Jim: Roundtable time again. We'll be talking about Iraq, independent media and who knows what other topics. Remember our e-mail
address is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com but you can also use common_ills@yahoo.com. Participating in our roundtable are 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; Trina of Trina's Kitchen; Wally of The Daily Jot; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. Betty's kids did the
illustration. You are reading a rush transcript.
Jim (Con't): We've had a lot of time pulling it together for a
full weekend edition. So we're starting with a roundtable and let's
talk age: Should Joe Biden run for re-election? He'll be 81 years old.
If elected, he'd be 82 when he got sworn in for a second term. He's
too old.
Dona: Let me note
that Donald Trump is also too old. He'd be 78. Joe is currently the
oldest and Donald was the oldest until Joe stumbled onstage.
Mike: They're all too old. RBG made it clear that they're not smart enough to retire.
Jess:
Well, go through our archives, we've noted that here repeatedly. We
said that if there is a special election, for example, because some
elderly US senator died in office that the cost of the election should
be billed to the estate. We were making the point that it was time for
Robert Byrd to retire and he didn't and he died in office. The same
with Ted Kennedy. These supposedly 'smart' people don't know when to
retire.
Rebecca:
Because they don't want to retire, retiring means that they lose their
power and they're just another old person at the mercy of a very cruel
nation.
Ruth: I am old and
it is time for Dianne Feinstein to retire from the Senate. She is 89
years old. Judge Judy is 79 and, watching JUDY JUSTICE, it seems pretty
clear that she's gotten too old for her TV show. Not trying to be
harsh, I promise.
Rebecca:
No, you're correct. Her granddaughter on the show softens Judy a bit
but she is coming off like the woman screaming, "Get off my yard!" at
everyone who's walking the sidewalk. There will be a second season of
JUSTICE JUDY, for anyone wondering. AMAZON renewed it back in March.
Marcia:
I think Rebecca's right that they do not want to retire. I think they
also realize how pathetic they are and retirement means they'll be held
accountable. People will say, for example, "Dianne Feinstein got
elected during the genderquake but she did nothing to codify ROE V
WADE." As long as they hang on the office, some people will avoid
saying the obvious in the hopes that maybe even DiFi will finally do
something good if we give her time.
Ty:
We used to talk about legacy here a lot in the early years -- often
times Jess would note the Carole King song "Legacy" from CITY STREETS in
fact:
You better think about the legacy
That you're gonna leave behind
Things are getting wasted out of hand
People stealing each other blind
Hey, that ain't the way it oughta be
You can leave a better world than you find
You can look down, turn around, run away
But you can't put it out of your mind
'Cause it's your legacy
Ty
(Con't): And I think it's really that they don't care about their
legacy. They care about satiating their lust for money, they care about
their greed, they don't care what happens after they're dead and gone.
Betty:
That would certainly explain their failure to seriously act on Climate
Change. I guess if you're 89 year old Dianne Feinstein, it doesn't
really matter to you what's going to happen to the earth in ten years.
It doesn't matter to you and you have no sense of urgency. This goes to
Joe Biden, to Dianne Feinstein, to unnamed members of Congress that
Jane Fonda wrote in her book don't want to do anything about the climate
crisis, to Jane Fonda who was to chicken to name these elected
officials. Jane's how old right now? 84? Ava's nodding. So 84. And
that's also why she won't call out Biden. Calling out Biden means
calling attention to the fact that he's younger than she is.
Kat:
I'm sorry, Betty, I need to derail your point for one moment. I know a
journalist who is a friend of Ava and C.I.'s and he loathes Jane
Fonda. He talks about before she retired from acting and married Ted
Turner, right before, she was trying to act like Madonna -- his words --
in the interview he did with her and that she was just trying to act so
sexy and that it was embarrassing to him because she's a talented
actress. For two weeks now, I've seen repeated headlines about Jane and
her active sex life that she wants the world to know about. I mean,
come on now. You're 84.
Ava:
It should be noted that she's blazing a trail in one way by making it
clear that seniors can have active sex lives. So applause for that.
But the way she handles it sometimes, I'm with Kat, it's just a little
bit too much. It's a real shame that a woman who once thought KLUTE and
A DOLL'S HOUSE were the epitome of what she wanted her career to be is
back to acting like the sex object some accused her of being in
BARBARELLA.
C.I.: And,
sorry to jump in, and I do know Jane very well, but it should be noted
that women are valued for their sex appeal. Even more than their
looks. Studio males don't ask it as much now but the question used to
be, when casting a female role, is she f**kable? Not "Is she pretty?"
even. It was about desire. Much more upsetting than the vanishing of
looks, is the vanishing of desire. Joan Rivers realized that and would
make jokes about it -- she'd joke about how she carried a tampon and
would make a big show of it so men would think she hadn't gone through
the change. Jane is a victim of the same world we all are and it's a
world that has placed value on women where they are desirable. Jane's
much older than her mother was when her mother passed away and her
grandmothers really didn't offer much in the way of role models. So
she's navigating her own way and I applaud her for that. I do get what
Kat and Ava are saying. But it can be scary to realize that desire for
you is vanishing -- in part or in whole. She is fighting that
stereotype/ingrained in this society belief, so good for her. I'd
actually prefer to see her fight it onscreen and not in interviews. I'd
prefer to see her do some worthwhile film work. She could do
independent films, she could do foreign films, she could self-finance.
And if it's a fear of being seen as vain, I don't think most of would
refer to it as "Fonda's vanity project." We'd see it as the woman who
revolutionized the home entertainment industry and created the huge
fitness business now plowing some of her money into creating films about
late life women. There really are not roles there. Jane could
self-finance and sell it to NETFLIX. Or share it with them. I'd love
to see her as someone living in a nursing home who maybe has one real
person there she trusts and what happens when the person is gone, dies,
and she's still in the nursing home? There are so many stories about
older women that are not told. I would love to see Jane spearhead some
of those portrayals. And, to be clear, being older doesn't mean she
couldn't look good -- she is still a pretty woman -- or that she
couldn't play a woman in a romance with a man or just having casual sex
with a man. But I'd like to see her play a few roles, the way Vanessa
Redgrave does, that allow her to use her wisdom, her years to add to the
performance.
Ruth: While
you were talking about that, I was thinking of Treva, my best friend
since childhood. And I was thinking one of us is going to go first and I
hope it is me because I honestly cannot picture the world without my
lifelong friend. And you are right, these stories are not made into
movies. Jane Fonda could probably put together a film like that, on a
very small budget, with an edgy, up and coming director -- maybe a woman
-- and really deliver in a role like that, really register.
Kat: Okay, back to Betty's point, there is less a sense of urgency after a certain age.
Trina:
That's really true. I think of myself right now and, believe it or
not, I don't get as upset about things. Mike, your oldest brother will
tell you that his kid gets away with murder. He's always telling me
that I would've been all over him for doing the same thing. I probably
would have. But I'm not in my 20s anymore. So I have mellowed and I've
also learned that a lot of the things we think are so very important,
really aren't. I do not apply that attitude to climate change, to be
clear. But I'm not 89 yet. When I am, if I am, will I know enough to
be aware of what needs urgency and what I can be casual about? I don't
know. But I am offering that to just offer another possible reason that
some people appear not to care.
Jim: That's a very good point and thank you for bringing it up.
Jess: I'm glad it's in there for the record because I'm sure an explanation like that applies to some people.
Stan:
And that's a reality as much as it's a reality that some people don't
care because they're going to be dying soon. They don't care about a
legacy, they just want to amass as much money as they can.
Jim: Good point and I'm asking C.I. to speak to it.
C.I.:
Oh, okay. GOSSIP. It's a show, a documentary series, on SHOWTIME and
we -- Ava and I enjoyed it. We've talked about it with Jim, among
others. And I compared Nancy Pelosi to Leona Helmsley in that
documentary. Nancy is Speaker of the House. Leona is friends with
gossip columnist Cindy Adams of THE NEW YORK POST. Leona has been
dubbed by the press "the Queen of mean." She lost her power when
convicted of various tax crimes. As Cindy notes in the mini-series,
that's when she lost her power and when she lost her power, she lost the
bulk of her friends.
Jim: Cindy Adams dumped her?
Ava:
No, Cincy continued to be her friend after Leona got out of prison.
Cindy dropped her when she took her mother over to Leona's and Leona had
a fit because her mother got in the pool and Leona did not let gay
people in her pool. That's when Cindy dropped Leona as a friend and
began attacking her in print.
Dona: What was the Tom Cruise story?
C.I.:
It wasn't accurate. Tom was giving an interview to a gossip columnist
-- already sounds suspect -- and his two front teeth fell out. He asked
the gossip columnist not to print it and he supposedly said that he'd
been playing with one of his kids and they got knocked loose. Tom wears
at least one cap on his front tooth and that's probably what came
loose. It's been years since I spoke to him but that's due to a hockey
accident when he was in high school. I found the story suspect when it
was told in the documentary for that reason. And I'm saying at least
one, it may be both. It's been years since we've spoken at any real
length.
Ty: An e-mail from Todd in Frankston notes The People's Party and a new party, Forward.
Ruth: Like the Jewish FORWARD? Just joking.
Ann:
We could all use some humor. This is the political party that Andrew
Yang has formed with Christine Todd Whitman. It's supposed to be a new
political party that bridges the gaps between Democrats and
Republicans. I don't see any big gaps between the party, but, okay.
They're a third party. I encourage them because I'm a member of a third
party: The Green Party. We need more voices, not less. I learned that
mantra years ago from THE COMMON ILLS.
Jess:
Like Ann, I'm a member of the Green Party. So the People's Party and
Forward have entered the ring. And we should probably note the
Libertarian Party. It's a rather large third party. There are many
others.
Ty: Another e-mail,
C.I., this one applies to here and at THE COMMON ILLS. Hilaree e-mails
that she wished you would take the time to confront Donald Trump on the
reality that he lost the 2020 election.
C.I.:
I believe I have already addressed that. Around the time the electoral
college voted. As I understand Donald's beef and that of some others,
they insist he really won but the count was wrong and he and some of his
supporters, as I understand it, think he can be declared president
now. No. Even if they proved that he won a state he lost in, it does
not matter. There are no partial terms given to someone due to a
recount after someone else is sworn in. The way the Constitution works,
after the electors voted, it no longer mattered. We do not have direct
democracy in the United States. Our presidential election is decided
by the electoral college. Once it voted, what was done in any state or
multiple states is honestly besides the point. I'm not saying the
election was stolen from Donald. I am saying that even if it was, it's
now over and he needs to move on. He's looking as desperate on that
topic as Hillary Clinton did as she refused to take accountability for
her loss in 2016 and instead invented fake excuses -- including
Russiagate.
Jim: Some want Hillary to run -- some in the media -- for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Any thoughts?
Rebecca: Hillary needs to go away.
Ruth:
I would like to see Hillary Clinton run for president again but on the
Republican ticket. As she grows ever more conservative and returns to
her Goldwater Girl upbringing, it seems the natural evolution for
Hillary Clinton.
Jim: So no one wants to see her head the Democratic ticket in 2024?
Wally:
No and we don't want to see Bernie Sanders run either. I agreed with
what US House Rep Dean Phillips was quoted saying in Mike's "
Applause for Dean Phillips."
Mike: This is what he said:
I
have respect for Joe Biden ... despite some mistakes and some missteps
despite his age, I think he’s a man of decency, of good principle, of
compassion, of empathy, and of strength. But
to answer your question directly, which I know is quite rare, Chad, no,
I don't. I think the country would be well served by a new
generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up. I
think Joe Biden has served our country admirably with principle and
with decency at a time when we surely needed it. But I am
part of a caucus here in Congress where three top leaders are over 80
years old, where the president will be over 80 in the next election. And
I think it's time for a generational change. I'm not too shy to say
that I do believe that most of my colleagues feel the same way."
Isaiah: I agree with that. And I agree with term limits for Supreme Court Justices.
Kat: It really is a thing whose time has come.
Kat: I think a law could be passed to address it.
Dona: But it would alter the Constitution so wouldn't it need an amendment?
Elaine:
Not necessarily. They could do some reassigning, for example, and some
think this might justify it without an amendment.
C.I.:
Legally, it would most likely require one. In practice, the Court will
have members who object to it. I doubt they would recuse themselves. I
would guess that barring an amendment, the Court would refuse to
recognize any such changes. If it went to a vote of the people, it
would most likely do rather well. There is a strong sense on the part
of the public that changes need to take place -- that predates the
destruction of ROE V WADE. Since ROE has been destroyed, there is a
growing belief that the Court is out of touch with the mood of the
country. Getting it on the ballot might be hard, but an amendment for
term limits would stand a strong chance of passing.
Dona:
Should it? I'm directing that to Elaine and Kat because C.I.'s just
motioned that she's not weighing in on that topic -- which means she'd
like to think about it further.
Elaine:
Yes, it should happen. We are 22 years into this century and we have a
number of judges who are trapped not in the last century but one two
centuries ago.
Kat:
Agreed. RBG should be the example though. She was dying and she knew
it and she refused to step down. If they won't step down when they're
ill, they don't know when to step down. When you're ill, you aren't at
your best mentally and you may not have the stamina you need to persuade
others on the bench with you. They need to learn when to pack it
in. And, since they can't learn it themselves, We The People need to
see to it.
Jim:
Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in DOBBS made clear that he would
like to move on revoking various rights for LGBTQs. Reader Jonah
e-mailed to note he was very upset by a recent roundtable where I
appeared to cut off Ty when Ty was speaking. Jonah notes that Ty is gay
and I am straight and "It did not read right." Ty?
Ty:
Jonah, I had stopped speaking and was just shaking my head. That
doesn't show up in the transcript. The way you took that was a natural
reaction -- one my own aunt had. But to clarify, Jim had not cut me
off. I had stopped talking, I was too upset, and I was just shaking my
head and indicating to Jim to continue on. Jim gave some sort of a wrap
up statement to end the roundtable at that point and it does read like
Jim has shut me up and cut me off but that's not what happened. Thank
you to Jonah and everyone else that was concerned about it and wrote in.
Marcia:
I'm not married. Ty is. And Clarence Thomas wants to take away Ty's
right to be married, to erase it. And that is upsetting. I think to
all of us. And it's outrageous. The threat lingers out there. It's
forced my girlfriend and I to decide we're going to get married. We've
been together for a few years now.
Jim: The Congress?
Marcia:
I believe I have done a post thanking everyone that I know of who is
trying to codify marriage equality. If I have missed anyone, I am
sorry. But, yes, I do thank everyone in Congress who has worked to make
this happen. It's a shame that couldn't have been done with ROE. But
it's good to know the Congress is going to work on this.
Ty:
In the US Senate, Senator Tammy Baldwin is working very hard reaching
out to her Republican peers. As an out senator, she can put a face on
the issue. I'm very thankful for her.
Marcia: Me too. And I'm glad the measure passed the Senate.
Cedric:
This goes to why we need term limits. People my age and younger have
no problem with LGBTQs. But it's a huge shock for some of the elderly.
They're out of step. I don't want to turn this into hatred on Jonthan
Turley but I join Elaine in being very disappointed in him. Clarence
Thomas' concurring opinion is offensive and there's no way to justify
it. If Turley also believes that gay rights don't matter, wish he'd
said that years ago before I took him seriously. If he does believe
that gay rights matter, he needs to find his voice because he's losing
me.
Ty:
On that topic. In a snapshot, C.I. called out Glenn Greenwald when
Glenn went on FOX NEWS to praise Clarence Thomas as a great guy. A
great guy does not want me to lose my rights. It was appalling to watch
him justify and excuse Clarence. I think it's appalling that C.I., who
is not personally effected by this, is a stronger voice on this issue
than Glenn Greenwald.
Rebecca:
Ty, I agree completely. When Glenn did that, I was appalled and remain
appalled. He has two children and a husband. If he won't stick up for
himself, at least stick up for your family. Someone who makes clear
that they want to destroy you is not a good person.
Ruth:
And, if I am remembering correctly with regards to what C.I. wrote,
that is before you get into the reality that Justice Thomas sexually
harassed Anita Hill.
Jess:
With regards to Turley, I don't think Jonathan grasps that a number of
us who read him and watch his reaction to Thomas' opinion are in need of
a statement if not a full post. I think he's assuming that we all know
where he stands. We don't. Maybe we're reeling from ROE still but we
need some words on this. As for Glenn, we knew he wasn't left. We
didn't expect him to be. When he and that ugly woman were roll dogs --
Jane what's her name -- don't supply it, I don't care -- we knew he was a
Libertarian and other than his hatred for women, we puzzled over why he
was trashing Hillary in 2008. But it's one thing to be a libertarian
and it's another to refuse to defend your own family. Shame on him. I
have no respect for him.
Isaiah:
I feel sorry for his husband David but at least his husband is an
adult. What must it look like to his children if they're aware of his
defense of Clarence Thomas?
Ty:
I know. I don't see Glenn as a man anymore. I see him as a little
boy. Because, if nothing else, a man is going to fight for his family.
Same thing with a woman. If Glenn were female, I'd say he was a girl
because a grown ass woman is going to fight to protect her family. It's
only the immature who won't.
None of these descriptions fully captures the scope of the RFMA. The bill would not require every state to license same-sex marriages, as they are currently obligated to under Obergefell v. Hodges. So it does not codify Obergefell, as some commentators—including Glenn Greenwald—have incorrectly asserted. The RFMA would repeal
DOMA, directing the federal government to recognize same-sex couples’
lawful marriages. But it also goes further, compelling states to
recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere—even if the Supreme
Court overturns Obergefell and restores states’ authority to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Marcia: The Senate needs to support that. I hope enough Republicans will join Democrats in passing this.
C.I.: In the Senate, the bill was introduced by Senators Tammy Baldwin, Dianne Feinstein and Susan Collins.
Jim;
Thank you, Ava and C.I. for that. They take the notes during these
roundtables and often don't speak and never speak as much as they
should. This is a rush transcript. The best e-mail address to reach us at is
common_ills@yahoo.com.
