Want to see C.I. really mad? Bury a piece that someone has put their all into. That's how C.I. felt about Ty's feature last week. We were posting without C.I. who'd gone on to do the morning entries at The Common Ills. Ty's piece was one of the few that was fully completed (transcriptions of discussions were still taking place) so we rushed to put it up to have "something" up. We weren't aware of the doubts Ty had about the piece. Or that C.I., according to Ty, read five drafts of that piece before the rest of us saw it last Saturday.
There was no attempt to slight Ty or his strong piece. It was a case of it being complete while other pieces needed further touches. Readers also e-mailed throughout the day Sunday (until our note went up addressing this) asking why Ty's piece was buried.
We'd agreed to reprint it this week in our highlights to make sure it got the attention it deserved. (C.I. highlighted it in full last week.) Many e-mails have come in on it so we're guessing that most, if not all readers, saw it. We're moving a little slower this Sunday and one reason is to call attention to the highlights. Due to the new way we're archiving (due to problems with publishing), many spotlights do not show up on the main page or on the list of most recent posts. To be sure that this was noted, we decided to move a little slower. (We've also moved slower due to the fact that C.I. has a nasty case of swimmer's ear. As Rebecca just noted, "There are burdens to growing up with your own swimming pool, folks.")
If you missed it last week, you missed some strong solo writing from Ty.
Ty's Point of View
With Ava and Jess helping C.I. with e-mails coming into The Common Ills site, it's largely left to Dona and myself to read the e-mails at this site. Jim's always "just about" to do it. So I feel like I've got a pretty strong grasp on the interests of our intended audience. Some of you are new and we're glad to have you as readers. Some of you have been with us from the early days and we're glad you've stayed.
But some of you are either just "funning" or in the wrong place. I'm not referring to the self-admitted Republicans who have yet to meet a Third Estate Sunday Review editorial they couldn't disagree with. Those people are supposed to be disagree. We're a site for the left.
No, I'm talking about the kiddies, some of whom sound much older than children, who want to go racist. Are you a fan of Moronic Mars? Good for you. Are you one of the thirty-plus who think you advance the cause of your show by using the n-word? One of the ones writing in asking, "What does it matter if the ___s don't get air time?"
Or maybe you're one of the Whites who doesn't use the n-word but takes the time to explain "advancement"? As an African-American, I don't need you to explain advancement to me. However, many of you appear to require that someone explain it to you.
A token character brought on every now and then isn't an advancement. Justifications as to why the show focuses on the White characters doesn't change the fact that you can count on people of color to appear in the show's credits if not in the actual scenes.
You don't like that sort of comment. It's obvious from your e-mails. So let me explain what I don't like. I don't like a lot of snotty little White kids writing in to explain "advancement" to me.
I'm sorry that C.I. and Ava raised an issue that was new to you. It's a real tragedy that they were the first to raise it to you. But that's what is so great about what they do, they raise the issues that apparently your TV Guide writers and others have failed to address.
Now I could walk you through TV history and note Julia and I Spy. But we don't have to that far back. I'll bet that a lot of you can remember when Cosby was airing new episodes. I watched. Cliff Huxtable got on my nerves, but I liked the kids. Now let me point out something, that show aired on NBC. Do you see any shows with a cast that's primarily African-African on NBC today?
Now maybe you think "those people" (Tina's term of choice) love being on UPN. Tina writes "those people have an entire network and if Veronica Mars wasn't on UPN, they wouldn't even have to include any of them."
UPN does have some shows with a healthy number of African-Americans in the cast. Fox used to as well. So did the WB. Why? Because they start out broadcasting in large cities. They're trying to get the people in those areas to watch and some of the people in those areas include persons of color. When Fox went on its station buying spree, African-Americans became seen less on the shows.
Picking up on Tina's thread, Steve wrote, "Black people already have BET, what more do they want?"
Steve, if African-Americans have BET, who has NBC? Who has ABC? Who has CBS? Want to keep going down the list?
Tina felt the need to write a 30 K e-mail about "those people" and how if "you" (Ava and C.I.) "weren't so stupid, you'd realize that there [sic] being on Veronica for a few minutes each week is an advancement!" Thanks Tina. I'm guessing you also feel we're real lucky to be able to sit wherever we want on the bus now and should just pipe down already?
Hunt felt the need to explain that "No one wants to see blacks on TV anyway. They've had The Jeffersons, Give [sic] Me a Break, Different Strokes and Benson. What more do they want?"
Hunt, you are aware that Gimme a Break started out with one African-American woman (Nell Carter) surrounded by Whites, right? And you are aware that Benson was another White cast plus the lead actor? And that Different Strokes was about two African-Americans raised by a White father in an otherwise all White cast? The Jeffersons might be the strongest case for your argument because it did give more time to African-Americans but it also featured White regulars.
So considering that the all White casts didn't end in the days of The Dick Van Dyke Show and that recently all white casts have included such shows as Cheers, Reba, Everyone Must Love Raymond, Two and A Half Men, Fraiser, Friends, Yes, Dear . . . Get the point? What more do you want, Hunt?
Dona and I have tracked the Moronic Mars e-mails. Here's the tally:
36 racists defending Moronic Mars
3 assholes
11 fans of the show weighing in with their opinions
1011 readers praising Ava and C.I.'s review
If being called racists bothers the 36, they might want to write e-mails in the future that don't flaunt their racism.
If you're one of the eleven, I attempted to reply to you. You're obviously very devoted toyour show. If I told you to consider starting your own site, that was a serious suggestion. Some of the eleven are very gifted writers that have obviously thought a great deal about the show they enjoy. They should attempt to do something to share their passion. If I encouraged you to start your own site and added that, if you do, you should let us know, I meant that. We'll write something up giving you a shout out and a link in a feature.
If you're one of the 39 (assholes plus racists), I think you might want to seek some help. Hopefully, you only spew your hatred (towards women and African-Americans) when you're alone at your keyboard but your comments indicate you have serious issues. Unless you're planning to pack up and move to some other country (bad news for you apartheid no longer exists in South Africa so pick another destination), I think you're going to have some serious problems in the days ahead.
Hunt wrote of taking back "my country from the" n-word. Hunt, unless you're planning to hunt me down and every other African-American, to kill us off, you're going to have a problem because this is our country as well. And we do have a right to be represented onscreen as something more than the criminal of the week on one of the Law & Orders. In fact, Hunt, there are a lot of people color and different ethnicities in this country that aren't represented on television as anything other than guest star.
Hunt feels that "the Barones were the best family on TV because the wives didn't work and the only black wasn't on more than a handful of episodes and knew to only come around when invited." I never watched Raymond, so I'll take your word on how the show portrayed a person of color (occasional guest star) and women, Hunt.
But Tina, and others like her, might want to think about Hunt, who shares their racism, before composing a lecture about the progress "those people" have made. They might also want to realize that everyone in the world who can read isn't White. I'm guessing that Hunt and Tina might have been less vocal about "those people" if they'd realized that their e-mails would be read by one of "those people."
It's a sign of ignorance to assume that everyone is like you are. Possibly that's why Tina and Hunt and the rest are so bothered by the suggestion that TV could provide more African-Americans as regular cast members? They look around and see the people like them (who they like) and then they see "the other" who is different and not fully human?
But Hunt and Tina, wes people been reading da e-mails for some time and wes a had dat internet too. That's probably especially shocking to Tina who explained that when you show "those people there's always someone complaining about a scene of them eating watermelons." Tina and Hunt both wrote well grammatically speaking. They've obviously had some level of education which makes their racism all the more sad.
I'm assuming that some of those who wrote in, if they read this, might feel inclined to write a "I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were black" e-mail. Don't bother. When you thought it was just Whites in the room, you were comfortable speaking off the cuff. It was revealing. You might be embarrassed about that. (Maybe Hunt wouldn't be?)
Regardless of whether you are or are not embarrassed, you've done your part to demonstrate that Ava and C.I. are on the right track with their reviews. That any racist thought they could send an e-mail to someone they don't know and talk "White to White" indicates that the token representation on TV has allowed a number of Moronic Mars fans to think that we're not usually in the room when the action takes place. TV's helped you form that misconception. Which only proves the point that Ava and C.I. were making.
posted by Third Estate Sunday Review @ Sunday, January 08, 2006
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Editorial Highlight: NYT Clucks and half-presents in an editorial passing for an article (The Common Ills)
The Common Ills community has been highlighting news on MLK regularly in the lead up to Monday the 16th which is the national day of honoring MLK's memory. In addition to member's highlights, there is this commentary on the dispute over the future of The King Center and commentary on The New York Times's coverage of MLK.
NYT: Clucks and half-presents in an editorial passing for an article
"Disarray at Center for Dr. King Casts Pall on Family and Legacy" is the front page story that Shaila Dewan is credited for in the New York Times.
The story's old news to this community. When the main participants are non-white (and not accused of a crime or Bully Boy lapdogs), news takes a little longer to reach the Grey Lady.
Like Keesha, I'm already on record regarding the sale of the King Center to the federal government. (Opposed.) So keep that in mind.
Dewan tells you that "many" are in favor of the sale and finds ONE person to quote on it. Dewan notes, but never questions, that the National Park Service is offering the family eleven million dollars for the King Center. Eleven million dollars?
Why the property must be very valuable, right?
There are some apparent repairs that need to be made. Ironically enough, the National Park Service says there are eleven million dollars worth of repairs that need to be made.
So we're supposed to believe that out of the good of their hearts, the National Park Service is willing to blow twenty-two million of tax payer monies?
MLK's crypt is on this land. Presumably that too would be part of a sale.
Coretta Scott King is not quoted but she's alluded to repeatedly. It's a strain on her, we're told, as her children are split on what to do. No where in the article is a reader told what the community already knows, that prior to her stroke, she was said to be opposed to the sale.
The King Center hasn't been what it should have been. I don't think there's a great deal of dispute about that. (I could be wrong.) But having lagged behind for years, the debate (or fight, if you prefer) over it's future may be the best thing to happen.
A decision is now forced and something will result. Either the two children wanting to sell for eleven million dollars will get their way or the two who find the idea of the federal government owning The King Center repugnant (which, again, I do) will get their way.
Either way, the center will have a direction. The articles full of tidbits and gossip. (The Times hasn't done any work of their own, they rely on articles by others for this front page story they've sat on for a month -- apparently they feel it honors the legacy of MLK to run old news now.)
I think it will be really sad if the government ends up owning The King Center. But, again, either way the center will have a direction. Owned by the government, it will become a tourist attraction only and it's doubtful that MLK's teachings (other than playing the one speech over and over) will be noted. If the side wanting to retain family control of The King Center wins out, the debate of the center's reason for being should lead to a new focus for the center.
It's already a proven tourist attraction (which, no doubt, is why the federal government wants it). It can continue as that. But it could be a great deal more if the family retains ownership. Sometimes expressing differences leads to a sharper vision. That's a point (one of many) the article never raises but the paper can't even find a person to go record against the sale of the center so it's not surprising that this is presented, by the paper, as something "many" support and that the only "witnesses" are the ones advocating the sale or (this is the paper's idea of balance) those who can see "both sides."
Sound familiar? It's the way the Times portrays political debates as well. You get the right and then you get the mushy center.
MLK fought for a larger good (another point the paper's not interested in). As a result of the larger struggle, sometimes he and his family suffered. The debate within the family today is a reflection of the same struggle. Hopefully, those advocating the sale of the center to the federal government are doing so to keep the center alive. If so, you have two points of view attempting to determine how to best serve the legacy. The struggle may be painful but MLK never claimed that the road was easy.
The paper can cluck all he wants but tody the family's involved in a struggle and, regardless of which result you side with, that reflects the fighting spirit of MLK. That's a point the article could have made but doesn't.
Hiding behind Coretta Scott King, the paper attempts to silence one side and appears to bemoan a failure to 'go along to get along.' The failure is the paper's, not the family's. But, as Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon noted in Adventures in Medialand: Behind the News, Beyond the Politcs, this is the paper that, in response to MLK's "Beyond Vietnam Speech," "lecutred that Vietnam and racism were 'distinct and separate' issues; merging the two did a 'disservice to both' and led to 'deeper confusion'" (page 208). Dewan's article this morning follows the same pattern of selective information in the "we know best" attitude that's a hallmark of the New York Times.
Martin Luther King
mlk
the new york times
the king center
shaila dewan
jeff cohen
norman solomon
adventures in medialand
NYT: Clucks and half-presents in an editorial passing for an article
"Disarray at Center for Dr. King Casts Pall on Family and Legacy" is the front page story that Shaila Dewan is credited for in the New York Times.
The story's old news to this community. When the main participants are non-white (and not accused of a crime or Bully Boy lapdogs), news takes a little longer to reach the Grey Lady.
Like Keesha, I'm already on record regarding the sale of the King Center to the federal government. (Opposed.) So keep that in mind.
Dewan tells you that "many" are in favor of the sale and finds ONE person to quote on it. Dewan notes, but never questions, that the National Park Service is offering the family eleven million dollars for the King Center. Eleven million dollars?
Why the property must be very valuable, right?
There are some apparent repairs that need to be made. Ironically enough, the National Park Service says there are eleven million dollars worth of repairs that need to be made.
So we're supposed to believe that out of the good of their hearts, the National Park Service is willing to blow twenty-two million of tax payer monies?
MLK's crypt is on this land. Presumably that too would be part of a sale.
Coretta Scott King is not quoted but she's alluded to repeatedly. It's a strain on her, we're told, as her children are split on what to do. No where in the article is a reader told what the community already knows, that prior to her stroke, she was said to be opposed to the sale.
The King Center hasn't been what it should have been. I don't think there's a great deal of dispute about that. (I could be wrong.) But having lagged behind for years, the debate (or fight, if you prefer) over it's future may be the best thing to happen.
A decision is now forced and something will result. Either the two children wanting to sell for eleven million dollars will get their way or the two who find the idea of the federal government owning The King Center repugnant (which, again, I do) will get their way.
Either way, the center will have a direction. The articles full of tidbits and gossip. (The Times hasn't done any work of their own, they rely on articles by others for this front page story they've sat on for a month -- apparently they feel it honors the legacy of MLK to run old news now.)
I think it will be really sad if the government ends up owning The King Center. But, again, either way the center will have a direction. Owned by the government, it will become a tourist attraction only and it's doubtful that MLK's teachings (other than playing the one speech over and over) will be noted. If the side wanting to retain family control of The King Center wins out, the debate of the center's reason for being should lead to a new focus for the center.
It's already a proven tourist attraction (which, no doubt, is why the federal government wants it). It can continue as that. But it could be a great deal more if the family retains ownership. Sometimes expressing differences leads to a sharper vision. That's a point (one of many) the article never raises but the paper can't even find a person to go record against the sale of the center so it's not surprising that this is presented, by the paper, as something "many" support and that the only "witnesses" are the ones advocating the sale or (this is the paper's idea of balance) those who can see "both sides."
Sound familiar? It's the way the Times portrays political debates as well. You get the right and then you get the mushy center.
MLK fought for a larger good (another point the paper's not interested in). As a result of the larger struggle, sometimes he and his family suffered. The debate within the family today is a reflection of the same struggle. Hopefully, those advocating the sale of the center to the federal government are doing so to keep the center alive. If so, you have two points of view attempting to determine how to best serve the legacy. The struggle may be painful but MLK never claimed that the road was easy.
The paper can cluck all he wants but tody the family's involved in a struggle and, regardless of which result you side with, that reflects the fighting spirit of MLK. That's a point the article could have made but doesn't.
Hiding behind Coretta Scott King, the paper attempts to silence one side and appears to bemoan a failure to 'go along to get along.' The failure is the paper's, not the family's. But, as Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon noted in Adventures in Medialand: Behind the News, Beyond the Politcs, this is the paper that, in response to MLK's "Beyond Vietnam Speech," "lecutred that Vietnam and racism were 'distinct and separate' issues; merging the two did a 'disservice to both' and led to 'deeper confusion'" (page 208). Dewan's article this morning follows the same pattern of selective information in the "we know best" attitude that's a hallmark of the New York Times.
Martin Luther King
mlk
the new york times
the king center
shaila dewan
jeff cohen
norman solomon
adventures in medialand
Spotlight: Ruth's evaluations of the Alito hearings
Hot off the presses, Ruth's most recent report. So recent it went up while we were on a final break for this edition. Ruth's providing commentary on the Alito hearings and we have a feature that will go up later on the hearings where we pull from various community sites. ("So hot off the presses," says C.I., "that an error I caused wasn't caught. My apologies to Ruth because when I copy and paste from e-mails, the words tend to run together. Spacing them often leads to me losing a letter and rushing to replace it.")
Ruth's Morning Edition Report
Ruth: Programming notes at the start of this report:
Monday, January 16, WBAI-Pacifica Radio, 99.5 FM, New York, will broadcast A Special Birthday Tribute to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Join us for an extraordinary 21-hour-long program starting at 3 AM. Beginning with Citizen "K" opening with the documentary "Citizen King." Stay with us through the day as we bring you rare complete speeches and sermons given by Dr. King as he moved from a relatively unknown country preacher to the world stage as one of the greatest leaders in the movement for civil and human rights. For 45 years WBAI has recorded many of the most memorable and powerful moments in the struggle for freedom, justice and equality in the US, painstakingly archiving the recordings for ongoing listener and community education and enjoyment. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches are perhaps even more relevant today than when he first gave them. The issues of social justice, racism, poverty, equality, civil liberties, human rights, globalization, war and peace are still making a powerful impact on the daily lives of humanity.
That is this Monday on Pacifica's WBAI. How did Pacifica end up with such strong archives? By covering what others did not want to. We saw that again this week with the Judiciary Committee's hearings on Judge Samuel Alito Jr.
Second programming note, is for the morning of Sunday the fifteenth, and remember programs are archived if you are reading this after the fifteenth:
Sunday Salon with Larry Bensky airing on KPFA 9-11 am Pacific Time
In our first hour... Iraq on-the-ground... We'll be joined in-studio by independent journalist David Enders, author of the new book "Baghdad Bulletin: Dispatches from the American Occupation." Enders spent 15 months in Iraq, where he arrived weeks after the U.S. invasion. He never once lived inside the Green Zone. And, Raed Jarrar recently moved to the Bay Area from Iraq. His family recently moved to Jordan after being one of the last families in their circle to stay in Iraq. Jarrar has done much work on the ground in Iraq.
In our second hour... The first of 6 planned executions in California this year... Clarence Ray Allen will turn 76 on Monday, January 16th, just after midnight on the 17th, the State of California plans to execute him. He has advanced heart disease and diabetes, is legally blind, hearing-impaired, and uses a wheelchair. Meanwhile, the state Legislature is considering a Moratorium on the Death Penalty. Our guests: Assemblymember Sally Lieber of San Jose is a sponsor of the legislation; Dr. John Groner will talk about the state of health care in California Prisons; and others.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held live hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. for Surpreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Any nominee, whether he or she makes it through the process and is confirmed or not, is news.
Barring ill health or an accident, a Justice will serve longer than a President, even one elected to two terms, and will impact the make up of the Court and the way the Court rules. Judge Alito, who is currently a federal judge, is the second of Bully Boy's nominees to sit before the Judiciary Committee. Judge John Roberts Jr. was confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in late 2005. Bully Boy's original nominee for slot being vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor was Harriet Miers. Ms. Miers' nomination imploded for a number of reasons, including questions about qualifications, though, to hear the press tell it now, apparently the right-wing reaction to Ms. Miers' nomination did her in.
Such were the facts leading up to hearings on Judge Alito. Cleary the hearings were both news and of interest to the public good. So where was public radio? NPR passed. Pacifica was there with their gavel to gavel coverage.
As repeatedly demonstrated last year, when events call live coverage, Pacifica puts their scheduled programming on hold to provide the public service required. Possibly, chucking the usual NPR fare might mean losing some of the corporate underwriting that NPR depends upon?
If you felt, as I did, that the hearings were disappointing, they were still newsworthy. Those listening to the hearings noted that Judge Alito refused to term Roe v. Wade settled law and that, despite the media reports, he did not give any indication of being "open" to Roe. Instead he cited Casey vs. Planned Parenthood which was a case that upheld Roe in parts but also chipped away at some findings in Roe. As the mainstream media applauded Judge Alito's 'clever' manner in dealing with questions, those who didn't follow the coverage live may not have grasped how often he avoided answering questions which included more than mere side stepping.
While rocking Elijah mid-morning Friday, I wondered where the analysis was? Throughout the week Verna Avery Brown and Mitch Jeserich would highlight key moments during the breaks, early on they were joined by Larry Bensky, and speak to assorted guests who would raise issues and offer insights. It was only after the song playing went off that I realized I was not listening to the hearings on KPFA. All of the Pacifica stations do a wonderful job, but I have never known to KPFA to break away from a live coverage so if, like me, you missed the analysis during the breaks, make a note to listen to KPFA when Pacifica provides live coverage.
In Wednesday's report, I made a point to note some of the guests offering commentary, I would now like to note the callers who also added to the coverage. Some got to the point immediately, some were highly knowledgable about the process, but all added to the coverage. That includes the man who phoned, I believe on Thursday, to offer that Judge Alito should be confirmed. I disagreed with the caller's reasonings but he had his say and was heard which is what public radio is all about.
As C.I. noted here and in roundtables for the gina & krista round-robin, watching the hearings in person did not provide any indication of how they were playing out if you listened to them, watched them or followed after the fact coverage. By taking calls from listeners, Pacifica's coverage included not just what went on in the hearings, news analysis and experts who could speak to key topics, it also included the public a key part of public radio. So I have high praise for Pacifica's coverage of the hearings.
The hearings themselves? This is the week that Elijah, my grandson, figured out how to remove his own diaper. He most enjoyed doing this when he had a "poopy" diaper. I think I a great deal of what I heard said in the hearings was reflective of what was in the diapers I rushed around repeatedly to pick up.
Tracey and Jayson came over after school each each day and would listen in, except for Friday when the hearings had concluded before school ended, hoping each time that this would be the day the Democrats had "a game plan." They were very disappointed in the process. But I was impressed with both grandchildren because they are still willing to fight the confirmation by contacting their senators and because they are geared up for other battles on the horizon.
My own take was less productive. Until 2005, there was a man still sitting on the Court who'd been appointed when I was a young woman that I opposed then and every day after. These are lifetime appointments and neither Chief Justice Roberts nor Judge Alito can be considered elderly. If appointed, Judge Alito will be with us for many years. Having lived through the breakthroughs and progress of the Warren Court, watching the Rehnquist Court undue much of that progress has been depressing.
Justice O'Connor has been, in my opinion, overly praised. She was not just one of the five with the majority in the 'one time decision' of Bush v. Gore, she was also someone who upheld only parts of Roe. As a strong supporter of Roe, I do understand the desire to see her remain on the Court and found myself wishing, since her announcement to retire, that she would announce she had changed her mind and would remain on the bench. Judge Alito, if confirmed, will steer the Court ever more rightward but as someone who remembers the Warren Court, I try to remind myself that Judge O'Connor is a "moderate" only in relation to the current make up of the Court.
So as the Bully Boy attempts to replace a conservative with a more extreme conservative, I attempt to remember that we will lose a fair weather friend of Roe as opposed to a close ally. I also attempt to tell myself that having bungled the hearings for the second time in a row, the Democrats on the committee will be organized if and when Bully Boy nominates a third person to the Court. That may be the biggest delusion of all.
If there was a master plan of strategy that Democrats serving on the committee were operating under, it was lost on me. Topics and issues came and went. Follow up questions were rare from an individual senator and even rarer still from other senators. I feel that in the next hearing, one Democrat should be in charge of determining the key strategy. Due to the way he conducted himself in the hearings and his senority, I would designate Senator Ted Kennedy for that task. He should outline and enforce the strategy for each day's hearings. If an individual senator felt that the outline did not include an issue that was important to them or their constituents, they should bring up that issue in relation to day's framework outlined by Ted Kennedy. What should have been a hard look at Judge Alito's decisions and beliefs came off, instead, like a catch all as Democrats attempted to touch on every topic under the sun without any spine that tied the questioning together.
For myself, the issue was the right to privacy. That issue was the umbrella under which questions of reproductive choice, questions of human rights and sexuality, questions of governmental spying all fit. But there was no attempt to tie them together in the questioning. Instead the questions came and went playing out as though the senators were going down a laundry list of items and checking each one off as they went along.
The environment is also an important issue and, while I am not aware of how to tie that into the issue of privacy rights, eight senators should be able to think that through much better than I could. A constant refrain from each senator could have been, "Judge Alito, let's get back to the concerns many have over your views on the right to privacy."
This is at the heart of the problems many of us have with Judge Alito. Noting the unitary executive power issue, Chip Pitts of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee stated Wednesday, "Alito still holds to this and would be a danger on the Supreme Court." He referenced a question from Republican Senator Jon Kyle as to who would have the last word in a conflict between the branches, the president? Judge Alito's response was, "Yes, that's right." The implications of that statement are frightening. This was one of many threads that the Democrats, collectively, dropped; however, it seemed to demand greater exploration.
The hearings are over. Hopefully the nomination can be stopped on the full floor of the Senate. But, as Tracey and Jayson pointed out, there are additional battles. With that in mind, I'll repeat this from Wednesday's report:
The Bush Commission . . . will be holding a tribunal in New York City from January twentieth to the twenty-third. The first day of the hearing will take place at The Riverside Church on 123 Riverside Drive and will begin at 5:00 pm. The second day will take place at the same location and begin at 10:00 am. The final day, Sunday, the hearings will move to the Law School at Columbia University and will begin at 1:00 pm. More information can be found online at Bush Commission and also by calling (212) 941- 8086. Also at the Bush Commission website, you can find information on the October 2005 hearings including audio and videos you can watch online as well as text excerpts.
The commission is discussed on Monday's Law & Disorder, an archived broadcast of that episode can be heard at the Law & Disorder website. This week's CounterSpin addressed the realities of Iraq via The Independent of London's Patrick Cockburn, an unembedded reporter who has been reporting on the occupation since the invasion. Also of interest in that broadcast of CounterSpin is Janeane Jackson's interview with journalist Brian Dominick of the NewStandard about what lessons the media seem to have absorbed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. One theory? Raw emotion.
Regular programming returns to Pacifica this week and I am sure many of us are looking forward to hearing our favorites. But I will close by again noting and thanking Pacifica for providing the gavel to gavel coverage of the hearings and for serving the public interests as public radio should.
pacifica
samuel alito
supreme court
alito hearings
wbai
kpfa
law and disorder
bush commission
brian dominick
patrick cockburn
janine jackson
counterspin
special birthday tribute to mlk
mlk
sunday salon
sunday salon with larry bensky
verna avery brown
larry bensky
mitch jesserich
chip pitts
bill of rights defense committee
ruths morning edition report
the common ills
Ruth's Morning Edition Report
Ruth: Programming notes at the start of this report:
Monday, January 16, WBAI-Pacifica Radio, 99.5 FM, New York, will broadcast A Special Birthday Tribute to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Join us for an extraordinary 21-hour-long program starting at 3 AM. Beginning with Citizen "K" opening with the documentary "Citizen King." Stay with us through the day as we bring you rare complete speeches and sermons given by Dr. King as he moved from a relatively unknown country preacher to the world stage as one of the greatest leaders in the movement for civil and human rights. For 45 years WBAI has recorded many of the most memorable and powerful moments in the struggle for freedom, justice and equality in the US, painstakingly archiving the recordings for ongoing listener and community education and enjoyment. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches are perhaps even more relevant today than when he first gave them. The issues of social justice, racism, poverty, equality, civil liberties, human rights, globalization, war and peace are still making a powerful impact on the daily lives of humanity.
That is this Monday on Pacifica's WBAI. How did Pacifica end up with such strong archives? By covering what others did not want to. We saw that again this week with the Judiciary Committee's hearings on Judge Samuel Alito Jr.
Second programming note, is for the morning of Sunday the fifteenth, and remember programs are archived if you are reading this after the fifteenth:
Sunday Salon with Larry Bensky airing on KPFA 9-11 am Pacific Time
In our first hour... Iraq on-the-ground... We'll be joined in-studio by independent journalist David Enders, author of the new book "Baghdad Bulletin: Dispatches from the American Occupation." Enders spent 15 months in Iraq, where he arrived weeks after the U.S. invasion. He never once lived inside the Green Zone. And, Raed Jarrar recently moved to the Bay Area from Iraq. His family recently moved to Jordan after being one of the last families in their circle to stay in Iraq. Jarrar has done much work on the ground in Iraq.
In our second hour... The first of 6 planned executions in California this year... Clarence Ray Allen will turn 76 on Monday, January 16th, just after midnight on the 17th, the State of California plans to execute him. He has advanced heart disease and diabetes, is legally blind, hearing-impaired, and uses a wheelchair. Meanwhile, the state Legislature is considering a Moratorium on the Death Penalty. Our guests: Assemblymember Sally Lieber of San Jose is a sponsor of the legislation; Dr. John Groner will talk about the state of health care in California Prisons; and others.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held live hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. for Surpreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Any nominee, whether he or she makes it through the process and is confirmed or not, is news.
Barring ill health or an accident, a Justice will serve longer than a President, even one elected to two terms, and will impact the make up of the Court and the way the Court rules. Judge Alito, who is currently a federal judge, is the second of Bully Boy's nominees to sit before the Judiciary Committee. Judge John Roberts Jr. was confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in late 2005. Bully Boy's original nominee for slot being vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor was Harriet Miers. Ms. Miers' nomination imploded for a number of reasons, including questions about qualifications, though, to hear the press tell it now, apparently the right-wing reaction to Ms. Miers' nomination did her in.
Such were the facts leading up to hearings on Judge Alito. Cleary the hearings were both news and of interest to the public good. So where was public radio? NPR passed. Pacifica was there with their gavel to gavel coverage.
As repeatedly demonstrated last year, when events call live coverage, Pacifica puts their scheduled programming on hold to provide the public service required. Possibly, chucking the usual NPR fare might mean losing some of the corporate underwriting that NPR depends upon?
If you felt, as I did, that the hearings were disappointing, they were still newsworthy. Those listening to the hearings noted that Judge Alito refused to term Roe v. Wade settled law and that, despite the media reports, he did not give any indication of being "open" to Roe. Instead he cited Casey vs. Planned Parenthood which was a case that upheld Roe in parts but also chipped away at some findings in Roe. As the mainstream media applauded Judge Alito's 'clever' manner in dealing with questions, those who didn't follow the coverage live may not have grasped how often he avoided answering questions which included more than mere side stepping.
While rocking Elijah mid-morning Friday, I wondered where the analysis was? Throughout the week Verna Avery Brown and Mitch Jeserich would highlight key moments during the breaks, early on they were joined by Larry Bensky, and speak to assorted guests who would raise issues and offer insights. It was only after the song playing went off that I realized I was not listening to the hearings on KPFA. All of the Pacifica stations do a wonderful job, but I have never known to KPFA to break away from a live coverage so if, like me, you missed the analysis during the breaks, make a note to listen to KPFA when Pacifica provides live coverage.
In Wednesday's report, I made a point to note some of the guests offering commentary, I would now like to note the callers who also added to the coverage. Some got to the point immediately, some were highly knowledgable about the process, but all added to the coverage. That includes the man who phoned, I believe on Thursday, to offer that Judge Alito should be confirmed. I disagreed with the caller's reasonings but he had his say and was heard which is what public radio is all about.
As C.I. noted here and in roundtables for the gina & krista round-robin, watching the hearings in person did not provide any indication of how they were playing out if you listened to them, watched them or followed after the fact coverage. By taking calls from listeners, Pacifica's coverage included not just what went on in the hearings, news analysis and experts who could speak to key topics, it also included the public a key part of public radio. So I have high praise for Pacifica's coverage of the hearings.
The hearings themselves? This is the week that Elijah, my grandson, figured out how to remove his own diaper. He most enjoyed doing this when he had a "poopy" diaper. I think I a great deal of what I heard said in the hearings was reflective of what was in the diapers I rushed around repeatedly to pick up.
Tracey and Jayson came over after school each each day and would listen in, except for Friday when the hearings had concluded before school ended, hoping each time that this would be the day the Democrats had "a game plan." They were very disappointed in the process. But I was impressed with both grandchildren because they are still willing to fight the confirmation by contacting their senators and because they are geared up for other battles on the horizon.
My own take was less productive. Until 2005, there was a man still sitting on the Court who'd been appointed when I was a young woman that I opposed then and every day after. These are lifetime appointments and neither Chief Justice Roberts nor Judge Alito can be considered elderly. If appointed, Judge Alito will be with us for many years. Having lived through the breakthroughs and progress of the Warren Court, watching the Rehnquist Court undue much of that progress has been depressing.
Justice O'Connor has been, in my opinion, overly praised. She was not just one of the five with the majority in the 'one time decision' of Bush v. Gore, she was also someone who upheld only parts of Roe. As a strong supporter of Roe, I do understand the desire to see her remain on the Court and found myself wishing, since her announcement to retire, that she would announce she had changed her mind and would remain on the bench. Judge Alito, if confirmed, will steer the Court ever more rightward but as someone who remembers the Warren Court, I try to remind myself that Judge O'Connor is a "moderate" only in relation to the current make up of the Court.
So as the Bully Boy attempts to replace a conservative with a more extreme conservative, I attempt to remember that we will lose a fair weather friend of Roe as opposed to a close ally. I also attempt to tell myself that having bungled the hearings for the second time in a row, the Democrats on the committee will be organized if and when Bully Boy nominates a third person to the Court. That may be the biggest delusion of all.
If there was a master plan of strategy that Democrats serving on the committee were operating under, it was lost on me. Topics and issues came and went. Follow up questions were rare from an individual senator and even rarer still from other senators. I feel that in the next hearing, one Democrat should be in charge of determining the key strategy. Due to the way he conducted himself in the hearings and his senority, I would designate Senator Ted Kennedy for that task. He should outline and enforce the strategy for each day's hearings. If an individual senator felt that the outline did not include an issue that was important to them or their constituents, they should bring up that issue in relation to day's framework outlined by Ted Kennedy. What should have been a hard look at Judge Alito's decisions and beliefs came off, instead, like a catch all as Democrats attempted to touch on every topic under the sun without any spine that tied the questioning together.
For myself, the issue was the right to privacy. That issue was the umbrella under which questions of reproductive choice, questions of human rights and sexuality, questions of governmental spying all fit. But there was no attempt to tie them together in the questioning. Instead the questions came and went playing out as though the senators were going down a laundry list of items and checking each one off as they went along.
The environment is also an important issue and, while I am not aware of how to tie that into the issue of privacy rights, eight senators should be able to think that through much better than I could. A constant refrain from each senator could have been, "Judge Alito, let's get back to the concerns many have over your views on the right to privacy."
This is at the heart of the problems many of us have with Judge Alito. Noting the unitary executive power issue, Chip Pitts of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee stated Wednesday, "Alito still holds to this and would be a danger on the Supreme Court." He referenced a question from Republican Senator Jon Kyle as to who would have the last word in a conflict between the branches, the president? Judge Alito's response was, "Yes, that's right." The implications of that statement are frightening. This was one of many threads that the Democrats, collectively, dropped; however, it seemed to demand greater exploration.
The hearings are over. Hopefully the nomination can be stopped on the full floor of the Senate. But, as Tracey and Jayson pointed out, there are additional battles. With that in mind, I'll repeat this from Wednesday's report:
The Bush Commission . . . will be holding a tribunal in New York City from January twentieth to the twenty-third. The first day of the hearing will take place at The Riverside Church on 123 Riverside Drive and will begin at 5:00 pm. The second day will take place at the same location and begin at 10:00 am. The final day, Sunday, the hearings will move to the Law School at Columbia University and will begin at 1:00 pm. More information can be found online at Bush Commission and also by calling (212) 941- 8086. Also at the Bush Commission website, you can find information on the October 2005 hearings including audio and videos you can watch online as well as text excerpts.
The commission is discussed on Monday's Law & Disorder, an archived broadcast of that episode can be heard at the Law & Disorder website. This week's CounterSpin addressed the realities of Iraq via The Independent of London's Patrick Cockburn, an unembedded reporter who has been reporting on the occupation since the invasion. Also of interest in that broadcast of CounterSpin is Janeane Jackson's interview with journalist Brian Dominick of the NewStandard about what lessons the media seem to have absorbed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. One theory? Raw emotion.
Regular programming returns to Pacifica this week and I am sure many of us are looking forward to hearing our favorites. But I will close by again noting and thanking Pacifica for providing the gavel to gavel coverage of the hearings and for serving the public interests as public radio should.
pacifica
samuel alito
supreme court
alito hearings
wbai
kpfa
law and disorder
bush commission
brian dominick
patrick cockburn
janine jackson
counterspin
special birthday tribute to mlk
mlk
sunday salon
sunday salon with larry bensky
verna avery brown
larry bensky
mitch jesserich
chip pitts
bill of rights defense committee
ruths morning edition report
the common ills
Public Radio Highlights: Ruth's Morning Edition Report
One thing that Kat and Ruth always joke about is switching focus for an entry, Kat covering Pacifica and Ruth covering music. We bet they could do it and hold our interest in the process but we've come to view Ruth as our guide to public radio. We're highlighting two of Ruth's entries this week. This one went up Wednesday at The Common Ills.
"Ruth's Morning Edition Report"
Ruth: Law & Disorder did air on Pacifica's WBAI yesterday. If you missed it, you can visit the WBAI archives or the Law & Disorder website and listen to the program.
While doing the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin Monday evening, Jess mentioned that an e-mail had already come in asking about the Beatles song played during the program. I went back to my notes and found I had written "John Lennon." I had no idea why I wrote that down until I remembered that the song "John Sinclair" was used. Jonah, you can find that song on Sometime in New York City which is a John Lennon, Yoko Ono, the Plastic Ono Band and Elephant Memory album. My guess is the CD would be under John Lennon. Staying on music for a moment, Ty was advised that the excerpt of "Woodstock" that played on the December 19th broadcast of Law & Disorder was Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock" off her Ladies of the Canyon album. Lori had asked about that earlier. If it is a song from the fifties, sixties or seventies, I probably stand a good chance of knowing it. Otherwise, I will try to consult my children and grandchildren and, of course, Kat is great resource as well.
A number of topics were addressed on Monday's broadcast. I think the community will be interested in the Bush Commission which will be holding a tribunal in New York City from January twentieth to the twenty-third. The first day of the hearing will take place at The Riverside Church on 123 Riverside Drive and will begin at 5:00 pm. The second day will take place at the same location and begin at 10:00 am. The final day, Sunday, the hearings will move to the Law School at Columbia University and will begin at 1:00 pm. More information can be found online at Bush Commission and also by calling (212) 941- 8086. Also at the Bush Commission website, you can find information on the October 2005 hearings including audio and videos you can watch online as well as text excerpts.
C.I. was kind enough to note the following for me yesterday:
Those interested in the McCain amendment and the Graham amendment should make a point to listen to this week's broadcast of Law & Disorder.
Danny Greenberg also was on the show to take part in a discussion on the New Orleans evictions. Mr. Greenberg was one of the attornies that successfully fought the January 7th cut-off date FEMA was attempting to impose on some New Orleans evacuees that had been lodged in hotels and motels but were still without homes due to the events and after effects of Hurricane Katrina.
While that news was pleasing, the discussions about the McCain Amendment and the Graham Amendment stressed unfortunate realities. I can now distinguish Dalia Hashad and Heidi Boghosian's voices. That should be a simple task but remember that I am listening with my young and very active grandson Elijah. I still, however, can get lost when the other two hosts, Michael Ratner and Michael Smith, are speaking. I believe it was Mr. Ratner who explained how the McCain Amendment was "no good at all" due to the legal loophole in the legislation which allows for the law to be broken if the soldier does not belive he is breaking the law because a legal opinion exists. Mr. Ratner called this "the Yoo Amendment" after John Yoo who is infamous for writing the administration's "torture memos." It was also noted that at the signing of the amendment, Bully Boy basically declared that, "I'm glad Congress did this . . . [but] if I feel it's necessary I will still do it." It being torture.
The other amendment is the Graham-Levin Amendment. This legislation, credited to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Democratic Senator Carl Levin, strips those imprisoned at Guantamo Bay of their legal rights. I am using the term "imprisoned" because I agree with C.I. and Elaine that the administration's term, "detainees," is not reflective of what has been done, and is being done, to people locked away for years who have never stood before a jury and had their day in court.
The amendment takes away jurisdiction from the federal courts on the issue of those held in Guantanamo Bay. Which means that "our [Center for Constitutional Rights] clients in Guantanamo can no longer sue for torture." This strips the clients of habeas corpus which has been "on the books" since 1789. As a result of the amendment, "evidence from coercion can be used in court." This week, the adminstration will now move to argue that all cases involving the people imprisoned in Guantanamo be removed from the courts as a result of Graham-Levin which means the amendment would also be a retroactive law.
Bill Goodman, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, was the guest for the discussion of the NSA spying and, as I rush to finish this in time for it to be posted this morning, the point that may interest the community the most is why did the administration choose to avoid the FISA court which has a solid record of issuing warrants when requested to do so by any administration? Was it possibly due to the target of the wiretapping being a shocking one? If lawyers, for instance, were the intended target, might the judges on the FISA court be reluctant to issue a warrant?
Law & Disorder was the last program broadcast on WBAI Monday before Pacifica began their special live coverage of the Senate hearings on Sameul Alito Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court. Today's special coverage begins at 9:00 am EST and 6:00 am Pacific. This will allow time for hosts Verna Avery Brown, Mitch Jeserich and Larry Bensky to address the issues raised Monday. Among the guests during Monday's coverage were Nan Aaron of the Alliance for Justice, Chip Pitts of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Nancy Zirkin of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. All three provided interesting commentary but I know Mr. Pitts is only noted at this site if a member highlights him* so I made a point to take down some of his comments.
"Judge Alito is not the mainstream conservative the adminstration's trying to paint him as," Mr. Pitts stated. The administration and Senator Lindsey Graham appear to be working very hard indeed to paint Judge Alito as mainstream. One wonders when the administration last worked so hard? Probably while they were selecting Americans to spy on without court warrants is my guess. Mr. Pitts also felt that the area of executive privilege may be the most important issue facing the country today.
The Pacifica Radio Network continues its live coverage throughout the hearings. As Rebecca and others have noted, NPR has demonstrated on interest in live coverage. So if you are listening to more than news summaries of the hearings, you are listening to Pacifica.
law and disorder
pacifica
samuel alito
supreme court
alito hearings
wbai
verna avery brown
larry bensky
mitch jesserich
nan aaron
nancy zirkin
chip pitts
alliance for justice
bill of rights defense committee
center for constitutional rights
leadership conference on civil rights
kats korner
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
ruths morning edition report
the common ills
[*C.I. note: Ruth's referring to the fact that, as disclosed here before, I know Chipp Pitts and try to avoid noting people I know to avoid being accused of favoritism. We can note anyone that a member brings up.]
"Ruth's Morning Edition Report"
Ruth: Law & Disorder did air on Pacifica's WBAI yesterday. If you missed it, you can visit the WBAI archives or the Law & Disorder website and listen to the program.
While doing the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin Monday evening, Jess mentioned that an e-mail had already come in asking about the Beatles song played during the program. I went back to my notes and found I had written "John Lennon." I had no idea why I wrote that down until I remembered that the song "John Sinclair" was used. Jonah, you can find that song on Sometime in New York City which is a John Lennon, Yoko Ono, the Plastic Ono Band and Elephant Memory album. My guess is the CD would be under John Lennon. Staying on music for a moment, Ty was advised that the excerpt of "Woodstock" that played on the December 19th broadcast of Law & Disorder was Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock" off her Ladies of the Canyon album. Lori had asked about that earlier. If it is a song from the fifties, sixties or seventies, I probably stand a good chance of knowing it. Otherwise, I will try to consult my children and grandchildren and, of course, Kat is great resource as well.
A number of topics were addressed on Monday's broadcast. I think the community will be interested in the Bush Commission which will be holding a tribunal in New York City from January twentieth to the twenty-third. The first day of the hearing will take place at The Riverside Church on 123 Riverside Drive and will begin at 5:00 pm. The second day will take place at the same location and begin at 10:00 am. The final day, Sunday, the hearings will move to the Law School at Columbia University and will begin at 1:00 pm. More information can be found online at Bush Commission and also by calling (212) 941- 8086. Also at the Bush Commission website, you can find information on the October 2005 hearings including audio and videos you can watch online as well as text excerpts.
C.I. was kind enough to note the following for me yesterday:
Those interested in the McCain amendment and the Graham amendment should make a point to listen to this week's broadcast of Law & Disorder.
Danny Greenberg also was on the show to take part in a discussion on the New Orleans evictions. Mr. Greenberg was one of the attornies that successfully fought the January 7th cut-off date FEMA was attempting to impose on some New Orleans evacuees that had been lodged in hotels and motels but were still without homes due to the events and after effects of Hurricane Katrina.
While that news was pleasing, the discussions about the McCain Amendment and the Graham Amendment stressed unfortunate realities. I can now distinguish Dalia Hashad and Heidi Boghosian's voices. That should be a simple task but remember that I am listening with my young and very active grandson Elijah. I still, however, can get lost when the other two hosts, Michael Ratner and Michael Smith, are speaking. I believe it was Mr. Ratner who explained how the McCain Amendment was "no good at all" due to the legal loophole in the legislation which allows for the law to be broken if the soldier does not belive he is breaking the law because a legal opinion exists. Mr. Ratner called this "the Yoo Amendment" after John Yoo who is infamous for writing the administration's "torture memos." It was also noted that at the signing of the amendment, Bully Boy basically declared that, "I'm glad Congress did this . . . [but] if I feel it's necessary I will still do it." It being torture.
The other amendment is the Graham-Levin Amendment. This legislation, credited to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Democratic Senator Carl Levin, strips those imprisoned at Guantamo Bay of their legal rights. I am using the term "imprisoned" because I agree with C.I. and Elaine that the administration's term, "detainees," is not reflective of what has been done, and is being done, to people locked away for years who have never stood before a jury and had their day in court.
The amendment takes away jurisdiction from the federal courts on the issue of those held in Guantanamo Bay. Which means that "our [Center for Constitutional Rights] clients in Guantanamo can no longer sue for torture." This strips the clients of habeas corpus which has been "on the books" since 1789. As a result of the amendment, "evidence from coercion can be used in court." This week, the adminstration will now move to argue that all cases involving the people imprisoned in Guantanamo be removed from the courts as a result of Graham-Levin which means the amendment would also be a retroactive law.
Bill Goodman, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, was the guest for the discussion of the NSA spying and, as I rush to finish this in time for it to be posted this morning, the point that may interest the community the most is why did the administration choose to avoid the FISA court which has a solid record of issuing warrants when requested to do so by any administration? Was it possibly due to the target of the wiretapping being a shocking one? If lawyers, for instance, were the intended target, might the judges on the FISA court be reluctant to issue a warrant?
Law & Disorder was the last program broadcast on WBAI Monday before Pacifica began their special live coverage of the Senate hearings on Sameul Alito Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court. Today's special coverage begins at 9:00 am EST and 6:00 am Pacific. This will allow time for hosts Verna Avery Brown, Mitch Jeserich and Larry Bensky to address the issues raised Monday. Among the guests during Monday's coverage were Nan Aaron of the Alliance for Justice, Chip Pitts of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Nancy Zirkin of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. All three provided interesting commentary but I know Mr. Pitts is only noted at this site if a member highlights him* so I made a point to take down some of his comments.
"Judge Alito is not the mainstream conservative the adminstration's trying to paint him as," Mr. Pitts stated. The administration and Senator Lindsey Graham appear to be working very hard indeed to paint Judge Alito as mainstream. One wonders when the administration last worked so hard? Probably while they were selecting Americans to spy on without court warrants is my guess. Mr. Pitts also felt that the area of executive privilege may be the most important issue facing the country today.
The Pacifica Radio Network continues its live coverage throughout the hearings. As Rebecca and others have noted, NPR has demonstrated on interest in live coverage. So if you are listening to more than news summaries of the hearings, you are listening to Pacifica.
law and disorder
pacifica
samuel alito
supreme court
alito hearings
wbai
verna avery brown
larry bensky
mitch jesserich
nan aaron
nancy zirkin
chip pitts
alliance for justice
bill of rights defense committee
center for constitutional rights
leadership conference on civil rights
kats korner
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
ruths morning edition report
the common ills
[*C.I. note: Ruth's referring to the fact that, as disclosed here before, I know Chipp Pitts and try to avoid noting people I know to avoid being accused of favoritism. We can note anyone that a member brings up.]
Mag Spotlight: Ms. Magazine Winter 2006 edition (via The Common Ills)
As the pall cast over the Alito hearings began to effect our own spirits, C.I. offered a peak at the upcoming issue of Ms. which goes on sale Tuesday. If you're a regular Ms. reader, as some of us are, you should be excited (though probably not surprised). If you're a casual reader of the magazine, you should be salivating. This issue sounds like a must read.
Mag Spotlight: Ms. Magazine Winter 2006 edition
Thanks to a friend who dropped off a care package (much needed after the Alito fan club aka "the hearings") which included chocolate and the new issue of Ms. which is supposed to go on sale Tuesday the seventeenth. It's been awhile since we've done a magazine report. But after today, we may really need one. (I'm tired, so forgive typos. Any in quotes are my typos and not the magazine's.)
We'll start with the cover story, Robin Morgan interviews Jane Fonda ("A Ms. Converstation: Jane Fonda Talks With Robin Morgan." Issues addressed include "clicking"*, empowerment, religion, you name it.
Here's an excerpt (page 38) that may provide perspective at the end of a depressing week:
Jane Fonda: So now I can support a real, grassroots, anti-war movement -- including male and female veterans' groups. It took seven years with Vietnam for soldiers to speak out, but at the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq as many as 4,800 people rallied outside Fort Bragg, the speakers vets and military families against the war!
The interview covers a wide range of topics.
[*"Clicking" Jane O'Reilly's "Click! The Housewife's Moment of Truth" appeared in Ms. -- I believe the first issue. The basis of this essay was about the moments when you share something "personal" that's just something that happens and someone else has experienced it as well. It's not just something that happens. "Click"s are those moments when a lightbulb goes off and you realize that something you thought was a personal problem is, in fact, a political one -- it's just that those establishing the guidelines hadn't ruled it as such.]
As always with Ms., the letters pages are worth reading (four pages). This isn't "When you used you 'shan't' perhaps you were unaware that you split the structure of the sentence . . ." This is people sharing what an article sparked for them, their own experiences, the things that speak to them. ("People" are predominately females but Ms. does have male readers and it does include male letters from time to time. Including two this issue. One of which is from the vice president of Moosehead Breweries explaining an ad and stating that the company "WILL NOT tolerate this type of sexism and tasteless work again.")
In "Keeping Score," one of Eddie's favorites is quoted:
I guess we're just a little tired of all the death that comes with the 'Culture of Life.'"
-- Randi Rhodes
You also get a rundown of five magazines ratio of female to male writers from September to December of 2005 and milestones.
Plan B and Susan Wood's reason for quitting the FDA over their disregard for science is addressed in "Denial by Delay."
"Reproductive Rights on Trial " is a feature we've already highlighted this week. "Anita Hill on Harriet Miers " should generate interest.
From the Ms. Calendar, we'll note "Girl Trouble" airing on PBS beginning January 17th (check your local PBS listings) since that's just around the corner (Tuesday). (Documentary on "the lives of three teenage girls caught up in San Francisco's juvenile justice system.) "Global" provides you with a look at news around the world including rape "as an international war crime" in Darfur (Femke Van Zeijl). We'll highlight Iraq Sunday in our "outside the mainstream US media" entry. (If I'd opened the issue before doing the indymedia roundups tonight, I would've included it there.)
Blanche Wiesen Cook's "WOMEN AND PEACE: The Legacy" is a must read (and comes with suggested additional readings). Excerpt from page 43:
The long war in Vietnam created another generation of women peace leaders. WILPF was refortified with younger activists who flocked to its meetings in every state. A great chain of being connected Jane Addams with Kay Camp, Ruth Gage-Colby, Anne Florant, Helen Kusman, Bea Siegel, Trudy Orris; with civil rights activists Virginia Durr, Fannie Lou Hamer, Flo Kennedy; and with a new generation of feminists in Crystal Eastman's tradition, notably Gloria Steinem. At a WILPF meeting in 1966, I met my partner Clare Coss. We worked, and created enduring friendships with Bella Abzug, Mim Kelber, Amy Swerdlow, Cora Weiss and Lyla Hoffman -- who were among the founders of Women Strike for Peace, organized in 1961 to protest nuclear armaments and nuclear poisons in our food supply, the result of atmospheric tests.
[WILPF is the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, founded in 1921.]
Katti Gray contributes "SILENCE=WAR: A new wave of feminist peace activists take it to the streets." Excerpt:
Mounting death tolls -- more than 2,100 at press time -- soaring costs, an ever-growing Iraqi insurgency and daily revelations of the Bush administration's disinformation campaign to garner U.S. support for the war have soured even those who may have initially backed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government. At the U.S. Capitol, not far from the converted townhouse in which WAND conducts its activism, U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat, also has her mind on war. "The Congress," she says, "has to catch up with the American people. And the American people are sick of the bloodshed."
Together with Democrats Maxine Water, Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky and four congressmen, Woolsey co-founded the House of Representatives' "Out of Iraq Caucus." Considering women make up only 10 of the 435 seats in the House, the 23 women in the 69-member caucus represent a disproportionate share of the groups. In November, the group filed a "discharge petition" that would require the president to begin bringing U.S. troops home.
Bay Fang provides text and Andrea Camuto photos to "A Brave Sisterhood: Women overcame years of gender apartheid -- and even bullets -- to run for office and vote in Afghnaistan's recent elections." Excerpt (pages 51-52) on Hossai Andar:
Andar had problems campaigning in Ghazni, a city which is largely under the control of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, the feared leader of one of the main mujahideen groups that fought against the Soviets. "I don't trust my own mother," says Andar. "Everyone is from a political party. I tell them I'm running for one of the three seats set aside for women, but they know my campaign is very wide [in the constituency she hopes to serve]. People are tired of Sayyaf -- they want democrats, educated people."
Jeanne K. C. Clark remembers "The Booming Voice of Molly Yard: Celebrating the great feminist, human-rights leader and NOW president." Excerpt:
When Molly was elected national chair of the American Student Union, things really got interesting. That's when Eleanor Roosevelt came into her life.
The first lady had contacted Molly to talk to her about the criticisms Molly and the student union had made of Franklin Roosevelt's administration and policies. The result was a lifelong friendship and political alliance.
With Eleanor Roosevelt's guidance and support, Molly put forth her talents toward making the world better. She was active in every progressive campaign over the next 60 years. She was a founder of Americans for Democratic Action, worked to defeat Richard Nixon in his California Senate race and was a key organizer for progressive candidates in Pennsylvania. She was particularly active in the great battles for civil rights, working with black and white civil rights groups. She worked with Dorothy Height to integrate the YWCA, and helped organize the historic 1963 March onWashington.
Martha Burk provides "24 Hours in Arkansas: Or, how I wasn't fooled by Wal-Mart fawning over women." Donna Brazile provides "Poverty Is a Woman's Issue" and much, much more.
(Full content listing available here.)
The issue is a strong one so utilize your libraries, bookstores, grocery stores, Tower, et al. If you don't normally read Ms., pick up this issue and flip through it to see if it interests you. (My guess is it will.)
ms.
ms. magazine
robin morgan
jane fonda
blanche wiesen cook
anita hill
katti gray
molly yard
jeanne k. c. clark
martha burk
donna brazile
bay fang
andrea camuto
Mag Spotlight: Ms. Magazine Winter 2006 edition
Thanks to a friend who dropped off a care package (much needed after the Alito fan club aka "the hearings") which included chocolate and the new issue of Ms. which is supposed to go on sale Tuesday the seventeenth. It's been awhile since we've done a magazine report. But after today, we may really need one. (I'm tired, so forgive typos. Any in quotes are my typos and not the magazine's.)
We'll start with the cover story, Robin Morgan interviews Jane Fonda ("A Ms. Converstation: Jane Fonda Talks With Robin Morgan." Issues addressed include "clicking"*, empowerment, religion, you name it.
Here's an excerpt (page 38) that may provide perspective at the end of a depressing week:
Jane Fonda: So now I can support a real, grassroots, anti-war movement -- including male and female veterans' groups. It took seven years with Vietnam for soldiers to speak out, but at the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq as many as 4,800 people rallied outside Fort Bragg, the speakers vets and military families against the war!
The interview covers a wide range of topics.
[*"Clicking" Jane O'Reilly's "Click! The Housewife's Moment of Truth" appeared in Ms. -- I believe the first issue. The basis of this essay was about the moments when you share something "personal" that's just something that happens and someone else has experienced it as well. It's not just something that happens. "Click"s are those moments when a lightbulb goes off and you realize that something you thought was a personal problem is, in fact, a political one -- it's just that those establishing the guidelines hadn't ruled it as such.]
As always with Ms., the letters pages are worth reading (four pages). This isn't "When you used you 'shan't' perhaps you were unaware that you split the structure of the sentence . . ." This is people sharing what an article sparked for them, their own experiences, the things that speak to them. ("People" are predominately females but Ms. does have male readers and it does include male letters from time to time. Including two this issue. One of which is from the vice president of Moosehead Breweries explaining an ad and stating that the company "WILL NOT tolerate this type of sexism and tasteless work again.")
In "Keeping Score," one of Eddie's favorites is quoted:
I guess we're just a little tired of all the death that comes with the 'Culture of Life.'"
-- Randi Rhodes
You also get a rundown of five magazines ratio of female to male writers from September to December of 2005 and milestones.
Plan B and Susan Wood's reason for quitting the FDA over their disregard for science is addressed in "Denial by Delay."
"Reproductive Rights on Trial " is a feature we've already highlighted this week. "Anita Hill on Harriet Miers " should generate interest.
From the Ms. Calendar, we'll note "Girl Trouble" airing on PBS beginning January 17th (check your local PBS listings) since that's just around the corner (Tuesday). (Documentary on "the lives of three teenage girls caught up in San Francisco's juvenile justice system.) "Global" provides you with a look at news around the world including rape "as an international war crime" in Darfur (Femke Van Zeijl). We'll highlight Iraq Sunday in our "outside the mainstream US media" entry. (If I'd opened the issue before doing the indymedia roundups tonight, I would've included it there.)
Blanche Wiesen Cook's "WOMEN AND PEACE: The Legacy" is a must read (and comes with suggested additional readings). Excerpt from page 43:
The long war in Vietnam created another generation of women peace leaders. WILPF was refortified with younger activists who flocked to its meetings in every state. A great chain of being connected Jane Addams with Kay Camp, Ruth Gage-Colby, Anne Florant, Helen Kusman, Bea Siegel, Trudy Orris; with civil rights activists Virginia Durr, Fannie Lou Hamer, Flo Kennedy; and with a new generation of feminists in Crystal Eastman's tradition, notably Gloria Steinem. At a WILPF meeting in 1966, I met my partner Clare Coss. We worked, and created enduring friendships with Bella Abzug, Mim Kelber, Amy Swerdlow, Cora Weiss and Lyla Hoffman -- who were among the founders of Women Strike for Peace, organized in 1961 to protest nuclear armaments and nuclear poisons in our food supply, the result of atmospheric tests.
[WILPF is the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, founded in 1921.]
Katti Gray contributes "SILENCE=WAR: A new wave of feminist peace activists take it to the streets." Excerpt:
Mounting death tolls -- more than 2,100 at press time -- soaring costs, an ever-growing Iraqi insurgency and daily revelations of the Bush administration's disinformation campaign to garner U.S. support for the war have soured even those who may have initially backed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government. At the U.S. Capitol, not far from the converted townhouse in which WAND conducts its activism, U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat, also has her mind on war. "The Congress," she says, "has to catch up with the American people. And the American people are sick of the bloodshed."
Together with Democrats Maxine Water, Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky and four congressmen, Woolsey co-founded the House of Representatives' "Out of Iraq Caucus." Considering women make up only 10 of the 435 seats in the House, the 23 women in the 69-member caucus represent a disproportionate share of the groups. In November, the group filed a "discharge petition" that would require the president to begin bringing U.S. troops home.
Bay Fang provides text and Andrea Camuto photos to "A Brave Sisterhood: Women overcame years of gender apartheid -- and even bullets -- to run for office and vote in Afghnaistan's recent elections." Excerpt (pages 51-52) on Hossai Andar:
Andar had problems campaigning in Ghazni, a city which is largely under the control of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, the feared leader of one of the main mujahideen groups that fought against the Soviets. "I don't trust my own mother," says Andar. "Everyone is from a political party. I tell them I'm running for one of the three seats set aside for women, but they know my campaign is very wide [in the constituency she hopes to serve]. People are tired of Sayyaf -- they want democrats, educated people."
Jeanne K. C. Clark remembers "The Booming Voice of Molly Yard: Celebrating the great feminist, human-rights leader and NOW president." Excerpt:
When Molly was elected national chair of the American Student Union, things really got interesting. That's when Eleanor Roosevelt came into her life.
The first lady had contacted Molly to talk to her about the criticisms Molly and the student union had made of Franklin Roosevelt's administration and policies. The result was a lifelong friendship and political alliance.
With Eleanor Roosevelt's guidance and support, Molly put forth her talents toward making the world better. She was active in every progressive campaign over the next 60 years. She was a founder of Americans for Democratic Action, worked to defeat Richard Nixon in his California Senate race and was a key organizer for progressive candidates in Pennsylvania. She was particularly active in the great battles for civil rights, working with black and white civil rights groups. She worked with Dorothy Height to integrate the YWCA, and helped organize the historic 1963 March onWashington.
Martha Burk provides "24 Hours in Arkansas: Or, how I wasn't fooled by Wal-Mart fawning over women." Donna Brazile provides "Poverty Is a Woman's Issue" and much, much more.
(Full content listing available here.)
The issue is a strong one so utilize your libraries, bookstores, grocery stores, Tower, et al. If you don't normally read Ms., pick up this issue and flip through it to see if it interests you. (My guess is it will.)
ms.
ms. magazine
robin morgan
jane fonda
blanche wiesen cook
anita hill
katti gray
molly yard
jeanne k. c. clark
martha burk
donna brazile
bay fang
andrea camuto
Humor Spotlight: "The Tough Talking Thomas Friedman"
Betty wants it noted that Jess, Elaine and C.I. all listened to "me go on for hours about what I wanted to say" and that all provided feedback for which she is thankful. She especially thanks C.I. who came up with a suggestion that had a small part in this entry but that provides her with a key player for a future plot point. Betty: "I've been stuck on whom should be the one to deliver the first real blow of truth to Betinna. C.I. made a comment that was helpful to this entry but, more importantly, was helpful in the long range. It had me so jazzed and excited that instead of going to bed shortly after [church] service Wednesday night, I stayed up writing the last chapter. Finally." The last chapter to the ongoing story of Betinna, a woman with little memory of her past before Thomas Friedman turns up in her life.
The tough talking Thomas Friedman
Elaine was the first to call. "Is Thomas Friedman beating you?"
She'd read his last three columns. I offered my sympathies. But no, he's not beating me. He is talking tough these days or, as like to think of it, Mr. Meek Gets More Mouthy.
Here's what happened.
About four times a month, sometimes less, Thomas Friedman actually goes into the office. He'd just finished the enforced vacation Gail Collins put him on. He was "back, baby!"
So he wanted to go in the next day and work on his column there.
No problem with me.
But then he starts "ordering" lunch for tomorrow. Now he's done that before and it always ticks me off. He comes home for lunch on the few days I actually don't have him underfoot.
So this time, I was thinking, "Now wait just a minute. You should take me out to lunch."
Only I said it.
Thomas Friedman hit the roof.
"We have Ritz crackers and canned cheese here!"
Yes, we do. And Thomas Friedman is kind enough to allow me to fix them for him and watch him eat them.
"Thomas Friedman," I said, "you are the one always talking about outsourcing! Why are you so cheap! Why do you want to hurt the econmy!"
Oh that made him mad. He may think the world is flat but his ego is oversize and lumpy.
I didn't like his attitude.
So the next day, I staged my own little protest.
I showed up at the Times carrying my sign that read "THOMAS FRIEDMAN DOESN'T SUPPORT PRIVATIZATION!"
He hit the roof.
"Betinna," he screeched, "you will get me fired! I am the world's disciple when it comes to privatization! How dare you smear my good reputation!"
I wasn't budging.
"Privatize! Privatize! Stop Thomas Friedman lies!" I chanted mainly to mess with him because it was funny watching him sneak glances around the office trying to see who was watching.
He caved. The way he always does when you humiliate him.
So he was going into his office when my New Year's was ruined.
Gail Collins comes rushing up all giddy and flushed while eating a muffin.
"Betinna," she panted between bites, "Davy has spilled Diet Coke on his shirt. He's headed to his office to take it off!"
Someone had just tipped her off, she explained but I got the feeling she'd paid someone to spill Diet Coke on Davy Brook's shirt.
"Well that's great, Gail."
"Great! Oh, I'm so heady with excitement! I hope I don't say something stupid! I hope I don't pass out! I hope I don't get pregnant!"
From a shirt being taken off? Gail's spent a lot of time on the prarie but apparently she's missed the animals mating. I was about to bring that up when I noticed the blue berry stain on her front tooth.
"Wait, Gail, your teeth," I said pointing.
"What?"
I moved in close.
"You've got a stain from your blue berry muffin."
"It's a bran muffin," Gail informed me.
Of course it is. She's so regular.
I took my fingernail to her tooth and scraped.
"Oh, never mind. It's apparently a natural stain."
"What?" Gail asked looking cross as though her teeth were my fault and, at that minute, Thomas Friedman came charging out of his office cussing under his breath.
Not watching where he was going, he pushed into me and I pushed into Gail. Somehow the stained tooth ended up out of her mouth and lying on the carpet.
"My tooth!" Gail howled.
I tried to reassure her that they could put it back in if she hurried to a dentist, though I did wonder why anyone would want to put a discolored tooth back in their mouth, but she was too busy trying to stop the bleeding.
In the long drawn out thing that followed, she missed Brooks changing shirts. And she can be a vengful thing. Since she couldn't do much to me, I believe I'm her only friend, she went after Thomas Friedman and tore him a new one. Shouting, screaming and spitting blood, she told him it was all his fault and that he was back on a one week suspension.
"Collins! You can't do this to me!" Thomas Friedman snapped.
"Gail, if he goes back on vacation, he'll drive me insane," I insisted.
Gail looked at me for a few moments and then smiled thinly.
"I'm sure you'll manage," she smirked.
Suddenly, I wasn't feeling so bad that she'd lost a tooth.
"My fans! My many, many fans! How will they make it through without me!" Thomas Friedman howled.
"I'm sure they'll both be fine," Gail said sauntering off.
Score one for Miss Mouse.
So another week of hell. And on New Year's Eve.
I can't imagine that even in my village I ever had such a dreary New Year's Eve. Thomas Friedman wanted snacks. Ritz crackers and canned cheese, of course. He wanted to watch Dick Clark but then screamed there was something wrong with the TV because he couldn't find Dick Clark. I tried to point out that it was barely six o'clock and I doubted the countdown would start for a few hours. But Thomas Friedman was convinced that the TV was screwed up and that it was all due to that "pushy woman" Gail Collins.
After pretending to listen to him whine for a half hour, I figured I cut my losses and turn in.
I say all that not just to get it out in my computer journal but also because it explains Thomas Friedman's new attitude which is far, far from Patti LaBelle's.
He's furious still with Gail Collins. I really don't understand why he's furious. He got to wear his shorty robe a few more days and eat grape jelly out of the jar in front of the TV the way he likes.
But he's been obsessing over the "wimp factor." It's like living with Poppy Bush only I'm younger and far nicer than Big Babs. Also, unlike Big Babs, no one's ever confused me with the family pet Millie.
He had two resolutions for the New Year: sit ups and "No more Mr. Nice Guy."
He's managed to keep the latter one. Probably helps that he wasn't all that nice to begin with.
His return to the op-ed pages Januaray 4th found him uwing a new tool to bash Arabs with, oil.
Face it, if Thomas Friedman couldn't bash Arabs, half the time, he'd have nothing to say. Which is another argument for Arab-Americans to complain to the paper in large numbers. But I thought Gail managed to work in a little trick to welcome Thomas Friedman back to the paper. She offers non-denials when I ask if she called in a favor, but judge for yourself, I say.
The day he returned, the lower left-hand corner of the front page declared "Cheese and More Cheese." Seemed like an appropriate warning to the unsuspecting who picked up the paper.
Having started the new year bashing Arabs, Thomas Friedman followed up by calling Bully Boy and Dick Cheney wimps. He still managed to bash Arabs. He's convinced that he's found a new topic that will allow him to bash them all year round: oil. It also allowed him to bash Hugo Chavez. Today he ridiculed the right of return for Palestinians and praised Ariel Sharon who will be remembered for many things but "peaceful" won't be one of them.
I actually support the concept of the wall. Not for Israel, but around our home. I was thinking how much nicer each day would be if I could build a wall to keep Thomas Friedman outside the living room. Then I thought, "I'll keep him out of the kitchen as well!" And of course the bedroom. Then I remembered how he refuses to flush the toilet so I pictured walling him off from that as well. But then I realized that no matter what I think of Thomas Friedman, it's not fair to grab terroritory and enforce misery.
Thomas Friedman obviously doens't agree or he would have surrended his op-ed space long ago.
But when I wonder how someone can have so much hate towards an entire people, I just remind myself that Thomas Friedman is convinced he's correct and that God sends him messages.
Like when I was listening to the 10,000 Maniacs the other day while scrubbing the kitchen floor. He came in and asked me to play "that pretty song again." Which one?
"The pro-Israel song."
"Thomas Friedman," I said, "I do not think there's a song like that on Our Time In Eden."
He insisted there was.
"It's the song about the peaceful Israeli."
I told him there was no such song.
"Yes, there is!" he said stomping his feet. "The song about the peaceful Israeli. The Arab breaks into the home and destroys everything."
"Jezebel?"
"What?"
I sing this to him:
You lie there an innocent baby
I feel like the thief who is raiding your home
Entering and breaking and taking in every room
I know your feelings are tender
And that inside you the embers still glow.
But I'm a shadow,
I'm only a bed of blackened coal.
Call myself Jezebel for wanting to leave.
"That's it!" he cries. "But you got the words wrong. It's not 'innocent baby,' it's 'peaceful Israeli.'"
I played the song for him. He was nodding his head excitedly until Natalie Merchant sang "an innocent baby."
He insisted that I'd pulled a fast one on him, switched cassette tapes, and pointed out that he "surfs now!" so he knows "a few things" like how Alan Cowell breathlessly wrote of someone calling for Tony Blair's impeachment Tuesday when, in fact, they'd called it for it days earlier.
I'm glad Thomas Friedman knows how to do more than look at online porn, he still swears he doesn't know how that fake nude of Screech from Saved By The Bell ended up as our screensaver, but Natalie Merchant sings "innocent baby."
Still it explains why he can continue to write the most hateful things about Arabs. He really thinks that everyone thinks like he does. He imagines he hears that sort of talk everywhere.
Some nights, when he's on my last nerves, I toy with pretending I'm Arab just to set him off.
I think if he ever thought he was face to face with one, he'd have a stroke.
Which would leave me with the apartment. Something any New Yorker has to keep in mind at all times.
thomas friedman
gail collins
david brooks
the new york times
the common ills
10000 maniacs
like maria said paz
10,000 maniacs
natalie merchant
our time in eden
The tough talking Thomas Friedman
Elaine was the first to call. "Is Thomas Friedman beating you?"
She'd read his last three columns. I offered my sympathies. But no, he's not beating me. He is talking tough these days or, as like to think of it, Mr. Meek Gets More Mouthy.
Here's what happened.
About four times a month, sometimes less, Thomas Friedman actually goes into the office. He'd just finished the enforced vacation Gail Collins put him on. He was "back, baby!"
So he wanted to go in the next day and work on his column there.
No problem with me.
But then he starts "ordering" lunch for tomorrow. Now he's done that before and it always ticks me off. He comes home for lunch on the few days I actually don't have him underfoot.
So this time, I was thinking, "Now wait just a minute. You should take me out to lunch."
Only I said it.
Thomas Friedman hit the roof.
"We have Ritz crackers and canned cheese here!"
Yes, we do. And Thomas Friedman is kind enough to allow me to fix them for him and watch him eat them.
"Thomas Friedman," I said, "you are the one always talking about outsourcing! Why are you so cheap! Why do you want to hurt the econmy!"
Oh that made him mad. He may think the world is flat but his ego is oversize and lumpy.
I didn't like his attitude.
So the next day, I staged my own little protest.
I showed up at the Times carrying my sign that read "THOMAS FRIEDMAN DOESN'T SUPPORT PRIVATIZATION!"
He hit the roof.
"Betinna," he screeched, "you will get me fired! I am the world's disciple when it comes to privatization! How dare you smear my good reputation!"
I wasn't budging.
"Privatize! Privatize! Stop Thomas Friedman lies!" I chanted mainly to mess with him because it was funny watching him sneak glances around the office trying to see who was watching.
He caved. The way he always does when you humiliate him.
So he was going into his office when my New Year's was ruined.
Gail Collins comes rushing up all giddy and flushed while eating a muffin.
"Betinna," she panted between bites, "Davy has spilled Diet Coke on his shirt. He's headed to his office to take it off!"
Someone had just tipped her off, she explained but I got the feeling she'd paid someone to spill Diet Coke on Davy Brook's shirt.
"Well that's great, Gail."
"Great! Oh, I'm so heady with excitement! I hope I don't say something stupid! I hope I don't pass out! I hope I don't get pregnant!"
From a shirt being taken off? Gail's spent a lot of time on the prarie but apparently she's missed the animals mating. I was about to bring that up when I noticed the blue berry stain on her front tooth.
"Wait, Gail, your teeth," I said pointing.
"What?"
I moved in close.
"You've got a stain from your blue berry muffin."
"It's a bran muffin," Gail informed me.
Of course it is. She's so regular.
I took my fingernail to her tooth and scraped.
"Oh, never mind. It's apparently a natural stain."
"What?" Gail asked looking cross as though her teeth were my fault and, at that minute, Thomas Friedman came charging out of his office cussing under his breath.
Not watching where he was going, he pushed into me and I pushed into Gail. Somehow the stained tooth ended up out of her mouth and lying on the carpet.
"My tooth!" Gail howled.
I tried to reassure her that they could put it back in if she hurried to a dentist, though I did wonder why anyone would want to put a discolored tooth back in their mouth, but she was too busy trying to stop the bleeding.
In the long drawn out thing that followed, she missed Brooks changing shirts. And she can be a vengful thing. Since she couldn't do much to me, I believe I'm her only friend, she went after Thomas Friedman and tore him a new one. Shouting, screaming and spitting blood, she told him it was all his fault and that he was back on a one week suspension.
"Collins! You can't do this to me!" Thomas Friedman snapped.
"Gail, if he goes back on vacation, he'll drive me insane," I insisted.
Gail looked at me for a few moments and then smiled thinly.
"I'm sure you'll manage," she smirked.
Suddenly, I wasn't feeling so bad that she'd lost a tooth.
"My fans! My many, many fans! How will they make it through without me!" Thomas Friedman howled.
"I'm sure they'll both be fine," Gail said sauntering off.
Score one for Miss Mouse.
So another week of hell. And on New Year's Eve.
I can't imagine that even in my village I ever had such a dreary New Year's Eve. Thomas Friedman wanted snacks. Ritz crackers and canned cheese, of course. He wanted to watch Dick Clark but then screamed there was something wrong with the TV because he couldn't find Dick Clark. I tried to point out that it was barely six o'clock and I doubted the countdown would start for a few hours. But Thomas Friedman was convinced that the TV was screwed up and that it was all due to that "pushy woman" Gail Collins.
After pretending to listen to him whine for a half hour, I figured I cut my losses and turn in.
I say all that not just to get it out in my computer journal but also because it explains Thomas Friedman's new attitude which is far, far from Patti LaBelle's.
He's furious still with Gail Collins. I really don't understand why he's furious. He got to wear his shorty robe a few more days and eat grape jelly out of the jar in front of the TV the way he likes.
But he's been obsessing over the "wimp factor." It's like living with Poppy Bush only I'm younger and far nicer than Big Babs. Also, unlike Big Babs, no one's ever confused me with the family pet Millie.
He had two resolutions for the New Year: sit ups and "No more Mr. Nice Guy."
He's managed to keep the latter one. Probably helps that he wasn't all that nice to begin with.
His return to the op-ed pages Januaray 4th found him uwing a new tool to bash Arabs with, oil.
Face it, if Thomas Friedman couldn't bash Arabs, half the time, he'd have nothing to say. Which is another argument for Arab-Americans to complain to the paper in large numbers. But I thought Gail managed to work in a little trick to welcome Thomas Friedman back to the paper. She offers non-denials when I ask if she called in a favor, but judge for yourself, I say.
The day he returned, the lower left-hand corner of the front page declared "Cheese and More Cheese." Seemed like an appropriate warning to the unsuspecting who picked up the paper.
Having started the new year bashing Arabs, Thomas Friedman followed up by calling Bully Boy and Dick Cheney wimps. He still managed to bash Arabs. He's convinced that he's found a new topic that will allow him to bash them all year round: oil. It also allowed him to bash Hugo Chavez. Today he ridiculed the right of return for Palestinians and praised Ariel Sharon who will be remembered for many things but "peaceful" won't be one of them.
I actually support the concept of the wall. Not for Israel, but around our home. I was thinking how much nicer each day would be if I could build a wall to keep Thomas Friedman outside the living room. Then I thought, "I'll keep him out of the kitchen as well!" And of course the bedroom. Then I remembered how he refuses to flush the toilet so I pictured walling him off from that as well. But then I realized that no matter what I think of Thomas Friedman, it's not fair to grab terroritory and enforce misery.
Thomas Friedman obviously doens't agree or he would have surrended his op-ed space long ago.
But when I wonder how someone can have so much hate towards an entire people, I just remind myself that Thomas Friedman is convinced he's correct and that God sends him messages.
Like when I was listening to the 10,000 Maniacs the other day while scrubbing the kitchen floor. He came in and asked me to play "that pretty song again." Which one?
"The pro-Israel song."
"Thomas Friedman," I said, "I do not think there's a song like that on Our Time In Eden."
He insisted there was.
"It's the song about the peaceful Israeli."
I told him there was no such song.
"Yes, there is!" he said stomping his feet. "The song about the peaceful Israeli. The Arab breaks into the home and destroys everything."
"Jezebel?"
"What?"
I sing this to him:
You lie there an innocent baby
I feel like the thief who is raiding your home
Entering and breaking and taking in every room
I know your feelings are tender
And that inside you the embers still glow.
But I'm a shadow,
I'm only a bed of blackened coal.
Call myself Jezebel for wanting to leave.
"That's it!" he cries. "But you got the words wrong. It's not 'innocent baby,' it's 'peaceful Israeli.'"
I played the song for him. He was nodding his head excitedly until Natalie Merchant sang "an innocent baby."
He insisted that I'd pulled a fast one on him, switched cassette tapes, and pointed out that he "surfs now!" so he knows "a few things" like how Alan Cowell breathlessly wrote of someone calling for Tony Blair's impeachment Tuesday when, in fact, they'd called it for it days earlier.
I'm glad Thomas Friedman knows how to do more than look at online porn, he still swears he doesn't know how that fake nude of Screech from Saved By The Bell ended up as our screensaver, but Natalie Merchant sings "innocent baby."
Still it explains why he can continue to write the most hateful things about Arabs. He really thinks that everyone thinks like he does. He imagines he hears that sort of talk everywhere.
Some nights, when he's on my last nerves, I toy with pretending I'm Arab just to set him off.
I think if he ever thought he was face to face with one, he'd have a stroke.
Which would leave me with the apartment. Something any New Yorker has to keep in mind at all times.
thomas friedman
gail collins
david brooks
the new york times
the common ills
10000 maniacs
like maria said paz
10,000 maniacs
natalie merchant
our time in eden
Recipe spotlight: Avocado Soup for the Soul via Trina's Kitchen
We're all excited that Trina has started her own site, Trina's Kitchen. Mike may argue that, since Trina's his mother, he's most excited, but we'd argue that we all are. Trina's doing a once a week blog about cooking and politics and due to the community demand for more "new content" on Saturdays, she's selected Saturday as the day she plans to post. In this post, she highlights a soup she made for Dona which Dona's already made since the recipe went up. Dona doesn't have a double broiler so she followed Trina's suggestion to cook it in a pan and stir frequently. "It's not exactly like it was in D.C.," Dona notes, "but it's very good and part of the difference may also be that I'm not an expert cook like Trina.
Avocado Soup in the kitchen
When my maternal grandfather had a heart attack in the late 1970s, we were all concerned about his health. His diet would have to alter. For some in the family, the answer was to stop placing salt shakers on the table.
For some, that was the sole action taken. Like most of them, I cook with salt. I season as I cook. Knowing that some cooks in the family use salt liberally, a number of us didn't feel that removing salt shakers from the table would be enough.
Salt is a staple in my kitchen and I use it often. When we know ahead of time that guests will be joining us for meals, I always ask if there are any dietary issues. Leigh Ann, one of the people who reads my son's blog Mikey Likes It! regularly, asked me what one tip I would give to someone who wants to start entertaining? It would be to ask your guests, ahead of cooking anything, if they have any allergies, any foods or ingredients that they avoid.
In terms of health issues, you do not want to serve something a guest is allergic to and there are many people with food allergies. If a guest has been advised to avoid anything due to allergies or health conditions, you're going to feel inhospitable for serving something that they can't enjoy. There are also guests who will tell you that they won't eat this or they won't eat that just due to their personal tastes. Listen.
You should serve what you enjoy. But if you're planning to entertain, take it from me, if a guest says ahead of time that they don't like broccoli and you make one dish with it, thinking that there's more than enough other dishes that they can enjoy, watch the gathering around the table switch to the one guest noting how much he or she hates brocoli throughout the evening, over and over.
Leigh Ann should be prepared for the fact that there's no controlling an evening. But you can attempt to avoid somethings by preparing ahead of time. The broccoli incident has happened several times because I like it. My children have always liked it (when they were younger many of them called brocoli "trees"). Three times, I've made the mistake of thinking that as long as there were other items provided, serving broccoli wouldn't be a problem for a guest attending who hated the vegetable. All three times, the person, a different one each time, turned the evening discussion into why he hated, they were all men, broccoli. This isn't really a topic that people eating broccoli want to hear. One time, it resulted in a loud remark of "We heard you thirty minutes ago!" All three times, it caused tension.
So find out if there are things that can't be served for medical reasons and if there are items that you should avoid for the peace of the evening. If this is a large gathering with multiple dishes and an issue of dislike arises, smile and suggest they sample something else.
Leigh Ann may or may not listen to that advice which is her choice. My second eldest daughter didn't listen and learned after her first attempt at entertaining to ask about food issues before planning the meal. So if you read this and it doesn't seem like the suggestion has any bearing on your own life, ignore it. Maybe it will never be a problem for you. But if it does end up being a problem, pick yourself up after and realize that with each meal you cook (for others or just for yourself) will provide you with more knowledge.
As a number of us attempted to figure out how to cook without salt (salt substitutes, if available in our area then, were not known of by us), I mentioned the problem to my friend Roberta who turned me onto a book by Elma W. Bagg entiled Cooking Without a Grain of Salt. There are a number of recipes in this book (the cover boasts "over 250 superb and nutrious recipes") and I was unaware that all the food I'd eaten at Roberta's were low sodium dishes. She had a problem with water retention and her mother had been advised to cut down on the sodium in her diet due to high blood pressure.
One of the many recipes I enjoy in this book I'll put below:
PUREE OF AVOCADO SOUP
Appetizing soups were most difficult to prepare without salt. I tried and tried,
and wasted and wasted. These few are good.
2 avocados
1 tablespoon lemon juice
1/4 teaspoon of paprika
2 teaspoons chopped chives
1 teaspoon grated lemon rind
1/4 teaspoon dill, ground
1/4 teaspoon oregano
2 teaspoons grated onions
2 cups milk
Peel, seed and mash avocados. Add rest of the ingredients. Heat in a double broiler. This is a thick soup, and can also be made with low-sodium dry milk if you wish to cut the count.
4 SERVINGS. Per serving, 64 mg. sodium and 325 calories.
Avocados are full of vitamin C. I enjoy them on salads and in dips or even on their own. Mike and his younger sister are the only children who shares my enjoyment of avocados. I think the popularity of guacamole outside of our home has exposed our older children to avocados and allowed them to rethink the fruit. An aunt who loved them was forever buying them in bulk and rushing over to drop some off when they were on the verge of going bad.
Fruits and vegetables that come to your home free and frequently usually motivate you to find a recipe for them. (If anyone knows of a good cookbook on squash, please pass that information on.) The recipe for avocado soup was the first and only avocado based dish I could find that my family, as a whole, would eat.
When we were in DC in September at the rallies and protests against the war, Dona of The Third Estate Sunday Review caught a cold. It was the worst time for it, Saturday morning with a busy day facing her, and she needed something to pick her up. Soup is usually a good food to turn to at times like that. She was going through the kitchen of the home we were all staying at and not having luck locating a can of soup or broth. There were two avocados and, though skeptical, when I volunteered to whip up a batch of soup using them and the other ingredients above, she was willing to try it.
Some of you may not know what a double broiler is so this is a definition from online: "Double Broiler: A small pot placed above a larger pot that contains boiling water." If you're adventurous and willing to take all responsibility (legal and otherwise) for attempting it, you can try to rig one via a large pot and a smaller pan. However, if you don't have a double broiler, the soup can be made in a single pan and turn out quite well. Just remember to stir frequently as it cooks. For the ingredients, you can use dried ones, such as dried chives instead of fresh ones, if they aren't available in your area or if you're making it at the last minute and don't have any fresh ones handy. If I don't have lemon peel handy, I use lemon zest or else add an additional teaspoon of lemon juice. A friend who enjoys creamy soups adds butter when cooking this. So you can play with this recipe. (Again, you take responsibilty -- legal and otherwise.)
I hadn't intended to make this the second recipe I posted but Dona enjoys it and I felt that after the week that was, we might all be looking for the comfort of a soup. Like my son, I'm glad our senator, Ted Kennedy, was vocal during the hearings but I was more unimpressed with Democrats on the committee than impressed.
C.I. has an entry on members reactions and I enjoyed reading that because it echoed a number of complaints and concerns I had while following the hearings this week. My husband enjoyed Brandon's comments about the hearings being like a football game that had reached with the fourth quarter with no one on "our team" ever consulting a playbook until the last minute. My husband and Brandon were of the same mind on that.
Myself, I was disappointed that Bully Boy saw another nomination for the Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment, go before the Judiciary Committee and there was no organized effort on the part of Democrats during their questioning. It is true that Alito was dodgy in his answers but it's also true that while dodging, few bothered to challenge him on that. A senator might mention it in passing or note that it had occurred "yesterday" but when the dodging was going on, the tendency was not to confront it but instead to "move on" as Diane Feinstein stated at one point.
It looks like Alito will be confirmed. I'm not suggesting that people don't protest to their senators (Democrats and Republicans) or that they give up on fighting the nomination. But it does feel like the Democrats on the committee did very little, as a whole, and now expect the people to wage a battle they weren't willing to fight themselves.
That's very upsetting to me. Like Mike, I'm glad to call Ted Kennedy my senator (and have no real issues with our other senator, John Kerry); however, Ted will not be in the Senate forever.
When he decides he's given as much as he can and chooses to step down, I'm worried about the level of fight left in the Senate on the Democratic side.
Diane Feinstein was a huge disappointment this week. Outside of Joe Lieberman, I'm not sure any other Democratic senator could have done so poorly. It wasn't that she wasn't raising issues that were important; it was the fact of how she raised them.
To keep the focus on the kitchen, it would be like me repeatedly saying to the family, after I'd served dinner, "I could have made ___ or I could have used ____." She appeared to bringing her prep work to the table when the country needed to be served the meal. I found her "Gosh, I'm just a girl and lawyering is so far beyond my brain" insulting to women. After over a decade in the Senate, her personal style seemed embarrassing. Did she grasp the gravity of the situation? Interrupting Ted Kennedy, in the midst of his questioning, did not suggest that she did. She was "playful" when she should have been business-like.
I found the whole thing depressing as a woman who was assured after the 1992 Year of the Women (assured by the press) that everything had changed. It didn't appear that anything had changed. The treatment of Anita Hill as someone to be dismissed (which played like it was due to her gender) is now endorsed with the actions of Diane Feinstein who makes it easy to dismiss women due to her actions on the committee. As my sister-in-law Peggy said, "Donna Reed had more bite."
So it wasn't a week of uplift. But maybe we can channel our frustration into action. As Rebecca, Wally and C.I. have noted NOW provides you with the means to Take Action: Call Your Senators Today. As Laura Flanders says, "Don't leave politics to the politicians." And I'll add, as I'm guessing she would, too much is at stake.
I did survive my first week of blogging. I mistyped "me" as "be" in the last entry. Kat advised me to leave it as is or else get used to spending time that I could be posting instead correcting typos in each entry. I'll follow that good advice unless I make a typo in copying a recipe. There were a number of kind e-mails (27) and most pointed out that the e-mail address doesn't display on my profile. I didn't get around to doing that section, I guess. The week was busy for Mike and everyone else so I didn't ask about how to fix that or add things to my profile. Leigh Ann noted it was a good thing I'd stated to write me care of Mike (irishmike02@yahoo.com) because she wouldn't have known how to write me. Lynda wrote a very nice e-mail and sent it to me care of C.I. who was kind enough to forward it. I'll try to create an e-mail account before next week and also to attempt to get it noted on my profile.
avocado
avocado soup
cooking without a grain of saltelma w. bagg
cooking
recipes
food
the common ills
kats korner
trinas kitchen
mikey likes it
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
the daily jot
samuel alito
supreme court
alito hearings
diane feinstein
now
Avocado Soup in the kitchen
When my maternal grandfather had a heart attack in the late 1970s, we were all concerned about his health. His diet would have to alter. For some in the family, the answer was to stop placing salt shakers on the table.
For some, that was the sole action taken. Like most of them, I cook with salt. I season as I cook. Knowing that some cooks in the family use salt liberally, a number of us didn't feel that removing salt shakers from the table would be enough.
Salt is a staple in my kitchen and I use it often. When we know ahead of time that guests will be joining us for meals, I always ask if there are any dietary issues. Leigh Ann, one of the people who reads my son's blog Mikey Likes It! regularly, asked me what one tip I would give to someone who wants to start entertaining? It would be to ask your guests, ahead of cooking anything, if they have any allergies, any foods or ingredients that they avoid.
In terms of health issues, you do not want to serve something a guest is allergic to and there are many people with food allergies. If a guest has been advised to avoid anything due to allergies or health conditions, you're going to feel inhospitable for serving something that they can't enjoy. There are also guests who will tell you that they won't eat this or they won't eat that just due to their personal tastes. Listen.
You should serve what you enjoy. But if you're planning to entertain, take it from me, if a guest says ahead of time that they don't like broccoli and you make one dish with it, thinking that there's more than enough other dishes that they can enjoy, watch the gathering around the table switch to the one guest noting how much he or she hates brocoli throughout the evening, over and over.
Leigh Ann should be prepared for the fact that there's no controlling an evening. But you can attempt to avoid somethings by preparing ahead of time. The broccoli incident has happened several times because I like it. My children have always liked it (when they were younger many of them called brocoli "trees"). Three times, I've made the mistake of thinking that as long as there were other items provided, serving broccoli wouldn't be a problem for a guest attending who hated the vegetable. All three times, the person, a different one each time, turned the evening discussion into why he hated, they were all men, broccoli. This isn't really a topic that people eating broccoli want to hear. One time, it resulted in a loud remark of "We heard you thirty minutes ago!" All three times, it caused tension.
So find out if there are things that can't be served for medical reasons and if there are items that you should avoid for the peace of the evening. If this is a large gathering with multiple dishes and an issue of dislike arises, smile and suggest they sample something else.
Leigh Ann may or may not listen to that advice which is her choice. My second eldest daughter didn't listen and learned after her first attempt at entertaining to ask about food issues before planning the meal. So if you read this and it doesn't seem like the suggestion has any bearing on your own life, ignore it. Maybe it will never be a problem for you. But if it does end up being a problem, pick yourself up after and realize that with each meal you cook (for others or just for yourself) will provide you with more knowledge.
As a number of us attempted to figure out how to cook without salt (salt substitutes, if available in our area then, were not known of by us), I mentioned the problem to my friend Roberta who turned me onto a book by Elma W. Bagg entiled Cooking Without a Grain of Salt. There are a number of recipes in this book (the cover boasts "over 250 superb and nutrious recipes") and I was unaware that all the food I'd eaten at Roberta's were low sodium dishes. She had a problem with water retention and her mother had been advised to cut down on the sodium in her diet due to high blood pressure.
One of the many recipes I enjoy in this book I'll put below:
PUREE OF AVOCADO SOUP
Appetizing soups were most difficult to prepare without salt. I tried and tried,
and wasted and wasted. These few are good.
2 avocados
1 tablespoon lemon juice
1/4 teaspoon of paprika
2 teaspoons chopped chives
1 teaspoon grated lemon rind
1/4 teaspoon dill, ground
1/4 teaspoon oregano
2 teaspoons grated onions
2 cups milk
Peel, seed and mash avocados. Add rest of the ingredients. Heat in a double broiler. This is a thick soup, and can also be made with low-sodium dry milk if you wish to cut the count.
4 SERVINGS. Per serving, 64 mg. sodium and 325 calories.
Avocados are full of vitamin C. I enjoy them on salads and in dips or even on their own. Mike and his younger sister are the only children who shares my enjoyment of avocados. I think the popularity of guacamole outside of our home has exposed our older children to avocados and allowed them to rethink the fruit. An aunt who loved them was forever buying them in bulk and rushing over to drop some off when they were on the verge of going bad.
Fruits and vegetables that come to your home free and frequently usually motivate you to find a recipe for them. (If anyone knows of a good cookbook on squash, please pass that information on.) The recipe for avocado soup was the first and only avocado based dish I could find that my family, as a whole, would eat.
When we were in DC in September at the rallies and protests against the war, Dona of The Third Estate Sunday Review caught a cold. It was the worst time for it, Saturday morning with a busy day facing her, and she needed something to pick her up. Soup is usually a good food to turn to at times like that. She was going through the kitchen of the home we were all staying at and not having luck locating a can of soup or broth. There were two avocados and, though skeptical, when I volunteered to whip up a batch of soup using them and the other ingredients above, she was willing to try it.
Some of you may not know what a double broiler is so this is a definition from online: "Double Broiler: A small pot placed above a larger pot that contains boiling water." If you're adventurous and willing to take all responsibility (legal and otherwise) for attempting it, you can try to rig one via a large pot and a smaller pan. However, if you don't have a double broiler, the soup can be made in a single pan and turn out quite well. Just remember to stir frequently as it cooks. For the ingredients, you can use dried ones, such as dried chives instead of fresh ones, if they aren't available in your area or if you're making it at the last minute and don't have any fresh ones handy. If I don't have lemon peel handy, I use lemon zest or else add an additional teaspoon of lemon juice. A friend who enjoys creamy soups adds butter when cooking this. So you can play with this recipe. (Again, you take responsibilty -- legal and otherwise.)
I hadn't intended to make this the second recipe I posted but Dona enjoys it and I felt that after the week that was, we might all be looking for the comfort of a soup. Like my son, I'm glad our senator, Ted Kennedy, was vocal during the hearings but I was more unimpressed with Democrats on the committee than impressed.
C.I. has an entry on members reactions and I enjoyed reading that because it echoed a number of complaints and concerns I had while following the hearings this week. My husband enjoyed Brandon's comments about the hearings being like a football game that had reached with the fourth quarter with no one on "our team" ever consulting a playbook until the last minute. My husband and Brandon were of the same mind on that.
Myself, I was disappointed that Bully Boy saw another nomination for the Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment, go before the Judiciary Committee and there was no organized effort on the part of Democrats during their questioning. It is true that Alito was dodgy in his answers but it's also true that while dodging, few bothered to challenge him on that. A senator might mention it in passing or note that it had occurred "yesterday" but when the dodging was going on, the tendency was not to confront it but instead to "move on" as Diane Feinstein stated at one point.
It looks like Alito will be confirmed. I'm not suggesting that people don't protest to their senators (Democrats and Republicans) or that they give up on fighting the nomination. But it does feel like the Democrats on the committee did very little, as a whole, and now expect the people to wage a battle they weren't willing to fight themselves.
That's very upsetting to me. Like Mike, I'm glad to call Ted Kennedy my senator (and have no real issues with our other senator, John Kerry); however, Ted will not be in the Senate forever.
When he decides he's given as much as he can and chooses to step down, I'm worried about the level of fight left in the Senate on the Democratic side.
Diane Feinstein was a huge disappointment this week. Outside of Joe Lieberman, I'm not sure any other Democratic senator could have done so poorly. It wasn't that she wasn't raising issues that were important; it was the fact of how she raised them.
To keep the focus on the kitchen, it would be like me repeatedly saying to the family, after I'd served dinner, "I could have made ___ or I could have used ____." She appeared to bringing her prep work to the table when the country needed to be served the meal. I found her "Gosh, I'm just a girl and lawyering is so far beyond my brain" insulting to women. After over a decade in the Senate, her personal style seemed embarrassing. Did she grasp the gravity of the situation? Interrupting Ted Kennedy, in the midst of his questioning, did not suggest that she did. She was "playful" when she should have been business-like.
I found the whole thing depressing as a woman who was assured after the 1992 Year of the Women (assured by the press) that everything had changed. It didn't appear that anything had changed. The treatment of Anita Hill as someone to be dismissed (which played like it was due to her gender) is now endorsed with the actions of Diane Feinstein who makes it easy to dismiss women due to her actions on the committee. As my sister-in-law Peggy said, "Donna Reed had more bite."
So it wasn't a week of uplift. But maybe we can channel our frustration into action. As Rebecca, Wally and C.I. have noted NOW provides you with the means to Take Action: Call Your Senators Today. As Laura Flanders says, "Don't leave politics to the politicians." And I'll add, as I'm guessing she would, too much is at stake.
I did survive my first week of blogging. I mistyped "me" as "be" in the last entry. Kat advised me to leave it as is or else get used to spending time that I could be posting instead correcting typos in each entry. I'll follow that good advice unless I make a typo in copying a recipe. There were a number of kind e-mails (27) and most pointed out that the e-mail address doesn't display on my profile. I didn't get around to doing that section, I guess. The week was busy for Mike and everyone else so I didn't ask about how to fix that or add things to my profile. Leigh Ann noted it was a good thing I'd stated to write me care of Mike (irishmike02@yahoo.com) because she wouldn't have known how to write me. Lynda wrote a very nice e-mail and sent it to me care of C.I. who was kind enough to forward it. I'll try to create an e-mail account before next week and also to attempt to get it noted on my profile.
avocado
avocado soup
cooking without a grain of saltelma w. bagg
cooking
recipes
food
the common ills
kats korner
trinas kitchen
mikey likes it
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
the daily jot
samuel alito
supreme court
alito hearings
diane feinstein
now
Blog Spotlight: Kat tells all about John Tierney's abortion
We love Kat. We love the passion she brings to her music writing and the fact that she's not on the conventional wisdom train. This week, NYT's John Tierney pissed her off as he rushed to weigh in on the, we're sure he's sure, most pressing issue around abortion rights today, "father's rights." Kat punctured a hole in the gas bag.
Alito Hearings and John Tierney's abortion
Diane Feinstein? What is there to say?
In the final day of the Alito hearings, she thought she was attending a church social. And lucky her, she was the only "gal" invited to the big to-do. She basked in the male gaze.
Hey, I'm sure she's had many Wendy Jo Sperber moments. Being able to have Kip and Henry's attention without a Donna Dixon about to enter the room (Bosom Buddies) was probably quite enjoyable to her.
If it weren't, she would have called Arlen Specter on his patronizing her with remarks about her "dramatic entrance." That a U.S. Senator can't call a man on that isn't encouraging to the rest of us.
But she seemed quite happy to be belle of the ball.
Too bad she didn't seem too keen on questioning Alito.
As C.I. noted at The Common Ills:
So what has today been like? Not as lively as yesterday. "Enough of that. Let me move on." Who said that? Which Democrat? Does it matter? Doesn't that seem like those two sentences summed up much of what's gone on so far today? (Diane Feinstein said it today to Alito, for those who missed it.)
I found the hearing disappointing. I think it's a shame that we know ahead of time who we can count on. That doesn't really change much, does it?
Maybe Diane Feinstein was worried that The New York Times and others might not like her?
I hope most women get past the point of needing to be liked long before they reach Feinstein's age. Gloria Steinem has often spoken and written of how, as we grow older, women feel the need to be "liked" by everyone less and less. In our later years, we really discover our voice and how to use it. Does Diane Feinstein not grasp that she's in her later years?
If so, that's probably aided by being a senator. You're the "kid" in the senate if you're under forty. So she's still busy playing the "girl" that most of us stopped playing in high school and college.
Well hopefully Bill O'Reilly won't say mean things about her like he did Barbara Boxer. That seems to be the operating principle at play -- "Like me! Don't say anything mean!"
Feinstein was just the most extreme example of it but you saw quite a bit of it on the Democratic side of the commmittee.
So now Alito's probably headed for a full vote. I wish I could tell you that I had hope he would be defeated. As a woman who has had an abortion, I take Roe very seriously. I don't think it's John Tierney.
I could tell you my own story again, but I'd rather focus on John Tierney and his abortion.
It wasn't the sixties, when abortion was illegal. But it may as well have been after John Tierney found himself pregnant by David Brooks. It was the late 80s. Abortion was legal. For women.
Poor John, however, was a man. And the first man to become pregant. Doctors laughed him out of their waiting rooms. Abortion clinics thought he was a quack when he'd show up claiming to be pregnant. So in the end, he had to seek out a back alley abortion.
While examing him, the doctor kept fondling him. The place was dirty and full of germs. John worried that he might catch something.
He was right to worry. He did catch something following the procedure. He admitted himself to the hospital two days later and it was almost too late. (I'm told some brain damage did occur.)
When he finally was on the road to healing, he learned he was now sterile. It was very traumatic for him. Both having to repeatedly explain why he, a man, wanted an abortion to one doctor after another. Dealing with their judgemental looks. Having to seek out an illegal abortion and then, because it wasn't regulated, nearly dying.
He just knew that David Brooks wasn't going to support him and a child. And he knew he couldn't support a child on his own. He had other reasons as well, but we'll label those "private" and respect his right to not mention them.
So that event shaped John Tierney and made him who he is today.
What's that you say?
John Tierney was never pregnant?
You're right. So why he felt anyone needed his weighing in on the "rights of men" to abortion is beyond me. I'm sure that his next column will tackle the equally pressing issue of the "rights of women" to vasectomies. Fair's fair, right?
No, it isn't.
It's perfectly acceptable for insurance carriers to cover every procedure you can imagine for males and having a highly restrictive coverage policy when it comes to women. The double standard has been weakend but it still lives. Some, like Diane Feinstein, seem dedicated to ensuring that we're tokens and not fully realized persons.
Hope that's working out for her at least because, for most women, it's not.
Alito Hearings and John Tierney's abortion
Diane Feinstein? What is there to say?
In the final day of the Alito hearings, she thought she was attending a church social. And lucky her, she was the only "gal" invited to the big to-do. She basked in the male gaze.
Hey, I'm sure she's had many Wendy Jo Sperber moments. Being able to have Kip and Henry's attention without a Donna Dixon about to enter the room (Bosom Buddies) was probably quite enjoyable to her.
If it weren't, she would have called Arlen Specter on his patronizing her with remarks about her "dramatic entrance." That a U.S. Senator can't call a man on that isn't encouraging to the rest of us.
But she seemed quite happy to be belle of the ball.
Too bad she didn't seem too keen on questioning Alito.
As C.I. noted at The Common Ills:
So what has today been like? Not as lively as yesterday. "Enough of that. Let me move on." Who said that? Which Democrat? Does it matter? Doesn't that seem like those two sentences summed up much of what's gone on so far today? (Diane Feinstein said it today to Alito, for those who missed it.)
I found the hearing disappointing. I think it's a shame that we know ahead of time who we can count on. That doesn't really change much, does it?
Maybe Diane Feinstein was worried that The New York Times and others might not like her?
I hope most women get past the point of needing to be liked long before they reach Feinstein's age. Gloria Steinem has often spoken and written of how, as we grow older, women feel the need to be "liked" by everyone less and less. In our later years, we really discover our voice and how to use it. Does Diane Feinstein not grasp that she's in her later years?
If so, that's probably aided by being a senator. You're the "kid" in the senate if you're under forty. So she's still busy playing the "girl" that most of us stopped playing in high school and college.
Well hopefully Bill O'Reilly won't say mean things about her like he did Barbara Boxer. That seems to be the operating principle at play -- "Like me! Don't say anything mean!"
Feinstein was just the most extreme example of it but you saw quite a bit of it on the Democratic side of the commmittee.
So now Alito's probably headed for a full vote. I wish I could tell you that I had hope he would be defeated. As a woman who has had an abortion, I take Roe very seriously. I don't think it's John Tierney.
I could tell you my own story again, but I'd rather focus on John Tierney and his abortion.
It wasn't the sixties, when abortion was illegal. But it may as well have been after John Tierney found himself pregnant by David Brooks. It was the late 80s. Abortion was legal. For women.
Poor John, however, was a man. And the first man to become pregant. Doctors laughed him out of their waiting rooms. Abortion clinics thought he was a quack when he'd show up claiming to be pregnant. So in the end, he had to seek out a back alley abortion.
While examing him, the doctor kept fondling him. The place was dirty and full of germs. John worried that he might catch something.
He was right to worry. He did catch something following the procedure. He admitted himself to the hospital two days later and it was almost too late. (I'm told some brain damage did occur.)
When he finally was on the road to healing, he learned he was now sterile. It was very traumatic for him. Both having to repeatedly explain why he, a man, wanted an abortion to one doctor after another. Dealing with their judgemental looks. Having to seek out an illegal abortion and then, because it wasn't regulated, nearly dying.
He just knew that David Brooks wasn't going to support him and a child. And he knew he couldn't support a child on his own. He had other reasons as well, but we'll label those "private" and respect his right to not mention them.
So that event shaped John Tierney and made him who he is today.
What's that you say?
John Tierney was never pregnant?
You're right. So why he felt anyone needed his weighing in on the "rights of men" to abortion is beyond me. I'm sure that his next column will tackle the equally pressing issue of the "rights of women" to vasectomies. Fair's fair, right?
No, it isn't.
It's perfectly acceptable for insurance carriers to cover every procedure you can imagine for males and having a highly restrictive coverage policy when it comes to women. The double standard has been weakend but it still lives. Some, like Diane Feinstein, seem dedicated to ensuring that we're tokens and not fully realized persons.
Hope that's working out for her at least because, for most women, it's not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
