so my best friend checks out unfiltered and the blog today and tells me it's hideous.
no surprise there.
she said she really was dreading going to the blog. when she did she saw a lot of new names. and all that talk from ringers earlier in the week about 'guys we need to focus on the real important issues! not on what happened to lizz!' was long gone. they were talking about movies and other non-life alerting things.
'1 idiot, while i was on, tried to say, "lizz likes to leave. she creates something and she leaves. she's happy." and i couldn't believe how bad these ringers will lie. they know nothing about the daily show or why lizz left. another idiot, bonzo who has posted before, said "lizz wants us to support rachel!" i love how lizz hasn't spoken publicly once but you have all these idiots pushing
this shit. and i kept looking for conner or n69 or or ryan or martha or jimmy or james or any 1 i knew. they weren't there. i'll assume they've found some thing better to do with their time then waste it on unfiltered without lizz. pam has always been an idiot and she was still around lusting after rachel, no big surprise there. they're such idiots. judging by the blog today, you've got 1 bonzo who's trying to convince himself that things will get better. you've got pam and a few over the other 1s who always worshipped rachel. that was never a big crowd. rachel didn't read the blog. lizz did. and then you've got some people, a few, i saw 3 who were speaking up for lizz and were long time members. although some idiot, probably pam, had to try to claim that yummy soup was posting under another name. pam's such an idiot. she always insults the blog when she signs off with "now i have to go do important things so you guys have fun!" implying that the ones who stay don't have important things to do. hey pammie, i only had that block of time available because some 1 had to cancel a session. don't tell me about your important life. anyway it's obvious that the blog has died. what i'm talking about is that you have the same people posting so it looks active but it's not. the blog used to have tons and tons of people posting. now it's pretty much 20 people. the show's dying and they don't even know it.
and as i told them, they aren't doing rachel any favors by claiming the show works. it doesn't.
i don't plan to go back unless they fire rachel and then i'll be there to say to pam and the rachel groupies, "hey, we're just listeners! corporations are entitled to privacy!" and all the other bullshit things they type. rachel can't carry the show. that's obvious. and when rachel gets canned all these rachel freaks we'll find out that the ringers air america has been sending to the blog pretending to be listeners will be back and saying "guys we need to move on!" and i have no idea how they'll be able to argue back since they completely rolled on over this. they should be ashamed of themselves.'
what about the lizz fans?
'they're gone. i mean they're done with the show. and there's no way they're coming back for this shit. i wish i had gone on last week or at the start of this week to say goodbye to them because there were some good 1s. but judging by the blog as it was today, the show's lost about over 1/2 their audience. and remember this is with the ringers coming in and chatting up rachel. imagine how much lower the ratings will sink after people realize the show's not getting any better?'
anything else?
'yes, this idiot e-mailed me. wasn't a name i knew from the old days of the blog. wasn't any name that was on the blog today. but realitygirl87 e-mails me to say, "hey, girl, what have you been up to? i haven't seen you in forever. i understand that you miss lizz but she wanted to go. she can't tell people this but she's really sick and wanted to move on to other things. she asked that we all show our support for rachel and get behind her. she said she's happier now and just wants to be sure that we keep supporting rachel." i wrote back, "fuck off you shit head. you haven't spoken to lizz. if she were sick and telling people that, we'd all know it. i don't know if you work for air america or if you're rachel's girlfriend susan or maybe her mommy but don't ever write me and act like we know each other. i've never heard of you and the reason for that is you are a phoney bullshit fake. real cute how you could have posted that to the web for every 1 to see but instead e-mail me privately and act like we know each other and you have some info that you don't have." but that's what someone's doing. and it's sick. lying and saying lizz is ill to try to prop up this lame ass show. who ever is spreading those rumors needs to be ashamed.'
so that's what it's coming to. now, to make it look like rachel can carry the show, some asshole named realitygirl87 is spreading rumors that lizz left because she's sick. as every 1 knows now from the limited press coverage, she didn't leave because she's sick. whether she was fired or quit in the face of pressure - to tone down support for abortion rights (a popular rumor) .
i don't know why lizz left. but people are e-mailing this site saying that certain people in power were complaining that she was pushing a candidate for senator in pennsylvania that wasn't junior-the-chosen 1. and that air america didn't want to offend some powerful democrats.
is it true?
could be. makes more sense than the nonsesne that she chose to leave for health reasons. or that absurd lie that she likes to create something and then move on.
if air america doesn't like the rumor that lizz was pushed out because she offended right leaning democrats in power with her strong support for abortion rights, all they have to do is get honest about why she's no longer with the network.
there are other rumors. and maybe they're true and maybe they're false.
supposedly clear channel is saying they could carry those 3 hours on all their stations if they were hosted by a man. they're supposedly telling air america that early in the morning, listeners want to hear men. (clear channel doesn't air unfiltered on all stations and on some it doesn't play live but late in the night.) so don't be surprised if rachel finds herself with a male host if that rumor is true. or even if rachel gets kicked out on her big brain ass to be replaced by a male or a male and an even weaker ass woman.
see rachel's weak but she's still a lesbian and it's thought by those who believe the clear channel rumors that having forced lizz out, they'll now start claiming data that shows rachel offends listeners and they don't want 'sexual politics' in the morning.
what's going on?
air america knows. they just don't want to tell the listeners and that's pretty disgusting.
it's also pretty disgusting that while arguing about media monopolies, 1s being created that shuts out local programming.
lizz is gone and they don't give a goddamn about the listeners's feelings there.
the e-mail address is sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and if you've got a theory, a fact or a rumor send it in unless you're realitygirl87 because i don't need your lies and justifications.
before i got married (and then divorced) i worked in public relations. any 1 could have told air america that you do not create a vacuum. when you do that, someone comes along to fill it in.
if they're unhappy with the questions people are raising, they have only themselves to blame.
they bungled it. it's a public relations nightmare.
and some idiot is under the impression that it will just go away. that's not reality-based and makes you question the judgement skills of the network. and these were supposed to be media savy people!
rachel maddow continues to induce comas. air america continues to act like nothing happened. unfiltered continues to suck.
3/09/2005
3/08/2005
air america held hostage week 2
for those late to the story, i'll post this from poynter:
From KIRK MONTGOMERY: Last week Lizz Winstead, the co-host of the Unfiltered morning radio show on Air America, was removed from the air. On Monday, she was absent without explanation, Tuesday was a repeat of an old show, Wednesday the remaining host, Rachel Maddow, opened wih this, the only Air America Radio official comment on the situation:
RACHEL MADDOW: Good morning and welcome to Unfilteredhere on Air America Radio. I'm Rachel Maddow. Were online at unfilteredradio.com. Thanks for joining us here this morning.We know that a lot of you have noticed that Lizz Winstead is not here in studio with me; I certainly have noticed this fact.
I know that conspiracy theories are out there and everybody has their tinfoil hats very finely tuned on this matter. but the bottom line is that, uh, we miss Lizz, we wish her all the best, and Unfiltered will be going on without Lizz - uh, with me, and with Chuck D, and of course with you.
So, uh, that's the bottom line, and thank you to everybody who has uh, gotten in touch with us on this matter. And that is uh, the where it stands right now and we appreciate everything that weve heard from everybody and you can certainly join the discussion online should you choose to at uh, airamericaradio.com, just click on Unfiltered.
I'm Rachel Maddow, this is Unfiltered here on Air America Radio, and uh, that is very sad news for me to deliver. I take no pleasure in delivering that. Umm, and uh, just so you know that Im giving you the straight dope - that is the straight dope.
I cannot find any discussion of this anywhere outside the blogospehere, but it seems quite unusual and intriguing, no?
for any 1 concerned about fair use, i've credited kirk and poynter and all but 6 lines above are public -- a transcription of what was heard on the air waves.
i thank kirk for having the guts to raise the question no 1 seems to want to discuss.
so the basic news is that lizz got dropped kicked off unfiltered and out of air america.
and no 1 wants to talk about it.
check the blog where you find idiots like "swing state girl" telling you that 'what if lizz is sick? do you have a right to know!' and arguing that 'as a progressive' it's really important that we respect the corporation's right not to speak.
a blogger bopped her on the head with that and pointed out that progressives stand for transperency with corporations but swing state gal just kept on swingin'.
that's what happens at the unfiltered board.
if you're not familiar with it, read through an old 1 when lizz was on 1st. then read through 1 after she is gone. you'll find names of people who have never blogged before.
i called my friend elaine to ask her about because she used to blog there. i said, 'hey elaine, what's up with this shit?' and i start giving her names and e-mail addresses (like the chuck from world wide pants) and she says, 'i don't know who those people are. i listened and watched the blog every day. i may not have had anything to share all the time but if i did i posted. i know the people. there's n69, for instance, that's some 1 who listened to the show. ryan and martha i know and i think i remember nat.' all three of those people were sticking up for lizz. the new people? the 1 attacking lizz?
'well since they're giving phoney e-mails without real accounts i think it's not real listeners or it is 1 over eager listener trying to act like he or she is many.'
what do you think of the new format?
'when rachel lied last tuesday and said lizz was sick, i listened even though it was boring. when wednesday was a repeat, i listened. on thursday when lizz wasn't on and rachel wasn't telling what was going on, i stopped listening. the show is disgusting now. rachel can't carry it. she never could lighten up and she can get pissy about minor things. she also has a tendency to lecture her audiences. i don't think randi rhodes does that but if randi did, randi's got some life to back that up. rachel's a young woman and when she's trying to tell us how it has to be, you just think "shut up you, nerd!" she's the person you fled in high school. so there's that. but there's also the fact that lizz took the humor and sparkle with her. and what we are left with is rachel trying to do a call in line show that sounds more and more like "yes, you're speaking to doctor fraiser crane." it's impossible to listen to.'
i read some of the statements from supposed long time listeners to her, comments they've posted in the last few days and she says 'those are not long term listeners who have been posting. i don't know if air america's hired people to post or if rachel's called susan and said "post for me, they're beating up on me!" but those are not long term listeners who've been posting.
what is connor saying?'
i read to her what connor's written.
'i'm ashamed of him. he called in and rachel or lizz says "it's a guy called conner from wherever"
and lizz says "oh, it's connor from the blog!" and rachel starts in with "you don't know that" in her self-important tone. turns out it was conner from the blog. and the fact that lizz knew his name and knew it was him should mean some thing to him. i can't believe he is not screaming his head off. he should be ashamed of himself.'
she asks me to read people who've been posting for lizz.
'ryan is making good points and he is correct that he has always like rachel best. that was always obvious from what he would post. i'd say the fact that some 1 who liked rachel better is outraged demonstrates how hideous this has been handled and how much the show sucks now.
what about martha?'
i read her what martha posted.
'good for her. if they have the energy to fight and cause a stink, they should. they are long term listeners. i don't have it in me anymore. they came on like "we're 1 big family." then lizz is gone and they can't even tell you. rachel will only address if the blog presses her. they should stay on her case. i think the show will be cancelled. rachel can't carry it alone. but there's a feeling that lizz was fired because she was the more political 1. she would get hot and angry when people tried to sell out on the choice issue. i wonder if they got complaints from dlc types? rachel's a coward. she should have walked the minute what ever happened to lizz happened. they wouldn't have sued her since air america doesn't want to talk about it. she's like suzette charles!'
who?
'exactly. vanessa williams was the first black miss america. then they strip her of her crown at the end of her reign. and suzette charles comes along to grab it for the last weeks. nobody remembers that back stabbing coward. but if she had said "no, i won't take it." she'd be remembered now as the woman who turned down the crown. rachel's a suzette charles."
what do you think happened?
'there was a thing in the new york daily news yesterday. lizz was either fired or forced to quit. that's obvious. so swing state girl and these other morons need to quit trying to say "it could be her health! you people need to shut up and accept that lizz is gone!" what morons. what cowards. if they really did listen to the show, how dare they not get angry about what happened to lizz. they're acting like lizz came on every 4th week and that was it. lizz was at least 1/2 the show. now she's gone and stupid morons want to say "move on!" and argue it's for the good of the "movement." there is no "movement" without accountability. that's what pissed so many people off about ohio. that people wouldn't fight and they kept trying to tell you to "move on."
it's nonsense. they were never listeners of the show. they've got to be ringers brought in to quiet the discussion on the blog. but it's not going away. i bet the audience is. no 1 wants to hear rachel go on and on in her faux npr manner. she's always wrong about stuff. i remember when some 1 called her on something and she got so damn pissy about it on air.'
that was when they confused harry reid with jack reed and had just done a salute to harry for what jack did. (jan. 27, 2005) instead of talking about jack reed rachel had to go on and on about how 'we always correct our mistakes.' no and you didn't then big brain. correcting your mistake would be doing a thing on jack reed. bragging about the fact that you're an idiot is noting that you got it wrong.
i read through the e-mails and this show is just boring for people now.
sherry: 'i just don't care to hear boring rachel. i always feel like i'm a parent going to a parent-teacher conference and i'm confronted with a first year teacher who can only relate to me as though i was 7 years old. i hate people who talk down to me.'
mel: 'why does she always act like she's doing us a favor by telling us about a news story that's at least a day old and sometimes longer? she acts like we're stupid and says things like "let me explain to you why this is important." i know why it's important, you stupid ass, i got that when i heard it on a real news broadcast. she's just hideous.'
laura: 'they fired the wrong 1. even when lizz pissed me off, at least i felt some thing. with rachel it's like i'm on heavy meds because she leaves me numb.'
trevor: 'i've never heard some 1 try harder to be terry gross and fail so miserably. what big brain maddow doesn't get is that terry gross can connect with listeners and has a great speaking voice. rachel can't connect."
loretta: 'let me be the 1st to say it, as a lesbian, i never would have thought a lesbian on the air could be so goddamn boring.'
bradley: 'they call it unfiltered but it's filtered because they tried to act like lizz never existed and only talk about it now when the blog goes crazy. rachel's coming off bitchy and rude to the listeners. they need to fire her ass.'
it is embarrassing to listen to. it's like the pat sajack show or worse - the chevy chase show.
rachel can not carry a news break, let alone a 3 hour show. when that pompous 'i'm so smart' hectoring tone starts up, listeners have had enough.
a friend swears that there has been a huge drop off in the amount of streaming for unfiltered.
it's like that thing c.i. of the common ills wrote on friday 'Breaking News Sally Struthers to co-host Unfiltered (This is PARODY, PEOPLE).' rachel needs lizz more than lizz needs rachel because lizz is the cher of the duo and rachel's the sonny.
and to answer a question i got asked over and over in the e-mails, i was at a soldier's play last night. i hadn't planned to go out but a friend called with 2 tickets and pointed out that we always say we'll go to plays and stuff but never do. it was a reading of play, not a performance and it was about racism and murder in the military during wwii. it was really great.
i had planned to stay home and blog but at the last minute, my friend ended up with tickets and needed some 1 to go with her.
From KIRK MONTGOMERY: Last week Lizz Winstead, the co-host of the Unfiltered morning radio show on Air America, was removed from the air. On Monday, she was absent without explanation, Tuesday was a repeat of an old show, Wednesday the remaining host, Rachel Maddow, opened wih this, the only Air America Radio official comment on the situation:
RACHEL MADDOW: Good morning and welcome to Unfilteredhere on Air America Radio. I'm Rachel Maddow. Were online at unfilteredradio.com. Thanks for joining us here this morning.We know that a lot of you have noticed that Lizz Winstead is not here in studio with me; I certainly have noticed this fact.
I know that conspiracy theories are out there and everybody has their tinfoil hats very finely tuned on this matter. but the bottom line is that, uh, we miss Lizz, we wish her all the best, and Unfiltered will be going on without Lizz - uh, with me, and with Chuck D, and of course with you.
So, uh, that's the bottom line, and thank you to everybody who has uh, gotten in touch with us on this matter. And that is uh, the where it stands right now and we appreciate everything that weve heard from everybody and you can certainly join the discussion online should you choose to at uh, airamericaradio.com, just click on Unfiltered.
I'm Rachel Maddow, this is Unfiltered here on Air America Radio, and uh, that is very sad news for me to deliver. I take no pleasure in delivering that. Umm, and uh, just so you know that Im giving you the straight dope - that is the straight dope.
I cannot find any discussion of this anywhere outside the blogospehere, but it seems quite unusual and intriguing, no?
for any 1 concerned about fair use, i've credited kirk and poynter and all but 6 lines above are public -- a transcription of what was heard on the air waves.
i thank kirk for having the guts to raise the question no 1 seems to want to discuss.
so the basic news is that lizz got dropped kicked off unfiltered and out of air america.
and no 1 wants to talk about it.
check the blog where you find idiots like "swing state girl" telling you that 'what if lizz is sick? do you have a right to know!' and arguing that 'as a progressive' it's really important that we respect the corporation's right not to speak.
a blogger bopped her on the head with that and pointed out that progressives stand for transperency with corporations but swing state gal just kept on swingin'.
that's what happens at the unfiltered board.
if you're not familiar with it, read through an old 1 when lizz was on 1st. then read through 1 after she is gone. you'll find names of people who have never blogged before.
i called my friend elaine to ask her about because she used to blog there. i said, 'hey elaine, what's up with this shit?' and i start giving her names and e-mail addresses (like the chuck from world wide pants) and she says, 'i don't know who those people are. i listened and watched the blog every day. i may not have had anything to share all the time but if i did i posted. i know the people. there's n69, for instance, that's some 1 who listened to the show. ryan and martha i know and i think i remember nat.' all three of those people were sticking up for lizz. the new people? the 1 attacking lizz?
'well since they're giving phoney e-mails without real accounts i think it's not real listeners or it is 1 over eager listener trying to act like he or she is many.'
what do you think of the new format?
'when rachel lied last tuesday and said lizz was sick, i listened even though it was boring. when wednesday was a repeat, i listened. on thursday when lizz wasn't on and rachel wasn't telling what was going on, i stopped listening. the show is disgusting now. rachel can't carry it. she never could lighten up and she can get pissy about minor things. she also has a tendency to lecture her audiences. i don't think randi rhodes does that but if randi did, randi's got some life to back that up. rachel's a young woman and when she's trying to tell us how it has to be, you just think "shut up you, nerd!" she's the person you fled in high school. so there's that. but there's also the fact that lizz took the humor and sparkle with her. and what we are left with is rachel trying to do a call in line show that sounds more and more like "yes, you're speaking to doctor fraiser crane." it's impossible to listen to.'
i read some of the statements from supposed long time listeners to her, comments they've posted in the last few days and she says 'those are not long term listeners who have been posting. i don't know if air america's hired people to post or if rachel's called susan and said "post for me, they're beating up on me!" but those are not long term listeners who've been posting.
what is connor saying?'
i read to her what connor's written.
'i'm ashamed of him. he called in and rachel or lizz says "it's a guy called conner from wherever"
and lizz says "oh, it's connor from the blog!" and rachel starts in with "you don't know that" in her self-important tone. turns out it was conner from the blog. and the fact that lizz knew his name and knew it was him should mean some thing to him. i can't believe he is not screaming his head off. he should be ashamed of himself.'
she asks me to read people who've been posting for lizz.
'ryan is making good points and he is correct that he has always like rachel best. that was always obvious from what he would post. i'd say the fact that some 1 who liked rachel better is outraged demonstrates how hideous this has been handled and how much the show sucks now.
what about martha?'
i read her what martha posted.
'good for her. if they have the energy to fight and cause a stink, they should. they are long term listeners. i don't have it in me anymore. they came on like "we're 1 big family." then lizz is gone and they can't even tell you. rachel will only address if the blog presses her. they should stay on her case. i think the show will be cancelled. rachel can't carry it alone. but there's a feeling that lizz was fired because she was the more political 1. she would get hot and angry when people tried to sell out on the choice issue. i wonder if they got complaints from dlc types? rachel's a coward. she should have walked the minute what ever happened to lizz happened. they wouldn't have sued her since air america doesn't want to talk about it. she's like suzette charles!'
who?
'exactly. vanessa williams was the first black miss america. then they strip her of her crown at the end of her reign. and suzette charles comes along to grab it for the last weeks. nobody remembers that back stabbing coward. but if she had said "no, i won't take it." she'd be remembered now as the woman who turned down the crown. rachel's a suzette charles."
what do you think happened?
'there was a thing in the new york daily news yesterday. lizz was either fired or forced to quit. that's obvious. so swing state girl and these other morons need to quit trying to say "it could be her health! you people need to shut up and accept that lizz is gone!" what morons. what cowards. if they really did listen to the show, how dare they not get angry about what happened to lizz. they're acting like lizz came on every 4th week and that was it. lizz was at least 1/2 the show. now she's gone and stupid morons want to say "move on!" and argue it's for the good of the "movement." there is no "movement" without accountability. that's what pissed so many people off about ohio. that people wouldn't fight and they kept trying to tell you to "move on."
it's nonsense. they were never listeners of the show. they've got to be ringers brought in to quiet the discussion on the blog. but it's not going away. i bet the audience is. no 1 wants to hear rachel go on and on in her faux npr manner. she's always wrong about stuff. i remember when some 1 called her on something and she got so damn pissy about it on air.'
that was when they confused harry reid with jack reed and had just done a salute to harry for what jack did. (jan. 27, 2005) instead of talking about jack reed rachel had to go on and on about how 'we always correct our mistakes.' no and you didn't then big brain. correcting your mistake would be doing a thing on jack reed. bragging about the fact that you're an idiot is noting that you got it wrong.
i read through the e-mails and this show is just boring for people now.
sherry: 'i just don't care to hear boring rachel. i always feel like i'm a parent going to a parent-teacher conference and i'm confronted with a first year teacher who can only relate to me as though i was 7 years old. i hate people who talk down to me.'
mel: 'why does she always act like she's doing us a favor by telling us about a news story that's at least a day old and sometimes longer? she acts like we're stupid and says things like "let me explain to you why this is important." i know why it's important, you stupid ass, i got that when i heard it on a real news broadcast. she's just hideous.'
laura: 'they fired the wrong 1. even when lizz pissed me off, at least i felt some thing. with rachel it's like i'm on heavy meds because she leaves me numb.'
trevor: 'i've never heard some 1 try harder to be terry gross and fail so miserably. what big brain maddow doesn't get is that terry gross can connect with listeners and has a great speaking voice. rachel can't connect."
loretta: 'let me be the 1st to say it, as a lesbian, i never would have thought a lesbian on the air could be so goddamn boring.'
bradley: 'they call it unfiltered but it's filtered because they tried to act like lizz never existed and only talk about it now when the blog goes crazy. rachel's coming off bitchy and rude to the listeners. they need to fire her ass.'
it is embarrassing to listen to. it's like the pat sajack show or worse - the chevy chase show.
rachel can not carry a news break, let alone a 3 hour show. when that pompous 'i'm so smart' hectoring tone starts up, listeners have had enough.
a friend swears that there has been a huge drop off in the amount of streaming for unfiltered.
it's like that thing c.i. of the common ills wrote on friday 'Breaking News Sally Struthers to co-host Unfiltered (This is PARODY, PEOPLE).' rachel needs lizz more than lizz needs rachel because lizz is the cher of the duo and rachel's the sonny.
and to answer a question i got asked over and over in the e-mails, i was at a soldier's play last night. i hadn't planned to go out but a friend called with 2 tickets and pointed out that we always say we'll go to plays and stuff but never do. it was a reading of play, not a performance and it was about racism and murder in the military during wwii. it was really great.
i had planned to stay home and blog but at the last minute, my friend ended up with tickets and needed some 1 to go with her.
3/06/2005
times jukes on the page and calls it writing also the hideous rachel maddow inspires a drinking game
let me start off by directing to you an editorial by the third estate sunday review. this is what i gave you a heads up to earlier. they don't name the person and i'll be respectful of their decision and keep my lips sealed as well. but i am sooooooooo dying to tell you who it was. don't know what i'm talking about? well get your ass over to the third estate now.
have you read the common ills today? i read it with interest but also the thought 'i am so never writing anything as long as the second or third entry.' more power to c.i. but i can't imagine ever having that much to say.
which, funny story, don't ever ask c.i. to help you with research. there's a point to this post and i'll get to it shortly but i asked c.i. for some assistance re: background on a topic.
and?
i'm flooded with research. i had e-mails of links, e-mails that c.i. typed up articles not available online, on and on.
i'm a piker, i make no pretenses.
but what i was looking at, what inspired the mountains of research, was a story in the arts section today of the new york times. they've practically written a book on the axel rose.
that's axel, not guns and roses.
the hype is supposed to paint him as the new brian wilson, troubled genius.
i guess the difference (1 the long, long, long article never points out) is that brian williams wrote songs people actually still sing and remember: 'wouldn't it be nice?,' 'help me rhonda,' 'barbara ann,' 'god only knows,' 'good vibrations,' 'california girls,' 'surfin' u.s.a.,' 'i get around,' and 'fun, fun, fun' among others.
and der axel? um. well. there's. uh. oh, 'sweet child o' mine!' there's 'sweet child o' mine!' and.
um. uh. 'live and let it die!' that's a great song. oh, yeah, paul mccartney wrote that. well, there's. eh. 'knocking on heaven's door!' that is an amazing song ... written by bob dylan. never mind. uh. oh! 'patience!' but izzy wrote that right?
yeah, him and brian wilson, song writing genius on an equal par.
not quite. not fucking quite.
some dumb ass wants to jerk off and juke all over my morning paper and the times wants to call this an article?
here's what our 'expert' failed to tell you. (the 'expert' is jeff leads.)
let's turn to my gal kat who was kind enough to share a condensed version of the group with me in an e-mail. (yes, that's kat of kat's korner.)
kat: guns n' roses hit the payday with appetite for destruction. largely due to the energy level, they became a group of the moment. by the time the ep comes out, they've already got problems. using the n-word doesn't help and axel's attempt at justifications of that and the homophobia only make things worse. i think it's around that time axel pleads for understanding because he was molested by a relative as a child. tough guys found that very off putting and started making butt fucking jokes about axel. if he was counting on understanding, he didn't understand that a number of his core supporters didn't want to hear it and aren't exactly enlightened types. and with '1 in a million' off the ep, they'd pretty much reduced themselves from being a group for every 1 to a group trying to maintain their core. there was the flare up about them being invited to performa at an aids benefit and that's not mentioned. there was the war the now old geezers attempted to start with kurt cobain & courtney love which further damaged the group. all of this is known and all of it is refelcted in the continued decline in sales for each album. the writer's got a hard on for axel. probably spent his not so long ago youth locked in his room and cursing his mother as a 'castrating bitch.' that's the audience for axel today. there were rumors about his beating women and that only cut into the prospetive audience all the more. by the time nirvana's riding high off nevermind, guns 'n roses are over and every 1 knows it but them. it's disgusting to read such a long piece as this with such lack of information. the guy's a wanker in the worst way. i mean jeff leeds but it actually applies to them both.
thank you kat. (and to be honest, i was hoping c.i. would break it down like that and not pile on the research. spoon feed me, please!)
i'm reading this and thinking 'i remember those days and this doesn't sound like anything i remember.' i remember axel making remarks onstage about how women fuck up 'our lives' and wondering why i let my boyfriend at the time talk me into going to this concert. every guy around me turns and does the macho glare to let me know they're with axel and i'm thinking, 'why the hell am i at this concert?' (no, it wasn't for sex. when i finally slept with that stoner of a boyfriend, he fired off prematurely and i spent the whole night lying to him that it was no big deal.)
only in the days of reagan-bush could axel be a star. he'd be smart to put out an album while the bully boy is in office since bush's cohorts might be in the mood for the mindless ravings a racist, sexist, homophobe.
here's something else i remembered that the times didn't tell you about, axel's return to performing as a fatty. when you've built your stage act on no shirt and bicycle pants, an alarming weight gain is a bit like going to see tina turner live and finding out that she'll be sitting on a stool for the entire performance.
i don't know what wet dreaming piece of crap music rag jeff leeds got his 'expertise' from but he doesn't know shit. and the times gives this piece of crap prime real estate on the front page of the arts section, a full page inside and then another 1/2 page inside.
all that space wasted on a man who can't musically get it up. someone who, when he still could get it up, didn't really do that much.
i mean if this is all because 1 album sold, well alanis morissette sold a ton of albums with jagged little pill. will we get an article on her this long any time soon? i mean 'u ought to know,' 'hand in my pocket,' 'ironic,' 'thank you,' 'uninvited' and others were hits and alanis wrote them.
oh wait. this kind of jerking off is reserved only for males. by males. it's the little thing that lets them get in touch with their inner desires for a man while pretending they're manly because 'axel is such a way awesome dude! i love you, man!'
not a good day for the times. if you saw the common ills you know that already. but you can pretty much pick through today's paper to find 1 embarrassing moment after another.
lastly, sherry e-mails that if any 1 hear feels the need to listen to the lizz winstead-less unfiltered tomorrow they should do so only as a drinking game. take a shot every time rachel squawks 'support the troops' and sherry swears you'll be hammered before the 1st hour is over. rachel maddow will kill any energy behind this weekend's events, mark my words.
have you read the common ills today? i read it with interest but also the thought 'i am so never writing anything as long as the second or third entry.' more power to c.i. but i can't imagine ever having that much to say.
which, funny story, don't ever ask c.i. to help you with research. there's a point to this post and i'll get to it shortly but i asked c.i. for some assistance re: background on a topic.
and?
i'm flooded with research. i had e-mails of links, e-mails that c.i. typed up articles not available online, on and on.
i'm a piker, i make no pretenses.
but what i was looking at, what inspired the mountains of research, was a story in the arts section today of the new york times. they've practically written a book on the axel rose.
that's axel, not guns and roses.
the hype is supposed to paint him as the new brian wilson, troubled genius.
i guess the difference (1 the long, long, long article never points out) is that brian williams wrote songs people actually still sing and remember: 'wouldn't it be nice?,' 'help me rhonda,' 'barbara ann,' 'god only knows,' 'good vibrations,' 'california girls,' 'surfin' u.s.a.,' 'i get around,' and 'fun, fun, fun' among others.
and der axel? um. well. there's. uh. oh, 'sweet child o' mine!' there's 'sweet child o' mine!' and.
um. uh. 'live and let it die!' that's a great song. oh, yeah, paul mccartney wrote that. well, there's. eh. 'knocking on heaven's door!' that is an amazing song ... written by bob dylan. never mind. uh. oh! 'patience!' but izzy wrote that right?
yeah, him and brian wilson, song writing genius on an equal par.
not quite. not fucking quite.
some dumb ass wants to jerk off and juke all over my morning paper and the times wants to call this an article?
here's what our 'expert' failed to tell you. (the 'expert' is jeff leads.)
let's turn to my gal kat who was kind enough to share a condensed version of the group with me in an e-mail. (yes, that's kat of kat's korner.)
kat: guns n' roses hit the payday with appetite for destruction. largely due to the energy level, they became a group of the moment. by the time the ep comes out, they've already got problems. using the n-word doesn't help and axel's attempt at justifications of that and the homophobia only make things worse. i think it's around that time axel pleads for understanding because he was molested by a relative as a child. tough guys found that very off putting and started making butt fucking jokes about axel. if he was counting on understanding, he didn't understand that a number of his core supporters didn't want to hear it and aren't exactly enlightened types. and with '1 in a million' off the ep, they'd pretty much reduced themselves from being a group for every 1 to a group trying to maintain their core. there was the flare up about them being invited to performa at an aids benefit and that's not mentioned. there was the war the now old geezers attempted to start with kurt cobain & courtney love which further damaged the group. all of this is known and all of it is refelcted in the continued decline in sales for each album. the writer's got a hard on for axel. probably spent his not so long ago youth locked in his room and cursing his mother as a 'castrating bitch.' that's the audience for axel today. there were rumors about his beating women and that only cut into the prospetive audience all the more. by the time nirvana's riding high off nevermind, guns 'n roses are over and every 1 knows it but them. it's disgusting to read such a long piece as this with such lack of information. the guy's a wanker in the worst way. i mean jeff leeds but it actually applies to them both.
thank you kat. (and to be honest, i was hoping c.i. would break it down like that and not pile on the research. spoon feed me, please!)
i'm reading this and thinking 'i remember those days and this doesn't sound like anything i remember.' i remember axel making remarks onstage about how women fuck up 'our lives' and wondering why i let my boyfriend at the time talk me into going to this concert. every guy around me turns and does the macho glare to let me know they're with axel and i'm thinking, 'why the hell am i at this concert?' (no, it wasn't for sex. when i finally slept with that stoner of a boyfriend, he fired off prematurely and i spent the whole night lying to him that it was no big deal.)
only in the days of reagan-bush could axel be a star. he'd be smart to put out an album while the bully boy is in office since bush's cohorts might be in the mood for the mindless ravings a racist, sexist, homophobe.
here's something else i remembered that the times didn't tell you about, axel's return to performing as a fatty. when you've built your stage act on no shirt and bicycle pants, an alarming weight gain is a bit like going to see tina turner live and finding out that she'll be sitting on a stool for the entire performance.
i don't know what wet dreaming piece of crap music rag jeff leeds got his 'expertise' from but he doesn't know shit. and the times gives this piece of crap prime real estate on the front page of the arts section, a full page inside and then another 1/2 page inside.
all that space wasted on a man who can't musically get it up. someone who, when he still could get it up, didn't really do that much.
i mean if this is all because 1 album sold, well alanis morissette sold a ton of albums with jagged little pill. will we get an article on her this long any time soon? i mean 'u ought to know,' 'hand in my pocket,' 'ironic,' 'thank you,' 'uninvited' and others were hits and alanis wrote them.
oh wait. this kind of jerking off is reserved only for males. by males. it's the little thing that lets them get in touch with their inner desires for a man while pretending they're manly because 'axel is such a way awesome dude! i love you, man!'
not a good day for the times. if you saw the common ills you know that already. but you can pretty much pick through today's paper to find 1 embarrassing moment after another.
lastly, sherry e-mails that if any 1 hear feels the need to listen to the lizz winstead-less unfiltered tomorrow they should do so only as a drinking game. take a shot every time rachel squawks 'support the troops' and sherry swears you'll be hammered before the 1st hour is over. rachel maddow will kill any energy behind this weekend's events, mark my words.
3/05/2005
i'm defending lizz winstead so you know that means she's been shit on
well i'm sad. i didn't post yesterday and i'm working with third estate sunday review right now and they're highlighting my salute to jane fonda for women's history month and wanted me to say something about that entry.
i blanked on fonda completely and just talked about how lizz winstead, no brain, is no longer part of air america's unfiltered.
it's like i'm batman and i just heard that catwoman was dead. there's just this huge void that's left. there's still the joker lurking around but let's be honest, audiences always like catwoman more and i bet batman did too.
unfiltered. they seem to think rachel maddow, big brain, can now carry the show herself. as bad as i thought lizz was (and it was bad), she wasn't boring. rachel maddow is snooze time as she tries to demonstrate to us all just how big her brain is.
can some 1 please tell her to shut up. she's like a frankenstein awkwardly veering around.
unfiltered's over if lizz is gone. i'm not sure that's a bad thing.
but i think the way lizz was treated is hideous. and i'm no fan of lizz winstead.
the common ills mocked the direction unfiltered seems to going in. i couldn't agree more. when the duo is sonny & cher, you don't put the money on sonny.
and the audience is enraged. you can't check out the unfiltered blog without seeing people pouring out their anger. there's a subtext here that seems to have especially enraged listeners which is you don't matter 1 fucking bit!
when randi rhodes gets better, will there still be a slot for her show? who knows now!
for some reason, people loved lizz. and now she's gone. and air america didn't explain it to the listeners. they just pulled her photo off the web site on friday. the same day big brain showed how out of it she was with listeners when she spoke of 'tin foil conspiracy nuts.' you know, the sort of shit you expect to hear from scotty at a white house briefing.
rachel has no on air charisma. she's so lame. blah, blah, blah she drones on. never wanting you to forget that she's considered smart.
or as audrey once said on ellen about ted koppel, 'it's like there's only 1 opinion in the world, and it has to be ted's.' that's rachel. pontificating at length repeatedly in her colorless voice, her dull monotone.
and the lesson for listeners is don't get too attached to janeane garofalo or mike malloy or laura flanders because the air america family is not really a family. it's the same old corporate bullshit where the corporation doesn't feel that they have to explain a damn thing to the 'consumers.'
on monday, lizz is on the air doing her usual shit. tuesday she's gone with no explanation but some lame 'lizz is off today.' wednesday is a repeat. thursday rachel's boring us going solo (as she did on tuesday) and still nothing. friday starts out with just rachel and still no word on lizz.
but on the web site, lizz's photo has been pulled and her bio removed.
she's been erased. she's been scrubbed. she might as well have never existed. again, i am not a lizz winstead fan so it's got to be pretty bad when i'm defending her. no 1 deserves that sort of bullshit.
and air america gave the listeners nothing. no excuse and certainly no send off for lizz.
there's a message here and it's that you don't matter and neither do the hosts. you're expendable and so are they. if you don't like it 'fuck you and go elsewhere.' and this is our progressive network?
fans of lizz winstead can send a message to air america by refusing to listen to unfiltered. change your dial or, if you listen online, try stephanie miller's show instead. they've treated you like shit. if that excites your inner masochist, keep listening. if you're not into degradation, find something else besides unfiltered to listen to.
i blanked on fonda completely and just talked about how lizz winstead, no brain, is no longer part of air america's unfiltered.
it's like i'm batman and i just heard that catwoman was dead. there's just this huge void that's left. there's still the joker lurking around but let's be honest, audiences always like catwoman more and i bet batman did too.
unfiltered. they seem to think rachel maddow, big brain, can now carry the show herself. as bad as i thought lizz was (and it was bad), she wasn't boring. rachel maddow is snooze time as she tries to demonstrate to us all just how big her brain is.
can some 1 please tell her to shut up. she's like a frankenstein awkwardly veering around.
unfiltered's over if lizz is gone. i'm not sure that's a bad thing.
but i think the way lizz was treated is hideous. and i'm no fan of lizz winstead.
the common ills mocked the direction unfiltered seems to going in. i couldn't agree more. when the duo is sonny & cher, you don't put the money on sonny.
and the audience is enraged. you can't check out the unfiltered blog without seeing people pouring out their anger. there's a subtext here that seems to have especially enraged listeners which is you don't matter 1 fucking bit!
when randi rhodes gets better, will there still be a slot for her show? who knows now!
for some reason, people loved lizz. and now she's gone. and air america didn't explain it to the listeners. they just pulled her photo off the web site on friday. the same day big brain showed how out of it she was with listeners when she spoke of 'tin foil conspiracy nuts.' you know, the sort of shit you expect to hear from scotty at a white house briefing.
rachel has no on air charisma. she's so lame. blah, blah, blah she drones on. never wanting you to forget that she's considered smart.
or as audrey once said on ellen about ted koppel, 'it's like there's only 1 opinion in the world, and it has to be ted's.' that's rachel. pontificating at length repeatedly in her colorless voice, her dull monotone.
and the lesson for listeners is don't get too attached to janeane garofalo or mike malloy or laura flanders because the air america family is not really a family. it's the same old corporate bullshit where the corporation doesn't feel that they have to explain a damn thing to the 'consumers.'
on monday, lizz is on the air doing her usual shit. tuesday she's gone with no explanation but some lame 'lizz is off today.' wednesday is a repeat. thursday rachel's boring us going solo (as she did on tuesday) and still nothing. friday starts out with just rachel and still no word on lizz.
but on the web site, lizz's photo has been pulled and her bio removed.
she's been erased. she's been scrubbed. she might as well have never existed. again, i am not a lizz winstead fan so it's got to be pretty bad when i'm defending her. no 1 deserves that sort of bullshit.
and air america gave the listeners nothing. no excuse and certainly no send off for lizz.
there's a message here and it's that you don't matter and neither do the hosts. you're expendable and so are they. if you don't like it 'fuck you and go elsewhere.' and this is our progressive network?
fans of lizz winstead can send a message to air america by refusing to listen to unfiltered. change your dial or, if you listen online, try stephanie miller's show instead. they've treated you like shit. if that excites your inner masochist, keep listening. if you're not into degradation, find something else besides unfiltered to listen to.
3/03/2005
rachel maddow, e-mails and things you should be following online
holy crap! all i can tell you is do not miss the 3rd estate sunday review this sunday. trust me, you won't be disappointed.
i've never been accused of being a tease before (snicker, laugh) but accuse me this time. i'm looking at their draft (i think c.i. is as well) and let me tell you it is something to read.
now maybe it won't make it into print. if that's the case, if they kill it, i will fill you in on what it was unless it's not killed and just pushed back 1 week.
but now we will move on to other topics. (remember do not miss 3rd estate sunday review this sunday!)
abc world news tonight remains the quality broadcast. i've gotten so many e-mails from people who say things like 'if i have to watch a televised news, it's going to be world news tonight.'
i understand what people mean. outside of democracy now (which is televised) the news is so awful. i do not mean 'where is the good news? why don't they give us the good news?' what i mean is it is so damn hard to get the truth on your television set.
and i've gotten e-mails saying, 'rebecca, i am so over tv news.' i can understand that and i'm not saying, 'come back, come back.' but if some 1 is watching tv news, i do urge that you check out abc's world news tonight because it's the best there is on network or cable from the mainstream media.
of course if you have time to spare, you should go with democracy now which is the best hour of news -- on radio, on tv or online. i watch it on tv. if i miss it, i'll usually go to the transcripts via the common ills which i'm checking out anyway.
if you missed the common ills today, you may not be aware that we reached 1,500 american solider deaths in iraq. now democracy now covered it and abc world news tonight did (i'm guessing the other evening news did as well) but there wasn't a word about it in the new york times today. i'm sure they will have some excuse like 'time constraints' but i'm not buying that. they have a staff that's overnight.
hopefully, they'll cover it today. i agree with c.i. that the new york times was pretty useless today. there was one pretty strong editorial and there was maureen dowd who was quite to the point and very funny. but the main section was so sorry. i will echo (echo-echo-echo) the praise of jodi wilgoren. i don't know what's gotten into that gal but she's actually turning out some real journalism.
kelefa had a half-way decent review of a new cd from 50 cent. it could have been great. she started off so strong. but then she went into what the sexy, smart and witty kat of kat's korner has been pointing out to many reviewers do drain the life out.
i don't need to know about every track on a cd. i do need an impression. at the start of her piece kelefa did a great job and it popped back in and out throughout.
but the that was it for the new york times today.
and if you missed kat's review of tori amos's latest cd the beekeeper, please check it out. (i am so loving this cd! remember, i am the damn beekeeper!)
and i hope you're following folding star's discussions on the bankruptcy bill at a winding road.
and as many of you pointed out in e-mails, rachel maddow was apparently back on the air live and flying solo.
or as calvin asked in his e-mail 'is she live? i think she's computer generated and that's why she is so god awful bland.' calvin, you could be right.
markus (who sadly is not markus rogan but markus does say he 'can really fill out a set of swim trunks') wondered why i call her big brain when she's so stupid?
good question, markus. well it's because big brain can't stop trying to tell us how smart she is.
sometimes no brain helps her out. but we're always being told that big brain is just the smartest person in the whole wide world.
she may test well, but i agree with markus and the taste partol of tiffany who says 'she's a fucking idiot!'
tiffany tells us that as a lesbian, she always has to reassure people she meets that 'not all lesbians are as boring as rachel.'
larry e-mails to say he's heard rumors that there may be some serious shake ups at unfiltered.
one can only hope. and with southern affiliates being added, lizz winstead will either have to stop trashing the south or else air america will have to put her in a muzzle. (would 1 fit over that long face and pointed beak?)
but my favorite e-mail today (though i loved them all) was from my good friend sherry who went into a long fantasy of what would happen if she was with the one and only cornhusker john turek after a game (hint, he's very sweaty) alone in the locker room. let's hope he has the stamina that sherry and i both dream of!
but at the end of that narrative (which should be published, it's that good), sherry offers that rachel maddow is actually a clone of . . . paul harvey! i am so seeing it, sherry!
i've never been accused of being a tease before (snicker, laugh) but accuse me this time. i'm looking at their draft (i think c.i. is as well) and let me tell you it is something to read.
now maybe it won't make it into print. if that's the case, if they kill it, i will fill you in on what it was unless it's not killed and just pushed back 1 week.
but now we will move on to other topics. (remember do not miss 3rd estate sunday review this sunday!)
abc world news tonight remains the quality broadcast. i've gotten so many e-mails from people who say things like 'if i have to watch a televised news, it's going to be world news tonight.'
i understand what people mean. outside of democracy now (which is televised) the news is so awful. i do not mean 'where is the good news? why don't they give us the good news?' what i mean is it is so damn hard to get the truth on your television set.
and i've gotten e-mails saying, 'rebecca, i am so over tv news.' i can understand that and i'm not saying, 'come back, come back.' but if some 1 is watching tv news, i do urge that you check out abc's world news tonight because it's the best there is on network or cable from the mainstream media.
of course if you have time to spare, you should go with democracy now which is the best hour of news -- on radio, on tv or online. i watch it on tv. if i miss it, i'll usually go to the transcripts via the common ills which i'm checking out anyway.
if you missed the common ills today, you may not be aware that we reached 1,500 american solider deaths in iraq. now democracy now covered it and abc world news tonight did (i'm guessing the other evening news did as well) but there wasn't a word about it in the new york times today. i'm sure they will have some excuse like 'time constraints' but i'm not buying that. they have a staff that's overnight.
hopefully, they'll cover it today. i agree with c.i. that the new york times was pretty useless today. there was one pretty strong editorial and there was maureen dowd who was quite to the point and very funny. but the main section was so sorry. i will echo (echo-echo-echo) the praise of jodi wilgoren. i don't know what's gotten into that gal but she's actually turning out some real journalism.
kelefa had a half-way decent review of a new cd from 50 cent. it could have been great. she started off so strong. but then she went into what the sexy, smart and witty kat of kat's korner has been pointing out to many reviewers do drain the life out.
i don't need to know about every track on a cd. i do need an impression. at the start of her piece kelefa did a great job and it popped back in and out throughout.
but the that was it for the new york times today.
and if you missed kat's review of tori amos's latest cd the beekeeper, please check it out. (i am so loving this cd! remember, i am the damn beekeeper!)
and i hope you're following folding star's discussions on the bankruptcy bill at a winding road.
and as many of you pointed out in e-mails, rachel maddow was apparently back on the air live and flying solo.
or as calvin asked in his e-mail 'is she live? i think she's computer generated and that's why she is so god awful bland.' calvin, you could be right.
markus (who sadly is not markus rogan but markus does say he 'can really fill out a set of swim trunks') wondered why i call her big brain when she's so stupid?
good question, markus. well it's because big brain can't stop trying to tell us how smart she is.
sometimes no brain helps her out. but we're always being told that big brain is just the smartest person in the whole wide world.
she may test well, but i agree with markus and the taste partol of tiffany who says 'she's a fucking idiot!'
tiffany tells us that as a lesbian, she always has to reassure people she meets that 'not all lesbians are as boring as rachel.'
larry e-mails to say he's heard rumors that there may be some serious shake ups at unfiltered.
one can only hope. and with southern affiliates being added, lizz winstead will either have to stop trashing the south or else air america will have to put her in a muzzle. (would 1 fit over that long face and pointed beak?)
but my favorite e-mail today (though i loved them all) was from my good friend sherry who went into a long fantasy of what would happen if she was with the one and only cornhusker john turek after a game (hint, he's very sweaty) alone in the locker room. let's hope he has the stamina that sherry and i both dream of!
but at the end of that narrative (which should be published, it's that good), sherry offers that rachel maddow is actually a clone of . . . paul harvey! i am so seeing it, sherry!
3/02/2005
saluting jane fonda (which means accountability for no brain lizz winstead and big brain rachel maddow)
Before I turned sixy I thought I was a feminist. I was in a way -- I worked to register women to vote, I supported women getting elected. I brought gender issues into my movie roles, I encouraged women to get strong and healthy, I read the books we've all read. I had it in my head and partly in my heart, yet I didn't fully get it.
that's jane fonda in a speech called 'v is volcano' from alternet.
it's women history's month and i didn't even realize it until i was reading the common ills this morning and saw the thing last night on gloria steinem. hey, c.i., i thought you were going to make the entries for women's history month shorter and less challenging. (i'm joking. i thought it was wonderful but there were members who wrote in about the 1st entry for black history month and c.i. had stated that the 1st entry for women's history month wouldn't be a long 1.
while it's not that long, it is very moving and encapsulates why gloria steinem is so important.)
i'd love to tell you that i was going to do something on women's history every month but let's be honest, i'll mean to and then forget. plus i haven't been making 7 days a week of blogging lately.
women's history month is important.
and i am noting it today. maybe i'll do so again. maybe i won't. that's the fun of coming to my blog. will she talk about sex? will she talk about politics? will she talk about attitude? will she just give a long screed?
you honestly never know!
i'm a woman of mystery!
keep 'em guessing!
but if i only highlight 1 woman the whole month, jane fonda is the one i would want to highlight.
for various reasons.
if you are a third estate sunday review reader (and you should be, and if you aren't why aren't you?) you may have seen their dvd review of barefoot in the park. and if you read their note to the readers, you understand why. they're going to do a dvd review of various comedies starring jane fonda as we get ready for the release of monster-in-law.
don't know monster-in-law? it's jane fonda's return to film acting. she plays a woman not thrilled to have jennifer lopez as her daughter. maybe the woman reads the tabloid and was struck by lopez's romance record?
the trailer is hilarious and i'll try to find the link that the common ills provided to it. but this is a movie that i want to see. i do like lopez. michael vartan plays jane fonda's son and he's pretty hot on alias but i truly fell for him in 1 hour photo where he demonstrated not only talent but also his knob. not enough guys flash the eye candy!
and the always funny wanda sykes is in it as well.
so i am primed for this film.
but the main reason is to see jane fonda. women love jane. we see her as a strong, brave woman who's done so much. and she's never been afraid to look back and say 'maybe i should have done that differently.' even in the speech above, she's still questioning, still growing. that's how i hope i live my life.
as a kid, i fell in love with coming home which used to air all the time. jane fonda won her 2nd oscar for that film. it's a drama. about sally hyde who goes to work at a v.a. hospital when her husband bob goes over to vietnam. sally falls in love with luke who is a paraplegic. it's a really romantic movie and i love the soundtrack.
and here's a trivia note for you. sally's husband is played by bruce dern. she falls in love with jon voight. billy bob thornton may have loved coming home too, after all he left laura dern (bruce's daughter) for angelina jolie (jon voight's daughter).
sally starts out the film very prim and as she spends hours at the v.a. hospital and is exposed to the costs of war, she begins a transformation. part of that is letting her hair go wild. and right after i saw that film, i had to have my 1st perm. every 1 said, 'oh becky, it looks just like stevie nicks!' stevie was really popular then. (i still love stevie nicks.) but i got that hair style because of the movie coming home. and jane fonda was my favorite actress.
i ended up seeing most of her films. (c.i. mentioned tout va bien not long ago and i haven't seen that film.) my favorites included klute (her first oscar), the hilarious 9 to 5, fun with dick and jane (which is being remade and i'm not really looking forward to that), julia, agnes of god, the morning after, on golden pond, barefoot in the park, sunday in new york, the dollmaker, a doll's house, cat ballou, old gringo (which i find to be an amazing mosaic), the china syndrome, california suite, eletric horseman, the game is over . . .
you get the idea? there aren't a lot of actresses who have a body of work women can be proud of. i mean melanie griffith was looking ridiculous at the oscars but i could forgive it if she had more than 1 working girl to her credit. melanie's hollywood through and through and the reason that it's so hard to take so many hollywood actresses. i can admire vanessa redgrave and emma thompson, for instance, or any number of french actresses (past and present) but most american actresses seem to really embrace their inner bimbo. not in a way where they are in the forefront but where they are the cup cake and the male lead is the meal.
i love winonna ryder but i'll never forget my shock at edward scissorhands that 1 shove knocks her out for the climatic battle. this is the gal who saved the school in heathers?
there's jodie foster and there's jane fonda. and there's not a lot of other women who come off as intelligent onscreen. if they do, they tend to not reach mega-stardom. blythe danner is an example of a strong actress onscreen but she never became a star.
if there's anything worse than playing a string of bimbos it has to be playing up to stereotypes.
shirley maclaine is a funny actress. but somewhere after terms of endearment, it seemed like she was playing old women (much older than she was) who were these extreme stereotypes.
hey it gave her a new career so good for her.
but other than steel magnolias, i'm not sure there's a film after terms of endearment that i can sit through. maclaine was and remains a pretty woman. but onscreen she's spent far too much time playing the crotchety old woman and looking 10 to 20 years older.
in steel magnolias, it works because of the story. but more often than not (especially surrounded by males), it makes it seem like 1 long 'laugh at the old lady' joke.
i like susan sarandon. and i like her even more when she plays a sexually active character and not 'mommy living her whole life for a kid.'
but jane fonda was the 1st woman over 30 and then over 40 to be a real star. look at some 1 like jessica lange who is immensely talented and you realize how hard that is. maybe only katharine hepburn pulled this off before. (bette davis rallied with all about eve and then began a long descent that was painful for fans.)
she paved the way for susan sarandon and others. and she did it by taking control of her career and forming her own production company (ipc, later fonda films). she wasn't just waiting for hollywood to cast her, she was setting up films like coming home and on golden pond.
so now that this whole 'second act' for women is a big trend story, we need to acknowledge that for actresses, jane fonda already did that.
but most of all i loved her because she was such an amazing actress. this woman studied with lee strasberg and it shows. in their review of barefoot in the park, 3rd estate noted that jane fonda is not just standing there and saying her lines, she's got the movements going on that add to the characterization. and when she's working with a master like anne bancroft (agnes of god) or vanessa redgrave (julia), there time onscreen together is just amazing.
method actors get a lot of attention . . . if they're male. we'll sing the praises of marlon brando and others. but there are method actresses as well and we tend to not notice them.
maybe that's because they tended to not do well in hollywood because of hollywood's limited view of women? if jane fonda hadn't become a producer, she could have ended up playing stereotypical women added to a film for flavor (look at faye dunaway's filmography -- and dunaway is talented).
it was only after i started reading up on jane fonda that i realized how amazing she was off screen. when she and redgrave teamed for julia, it was huge news. along with the turning point (starring anne bancroft and shirley maclaine) these were the first films in some time to star two women. she made films that mattered and still matter that rank among the best of 'new hollywood.'
but let's talk about her life. she has been so involved in so many things. like jean seberg, she went from fluff roles in this country (that she brought so much to as stanley kaufman noted in real time) to france and became an international star due to the films she made over there.
and she spoke out. she's spoken out for working women, for native americans, for black power, for gays and lesbians, for the environment, for a nuclear freeze . . .
most of all she spoke out for peace.
and when you hear rachel maddow unable to stop flapping her jaws about 'support the troops' over and over in any interview, you really start to realize how important and hard it must have been for jane fonda to do what she did.
contrary to the right wing myths, fonda wasn't anti-soldier. she was pro-peace. she helped with the g.i. coffee house movement but the right wing doesn't want to tell you that. but she spoke of peace and didn't do it by saying 'support the troops, support the troops, support the troops!'
yesterday, big brain rachel maddow has a guy on to discuss the town meetings in vermont. she can't focus on them for very long without turning into her usual lame 'support the troops' parroting. (it's strange that such a big brain is unaware of where 'support the troops' derives from or that it was propaganda created by a p.r. group to dilute anti-war messages.) (it's equally strange that a supposed big brain has never apparently read noam chomsky -- especially on this topic.)
wonder where the outrage is after abu ghraib? after the destruction of fallujah? we'll never be able to express that outrage as long as big brain and her ilk keep squawking 'support the troops! support the troops! support the troops! polly want a cracker!' and that's exactly why the slogan was created. you'd think big brain would realize that.
any criticism (and a lot of it is valid) is greeted with 'support the troops!' that's why we're still not expressing the outrage. though i agree with common ills member maria that the kids in high school and college aren't falling for this bullshit.
it's only the middle-aged cowards like rachel maddow who keep having to shut down debate by screaming 'support the troops!'
jane fonda spoke about what was going on. she didn't have the need to say 'we're bombing the dykes and it is outrageous. but support the troops!'
the only person with a public voice that stays on topic these days, that i know of any way, is naomi klein. and you'll note that naomi doesn't pop up on air america that often. (she's more likely to be on the majority report which is the most liberal of the shows during the week.) naomi gets it (and more power to her). people are dying. that's the issue big brain. not squawking 'support the troops' every five seconds.
'she's such a stupid bitch.' that's what my friend kelli said yesterday (after rachel flew solo and embarrassed herself for 3 hours. that may be why unfiltered was a repeat today.)
in 3 years we may still be where we are now because of people like rachel. as my friend elaine says 'i do not support the killing of iraqis. i do not support the destruction of fallujah.' but there's rachel and lizz winstead (big brain and no brain) piping up 'support the troops!' or 'it's tuesday so we've got the lick the balls of some military man! that's right, it's time to ask the vet!'
did you hear the voices of any men who deserted on unfiltered?
hell fucking no. those 2 bitches don't have the guts to put those voices on their dopey shit ass stink show. (amy goodman does.) instead they give us ask a vet and pet talk. they're prats. (i looked up the word.)
silly, know nothing prats.
the bitches went to atlanta last week and i listened because i was hoping after all the hate no brain's repeatedly spewed on people from the south, that some 1 would throw a pie in her overly long face. didn't happen. but i can dream.
in the meantime, we're stuck with lizz and rachel rushing to minimize anything that goes on over there by screeching 'support the troops!'
the 1s who murdered iraqis in torture/questioning? the 1s who humiliated them? which 1s are we suppoed to support? every 1 with your bullshit blanket 'support the troops' statements.
no brain and big brain are the scoop jacksons of this century. they come off like war mongers.
you get the feeling that john lennon and yoko ono would be kicked off unfiltered if it had been on the early 70s. (kind of the way tom hayden has vanished as a guest on the network.)
now there are exceptions. mike malloy expresses outrage. laura flanders never forgets the humanity. janeane garofalo is very left. but then we get 3 hours of meaningless crap chatter from lizz and rachel about pets, the o.c., their love lives (well rachel's, lizz still trolls the unfiltered blog looking for hook ups) and other meaningless crap. meaningless crap, they should change the name to that. 'hey this is no brain with big brain and we're hosting meaningless crap. our guests for the next 3 hours include center right writers for the new republic, mainstream pundints and our bob hope salute to the troops!'
i guess i just don't get how air america is supposed to change anything when big brain and no brain continue to push the center over and over.
these are two gals who think defending hillary clinton is cutting edge for the left. they have no clue.
but jane fonda did. she spoke out. and some people hated her because of it. and still hate her and they make up lies about her. but tough shit people, she spoke out. she stood up and was counted. lizz is too busy hovering like the brainless hummingbird she is and rachel's popping another brewskie from her e-z boy recliner while she scratches her groin.
we need strong voices, real voices. the occupation will not be ended as long as idiots keep repeating blanket statements that were designed to silence dissent.
jane fonda was put on an enemies list by tricky dick nixon. you get the idea that if the bully boy put malloy or flanders or janeane on an enemies list, they'd wear it like a badge of honor. not no brain and big brain, they'd whine about it for 3 hours. 'we support america!' they'd whimper.
they let themselves be boxed into this crap and that's why they are so utterly ineffective.
we need bravery. and when i think of bravery, i think of jane fonda. who fought for peace. who fought bulimia and shared her story with others.
i think of jane fonda and wonder where the strong women of today are?
so if i never get around to highlighting women's history month again this month, i want to take a moment to highlight jane fonda. she had more guts and more drive than most people. more than big brain and no brain combined.
that's jane fonda in a speech called 'v is volcano' from alternet.
it's women history's month and i didn't even realize it until i was reading the common ills this morning and saw the thing last night on gloria steinem. hey, c.i., i thought you were going to make the entries for women's history month shorter and less challenging. (i'm joking. i thought it was wonderful but there were members who wrote in about the 1st entry for black history month and c.i. had stated that the 1st entry for women's history month wouldn't be a long 1.
while it's not that long, it is very moving and encapsulates why gloria steinem is so important.)
i'd love to tell you that i was going to do something on women's history every month but let's be honest, i'll mean to and then forget. plus i haven't been making 7 days a week of blogging lately.
women's history month is important.
and i am noting it today. maybe i'll do so again. maybe i won't. that's the fun of coming to my blog. will she talk about sex? will she talk about politics? will she talk about attitude? will she just give a long screed?
you honestly never know!
i'm a woman of mystery!
keep 'em guessing!
but if i only highlight 1 woman the whole month, jane fonda is the one i would want to highlight.
for various reasons.
if you are a third estate sunday review reader (and you should be, and if you aren't why aren't you?) you may have seen their dvd review of barefoot in the park. and if you read their note to the readers, you understand why. they're going to do a dvd review of various comedies starring jane fonda as we get ready for the release of monster-in-law.
don't know monster-in-law? it's jane fonda's return to film acting. she plays a woman not thrilled to have jennifer lopez as her daughter. maybe the woman reads the tabloid and was struck by lopez's romance record?
the trailer is hilarious and i'll try to find the link that the common ills provided to it. but this is a movie that i want to see. i do like lopez. michael vartan plays jane fonda's son and he's pretty hot on alias but i truly fell for him in 1 hour photo where he demonstrated not only talent but also his knob. not enough guys flash the eye candy!
and the always funny wanda sykes is in it as well.
so i am primed for this film.
but the main reason is to see jane fonda. women love jane. we see her as a strong, brave woman who's done so much. and she's never been afraid to look back and say 'maybe i should have done that differently.' even in the speech above, she's still questioning, still growing. that's how i hope i live my life.
as a kid, i fell in love with coming home which used to air all the time. jane fonda won her 2nd oscar for that film. it's a drama. about sally hyde who goes to work at a v.a. hospital when her husband bob goes over to vietnam. sally falls in love with luke who is a paraplegic. it's a really romantic movie and i love the soundtrack.
and here's a trivia note for you. sally's husband is played by bruce dern. she falls in love with jon voight. billy bob thornton may have loved coming home too, after all he left laura dern (bruce's daughter) for angelina jolie (jon voight's daughter).
sally starts out the film very prim and as she spends hours at the v.a. hospital and is exposed to the costs of war, she begins a transformation. part of that is letting her hair go wild. and right after i saw that film, i had to have my 1st perm. every 1 said, 'oh becky, it looks just like stevie nicks!' stevie was really popular then. (i still love stevie nicks.) but i got that hair style because of the movie coming home. and jane fonda was my favorite actress.
i ended up seeing most of her films. (c.i. mentioned tout va bien not long ago and i haven't seen that film.) my favorites included klute (her first oscar), the hilarious 9 to 5, fun with dick and jane (which is being remade and i'm not really looking forward to that), julia, agnes of god, the morning after, on golden pond, barefoot in the park, sunday in new york, the dollmaker, a doll's house, cat ballou, old gringo (which i find to be an amazing mosaic), the china syndrome, california suite, eletric horseman, the game is over . . .
you get the idea? there aren't a lot of actresses who have a body of work women can be proud of. i mean melanie griffith was looking ridiculous at the oscars but i could forgive it if she had more than 1 working girl to her credit. melanie's hollywood through and through and the reason that it's so hard to take so many hollywood actresses. i can admire vanessa redgrave and emma thompson, for instance, or any number of french actresses (past and present) but most american actresses seem to really embrace their inner bimbo. not in a way where they are in the forefront but where they are the cup cake and the male lead is the meal.
i love winonna ryder but i'll never forget my shock at edward scissorhands that 1 shove knocks her out for the climatic battle. this is the gal who saved the school in heathers?
there's jodie foster and there's jane fonda. and there's not a lot of other women who come off as intelligent onscreen. if they do, they tend to not reach mega-stardom. blythe danner is an example of a strong actress onscreen but she never became a star.
if there's anything worse than playing a string of bimbos it has to be playing up to stereotypes.
shirley maclaine is a funny actress. but somewhere after terms of endearment, it seemed like she was playing old women (much older than she was) who were these extreme stereotypes.
hey it gave her a new career so good for her.
but other than steel magnolias, i'm not sure there's a film after terms of endearment that i can sit through. maclaine was and remains a pretty woman. but onscreen she's spent far too much time playing the crotchety old woman and looking 10 to 20 years older.
in steel magnolias, it works because of the story. but more often than not (especially surrounded by males), it makes it seem like 1 long 'laugh at the old lady' joke.
i like susan sarandon. and i like her even more when she plays a sexually active character and not 'mommy living her whole life for a kid.'
but jane fonda was the 1st woman over 30 and then over 40 to be a real star. look at some 1 like jessica lange who is immensely talented and you realize how hard that is. maybe only katharine hepburn pulled this off before. (bette davis rallied with all about eve and then began a long descent that was painful for fans.)
she paved the way for susan sarandon and others. and she did it by taking control of her career and forming her own production company (ipc, later fonda films). she wasn't just waiting for hollywood to cast her, she was setting up films like coming home and on golden pond.
so now that this whole 'second act' for women is a big trend story, we need to acknowledge that for actresses, jane fonda already did that.
but most of all i loved her because she was such an amazing actress. this woman studied with lee strasberg and it shows. in their review of barefoot in the park, 3rd estate noted that jane fonda is not just standing there and saying her lines, she's got the movements going on that add to the characterization. and when she's working with a master like anne bancroft (agnes of god) or vanessa redgrave (julia), there time onscreen together is just amazing.
method actors get a lot of attention . . . if they're male. we'll sing the praises of marlon brando and others. but there are method actresses as well and we tend to not notice them.
maybe that's because they tended to not do well in hollywood because of hollywood's limited view of women? if jane fonda hadn't become a producer, she could have ended up playing stereotypical women added to a film for flavor (look at faye dunaway's filmography -- and dunaway is talented).
it was only after i started reading up on jane fonda that i realized how amazing she was off screen. when she and redgrave teamed for julia, it was huge news. along with the turning point (starring anne bancroft and shirley maclaine) these were the first films in some time to star two women. she made films that mattered and still matter that rank among the best of 'new hollywood.'
but let's talk about her life. she has been so involved in so many things. like jean seberg, she went from fluff roles in this country (that she brought so much to as stanley kaufman noted in real time) to france and became an international star due to the films she made over there.
and she spoke out. she's spoken out for working women, for native americans, for black power, for gays and lesbians, for the environment, for a nuclear freeze . . .
most of all she spoke out for peace.
and when you hear rachel maddow unable to stop flapping her jaws about 'support the troops' over and over in any interview, you really start to realize how important and hard it must have been for jane fonda to do what she did.
contrary to the right wing myths, fonda wasn't anti-soldier. she was pro-peace. she helped with the g.i. coffee house movement but the right wing doesn't want to tell you that. but she spoke of peace and didn't do it by saying 'support the troops, support the troops, support the troops!'
yesterday, big brain rachel maddow has a guy on to discuss the town meetings in vermont. she can't focus on them for very long without turning into her usual lame 'support the troops' parroting. (it's strange that such a big brain is unaware of where 'support the troops' derives from or that it was propaganda created by a p.r. group to dilute anti-war messages.) (it's equally strange that a supposed big brain has never apparently read noam chomsky -- especially on this topic.)
wonder where the outrage is after abu ghraib? after the destruction of fallujah? we'll never be able to express that outrage as long as big brain and her ilk keep squawking 'support the troops! support the troops! support the troops! polly want a cracker!' and that's exactly why the slogan was created. you'd think big brain would realize that.
any criticism (and a lot of it is valid) is greeted with 'support the troops!' that's why we're still not expressing the outrage. though i agree with common ills member maria that the kids in high school and college aren't falling for this bullshit.
it's only the middle-aged cowards like rachel maddow who keep having to shut down debate by screaming 'support the troops!'
jane fonda spoke about what was going on. she didn't have the need to say 'we're bombing the dykes and it is outrageous. but support the troops!'
the only person with a public voice that stays on topic these days, that i know of any way, is naomi klein. and you'll note that naomi doesn't pop up on air america that often. (she's more likely to be on the majority report which is the most liberal of the shows during the week.) naomi gets it (and more power to her). people are dying. that's the issue big brain. not squawking 'support the troops' every five seconds.
'she's such a stupid bitch.' that's what my friend kelli said yesterday (after rachel flew solo and embarrassed herself for 3 hours. that may be why unfiltered was a repeat today.)
in 3 years we may still be where we are now because of people like rachel. as my friend elaine says 'i do not support the killing of iraqis. i do not support the destruction of fallujah.' but there's rachel and lizz winstead (big brain and no brain) piping up 'support the troops!' or 'it's tuesday so we've got the lick the balls of some military man! that's right, it's time to ask the vet!'
did you hear the voices of any men who deserted on unfiltered?
hell fucking no. those 2 bitches don't have the guts to put those voices on their dopey shit ass stink show. (amy goodman does.) instead they give us ask a vet and pet talk. they're prats. (i looked up the word.)
silly, know nothing prats.
the bitches went to atlanta last week and i listened because i was hoping after all the hate no brain's repeatedly spewed on people from the south, that some 1 would throw a pie in her overly long face. didn't happen. but i can dream.
in the meantime, we're stuck with lizz and rachel rushing to minimize anything that goes on over there by screeching 'support the troops!'
the 1s who murdered iraqis in torture/questioning? the 1s who humiliated them? which 1s are we suppoed to support? every 1 with your bullshit blanket 'support the troops' statements.
no brain and big brain are the scoop jacksons of this century. they come off like war mongers.
you get the feeling that john lennon and yoko ono would be kicked off unfiltered if it had been on the early 70s. (kind of the way tom hayden has vanished as a guest on the network.)
now there are exceptions. mike malloy expresses outrage. laura flanders never forgets the humanity. janeane garofalo is very left. but then we get 3 hours of meaningless crap chatter from lizz and rachel about pets, the o.c., their love lives (well rachel's, lizz still trolls the unfiltered blog looking for hook ups) and other meaningless crap. meaningless crap, they should change the name to that. 'hey this is no brain with big brain and we're hosting meaningless crap. our guests for the next 3 hours include center right writers for the new republic, mainstream pundints and our bob hope salute to the troops!'
i guess i just don't get how air america is supposed to change anything when big brain and no brain continue to push the center over and over.
these are two gals who think defending hillary clinton is cutting edge for the left. they have no clue.
but jane fonda did. she spoke out. and some people hated her because of it. and still hate her and they make up lies about her. but tough shit people, she spoke out. she stood up and was counted. lizz is too busy hovering like the brainless hummingbird she is and rachel's popping another brewskie from her e-z boy recliner while she scratches her groin.
we need strong voices, real voices. the occupation will not be ended as long as idiots keep repeating blanket statements that were designed to silence dissent.
jane fonda was put on an enemies list by tricky dick nixon. you get the idea that if the bully boy put malloy or flanders or janeane on an enemies list, they'd wear it like a badge of honor. not no brain and big brain, they'd whine about it for 3 hours. 'we support america!' they'd whimper.
they let themselves be boxed into this crap and that's why they are so utterly ineffective.
we need bravery. and when i think of bravery, i think of jane fonda. who fought for peace. who fought bulimia and shared her story with others.
i think of jane fonda and wonder where the strong women of today are?
so if i never get around to highlighting women's history month again this month, i want to take a moment to highlight jane fonda. she had more guts and more drive than most people. more than big brain and no brain combined.
3/01/2005
shout outs to 3rd estate sunday review and the common ills
'2 posts in 1 day? rebecca, have you no sex plans for the evening!'
well yes, i do have sex plans.
however, i meant to give well deserved shout outs to my buds ava, dona, ty, jesse and jim at 3rd estate sunday review and c.i. at the common ills. why?
paul mcleary does a magazine report for cjr daily web site. if you've followed 3rd estate and c.i. you know that the magazine report is newsweek, time, u.s. world news . . . and then you get
the weekly standard.
what the fuck say you?
the weekly standard is not a general magazine. it is a partisan magazine.
yes, it is. and the best the left can get is a citation of the new republic (which at least 1 cjr staffer used to work at). the new republic is not left. yes, i have talked about that. but so has marty p and i've documented his comments here. it's not left. relinquish the fantasy as winona ryder
says in reality bites.
well today in the cjr daily magazine report, for the first time i am aware of, they actually highlight the nation. the best selling weekly partisan magazine.
it took forever but it finally happened.
3rd estate and c.i. deserve praise for making sure we knew about this. and a lot of people have apparently shared that sentiment on the cjr daily blog and in e-mails to cjr.
it's a sham they needed prompting but i'll just say way to go to paul mcleary who ever you are. and may this mean that cjr daily is going to start doing a better job.
and shouts to c.i. and 3rd estate for making this issue 1 we were aware of.
well yes, i do have sex plans.
however, i meant to give well deserved shout outs to my buds ava, dona, ty, jesse and jim at 3rd estate sunday review and c.i. at the common ills. why?
paul mcleary does a magazine report for cjr daily web site. if you've followed 3rd estate and c.i. you know that the magazine report is newsweek, time, u.s. world news . . . and then you get
the weekly standard.
what the fuck say you?
the weekly standard is not a general magazine. it is a partisan magazine.
yes, it is. and the best the left can get is a citation of the new republic (which at least 1 cjr staffer used to work at). the new republic is not left. yes, i have talked about that. but so has marty p and i've documented his comments here. it's not left. relinquish the fantasy as winona ryder
says in reality bites.
well today in the cjr daily magazine report, for the first time i am aware of, they actually highlight the nation. the best selling weekly partisan magazine.
it took forever but it finally happened.
3rd estate and c.i. deserve praise for making sure we knew about this. and a lot of people have apparently shared that sentiment on the cjr daily blog and in e-mails to cjr.
it's a sham they needed prompting but i'll just say way to go to paul mcleary who ever you are. and may this mean that cjr daily is going to start doing a better job.
and shouts to c.i. and 3rd estate for making this issue 1 we were aware of.
reasons not to watch brian williams and the problem with the male actors network suits cast in roles
a drum roll please.
top 10 reasons to tell people not to watch brian williams on nightly news:
10 he practices smell a fart pauses
9 he has dandruff (molly says look close and you can see it)
8 he is an idiot (6 people)
7 he smells like poop (7 people)
6 he eats boogers on air
5 he is uptight and prissy
4 he is the pompous asshole you ran from in school
3 he is a pig
2 he probably hired jeff gannon for 'consultations'
1 he frigs his hole between segments
sherry e-mails me that what i wrote about on thursday a little jaques wrote about on monday in the business section of the new york times. thanks for passing that on sherry. and thanks for saying 'you lead, they follow.'
i do agree it's rather sad that something they should have written about much earlier i address four days prior. sherry says that jacques doesn't even get how close the difference between peter jennings and brian williams is. and that he also has no 'historical perspective' since rather 'when he 1st took over the evening news' only lost a little of the audience but that he continued to lose and to lose.
so the point sherry is making is that brian williams is vulnerable and jaques can't see it.
the whole nbc network is vulnerable because they don't know what the fuck they are doing.
fall 2004 will be remembered as their cnn moment. like cnn who thought aping fox would increase their ratings, nbc thought aping what others were doing would increase their ratings.
for 20 years, nbc has been the home of the comedy and they've given that up. they don't know how to make people laugh lately. joey is a hideous show (as my pals at the 3rd estate sunday review have repeatedly noted). and yet they built thursday night around this.
they may lose will & grace at the end of this year (every 1's contract is up) and it's the last good sitcom on nbc or any where. when it's gone, expect more fat man married to thin woman comedies.
nbc doesn't get it. their viewers weren't the junior high kids. but they also didn't have cbs graying audience. they had the 18 to 49 year olds that advertisers wanted.
they didn't get that with law & order. they didn't get that by having retro bullshit sitcoms.
they got that by having sitcoms that reflected that audience. seinfeld, friends and others.
their biggest mistake in the spring of 2004 was cancelling whoopi because that was a show that was getting attention. you had characters who would only continue to get more interesting, not the bland or bland with a dash of quirk bullshit they push off on you now.
there's no 1 on joey that resembles a human being.
in the 70s you had sitcoms like the classic mary tyler moore show, all in the family, maude, the bob newhart show and others where the comedy was based on things the writers saw in their own lives. the problems with sitcoms today is that they are based on what the writers saw on another show or a movie.
king of queens is a hideous, hideous show. i saw a rerun of it while flipping channels this week. the african-american couple (i don't know any of the names of the characters, sorry) were picking a couple to be the god parents to their children. fat man and thin woman were not picked. at the christening, they went around trying to upset the couple that way. the man who was chosen says he does not watch basketball because 'it's a bunch of pitutary glands . . .'
get the problem? it was a funny line. in 1977 when it was said in the movie annie hall.
you see that all the time. a popular film to steal from is tootsie. 'i said good day' is a line dorothy michaels (dustin hoffman) says in that movie. then 'i said good day, sir.' how often do you hear that on everybody loves raymond? how often do you hear that on every sitcom?
it was funny in tootsie. it's not funny when people who can't write about their own lives steal from movies.
here's another problem nbc might want to consider fixing -- ugly guys.
i really don't think america needs any more fat men, thin wives sitcoms. but they also do not need this bullshit of ugly guys paired up with beautiful women.
you get the idea that the network suits are scared of casting hot guys. they'll cast some 1 slightly better looking. when friends started matt leblanc hadn't turned into big fatty and was actually cute. that's why rachel could say 'you're so pretty.' but they seem to think that women are going to sit through tits and ass on display and not notice that the men are either ugly or plain.
i know women who watched that lame hawaii 5-0 rip off on nbc briefly this fall just to see the hunky ivan sergei. the show's cancelled. get him on a sitcom.
he can't act? so what. do you think we watched dharma and greg because we thought greg was a great actor? no, we watched it because we all wanted to change places with dharma. and when dharma fell for the hercules refugee we recoiled in horror.
i have 3 friends who watch that hideous beastmaster just to see the hottie in the loincloth.
ike barenholtz was in falling around in his underwear on mad tv saturday night. i didn't see it.
but i heard about it from 4 women sunday. he wore tighty whities. and that got a bit of buzz.
i think he's like jimmy fallon in that he's in a cute phase he may leave quickly. but women do find him sexy right now. and we like to see guys in their underwear.
when he's shirtless or has his shirt open while he's doing the abercrombie & fitch spoofs on mad tv, my phone won't stop ringing with friends calling and saying 'turn it on rebecca! he's showing flesh!'
but instead of a hottie, the suits love the jonathan silvermans. we didn't find him hot on gimmie a break and we don't find him hot now. he's a dud, network suits.
we don't lust after him.
abc's getting ready to push john stamos in a sitcom. i can tell you that if it's funny, it will have an audience. if they parade him around in briefs, it doesn't have to be that funny.
and that's not a boxers v. briefs argument. i know women who prefer their men in boxers but want guys filmed in briefs and the reason for that is the boxers they put these guys in onscreen are so nonsexy! unless the guys wearing boxer briefs, you can't even enjoy a butt shot because the boxers are so loose they flap around back there. apparently no 1 wears tapered boxers in hollywood?
put john stamos in briefs and put him in them often and we'll watch. he's sexy. he hasn't yet hit the tony danza wall that charlie sheen's reached where the body is gone and you may as well be in home depot because you'll see that boxy shape on every guy there.
some day the networks may get that just as guys like to look at the sports illustrated swimsuit mag even though they'll never marry a swimsuit model, women like to look at hotties even though they know they'll never get a ck underwear model.
stop putting the stocky guys in the leading roles of these failed shows and we'll pay attention.
there's not a girl i went to school with that didn't drool over the hottest guy on campus. but apparently the suits didn't get that. or understand the meaning of a 'wet day.' (as in, 'oh look at him! i'm having a wet day now!')
did they miss that tom cruise became a star because he danced around onscreen in his bvds?
he left the hot phase long ago, but even women who loathe him remember that dance.
if they signed jimmy fallon for a sitcom tomorrow, made the pilot him being in his briefs for the first 1/2 of the show (maybe he's locked out of the apartment, maybe some woman tricks him into thinking they'll have sex and runs off with his clothes to get back at him), i guarantee you that the ratings would be high.
top 10 reasons to tell people not to watch brian williams on nightly news:
10 he practices smell a fart pauses
9 he has dandruff (molly says look close and you can see it)
8 he is an idiot (6 people)
7 he smells like poop (7 people)
6 he eats boogers on air
5 he is uptight and prissy
4 he is the pompous asshole you ran from in school
3 he is a pig
2 he probably hired jeff gannon for 'consultations'
1 he frigs his hole between segments
sherry e-mails me that what i wrote about on thursday a little jaques wrote about on monday in the business section of the new york times. thanks for passing that on sherry. and thanks for saying 'you lead, they follow.'
i do agree it's rather sad that something they should have written about much earlier i address four days prior. sherry says that jacques doesn't even get how close the difference between peter jennings and brian williams is. and that he also has no 'historical perspective' since rather 'when he 1st took over the evening news' only lost a little of the audience but that he continued to lose and to lose.
so the point sherry is making is that brian williams is vulnerable and jaques can't see it.
the whole nbc network is vulnerable because they don't know what the fuck they are doing.
fall 2004 will be remembered as their cnn moment. like cnn who thought aping fox would increase their ratings, nbc thought aping what others were doing would increase their ratings.
for 20 years, nbc has been the home of the comedy and they've given that up. they don't know how to make people laugh lately. joey is a hideous show (as my pals at the 3rd estate sunday review have repeatedly noted). and yet they built thursday night around this.
they may lose will & grace at the end of this year (every 1's contract is up) and it's the last good sitcom on nbc or any where. when it's gone, expect more fat man married to thin woman comedies.
nbc doesn't get it. their viewers weren't the junior high kids. but they also didn't have cbs graying audience. they had the 18 to 49 year olds that advertisers wanted.
they didn't get that with law & order. they didn't get that by having retro bullshit sitcoms.
they got that by having sitcoms that reflected that audience. seinfeld, friends and others.
their biggest mistake in the spring of 2004 was cancelling whoopi because that was a show that was getting attention. you had characters who would only continue to get more interesting, not the bland or bland with a dash of quirk bullshit they push off on you now.
there's no 1 on joey that resembles a human being.
in the 70s you had sitcoms like the classic mary tyler moore show, all in the family, maude, the bob newhart show and others where the comedy was based on things the writers saw in their own lives. the problems with sitcoms today is that they are based on what the writers saw on another show or a movie.
king of queens is a hideous, hideous show. i saw a rerun of it while flipping channels this week. the african-american couple (i don't know any of the names of the characters, sorry) were picking a couple to be the god parents to their children. fat man and thin woman were not picked. at the christening, they went around trying to upset the couple that way. the man who was chosen says he does not watch basketball because 'it's a bunch of pitutary glands . . .'
get the problem? it was a funny line. in 1977 when it was said in the movie annie hall.
you see that all the time. a popular film to steal from is tootsie. 'i said good day' is a line dorothy michaels (dustin hoffman) says in that movie. then 'i said good day, sir.' how often do you hear that on everybody loves raymond? how often do you hear that on every sitcom?
it was funny in tootsie. it's not funny when people who can't write about their own lives steal from movies.
here's another problem nbc might want to consider fixing -- ugly guys.
i really don't think america needs any more fat men, thin wives sitcoms. but they also do not need this bullshit of ugly guys paired up with beautiful women.
you get the idea that the network suits are scared of casting hot guys. they'll cast some 1 slightly better looking. when friends started matt leblanc hadn't turned into big fatty and was actually cute. that's why rachel could say 'you're so pretty.' but they seem to think that women are going to sit through tits and ass on display and not notice that the men are either ugly or plain.
i know women who watched that lame hawaii 5-0 rip off on nbc briefly this fall just to see the hunky ivan sergei. the show's cancelled. get him on a sitcom.
he can't act? so what. do you think we watched dharma and greg because we thought greg was a great actor? no, we watched it because we all wanted to change places with dharma. and when dharma fell for the hercules refugee we recoiled in horror.
i have 3 friends who watch that hideous beastmaster just to see the hottie in the loincloth.
ike barenholtz was in falling around in his underwear on mad tv saturday night. i didn't see it.
but i heard about it from 4 women sunday. he wore tighty whities. and that got a bit of buzz.
i think he's like jimmy fallon in that he's in a cute phase he may leave quickly. but women do find him sexy right now. and we like to see guys in their underwear.
when he's shirtless or has his shirt open while he's doing the abercrombie & fitch spoofs on mad tv, my phone won't stop ringing with friends calling and saying 'turn it on rebecca! he's showing flesh!'
but instead of a hottie, the suits love the jonathan silvermans. we didn't find him hot on gimmie a break and we don't find him hot now. he's a dud, network suits.
we don't lust after him.
abc's getting ready to push john stamos in a sitcom. i can tell you that if it's funny, it will have an audience. if they parade him around in briefs, it doesn't have to be that funny.
and that's not a boxers v. briefs argument. i know women who prefer their men in boxers but want guys filmed in briefs and the reason for that is the boxers they put these guys in onscreen are so nonsexy! unless the guys wearing boxer briefs, you can't even enjoy a butt shot because the boxers are so loose they flap around back there. apparently no 1 wears tapered boxers in hollywood?
put john stamos in briefs and put him in them often and we'll watch. he's sexy. he hasn't yet hit the tony danza wall that charlie sheen's reached where the body is gone and you may as well be in home depot because you'll see that boxy shape on every guy there.
some day the networks may get that just as guys like to look at the sports illustrated swimsuit mag even though they'll never marry a swimsuit model, women like to look at hotties even though they know they'll never get a ck underwear model.
stop putting the stocky guys in the leading roles of these failed shows and we'll pay attention.
there's not a girl i went to school with that didn't drool over the hottest guy on campus. but apparently the suits didn't get that. or understand the meaning of a 'wet day.' (as in, 'oh look at him! i'm having a wet day now!')
did they miss that tom cruise became a star because he danced around onscreen in his bvds?
he left the hot phase long ago, but even women who loathe him remember that dance.
if they signed jimmy fallon for a sitcom tomorrow, made the pilot him being in his briefs for the first 1/2 of the show (maybe he's locked out of the apartment, maybe some woman tricks him into thinking they'll have sex and runs off with his clothes to get back at him), i guarantee you that the ratings would be high.
2/28/2005
boos and hisses to joey biden and billy keller
well give it up for c.i. yesterday the common ills had a blog post called 'welcome to the new iraq' which once again took the happy talkers to task. after listing some of what was going on this week, c.i. concludes with:
Now does someone want to do happy talk like last weekend about the new Iraq?
bop. bop hillary on her head if you ask me.
known cheater and speech stealer joe biden was on the sunday talk show circuit yesterday, the chat and chew if i can steal from c.i., and was it just me or is all of america saying 'joe, you're cheating off the wrong person this time!'
i mean come on joe. you want to follow a senator, follow a boxer, a feingold. not hillary as she attempts to morph into joe lieberman.
joe's coming off like hillary's lackey as he pushes the notion that she's electable. as if. apparently he thinks he has a shot at getting on the ticket? bald has gone over so well in the past, right?
oh wrong. in fact, have we had a bald president since lbj? have we had a bald vice president?
but keep hooking yourself onto hillary's falling star joe.
let's move to something a little less sleazy . . . well that leaves just about everything.
but let's shoot high and talk about the wonderful kids putting out the third estate sunday review. please make it a point to check them out.
they are doing some great work. every sunday they put out their 'paper' and there's always something worth reading for information, something for giggles, something to make you think.
jesse, ty, ava, dona and jim are just the greatest.
i got to add some input this weekend on some stuff as they were getting ready to go to 'print' and it's always a lot of fun and a free for all exchange of ideas.
the article i want to highlight today is 'being bill keller-vich.' if you don't know bill keller, he is the executive editor of the new york times. and he's been spouting off a lot lately. bill's the little brat at the pool who wants to splash the other kids but when they splash back goes running to mommy going 'oh my hair! mommy, they got my hair wet!'
he wants to slime bloggers and then run back behind arthur ochs and go 'i'm a newspaper man, make them leave me alone, artie!'
so silly billy decides to weigh in that some bloggers are just like a circle jerk.
now normally, anything anyone from the new york times is supsect in my book. i mean, hello, judy miller! and of course, not having a penis, i've never been invited into a circle jerk. (cue janis ian's 'at 17.') but i'll take keller's word for it on this.
why am i so trusting when it comes to keller? well i'm not. but if figure every 1 has 1 area they are an expert in. and i'm guessing that circle jerks are something billy keller knows a lot about and that's he's participated in quite a few. hell, he may still particpate. 'davey sanger, go get safire! bobby pear, go grab tommy zeller! grab all the guys but that tommy friedman! he always cries when he loses!'
in the good news department: janeane garofalo is hosting the majority report tonight with bill scher and if only that could be the case every night. what a great show.
Now does someone want to do happy talk like last weekend about the new Iraq?
bop. bop hillary on her head if you ask me.
known cheater and speech stealer joe biden was on the sunday talk show circuit yesterday, the chat and chew if i can steal from c.i., and was it just me or is all of america saying 'joe, you're cheating off the wrong person this time!'
i mean come on joe. you want to follow a senator, follow a boxer, a feingold. not hillary as she attempts to morph into joe lieberman.
joe's coming off like hillary's lackey as he pushes the notion that she's electable. as if. apparently he thinks he has a shot at getting on the ticket? bald has gone over so well in the past, right?
oh wrong. in fact, have we had a bald president since lbj? have we had a bald vice president?
but keep hooking yourself onto hillary's falling star joe.
let's move to something a little less sleazy . . . well that leaves just about everything.
but let's shoot high and talk about the wonderful kids putting out the third estate sunday review. please make it a point to check them out.
they are doing some great work. every sunday they put out their 'paper' and there's always something worth reading for information, something for giggles, something to make you think.
jesse, ty, ava, dona and jim are just the greatest.
i got to add some input this weekend on some stuff as they were getting ready to go to 'print' and it's always a lot of fun and a free for all exchange of ideas.
the article i want to highlight today is 'being bill keller-vich.' if you don't know bill keller, he is the executive editor of the new york times. and he's been spouting off a lot lately. bill's the little brat at the pool who wants to splash the other kids but when they splash back goes running to mommy going 'oh my hair! mommy, they got my hair wet!'
he wants to slime bloggers and then run back behind arthur ochs and go 'i'm a newspaper man, make them leave me alone, artie!'
so silly billy decides to weigh in that some bloggers are just like a circle jerk.
now normally, anything anyone from the new york times is supsect in my book. i mean, hello, judy miller! and of course, not having a penis, i've never been invited into a circle jerk. (cue janis ian's 'at 17.') but i'll take keller's word for it on this.
why am i so trusting when it comes to keller? well i'm not. but if figure every 1 has 1 area they are an expert in. and i'm guessing that circle jerks are something billy keller knows a lot about and that's he's participated in quite a few. hell, he may still particpate. 'davey sanger, go get safire! bobby pear, go grab tommy zeller! grab all the guys but that tommy friedman! he always cries when he loses!'
in the good news department: janeane garofalo is hosting the majority report tonight with bill scher and if only that could be the case every night. what a great show.
2/26/2005
noting the third estate sunday review and previewing upcoming stories on that site
i'm in the midst of helping the third estate sunday review with and i realized that i better grab time to blog or people will start thinking 'that rebecca just takes every weekend off!'
i want to note sad news, peter benenson is dead and if you don't know that name go over and read folding star's tribute to benenson at a winding road.
since a new third estate sunday review will be up within eight hours, i want to point out that the last issue had a sampling of tori amos lyrics and if you are a tori fan like i am you should enjoy reading it. i love how it works together (all these lines from different songs) to form 1 story.
i'd also like to note the piece tries to convey to the new york times that judy miller is not the most important story in the whole wide world:
The Times is not a brave paper. It hasn't been for most of it's history. But it's "official timeline" tendency on each and every story have left the readers indifferent to the paper of record. The paper seems to feel we will rally behind Judy Miller due to a belief in freedom of the press but The New York Times hasn't utilized the First Amendment in years. They want people to get passionate about a principle that they've long ignored.
and i'll share a secret the new york times is addressed again in the upcoming third estate sunday review.
i believe i already noted c.i. interviewing folding star but in case you didn't check, let me recommend it again.
and of course the kids over at cjr daily get a failing grade in a lively and entertaining editorial.
the upcoming issue looks great as well. no links because they aren't posted and who knows what might get killed before it goes to print. but there's a very funny review of the apprentice and of course the new york times is dealt with again as noted earlier. right now the story being nailed down is this week's editorial. who will the third estate sunday review call to the attention of the class this week? for that you'll have to check their site on sunday!
i want to note sad news, peter benenson is dead and if you don't know that name go over and read folding star's tribute to benenson at a winding road.
since a new third estate sunday review will be up within eight hours, i want to point out that the last issue had a sampling of tori amos lyrics and if you are a tori fan like i am you should enjoy reading it. i love how it works together (all these lines from different songs) to form 1 story.
i'd also like to note the piece tries to convey to the new york times that judy miller is not the most important story in the whole wide world:
The Times is not a brave paper. It hasn't been for most of it's history. But it's "official timeline" tendency on each and every story have left the readers indifferent to the paper of record. The paper seems to feel we will rally behind Judy Miller due to a belief in freedom of the press but The New York Times hasn't utilized the First Amendment in years. They want people to get passionate about a principle that they've long ignored.
and i'll share a secret the new york times is addressed again in the upcoming third estate sunday review.
i believe i already noted c.i. interviewing folding star but in case you didn't check, let me recommend it again.
and of course the kids over at cjr daily get a failing grade in a lively and entertaining editorial.
the upcoming issue looks great as well. no links because they aren't posted and who knows what might get killed before it goes to print. but there's a very funny review of the apprentice and of course the new york times is dealt with again as noted earlier. right now the story being nailed down is this week's editorial. who will the third estate sunday review call to the attention of the class this week? for that you'll have to check their site on sunday!
2/25/2005
thoughts on nick watt's reporting tonight, hillary clinton, and the new york times - no happy thoughts here.
nick watt gave an embarrassing report tonight on world news tonight on abc.
i say that because a lot of people e-mailed saying they had given up on broadcast television news and wondering if it was really good.
it's corporate news. do not expect miracles.
nick watt contributed a piece tonight that was propaganda. which is a real shame coz he is a hottie.
but he wants to show us what is on iraqi tv. but he does not want to tell us who runs that news. and he does not want to tell us that if you think we have a problem with broadcast news, the iraqis are even more skeptical when americans are involved in their news.
so the questionable news that iraqis are skeptical of is broadcasting taped interviews with captured insurgents. and these interviews are supposed to turn the tide.
and as evidence, nick watts offers us 1 man on the street. who wants to offer that it will stop the insurgency. is the man sunni? is he shiite? those are serious issues.
and why can he only provide 1 witness?
it was total propaganda not unlike hillary clinton's statements this weekend.
c.i. over at the common ills wrote about that last night as has folding star of a winding road.
i'll weigh in myself by saying we damn well do have a right to question to her.
this is not alice walker, this is not gloria steinem. this is hillary clinton who may be a notch above or below goldie hawn.
as c.i. would say: "translation," goldie can talk a good game for a year or 2 and then fall into the backlash for a couple of years, then come back out of it and suddenly has some new comments to make that are semi-worth listening to.
goldie onscreen is a funny lady most of the time.
but let's be real sure we understand that she made a huge step with private benjamin and the press she did for that and then she completely destroyed that with her later comments. with 1st wives club publicity, she was a font of wisdom all the sudden. then after 9-11 she again started making embarrassing remarks.
i'm not sure if hillary's above her or below her. i'd put hillary below her because goldie onscreen can always make me laugh.
but this is not a great leader of the women's movement.
and the idea that we need to treat her as an icon blows my mind.
she's iconic because she was 1st lady?
she holds an office and like any 1 else elected she has to answer questions. she may not like it, but too bad.
and i'm real sorry bill clinton had his health problems before the election. i'm even sorrier he was a chicken shit for so much of his presidency. the third way always seem to steer us to the right. and the captain of dismantling lbj's great society and fdr's new deal was too often bill clinton.
his comments, reported in newsweek, regarding his advice to john kerry about same-sex marriage were ignorant and belittling to a nation. he does not lift us up. we can see him grin and maybe feel good for a moment because of his personal style but he was not our comeback kid, he was the comeback kid.
and too often it has always been all about bill or all about hillary.
welfare reform = war on poor and working poor women.
and they should both be ashamed for flogging that.
so hillary clinton is not above questioning.
she voted for the war.
she has not been strong in voting against nominations.
she has not been a moral leader in any sense.
she has been some 1 who increasingly tries to drape herself in a god-like pose.
if you haven't figured it out yet, i will not vote for her in the primary if she runs for president.
and i think she would lose big in a general election.
she is so hated.
and she's become the 'safe' player in the senate.
so where's the support going to come from?
she really is becoming the female version of joe lieberman.
the right hates her because they think she's liberal.
the left alternates between indifference and apathy to outright loathing.
so i guess the 2 million people who bought her book are some how going to be enough to get her elected president?
and the jokes that will be in the offing. jay leno asking america 'do we really want to put bill back in the white house?' or 'hillary's 1st announced policy? ban all interns.'
it'll be a nightmare and the democratic party will go down in flames.
but here is a bigger issue and it's this: one full term as senator and and 2 years and that qualifies her to be president?
she'll be running against a governor or god knows what.
'vote for me. i made a great 1st lady!'
there's also the backlash that would come about just because we would be going bush-clinton-bush-clinton.
this isn't a monarcy and 2 families shouldn't have a lock on the presidency.
the only family members of a president i'd vote for currently are bobby kennedy who's done outstanding work on environmental issues and amy carter who has always been the most sensible child to grow up in the white house. i'm sure chelsea's lovely but amy carter has common sense. she's the best of both parents and she's serious.
i would also vote al gore if he ran in the primary because i really like what he's been saying for the last 4 years.
but hillary doesn't excite me.
and i don't buy into the 'she should be president because she wants to be.' i think we've all suffered enough from the clintons doing what they wanted to. often at the expense of the less fortunate in our society.
the compassion she sometimes demonstrated as first lady has been no where to be found in the senate where she's appeared hell bent on demonstrating how much 'like a man' she could be.
the softer side has been silenced as the roar of the hawk has overtaken her being.
barbara boxer and russ feingold are 2 senators who seem to have some true compassion and up against them, hillary doesn't seem that different from joe lieberman.
those are my thoughts on hillary. now here's a question in the e-mails from alan. he wants to know why i subscribe to the new york times if i hate it so much.
because i don't pay for it. it's free for me. i checked and my ex-husband still pays for the paper delivered. i'm less and less impressed with what's in it. and often pass it off to a neighbor unread. if i take the time to read some of it, i usally mention it here. which gives you an idea of how often i read it. but i wouldn't pay for it. it's over 40 bucks a month and it's not worth half that even with the crossword.
on a positive note, janeane's back on the majority report tonight in the studio and sounds like she's feeling better. yea janeane!
i say that because a lot of people e-mailed saying they had given up on broadcast television news and wondering if it was really good.
it's corporate news. do not expect miracles.
nick watt contributed a piece tonight that was propaganda. which is a real shame coz he is a hottie.
but he wants to show us what is on iraqi tv. but he does not want to tell us who runs that news. and he does not want to tell us that if you think we have a problem with broadcast news, the iraqis are even more skeptical when americans are involved in their news.
so the questionable news that iraqis are skeptical of is broadcasting taped interviews with captured insurgents. and these interviews are supposed to turn the tide.
and as evidence, nick watts offers us 1 man on the street. who wants to offer that it will stop the insurgency. is the man sunni? is he shiite? those are serious issues.
and why can he only provide 1 witness?
it was total propaganda not unlike hillary clinton's statements this weekend.
c.i. over at the common ills wrote about that last night as has folding star of a winding road.
i'll weigh in myself by saying we damn well do have a right to question to her.
this is not alice walker, this is not gloria steinem. this is hillary clinton who may be a notch above or below goldie hawn.
as c.i. would say: "translation," goldie can talk a good game for a year or 2 and then fall into the backlash for a couple of years, then come back out of it and suddenly has some new comments to make that are semi-worth listening to.
goldie onscreen is a funny lady most of the time.
but let's be real sure we understand that she made a huge step with private benjamin and the press she did for that and then she completely destroyed that with her later comments. with 1st wives club publicity, she was a font of wisdom all the sudden. then after 9-11 she again started making embarrassing remarks.
i'm not sure if hillary's above her or below her. i'd put hillary below her because goldie onscreen can always make me laugh.
but this is not a great leader of the women's movement.
and the idea that we need to treat her as an icon blows my mind.
she's iconic because she was 1st lady?
she holds an office and like any 1 else elected she has to answer questions. she may not like it, but too bad.
and i'm real sorry bill clinton had his health problems before the election. i'm even sorrier he was a chicken shit for so much of his presidency. the third way always seem to steer us to the right. and the captain of dismantling lbj's great society and fdr's new deal was too often bill clinton.
his comments, reported in newsweek, regarding his advice to john kerry about same-sex marriage were ignorant and belittling to a nation. he does not lift us up. we can see him grin and maybe feel good for a moment because of his personal style but he was not our comeback kid, he was the comeback kid.
and too often it has always been all about bill or all about hillary.
welfare reform = war on poor and working poor women.
and they should both be ashamed for flogging that.
so hillary clinton is not above questioning.
she voted for the war.
she has not been strong in voting against nominations.
she has not been a moral leader in any sense.
she has been some 1 who increasingly tries to drape herself in a god-like pose.
if you haven't figured it out yet, i will not vote for her in the primary if she runs for president.
and i think she would lose big in a general election.
she is so hated.
and she's become the 'safe' player in the senate.
so where's the support going to come from?
she really is becoming the female version of joe lieberman.
the right hates her because they think she's liberal.
the left alternates between indifference and apathy to outright loathing.
so i guess the 2 million people who bought her book are some how going to be enough to get her elected president?
and the jokes that will be in the offing. jay leno asking america 'do we really want to put bill back in the white house?' or 'hillary's 1st announced policy? ban all interns.'
it'll be a nightmare and the democratic party will go down in flames.
but here is a bigger issue and it's this: one full term as senator and and 2 years and that qualifies her to be president?
she'll be running against a governor or god knows what.
'vote for me. i made a great 1st lady!'
there's also the backlash that would come about just because we would be going bush-clinton-bush-clinton.
this isn't a monarcy and 2 families shouldn't have a lock on the presidency.
the only family members of a president i'd vote for currently are bobby kennedy who's done outstanding work on environmental issues and amy carter who has always been the most sensible child to grow up in the white house. i'm sure chelsea's lovely but amy carter has common sense. she's the best of both parents and she's serious.
i would also vote al gore if he ran in the primary because i really like what he's been saying for the last 4 years.
but hillary doesn't excite me.
and i don't buy into the 'she should be president because she wants to be.' i think we've all suffered enough from the clintons doing what they wanted to. often at the expense of the less fortunate in our society.
the compassion she sometimes demonstrated as first lady has been no where to be found in the senate where she's appeared hell bent on demonstrating how much 'like a man' she could be.
the softer side has been silenced as the roar of the hawk has overtaken her being.
barbara boxer and russ feingold are 2 senators who seem to have some true compassion and up against them, hillary doesn't seem that different from joe lieberman.
those are my thoughts on hillary. now here's a question in the e-mails from alan. he wants to know why i subscribe to the new york times if i hate it so much.
because i don't pay for it. it's free for me. i checked and my ex-husband still pays for the paper delivered. i'm less and less impressed with what's in it. and often pass it off to a neighbor unread. if i take the time to read some of it, i usally mention it here. which gives you an idea of how often i read it. but i wouldn't pay for it. it's over 40 bucks a month and it's not worth half that even with the crossword.
on a positive note, janeane's back on the majority report tonight in the studio and sounds like she's feeling better. yea janeane!
2/24/2005
dicks=sam seder & brian williams; cocks=peter jennings & steve earle
i just lost a post. i'd worked 40 minutes on it. i'll blame the new york times.
seriously, i have a friend who's computer buff and she swears to me that the purchase of about blank is the result of the new york times being pissed that people are trashing them online. she says start watching and see if all the sudden when you close an explorer window if you don't end up with an about blank screen.
i don't know whether that's true or not. i use mozilla.
but i'm pissed so i'll blame the new york times.
okay, so i was explaining to you what we were seeing on abc world news tonight and explaining about dean reynolds' series (they did the second installment tonight, the third one airs tomorrow).
i was explaining how we could take nightly news out and teach them to put in place a dick who is bland and in love with rush limbaugh in place of tom brokaw.
and i had a story from yesterday that i found on yahoo but i've lost the link and won't look it up.
but the story had the latest ratings.
remember nightly news with the grip on number 1 and never challenged in recent years?
well it's number 1. by 0.5 viewers. abc's world news tonight had 9.7 million. nightly news had only 10.2 million.
we can knock out .5 million easy.
teach them to go with the bland and boring brian williams.
he's so disgusting. he wrote dick nixon letters as a child, natch.
so i had explained that if you aren't watching network news i do not blame you and that you are probably smarter for not watching. but if you are watching, i was asking that if you watch nightly news, stop watching it. go to abc world news tonight or even cbs's evening news.
we need to knock .5 million and we can do that.
and you can help. you can tell your friends that brian williams is rush limbaugh ditto head. you can tell him rebecca says he acts like the type to frig his own hole between stories on air.
and if you have any ideas on what we can tell our friends e-mail them to me at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and we'll talk about them here. you can be serious or funny. let's get our brains working on this.
brian williams is so unsexy.
and tonight on abc, just a tip, they have a two hour documentary on ufos. don't know what you think there. i would like to believe that there's something out there but just don't have the faith to believe. if you do, good for you.
but the point is, even if you find the topic cheesy, tell me which network is doing any sort of documentary these days.
i'm sure there will be problems with it. i watched peter jennings's documentary on jfk in 2003 and had problems with that. but hey, who else is doing them these days?
and yes, i do find peter jennings sexy.
besides his handsome face, his hands are very sexy and he has a way of handling himself on air that suggests he knows what to do in bed.
so for those keeping score, brian williams = dick; peter jennings = cock.
arbitration was a hot topic today. i heard it three times on npr alone. dean reynolds is doing a three part series on arbitration for abc. i saw tonight's installment on world news tonight and i found it pretty informative. i'm hoping the third installment tomorrow will continue to be as well.
here's the story "Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Reduce Consumer Rights" and the third part airs tomorrow on world news tonight with peter jennings on abc. can i plug that show 1 more time?
that prim and proper stephanie is schilling for the new republic on air america right now telling you that if you want to know about the state of 'liberalism' read their rag.
they ain't liberal, steph. quit lying to people.
a real liberal, katrina vanden heuvel who edits the nation, was on democracy now today. i hope you saw it.
and last air america gripe, they've got poor janeane garofalo on the phone from her sick bed. let the woman have some rest people. yes, the majority report sucks without her but damn the woman is sick. she doesn't need to be taxing herself.
poor janeane.
and carrie e-mailed asking if i was being serious about janeane. yes, i was. i love her. she's a real feminist and a real leftist. the real deal and my praise for her is always sincere.
oh let me do a gripe. sam seder the stupid fuck is on without janeane at the start and talking about danny goldberg of artemis joining the air america staff. and he's listing danny's credits (and got the book title wrong which janeane corrected him on when she came on later). but he's blah-blah-blah-ing in that incessant whine. (does any 1 else notice how his voice has that annoying dipthong thing that sherrif andy taylor's did?) so he's plugging away and saying 'danny put out al franken's album on artemis and it was up for a grammy.'
yeah and it lost. big fucking deal.
but artemis did have an album with a grammy. and it went to an air america host.
who?
steve earle. why is it that sam didn't know that?
how stupid is he?
or does he think steve earle isn't important enough to mention?
the revolution starts now won the grammy for best contemporary folk album.
if you haven't heard it, check it out. i love it.
and i love steve earle. sam apparently never heard of earle or his grammy win.
but that's just another clue about how stupid sam is.
every body have a good night and hopefully tomorrow, if i do a long entry, i won't find computer freezing. again i'll blame the new york times not because it's responsible necessarily, but because it's so damn disgusting.
seriously, i have a friend who's computer buff and she swears to me that the purchase of about blank is the result of the new york times being pissed that people are trashing them online. she says start watching and see if all the sudden when you close an explorer window if you don't end up with an about blank screen.
i don't know whether that's true or not. i use mozilla.
but i'm pissed so i'll blame the new york times.
okay, so i was explaining to you what we were seeing on abc world news tonight and explaining about dean reynolds' series (they did the second installment tonight, the third one airs tomorrow).
i was explaining how we could take nightly news out and teach them to put in place a dick who is bland and in love with rush limbaugh in place of tom brokaw.
and i had a story from yesterday that i found on yahoo but i've lost the link and won't look it up.
but the story had the latest ratings.
remember nightly news with the grip on number 1 and never challenged in recent years?
well it's number 1. by 0.5 viewers. abc's world news tonight had 9.7 million. nightly news had only 10.2 million.
we can knock out .5 million easy.
teach them to go with the bland and boring brian williams.
he's so disgusting. he wrote dick nixon letters as a child, natch.
so i had explained that if you aren't watching network news i do not blame you and that you are probably smarter for not watching. but if you are watching, i was asking that if you watch nightly news, stop watching it. go to abc world news tonight or even cbs's evening news.
we need to knock .5 million and we can do that.
and you can help. you can tell your friends that brian williams is rush limbaugh ditto head. you can tell him rebecca says he acts like the type to frig his own hole between stories on air.
and if you have any ideas on what we can tell our friends e-mail them to me at sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com and we'll talk about them here. you can be serious or funny. let's get our brains working on this.
brian williams is so unsexy.
and tonight on abc, just a tip, they have a two hour documentary on ufos. don't know what you think there. i would like to believe that there's something out there but just don't have the faith to believe. if you do, good for you.
but the point is, even if you find the topic cheesy, tell me which network is doing any sort of documentary these days.
i'm sure there will be problems with it. i watched peter jennings's documentary on jfk in 2003 and had problems with that. but hey, who else is doing them these days?
and yes, i do find peter jennings sexy.
besides his handsome face, his hands are very sexy and he has a way of handling himself on air that suggests he knows what to do in bed.
so for those keeping score, brian williams = dick; peter jennings = cock.
arbitration was a hot topic today. i heard it three times on npr alone. dean reynolds is doing a three part series on arbitration for abc. i saw tonight's installment on world news tonight and i found it pretty informative. i'm hoping the third installment tomorrow will continue to be as well.
here's the story "Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Reduce Consumer Rights" and the third part airs tomorrow on world news tonight with peter jennings on abc. can i plug that show 1 more time?
that prim and proper stephanie is schilling for the new republic on air america right now telling you that if you want to know about the state of 'liberalism' read their rag.
they ain't liberal, steph. quit lying to people.
a real liberal, katrina vanden heuvel who edits the nation, was on democracy now today. i hope you saw it.
and last air america gripe, they've got poor janeane garofalo on the phone from her sick bed. let the woman have some rest people. yes, the majority report sucks without her but damn the woman is sick. she doesn't need to be taxing herself.
poor janeane.
and carrie e-mailed asking if i was being serious about janeane. yes, i was. i love her. she's a real feminist and a real leftist. the real deal and my praise for her is always sincere.
oh let me do a gripe. sam seder the stupid fuck is on without janeane at the start and talking about danny goldberg of artemis joining the air america staff. and he's listing danny's credits (and got the book title wrong which janeane corrected him on when she came on later). but he's blah-blah-blah-ing in that incessant whine. (does any 1 else notice how his voice has that annoying dipthong thing that sherrif andy taylor's did?) so he's plugging away and saying 'danny put out al franken's album on artemis and it was up for a grammy.'
yeah and it lost. big fucking deal.
but artemis did have an album with a grammy. and it went to an air america host.
who?
steve earle. why is it that sam didn't know that?
how stupid is he?
or does he think steve earle isn't important enough to mention?
the revolution starts now won the grammy for best contemporary folk album.
if you haven't heard it, check it out. i love it.
and i love steve earle. sam apparently never heard of earle or his grammy win.
but that's just another clue about how stupid sam is.
every body have a good night and hopefully tomorrow, if i do a long entry, i won't find computer freezing. again i'll blame the new york times not because it's responsible necessarily, but because it's so damn disgusting.
2/23/2005
get well janeane garofalo
so i turn on the majority report thinking i can laugh with the funny, smart and pretty janeane garofalo but the fates had another plan for me. she's apparently out sick. she's been pretty sick lately and i hope it is just the flu that every 1's getting. i think i was knocked for at least 7 days but it felt so much longer.
so there's sam seder RAH RAH RAH RAH away. can some 1 can get that man on meds? i mean really.
i don't need to hear this shit in that smug voice.
i can tolerate him when janeane's on.
oh this is funny!
go to the blog sometime.
the bloggers love sam seder. (unless he's talking up simon rosenberg and then they hate him.)
what a strange crowd that is.
you got this 1 chick who will always open with something to do with something that happened today, okay?
and from there?
holocaust, holocaust, holocaust. 3 hours straight. sometimes continuing on the post show blog.
and every now and then some 1 will try to cheer her up, 'oh -- it's okay, it'll be okay.' day after day for almost 11 months now holocaust, holocaust, holocaust.
over and over.
this passes for deep thought on the blog, or she thinks it does.
then you get this group of little boys with the tiny weinies who have to say things like 'i bet she's so loose you could drive a mack truck through there.' yeah they are great wits.
on the laura flanders show blog (when it's working) you get people talking about real things. and asking things like 'what can i do' and people are responding to each other with ideas about a petition, a letter, a march, what ever.
that blog is probably the best blog at air america.
(i leave out randi's because her board predates air america and is a bulletin board and not a blog.)
but i do not mean to suggest that the majority report is the worst blog. it's not. there are some really cool people there. sunshine jim and pete moon come to mind. and fish grease though i haven't seen him pop up in a while. but i really do not check that often any more. but those are just 3 and there are a lot more who are intelligent at the majority report.
but they also have a huge number of losers.
so what's the worst blog?
i'd say it's unfiltered and this works in good cause i needed to talk about that from last week any way.
you have some really smart and creative types going there. but you also have idiots who say things like 'mmmm yummy soup.' over and over. or will talk about their cats. you can just picture these ladies (though some may be men) in their caftans with their madras blankets on their lap as they sit at their computers picking cat hairs off their sweaters as they listen to 1 of their own (lizz winstead). and you just know they put the suzanne vega on hold to listen to the show. so for like 3 hours they're waiting to hear the end of 'luka.'
they are people who found npr too 'cutting edge.'
every now and then you'll get some 1 smart or a group of smart people.
and they'll try to get a discussion going but some idiot has to say 'mmmm yummy soup.' and you know that idiot's not getting any and won't unless she finds a way to buy some sort of attachment for her cat!
no brain lizz encourages it by posting pictures of her dog on the blog.
slap a cheap blonde wig (with matted or ratted hair) on edie and i swear it looks just like lizz!
and by the way, on the blog is lizz winstead's photo and name and yet her 'fans' who rush to tell you things like 'a behind the look at liz' spell her name that way. her 'fans' don't even know how to spell her name! (i will point out that c.i. over at the common ills is a fan of lizz and big brain rachel and loves unfiltered the difference is c.i. can spell their names. and c.i. probably doesn't blog there or own a cat!)
but la lizz loves to screech a rant and last week no brain was screaming on air about the need to screen out people on the blog. that would be the blog for the show called (drum roll please) unfiltered!
no brain just doesn't get it.
it's so sad.
at this rate, the only thing that's going to save the show is for rachel to team back up with bill press and let her inner howard stern peak back out again.
she should do that. it was so shocking to see rachel step away from playing mommy to no brain. who knew big brain was a sexual being?
all that talk about her partner susan is so will on will & grace. talk, talk, talk.
but when she was getting down and dirty with bill press talking about the ladies like they were sitting in a locker room, who knew?
they were talking about cartoons today. lizz winstead has to cover all the important issues, natch. so i started thinking about cartoon characters that lizz and big brain could be.
with lizz, rachel's really roo's mommy. can't think of her name. from winnie the pooh. but she's like speedy gonzales when lizz isn't around. (to drag her down.)
but who would lizz be?
i couldn't think of 1.
then it finally hit me, she's the man in the big bird suit on sesame street!
that's so lizz.
so back to janeane. the show sucks with out her.
i hope she gets better. randi's had surgery, mike malloy's had the family thing, it's all pretty sad.
janeane gets sick and i start wondering a) why couldn't it be lizz and b) is there some sort of curse or plan going on here?
seriously, despite the odds, the network's catching on.
i give credit to mark and marc, randi, janeane, mike, laura, steve, kyle, marty and bobby & mike.
those people know how to do radio. now janeane, completely new to radio. but she comes on air and just draws you in.
if there's a voice as annoying as lizz's that would be sam. while lizz screeches, sam whines aggressively.
sam's the guy who's been married 2 years and you're at a party on a saturday night at his house. the hostess, his wife, asks you if you run into the kitchen to grab a bottle of wine. you're at the fridge when he stands behind you.
and he's got 1 eye on the door to make sure his wife doesn't come in and the other eye, the lazy 1, is scanning you up and down.
that's sam.
and the truth is, if you do go to sneak off to the laundry with him, and haven't we all made that mistake at least once?, the first thing you notice is that he's got on tighty-whities and there are skid marks in the seat of them.
ew!
and you're thinking 'i so do not want to do this' but he's come on real aggressive and you're thinking 'oh god just get it over with already' coz you know he's not going to last 2 minutes.
and sure enough he's on you, he's in you and the only surprise you might be getting is if he farts right in the middle. but since guys like that often do, you really aren't that surprised when he does - more irritated at the way he giggles about the fact that he just farted.
and if he thinks he's really smooth, he'll offer his idea of a bon mot about what it would have been like if you'd been going down on him while he farted (usually working in the word 'cheesy').
then at the 1 and a 1/2 minute mark he'll gasp and grunt and maybe holler 'mommy!' after he catches his breath (i swear, after with 1 of those guys, you'd think they'd had an asthma attack)
he'll go back to that smug voice and say something 'heart felt' like 'didn't i tell you i'd rock your world?'
and you're looking at him and thinking for a small guy he is sure is a lot of dead weight on your body. and wondering how this guy who came in less than 2 minutes, who farted in the middle of sex, has skid marks in his briefs and screamed out 'mommy' when he shot his meager load thinks for 1 moment that he's a player.
ladies & gentlemen, that is sam seder.
janeane, get well, we miss you!
so there's sam seder RAH RAH RAH RAH away. can some 1 can get that man on meds? i mean really.
i don't need to hear this shit in that smug voice.
i can tolerate him when janeane's on.
oh this is funny!
go to the blog sometime.
the bloggers love sam seder. (unless he's talking up simon rosenberg and then they hate him.)
what a strange crowd that is.
you got this 1 chick who will always open with something to do with something that happened today, okay?
and from there?
holocaust, holocaust, holocaust. 3 hours straight. sometimes continuing on the post show blog.
and every now and then some 1 will try to cheer her up, 'oh -- it's okay, it'll be okay.' day after day for almost 11 months now holocaust, holocaust, holocaust.
over and over.
this passes for deep thought on the blog, or she thinks it does.
then you get this group of little boys with the tiny weinies who have to say things like 'i bet she's so loose you could drive a mack truck through there.' yeah they are great wits.
on the laura flanders show blog (when it's working) you get people talking about real things. and asking things like 'what can i do' and people are responding to each other with ideas about a petition, a letter, a march, what ever.
that blog is probably the best blog at air america.
(i leave out randi's because her board predates air america and is a bulletin board and not a blog.)
but i do not mean to suggest that the majority report is the worst blog. it's not. there are some really cool people there. sunshine jim and pete moon come to mind. and fish grease though i haven't seen him pop up in a while. but i really do not check that often any more. but those are just 3 and there are a lot more who are intelligent at the majority report.
but they also have a huge number of losers.
so what's the worst blog?
i'd say it's unfiltered and this works in good cause i needed to talk about that from last week any way.
you have some really smart and creative types going there. but you also have idiots who say things like 'mmmm yummy soup.' over and over. or will talk about their cats. you can just picture these ladies (though some may be men) in their caftans with their madras blankets on their lap as they sit at their computers picking cat hairs off their sweaters as they listen to 1 of their own (lizz winstead). and you just know they put the suzanne vega on hold to listen to the show. so for like 3 hours they're waiting to hear the end of 'luka.'
they are people who found npr too 'cutting edge.'
every now and then you'll get some 1 smart or a group of smart people.
and they'll try to get a discussion going but some idiot has to say 'mmmm yummy soup.' and you know that idiot's not getting any and won't unless she finds a way to buy some sort of attachment for her cat!
no brain lizz encourages it by posting pictures of her dog on the blog.
slap a cheap blonde wig (with matted or ratted hair) on edie and i swear it looks just like lizz!
and by the way, on the blog is lizz winstead's photo and name and yet her 'fans' who rush to tell you things like 'a behind the look at liz' spell her name that way. her 'fans' don't even know how to spell her name! (i will point out that c.i. over at the common ills is a fan of lizz and big brain rachel and loves unfiltered the difference is c.i. can spell their names. and c.i. probably doesn't blog there or own a cat!)
but la lizz loves to screech a rant and last week no brain was screaming on air about the need to screen out people on the blog. that would be the blog for the show called (drum roll please) unfiltered!
no brain just doesn't get it.
it's so sad.
at this rate, the only thing that's going to save the show is for rachel to team back up with bill press and let her inner howard stern peak back out again.
she should do that. it was so shocking to see rachel step away from playing mommy to no brain. who knew big brain was a sexual being?
all that talk about her partner susan is so will on will & grace. talk, talk, talk.
but when she was getting down and dirty with bill press talking about the ladies like they were sitting in a locker room, who knew?
they were talking about cartoons today. lizz winstead has to cover all the important issues, natch. so i started thinking about cartoon characters that lizz and big brain could be.
with lizz, rachel's really roo's mommy. can't think of her name. from winnie the pooh. but she's like speedy gonzales when lizz isn't around. (to drag her down.)
but who would lizz be?
i couldn't think of 1.
then it finally hit me, she's the man in the big bird suit on sesame street!
that's so lizz.
so back to janeane. the show sucks with out her.
i hope she gets better. randi's had surgery, mike malloy's had the family thing, it's all pretty sad.
janeane gets sick and i start wondering a) why couldn't it be lizz and b) is there some sort of curse or plan going on here?
seriously, despite the odds, the network's catching on.
i give credit to mark and marc, randi, janeane, mike, laura, steve, kyle, marty and bobby & mike.
those people know how to do radio. now janeane, completely new to radio. but she comes on air and just draws you in.
if there's a voice as annoying as lizz's that would be sam. while lizz screeches, sam whines aggressively.
sam's the guy who's been married 2 years and you're at a party on a saturday night at his house. the hostess, his wife, asks you if you run into the kitchen to grab a bottle of wine. you're at the fridge when he stands behind you.
and he's got 1 eye on the door to make sure his wife doesn't come in and the other eye, the lazy 1, is scanning you up and down.
that's sam.
and the truth is, if you do go to sneak off to the laundry with him, and haven't we all made that mistake at least once?, the first thing you notice is that he's got on tighty-whities and there are skid marks in the seat of them.
ew!
and you're thinking 'i so do not want to do this' but he's come on real aggressive and you're thinking 'oh god just get it over with already' coz you know he's not going to last 2 minutes.
and sure enough he's on you, he's in you and the only surprise you might be getting is if he farts right in the middle. but since guys like that often do, you really aren't that surprised when he does - more irritated at the way he giggles about the fact that he just farted.
and if he thinks he's really smooth, he'll offer his idea of a bon mot about what it would have been like if you'd been going down on him while he farted (usually working in the word 'cheesy').
then at the 1 and a 1/2 minute mark he'll gasp and grunt and maybe holler 'mommy!' after he catches his breath (i swear, after with 1 of those guys, you'd think they'd had an asthma attack)
he'll go back to that smug voice and say something 'heart felt' like 'didn't i tell you i'd rock your world?'
and you're looking at him and thinking for a small guy he is sure is a lot of dead weight on your body. and wondering how this guy who came in less than 2 minutes, who farted in the middle of sex, has skid marks in his briefs and screamed out 'mommy' when he shot his meager load thinks for 1 moment that he's a player.
ladies & gentlemen, that is sam seder.
janeane, get well, we miss you!
2/22/2005
i am the damn beekeeper!
i am the damn beekeeper!
seriously, tori amos had a new cd out today. it's called the beekeeper and it's the best thing i've heard in years from any 1 so please check it out. i read the review of it in yesterday's new york times and e-mail c.i. of the common ills. i say 'wow 3 years!' what the fuck are you talking about, willis, comes the reply more or less. i explain and c.i. says jon pareles is "estimating.'
let me walk you through because i love it when the new york times gets it wrong on even the minor stuff. in 2002, tori amos put out her brilliant cd scarlet's walk. with me so far? today the beekeeper comes out.
c.i. goes, 'rebecca i want to you picture yourself having a child in october of 2003, okay?' well if i must. 'today is february 22, 2005. how old is your baby?'
ok, i get the point. the new york times, egg on it's face as usual.
what's all this filigree talk in the review, seems kind of snide. ci: 'filigree because she's a woman and because parles can't or won't get off the fence, a characteristic of his reviews that dates back for years' and c.i.'s going back to like i think the fall of 1985, over all these rolling stone reviews that parles has written. and i'm like 'shit, c.i. you should write about this stuff.'
and c.i. explains there are 4 e-mails freaking over the simpsons entry yesterday.
that really pisses me off so if there are any common members coming here who dashed off an e-mail on that to c.i., take a breath kids.
it was about journalism. read the item. there's a guy, conservative org (natch), commenting on the episode and he hasn't seen it. he didn't boycott it which might be a story, he just didn't know about it. and then he didn't watch it. and he's presented for 'balance' when he has nothing to say. it's insta-pundit, just add water. and boil, please bring to a boil.
it was in the news section and you had other members e-mailing in. and the topic of the episode was same-sex marriage. so i don't see how with all the above there's a problem with it.
but let me make another point while i'm on this.
yesterday was presidents day. i took the day off. a number of people did.
c.i. could have and probably should have.
late saturday night we were both helping the groovy kids over at the 3rd estate sunday review and that went on until the wee hours. i think it was 7 o'clock when we were done but it may have been 6 a.m.
c.i.'s got a headache, saying stuff about being sick of blogging, and my advice was to take monday off because it was a holiday or, at the very least, focus on something fun.
guys and gals, i squeeze no more than 1 entry a day in between sex romps and other activities.
'but becky! sex romps are your only activities!' almost.
so please people, chill a little. i was asking jesse and ava (3rd estate) if this was normal talk and they were like 'whenever we're up all night like this, it is.' i'd slept in that morning (sex romp from the night before), had more sex and then a long nap, we got out of bed to grab something to eat, came back listened to some music with a little foreplay, ended up back in the bedroom after some strong living room activity, sex romp and i'd just gone to sleep when the phone rings with 3rd estate on the line.
contrast that with c.i. who was up early saturday morning and ends up pulling 24 hours plus before getting any sleep. so really guys, we all love c.i.'s writing and crave more but cut a little slack. it was a holiday. c.i. focused on answering e-mails and did like 6 or 7 posts. i don't see how that's slacking off.
and have you read the entry today? "The New York Times at its worst: Elisabeth Bumiller, Jodi Wilgoren and Juan Forero make the front page on the same day." i love it. i was laughing so hard this morning, i spit out my coffee at 1 point.
i'm quoted in it and proud to be. reading it, i see i had at least 1 typo but i never fix those and never will. i think that things from january and i really don't see the point in hunting down that entry on jodi wilgoren and fixing the word. the new york times doesn't do that kind of correction. if they did, they'd have many more corrections.
oh 1 more thing i saw in the new york times monday that i asked c.i. about. in the business section (hey sexy gals are interested in the business pages too) i saw something.
here it is, this is from monday when they usually run the weekend box office, page 7 of the business section. 'warner brothers will be watching to see how 'constantine,' keanu reeves' latest film does over presidents' day weekend. the actor's film in the supernatural/science-fiction have tended to start strong and finish very strong. only 'bram stroker's dracula' (1992), which opened with $30.5 million its first weekend, finished out of his top 5 movies.'
the paper then lists (in this order) matrix reloaded, the matrix, matrix revolution, something's gotta give and speed. so it was monday and i was trying to think of light topics to e-mail c.i. about and i e-mail that.
i get back a reply about the stupid idiots at the times. something like 'oh only dracula, is that the story? is that the nonsense the paper's spitting out this morning? well 'supernatural/science fiction? i think that would include devil's advocate and it's out of his top 5. and here's 2 more words: johnny mnuemonic! a walk in the clouds opened with a stronger box office than johnny mnuemonic and it 'finished strong' by grossing more as well!'
see, i read it and nod along too often. i think, well it's in the paper, it's been checked, it must be true. but the truth is, the new york times lies and lies and lies and lies.
maybe they don't mean to. maybe they're just tired or lazy. maybe they missed the crash and burn that was johnny mnuemonic (i love keanu but i'd forgotten about that film). but they take the trouble to inform you of something in their official voice, their 'voice of record' and the fact of the matter is they don't know what they fuck they are talking about.
that should be the slogan of the paper. not 'all the news that's fit to print' but 'we don't know what we are talking about.'
it seems like every day, my eyes are opened to increasing errors in the rag of record. if the guy delivering it monday through friday wasn't so damn sexy . . .
sherry has already e-mailed twice this weekend warning me that when i get back to posting i better dish as promised.
so here's the dealio. (stone temple pilots please come back! velvet revolver has about as much going on as the eighties 'group' the power station. robert deleo was hot!) his name is maurice. he looks a little like the guy in the acer ad that i'm still obsessing over. his cock curves to the right (as jim morrison once sang 'the little girls understand'). he's got a ton of energy so it was the perfect weekend!
if you get the beekeeper, i'd suggest you go for the deluxe version. you get a bonus dvd and cute extras including a package of seeds.
on my way i'm just passing you by
but don't be confused
one day i'll be coming for you
from tori amos's 'the beekeeper'
seriously, tori amos had a new cd out today. it's called the beekeeper and it's the best thing i've heard in years from any 1 so please check it out. i read the review of it in yesterday's new york times and e-mail c.i. of the common ills. i say 'wow 3 years!' what the fuck are you talking about, willis, comes the reply more or less. i explain and c.i. says jon pareles is "estimating.'
let me walk you through because i love it when the new york times gets it wrong on even the minor stuff. in 2002, tori amos put out her brilliant cd scarlet's walk. with me so far? today the beekeeper comes out.
c.i. goes, 'rebecca i want to you picture yourself having a child in october of 2003, okay?' well if i must. 'today is february 22, 2005. how old is your baby?'
ok, i get the point. the new york times, egg on it's face as usual.
what's all this filigree talk in the review, seems kind of snide. ci: 'filigree because she's a woman and because parles can't or won't get off the fence, a characteristic of his reviews that dates back for years' and c.i.'s going back to like i think the fall of 1985, over all these rolling stone reviews that parles has written. and i'm like 'shit, c.i. you should write about this stuff.'
and c.i. explains there are 4 e-mails freaking over the simpsons entry yesterday.
that really pisses me off so if there are any common members coming here who dashed off an e-mail on that to c.i., take a breath kids.
it was about journalism. read the item. there's a guy, conservative org (natch), commenting on the episode and he hasn't seen it. he didn't boycott it which might be a story, he just didn't know about it. and then he didn't watch it. and he's presented for 'balance' when he has nothing to say. it's insta-pundit, just add water. and boil, please bring to a boil.
it was in the news section and you had other members e-mailing in. and the topic of the episode was same-sex marriage. so i don't see how with all the above there's a problem with it.
but let me make another point while i'm on this.
yesterday was presidents day. i took the day off. a number of people did.
c.i. could have and probably should have.
late saturday night we were both helping the groovy kids over at the 3rd estate sunday review and that went on until the wee hours. i think it was 7 o'clock when we were done but it may have been 6 a.m.
c.i.'s got a headache, saying stuff about being sick of blogging, and my advice was to take monday off because it was a holiday or, at the very least, focus on something fun.
guys and gals, i squeeze no more than 1 entry a day in between sex romps and other activities.
'but becky! sex romps are your only activities!' almost.
so please people, chill a little. i was asking jesse and ava (3rd estate) if this was normal talk and they were like 'whenever we're up all night like this, it is.' i'd slept in that morning (sex romp from the night before), had more sex and then a long nap, we got out of bed to grab something to eat, came back listened to some music with a little foreplay, ended up back in the bedroom after some strong living room activity, sex romp and i'd just gone to sleep when the phone rings with 3rd estate on the line.
contrast that with c.i. who was up early saturday morning and ends up pulling 24 hours plus before getting any sleep. so really guys, we all love c.i.'s writing and crave more but cut a little slack. it was a holiday. c.i. focused on answering e-mails and did like 6 or 7 posts. i don't see how that's slacking off.
and have you read the entry today? "The New York Times at its worst: Elisabeth Bumiller, Jodi Wilgoren and Juan Forero make the front page on the same day." i love it. i was laughing so hard this morning, i spit out my coffee at 1 point.
i'm quoted in it and proud to be. reading it, i see i had at least 1 typo but i never fix those and never will. i think that things from january and i really don't see the point in hunting down that entry on jodi wilgoren and fixing the word. the new york times doesn't do that kind of correction. if they did, they'd have many more corrections.
oh 1 more thing i saw in the new york times monday that i asked c.i. about. in the business section (hey sexy gals are interested in the business pages too) i saw something.
here it is, this is from monday when they usually run the weekend box office, page 7 of the business section. 'warner brothers will be watching to see how 'constantine,' keanu reeves' latest film does over presidents' day weekend. the actor's film in the supernatural/science-fiction have tended to start strong and finish very strong. only 'bram stroker's dracula' (1992), which opened with $30.5 million its first weekend, finished out of his top 5 movies.'
the paper then lists (in this order) matrix reloaded, the matrix, matrix revolution, something's gotta give and speed. so it was monday and i was trying to think of light topics to e-mail c.i. about and i e-mail that.
i get back a reply about the stupid idiots at the times. something like 'oh only dracula, is that the story? is that the nonsense the paper's spitting out this morning? well 'supernatural/science fiction? i think that would include devil's advocate and it's out of his top 5. and here's 2 more words: johnny mnuemonic! a walk in the clouds opened with a stronger box office than johnny mnuemonic and it 'finished strong' by grossing more as well!'
see, i read it and nod along too often. i think, well it's in the paper, it's been checked, it must be true. but the truth is, the new york times lies and lies and lies and lies.
maybe they don't mean to. maybe they're just tired or lazy. maybe they missed the crash and burn that was johnny mnuemonic (i love keanu but i'd forgotten about that film). but they take the trouble to inform you of something in their official voice, their 'voice of record' and the fact of the matter is they don't know what they fuck they are talking about.
that should be the slogan of the paper. not 'all the news that's fit to print' but 'we don't know what we are talking about.'
it seems like every day, my eyes are opened to increasing errors in the rag of record. if the guy delivering it monday through friday wasn't so damn sexy . . .
sherry has already e-mailed twice this weekend warning me that when i get back to posting i better dish as promised.
so here's the dealio. (stone temple pilots please come back! velvet revolver has about as much going on as the eighties 'group' the power station. robert deleo was hot!) his name is maurice. he looks a little like the guy in the acer ad that i'm still obsessing over. his cock curves to the right (as jim morrison once sang 'the little girls understand'). he's got a ton of energy so it was the perfect weekend!
if you get the beekeeper, i'd suggest you go for the deluxe version. you get a bonus dvd and cute extras including a package of seeds.
on my way i'm just passing you by
but don't be confused
one day i'll be coming for you
from tori amos's 'the beekeeper'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)