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.

give props to laura flanders for her strong statements defending lynne stewart

if you missed it, laura flanders had an amazing interview with lynne stewart. stewart's been on the show before so i'm not surprised that flanders gets it. (and i wouldn't listen to her if i wasn't impressed already. she's a smart cookie.) but i am trying to note who speaks out and who falls silent. and i want to note laura flanders who not only hosts her own show on air america, the laura flanders show, each saturday and sunday night, she also wrote bush women and edited the w effect which documents the bully boy's war against women.

i'm really happy with all the e-mail that's been coming in on stewart. i think we get it, even if the media doesn't. i saw a story on stewart in the new york times today and e-mailed c.i. to ask if they were planning to comment. c.i. said even if they were i could but that no 1 had brought it up and that c.i. had tossed out the paper already and missed the story so have at it.

the article is called 'regretting the bravado, a convicted lawyer examines her options' and it's written by julia preston. here's some of that article:

The verdict felt "like being in a massive car accident," Ms. Stewart said in an interview yesterday, her voice still unsteady. "It's instantaneous and it hits you so hard. You're dazed for a while." She sat surrounded by boxes and stacks of pictures in an office she has barely occupied since a nervous landlord evicted her from her longtime Broadway work space in June.
Ms. Stewart said she hoped to give most, if not all, of the half-dozen cases she was still working on to her son, Geoffrey S. Stewart, who shares her criminal defense practice. She will fill the time she would have spent practicing law helping to prepare a complex federal appeal: her own.
Besides the appeal, Ms. Stewart and her chief lawyer, Michael E. Tigar, plan to file post-trial motions by March 4 seeking to persuade Judge John G. Koeltl to overturn the jury's verdict, arguing that the jurors misinterpreted the terror conspiracy laws. It is a long shot, Ms. Stewart admits. They will also try to persuade the judge to be lenient when he sets her sentence on July 15. In a move that surprised her legal team, prosecutors working for United States Attorney David N. Kelley allowed Ms. Stewart to remain free on bail pending appeal. Ms. Stewart, who is 65, faces up to 30 years in jail.

this is a travesty and it becomes more of one as so many remain silent. i was asked to join c.i. in helping the third estate sunday review with their editorial on lynne stewart (which will post in a few hours or by tomorrow morning at the latest). i was very happy to help with that.

on the guys and gals at third estate i will note that they work very hard. i sit down and type up my screeds as they pop into my brain. when i was asked to help with the editorial i thought i'd be reading it and making a comment or two and that would be all. wrong. for the last 2 hours that editorial has gone back and forth among them, myself and c.i. until it was polished to the point that they were happy.

they don't look for spelling errors, they are concerned that the voice is strong and that it gets stronger. if you read 1 of the early drafts you would probably be surprised by how many qualifiers were in the editorial. i talked to ava of the third estate sunday review about that and she said 'to be an editorial, it needs to take a position, not hedge bets.'

the other big surprise is how mammoth the editorial starts out. then little by little sentences get condensed and the thing shrinks to this strong argument with a point. it was very interesting to see the process.

i mention the third estate sunday review not because they will also have an interview with me in tomorrow's edition but while i'm at it, i'll mention that as well.

that was set up after i posted about beth's attempt to bully me but with lynne stewart's case, i really wanted to address that because i do not think enough people are paying attention. i am aware that the majority of the readers who come here are also common ills community members but i know that i have some people who drop by that don't visit the common ills regularly. and i'm assuming that's the same with the third estate sunday review. and that many common ills members don't visit either of us.

that's because we are each telling our truths from our perspective. and the point is more voices being added to the mix. so hopefully that interview (and the editorial) will reach out to a few people who haven't visited my site or who aren't common ills members.

but we all need to do our part to make sure that people are aware of this issue. and thank god for amy goodman, juan gonzales and laura flanders.

lynne stewart's verdict is an injustice and i would hope that blog sphere would take up this issue and champion her. but i'm not the eternal optimist that c.i. is. that's not meant as a slam at c.i.
c.i. can pick up the new york times each morning and honestly believe that somehow today will be different. and each day the paper can disappoint but there's c.i. ever hopeful.

that's really a great trait but not 1 that i possess. which is why i responded to beth right away. i think i got side tracked in the interview with third estate so i'll comment here on what they wanted me to talk about. c.i., third estate and i both received e-mail from beth. third estate saw it as a joke and laughed at it. c.i. saw it as someone seriously concerned who'd misunderstood and c.i. invested so much time in attempting to explain and clarify to beth. i read it once and blogged on it. because i don't have a lot of patience for shit.

attitude is in the title of this blog and if you're a repeat visitor who's missed that point, i suggest you invest in new reading glasses.

i'll also note that 2 of you were concerned with my use of the word 'dyke.' you didn't trash me but just asked if i thought it was appropriate. i was quoting my friend's words. it didn't make sense to alter her even if she hadn't been a lesbian. i know dyke can be seen as a hurtful word.
i don't think of it as an insult. but i realize that others do and i will try to use it only when it's appropriate.

polly said in her e-mail that she hoped i wasn't angry and i wasn't. it was a point worth raising.
and polly and sarah were both so kind about it that it didn't bother me at all. but if any 1 was offended by the use of the term, i will state that i was quoting some 1, a very good friend, and that i saw no reason to change the quote.

i wrongly thought that dyke, like queer, had been reclaimed but that is apparently not the case for every 1. although 4 readers who are lesbian e-mailed that they loved the term popping up.

and that gets to the issue that we are all different people and we need more voices speaking not less. i hope you will all join me in speaking in defense of lynne stewart. we need to make a difference here.

and as stuart noted in his e-mail, the only things he saw online so far were things the common ills had linked to. i hope this just means that people are on their weekends and that they plan to weigh in come monday but, as i noted before, i'm not the great optimist that c.i. is so, like stuart, i'm starting to think we have already heard from the people who are going to speak out. prove me wrong, please.

lynne stewart is wrongfully convicted and the new york times wants to talk about carli fiorina

friday, february 11, 2005 and the editorial board of the new york times elects to focus on the most important woman in the news.

if you think carleton fiorina's getting fired from hewlett-packard is more important than what's happening to lynne stewart and apparently the new york times does think so.

was there a point of the fiorina editorial? i doubt if and when gail collins gets forced out of the new york times she'd want an editorial on her 'fatal operating error.'

but that's where the paper of non-record is today. wasting space on fiorina. i'm sure fiorina's a wonderful person and i'm sure she will or will not bounce back and i am sure that none of it matters to me 1 way or another except to think, 'gee since she's not up on charges a la tyco, do you think maybe you could quit reporting this like the scandal to end all scandals?'

meanwhile lynne stewart was convicted yesterday. of what? who knows with the current justice department. she was defending a client that won't win any applause from most americans. the justice department puts in place a policy that isn't exactly a law since, last time i checked, the justice department wasn't in the business of writing and passing legislation.

so they target lynne stewart (they includes the clinton administration though at least janet reno had enough sense not to bring stewart up on charges - that dishonor would go to john ashcroft) and tap her in what may or may not have been legal.

and the lawyers who should be defending her (because she is them) are in the news stories in the new york times today making idoitic comments about how they were for her until they heard the audiotapes.

don't we expect a little more from lawyers? don't we expect that they will be the 1st to say, 'now those tapes may or may not be appropriate evidence?'

no, as the common ills noted this morning, those jerks are all running for higher ground to escape the flood moving in. it truly is the new mccarthy-ism.

lynne stewart's facing disbarrment and a lengthy stay in prison. for defending a client to the best of her ability.

and the editors of the new york times want to talk about some 1 losing her job - with a golden parachute, of course.

stewart's facing possibly 45 years in prison and the new york times wants to tell us about how 'wall street is littered with the carcasses of companies that got too big.' yes, wall street is. and the streets and subways are littered with papers people toss away because there's nothing in them that matters.

the editorial today, it didn't matter. who really cares? a wealthy woman lost her job and gets a big pay out to leave and the new york times wants to turn this into a social commentary. lynne stewart has been wrongly committed of a crime - for a public press release to reuters.

now when our modern day version of jane austen's miss carteret sticks her boring beak into
the valerie plame matter and faces jail time, the new york times can't shut their traps about how unfair things are for poor judy. lynne stewart's facing prison for what she did publicly with the press and the new york times wants to talk about hewlett-packard?

so is the editorial board just full of shit or does the freedom of the press only matter when judy miller is involved? i don't remember being taught in school that the free speech applied only to judith.

i'd urge you to pay attention to what's going on here and see who bothers to speak out for lynne stewart. growing up, i heard about the rosenbergs and i always thought, 'how could that have happened, didn't anyone speak up?' no, because they were scared, they were cowards and they were ass wipes. that crowd is still amongst us so pay attention and see who defends stewart and who doesn't. you'll find out who cares about free speech, who cares about social justice as opposed to the ones who are too busy covering their own asses and cowering in fear.

welcome to the new mccarthyism. maybe we'll all have adjoining cells before this administration is done? but i won't shut up and i won't act like what happened to lynne stewart resembles justice.

maybe tomorrow the editorial board will weigh in on the pressing issue of prince charles getting married? we're living history right now and we will be judged by our actions so take note of who rushes to defend stewart and who suddenly goes mute.

la puanteur de condi - the stink of condi

the press sings:

i want condi
bomp-ba-bomp-ba-bomp-bomp-bomp-bomp
i want condi
bomp-ba-bomp-ba-bomp-bomp-bomp-bomp
i want condi
bomp-ba-bomp-ba-bomp-bomp-bomp-bomp

while europe ... well, yawns.

but check out the love-fest being sprayed on condi by the press like so much eau de cartier.

don't make a damn bit of difference - all the lab-coated bimbos in clinique land, even spraying overtime, couldn't clean up the stink of condi.

and is she ever stinking!

it's rare for the new york times to ever disagree with their press cohorts but low and behold if the new york times doesn't step out of the marching line for about 2 seconds today.

you have the always caustic and humorous maureend dowd weighing in with "'Condi's French Twist" and you also get elaine sciolino weighing in with "The French Are Charmed and Jarred by 'Chère Condi'" - in the process elaine sciolino shows she's got more balls than synchronized swim boys steven r. weisman and eric schmitt who waste 2 columns of print before they let alone that condi's not exactly turning the world on with her scowl.

maureen notes a washington post article by keith b. richburg that dealt with condi appearing at the institute of political sciences. like any former child star, condi has rules, rules i tell you, before she can meet with students. the first rule appently is that on campus or not, condi doesn't just meet with any student, fermer votre bouche. no they must be screened 1st. any 1 not meeting with little miss bad ship golly stop's standards finds themselves, like alanis, uninvited.
as for the few who actually are able to see her speak, any questions they want to ask her have to be vetted first, merci beaucoup! even a kid whose father is the foreign minister has to ask his approved question and not:

"george bush is not particularly well perceived in the world, particularly in the middle east. can you do something to change that?"

the french press is calling her the 'princess warrior' and 'madame hawk.' it's all so lol funny. before her eyes, all her attempts at charm fall flatter than a big barbara bush soufle - that is what we're calling that hair style these days, right? poor big babs, to look at her, the world gained a bully boy president and she lost a personal hairdresser!

don't you fret, big babs, georgie will be back to doing your comb outs in a little while. and shouldn't he? didn't kitty kelley tell us about how you used to go up to his boys school, kick off your flip flops and hop out there in the middle of the game in your mumu to join that cheerleading son of yours in a round of keep-that-spirit-up-i-said-keep-that-spirit-up?

back to condi, elaine sciolino tells us how the only 1s condi could relate to in france were a group of 7 to 9 year olds. i told you the gal was stunted, remember?

but i think sciolino's a little off on that. i'm willing to bet that a group of 6 year olds was also included. coz our own personal evita is all about the 'sixes and sevens and nines.' don't cry for her najaf!

sciolino also informs us that condi didn't charm a group of intellectuals. exactly.

i e-mailed c.i. today to say 'congrats on buzzflash linking to you' and to say i was going to write about condi again. c.i. wrote back that condi's stunted just like i said earlier this week.

in a group of true thinkers condi can't impress. she can spit out the facts she memorized, but the gal can't think. she's stunted like every other precocious child that got by on too much charm and too little work.

and as c.i. pointed out, she has to turn everything into the soviet union, 'she doesn't get that the soviet union is gone!' no, she doesn't.

and among real thinkers, condi's simple-minded statements went over about as well as a blouse from the kathy lee gifford collection would at the house of channel.

scuilino explains that condi 'shocked' the intellectuals by wrongly labeling iran a totalitarian state.' smart people take offense because iran is more likely to be seen as authoritarian, a characterization condi rejects.

said 1 intellectual to sciolino:

"i tried to explain that iran was not like the soviet union, that the mullahs were deeply unpopular but unlike their predecessors over the last 150 years they were not in the hands of the british or the russians or the americans. she gave no proof that iran was totalitarian, because she didn't have any. it was scary. unless there is some give on the american side we are heading for a real crisis."

poor condi, her one shining moment and already it's turned to shit. or merde as they say in france. la puanteur de condi wafts over to paris.

if some 1 tells you teresa heinz kerry hurt john kerry's chances just tell them to shove it

so i saw this story yesterday and brought it up at the salon but wanted to work my way through my speed dial and then on through my friends and family plan. the story is about john kerry defending teresa heinz kerry.

could teresa have hurt his chances? at the salon nearly every 1 agreed she was a deciding factor in voting for him. there was 1 woman there who voted for bush. after she got her hair feathered, we kind of understood why. feathered?

so i'm working my way through my calls and it hits me: some 1, a smart ass no doubt, will say 'oh rebecca you are just 1 of those blue state northerners. you don't know anything 'bout the south.'
so i call my aunt and get the number of my third cousin melinda. i know many people in the south. all good, strong liberals - don't believe the stereotypes. but i chose melinda because she is the southern stereotype. her husband has a gun rack on his pick up. their last big event was a toby keith concert. they do not live in a trailer park. they live on a relatives 'back forty' in a trailer. as janeane garofalo says in romy & michelle, there's a difference.

so get melin on the phone and she's watching her 'stories' so i call back after all my children goes off. after 20 minutes of hearing the latest about the goings on in pine valley, i ask her about teresa heinz kerry. now understand melin and terry voted bully boy.

'you know, i liked her, i really did. she had spunk and we don't go for the shrinking violents around here. laura's nice enough but she's so white bread. she's got that uppity streak to her too, you know what i'm saying? you can just tell. like she's never going to let george forget that he married up the brain chain. now those girls, they humanize her because you can just tell that she's waiting for the cameras to turn off so she can scream at jenna and the other 1 about putting on a bra or shoes. but you just get the feel that she's got all these issues and stuff that not even good dr. phil could straighten out cause she's always got to dim her own light to avoid outshining george. but teresa, that girl's a pistol. every time i heard about something she said or did, like when she told that jerky reporter to 'shove it' i'd be thinking 'you go, girl!' she was real. now you know i couldn't stand that husband of her's but teresa was real. even terry liked her and you know he's pretty much hated every wife of a democrat since lady bird and lyndon moved on back to texas.'

well what about her friends, did they hate teresa?

'well becky, she hated teresa. now see, ever since her abortion, becky has been doing the pro-life thing overtime cause jimmy don't know about it and i swear it's a ticking time bomb and just a matter of time before somebody opens their trap and let's it slip. not me of course. i mean, bless her heart, she's got enough problems what with jimmy's drinking and her drinking and that affair she just ended with travis. but other than her, all the gals i hang out with liked her. some of them would say like about how she used to be a republican and probably just changed parties to help her husband. so they'd use that as an excuse to justify talking nice about her. but i didn't come across any 1 outside them church freaks that just hated her. now our preacher was preaching against her and the church freaks were just doing double time to march behind him.
but you're talking about the ones who still claim dick nixon had the mark on the beast on him and was the bastard child of fdr so nobody takes them seriously.'

so why did you vote for the bully boy?

'well you know terry's step-son is off over there in iraq. and i just didn't buy what kerry was saying. i mean i don't know that the war is right or wrong but i'd love to see our boys and girls back home. but if kerry's going to do the same thing. i mean they're over there or they aren't. it's not that difficult. if he would have said 'vote for me and i will bring them home' i would have voted for him. but if he's just going to continue george's war that just says to me that we got 2 georges and i might as well stick with the 1 i know, you know? terry said the same thing, said they were 2 of kind so let's just stick with george.'

general hospital was about to come on so melinda had to get off the phone.

now melinda's just 1 person but she lives in a small town that's the stereotype of the south. the other people i know from the south live in big cities and it was not a red-state-blue-state split. if you lived in a urban area you were more likely to go for kerry. if you lived in a rural area, you were more likely to go for bush. and melinda and terry fit the stereotype most people have of the bush voter.

i was glad to hear what melinda said and i was glad to hear john kerry sticking up for his wife.

condi on the couch thanks to a trip to the salon

so i'm at the salon this afternoon and, trying to be up on all the latest, i'm flipping through the new york times. i know, i know, a contradictory statement. the times is never all the news that's fit to print unless by 'fit' they mean what wall street and officials want the paper to print.
but ignore the writing and note the topics i always sneer!

so thereza, my friend who got shafted in her divorce (gals, get a good lawyer!), has gone to work for this salon. (1 more time, gals get a good lawyer!) things are better for thereza without robin and i say that not because they were an interracial couple but because they were an interorientation couple. robin liked men, thereza like women. but when the trust fund only kicks in when you get married, what are you going to do? move to canada? (that's why i feel thereza got shafted, by the way. robin would still be living uncomfortably had they not made their arrangement.) (fyi, i've changed robin's name for this story but thereza told me i could use her 1st name.)

so thereza walks over and looks at condi rice on the front page and rolls her eyes. "she's like the big dyke at the melissa etheridge concert that's screaming 'sh!' while everyone's having a good time singing along with 'i'm the only 1.'"

to me, that perfectly captures condi. she's incapable of having fun or engaging with people. (and her new job requires engaging with people.) like most aging pet-princesses, she's gotten a little too strident. think shirley temple before she added black and right before she got shoved off the good ship lolly pop. or margaret o'brien when every 1 kept crossing their fingers that she'd find a 'cute' period. (she never did.)

condi's performed her whole life. piano, ice skating, you name it. she's had to shine as the brightest exception to ever get into the club on a pass. doing so meant that she had to repeat certain mannerisms that were cute as a child but as a grown woman are now maddening. and they are set in stone now, character tics that she probably sees as trademarks.

but when your girlish smile captures the center of attention early on, you stick with it and when you find that what was appealing as a young girl is no longer appealing ... well, let's just say that what accounts for so many photos with the now infamous condi scowl.

there is a point here and it's that she's not up to being secretary of state. thereza and i were discussing this while she was putting in my 'natural' highlights. a secretary of state has to be capable of diplomacy, not of strutting.

the fact that condi hasn't bitten the head off sharon or some 1 else is somehow seen as a diplomatic miracle and every 1's rushing in to reassure us that she's up for the job. why sharon loves looking at condi's legs! if you've seen her unairbrushed photos, you understand why he's not looking at her face.

but the thing is, this is her best moment. there's hope globally that reality has to sink in during the second term and the bushies have to moderate their stance.

it's a false hope. but you hear the press trumpeting her -- and see the new york times splash her repeatedly on the front page. you'd think she was a linebacker or something with the love affair the times is having with her currently.

but what's happening is these false hopes are giving her center stage, the place she's most comfortable in, the space she's trained (or been trained) to move into. when condi's being precocious and every 1's patting her on the head she's in her element.

but as with liza, a little goes a long, long way. i mean, a few years pass and you're thinking, 'gee, liza was really incredible in cabaret. they should use her in movies more.' then you buy that ticket to stepping out or arthur 2 and you're sinking in your seat and covering your eyes and vowing 'no i will not let you entertain me!'

so as the novelty wears off, and people begin to see that nothing's changed in the 2nd term, little condi's going to stomp her foot as people want to engage and not just stand around feeding her ego.

truly, it's like erin moran. you watched her grow up as joni on happy days and she was funny and cute as a child and then she's an adult and it's honestly embarrassing to watch her. you're thinking, 'joanie should be an adult now, why is erin acting that way?'

there was a hilarious article in tv guide years ago, before all the talent bolted and ended up starting entertainment weekly, where erin was interviewed on the set of joanie loves chachi.
erin was all smiles for the reporter and talking about how great it was to have her show and then some 1 comes along (ellen travolta?) and weighs in on what a strong ensemble the cast is - which causes erin to pout, 'but i'm kind of the star, right?'

that's condi in 2 months tops. and after she realizes that, no, she's not the star, she's just 1 more errand boy for the bully boy; that actual leaders of countries aren't still enchanted with her girlish charm, look for her inner baby jane to come out and watch out joan crawford because an aging juvenile star is so rarely a pretty thing. (natalie wood and elizabeth taylor being two of the few exceptions.)

even mickey rooney couldn't go on playing juvenile leads forever.

condi's stunted. that's why she can go from being schooled by madeline albright's father to becoming a neocon with no real thought. she spit out whatever you wanted memorized but there's no brain there capable of thought. as long as she's center stage and every 1 hangs on her every smile and canned line, she's happy and in the place she feels she deserves. but when questions go from polite to pointed, watch out.

there's a really funny film that my friend betsy always plays for her 3 year old called cats can dance. in it darla dimple (hope i have her name right) is sweet as sugar while she gets her way but when she doesn't she's on a rampage that far surpasses any damage all three different strokes child stars could have ever done.

and it's not really condi's fault that she's stunted because she's been conditioned to be. the tics that she can't let go of now are the very 1s that used to get applause and praise. if she'd been a little less cute when she was younger, she might have had to learn to think things out.

instead, she truly is the big dyke (over 40 but still seeing herself as the fresh fish in the meat market) at the melissa etheridge concert angry and upset that the audience is enjoying and participating coz no 1's paying attention to her.

donnie fowler, sexy dork hottie, leaves the race with grace, little needle nose roemer tries to get in touch with his inner zell miller

no post yesterday. i spent time trying to learn about hyperlinks. thanks to sherry and c.i. of common ills for all their supportive e-mails yesterday. both said they were glad to help but i know sherry's got kids and probably could have used her sunday night any number of ways other than repeatedly trying to talk me through this. then i thought i understood it and was feeling good so i start surfing my favorite sites. and i see the groovy list of common ills community members favorite songs. i spent at least a half hour going over that list.

and then it hits me that c.i. was probably trying to get that list done while i was e-mailing. so sherry and c.i. thank you both for sharing your time with me and i know you probably had better things to do.

i also want to say that jodi's had a piece of constructive criticism. in honor of the great bell hooks and e.e. cummings i've stuck with lower case for all my entries and will continue to stick with it. however, i will be italicizing titles. jodi pointed out that with something like the nation it really does make a difference when you're reading.

then i check out my other buddy's blog, folding star at a winding road and see no entry so i don't feel so bad for decided no blogging while i try to absorb everything that i hoped i had learned about hyperlinks. but folding star does have the saturday book chat so grab your cup of coffee, visit the site and sit back and enjoy.

if you didn't hear howard dean is now last man standing. sadly there were only men in the race for dnc chair this go round. howard dean deserves it and i supported him like the rest of the common ills community members. but i have to confess, donnie fowler ... oh be still my heart.
he's got that sexy dork thing going on.

if you've read as many cosmos as i have, you know all about make overs and there's just something about a sexy dork that can make me start thinking make over. i'd let him keep the burns, side burns, and the glasses, but i would do something with the hair. i think it needs to be longer or shorter. it's in that stage where you aren't really sure what it is. i think he'd look so fucking hot with it about 2 inches longer. and the hair itself looks wonderful in terms of texture, so wonderful it's hard not to imagine running my fingers through it.

genetics already gave him two of the most kissable lips, his eyes are great, cute little dimple in his chin.

he could pull of a brush cut as well. but when i see him in jeans with gray socks or argyle socks he's the ultimate dork needing some 1 to come along and style him up. that's not a complaint, i love a project. when he goes casual, he dresses like a college freshman who hasn't heard grunge died. i find that to be a very sexy challenge. and from what i've seen, he's not some 1 who goes in for man scaping. so he's a dream stud waiting to be emerge. it's like she's all that only in reverse.

my friend monica loves the sexy dork look. only she doesn't encourage the hotties she dates to update their style. she thinks it keeps the other ladies away. and it's true, a lot of straight women turn up their noses at guys who think dressing up means dockers and a polo. so i do see her point.

but my point is that donnie fowler is a sexy stud (with or without a make over) and the future should be bright for him. which may be why he could be big about it and make nice comments about howard dean. (or maybe he's just a nice guy all around. guys with the sexy dork vibe tend to have big hearts.) (among other things!)

donnie fowler's graceful exit showed grace, style and good will. oh needle nose just came off petty and desperate?

yes i'm speaking of tim roemer. at 48, he'll be 49 in october, that silly little boy scout cut makes him look as if he grew up in ollie north's household. which isn't all that hard to picture considering the positions he's often taken. but let's be really clear, do something about the bags under your eyes. and with that chin, the little boy smile ('look i just got my front tooth!') ain't working. (and it doesn't help that they do look like baby teeth.)

but his looks are the least of his problems. roemer you made it into the house of representatives. you made it into a right wing think tank. i don't think either qualifies you as leader of the party.

but like a butt ugly moses come down from the mountain, roemer wanted to lecture the flock about the importance of being 'inclusive' on abortion.

news flash for roemer, the party is inclusive. when i vote in a primary, i am not required to 1st have an abortion! the point is that it should be legal. no 1's forcing any 1 to have 1. you don't show up at a fund raiser and tell some 1 you've maxed out on your donations and then have them reply, 'okay but can you step over to the abortion tent because we don't have a high enough number of those.'

but roemer was going to save us even if we didn't want his idea of salvation.

here's roemer as he exits the race with his tail tucked between his wobbly knees:

"I got into this race five weeks ago to talk about the devastating loss we experienced in November," Roemer said in an interview. "It was not about 60,000 votes in Ohio. It was about losing 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in the country. If that’s a trend in business or politics, you’re in trouble."

we roemer? who's we? your buddies at the mercatus center? phil gramm's wife wendy help you out with that speech? or maybe j.c. watts? yeah, you got some interesting buds serving with you over at mercatus. which is why you make such lame ass comments as this:

Roemer said he hoped to make the party more inclusive, especially on the issue of abortion. He opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother.

hey tim, talk to wendy, she's not still unloading enron stock so she should have plenty of time to advise you, she'll tell you that there already is a party like you're describing - the republican party.

so take your snippy, sad face on over there. you're a slash and burner bound and determined to make it seem as though you were the obvious choice but those wild and crazy lefties just wouldn't give you a chance. you're like zell miller without the charisma. call up j.c. and tell him you need career rehab counseling from midge decter. she'll sit you down and assist you in releasing your inner republican.

but quit pretending you can steer the party. if you could, you wouldn't be dropping out of the race. men with an inflated sense of self usually are overcompensating for some physical short coming.

needle nose came off like the smallest man in the locker room today. i'd urge everyone to gift him with a towel snap but i think he'd enjoy it too much. so let's just be glad that even if he can't comprehend it, he can read the writing on the wall and dropped out of the race today.



you're a joke now. you were a joke before you got in. (being so lame on the 9-11 commission didn't help you.

newsflash: the new republic still sucks

i'm going to take a moment to highlight a post of mine: "a stripped down antonio was the only thing of value the new republic has ever offered" (http://sexandpoliticsandscreedsandattitude.blogspot.com/2005/01/stripped-down-antonio-was-only-thing.html).

in that post i highlighted some of the problems with the new republic. a hideous magazine that gets worse every day. i got three e-mails from straight men bothered by interest in antonio (why do the prudes even come to a sight called 'sex and politics and screeds and attitude?'). basically they were reading from the same playbook: 'the new republic is a great magazine, a landmark magazine! how dare you say these mean things about it.'

how dare i?

how dare i?

how dare you defend it.

little petey bienart (who the fellows felt i was too rough with) doesn't just write for the magazine, he also gives autographs. like on this letter to congress:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

from the letter:

In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.

that's right folks, petey of the new republic is arguing the 'tough case' of increasing military spending, cause lord knows we don't spend enough! (i'm being facetious.)

and did we mention it's pnac? little peter beinart is the perfect fit for the new republic.

and i would urge everyone to check out this web article:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_15502.shtml

it's "United States Divided: How much do some Pro-Bush crazies hate those who oppose the war?" by dave zirin:


New Republic Writer Calls For Anti-Bush Left-Wingers To Be Killed
The words "libelous" and 'the New Republic" have a proud history of walking arm-in-arm. Now, in the esteemed tradition of [former TNR writer who peddled fiction as fact] Stephen Glass, The New Republic has stooped to a new low, publishing a piece that calls for violence, torture, and even death for leading leftists who dare oppose Bush's war on terror and the slaughter in Iraq.
Author Tom Frank -- clearly from the Glass School of Journalism the New Republic has made famous -- described sitting in on an anti-war panel sponsored by the International Socialist Organization, the Washington Peace Center, the DC Anti-War Network and other groups.
After having heard the 100 plus attendees cheer sentiments like "Money for Jobs and Education Not For War and Occupation," Frank became so riled up, he unloaded a deranged harangue about the suffering he would like to rain upon people daring to organize against this war. After Stan Goff, a former Delta Forces soldier and current organizer for Military Families Speak Out, expressed sentiments like "We ain't never resolved nothing through an election," Frank's jag began. Clearly too doughy to do it himself, Frank started to fantasize about a Teutonic strongman who could shut Goff up.
...

This piece is yet another effort to intimidate and silence people who aren't willing to toe the "party line" espoused by Democrats and Republicans alike that the death of 1,400 US troops and 100,000 Iraqi civilians is somehow justified. Frank's piece is an exercise in hate and intimidation. To be quiet in its face is to give ground in a period when we have precious little to give.
Therefore, this is a call for people to e-mail The New Republic and let them know what you think about humorous musings on killing Arundhati Roy or torturing Stan Goff. Let them know that a disgraced magazine will not intimidate us, especially one with the credibility of The National Enquirer. Let them know that we will publicly debate Tom Frank or any of their 20 something post-graduate hacks on the merits of this war anytime and any place. This is the only way to deal with darkness: shine as bright a light as possible -- right in it's face.
E-mail letters@tnr.com to let them know what you think. We are also considering a picket of the New Republic Offices, for those interested.

i wonder how that will play on air america which just seems to love those new republic writers.
if you buy ad time, does air america book you? matthew rothschild and the staff of the progressive can't seem to get on but good god if the new republic writers aren't on about as much as their damn ads. (barbara ehrenreich was on the majority report. ehrenreich was filling in for maureen dowd at the new york times and she also writes for the progressive. ehrenreich is also the author of the best seller nickle and dimed.) in these times may as well not exist in air america's eyes. (david sirota has contributes pieces to in these times. when he's on the show al franken's show, franken stresses that he's with the center for american progress.) the progressive and in these times haven't bought air time.

or how about sam seder's war with daniel okrent, public editor of the new york times? he was all over that story. then the new york times bought ad time (and continue to do so) and the outraged sam seder is no longer so outraged. has he even mentioned that okrent declared war on a reader in months? that was a big deal to him and he promised that they would stay on this. hey i forget things all the time myself. maybe he just forgot.

but when the non-left that is the new republic can get booked on pretty much every show that features guests and people from magazines not advertising on the network can't get on, i think it's a question worth asking.

i think another question worth asking is how many majority report listeners were pissed off last night due to sam taking calls from people attacking janeane - but praising him, naturally.

it wasn't funny. it wasn't cute. sam may think he's 'da man' but reality check would tell most people that the show wouldn't exist without janeane. one caller bragged about how janeane was too left but sam's a moderate. that's what we need, a few more moderate voices in this country because lord knows the media just lets the right and the left talk. oh wait, they don't do that.
no, they put centerists on the tube and call them the 'left.'

janeane's not yammering "uh ... uh ... uh." she's also got a name. seder's lucky to be her co-host and should the show attempt to go on without her, it will crash and burn. it's dumbed down npr without janeane. it was disgusting to hear sam chuckling at the callers griping about janeane. he may be carving out a future for himself at the new republic at this rate.

simple simon smells the wind and it's not just his crackatoa that's stinking things up

simple simon smells the wind and it's not just his crackatoa that's stinking things up. simon rosenberg is out of the dnc chair race. officially out because it was over for him a long, long time ago. oh sure you had people praising him in astroturf all over the leading "blog" sites.

you had joe trippi endorsing him. josh micey marshy came out for simon.

it should have been deb simon's big coming out party. especially with sam seder and bill scher giving him air kisses during an interview that turned into soft-core porn.
but he couldn't pull it off. because 'third way' is the high way.

because we're tired of sell outs and we're tired of creeps.
and because when others wanted to waffle, the common ills called it like it was.
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2004/12/questions-for-questionable-simon.html

that takes you to 'questions for a questionable simon rosenberg.'

did you read about it from an old school blog star? hell fucking no.

did you see it linked all over the net? no shit way.

but if you were grass roots you probably were e-mailed it.

i sent it out to 6 friends and within 2 weeks it was being sent to me by casual friends writing 'get a load of this! we have to stop rosenberg!'

what killed simon rosenberg's chances for dnc chair?

the damn truth.

and in a blogosphere that is supposed to be so open to the truth you might want to ask yourself why you saw it by visiting the common ills or because someone e-mailed it to you but you didn't see it linked all around blog land.

you might want to ask yourself about the people who made comments about simon's not so bad.
let me quote from an e-mail a blogger sent out to 1 person who complained about the kissing up to slimey simon:

I don't have a strong opinion of Simon Rosenberg. I'm not at the point where I believe Simon is out to get us liberals, despite what he has said in the past. Granted, I have gotten most of my info about him from Kos and Mydd (I've never met him or anything), but the impression I've gotten is that he is a so-called "centrist," but one who understands that you have to work with your base (as opposed to guys like Beinart, Lieberman, etc.).

that's from a blogger. (i scored that e-mail via a trade off.) 1 who could have told the truth about simon but didn't because he got his info, according to him, 'from kos and mydd.'

we're not done with the e-mail:

He ended up giving answers that were vague, designed not to alienate or offend. You can interpret that as a weak, but well-intentioned, attempt to unify the party (and appeal to GOP moderates), or as a nefarious attempt to snow liberals. Considering that he did not join the Stop Dean bandwagon in the primaries, I lean to the former, but of course, you could look at his past comments and lean the other way.

yeah, you fucking could look to his former comments and lean the other way because so many people didn't want to do a reality-check on slimon.

people took passes on seriously addressing simon. you need to ask yourself why that was? why your blog stars wouldn't take the time to look into simon rosenberg's record? why they'd chat him up without ever checking him out? or did they check him out?

let's note the astroturf that surfed on to so many sites:

Simon Rosenberg should NOT be the DNC Chair.
The Blogsphere should NOT support him.
Here is why:
1. Vision
2. National Majority
3. Charisma
4. Youth
5. Internet savvy
6. Integrity
7. Centrism
8. Message
9. Broadmindedness

any 1 of the 9 is fucking laughable. 'integrity?' did they check out his slimey record?
what made them get behind this man tutored by al frum, this man who claimed he was former dlc?

people either lied to you or they didn't do basic research.

what was simon's record? well 1 thing was his support for the war in iraq. before the war started and after. he went on unfiltered and made that statement. he repeated it on the majority report.

that bloggers missed that is amazing because the blogs for both shows exploded in anger at simon. but did any 1 of our big blogs tell you that?

did they tell you that rosenberg felt hugo chavez was a threat? that's really in line with bush-think and that's because the line between neo-con and neo-lib is a very fine line.

you heard a lot of people pushing 1 line and it was 'simon's so cool.' lot of blog bullshit.

and you need to ask yourself why that was?

are they naive? do they support the war?

you might remember some of these bloggers went on the radio after the election and told you ohio was nothing to focus on and that we needed to move on.

cokie fucking roberts couldn't have been more of a gatekeeper than this crowd.

with simon rosenberg they either didn't do their home work (surprising considering all the blog space rosenberg took up) or else they elected not to inform you. they played gatekeeper with you. fuck that shit.

simon had plans to bridge the blogs with the dnc. gee, didn't we see elisabeth bumiller give air kisses to bush for access? and weren't we outraged by that?

i'd hate to think that are blog stars were selling out their readers for possible "access."

so i'm just going to assume they didn't do their basic work. maybe they were too blown away
with the fat dough-boy (charasmatic? come on!!!!!!) to do the work that is expected of them.

there's a lesson here: fuck a "left" wing echo chamber. the truth works more than lies and it always will. simon rosenberg's out and he should be. all the blogs that pushed him (and god almighty the number for that is huge!) couldn't put humpty dumpty simon into a bonafide candidate.

they could astroturf and they could air kiss but they couldn't get over the hump because the hump was a big 1: a mountain of ugly truths.

slimon's out of the race, democracy won.

think of c.i. as buffy the hype slayer. because that's what c.i. does. and c.i.'s the only 1 that told you the truth about simon rosenberg. c.i. looked at slimey's public statements over the years and wrote the post that was a stake in the heart of rosenberg's chances to be dnc chair.

if you didn't read the post before, read it now. and then take that and compare it to what you were told on other blogs.

you need to think too about the lies you were told about the so-called red states. about how you were encouraged to stereotype everyone in those states. because that was management, people. that was trying to take your eyes off the ball. the nation ran several stories on that in the last 2 months - about how the party structure has been allowed to wither across the country. so let's take a moment here to sing the praises of the nation - a great mag and 1 that doesn't silence itself to gain access.

who pushed that shit off on us? the gop started it, the mainstream press ran with it, but bloggers on the "left" damn well should have known better. it sure worked like a charm to make us think we were too "left" for the nation, didn't it? it sure worked when dlc babies like rosenberg tried to take leadership of our party and steer us into a 'third way.'

the new republic was all over the hype, spreading that shit like it was truth. why it got legs in the land of blogs is a question that you need to ask.

david sirota called it, the nation called it and c.i. called it. any 1 coming here knows i'm no fan of big brain and over-forty-and-under-weight. but let's take a moment to note that rachel maddow and lizz winstead asked slimey tough questions. let's take a moment to note that they had more balls than sam seder and bill scher.

i've ragged on the gals before and i'll rag on them again. but big brain and lizz showed guts and committment when they interviewed simon rosenberg. give it up for the ladies and for every 1 who questioned slimon. today democracy scored a victory. and it wasn't a cake walk because you had too many people telling you slimey's cool and neat and wowie.

i read over this and want to clarify something. janeane garofalo was on vacation when slimon oozed onto the majority report. i don't for a minute believe she would have sat silent through that non-inclusive interview. and she sure as hell wouldn't have attacked howard dean after the interview to defend blowing air kisses on simon's belly throughout the interview.