mike is still sick. (elaine calls him her 'sick puppy.') i know how something as minor as a bad cold can really wear you down so mike, get better. i called elaine to see what items they were grabbing from democracy now (her and mike) and tried to avoid those as well as the ones common ills members noted in c.i.'s entry today (read that entry, especially the opening).
so i'm going with two items. c.i. went with three and elaine and mike will go with two that are different from c.i.'s (elaine and mike are doing their usual running commentaries so they will be going with the same two items). my point is that if you read this site and those sites, you're getting seven of the headlines today.
Ex-Bush Official Indicted in Abramoff Case
In Washington, a federal grand jury has indicted the Bush administration's former chief procurement official for making false statements and obstructing investigations into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The official - David Safavian - is facing five felony counts.
oh the good times just keep on coming from the bully boy administration. changing the tone in d.c.? yes, bully boy has. it's 1 criminal after another. the only accountability from the administration comes when indictments come from outside of it.
the gang that can't do much more than lie straight faced sees another member go down. and not in the good way!
Bush Warns About Avian Flu Epidemic
In medical news, President Bush is warning that the country could face another avian flu epidemic and that the military might be needed to enforce quarantines and other emergency measures. He discussed this during Tuesday's press conference. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has said preparing for such an outbreak is the most important health preparedness issue facing the country. The last such outbreak was in 1968. The deadliest occurred in 1918 when as many as 50 million people died around the world including over 600,000 in the United States. Meanwhile scientists have just announced they have reconstructed the 1918 Spanish flu virus and found that it was a bird flu that jumped directly to humans.
awhile back, and no link because i can't find it but it's somewhere at the common ills in the last 2 weeks, in passing, c.i. made the point that someone needs to explain to wesley clark that 'pentagon! pentagon! pentagon!' was not the answer. c.i. just made it in passing, didn't dwell on it but clark was doing his white man's version of the star jones routine - where he goes around say 'i'm a general' the way she says 'i'm a lawyer.'
we do not live in a military dictatorship and when clark makes the idiotic comments that prompted c.i.'s aside, i am really thankful he dropped out of the primary race. his 'expertise' becomes a blind spot because he can't think outside of his narrow, little box. that makes his military service a liability if he were president.
i am sick and tired of hearing every namby, pamby whine that 'we need to be safe' and trading everything this country has stood for just so they can 'feel' safe. it reminds me of some guys i've slept with who i have had to constantly reassure with faked moans and groans. it destroys the experience for me and they're going to destroy the country for all of us.
c.i. wrote about the issue this morning (based on a story in the new york times) and said this needs to be a national dialogue. it does need to be. before bully boy starts further code speak, we need to seriously, as a nation, discuss this. if there is a flu outbreak, we won't be able to have the conversation then. so let's be grown ups and have it now.
here's my part. i don't believe the government sends the military into states. each state has their own peace keeping forces including police officers. the responsibility is the state's. that's 1 thought.
you do not turn an area in this country over to the military. not today, not tomorrow. it goes against the reasons this nation was founded and it goes against all we're supposed to stand for.
liberals and conservatives should have common ground on this unless they're scared little babies looking for mommy and daddy to solve all their problems.
i talked to elaine about this and her feelings (which she said i could note) were that if there was an outbreak in chicago, it wouldn't stay in chicago. chicago has a huge number of visitors and by the time the outbreak was known, you would have already had people come and go. you are looking at the possibility, if the outbreak occurred in a major city, of it quickly spreading around the country. so illinois would be under military control immediately and that would quickly be followed by other states. it's very likely that the entire country would be under military occupation.
that's not america, people. start talking about this now. you can't wait until an outbreak. you can't object after a plan is being operated. speak out now. loudly.
elaine asked me to note c.i.'s commentary about the democrats lack of response to the nomination of harriet miers:
Focus on the Fool's James Dobson claims to have "inside" information from the one responsible for converting her (presumably, either the preacher at her church or Miers' phone chum who's a judge) and has spoken to Karl Rove. He's vouching for Miers. Kirkpatrick notes that Dems are on the sidelines here. Why is that? She's not qualified. If George Will (of all people) can make that point, why can't Democrats?
The attitude seems to be "Oh, let them fight amongst themselves and then we'll step in." That's not how you defeat this nomination. Ed Gillispie and others are being sent out. The "debate" will be shut down at some point. Now is when Democrats need to be speaking up and raising the issue that she's not qualified. This is the highest role for a judge in this country. They failed to make that point (as a party) with regard to Robertson. They appear unable to today as well. Why Republicans are squabbling and questioning the nomination, Democrats should be repeating, "She's not qualified" over and over.
There's a real danger here and it's when the squabble dies down. The nation may look at it, the squabble, as a vetting process in and of itself. And if Dems wait to bring up serious criticism until the "debate" is over, people may take the attitude of "This has already been settled. Why are they bringing it up now?"
Democrats need to take (and show) some leadership here. Harry Reid won't do it. He doesn't know how to be a leader. But the way you defeat the nomination is by raising questions while Republicans are as well. Not waiting to see what stuck because the reality is that its highly unlikely that they won't stifle their own disagreements (Republicans) and come together around Miers. When that happens, it's too damn late for Dems to try to raise issues and concerns.You do it now. While people are seeing Republicans question Miers' capabilities. Let's use an example. Rebecca, Mike, Seth, Dona, Cedric and Betty are going to lunch. Rebecca and Mike argue over where to go. They finally agree on one place. At which point, after they've agreed, Seth says, "I don't want to go there, I want to go ___." Betty, Cedric and Dona may look at Seth and think, "Why did you wait to bring this up? We've already decided."
That's what will happen if Democrats don't start getting vocal. This could even be smart strategy on the part of Republicans. Before they come together, they air the appearance of a debate (from their own party) and it then appears that all issues were raised and addressed. So when Dems finally find their voices, the public may be weary and think, "Let's just go eat already!"
i find it interesting that mike and i would be the 1s fighting! i'm joking. i appreciated being noted and linked to. c.i.'s analogy is accurate. if democrats do not get into this discussion now the attitude later will be 'oh we've already been over and over this.'
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
the common ills
David Safavian
avian flu
harriet miers
10/06/2005
10/05/2005
ugh
so it's supposedly fall and we've got another supreme court nominee who thinks 'secrecy' is how you demonstrate you are fit to serve on the court.
harriet miers. aunt harriet from bewitched?
i have some e-mails from tess, alan and boyd, among others, and i'll tell you to check the common ills tonight for more on your questions.
but here's my thing. she strikes me as a prude. i'm not seeing how a prude is going to help me by being on the court. i see how she'll help corporations. i see how she'll help bully boy.
if she makes the court and he's charged with anything, will she have to excuse herself?
Bush Defends Pick of Harriet Miers
In Washington, President Bush held a daytime press conference on Monday and spent most of the time defending his selection of Harriet Miers as his nominee to the Supreme Court. The selection of Miers has been widely criticized by conservatives because so little is known about her personal politics. She has never served as a judge. Miers Is "On The Extreme End of the Anti-Choice Movement" Later in the press conference, President Bush said he did not recall ever sitting down with Miers to discuss her view on abortion. But a former colleague of Miers' says her stance on abortion is clear. Lorlee Bartos - who ran Miers 1989 campaign for Dallas City Council - said "She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement. I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt. I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president."
that's from democracy now (and if you aren't watching or listening, read elaine's thing about how important the show is).
the woman who ran her campaign says of miers 'she is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement.' that's the woman c.i. was talking about this morning when critiquing the new york times coverage:
Such as when her former campaign manager for city council, who's been quoted elsewhere, is suddenly rather weak on Miers' abortion stance. Did the Times downplay what the woman actually said?
i think we have the answer to that.
here's the way the new york times presented it:
In a discussion with her campaign manager in 1989, Ms. Miers said she had been in favor in her younger years of a woman's right to have an abortion, but her views evolved against abortion, influenced largely by her born-again religious beliefs, said Lorlee Bartos, a Democratic campaign consultant in Dallas who managed Ms. Miers's City Council campaign.
they say they spoke with bartos who has pubicly stated that miers is on the 'extreme end of the anti-choice movement.' those are strong words and were apparently too strong for the new york timid which is why bartos' opinion gets so watered down in today's paper.
has everyone read cedric's post? he's highlighting c.i.'s entry on todd s. purdum and also noting some of the feelings among membres about outsiders who attempt to coopt the community so check it out.
in fact, yesterday was a strong day for the community all around. you had elaine explaining how diane feinstein, the great war hawk, profits from the invasion/occupation due to her husband's company. you had seth explaining how he didn't give a damn what was in hillary's heart, he cared about her actions. (here, here.) also check out c.i. who's hitting hard on the subject of harriet miers.
i just want to know if we're all supposed to be silent again and, cross our fingers, dems will take care of the candidate? it didn't happen with roberts.
i'm calling this ugh because for over 2 hours tonight, the program blogger has been down and you couldn't log in to write. mike lost his post. he wrote it and was going to post it at 7:03 p.m. and then head to his friend's debate but he hits post and gets this stupid error message. i think we're all pretty sick of blogger and of all the damn problems this program has. but it wouldn't kill any 1 if on your log in screen it would tell you 'blogger will be going down in 1 hour for maintance.' mike would have written a shorter post. he was really mad when i talked to him on the phone and there's no reason he should have lost that post because the people in charge of blogger don't have the sense to provide you with some sort of warning when you log in.
like maria said paz
diane feinstein
the common ills
hillary clinton
seth in the city
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
harriet miers. aunt harriet from bewitched?
i have some e-mails from tess, alan and boyd, among others, and i'll tell you to check the common ills tonight for more on your questions.
but here's my thing. she strikes me as a prude. i'm not seeing how a prude is going to help me by being on the court. i see how she'll help corporations. i see how she'll help bully boy.
if she makes the court and he's charged with anything, will she have to excuse herself?
Bush Defends Pick of Harriet Miers
In Washington, President Bush held a daytime press conference on Monday and spent most of the time defending his selection of Harriet Miers as his nominee to the Supreme Court. The selection of Miers has been widely criticized by conservatives because so little is known about her personal politics. She has never served as a judge. Miers Is "On The Extreme End of the Anti-Choice Movement" Later in the press conference, President Bush said he did not recall ever sitting down with Miers to discuss her view on abortion. But a former colleague of Miers' says her stance on abortion is clear. Lorlee Bartos - who ran Miers 1989 campaign for Dallas City Council - said "She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement. I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt. I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president."
that's from democracy now (and if you aren't watching or listening, read elaine's thing about how important the show is).
the woman who ran her campaign says of miers 'she is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement.' that's the woman c.i. was talking about this morning when critiquing the new york times coverage:
Such as when her former campaign manager for city council, who's been quoted elsewhere, is suddenly rather weak on Miers' abortion stance. Did the Times downplay what the woman actually said?
i think we have the answer to that.
here's the way the new york times presented it:
In a discussion with her campaign manager in 1989, Ms. Miers said she had been in favor in her younger years of a woman's right to have an abortion, but her views evolved against abortion, influenced largely by her born-again religious beliefs, said Lorlee Bartos, a Democratic campaign consultant in Dallas who managed Ms. Miers's City Council campaign.
they say they spoke with bartos who has pubicly stated that miers is on the 'extreme end of the anti-choice movement.' those are strong words and were apparently too strong for the new york timid which is why bartos' opinion gets so watered down in today's paper.
has everyone read cedric's post? he's highlighting c.i.'s entry on todd s. purdum and also noting some of the feelings among membres about outsiders who attempt to coopt the community so check it out.
in fact, yesterday was a strong day for the community all around. you had elaine explaining how diane feinstein, the great war hawk, profits from the invasion/occupation due to her husband's company. you had seth explaining how he didn't give a damn what was in hillary's heart, he cared about her actions. (here, here.) also check out c.i. who's hitting hard on the subject of harriet miers.
i just want to know if we're all supposed to be silent again and, cross our fingers, dems will take care of the candidate? it didn't happen with roberts.
i'm calling this ugh because for over 2 hours tonight, the program blogger has been down and you couldn't log in to write. mike lost his post. he wrote it and was going to post it at 7:03 p.m. and then head to his friend's debate but he hits post and gets this stupid error message. i think we're all pretty sick of blogger and of all the damn problems this program has. but it wouldn't kill any 1 if on your log in screen it would tell you 'blogger will be going down in 1 hour for maintance.' mike would have written a shorter post. he was really mad when i talked to him on the phone and there's no reason he should have lost that post because the people in charge of blogger don't have the sense to provide you with some sort of warning when you log in.
like maria said paz
diane feinstein
the common ills
hillary clinton
seth in the city
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
10/04/2005
the nippy paul walker, celibacy in the city, seth in the city and ralph nader
what a great comic by isaiah. i was glad to help out this morning.
i think the thing's hilarious, celibacy in the city, but i loved sex in the city during the first 2 or 3 years.
i posted it here this morning because it was too huge and needed to be halved and c.i. was trying to figure out how to do that and thought of me for which i am grateful.
i almost didn't blog this evening since i do have 3 entries up today already.
i'm exhausted from all that work.
i want to note seth in the city again. this morning c.i. and i were talking about how seth is coming up on his first week of blogging. today is his 7th day, i believe.
so congratulations to seth.
i remember when i started, i didn't know what i was doing and i still don't. i play it by ear or by e-mail.
sherry said she agreed with beatrice, it might be nice to get paul walker down on all 4s and enjoy sitting on 'his haunches' while he gives you rides around the house.
i should have, however, made some rules for our latest poll. in case anyone's forgotten, beatrice wants to know which guy you'd want to see make out with the hot, hot paul walker and who would be the top and who would be the bottom?
7 people (4 women, 3 men) have e-mailed suggesting tom welling and they all say he'd be the top and paul walker would be the bottom.
i have no problem with sexy nips paul walker being the bottom or the top but tom welling is so gross. that hair does nothing for me. it looks like a really bad perm ad from the 80s.
1 of the best things i read on paul walker wasn't in an e-mail but online at seth's site:
On a completely different note, I have to say that I really enjoyed Rebecca's picture post celebrating Paul Walker's nips! Truly, a woman after my own heart! Paul Walker was once just the sort of blond pretty boy I lusted after back in the She's All That/Varsity Blues days, but he's matured into a sort of rugged sex appeal, less pretty and blond, that still earns him a spot in the top ten on my Celebrities I'd Fuck list! Mr. Walker would look even better with a bit of chest hair, I might add. He's already got a sexy treasure trail that I'd LOVE to follow.
See, even when things are looking down, you can always take a moment to enjoy some healthy, old fashioned lust for some celebrity beefcake!
seth, i hear you. in these bully boy days, sometimes the only thing to motivate you to get out of bed in the morning is a hormonal reaction.
White House, in terms of time and resources? And if so, make it public." No answer.
now i'll steal from c.i. to offer something beyond the sex drive:
. . . from "Ralph Nader Debates Fmr. Boston Univ. Law School Dean on Miers Nomination to the Supreme Court" on today's Democracy Now! and was selected by Marcia and Third Party.
AMY GOODMAN: What have you been writing to Harriet Miers?
RALPH NADER: Well, we're trying to find out whether Karl Rove, during the 2004 election, obeyed federal law and properly allocated the time he spent in the White House on political activity, the resources he spent in the White House on political activity from his taxpayer funded role as special assistant to the President, performing duties that are well defined. And we can't get an answer. We wrote her -- Harriet Miers, that is -- in March, asking for an allocation to be made public, if there was an allocation, and there was no answer. We wrote her on the 18th of July, and there was no answer. And today, I'm writing President Bush, asking that that allocation be made public and if there is no allocation, what is his explanation under federal law?
The performance by Harriet Miers on this matter is not trivial. Karl Rove was the architect of President Bush's re-election campaign. Those were the words that President Bush used on the celebration after the election last November. And here we have the counsel to the President, Harriet Miers, a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, refusing to answer a simple letter that basically says, "Did Karl Rove obey federal law 5-USC-7321 and have an accounting, separating his duties in the White House, in terms of time and resources? And if so, make it public." No answer.
seth in the city
paul walker
the common ills
ralph nader
i think the thing's hilarious, celibacy in the city, but i loved sex in the city during the first 2 or 3 years.
i posted it here this morning because it was too huge and needed to be halved and c.i. was trying to figure out how to do that and thought of me for which i am grateful.
i almost didn't blog this evening since i do have 3 entries up today already.
i want to note seth in the city again. this morning c.i. and i were talking about how seth is coming up on his first week of blogging. today is his 7th day, i believe.
so congratulations to seth.
i remember when i started, i didn't know what i was doing and i still don't. i play it by ear or by e-mail.
sherry said she agreed with beatrice, it might be nice to get paul walker down on all 4s and enjoy sitting on 'his haunches' while he gives you rides around the house.
i should have, however, made some rules for our latest poll. in case anyone's forgotten, beatrice wants to know which guy you'd want to see make out with the hot, hot paul walker and who would be the top and who would be the bottom?
7 people (4 women, 3 men) have e-mailed suggesting tom welling and they all say he'd be the top and paul walker would be the bottom.
i have no problem with sexy nips paul walker being the bottom or the top but tom welling is so gross. that hair does nothing for me. it looks like a really bad perm ad from the 80s.
1 of the best things i read on paul walker wasn't in an e-mail but online at seth's site:
On a completely different note, I have to say that I really enjoyed Rebecca's picture post celebrating Paul Walker's nips! Truly, a woman after my own heart! Paul Walker was once just the sort of blond pretty boy I lusted after back in the She's All That/Varsity Blues days, but he's matured into a sort of rugged sex appeal, less pretty and blond, that still earns him a spot in the top ten on my Celebrities I'd Fuck list! Mr. Walker would look even better with a bit of chest hair, I might add. He's already got a sexy treasure trail that I'd LOVE to follow.
See, even when things are looking down, you can always take a moment to enjoy some healthy, old fashioned lust for some celebrity beefcake!
seth, i hear you. in these bully boy days, sometimes the only thing to motivate you to get out of bed in the morning is a hormonal reaction.
White House, in terms of time and resources? And if so, make it public." No answer.
now i'll steal from c.i. to offer something beyond the sex drive:
. . . from "Ralph Nader Debates Fmr. Boston Univ. Law School Dean on Miers Nomination to the Supreme Court" on today's Democracy Now! and was selected by Marcia and Third Party.
AMY GOODMAN: What have you been writing to Harriet Miers?
RALPH NADER: Well, we're trying to find out whether Karl Rove, during the 2004 election, obeyed federal law and properly allocated the time he spent in the White House on political activity, the resources he spent in the White House on political activity from his taxpayer funded role as special assistant to the President, performing duties that are well defined. And we can't get an answer. We wrote her -- Harriet Miers, that is -- in March, asking for an allocation to be made public, if there was an allocation, and there was no answer. We wrote her on the 18th of July, and there was no answer. And today, I'm writing President Bush, asking that that allocation be made public and if there is no allocation, what is his explanation under federal law?
The performance by Harriet Miers on this matter is not trivial. Karl Rove was the architect of President Bush's re-election campaign. Those were the words that President Bush used on the celebration after the election last November. And here we have the counsel to the President, Harriet Miers, a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, refusing to answer a simple letter that basically says, "Did Karl Rove obey federal law 5-USC-7321 and have an accounting, separating his duties in the White House, in terms of time and resources? And if so, make it public." No answer.
seth in the city
paul walker
the common ills
ralph nader
10/03/2005
weird bully boy talk overheard and paul walker and those sexy nips
ABC News: Bush & Cheney Involved In Discussions Over CIA Leak
On Sunday ABC News host George Stephanopoulos said his sources told him that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were involved in the discussions about Valerie Plame. "A source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions," Stephanopoulos said. Little is known about President Bush's role except that he spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
we started with democracy now for mike.
i was getting my hair done today and therese had to stop to because we were both listening to the woman next to us who was getting highlights and going on about how fitzgerald had enough to indict the white house up to the bully boy and that the military was already prepared to escort bully boy out of the oval office if he refuses to go.
what do you make of that? t and i went out to lunch after and we were convinced the woman had to be missing a loose screw or 2. i mean i would love it to be true but it seems more wishful thinking than anything based on fact.
t said that if that were to happen, big if, that the easiest thing would be to say 'hey we've counted these ballots and john kerry did win.' t means that if the 'system' truly were against the bully boy and wanting him gone, that would be the easiest way.
we started fantasizing about the military escorting bully boy out of office in chains. it's a great fantasy but i really don't see it happening. maybe the woman knew something that i didn't but she was wrong about the highlights (they were too young for her, women over 50 should think twice before getting shades of poster color red put in their hair). i think she's just heard something from some 1 and inflating it and the person she heard it from inflated it as well.
to pull a c.i. 'i could be wrong.' but i really don't see it happening.
elaine did a great thing about the program democracy now called 'democracy now' so be sure to read that.
i'm glad everyone loved paul walker yesterday. sherry said, 'becky's back!'
paul walker does have sexy nips. they just beg to be tickled and played with. a little kiss, a little suck. those are perky nips.
beatrice e-mailed to say 'and you said you didn't like smooth guys!' i don't know. does he wax?
he doesn't look like he does. most blonde boys either have furry chests that are just carpets (think robert redford) or they're usually smooth. there's a little in between on that, but from my own experience, not much.
beatrice wondered if i would still think his nips were pretty if they were surrounded with hair?
yes, i would.
if they stuck out the way they do, demanding attention, i would think they were pretty regardless.
beatrice says paul walker is her's and her's alone. she said it's his butt that's his best feature and she would make him get down on all 4s and she'd ride him around her condo. beatrice, despite the arguing over who has dibs on paul, you sound like an interesting gal!
she just discovered paul walker in the lead up to this film, into the blue, coming out so i'll do her a solid and steer her towards joy ride which features some lovely shots of paul walker's butt.
beatrice wanted me to do a survey so here's her question. paul walker has to make out with a hot guy in front of you. you get to pick the guy. who do you pick? and is paul a pitcher or a catcher or versitile?
so if you have an idea there, e-mail and we'll note the wilder 1s here.
elaine asked me to note c.i.'s 'should this marriage be saved?' and i have no problem doing so because it's amazing piece and 1 that should be read. she's a bit surprised that like our dems in congress so many people online are too scared to call for the troops home now. if you are on the fence, please read c.i.'s 'should this marriage be saved?' we really need to think about what's going on in iraq. i'll also add that everyone should check out seth in the city. i'm glad there's another blogger in the community who's not afraid to write about sexy male hotties.
paul walker
sexy nips
democracy now
bully boy
like maria said paz
the common ills
seth in the city
mikey likes it
10/02/2005
environment
this is my section from the latest third estate sunday review news review:
C.I.: Thank you, Betty. For additional resources on literacy, you can check out America's Literacy Directory which will provide statistics as well as inform you of literacy programs in your area, for adults, for children and for the learning disabled. Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude joins us now to give us the latest on the world of nature.
Rebecca: The Independent of London reports that "scientists will warn this week" that species are dying at a faster rate than was previously thought. As Artic ice continues to shrink for the fourth year in a row, polar bears, among other species, are increasingly at risk. The warmer temperature upsets the natural cycle of the polar bear, the thinning ice provides them with less of a habitat, and hungry and with less of an area to roam in, they go into towns where they are shot.
C.I.: Rebecca, as the Artic ice decreases, it turns to something, which is water. While the ice reflects the sun's rays back into space, the water absorbs them thereby increasing the global temperature. Correct?
Rebecca: Correct, and the BBC reports findings that, if the shrinkage continues, by 2060 "there may be no summer ice" in the Artic "at all."
C.I.: For most of the Bully Boy's tenure, there has been denial that global warming was occurring even in the face of last year's Pentagon report that found global warming to be a threat to humanity. Jeff Goodall, writing in Rolling Stone, has noted that the naysayers have now turned from denial to propositions that what we're looking at now is only more beach time, summer weather. Did you find any happy talk in the wake of this news?
Rebecca: One report that I found interesting from the headline was Aljazeera's "Global warming may boost oil industry." However, at present, when you try to access the article you get a message of server error. Australia's ABC had nothing on global warming in the last few days; however, they did carry a story entitled "Oceans becoming more acidic: scientists." The report details the increase, by 50%, in carbon dioxide in the ocean water. For those who skipped science classes, humans expell carbon dioxide but take in oxygen to breathe. The oceans are made up of many things but as a water based body, they are made up of H2O mean hydrogen and oxygen. The increase in carbon dioxide, though little noted elsewhere, is not good news on its own. When combined with the news of the Artic ice as well as the decrease in glaciers, we're looking at a very troubling situation that all countries should be seriously addressing. In terms of sea life, sea shells will be effected, as well as basic structure, by the carbon dioxide increase and it will enter the food chain. Currently, there is a call for action on December 3rd, similar to the demonstrations in D.C. recently, to come together and insist that the issues of global warming be addressed. Quickly in other news, an excavation in Creete has unearthed the statues of Greek goddesses Athena and Hera thought to be toppled in 367 A.D. by an earthquake. The BBC reports that in the Congolese forest, wild gorrillas have been observed using simple tools "to test the depth of muddy water and to cross swampy areas." In July, astronomers said they'd discovered a tenth planet, known as Xena, and now the Associated Press reports that what's being called a moon has been observed orbiting around the planet.
C.I.: Thank you for that report, Rebecca. From reports of Xena, we now turn to Ty, of The Third Estate Sunday Review, who'll be reporting on events in Bali.
i had a long date friday. there was no time for posting.
it wasn't with hot hot paul walker but he was pretty studly in his own right.
thanks to kat for telling me about the ad for into the blue.
C.I.: Thank you, Betty. For additional resources on literacy, you can check out America's Literacy Directory which will provide statistics as well as inform you of literacy programs in your area, for adults, for children and for the learning disabled. Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude joins us now to give us the latest on the world of nature.
Rebecca: The Independent of London reports that "scientists will warn this week" that species are dying at a faster rate than was previously thought. As Artic ice continues to shrink for the fourth year in a row, polar bears, among other species, are increasingly at risk. The warmer temperature upsets the natural cycle of the polar bear, the thinning ice provides them with less of a habitat, and hungry and with less of an area to roam in, they go into towns where they are shot.
C.I.: Rebecca, as the Artic ice decreases, it turns to something, which is water. While the ice reflects the sun's rays back into space, the water absorbs them thereby increasing the global temperature. Correct?
Rebecca: Correct, and the BBC reports findings that, if the shrinkage continues, by 2060 "there may be no summer ice" in the Artic "at all."
C.I.: For most of the Bully Boy's tenure, there has been denial that global warming was occurring even in the face of last year's Pentagon report that found global warming to be a threat to humanity. Jeff Goodall, writing in Rolling Stone, has noted that the naysayers have now turned from denial to propositions that what we're looking at now is only more beach time, summer weather. Did you find any happy talk in the wake of this news?
Rebecca: One report that I found interesting from the headline was Aljazeera's "Global warming may boost oil industry." However, at present, when you try to access the article you get a message of server error. Australia's ABC had nothing on global warming in the last few days; however, they did carry a story entitled "Oceans becoming more acidic: scientists." The report details the increase, by 50%, in carbon dioxide in the ocean water. For those who skipped science classes, humans expell carbon dioxide but take in oxygen to breathe. The oceans are made up of many things but as a water based body, they are made up of H2O mean hydrogen and oxygen. The increase in carbon dioxide, though little noted elsewhere, is not good news on its own. When combined with the news of the Artic ice as well as the decrease in glaciers, we're looking at a very troubling situation that all countries should be seriously addressing. In terms of sea life, sea shells will be effected, as well as basic structure, by the carbon dioxide increase and it will enter the food chain. Currently, there is a call for action on December 3rd, similar to the demonstrations in D.C. recently, to come together and insist that the issues of global warming be addressed. Quickly in other news, an excavation in Creete has unearthed the statues of Greek goddesses Athena and Hera thought to be toppled in 367 A.D. by an earthquake. The BBC reports that in the Congolese forest, wild gorrillas have been observed using simple tools "to test the depth of muddy water and to cross swampy areas." In July, astronomers said they'd discovered a tenth planet, known as Xena, and now the Associated Press reports that what's being called a moon has been observed orbiting around the planet.
C.I.: Thank you for that report, Rebecca. From reports of Xena, we now turn to Ty, of The Third Estate Sunday Review, who'll be reporting on events in Bali.
i had a long date friday. there was no time for posting.
it wasn't with hot hot paul walker but he was pretty studly in his own right.
thanks to kat for telling me about the ad for into the blue.
9/29/2005
mike, c.i., betty and seth
that's just great. i'm working on the post. get 4 paragraphs and save to draft only to lose the whole thing because blogger's down.
i don't know what the deal is but lately it seems there are a lot more problems with blogger and this may have been scheduled maintance but i didn't see a message on the log in screen. seems like they could put it right up there so every 1 could see. 'blogger will be going down for maintance in 20 minutes.'
for mike, here's something from democracy now:
Reuters Protests 'Long Parade' of Media Deaths in Iraq
The Reuters News Agency says the conduct of U.S. troops in Iraq, including increasing detention and accidental shootings of journalists, is preventing full coverage of the war from reaching the American public. In a letter to Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Reuters said U.S. forces were limiting the ability of independent journalists to operate. The letter from the agency's Global Managing Editor David Schlesinger called on Warner to raise these issues with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is due to testify to the committee on Thursday. Schlesinger referred to "a long parade of disturbing incidents whereby professional journalists have been killed, wrongfully detained, and/or illegally abused by U.S. forces in Iraq." At least 66 journalists and media workers, most of them Iraqis, have been killed in Iraq since March 2003. U.S. forces acknowledge killing three Reuters journalists, most recently soundman Waleed Khaled who was shot by American soldiers on Aug. 28 while on assignment in Baghdad. The Pentagon says the soldiers were justified in opening fire. Reuters believes a fourth Reuters journalist, who died in Ramadi last year, was killed by a U.S. sniper. Schlesinger said the Pentagon has refused to conduct independent and transparent investigations into the deaths of the journalists, relying instead on inquiries by officers from the units responsible, who had exonerated their soldiers.
we're counting on john warner? lots of luck there. as c.i. noted this morning at the common ills:
John Warner's making those "maybe" rumbles again. But if pattern holds, they're just rumbles. Warner won't do anything. He's lucky that the re-election rate is so high (my opinion) because otherwise he would have been out of Congress as soon as Elizabeth Taylor dumped him. Back then, Mr. Dull made every meeting and was so proud of his attendance. He really seemed to expect a gold star. I hope the attendance held because he's got nothing else to be proud of as he stifles one investigation after another.
mr. dull. and mr. do nothing.
if elizabeth taylor hadn't elevated him, he'd still be scratching his ass on the side of the road to loserville.
need laughs? check out betty's "Thomas Friedman's Endgame Should Start With A Shower:"
Gail Collins has some very interesting choices in men. Carson Daly? Elaine and I both exchanged looks on that one. I mean, I guess I could see the attraction, if I really looked hard enough but he seems so non-Gail Collins-ish. I had to wonder if the fumes from Todd S. Purdum's smelly jock strap had effected her as well?
(Thomas Friedman swears that the fumes from Todd S. Purdum's smelly jock are like a jolt of warm coffee in the morning. He is just sniffing, right?)
After that a long lull set in as Gail Collins had discussed walking hand in hand with Daly back to her place and then tying him to the bed . . .We were honestly a little shocked. But after we realized it, we all had a good laugh.
"Is it that I'm too old for Carson Daly?" Gail Collins wondered.
I explained that he just didn't seem her type -- which I always pictured to be more Village, more intellectual, and a lot less photogenic. Sighing, Gail Collins said she was a little envious of me because I had seen Davy Brooks in a sock. I tried to assure her that it was a very empty sock but she wasn't having any of that. She likes his teeth. Says they remind her of a hamster she had as a child, Cuddles.
Giggling, she waved a large envelope around. She told Elaine and I that she'd been leaving Davy subtle hints for the last three months. Little posts its on his computer with smiley faces and notes like, "How's my big boy?" She'd even taken to ordering him a sandwich from time to time.
"Are you trying to date him or mother him?" the always to the point Elaine asked.
"Well, he got the message," Gail Collins said a little huffily. "He obviously did because he left me this."
Again she waved the envelope.
"He is the Mr. Darcy to my Miss Elizabeth Bennet!"
Poor Gail, she never looked more caucasion, more white-bread, more in need of some real sex.
from the third estate sunday review's "'Why Are You Here' and 'What's Changed:'"
87) Benny, 17, high school student: For the first time it feels like maybe a difference can come. We're studying about government and it really seems wild and out there but it's about us and I guess Cindy Sheehan drives that point home to me. So I am here for that reason and the change is that people wake up and you can see it in my class. We're debating and discussing what does free speech mean and what are your duties to be an American and stuff that I have never taken time to think on and it just seems real and connected to me. Maybe it's selfish and all too because we got the guys on campus goin, "Sign up and we'll take care of you. Free college." All these promises and you ask about war and like injuries and they don't talk about it. They brush you off or say, "You just watch out for yourself and you're fine." And I bet the 1900 men and women who are dead were watching out but that didn't save them. So it's just a lot to think about and maybe having government this year drives it home.
now go check out seth in the city, new blog from a community member.
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
Mikey Likes It
Thomas Friedman Is A Great Man
The Common Ills
Cedric's Big Mix
The Third Estate Sunday Review
Kat's Korner
Like Maria Said PazSeth in the City
i don't know what the deal is but lately it seems there are a lot more problems with blogger and this may have been scheduled maintance but i didn't see a message on the log in screen. seems like they could put it right up there so every 1 could see. 'blogger will be going down for maintance in 20 minutes.'
for mike, here's something from democracy now:
Reuters Protests 'Long Parade' of Media Deaths in Iraq
The Reuters News Agency says the conduct of U.S. troops in Iraq, including increasing detention and accidental shootings of journalists, is preventing full coverage of the war from reaching the American public. In a letter to Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Reuters said U.S. forces were limiting the ability of independent journalists to operate. The letter from the agency's Global Managing Editor David Schlesinger called on Warner to raise these issues with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is due to testify to the committee on Thursday. Schlesinger referred to "a long parade of disturbing incidents whereby professional journalists have been killed, wrongfully detained, and/or illegally abused by U.S. forces in Iraq." At least 66 journalists and media workers, most of them Iraqis, have been killed in Iraq since March 2003. U.S. forces acknowledge killing three Reuters journalists, most recently soundman Waleed Khaled who was shot by American soldiers on Aug. 28 while on assignment in Baghdad. The Pentagon says the soldiers were justified in opening fire. Reuters believes a fourth Reuters journalist, who died in Ramadi last year, was killed by a U.S. sniper. Schlesinger said the Pentagon has refused to conduct independent and transparent investigations into the deaths of the journalists, relying instead on inquiries by officers from the units responsible, who had exonerated their soldiers.
we're counting on john warner? lots of luck there. as c.i. noted this morning at the common ills:
John Warner's making those "maybe" rumbles again. But if pattern holds, they're just rumbles. Warner won't do anything. He's lucky that the re-election rate is so high (my opinion) because otherwise he would have been out of Congress as soon as Elizabeth Taylor dumped him. Back then, Mr. Dull made every meeting and was so proud of his attendance. He really seemed to expect a gold star. I hope the attendance held because he's got nothing else to be proud of as he stifles one investigation after another.
mr. dull. and mr. do nothing.
if elizabeth taylor hadn't elevated him, he'd still be scratching his ass on the side of the road to loserville.
need laughs? check out betty's "Thomas Friedman's Endgame Should Start With A Shower:"
Gail Collins has some very interesting choices in men. Carson Daly? Elaine and I both exchanged looks on that one. I mean, I guess I could see the attraction, if I really looked hard enough but he seems so non-Gail Collins-ish. I had to wonder if the fumes from Todd S. Purdum's smelly jock strap had effected her as well?
(Thomas Friedman swears that the fumes from Todd S. Purdum's smelly jock are like a jolt of warm coffee in the morning. He is just sniffing, right?)
After that a long lull set in as Gail Collins had discussed walking hand in hand with Daly back to her place and then tying him to the bed . . .We were honestly a little shocked. But after we realized it, we all had a good laugh.
"Is it that I'm too old for Carson Daly?" Gail Collins wondered.
I explained that he just didn't seem her type -- which I always pictured to be more Village, more intellectual, and a lot less photogenic. Sighing, Gail Collins said she was a little envious of me because I had seen Davy Brooks in a sock. I tried to assure her that it was a very empty sock but she wasn't having any of that. She likes his teeth. Says they remind her of a hamster she had as a child, Cuddles.
Giggling, she waved a large envelope around. She told Elaine and I that she'd been leaving Davy subtle hints for the last three months. Little posts its on his computer with smiley faces and notes like, "How's my big boy?" She'd even taken to ordering him a sandwich from time to time.
"Are you trying to date him or mother him?" the always to the point Elaine asked.
"Well, he got the message," Gail Collins said a little huffily. "He obviously did because he left me this."
Again she waved the envelope.
"He is the Mr. Darcy to my Miss Elizabeth Bennet!"
Poor Gail, she never looked more caucasion, more white-bread, more in need of some real sex.
from the third estate sunday review's "'Why Are You Here' and 'What's Changed:'"
87) Benny, 17, high school student: For the first time it feels like maybe a difference can come. We're studying about government and it really seems wild and out there but it's about us and I guess Cindy Sheehan drives that point home to me. So I am here for that reason and the change is that people wake up and you can see it in my class. We're debating and discussing what does free speech mean and what are your duties to be an American and stuff that I have never taken time to think on and it just seems real and connected to me. Maybe it's selfish and all too because we got the guys on campus goin, "Sign up and we'll take care of you. Free college." All these promises and you ask about war and like injuries and they don't talk about it. They brush you off or say, "You just watch out for yourself and you're fine." And I bet the 1900 men and women who are dead were watching out but that didn't save them. So it's just a lot to think about and maybe having government this year drives it home.
now go check out seth in the city, new blog from a community member.
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
Mikey Likes It
Thomas Friedman Is A Great Man
The Common Ills
Cedric's Big Mix
The Third Estate Sunday Review
Kat's Korner
Like Maria Said PazSeth in the City
9/28/2005
christine & pop politics
good evening. i ended up relaxing a little too much this evening. watching television, old sitcoms on television that weren't that good to begin with.
who's the boss is the show. but elaine and i used to watch that show. i saw 1 of our favorite episodes where samantha is working for angela but wants to quit. it's really a harmless show and there's much worse out there.
like the home improvements and the raymonds and all the other shows where 'the little woman' just sits around saying 'oh tim' or 'oh ray' and has no life of her own.
i can remember when judith light was karen on 1 life to live. anybody else go back that far? probably not. but she was really amazing. karen was a prostitute but her husband didn't know it. to save her friend from a murder charge, she had to admit it on the witness stand, in front of every 1 including her husband.
judith light is a good actress. and the worst that can be said about who's the boss is that it was sometimes just silly. these days you can say so much more about so many other shows.
tv on the brain tonight and you can blame that on christine of ms. musing.
ava and c.i. offer a feminist critique of tv shows each week over at the third estate sunday review. (they reviewed the hideous three wishes most recently.) and for 2 years now, christine's offered a feminist critique on pop culture and a host of other issues via ms.'s website.
but that's over there now.
i can't imagine why. ms. has 2 new blogs and 1 is really funny and the other will be hard hitting politics by eleanor smeal. (they're on my blogroll: a new leif and the smeal report.) but i can't imagine why christine's not going to be there anymore. if you read her last post it just seems to come out of the blue.
i hope it was a mutual decision and i hope ms. understands how important christine was to visitors of the site.
they aren't a monthly magazine, ms., they're not bimonthly. they publish 4 times a year and the content isn't always available online of each issue. this isn't to run down ms. for instance, i support the naacp but they need to realize that when people visit their site, they're wanting something more then 'about the naacp.'
with ms. when nothing else changed, you always had fresh content from christine. i get the print edition of the magazine so i honestly only went to the website because of christine.
and i hope they realize that and that she was appreciated.
she gave you a feminist critique. which doesn't mean every 1 always agreed with her because there is not 1 feminist critique. c.i. and ava both hit the roof 1 time when jim was putting something about 'the feminist critique' and they had to walk him through on how there isn't 1 feminist critique of tv shows, let alone of everything out there.
but christine would offer her opinions and steer you towards some show to watch or a cause to support. she was 1 of the handful of people i saw blogging about the issue of animals in new orleans after hurricane katrina. she didn't just write an entry either, she went down there.
she was an important voice and she really was the voice of the website because her content was new. so i hope she was appreciated and that she left because she felt it was time to focus on her own site (pop politics).
c.i.'s noted that she's moved on (and is noting pop politics) but i hope others are as well. christine is so the antithesis of the type of woman i wrote about yesterday. she truly was in it for every 1 and out of the desire to support women. elaine and c.i. did an e-mail today asking every 1 to consider adding pop politics to their blogrolls and i can't imagine any 1 in the community saying no to that. but if any blogger from outside the community reads this, i hope they will think about adding pop politics as well.
besides the fact that christine supported everyone, there's also the fact, and c.i. and elaine made this point strongly in their joint e-mail, that pop culture especially needs feminist critiques. before susan faludi's backlash, you'd meet a lot of women who would sneer, women who identified as feminist, about pop culture being critiqued.
i can think of 1 hideous woman that c.i. knew. we all knew her but, as usual, c.i. was the high roader who was nice to her. the woman was a lesbian but not out then. and she was trying to hide being a lesbian with every 1 that knew her. so, this is around 1987 or 1988, she went through this phase of going on and on about michael douglas and how hot he was. fatal attraction was out.
every 1 was raising their eye brows over her comments about his butt because there was no reason for her to be in the closet - we all knew and had no problem with that. but at 1 point when she was going on about michael douglas's butt for the 9th or 10th time, c.i. said that fatal attraction was really an anti-woman movie. i need a name for the woman so i'll just call her 'closet.'
closet hit the roof. she started yelling and screaming about how women were being beaten up and there wasn't time to waste on movies.
this after closet had gone on and on about the butt of michael douglas which i doubt had any healing effects on battered women.
she was an older feminist. she'd been one of the 1st of the 2nd wave. and she just wasn't open to discussions on anything that she didn't feel was a feminist issue.
when susan faludi's backlash came out, i remember elaine and i telling c.i. that closet had to be given a copy. 1st off, c.i. was handing that book out like crazy which isn't uncommon. when c.i. falls for a book, every 1 gets a copy. 2nd of all, faludi was critiquing film, television and fashion.
and that doesn't seem like a big deal now but it really did take faludi and that book to make a number of feminists realize the importance of offering critiques on those topics.
in their joint e-mail, elaine & c.i. noted lucy hughes-hallet which is another favorite author. she wrote a book on cleopatra that i do not remember the name of. (pray c.i. doesn't read that and i don't hear 'uh, rebecca, i gave you that book, didn't you keep it?') but hughes-hallet goes through various time periods to illustrate how cleopatra is never, when people write about her or make films of her, a fixed point of reference. you can find the thoughts and moods of the times in each portrayal. and our popular narratives do not critiquing.
we need to struggle to figure out what the message is. that doesn't mean we'll always agree.
for instance, i doubt i'd agree with christine on buffy the vampire slayer. i think after buffy came back from the dead and moved to upn the show had no feminist message.
there's a review of that which everyone worked on at the third estate sunday review and i was the 1st to say, let me blow my horn, 'let ava and c.i. write the tv reviews.' the strong points in that review come from them. it's a muddled review. and that's because every 1 was tossing out stuff. but buffy went from a strong woman to a pretty pathetic woman and i agree with them that this had to do with joss whedon wanting to play with the big boys which always means, as they point out, that a whedon or a glenn gordon caron reject the women that made him famous.
whedon kept trying to prop up angel to the point that he even lets buffy get slapped by angel in 1 cross-over episode. the star, the character every 1 loved from the bigger show, is reduced to carping, jealous woman who gets slapped for it.
that says a lot about where whedon's priorities were.
so i never agree with the claim that buffy was this powerful feminist statement. i agree that on the wb it was. there was enough of an arc to carry it through. but when you have buffy sleeping with spike and all the other drag her through the mud nonsense of the upn years, it's just not about feminism in my opinion.
and you know what? a lot of feminists would disagree. that's because there's not 1 feminist opinion. and we need to have these discussions (if we don't we end up supporting women blindly, including war hawks, and weakening ourselves and our own message of equality). not to say 'you're wrong, i'm right!' but to get another take and inform ourselves.
and it really is important because, as elaine & c.i. noted, pop culture is the narrative of our times, the fairy tales we grow up on, the equivalent of legends passed around the campfire.
and for 2 years at ms. musing, christine's taken on that and so much more.
abbey e-mailed me about christine. specifically, she wondered why christine was always called that at the common ills.
there are a number of reasons but the most obvious 1 is because you were supposed to think of her as a friend. she had a sight and it was to make sure she was approachable the way she would be if you were sitting around talking to your friends and 1 was present and you'd say of her, 'did you hear what christine said?' we aren't first wavers of the second wave, elaine, c.i. and i. so we do have that 'gloria steinem!' to this day. but it would probably be better if we did that with gloria steinem and others as well, said 'gloria' or whatever. because the hiearchy of titles is something that feminism really isn't about.
that's why c.i. doesn't say 'senator' or 'mr.' or 'ms.' when it's some 1 of the clergy, c.i. will go back and forth on it but always put in the title if they are a nun or a priest.
but christine was supposed to be a 1 name the way elaine says 'rebecca' and not 'rebecca winters.' feminism is supposed to be welcoming and that was supposed to drive it home. it was 'here's norman solomon and there's katrina vanden heuvel and here's christine' as in 'here's our friend christine.'
and that's what she was and is, everyone's online friend. so i hope you'll try to check out pop politics and give some thought to what she and the other women are writing there.
i've only been today because i'm running behind but if there are men writing there as well i am not trying to slight them, i just didn't see any. but men can be feminists and they should be. we all should be. that doesn't mean that i agree that every 1 who uses the term is a feminist. and that's something that christine and the other women (jaclyn's a name that stands out) there will really get across, what feminism is about.
now some people will go back and read the feminist mystique by betty friedan and good for them. i've read the book. i've read gloria's books as well (and prefer gloria's books). but with something like pop culture, in discussing something that we can all usually grasp, it's an easier way to get across feminist principles. a lot of my readers in high school, if i say 'comprable pay for comprable work' would probably wonder what i was talking about. if i said something like why did joshua jackson make more money than katie holmes on dawson's creek, they'd get that.
and you can do that with any feminist issue.
look at ava & c.i.'s review of three wishes. they're tackling some really big issues like what we owe one another as a society and how it's really easy to say 'personal problem' and dismiss something that way.
they could do (and they could, they're very smart) a thing, a historical thing, with no pop cultural refs on how women have long been told that any issue that matters to them or harms them is a 'personal problem.' your husband beat you? that's a personal problem.
believe it or not, there was a time when that was the attitude, the overwhelming attitude, on spousal abuse or rape or any number of issues. if you're older and were alive when these issues were 1st being seriously addressed, you remember the excitement as women said, 'it happens to me too' over and over and we started seeing it was a societal issue and not the dismissive personal problem.
but for those of us who can remember those days it can be easy to think every 1 else knows all about it and the topic doesn't need to be discussed anymore in terms of leading a person through it, just address the heart of the issue. and in doing that, a lot of people new to feminism end up lost and saying 'why are we talking about this?' a pop culture critique can go a long way in educating us to the feminist issues that might otherwise go unexplained.
so please try to visit christine's site pop politics and show her your support. she and the others will raise issues that are worth raising. and it won't be heavy handed and you won't be bored. they're doing a feminist critique of popular culture. you don't need to do any outside reading to engage in the conversation you just need to be willing to read and think about it. or, if you're a poster, i'm not, but if you are, you can join in on the dialogue and say 'oh i agree with that' or 'i think differently and here's what i'm seeing.'
Christine Cupaiuolo
Pop Politics
Like Maria Said Paz
The Third Estate Sunday Review
The Common Ills
Feminism
Ms. Musing
who's the boss is the show. but elaine and i used to watch that show. i saw 1 of our favorite episodes where samantha is working for angela but wants to quit. it's really a harmless show and there's much worse out there.
like the home improvements and the raymonds and all the other shows where 'the little woman' just sits around saying 'oh tim' or 'oh ray' and has no life of her own.
i can remember when judith light was karen on 1 life to live. anybody else go back that far? probably not. but she was really amazing. karen was a prostitute but her husband didn't know it. to save her friend from a murder charge, she had to admit it on the witness stand, in front of every 1 including her husband.
judith light is a good actress. and the worst that can be said about who's the boss is that it was sometimes just silly. these days you can say so much more about so many other shows.
tv on the brain tonight and you can blame that on christine of ms. musing.
ava and c.i. offer a feminist critique of tv shows each week over at the third estate sunday review. (they reviewed the hideous three wishes most recently.) and for 2 years now, christine's offered a feminist critique on pop culture and a host of other issues via ms.'s website.
but that's over there now.
i can't imagine why. ms. has 2 new blogs and 1 is really funny and the other will be hard hitting politics by eleanor smeal. (they're on my blogroll: a new leif and the smeal report.) but i can't imagine why christine's not going to be there anymore. if you read her last post it just seems to come out of the blue.
i hope it was a mutual decision and i hope ms. understands how important christine was to visitors of the site.
they aren't a monthly magazine, ms., they're not bimonthly. they publish 4 times a year and the content isn't always available online of each issue. this isn't to run down ms. for instance, i support the naacp but they need to realize that when people visit their site, they're wanting something more then 'about the naacp.'
with ms. when nothing else changed, you always had fresh content from christine. i get the print edition of the magazine so i honestly only went to the website because of christine.
and i hope they realize that and that she was appreciated.
she gave you a feminist critique. which doesn't mean every 1 always agreed with her because there is not 1 feminist critique. c.i. and ava both hit the roof 1 time when jim was putting something about 'the feminist critique' and they had to walk him through on how there isn't 1 feminist critique of tv shows, let alone of everything out there.
but christine would offer her opinions and steer you towards some show to watch or a cause to support. she was 1 of the handful of people i saw blogging about the issue of animals in new orleans after hurricane katrina. she didn't just write an entry either, she went down there.
she was an important voice and she really was the voice of the website because her content was new. so i hope she was appreciated and that she left because she felt it was time to focus on her own site (pop politics).
c.i.'s noted that she's moved on (and is noting pop politics) but i hope others are as well. christine is so the antithesis of the type of woman i wrote about yesterday. she truly was in it for every 1 and out of the desire to support women. elaine and c.i. did an e-mail today asking every 1 to consider adding pop politics to their blogrolls and i can't imagine any 1 in the community saying no to that. but if any blogger from outside the community reads this, i hope they will think about adding pop politics as well.
besides the fact that christine supported everyone, there's also the fact, and c.i. and elaine made this point strongly in their joint e-mail, that pop culture especially needs feminist critiques. before susan faludi's backlash, you'd meet a lot of women who would sneer, women who identified as feminist, about pop culture being critiqued.
i can think of 1 hideous woman that c.i. knew. we all knew her but, as usual, c.i. was the high roader who was nice to her. the woman was a lesbian but not out then. and she was trying to hide being a lesbian with every 1 that knew her. so, this is around 1987 or 1988, she went through this phase of going on and on about michael douglas and how hot he was. fatal attraction was out.
every 1 was raising their eye brows over her comments about his butt because there was no reason for her to be in the closet - we all knew and had no problem with that. but at 1 point when she was going on about michael douglas's butt for the 9th or 10th time, c.i. said that fatal attraction was really an anti-woman movie. i need a name for the woman so i'll just call her 'closet.'
closet hit the roof. she started yelling and screaming about how women were being beaten up and there wasn't time to waste on movies.
this after closet had gone on and on about the butt of michael douglas which i doubt had any healing effects on battered women.
she was an older feminist. she'd been one of the 1st of the 2nd wave. and she just wasn't open to discussions on anything that she didn't feel was a feminist issue.
when susan faludi's backlash came out, i remember elaine and i telling c.i. that closet had to be given a copy. 1st off, c.i. was handing that book out like crazy which isn't uncommon. when c.i. falls for a book, every 1 gets a copy. 2nd of all, faludi was critiquing film, television and fashion.
and that doesn't seem like a big deal now but it really did take faludi and that book to make a number of feminists realize the importance of offering critiques on those topics.
in their joint e-mail, elaine & c.i. noted lucy hughes-hallet which is another favorite author. she wrote a book on cleopatra that i do not remember the name of. (pray c.i. doesn't read that and i don't hear 'uh, rebecca, i gave you that book, didn't you keep it?') but hughes-hallet goes through various time periods to illustrate how cleopatra is never, when people write about her or make films of her, a fixed point of reference. you can find the thoughts and moods of the times in each portrayal. and our popular narratives do not critiquing.
we need to struggle to figure out what the message is. that doesn't mean we'll always agree.
for instance, i doubt i'd agree with christine on buffy the vampire slayer. i think after buffy came back from the dead and moved to upn the show had no feminist message.
there's a review of that which everyone worked on at the third estate sunday review and i was the 1st to say, let me blow my horn, 'let ava and c.i. write the tv reviews.' the strong points in that review come from them. it's a muddled review. and that's because every 1 was tossing out stuff. but buffy went from a strong woman to a pretty pathetic woman and i agree with them that this had to do with joss whedon wanting to play with the big boys which always means, as they point out, that a whedon or a glenn gordon caron reject the women that made him famous.
whedon kept trying to prop up angel to the point that he even lets buffy get slapped by angel in 1 cross-over episode. the star, the character every 1 loved from the bigger show, is reduced to carping, jealous woman who gets slapped for it.
that says a lot about where whedon's priorities were.
so i never agree with the claim that buffy was this powerful feminist statement. i agree that on the wb it was. there was enough of an arc to carry it through. but when you have buffy sleeping with spike and all the other drag her through the mud nonsense of the upn years, it's just not about feminism in my opinion.
and you know what? a lot of feminists would disagree. that's because there's not 1 feminist opinion. and we need to have these discussions (if we don't we end up supporting women blindly, including war hawks, and weakening ourselves and our own message of equality). not to say 'you're wrong, i'm right!' but to get another take and inform ourselves.
and it really is important because, as elaine & c.i. noted, pop culture is the narrative of our times, the fairy tales we grow up on, the equivalent of legends passed around the campfire.
and for 2 years at ms. musing, christine's taken on that and so much more.
abbey e-mailed me about christine. specifically, she wondered why christine was always called that at the common ills.
there are a number of reasons but the most obvious 1 is because you were supposed to think of her as a friend. she had a sight and it was to make sure she was approachable the way she would be if you were sitting around talking to your friends and 1 was present and you'd say of her, 'did you hear what christine said?' we aren't first wavers of the second wave, elaine, c.i. and i. so we do have that 'gloria steinem!' to this day. but it would probably be better if we did that with gloria steinem and others as well, said 'gloria' or whatever. because the hiearchy of titles is something that feminism really isn't about.
that's why c.i. doesn't say 'senator' or 'mr.' or 'ms.' when it's some 1 of the clergy, c.i. will go back and forth on it but always put in the title if they are a nun or a priest.
but christine was supposed to be a 1 name the way elaine says 'rebecca' and not 'rebecca winters.' feminism is supposed to be welcoming and that was supposed to drive it home. it was 'here's norman solomon and there's katrina vanden heuvel and here's christine' as in 'here's our friend christine.'
and that's what she was and is, everyone's online friend. so i hope you'll try to check out pop politics and give some thought to what she and the other women are writing there.
i've only been today because i'm running behind but if there are men writing there as well i am not trying to slight them, i just didn't see any. but men can be feminists and they should be. we all should be. that doesn't mean that i agree that every 1 who uses the term is a feminist. and that's something that christine and the other women (jaclyn's a name that stands out) there will really get across, what feminism is about.
now some people will go back and read the feminist mystique by betty friedan and good for them. i've read the book. i've read gloria's books as well (and prefer gloria's books). but with something like pop culture, in discussing something that we can all usually grasp, it's an easier way to get across feminist principles. a lot of my readers in high school, if i say 'comprable pay for comprable work' would probably wonder what i was talking about. if i said something like why did joshua jackson make more money than katie holmes on dawson's creek, they'd get that.
and you can do that with any feminist issue.
look at ava & c.i.'s review of three wishes. they're tackling some really big issues like what we owe one another as a society and how it's really easy to say 'personal problem' and dismiss something that way.
they could do (and they could, they're very smart) a thing, a historical thing, with no pop cultural refs on how women have long been told that any issue that matters to them or harms them is a 'personal problem.' your husband beat you? that's a personal problem.
believe it or not, there was a time when that was the attitude, the overwhelming attitude, on spousal abuse or rape or any number of issues. if you're older and were alive when these issues were 1st being seriously addressed, you remember the excitement as women said, 'it happens to me too' over and over and we started seeing it was a societal issue and not the dismissive personal problem.
but for those of us who can remember those days it can be easy to think every 1 else knows all about it and the topic doesn't need to be discussed anymore in terms of leading a person through it, just address the heart of the issue. and in doing that, a lot of people new to feminism end up lost and saying 'why are we talking about this?' a pop culture critique can go a long way in educating us to the feminist issues that might otherwise go unexplained.
so please try to visit christine's site pop politics and show her your support. she and the others will raise issues that are worth raising. and it won't be heavy handed and you won't be bored. they're doing a feminist critique of popular culture. you don't need to do any outside reading to engage in the conversation you just need to be willing to read and think about it. or, if you're a poster, i'm not, but if you are, you can join in on the dialogue and say 'oh i agree with that' or 'i think differently and here's what i'm seeing.'
Christine Cupaiuolo
Pop Politics
Like Maria Said Paz
The Third Estate Sunday Review
The Common Ills
Feminism
Ms. Musing
9/27/2005
sick of it
i've been exploring the notion of feminism today.
i am a feminist. most of my friends are and self-describe that way regardless of gender.
but there's an attitude of any 1 should be able to use the term. i'm not slamming that attitude. c.i. has that attitude. the point being that it's often turned into a dirty word so any 1 willing to use it, great.
but i'm seeing a lot of female hawks these days. little security mommies. and they're worse than neocons because the neocons do not give a crap. these women (and they're probably some men too) seem to think that they can play war hawk and claim feminism.
now the feminists i hang out with are strong feminists. you've got elaine, c.i., ruth, betty, ava and dona, kat and jess. he's a feminist. (mike, you'd make me very happy if you'd start using the word because you are a feminist.)
but when i'm talking to them we realize, like now pointed out, peace is a feminist issue.
and i'm tired of people getting to use the word.
i don't mean i own the word. i certainly don't.
but it seems like there are standards by which you meet the term.
and somehow it's all become about wages.
that's not surprising in our money hungry society.
but that's not feminism.
and i'm really getting tired of these war hawks claiming that they are feminists. or building on something because they are a woman. and if you don't like what they say, it's 'oh i'm being picked on because i'm a woman.' no, you're being picked on because you are moron regardless of gender.
and let me make a few points here. these women never really care about any 1 else's wages or how they're doing, it's just about them.
that's why they can slam a working class or poverty level single mother and talk to her about 'responsibility.' that's not feminism.
and when someone wants to do that, when she wants to make that kind of statement, she needs to quit getting a pass because she's a woman.
there was an alert from gina & krista in their round-robin so a lot of people will know what i'm talking about.
as usual, c.i. set the record straight in such a way that the person who's angered every 1 isn't named. but i think the community will be happy if not today then tomorrow.
mike's bit his tongue over and over about this woman.
we are a feminist community, regardless of whether all members use the term or not.
when c.i. mentioned pro-choice was something the community supported, gina & krista had already done the polling. there may be visitors that swing by that aren't pro-choice, but the community is. we're against the war. we're in favor of equal opportunities for all and realize that means a social safety net because not every 1 starts off at the same point and because life can really screw you over. you can work your ass off and still be living paycheck to paycheck.
the community knows what feminism means.
and this nonsense that c.i. has to put up with ... i understand members are mad at some 1 but it's like every week now c.i. has to issue a clarification post (like this morning) to make it clear that the person in question, who's not a member of the community and doesn't link to us doesn't speak for us.
this is an issue that came up in d.c. we've got another blog that will be going live either today or tomorrow and another right behind that. the point is, the community is self-sustaining. and there's enough going on in the community without having to go out of it.
cedric gave a really great speech on this, and it was a speech (the thing gina & krista published on sunday in their special round-robin on d.c.). cedric said it's great that c.i. pushes his posts and he always appreciates that because he's just started up. but there are some people that shouldn't be linked to. and just being quiet about them isn't enough if they've got a link on the side. jim agreed with that as well. jim and i are always the 1s saying this stuff so it's great that it came from cedric this time.
the best thing elaine did for me besides fill in was to clean the blogroll. i wouldn't have taken those women down because i was thinking 'oh they're women.' but they don't do shit for us. some of them e-mailed me their problems and i was sitting there wasting my time telling them it was okay and they were okay. and i felt sorry and added some to my blogroll.
but you'll note, they could whine to me but they weren't going to do shit for me.
that's messed up. and when cedric posted on this and elaine spoke to c.i. about it, that was the 1st c.i. knew of it. c.i. doesn't care about links because the community is c.i.'s. we all benefit, we're all members but c.i. built it and there's not a member that doesn't go to the common ills.
and on thursday, in the private e-mail account for members, c.i. had 2035 e-mails. so there's no reason for c.i. to ever think that the rest of us aren't all doing equally well.
but when elaine and cedric raised the issue of the way i've been treated, c.i. got pissed off. if we hadn't had the problems this weekend that we had (and thanks to gina & krista for running the third entries in their round-robin that wouldn't post), it would have already been dealt with. but today, c.i. had to clarify that the person doesn't speak for the community (or for c.i.) and i think c.i.'s sick of it. i know c.i. is. and the point c.i. made this weekend when we had time to talk about it was, 'no 1 gets linked to by this woman?'
no, none of us.
so why have we linked to her?
jim said, 'look, if she linked to people, it would be 1 thing. we could say "okay, we disagree but everyone's got a right to free speech and don't go there if you don't like her." but the fact remains that she doesn't link to us. and that's not right.'
the link hurts c.i. more than any 1 because every week now she's writing something that members are up in arms about. karla will visit or some 1 else and copy and paste and it will circulate (with criticism) throughout the community. as it does, c.i. will get all these e-mails on it from members and have to drop everything to issue some statement (while taking the high road) to make it clear that those aren't the sentiments of the community.
and this all ties into why c.i. wrote the entries on sheryl crow yesterday.
we all heard that lame cd or parts of it this weekend. (i bailed after the 2nd song.) but jim said, 'this is just like sheryl crow, she'll get a pass because she's a woman. she's not doing anything for women. she's doing it for herself and turning her back on the peace movement but she'll get a pass.'
c.i. just made the comment about her writing bad lyrics yesterday morning. but when sheryl freaks came swarming to say 'how dare you,' c.i. did another post that dealt with crow. (and c.i. held the tongue on that. i do know 1 of the rockers that c.i. was referring to. and he's given me an earfull on crow and how disappointed everyone is with her.) (he's my claim to groupie status!)
but doing that entry (and it's a great entry, i laugh at this: '", man" is implied' everytime i read it) took up time and the entry c.i. hoped to do had to wait. and that's how it is with this woman. every week, c.i. has to find a way to high road a commentary for the community.
there was the time the woman didn't know shit about cindy sheehan and c.i. had to do a remedial post. so it just takes up too much time.
and that was jim's point, if she linked to any of us the attitude could be 'well free speech and all that' but she doesn't link to us and she causes problems because we have linked to her. we end up with e-mails asking, have you seen this!
people are offended. and it's not worth it to link to her.
so i'm sick of it tonight. i'm sick of war cheerleaders and women who get a pass because they're women. they don't help other women. they only help who they want to help. they don't stand for feminism but they benefit from it. they benefit from 'where are the women bloggers' and so women try to link to each other. but these women who don't do the same just look out for themselves.
it's rude, it's hypocritical and it's not worth it because they're not doing anything to promote women. they're only promoting themselves.
this may be my topic this week. tomorrow i may post on 1 woman who's written me repeatedly and always ends with some nonsense about 'remember we all need to stick together' and she means women by 'we' and she wrote about 3 times a week until i went on vacation. and i linked to her, put her on my blogroll. but she never did the same. it was about her. 'we all need to stick together' translated as 'every 1 needs to link to me!'
remember, tomorrow mike has an interview with 1 of the best women bloggers, betty. don't miss it.
make sure you don't miss kat's review of the rolling stone's latest cd.
i am a feminist. most of my friends are and self-describe that way regardless of gender.
but there's an attitude of any 1 should be able to use the term. i'm not slamming that attitude. c.i. has that attitude. the point being that it's often turned into a dirty word so any 1 willing to use it, great.
but i'm seeing a lot of female hawks these days. little security mommies. and they're worse than neocons because the neocons do not give a crap. these women (and they're probably some men too) seem to think that they can play war hawk and claim feminism.
now the feminists i hang out with are strong feminists. you've got elaine, c.i., ruth, betty, ava and dona, kat and jess. he's a feminist. (mike, you'd make me very happy if you'd start using the word because you are a feminist.)
but when i'm talking to them we realize, like now pointed out, peace is a feminist issue.
and i'm tired of people getting to use the word.
i don't mean i own the word. i certainly don't.
but it seems like there are standards by which you meet the term.
and somehow it's all become about wages.
that's not surprising in our money hungry society.
but that's not feminism.
and i'm really getting tired of these war hawks claiming that they are feminists. or building on something because they are a woman. and if you don't like what they say, it's 'oh i'm being picked on because i'm a woman.' no, you're being picked on because you are moron regardless of gender.
and let me make a few points here. these women never really care about any 1 else's wages or how they're doing, it's just about them.
that's why they can slam a working class or poverty level single mother and talk to her about 'responsibility.' that's not feminism.
and when someone wants to do that, when she wants to make that kind of statement, she needs to quit getting a pass because she's a woman.
there was an alert from gina & krista in their round-robin so a lot of people will know what i'm talking about.
as usual, c.i. set the record straight in such a way that the person who's angered every 1 isn't named. but i think the community will be happy if not today then tomorrow.
mike's bit his tongue over and over about this woman.
we are a feminist community, regardless of whether all members use the term or not.
when c.i. mentioned pro-choice was something the community supported, gina & krista had already done the polling. there may be visitors that swing by that aren't pro-choice, but the community is. we're against the war. we're in favor of equal opportunities for all and realize that means a social safety net because not every 1 starts off at the same point and because life can really screw you over. you can work your ass off and still be living paycheck to paycheck.
the community knows what feminism means.
and this nonsense that c.i. has to put up with ... i understand members are mad at some 1 but it's like every week now c.i. has to issue a clarification post (like this morning) to make it clear that the person in question, who's not a member of the community and doesn't link to us doesn't speak for us.
this is an issue that came up in d.c. we've got another blog that will be going live either today or tomorrow and another right behind that. the point is, the community is self-sustaining. and there's enough going on in the community without having to go out of it.
cedric gave a really great speech on this, and it was a speech (the thing gina & krista published on sunday in their special round-robin on d.c.). cedric said it's great that c.i. pushes his posts and he always appreciates that because he's just started up. but there are some people that shouldn't be linked to. and just being quiet about them isn't enough if they've got a link on the side. jim agreed with that as well. jim and i are always the 1s saying this stuff so it's great that it came from cedric this time.
the best thing elaine did for me besides fill in was to clean the blogroll. i wouldn't have taken those women down because i was thinking 'oh they're women.' but they don't do shit for us. some of them e-mailed me their problems and i was sitting there wasting my time telling them it was okay and they were okay. and i felt sorry and added some to my blogroll.
but you'll note, they could whine to me but they weren't going to do shit for me.
that's messed up. and when cedric posted on this and elaine spoke to c.i. about it, that was the 1st c.i. knew of it. c.i. doesn't care about links because the community is c.i.'s. we all benefit, we're all members but c.i. built it and there's not a member that doesn't go to the common ills.
and on thursday, in the private e-mail account for members, c.i. had 2035 e-mails. so there's no reason for c.i. to ever think that the rest of us aren't all doing equally well.
but when elaine and cedric raised the issue of the way i've been treated, c.i. got pissed off. if we hadn't had the problems this weekend that we had (and thanks to gina & krista for running the third entries in their round-robin that wouldn't post), it would have already been dealt with. but today, c.i. had to clarify that the person doesn't speak for the community (or for c.i.) and i think c.i.'s sick of it. i know c.i. is. and the point c.i. made this weekend when we had time to talk about it was, 'no 1 gets linked to by this woman?'
no, none of us.
so why have we linked to her?
jim said, 'look, if she linked to people, it would be 1 thing. we could say "okay, we disagree but everyone's got a right to free speech and don't go there if you don't like her." but the fact remains that she doesn't link to us. and that's not right.'
the link hurts c.i. more than any 1 because every week now she's writing something that members are up in arms about. karla will visit or some 1 else and copy and paste and it will circulate (with criticism) throughout the community. as it does, c.i. will get all these e-mails on it from members and have to drop everything to issue some statement (while taking the high road) to make it clear that those aren't the sentiments of the community.
and this all ties into why c.i. wrote the entries on sheryl crow yesterday.
we all heard that lame cd or parts of it this weekend. (i bailed after the 2nd song.) but jim said, 'this is just like sheryl crow, she'll get a pass because she's a woman. she's not doing anything for women. she's doing it for herself and turning her back on the peace movement but she'll get a pass.'
c.i. just made the comment about her writing bad lyrics yesterday morning. but when sheryl freaks came swarming to say 'how dare you,' c.i. did another post that dealt with crow. (and c.i. held the tongue on that. i do know 1 of the rockers that c.i. was referring to. and he's given me an earfull on crow and how disappointed everyone is with her.) (he's my claim to groupie status!)
but doing that entry (and it's a great entry, i laugh at this: '", man" is implied' everytime i read it) took up time and the entry c.i. hoped to do had to wait. and that's how it is with this woman. every week, c.i. has to find a way to high road a commentary for the community.
there was the time the woman didn't know shit about cindy sheehan and c.i. had to do a remedial post. so it just takes up too much time.
and that was jim's point, if she linked to any of us the attitude could be 'well free speech and all that' but she doesn't link to us and she causes problems because we have linked to her. we end up with e-mails asking, have you seen this!
people are offended. and it's not worth it to link to her.
so i'm sick of it tonight. i'm sick of war cheerleaders and women who get a pass because they're women. they don't help other women. they only help who they want to help. they don't stand for feminism but they benefit from it. they benefit from 'where are the women bloggers' and so women try to link to each other. but these women who don't do the same just look out for themselves.
it's rude, it's hypocritical and it's not worth it because they're not doing anything to promote women. they're only promoting themselves.
this may be my topic this week. tomorrow i may post on 1 woman who's written me repeatedly and always ends with some nonsense about 'remember we all need to stick together' and she means women by 'we' and she wrote about 3 times a week until i went on vacation. and i linked to her, put her on my blogroll. but she never did the same. it was about her. 'we all need to stick together' translated as 'every 1 needs to link to me!'
remember, tomorrow mike has an interview with 1 of the best women bloggers, betty. don't miss it.
make sure you don't miss kat's review of the rolling stone's latest cd.
9/26/2005
back home
so your president has returned home. she's tired. how are you?
i'm listening to pacifica because everyone was talking about pacifica this weekend, ruth was talking about how you could real news and tracey was saying that the 'jerry springer-ization' of air america radio had made her almost give on that network. (she still loves janeane and she and her mother go to ruth's on saturdays to listen to the laura flanders show together and to work on a quilt. ruth's teaching them how to quilt.)
i love janeane too. i just can't take that tone that sam gets. it just irritates me. for awhile, i was just listening on friday when sam was off and janeane had the whole show to herself but then they had thom hartman for the full week and i didn't see the point. that's not a slam at hartman. but if i'm listening to a talk show, i listen for the host. like i'll listen to mike malloy because i like him.
but sam's voice, and fellows don't take offense if you're the same, just rises and rises until he's like a little girl squealing and it really gets on my nerves. i also can't take all of his rants. janeane has rants too, i know. but she's got a deep voice and she will also break it up with humor. but the real thing is, i don't feel like she's grabbing me by the shirt and spitting in my face as she squeals. when sam gets worked up, that's what i feel like. he's the guy made for dockers. you want to tell him to just stop and take a breath.
so i'm hearing about how a prison in new orleans didn't call for help until after the hurricane hit and how all the prisoners aren't accounted for.
i'm sure that some will say, 'well they were in prison.' all being in prison means is that it's our responsibility to protect them. we've locked them away, we need to be responsible for their well being. guilt or innocence isn't the issue once we take control of their lives by locking them away.
the man in charge of the prison, i didn't catch his name, needs to be fired. he failed to protect the people. he's the warden. they are the wards. it's his job to protect them. there's no excuse for it.
it was a lot of fun this weekend. some got really bummed about blogger and i don't blame them for that. i couldn't even log in when i tried to on saturday. but i said, 'you know what, fuck it, focus on the activism' and i think that's what we all ended up doing and the weekend was wonderful.
some guy wrote in and he's using 1 of those dopey screen names so i won't even name it except to say 'try millimeters because there's no way that's inches' but he's just in a tizzy that i haven't written about hurricane rita.
why would i?
i haven't been online or sitting in front of a tv and i'm not in that area.
am i suddenly the weather channel?
i was in d.c. for the protests.
i don't know why the guy expected that i'd be giving bulletins on hurricane rita.
maybe his computer only gets 1 web page and he has to count on little me to provide him with every detail in the world or he misses out?
thursday night, friday morning, elaine and i were helping c.i. go through the e-mails for the indy media posts and 1 e-mailer was upset about an article that she'd seen.
i don't blame her for being upset (and i even wrote her back). this woman had a problem with the fact that people were going to d.c. for the protests. 'what about the victims of hurricane katrina!' she screamed over and over. then she went on to slam codepink and move on for not doing anything for the victims.
she needs to know her facts and that includes that those organizations and others like them had done things prior to the weekend and did do things during the weekend.
look her cause, her only cause, is the victims of hurricane katrina. great cause. hopefully she works hard. but i wouldn't have read something by her talking about how she was there doing relief effort and felt the need to scream, 'why isn't she in d.c.!' that's her cause, her only cause.
but to whine and bitch about the fact that the marches and rallies weren't called off is nonsense. those were planned in advance and, more importantly, there's no reason to call them off.
it was total bullshit from the little princess who wanted to stand up and say 'look at me! look at me!'
get a fucking grip.
she's like those people in the movie twister, chasing after this or that.
problems are interconnected, and read ava and c.i.'s latest tv review for more on that, so it's really silly for some little moron to act like there can only be 1 issue in the nation and that people working to end the war are jerking off.
she didn't mention the environment once in her little pity party. as though global warming had nothing to do with the hurricane, as though the toxic nature of new orleans now is not the result of pollution.
she reminded me of muffy tupperman on square pegs going on and on about some cause as if it were the only 1 on the face of the planet.
so the unnamed visitor should be reading her. i'm sure she'll find something to say about hurricane rita. from what i saw on cnn it looks like the residents of beaumont, texas were hard hit but it doesn't look like it was of the scale that hurricane katrina was.
but who knows? i'm going by what the media told me. and they didn't spend a lot of time telling me about the rallies and marches.
they honestly looked bored on cnn. like they were thinking, 'gee, maybe christian slater will get busted tonight and we can do full coverage on that tomorrow! maybe they'll even be a court case and we can act like this is the most important story in the world!'
want some reality, go read the 101 voices from d.c.
i'm listening to pacifica because everyone was talking about pacifica this weekend, ruth was talking about how you could real news and tracey was saying that the 'jerry springer-ization' of air america radio had made her almost give on that network. (she still loves janeane and she and her mother go to ruth's on saturdays to listen to the laura flanders show together and to work on a quilt. ruth's teaching them how to quilt.)
i love janeane too. i just can't take that tone that sam gets. it just irritates me. for awhile, i was just listening on friday when sam was off and janeane had the whole show to herself but then they had thom hartman for the full week and i didn't see the point. that's not a slam at hartman. but if i'm listening to a talk show, i listen for the host. like i'll listen to mike malloy because i like him.
but sam's voice, and fellows don't take offense if you're the same, just rises and rises until he's like a little girl squealing and it really gets on my nerves. i also can't take all of his rants. janeane has rants too, i know. but she's got a deep voice and she will also break it up with humor. but the real thing is, i don't feel like she's grabbing me by the shirt and spitting in my face as she squeals. when sam gets worked up, that's what i feel like. he's the guy made for dockers. you want to tell him to just stop and take a breath.
so i'm hearing about how a prison in new orleans didn't call for help until after the hurricane hit and how all the prisoners aren't accounted for.
i'm sure that some will say, 'well they were in prison.' all being in prison means is that it's our responsibility to protect them. we've locked them away, we need to be responsible for their well being. guilt or innocence isn't the issue once we take control of their lives by locking them away.
the man in charge of the prison, i didn't catch his name, needs to be fired. he failed to protect the people. he's the warden. they are the wards. it's his job to protect them. there's no excuse for it.
it was a lot of fun this weekend. some got really bummed about blogger and i don't blame them for that. i couldn't even log in when i tried to on saturday. but i said, 'you know what, fuck it, focus on the activism' and i think that's what we all ended up doing and the weekend was wonderful.
some guy wrote in and he's using 1 of those dopey screen names so i won't even name it except to say 'try millimeters because there's no way that's inches' but he's just in a tizzy that i haven't written about hurricane rita.
why would i?
i haven't been online or sitting in front of a tv and i'm not in that area.
am i suddenly the weather channel?
i was in d.c. for the protests.
i don't know why the guy expected that i'd be giving bulletins on hurricane rita.
maybe his computer only gets 1 web page and he has to count on little me to provide him with every detail in the world or he misses out?
thursday night, friday morning, elaine and i were helping c.i. go through the e-mails for the indy media posts and 1 e-mailer was upset about an article that she'd seen.
i don't blame her for being upset (and i even wrote her back). this woman had a problem with the fact that people were going to d.c. for the protests. 'what about the victims of hurricane katrina!' she screamed over and over. then she went on to slam codepink and move on for not doing anything for the victims.
she needs to know her facts and that includes that those organizations and others like them had done things prior to the weekend and did do things during the weekend.
look her cause, her only cause, is the victims of hurricane katrina. great cause. hopefully she works hard. but i wouldn't have read something by her talking about how she was there doing relief effort and felt the need to scream, 'why isn't she in d.c.!' that's her cause, her only cause.
but to whine and bitch about the fact that the marches and rallies weren't called off is nonsense. those were planned in advance and, more importantly, there's no reason to call them off.
it was total bullshit from the little princess who wanted to stand up and say 'look at me! look at me!'
get a fucking grip.
she's like those people in the movie twister, chasing after this or that.
problems are interconnected, and read ava and c.i.'s latest tv review for more on that, so it's really silly for some little moron to act like there can only be 1 issue in the nation and that people working to end the war are jerking off.
she didn't mention the environment once in her little pity party. as though global warming had nothing to do with the hurricane, as though the toxic nature of new orleans now is not the result of pollution.
she reminded me of muffy tupperman on square pegs going on and on about some cause as if it were the only 1 on the face of the planet.
so the unnamed visitor should be reading her. i'm sure she'll find something to say about hurricane rita. from what i saw on cnn it looks like the residents of beaumont, texas were hard hit but it doesn't look like it was of the scale that hurricane katrina was.
but who knows? i'm going by what the media told me. and they didn't spend a lot of time telling me about the rallies and marches.
they honestly looked bored on cnn. like they were thinking, 'gee, maybe christian slater will get busted tonight and we can do full coverage on that tomorrow! maybe they'll even be a court case and we can act like this is the most important story in the world!'
want some reality, go read the 101 voices from d.c.
9/23/2005
ladies and gentleman, the president of the united states ... rebecca winters!
hello my readrs. welcome to my inauguration as president of the united states.
how did it happen?
well i am in d.c. and the bully boy is where?
as your president, i promise to be fair to all, so i may confuse americans who've lived through the last five years. but the government can be fair and it can be responsive.
i will not please all americans.
as with the strongest presidents in recent history - jkf and bill clinton - i do not intend to limit myself sexually. i will, however, promise to set my heights higher than bill clinton who was truly egalitarian in his choices. rest assured, i will not sleep with anything sporting a beret.
as the 1st woman president of the united states, i will come up against many new problems. such as 'first lady.' since i'm currently unattached i ask the people's help in selecting an official mate. i will dub him 'first stud.'
i will let america vote my mate (and that is copyrighted, vote my mate, so fox will risk a law suit should they steal from me). i do not mean to influence the campaigning but i will offer a few suggestions.
1) ashton kutcher. the chin's too pointy. but he's a good looking doof and as busy as i will be, it might be easier to have a first stud who can get lost looking at the pattern a window frame makes on a wall. i should warn you that voting for kutchner will mean that i will have to either consign demi moore to a gulag (gitmo will be empty as my first action, so perhaps she would like to go there?) or a lifetime of high fat food. the president may dabble, the first stud may not.
2) ike barinholtz. my beefy boy has been thinning down. as long he keeps strutting in the tighty-whities, i don't care. caution would have to be taken with ike to make sure that when i'm speaking to the top journalists like diane sawyer and mary hart, ike's not making funny faces over my shoulder. i personally feel that ike could live up to the position of first stud but if he was unable to, i would do my part to remind him of his duties with a few well timed smacks to that beefy butt.
i had a list of 10 but i've just learned the bastard mike of mikey likes it! is attempting to stage a coup and declare himself president of the united states.
i feel just like hugo chavez!
this revolution will be blogged!
Ike Barinholtz
Ashton Kutcher
Mike Likes It!
how did it happen?
well i am in d.c. and the bully boy is where?
as your president, i promise to be fair to all, so i may confuse americans who've lived through the last five years. but the government can be fair and it can be responsive.
i will not please all americans.
as with the strongest presidents in recent history - jkf and bill clinton - i do not intend to limit myself sexually. i will, however, promise to set my heights higher than bill clinton who was truly egalitarian in his choices. rest assured, i will not sleep with anything sporting a beret.
as the 1st woman president of the united states, i will come up against many new problems. such as 'first lady.' since i'm currently unattached i ask the people's help in selecting an official mate. i will dub him 'first stud.'
i will let america vote my mate (and that is copyrighted, vote my mate, so fox will risk a law suit should they steal from me). i do not mean to influence the campaigning but i will offer a few suggestions.
1) ashton kutcher. the chin's too pointy. but he's a good looking doof and as busy as i will be, it might be easier to have a first stud who can get lost looking at the pattern a window frame makes on a wall. i should warn you that voting for kutchner will mean that i will have to either consign demi moore to a gulag (gitmo will be empty as my first action, so perhaps she would like to go there?) or a lifetime of high fat food. the president may dabble, the first stud may not.
2) ike barinholtz. my beefy boy has been thinning down. as long he keeps strutting in the tighty-whities, i don't care. caution would have to be taken with ike to make sure that when i'm speaking to the top journalists like diane sawyer and mary hart, ike's not making funny faces over my shoulder. i personally feel that ike could live up to the position of first stud but if he was unable to, i would do my part to remind him of his duties with a few well timed smacks to that beefy butt.
i had a list of 10 but i've just learned the bastard mike of mikey likes it! is attempting to stage a coup and declare himself president of the united states.
i feel just like hugo chavez!
this revolution will be blogged!
Ike Barinholtz
Ashton Kutcher
Mike Likes It!
use your power this weekend
where are you rebecca?
i am in d.c. where are you?
c.i.'s got the usual stacks of notes and passed a quote on to me because there won't be time for it this weekend more than likely so this is from amy goodman & david goodman's the exception to the rulers, p. 10:
It is absolutely critical right now to break the sound barrier when it comes to dissent. The U.S. government has used the war on terror as it's rationale for the biggest crackdwon on civil liberties since the McCarthy era of the 1950s. Right now, people are being thrown in jail without charges. Men from the Middle East and South Asia are being singled out as enemies. Lawyers defending dissidents are under attack.
These are the first warnings. You could be next.
how do you combat that?
1 way is using your voice.
refusing to be silenced.
now i'm in d.c. to take part in the protests this weekend. elaine and c.i. are here. tomorrow mike arrives along with betty, ava, jess, ty, jim and dona, kat and cedric. we're making our voices heard. will you?
i have a lot of readers in high school. i realize that not everyone will be able to visit d.c. this weekend. (i'm glad that 3 will. hope we are able to meet up saturday afternoon.) but there are things going on in many communities so you may be able to participate locally even if you are unable to come to d.c. you can check with your local chapter of now (national organization of women) or with your local peace organization.
but here's what i want from my high school readers most of all. today is friday (i'm posting late) and i want you to speak out at school. i want you to sit down at the lunch table and talk about the protests in d.c. and why they're happening. i want you to pass notes in study hall. i want you to talk about it during the breaks. if you're able to, i want you to talk about it in class. (i had some real pricks and assholes for teachers so i know you'll have to find the teacher who, regardless of whether they agree with you or not, will support free speech in order to have a real discussion on this topic. but you can bring it up even in classes taught by assholes and pricks.)
i do not want to read 1 e-mail that says 'wish i could have been there, rebecca, but i couldn't so i didn't do anything.'
we're here to participate in a mass protest. but the message isn't 'okay when you have something to say, you go to d.c. and the rest of the time you shut up.'
what you can do in your own community is as important, maybe more important, than the protests in d.c.
while i was on vacation a number of you wrote in about the wedding crashers. it was funny, you thought. it was hysterical. you hoped i'd see it.
i'll try to see it on dvd. vince vaughn needs to lose some weight and i'm not real sure about his politics so i'll be slow on the drool there.
but why was that movie a hit?
critics hated it.
who made it a hit?
you did. telling people you knew about it. sending e-mails to people about it. you got the word out on that movie.
so here's the thing. are we going to let the new york times be the critic of the peace movement?
are we going to let those outside the anti-war movement give us 2 thumbs down?
not all of my readers are high school age. but i do have a huge number who are. to you guys and gals i say, week after week you defy conventional wisdom and make a movie, a cd, a tv show, a game a hit. mainstream media and advertising try to get ahead of you week after week and tell you what is a hit. you decide what is a hit and you get the word out on it.
you can do that with anything. you have that power.
so this weekend, i want you to get the word out.
most of you are already talking about the war and that's great but i want to hear that you talked even more this weekend. i want to hear that the friend you thought wouldn't be interested is someone you tried to reach. i'd love to hear that saturday you organized your own party or get together and you all sat around talking about the war. (or danced around talking about it. music is important to a good gathering.)
so if you've got a group of friends or only 1 good friend, i want you to be connecting. if you're someone who goes into chat rooms, i want to hear that you brought up the issue in your favorite chat rooms.
i want you to be able, come monday, to say 'well d.c. or not, i made myself heard.'
if past coverage is any indication, we're not going to be able to count on the mainstream press to talk about the mobilizations as anything serious or important to our country. we're going to need to count on each other.
i have a reader who just broke his leg in practice this week. you know i hope you get better and that having a cast on your leg in this heat is a pain in the ass. i know you're mobility is limited, greg. but i know you can get online. i want to hear from you that you did e-mails to your friends about this, that you shared your opinions and hopes on what this weekend meant with your friends.
so 'i can't come to d.c.' or 'there's nothing going on in my area' is no excuse.
you can do something. you have power that you use every day and maybe don't even realize it.
the teacher who's a pain in the ass and you avoid because of unfair grading, how did you know about it? because you got the word out. the nachos that kyla's whole school knows to avoid when the cafeteria serves them for lunch, how did you know that? kyla's older sister broke it down for her before kyla started high school this year. kyla passed it on to her friends.
that's power. that's using your power.
own your power this weekend. use it.
if you usually discuss the invasion/occupation with 2 friends, increase that.
get the word out.
there's no excuse for doing nothing this weekend. 'i'm not in d.c.' doesn't cut it.
becky shares my 1st name and my love of hot guys. she's got a big date tonight. (and she's going to look incredible.) becky says she's talking about the war. she says if this guy is a bushie, she wants nothing to do with him and she's going to find that out on date 1. sure he's hot, with a tight little butt, green eyes that are like emeralds and a smile that makes her dizzy. but she's making the issue of our invasion/occupation topic 1 on this 1st date.
what are you doing?
are you going to be silent and let the mainstream press tell this story? good god are we in trouble then.
use your power and make yourself heard.
just as i was publishing, elaine hollered 'don't forget to note c.i.'s thing.'
if you're participating in organized events you will be around a wide range of people. so please read c.i.'s 'A quick note on this weekend' and remember the larger message of this weekend and that we're all pulling together to end the war.
i am in d.c. where are you?
c.i.'s got the usual stacks of notes and passed a quote on to me because there won't be time for it this weekend more than likely so this is from amy goodman & david goodman's the exception to the rulers, p. 10:
It is absolutely critical right now to break the sound barrier when it comes to dissent. The U.S. government has used the war on terror as it's rationale for the biggest crackdwon on civil liberties since the McCarthy era of the 1950s. Right now, people are being thrown in jail without charges. Men from the Middle East and South Asia are being singled out as enemies. Lawyers defending dissidents are under attack.
These are the first warnings. You could be next.
how do you combat that?
1 way is using your voice.
refusing to be silenced.
now i'm in d.c. to take part in the protests this weekend. elaine and c.i. are here. tomorrow mike arrives along with betty, ava, jess, ty, jim and dona, kat and cedric. we're making our voices heard. will you?
i have a lot of readers in high school. i realize that not everyone will be able to visit d.c. this weekend. (i'm glad that 3 will. hope we are able to meet up saturday afternoon.) but there are things going on in many communities so you may be able to participate locally even if you are unable to come to d.c. you can check with your local chapter of now (national organization of women) or with your local peace organization.
but here's what i want from my high school readers most of all. today is friday (i'm posting late) and i want you to speak out at school. i want you to sit down at the lunch table and talk about the protests in d.c. and why they're happening. i want you to pass notes in study hall. i want you to talk about it during the breaks. if you're able to, i want you to talk about it in class. (i had some real pricks and assholes for teachers so i know you'll have to find the teacher who, regardless of whether they agree with you or not, will support free speech in order to have a real discussion on this topic. but you can bring it up even in classes taught by assholes and pricks.)
i do not want to read 1 e-mail that says 'wish i could have been there, rebecca, but i couldn't so i didn't do anything.'
we're here to participate in a mass protest. but the message isn't 'okay when you have something to say, you go to d.c. and the rest of the time you shut up.'
what you can do in your own community is as important, maybe more important, than the protests in d.c.
while i was on vacation a number of you wrote in about the wedding crashers. it was funny, you thought. it was hysterical. you hoped i'd see it.
i'll try to see it on dvd. vince vaughn needs to lose some weight and i'm not real sure about his politics so i'll be slow on the drool there.
but why was that movie a hit?
critics hated it.
who made it a hit?
you did. telling people you knew about it. sending e-mails to people about it. you got the word out on that movie.
so here's the thing. are we going to let the new york times be the critic of the peace movement?
are we going to let those outside the anti-war movement give us 2 thumbs down?
not all of my readers are high school age. but i do have a huge number who are. to you guys and gals i say, week after week you defy conventional wisdom and make a movie, a cd, a tv show, a game a hit. mainstream media and advertising try to get ahead of you week after week and tell you what is a hit. you decide what is a hit and you get the word out on it.
you can do that with anything. you have that power.
so this weekend, i want you to get the word out.
most of you are already talking about the war and that's great but i want to hear that you talked even more this weekend. i want to hear that the friend you thought wouldn't be interested is someone you tried to reach. i'd love to hear that saturday you organized your own party or get together and you all sat around talking about the war. (or danced around talking about it. music is important to a good gathering.)
so if you've got a group of friends or only 1 good friend, i want you to be connecting. if you're someone who goes into chat rooms, i want to hear that you brought up the issue in your favorite chat rooms.
i want you to be able, come monday, to say 'well d.c. or not, i made myself heard.'
if past coverage is any indication, we're not going to be able to count on the mainstream press to talk about the mobilizations as anything serious or important to our country. we're going to need to count on each other.
i have a reader who just broke his leg in practice this week. you know i hope you get better and that having a cast on your leg in this heat is a pain in the ass. i know you're mobility is limited, greg. but i know you can get online. i want to hear from you that you did e-mails to your friends about this, that you shared your opinions and hopes on what this weekend meant with your friends.
so 'i can't come to d.c.' or 'there's nothing going on in my area' is no excuse.
you can do something. you have power that you use every day and maybe don't even realize it.
the teacher who's a pain in the ass and you avoid because of unfair grading, how did you know about it? because you got the word out. the nachos that kyla's whole school knows to avoid when the cafeteria serves them for lunch, how did you know that? kyla's older sister broke it down for her before kyla started high school this year. kyla passed it on to her friends.
that's power. that's using your power.
own your power this weekend. use it.
if you usually discuss the invasion/occupation with 2 friends, increase that.
get the word out.
there's no excuse for doing nothing this weekend. 'i'm not in d.c.' doesn't cut it.
becky shares my 1st name and my love of hot guys. she's got a big date tonight. (and she's going to look incredible.) becky says she's talking about the war. she says if this guy is a bushie, she wants nothing to do with him and she's going to find that out on date 1. sure he's hot, with a tight little butt, green eyes that are like emeralds and a smile that makes her dizzy. but she's making the issue of our invasion/occupation topic 1 on this 1st date.
what are you doing?
are you going to be silent and let the mainstream press tell this story? good god are we in trouble then.
use your power and make yourself heard.
just as i was publishing, elaine hollered 'don't forget to note c.i.'s thing.'
if you're participating in organized events you will be around a wide range of people. so please read c.i.'s 'A quick note on this weekend' and remember the larger message of this weekend and that we're all pulling together to end the war.
9/21/2005
st. patrick's four trial opens
from democracy now:
St. Patrick's Four Trial Opens
In Binghimton New York, the trial has begun for the Saint Patrick's Four - the four anti-war activists facing federal conspiracy charges for spilling their own blood inside a military recruiting station to protest the Iraq war. One of the defendants, Daniel Burns, said in court on Tuesday, " We wanted to make visible the truth of war. We were called by our faith, the law and our moral beliefs to peacefully protest the war." The four protesters face up to six years in prison and $275,000 in fines.
that's it for me tonight. mike conducted a long interview and i'm wiped out. check his site, mikey likes it!, later tonight for the interview.
St. Patrick's Four Trial Opens
In Binghimton New York, the trial has begun for the Saint Patrick's Four - the four anti-war activists facing federal conspiracy charges for spilling their own blood inside a military recruiting station to protest the Iraq war. One of the defendants, Daniel Burns, said in court on Tuesday, " We wanted to make visible the truth of war. We were called by our faith, the law and our moral beliefs to peacefully protest the war." The four protesters face up to six years in prison and $275,000 in fines.
that's it for me tonight. mike conducted a long interview and i'm wiped out. check his site, mikey likes it!, later tonight for the interview.
9/20/2005
meow meow
let me start out by noting kat's post last night which was about a weird dream she had and is called 'Iraq, Batgirl and Catwoman' - the dream made me laugh and probaly it will make you laugh too.
now that we've got a good laugh in, let's get serious with something from democracy now:
30 Disability Rights Protesters Arrested on Capitol Hill
In other news from Capitol Hill, at least 30 activists associated with the national disability rights group ADAPT were arrested Monday for refusing to leave House and Senate offices. They were protesting Congressional plans to slow the growth of Medicaid spending by $10 billion over the next five years. On Sunday about 100 protesters - most of them in wheelchairs - rallied outside Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's Washington home.
question - who pays for those house and senate offices? bill frist?
wrong. we pay for them. so 30 disability rights activists decide to make themselves heard and the response is to arrest them.
maybe alby gonzales can charge them with something under the patriot act?
so who were the cowards? you know there's always 1 idiot who'll make a call like that. he or she is just an idiot. but they're egged on by others who are too cowardly to make the call themselves. i'm interested in knowing who the idiot was that called (i'm sure it was delegated to a flunky) and more interested in which people took part in the 'make the call!' decision.
let's say it was joe blow working for kitty killer billy frist.
joe blow: yes, this is joe blow of senator meow-meow's office ... we have a problem. well there are all these violent protestors here! are they armed? uh ... um ... they're disabled and who knows what they might do! we're scared! senator meow-meow can't even enjoy throwing darts at his garfield dart board this morning! come quick!
let's stop a moment here to think of something really scary - kitty killer frist wants to be president.
maybe he can run with j-ass who's scared of the calico. they could run on anti-cat platform.
the nation's already divided but leave it to the gop to divide us further - into a nation of cat lovers and dog lovers.
watch as some spineless dems step forward, faces bruised and battered, to ask 'can't we all get along?' and hold up photos demonstrating that they have both cats and dogs for pets.
senator meow-meow who felt the need to diagnose terry schiavo via video tape wants to be president. seems to me he doesn't even cut it as a doctor.
i hope, like clarice in the silence of lambs, he's haunted at night with the cries of the slaughtered.
meow-meow. meow-meow.
probably cat food commericals send him into a tizzy.
if he runs, people should show up everywhere he speaks and just meow-meow through his entire speech.
tomorrow night i do an interview with mike for his site mikey likes it!
i've warned him that we both may be late in posting as a result.
i want to thank cedric (who's also a sweetie) for including kind words about me last week and defending my right to be as smutty as i want to be last night.
kat and cedric did something smart last night and i wished i'd been on it too. but we're all in on the following.
this is from c.i. and it's called 'NYT: Narrows the frame & events in "British Army Storms Basra Jail . . ."'
Two British soldiers working under cover were arrested Monday in the southern city of Basra and then freed as a British armored vehicle blasted through the wall of their jail after an angry crowd began rioting outside, an Interior Ministry official said. The official said that the soldiers were undercover officers dressed as Iraqis and that Iraqi police officers had arrested them after the men fired at a traffic police officer.
A British military spokesman in Basra confirmed that "two U.K. military personnel" had been detained early on Monday "in a shooting incident" and that troops had used an armored fighting vehicle "to gain entry" to the police station to release them. He said that more than one vehicle had been in the area and that the police inside the station had refused to obey orders from the Interior Ministry to release the men.
The incident came a day after British forces in Basra arrested three members of the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to the rebellious Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, on suspicion of terrorism.
Sabrina Tavernise's "British Army Storms Basra Jail to Free 2 Soldiers From Arrest" from this morning's New York Times.
Some questions. Why aren't the rescued "military personnel" identified by the British government? They're rescued, surely their families would want to know. Why are British "military personnel" undercover to begin with?
Why are they identified, by their government, as "military personnel." What was their mission and should we be worried about that?
Anyone else wondering any of that? Why is the military undercover? Usually when it's "undercover," there's a 'reason' for that. As Central America in the eighties could attest.
What's not being told here?
From Terri Judd and Colin Brown's "Under fire: British soldiers attacked in Basra:Army used tanks and helicopters to storm jail and free captured troops, say Iraqis" (from The Independent, and we noted it here last night if it looks familiar):
British troops were struggling to maintain control in Basra last night after the city exploded into bloody violence following the alleged killing of an Iraqi policeman by a British soldier.
Two British servicemen, dressed in civilian clothes, were held at Basra's main police station after the incident. Outside, rioting began as the city threatened to descend into anarchy.
The events themselves are big news in England. They're one story in the Times.
Gareth, who's read the Times article and calls it "laughable," e-mails to note Helen McCormack's "The day that Iraqi anger exploded in the face of the British occupiers" (The Independent):
The dramatic events began to unfold just before dawn yesterday, when two British nationals were detained by Iraqi authorities. It emerged later that they were British soldiers. Dressed in plain clothes - according to some they were wearing traditional Arab dress - the two men had been driving in an unmarked car when they arrived at a checkpoint in the city.
In the confrontation that followed, shots were fired, and two Iraqi policemen were shot, one of whom later died. The Iraqi authorities blamed the men, reported to be undercover commandos, and arrested them.
The British government issues "official statements" -- from "official sources," and naturally an anonymice at that -- and the Times can't tell you what happened. But some "official sources" carry greater weight than other "official sources" apparently. Which is why you have to read McCormack's article to come across this sort of statement:
The British military action was condemned as "barbaric, savage and irresponsible" by Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of the province. "A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act," the governor said.
The governor of the province? Surely he mentions merit in the Times "official sources" loving paper of record, no? No. No, he's not fitting the narrative of this story. And while it's true that any story will have a narrative, the one imposed on this article isn't interested in reality.
A skeptic might respond, "Oh, that's The Independent. The Times doesn't care what they say."
The BBC then? Polly e-mails to note "UK soldiers 'freed from militia:'"
Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said more than 10 vehicles and helicopters had been used in an operation that was a "barbaric act of aggression".
Yeah, the BBC could note al-Waili's remarks. And they did. It's just in this country that we need to coat half-realities in sugar for them to go down easy.
That's why you get one "fact" after another that's contradicted in reporting elsewhere. That's why you get anonymous claims and on apparent concern as to why the British officers were undercover to begin with. Why we're told, anonymously, that the tank (one) apparently rolls in due to "100 to 200 people" of "rioters." When eye witness reports (naturally not in the Times) report quite differently. A dozen or so is key to the other reporting on this incident. Then the tanks come. And it is tanks from eye witness reports, plural. And helicopters. The Times misses that.
Intentionally?
"More than one" had been in the area, the Times tells us. They don't even use the term "tanks." "Armored vehicle" and "armored fighting vehicle" are popular with the Times today.
To read the Times narrative, two British troops were taken to a jail after being stopped at a check point and reportedly fighting, once in the jail, "100 to 200" people gathered, an "armored vehicle" shot through a wall, and they were released. A soldier lept from an "armored vehicle" that had flames arising from it.
The soldier, as reported elsewhere, jumped with his own uniform on fire. (BBC reports soldiers, one is visible in their photo.) (The same BBC report also reports two tanks "set alight in clashes.") Reports outside the Times have the number of people estimated as a dozen more or less until the tanks and helicopters rolled in.
Basra has not been "subdued." (See earlier entry this morning.)
The incident, though you wouldn't know it from the Times, is a big topic in England. And, again, though you wouldn't know it from the Times happy talk version of the incident, it's leading to public comments from "official sources." From the BBC:
But Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "It is hard to see how relations between the British military and the civilian Iraqi authorities in Basra will ever be the same again.
"This is bound to be seen as a humiliation by many Iraqis - something the insurgents will use to their advantage."
From The Independent:
Calling for Mr Blair to set an exit date, Labour MPs said the scenes from Basra had echoes of the killing of two British soldiers who were murdered by a mob in Northern Ireland during the Troubles after driving into a republican funeral cortège in March 1988.
Clare Short, the former international development secretary, who resigned over the war, said: "We should negotiate an end to the occupation. They are all saying 'no' because it's such a mess we cannot leave now. But the occupation is the major problem now.
Note to UK members, I've read all the articles you sent. I'm going with the BBC and The Independent for this entry because they were the articles sent in repeatedly. But the overall view all of the articles painted were and are helpful. From Anthony Loyd's "Army storms jail to free seized soldiers" (Times of London), we'll note the following:
The British military sent a small force to rescue the soldiers, but it was beaten off by an angry mob which set fire to two Warrior armoured fighting vehicles. One soldier was seen tumbling from the vehicle in flames, another being pelted with rocks.The second attempt last night was more organised. Before the prison was attacked nearby roads were sealed and reinforcements surrounded the police station. "We are not leaving without our men," said a British commander. The former Iraq commander, Tim Collins, said it was "not a good turn of events", but added that he believed the events did not represent a breakdown of law and order in Basra.British diplomats had demanded the release of the men, reminding the Iraqi authorities that British troops in Iraq were answerable only to British military justice. But the Government in Baghdad had appeared unable to impose its will on the authorities in Basra.
The incident presents an acute problem for Tony Blair. More than 8,000 British troops are deployed to maintain order and to train the very police that were holding the two soldiers prisoner. The coalition’s entire exit strategy depends on Iraqi security forces being able to take over.
There is a wider fear that yesterday’s developments could herald an unravelling of the fragile peace that has prevailed to date in southern Iraq. In the past two months six British soldiers and two British security guards have been killed as Islamic fundamentalists, backed by Iran, have tightened their grip on the region. There was a strong suspicion that the police in Basra were acting in collusion with followers of the populist Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who wants British and American troops out of Iraq and has been increasingly fomenting unrest in the south.
Paints a different story than does the Times of New York. It's some sort of incident that doesn't really matter all that much in the Times of New York. If it did, they'd tell us what the reaction in England was, but they don't . . .
We'll also note Abbas Fayadh, Lucy Bannerman, and Ian Bruce's "British soldiers freed after tanks 'smashed jail wall'" (Scotland's The Herald):
TWO undercover soldiers seized by Iraqi forces were freed last night when British tanks breached their prison walls, according to reports.
About 10 Warrior armoured vehicles were said to have been involved in the operation, before troops stormed in to release the special forces servicemen.
[. . .]
Dramatic images showed one soldier scrambling out of a burning vehicle, engulfed by flames. Gun battles broke out between the two sides, leaving two civilians dead and 15 injured.
Mohammed al Waili, the governor of the province, said the British jail raid was "barbaric, savage and irresponsible". He said: "A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act."
[. . .]
Sir Menzies Campbell, LibDem deputy leader, condemned the force shown by the army, warning the decision to break into the prison would fuel the insurgency. He said: "It is hard to see how relations between the British military and the civilian Iraqi authorities in Basra will ever be the same again. This is bound to be seen as a humiliation by many Iraqis, something the insurgents will use to their advantage."An operation of this kind must have gone to the highest level. I would be surprised if the prime minister had not been consulted."
[. . .]
Sources say the British soldiers, possibly members of the new Special Reconnaissance Regiment formed earlier this month to provide intelligence for SAS operations, were looking at infiltration of the city's police by the followers of the outspoken Shi'ite cleric, Moqtada al Sadr.
In all, I'm reading through over sixty different articles sent in by UK members (I'd guess it's sixty-three but don't make me swear to it, that's sixty-three different articles -- as often happens, members sometimes note an article that others have noted as well -- The Independent and the BBC were noted repeatedly, I've credited the first person who sent them in according to the time on the e-mails). And when you read the coverage from outside the New York Timid, you get a different view.
Which is why Gareth asks if this is how they honour the journalist who died? On the same day as they note his death, they're also printing a narrow, limited scope of the events that relies on select "official sources" and seems unable to find any eye witnesses at all.
That's the New York Timid. And that's the problem with the Iraq coverage. This isn't an isolated incident that just flared up (Basra) and if the Times wants to report reality, they're going to have to work a great deal harder. I'm saying the Times because we don't know what was in the original draft of this article and what was removed from it. (Note to ____, I did read your e-mail. We've noted that before but thanks for the reminder.)
Does the paper of record set out to censor the news for fear of offending Americans? Or is this part of the problem it has with covering Iraq (which combines their love of "official sources" -- even when not named -- with 'reported live from the Green Zone')?
Whatever the problem is, Basra reported in the Times today is reported differently outside the Times. In England, this is a huge issue. In the Times, it's one article, one very weak article that leaves out key points and only finds "happy talkers" to quote. Even the anonymous ones are part of Operation Happy Talk.
Is the Times? If so, the article on Fakher Haider was a waste of time this morning. Don't tell us of the realities in Basra in one story and, in another, deny basic reality reported elsewhere (all over the place -- "reported all over the place" might be the better way to put that).
There are quotes in the Times article that aren't presented as having been told to the Times one on one. Which is probably good because those quotes pop up in most of the other reporting. What doesn't pop up in the Times is the non-Happy Talkers. Other news sources report "Happy Talker said this and ___ said this." The Times gives you one view of the events and one view of the impact. Both are limited and both fail to allow readers to grasp what actually happened and what it's impact has been.
Rod e-mails to note today's scheduled topics for Democracy Now!:
Hugo Chavez: We broadcast the rest of our exclusive interview with the Venezuelan president. An in-studio on the state of African with 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winning Wangari Maathai, of Kenya; and human rights activist and journalist KenWiwa, of Nigeria.
Iraq
Basra
the common ills
cedric's big mix
mikey likes it!
kat's korner
now that we've got a good laugh in, let's get serious with something from democracy now:
30 Disability Rights Protesters Arrested on Capitol Hill
In other news from Capitol Hill, at least 30 activists associated with the national disability rights group ADAPT were arrested Monday for refusing to leave House and Senate offices. They were protesting Congressional plans to slow the growth of Medicaid spending by $10 billion over the next five years. On Sunday about 100 protesters - most of them in wheelchairs - rallied outside Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's Washington home.
question - who pays for those house and senate offices? bill frist?
wrong. we pay for them. so 30 disability rights activists decide to make themselves heard and the response is to arrest them.
maybe alby gonzales can charge them with something under the patriot act?
so who were the cowards? you know there's always 1 idiot who'll make a call like that. he or she is just an idiot. but they're egged on by others who are too cowardly to make the call themselves. i'm interested in knowing who the idiot was that called (i'm sure it was delegated to a flunky) and more interested in which people took part in the 'make the call!' decision.
let's say it was joe blow working for kitty killer billy frist.
joe blow: yes, this is joe blow of senator meow-meow's office ... we have a problem. well there are all these violent protestors here! are they armed? uh ... um ... they're disabled and who knows what they might do! we're scared! senator meow-meow can't even enjoy throwing darts at his garfield dart board this morning! come quick!
let's stop a moment here to think of something really scary - kitty killer frist wants to be president.
maybe he can run with j-ass who's scared of the calico. they could run on anti-cat platform.
the nation's already divided but leave it to the gop to divide us further - into a nation of cat lovers and dog lovers.
watch as some spineless dems step forward, faces bruised and battered, to ask 'can't we all get along?' and hold up photos demonstrating that they have both cats and dogs for pets.
senator meow-meow who felt the need to diagnose terry schiavo via video tape wants to be president. seems to me he doesn't even cut it as a doctor.
i hope, like clarice in the silence of lambs, he's haunted at night with the cries of the slaughtered.
meow-meow. meow-meow.
probably cat food commericals send him into a tizzy.
if he runs, people should show up everywhere he speaks and just meow-meow through his entire speech.
tomorrow night i do an interview with mike for his site mikey likes it!
i've warned him that we both may be late in posting as a result.
i want to thank cedric (who's also a sweetie) for including kind words about me last week and defending my right to be as smutty as i want to be last night.
kat and cedric did something smart last night and i wished i'd been on it too. but we're all in on the following.
this is from c.i. and it's called 'NYT: Narrows the frame & events in "British Army Storms Basra Jail . . ."'
Two British soldiers working under cover were arrested Monday in the southern city of Basra and then freed as a British armored vehicle blasted through the wall of their jail after an angry crowd began rioting outside, an Interior Ministry official said. The official said that the soldiers were undercover officers dressed as Iraqis and that Iraqi police officers had arrested them after the men fired at a traffic police officer.
A British military spokesman in Basra confirmed that "two U.K. military personnel" had been detained early on Monday "in a shooting incident" and that troops had used an armored fighting vehicle "to gain entry" to the police station to release them. He said that more than one vehicle had been in the area and that the police inside the station had refused to obey orders from the Interior Ministry to release the men.
The incident came a day after British forces in Basra arrested three members of the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to the rebellious Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, on suspicion of terrorism.
Sabrina Tavernise's "British Army Storms Basra Jail to Free 2 Soldiers From Arrest" from this morning's New York Times.
Some questions. Why aren't the rescued "military personnel" identified by the British government? They're rescued, surely their families would want to know. Why are British "military personnel" undercover to begin with?
Why are they identified, by their government, as "military personnel." What was their mission and should we be worried about that?
Anyone else wondering any of that? Why is the military undercover? Usually when it's "undercover," there's a 'reason' for that. As Central America in the eighties could attest.
What's not being told here?
From Terri Judd and Colin Brown's "Under fire: British soldiers attacked in Basra:Army used tanks and helicopters to storm jail and free captured troops, say Iraqis" (from The Independent, and we noted it here last night if it looks familiar):
British troops were struggling to maintain control in Basra last night after the city exploded into bloody violence following the alleged killing of an Iraqi policeman by a British soldier.
Two British servicemen, dressed in civilian clothes, were held at Basra's main police station after the incident. Outside, rioting began as the city threatened to descend into anarchy.
The events themselves are big news in England. They're one story in the Times.
Gareth, who's read the Times article and calls it "laughable," e-mails to note Helen McCormack's "The day that Iraqi anger exploded in the face of the British occupiers" (The Independent):
The dramatic events began to unfold just before dawn yesterday, when two British nationals were detained by Iraqi authorities. It emerged later that they were British soldiers. Dressed in plain clothes - according to some they were wearing traditional Arab dress - the two men had been driving in an unmarked car when they arrived at a checkpoint in the city.
In the confrontation that followed, shots were fired, and two Iraqi policemen were shot, one of whom later died. The Iraqi authorities blamed the men, reported to be undercover commandos, and arrested them.
The British government issues "official statements" -- from "official sources," and naturally an anonymice at that -- and the Times can't tell you what happened. But some "official sources" carry greater weight than other "official sources" apparently. Which is why you have to read McCormack's article to come across this sort of statement:
The British military action was condemned as "barbaric, savage and irresponsible" by Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of the province. "A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act," the governor said.
The governor of the province? Surely he mentions merit in the Times "official sources" loving paper of record, no? No. No, he's not fitting the narrative of this story. And while it's true that any story will have a narrative, the one imposed on this article isn't interested in reality.
A skeptic might respond, "Oh, that's The Independent. The Times doesn't care what they say."
The BBC then? Polly e-mails to note "UK soldiers 'freed from militia:'"
Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said more than 10 vehicles and helicopters had been used in an operation that was a "barbaric act of aggression".
Yeah, the BBC could note al-Waili's remarks. And they did. It's just in this country that we need to coat half-realities in sugar for them to go down easy.
That's why you get one "fact" after another that's contradicted in reporting elsewhere. That's why you get anonymous claims and on apparent concern as to why the British officers were undercover to begin with. Why we're told, anonymously, that the tank (one) apparently rolls in due to "100 to 200 people" of "rioters." When eye witness reports (naturally not in the Times) report quite differently. A dozen or so is key to the other reporting on this incident. Then the tanks come. And it is tanks from eye witness reports, plural. And helicopters. The Times misses that.
Intentionally?
"More than one" had been in the area, the Times tells us. They don't even use the term "tanks." "Armored vehicle" and "armored fighting vehicle" are popular with the Times today.
To read the Times narrative, two British troops were taken to a jail after being stopped at a check point and reportedly fighting, once in the jail, "100 to 200" people gathered, an "armored vehicle" shot through a wall, and they were released. A soldier lept from an "armored vehicle" that had flames arising from it.
The soldier, as reported elsewhere, jumped with his own uniform on fire. (BBC reports soldiers, one is visible in their photo.) (The same BBC report also reports two tanks "set alight in clashes.") Reports outside the Times have the number of people estimated as a dozen more or less until the tanks and helicopters rolled in.
Basra has not been "subdued." (See earlier entry this morning.)
The incident, though you wouldn't know it from the Times, is a big topic in England. And, again, though you wouldn't know it from the Times happy talk version of the incident, it's leading to public comments from "official sources." From the BBC:
But Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "It is hard to see how relations between the British military and the civilian Iraqi authorities in Basra will ever be the same again.
"This is bound to be seen as a humiliation by many Iraqis - something the insurgents will use to their advantage."
From The Independent:
Calling for Mr Blair to set an exit date, Labour MPs said the scenes from Basra had echoes of the killing of two British soldiers who were murdered by a mob in Northern Ireland during the Troubles after driving into a republican funeral cortège in March 1988.
Clare Short, the former international development secretary, who resigned over the war, said: "We should negotiate an end to the occupation. They are all saying 'no' because it's such a mess we cannot leave now. But the occupation is the major problem now.
Note to UK members, I've read all the articles you sent. I'm going with the BBC and The Independent for this entry because they were the articles sent in repeatedly. But the overall view all of the articles painted were and are helpful. From Anthony Loyd's "Army storms jail to free seized soldiers" (Times of London), we'll note the following:
The British military sent a small force to rescue the soldiers, but it was beaten off by an angry mob which set fire to two Warrior armoured fighting vehicles. One soldier was seen tumbling from the vehicle in flames, another being pelted with rocks.The second attempt last night was more organised. Before the prison was attacked nearby roads were sealed and reinforcements surrounded the police station. "We are not leaving without our men," said a British commander. The former Iraq commander, Tim Collins, said it was "not a good turn of events", but added that he believed the events did not represent a breakdown of law and order in Basra.British diplomats had demanded the release of the men, reminding the Iraqi authorities that British troops in Iraq were answerable only to British military justice. But the Government in Baghdad had appeared unable to impose its will on the authorities in Basra.
The incident presents an acute problem for Tony Blair. More than 8,000 British troops are deployed to maintain order and to train the very police that were holding the two soldiers prisoner. The coalition’s entire exit strategy depends on Iraqi security forces being able to take over.
There is a wider fear that yesterday’s developments could herald an unravelling of the fragile peace that has prevailed to date in southern Iraq. In the past two months six British soldiers and two British security guards have been killed as Islamic fundamentalists, backed by Iran, have tightened their grip on the region. There was a strong suspicion that the police in Basra were acting in collusion with followers of the populist Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who wants British and American troops out of Iraq and has been increasingly fomenting unrest in the south.
Paints a different story than does the Times of New York. It's some sort of incident that doesn't really matter all that much in the Times of New York. If it did, they'd tell us what the reaction in England was, but they don't . . .
We'll also note Abbas Fayadh, Lucy Bannerman, and Ian Bruce's "British soldiers freed after tanks 'smashed jail wall'" (Scotland's The Herald):
TWO undercover soldiers seized by Iraqi forces were freed last night when British tanks breached their prison walls, according to reports.
About 10 Warrior armoured vehicles were said to have been involved in the operation, before troops stormed in to release the special forces servicemen.
[. . .]
Dramatic images showed one soldier scrambling out of a burning vehicle, engulfed by flames. Gun battles broke out between the two sides, leaving two civilians dead and 15 injured.
Mohammed al Waili, the governor of the province, said the British jail raid was "barbaric, savage and irresponsible". He said: "A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act."
[. . .]
Sir Menzies Campbell, LibDem deputy leader, condemned the force shown by the army, warning the decision to break into the prison would fuel the insurgency. He said: "It is hard to see how relations between the British military and the civilian Iraqi authorities in Basra will ever be the same again. This is bound to be seen as a humiliation by many Iraqis, something the insurgents will use to their advantage."An operation of this kind must have gone to the highest level. I would be surprised if the prime minister had not been consulted."
[. . .]
Sources say the British soldiers, possibly members of the new Special Reconnaissance Regiment formed earlier this month to provide intelligence for SAS operations, were looking at infiltration of the city's police by the followers of the outspoken Shi'ite cleric, Moqtada al Sadr.
In all, I'm reading through over sixty different articles sent in by UK members (I'd guess it's sixty-three but don't make me swear to it, that's sixty-three different articles -- as often happens, members sometimes note an article that others have noted as well -- The Independent and the BBC were noted repeatedly, I've credited the first person who sent them in according to the time on the e-mails). And when you read the coverage from outside the New York Timid, you get a different view.
Which is why Gareth asks if this is how they honour the journalist who died? On the same day as they note his death, they're also printing a narrow, limited scope of the events that relies on select "official sources" and seems unable to find any eye witnesses at all.
That's the New York Timid. And that's the problem with the Iraq coverage. This isn't an isolated incident that just flared up (Basra) and if the Times wants to report reality, they're going to have to work a great deal harder. I'm saying the Times because we don't know what was in the original draft of this article and what was removed from it. (Note to ____, I did read your e-mail. We've noted that before but thanks for the reminder.)
Does the paper of record set out to censor the news for fear of offending Americans? Or is this part of the problem it has with covering Iraq (which combines their love of "official sources" -- even when not named -- with 'reported live from the Green Zone')?
Whatever the problem is, Basra reported in the Times today is reported differently outside the Times. In England, this is a huge issue. In the Times, it's one article, one very weak article that leaves out key points and only finds "happy talkers" to quote. Even the anonymous ones are part of Operation Happy Talk.
Is the Times? If so, the article on Fakher Haider was a waste of time this morning. Don't tell us of the realities in Basra in one story and, in another, deny basic reality reported elsewhere (all over the place -- "reported all over the place" might be the better way to put that).
There are quotes in the Times article that aren't presented as having been told to the Times one on one. Which is probably good because those quotes pop up in most of the other reporting. What doesn't pop up in the Times is the non-Happy Talkers. Other news sources report "Happy Talker said this and ___ said this." The Times gives you one view of the events and one view of the impact. Both are limited and both fail to allow readers to grasp what actually happened and what it's impact has been.
Rod e-mails to note today's scheduled topics for Democracy Now!:
Hugo Chavez: We broadcast the rest of our exclusive interview with the Venezuelan president. An in-studio on the state of African with 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winning Wangari Maathai, of Kenya; and human rights activist and journalist KenWiwa, of Nigeria.
Iraq
Basra
the common ills
cedric's big mix
mikey likes it!
kat's korner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)