C.I.: I'll jump in there because I know Joe Biden and I like him and if anyone's playing favorites here, it would be me. Chaz whatever doesn't know what he's talking about. Joe Biden is no longer a Senator, he is the incoming vice president of the United States. His seat has been filled: Edward Kaufman who has been his chief of staff. Kaufman is not planning to run for re-election and he's more than familiar with the needs of Delaware's constitutents. He doesn't need on the job training, he knows what he's doing. Beau Biden was not appointed to Joe's seat. Ruth Ann Minner, the governor of Delaware, has stated an election will be held for the seat in two years. So Kaufman is the perfect choice. There's no learning curve, he knows what he's doing. So in two-years, less than two actually, a special-election will be held for the seat. Now the concern by people like Chaz is that Beau, who alreadys holds office, will run in two years for the Senate seat. And that's what people are calling a 'dynasty' and falsely comparing to Caroline Kennedy's attempt to buy her way into the Senate. First off, Beau Biden is Delware's Attorney General. He was not appointed to that office. He ran in a state wide election and he won. He has been tested by the voters which, right away, puts him several up on Caroline Kennedy. Now he is deployed to Iraq and, I'm sorry, I'm going to speak out of school. Joe could have pulled Beau. Beau didn't have to go. Strings can be pulled if you're a US Senator, let alone if you're now about to become the vice president of the United States. A doctor suddenly finds an inner ear problem or what have you. Beau would never have stood for that. Beau signed up and is of the belief that he completes the service he promised. Would Joe have gone for that? If Beau had asked him, absolutely. He loves his children very much. So if Beau wanted to be appointed a US Senator, he could have it, he could have right now -- provided the governor went along. And Minner's no push over so I don't want to imply that she is. But in this "It's a grand conspiracy!" theory, Minner's rendered a push over. She's no such thing in reality. In two years, Beau -- unless he signs up for another tour -- may run for the US Senate. He may not. And it really goes to how ignorant people are about the Iraq War that they seem to think it's just a holding space. No one knows what's going to happen over there. Hopefully, Beau will make it home physically and mentally intact; however, this isn't a week at Club Med, this idea that everyone knows what Beau is going to do is just utter crap. Beau doesn't know what he's going to do. But if the "Grand Conspiracy" is true and this has all been doing because Beau wants the Senate seat and Minner wants him to have it and Joe wants him to have it and the entire political establishment in Delaware wants him to have it, Beau would still be running in an election and would require the people signing off by voting for him. There is no comparison at all between Beau Biden and Caroline Kennedy. Beau is not a spoiled brat, he is not asking to cut in line or be given anything. Should he become a senator it will be because he ran for the office and the voters picked him. Those partaking in the "Grand Conspiracy" should grasp something else. A GOP candidate for the senate has the next two years to run. The next two years to court Delaware voters and to form some bond of trust or increase a bond that already exists. There is no Beau Biden lock even if every piece of the "Grand Conspiracy" perfectly falls into place. I'm truly insulted that Beau, who is serving his country in Iraq, is being compared to the pampered, spoiled princess Caroline. That's deeply offensive to me. How did Caroline spend her youth? Oh, that's right, running around the Big Apple with various married men and no one was supposed to talk about it because little princess needed her privacy. Except for other women's husbands, Caroline has never given her all to anything. And photos exist. Why aren't we seeing any of them? Jann Wenner squiring Caroline to this Broadway play and that. She wants to be a US Senator. Why isn't the limited public aspect of her life being explored?
Elaine: Exactly. Jann Wenner was twice her age and married. That's just one example, by the way. Why isn't Caroline's fondness for married men being explored. Why, for that matter, aren't the people who knew her as the spoiled brat at The New York Daily News being interviewed? I spoke to one last week and he said no one had tried to contact him. She interned there and did damn little work. Not unlike her record as an 'educational czar.' But the real difference between a Beau Biden and a Caroline Kennedy is that if Beau had crashed Elvis' funeral, it would have been because he cared about the man's music. He would not have lied to the family, he would have not studied Lisa Marie -- a child -- to turn her heartache over her father's death into cheap tabloid fodder which is exactly what Caroline did. She was such a lousy journalist -- which is no one's ever believed the 'co-author' actually writes those books -- that everyone passed on her eye witness article. She managed to interested her 'steady' Jann and he fobbed the article off on Rolling Stone's editor who had to do a top to bottom re-write to bring life to Caroline's bad writing. Caroline's never apologized for that. Her attitude is that her 'birthright' allows her to prey on others' tragedies. It's the same attitude on display where she thinks her record as a socialite with make-work charity hobbies qualifies for the experience needed to be appointed a US Senator.
Jim: Okay, and I'm going to toss to Ty for the next one but I think it's been clearly established that there are no similarities between Caroline begging to be appointed to a job and the prospect that, in two years, Beau Biden would run for an open Senate seat. Ty?
Ty: Bracee e-mailed with a question for Stan. Since Stan's the only reason that the community sites are continuing through at least April, Bracee wonders if Stan feels pressure from that "or guilt?"
Stan: Not until now. I hadn't thought of it like that. I started my site not that long ago, I just got my 40th post last week. And I was wanting to but told C.I. I didn't want to start it if everyone else was about to shut down their sites. So C.I. said, "I can make it to April." As Bracee points out, I should feel pressure or guilt or both. I hadn't really thought about it.
Ruth: Well, to be clear, other than Elaine and C.I., we are all more than willing to go on for a bit longer. My site is not that old. I started doing reports at The Common Ills in 2005 but my own site is not that old. Do not feel pressured or guilty on my part.
Betty: I agree with Ruth but let me ask a question here. We know how Elaine and C.I. feel and we know how Ruth feels which is similar to the way Mike, Cedric, Rebecca and others feel. But do we really know how Third feels? I feel like we assume we do. But I'm not sure that we do.
Ava: I'm with C.I. I would have been happy to fold tent the day after the November election which was the plan as far back as 2005. We agreed to hold our review a show for a friend working on the show, agreed to hold it until mid-season. We weren't thinking at the time or we would have said, "Mid-season? We'll be done by then." But we agreed and we included that in one of our commentaries. Jim reads it aloud and points out that we just extended the life of Third. We hadn't caught that until Jim pointed it out. So, in terms of Stan, we were already going through January or February for that one show. Don't feel any pressure or guilt. I'm also pretty sure that, come the end of April, C.I. will extend for six more months but I wouldn't bet on much more than that.
Jess: There are times when I have the time to really participate and there are weekends where I'm lucky just to keep my eyes open. I don't know. We've been doing this since January 2005. I'm not sure what it would be like to have weekends off at this point. My attitude is, as long as everyone else -- Dona, Jim, Ty, Ava and C.I. -- want to do this site, I'll be here. I'm not going to argue for it to extend or for it to end. Dona?
Dona: Well, here's the thing for us -- for Jim and me. We are engaged now and we do have a wedding planned and a honeymoon. If this site is still going then, we'll be off for some time. A minimum of three weekends. I'm not trying to end things, my attitude is similar to Jess' attitude, and I'll be here working as long as everyone wants to do it. Now if Ava or C.I. walked -- and I think if one walked, they'd both walk -- we would probably end it. If Ty wanted out, we would consider ending it or Jim or Jess. But if Ava and C.I. walked, we would absolutely end it.
Ava: Because?
Dona: Hilda's Mix subscribers will get to enjoy the appalled tone in Ava's voice. [Note: Hilda's mix audio subscribers get the roundtable in audio form.] Because of the fact that you and C.I. do the calling card. Your TV commentaries have always been the biggest hit each week, always the site's calling card. If you leave, what are we going to do? Someone else is going to grab TV? Oh, that'll go over well with the readers. So we just leave TV out of the mix? I think the readers would be outraged by that as well. It's a no-win situation. So if you two left, we'd shut down. I think Ty, Jess, Jim or me could leave --just one of us -- and the site could go on. It would be different and maybe better but it wouldn't be as noticeable.
Jim: I agree with Dona and I was doing some math while she was speaking. Ava and C.I. take over the weekly TV commentaries solo two or so weeks after they start here in 2005. In 2006 and 2007, they frequently did more than one commentary a week -- also true in 2008. So they have easily done over 206 TV commentaries here at Third. Now if our little magazine lasted 10 or 15 years, yeah, we could bring in a replacement for Ava and C.I. and then a replacement for the replacement and it would be like Vanity Fair going on after Dorothy Parker was no longer their theatre critic. But we don't plan to go that long -- not even for Stan! -- so Dona's right. That would be the end. And she's right that it wouldn't be one of them leaving. We all squared off that first weekend all those years ago. And it really was all of us and Ava until C.I. started saying, "Wait, wait. Listen to Ava's suggestion." Or "that was a funny line." And that's just because Ty, Jess, Dona and I are more than happy to fight for ideas and mix it up and Ava wasn't really like that. But my point is that those two bonded and if one decided to leave, the other would as well. And Jess is playing like it wouldn't impact him but he and Ava have been a couple for how long now? If Ava wanted to go, then C.I. would go and, I bet, Jess as well. So Third would be Dona, Ty and me. We'd have to shut down. Do I want to shut down? I have a blast every weekend and sometimes feel like I'm the only one with Third that does. I love it all. The frustration, the stress, the tempers, you name it. I don't mind the arguing. I eat it all up. But not everyone agrees. Were it up to me, I could see this site going through 2010 easily. Ty?
Ty: I don't know. In the summer of 2005, we were all working on an edition and C.I. said, paraphrase, 'The Common Ills goes dark after the November 2008 election. I can't go on and on. I need a date to work towards.' And we didn't shy away from noting that or noting that we were shocked. There weren't as many sites back then. I think it was just Rebecca, Betty, Kat and Cedric. Ruth was already writing for The Common Ills but hadn't started her own site. But she was helping out that weekend. But I didn't understand it. I got that C.I. was tired but that's all I got. Now I get it a lot better and I'm like C.I. in that I would prefer to commit to small blocks of time. I can do six months. And then, at the end, see about six more. And the whole thing could well take us up to 2011, like Jim's talking about, but I couldn't commit to 2011 right now. That's way too much. If I thought we were going to 2011 right now, I'd be thinking, "Two more years! Two more years!"all the time. I'd be very unhappy. Six months I can agree to. I can't pin myself down for more than that. So Stan shouldn't feel guilty, to get back to the question. And to get back to Betty's question, we've covered it now in terms of Third. Is there anyone who is ready to shut down besides Elaine, Ava and C.I.?
Jim: Let the record show no one spoke. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Okay. Kat, Katherine e-mailed to complain that you only wrote 9 CD reviews this year and wanted to know if you intended to do more than that in 2009?
Kat: First, I wrote at least 10 CD reviews. I believe I wrote more than that, but I did at least ten. I also did my end of the year piece ("2008 in music"). I don't think it was a good year for music, 2008. I also have some people I will never review as a result of their 2008 actions. I plan to write about that next week at my site, hopefully on Monday. But I should only be doing 12 pieces a year and I believe I went over that this year. If I didn't, I missed it by one. Considering that the music sucked and that there was so much more to do, I think that's more than enough. I would like for my next review to be a double disc set and like it if that could go up this coming weekend. But that doesn't mean it will. I'm not going to say what it is because if I don't go on to review it, some will think there's a problem with it. That's not what it means. It just means I didn't have a way to write about it. I will say that if 2009 is as sucky as 2008, I will probably drop back to review some of my favorite older albums. If so, I'll be grabbing a Stevie Nicks' solo album for sure. I should also add that I'm now downloading more than buying CDs in the store. That's in part due to all the store closings -- including my beloved Tower -- but also because we're on the road during the week and it's so much easier when I get back to the hotel just to download an album than to try to make plans to stop somewhere and get it or order it online to have mailed to me.
Jim: Do you want to explain any about 'some you'll never review again'?
Kat: I'll write about it at my site. C.I.'s asked us to just never mention one person in particular here again and we never will. There are several like that and they can kiss my ass.
Wally: I'll toss mine out. Bright Eyes, go f**k yourself. Never need to hear your adenoidal whine again. Bruce Springsteen, punks like you were born to R-E-T-I-R-E. You realize, don't you, Bruce, that you've got two generations of music buyers to whom you mean nothing. Go do another "wee-wee" lyric, old feller. On the other hand, my opinion of John Mellancamp has soared and I'd love it if he could get a link. By September, Mellencamp was the only one I was buying and I bought up all his stuff on CD between September and December. "So you went to a party with Jaqueline Onassis, if you're so cool, why don't you wear glasses . . ." "Between A Laugh & A Tear" is another great song. There are so many and all I knew of him before March or so was the song he did with Indie Arie. Then he started speaking truth when others were acting stupid and C.I. turned over several live recordings to me to listen to on the road. There's a really great duet on "Pink Houses" between him and Maria McKee from a Farm Aid. For those trying to figure out what was going on when he caught my attention, he announced he would do a benefit for Barack and he announced he would do a benefit for Hillary. I respected that. And respected him for it. He only continued making sense throughout the year and I started buying the CDs in the fall.
Marcia: If I could weigh in on what Wally's talking about, it needs to be noted that John Mellencamp is a lot more advanced than Bruce who is a reactionary musically and one of the stiffest of all the performers. Bruce has two tricks, Phil Spector wall of sound or Woody Guthrie pose. The Lonesome Jubilee is an album Springsteen could never have done. It required too much stretching musically and the person had to be comfortable in their own skin.
Rebecca: That's a very good point. Mellencamp can get loose but Springsteen? I'm thinking of the 'dancing' in the video for "Dancing in the Dark." His 'dancing,' not Courtney Cox. He sort of embodies Billy Crystal's joke about the dancing abilities of White men, doesn't he? He really has no sense of rhythm which is why his non-acoustic numbers tend to clod-clod along.
Dona: Mike and Cedric have not spoken. Am I missing anyone else? We've got two more e-mails and I know one of them is really going to be an Ava and C.I. response. So Jim, save the question on movies and let Ty ask his question.
Ty: Ginger e-mailed wanting to know the biggest hope for 2009 and the biggest lesson of 2008. As Dona pointed out, Mike and Cedric have not spoken at all so we'll let them grab this and if others want to add after, feel free.
Cedric: Mike?
Mike: You start.
Cedric: Okay, I'll grab hope. My hope for this new year is that people will grow the hell up and stop believing that deluding yourself is a positive sign. Foolish is foolish, no matter how many times you try to put in a t-shirt with "HOPE" written across the front of it. Trust but verify. I think we could all use a lot more realism in our lives and my wish is that we get some reality back into our lives. I'm really sick of grown adults acting like saps. It's embarrassing. If there's any benefit to growing older, it's being able to have a sense of perspective. Perspective needs to be valued. 2008's disappointments are many. I agree with Betty's "Thinning out the herd (2008)" about Grace Lee Boggs and hope Mike will address that but I grabbed 2009, so I'll toss to him on 2008.
Mike: Well Cedric really called it on what we need this year: Perspective. I'm sick of seeing people older than me -- and I'm a grad student -- acting moon and cow-eyed. Grow up. As for 2008, Grace Lee Boggs? Does she have dementia? She might as well. She embarrassed herself and no one needs to bring on her radio or TV anymore. She's not getting any younger. She can't speak near a microphone without you hearing smacking from her dry lips and her constant clearing of her dry throat. I can't imagine she has many more years left in her. So it was grossly embarrassing that she refused to hold Barack accountable and just hopped on the bandwagon by public declaring that kids like him. She shirked her duty, she embarrassed herself. She destroyed her legacy.
Betty: She really did. I am so intensely disappointed in her. There aren't enough words to express what a grave disappointment she was.
Jim: Okay, last one. Solomon e-mailed that he loves Stan's Friday movie posts and he notes that Stan's "Michael Winship and Bill Moyers stumble upon the truth" and Ruth's "UNAMI, Bill Moyers, Janis Ian, Michael Winship" both highlight an essay by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship where they pick the 'best' films of 1933. He's wondering if "the cultural critics would agree with those choices"? And in an e-mail reply -- to me -- he stated that, yes, he meant Ava and C.I. and he was intending "cultural critics" as "a sign of the esteem I hold their opinions in."
Ava: What were the movies Moyers and Winship picked?
Ruth: King Kong, 42nd Street, The Invisible Man and Duck Soup.
Ava: Well, we'd agree on Duck Soup.
C.I.: That really is it. The other three are not the 'best of' period. The most glaring omission -- and telling -- is Mae West. Does Mae West threaten the PBS boys? Is she too much woman for them? Mae West single handledly saved Paramount. 1933 saw two classic films by mae West. First up was She Done Him Wrong, a classic, designated as such by the Libary of Congress. A famous comedy that establishes Mae as a lead actress in film. I'm No Angel was her follow up film. Cary Grant again co-starred. The film was a huge success and variations of her line "It's not the men in your life that counts, it's the life in your men." still exist today. West had already triumphed on Broadway as an actress and playwright and she was one of the few performers -- male or female -- to be the writers on their films. It's not just a curious oversight on Moyers and Winship's part, it's a telling one. Mae West was the biggest thing of 1933 movies, go back through the real-time coverage, and those films are classics. Not just classic Mae West films, they are film classics period.
Ava: C.I. and I have toyed with writing a piece on Mae West films for some time. I believe Kat noted that here back in June. But in addition to Mae West, 1933 is a strong year for Katharine Hepburn. Her Little Women is still considered the filmed version of the book. And that year's Morning Glory teamed her up with Douglas Fairbanks Jr. The film is still considered a classic and its the film that she won the first of four Best Actress Oscars for. C.I.?
C.I.: Bombshell with Jean Harlow is a classic screwball comedy. Harlow had many hits that year but Bombshell and Dinner At Eight are the ones that are acknowledged classics.
Ava: Garbo's Queen Christina.
C.I.: Miriam Hopkins and Gary Cooper in Ernst Lubitsch's Design For Living -- and I wasn't aware that Lubitsch ever fell off the best of lists.
Ava: So Moyers and Winship ignore all those films that women played a role in. They do pick King Kong, famous for Fay Wray's breasts being exposed. Did we really need that? Do we really need the rank racism of King Kong? Today, can anyone avoid calling out the sacrifices of the women or the idea that White Fay was worth six Black women? It's a disgusting and disturbing film and that those quacks would pick it as one of the best says a great deal.
C.I.: Jean Harlow, Mae West, Miriam Hopkins, Greta Garbo, Katharine Hepburn. All making classic films in 1933 that remain classics to this day and it just sails over the boys' heads. Mae's apparently too strong for them and Little Women too 'girly.' So they choose Fay Wray's breasts and a horror film whose special effects have not aged well. They don't choose a single film that a woman is an equal or, heaven forbid, the lead. 42nd Street? Women are objectified. At least they get to keep their breasts covered.
Ava: For all those wondering how 2008 never resulted in Bill Moyers taking a moment to note the historic nature of Hillary, Cynthia or Sarah's runs for office, there's your answer, in his best of film picks. He doesn't give a damn about women unless he can see their legs or their breasts.
C.I.: And to be really clear here, Joan Crawford and Loretta Young and Barbara Stanwyck had hit films in 1933. We're not grabbing hits of the time. We're talking about classic films that have held up. And possibly Stanwyck's Baby Face qualifies as a minor classic. But the ones we went with are the ones established and agreed as classics. It's amazing how they all get ignored in the best of 1933 offered. It's amazing how much objectifying and violence aimed at women you can find in the selections Moyers and Winship made.
Jim: And on that note, we'll end the roundtable. The illustration is by Betty's oldest son. This is a rush transcript.