In a week as busy as last week, we don't know how Ruth found time to do daily "Ruth's Morning Edition Report" for the gina & krista round-robin and still found time for a Saturday one. We're glad though (we're selfish). Ruth, you put us all to shame.
Ruth's Morning Edition Report
Ruth: Yesterday, Pacifica Radio broadcast Representative John Conyers Jr.'s hearings on the NSA spying of American citizens that circumvented the FISA courts. If you heard the broadcast, anchored by Larry Bensky, you had a good idea of how the Senate should run their hearings. This was the second time we have been able to count on Representative Conyers to call a hearing that the Republican controlled House did not want.
There were strong questions and equally strong answers. I do not know whether there will be any press coverage on this or if, as with the last hearing, the press will just choose to ignore it. If they do cover it, I assume that they will offer snippets of Congress members and expert witnesses.
I would like to draw attention to Richard Hersh because I found his testimony to be to the point and because, if there is press coverage, he seems the sort of witness the press would ignore because he is speaking of his own personal experiences.
Mr. Hersh is not a terrorist but he and his peace group have been spied upon by the Defense Department. These are old tactics of one Bully Boy, Nixon, brought back by our current Bully Boy.
Mr. Hersh noted that, "Quakers welcomed us into their church. . . They knew our purpose was solely to excercise our First Amendment rights . . . We had no idea, until one year later, that the unfamiliar faces in the church, had been sent by the President to spy on us. . . . Agents rummaged through trash, hacked websites and listened in on phone calls. Indeed address books and activist's meetings lists have disappeared. . . . I was spied on in a house of worship in the United States and in a private home in Flordia . . ."
Mr. Hersh further noted that, "I think it's time for us to act. I think to protect our civil liberties and our constitutional rights it's important to hold him accountable. To hold the president and his entire administration accountable for their behaviors. "
The Defense Department's actions were revealed shortly before we learned of the NSA spying and, in the mainstream press, that earlier report seems to have gotten lost; however, it is important and Kate Martin's testimony noted this, "The Defense Department appears to be sending people into religious meetings. . . If we could get the facts, I think we would see that they have changed all the rules . . . and that the NSA is only one aspect of it."
It will be interesting to see whether the Senate hearings touch on this aspect or if, instead, they narrow down the range of discussion to allow the Bully Boy even more wiggle room. The spying is a serious issue and, if you were fortunate enough to listen to the hearing on Pacifica Radio, you heard a strong example of how the Senate should run their own hearings. Among the other strong witnesses offering testimony were James Bamford, Professor Jonathan Turley, and Carole Frederickson.
Representative Jerrold Nadler made the point that the crimes Bully Boy committed in his warrantless spying on American citizens are crimes that come with a long statute of limitations. Short of pardoning himself, even if he escapes Congressional punishment, the crime is still open to prosecution for many years.
After last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, the Conyer's hearings demonstrated that Democrats, at least House members, can still be effective and strong voices.
If you missed the hearings, you can access the KPFA archives for the broadcast and you can also note this program airing Sunday:
Sunday Salon
Big Brother Really IS Watching You...
A look at the Bush Administration's unauthorized domestic surveillance program. Commentary on Representative John Conyers' Congressional hearings on surveillance, and a listen to Al Gore's Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech slamming Bush for breaking the law.Listen to past shows, get contact and reference info for guests, see announcements of upcoming programs, and more at: SundaySalon.org
Last Sunday, Larry Bensky, the host of Sunday Salon, addressed the realities and the media coverage of Iraq. It was a lively discussion. Mr. Bensky anchored the coverage of the Conyers' hearing so this Sunday's broadcast should also be of interest.
Friday on CounterSpin, which I listen to on WBAI, Stephen Zunes, a professor at the University of San Francisco, discussed the violent and bloody legacy of Ariel Sharon in contrast to the media portrayals of Prime Minister Sharon as "peacemaker." In addition to that interview, also of interest to the community should be the interview with Danny Schechter, the News Dissector.Mr. Schechter disussed the Samuel Alito Jr. hearings and wondered, "How did the Democrats blow it so badly?"
The media frame going into the Senate Judiciary Committee was that Judge Alito would react to questioning the way Robert Bork had. When that did not happen, the Democrats had no "alternative strategy." Mr. Schechter pointed out that Judge Alito's performance should not have been surprising since it followed Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.'s hearings "where the same tactic was used."
Once again, as Mr. Schechter explained, the Democrats did not make the case to the American people of why the nomination mattered and why the Supreme Court mattered. Instead, they attempted to provide legal analysis. When the media began rewarding Judge Alito's nonanswers by focusing on "strategy" as opposed to substance, the problems with the existing media were obvious. More on this topic can be found in Mr. Schechter's "AFTER ALITO: WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT NOW?" What now? The goal should be to become a part of the media process and "grab the opportunity" to do so as we see a shift away from traditional media forms.
Mr. Schechter's books, When News Media Lies and The Death of Media: And the Fight to Save Democracy, were noted and he was asked to explain the main points that could be taken from the books. With regards to When News Media Lies, Mr. Schechter noted that we would not have "the war in Iraq if the media wasn't supporting it." He spoke of the media war that has existed side by side with the war in Iraq.
This is a topic that his film Weapons of Mass Deception addresses. As noted at this site Thursday, WMD just won "the top jury award for documentaries in the Breakthrough Human Rights Festival in India." When my grandson Jayson saw that, he asked that I note it and note that his favorite film is WMD. When many of us were in D.C. for the September protest, C.I. and my granddaughter Tracey had planned to exchange a number of books and C.I. also passed along that documentary. If you have not already seen WMD, I will tell you that not only is it Jayson's favorites but it is one that has led to many discussions in my family about the role the media played in the lead up to the war. It is a comprehensive look at the broadcast media that addresses the failures to seriously address administration claims and to offer a wide range of discussion. My very good friend Treva has deemed it the film to watch if you want to "get angry and get active."
Also on Friday, I did listen to a program Rachel suggested on WBAI, Nonfiction hosted by Harry Allen. This was an interesting program and one I will attempt to listen to in the future. Mr. Allen's first guest Friday was author William Blum. Blum is, as Tracey says, the author of Rogue State "Osama's Book of the Month pick." In the recent broadcast remarks alleged to have been made by Osama bin Laden, the book Rogue State was noted. Since bin Laden was never captured, "dead or alive," he appears to be attempting to poach Oprah's territory. Mr. Blum noted that there were actually two books by him, Freeing the World to Death being the second one, but bin Laden appeared to compress them into a single book.
Mr. Blum said that there would be no "blurb" added to the cover of Rogue State, which has lept up the Amazon.com charts, but that a news item might be added. Mr. Allen asked if bin Laden had attempted to contact him and Mr. Blum replied that had that happened, he would have been worried. The author explained that the book had been translated into Arabic and that possibly bin Laden read a translated copy. (Egypt was one of the two countries that offered an Arabic translation.) More information about Mr. Blum's works can be found at his website Killing Hope.
As most members know, I have been mentioning Pacifica programming in the daily column for the gina & krista round-robins. I have saved Friday's programs for this site but I do have a column in Saturday's round-robin which is an interview I did with Treva where she reflects back on her college days, we went to college together, and what it was like then when abortion was illegal. Please remain active in opposing the confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court.
john conyers
pacifica radio
pacifica
larry bensky
richard hersh
samuel alito
supreme court
sunday salon
sunday salon with larry bensky
counterspin
danny schechter
nonfiction
harry allen
william blum
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
wbai
kpfa
buzzflash
ruths morning edition report
the common ills
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Humor Spotlight: "Thomas Friedman tries to get his war on wagging"
You may need a laugh right about now if you've gone through the highlights as we're posting them. If so, check out Betty's latest chapter. We'll note, at Betty's request, that she doesn't think it's funny, doesn't think it's worth reading, doesn't . . . We'll note Betty's a great writer but a lousy judge of her own writing. Read, enjoy and laugh.
Thomas Friedman tries to get his war on wagging
Thomas Friedman is frustrated.
It's bad enough that Gail Collins regularly puts him in check mate. He's had a grudge against her and then some, after all, since she pulled his column from Sundays.
But there's so much more going on. He can no longer walk freely on the streets. For over a year, he's spoken of "drawing the sort of mobs that gathered around Marilyn" Monroe. He wishes. That's never been the case as I've seen it. One or two elderly women would usually approach to accost him and attack them with their handbags. As the Marilyn Monroe of the 21st century, his "sassy" highlights not withstanding, Thomas Friedman had been something of a bust. Even his book tour was a disappointment.
However, crowds have begun to form in the last few months. To boo and hiss. That has to do with a general cry from the universe: THOMAS FRIEDMAN, SHUT UP!
The universe speaks and Thomas Friedman doesn't listen.
Having tarnished so much of his already questionable reputation cheerleading the war in Iraq, Thomas Friedman's now signed up to serve his Bully Boy in the pursuit of another war. He's fretting over nukes. So some would be forgiven if they assumed Thomas Friedman had suddenly become interested in exactly what the government of Israel is doing in the Middle East but Thomas Friedman has, to put it very generously, a blind spot when it comes to Israel.
No, he's on yet another bash Muslims kick.
Last Friday, he declared that Iran must be stopped. Their stated intent, minus a CNN mistranslation, is to utilize more nuclear power for their energy industry. But Thomas Friedman knows best and claims to have a pipeline, a Daneil Pipes-line?, into the hearts and minds of a people he's never shown affinity for or understanding of, and he knows, just knows, they're going to "go nuclear" -- meaning bombs.
He is heckled where ever we go now. His cheerleading of yet another war appears to have reminded everyone that Judith Miller didn't "do op-eds" but Thomas Friedman certainly did and he's yet to explain his own questionable "reporting" in the lead up to war with Iraq.
Maybe he should before he cheers this country into another war based solely on his hatred of the Arab world?
"The Axis of Order" saw him cobbling together bits and pieces of everything he could get his grubby little hands on. Remember his insultng remarks to Liang that got us barred from that establishment? His "In your country they would just call this 'food' but here we call it 'Chinese food'" that led her to remark, "In China they would call you 'American bore' but in this country you are just a 'bore'"? (Liang thinks Thomas Friedman ripped off a December 2005 article that appeared in China's Xinhua.)
He works his insult in with a mythical reaction to a speech he wasn't present for. That the speech was given by Robert Zoellick, Depucty Secretary of State, tells you a great deal about where Thomas Friedman gets his "information." Possibly another Enron refugee hiding out in the Bully Boy adminstration is the last thing even Thomas Friedman should cheerlead?
So after his insulting, cheap laughs at another country's culture and language (China), our bwana, immediately begins hectoring China on what they need to do. Because surely every person in China must devotedly follow each and every dribble that flows out of the corners of Thomas Friedman's mouth, right?
He thinks so. Just as he assumes that Russia and India do as well. Possibly the boos and hisses he gets while walking through the streets of NYC are the reason for that? He's taken to explaining to me, while I pretend not to know him to avoid the rotten fruit that some frequently hurl at him, "What has happened is that I have become an international star. No doubt Carlo Ponti will soon want to cast me in an updated version of Two Women."
Personally, I could see him in a remake of Heller in Pink Tights (and he wouldn't even have to forgoe his blonde streaks!) but Thomas Friedman is convinced that "I belong to the world now" while the world seems convinced upon figuring out how to sell him, quickly, to a second hand store.
People ask me what makes Thomas Friedman feel that anyone gives a damn what he thinks now that even American regularly ignore him? (There's a reason Gail Collins pulled him from Sundays, normally thought of as "the day of peace.")
I think it has to do with his inability to face how ineffectual and unwanted he's become. He's overcompensating.
Since I started sneaking the "vitamins" he used to force me to take, sneaking them into his food, getting his war on is about the only "on" he can produce. And since seeing Davy Brooks in the "sock," he's become almost as obsessed as Gail Collins. Long gone are the days when he'd dress up as Judith Miller for sex play because sex play has become a distant memory for Thomas Friedman.
He likes to tell people that he holds the entire world's fate in his hands but from my vantage point, the only thing he's holding in his hand is an embarrassment of manhood. And, as with the world, he can't get a reaction from it.
Even in the best of times, Thomas Friedman was "underdeveloped," these days he's lifeless.
Impotency reaches the op-ed pages of the New York Times finally in all its nonglory and Thomas Friedman overcompensates to avoid being dubbed the only title he's truly earned "the non sex symbol."
Friends ask how can I live with the Friedman and I always explain to them that most days it's easy. While he rants and raves around the apartment in his shorty robe, I focus on issues that really matter.
Or when my friends and I gather to stop the occupation of Iraq, I remind myself that Thomas Friedman is footing the bill, much to his displeasure. He stomps his feet and sulks anytime that Elaine, Jess and I begin singing one of our new favorite songs by Melanie:
For sometimes when I am feeling as big as the land
With the velvet hill in the small of my back
And my hands are playing the sand
And my feet are swimming in all of the waters
All of the rivers are givers to the ocean
According to plan, according to man
Well sometimes when I am feeling so grand
And I become the world
And the world becomes a man
And my song becomes a part of the river
I cry out to keep me just the way I am
According to plan
According to man, according to plan
According to man, according to plan
Oh there's a chance peace will come
In your life, please buy one
Oh there's a chance peace will come
In your life, please buy one
It's all about trade offs and, for now, I call it "marriage."thomas friedman
the new york times
gail collins
david brooks
melanie
peace will come according to plan
the common ills
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
Thomas Friedman tries to get his war on wagging
Thomas Friedman is frustrated.
It's bad enough that Gail Collins regularly puts him in check mate. He's had a grudge against her and then some, after all, since she pulled his column from Sundays.
But there's so much more going on. He can no longer walk freely on the streets. For over a year, he's spoken of "drawing the sort of mobs that gathered around Marilyn" Monroe. He wishes. That's never been the case as I've seen it. One or two elderly women would usually approach to accost him and attack them with their handbags. As the Marilyn Monroe of the 21st century, his "sassy" highlights not withstanding, Thomas Friedman had been something of a bust. Even his book tour was a disappointment.
However, crowds have begun to form in the last few months. To boo and hiss. That has to do with a general cry from the universe: THOMAS FRIEDMAN, SHUT UP!
The universe speaks and Thomas Friedman doesn't listen.
Having tarnished so much of his already questionable reputation cheerleading the war in Iraq, Thomas Friedman's now signed up to serve his Bully Boy in the pursuit of another war. He's fretting over nukes. So some would be forgiven if they assumed Thomas Friedman had suddenly become interested in exactly what the government of Israel is doing in the Middle East but Thomas Friedman has, to put it very generously, a blind spot when it comes to Israel.
No, he's on yet another bash Muslims kick.
Last Friday, he declared that Iran must be stopped. Their stated intent, minus a CNN mistranslation, is to utilize more nuclear power for their energy industry. But Thomas Friedman knows best and claims to have a pipeline, a Daneil Pipes-line?, into the hearts and minds of a people he's never shown affinity for or understanding of, and he knows, just knows, they're going to "go nuclear" -- meaning bombs.
He is heckled where ever we go now. His cheerleading of yet another war appears to have reminded everyone that Judith Miller didn't "do op-eds" but Thomas Friedman certainly did and he's yet to explain his own questionable "reporting" in the lead up to war with Iraq.
Maybe he should before he cheers this country into another war based solely on his hatred of the Arab world?
"The Axis of Order" saw him cobbling together bits and pieces of everything he could get his grubby little hands on. Remember his insultng remarks to Liang that got us barred from that establishment? His "In your country they would just call this 'food' but here we call it 'Chinese food'" that led her to remark, "In China they would call you 'American bore' but in this country you are just a 'bore'"? (Liang thinks Thomas Friedman ripped off a December 2005 article that appeared in China's Xinhua.)
He works his insult in with a mythical reaction to a speech he wasn't present for. That the speech was given by Robert Zoellick, Depucty Secretary of State, tells you a great deal about where Thomas Friedman gets his "information." Possibly another Enron refugee hiding out in the Bully Boy adminstration is the last thing even Thomas Friedman should cheerlead?
So after his insulting, cheap laughs at another country's culture and language (China), our bwana, immediately begins hectoring China on what they need to do. Because surely every person in China must devotedly follow each and every dribble that flows out of the corners of Thomas Friedman's mouth, right?
He thinks so. Just as he assumes that Russia and India do as well. Possibly the boos and hisses he gets while walking through the streets of NYC are the reason for that? He's taken to explaining to me, while I pretend not to know him to avoid the rotten fruit that some frequently hurl at him, "What has happened is that I have become an international star. No doubt Carlo Ponti will soon want to cast me in an updated version of Two Women."
Personally, I could see him in a remake of Heller in Pink Tights (and he wouldn't even have to forgoe his blonde streaks!) but Thomas Friedman is convinced that "I belong to the world now" while the world seems convinced upon figuring out how to sell him, quickly, to a second hand store.
People ask me what makes Thomas Friedman feel that anyone gives a damn what he thinks now that even American regularly ignore him? (There's a reason Gail Collins pulled him from Sundays, normally thought of as "the day of peace.")
I think it has to do with his inability to face how ineffectual and unwanted he's become. He's overcompensating.
Since I started sneaking the "vitamins" he used to force me to take, sneaking them into his food, getting his war on is about the only "on" he can produce. And since seeing Davy Brooks in the "sock," he's become almost as obsessed as Gail Collins. Long gone are the days when he'd dress up as Judith Miller for sex play because sex play has become a distant memory for Thomas Friedman.
He likes to tell people that he holds the entire world's fate in his hands but from my vantage point, the only thing he's holding in his hand is an embarrassment of manhood. And, as with the world, he can't get a reaction from it.
Even in the best of times, Thomas Friedman was "underdeveloped," these days he's lifeless.
Impotency reaches the op-ed pages of the New York Times finally in all its nonglory and Thomas Friedman overcompensates to avoid being dubbed the only title he's truly earned "the non sex symbol."
Friends ask how can I live with the Friedman and I always explain to them that most days it's easy. While he rants and raves around the apartment in his shorty robe, I focus on issues that really matter.
Or when my friends and I gather to stop the occupation of Iraq, I remind myself that Thomas Friedman is footing the bill, much to his displeasure. He stomps his feet and sulks anytime that Elaine, Jess and I begin singing one of our new favorite songs by Melanie:
For sometimes when I am feeling as big as the land
With the velvet hill in the small of my back
And my hands are playing the sand
And my feet are swimming in all of the waters
All of the rivers are givers to the ocean
According to plan, according to man
Well sometimes when I am feeling so grand
And I become the world
And the world becomes a man
And my song becomes a part of the river
I cry out to keep me just the way I am
According to plan
According to man, according to plan
According to man, according to plan
Oh there's a chance peace will come
In your life, please buy one
Oh there's a chance peace will come
In your life, please buy one
It's all about trade offs and, for now, I call it "marriage."thomas friedman
the new york times
gail collins
david brooks
melanie
peace will come according to plan
the common ills
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
Blog Spotlight: Wally explains hiring procedures (Senate pay attention)
Knowing how busy C.I. was this week, we wondered exactly how time was found to read Wally's site? It wasn't. C.I. heard about this on Friday while speaking to a college group about the need to stop the confirmation of Alito. Wally's post was brought up. The community, so worldly, so welcome. Give it up for Wally.
Sammy
I want to start off this morning talking about this guy I know named Sammy. He's a piece of work. I used to think that but now I know it's not just Sammy that's a piece of work, it's people who let him get away with it.
Like Tuesday, he had an interview with McDonalds. Mickey Dees. I'm sure you know about McDonalds even if you don't eat there.
Sammy shows up for the job interview with his girlfriend. They start asking him stuff like, "Do you like hamburgers? Would you agree that hamburgers are a popular food?"
Sammy goes that he can't answer that because they should hire him because they're interviewing here and he's worked before. He goes, "To tell you if I like hamburgers or even shakes would give you some indication of the amount of effort I might put into my job and I can't do that."
So the two people interviewing scratch their heads on that. Then they go, "Well what about the McRib? Sometimes we have it, sometimes we don't. When we have it, it's pretty popular. What do you think of the McRib?"
"To answer that question," Sammy says as his girlfriend begins sobbing, "would be to indicate how I might perform my job and, again, I can't do that."
So his girlfriends sobbing and tears are just streaming down her face and instead of the two interviewing Sammy saying, "You know, maybe your girlfriend shouldn't be watching this if an interview upsets her so much" they buckle.
Yep. They decide they have to hire him. Even though they've heard he may hate McRibs and he may not even fond of burgers. So now someone who doesn't care anything about what he's doing is going to be serving you because the two interviewing Sammy didn't say, "You know that's crap. You want this job, you answer the questions?"
So it's not just Sammy that's a piece of work, it's the two people who let him get away with it. And they may be worse than Sammy because they get all upset that Sammy's girlfriend cried. She's a grown up. She needs to grow up. She didn't have to come along but she chose to. Now everyone's supposed to stop asking tough questions because his whiney girlfriend might start crying.
Sammy's last name is Alito, maybe you heard of him?
Tell you what you need to do now, order "FILIBUSTER" off the menu. Scream "filibuster."
From NOW:
Alito Must Not Be Confirmed - Demand a Filibuster TodayCall Your SenatorsBy the time the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Samuel Alito ended last week, Judge Alito had dodged so many questions that we knew little more about his judicial philosophy than we had before they started. Even so, Judge Alito's unwillingness to stipulate that Roe v. Wade is "settled law", as recently confirmed Chief Justice Roberts had, puts a woman's right to choose in great peril. This factor alone should be enough for Senators to vote against his nomination.
Due to the current balance of power in the Senate (55 Republicans, 44 Democrats), we do not have the necessary 51 "no" votes to defeat Alito outright. So the only way for senators to block confirmation is for them to launch a filibuster -- which can only be ended if 60 of the 100 senators vote to stop the filibuster and proceed to a vote on the nomination. In other words, IF there is a filibuster, 41 senators can block the nomination. But without a filibuster, those same 41 votes would not be sufficient to stop Alito -- so the "no" votes are meaningless in terms of the final outcome, unless there is a filibuster.
Make the message to your senators clear: Our nation needs them to do more than vote no. They must support a filibuster in order to prevent Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Please call your Senators today and ask them to support a filibuster in opposition to this nomination. A no vote without a filibuster is a meaningless gesture. Our Senators' commitment to women's rights is a hollow shell if they will not fight to preserve them.
Talking Points for Calls
It is very clear that Judge Alito does not consider Roe v. Wade "settled law".
This factor alone should be enough for Senators to vote against his nomination.
We need them to do more than vote no.Ask them to support a filibuster in opposition to this nomination.
A "no" vote without a filibuster is a meaningless gesture.Our Senators' commitment to women's rights is a hollow shell if they will not fight to preserve them.
More information on Alito's record is available online.If you're having trouble getting through at the local number, try the Senate Switchboard at (202) 224-3121
Call your Senators
Burger King would let you have it your way, make sure the Senate does to.
Also want to say thank you to Cedric for writing the thing for Gina, Krista, him and me. I didn't have time to blog yesterday and Cedric's good with words so I knew it would come out good but it came out a lot better than good. Thank you, Cedric; thank you, Gina; thank you, Krista; and thank you, C.I.
Now go get active!
Sammy
I want to start off this morning talking about this guy I know named Sammy. He's a piece of work. I used to think that but now I know it's not just Sammy that's a piece of work, it's people who let him get away with it.
Like Tuesday, he had an interview with McDonalds. Mickey Dees. I'm sure you know about McDonalds even if you don't eat there.
Sammy shows up for the job interview with his girlfriend. They start asking him stuff like, "Do you like hamburgers? Would you agree that hamburgers are a popular food?"
Sammy goes that he can't answer that because they should hire him because they're interviewing here and he's worked before. He goes, "To tell you if I like hamburgers or even shakes would give you some indication of the amount of effort I might put into my job and I can't do that."
So the two people interviewing scratch their heads on that. Then they go, "Well what about the McRib? Sometimes we have it, sometimes we don't. When we have it, it's pretty popular. What do you think of the McRib?"
"To answer that question," Sammy says as his girlfriend begins sobbing, "would be to indicate how I might perform my job and, again, I can't do that."
So his girlfriends sobbing and tears are just streaming down her face and instead of the two interviewing Sammy saying, "You know, maybe your girlfriend shouldn't be watching this if an interview upsets her so much" they buckle.
Yep. They decide they have to hire him. Even though they've heard he may hate McRibs and he may not even fond of burgers. So now someone who doesn't care anything about what he's doing is going to be serving you because the two interviewing Sammy didn't say, "You know that's crap. You want this job, you answer the questions?"
So it's not just Sammy that's a piece of work, it's the two people who let him get away with it. And they may be worse than Sammy because they get all upset that Sammy's girlfriend cried. She's a grown up. She needs to grow up. She didn't have to come along but she chose to. Now everyone's supposed to stop asking tough questions because his whiney girlfriend might start crying.
Sammy's last name is Alito, maybe you heard of him?
Tell you what you need to do now, order "FILIBUSTER" off the menu. Scream "filibuster."
From NOW:
Alito Must Not Be Confirmed - Demand a Filibuster TodayCall Your SenatorsBy the time the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Samuel Alito ended last week, Judge Alito had dodged so many questions that we knew little more about his judicial philosophy than we had before they started. Even so, Judge Alito's unwillingness to stipulate that Roe v. Wade is "settled law", as recently confirmed Chief Justice Roberts had, puts a woman's right to choose in great peril. This factor alone should be enough for Senators to vote against his nomination.
Due to the current balance of power in the Senate (55 Republicans, 44 Democrats), we do not have the necessary 51 "no" votes to defeat Alito outright. So the only way for senators to block confirmation is for them to launch a filibuster -- which can only be ended if 60 of the 100 senators vote to stop the filibuster and proceed to a vote on the nomination. In other words, IF there is a filibuster, 41 senators can block the nomination. But without a filibuster, those same 41 votes would not be sufficient to stop Alito -- so the "no" votes are meaningless in terms of the final outcome, unless there is a filibuster.
Make the message to your senators clear: Our nation needs them to do more than vote no. They must support a filibuster in order to prevent Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Please call your Senators today and ask them to support a filibuster in opposition to this nomination. A no vote without a filibuster is a meaningless gesture. Our Senators' commitment to women's rights is a hollow shell if they will not fight to preserve them.
Talking Points for Calls
It is very clear that Judge Alito does not consider Roe v. Wade "settled law".
This factor alone should be enough for Senators to vote against his nomination.
We need them to do more than vote no.Ask them to support a filibuster in opposition to this nomination.
A "no" vote without a filibuster is a meaningless gesture.Our Senators' commitment to women's rights is a hollow shell if they will not fight to preserve them.
More information on Alito's record is available online.If you're having trouble getting through at the local number, try the Senate Switchboard at (202) 224-3121
Call your Senators
Burger King would let you have it your way, make sure the Senate does to.
Also want to say thank you to Cedric for writing the thing for Gina, Krista, him and me. I didn't have time to blog yesterday and Cedric's good with words so I knew it would come out good but it came out a lot better than good. Thank you, Cedric; thank you, Gina; thank you, Krista; and thank you, C.I.
Now go get active!
Blog Spotlight: Rebecca says "Shake the mountain, stop the confirmation of Alito"
If nothing else, this community can never be accused of not getting the word out on Alito. Elaine, did you ask everyone to run the Feminist Wire last week? (Elaine says that actually, C.I. posted them first each day.) Rebecca had some amazing posts this week and it's like pulling teeth to get permission to repost here. Why? She thinks new blogs need more spotlights and that she's got a pretty solid number of readers. If you visited Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude this week, you heard what her readers were doing to be active -- quite a lot. Especially impressive were her high school readers who put many adults to shame. We went with this one, both because we wanted to do our part to note the Feminist Wire and because it's Rebecca talking about what she did Friday which we think was pretty incredible and worth noting.
shake the mountain, stop the confirmation of alito
More Senators Announce Opposition to Alito
More Senators have announced their opposition to Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Encouragingly, no additional Democrats have announced support for Alito since Ben Nelson (NE). Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, announced his opposition to a packed auditorium at Northwestern University School of Law.
"In the record, the writings, the words, and the life of Samuel Alito, I searched for evidence of his caring heart -- evidence that for the next two or three decades he would use his position on the Supreme Court to enlarge our freedom, protect our privacy, and respect the delicate balance of power and responsibility our Constitution creates," said Senator Durbin. "At the end of the day, at this historic moment, I cannot say with confidence that Samuel Alito meets that test."
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), in announcing his opposition, said, "Based on his record, I am gravely concerned that Judge Alito does not believe the Congress has the authority to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans."
Other Senators who have announced publicly their opposition to Alito include Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (the only woman on the Judiciary Committee), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Max Baucus (D-MT). Senators Leahy, Baucus, and Salazar all voted for John Roberts in September.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
that's from the feminist wire.
do you get what's happening? we're shaking that mountain. we just have to keep shaking and we can move it. keep shaking, keep speaking out, keep pressuring your senators.
i spent 9 hours at t's salon today. every woman that came in got stopped by me. more than a few asked me, 'you're not a jehovah's witness are you?' i must have had a zeal about me because i doubt they show cleavage.
64 women and 2 guys. that's 66 people who called their senators (2 calls each) on my cell phone today. i'm going to do it on monday as well. t said it doesn't put her out at all and if some 1 has a problem with abortion, they're probably not keen on an african-american lesbian doing their hair so better they should find another salon.
tomorrow, t's getting a group of friends together, a large group, for brunch and i'm going to talk to them as well. i want to give a big shout out to t who has more than done her part on the alito nomination but keeps going and thinking up new ideas.
monday she's doing a 1/2 price special at the salon for any 1 who calls both senators while they're in the salon.
so what are you doing?
i heard from some of my older readers and i'm glad to know they're talking to their friends. that's great as a start. but you have to follow up. they may mean to call but then forget. they may be nervous about calling and need you there to reassure them.
don't think that because they agree with you they're making the call. follow up and be sure.
let me guilt trip you. c.i. will have given 3 speeches on the importance of filibustering alito tonight. then c.i. will hop on the plane tomorrow morning and give more speeches. have you checked out the common ills? do you realize that you've got entries there and you've got all the work c.i.'s done for the daily round-robins?
i know most of my readers are members of the common ills community so let me guilt you into doing more. the vote is tuesday. we have to stay focused. c.i.'s tired but keeps pressing on. so what are you doing?
we've got to shake the mountain, we've got to move the mountain and that's going to take all of us and then some. so get active and stay active.
i think i'm tired and then i think about c.i. and realize i can give more. that's true of all of us. if this is important, we can give and give and give until the vote. it's not that far away.
you don't want to wake up wednesday to find that alito was confirmed and wonder if you had done everything that you could have. you want to know you gave everything you had to this fight.
hopefully wednesday's papers will bear the headline 'alito defeated in senate vote' or 'alito filibustered'. if that happens, you can take pride in the work you did and realize that politics isn't about somebody in d.c., it's about us, it is our lives. but if the headlines say 'alito confirmed' you are going to feel guilty if you didn't dig deep and pull it out for the last round.
don't let yourself feel guilty. use the links at the top of this post. or go to now and planned parenthood and use their resources. go to all of them.
call your senators on monday. say you want to know if they are going to vote 'no' and if they are prepared to 'filibuster.'
1 reader scheduled an appointment. she wasn't able to meet with her senator but she did meet with the woman who runs the office. and she didn't go alone. she took 4 friends with her. that was 5 women saying vote no and filibuster. that's amazing. congratulations to kim!
let's move the mountain.
the common ills
samuel alito
supreme court
feminist wire
shake the mountain, stop the confirmation of alito
More Senators Announce Opposition to Alito
More Senators have announced their opposition to Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Encouragingly, no additional Democrats have announced support for Alito since Ben Nelson (NE). Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, announced his opposition to a packed auditorium at Northwestern University School of Law.
"In the record, the writings, the words, and the life of Samuel Alito, I searched for evidence of his caring heart -- evidence that for the next two or three decades he would use his position on the Supreme Court to enlarge our freedom, protect our privacy, and respect the delicate balance of power and responsibility our Constitution creates," said Senator Durbin. "At the end of the day, at this historic moment, I cannot say with confidence that Samuel Alito meets that test."
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), in announcing his opposition, said, "Based on his record, I am gravely concerned that Judge Alito does not believe the Congress has the authority to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans."
Other Senators who have announced publicly their opposition to Alito include Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (the only woman on the Judiciary Committee), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Max Baucus (D-MT). Senators Leahy, Baucus, and Salazar all voted for John Roberts in September.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
that's from the feminist wire.
do you get what's happening? we're shaking that mountain. we just have to keep shaking and we can move it. keep shaking, keep speaking out, keep pressuring your senators.
i spent 9 hours at t's salon today. every woman that came in got stopped by me. more than a few asked me, 'you're not a jehovah's witness are you?' i must have had a zeal about me because i doubt they show cleavage.
64 women and 2 guys. that's 66 people who called their senators (2 calls each) on my cell phone today. i'm going to do it on monday as well. t said it doesn't put her out at all and if some 1 has a problem with abortion, they're probably not keen on an african-american lesbian doing their hair so better they should find another salon.
tomorrow, t's getting a group of friends together, a large group, for brunch and i'm going to talk to them as well. i want to give a big shout out to t who has more than done her part on the alito nomination but keeps going and thinking up new ideas.
monday she's doing a 1/2 price special at the salon for any 1 who calls both senators while they're in the salon.
so what are you doing?
i heard from some of my older readers and i'm glad to know they're talking to their friends. that's great as a start. but you have to follow up. they may mean to call but then forget. they may be nervous about calling and need you there to reassure them.
don't think that because they agree with you they're making the call. follow up and be sure.
let me guilt trip you. c.i. will have given 3 speeches on the importance of filibustering alito tonight. then c.i. will hop on the plane tomorrow morning and give more speeches. have you checked out the common ills? do you realize that you've got entries there and you've got all the work c.i.'s done for the daily round-robins?
i know most of my readers are members of the common ills community so let me guilt you into doing more. the vote is tuesday. we have to stay focused. c.i.'s tired but keeps pressing on. so what are you doing?
we've got to shake the mountain, we've got to move the mountain and that's going to take all of us and then some. so get active and stay active.
i think i'm tired and then i think about c.i. and realize i can give more. that's true of all of us. if this is important, we can give and give and give until the vote. it's not that far away.
you don't want to wake up wednesday to find that alito was confirmed and wonder if you had done everything that you could have. you want to know you gave everything you had to this fight.
hopefully wednesday's papers will bear the headline 'alito defeated in senate vote' or 'alito filibustered'. if that happens, you can take pride in the work you did and realize that politics isn't about somebody in d.c., it's about us, it is our lives. but if the headlines say 'alito confirmed' you are going to feel guilty if you didn't dig deep and pull it out for the last round.
don't let yourself feel guilty. use the links at the top of this post. or go to now and planned parenthood and use their resources. go to all of them.
call your senators on monday. say you want to know if they are going to vote 'no' and if they are prepared to 'filibuster.'
1 reader scheduled an appointment. she wasn't able to meet with her senator but she did meet with the woman who runs the office. and she didn't go alone. she took 4 friends with her. that was 5 women saying vote no and filibuster. that's amazing. congratulations to kim!
let's move the mountain.
the common ills
samuel alito
supreme court
feminist wire
Blog Spotlight: Trina's got creamy fudge cooking in the kitchen
Trina's latest offers you a recipe for creamy fudge and, along the way, Trina tosses in some healthy doses of common sense and wisdom.
Creamy Fudge in the Kitchen
What a week? Started off with Democrats indicating they were giving up and ended with . . .
Elaine's asked if I'd mind including this from the Feminist Wire:
More Senators Announce Opposition to Alito
More Senators have announced their opposition to Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Encouragingly, no additional Democrats have announced support for Alito since Ben Nelson (NE). Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, announced his opposition to a packed auditorium at Northwestern University School of Law.
"In the record, the writings, the words, and the life of Samuel Alito, I searched for evidence of his caring heart -- evidence that for the next two or three decades he would use his position on the Supreme Court to enlarge our freedom, protect our privacy, and respect the delicate balance of power and responsibility our Constitution creates," said Senator Durbin. "At the end of the day, at this historic moment, I cannot say with confidence that Samuel Alito meets that test."
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), in announcing his opposition, said, "Based on his record, I am gravely concerned that Judge Alito does not believe the Congress has the authority to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans." Other Senators who have announced publicly their opposition to Alito include Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (the only woman on the Judiciary Committee), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Max Baucus (D-MT). Senators Leahy, Baucus, and Salazar all voted for John Roberts in September.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
Media Resources: Harkin statement 1/19/06; Durbin statement 1/19/06; Feminist Majority
I'm happy to include it (and flattered to be asked by Elaine). It's from Friday and it demonstrates how much we the people can do. We shouldn't get cocky and think it's over because it's not. But we should realize the power of people power. That's what turned it around.
Cedric had asked last week if I had an easy recipe for something sweet? I can't think of a better time to note a dessert than after all the hard work of this past week. I would dub the following Katrina vanden Heuvel's Sweet Victories Creamy Fudge if it weren't for the fact that the battle's still raging. So keep fighting but take a moment to note what we've accomplished.
This recipe is from my friend Nancy. She saw it in a magazine years ago but has no idea which one it was today.
Creamy Fudge
1 (8-ounce) package cream cheese, softened
4 cups sifted powdered sugar
4 squares unsweetened chocolate, melted
1 teaspoon vanilla flavoring
Pinch of salt
3/4 cup coarsely chopped walnuts
Combine cream cheese and powered sugar in mixing bowl (or food processor); mix until throroughly blended. Add melted chocolate, vanilla flavoring and salt. Stir in walnuts. Spread mixture in an 8-inch quare pinned lined in buttered wax paper or foil and chill for several hours (or overnight). Remove from pan and cut into small squares. Makes about 3 1/2 dozen squares.
This is an easy recipe. You melt the chocolate in a sauce pan on the stove or in the microwave. If using the stove top, stir frequently. If using the microwave, microwave in thirty seconds bursts. It should take no more than three thirty-seconds periods and you should stir the chocolate after each thirty-second period.
"Chill for several hours" does not mean, as Mike found out last year, put in the freezer for a half hour. At Thanksgiving, I was especially swamped and Mike and his younger sister (who says "Mother do not mention my name! I have friends!") pitched in the way all my children always have. Mike will tell you that he's not an experienced cook. But when I handed him this recipe, he got it down pat with no problems at all except for thinking the fudge would be ready sooner if he put it in the freezer. Had I not stopped him, we would have had ice crystals in the fudge. This isn't a "frozen dessert."
Put it in the fridge and leave it for a few hours. You can cook the meal itself, serve it, eat and, by the time you're done with that, the fudge should be ready.
Mike and his sister will make this now themselves and can eat the entire thing with help from their father. If you have a sweet tooth, this is perfect for you. It's a little too sweet for me and one square is usually all I will have.
Mike created an e-mail account for me this week and it is in my profile. He also helped me add some details to my profile. I received an e-mail from June whom I don't recognize as a member of The Common Ills community. I'm glad members have shown me so much support and encouragement with their e-mails but I had no idea anyone else would be visiting this website.
June sent me a thing from another website that was making fun of the cover of the new issue of Ms. Magazine. She wondered what I thought of it? I think it's a great issue and was anticipating purchasing it since C.I. spotlighted it. I bought it Wednesday and would encourage everyone to check it out. As for the cover, I think it's a wonderful photograph. But then maybe I'm just a dull homebody who's raised eight children? Maybe that's my problem?
I was talking to Wally's mother about the issue and about June's e-mail this morning. She said that was the website Wally had heard wasn't even bothering to take the trouble to get the word out on blocking Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court. Somehow that made sense.
I don't know what bothered someone so much about the cover, that Jane Fonda has a dog or that she's wearing pink and photographed against a pink backdrop? Or maybe it was just Jane Fonda herself that bothered?
Seems to me that someone wanted to slam for some reason and she found a way to do it in a very superficial manner. I love Ms. Magazine and am a big fan of Jane Fonda and Robin Morgan so I don't see any problem with the cover. At the checkout counter, the cover didn't elict hisses but compliments. But possibly if you're level of "contribution" is to slam a photo, a non-cheesecake photo, you have enough problems already?
Maybe something's seriously amiss when you attempt to critique a photo but confuse it with a cover? One cover, the non Ms. one, trumpets weight loss ("30 DAYS TO THIN!" it proclaims) and "THE $$ QUIZ THAT COULD MAKE YOU RICH!" while Ms. trumpets "The Women of Today's ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT" and "How to TEACH PEACE."
I'm not really sure what superficial comparisons contribute to a feminist dialogue but possibly that's the extent of contribution some can make?
If I seem mad, I am. It's a great issue and, instead of noting anything in it, someone decides to act alarmed that it features a woman with a dog on the cover -- as though that's something that's never been done before outside of Good Housekeeping. Maybe since C.I. had already featured the cover the week before and spotlighted the issue, the person felt there was nothing to left to say but attack the photo?
Or maybe it's just more anti-Jane sentiment? Does that website suffer from "War Got Your Tongue?"
I have no idea. It's silly nonsense, if you ask me. And we have more important things going on. If anything is a "step backward," I'd argue it's a site that doesn't have time to note the need to fight Alito's confirmation.
But what do I know? I'm just a lifelong feminist, a working class woman with eight kids. Maybe I'm not "edgy" enough? Who knows?
I hope that answers June's question about what I thought of the thing she forwarded. June seemed bothered by the item. If it helps June any, Wally's mother and I were bothered as well.
Apparently "edgy" requires cutting the contributions others make? Wally's mother is convinced that the writer just has a problem with Jane Fonda and says the same writer had a problem with Eve Ensler's most recent play so maybe it's just a need to "kill mommy"?
Whatever it was, it added nothing to a discussion. For something that does that, you can read the latest issue of Ms. Magazine. And you can keep fighting the Alito nomination.
Please visit NOW's website where you'll find a pop up with the following:
Don't Confirm Anti-Roe Nominee to Supreme Court
Senators Must Filibuster Samuel Alito
TAKE ACTION
These are the faces of women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, these pictures could include your daughter, sister, mother, best friend, granddaughter . . .
Don't let George W. Bush and the U.S. Senate put another anti-abortion justice on the Supreme Court. Read More
Take Action NOW
Support NOW's Emergency Work to Save the Court
Tell A Friend to Take Action to Save the Court
Focus on the things that really matter and leave "edgy" to the "trendies." Take it from someone who remembers the pre Roe v. Wade days, blocking Alito's confirmation matters.
On other issues that matter, please read Ruth's Morning Edition Report which provides a summary of John Conyers' hearing Friday. Lastly, Cindy e-mailed C.I. about my "build up" at The Common Ills. Cindy, I appreciate the support but I'll disagree with C.I. on this matter. If you know anything about C.I. you know copping to the blame is perfectly in keeping; however, the facts tell a different story. While C.I. has been hitting hard on Alito and the NSA spying, I've still been noted eight or more times at The Common Ills and considering this is only my third post and my third week, I think that's been a pretty big buildup. It should also be noted that C.I. stayed on the phone with me, on a Saturday where there was no time for it, to talk me through setting up this site and to talk me through my first entry.
Everyone has been very helpful and very welcoming. Knowing C.I.'s tendency to reject all compliments and to take on any blame, I'll have to kindly correct the impression that I haven't had an adequate buildup at The Common Ills. It's been a busy and rough week for the community and I'll echo Gina and Krista from this morning's round-robin and say thanks to C.I. for "coming back from the brink of exhaustion to rally the community yet again."
fudge
creamy fudge
cooking
recipes
food
feminist wire
ms. magazine
the common ills
samuel alito
supreme court
ruths morning edition report
john conyers
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
the third estate sunday review
the daily jot
mikey likes it
the daily jot
trinas kitchen
cedrics big mix
like maria said paz
Creamy Fudge in the Kitchen
What a week? Started off with Democrats indicating they were giving up and ended with . . .
Elaine's asked if I'd mind including this from the Feminist Wire:
More Senators Announce Opposition to Alito
More Senators have announced their opposition to Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Encouragingly, no additional Democrats have announced support for Alito since Ben Nelson (NE). Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, announced his opposition to a packed auditorium at Northwestern University School of Law.
"In the record, the writings, the words, and the life of Samuel Alito, I searched for evidence of his caring heart -- evidence that for the next two or three decades he would use his position on the Supreme Court to enlarge our freedom, protect our privacy, and respect the delicate balance of power and responsibility our Constitution creates," said Senator Durbin. "At the end of the day, at this historic moment, I cannot say with confidence that Samuel Alito meets that test."
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), in announcing his opposition, said, "Based on his record, I am gravely concerned that Judge Alito does not believe the Congress has the authority to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans." Other Senators who have announced publicly their opposition to Alito include Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (the only woman on the Judiciary Committee), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Max Baucus (D-MT). Senators Leahy, Baucus, and Salazar all voted for John Roberts in September.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
Media Resources: Harkin statement 1/19/06; Durbin statement 1/19/06; Feminist Majority
I'm happy to include it (and flattered to be asked by Elaine). It's from Friday and it demonstrates how much we the people can do. We shouldn't get cocky and think it's over because it's not. But we should realize the power of people power. That's what turned it around.
Cedric had asked last week if I had an easy recipe for something sweet? I can't think of a better time to note a dessert than after all the hard work of this past week. I would dub the following Katrina vanden Heuvel's Sweet Victories Creamy Fudge if it weren't for the fact that the battle's still raging. So keep fighting but take a moment to note what we've accomplished.
This recipe is from my friend Nancy. She saw it in a magazine years ago but has no idea which one it was today.
Creamy Fudge
1 (8-ounce) package cream cheese, softened
4 cups sifted powdered sugar
4 squares unsweetened chocolate, melted
1 teaspoon vanilla flavoring
Pinch of salt
3/4 cup coarsely chopped walnuts
Combine cream cheese and powered sugar in mixing bowl (or food processor); mix until throroughly blended. Add melted chocolate, vanilla flavoring and salt. Stir in walnuts. Spread mixture in an 8-inch quare pinned lined in buttered wax paper or foil and chill for several hours (or overnight). Remove from pan and cut into small squares. Makes about 3 1/2 dozen squares.
This is an easy recipe. You melt the chocolate in a sauce pan on the stove or in the microwave. If using the stove top, stir frequently. If using the microwave, microwave in thirty seconds bursts. It should take no more than three thirty-seconds periods and you should stir the chocolate after each thirty-second period.
"Chill for several hours" does not mean, as Mike found out last year, put in the freezer for a half hour. At Thanksgiving, I was especially swamped and Mike and his younger sister (who says "Mother do not mention my name! I have friends!") pitched in the way all my children always have. Mike will tell you that he's not an experienced cook. But when I handed him this recipe, he got it down pat with no problems at all except for thinking the fudge would be ready sooner if he put it in the freezer. Had I not stopped him, we would have had ice crystals in the fudge. This isn't a "frozen dessert."
Put it in the fridge and leave it for a few hours. You can cook the meal itself, serve it, eat and, by the time you're done with that, the fudge should be ready.
Mike and his sister will make this now themselves and can eat the entire thing with help from their father. If you have a sweet tooth, this is perfect for you. It's a little too sweet for me and one square is usually all I will have.
Mike created an e-mail account for me this week and it is in my profile. He also helped me add some details to my profile. I received an e-mail from June whom I don't recognize as a member of The Common Ills community. I'm glad members have shown me so much support and encouragement with their e-mails but I had no idea anyone else would be visiting this website.
June sent me a thing from another website that was making fun of the cover of the new issue of Ms. Magazine. She wondered what I thought of it? I think it's a great issue and was anticipating purchasing it since C.I. spotlighted it. I bought it Wednesday and would encourage everyone to check it out. As for the cover, I think it's a wonderful photograph. But then maybe I'm just a dull homebody who's raised eight children? Maybe that's my problem?
I was talking to Wally's mother about the issue and about June's e-mail this morning. She said that was the website Wally had heard wasn't even bothering to take the trouble to get the word out on blocking Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court. Somehow that made sense.
I don't know what bothered someone so much about the cover, that Jane Fonda has a dog or that she's wearing pink and photographed against a pink backdrop? Or maybe it was just Jane Fonda herself that bothered?
Seems to me that someone wanted to slam for some reason and she found a way to do it in a very superficial manner. I love Ms. Magazine and am a big fan of Jane Fonda and Robin Morgan so I don't see any problem with the cover. At the checkout counter, the cover didn't elict hisses but compliments. But possibly if you're level of "contribution" is to slam a photo, a non-cheesecake photo, you have enough problems already?
Maybe something's seriously amiss when you attempt to critique a photo but confuse it with a cover? One cover, the non Ms. one, trumpets weight loss ("30 DAYS TO THIN!" it proclaims) and "THE $$ QUIZ THAT COULD MAKE YOU RICH!" while Ms. trumpets "The Women of Today's ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT" and "How to TEACH PEACE."
I'm not really sure what superficial comparisons contribute to a feminist dialogue but possibly that's the extent of contribution some can make?
If I seem mad, I am. It's a great issue and, instead of noting anything in it, someone decides to act alarmed that it features a woman with a dog on the cover -- as though that's something that's never been done before outside of Good Housekeeping. Maybe since C.I. had already featured the cover the week before and spotlighted the issue, the person felt there was nothing to left to say but attack the photo?
Or maybe it's just more anti-Jane sentiment? Does that website suffer from "War Got Your Tongue?"
I have no idea. It's silly nonsense, if you ask me. And we have more important things going on. If anything is a "step backward," I'd argue it's a site that doesn't have time to note the need to fight Alito's confirmation.
But what do I know? I'm just a lifelong feminist, a working class woman with eight kids. Maybe I'm not "edgy" enough? Who knows?
I hope that answers June's question about what I thought of the thing she forwarded. June seemed bothered by the item. If it helps June any, Wally's mother and I were bothered as well.
Apparently "edgy" requires cutting the contributions others make? Wally's mother is convinced that the writer just has a problem with Jane Fonda and says the same writer had a problem with Eve Ensler's most recent play so maybe it's just a need to "kill mommy"?
Whatever it was, it added nothing to a discussion. For something that does that, you can read the latest issue of Ms. Magazine. And you can keep fighting the Alito nomination.
Please visit NOW's website where you'll find a pop up with the following:
Don't Confirm Anti-Roe Nominee to Supreme Court
Senators Must Filibuster Samuel Alito
TAKE ACTION
These are the faces of women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, these pictures could include your daughter, sister, mother, best friend, granddaughter . . .
Don't let George W. Bush and the U.S. Senate put another anti-abortion justice on the Supreme Court. Read More
Take Action NOW
Support NOW's Emergency Work to Save the Court
Tell A Friend to Take Action to Save the Court
Focus on the things that really matter and leave "edgy" to the "trendies." Take it from someone who remembers the pre Roe v. Wade days, blocking Alito's confirmation matters.
On other issues that matter, please read Ruth's Morning Edition Report which provides a summary of John Conyers' hearing Friday. Lastly, Cindy e-mailed C.I. about my "build up" at The Common Ills. Cindy, I appreciate the support but I'll disagree with C.I. on this matter. If you know anything about C.I. you know copping to the blame is perfectly in keeping; however, the facts tell a different story. While C.I. has been hitting hard on Alito and the NSA spying, I've still been noted eight or more times at The Common Ills and considering this is only my third post and my third week, I think that's been a pretty big buildup. It should also be noted that C.I. stayed on the phone with me, on a Saturday where there was no time for it, to talk me through setting up this site and to talk me through my first entry.
Everyone has been very helpful and very welcoming. Knowing C.I.'s tendency to reject all compliments and to take on any blame, I'll have to kindly correct the impression that I haven't had an adequate buildup at The Common Ills. It's been a busy and rough week for the community and I'll echo Gina and Krista from this morning's round-robin and say thanks to C.I. for "coming back from the brink of exhaustion to rally the community yet again."
fudge
creamy fudge
cooking
recipes
food
feminist wire
ms. magazine
the common ills
samuel alito
supreme court
ruths morning edition report
john conyers
nsa
fisa
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
the third estate sunday review
the daily jot
mikey likes it
the daily jot
trinas kitchen
cedrics big mix
like maria said paz
Blog Spotlight: Kat on "creative" guests
Kat was seeing red when she wrote this as she'll tell you. Kat: "Hearing this woman equate abortion with kiddie porn and attempt to have the phoniest sweet voice while she did, just got my blood boiling. If I think about it, I get enraged all over again. She used discredited figures and what I'm guessing were made up figures to try to score points and I kept waiting for head to explode from lying so freely and deliberately."
Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster
Samuel Alito's nomination can be stopped. The Supreme Court, and the country, can be saved and spared. We need "no" votes and we need a filibuster.
Good news comes from The Feminist Wire:
No on Alito Momentum Building
The momentum to stop the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is growing. Several Democratic Senators have already announced their intention to oppose Alito.These Senators include Patrick Leahy (VT), Ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee; Judiciary Committee member Ted Kennedy (MA); Barbara Mikulski (MD); and Max Baucus (MT). Senators Leahy and Baucus had voted to confirm John Roberts in September.
The option for a filibuster to block Alito is still on the table.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOPwith The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at Ms Magazine.com
TAKE ACTIONCall your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATEMake an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority’s Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women’s rights.
Media Resources: Feminist Majority
I saw that at The Common Ills today and it was the best news I've heard all week.
On the radio today, KPFA's The Morning Show, Andrea Lewis moderated a discussion/debate on the topic and the anti-choice woman appeared to not be satisfied with making up figures, she had to resort to making outlandish comparison, like comparing it to kiddie porn while then saying things like, "I'm not suggesting that they're the same thing."
That's exactly what the weasel was suggesting.And if you've had an abortion then you are damaged, according to her. She spoke of women who had been raped and offered her own theories there as well.
Then she went on to, I guess thinking it made her look sympathetic, say that she supports castrating rapists. Let the circle of violence continue, the "pro-life" way.
Listening to the uptight bitch deny that she was supporting Alito, I started to worry that Alito might not be enough for her. Maybe she wants hands chopped off of accused shoplifters? Maybe she wants feet cut off of people who run red lights?
She doesn't have a clue. She's like the Carrie Nations of today. It's not enough that no one's forcing her to have an abortion. It's not enough that she can work for an organization providing assistance to women who want to have children but are financially strapped. She wants to grab her axe and destroy the right of any other woman to decide what they want to do.
We're up against people like this and we need to be fighting. So contact your senators tell them filibuster the nomination.
kpfa
the morning show
the common ills
Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster
Samuel Alito's nomination can be stopped. The Supreme Court, and the country, can be saved and spared. We need "no" votes and we need a filibuster.
Good news comes from The Feminist Wire:
No on Alito Momentum Building
The momentum to stop the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is growing. Several Democratic Senators have already announced their intention to oppose Alito.These Senators include Patrick Leahy (VT), Ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee; Judiciary Committee member Ted Kennedy (MA); Barbara Mikulski (MD); and Max Baucus (MT). Senators Leahy and Baucus had voted to confirm John Roberts in September.
The option for a filibuster to block Alito is still on the table.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOPwith The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at Ms Magazine.com
TAKE ACTIONCall your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATEMake an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority’s Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women’s rights.
Media Resources: Feminist Majority
I saw that at The Common Ills today and it was the best news I've heard all week.
On the radio today, KPFA's The Morning Show, Andrea Lewis moderated a discussion/debate on the topic and the anti-choice woman appeared to not be satisfied with making up figures, she had to resort to making outlandish comparison, like comparing it to kiddie porn while then saying things like, "I'm not suggesting that they're the same thing."
That's exactly what the weasel was suggesting.And if you've had an abortion then you are damaged, according to her. She spoke of women who had been raped and offered her own theories there as well.
Then she went on to, I guess thinking it made her look sympathetic, say that she supports castrating rapists. Let the circle of violence continue, the "pro-life" way.
Listening to the uptight bitch deny that she was supporting Alito, I started to worry that Alito might not be enough for her. Maybe she wants hands chopped off of accused shoplifters? Maybe she wants feet cut off of people who run red lights?
She doesn't have a clue. She's like the Carrie Nations of today. It's not enough that no one's forcing her to have an abortion. It's not enough that she can work for an organization providing assistance to women who want to have children but are financially strapped. She wants to grab her axe and destroy the right of any other woman to decide what they want to do.
We're up against people like this and we need to be fighting. So contact your senators tell them filibuster the nomination.
kpfa
the morning show
the common ills
Blog Spotlight: Cedric on CAPS
Cedric covers CAPS -- membership in which should have gotten Alito laughed out of the Senate. From Cedric's Big Mix:
Stop Alito, keep the momentum building
Elaine called and said great post yesterday (thank you) and that she saw something at The Common Ills and was calling around to see if I was interested in noting it. Rebecca's noting it too so hopefully, the word will be out on this. It's some good news from Feminist Wire:
January 19, 2006
No on Alito Momentum Building
The momentum to stop the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is growing. Several Democratic Senators have already announced their intention to oppose Alito.
These Senators include Patrick Leahy (VT), Ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee; Judiciary Committee member Ted Kennedy (MA); Barbara Mikulski (MD); and Max Baucus (MT). Senators Leahy and Baucus had voted to confirm John Roberts in September. The option for a filibuster to block Alito is still on the table.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOPwith The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTIONCall your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATEMake an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority’s Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women’s rights.
Media Resources: Feminist Majority
I want everyone to remember that Alito was a member of CAPs, Concerned Alumini of Princeton. He may still be a member. How would we know and how would he? He can't remember being a member so maybe he's still a member and just can't remember that either?
He remembered when he filled out an application in the eighties. Guess he bumped his head.
So what was Concerned Alumini concerned about?
They weren't concerned about ROTC.
They were concerned that too many of "the wrong people" were getting admitting to Princeton: African-Americans, women and gays and lesbians.
This man wants to sit on the Supreme Court and he can't explain why he was a member of a bigoted organization.
That's not justice, that's not fairness, that's not right.
Let your senators hear from you. Loudly. Let them know that you aren't taking this lightly.
A racist doesn't belong on the Supreme Court and since Alito can't give a straight answer about why he joined the organization and can't remember being a member, we'll have to put it to the smell test: Alito's lying because he joined a racist organization and he never had a change of heart so he can't own up to being a member.
Momentum is building and we've got to keep it building and keep the ball rolling.
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the common ills
like maria said paz
samuel alito
supreme court
Stop Alito, keep the momentum building
Elaine called and said great post yesterday (thank you) and that she saw something at The Common Ills and was calling around to see if I was interested in noting it. Rebecca's noting it too so hopefully, the word will be out on this. It's some good news from Feminist Wire:
January 19, 2006
No on Alito Momentum Building
The momentum to stop the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is growing. Several Democratic Senators have already announced their intention to oppose Alito.
These Senators include Patrick Leahy (VT), Ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee; Judiciary Committee member Ted Kennedy (MA); Barbara Mikulski (MD); and Max Baucus (MT). Senators Leahy and Baucus had voted to confirm John Roberts in September. The option for a filibuster to block Alito is still on the table.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOPwith The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTIONCall your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATEMake an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority’s Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women’s rights.
Media Resources: Feminist Majority
I want everyone to remember that Alito was a member of CAPs, Concerned Alumini of Princeton. He may still be a member. How would we know and how would he? He can't remember being a member so maybe he's still a member and just can't remember that either?
He remembered when he filled out an application in the eighties. Guess he bumped his head.
So what was Concerned Alumini concerned about?
They weren't concerned about ROTC.
They were concerned that too many of "the wrong people" were getting admitting to Princeton: African-Americans, women and gays and lesbians.
This man wants to sit on the Supreme Court and he can't explain why he was a member of a bigoted organization.
That's not justice, that's not fairness, that's not right.
Let your senators hear from you. Loudly. Let them know that you aren't taking this lightly.
A racist doesn't belong on the Supreme Court and since Alito can't give a straight answer about why he joined the organization and can't remember being a member, we'll have to put it to the smell test: Alito's lying because he joined a racist organization and he never had a change of heart so he can't own up to being a member.
Momentum is building and we've got to keep it building and keep the ball rolling.
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the common ills
like maria said paz
samuel alito
supreme court
Blog Spotlight: Wally's "Evening Jot"
Wally gets not one but two blog spotlights. This was our pick and our only pick until C.I. asked, "Excuse me did anyone see 'Sammy'?" We were all busy this week. It's worth spotlighting as well. So congratulations to Wally for getting two spotlights (both worthy) this edition.
Evening Jot
By popular request, once more here's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts which shows Alito pissing on the Senate Dems. I recognize Feingold, Feinstein and I think Ted Kennedy but I'm not sure who the other two are. I'll assume the other three, for the total of eight, are covered in urine and we can't see them.
There hasn't been much of a Jot this week, I know. But I've been helping out with the gina & krista round-robin now that it's a daily newsletter until the Alito vote. If you're a community member of The Common Ills, you know that before I even thought of doing a site, I'd write something for them whenever I could.I think Gina and Krista do a fantastic job with the weekly newsletter.
When C.I. was going to activate the mailing list, with Gina's permission, Gina said, "Look, Krista and I can do a daily round-robin, this is important." (Cedric wrote about this at his site too so check that out.)
I'm glad they are doing that and thank them for it. Each day, we've got the activism tips and a map of what to do that day. And Gina does her point of view and Krista does her point of view.
But to keep the excitement of the round-robin going, they need more than that. But to expect them to do what they do on a weekly basis regularly on a daily basis is asking a whole lot. That's why C.I.'s done the column on Alito each day and the humor column. That's why Isaiah's done a special cartoon, exclusive to the round-robin, each day.
Most members would probably open it no matter what, just for Krista & Gina's point of view columns and the editorials. But the whole point is to get everyone active on Alito so this needed to have a lot of special material. Beth's been doing a column each day too. And like she said in this morning's round-robin, "If people are taking action, this is worth it, otherwise I'm wasting my f**king time."
I talked to Beth about that column today and she said she has maybe one "okay" column in her a week. But she's knocking herself out to make sure she's doing her part so that when members see the round-robin in their inboxes each morning, they're thinking, "What is that crazy Beth going to say today?" (That's Beth's quote, just FYI.)
She also pointed out that two pieces of writing each day for the round-robins and C.I.'s still been doing multiple posts at The Common Ills each day. I'm in awe especially now that Gina and Krista have started back up the roundtables. We'll be doing one tonight and remember there will be Saturday and Sunday round-robins. This is daily until the vote.
C.I. didn't ask me to help me out or even hint. Everyone was wiped out from helping on the daily round-robins during the hearings and that was just last week. Beth said she's amazed how much people have been willing to help out. Like Rebecca who has just written these in depth things for the round-robin each day. I complimented Rebecca on that late last night and she said, "Yeah, but look at my site. I don't feel like I'm doing much there." I think she has but I don't have it in me to do round-robin content and Jot daily. So if you're someone that doesn't get the round-robin, I'm sorry if you thought I was off goofing.
I've also been using time on campus to talk about this and explain why we need to be active.
I don't know the site so I won't name it but two women told me that they go to this feminist site and if it was important to filibuster Alito, they would have seen something at that feminist site.
If there's a feminist site that hasn't talked about how important it is to filibuster Alito this week, that's pretty sad. I mean, if the woman or women are busy doing stuff to stop him and aren't posting, that I understand. But if they're posting and can't talk about Alito that's pretty sad.
I was talking to Mom about that and she said she wonders how many young feminists "get" this because she's working her butt off to get the word out to everyone she knows and she keeps running into resistance from one group of people: young women. They tell her that since they don't intend to have an abortion "ever" that it's not an issue to them.
Abortion is far from the only reason to oppose Alito. There's race, sexuality, the fact that he thinks a wife is the property of the husband, and so much more. But Mom asked me to put this in: "Abortion is a right. If you don't want to use the right, you should still appreciate that it's out there for other women to use should they need it."
I asked her if maybe the young women were anti-choice and she said that they weren't, they just didn't care. There were two that kept interrupting her to tell her that this wasn't an issue that mattered. Mom probably spent twenty minutes trying to politely explain to them why it did, because that's her way. But I bet that was a lot more discouraging than she lets on.
She asked me if I "got" it? I do. It's not like I'll have an abortion, I'm a guy. But this is about women's bodies and saying that the government does not have control of them. And some women, for whatever reason, will have abortions. It's a medical issue and it's not for the government to tell them no.
I didn't come up against that the way Mom did. On campus, most of the time, people were willing to listen. But a lot of them hadn't followed the hearings or just knew that Alito's wife cried.
To get the filibuster to be a real option, we need to really get everyone on board and that means a lot of people who didn't follow the hearings and don't realize what's at stake.
I hope you're doing everything that you can. One guy told me that he didn't feel comfortable bringing up the topic so I told him to go to The Common Ills and just e-mail something from that and if someone wanted to comment on it to him, they would.
C.I. made this comment today and I thought it was pretty dead on:
There will be a gina & krista round-robin Saturday and Sunday. Gina and Krista are doing this every day through the 24th. The action that everyone is pouring into this effort (not just people in our community) is demonstrating that we're not going to take pats on the heads and "We know best." I think this summer (the summer of protest) we saw the spirit leading up to the 2004 election come back to life.
When people do get excited, people I talk to on campus, they start talking about how they were working to get people to vote in the summer of 2004 and then they just kind of stopped caring.
We need to care about this. I was discouraged when Bully Boy got re-crowned too but we need to be fighting this and showing the Democrats that they need to fight for us.
Elaine e-mailed me to ask if I'd note this the next time I'd blogged:
More Senators Announce Opposition to Alito
More Senators have announced their opposition to Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Encouragingly, no additional Democrats have announced support for Alito since Ben Nelson (NE). Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, announced his opposition to a packed auditorium at Northwestern University School of Law.
"In the record, the writings, the words, and the life of Samuel Alito, I searched for evidence of his caring heart -- evidence that for the next two or three decades he would use his position on the Supreme Court to enlarge our freedom, protect our privacy, and respect the delicate balance of power and responsibility our Constitution creates," said Senator Durbin. "At the end of the day, at this historic moment, I cannot say with confidence that Samuel Alito meets that test."
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), in announcing his opposition, said, "Based on his record, I am gravely concerned that Judge Alito does not believe the Congress has the authority to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans."Other Senators who have announced publicly their opposition to Alito include Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (the only woman on the Judiciary Committee), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Max Baucus (D-MT). Senators Leahy, Baucus, and Salazar all voted for John Roberts in September.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
I want you to think about where we stood at the start of the week, feeling defeated and knowing the Dems weren't going to fight for us. We got active and they know they will have to answer to us. That's why they're starting to respond. If we keep the pressure on, we can get a filibuster so please do your part. And after you do your part, try to get others to do their part and you keep doing your part each day up to the vote.
I need to note something else too. Mike passed on that his reader told him I'd been cited at News Dissector. I didn't know that. I'm a fan of Danny Schechter's so that was way cool. He wrote about the Dems this week and I'll note that here now because it's a good article and also as a thank you. This is from Danny Schechter's "AFTER ALITO: WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT NOW?:"
The Democrats were predictable, baiting Alito, and trying to use comments he made in the 1980's as well as his dense judicial record against him. Like many Generals, they were fighting the last war-the one against Court nominee Robert Bork who took on his attackers but whose arrogance and argumentative approach did him in. Significantly, when Bork himself was asked to comment on Alito's well-choreographed but evasive performance, he said, "The object nowadays is to get confirmed. People will say pretty much -- or avoid saying pretty much in order to get confirmed."
Didn't the Democrats realize that the Republicans would anticipate their knee-jerk approach, and then neutralize its dated and poorly executed confrontation strategy? Why weren't they on alert for dirty tricks like the phony crying spell by Alito's wife publicized by the very firm that promoted the Swift Boat veterans who smeared John Kerry?
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
samuel alito
supreme court
ms.
ms. magazine
like maria said paz
danny schechter
buzzflash
the world today just nuts
mikey likes it
cedrics big mix
Evening Jot
By popular request, once more here's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts which shows Alito pissing on the Senate Dems. I recognize Feingold, Feinstein and I think Ted Kennedy but I'm not sure who the other two are. I'll assume the other three, for the total of eight, are covered in urine and we can't see them.
There hasn't been much of a Jot this week, I know. But I've been helping out with the gina & krista round-robin now that it's a daily newsletter until the Alito vote. If you're a community member of The Common Ills, you know that before I even thought of doing a site, I'd write something for them whenever I could.I think Gina and Krista do a fantastic job with the weekly newsletter.
When C.I. was going to activate the mailing list, with Gina's permission, Gina said, "Look, Krista and I can do a daily round-robin, this is important." (Cedric wrote about this at his site too so check that out.)
I'm glad they are doing that and thank them for it. Each day, we've got the activism tips and a map of what to do that day. And Gina does her point of view and Krista does her point of view.
But to keep the excitement of the round-robin going, they need more than that. But to expect them to do what they do on a weekly basis regularly on a daily basis is asking a whole lot. That's why C.I.'s done the column on Alito each day and the humor column. That's why Isaiah's done a special cartoon, exclusive to the round-robin, each day.
Most members would probably open it no matter what, just for Krista & Gina's point of view columns and the editorials. But the whole point is to get everyone active on Alito so this needed to have a lot of special material. Beth's been doing a column each day too. And like she said in this morning's round-robin, "If people are taking action, this is worth it, otherwise I'm wasting my f**king time."
I talked to Beth about that column today and she said she has maybe one "okay" column in her a week. But she's knocking herself out to make sure she's doing her part so that when members see the round-robin in their inboxes each morning, they're thinking, "What is that crazy Beth going to say today?" (That's Beth's quote, just FYI.)
She also pointed out that two pieces of writing each day for the round-robins and C.I.'s still been doing multiple posts at The Common Ills each day. I'm in awe especially now that Gina and Krista have started back up the roundtables. We'll be doing one tonight and remember there will be Saturday and Sunday round-robins. This is daily until the vote.
C.I. didn't ask me to help me out or even hint. Everyone was wiped out from helping on the daily round-robins during the hearings and that was just last week. Beth said she's amazed how much people have been willing to help out. Like Rebecca who has just written these in depth things for the round-robin each day. I complimented Rebecca on that late last night and she said, "Yeah, but look at my site. I don't feel like I'm doing much there." I think she has but I don't have it in me to do round-robin content and Jot daily. So if you're someone that doesn't get the round-robin, I'm sorry if you thought I was off goofing.
I've also been using time on campus to talk about this and explain why we need to be active.
I don't know the site so I won't name it but two women told me that they go to this feminist site and if it was important to filibuster Alito, they would have seen something at that feminist site.
If there's a feminist site that hasn't talked about how important it is to filibuster Alito this week, that's pretty sad. I mean, if the woman or women are busy doing stuff to stop him and aren't posting, that I understand. But if they're posting and can't talk about Alito that's pretty sad.
I was talking to Mom about that and she said she wonders how many young feminists "get" this because she's working her butt off to get the word out to everyone she knows and she keeps running into resistance from one group of people: young women. They tell her that since they don't intend to have an abortion "ever" that it's not an issue to them.
Abortion is far from the only reason to oppose Alito. There's race, sexuality, the fact that he thinks a wife is the property of the husband, and so much more. But Mom asked me to put this in: "Abortion is a right. If you don't want to use the right, you should still appreciate that it's out there for other women to use should they need it."
I asked her if maybe the young women were anti-choice and she said that they weren't, they just didn't care. There were two that kept interrupting her to tell her that this wasn't an issue that mattered. Mom probably spent twenty minutes trying to politely explain to them why it did, because that's her way. But I bet that was a lot more discouraging than she lets on.
She asked me if I "got" it? I do. It's not like I'll have an abortion, I'm a guy. But this is about women's bodies and saying that the government does not have control of them. And some women, for whatever reason, will have abortions. It's a medical issue and it's not for the government to tell them no.
I didn't come up against that the way Mom did. On campus, most of the time, people were willing to listen. But a lot of them hadn't followed the hearings or just knew that Alito's wife cried.
To get the filibuster to be a real option, we need to really get everyone on board and that means a lot of people who didn't follow the hearings and don't realize what's at stake.
I hope you're doing everything that you can. One guy told me that he didn't feel comfortable bringing up the topic so I told him to go to The Common Ills and just e-mail something from that and if someone wanted to comment on it to him, they would.
C.I. made this comment today and I thought it was pretty dead on:
There will be a gina & krista round-robin Saturday and Sunday. Gina and Krista are doing this every day through the 24th. The action that everyone is pouring into this effort (not just people in our community) is demonstrating that we're not going to take pats on the heads and "We know best." I think this summer (the summer of protest) we saw the spirit leading up to the 2004 election come back to life.
When people do get excited, people I talk to on campus, they start talking about how they were working to get people to vote in the summer of 2004 and then they just kind of stopped caring.
We need to care about this. I was discouraged when Bully Boy got re-crowned too but we need to be fighting this and showing the Democrats that they need to fight for us.
Elaine e-mailed me to ask if I'd note this the next time I'd blogged:
More Senators Announce Opposition to Alito
More Senators have announced their opposition to Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Encouragingly, no additional Democrats have announced support for Alito since Ben Nelson (NE). Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, announced his opposition to a packed auditorium at Northwestern University School of Law.
"In the record, the writings, the words, and the life of Samuel Alito, I searched for evidence of his caring heart -- evidence that for the next two or three decades he would use his position on the Supreme Court to enlarge our freedom, protect our privacy, and respect the delicate balance of power and responsibility our Constitution creates," said Senator Durbin. "At the end of the day, at this historic moment, I cannot say with confidence that Samuel Alito meets that test."
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), in announcing his opposition, said, "Based on his record, I am gravely concerned that Judge Alito does not believe the Congress has the authority to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans."Other Senators who have announced publicly their opposition to Alito include Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (the only woman on the Judiciary Committee), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Max Baucus (D-MT). Senators Leahy, Baucus, and Salazar all voted for John Roberts in September.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
I want you to think about where we stood at the start of the week, feeling defeated and knowing the Dems weren't going to fight for us. We got active and they know they will have to answer to us. That's why they're starting to respond. If we keep the pressure on, we can get a filibuster so please do your part. And after you do your part, try to get others to do their part and you keep doing your part each day up to the vote.
I need to note something else too. Mike passed on that his reader told him I'd been cited at News Dissector. I didn't know that. I'm a fan of Danny Schechter's so that was way cool. He wrote about the Dems this week and I'll note that here now because it's a good article and also as a thank you. This is from Danny Schechter's "AFTER ALITO: WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT NOW?:"
The Democrats were predictable, baiting Alito, and trying to use comments he made in the 1980's as well as his dense judicial record against him. Like many Generals, they were fighting the last war-the one against Court nominee Robert Bork who took on his attackers but whose arrogance and argumentative approach did him in. Significantly, when Bork himself was asked to comment on Alito's well-choreographed but evasive performance, he said, "The object nowadays is to get confirmed. People will say pretty much -- or avoid saying pretty much in order to get confirmed."
Didn't the Democrats realize that the Republicans would anticipate their knee-jerk approach, and then neutralize its dated and poorly executed confrontation strategy? Why weren't they on alert for dirty tricks like the phony crying spell by Alito's wife publicized by the very firm that promoted the Swift Boat veterans who smeared John Kerry?
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
samuel alito
supreme court
ms.
ms. magazine
like maria said paz
danny schechter
buzzflash
the world today just nuts
mikey likes it
cedrics big mix
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
