Sunday, November 04, 2012

Truest statement of the week

The media and political establishment have responded with near total silence to the Washington Post’s revelation last week that the Obama administration has transformed extra-judicial assassination into a permanent practice of the US government.
What should be immediate grounds for the impeachment of the president has been met with indifference, most notably from liberal and “left” supporters of Obama’s re-election. If the initial Post article has something of the character of a trial balloon—to see to what extent the revelation of such measures would be met with official opposition—the results are conclusive: there is no significant commitment to democratic rights in the media and political establishment.
By any objective account, the Post’s revelations are extraordinary. “Targeted killing”—a euphemism for assassination—“is now so routine that the Obama administration has spent much of the past year codifying and streamlining the processes to sustain it.” The administration has transformed “ad hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining permanent war.”
Kill lists “that were regarded as finite emergency measures after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are now fixtures of the national security apparatus.” At the same time, it is “a policy so secret that it impossible for outsiders to judge whether it complies with the laws of war or US values—or even determine the total number of people killed.”
In other words, the administration has systematized a process by which the executive branch, with no judicial oversight, kills people—including US citizens—routinely all over the world.


-- Joseph Kishore, "American democracy and the 'disposition matrix'" (WSWS).
at

Truest statement of the week II

Achingly slow job creation has left the U.S. with 4.3 million fewer positions than provided incomes to Americans in 2007.  Half the new jobs have been part-time, lower-wage slots, a trend that has ruinously sped a hollowing of the middle class.
The official unemployment rate stands at 7.9%, marking only the second month below 8% after 43 months above that level. Worse, add people who are working part-time because they have no better choice and the rate leaps to almost 15%.  Still worse, add 8 million people who have given up looking for employment and the number who are out of jobs or who are cobbling together hours to scrape by hits some 23 million people.

-- Editorial board of The New York Daily News, "Our choice for America's future."
at

A note to our readers

Hey --

Another Sunday.



First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
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),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.




And what did we come up with?

Joseph Kishore's had a truest before but he really nailed it this week, didn't he?
And the editorial board of The New York Daily News talks some economic truths.
Yeah, I (Jim) wanted to make our loyal readers grab their chests and maybe gasp.  Could it be?  Was Third endorsing Barack for president?  Hell to nah!!!! We support his impeachment.  But I bet the headline made you wonder. 
Ava and C.I. shuffle through a number of topics in this media mosaic.  This will please many.
A brief roundtable.
It's rare that a mistake is made online and a correction comes along so brief and so accurate.  
We had planned three parody book excerpts this week.  Only one was worked to perfection.  But rest assured, we have the illustration completed for David Axelrod so we will be doing him next week.  We also plan to address dairy in another feature next week.  Everyone worked on this one.  Betty was the one who said, on the David Axelrod piece, "It's not working.  Shelve it and we can start anew next week."

Reader Regina caught this.  We thank her for it.

Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I. on a get-out-the-vote.
A repost from Workers World.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.



And that's what we got.  We tried to mix it up a bit and if we'd had the dairy piece like we'd hoped, we would have had a bigger mix.


Peace.



-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. 



at

Editorial: We support Barack Obama . . .


 a7

Well, we support impeaching him.

Few presidents will ever get away with the crap he's gotten away with for nearly four years.

The War on Libya?  Done without Congressional authorization and he went on to refuse to report to Congress on it as outlined in the War Powers Act.  His minions declared the law "quaint."

We found it quaint that such an effete person could be promoted as manly.  Was there ever a cattier president?  We can't think of one.  Catty and bitchy are the two synonyms that best describe his administration.

The War Powers Act was a Congressional response to another Out Of Control Bully: Tricky Dick.  This, the American people were told, was a binding law that would prevent the executive branch from carrying on illegal wars.  (Only Congress can authorize war.)

Just as he trashed another Watergate remedy (public financing) in his 2008 presidential campaign, he trashed the War Powers Act.

The same way he trashed his promise to close Guantanamo.

The same way he promised to pull US troops out of Iraq, one brigade a month, starting the month he was sworn in, getting all US troops out of Iraq in 16 months.

Not only did that not happen, US troops remain in Iraq.   And Barack who wants to claim credit for 'ending' the Iraq War is negotiating to send more US troops into Iraq. September 26th, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported:

 
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.


Do you grasp the vast dishonesty Barack's displayed at one debate after another?

He's repeatedly refused to inform the American people that he's in negotiations with Iraq to send more US troops back in.  He's even sent the 'fixer' who came up with an immunity clause in the 2008 SOFA that both the Bush White House and Nouri could live with.  The Fixer is back in Iraq attempting to ensure that what happened in November of 2011 doesn't happen again: The deal to keep US troops in Iraq doesn't fall apart over the immunity issue.

For that lie alone, he deserves to be impeached.  He has deliberately misled the American people.  He is the people's servant.  It must be confusing for him considering that unintelligent zombies treat him like a god.  But there's a document that still remains called the Constitution and it means Barack is not above the American people, he is their servant.

And he's performed his duties poorly in the case of the economy.

With regards to foreign countries, he's been flat out criminal.

As Joseph Kishore (WSWS) observed last week:

 The media and political establishment have responded with near total silence to the Washington Post’s revelation last week that the Obama administration has transformed extra-judicial assassination into a permanent practice of the US government.
What should be immediate grounds for the impeachment of the president has been met with indifference, most notably from liberal and “left” supporters of Obama’s re-election.
On the kill-list, Glenn Greenwald (World Can't Wait) pointed out:

In May 2009, when Obama unveiled his proposal for "preventive detention", he said: "Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end." He added that we'll still be fighting this war "a year from now, five years from now, and - in all probability - 10 years from now."
Just last week, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration is creating permanent bureaucratic systems to implement its War on Terror powers as it "expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years". Specifically, "among senior Obama administration officials, there is broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade." That "suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism."
Civil liberties abuses justified by a finite war can be awful while they last, but then they cease. Abuses that are systematized based on the premise that they are to be permanent do far more than that: they radically alter the nature of the government and the relationship of the political class to the citizenry.


Grasp that it never ends until we end it.

A functioning left would be rallying people to demand impeachment.

Instead the useless eunichs -- count Noam Chomsky among the most useless -- rush in to tell us we should be voting for Barack.

Bradley Manning marked his 896th day in prison today.  If he's guilty of anything -- he's yet to enter a plea -- it would be of being a whistle blower.  For that, Barack's refused to allow him to have a speedy and fair trial.

In fact, Barack's pronounced him guilty.

He needs to be impeached.  That's really the only answer at this point.  Though many will think of excuses why he shouldn't be impeached, should he win re-election in Tuesday's vote, you better believe the calls for impeachment will increase.  And they damn well should.



at

TV: The continued demise of the media

This season, on Alphas (SyFy), Rachel (Azita Ghanizada) and John slept together after dancing around the issue for several episodes.  Among other things, Rachel's alpha super power is heightened senses (smell, hearing, vision, etc.) and it was overwhelming when she lost her virginity at 18.  For John, the big issue was that, two years ago, deployed to Kandahar Province in Afghanistan, his convoy was targeted with an IED and the explosion left him scarred on his left side of his body.  A girlfriend from before the war said it didn't make a difference but then she told him it did and she left him.  "Life After Death" found Rachel and John finally making love, him with his t-shirt on (to hide the scars) and her with her barriers and super powers up.  After shared embarrassment (Rachel's father walked in after), they were both able to let their guard down and share something special.


tv






It was an important message in so many ways.  But while applauding Alpha for its contribution, we couldn't forget that it is an entertainment program, a scripted show.  And yet it's doing what the public affairs programming refuses to do: Inform.

We were reminded of that late Thursday night when a friend with the CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) called to complain about a regional public affairs program -- one the same CPB-er had previously championed to us.  And we'd listened to it several times since then.  We'd been impressed.  (We'd noted the program here and here.)  When Ruth called it out two months ago, we were kind of surprised.

Grown ups can disagree and still get along.  So we weren't surprised that Ruth didn't like the show we'd enjoyed.  But we were surprised that the show Ruth was describing was not a show we would enjoy ourselves.

First let's talk about the show.  It's called Think but is earning the title Bulls**t these days.  It airs on KERA out of Dallas and at one time was radio and TV (and audio and video streaming) but now days appears to just be on radio.  If we're wrong, let us know.  Don't expect an additional note because we actually tried to reach out to the host and the guest formally before writing this article.  We were really hoping one of the two would say something -- even something as weak as, "Goodness, didn't I screw up that day." -- which would allow us to write it off an isolated incident so we could instead focus on another topic.

We didn't hear from either Krys Boyd (host) or her idiotic guest John Hodgman.

Think is a public affairs program.  It's two-hours mid-day, Monday through Thursday. 

To be clear, two hours daily -- even just four days a week -- of home grown programming is a good thing.  There is nothing "public" radio about a public radio station that originates no local programming.  Even failing to do her job, Krys Boyd is still an engaging radio voice.  We're less thrilled about her inability to find women to appear on her show. Last week, for example, her guests were 2 women and five men.


When Ruth called her out, Krys was having a 'discussion.'  One guest was from The Fort Worth Star-Telegram and one was from The Dallas Morning News.  Krys and the two men, naturally.

The three trashed Mitt Romney . . . for the hour.  They knew so much -- they knew nothing about Benghazi other than partisan -- so much worth sharing.

But what bothered us most when we read Ruth's analysis was  a point Ruth didn't make.  Ruth rightly called out the nonsense of failing to offer a real discussion.  Boyd presented a "choir" instead, where everyone sang along to how stupid and wrong Mitt Romney was and how brilliant Barack Obama is.  That's host, that's the two guests.

Ruth's right, that is appalling.  You're never going to have a deep discussion when everyone agrees.  But we are used to that (sadly) on our own local NPR KQED.  Though not thrilled by the same-ness, we can justify it somewhat (weakly) by noting that the Bay Area is being represented in that we are overwhelmingly Democratic Party in that area.  (That includes us, we are Democrats as well.)  So, if nothing else, these boring, one-note readings of campaign talking points from the DNC at least represents the bulk of listeners.

But Krys Boyd's show airs out of Texas.  And KERA airs in Dallas, the city, in Dallas county, in Fort Worth, in East Texas, in . . . Most of the people who could listen to KERA will be voting for Mitt Romney.

In our e-mails that received no official response, we had wrongly stated that no Democratic Party candidate had carried Texas since 1964 (LBJ).  We were wrong, as a back channel response noted (are we that scary to e-mail), in 1976, Texas picked Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.   We stand corrected.  Carter beat Ford by 129,019 votes as America recoiled from Watergate.  This will be the ninth presidential election since then and eight have gone to the Republican Party and this ninth one will as well.  Just as California will back Barack with their electoral votes, Texas will back Romney with their own.  These states are not in play.

So how is it that Krys Boyd thinks she's serving the public by booking people who hate Mitt Romney?  How is she serving Texas by trashing and bringing on others to trash Mitt Romney?  Public radio is supposed to represent the public.

How does Krys Boyd represent her geographical area by attacking Romney non-stop?

(Before anyone e-mails, yes, the city of Dallas will likely go Democrat in the presidential election.  As we have already noted, KERA broadcasts beyond Dallas city limits.)

It reminds us of the awful nonsense that passes for comedy.  Take 30 Rock, the failed show on NBC that finally and thankfully leaves the air this season.  This season would be a true horror-fest if people actually watched the show but, as the ratings demonstrate, no one is watching.

We long ago documented the way 30 Rock worked.  It would have a sizable season debut and then, each week, lose that initial audience until finally very few were watching.  After kicking off last season with rape jokes, we would have thought Tina Fey had gone as low as any female comedy hyphenate could go.  Then came this season which has already included loud mouth Tracy declaring women are not funny and Liz Lemon proving him . . . right.

Heaven help us all with a back stabber like Tina Fey on the loose.  Please grasp that this 'woman's show' has very few scripts written by women.  Before Tina insists that "Stride of Pride" was written by a woman, we know it was.  We know that Tina Fey wrote the episode (the only one written by a woman so far this season).  We assume that's because no man would think -- even writing for 30 Rock -- that he could get away with a premise that women aren't funny.  Please grasp that what Jerry Lewis was rightly booed for saying in 2000, Tina Fey backs up in 2012.

Fey was once a promising comedy talent.  She's become the person you pray doesn't open her mouth or, worse, sit before a blank page or screen eager to fill it.

"Unwindulax" filled and marked time.  The awful episode mocked Jimmy Buffet fans, people in Florida and more.  It's the sort of reason 30 Rock has no fan base left.  It was written by Matt Hubbard.  As a general rule, we believe two-part episodes should have the same writers for both episodes.  However, Josh Siegal and Dylan Morgan wrapped things up on stronger footing with "There's No I in America."

While Siegal and Morgan brought laughs, Hubbard wrote on-the-nose.  It did not make for entertainment but it did illuminate the problem. Hubbard has Liz intent upon using her writing to influence the election.  (This was also a thread in this season's "The Beginning of the End" and "Governor Dunston.")

And that's what destroying TV and media today.  The desire to 'influence' (control) your audience.  Rachel Maddow does a partisan show on a partisan network.  Bill O'Reilly does as well.  The two of them are welcome to their shows and to their networks and people who want that can seek it out.

But no one signed up to watch 30 Rock because they needed Liz to tell them how to vote.  Nor did anyone sign up to watch Saturday Night Live for that reason.  Yet these shows, and so many more, seem to believe they exist not to provide humor but to influence an election.

What they're trying to do is offensive and it used to be called out.  In Frank Capra's 1941 classic Meet John Doe, it's not just the corporate fat cats who are trying to influence an election via duplicity that are in the wrong.  No, it's also Barbara Stanwyck's Ann Mitchell who, for money, creates a fictional character.  That's the downfall Ann has to overcome in the film, her attempt to trick and deceive people.

But no one calls it out these days.  It's considered natural to stack the deck.  Again, if Maddow and O'Reilly do it, we're not bothered.  They're partisans on partisan networks. We're not bothered, either, by endorsements or when comedy writers help a candidate/campaign by providing a joke for them to use.

What we're objecting to is people using positions that are not supposed to be political in order to influence an election.  We're specifically objecting to a lack of fairness.

Last night on Saturday Night Live, it was time to again mock Mitt Romney.  If you ever doubt that this is what counts as 'political humor' on NBC's very-tired show, last night made it clear.  Having been off the air the Saturday after the last debate, Seth Meyers was forced to think of a new way to mock Mitt Romney.  Having the very limited mind that he does, Seth turned him into a guest on Weekend Update.  Which allowed Seth to mock him.  And which underscored that, in four years, we've never had a Barack show up on Weekend Update to be mocked by Seth.  But most of all, it really made clear how the Mitt skits previously were not about let's-make-fun-of-the-yahoos-running-for-president.

No, they were about mocking Mitt Romney.  A whole cottage industry was created in 2011 to make Mitt Romney so pop-culturally disgusting that no one would dare vote for him.

It's the power of TV being abused.  The power of TV is what saved Romney.  The first debate is when most people finally encountered Mitt Romney -- and not a parody or demonization of him.  As we pointed out the morning after the first debate,  "In other words, when you try to turn someone into a monster, you better hope they reveal themselves to be that or you better keep them off screen like Bruce in Jaws."

This is what has people outraged.  Not that someone talks about politics but that people who are supposed to play fair refuse to.  You can mock Mitt Romney forever, but you need to be mocking Barack as well.  Equally true, if you refuse to mock Michelle Obama and their two daughters, you need to draw the same wall around Ann Romney and her children.  But Saturday Night Live doesn't do that.  It ridicules her and it ridicules their children.


Which brings us back to Think.  Let's ask the most obvious question: Why book John Hodgman as a guest to begin with?

He has a new book!

Well, 'newish.'  The book came out in November.  Of 2011.  12 months ago.

It's an almanac of made up information.

This is what gets rewarded?  This is what we need public affairs programming for?

So someone too lazy to write a real humor book or too lazy to research and write an almanac can b.s. his way through a book?

This is what Americans need to hear about to be 'informed'?

That's certainly a novel way of interpreting the mission of NPR and that of public affairs programming.

Hodgman was so boring babbling on about his book and its made up contents in that ridiculous voice that sounds like a child molester on speed.  And maybe it all bored Krys Boyd and that's why she thought this idiot was the one to talk politics too?

Or maybe it's that she -- like Seth Meyers -- just can't stop whoring her show for Barack Obama?

 Regardless, she asked and, no surprise, Hodgman is for Barack.

She asked and Hodgman attacked Romney.

Hodgman had no real reason that anyone should vote for Barack -- or if he did, he failed to establish it.  But he hated Mitt Romney.

This was deeply personal to Hodgman and he made it so in his remarks.


Mitt Romney does not like people like John Hodgman.  That's what Hodgman kept insisting.  We're honestly not sure too many people would like a person who behaved the way John Hodgman did as he ranted and raved.  But regardless, Hodgman was citing comic books and other things that made no sense.

He couldn't let it go.  He just knew he was going to 'win' Texas for Barack.

As he grew more excited, he dropped back to Romney's high school days over 40 years ago because Hodgman believes that we all are who we were in high school.

As we listened to the docudrama Hodgman ad-libbed, we knew the basis of his premise.  Jason Horowitz wrote a highly criticized report for The Washington Post last May.  People questioned whether it was illuminating or informative to judge people by what they did as teenagers.  The article was also criticized for hinting at more than it actually portrayed.

But the article is in the public record and, although we wouldn't reference it, there are many people who lack ethics who would.  We're aware of that.

We just didn't realize Hodgman's had no ethics whatsoever.  The story Horowitz put in print wasn't a kind one to Romney who, in the sixties, had run with a popular pack of guys (all boy school) and picked on other boys.  But that wasn't good enough for Hodgman.

He had to lie.


He invented details that we're not even going to dignify by repeating here. 


He appeared to think he was giving voice to the victim.

Strange because John Lauber has a family and Matthew Jaffe (ABC News) reported back in May that the family, via his sister, Betsy Lauber, had issued a statement on the report,  "The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda.  There will be no more comments from the family."

While mounting his high horse and hissing and whining, Hodgman had time to invent details, he just didn't have time to respect a family's wishes regarding a disputed incident from over 40 years ago that took place between a bunch of underage boys.

Boyd let him go on.  When his hateful rant (it was hateful, you had to hear the hate in his voice to realize how unhinged he was becoming), Boyd quickly went to a break.  She never corrected him.

Nor did she question whether we base a vote on an alleged incident 50 years prior -- an incident that's even disputed by the family of the victim.

That's not fair and it's not public broadcasting.  It's certainly not serving the public that Boyd reaches over the airwaves which, again, will be voting for Mitt Romney in the election.


And they aren't the only ones.  Check out this screen grab of Google News earlier this morning.


wtf



It's two days before the election and Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are tied.  The electorate is evenly split.  "Too close to call," we are told.  Yet many have been more than happy to use programs -- which are not their own soapboxes -- to attempt to influence and sway the election.
They just haven't been willing to do their jobs.  For sitcoms and Saturday Night Live, that's make people laugh.  For public affairs programming, that's cover the issues that matter.

The last years have seen the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War.  It's funny that so many pretended to give a damn about service members.  You may recall the "I'm against the war, not the warrior" type statements.  Really?

Then where the hell is your coverage?

Krys Boyd thinks she's serving the public by whoring KERA's two hours each day for Barack Obama and by booking the author of a made-up-s**t?

She's not addressing the veterans who have returned wounded.  She's not addressing veterans jobless rates.  She's not addressing the long delays in VA care.  She's not addressing any issues that really matter.


Dallas is a big city in Texas (the Dallas-Fort Worth area is considered the most populated in the state by the census).  However, the capital of Texas is Austin.  And The Austin-American Statesman offered a number of reports last month on veterans and suicide including "Suicide among veterans receiving less attention than active-duty deaths,"  "After returning home, many veterans get into motor vehicle accidents," "Which veterans are at highest risk for suicide?," "Researches look into possible causes of current 'epidemic' of suicide and PTSD" and "Scores of recent Texas war veterans have died of overdoses, suicides and vehicle crashes, investigation finds."


They can do that in Austin.  But public radio out of Dallas is more concerned with offering an hour with an author whose book is filled with made up 'facts.'


We weren't aware an entertainment drought in the US, let alone one so mighty that it required public affairs programming to turn their back on public affairs and cover bulls**t instead.

But what we are aware of is that many men and women have returned from the battlefield in the last decade, seriously injured.  Ourselves?  We are against the wars.  We never felt the need to add "but we love the warrior!"  That's because why do that?  Why mouth words?  If you're supportive of veterans and their needs, your record will prove that.

We have a record -- here and at The Common Ills -- of support for veterans.  That's left wing, that's right wing, that's radical, that's conservative veterans.  We don't really care about the ideology.  We care that promises made get kept.  We care that people in need get help.

Alphas' primary mission is to entertain.  It does do that.  But as was pointed out to us last week when we were speaking to a veterans group, it's the only show that a roomful of veterans from today's wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) could point to that in the last months has even acknowledged some of what they go through.  Go through.  This isn't the distant past.  If you are injured, not only are you adjusting to your injury, so are the people around you.


Good for Alphas and good for the SyFy network for stepping up.  But how sad and telling of the world we now live in when public affairs programming would rather ignore the hundreds of thousands who have been wounded, the challenged and the disabled -- veteran and non-veteran populations, to instead focus day after day on the most trivial and trite topics while also trying to tell you how you must vote if you want to be considered 'cool' by these hosts who betray the public trust aspect of the public airwaves.









at

Roundtable

Jim: Two days and the election is over.  Thank goodness.  Our e-mail address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. Participating our roundtable are  The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava, and me, Jim; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Mike of Mikey Likes It!;  and Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ.  Betty's kids did the illustration, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man. You are reading a rush transcript.




Roundtable


Jim (Con't): I want to start with C.I.  We're a truest statement short now.  We've got one but we had two.  A director --

C.I.: Don't say the name.

Jim: Okay.  A film director that we know through you, your friends with the director, got a truest.  In fact, we were headlining it "Truest statement of the year." You said, "Kill it."  And we were puzzled.  Ty was pointing out how you had said the same thing.  And then I said, "Save it for the roundtable! I know there's a story here."

C.I.: It's not a big story.  The director was voicing an opinion I share in that quote.  Sadly, the director is also on Twitter.  Sadly the director that feels we should all be respectful and not say mean things and the director who wasn't going to tell you who to vote for has a Twitter account.

Jim: And?

C.I.: The statement we were going to dub "truest"?  I agree with it.  But I don't see applauding the director who's already put in nasty Tweets about Paul Ryan and re-Tweeted attacks on the Romney-Ryan campaign.  I wish the director had meant what they stated.  I truly do.  I happen to agree with that statement that, in the arts, we need to appeal to as many as possible and not piss off one section of the population because of a vote.  But those are weak words from a director who has been active on Twitter in attacking one campaign.

Jim: I knew there was a reason.  So Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are going all over these days, trying to shore up votes in a close election -- or what's thought to be a close election.  Marcia, any thoughts?

Marcia: I am still in shock over a get-out-the-vote ad that I'll be kind and not name who did it but, damn, don't spray on 'hair.'  Get a wig.  And get a wig to cover the frontal bald spot.  Don't think you can spray it on.  Right now, someone's probably think, "There's that radical lesbian Marcia!  Attacking the men again!"  I'm talking about a woman!  With a bald spot and not enough sense to put a wig on.

Jim: I'm laughing because I know who you mean.  This week, you and Mike both made endorsements.  Let's start with you, Marcia.

Marcia: I'm voting for Mitt Romney.  A number of supposed 'liberal's and 'lefties' felt the need to attack Stacey Dash on Twitter.  Stacey is an actress and she is Black.  She came out in support of the Romney-Ryan ticket.  That's her opinion.  I might have said, "That's her opinion, good for her."  I might have said that and nothing more.  But the hatred aimed at this woman?  No, no, no.  Calling her the n-word?  These are Barack supporters?  Oh my God.  Calling a Black woman the n-word on Twitter.  And think that's acceptable?  Along with that, there were death threats and death wishes and calling her a bitch and worse.  I'm just not in the damn mood.  I wasn't voting for Barack.  Jill Stein strikes me as way too cowardly in the last six weeks.  I'll take Mitt for the block, as the saying does.

Jim: Okay.  Mike, you had an endorsement as well.

Mike: Right.  I'm voting for Jerry White.

Jim: Which is interesting because at one point you weren't voting for him.  You said he wasn't on enough ballots.

Mike: And he's still not.  But there was a piece at WSWS and I was reading it and thinking, "Well I could write him in."  This has a lot to do with a conversation we had here last week.  Where Ava and C.I. were explaining why they were not reviewing the third party debate.

Jim: That got intense and Jess got very angry.

Jess: I did get angry.  I cooled down.  I even see their point now.  Ava?

Ava: Okay, we have a lot to do, C.I. and I.  We write columns for the community newsletters, we write here, we're on the road speaking out against the wars, C.I.'s got three entries a day to do at The Common Ills Monday through Friday, I've got my baby on the road with us.  And we're tired.  We're tried of doing while others don't.  Meaning we're tired of being the ones to call this crap out while the lefties on a campus before us and after us visited to whore for Barack.  So our time is valuable to us.  And should we cover a third party debate?  I understand Jess' attitude that it should have been.  But C.I. and my attitude is: Things don't get better via bad imitation.  Meaning there was a chance for a real third party debate.  It could have included anyone listed on any state's ballot.  Could have and should have.  Instead, given the choice to open the debates -- something Jill Stein keeps whining about -- she and others chose to keep other presidential candidates -- like Jerry White -- out of the debate.  They proved to be as offensive as the Democrats and the Republicans.

Jess: And I get that and I agree.  I was partly not listening last week and partly getting upset that the Greens were being shut out.  But, yes, if you're going to whine that you're shut out of the network debates and then a non-network comes along to offer a debate, you should make sure anyone running on any state's ballot is invited.  If not, you shouldn't participate.

Mike: My reluctance with Jerry White, Socialist Equality Party, was that I don't believe in write-ins.  That's because there's no way in hell that Ralph Nader got credit for all of his write-ins in 2008.  That number should have been much higher.  And Gina and Krista demonstrated that via Florida, how just counting Florida community members who voted for Ralph and going to the data after the election, the Ralph votes were not present.  So I'm not a fan of write-in.  But the reality is that Jerry White, every position he's taken, it's where I would stand.  I wish he were on all the ballots.  Or even just in my state.  He's not.  But I can write him in and there's never been a candidate I've felt was such a perfect match for what I believe in.  So he's got my vote because he really did earn it.  I support all of his stands and positions.  That's the candidate I should vote for -- even if I have to write him in.

Jim: Alright.  We're happy for Marcia and Mike.  Now Hurricane Sandy swept the east and conventional wisdom is: "It helps Barack!"  Anybody want to grab this?

Dona: I will.  How does it help Barack?  G. Dunkel (Workers World) reports today, "While the image of Manhattan is that of sleek, modern, extremely high-priced apartments, many poor and working people live in the city’s public housing on either the western or eastern edges of the island.   Now they have to try to get by without water." It's also being reported that when asked yesterday about the people of Staten Island being frustrated, "He did not respond."  Now the media may go ahead and give him a pass -- again -- but the relief effort is not going A+ well.  It's struggling and he's the one who claimed he'd see to it that people received what they needed.

Jim: And Barack dialed it down, the I'm-the-one-to-help-you.  Yesterday, in his weekly address, he was talking about how "recovery will be a long, hard road for many communities."

Ty: Like the economy?  In which case, Staten Island better get ready to wait over four years before they see any improvement.  I really will look back on this election as the worst time in my life.

Jim: Honestly?

Ty: Honestly.  The candidates offered were bad enough.  But in addition to that, the whores wouldn't allow a leftist critique.  In fact, that's really the whole four years.  We led on the leftist critique here.  That's fine.  We can take the attacks.  But for four years there has been no left critique as Barack has declared he can kill any American citizen, as he's pissed all over the War Powers Act, just go down the list.  He is a dirty whore and the only thing dirtier than him are the cheap hookers who lie for him.  If we'd had Hillary in office for four years, you better believe bitch-boy Tom Hayden would have been holding her feet to the fire and calling her out publicly.  We never got the left critique we needed.  We have lost four years to the third term of George W. Bush.  How the Katrina vanden Heuvels and Matthew Rothschilds live with themselves, I will never know.  They have done real damage and should shut their damn mouths.  They should announce their retirement and step aside to let someone else attempt to offer leadership.

Dona: I would support Ty on that 100%.  We don't usually get Ty upset and angry in these roundtables.

Jim: I think it's because Ty takes a page from Ava and C.I. and tries to speak as little as possible to let others speak.  Am I wrong, Ty?

Ty: No, you're right.  Usually, we have a lot higher participation.  But when Jim announced it was a roundtable on the election, you had groans and a lot of people took a pass.  Betty didn't take a pass.  She's with her family in Georgia this weekend for a wedding anniversary, she and her kids flew to Georgia for that, so she was only able to help with one piece we did here.  Which is fine.  But everyone's so damn sick of the election.

Jess: It's gone on forever and ever and ever.

Marcia: As bad as it seems to you, try writing about it.  Once a week, for Jess, Jim, Dona and Ty, you're writing about it in an article or two.  But there are days when even though I hate NBC's Revolution, I'm thrilled to blog about it just because it's something other than the election.

Jim: You also blog about Benghazi.

Marcia: I do and that's an important topic.

Jim: Biggest development there last week?

Marcia: I think there will be more revelations in the coming weeks and months.  So instead of focusing on that, I want to point out that a small percentage of the media -- not nearly enough -- finally grasped how insulting it is to say "attack that killed Chris Stevens and three others . . ."

Dona: Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens.  That's the four.  And, honestly, I know that only because C.I. and Marcia have repeatedly not just mentioned all four but made a point to call out reducing four to "Chris Stevens and three others."

Marcia: So it was nice to see a few news outlets last week suddenly discover the names of the other three Americans who were killed.

Jim: Mike, what happens after the election?

Mike: With Benghazi?  I think it heats up.  I think even an in-the-tank for Barack press can't keep a lid on this, they have to address it.

Jim: And any predictions for Tuesday.

Mike: Is this closing thoughts?

Jim: Yeah and it's just you due to time limitations.

Mike: Okay.  In 2004, I voted for John Kerry.  I don't regret that vote.  I did think, however, I'm a Democrat and the Democrats have my vote and anyone else would be stealing it.  One of the things I'm most grateful for about The Common Ills community is that we had C.I. online for eight years -- this month is eight years! -- and she wasn't telling you, "Vote Democrat!" Or vote any party.  She was telling you that you owned your vote, that you could use it as you saw fit.  Even if that means not voting.  She made it clear that it was your vote, not a political party's vote.  It belonged to you and if a politician earned it, you could vote for that politician.  And it didn't matter if no one else agreed with you, it didn't even matter if she agreed with you, the only person you needed to please with your vote was yourself.  In the last eight years, we've been hit with one message after another of "You must vote ___" however.  So it was really great that we had one strong voice online who talked about who really owned a vote: We do.

Jim: We do need to wrap up but I'll add for any wondering, Mike's benediction there?  We're waiting to figure out if we close shop or go on six more months.  C.I. hasn't decided if she wants to continue or not.  So that's the benediction nature of Mike's closing thoughts.  Benediction or not, I agree with the points Mike made.  This has been a rush transcript.











at

Truest online exchange of the week


At a Daily Beast article on the new film Vamps, an opinion was floated and quickly corrected (we hope it was corrected).



at

Book Excerpt: Hilary Rosen to the rescue!

From the forthcoming book Don't Call Me, Sir, Marci: Tales of a Fat Head Nothing by Hilary Rosen.
 
hr


Today, I, Hilary Rosen, the world's ugliest woman, figured out how to save Barack Obama's campaign.  I haven't felt so good about myself since 2011 when I was a paid whore for British Petroleum.  F**k you, pelicans!  And any other lifeforms that died as well.

So there I was, on YouTube, yet again looking for porn.  I had typed in "Wearwolf women" because I like a hirsute gal, and I ended up clicking one of those videos on the side of the one I picked to play and four clicks later I was seeing this old 2007 video of Mitt Romney.

So I'm watching it and I'm saying, "Hot damn!  This is better than when I nailed that 96-year-old granny for illegal downloading!"

He was talking about abortion and as a woman who sleeps with other women, abortion is a very important issue to me.  I reserve the right to have a say in the fetus that my girlfriend carries following artificial insemination.  Abortion is like probably my main issue as a voter.  I can't think of anything that personally effects my life more.

I was unable to keep my own relationship together.  Sadly, it's not easy to wear a rubber mask 24-7.  And who could blame my ex when she finally saw my face.  I don't kid, I'm an ugly woman.  And always reaching in my blouse and scratching my nipples while I talk.  I think of it as an endearing character trait but most people tend to roll their eyes.

Any-who.  There I was with an abortion video.

But even better, he's talking religion.

And you know how I hate religion.

Almost as much as I hate Ann Romney.


So I'm thinking, "I'll pretend I'm posting it because of abortion, but really it's to make his religion seem freaky."

And I'm feeling really good about myself.  That's not easy to do when you look like me.


So I saved Barack's campaign and also made me feel good about me.  So good, in fact, that I think I squirted a little.  Down there.  I can't help it.  I was looking in the mirror and realized that if you plopped a blond wig on Nathan Lane -- and 50 extra pounds -- he'd look just like me.  I'm hot, baby!  Hot like a TV star!

Woo-Hoo!








at

Crapapedia

Remember, kids, it's not Wikipedia, it's Crapapedia.  Regina sent in this week's find.  On the Saturday Night Live wiki entry, under Electoral impact, a laughable 'fact' is noted.


crapapedia



"However in the Democratic presidential primary campaign, Hillary Clinton received more favorable treatment than Barack Obama. During the campaign Fey famously quipped about the then then-Senator that 'bitches get stuff done' and that 'bitch is the new black'."  This is followed by "[132]" -- a footnote.

The claim is ridiculous.  Barack's family was never ridiculed by Saturday Night Live during the primaries, though Bill Clinton was ridiculed repeatedly.  Hillary was mocked by a skit that found her sleeping in curlers but we never saw Barack doing anything except looking 'cool.'

But did the footnote back up these claims?

The footnote takes you to this August 13, 2008 Huffington Post post by Rachel Sklar.  Not only does Sklar not endorse the notion that Hillary received more favorable treatment than Barack in her post, but in a comment later in the thread, she makes this even more clear.





Get it?

It's Crap, Crapapedia! 
at

We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava, C.I.)

Tuesday night, "We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)," "We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)" and  "We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)" went up, an essay by Marcia and Ann and Third's own Ava and C.I.  We're reposting it here. 


We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)

Last week,  "Shut up, Richard Kim, it's a sexist ad,"  "Well the men have spoken . . ." and "I Hate The War" all took on Lena Dunham's idiotic and offensive get-out-the-vote commercial for the Barack Obama re-election campaign.

For some, the reaction has been, "Who?"

Not a surprise.  The 'creator' of Girls isn't a household name and the program's ratings are so bad they make NBC look like a high achiever.  Of the show's ten episodes, one broke a million viewers and one broke over a million (don't get excited, it was 1.09 million).  Ten episodes?

Yeah, that's all the genius has offered us.  She's a media sensation because she's trash and part of the trash culture.  Judd Apatow is her enabler, sponsor and the executive producer of her show.  Apatow's sexism in film after film -- yes, that does include Bridesmaids -- is well known.  But for those who don't follow trash comedy (Knocked Up, for example), we realize you might want some supporting evidence.  We thought of going to pop-culture watcher/obsesser Jezebel but their site is down except for updates due to the storm.

We found other women weighing and we nodded our heads in agreement with their on-the-spot criticism; however, we just felt it was missing something.  Then we came across a male fan of Apatow's work who wanted you to know that Judd The Redundant is not a sexist and the fan rejected Katherine Heigl's analysis of Judd's sexism.  What did she know anyway?  She was just the female lead in one of his films.  So here's fan boy explaining (he thinks) why Judd is not a sexist while revealing (he doesn't grasp) just how sexist Judd is:


 But I take issue with what she said. One of the reasons that I found Knocked Up so compelling was that it didn't pander to the audience by playing into our expectations. I didn't think Heigl's Alison was a "bitch" -- like the leads of director Judd Apatow's last surprise hit comedy, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, she is a complex character who defies easy, one-note characterization.


Judd is not a sexist, fan boy explains, because when he saw Knocked Up, he didn't think Heigl's character was a "bitch."  And by that (low) standard, fan boy judges the work.

So all of you writers and directors and combo platters who reduce women to stereotypes and keep them away from the action, remember, just don't make them come off a "bitch" and you won't have written a sexist character.

Lena is a 26-year-old 'writer' who felt compelled to write Girls because she looked at what was on television and saw that the real stories weren't being told.

Before you exclaim "Halleuja!" and think maybe she's doing an expose on what teachers have to go through these days in the teach-to-the-test scheme of things while even supposed friends of public education (that would include the Obama administration) push for vouchers and charter schools (ibid), hold off on the hosannas.

See, while you may look at TV and notice how few people of color there are, Lena looked and saw the 30-ish Sex and the The City gals and the teenish Gossip Girl crew and thought, "Well, gosh darn it, what about us White girls with rich parents who aren't teenagers and haven't yet had to grapple with crows feet or Sarah Jessica Parker's chin wart removal?"

And thus was born yet another show allegedly set in New York City which features yet another all White cast.  You know the thing is, when Friends started, it was called out for that.  By the time Sex and the City, Gossip Girl and now Girls come along, no one bothers to object.

The show revolves around 5 characters -- all White, 4 females, 1 male.

And we're sure that the spoiled, babies and pampered Whites in a pro-longed adolescence despite being in their 20s are thrilled to have a show about themselves.  They make a point to watch, after all, all almost one million of them.

It's really amazing that Barack's campaign hired this woman to do an ad at all.  Are they unaware of artists of color or artists who are inclusive?  Do they want to reward shows with no people of color in the cast?

If your show is set in Iowa, demographics of the state more than explain why you might have an all White cast.  (93% of Iowa is Anglo-White.) But when you're show is set in New York City?

We do realize that less than half of NYC is Anglo-White, right?  That a quarter is African-American and slightly over that is Latino or Latina?  That 11% are Asian-Americans?

Yet Lena's brought us a show revolving around 5 characters in NYC and all 5 are White.

Lena explained to Lesley Goldberg (Hollywood Reporter),  "Gossip Girl was teens duking it out on the Upper East Side and Sex and the City was women who figured out work and friends and now want to nail family life. There was this whole in between space that hadn't really been addressed."

What a pioneer.

The stories of the human equivalent of veal will be told and they will be told by superficial notionalist Lena Dunham who also told Goldberg,  "I revere that show [Sex and the City] just as much as any girl of my generation."

Revering Darren Starr's view of women?  In The Simpsons' "Half-Decent Proposal," Patty explains the TV show Nookie in New York to sister Marge, "It's a cable show about four single women who act like gay men."

There was a lot of truth in Patty's critique.

 So that this show would be revered is rather strange.  That it would be 'revered' by a woman, a college graduate bringing in big bucks, who refers to herself as a "girl" may explain the stupidity.

Sex and the City was not about feminism.  It was about shopping, it was about sleeping around, it was about drinking, it was about many things.  It was not about feminism.

And while an actress with the show did come out -- after the series ceased production -- as a bi-sexual, lesbians on the show were always treated as a joke (most obviously in Samantha's brief affair with Sonia Braga's character but also in Charlotte's attempt to On The Road with Charles Kuralt-it with a group of lesbians).

 Maybe that homophobia explains why Lena made a get-out-the-vote commercial targeting young women that made a point to exclude lesbians?

Lena's sexist premise is that voting is like sex.

Let's correct her sad impression, all four of us have sex regularly.  Not just once every four years or every two if you toss in mid-term elections.

If Lena's premise was accurate, then she did a lousy job.

Any feminist talking male-female sex today to a young woman who didn't know anything about it would bring up the importance of protection, would explain the risks of AIDS and STDs.  Pregnancy would be addressed as well.

But for Lena, voting was male-female sex with no strings, no obligations and no fears of pregnancy.  She and Hugh Hefner share a great deal in common.  And to clarify for Lena, he's not  a feminist either.

Females are sexualized enough in our society.  That's women, that's girls.  That's toddlers.  WHy the hell would a woman decide that the way to get women to participate in voting was to tell her it was like sex?

Not only did she liken it to sex and not only to male-female only, but she likened it to tepid sex.  It was so tepid that "vanilla" doesn't begin to describe it.

In fact, watching the commercial, we were left to wonder if Lena is a virgin or a prude.

Either would explain her commercial which plays like overcompensation of something.

Some have insisted that criticism of Lena has only come from the right-wing.

We're four feminists who are pro-choice and wish NOW didn't cave and cater to a masculine desire for female surrender.  We wish NOW today had a little of Molly Yard's fighting spirit.

So try another tactic.

And a few have.

An e-mail insisted that we only called out Lena because she endorsed Barack.

Seriously?

Have you seen this video?



It's been out for over sixteen days.  It's Kerry Washington, Eva Longoria and Scarlett Johansson getting out the vote for Barack Obama.

Check our archives for even one sentence when we called these three women out for the video?

We never did.

We happen to disagree with their conclusion that Barack is good for reproductive rights.   Our take is similar to Samantha Goldman (World Can't Wait):


In reality however there is no option within the electoral process for women. Our basic rights to control our bodies, or not to be blamed and shamed is not up for a vote. Despite what Obama supporters would like us to believe, these past four years have been a horror and have shown a dangerous trajectory. It is only through this overall context of the War on Women that the impact of these comments becomes starkly clear. State legislation aimed at limiting birth control and abortion has been proposed and enacted at unprecedented rates. The legislation that has passed includes but is not limited to: state sanctioned rape through vaginal ultrasounds, anti-science mandatory counseling prior to abortion, increased waiting periods for abortion, and gestational limitations. An analysis by the Guttmacher Institute found that 2011 saw the most restrictions on abortions passed through state legislatures ever: 135 anti-women laws were enacted.


That's our opinion.  We weren't bothered by the opinion of Eva Longoria, Scarlett Johansson and Kerry Washington. And we were grateful that they treated women (the target audience for that video) as thinking human beings and talked about actual issues.

Scarlett, Kerry and Eva are actresses.  They play varieties of roles.  Some of those roles require them to come off sexy.  They can do that very convincingly.

But they didn't go there for a get-out-the-vote commercial.

They didn't have to use sex as a weapon because they trusted that women are smart enough to know their own bodies and to know what their rights are and need to be.

Again, we disagree with the three that Barack's going to do anything to help reproductive rights.

But grown ups can disagree.

We applaud the three women for treating women with respect, the way they would want to be treated.

Lena thinks she's so much better than women.  Lena thinks she needs to smut it up, to tart it up, as though women are so stupid that if we're not playing Mystery Date Extended Version, we're going to lose interest because our female brains just aren't capable of actual thought.

Lena was called out because her commercial was insulting.  She was also called out because her art is restrictive, sexist and (to put it mildly) White-centric.


But the fact that she endorsed Barack Obama had nothing to do with it.  If she'd made that commercial for Mitt Romney, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, Jerry White, Rocky Anderson or whomever we would have called it out.

That's because the commercial discredits women.  It operates on the same principle and belief that led observers to proclaim that George H.W. Bush picking Dan Quayle as his running mate was a smart move: His good looks would capture women voters.

Lena's commercial is as insulting as the notion that the female brain is just swayed by man-pretty, that what we are is biology and nothing more.


-------------------------

Notes:

1)  Ann is a Green and will be voting for Jill Stein.  Marcia is a Democrat who will not vote for Barack and who has gotten tired of the "die" and "you bitch" and all the other attacks men have been making on actress Stacey Dash (for endorsing Mitt Romney) including calling Stacey the n-word.  As a result of the attacks on Stacey, of the threats, of the repeated use of the n-word, Marcia's voting for Mitt Romney and showing solidarity with Stacey Dash.  Ava and C.I. are voting in the November election; however, they are not voting for president.  They do not feel that any candidate running for that office earned their vote.

2) Thank you to Elaine.  We attempted to bring her in as a co-writer.  She said no.  But she offered input, advice and read several drafts of this tonight.  That should earn her a co-writing credit alone. She was very much a part of the process; however, she didn't want to claim credit so we will just publicly thank her.
at

Life without water in New York City's towers (WW)

Repost from Workers World:



Life without water in New York City’s towers

By on November 4, 2012 » Add the second comment.
1

On 14th Street in Manhattan, Oct. 29.
New York — The 650,000 Con Edison customers in lower Manhattan without power don’t have water either unless they have hooked up a generator to their pumps.  Some of these “customers” are not individuals, but entire apartment buildings or complexes with hundreds or even thousands of residents.
In New York City, most buildings supply water to their tenants from a water tower on the top of the building. A few pump the water directly to each apartment.
While the image of Manhattan is that of sleek, modern, extremely high-priced apartments, many poor and working people live in the city’s public housing on either the western or eastern edges of the island.   Now they have to try to get by without water.
The rule of thumb is a gallon of water a day, 8 pounds per person — to drink, wash or flush.  For an elderly, frail person, carrying 8 pounds up 10 or 20 flights or even two flights of stairs is impossible.  Even if one is fit and hardy, carrying the 40 pounds needed by a family of five is a difficult task.
Some tenants who remember past electric outages filled up bathtubs and pots in anticipation of the storm.  However, after five days, the water they saved is running out.
The NYC and state administrations have recognized the need for water — and food — by setting up some distribution centers in a few poor neighborhoods five days after Hurricane Sandy struck New York.  Neighbors and family members help the elderly carry their water and food home.
Church and progressive organizations had begun similar distributions earlier and some stores are giving passersby the food that they would otherwise have had to throw away because it is spoiling without refrigeration.
What is really needed is a program that would supply generators to run the pumps for all the Con Edison customers without power.  Then with the water flowing, the next step would be to get food to the people.







at

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub, Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.


"We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)," "We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)" and  "We do not embrace sexism (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)" -- Marica, Ann, Ava and C.I. team up to call out a get-out-the-vote add that is "restrictive, sexist and (to put it mildly) White-centric."  That's the ad.  The writing by Marica, Ann, Ava and C.I.?  The most requested highlight of the week.





Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Campaigning"  -- Isaiah on the election.


 "Eggs in the kitchn" -- Trina offers an easy recipe.



"Bad parenting (yeah, we're talking YouTube)" -- Betty provides the 411.

"The awful Tell Me More (9 men, 3 women)" -- Ann begins tracking NPR's Tell Me More.

"Revolution," "Nikita "True Believer'," "666 Park Avenue," "revenge," "The Good Wife" and
"Fringe, Isaiah, Chris Hedges, Third" -- Marcia, Mike, Betty, Rebecca and Stan cover TV.
 "A nice Halloween," "The Monster Mash" and "Halloween" -- Halloween blogging from Ruth, Marcia and Mike.
"Another bad movie to avoid" and "Looker" -- Kat and Stan go to the movies.  


"The ridiculous Jesse Jackson Jr."  and "Rev. Lowery needs to repent" -- Betty and Stan blog about the self-embarrassing.

"THIS JUST IN! IT'S HIS LIFE ON THE TV!"  and "Aren't we all sick of him?" -- You do realize if he loses Tuesday that m


"he finally tells the truth" and  "What's that smell?" -- Rebecca and Elaine do short posts.

"Why I'm voting for Jerry White" -- Mike explains who he is voting for.
"THIS JUST IN! THE WANKERS WANK!"  and  "The crazy gets loose" -- Wally and Cedric on the insane whoring for Barry O.
 "Food stamps on the news" -- Trina notes a strong report on one of the rarest covered topics (despite being one of the most demonized): Food stamps.
"A hateful bully online helped me decide" and "On Stacey Dash and hatred" -- Marcia and Ann call out the bullying of actress Stacey Dash over a political endorsement.

"Don't see that Bette did anything wrong" -- Kat on Bette Midler's fundraiser.


"Fair Play For Old Men" -- Isaiah dips into the archives.
 "Voter turnout" -- Elaine plays around with a hypothesis pollsters are kicking around.


 "Oh, how they waste our time" and "THIS JUST IN! IT'S ALMOST OVER!" -- Cedric and Wally call out the media.


at