of month. if capitol hill published a hot list, boxer would be at the top because her name is everyone's lips.
it's power. people know her. she's stood out from the crowd and she's building a following.
there's an enthusiasm for her like no one in the party.
hillary clinton better find a spine quick or watch her presidential hopes in 2008 fade away.
there is so much excitement around her right now. people are watching her, people are paying attention.
and let's note john kerry because the easy thing to do (as so many of his fellow senators demonstrated) would be to just go along.
a lot of people are still hurt that he didn't demand every vote was counted. but a vote like today goes a long way in demonstrating that he can stand up.
2 people on the ferry were noting how happily surprised they were by his vote against condi rice.
kerry wasn't there for the ohio vote but other people were. that they saw boxer standing after it was over should have damn well told them it was time to start taking stands and stop being little cowards. they didn't learn the lesson.
but the common ills was saying back then something like 'today we got 1, next time maybe we'll get 2.' we got 2 today. maybe next time we can get 3?
this is how movements are started, this is how the party is rallied. by giving us something to believe in.
by not just going through the motions and being a "good sport" but by staking your ground and taking a stand.
i hope kerry and boxer are flooded with e-mails. i hope when they walk around the senate, they're rushed by groupies. i hope hillary sulks in silence. feeling like the heavy eyebrowed gal she was in high school -- "oh look a party, and . . . i'm not invited."
get used to watching from the outside, hillary, until you're ready to become the fighter you used to be.
1 vote last time, 2 this time. and it wasn't even the full vote of the senate, just the committee.
we can rally, we can make a difference.
and barbara boxer is showing real leadership.
joe biden, you start off so great, then all the sudden you're that guy i had a fling with -- 1 thrust patrick. 1 thrust and it was over. i'm lying there thinking, 'what the fuck was that?' he's all sweaty and smiley and waiting to be praised.
1 thrust biden. that's what i'm going to call you until you start learning to take a stand for more than a second.
you blew your wad in the questioning and then you were too exhausted to stand and be counted when it was time to vote.
we had 2 senators show leadership today: barbara boxer and john kerry. may they be showered with the kind of attention reserved for rock stars because those two rocked the house, er senate, today.
your efforts are noted. you showed the leadership the party has been lacking.
if the party is going to turn it around in 2006, it's going to need to show some guts, show some courage and show some leadership. 2 today.
u can see it as we added 1 today. or, if you're an optimistic fool like me, you can see it as we doubled the vote. so maybe we can hope for four leaders on the next vote.
yellow streaks seem to spread easily. is it too much hope that real leadership could spread as well?
the blog title is from tori amos. 'caught a lite sneeze.' 'boys on my right side, boys on my left side, boys in the middle and you're not here.'
let's hope boxer and kerry are infectious and that they spread their courage around. if we could have a pandemic of courage in the senate, we could take the country back. let's hope this is a sign of hope and not a sign that boxer and kerry will be the only 1s standing up all year.

billie joe with mike and tres (green day) 

billie joe armstrong of greenday 

how can you . . .

how can you
not love billie joe armstrong.
he's a cuddle bug with just enough of the nasty to make bedtime interesting!
he's got that pouty rock star going on.
how can you
confirm condi rice?
she's so evil!
did anyone other than john kerry and barbara boxer ask her hard questions today?
barbara boxer rocks!
if she were a musician she'd be mama michelle, she's that cool.
condi's not pouty, she's petulant.
how can you condone torture?
that's what you're doing if you confirm alberto gonazles.
now there's a guy who looks like he suffers from bad crackatoa.
how can you
think that aimee mann isn't one of the best songwriters around?
how can you
think that she sounds better solo if you heard 'til tuesday's last 2 albums before they broke up?
how can you
watch billie joe armstrong jumping around the stage
and not remember the great days of the 90s
when he used to do so nekkid!
bille you're hotter than ever
you've proven that green day can make a masterpiece
with the new album american idiot!
how can you
deny your mulititude of drooling fans
one more look at that curvy, meaty ass?
how can you
watch condi do her i'm lying stammer
and believe a word she says?
how can you
make nice-nice with her senator dodd?
you had some good points, why'd you have to blow them?
how can you
not want to see billie joe armstrong naked?

the importance of kitty kelley and a response to the man who refuses to stop sending the same bossy e-mails over and over

so the common ills did a book list of people's favorites and i weighed in. check it yourself at http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/books-that-spoke-to-you.html and you'll find me weighing in with valley of the dolls.
i got e-mail on that. it usually went along the lines of 'rebecca, i love that book but would never have the guts to admit it publicly!' yeah well i did and i do. this wasn't a list of great literature -- obviously since it included non-fiction books (my picks: amy goodman's exception to the rulers and mama michelle philips' california dreamin' about the history of the mamas and the papas).
the list was 'favorites' and those are my favorites.
i'm right above someone reeling off a mammoth list of books that read less like favorites and more like diane chambers trying to impress the gang at cheers. they may be great books (and i assume the person enjoyed them) but i wouldn't take one of those books to the beach.
the point was to name 3 books fiction and 3 books nonfiction that were your favorite. i'm not embarrassed or ashamed to say what i enjoy. (even if it might be "abridged.")
1 book i forgot to mention that i should have is kitty kelley's the family where she probes the bush family with the same keen eye towards popular interests (sex, drugs, back stabbing) that she brought to bear on elizabeth taylor and frank sinatra among others.
i really wish i had named the book.
in case you haven't heard, some woman is having a hissy fit and is either suing kelley or threatening to sue her.
see the woman wrote about the bully boy's alleged cocaine and a few other things in an article.
and goodness me, it's in kelley's book!
bitter woman screams 'i have been ripped off!'
but if you check the sources at the back of the book, the woman and her story are credited.
sorry to break it to bitter, but that's how it goes in the kind of book kelley writes.
there aren't footnotes. she does interviews and uses the public record to flesh out her portraits. there's nothing new about that.
but a few people want to treat the family as though it just rolled off the university of chicago press.
get a grip, bitter.
let's do a history lesson.
in kelley's day you didn't have a maureen dowd. you didn't have most women who now write books about politics. if they did write, they tended to write academic books. women were largely left to write fiction (literature or not), diet books, celeb exposes, etc. the only exceptions were the women writing scholarly tomes for academic presses.
times have changed and thank god for that.
it's not that women couldn't write the books, it's that no one was interested in opening the gates to the boys club.
kelley's a scrapper. she came up in the hard knocks school and made it her own way, tromping onto the best seller list where she's remained for decades.
and she didn't do that via footnoted books.
with her ususal zeal, she charges after the bush family. now some bitter journalist is upset that the text doesn't come to a grinding halt to say 'and now let's deal with what bitter journalist wrote.'
kelley's success is built upon the fact that she mixes in various sources, blending it all together to make it sound like some whispered secret you heard about wanda while waiting to get your hair done.
she's enlarged what women can make the best seller list with.
is she scholarly? no and she never will be.
good or bad, she is what she is: a woman who made it onto the bestseller nonfiction list without writing about poodles, diets or beauty. and over the years, she's wandered beyond the hollywood scene to comment directly on the people in power. (they usually popped up in earlier books as supporting characters.)
so cut her some slack.
no, you won't feel like you've just learned darwin when you emerge from one of kelley's books but you won't feel bored either. kitty kelley writes in a chatty, breezy way.
and at a time when cbs buckles under pressure from the administration and the mainstream press shakes in their booties over covering any hint of scandal in the bush family, kelley just barges through the door and onto the best seller lists.
don't underestimate kelley's power. she's an author for people who won't pick up paul krugman or maureen dowd or michael walzer or any number of more 'respectable' writers.
and guess who'll make more difference?
when the family comes out in paperback, look around you, see who's reading it.
back in october, in chicago, i went to get a pedicure at a place elaine swears by. scanning the room as i waited, i saw women of various ages (okay, no one elderly) scanning through the family.
i asked this 1 peroxide blond, tanning bedded tanned, crest stripped teeth gal, who we'll call skipper, if she read a lot of books.
'oh yeah, i read tons. at least 1 romance novel a month,' skipper chirped brightly.
'do you read a lot of books in hard covers?' i asked.
'no, they're too expensive but i wasn't going to wait for this to come out in paperback. can you believe what a bitch barbara bush is?'
kelley reached skipper.
kitty kelley made the bestseller list in hard cover. her real power will be demonstrated when the book comes out in paperback and most of her readers snap it up.
and they will. this book will reach people that various books on bush never stood a chance of reaching.
robert parry has an article online at consortium news, http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/011705.html, about the blowback that faces people who actually look into the reality of the bush family.
it doesn't list kitty kelley. it shouldn't. she bush-proof. 'she's writing about scandals!' yeah, so what else is new?
the most they could do to kitty kelley, which they did do, was make sure that she wasn't on larry king -- kelley whose been a fixture on that show. a new book and she can't even get on.
didn't hurt her book sales.
she did get booked on al franken's show. and the surprise there was that, after the interview (when kelley wasn't around to respond), katherine lanpher had to indicate her distaste for kelley's career choices. lanpher is usually stuck playing mommy to al's naughty boy and it can be irritating. but here she was objecting to kelley being on the show.
sorry katherine, i know she's not serious enough for you, not respectable enough. but it's women like kitty kelley who enlarge the scope for all women.
when she started, how many women could have a successful career writing nonfiction that made the bestseller list? again, i'm not talking about a diet book and then three follow ups to how to perfect that diet book is. or make up book or or a book on your poodle or whatever.
yeah, kelley's books are loud and tawdry celeb exposes but exactly who else has made a successful career out of that?
kitty kelley, if nothing else, could go on a talk show and be introduced as "the best selling nonfiction writer." it's not so uncommon now. it was when she busted down the door to the boys club.
so maybe instead of making it a point to draw a line between yourself and kitty kelley, you should realize that even if she isn't your style, she helped women.
i'm not trying to make her out into a feminist hero. i have no idea if she is or isn't a feminist.
and i seriously doubt she was focused on much more than herself for the bulk of her career.
but her success did help, in some way, other women.
the common ills rightly pointed out the new york times desire to 'air kiss' the adminstration today in a must read post, http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/democratic-leadership-and-times-appear.html.
when the times continues to offer ridiculous "society" pieces on the upcoming inauguration as "hard news" it only underscores how important the work of a "frivilous" writer like kitty kelley is. the paper of record had four years to examine the administration's record, had time in 1999 and 2000 to examine the bully boy. and yet they're still writing pieces that lack perspective and are historically ignorant.
who's the embarrassment? kitty kelley who doesn't present herself as a journalist or the new york times? who probed the record of the bush family more? kitty kelley in one book or the new york times in their day to day coverage? if you guessed kelley you're right. and that goes to the problem with the media today. (another point the common ills addresses.)
i don't give a flying fuck about framing and think far too much time has been spent discussing this issue. i don't care about looking serious. or about whether or not my book list impresses someone. i'm going to speak plain and in my own voice.
there's something very undemocratic about insisting we all get on the same page and all speak in the same voice. it wasn't the universal voices that brought attention to the bully boys missteps.
it was the kitty kelleys, the michael moores, and others.
we don't need one voice all chanting the same message. we need as many voices possible speaking out in as many ways as possible.
1 person e-mailed me: "you're drooling over men is adolescent and completely boring. i don't know who you think you're reaching."
that man, and yes, it was a man, wants me to buy lakoff's book and work on framing.
guess what mister man, i have visitors. i have readers. i have women sharing with me about guys that they think are hot, i have gay men sharing with me about guys that they think are hot, i have straight men asking me to explain their wives (here's a hint for all husbands, try talkling to her instead of writing me).
i'm not going to please the framing audience. big deal. i'm not trying to reach them.
at the end of a fantasy of what she'd do to john turek (the huskiest of all the corn husks), my new best friend sherry writes: "i was all gung hu this week on graner being punished. now i'm starting to wonder if his trial wasn't a show trial to detract from the crimes of the people above him."
those are my people. and we're communicating just fine, thank you very much.
i'm a woman who enjoys sex and really enjoys sexy men. that's what i'll talk about and go on about and, in the midst of that, we'll take a moment or two to address other things that are going on.
the people e-mailing me? you aren't reaching them. your lakoff strategies won't reach them. that's because the population is a diverse one. so instead of urging me to change my ways and march lock step with you (is this the communist party?) just stop coming by my web site and realize that others enjoy what's being discussed here.
and i'll add that there's sexist mentality involved if you think you can e-mail this woman and tell her what to talk about and what not to talk about. if you, mister big man, think you know how to better communicate with women than i do because you read some book (by a man) on framing, you've led a very sheltered life.
like kitty kelley, i'm not footnoting here. i'm not interested in exploring the deeper meanings of policy. i'm not a wonk or a wonkette. i'm talking about issues that matter to me and yes, that might include my date friday night. or it might include having sex. or a fantasy of antonio sabato junior that i had as a child.
is it really the "off message" that's offending you or the fact that i'm engaging in conversations that you've apparently never heard before in your life?
mister big britches writes: "i would never let my wife go to your site."
let your wife? let? maybe you should put down the book on framing and grab 1 on relationships in the last century because we're living in the 21st century, mister know it all, and you're going on like it's the 1800s.
mister big britches has a web site which he shared with me. i went to it.
i didn't see anything all that deep. true, he's addressing social security. but he's also talking about basketball games. (no hot photos or talks about the bouncing pouches of the nebraska cornhuskers, so i won't bore you with his site.)
so it's okay for you to go on and on about some big ten team and that's being "politically serious" (as you claim you are but I'm not)? yet if i comment on michael phelp's butt crack i've "lost sight of the reason you should be blogging?"
get it through your sexist brain, my interests do not have to reflect your interests. and i really feel sorry for your wife if she's only able to go where you "let" her go online. maybe you think you're doing her a favor because, as a man, you just know so much better than she does what is "important."
but if you think talking about how a game on saturday reminded you of a game you played on jv in high school is "important" or "politically serious" maybe you shouldn't be tossing stones?
that's the problem with any craze. it starts out as something valuable for a few and then it becomes something we're all being forced to do and practice. and why is it always a book by a man, or men, that we're being told we have to follow?
you're view of "universal" is a limited one, mister bossy, if you're idea of "universal" is to bother me with your harrasing e-mails (ten since Saturday) telling me that "ladies shouldn't speak that way" and that "this focus on sex destroys the frame we're all working so hard to show america that we have morals."
newsflash, mister prude, most people in america are having sex or wanting to. it's a basic desire.
i'll keep focusing on sex as much as i want and you go preach to your group and i'll keep talking to the women (straight and gay) and the men (gay and straight) who enjoy this kind of talk.
mister universal closes one e-mail by informing me: "liberation isn't about sex. most women don't care about sex and you're propagating a myth of feminists as sex obsessed."
oh, are we sex obsessed this year? is that this year's myth? i missed the issue of time (or was it newsweek's turn this year?) on "the death of feminism" so i didn't realize we were back to being called sex obsessed as opposed to prudes.
but get it through your pea brain, some women do care about the sex. probably the same number as men who care about sex. (your wife may not be one of them. but then she's had to put up with a lot if she's married to you.) and i've already stated that i'm not trying to speak for all women. i'm speaking my truth in a plain spoken manner. i'm not hiding behind any device (framing or otherwise) to make myself or my words more appealing.
as a feminist, i recognize that women believe in a variety of things and discuss a vareity of things and i know that some women will have no interest in the topics i discuss. i don't dash off angry e-mails to them telling them what women should do or talk about.
i respect their choices and their options and their interests and only ask that they do the same with mine. that's what feminism is about (and maybe you should try reading up on that!). the women's movement in the last century was built not by one voice but by many. and we respect the diversity in the population. gloria steinem's not faxing us talking points and slapping us on the wrists if we go "off message." now isn't spaming us with e-mails to tell us that we're betraying the cause. so i don't know where you get off sending me ten e-mails demanding that i write on the topics you listed, that i stop talking about sex, that i use the "frames that will further the cause" and that i "buy a bar of soap for your filthy mouth."
your advice was not useful to me so i was ignoring you. your attitude was insulting. in your house you may be able to 'lay down the law' on how things will be done and how people will speak (i really feel sorry for your wife) but this isn't your house and i don't take orders from you.
go back to waxing over your j.v. years (never made varsity, huh?) and quit bothering me with your e-mails.
and to tie this back to kitty kelley, for the readers of this site who come here because they enjoy my thoughts -- half-baked, sex obsessed and otherwise -- i'm sure this is the sort of crap kelley's had to put up with. men coming along and telling her: "you shouldn't write that!" or "you can't talk about that!"
the next time someone tells you what you can or cannot say, i don't care if you are a woman or a man, look them in the eye and say, "it's called free speech. now get out of my face."
there's always going to be some self-important blow hard who thinks he can control the conversation (and my apologies to my male readers -- gay, bisexual, bicurious and straight -- but it's generally a man who wants to come along and "lay down the law"). that's not free speech. that's not democracy. it's nice that you enjoyed a book (by a male author of course),
but don't try to convert me to your religion.
my advice to the people who come to this site, whom i'm sure all our beautiful and kind souls,
don't let anyone try to browbeat you. read kitty kelley if you want. read valley of the dolls.
read whatever you want. including george lakoff if that's what you want to read.
but speak in your own voice. you may not "get out the message" but people will understand what you're saying and realize you're trying to be genuine. that's why some people respond to kitty kelley's writing -- she's "keeping it real."

sherry you are now best friend for life for sending me this photo of extreme hottie john turek. of course at some point we'll end up the subject of a lifetime movie: 2 women, 1 man, they knew it would get ugly. till then, we can drool together. 

now here's markus away from the olympics. notice the what a man what a man dusting of hairs on him. markus rogan, if i get more photos of you, you might be able to replace john turek and his corn husk. or maybe i could just alternate you out? 

markus rogan is the dark haired hunk. don't know who the blonde is, don't care. look at that sexy rogan. and notice that both men are following michael phelps' lead in making the butt crack the new cleavage judging by how low their suits are. this is at the olympics. 

crack and crackatoa

the common ills had an interesting post about dnc chair on saturday, http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/opinion-guide-for-picking-through.html, at the bottom of which they did a disclosure on who they knew:

Disclosure: I've encountered the following: Donnie Fowler, Martin Frost, Tim Roemer and Joe Trippi. Fowler is someone that I found knowledgable. Trippi is someone I've defended and will continue to do so but when I feel he's wrong, I say so. I do not believe that I've encountered Simon Rosenberg. A number of you have e-mailed wanting to know the story that my friend swears is true. Here is her version (which I question).At a party, Rosenberg was annoying her (flirting technique based on self-boasts) and he was wearing a cheap suit that badly needing cleaning. (The odor was what she deems "Crackatoa" and, if you think about it, you should be able to deconstruct that term yourself.) According to her, I walked over to tell her something and in the middle of my speaking, Rosenberg interrupted with some inane remark and I glared at him and made a rude comment. (Right away, I say that draws her recollection into question because I'm far more prone to issue a non-stop string of rude comments.) At which point, I turned back to her and asked loudly, "What is that smell?"Then, according to her, Rosenberg huffed off. I question pretty much every point in her story but I've been wrong before. (As has she. And her recollection fits no memory I have. I've tried to figure out who she could be confusing him with but I can't remember any such party.) (The behavior, except for a single rude remark, is perfectly in keeping with any story of me. But I honestly do not believe this incident took place with Rosenberg. Again, I could be wrong.)

"crackatoa"? i know just what the friend was talking about.
i remember a college class where a portly guy (not unlike simon rosenberg) used to sit on the front row. no one wanted to sit behind him.
it smelled like he hadn't bothered to wipe ... that week!
looking at simple simon's photos online (yes, i'll spare you!), he just the type to suffer from crackatoa. he has that look about him that says "my butt crack stinks."
i don't know how a guy can not notice.
is he going around sniffing and saying, "gee, something around here smells bad?"
i mean with that kind of smell, you'd think he'd know it was him.
i love the splash commercials with the half naked men playing basketball or strumming a guitar (bod for men?) but if the grooming industry wanted to make a product that's really needed they could make a male hygene spray for the butt crack.
of course if guys suffering from crackatoa would bother to wipe good, it wouldn't be needed.
a butt on a sexy guy is hot.
and i'm sure michael phelps (don't drool too much, rumor is he's a republican and tried to date one of the bush twins -- hope it was the mousy 1 and not the other 1 who looks like mare winingham's ugly sister) has a crack that smells lovely. all that time in the chlorine has to pay off.
and michael, even if you are a republican, i'll still drool over you. i might not if i didn't feel sorry for you about the probation. of course i'd drool more of you if you looked a little more like a man. i've never been overly fond of fucking guys who shaved off more hair than i did and it looks like you try to make a clean sweep of everything.
i know it's the 'in thing' to do. (don't give me that it's just sports. i've searched for hours for photos and ended up enlisting the common ills, begging "help me find some ass photos of michael phelps if you're online! i've got a post i want to do but i must have butt photos!" after looking through all those in season and off season photos, it's obvious the boy spends more time with the epi-lady than i do.) but just because it's the 'in thing' doesn't make it the right thing.
some guys look good with a hairy chest, some guys don't. but when i'm looking at bare arm pits, it freaks me out. and the 1 time i went out with a guy who shaved off all his pubes (not trimmed, not shaved some, shaved it all off) it freaked me out long before he asked me if i would diaper him.
i don't sleep with guys who look like they've yet to hit puberty.
and as most of my girlfriends admit, it can be fun to play with guys' hairs.
you stroke it or twist it.
so phelps i will applaud your body and those nice and juicy nipples. i will applaud your decision to make the butt crack the new cleavage. i will even drool over you despite the fact that you may be a republican. (you're 19, you could still grow out of it.) but sport a little hair in the off season.
markus rogan does. that is one hot stud. yes, he shaves it down when it's swim meet time. but otherwise, he's au natural and who wouldn't want to stroke that sexy chest with those little hairs? ladies, am i wrong? gay men, am i wrong? bisexual and bicurious people, am i wrong?
i got 3 e-mails today from self-identifying straight men who tell me they come to this site because they like my "smutty mouth" and enjoy hearing what women really think.
i am not all women. but i can tell you 3 that if you're mowing the grass, that might be fine. if you're doing a little "manscaping" (as my friend sharon calls it) that's fine too as long as you don't take it too far. but if you've killed all the weeds, gentlemen, we don't like that.
as women, we've been shaving our legs for years and it's not fun. we've done our own womenscaping "down there." we've shaved our armpits and dealt with the irritation when it starts to grow out.
it's a pain in the ass.
you think we're wanting to bed down with a guy who looks like he's done even more work than we have?
elaine slept with a guy for 3 weeks before she broke up with him. he shaved his legs and chest and his pubes. (the fact that he at least had pit hair gave her reason for hope.) she kept thinking, "in another day or two, it will grow in a little." it didn't.
how is she supposed to compete with that?
when you guys finally do something, you do it all out.
and here we are hoping we can grab time after work and before a date to do some touch ups but there you are doing it as religiously as you shave your faces. it's just too much pressure.
i can take almost anything but shaved arm pits.
i think it's because i always used to cut myself everytime i would shave mine. (no, i haven't decided to sprout chia pets under each arm. i went ahead and had them taken care of permanently.) but knowing what a pain is the ass it used to be when i had to shave, i just do not enjoy being with a guy without pit hair.
and they always bring it up. they'll raise one arm above their head and take a hand to their exposed arm pit while saying "smooth."
uh, fellows, when you're half-naked on the way to full or when you're already naked, what's going on there? i mean are you so used to lonely nights that you forget there's a woman in the room and start playing with yourself?
it's like, "hey, there, big boy, remember me? i'm the one you were going to have sex with? you don't have to play with yourself tonight."
shaving my arm pits was a real bitch. and the idea that some guy is shaving his and apparently enjoying it enough to brag about it just turns me off.
markus rogan wears his pants low enough to sport butt crack but sadly i couldn't find any photos of him from behind. if any 1 has any, please send them my way.
above this post you'll find 2 photos of him. 1 from the olympics where he's shaved his chest. the other from before the olympics where he didn't. i can understand needing to cut down speed for the olympics but markus is smart enough to sport his manliness during the off seaons. michael might want to think about that.
simon rosenberg might want to make sure he doesn't have crackatoa.
but i'll wind up this post by saying thank you to my new best friend sherry who not only provided me with a new photo of my dream castaway john turek, she also shared some fantasies she has about him. fortunately turek's corn husk is big enough for the both of us. the rest of you, back off! and simon, i'm serious, check that crack. a chubby guy like yourself who is balding can't really take a third strike at this point.

it's a damn nice ass on michael phelps! 

note Phelps crack (see, you can see it from behind, i'm not just making this crap up) 

Phelps really likes to throw that crack around. 

Michael Phelps like to wear his pants low -- call 'em pube huggers except he shaves down there.