Jim: The election was Tuesday, Barack Obama won. That is among the topics for this roundtable. Book discussion lovers should be aware that C.I. has a feeling literary criticism will be brought up in this roundtable as well. This is a rush transcript. Illustration is by Betty's oldest son. We have someone new participating so let's get started. First, The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and me, Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz; Ruth of Ruth's Report; Wally of The Daily Jot; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ. and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends. Stan is Marcia's cousin and we're really glad to have him participating. His blog posts so far are "Movies," "Good for Nader," "Stan 411" and "Robin Morgan." Mike spoke with him Friday for "My interview with Stan." Stan will also be writing about participating in this week's edition for the gina & krista round-robin so look for that Friday morning. So let's start with Stan?
Stan: On the election? I voted for Ralph. The results were a disappointment. Barack had to spend how much money and the only thing that saved him in the end was the economic meltdown? I mean that goes to how weak Barack is.
Rebecca: Exactly. And it's no great source of pride that the Dems used the economic crisis, they gamed it. They did damn little to help and what they did was weak ass. Pelosi was popping off about how great the meltdown was for the election.
Stan: Right and yet everytime you turned around Barack's saying 'John McCain said' and quoting -- quoting not McCain but the unnamed friend or advisor who said that it was better to make the campaign about whatever. As a general rule with Barack whatever he accuses anyone else of doing is what he's just done.
Mike: A trait he shares with the current Bully Boy of the United States.
Kat: Won't it be a fun eight years.
Jim: When did everyone know Barack was going to win?
Wally: It was obvious he was going to squeak by to me around four o'clock. But we were on the West Coast so that's seven o'clock on the East.
Ruth: I would agree with that time call. My family and I were watching Katie Couric's coverage on CBS and they went right from the news into their special coverage. It seemed obvious it would be Barack within about five minutes, so 7:05 p.m., 7:06, around there.
Jim: Anyone thinking McCain would pull it out after that first hour of returns coverage?
Mike: I thought there was a chance. We ended up watching movies because I was tense and Elaine wasn't in the mood. But I hoped when we were done that something would have shifted and I go to look and it's Punk Ass Barack.
Betty: And then what do we get? Non-stop, never-ending days of Honky Time. 'Blessed is the United States for electing a bi-racial man that the world shall call "Black".' Half-and-half's already gotten on my last nerve and it's not even been a full week.
Marcia: True that. And let's all remember not just that Barack's bi-racial -- not "Black" -- but also that he just got put in charge of the plantation. They'd never put anyone but an Uncle Tom in charge of the ballet. Yeah, I said it. Ralph didn't, but I did. The high-yellows got to be house slaves, an Uncle Tom got put in charge of the White House.
Cedric: I was actually thinking that around 10:00 p.m. Tuesday when it was obvious Barack was the winner, how they don't turn the plantation over to anyone except someone groomed to make sure the field slaves remain field slaves. Nothing's changing and we can see that with who gets spoken of for his cabinet.
Ty: I'd agree with that and Elaine had a post Friday ["The cabinet, Robert Fisk"] noting how few women are being mentioned for his cabinet and noting the current number of women in the cabinet. Hopey Changey's more of the same-old same-old. It's been amazing to watch adults embarrass themselves over and over all week. Or supposed adults.
Dona: Elaine's post noted that only two women are being mentioned for the cabinet and Bully Boy's 2001 cabinet had four women in it and the current cabinet has five. In terms of adults embarrassing themselves, it's a long, long list and sadly and surprisingly that list includes Paul Krugman. Rebecca?
Rebecca: Friday I quoted Bob Somerby's response to Paul Krugman's ridiculous statment of "If the election of our first African-American president didn't stir you, if it didn't leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there's something wrong with you." Somerby's response: "If those are the rules of the current game, sign us up for 'something wrong with you'."
Betty: It is so very, very wonderful of the White people to tell me what the meaning of the first BI-RACIAL president is. My Black ass is still waiting for the first Black president, thank you very much, Paul Krugman. And not only do we not have a Black president, so what the heck if we did? How is that any different than any other election where one candidate wins an office. It's not as if we're talking about a little boy we watched grow into a man. We're talking about creepy Barack who shows up on the scene a decade ago to destroy a Black woman -- Alice Palmer -- and he's broken many toys but he's never accomplished anything. I'd rather have Tyra Banks as president. She's accomplished things in her life and she is Black. Tyra for president!
Jim: Let's note the people mentioned in that article. You've got Robert Gates the current Secretary of Defense and 'change' is apparently considering keeping him on. Then you've got Richard Danzig -- anyone have a comment on a name listed, jump in -- and Lawrence Summers --
Ruth: The sexist. And I believe it was covered at this site in 2005 with "Editorial: Lawrence Summers is an embarrassment." The very fact that he could be considered for Treasury Secreatry goes to how little respect the politician has for women.
Jim: Also mentioned is Timothy Geithner -- also for Treasury Secretary -- for Secretary of State, John Kerry --
Mike: He should take it. He's too weak and he did pretty bad in the primary for an allegedly popular incumbent. Take his ass out of my state officially because all he does is fly-overs anyway. He is not of Big Mass. Take him to DC. We're sick of him.
Dona: And from the Vincent Price's House of Horrors Wax Museum, Sam Nunn's also being considered for that spot. How old is Gramps?
C.I.: He was born in 1938, September.
Dona: 70 years old and that what Bambi thinks makes for a Secretary of State.
Jim: And also mentioned for that post is Chuck Hagel.
Jess: Chuck Hagel of I-Count-The-Votes ES&S, Election Systems and Software. Easy to win a Senate seat when you count the votes. Another sign of how pathetic the Democratic Party has become.
Jim: For OMB, Peter Orszag and Dan Tarullo for US Trade Rep. Eric Holder for Attorney General --
C.I.: Eric Holder Jr. is the first person of color who's been listed.
Betty: Black?
C.I.: Yes.
Jim: Janet Napolitano is also noted for that position --
Betty: First woman.
Jim: For Ag Secretary, Tom Vilsack, Kathleen Sebelius and Charles Stenholm.
Ava: No Latinos mentioned, no surprise.
Ty: Well Half-And-Half didn't get to where he was by embracing color. Of course he'd surround himself with White men.
Jim: So nothing to be impressed by in the cabinet and nothing indicating 'change' -- no surprise.
The Empire has a new driver in the same race. We're turning to an e-mail. I told C.I. there were three e-mails complaining about Betty's "Back to earth Tiny Malice Alice" and Kat's "Return to the earth ALICE ASS WALKER." First up, C.I., Bracey writes you must be outraged.
C.I.: I must be? I don't generally do anything that I must. This is what I was referring to, these e-mails, this topic, when I said literary criticism may take place here. Betty and Kat wrote a joint-post, they were honest in it. Good for them. Were they hard on Alice Walker? Some might think so. Some, like myself, might remember that after Alice wrote that disgusting revisionary essay on Fidel's interment of gay men and caught so much flack, she pledged to always call out homophobia. Alice did not do that. She never once called out the homophobia used to solidify bi-racial Barack's Black support. I can go further into this but it's not my job to comment on what Kat or Betty or anyone else in the community writes.
Betty: While I appreciate that and value that, I also know your vocal tones and the tone in your voice right now means if you continue something very interesting will emerge. So, please, continue.
C.I.: I held my fire on Alice when she made her repeated apologies for that disgusting justification of Fidel locking away gay men. Anyone can make a mistake, especially a half-backed Communists -- I'm referring to someone who never took the time to do the work required and not calling all Communists "half-baked" -- who worships authoritarianism. But I don't give a damn about Alice these days. She refused to call out homophobia and I find that disgusting. Unlike Alice, I've never had multiple or even one same-sex relation. I call out homophobia because its hatred and its discrimination. Alice doesn't have enough self-respect to call it out and lives in fear of what Daddy might say -- when not hopping into bed with women. Or maybe she lives in fear then too and that adds to the sexual attraction? I was surprised that Betty and Kat called Alice a bad writer. I know Alice was once one of Betty's favorite writers. I think Alice writes wonderful essays and that she can't write fiction to save her ass. Her short stories are not fiction. Nor are they interesting. They're bad writing the same as her poetry. There's no argument for 'inclusion' [in the canon] that's vast enough to qualify her poetry or her short stories for 'good'. That leaves us with the essays which are her strongest pieces of writing and strong writing for anyone. It also leaves us with those very, very bad novels. Alice can't write fiction. As Kat and Betty point out, the stilted nature of Alice's writing is covered for in Color Purple by the fact that it's told in Celie's voice. Possesing The Secret Of Joy uses nothing but dialogue, each chapter is a monologue by one character. Those two are readable. Temple Of My Familiar? If you ever wanted Danielle Steele meets Harold Robbins in the Rainforest, that's it. Alice isn't a feminst. She says she prefers 'womanist'; however, she's not that either. It goes to her belief system and you can find out about that in her writing. This is the woman who has no use for women. Celie and her sister are supposed to be the heart of Color Purple -- the book -- and yet what's the final chapter about, Mister's 'growth.' It's always about a man with Alice. Go through any book. You've got the female character that's her stand-in and then you've got all the men and they're always doing more and saying more than does a woman. Again, had she kept her promise to call out homophobia, I wouldn't say a word today. But, in the words of Cass Elliot, she could be on fire and I wouldn't piss on her. And I know the 'girls' have worked overtime to bill Alice as a feminist writer -- even while Alice refuses the label -- but the reality is the text and you can't read her writing and see a woman who thinks highly of women. It's always the man. And it's always an authoritarian man. In her dreams, it's Fidel and maybe that's what she's producing in her book as well? But women do not lead even when they are the main character. Celie and her sister are apart for how many years but for Alice the 'emotional crux' of the book is Mister's conversion. That tells you everything you need to know. Sofia's been bowed and cowed. Find a woman who's standing? But Alice wants you to know that Mister's happy and liberated and changed. That's so very typical of a woman living for a man. And we can go through any or all of her novels. This is true of everything she's ever written. It can also be noted that her essays rarely focus on a woman but will focus on a man. And that's even including the ones she wrote for Ms. into the mix of all her essays. Equally true is she has all but spat on her own mother while writing non-stop praise for her father who, honestly, wasn't worthy of much praise.
Rebecca: I'll play. Tossing this title out In Search Of Our Mothers' Gardens.
C.I.: Alice's book of essays which tells us women have a small garden and men have a country. See "My Father's Country Is the Poor" in that book. You can be deluded by the mentions of Zora Neale Hurston or you can note how often -- in this 'womanist' collection -- men keep popping in, keep trampling over all the flowers such as the essay "Good Morning, Revolution: Uncollected Writings of Social Protest" which should be entitled "Hymn To Langston Hughes." But using that title would only underscore how weak Alice's support for and interest in women actually is. In her so-called 'womanist' book, she's got more praise for men. It's true of all of her work. Do we need more examples? The essay "Beauty: When The Other Dancer Is The Self" is praise for Daddy and talk of dressing as a "cowboy" and being a "tomboy." Emphasis on boy. The next essay, the mother she always spits on shows up -- "One Child Of One's Own: A Meaningful Digression Within The Work(s)" -- and it's time for Alice to spit again. She will sometimes say a kind word about her mother but her written words are nothing but stones, full of tension and anger. "From An Interview" appears in that collection. Notice how many men are mentioned and compare it to how many women. When non-Christian Alice has time to name-check Paul she damn well better have time enough to give her props to women but count it up and see. And for a lot of fun, detract points for the women -- such as "white girl" -- that she mentions but doesn't name. Alice Walker's writing is what it is and her writing advances and glorifies men while Alice wants women to rally around her and see her as some sort of spokesperson for them and their concerns. She's a bad novelist, she's a bad poet and in all the formats she works in, it is always worship the man. No wonder she worships authoritarians like Fidel and Barack, no wonder she thinks it's okay when either harms gay men. In Alice's mind, read her writing, gay men are like women and deserving of what happens to them. That's true even of Celie because a close reading will demonstrate that Celie's overcoming reveals her goodness and worthiness and, had she not, she would have gotten what she 'deserved.' There is nothing feminist about Alice Walker's writing.
Dona: Wow. There was this lengthy silence when C.I. finished. On my end, I was listening and thinking, as C.I. pointed out this or that, "Oh my goodness, that is so true, why didn't I ever notice that?"
Betty: Oh yeah, here too.
C.I.: Instead of pursuing that, I think Betty and Kat should be talking about what they wrote.
Betty: I'll start. Kat called me Friday night to say she wanted to read something she was considering posting.
Kat: I called Betty because, until this election, Alice Walker was Betty's favorite writer.
Betty: She can go set herself on fire these days. But I listened and added a comment. And then another.
Kat: And I said, "Want to make this a joint-post?"
Betty: And C.I. knew what we were writing so for anyone to go running to C.I. to tattle on us, grow up.
Kat: Right, I read it to C.I. who suggested one change. One word was replaced with two. Due to a personal story about Alice [that] Betty and I didn't know. C.I. suggested the word change and explained why. We loathe her and that comes through in our joint-post but we did agree to a change when we found out something.
Betty: Right. Screw her if she's mad but we didn't want to make her cry about something from her past. We weren't referring to that either and it was easy enough to just change the word we'd used.
Jim: So C.I. heard this before it went up?
C.I.: Yes. And it is their writing. If I disagreed with it or agreed with it wouldn't matter, It's their writing at their sites and they need to speak in their voices. I'm not grading them. They are grown women responsible for their own sites and this idea that people are going to e-mail to ask, "Did you see . . ." Grow up. There's nothing wrong with what they said, they were honest and it is their opinion. I happen to think Alice has embarrassed herself to the point of no return but that's just me -- and most publishers.
Jess: I think it's really offensive that she's blathering on -- Alice Walker -- in her latest essay --about Barack and that it's factually unsound. She needs to try landing on earth. I thought the joint-post by Kat and Betty was a strong one. And a needed one. I'm sick of Alice Walker. For all the reasons Betty and Kat outlined.
Ava: And more. I do want to return to the literary criticism because my aunt often talks about the cabal that installed Alice as a 'feminist' writer and I think it's worth noting that in the essay Betty and Kat are calling out, Alice is ripping off June Jordan. The same June that Alice needed for blurbs once upon a time. But today she can rip off the late Jordan. It's tacky. And feminists of a certain age -- my aunt's for example -- will get exactly why and exactly how circumspect I am being in my remarks.
Jim: Okay, so we've covered the election, the possible cabinet, literary criticism --
Marcia: Race.
Jim: Race. What else do we need to cover in this? Ty?
Ty: People are attempting to figure out how long we're going to be doing new content.
Dona: If anyone wants to offer an individual answer, jump in now. Elaine should because I don't believe she's spoken this entire time. I would also encourage Stan and Ruth to grab some time.
Elaine: As long as C.I.'s doing The Common Ills, I'll offer something at my site. When The Common Ills goes dark, my site does.
Ruth: And you have written about being ready to go dark.
Jim: Written and talked about it here. Elaine, weren't you the one most ready to go dark last week?
Elaine: I would guess that I was but I don't know that. Doing a website takes more time than I'd like to put in. That's me. Ruth?
Ruth: I am going to go along with Elaine. As long as C.I. continues The Common Ills, I will post at my site. Stan?
Stan: I guess I am making an announcement here. C.I. is planning to go through April. After that? No one knows. But I started my site Thursday and C.I. helped me set it up. And we talked about it beforehand, on Wednesday and one of my concerns was that I would be starting my site and January 1st everyone goes dark. So C.I. said, "I can probably make it to April without a big problem."
Elaine: I haven't spoken much and didn't know this would be a topic but I do want to weigh in here. I know Ruth wrote recently ["Iraq"] about how she was covering Iraq on Fridays now and trying to do so in snapshot form so that C.I. would realize Ruth could grab a day if needed, grab the snapshot. I know people will be very happy that April is now the apparent cut-off date but I hope everyone gets that C.I. is the only one of us with our own personal site -- I'm talking that posts Monday through Friday -- who has never had a day off. Not one. For four years and counting. While I am noting that, let me also note Trina's "The Common Ills."
Cedric: That was a good post and one that Rebecca and I plan to cross-post at our mirror sites next week. I was thinking that maybe we'd all take a week off -- I don't just mean at Third but community wide. I was hoping.
Rebecca: Cedric, if you need time off I will fill in for you with no problem and you know I have to go into Blogdrive anyway to repost at my own mirror site.
Cedric: No, I appreciate the offer, but I'm not going to take off. And I also think that's a good thing for the community. And for this site's readers. There are so many Kool Aid drinkers and it probably helps that we're here.
Ty: Which was another topic in e-mails, has been for some time. The sites that said they'd never support Barack and then sold out. The sites that kept their integrity but don't post often enough. These are non-community sites. On the latter category, there's a sense each morning of people checking to see if those ethical sites are posting and, if they aren't, people get very depressed.
Jim: Yeah, that's a very common e-mail. But in terms of time off here -- first, anyone can take time off whenever they want. Second, we do have Thanksgiving coming up. I know Elaine and Mike will be working on that edition because they'll be here -- at C.I.'s -- for the holiday. But that's a weekend some of you may want to take off. But I want to get back to Elaine's point because this site posts once a week. And we can pretty much make it through anything because when the last thing's up, we're done for the rest of the week. It's different for people who post during the week. Like Rebecca did, I can volunteer to fill-in for anyone who needs time off. But, as Stan pointed out and announced, the plan now is to make it through April. No one's thinking beyond that. Before we go, I want to put C.I. on the spot again regarding e-mails but this time for something at The Common Ills. Friday's "Iraq snapshot" resulted in questions regarding Rahm Emmanuel who is going to be Barack's Chief of Staff. C.I. knows Rahm Emmanuel. There were a number of e-mails on that.
C.I.: Complaining about Rahm?
Jim: Yes. And also asking that you offer some evaluation.
C.I.: First off, Rahm's job is Chief of Staff, not Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. As we've seen repeatedly throughout this year and last, Nancy Pelosi's press conferences have fallen apart, Steny Hoyer is a blowhard. The only ones of House leadership that worked were the ones Rahm was included on and he would repeatedly rescue the conference. The job of Chief of Staff is a bit more complicated than that; however, it does involve being able not just to focus but to return the focus. I think Rahm's immensely qualified for the job and that the Obama administration is very fortunate to have him in that role. There is criticism of Rahm for a number of things. I haven't attempted to censor that and do not intend to. We've included it in snapshots. I'm not going to be weighing in on Rahm positively at The Common Ills unless he comes under unfair fire because I do know him and do think highly of him. To make sure that I don't let the fact that I've known and liked him for many years interfere, negative criticism of him by others will be included from time to time. But I'm not getting involved in the back and forth.
Jim: And you're opinion of Rahm?
C.I.: I like him. I know him to be a thoughtful person. Other people may disagree and that's their right. I'm not trying to censor anyone at The Common Ills -- we'll quote criticism of him.
Jim: Some e-mailers feel he's a War Hawk and are surprised you'd be close to one.
C.I.: I wasn't born in 2003. I've known many people for many years. Unlike the faux radical set in NYC, I don't, and have never hung around with only like-minded persons. It's never been a requirement that someone agree with everything I do.
Jess: I won't name him but there's a neocon who is a gas bag that might be a good example here.
C.I.: Absolutely. He wrote into the public account of The Common Ills having a fit about something I'd written regarding his statements on a topic. I hadn't written a word about that and wasn't aware of his statements. As I explained in that snapshot, someone was playing a trick on him, someone who knew me. I know that neocon very well and have known him for many years. Jess saw the e-mail and called because the guy wanted an apology and he couldn't belive it, Jess couldn't believe it. So he calls and I return the call and just started laughing because I knew the friend who played the prank on him. But, yeah, I have friends of all political stripes. I have friends who are Communists, who are Democrats, who are Republicans, who are you name it. I spend a lot of time in DC and I know a lot of politicians. So, in terms of Rahm, he's nothing like me and I'm nothing like him. I don't seek out clones, I do seek out friends. If people disagree with him, more power to them. I've known Joe Biden for years and I like Joe. Rahm will be covered the same way Joe was once he became the vice presidential nominee. Meaning no favoritism. If there's a mistake that I think needs calling out, I'll do so myself. I called out Joe twice after he became the nominee.
Ava: Let me jump in here because I haven't seen these e-mails. Who are these people writing?
Jim: People who saw the snapshot Friday. I've never read an e-mail from them before.
Ava: I don't know what their concern is but as someone around when the snapshot's dictated I want to add that people were always pitching C.I. stuff on Joe Biden. Not controversial stuff. If it was a mistake by Biden and a friend at ABC was asking for a link to their news department, for example, they got it. But if it was something nice or fluff on him, it didn't make it into the snapshot and the reason was C.I. didn't want to be accused of slanting the coverage based on "I like him." Between Palin and Biden, there's no question who C.I. felt drawn to but C.I. never did a snapshot on Joe. If Joe Biden had been attacked unfairly, it might have happened. But he wasn't attacked unfairly. My point is that C.I. didn't play favorites and could have. If someone's thinking Rahm's going to get an easy ride, that's not going to be the case. More than likely, he'll be ignored.
Jim: On that, I want to share something that will lead us into the last question. Because C.I. does like Joe Biden a great deal, Tuesday night I asked the obvious question: "Did you vote for the ticket and justify it by voting for Biden?" C.I. responded, "Tempted, but no." Did anyone vote for the Democratic ticket?
Wally: I already polled on that Wednesday -- with everyone but Stan -- and it was Ralph all the way. Except with Ava and C.I. and Ava told me, "I didn't tell you who I was going to vote for before the election so I don't think I'll tell you who I voted for now that the election was over."
Jess: But it wasn't Barack.
Ava: C.I. and I voted the same and you can narrow it down to Cynthia or Ralph. I won't narrow it down beyond that.
Marcia: A lot of people think the two of you voted for Cynthia.
Ava: They may be right, they may be wrong.
Jim: And on that, we'll wrap up the roundtable.
