Rebecca was on a hot streak this week and we pretty much wanted to post everyone of her entries. But C.I. made the case for this one because it spotlights one of Rebecca's readers, it's a young voice and their accomplishments need to be recognized, and the young woman spoke truth this week when others regularly take a pass. With that kind of an argument, we were all on board.
That said, if you don't regularly read Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, you're missing a lot including a very strong week for Rebecca. As Rebecca notes, we have a book by Robert Parry in this week's book discussion.
"goldie and ruth and robert parry"
it's the weekend. i'm here. i'm not sure what to think of saturday blogging. i intended to do it 2 saturdays and then determine what i wanted to do.
i'm going to go ahead and carry it through the month and then decide.
with the reach out i'm doing to attempt to stop the confirmation of alito, there are honestly evenings when i'm too tired. and after 3 or so hours talking about alito, the last thing i want to do is write about him.
(though note, my position on alito is known. i don't shy from expressing it.)
i'm going to note robert parry's "Is Bush Leveling With America?:"
George W. Bush is winning praise from the major U.S. news media for finally leveling with the American people about the difficulties in Iraq. But Bush is still making many of the same false or fuzzy assertions that guided the United States through the first 1,000 days of war.
By refusing to correct or discard these fallacies in four recent speeches and in other comments on Iraq, Bush seems to be holding to an unrealistic course that will lead to an ever-lengthening list of dead American soldiers and Iraqis.
For instance, one of Bush’s favorite arguments continues to be that the U.S. invasion was justified by the goal of imposing democracy on Iraq because "democracies are peaceful countries" -- and, therefore, presumably an Iraq with democratic institutions should become peaceful.The internal contradiction of this rationale -- from the leader of "the world’s preeminent democracy" which invaded Iraq in 2003 under false premises -- goes unnoticed by the U.S. press corps even though it watched the invasion unfold. In an Orwellian fashion, the news media accepts that Bush’s going to war was evidence of his peaceful intent.
Bush’s notion that democracies are intrinsically "peaceful" is also not supported by history. Democracies as diverse as the United States, France, Great Britain and India have fought wars against neighbors, in colonial possessions or in nations far away -- Vietnam, Mexico, Algeria, South Africa, the Philippines, Cuba and Kashmir, to name a few.
The United States and other powerful democracies also have supported proxy wars in even a longer list of countries. U.S. interventions of various types have touched nearly every country in Latin America and many of the islands of the Caribbean Sea.
War Hysteria Democracies also have shown themselves to be no more immune from war fever than autocratic states, as was demonstrated by the war hysteria that swept the United States in late 2002 and early 2003.
As Bush's supporters poured French wine into gutters and ran trucks over Dixie Chicks CDs, the U.S. political debate was drowned out by full-throated calls for invading Iraq. Skeptics were largely silenced, often excluded from the major media. Constitutional checks and balances did nothing to slow Bush’s rush to war.
consider that your set up to tomorrow's third estate sunday review because 1 of the books we are going to be discussing is robert parry's fooling america.that is an important book to me. it's 1 that i've given to friends over the years at christmas time. (i've also given robert parry's other books and enjoy them all but i think this book is overlooked in terms of the other books he's written because when i meet people who've read parry, more often than not, they've never heard of this book.)
the holidays are upon us and many people will gather for new year's eve. when you're around people, i hope you're discussing things that matter. i know my high school readers are taking these conversations into their class rooms. i am glad and i am proud.goldie e-mailed. she's 15. she's a regular reader. and she's either enjoying her winter break or about to be. she said she takes the issues raised by all of us in the common ills community to her classes. she takes them into the hallways on breaks. she takes them to lunch period.goldie wrote that i encourage her. no, goldie, you encourage me. you fill with me awe. you're carrying your weight and then some at a time when so many adults are acting like children, you've got a little more on your mind than junk.
goldie credits her mother with getting her to care about the world. she writes that her mother 'is an inspiration' and she must be to have raised such a wonderful, caring and committed young woman.
goldie read what c.i. wrote about talking about the war this week and making it an issue with the people around her and she wanted to comment on it but writes that she wasn't sure she'd sound smart enough.
goldie is more than smart enough and i'll share her comments here. i already shared them with c.i. over the phone this morning and c.i. echoes that goldie, so don't hesitate to share.
1) 'i am already bringing up the war on a regular basis and i read that and thought, "i'm doing all i can do." i was wrong. the plea or challenge forced me to leave the usual groups of people and raise the issue with others. i am really glad i did. a year ago, there was a group of kids in my school that i totally wrote off thinking they just didn't get it. a year ago that was true but today it is not.'
2) 'with people who still do not get it, after i raised the issue with them, i felt good about myself. maybe they haven't been forced to think about but i raised that issue and if they shot me down, some did, they had to deal with the issue for that moment.'
3) 'i had no idea that the mood in my school was so against the war. i told you i read the common ills religiously and that i'm kind of intimidated. my mouth dropped when a girl told me she was so glad i was talking to her about the war because she heard me talking about it in classes all the time and always wanted to say something to me but felt like she wasn't "smart" like me. she is very smart and the sharing we did was probably the best conversation i had. i also ended up with a new friend.'
i hope others talked about the war this week. if you're some 1 like goldie who raises the issue regularly, i hope that, like goldie, you found a way to do even more this week.
we really need to be using our power.
bully boy is addressing the nation tomorrow.
aren't we honored? don't we feel lucky?
he's only speaking because there is shock over his authorizing the nsa to spy on americans. he's in damage control.
but people are waking up to reality.i want to note ruth's morning edition report because it is as a must read as always. i love ruth. she's compared me to her friend treva before and i take that as a huge compliment.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Blog Spotlight: Cedric takes a look at megachurches and a megabully
One of the best things about having various people in the community run their own sites is that you can get a variety of takes. For instance, Cedric regularly addresses chuches and religion. Kat addresses music. Wally provides a jot of some key point. Seth brings several perspectives and topics to his site. We could go on, but we think we've made our point. We'll make one more point. Cedric's trying for a conclusion to his latest entry. He had hoped to finish it on breaks from helping with this edition. It will go up today and we told him quit worrying about links because he's still got to put more of those in. But you need to read his latest today and we will be spotlighting it next week.
"Megachurches and a megabully"
It's been a busy week so there's not been time to post or to remove a link until now. All week I kept thinking, "Tonight."
Tonight, we'll be at Three Cool Old Guys' nursing home. This is the first time we'll be trying out the Christmas program. We've also had to figure out which six songs to sing in church Christmas Day because since some megachurches seem to think you don't celeberate Jesus Christ's birthday in church, we got told we should add some more songs because we're expecting a few more people than usual. The Sunday school classes have been working on a play too. It's about the first Christmas, of course. The older kids have been working on sets and costumes and it's going to be the littlest ones playing the parts so that should be really nice. Our preacher's got a sermon he's working on and he always does a great Christmas one but with the news that some churches won't be having a service, he's really trying to make this one even better.
If you didn't hear about that, the McChurches decided Sunday's a day to close shop. They're sending out DVDs that people can watch at home instead of coming to church. I really don't get why a church would think a Sunday was a day they needed to close shop.
One woman who used to go to our church hinted to her aunt that she was interested in attending Christmas Day. She felt nervous because she left our church for a McChurch. They had stuff that she felt was important. I guess a bowling alley or a basketball court or something. But she didn't have to sound off. People are always welcome at our church and especially on Christmas Day. No one would have thought anything except maybe that she was celebrating Christmas with her aunt and that's why she and her kids were there.
Maybe I'm a Scrooge here but I never thought Jesus was concerned about whether or not your church had a game room. I did assume that he was concerned whether you met on Sunday or not.
But maybe when you're in one of those megachurches where you don't know each other, it's easy to skip a Christmas Sunday and so they figured they'd save some money on the electric bill?If you think I'm coming off flippant, you're right. I am really bothered by that and the message it sends. Both my grandmothers never made Sunday school if it fell on a Christmas Day because they were busy getting the big lunch ready but they did show up for the service. I've also know people who couldn't make it on Christmas Day for different reasons and that's cool. But isn't the point to know that each Sunday the church is there?
And what about people who travel? We used to go on a road trips a bit when I was a kid and on a Sunday, my dad would always look for a church and we'd go in there. What if someone sees a McChurch and they get excited and run up the steps only to find that the doors are locked?
So that bothers me.Here's another thing that bothers me. Pop Politics. I've pulled their link.
If you missed it, Kat wrote about people leaving comments on one post there were just dogging this one guy. And she also quoted me. I thought the guy who wrote the original post made a bad link between rap and Dylan. Now, I understand from Jess that they maintain they weren't suggestiong a link. Like when Bully Boy says "Iraq" and "9/11" in the same speech or sentence, he's not implying a relationship either? That's nonsense.
And it was nonsense that the guy Bernie tried to force Kat into correcting her opinion. First off, the only opinion offered (other than that people CAN have whatever opinion they want) was my opinion. And even though she provided a link to my site and clearly showed what I said, he didn't have the guts to demand I correct my comments. Instead, he just wanted to try to force a woman into making a correction. What a big man, huh?
So that could have been the end of it. Kat replied to his e-mail saying, "Write what you want and I'll post it at my site." But that wasn't the end of it. His boss had to come along and imply that Bernie was a better writer than Kat. Again, that's not what she says she said. But it was up there for anyone to see and everyone saw it. (Including Three Cool Old Guys who got a copy and paste e-mailed to them.)
So when she did that, and you read it right, "she." A "she" felt the need to say Kat couldn't write as well as her boy. And "she" wants to be considered a feminist. But I guess that was already a question after she was okay with him trying to force Kat to change her words.
So we did a roundtable on that and we did an editorial about adults who were too scared to write about the war. And then Sunday morning as we were ready to post, we had to stop. She went whining to C.I. C.I. writes her back in this long e-mail, I haven't seen it but we were waiting three hours because C.I. was trying to be fair the way C.I. always does.
I learn from Jess that she claims Sunday night she never got the e-mail so C.I. had to write her again. But she said she wanted "peace."
First thing she writes on Monday, Jess reads it, and she's just slamming Kat all over again. This is how she gets peace?
She keeps writing over and over and Jess said it didn't read like it was friendly e-mail. C.I. had told her that we contacted Ryan. That's the guy who was being dogged, the whole reason Kat wrote to begin with. She was really getting on Jess' nerves writing all the time.
So Jess didn't even reply. Then Monday Ava sees the thing where the woman still can't do her own work. Jess and C.I. have explained how Ryan was found via a google search. But that's not good enough for the woman who needs everything handed to her I guess. They went over how to find him in an entry at The Common Ills. But she's too lazy to do her own work.
I won't say busy since she had enough time to e-mail over and over.
So Ava writes Ryan and tells him that now she's claiming her e-mail to him got bounced back and can she give out Ryan's e-mail to her. Ryan writes Ava back and tells her to forward the thing to her.
Which Ava does with, and I did read this, the most dry e-mail in the world. Ava's aunt doesn't trust the woman and told Ava not to form any kind of relationship with her. So Ava writes her in this dry e-mail and the woman writes Ava back screaming at Ava in a "what's your problem!" e-mail. And still slamming Kat, according to Jess.Ava replies in a dry e-mail.
Remember this is all going on while the woman supposedly wants "peace."C.I.'s telling Jess and Ava, "Don't read her if she's upsetting you. I'm not reading her, you don't have to read her. We've replied to her. We'll just ignore her and see if the peace offer was sincere or not."
Then Tuesday evening or afternoon, Eddie e-mails to The Third Estate Sunday Review and to C.I. that this so-called peace includes the woman delinking from The Common Ills.
As Jess said, the woman wrote over and over and over. Everytime he went into the public e-mail account for The Common Ills, there was another e-mail from the woman. "It was like she was spoiling for a fight," Jess said. But in all those e-mails, it never occurred to her to say, "I delinked from you."
She had time, over and over, to run down Kat. That's all she really seemed to want to do, to gripe and scream and trash Kat.
And on top of this, she writes Ryan and calls the e-mail an "apology" in the title of the e-mail but all she does there is trash Kat and then, at the end, write, "I'm sorry you won't be visiting Pop Politics again." That was her apology? Why did she even write the guy. It really ticked off him and his wife. (Mike has the interview on that.)
So Jim calls Jess and asks if Jess has seen Eddie's e-mail? Jess hasn't but gets into The Common Ills members account and there it is.Like Jess said, she screamed, she griped, she couldn't stop trashing Kat all while claiming she wanted peace, the woman's name is Christine something, and though she e-mailed over and over Monday and Tuesday she never once says, "I'm delinking."
So that was it. It was obvious that there was no desire for peace.
It was all about, "I don't want people to know I say I'm a feminist but I trashed a woman at my site and compared her to a man while implying that she wasn't as good as a man. And I don't want people to know that as the boss of Pop Politics, I was okay with a man trying to force Kat to correct her opinion and that he wanted the correction passed off not as his comment but as if the thought just occurred to Kat herself."
Well I guess she wouldn't want people to know about that. I also bet she wouldn't want people to know that while on her site she acted like Ryan was treated poorly by the people leaving comments and that she didn't support that, when she herself writes Ryan she's rude to him and never once says anything about the way he was treated. She's too busy attacking Kat yet again.
And the best so-called feminist can do apology wise to Ryan is to say, "Sorry you won't be visiting Pop Politics anymore."
Wally's trying to figure out how to write about this instead of just linking. He doesn't want to upset C.I. C.I.'s not mentioning it at The Common Ills or hasn't so far. I told Wally that C.I. always tells us to write what we want at our sites.
C.I. says that and C.I. means that. If C.I. doesn't like something, C.I. just avoids it.
The way C.I.'s avoiding Christine now.
C.I.'s not going to be mad at me or Wally or anyone for writing what we think. C.I. knows that we CAN have opinions. Christine's the one who has a heart attack and explodes when anyone has an opinion she doesn't agree with.
I won't be quiet on this. It wasn't right what happened. It wasn't right that after Christine started saying she wanted peace, she keeps attacking Kat, she bites Ryan's head off in an "apology," and she screams at Ava in an e-mail. Christine needs to get a grip.
Is she too scared to write about the war? I don't think she is. I think when you trash people who speak out, Kat, Bright Eyes for "When A President Talks To God," go down the list, then it's clear where you are on the war. You support it. If you didn't, you'd say so. You've got time to write about every dopey TV show in the world.
Three years is coming up, three years of a war, and she can't weigh in on that. If she can't find her voice, people will have to go by her actions.
And I don't know what kind of feminist links to and promotes a magazine that wishes harm, violent harm, on Arudhati Roy?
So I think we have our answer. If it's the wrong answer, she needs to find her voice on the war.
And if she has any common sense or decency, she needs to offer Ryan a true apology. Not a lecture, not a thing on how awful a writer she thinks Kat is or how wrong she thinks Kat was.
By the way, Bernie and Christine have a problem that Kat didn't address Bernie's opinion. While he's demanding a correction, they're bothered that Kat focused on the comments and not the writing of Bernie. Is that not something?
So I delinked from Pop Politics. It was a bad site anyway.
The only reason I linked to begin with was because C.I. had asked us all to link to it. C.I. was trying to be supportive to Christine because she wasn't doing Ms. Musing anymore and she was depressed and trying to make Pop Politics into something. There's a guy there who had a thing on Bob Woodward that was worth reading. And Wally liked the sports. There was a woman who wrote seriously about issues and discrimination that transgendered persons face. But there was just a bunch of nonsense that wouldn't cut it as good conversation in a junior high cafeteria.
She's like a cheerleader for the mediocre. She can't write about the war but she can write about any medicore TV show.
So the link's gone and we're all the better for it. If she is pro-war, that certainly explains why her "peace" offer wasn't sincere. But, my opinion, it was never sincere. She just knew she had embarrassed herself and wanted to try to keep people from finding out. That's why she continued to attack Kat every chance she could grab after she initiated her "peace."
By the way, if she'd just taken the high road the way C.I. tried to, she wouldn't have the mess on her hands she does. C.I. didn't post about Bernie's demand of a correction. C.I. didn't even post about the fact that while demanding a correction from Kat, Bernie quotes her at Pop Politics and gets the quote wrong. He drops out a word and changes another one. And this is while he's demanding a correction? And at Pop Politics, you had no idea of how rude Bernie was to Kat and how he ran her down as stupid. He saves that for the private e-mail. So when Kat told C.I. about the second e-mail from Bernie, C.I. was already "bothered" and then Christine goes and posts, in reply to Maria, that Bernie only posted at Pop Politics because Kat doesn't have comments at her site so he couldn't get his say any other way. Which is a lie. And it's a lie because Bernie was demanding a correction. And it's a lie because Christine knows about it.
If she had just waited to see if Bernie and Kat could work out some understanding, if she'd stayed out of it, the way C.I. was doing, none of this would have happened. But she can't pass a chance to slam Kat and that comment showed it. She made the mess, she has to live with it.
She can scream at C.I. or Ava, at Ryan or Jess, but it's her mess and it's her problem.
And being okay with a man demanding a correction of a woman's opinion, especially when I'm the one commenting on Bernie in Kat's original post and Bernie was too scared to take it up with man but okay with trying to bully a woman, isn't feminism. She can claim it if she wants, but her behavior speaks louder than her words. And much louder than her words on really bad TV shows that she gushes over. But she couldn't stop focusing on Kat and start trying to figure ou what she created this whole mess in the first place.
I'll be posting before Christmas, but we're trying to really focus on getting our program together.
Happy holidays to everyone. Peace on earth. Despite Bully Boys and Christines.
"Megachurches and a megabully"
It's been a busy week so there's not been time to post or to remove a link until now. All week I kept thinking, "Tonight."
Tonight, we'll be at Three Cool Old Guys' nursing home. This is the first time we'll be trying out the Christmas program. We've also had to figure out which six songs to sing in church Christmas Day because since some megachurches seem to think you don't celeberate Jesus Christ's birthday in church, we got told we should add some more songs because we're expecting a few more people than usual. The Sunday school classes have been working on a play too. It's about the first Christmas, of course. The older kids have been working on sets and costumes and it's going to be the littlest ones playing the parts so that should be really nice. Our preacher's got a sermon he's working on and he always does a great Christmas one but with the news that some churches won't be having a service, he's really trying to make this one even better.
If you didn't hear about that, the McChurches decided Sunday's a day to close shop. They're sending out DVDs that people can watch at home instead of coming to church. I really don't get why a church would think a Sunday was a day they needed to close shop.
One woman who used to go to our church hinted to her aunt that she was interested in attending Christmas Day. She felt nervous because she left our church for a McChurch. They had stuff that she felt was important. I guess a bowling alley or a basketball court or something. But she didn't have to sound off. People are always welcome at our church and especially on Christmas Day. No one would have thought anything except maybe that she was celebrating Christmas with her aunt and that's why she and her kids were there.
Maybe I'm a Scrooge here but I never thought Jesus was concerned about whether or not your church had a game room. I did assume that he was concerned whether you met on Sunday or not.
But maybe when you're in one of those megachurches where you don't know each other, it's easy to skip a Christmas Sunday and so they figured they'd save some money on the electric bill?If you think I'm coming off flippant, you're right. I am really bothered by that and the message it sends. Both my grandmothers never made Sunday school if it fell on a Christmas Day because they were busy getting the big lunch ready but they did show up for the service. I've also know people who couldn't make it on Christmas Day for different reasons and that's cool. But isn't the point to know that each Sunday the church is there?
And what about people who travel? We used to go on a road trips a bit when I was a kid and on a Sunday, my dad would always look for a church and we'd go in there. What if someone sees a McChurch and they get excited and run up the steps only to find that the doors are locked?
So that bothers me.Here's another thing that bothers me. Pop Politics. I've pulled their link.
If you missed it, Kat wrote about people leaving comments on one post there were just dogging this one guy. And she also quoted me. I thought the guy who wrote the original post made a bad link between rap and Dylan. Now, I understand from Jess that they maintain they weren't suggestiong a link. Like when Bully Boy says "Iraq" and "9/11" in the same speech or sentence, he's not implying a relationship either? That's nonsense.
And it was nonsense that the guy Bernie tried to force Kat into correcting her opinion. First off, the only opinion offered (other than that people CAN have whatever opinion they want) was my opinion. And even though she provided a link to my site and clearly showed what I said, he didn't have the guts to demand I correct my comments. Instead, he just wanted to try to force a woman into making a correction. What a big man, huh?
So that could have been the end of it. Kat replied to his e-mail saying, "Write what you want and I'll post it at my site." But that wasn't the end of it. His boss had to come along and imply that Bernie was a better writer than Kat. Again, that's not what she says she said. But it was up there for anyone to see and everyone saw it. (Including Three Cool Old Guys who got a copy and paste e-mailed to them.)
So when she did that, and you read it right, "she." A "she" felt the need to say Kat couldn't write as well as her boy. And "she" wants to be considered a feminist. But I guess that was already a question after she was okay with him trying to force Kat to change her words.
So we did a roundtable on that and we did an editorial about adults who were too scared to write about the war. And then Sunday morning as we were ready to post, we had to stop. She went whining to C.I. C.I. writes her back in this long e-mail, I haven't seen it but we were waiting three hours because C.I. was trying to be fair the way C.I. always does.
I learn from Jess that she claims Sunday night she never got the e-mail so C.I. had to write her again. But she said she wanted "peace."
First thing she writes on Monday, Jess reads it, and she's just slamming Kat all over again. This is how she gets peace?
She keeps writing over and over and Jess said it didn't read like it was friendly e-mail. C.I. had told her that we contacted Ryan. That's the guy who was being dogged, the whole reason Kat wrote to begin with. She was really getting on Jess' nerves writing all the time.
So Jess didn't even reply. Then Monday Ava sees the thing where the woman still can't do her own work. Jess and C.I. have explained how Ryan was found via a google search. But that's not good enough for the woman who needs everything handed to her I guess. They went over how to find him in an entry at The Common Ills. But she's too lazy to do her own work.
I won't say busy since she had enough time to e-mail over and over.
So Ava writes Ryan and tells him that now she's claiming her e-mail to him got bounced back and can she give out Ryan's e-mail to her. Ryan writes Ava back and tells her to forward the thing to her.
Which Ava does with, and I did read this, the most dry e-mail in the world. Ava's aunt doesn't trust the woman and told Ava not to form any kind of relationship with her. So Ava writes her in this dry e-mail and the woman writes Ava back screaming at Ava in a "what's your problem!" e-mail. And still slamming Kat, according to Jess.Ava replies in a dry e-mail.
Remember this is all going on while the woman supposedly wants "peace."C.I.'s telling Jess and Ava, "Don't read her if she's upsetting you. I'm not reading her, you don't have to read her. We've replied to her. We'll just ignore her and see if the peace offer was sincere or not."
Then Tuesday evening or afternoon, Eddie e-mails to The Third Estate Sunday Review and to C.I. that this so-called peace includes the woman delinking from The Common Ills.
As Jess said, the woman wrote over and over and over. Everytime he went into the public e-mail account for The Common Ills, there was another e-mail from the woman. "It was like she was spoiling for a fight," Jess said. But in all those e-mails, it never occurred to her to say, "I delinked from you."
She had time, over and over, to run down Kat. That's all she really seemed to want to do, to gripe and scream and trash Kat.
And on top of this, she writes Ryan and calls the e-mail an "apology" in the title of the e-mail but all she does there is trash Kat and then, at the end, write, "I'm sorry you won't be visiting Pop Politics again." That was her apology? Why did she even write the guy. It really ticked off him and his wife. (Mike has the interview on that.)
So Jim calls Jess and asks if Jess has seen Eddie's e-mail? Jess hasn't but gets into The Common Ills members account and there it is.Like Jess said, she screamed, she griped, she couldn't stop trashing Kat all while claiming she wanted peace, the woman's name is Christine something, and though she e-mailed over and over Monday and Tuesday she never once says, "I'm delinking."
So that was it. It was obvious that there was no desire for peace.
It was all about, "I don't want people to know I say I'm a feminist but I trashed a woman at my site and compared her to a man while implying that she wasn't as good as a man. And I don't want people to know that as the boss of Pop Politics, I was okay with a man trying to force Kat to correct her opinion and that he wanted the correction passed off not as his comment but as if the thought just occurred to Kat herself."
Well I guess she wouldn't want people to know about that. I also bet she wouldn't want people to know that while on her site she acted like Ryan was treated poorly by the people leaving comments and that she didn't support that, when she herself writes Ryan she's rude to him and never once says anything about the way he was treated. She's too busy attacking Kat yet again.
And the best so-called feminist can do apology wise to Ryan is to say, "Sorry you won't be visiting Pop Politics anymore."
Wally's trying to figure out how to write about this instead of just linking. He doesn't want to upset C.I. C.I.'s not mentioning it at The Common Ills or hasn't so far. I told Wally that C.I. always tells us to write what we want at our sites.
C.I. says that and C.I. means that. If C.I. doesn't like something, C.I. just avoids it.
The way C.I.'s avoiding Christine now.
C.I.'s not going to be mad at me or Wally or anyone for writing what we think. C.I. knows that we CAN have opinions. Christine's the one who has a heart attack and explodes when anyone has an opinion she doesn't agree with.
I won't be quiet on this. It wasn't right what happened. It wasn't right that after Christine started saying she wanted peace, she keeps attacking Kat, she bites Ryan's head off in an "apology," and she screams at Ava in an e-mail. Christine needs to get a grip.
Is she too scared to write about the war? I don't think she is. I think when you trash people who speak out, Kat, Bright Eyes for "When A President Talks To God," go down the list, then it's clear where you are on the war. You support it. If you didn't, you'd say so. You've got time to write about every dopey TV show in the world.
Three years is coming up, three years of a war, and she can't weigh in on that. If she can't find her voice, people will have to go by her actions.
And I don't know what kind of feminist links to and promotes a magazine that wishes harm, violent harm, on Arudhati Roy?
So I think we have our answer. If it's the wrong answer, she needs to find her voice on the war.
And if she has any common sense or decency, she needs to offer Ryan a true apology. Not a lecture, not a thing on how awful a writer she thinks Kat is or how wrong she thinks Kat was.
By the way, Bernie and Christine have a problem that Kat didn't address Bernie's opinion. While he's demanding a correction, they're bothered that Kat focused on the comments and not the writing of Bernie. Is that not something?
So I delinked from Pop Politics. It was a bad site anyway.
The only reason I linked to begin with was because C.I. had asked us all to link to it. C.I. was trying to be supportive to Christine because she wasn't doing Ms. Musing anymore and she was depressed and trying to make Pop Politics into something. There's a guy there who had a thing on Bob Woodward that was worth reading. And Wally liked the sports. There was a woman who wrote seriously about issues and discrimination that transgendered persons face. But there was just a bunch of nonsense that wouldn't cut it as good conversation in a junior high cafeteria.
She's like a cheerleader for the mediocre. She can't write about the war but she can write about any medicore TV show.
So the link's gone and we're all the better for it. If she is pro-war, that certainly explains why her "peace" offer wasn't sincere. But, my opinion, it was never sincere. She just knew she had embarrassed herself and wanted to try to keep people from finding out. That's why she continued to attack Kat every chance she could grab after she initiated her "peace."
By the way, if she'd just taken the high road the way C.I. tried to, she wouldn't have the mess on her hands she does. C.I. didn't post about Bernie's demand of a correction. C.I. didn't even post about the fact that while demanding a correction from Kat, Bernie quotes her at Pop Politics and gets the quote wrong. He drops out a word and changes another one. And this is while he's demanding a correction? And at Pop Politics, you had no idea of how rude Bernie was to Kat and how he ran her down as stupid. He saves that for the private e-mail. So when Kat told C.I. about the second e-mail from Bernie, C.I. was already "bothered" and then Christine goes and posts, in reply to Maria, that Bernie only posted at Pop Politics because Kat doesn't have comments at her site so he couldn't get his say any other way. Which is a lie. And it's a lie because Bernie was demanding a correction. And it's a lie because Christine knows about it.
If she had just waited to see if Bernie and Kat could work out some understanding, if she'd stayed out of it, the way C.I. was doing, none of this would have happened. But she can't pass a chance to slam Kat and that comment showed it. She made the mess, she has to live with it.
She can scream at C.I. or Ava, at Ryan or Jess, but it's her mess and it's her problem.
And being okay with a man demanding a correction of a woman's opinion, especially when I'm the one commenting on Bernie in Kat's original post and Bernie was too scared to take it up with man but okay with trying to bully a woman, isn't feminism. She can claim it if she wants, but her behavior speaks louder than her words. And much louder than her words on really bad TV shows that she gushes over. But she couldn't stop focusing on Kat and start trying to figure ou what she created this whole mess in the first place.
I'll be posting before Christmas, but we're trying to really focus on getting our program together.
Happy holidays to everyone. Peace on earth. Despite Bully Boys and Christines.
Blog Spotlight: Kat channels the Black Eyed Peas
The brave Kat, the musical Kat. Our Kat and we stand with her. Some don't. Their loss. There's a typo in this that C.I., of all people, caught. Of all people because C.I. and typos . . .
But it's Bridget Fonda. We're adding the "d." Otherwise, it is at it appeared.
"Ryan, remember this is Heddy we're talking"
I had the best night last night.
There's something about waiting for the other shoe to drop.
When it finally does, you were expecting it.
Wally, thank you for doing the "Community Jot." I saw that and was able to catch up on what was going online while I was out having fun last night.
To Ryan "Kansas" and his wife, my apologies that you weren't given an apology but were instead lectured about me. What can we do with someone obsessed?
Not much.
I'm feeling a little like Bridget Fonda in Single, White Female but I imagine it must be worse for you because while I can crack jokes about "Heddy," she wrote and led you both to believe it was an apology.
Are we really so surprised that someone who seems to believe I should write 'like a man' in order to win her approval can't apologize to someone she's wronged?
No.
And anyone who assumes that there is only one way to write isn't someone that we should concern us with too much.
But I am sorry for you (Ryan) and for your wife. I did feel a fire storm was brewing over there.
I'm sorry that instead of addressing that at her site, "Heddy" decided to make me the focus. I'm also sorry that when she finally writes the "apology," she's still made me the focus (she's not the first to be obsessed with me) instead of addressing what happened to you.
But do you think she ever apologized to Arundhati Roy? Do you think she ever wrote her?
Let's picture how that would go:
to: Arundhati Roy
from: Heddy
title: Apology from All Puff and No Politics
Arundhati,
C.I. passed your address on to me. I did try to write you but you mispelled something in your address because it's your problem, the problem is never me, it is always someone else. And of course I'm only writing because an obvious point, that I may have hurt you, wasn't obvious to me because I didn't see it on TV in a push up bra.
I think you need to understand that when Kat wrote that I was endorsing attacks on you, she was obviously wrong. Just because I link to and regularly promote an anti-feminist rag that wished you harm and treated your safety as a joke, just because I continue to promote them, doesn't mean that Kat has any right to question my feminism! Sorry that you won't be visiting All Puff and No Politics anymore.
Heddy
I think that's how it would go. I think she'd continue to be obsessed with me.And isn't that easier than addressing a serious issue like what happened to you?
Or explaining why she promotes a magazine that encourages attacks on Arundhati Roy?And Heddy's busy trying to chase down "complexity" in TV portrayals of men behind bar. Or trying to track down quotes she can put up since, and are we surprised, thinking is beyond her.
A thinking person would have realized that was no apology to you.
But why think, or examine, when you're convinced that you're always right?
We're all wrong. The whole world is wrong. Heddy's right.
She was, guessing here, right to laud shows like Veronica Mars as "good" for women and young girls. As Veronica's become the woman who cried false rape, she has nothing to say on that. She's too busy slobbering over how Rob Thomas may be the next Joss Whedon!
Surely that is the most important topic facing the world today.
In her mind.
If you're a Black Eyed Peas fan, you may know "Going Gone." You may know the chorus that Jack Johnson offers since it's from his song "Gone." It's a message lost on Heddy. Maybe if I substitute some words? I'll sub four words and they will all be in caps. Otherwise, this is from The Black Eyed Peas with Jack Johnson, "Going Gone:"
You see yourself in the mirror
And you feel safe coz it looks familiar
But you afraid to open up your soul
Coz you don't really know, don't really know
Who is, the person that's deep within
Coz you are content with just being THE QUEEN BEE TOKEN
And you fail to see that its trivial
Insignificant, you addicted to material
I've seen your kind before
You the type that thinks souls is sold in a store
Packaged up with inscent sticks
With them vegetarian meals
To you that's righteous
You're fiction like books
You need to go out to life and look
Coz what happens when they take your material
And you already sold your soul and its
[chorus]
Gone
Going
Gone
Everything gone
Give a damn
Gone be the birds when they don't want to sing
Gone people
All awkward with their things
Gone.
Ryan, think about it this way, you're anti-war. And Heddy is still trying to figure out where she stands. So it's okay that you're attacked, that I'm attacked, that Bright Eyes is attacked and that Arundhati Roy is attacked. If you ask me, I'd rather be on Heddy's hate list.
I'd rather be with people like Bright Eyes and Arundhati then the old rag. If you think about it like that, I think you'll see that being on Heddy's hate list is actually a plus.
Like The Black Eyed Peas warn, "What's worse is your soul gonna be gone" (gone, going gone). So Heddy's got bigger problems than me. There's a world out there and wars going on and we need voices who acknowledge that. She can't. Her problem. Take comfort in that, Ryan.
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
the daily jot
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
kats korner
bright eyes
conor oberst
arundhati roy
black eyed peas
jack johnson
But it's Bridget Fonda. We're adding the "d." Otherwise, it is at it appeared.
"Ryan, remember this is Heddy we're talking"
I had the best night last night.
There's something about waiting for the other shoe to drop.
When it finally does, you were expecting it.
Wally, thank you for doing the "Community Jot." I saw that and was able to catch up on what was going online while I was out having fun last night.
To Ryan "Kansas" and his wife, my apologies that you weren't given an apology but were instead lectured about me. What can we do with someone obsessed?
Not much.
I'm feeling a little like Bridget Fonda in Single, White Female but I imagine it must be worse for you because while I can crack jokes about "Heddy," she wrote and led you both to believe it was an apology.
Are we really so surprised that someone who seems to believe I should write 'like a man' in order to win her approval can't apologize to someone she's wronged?
No.
And anyone who assumes that there is only one way to write isn't someone that we should concern us with too much.
But I am sorry for you (Ryan) and for your wife. I did feel a fire storm was brewing over there.
I'm sorry that instead of addressing that at her site, "Heddy" decided to make me the focus. I'm also sorry that when she finally writes the "apology," she's still made me the focus (she's not the first to be obsessed with me) instead of addressing what happened to you.
But do you think she ever apologized to Arundhati Roy? Do you think she ever wrote her?
Let's picture how that would go:
to: Arundhati Roy
from: Heddy
title: Apology from All Puff and No Politics
Arundhati,
C.I. passed your address on to me. I did try to write you but you mispelled something in your address because it's your problem, the problem is never me, it is always someone else. And of course I'm only writing because an obvious point, that I may have hurt you, wasn't obvious to me because I didn't see it on TV in a push up bra.
I think you need to understand that when Kat wrote that I was endorsing attacks on you, she was obviously wrong. Just because I link to and regularly promote an anti-feminist rag that wished you harm and treated your safety as a joke, just because I continue to promote them, doesn't mean that Kat has any right to question my feminism! Sorry that you won't be visiting All Puff and No Politics anymore.
Heddy
I think that's how it would go. I think she'd continue to be obsessed with me.And isn't that easier than addressing a serious issue like what happened to you?
Or explaining why she promotes a magazine that encourages attacks on Arundhati Roy?And Heddy's busy trying to chase down "complexity" in TV portrayals of men behind bar. Or trying to track down quotes she can put up since, and are we surprised, thinking is beyond her.
A thinking person would have realized that was no apology to you.
But why think, or examine, when you're convinced that you're always right?
We're all wrong. The whole world is wrong. Heddy's right.
She was, guessing here, right to laud shows like Veronica Mars as "good" for women and young girls. As Veronica's become the woman who cried false rape, she has nothing to say on that. She's too busy slobbering over how Rob Thomas may be the next Joss Whedon!
Surely that is the most important topic facing the world today.
In her mind.
If you're a Black Eyed Peas fan, you may know "Going Gone." You may know the chorus that Jack Johnson offers since it's from his song "Gone." It's a message lost on Heddy. Maybe if I substitute some words? I'll sub four words and they will all be in caps. Otherwise, this is from The Black Eyed Peas with Jack Johnson, "Going Gone:"
You see yourself in the mirror
And you feel safe coz it looks familiar
But you afraid to open up your soul
Coz you don't really know, don't really know
Who is, the person that's deep within
Coz you are content with just being THE QUEEN BEE TOKEN
And you fail to see that its trivial
Insignificant, you addicted to material
I've seen your kind before
You the type that thinks souls is sold in a store
Packaged up with inscent sticks
With them vegetarian meals
To you that's righteous
You're fiction like books
You need to go out to life and look
Coz what happens when they take your material
And you already sold your soul and its
[chorus]
Gone
Going
Gone
Everything gone
Give a damn
Gone be the birds when they don't want to sing
Gone people
All awkward with their things
Gone.
Ryan, think about it this way, you're anti-war. And Heddy is still trying to figure out where she stands. So it's okay that you're attacked, that I'm attacked, that Bright Eyes is attacked and that Arundhati Roy is attacked. If you ask me, I'd rather be on Heddy's hate list.
I'd rather be with people like Bright Eyes and Arundhati then the old rag. If you think about it like that, I think you'll see that being on Heddy's hate list is actually a plus.
Like The Black Eyed Peas warn, "What's worse is your soul gonna be gone" (gone, going gone). So Heddy's got bigger problems than me. There's a world out there and wars going on and we need voices who acknowledge that. She can't. Her problem. Take comfort in that, Ryan.
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
the daily jot
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
kats korner
bright eyes
conor oberst
arundhati roy
black eyed peas
jack johnson
Alternative spotlight: Ruth's Morning Edition Report
There's only one Ruth which is a shame because we could use more like her. If you're new to Ruth, you're in for a treat and note her commentary on Bill O'Reilly below. Ruth began covering NPR and Morning Edition for The Common Ills when NPR seemed to be getting a pass. She expanded that coverage to include Pacifica Radio which is also public radio. These days, that's her focus for the most part because she'd rather focus on programs you may not be aware of than cover Morning Edition and NPR now that watchdogs like Media Matters regularly address the problems with NPR coverage.
Check out the book discussion in this edition because one of the books was recommended by Ruth.
"Ruth's Morning Edition Report"
Ruth: Let's start out by noting CounterSpin. A guest this week is community favorite Naomi Klein. I'm glad to know that Diego listened Friday. He e-mailed to ask if it were "Ny-o-mee" or "Nay-o-mee." I believe that would depend upon how she pronounces her own name since either pronuciation is acceptable. Diego wrote that he loved the entire broadcast and intends to listen each week. If, like me, you listened Friday to WBAI, you may want to listen online at FAIR's site since the interview with Ms. Klein was interrupted.
The beginning of each program addresses recent headlines and I enjoy both the critiques and the humor offered in those. Steve Rendell and Peter Hart covered them this week. Diego asked that I please note Bill O'Reilly's falsehoods. Mr. O'Reilly, as most already knows, sees a war to worry about everywhere but in Iraq which explains both his priorities and why he has so much difficulty with facts. Mr. O'Reilly is convinced that there's a war on Christmas.
He has announced that two cities, Plano and Dodgeville, are strong centers of this supposed insurgency. In Plano, Mr. O'Reilly maintains, combat has grown so fierce that the schools have barred red and green clothing. No doubt Toby Keith is strumming his guitar and preparing a ditty. But before anyone air bombs the city of Plano, it should be noted that red and green clothing is not banned in Plano schools nor has it ever been. In Dodgeville, Mr. O'Reilly maintains, children are not allowed to sing Christmas songs and that the songs have been rewritten in this extreme attack on Christmas. Hold the white phosphorus. The reality is that the children do sing Christmas songs and they also sing, as part of a musical the children put on, their own words to the melodies of traditional Christmas tunes.As a reliable informant, Bill O'Reilly's record is matching up with Ahmed Chalabi's.
On the war, CounterSpin noted that until the Bully Boy used the 30,000 figure for Iraqi casualities, the press was not very interested in the topic. The press was so disinterested that the question that prompted an answer on this topic came not from the press, but from a citizen at one of Bully Boy's speeches. The number itself is based upon tabulating civilian deaths reported by the media and other studies have placed the fatality count for Iraqis at a much higher number.
Richard Bernstein and the New York Times' attack on playwright Harold Pinter was noted for its linkage of the Sandanistas with al Quaeda. The linkage was a dubious one and I'll trust that we all grasp that and move on to Juan Williams.
Juan Williams enjoys sitting around for the Fox "News" cameras. It is apparently an easy job that does not require that Mr. Williams be fully awake. Which would explain why, as CounterSpin pointed out, Mr. Williams made no real effort to correct William Kristol's fales claim that Richard Pryor was a "Reagan-ite." Mr. Pryor, who attended a function at the Reagan White House in honor of MLK, was on record as saying that obscenity to him was the Ronald Reagan claimed to be fighting communism by killing people. Those do not sound like the words of a Reagan-ite and, more curious, Juan Williams had reported on those statements for NPR following Mr. Pryor's death.
For those interested in the creation of a Department of Peace, please check out KPFT's Open Journal from Friday. Treva was en route to New Orleans, I believe, when she phoned to ask if I was listening? I was not until she gave me the heads up. Congress member Dennis Kucinnich has introduced a bill for the creation of a Department of Peace since 2001. Currently, there is a proposal in the Senate as well. The proposal is discussed in great detail and, unless I am mixed up on this, during this program a wonderful live version of John Lennon's "Imagine" was also featured. I usually prefer to focus on news in my listening choices; however, I was busy thinking of issues raised by Open Journal and dealing with an unusually active Elijah who was opposed to a nap on Friday, loudly opposed. He was strongly in favor of the music played on KPFT's Radio Active which was reason enough to listen but I also enjoyed the host bringing on his daughter to introduce a favorite song.
KPFT's After Hours is a favorite program of my grandson Jayson. It was airing in the early morning hours of Sunday but now has switched to late night Fridays. (Jayson, let me know if I got this wrong.)
KPFA's The Morning Show featured strong programming all week. I think my favorite discussion was on the issue of the out of control rent in the San Francisco area and how it effected families, traffic and so much more. While a subject that does not effect me directly since I do not live on the west coast, I found it to be highly informative and involving. For me, that is a key factor in why I listen to The Morning Show. The discussions can cover any topic and they always involve me regardless of topic. A topic that they addressed throughout the week was executions with a focus on the excution of Stanley Tookie Williams.
Jayson pointed out that Andrea Lewis was spelled "Andre Lewis" two Saturdays ago. That was my typo and not a letter lost when C.I. spaced my copied e-mail into an entry. Dallas got the spelling correct for the tag but neither he nor C.I. noticed it in the entry. My apologies to Ms. Lewis. Ms. Lewis hosts The Morning Show with Philip Maldari who did a strong job this past week in the discussion on the coast line.
On Monday, WBAI's twice a month hourly program Law & Disorder aired. I wish this were a weekly show because the issues tackled are important ones. If you have not sampled this program yet, I will note a comment Tracey made. She was not feeling well Monday and spent the day. This was her first time listening and she enjoyed the interview style which involves the hosts handing off to one another throughout an interview.
A number of e-mails came in on KPFA's Sunday Salon expressing praise for the discussion on Iraq so I will note this Sunday's program. If you are seeing this after it originally posted, remember that Sunday Salon is archived:
Tomorrow at 9:00 am
Sunday Salon
This week on Sunday Salon...
In our first hour...
We'll follow-up 2 hours of live wrap-up coverage from the World Trade Organization's meetings in Hong Kong. Our guests will analyze what inside and outside the meetings, and what it all means moving forward.
In our second hour...
Author Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz joins us in-studio to talk about her new book Blood on the Border: A Memoir of the Contra War. Plus, an interview with poet, artist, libertarian theologian, and Nicaraguan Catholic Priest Father Ernesto Cardenal.
Listen to past shows, get contact and reference info for guests, see announcements of upcoming programs, and more at: SundaySalon.org
A number of e-mails also came in regarding the report I pulled last week. C.I. has a natural tendency to grab all the blame, and none of the glory, so to be clear, I made the decision. I was not asked to pull it. I did address, for most of the report, the issue that has been a topic in the community all week and most of last week. I was not asked to take that out. C.I. phoned Sunday morning to explain that an e-mail had come in and shared the e-mail with me. Based upon the contents of the e-mail, I decided to pull the report. I did not have the time to rethink the report and this was a large portion of the drafts I had already done on legal pads.
The sentiment of the community is that the e-mail was not a genuine one. I do not know that I can support that sentiment. I think it may have been genuine. Bear with me. When words have so little meaning, as I feel the person in question grants them, you can write anything and mean it at the time. So I am not sure that, at the moment she wrote the e-mail, she did not mean it.
I am sure of a few things which I will share now.As part of the sixties wave of feminism, I do not know any woman who felt she was speaking out so that someday a show akin to Gidget could be praised at length. Gidget was a silly show with entertainment value perhaps. Certainly Sally Field went on to many genuine accomplishments. But as war raged in Vietnam, as women sought to give voice to issues that society felt were "personal problems" (two examples: rape and domestic abuse), we had some serious battles on our hands. I do not think those battles are over.
I think the battles are just as serious today and I do not believe that feminism benefits from silence on the issue of the current war or in uncritical "shout outs" to TV shows. While anyone, feminist or not, is welcome to write about whatever topic they choose to, writing about a topic with the platitudes that were to be found in the "women's magazines" at the time was the reason Ms. and other magazines were needed.
In my (college) days we spoke of "contributions." Were you making a contribution or not? If someone is offended that her (or his) silence on the war is questioned, they would be better served (as would be their readers) if they attempted to address the issue of the war instead of hiding behind hurt feelings.
It also bears noting that a show starring a woman is not necessarily a feminist program nor is it necessarily good for women. Tracey and I watched both Commander-in-Chief and Veronica Mars this week together. I wanted her perspective in case my age was an obstacle to recognizing some noteable advancement. Neither of us saw anything praise worthy in terms of feminism with either shows.What I saw was some fluff pretending to be serious and I did not grasp how either show could be seen as empowering by feminist. Tracey saw nothing of value either so I doubt my disinterest was due to my age alone.
Women's magazines of the period were happy to cheer uncritically this form of entertainment and, as stated before, one of the things feminists of my generation were taking on was that sort of journalism.
A woman or man is entitled to pursue any path they desire. However, if they identify as feminist, the label requires some grasp of feminism and the application of that grasp in their writing otherwise they are just churning out "copy." From television to children's literature, from movies to professions, women of my generation were dedicated to examing and addressing a variety of topics from a feminist perspective.
To remain silent on the issue of a Veronica Mars now false claim of rape would not have happened with women of my generation. We took issues like rape very seriously and we railed against harmful portrayals and harmful coverage. Someone who feels her feminism has been questioned might be better served in focusing less on her hurt feelings and more on her silence regarding the war and a lack of any critical examination in her "Here is what to watch! And it stars a woman!" advertising copy.
In closing, Kat is a wonderful writer. Never having been afraid to challenge conventional wisdom or sacred cows, she is also a brave writer. The demand, by a male, that she "correct" her opinion was offensive enough. When a woman stays silent on that or endorses it, she calls her own feminism into question. When she decides that the template for Kat's own writing is the criteria defined by a pedestrian writer, a male writer, she calls her own feminism into question.Kat's writing is full of life and full of passion. Most importantly, she writes from a feminist perspective. That is a perspective that women of my generation fought hard to have heard so I will not support anyone, male or female, feminist or non-feminist, criticizing her for not playing it down the middle of the road in accepted, mainstream terms.
Having checked out the woman's site, I felt I was reading any paper USA's generic Sunday arts coverage. I saw "writing" that was a few sentences stringing together a bunch of links to other people's writing on TV portrayals of men in prison. I saw no feminist perspective in that "writing." I saw no thought in that "writing." It read like someone attempting to hop on the bandwagon and win approval from the mainstream by repeating claims coming from the mainstream. It would not have passed for feminism when I was a young woman and it does not pass for feminism today.
counterspin
iraq
larry bensky
andrea lewis
kpfa
the morning show
sunday salon with larry bensky
ruths morning edition report
the common ills
wbai
radio active
after hours
steve rendell
peter hart
kpft
feminism
Check out the book discussion in this edition because one of the books was recommended by Ruth.
"Ruth's Morning Edition Report"
Ruth: Let's start out by noting CounterSpin. A guest this week is community favorite Naomi Klein. I'm glad to know that Diego listened Friday. He e-mailed to ask if it were "Ny-o-mee" or "Nay-o-mee." I believe that would depend upon how she pronounces her own name since either pronuciation is acceptable. Diego wrote that he loved the entire broadcast and intends to listen each week. If, like me, you listened Friday to WBAI, you may want to listen online at FAIR's site since the interview with Ms. Klein was interrupted.
The beginning of each program addresses recent headlines and I enjoy both the critiques and the humor offered in those. Steve Rendell and Peter Hart covered them this week. Diego asked that I please note Bill O'Reilly's falsehoods. Mr. O'Reilly, as most already knows, sees a war to worry about everywhere but in Iraq which explains both his priorities and why he has so much difficulty with facts. Mr. O'Reilly is convinced that there's a war on Christmas.
He has announced that two cities, Plano and Dodgeville, are strong centers of this supposed insurgency. In Plano, Mr. O'Reilly maintains, combat has grown so fierce that the schools have barred red and green clothing. No doubt Toby Keith is strumming his guitar and preparing a ditty. But before anyone air bombs the city of Plano, it should be noted that red and green clothing is not banned in Plano schools nor has it ever been. In Dodgeville, Mr. O'Reilly maintains, children are not allowed to sing Christmas songs and that the songs have been rewritten in this extreme attack on Christmas. Hold the white phosphorus. The reality is that the children do sing Christmas songs and they also sing, as part of a musical the children put on, their own words to the melodies of traditional Christmas tunes.As a reliable informant, Bill O'Reilly's record is matching up with Ahmed Chalabi's.
On the war, CounterSpin noted that until the Bully Boy used the 30,000 figure for Iraqi casualities, the press was not very interested in the topic. The press was so disinterested that the question that prompted an answer on this topic came not from the press, but from a citizen at one of Bully Boy's speeches. The number itself is based upon tabulating civilian deaths reported by the media and other studies have placed the fatality count for Iraqis at a much higher number.
Richard Bernstein and the New York Times' attack on playwright Harold Pinter was noted for its linkage of the Sandanistas with al Quaeda. The linkage was a dubious one and I'll trust that we all grasp that and move on to Juan Williams.
Juan Williams enjoys sitting around for the Fox "News" cameras. It is apparently an easy job that does not require that Mr. Williams be fully awake. Which would explain why, as CounterSpin pointed out, Mr. Williams made no real effort to correct William Kristol's fales claim that Richard Pryor was a "Reagan-ite." Mr. Pryor, who attended a function at the Reagan White House in honor of MLK, was on record as saying that obscenity to him was the Ronald Reagan claimed to be fighting communism by killing people. Those do not sound like the words of a Reagan-ite and, more curious, Juan Williams had reported on those statements for NPR following Mr. Pryor's death.
For those interested in the creation of a Department of Peace, please check out KPFT's Open Journal from Friday. Treva was en route to New Orleans, I believe, when she phoned to ask if I was listening? I was not until she gave me the heads up. Congress member Dennis Kucinnich has introduced a bill for the creation of a Department of Peace since 2001. Currently, there is a proposal in the Senate as well. The proposal is discussed in great detail and, unless I am mixed up on this, during this program a wonderful live version of John Lennon's "Imagine" was also featured. I usually prefer to focus on news in my listening choices; however, I was busy thinking of issues raised by Open Journal and dealing with an unusually active Elijah who was opposed to a nap on Friday, loudly opposed. He was strongly in favor of the music played on KPFT's Radio Active which was reason enough to listen but I also enjoyed the host bringing on his daughter to introduce a favorite song.
KPFT's After Hours is a favorite program of my grandson Jayson. It was airing in the early morning hours of Sunday but now has switched to late night Fridays. (Jayson, let me know if I got this wrong.)
KPFA's The Morning Show featured strong programming all week. I think my favorite discussion was on the issue of the out of control rent in the San Francisco area and how it effected families, traffic and so much more. While a subject that does not effect me directly since I do not live on the west coast, I found it to be highly informative and involving. For me, that is a key factor in why I listen to The Morning Show. The discussions can cover any topic and they always involve me regardless of topic. A topic that they addressed throughout the week was executions with a focus on the excution of Stanley Tookie Williams.
Jayson pointed out that Andrea Lewis was spelled "Andre Lewis" two Saturdays ago. That was my typo and not a letter lost when C.I. spaced my copied e-mail into an entry. Dallas got the spelling correct for the tag but neither he nor C.I. noticed it in the entry. My apologies to Ms. Lewis. Ms. Lewis hosts The Morning Show with Philip Maldari who did a strong job this past week in the discussion on the coast line.
On Monday, WBAI's twice a month hourly program Law & Disorder aired. I wish this were a weekly show because the issues tackled are important ones. If you have not sampled this program yet, I will note a comment Tracey made. She was not feeling well Monday and spent the day. This was her first time listening and she enjoyed the interview style which involves the hosts handing off to one another throughout an interview.
A number of e-mails came in on KPFA's Sunday Salon expressing praise for the discussion on Iraq so I will note this Sunday's program. If you are seeing this after it originally posted, remember that Sunday Salon is archived:
Tomorrow at 9:00 am
Sunday Salon
This week on Sunday Salon...
In our first hour...
We'll follow-up 2 hours of live wrap-up coverage from the World Trade Organization's meetings in Hong Kong. Our guests will analyze what inside and outside the meetings, and what it all means moving forward.
In our second hour...
Author Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz joins us in-studio to talk about her new book Blood on the Border: A Memoir of the Contra War. Plus, an interview with poet, artist, libertarian theologian, and Nicaraguan Catholic Priest Father Ernesto Cardenal.
Listen to past shows, get contact and reference info for guests, see announcements of upcoming programs, and more at: SundaySalon.org
A number of e-mails also came in regarding the report I pulled last week. C.I. has a natural tendency to grab all the blame, and none of the glory, so to be clear, I made the decision. I was not asked to pull it. I did address, for most of the report, the issue that has been a topic in the community all week and most of last week. I was not asked to take that out. C.I. phoned Sunday morning to explain that an e-mail had come in and shared the e-mail with me. Based upon the contents of the e-mail, I decided to pull the report. I did not have the time to rethink the report and this was a large portion of the drafts I had already done on legal pads.
The sentiment of the community is that the e-mail was not a genuine one. I do not know that I can support that sentiment. I think it may have been genuine. Bear with me. When words have so little meaning, as I feel the person in question grants them, you can write anything and mean it at the time. So I am not sure that, at the moment she wrote the e-mail, she did not mean it.
I am sure of a few things which I will share now.As part of the sixties wave of feminism, I do not know any woman who felt she was speaking out so that someday a show akin to Gidget could be praised at length. Gidget was a silly show with entertainment value perhaps. Certainly Sally Field went on to many genuine accomplishments. But as war raged in Vietnam, as women sought to give voice to issues that society felt were "personal problems" (two examples: rape and domestic abuse), we had some serious battles on our hands. I do not think those battles are over.
I think the battles are just as serious today and I do not believe that feminism benefits from silence on the issue of the current war or in uncritical "shout outs" to TV shows. While anyone, feminist or not, is welcome to write about whatever topic they choose to, writing about a topic with the platitudes that were to be found in the "women's magazines" at the time was the reason Ms. and other magazines were needed.
In my (college) days we spoke of "contributions." Were you making a contribution or not? If someone is offended that her (or his) silence on the war is questioned, they would be better served (as would be their readers) if they attempted to address the issue of the war instead of hiding behind hurt feelings.
It also bears noting that a show starring a woman is not necessarily a feminist program nor is it necessarily good for women. Tracey and I watched both Commander-in-Chief and Veronica Mars this week together. I wanted her perspective in case my age was an obstacle to recognizing some noteable advancement. Neither of us saw anything praise worthy in terms of feminism with either shows.What I saw was some fluff pretending to be serious and I did not grasp how either show could be seen as empowering by feminist. Tracey saw nothing of value either so I doubt my disinterest was due to my age alone.
Women's magazines of the period were happy to cheer uncritically this form of entertainment and, as stated before, one of the things feminists of my generation were taking on was that sort of journalism.
A woman or man is entitled to pursue any path they desire. However, if they identify as feminist, the label requires some grasp of feminism and the application of that grasp in their writing otherwise they are just churning out "copy." From television to children's literature, from movies to professions, women of my generation were dedicated to examing and addressing a variety of topics from a feminist perspective.
To remain silent on the issue of a Veronica Mars now false claim of rape would not have happened with women of my generation. We took issues like rape very seriously and we railed against harmful portrayals and harmful coverage. Someone who feels her feminism has been questioned might be better served in focusing less on her hurt feelings and more on her silence regarding the war and a lack of any critical examination in her "Here is what to watch! And it stars a woman!" advertising copy.
In closing, Kat is a wonderful writer. Never having been afraid to challenge conventional wisdom or sacred cows, she is also a brave writer. The demand, by a male, that she "correct" her opinion was offensive enough. When a woman stays silent on that or endorses it, she calls her own feminism into question. When she decides that the template for Kat's own writing is the criteria defined by a pedestrian writer, a male writer, she calls her own feminism into question.Kat's writing is full of life and full of passion. Most importantly, she writes from a feminist perspective. That is a perspective that women of my generation fought hard to have heard so I will not support anyone, male or female, feminist or non-feminist, criticizing her for not playing it down the middle of the road in accepted, mainstream terms.
Having checked out the woman's site, I felt I was reading any paper USA's generic Sunday arts coverage. I saw "writing" that was a few sentences stringing together a bunch of links to other people's writing on TV portrayals of men in prison. I saw no feminist perspective in that "writing." I saw no thought in that "writing." It read like someone attempting to hop on the bandwagon and win approval from the mainstream by repeating claims coming from the mainstream. It would not have passed for feminism when I was a young woman and it does not pass for feminism today.
counterspin
iraq
larry bensky
andrea lewis
kpfa
the morning show
sunday salon with larry bensky
ruths morning edition report
the common ills
wbai
radio active
after hours
steve rendell
peter hart
kpft
feminism
Blog Spotlight: Seth on Retail and much more
Seth in the City is a site run by community member Seth and we're always hoping to do something with Seth but due to his work schedule and his college course schedule, we never can seem to get on the same page. Maybe someday soon. In the meantime, we can spotlight his recent entry that may give you a perspective on the season that you hadn't thought of.
"Tales from Holiday Retail"
I'm home from a long day at work and soothing my tired mind and body by catching up with the online world.
You should all check out the latest TV Review from C.I. & Ava over at Third Estate Sunday Review if you haven't already. It's called We're Losing Ground and Now is Not the Time for Silence. Those two are hands down the best critics around, no one brings it like they do. If you ever have a free afternoon, spend it reading through their collection of TV reviews on the blog. They really should be collected and published.
Money is tight right now for me, and I'm taking advantage of winter break to work as many hours as they'll give me at the book store. Of course, the holiday season falls in the middle of all of this, and I'm sure we can all agree that no matter what holiday you celebrate, it tends to be somewhat expensive.
One thing I will say about this year, compared to my other years working in retail during the holidays, is that the people I've encountered so far have been pretty nice. It always feels so much better to help people when they've been decent to you. This time of year usually seems to bring out all the frustrated, cranky, and rude people (quite often non-readers shopping for readers) who avoid social interaction the rest of the year. But so far this year the pleasant people outnumber the jerks, and on behalf of all my fellow employees, I thank all of you who are nice to those of us who are truly doing our best to get you what you're looking for.
The best thing about working in a bookstore is that most of the customers are readers, though I do work at one of those chains that also carry DVDs and CDs, so that's not always a guarantee. But when you're dealing with someone who is a reader, no matter what they read, there is usually a common bond between you on some level, and I love that. I don't think people who work in other forms of retail get that very often.
The holiday I celebrate is Christmas, and I'd like to take this moment to ask Santa to leave Jake Gyllenhaal under my tree this year, wearing nothing but a big red bow and that Santa hat from Jarhead.
About a month ago, I had a birthday. My friends all wanted to take me to see a movie, and their original plan was to take me to see Elizabethtown. It's time to confess an embarrassing secret. I used to like Orlando Bloom waaay too much. What can I say? I really like guys with British accents and he totally did it for me in Pirates of the Caribbean. But that's the only thing he's ever done that hasn't sucked, in my opinion. Now, don't be bombarding me with e-mails, all you Lord of the Rings fans. Those movies just aren't my cup of tea. I think they present a really ridiculous good vs evil, black or white, overly simplistic picture of the world. It's far too easy to watch those movies and hear Bush saying "You're either with us or against us." That's the kind of mindset those movies embody for me.
Anyway, back to my embarrassing crush on Orlando Bloom. So, my friends all know that he was my guy not so long ago and were set on taking me to see Elizabethtown. The last Orlando movie I bothered to actually see was Troy, which pissed me off because it eliminated the part of the story where Achilles goes mad over his LOVER'S death by changing Patroclus into his cousin. Please!
My waning affection for pretty boy Orlando and the dismal reviews for his latest film lead to me suggesting we pick a different movie, and we ended up going to see Jarhead. Jake Gyllenhaal is one of those guys who can be either really hot or kind of scary looking (he did nothing for me in The Good Girl, for instance), but lately he's been looking oh so fine. I really love the hairy chest and he's got one of the hottest treasure trails I've ever seen.
Jarhead was an okay film. For entertainment value, it didn't do all that much for me, other than giving me a chance to ogle Jake. But I did think it dealt very well with a lot of the harsh realities of a soldier's life, especially after they've been to war and more or less tossed aside (I'm talking about the flashback to Jake's father, a Vietnam vet, and the end of the movie itself).
I really can't wait to see Brokeback Mountain, speaking of Jake. My only concern is that they won't come near to doing justice to the short story, which is truly beautiful. It's about time, though, that Hollywood presented a gay love story between two men who are the idealized version of 'manhood' (ie cowboys) and just happen to be gay. They're still so stuck on the accepted stereotypes of gay men for the most part.
Anyway, I guess that's all for tonight. I just wanted to write because I've been a very bad blogger so far. I freely admit this and hope to do better.
"Tales from Holiday Retail"
I'm home from a long day at work and soothing my tired mind and body by catching up with the online world.
You should all check out the latest TV Review from C.I. & Ava over at Third Estate Sunday Review if you haven't already. It's called We're Losing Ground and Now is Not the Time for Silence. Those two are hands down the best critics around, no one brings it like they do. If you ever have a free afternoon, spend it reading through their collection of TV reviews on the blog. They really should be collected and published.
Money is tight right now for me, and I'm taking advantage of winter break to work as many hours as they'll give me at the book store. Of course, the holiday season falls in the middle of all of this, and I'm sure we can all agree that no matter what holiday you celebrate, it tends to be somewhat expensive.
One thing I will say about this year, compared to my other years working in retail during the holidays, is that the people I've encountered so far have been pretty nice. It always feels so much better to help people when they've been decent to you. This time of year usually seems to bring out all the frustrated, cranky, and rude people (quite often non-readers shopping for readers) who avoid social interaction the rest of the year. But so far this year the pleasant people outnumber the jerks, and on behalf of all my fellow employees, I thank all of you who are nice to those of us who are truly doing our best to get you what you're looking for.
The best thing about working in a bookstore is that most of the customers are readers, though I do work at one of those chains that also carry DVDs and CDs, so that's not always a guarantee. But when you're dealing with someone who is a reader, no matter what they read, there is usually a common bond between you on some level, and I love that. I don't think people who work in other forms of retail get that very often.
The holiday I celebrate is Christmas, and I'd like to take this moment to ask Santa to leave Jake Gyllenhaal under my tree this year, wearing nothing but a big red bow and that Santa hat from Jarhead.
About a month ago, I had a birthday. My friends all wanted to take me to see a movie, and their original plan was to take me to see Elizabethtown. It's time to confess an embarrassing secret. I used to like Orlando Bloom waaay too much. What can I say? I really like guys with British accents and he totally did it for me in Pirates of the Caribbean. But that's the only thing he's ever done that hasn't sucked, in my opinion. Now, don't be bombarding me with e-mails, all you Lord of the Rings fans. Those movies just aren't my cup of tea. I think they present a really ridiculous good vs evil, black or white, overly simplistic picture of the world. It's far too easy to watch those movies and hear Bush saying "You're either with us or against us." That's the kind of mindset those movies embody for me.
Anyway, back to my embarrassing crush on Orlando Bloom. So, my friends all know that he was my guy not so long ago and were set on taking me to see Elizabethtown. The last Orlando movie I bothered to actually see was Troy, which pissed me off because it eliminated the part of the story where Achilles goes mad over his LOVER'S death by changing Patroclus into his cousin. Please!
My waning affection for pretty boy Orlando and the dismal reviews for his latest film lead to me suggesting we pick a different movie, and we ended up going to see Jarhead. Jake Gyllenhaal is one of those guys who can be either really hot or kind of scary looking (he did nothing for me in The Good Girl, for instance), but lately he's been looking oh so fine. I really love the hairy chest and he's got one of the hottest treasure trails I've ever seen.
Jarhead was an okay film. For entertainment value, it didn't do all that much for me, other than giving me a chance to ogle Jake. But I did think it dealt very well with a lot of the harsh realities of a soldier's life, especially after they've been to war and more or less tossed aside (I'm talking about the flashback to Jake's father, a Vietnam vet, and the end of the movie itself).
I really can't wait to see Brokeback Mountain, speaking of Jake. My only concern is that they won't come near to doing justice to the short story, which is truly beautiful. It's about time, though, that Hollywood presented a gay love story between two men who are the idealized version of 'manhood' (ie cowboys) and just happen to be gay. They're still so stuck on the accepted stereotypes of gay men for the most part.
Anyway, I guess that's all for tonight. I just wanted to write because I've been a very bad blogger so far. I freely admit this and hope to do better.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Mini-note
The question popping up in e-mails is, "Where is the note to the readers?"
We've been in a holding pattern. Call it a wait & see in order to determine how genuine someone was or wasn't being.
Jess and I both got the answer today when Eddie e-mailed a short while ago.
Dona wants input on the note to the readers as does Ty.
We're assuming, though we could be wrong, that Ava and C.I. will step aside for the note to the readers. But look for a note to show up later tonight.
It'll address issues such as why we were still posting by Sunday afternoon.
See if you're going to yell "Stop the presses!" to us via e-mail, you better be sincere.
Now we'll address the reasons why the print edition and the online edition are so different.
We'll address, as Ava's aunt had requested we do if it came to this, issues of "silence."
It should make for an interesting note.
Look for it.
-- Jim
We've been in a holding pattern. Call it a wait & see in order to determine how genuine someone was or wasn't being.
Jess and I both got the answer today when Eddie e-mailed a short while ago.
Dona wants input on the note to the readers as does Ty.
We're assuming, though we could be wrong, that Ava and C.I. will step aside for the note to the readers. But look for a note to show up later tonight.
It'll address issues such as why we were still posting by Sunday afternoon.
See if you're going to yell "Stop the presses!" to us via e-mail, you better be sincere.
Now we'll address the reasons why the print edition and the online edition are so different.
We'll address, as Ava's aunt had requested we do if it came to this, issues of "silence."
It should make for an interesting note.
Look for it.
-- Jim
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Editorial: What Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma tells us
If you listened to The Laura Flanders Show yesterday, you know that the Bully Boy's words re: Hurricane Katrina were once again revealed as just empty words. (And if you didn't listen, why didn't you? A new broadcast of the live radio program airs tonight. The Laura Flanders Show for more information.) The mainstream media seems silent.
So let's ask it:
So what about Hurricane Katrina?
Anderson Cooper made quite a name for himself. In earlier times, his crying on air might have been questioned. Didn't happen. He cried, he became a star. (He has so much heart!) He wasn't the only proving they could do "tough" journalism.
Now the media circus has moved on. Familes are still split apart, not knowing where there members are. Democracy Now! noted Friday that children placed in foster homes in the aftermath are not easy to locate.
There's a story here. There's still a story here.
But the mainstream media's moved on. Apparently no one can squeeze out any more tears?
Laura Flanders rightly noted that the government's lack of response initially and inadequate response currently stands as a testimony to the Bully Boy and his administration's real priorities, real concerns and, in fact, the real record as opposed to the press spun one.
We'd go further, though. We'd note Hurricane Wilma. (Wally lives in his Florida. His grandfather lives in an effected area.)
"Oh, but Hurricane Wilma wasn't as bad as Hurricane Katrina," you might insist. No, it wasn't.
And that makes the failures of FEMA and the government to respond all the more glaring. Hurricane Katrina revealed that we're not prepared for any sort of national crisis -- be it a hurricane or a terrorist attack (a point echoed last week by the former 9/11 commission). That's a point that needs to be made and made loudly.
But Hurricane Wilma proves something too. This was the third hurricane. Katrina and Rita preceeded it. By the time Wilma struck, there should have been no reason for a scramble on the part of the government. We should have seen a swift and efficient response.
That didn't happen. People waited and waited and waited some more for their power to be restored. They were promised by Thanksgiving it would be (almost a month after Wilma hit) and Thanksgiving rolled around and some were told to wait a little bit longer. Despite the attention paid in initial media reports on Katrina to the ways those dependent upon public transportation were adversely effected, the Wilma response was one that appears to have never heard of public transportation.
There was no effort, big or small, to grasp that many people depend upon public transportation. You saw that when there was no move immediately to do away with fares for those in the area and you saw it in the fact that those in charge never seemed to know from one moment to the next where they'd set up relief supplies for the day.
Now that's a pain in the butt in you're driving around looking. It's a crisis if you're dependent upon public transportation. You don't merely hop back in the car and head off in another direction. You have to wait for the bus, you have to get on the right bus which might mean transferring. If you're dependent upon public transportation and you arrive at an area that's supposed to be providing relief supplies only to be told, "Oops, we changed it," you have to go through a lot more than the person driving their own automobile.
The lesson on public transportation should have been learned before Hurricane Katrina. After all the lip service to it after Katrina, it should have been an issue immediately addressed when planning the response to Wilma. That didn't happen.
Another issue raised in Katrina was the need by some agencies to see identification before providing any sort of relief or shelter. Once again, lesson not absorbed. Wilma victims were still being expected to cough up identification when dealing with governmental agencies.
Katrina revealed how underprepared we were. Wilma revealed that in a lesser crisis, we're still not prepared. More than that, we have an administration that learned nothing from the crisis. Not only did they go from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina without ever learning a thing about how to assist those in need, weeks after Katrina, they still hadn't learned a thing.
That's the lesson of Wilma.
"No one could have guessed . . ." is the catch phrase of Bully Boy's administration. The reality is that the administration refuses to learn lessons that events drive home.
An eagerness to refuse to acquire knowledge speaks to the intellectual incuriousity on the part of the Bully Boy. On the ground, however, it just speaks to people in need waiting in vain repeatedly. Over and over. In Katrina, in Rita and in Wilma.
The administration is very lucky that Wilma didn't cause the destruction that Katrina did. If it had, everyone would have forgotten Katrina because we'd all be pointing out that weeks after Katrina, nothing had changed. We think that's a lesson that still needs to be noted. After Katrina, the administration still didn't grasp how to respond (or didn't care) to those in need.
The response to Wilma proves that.
[This editorial was written by 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.
So let's ask it:
So what about Hurricane Katrina?
Anderson Cooper made quite a name for himself. In earlier times, his crying on air might have been questioned. Didn't happen. He cried, he became a star. (He has so much heart!) He wasn't the only proving they could do "tough" journalism.
Now the media circus has moved on. Familes are still split apart, not knowing where there members are. Democracy Now! noted Friday that children placed in foster homes in the aftermath are not easy to locate.
There's a story here. There's still a story here.
But the mainstream media's moved on. Apparently no one can squeeze out any more tears?
Laura Flanders rightly noted that the government's lack of response initially and inadequate response currently stands as a testimony to the Bully Boy and his administration's real priorities, real concerns and, in fact, the real record as opposed to the press spun one.
We'd go further, though. We'd note Hurricane Wilma. (Wally lives in his Florida. His grandfather lives in an effected area.)
"Oh, but Hurricane Wilma wasn't as bad as Hurricane Katrina," you might insist. No, it wasn't.
And that makes the failures of FEMA and the government to respond all the more glaring. Hurricane Katrina revealed that we're not prepared for any sort of national crisis -- be it a hurricane or a terrorist attack (a point echoed last week by the former 9/11 commission). That's a point that needs to be made and made loudly.
But Hurricane Wilma proves something too. This was the third hurricane. Katrina and Rita preceeded it. By the time Wilma struck, there should have been no reason for a scramble on the part of the government. We should have seen a swift and efficient response.
That didn't happen. People waited and waited and waited some more for their power to be restored. They were promised by Thanksgiving it would be (almost a month after Wilma hit) and Thanksgiving rolled around and some were told to wait a little bit longer. Despite the attention paid in initial media reports on Katrina to the ways those dependent upon public transportation were adversely effected, the Wilma response was one that appears to have never heard of public transportation.
There was no effort, big or small, to grasp that many people depend upon public transportation. You saw that when there was no move immediately to do away with fares for those in the area and you saw it in the fact that those in charge never seemed to know from one moment to the next where they'd set up relief supplies for the day.
Now that's a pain in the butt in you're driving around looking. It's a crisis if you're dependent upon public transportation. You don't merely hop back in the car and head off in another direction. You have to wait for the bus, you have to get on the right bus which might mean transferring. If you're dependent upon public transportation and you arrive at an area that's supposed to be providing relief supplies only to be told, "Oops, we changed it," you have to go through a lot more than the person driving their own automobile.
The lesson on public transportation should have been learned before Hurricane Katrina. After all the lip service to it after Katrina, it should have been an issue immediately addressed when planning the response to Wilma. That didn't happen.
Another issue raised in Katrina was the need by some agencies to see identification before providing any sort of relief or shelter. Once again, lesson not absorbed. Wilma victims were still being expected to cough up identification when dealing with governmental agencies.
Katrina revealed how underprepared we were. Wilma revealed that in a lesser crisis, we're still not prepared. More than that, we have an administration that learned nothing from the crisis. Not only did they go from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina without ever learning a thing about how to assist those in need, weeks after Katrina, they still hadn't learned a thing.
That's the lesson of Wilma.
"No one could have guessed . . ." is the catch phrase of Bully Boy's administration. The reality is that the administration refuses to learn lessons that events drive home.
An eagerness to refuse to acquire knowledge speaks to the intellectual incuriousity on the part of the Bully Boy. On the ground, however, it just speaks to people in need waiting in vain repeatedly. Over and over. In Katrina, in Rita and in Wilma.
The administration is very lucky that Wilma didn't cause the destruction that Katrina did. If it had, everyone would have forgotten Katrina because we'd all be pointing out that weeks after Katrina, nothing had changed. We think that's a lesson that still needs to be noted. After Katrina, the administration still didn't grasp how to respond (or didn't care) to those in need.
The response to Wilma proves that.
[This editorial was written by 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.
1 Book, 10 Minutes
[Note: This all runs together currently, we know. It won't post from various computers and we've lost it four times. This is from the typed version in Microsoft Word and we'll smooth it up after it goes up but we don't want to risk losing the entire post so we're posting it now. Note II: Entry should now be fixed.]
Jim: We're tempted to call this "1 Book, No Minutes." We had a few pieces that are in the print edition. The only one online that made the print edition is Ava & C.I.'s TV commentary. We thank they're strong pieces. But we've scrapped them for personal reasons, don't ask. As we scramble to polish what we can use for this edition, we sit down for a book discussion. Our focus is one book. Matthew Greenwald's Go Where You Wanna Go: The Oral History of The Mamas & The Papas. Participating in this discussion are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and me, Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz; and Wally of The Daily Jot. Mike suggested this last weekend and we were all able to get a hold of this book. Kat, set us up.
Kat: The Mamas and the Papas were a vocal group. John Phillips sometimes played guitar, but they were known for their vocals. Ironically, Michelle Phillips was the only one in the band who could read music. John Phillips and Michelle Phillips were married and two of the four members. Mama Cass, later just Cass Elliot, and Denny Doherty were the other two members. Famous for "California Dreamin," a song written by John & Michelle, ironically only Michelle was born in California. They shot to fame on "California Dreamin'" in the midst of the British invasion that only Motown was able to successfully and repeatedly challenge. With their first hit, they introduced a new look to pop music that went beyond the hippie look Sonny & Cher would popularize. They also provided intricate vocals that stand the test of time to this day. Along with other groups, they popularized the folk rock genre which attempted to inject some thought, and frequently protest thought, into the music scene.
Wally: Give it up for Kat. Great intro.
Mike: I agree. I picked this book because we love the Mamas & the Papas so it seemed a natural for us.
Dona: And we have readers who love them as well. There's never a time when we don't mention them or one of the members in passing and e-mails come in saying they're so glad someone is talking about the group. That can be older readers who lived through those times and that can be younger readers who picked up on the group after the fact. But the Mamas & the Papas live on in their music and continue to reach people.
Ty: Which is why I was a little leery about Mike's suggestion. You never know what you're going to get from a book and this is a group that means a lot to readers and to us. Reading Greenwald's book I was pleased from the start to see that this wasn't going to be a disaster.
Rebecca: The way I feel that John Phillips' co-written autobiography Papa John was.
Betty: If there was one area I would have liked to have seen more on, addressing an issue, it was authorship. It's touched on. But to read the book, you're not aware that the authorship of songs went beyond John Phillips claiming credit in interviews. There's a disc set I have of my brother's that credits "California Dreamin'" solely to John Phillips.
C.I.: Creeque Alley: The History of The Mamas And The Papas, a two-disc set. John Phillips went through a period where he was grabbing credit for everything. Which is ironic since he was more than happy to be billed for years as the co-writer of "500 Miles" when he had nothing to do with writing that song. I'm referring to folk classic and not the Proclaimers song that was in Benny & Joon.
Kat: And I'll agree with Betty's point. For most Americans, that's the choice you'll end up going with. You can get a two disc set with all the studio albums on it but most will go for Creeque Alley. You're more likely to find it in the stores. A recent import, The Mamas & The Papas Complete Anthology is actually a better purchase but it's four discs, more costly and available only as an import.
Jess: I have that and C.I. does. I believe Betty does as well.
Betty: Right. If you're going to buy a collection, that's the one to get.
Jess: Because you get all five studio albums, the live album of the Monterey performances as well as sample of solo performances by all four members. On the issue of authorship, when you ask someone to sit with you and help you write a song, if they do nothing but sit with you, they've earned their credit. Michelle did more than sit with John. She earned her credit on that song and Betty's right that she was briefly stripped of it.
Elaine: I noticed some trashing Michelle in the oral history. Usually for her sex life. At a time when sexual boundaries were breaking down and the male members, including her husband, were hardly in monogamous relationships. I found that an interesting insight into their own judgements. At the same time, she also benefits from being the sexual object of so many in the remarks of some people. I felt Michelle came off best of the people still alive quoted. She didn't get into a back and forth over whether Jill Gibson might be on a song on the second album. She said she recorded the tracks and then, when she was fired, Jill recorded them and if Jill thought she was on some of the tracks, she might be right. I couldn't get a handle on Denny.
Jess: Both John Phillips and Cass Elliot are dead. Cass died in 1974 and John Phillips in 2001. They are quoted in the book but they were not interviewed for the book. Greenwald's using other resources.
Rebecca: And Elaine brings up an interesting point. A lot of males quoted have their favorite, either Cass or Michelle. They don't do that when speaking of John and Denny. But there does seem to be a "choose sides" approach to the women. Which isn't surprising.
Jim: C.I.?
C.I.: If we're going to discuss the book, I think the thing that needs to be noted, and the book notes this, is that Cass Elliot did not die choking on food, not on a ham sandwich, not on anything. That myth was popularized by Playboy, in this country, I believe and it's simply not true although it's repeated over and over.
Dona: Right. That's an issue to Cass' daughter Owen Elliot-Kugell and it's an issue to Michelle Phillips so let's make sure we do our part to set the record straight. The coroner's report said she died of a massive heart attack. There appears to be some need to promote another myth. There are also those who believe she died under more mysterious circumstances. Regardless of which camp you fall into, she didn't die of a choking on a ham sandwich.
Jim: Wally, that was news to you, right?
Wally: I didn't know how she died before I read this book.
Jim: Because Michelle Phillips covered it in her own book, California Dreamin', which we've all read except for Wally. What did anyone read in this book and feel that hadn't read somewhere before?
Elaine: I'll go back to Michelle Phillips. I thought she was very forthcoming. I think she was too ready to take the blame for things that others earned the blame on and too quick to take the sole blame for things that involved shared blame, but I also thought she was an amazing resource for the book because she was ready to go on the record and she wasn't trying to present herself in the most flattering light or play the saint.
Dona: We should note that the book, as billed, is an oral history. People are quoted throughout and it must have been an editing nightmare for Greenwald but he selects strong quotes and the transitions work.
Rebecca: I'll agree with Elaine. Michelle was putting it out there. I saw that as well from some of the musicians who toured with them, but I didn't see that a lot elsewhere. I saw some superficial quotes, from living persons, and I felt, "Why bother to speak if you're not going to move beyond generalities?"
Wally: I was new to a lot of the people speaking, people in bands and that I'm guessing I should know, so I'll add that I had no trouble following the book despite this.
Cedric: And I think that's a good point. Getting back to Cass' death, I'm glad Michelle was so willing to share for the book because I really don't think there's anything on Cass' passing other than what Michelle offers. I didn't understand that. I don't mean that Michelle's comments should have been whittled down. They should appear exactly as they are. But a number of people speak in this book, highly of Cass. I'll assume some attended the funeral. But whether they did or not, I would assume they might have something to say regarding her passing and there's nothing there. I mean one minute Michelle's sharing at length, then Denny gives what I saw as a superficial, standard, "It's a loss" statement and we're suddenly off on David Crosby talking about heroin use.
Ty: Another area where Michelle's the only one to really speak beyond superficial, and I wasn't thinking about this while I was reading it so good point Elaine because Michelle really does make the book, was when John Phillips died. Again, it's Michelle bearing witness. I'm not trying to rag on anyone. It can be hard to speak of death and we just posted a notice about Richard Pryor and Eugene McCarthy that I don't think can be called much more than a notice. But the people in this book were friends with and knew Cass and John. And they have so little to say about the passing of either, except for Michelle.
Rebecca: She's got an interesting role, I think Kat would agree with me here, in that she's really the one who the torch has gone to.
Kat: Absolutely. Michelle is the one who has the role of group historian. For whatever reasons, Denny's not up to. When John was alive, an attempted read of his overstuffed book demonstrated that John was only interested in John by that point. He wasn't interested in the Mamas and the Papas, they're probably less than a third of the book. Michelle's been the one who the task of setting the record straight has fallen to. So it's good that, unlike John, she's not interested in sainthood. She's going to let it be as messy as it is and not clean it up or tidy it up. There's really not a book without her. Not just because she has actual memories where Denny offers vague generalities, not only because she's a marvelous speaker, but also because she's so forthcoming.
Betty: And she's not afraid to use her power. She speaks of the shaming she had to do to get the Mamas and the Papas inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. The Mamas & the Papas were four years of her life basically if you count when they start rehearsing on the island up until their decision to take a break which is the end until they're forced to record one last album to avoid lawsuits. She's had a life and then some since then. She's just finished filming the Knots Landing special. She has a life and it would be really easy to say, "I'm busy." But there she was on my PBS station talking about the group, not plugging the special and saying, "The next section has . . ." but honestly discussing the group and sitting down to share. A lot of people aren't like that. They're attitude isn't like that. I think she realizes the importance of the group, yes, but I also think she realizes the magnitude of the role that someone has to fill and she's filled it quite well.
Ava: I think that's a good point. Too many people, and having read John Phillips' bio, I'd say he's one, are interested in promoting just themselves. To carry the legacy torch and to make the group's meaning clear does require an honesty that most people don't have. Michelle Phillips has it and that deserves noting both because it is so rare and because it's part of what makes this book come so alive. There was another woman who's name I'm blanking on Ann something.
C.I.: Ann Marshall.
Ava: Thank you. I found her moments interesting. I'm sorry but C.I. and are taking notes and I'm not sure who made the point about people that played in the tour band, but I would agree that they had something worth sharing. I'm not sure that many other people did. And in my mind, you could leave out Denny's remarks, all of them, and the book would lose nothing. I don't know if he did too many drugs to remember, if it's too many years, if he doesn't want to talk about it, but his quotes were pretty much useless historically and they weren't interesting to read.
Mike: Agreed. If it's something that happened in the studio, Denny doesn't seem to have a clue. The producer --
C.I.: Lou Adler.
Mike: And the other guy --
C.I.: Bones Howe?
Mike: Yeah, they have some memories. The guys playing the instruments have some memories. Michelle can tell you Paul Simon dropped in during the recording of "12:30 (Young Girls Are Coming to the Canyon)" but Denny's just so vague. I was really disappointed with him and read through him quickly about half-way through the book because I'd grasped that Denny had nothing of interest to share.
Jess: Your parents are fans of the group. Did they see you reading the book?
Mike: Yeah and Dad's reading it right now with Ma waiting semi-patiently. It's really a great book.
Jim: And we should note that there are tons of voices, tons of people weighing in. This was really a huge undertaking for Matthew Greenwald and, like Dona, I think he did an amazing job with this book.
Cedric: I think we all enjoyed reading it and would all recommend it.
Kat: The group is connected to that time period in the sixties, where politics and statements became a part of music. You knew they were against the war, the Mamas and the Papas, even before you heard them speak. They stood out from the beginning visually and they had the chops to back up a career worth honoring. They're also one of the few groups that was gender integrated without someone being a sibling. The Mamas weren't backup singers, they were just as important to the sound as the Papas. It's easy to pick out Cass' amazing vocals and think, "Oh it's Cass and backup singers" but each member contributed to the whole and that's what made it so amazing vocally. You're looking at a very brief time that they're recording together, basically three years and not a full three years. That they left their mark testifies to the power of their talents. The book's neither attempting to smear the group nor to treat them as saints. It's an even handed look and a highly interesting book.
Jim: And that sums up the book and the group so we'll go out on that. I'll add, per Dona, that we'll do our "a note to readers" later today. We've been so focused on the book discussion, we haven't been posting the completed entries and are now rushing to catch up. Everyone's tired and then some.
Dona: Stop, Jim. Wally wants to say something and he hasn't spoken that much in this discussion.
Wally: I just wanted to add that the book reproduces the eulogy that Lou Adler read, for John Phillips, and that I enjoyed the discography which didn't just list the songs but actually provided information.
Jim: Good point. It's a great read, Go Where You Wanna Go, and it's a strong resource.
Jim: We're tempted to call this "1 Book, No Minutes." We had a few pieces that are in the print edition. The only one online that made the print edition is Ava & C.I.'s TV commentary. We thank they're strong pieces. But we've scrapped them for personal reasons, don't ask. As we scramble to polish what we can use for this edition, we sit down for a book discussion. Our focus is one book. Matthew Greenwald's Go Where You Wanna Go: The Oral History of The Mamas & The Papas. Participating in this discussion are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and me, Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz; and Wally of The Daily Jot. Mike suggested this last weekend and we were all able to get a hold of this book. Kat, set us up.
Kat: The Mamas and the Papas were a vocal group. John Phillips sometimes played guitar, but they were known for their vocals. Ironically, Michelle Phillips was the only one in the band who could read music. John Phillips and Michelle Phillips were married and two of the four members. Mama Cass, later just Cass Elliot, and Denny Doherty were the other two members. Famous for "California Dreamin," a song written by John & Michelle, ironically only Michelle was born in California. They shot to fame on "California Dreamin'" in the midst of the British invasion that only Motown was able to successfully and repeatedly challenge. With their first hit, they introduced a new look to pop music that went beyond the hippie look Sonny & Cher would popularize. They also provided intricate vocals that stand the test of time to this day. Along with other groups, they popularized the folk rock genre which attempted to inject some thought, and frequently protest thought, into the music scene.
Wally: Give it up for Kat. Great intro.
Mike: I agree. I picked this book because we love the Mamas & the Papas so it seemed a natural for us.
Dona: And we have readers who love them as well. There's never a time when we don't mention them or one of the members in passing and e-mails come in saying they're so glad someone is talking about the group. That can be older readers who lived through those times and that can be younger readers who picked up on the group after the fact. But the Mamas & the Papas live on in their music and continue to reach people.
Ty: Which is why I was a little leery about Mike's suggestion. You never know what you're going to get from a book and this is a group that means a lot to readers and to us. Reading Greenwald's book I was pleased from the start to see that this wasn't going to be a disaster.
Rebecca: The way I feel that John Phillips' co-written autobiography Papa John was.
Betty: If there was one area I would have liked to have seen more on, addressing an issue, it was authorship. It's touched on. But to read the book, you're not aware that the authorship of songs went beyond John Phillips claiming credit in interviews. There's a disc set I have of my brother's that credits "California Dreamin'" solely to John Phillips.
C.I.: Creeque Alley: The History of The Mamas And The Papas, a two-disc set. John Phillips went through a period where he was grabbing credit for everything. Which is ironic since he was more than happy to be billed for years as the co-writer of "500 Miles" when he had nothing to do with writing that song. I'm referring to folk classic and not the Proclaimers song that was in Benny & Joon.
Kat: And I'll agree with Betty's point. For most Americans, that's the choice you'll end up going with. You can get a two disc set with all the studio albums on it but most will go for Creeque Alley. You're more likely to find it in the stores. A recent import, The Mamas & The Papas Complete Anthology is actually a better purchase but it's four discs, more costly and available only as an import.
Jess: I have that and C.I. does. I believe Betty does as well.
Betty: Right. If you're going to buy a collection, that's the one to get.
Jess: Because you get all five studio albums, the live album of the Monterey performances as well as sample of solo performances by all four members. On the issue of authorship, when you ask someone to sit with you and help you write a song, if they do nothing but sit with you, they've earned their credit. Michelle did more than sit with John. She earned her credit on that song and Betty's right that she was briefly stripped of it.
Elaine: I noticed some trashing Michelle in the oral history. Usually for her sex life. At a time when sexual boundaries were breaking down and the male members, including her husband, were hardly in monogamous relationships. I found that an interesting insight into their own judgements. At the same time, she also benefits from being the sexual object of so many in the remarks of some people. I felt Michelle came off best of the people still alive quoted. She didn't get into a back and forth over whether Jill Gibson might be on a song on the second album. She said she recorded the tracks and then, when she was fired, Jill recorded them and if Jill thought she was on some of the tracks, she might be right. I couldn't get a handle on Denny.
Jess: Both John Phillips and Cass Elliot are dead. Cass died in 1974 and John Phillips in 2001. They are quoted in the book but they were not interviewed for the book. Greenwald's using other resources.
Rebecca: And Elaine brings up an interesting point. A lot of males quoted have their favorite, either Cass or Michelle. They don't do that when speaking of John and Denny. But there does seem to be a "choose sides" approach to the women. Which isn't surprising.
Jim: C.I.?
C.I.: If we're going to discuss the book, I think the thing that needs to be noted, and the book notes this, is that Cass Elliot did not die choking on food, not on a ham sandwich, not on anything. That myth was popularized by Playboy, in this country, I believe and it's simply not true although it's repeated over and over.
Dona: Right. That's an issue to Cass' daughter Owen Elliot-Kugell and it's an issue to Michelle Phillips so let's make sure we do our part to set the record straight. The coroner's report said she died of a massive heart attack. There appears to be some need to promote another myth. There are also those who believe she died under more mysterious circumstances. Regardless of which camp you fall into, she didn't die of a choking on a ham sandwich.
Jim: Wally, that was news to you, right?
Wally: I didn't know how she died before I read this book.
Jim: Because Michelle Phillips covered it in her own book, California Dreamin', which we've all read except for Wally. What did anyone read in this book and feel that hadn't read somewhere before?
Elaine: I'll go back to Michelle Phillips. I thought she was very forthcoming. I think she was too ready to take the blame for things that others earned the blame on and too quick to take the sole blame for things that involved shared blame, but I also thought she was an amazing resource for the book because she was ready to go on the record and she wasn't trying to present herself in the most flattering light or play the saint.
Dona: We should note that the book, as billed, is an oral history. People are quoted throughout and it must have been an editing nightmare for Greenwald but he selects strong quotes and the transitions work.
Rebecca: I'll agree with Elaine. Michelle was putting it out there. I saw that as well from some of the musicians who toured with them, but I didn't see that a lot elsewhere. I saw some superficial quotes, from living persons, and I felt, "Why bother to speak if you're not going to move beyond generalities?"
Wally: I was new to a lot of the people speaking, people in bands and that I'm guessing I should know, so I'll add that I had no trouble following the book despite this.
Cedric: And I think that's a good point. Getting back to Cass' death, I'm glad Michelle was so willing to share for the book because I really don't think there's anything on Cass' passing other than what Michelle offers. I didn't understand that. I don't mean that Michelle's comments should have been whittled down. They should appear exactly as they are. But a number of people speak in this book, highly of Cass. I'll assume some attended the funeral. But whether they did or not, I would assume they might have something to say regarding her passing and there's nothing there. I mean one minute Michelle's sharing at length, then Denny gives what I saw as a superficial, standard, "It's a loss" statement and we're suddenly off on David Crosby talking about heroin use.
Ty: Another area where Michelle's the only one to really speak beyond superficial, and I wasn't thinking about this while I was reading it so good point Elaine because Michelle really does make the book, was when John Phillips died. Again, it's Michelle bearing witness. I'm not trying to rag on anyone. It can be hard to speak of death and we just posted a notice about Richard Pryor and Eugene McCarthy that I don't think can be called much more than a notice. But the people in this book were friends with and knew Cass and John. And they have so little to say about the passing of either, except for Michelle.
Rebecca: She's got an interesting role, I think Kat would agree with me here, in that she's really the one who the torch has gone to.
Kat: Absolutely. Michelle is the one who has the role of group historian. For whatever reasons, Denny's not up to. When John was alive, an attempted read of his overstuffed book demonstrated that John was only interested in John by that point. He wasn't interested in the Mamas and the Papas, they're probably less than a third of the book. Michelle's been the one who the task of setting the record straight has fallen to. So it's good that, unlike John, she's not interested in sainthood. She's going to let it be as messy as it is and not clean it up or tidy it up. There's really not a book without her. Not just because she has actual memories where Denny offers vague generalities, not only because she's a marvelous speaker, but also because she's so forthcoming.
Betty: And she's not afraid to use her power. She speaks of the shaming she had to do to get the Mamas and the Papas inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. The Mamas & the Papas were four years of her life basically if you count when they start rehearsing on the island up until their decision to take a break which is the end until they're forced to record one last album to avoid lawsuits. She's had a life and then some since then. She's just finished filming the Knots Landing special. She has a life and it would be really easy to say, "I'm busy." But there she was on my PBS station talking about the group, not plugging the special and saying, "The next section has . . ." but honestly discussing the group and sitting down to share. A lot of people aren't like that. They're attitude isn't like that. I think she realizes the importance of the group, yes, but I also think she realizes the magnitude of the role that someone has to fill and she's filled it quite well.
Ava: I think that's a good point. Too many people, and having read John Phillips' bio, I'd say he's one, are interested in promoting just themselves. To carry the legacy torch and to make the group's meaning clear does require an honesty that most people don't have. Michelle Phillips has it and that deserves noting both because it is so rare and because it's part of what makes this book come so alive. There was another woman who's name I'm blanking on Ann something.
C.I.: Ann Marshall.
Ava: Thank you. I found her moments interesting. I'm sorry but C.I. and are taking notes and I'm not sure who made the point about people that played in the tour band, but I would agree that they had something worth sharing. I'm not sure that many other people did. And in my mind, you could leave out Denny's remarks, all of them, and the book would lose nothing. I don't know if he did too many drugs to remember, if it's too many years, if he doesn't want to talk about it, but his quotes were pretty much useless historically and they weren't interesting to read.
Mike: Agreed. If it's something that happened in the studio, Denny doesn't seem to have a clue. The producer --
C.I.: Lou Adler.
Mike: And the other guy --
C.I.: Bones Howe?
Mike: Yeah, they have some memories. The guys playing the instruments have some memories. Michelle can tell you Paul Simon dropped in during the recording of "12:30 (Young Girls Are Coming to the Canyon)" but Denny's just so vague. I was really disappointed with him and read through him quickly about half-way through the book because I'd grasped that Denny had nothing of interest to share.
Jess: Your parents are fans of the group. Did they see you reading the book?
Mike: Yeah and Dad's reading it right now with Ma waiting semi-patiently. It's really a great book.
Jim: And we should note that there are tons of voices, tons of people weighing in. This was really a huge undertaking for Matthew Greenwald and, like Dona, I think he did an amazing job with this book.
Cedric: I think we all enjoyed reading it and would all recommend it.
Kat: The group is connected to that time period in the sixties, where politics and statements became a part of music. You knew they were against the war, the Mamas and the Papas, even before you heard them speak. They stood out from the beginning visually and they had the chops to back up a career worth honoring. They're also one of the few groups that was gender integrated without someone being a sibling. The Mamas weren't backup singers, they were just as important to the sound as the Papas. It's easy to pick out Cass' amazing vocals and think, "Oh it's Cass and backup singers" but each member contributed to the whole and that's what made it so amazing vocally. You're looking at a very brief time that they're recording together, basically three years and not a full three years. That they left their mark testifies to the power of their talents. The book's neither attempting to smear the group nor to treat them as saints. It's an even handed look and a highly interesting book.
Jim: And that sums up the book and the group so we'll go out on that. I'll add, per Dona, that we'll do our "a note to readers" later today. We've been so focused on the book discussion, we haven't been posting the completed entries and are now rushing to catch up. Everyone's tired and then some.
Dona: Stop, Jim. Wally wants to say something and he hasn't spoken that much in this discussion.
Wally: I just wanted to add that the book reproduces the eulogy that Lou Adler read, for John Phillips, and that I enjoyed the discography which didn't just list the songs but actually provided information.
Jim: Good point. It's a great read, Go Where You Wanna Go, and it's a strong resource.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
