Sunday, May 28, 2006

Blog Spotlight: Kat grabbing odds and ends

Kat mentions a review she never posted on Saturday -- reason?  Blame us.  We commanded pretty much everyone's time.  She's going to read over it (she's still helping with the edition) and then post it either tonight or tomorrow.
 

RadioNation with Laura Flanders on Sat.: Anthony Arnove; conscientious objectors on the first hour of KPFA's Sunday Salon tomorrow

RadioNation with Laura Flanders broadcasts new episodes this holiday weekend:


From war crimes to war chest crimes, it's reality check time for the Bush mob.
Saturday:
On the ground report from Iraqi journalist AYUB NURI. Author-editor ANTHONY ARNOVE makes the case to bring the troops home now. Artist SHERYL ORING tells us why she is collecting birthday messages to 'W.' And JACK HUBERMAN, author of "101 People Who Are Really Screwing Up America," goes after the rabid right with humor.
SUNDAY:
MASSIE RITSCH, of Washington's Center for Responsive Politics, on Ken Lay's days as W's biggest donor.
A Media Roundtable with GARANCE FRANKE-RUTA, Senior Editor with The American Prospect and DOUG HENWOOD, Nation Contributor and Editor of the Left Business Observer.
Then the return of our independent bookstore hour with JOAN GRANIER from Odyssey Books in South Hadley, MA. And PEGGY HALEY of Book People in Austin, TX.

Make a point to check out the program. Laura's a voice worth listening to and then some. She's no Joanie-come-lately, she's been a brave voice in dark times. I think they're getting a little lighter (the times) but that doesn't mean we don't still need our brave voices, so listen to
RadioNation with Laura Flanders (on air and online from seven to ten p.m. eastern time zone).

Kat, Bully Boy's still in office! No sh*t. (Edited because I intend to cross post this at The Common Ills.) But look at how we're starting to speak out. Look at where the country is on the war as compared to the refugees from the real world occupying DC. Look at how far we've come from the Thou-Shall-Not-Question-the-Bully-Boy commandment enforced by the press (not just the right wing) following 9-11.

Maybe it's just seeing a nice view out of my window when I woke up this morning or it's the birds chirping along with the Dixie Chicks CD that I've got playing, but I'm a little more hopeful than usual.

"Kat's Korner: Dixie Chicks Taking The Long Way home while NYT gets lost along the way" was my most recent review and thank you to everyone who e-mailed on it. (Including three visitors who are Reba freaks.) It is a great CD and I may note it more (or may note Jon-Boy more) here. Today, I'll either post the Free Design review or work on one for Janis Ian's Folk Is The New Black. Did Laura interview her? Someone interviewed her on radio and I went out and purchased the CD right after. It was one of my potential May reviews. However, yesterday,
a music special on KPFA featured one song and that had me thinking I really needed to review it (Ruth also phoned last night to say some of the e-mails she received mentioned the program and Ian).

KPFA's Guns and Butter Wednesday featured a speech by David Ray Griffin on the questions raised by the offical 9/11 theory. Iwana e-mailed me to say she really wasn't familiar with him but that the "speech was fascinating and everyone should listen." This was her first time listening to Guns and Butter and she was very impressed. Listen to the show and you'll understand why.

Tomorrow on KPFA's Sunday Salon at nine a.m. Pacific Time the hour will address conscientious objectors, the second hour will address travel. Make sure you listen.


Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Blog Spotlight: Rebecca plays Judy Blume

Rebecca cracked us up with Are You There God? It's Me Rev. Dozier (a play on a Judy Blume book).

dixie chicks, flashpoints, attempting to privatize the bbc & more
1st off, the dixie chick's new cd comes out tomorrow so either order online or take a trip to where ever you purchase cds (if you have the money). there's a lot of reasons to buy it. 1) the music sounds strong. 2) they stood up when others were staying silent. 3) a woman who speaks her mind threatens a lot of people - if you're coming to this site, you either respect strong women or you read to roll your eyes. if you respect strong women, get the cd. if you're a sexist pig who enjoys rolling his (or, in some cases, her) eyes, grab the cd so you can roll your eyes while you listen.

on music, let me note 2 things. 1st, elaine's 'KPFA's Radio Chronicles' "John Ono Lennon" special' covers a special you may have missed so check it out. 2nd, "Kat's Korner: Springsteen's Seeger Sessions."

kpfa's flashpoints tonight had a number of items including the use of eminent domain to take property away from people the city doesn't want in the neighborhoods. janis karpinski was also on via a speech she gave to uc berkeley.

karpinski: in april of 2004 when the world saw the pictures from abu ghr for the 1st time, i was shocked, once again, and i was futher shocked because the only name they were linking to them was mine.

want more? listen to the show!

[. . .]

[Note: Rebecca asked that we not repost this section of her post -- it's noting a link that the person noting it has now withdrawn the endorsement for]

in florida, there's a new god-talks-to-me-pat-robertson type. his name is o'neal dozier. and 2 years ago, god spoke to him and told that charlie crist would be the next governor of florida. (natch, crist is a republican.) which brings up the old question: is it god? or is it diebold?

are you there wally o'dell, it's me rev. dozier?

a wonderful tale of growing up right-wing and fundy. best part is when a 12 y.o. dozier wakes in the middle of the night and discovers he's had a wet dream. unsure of what's happened, he's sure that the clear substance is blood and he must be very sick or it would be red. hilarity ensues as he learns to adjust to puberty and walks through the halls with his books carried over his lap to cover his pup tent.

of course when they grow up, the jokes are fewer which is why lifey deals with the fate of tom delay - serving hard time in prison.

that's it for tonight. cedric called and asked, 'you want to do short entries tonight?' if so, he said he could probably map out a few minutes to post. be sure to check out cedric's big mix.

Blog Spotlight: Elaine weaves a tapestry

Elaine called this one "Long but is there a topic?"  We think so, we think there are several related topics in this.
 

Long but is there a topic?

In case there are any Rebecca-like readers, I did get the Dixie Chicks' new CD The Long Way. I also got a Ben Harper live CD that I haven't had time to listen to yet. Not that I've had that much time to listen to The Long Way but I did listen to it last night and am listening right now.
I really enjoy it and I think most people will so if you've been thinking, "Should I get it?" -- the answer's probably yes. "Easy Silence" is probably the one that stands out first to me. I love the "EEE" in "Easy Silence" note that Natalie Maines sings. I grabbed the case. There are fourteen songs. I'm not able to place them all by their title but I do enjoy the entire CD and can listen to it all the way through -- no clunckers.

I'm off tomorrow (as usual). Other than that? C.I.'s trying to get everything figured out community wise. Regarding The Third Estate Sunday Review, Jim's said that anyone who wants to bail or wants to help in part on the edition can. Rebecca's the only one up in the air right now due to some plans that she and Fly Boy have. You'll see something at all the community sites on Memorial Day (usual holiday post) and we'll all be working on that. Friday's up in the air for me right now. I do have plans. C.I. will cover items with Mike if I'm unable to post. (Thank you.) But I think I'll be able to get something up. If I'm not able to, I will do so on Saturday. Please visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's thoughts on today's headlines.

"Senate Intel. Committee Approves Hayden Nomination" (Democracy Now!):
General Michael Hayden has moved a step closer to becoming the next head of the CIA. On Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to recommend Hayden's confirmation. Four Democrats joined the committee's Republican members in supporting Hayden's nomination. During his confirmation hearing, Hayden staunchly defended the Bush administration’s domestic wiretap program he oversaw as director of the National Security Agency. In a statement, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, one of the three Democrats to vote against, said: "General Hayden directed an illegal program that put Americans on American soil under surveillance without the legally required approval of a judge."

That's multi-star General Hayden. Four? Yes, four. I looked online for ten minutes and finally found one story. No link to it, it's Fox "News." But I did hear it on the radio that a Senate committee decided Wednesday to reappoint him. This isn't a "good" thing. Swiping from C.I. who noted these remarks by Barbara Olshansky on KPFA's The Morning Show (from Tuesday of last week):

One of the things that I think is underling this type of authorization [. . .] is this notion that this presidency has, that this administration has, that the commander-in-chief powers which are supposed to be used outside the United States in a zone of miltary hostility . This president says, we can turn that power inside, into the United States, into the domestic, civilian, civil society and use that power here. And that underlies everything that this president is doing. . . What's really troubling is when you think that we're now going to appoint military people to fundamentally civilian posts. It adds even more structure to that idea that we can operate militarily inside the United States. That's something that [. . .] in the history of this country we have never abided. It's something the Framers, way back, were concerned about and it's something the courts have been really clear about and yet that is what this administration is completely -- using the military powers inside the United States to justify all of these violations.

Are we a democratic government or are we a military junta? Why would we put a general in charge of the CIA?

"FCC Won't Investigate NSA's Access To Telephone Records" (Democracy Now!):
The Federal Communications Commission says it won't investigate whether the National Security Agency has obtained access to the telephone records of millions of US citizens. Calls for an investigation followed a USA Today report that three major telecom countries handed over customers' phone data to the NSA. The FCC says it cannot investigate because of the classified nature of the NSA's activities. Democratic Congressmember Ed Markey, one of several lawmakers who had requested the probe, said: "The FCC has abdicated its responsibility to protect Americans' privacy to the National Security Agency without even asking a single question about it."


That's not surprising. The FCC is packed with Republicans. And the new head, replacing Colin Powell's son Michael, was a Bully Boy pick. So once again, Americans have no line of defense between themselves and the Bully Boy. (Read C.I.'s "On the Dangers of an Unchecked Bully Boy.") We've seen the Christy Todd Whitman EPA roll over (most famously right now for her actions, she's no longer the head, after 9/11 when she allowed a safety ruling to go out that had no basis in fact but also in terms of repeatedly altering science and research to play down global warming) so it's no surprise that every government agency does as well. It's really sad that Congress and the Supreme Court also roll over. But citizens have no protection from the out of control Bully Boy and his lackies in the White House.

Rebecca called to see if I'd gotten the Dixie Chicks CD and, as noted above, I did. She was talking about the lyrics and I have no idea. I don't usually listen for the words when I'm first listening. I'm listening for the notes being sung, the music and it's often days and weeks before I have the words down. Which is a great way to drop back into the college discussion I planned to do last week because Rebecca always studied the lyrics. She has a wonderful voice and would be able to sing along within a day (tops) of buying an album because she'd learn the words so quickly. I'd listen for the music and often take weeks (in college) before I even knew the words.
C.I.? On first listen of a song, we're talking brand new, C.I. could usually provide every other line on first listen. (That's still true today.) However, C.I. would often, after knowing a song, make up lyrics to the songs because they'd be better that way. One that comes to mind is Carly Simon's "You're So Vain." I love that song, I think it's a wonderful song. If you know Carly's version, you know that after the third verse you get a vamp until the end. "You're so vain, You probably think this song is about you" and "You're so vain, I bet you think this song is about you" are the two lines. C.I. always adds, "You probably think I'm talking about you" and other lines. I always remember, when we're all singing along that one but get lost on the others. One more C.I. story because Rebecca said if I was going to bring up making up lines, I needed to bring up verses and the reason for that. (C.I. won't mind and said last week to use my "best judgement" and there'd be no problem.) Rebecca used to get really upset in college when we'd all be singing a song and C.I. would go to a different verse. If it's a song C.I. played on piano or guitar, forget it. (Rebecca's other complaint would be when we'd be singing "Me and Bobby McGee," the Janis Joplin classic, and C.I. would rush the "la-la" part when we were just singing it without the song playing on the stereo.)

You know what? I'm really not into a heavy post tonight. I think there's already plenty of "heavy" here. I'll talk about that the next time I blog. But if you're in college now (maybe you just graduated), I hope you've made time for life around you. Activism, absolutely. But you can't go through college with your nose in a book. Part of the experience/education is being tossed in with people you wouldn't normally be. People you might not ever talk to are all around you and that's really part of the experience. (I'm remembering a real jerk right now from a philosophy class -- an Ayn Rand devotee who always had to try to interject his love for Rand into a class on Plato.) Most important, it's a time to make friends.

Most important? You need to blow off steam, absolutely. You also, if you're lucky, will find friends who will support and aid you. Both Rebecca and C.I. were more than willing to go to the library with me on late hours. They'd help me with research (C.I. is a whizz with research and would usually surpise the reference libraian who was helping me with cross-references and raw data). I don't believe that any time is the "best time." (Hopefully, life will always have "best" moments.) But it is a time that you can build memories and a strong foundation. Rebecca and C.I. both taught me it was okay to say, "I don't know." They also taught me that it was okay to ask for help and that it was foolish not to use any help you had access to.

I struggled in one class in the second semester of my freshman year and a lot was riding on my paper. They both knew it and they insisted upon reading it when I was finished with it. I wasn't the type to say, "I wrote a great paper!" (nor were they). But you do need input. On that paper, I handed it to them and then left. I came back and was pretty upset because they'd market it all up. (In those days, that meant retyping.) Rebecca focused on spelling, C.I. focused on comprehension. There were circles (Rebecca's) and arrows (C.I.'s) and I thought, "Do they know how long it took me to type this paper?"

It wasn't even an ego thing, just, "Oh my God! I'm going to have to retype the whole thing." (As opposed to, travel back with me children, putting it back in and using white out to type over a mispelled word.)

But I retyped it, cursing them the whole time, and turned it in. Even before it came back (with the grade needed to pass), I felt okay with it, more than okay, and that's the sort of thing that I needed to learn and learn quickly.

Rebecca was always real good about making sure we attended every performance of a play or a band on campus. There were times when I'd think, "I have no interest in ___" (whatever playwright) but it did help. On a very basic level, I'd often have those plays later in English class. On another level, it rounded me out as a person.

The three of us didn't plan our schedules together. Rebecca was not an early riser (even then) and wanted her classes later in the day. I am an early riser and wanted to get them out of the way as soon as possible. C.I. took whatever was interesting -- C.I.'s degree plan was done by C.I. and never filed until graduation neared. People would say, "Oh, you've got to get a degree plan!" The department advisor would always be scheduling meetings -- then as now, if C.I. didn't ask for a meeting, attendance is 'optional.' (C.I.'s attitude with advisors was always, "Are you paying for my college? Then you don't need to worry.")

But one class we did take together in our freshman year was illuminating because I didn't do study groups. C.I. talked me into joining one and it was a big help. Rebecca taught me, on study groups, that when you forget to do your work for the group, show up with food and you'll be forgiven at least slightly. She always brought muffins, doughnuts and was, of course, Rebecca
so the guys would always give her a pass and no woman wanted to look bitter and point out, "We're going into the final and she's never done her work."

I'm realizing this is probably better, topic wise, for people who will be entering college. So let me talk about something that happens every summer. I always have at least one friend who has a child in college and they've had a rough time. That's normal. Never let that paralyze you. Even if you get placed on academic probation, it's not the end of the world (though many have thought so). When I speak to those people (and they're usually high achievers in high school who've managed to achieve in a more regimented structure -- high school -- and are now a little lost since college is quite a bit looser) the first thing I ask after they've explained their problem is, "Did you speak to anyone on campus?" Most students aren't aware that many universities provide counselors -- either for a small fee or free.

If you have an emotional problem of some kind (feeling overwhelmed or whatever), there are people on campus who are there to help to you.

One issue that has come up repeatedly is sexuality. You are who you are. But a number of people seem to think that they can keep their sexuality under wraps while in high school and, the minute they step onto a college campus, everything will suddenly make sense.

It's a process. If you're straight and shy or whatever in high school, you have to learn how to mix with the opposite sex. If you're gay and you've been keeping that under wraps (shy or not) until college, you're going to have to learn to mix as well.

The ones I've seen who suffered the most usually got into a relationship freshman year with someone who wasn't out. They had something in common at that point. But then the person they've fallen for isn't interested in much of anything except making sure that no one knows he or she is gay.

That's very hurtful. To put it in straight terms, it's like being the girl in high school that some guy's going to visit to have sex with but doesn't want to be seen with (or see outside of sex). It's the same type of situation because the person will wonder what's wrong with them?

Nothing. You can be perfect or the worst and it doesn't matter. If someone's not willing to acknowledge their sexuality, it doesn't matter what you are, they're not going to acknowledge you. I saw a young man who was very upset because he and a guy whom I'll call Adam would get together for mutual masturbation sessions. Sometimes they weren't mutual and often the person trying to address his or her own sexuality ends up pleasuring the one still hiding over and over.

Because you've been waiting all through high school for this adult moment when you could be you and you could be free about who you were, it's very easy for some to stay in bad relationships. This is the first relationship and if something's not working, it's easy to take that on yourself.

But it's not a relationship. A relationship is sharing and a person who is hiding himself or herself can't truly share. But what happens is often that this becomes (for the person attempting to deal with his or her sexuality) first love due to the fact that they've put themselves on hold until college. You need to know that this is common among staight people and gay people and that it has nothing to do with you. The young man I saw was sure the problem was with him.

It wasn't. It was first love and while he was ready to grow, his partner wasn't. That's life and it happens to most people (straight or gay). You pick yourself and move on. That means you don't slip (but if you do, you move on after) and fall back into a pattern because it's comfortable or because you're afraid you'll never find anyone else.

The thing you should do, if you're afraid of being alone, is ask yourself could you put up with this relationship for many years? Not if he or she changes, but if he or she stays the same? You probably can't. But those weeks, months or years that you do you will be taking yourself out of the game. If you are worried about ending up alone, the easiest way is to give your heart and time to someone who will not bring you happiness. You'll be alone in the 'relationship' and you'll find it harder to move on the longer you stay.

If you're gay or lesbian (or bi or trans), I'm not talking about coming out to your parents. (In fact, if they're paying your tuition and you don't think they'd be able to deal with your sexuality, it might be better to wait until college is over.) But if you're someone who kept your sexuality under wraps throughout high school, just being open with someone you fool around with isn't being who you are. Find a counselor, find a friend, but find someone that you can be out to, someone you're not having sex with.

Moving from sexuality, in college, a friend (who I haven't named here and won't name here) was someone who looked like she had it all. She would go out on dates but always ended it. Why? She had scars on her legs from a childhood accident and was convinced no guy would want her because of that. We had been in college for three years before she told anyone. She told C.I. after three years, when she'd broken up with a boyfriend and gotten drunk. (With alcohol or without, people always sought out C.I. for their problems.) I saw them engaged in a very intense conversation and thought (because I knew this pattern), "What's her big secret?" A few weeks later, she told Rebecca and me.

It was a few weeks later before we saw the scars and they weren't that bad. They'd gotten much smaller since childhood and I remember showing her my leg that I'd just shaved (and nicked badly) to back that up. Her fourth year was wonderful for her. But it takes sharing something to release it. You can't just hold it in. Maybe it's something exterior like a scar or maybe it's a part of you like your sexuality -- but whatever it is, you need to find a way to talk about it.

With good friends, you'll realize quickly that what you think everyone is focused on, they really aren't. Either it's no big deal to them or they're too focused on their own problems (which always seem more intense than what's going on outside them). That's a big part of college, discovering yourself and finding people you can share with.

The people you can share with, those are going to be the people you'll count on -- today and tomorrow. They may get on your nerves from time to time, but they will be there.

I get on Rebecca's anytime I call her before she's had morning cup of coffee -- her opening line is always, "Try to do somebody a godd*mn favor." That's an old joke. When we were in college, someone came over one night crying. She just wanted to sleep on the couch. She didn't want to talk. So we all go to sleep and an hour or so later, she wakes us all up. She wants to talk. But then she doesn't. This repeated twice more and the second time, C.I. said it to the woman in exasperation. So whenever we're irritated with one another, one of us will say that -- causing us to laugh and move on. (But Rebecca will tell you, she doesn't like to answer the phone before she's had her first cup of coffee and only does in case it's an emergency "even though I'm not a lawyer and not a doctor so I don't know what fire I'm supposed to be putting out!")

By the way, neither Rebecca nor myself was the person who played Liz Phair over and over.

"Surprise interview" (Mikey Likes It):
Mike: Okay, I asked Elaine to give me something and she said to ask about music. Specifically, Liz Phair and Aimee Mann.
C.I.: I know why she said that. I love Aimee Mann and have the CDs but I don't listen that often because her songs tend to stay in my head, I'm always humming them or singing them to myself. Today it was "That's Just What You Are." Liz Phair is the opposite. I pushed Exile in Guyville off on a friend. One of those, "You have to listen!" And when it doesn't happen, you end up holding the phone up to the speakers. The friend and I ended up making spur of the minute plans one July 4th. By this time she loved Phair's CD. I never travel on a holiday because of the traffic jams. But it was spur of the moment and "fun," she swore. We ended up stuck on an interstate for hours and the only thing she had was Phair. Over and over. Over and over. Hour after hour. I've never wanted to hear Liz Phair's Exile again after that. It's like a brand of chips that a group of us took to a rock festival years and years ago. I burned out on those chips, they were new at the time, and as we made our way back after something like thirty-six hours of music, I never wanted to see those chips again. I still don't. That's how I feel about Exile. I think Elaine paired them up because, in one case, you're dealing with something I will not listen to (Phair) and in the other you're dealing with something I love but don't listen to because it's already playing in my head.

That wasn't us. Rebecca and I were talking about the e-mails that we've both gotten on this. It wasn't us. (We do know who it was.)


"Iraq snapshot"("Democracy Now: Ann Wright, David Zeiger, Sir! No! Sir!, Michael Massing," The Common Ills):
Chaos and violence -- the only consistents.
As
noted by Amy Goodman on Democray Now!,yesterday in Iraq: "at least 40 people were killed in violence around the country. In Baghdad, 11 people were killed and nine wounded in a bombing near a Shiite mosque".
Reuters notes that General Ahmed Dawod was shot by assailants. The AFP notes the death of Ahmed Daoud as well ("Daoud" is their spelling) and lists him as "Baghdad's deputy police commissioner." The Associated Press notes that drive-by shootings in Baghdad resulted in at least nine deaths: "a college student, a police officer, two street vendors, a university professor, two taxi drivers, the owner of a grocerys tore and a builder". Along with the shootings, bombings continued. Reuters reports on one that went off where people were seeking "day labouring jobs." The AFP notes two other bombs that wounded at least 10 (targets were a minibus and Palestine Street). AFP notes the discovery of eleven corpses in Baghdad.
Outside of Baghdad? The
Associated Press notes an oil blaze on a pipelin "south of Baghdad" as a result of a bomb. "Near Baquba," Reuters reports that a convoy was attacked resulting in the death of two bodyguards working for a provincial council member. In Basra, the AFP reports "gunmen" attacked a "British armored patrol."
The
AFP reports that Nuri al-Maliki, who couldn't keep his own deadline and barely kept the constitutionally mandated deadline, now says that by this weekend he expects to fill the posts of defense, interior and national security.
In the United States,
Michael Rowland reports on the case of Sergeant Santos Cardona -- prosecutors are arguing Cardona's actions at Abu Ghraib resulted from a desire "for entertainment." The Associated Press reports that seven people were arrested at the Port of Olympia protesting in Olympia, Washington where "military vehicles" and convoys were "to be loaded onto a ship." Five are charged with "pedestrian interference," one with trespassing and the seventh "was arrested a day earlier." Sam Green, activist, is quoted as saying, "Everybody's a little terrified right now. We were doing what we thought was legal." Finally. Remember Donald Rumsfeld's annoying smirk and dismissing the looting in Iraq -- joking it was one vase shown over and over in a media loop? Evonne Coutros takes a look at the looting and speaks with Marine Col. Matthew Bogdanos who tells her that "almost 6,000 of the 14,000 known missing antiquites" have been recovered (Bogdanos has been working on the recovery since April 2003).


Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

Blog Spotlight: Mike on the mainstream's distortions of the immigration bill

Mike had a lot to say llast week and this was one of our favorite entries by him.
 

Iraq, Immigration, Dave Zirin on Barry Bonds & Babe Ruth, and Tom Hayden

Good evening, it's Thursday and almost a three day weekend! Let's kick it off with Democracy Now!

Iraq VP Calls For Withdrawal Timetable
Ahead of Bush-Blair MeetingIn Iraq, a top leader has renewed calls for President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair to set a timetable for the withdrawal of occupying troops.
Iraqi Vice President Tareq Al Hashemi: "Two days ago we spoke with Tony Blair about this issue and the fact that it is necessary that the U.S. and British administration should put a timetable for its troops withdrawal from Iraq. We have discussed this thoroughly and I convinced him of the necessity of announcing a timetable for the withdrawal of the occupying troops and told him frankly that Iraqis have a right to know when the last British or American soldier will leave Iraq."

Bush and Blair have long rejected setting withdrawal timetables and vowed to withdraw troops at their own discretion. The two leaders will meet today in Washington with Iraq expected to top the agenda.

We're not leaving. We'll have to be forced out. Bully Boy's too damn greedy. We're building bases and in all their business. There was no turning it over to an international body after Bully Boy's infamous Mission Accomplished speech three years ago. There's been no effort to operate by the rules for an occupying power. The only thing that will bring the troops home is the people, not politicians.


Senate Expected To Vote On Immigration Bill
The Senate has agreed to end debate on a controversial immigration bill, setting the stage for a vote likely to come today. The bill would heighten enforcement measures, establish a temporary guest worker program, punish employers who hire undocumented immigrants and open a route to citizenship for at least some undocumented immigrants. If passed, the Senate bill would have to be reconciled with the Sensenbrenner bill passed by the House in December. That bill focuses strictly on enforcement and would consider undocumented immigrants to be felons. It would also make it a crime for priests, nuns, health care workers and other social workers to offer help to undocumented immigrants.

And they did vote and they did pass it. If there's any justice it will die as the two houses try to hammer out something they can agree to because the bill is hideous. But you don't know that from reading the New York Times, do you? (See C.I.'s "NYT: Carl Hulse provides the primer on advocacy journalism.") If you're naive enough to still trust corporate media, you've been tricked about the Senate bill that the Times and others have praised to the roof. You can check out a discussion on it by click-clicking here and this is an excerpt:

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, even on the issue of legalization, as I understand the final version now, it would still call for only seven million of the eleven million people to get on the path immediately to citizenship and for another --
STAN MARK: Actually, our position is that it's more than 50% of people would be ineligible for legalization. I think some litigators and some people who have followed this much more closely, in terms of their past experiences with the litigation program from '86, predict about two to three million people who may get through the first level. As you know, there's a three-tier system. The first-tier system does allow people to, you know, eventually over a period of perhaps more than ten, fifteen years to actually get citizenship, and the first step, of course, to legalization. The second tier does not necessarily allow very many people to get through at all.
And, as a matter of fact, the third level actually creates a guest workers program, which we believe is tantamount to legalized slavery, as a famous official Department of Labor official, Lee G. Williams, in the early 1960s, heading the Department of Labor when the Bracero Program, the last major guest workers program that went through, was finally terminated, he called it, quote, "legalized slavery." And we believe that any type of guest workers programs that reinstitutes those types of provisions or those provisions instituting programs like the Bracero Program should be --
JUAN GONZALEZ: Am I correct in this also that those people who have been in the country a year or less would have to be deported?
STAN MARK: That's correct.

[. . .]
AMY GOODMAN: Why would a guest worker program be legalized slavery? What does it mean, a guest worker program?
STAN MARK: Well, in terms of -- most guest workers programs in the past have and, I think, would be perpetuated in any type of guest worker program today, the lack of -- the absolute control of the workplace by employers with the government-sanctioned program itself being put in place, people would have very little rights to move from job to job. Their ability to depend on employment would be tied to that type of job. They wouldn't be able to go from place to place. And historically these types of programs open them to the most -- make them most vulnerable to exploitation and really abuse by employers with very little avenues or options to get out of that kind of a situation.


I have no idea why the New York Times lies and doubt they even need a reason to most days. But I know being in California for that week and talking to people my age about why this issue mattered so much to them (for parents or grandparents or older siblings or themselves) made me pay attention. It's too damn bad that nothing could make the Times pay attention and feel ashamed of lying in editorial after editorial, article after article.

People's lives were at stake but all whores like the Times could see were dollar signs. From the Times on down, everyone who lied (or was an idiot spreading on lies the didn't know anything about) should be ashamed. The best thing has always been for this to die in Congress and I'm still hoping for that.

It's funny what gets accepted as "good" and what gets slammed as "bad." The Senate bill is accepted as "good." So is Babe Ruth. The one and only Dave Zirin tackles the image of Babe Ruth versus Barry Bonds in "Bonding With the Babe:"

Ruth's 714 home run record lacks the spit-shined purity his backers trumpet. The Sultan of Swat made his bones playing against only a select segment of the population because of the ban on players whose skin color ran brown to black. Ruth never had to hit against Negro League greats Satchel Paige or Lefty Mathis to amass the magic 714. Yet no asterisk for institutionalized racism mars the Babe's marks. Ruth also was a habitual user of a banned substance that was deemed unambiguously illegal by the federal government--a drug Ruth believed enhanced his performance: alcohol. Ruth was a star during the roaring prohibition 1920s, and as teammate Joe Dugan said, "Babe would go day and night, broads and booze."
But Ruth didn't just stop at the watering hole to find an edge. According to The Baseball Hall of Shame's Warped Record Book, by Bruce Nash, Allan Zullo and Bob Smith, the Bambino fell ill one year attempting to inject himself with extract from a sheep's testes. This effort by more than a few athletes of his era to seek the healing and strengthening properties of testosterone prefigured the craze for steroids. When Ruth fell ill from his attempted enhancement, the media was told that Ruth merely had "a bellyache." This was believable since Ruth was a glutton, famed for eating eighteen-egg omelets. The Sultan of Swat was also a glutton for women and violence, and he could be roused to fisticuffs if it was suggested, as it often was, that he was part black. The Babe's famous trade-out of Boston in 1920 was justified by Sox owner Harry Frazee by saying that Ruth was "one of the most selfish and inconsiderate athletes I have ever seen."
Of course in Ruth's day, without twenty-four-hour sports yipping and with sportswriting reduced to sonnets of heroism for a country weary after World War I, his flaws were essentially invisible to an adoring public. But Bonds's flaws are picked over, his every strikeout met with cheers by a herd of likeminded writers who who act more like the White House press corps than independent journalists.


Read it an think about how Bonds gets raked over the coals day after day but it's look the other way on Babe Ruth.

Because Irish-Americans stick together, here's Tom Hayden's "Why Jane Harman Should Be Challenged"

It's no secret that Harman is the center of Democratic friction. She was one of a handful of Congressmembers invited into the secret White House briefings on what has mushroomed into a major scandal: the launch of domestic spying by intelligence agencies without warrants.
The ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Harman promised the White House to keep secret what she heard at the meetings.
She could have been a whistleblower, but chose not to be.
She could have refused the unconditional promise of secrecy, but chose not to.
She could have resigned the secret committee without comment, letting her silence do the talking, but chose not to.

Seriously, read Tom Hayden's thing. (I'd say "Hayden" but I'm afraid someone might think I mean Michael Hayden.) He's smarter than most of us will ever be (especially me) and he's got something worth reading. (He really is Irish-American, by the way.)

C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

As Amy Goodman noted, Tareq Al Hashemi, vice president of Iraq, has called for "a timetable for the withdrawal of occupying troops" from Iraq. As Al Jazeera notes, Al Hashemi does not favor the notion of a set of conditions that would result in withdrawal of all foreign troops (US, British, et al) but instead favors a fixed date. The Irish Examiner reports that as Tony Blair and Bully Boy meet in DC, "the White House" has declared it "premature to talk about troop withdrawals."
This as
Free Speech Radio News reports the Inspector General of Iraq's Oil Ministry has noted "that one billion dollars of Iraq's oil is being illegally smuggled out of the country every month." On the topic of the Oil Ministry, Steve Negus reports that Hussein al-Shahristani, exile installed as oil minister, has declared "the central government should handle all contracts related to petroleum exploration and production, putting him on a potential collision course with the autonomous Kurdish region which has recently begun to develop its own oil resources." What Kurds may read as a power grab occurs as the occupied nation is still without a minister of interior or defense.
In England, Matthew Tempest reports for the Guardian that "
attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, has been forced into disclosing further information relating to his decision that an ivasion of Iraq would be lawful." Goldsmith issues one ruling and then another (that was already known), the report traces the change of opinion to March 13th and he would inform Blair of the change in opinion (that the illegal invasion would suddenly be legal). March 17, 2003 was then the UN failed to endorse the Bully Boy's war lust, March 20th would see the start of the illegal invasion.
A battle in Baghdad (yes, in Baghdad) resulted in at least three people dead from
"[t]he ambush of Brig Gen. Khalil al-Abadi, head of the Defense Ministry logistics office"
reports the Associated Press. Reuters notes several bombings taking place in Iraq -- one "planted inside a building wounded 13 people," another wounded two police officers in New Baghdad, and another injured two police officers on "patrol in northeastern Baghdad." Reuters also notes that four corpses were discovered throughout Baghdad ("torture . . . gunshot wounds in their heads").
The
AFP reports that two more corpses were discovered in Baquba while Reuters notes an additional three ("bullet gunshot wounds") near Tikrit and that, in Balad, "U.S. forces handed over five decomposed bodies to the hospital." The AFP reports that a judge (Walid Ahmed) has been kidnapped while "traveling on a highway between Saddam's hometown of Tikrit and the city of Samarra." Reuters notes that Ali Hisham and his son were kidnapped not far from Kirkuk (Hisham is "head of the Turkmen Front party in town of Tuz Khurmato"). A "nine-year-old girl" died in Kirkuk from a roadside bomb, the AFP notes. Meanwhile the BBC reports that, James Cook has been determined to be not guilty ("by a jury panel of seven senior officers in Cochester") in the death of Ahmed Jabber Kareem -- three remain on trial. In the United States, Robert Burns reports that Gen. Michael W. Hagee is headed for Iraq as a result of concerns over "two recent cases of alleged killings of civilians in Iraq."
Finally,
Reuters notes the Norwegian Refugee Council's report on Iraq:

Sectarian displacements received much attention in the mainstream world media in April 2006, yet equally large-scale population displacements caused by multiple military operations across the country have been largely unreported. Several hundred thousand people were displaced by military operations during 2005.




Now check out Cedric's Big Mix because Cedric and I picked out the news items from Democracy Now! together and are both blogging on them tonight. Check out Elaine's "Long but is there a topic? " (she's always off Thursdays but read her thing from yesterday if you missed it because it's really good). And thank you to Rebecca who stopped by here with a gift. (Dixie Chicks' The Long Way Home.) That was really nice. (Nicer was being able to sit and talk. Rebecca, you're friendship and time is always the best gift.)















How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

Blog Spotlight: Bully Boy Press and Cedric's Big Mix team up for a joint entry on the Bully Boy

We love joint posts -- demonstrates teamwork and solidity with the community.  Last week, Cedric and Wally teamed up for a joint post on Friday.  Here's "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY GOES 'WOOPS!'" and "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY GOES 'WOOPS!':"
 

THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY GOES 'WOOPS!'

BULLY BOY PRESS AND CEDRIC'S BIG MIX - DC.

THIS JUST IN!

BULLY BOY GOES 'WOOPS!'

SPEAKING IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL WITH LAP DOG AND HAND MAIDEN TONY BLAIR BESIDE HIM, BULLY BOY SAID WOOPS.

MAYBE SOME OF HIS 'TALK TOUGH' WASN'T SUCH A GOOD IDEA?

FOR INSTANCE, HE OFFERED, "I LEARNED SOME LESSONS ABOUT EXPRESSING MYSELF MAYBE IN A LITTLE MORE SOPHISTICATED MANNER, YOU KNOW. 'WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE', THAT KIND OF TALK. I THINK IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE WORLD IT WAS MISINTERPRED."

MUST CREDIT BULLY BOY PRESS AND CEDRIC'S BIG MIX:

BULLY BOY SLIPS TO 1% IN APPROVAL RATINGS!

THROUGH SCIENTIFIC POLLING (POLLING METHODS TAUGHT BY THE NEW YORK TIMES), BULLY BOY PRESS AND CEDRIC'S BIG MIX HAVE DISCOVERED THAT AMONG THOSE "CERTAIN PARTS OF THE WORLD" WHERE BULLY BOY WAS "MISINTERPRED" WAS THE UNITED STATES.

WHEN ASKED IF THEY BELIEVED THAT THE BULLY BOY'S STATEMENT OF OSAMA BIN LADEN MEANT BIN LADEN WAS "WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE,"
100 OF THE 100 POLLED RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ASKED IF THEY HAD ANY RESPECT FOR BULLY BOY, 99 OF THE 100 POLLED RESPONDED IN THE NEGATIVE. 1 RESPONDENT EXPRESSED APPROVAL FOR THE BULLY BOY. THE RESPONDENT ALSO EXPRESSED BELIEF IN SANTA CLAUSE, THE TOOTH FAIRY, THE EASTER BUNNY, WMD AND "REBA MCENTIRE'S GOOD NATURE."


IN A FOLLOW UP TO YESTERDAY'S "THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY AND BLAIR HAVE BEEN WHERE? " STRINGERS WERE SENT TO TIMES SQUARE TO CHECK THE VALIDITY OF WHITE HOUSE MOUTH PIECE TONY SNOW'S CLAIM THAT
"YOU KNOW, THERE AREN'T GOING TO BE PEOPLE KISSING IN TIME SQUARE TOMORROW."

STRINGERS RACHEL, MICAH, JONAH, DONA, JIM AND TY REPORTED THE SIGHTING OF AT LEAST 43 KISSES BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 11:00 AM AND 2:00 PM. AT LEAST ONE KISS INVOLVED TONGUE AND FOUR WERE SAME-SEX KISSES. NOT INCLUDED IN THE COUNT WAS A WOMAN WHO SPAT ON A TISSUE AND THEN USED THE TISSUE TO WIPE THE CHEEK OF A CHILD. FURTHER MORE, TWO STRINGERS, DONA AND JIM, WERE INSPIRED BY THE ACTIVITY TO ENGAGE IN "A LITTLE KISSING AND GROPING OF OUR OWN."

TO RECAP, TONY SNOW HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG.


Recommended: "And the war drags on . . . (Indymedia Roundup)"
"'Worse than Abu Ghraib' Thom Shanker, Eric Schmitt, Richard A. Oppel, Robert Burns & Thomas E. Ricks"
"Kat's Korner: Dixie Chicks Taking The Long Way home while NYT gets lost along the way"
"Iraq, Immigration, Dave Zirin on Barry Bonds & Babe Ruth, and Tom Hayden"
"flashpoints & ruth "
"Iraq, Norman Solomon, Immigration, Darfur, race "
 
 


Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Sunday, May 21, 2006

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --
Sunday. One of us, me, Jim, got sick early this morning. (Stomach flu?) And what was a nearly complete edition became another overly long session.

Highlights:

Music Spotlight: Kat's Korner: Springsteen's Seeger Sessions
Blog Spotlight: Rebecca with the latest on Ruth and on Elijah
UNICEF: 25% de los niños iraquíes padecen desnutricion
Blog Spotlight: Mike interviews C.I.
Blog Spotlight: Kat on two radio programs you should be checking out
Humor Spotlight: Betty on Thomas Friedman's Blonde Brain
Humor Spotlight: Wally on the do-as-I-say or as-he-meant-to-say Bully Boy
Humor Spotlight: Betty on Thomas Friedman's leather Prada pumps and tears
Humor Spotlight: Wally on Desperate Congress Members
Humor Spotlight: Attn Pat Robertson, Rebecca Winters has a warning
Recipe Spotlight: Cole slaw in the Kitchen

We thank everyone for allowing us to repost those entries. We had a huge problem with e-mailing them and had to go back to copying and pasting some (those are the ones without the annoying "Do you Yahoo!" message at the bottom). That was time consuming but we were so far ahead of schedule that we thought, "Oh who cares?" Then I got sick and we were delayed, which resulted in some planned highlights not being noted. Our apologies to those who weren't highlighted (Cedric, Elaine and C.I.).

Contributing to new content this edition were:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot.

Thank you to everyone.

New content?

"'We were all wrong!' Not so fast" Mike and C.I. brought up this idea. A lot of people who weren't wrong aren't getting the credit they deserve. We're hoping to do this at least once a month (if not more often) and then pull it all together for a longer list. The links take you to some interesting content. (Only one is mainstream, a CNN report.)

"Radio highlights for Sunday" we were pulling this together when I had to run off and throw up (the first time). They pulled it together without me and did so quickly. A rare thing: we note a cable program.

"Laura Flanders spoke with Penny Lang about the importance of music and much more" --
Flanders is back and last night she spoke with folk singer Penny Lang whom we wrongly billed as "Peggy" in the original title (it's been corrected). If you missed it, why!!!! We roughed this out in terms of quotes ahead of time but it was an entry we were intending to finalize later. Jess, C.I., Kat, Ava and Dona added musical information that wasn't on the program and really rounded out the entry. If you enjoy it more than you usually do our highlight of Flanders, credit them for that.

"Into the e-mails" was an attempt at a fast, quick entry. It ran a little longer than expected but still had us on target. (Thanks to Dona for insisting we make it the first thing we worked on.)

"Can an unindicted co-conspirator remain at the White House? Personally, I don't think so." The most recent news on Plamegate and a mini-primer if you've blanked on the story. (The mainstream media appears to have blanked.)

"Senate plays "Don't Spook the Spook" with Michael Hayden" -- thanks to Isaiah for allowing us to use his comic. This was something we were thinking of as a mini-roundtable but my illness left us with the only the rough draft of.

"TV Review: Will & Grace -- goodbye, good riddance" -- I think we all laughed and enjoyed the series. I know no one who enjoyed the finale. Ava and C.I. go beyond the "I hated it!" response I heard repeatedly on campus Friday. If you didn't enjoy it and haven't been able to quite figure out why, they provide the answer.

"Editorial: Here it comes, here it comes again" -- We'd pulled some articles to note. And that's basically it. It was very rough. I read that between groans after it went up and said to Dona, "Wow, we're really disagreeing with C.I." The points we're disagreeing with (about the media not really dropping Operation Happy Talk, just lowering the volume)? Dona said they were done with the editorial when C.I. said, "Wait a minute!" Those were C.I.'s points so C.I.'s disagreeing with C.I. (C.I. said the entry at The Common Ills is 'insta-analysis' done during a quick read through and that the points made here, the contrasting ones, are stronger.)

We'll see you next week.

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

Editorial: Here it comes, here it comes again

Have you ever felt the sound of disappointment?
It pounds in your head like hammer blows.
Comes on gentle and smiling
And it likes to leave a scar.
-- "Here Comes That Sinking Feeling," written by Dave Stewart and Annie Lennox, on Eurythmics' Be Yourself Tonight

What's it mean when even the usually compliant press can't outright pimp another wave of Operation Happy Talk for the Bully Boy? Maybe that the whole farce has been exposed?

We've been told that a change was coming, a corner about to be turned (or turned!) so many times that even the press has grown immune to the minute cosmetic changes made an attempt to hide the realities on the ground of the illegal occupation.

Having missed his own self-imposed deadline, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki couldn't miss the constitutionally imposed deadline (tomorrow) to get his cabinet together. So he got it together.
Kind of, sort of. If getting the cabinet together means leaving posts vacant.

From "Iraq Gets New Government as Bombs Kill 24" (Reuters via Truth Out):

Iraq's parliament finally approved a new national unity government on Saturday, ending months of deadlock as bomb attacks that killed 24 people served a grim reminder of the security challenges it will face.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's cabinet was approved by a show of hands, minister by minister, after a turbulent start to the parliamentary session, when some minority Sunni leaders spoke out against the last-minute deal and several walked out.
Eleventh-hour battles over the key posts of interior and defense left those jobs vacant for now, filled respectively by Maliki, a tough-talking Shi'ite Islamist, and his Sunni deputy premier, Salam al-Zobaie.


Or take this news of Sunday in Baghdad "Bomber Kills 12 in Baghdad Restaurant" (Associated Press):

A suicide bomber killed at least 12 people and injured 14 after detonating his explosive vest inside a downtown Baghdad restaurant popular with police officers, police said.

B-b-but, they just formalized their cabinet!

And it doesn't mean a damn thing's changed.

A lack of cabinet was as unimportant to reality as people waving blue fingers at the cameras. The occupation is the problem. An illegal war led to an illegal occupation where oil fields can garner protection but the people are on their own. Actually, the occupation has alternated leaving them alone with attacking them. Attempting to decimate the unions, attempts to destroy the food subsidies programs, no urgency to address the very real problems of a lack of potable water . . .

But there was time for the occupying powers to court corporations, to hold trade conventions, to install exiles into powerful positions as though anyone who lived in Iraq and stayed in Iraq lacked the competency for leadership.

As one exile after another came to power, it's no surprise that the occupying power's puppet government had little legitamcy (or does now). Just as Iraqis weren't judged comptent enough to rebuild their country (contracts went to foreign companies), they weren't judged competent enough to lead.

But Bully Boy & co. want to wonder why the Iraqis haven't gotten on board with their plan -- "their plan" meaning the American administration's plan.

As Iraqis continue to flee their own country, we're left with reports (applauded by some) stating the known and the obvious -- such as the fact that Bully Boy's 'plans' didn't include the needed training for police officers. Applauding that crap (which runs in this morning's New York Times) is like applauding the nonsense as anything coming out of the Bully Boy's mouth.

The corpses turning up didn't just pop up. They were part of the "Salvadorian option" the adminstration began speaking of in 2004. This nonsense about front paging that Bully Boy didn't plan for the security 'after the war' ignores the reality that the war was built on lies and ignores the realities of who is killing whom.

The mainstream press may be too smart to once again spin the wave of Operation Happy Talk in terms of turned corner -- but what they offer is dickering attempting to pass for real critiques and real explorations.

It's not. If you got a $750 utility bill, wondering if you should switch to a soft light bulb isn't addressing the problem. It's a smoke screen that pushes the spotlight elsewhere.

Which is what the mainstream press does today. Still refusing to acknowledge the illegal nature of the war, still refusing to acknowledge the illegal nature of the occupation and still refusing to acknowledge the lies that got us into war (and acknowledge them as lies).

What they dole out today is small portions of reality, just enough to make readers think the press has woken up. They haven't. Consider it Operation Semi-Happy Talk -- we now know (in the fourth year of the invasion) what we did wrong! We can fix it!

Considering that every "fix" (including the original one -- the invasion) has only made things worse, the current press coverage doesn't strike us as reality. An approximation perhaps, but not reality.


"UNICEF: 25% of Iraqi Children Suffer Malnutrition" (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, a survey carried out by the Iraqi government and UNICEF has concluded a quarter of all Iraqi children suffer from malnutrition.

TV Review: Will & Grace -- goodbye, good riddance

Thursday night, NBC's Will & Grace ended its eighth season and its series run.

For us, the funniest plot revolved around Rosario (Shelley Morrison) and Val (regular guest-star Molly Shannon). Having fought Grace, stalked Jack and been knocked out by Karen, it was past time Val set her eyes on Rosario.

"Hey, Nutso!" Rosario cried catching Val watching her wax the floors of Karen's mansion, "if you get off on household fluids, go stalk Mr. Clean!"

Of course Val did no such thing, but she did provide Rosario with a scheme to oust Karen (Megan Mullally) from the manse and make it her own. It was hilarious, and a long time coming, to see Rosario get the upper hand.

Meanwhile, Grace's water broke just as Leo (Harry Connick, Jr.) showed up and learned he was the father of the baby. Accompanying Grace (Deborah Messing) and Will (Eric McCormack) to the hospital and listening to them bicker throughout the labor, he finally had to face the reality that, while there was a place for him in Grace's life, the friendship bond between Will and Grace will never fade or die.

Jack rediscovered the joys of performing when a recently out of the closet Harlin (Gary Grubbs) returned to announce he's purchased a legitimate theater on Broadway which will be where Just Jack: 2010 will debut. "Oh my God," Jack will realize, "that only leaves me four years to pull my act together!"

Best line in the subplot was probably when Harlin explained to Jack why it took so long for him to realize his own sexuality, "I'm from Texas, Jack. We watch a lot of football. Took me forever to realize it wasn't the cries of 'Hut one! Hut two!' that were getting me excited. It was the the buns in the air on the guy crouched over --"

"That's great," Jack replied. "Now about my revue. I see sequins. I think it's important to sparkle when I move."

Which leads him to recruit Bobbie Adler (Debbie Reynolds) to help him with arrangements and choreography -- a post she readily accepts because she's determined to sabotage the production in order to take the lead in her own show Menopause or The Men All Paused: Bobbie Adler's Salute to Rocking Pop Classics of the '80s and Life Changes.

Best of all may be the moment when Rob (Tom Gallop) and Ellen (Leigh Allyn Baker) put Leo straight: Will and Grace and Leo, without the buffer zone of Will, is just Rob and Ellen.

"Long term marriage without the sex," Ellen explained.

"Long term marriage without the sex, Leo," Rob confirmed nodding agreeably.

"That's what I just said, Rob!" Ellen snarls at her husband.

It was hilarious. It wrapped up threads and points you might have feared were forgotten.

It was a classic series finale . . . if, like us, you provided your own finale.

If, however, you merely watched the two hours on NBC (one hour of tribute, one hour of show), you should probably immediately head for the nearest police station -- you were robbed.

You were robbed of laughter, you were robbed of joy.

Someone thought that instead of wrapping up details, we need an "experience." Despite having an hour, the laughs were in short supply -- but then when you time travel forward over eighteen years offering "experience" there's so little time for anything else.

You read that correctly. Will & Grace, the show that could utilize multiple minutes with the game of Hate Her/Love Her (where Will and Grace flipped through a magazine noting celebrities) suddenly decided it really needed to say something.

What it had to say wasn't funny and, hate to break it to them, it wasn't worth hearing.

We expect to hear from friends involved with the show about this review. If the critique hurts, consider the pain you inflicted on the viewers with that finale and accept the review as payback.

What was the heart of the show? Will & Grace, their friendship. Early on in the finale, that's destroyed. But, good news!, in two years time they make up! Of course, with the good comes the bad -- basically the full hour episode -- which is they then avoid each other for about fifteen years.

This is an ode to friendship?

This wasn't about fate -- a concept the cynical Will & Grace would normally sneer at before a half-hour episode's end -- it was saying that the friendship was too intense and needed a long rest. That was the message from beginning to end of the finale, belabored, underlined, highlighted and spelled out. If Grace hadn't broken with Will, she never would have been happy! Nor would he!

So we ask you, dear readers, are you unhappy?

A little or a lot?

Maybe you're just bored?

Well, look to the person nearest and dearest. That friend, the one that you think has helped pull you through? No, no, no, he or she has pulled you down. For years. And years. You must break with him or her.

Considering that we're talking about a show with two gay characters (and Karen), Will & Grace has seldom had anything to say about or to a community. What it has offered is the importance of friendship. It spits on that concept with the finale. The message is, if Will and Grace had moved out on each other sooner (and stopped being friends), they would have actually gotten on with their lives.

Maybe that message seems familiar? If it does, it's probably because the show has floated it before. As early as Jack and Rosario's wedding (season one finale), Will and Grace were splitting up. That moment repeated throughout the life of the show. But the thing was, the characters, all of them, knew that wasn't reality. Reality was that Grace could never make up her mind about men. (She was breaking up with Ben until he beat her to it and suddenly she had to have him. That's the basic Grace storyline throughout the show.) Reality is that Will couldn't have a successful relationship because NBC worried that gay love scenes would freak out viewers.

This is the post-Ellen show. And it did very little for gays and lesbians by comparison. Ellen ended with a roar. Will & Grace came along with the producers repeatedly belaboring that they weren't Ellen. And they weren't. They had to have many years of ratings success before they'd finally attempt a same-sex kiss that wasn't played for laughs. Will & Grace was some sort of regressive Hokey Pokey television program, you take two steps back and inch your big toe forward, you take three steps back and . . .

But on the show, we were supposed to believe that Will's relationships died because he was too controlling. For most of the series, we were told that and not shown it because the men were all offscreen (such as Michael) or the romantic/sex scenes happened out of camera range (which is also true of the bulk of Jack's love life as well).

As early as the show's seventh episode, Grace was blaming Will for the state of her romantic life.
Season two had them encountering the bitter, angry Joseph and Sharon -- a possible fate that awaited them both. This happened repeatedly, these warnings, and always the characters rejected it. The characters, like the audience, understood the importance of friendship. A full hour and over eighteen years to cover might have seemed like the perfect time for a 'life lesson' to the producers, but it spat on the audience who made this show a hit by embracing 'the destructive power of friendship' message as the show faded to black.

Until the last episode, the jokes were always there, the timing was always there and it was all built on the bedrock of the two main characters' friendship. On the finale, they decide to pull the rug out from under the audience.

What falls to the floor is their own understanding of what made the show a hit.

Refuting everything the show's endorsed didn't leave them any time to be funny. If, like us, you see the episode as one producer's attempt to demonstrate that he and his own Grace couldn't cut it as friends, but that doesn't mean they weren't important to each other, you may wonder why he can't grasp what the audience long had -- Will & Grace left the world of mortals some time ago.

No one needed someone's sorry reality to go out on. No one watching needed to wipe some bitter producer's spit off their face. Will and Grace surpassed their prototypes years ago (probably somewhere around the taping of the first episode), to drag them back down to someone's ugly reality wasn't funny, wasn't entertaining and wasn't worth watching.

Ty says we (Ava and C.I.) got a number of e-mails on Friday complaining that last week we didn't tell readers the character of Eric was returning for the final episode of the other Thursday night finale. We didn't. We told you that That 70s Show paid up the debt to the viewers. We hinted several times. But they were attempting to keep Topher Grace's return a secret so we weren't going to spoil it.

Normally, we'd stand by that decision. However, having watched as puke was hurled from the screen on NBC, we think now that maybe we should have headlined that piece, "Watch That 70s Show season finale -- Topher Grace returns!" The surprise we may have spoiled for some would have been minimal compared to the damage Will & Grace did to its loyal viewers in the lousy, disgraceful finale.

The only good thing about the ending is we don't have to fear Will & Grace: The Reunion. Not just because the earliest they could do an update is about twenty years from now. But also because, who the hell would want to watch? In one hour, they destroyed all the good will they'd built up.

The thing with actors in comedy roles is that they some times get a little itchy for 'drama' to prove to everyone they can 'act.' Possibly that's why the actors didn't scream when they got the script? They should have screamed. They should have said no. The network couldn't. It was the final episode, they had no say other than to air or not air (they shouldn't have aired it, or else burned it off during the summer). The actors were the audience's last line of defense and they failed the audience.

Friday, friends started calling to ask "What the hell was that?" Good question. Hope no one involved with the show is dreaming Emmy wins because most of the people who would normally vote for the show and its team are pretty disgusted with the sh*t that made it on air -- maybe that'll fade by nomination time but right now the mood is disgusted.

It had nothing to do with the characters or with the audience, it had to do with one drama queen (with a St. Elmo's Fire fetish) wanting to work through their own personal issues. As a friend in programming said, "That's what therapy's for."

If you missed the finale (consider yourself lucky) but watched at other times, let's explain to you what you were spared. Having already had a dream sequence (that was actually funny) where the characters aged, you might have thought makeup wouldn't be overly taxed for the rest of the episode but you'd be wrong. We had to see three attractive performers "aged." (Three because the joke for the character Karen was that she avoided aging through repeated surgery -- the same joke they trotted out in the dream sequence.)

Deborah Messing, if you really look that way in 20 years, avoid the cameras. Really, no one needs to see that. And the thing is, these days most people don't see that. Not because of plastic surgery (though that helps some people) but because the boomer generation broke the concept of what middle aged looks like. But not on this show. On this show, finding the characters in the near future means finding them fat, tired and ugly. Which, by the way, wasn't played for laughs.

Now when you're sleek, shiny and pretty much all surface (Will & Grace was) appearance matters. The show that never wanted to say anything that couldn't be prefaced with a pop cultural reference suddenly had a "message." The message was that when a gay man and straight woman are friends, they will always stand in the way of each other's happiness and only by ending the friendship (sixteen years is ending, not a "break") can happiness be brought about. It's an ugly message and a bit like The Andy Griffith Show deciding to go out with a hard hitting look at police abuse. It was unneeded and unwanted.

Val? If you're wondering, she wasn't on. Nor Rob or Ellen. Who has the time to provide characters the audience loved, let alone laughs, when you've want to preach the sort of hate that usually comes out of Jerry Falwell's mouth?

Sure, Will kissed a homophobe in a hospital (don't ask, it wasn't funny, it was just preachy -- the whole hour played as though everyone had just graduated from some right-wing divinity school). But the real message was -- and Falwell, Dobson, et al can take comfort in this -- a friendship between gay and straight only brings misery. We've gone beyond the stereotpye that gays will lead unhappy lives to a new one that says not only are they prone to unhappiness (such as breaking off friendships), but they're bound and determined to drag down every straight person who befriends them.

The producers were right the first year when they told Entertainment Weekly that they weren't making Ellen. Where that show (with the coming out) offered a look that went beyond the stereotypical, Will & Grace didn't. If the same-sex possibilites (largely off screen) bothered you too much, you only had to wait a moment or two before Karen was using some stereotypical insult for gays and lesbians. Or maybe Jack would launch into yet another attack on lesbians -- fun for lesbian-haters of all orientations!

A braver show on friendship, Sex in the City, didn't feel the need to trash friendship as they offered up their final episode. Detractors may argue that Karen and Jack demonstrated the counter-opinion -- that a straight and gay could be friends and helpful to one another. Anyone making that argument has a very elastic concept of straight considering Karen's sexual history.

So here's what happened. You spent eight seasons celebrating friendship only to learn in the last episode that, indeed, the friendship held the main characters back, prevented them from living.
It's an ugly message and it's really too bad Will & Grace bothered to come back from the nonsense (and laugh killer) of Grace as fashion plate. They did come back from that. But now our attitude is why did they even bother? Over a year ago, we wrote "We Will Miss Will & Grace." The last episode made letting go so easy.

It also made us fear tonight's finale, another show going off after eight seasons. We worry that if we watch the final episode of Charmed, we'll be informed that Piper could have had joy, happiness and non-stop good times if only she hadn't been held back by those two sisters (Phoebe and Paige currently; Phoebe and Pru originally). If Will & Grace can use the last episode to destroy all they stood for, sky's the limit for the super natural sisters of Charmed.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }