Sunday, February 12, 2006

Blog spotlight: Cedric on The New York Times editorial silence regarding Coretta Scott King

We were wanting to note entries by Cedric. Especially since a spotlight last week never hit the post. (We're e-mailing them to the site now to avoid the time consuming practice of respacing all entries.) But Cedric said this is the one to note and we'll go with his judgement.

Gail Collins and the New York Times can't have it both ways

I don't usually blog on Wednesday nights because it's a church night and Elaine's kind enough to grab the night for me by blogging at Like Maria Said Paz. (Thank you, Elaine.) But I wanted my last post about the racism of the New York Times' editorial board and Gail Collins up until the day after Coretta Scott King's funeral. I didn't think they'd bother to note her the day after since they've kept their White lips sealed all this time.

If you read C.I.'s "The New York Times and the Coretta Scott King coverage (not a pretty picture)" you know they didn't have a thing to say about her on their editorial pages today. If you read C.I.'s "The New York Times and the Coretta Scott King coverage (not a pretty picture)" and "Democracy Now: Priest Gerad Jean Juste, tributes to Coretta Scott King; Robert Parry, CCR ..." you know that they not only mocked Reverend Joseph Lowery but they took his joke and gave old Poppy Bush credit for it. Imagine that, an African-American does something and a White guy gets the credit for it. Didn't we all think we'd moved past those days?

Well not at the New WHITE Times apparently. Gail Collins can blather on about her friend who passed away and how, busy career gals, they had to schedule time to meet up. Rush, rush, rush.
How very Sex in the City, we're supposed to think. But the thing was the women on that show made time for their friends (even if they worked a "few blocks" away or whatever Collins whined in her supposed editorial on her friend that read "Look how busy I am! I am busy! I am important!"). You also knew that Carrie Bradshaw, Samantha, Miranda and the other one had a life. Get the feeling "I'm Busy!" Gail Collins has a life?

I think she's too busy being "important" to have a life. So I'll say she fell into a racist trap and wasn't herself racist. I'll give her that much credit. She's "Busy!" so she didn't stop to think, "Coretta Scott King might actually mean something to people, might actually be worth noting and editorializing on." But when you are "Busy!" it can be real hard to see anything that's not in your own world. So Gail Collins couldn't see how important Coretta Scott King was because in the "I'm Busy!" world, there's not time to think. There's no time to talk about things that really matter when you're so "Busy!" and trying to convince yourself that you have a life even if you have to pretend like your a character on Sex in the City to do that.

While Collins was so "Busy!" celebrating herself and how "Busy!" she is, she missed the fact that a historic figure died. She missed the fact that she, Collins, wrote a dopey book (on an important topic) about how women deserve a place in history. She was so "Busy!" that she didn't realize that here was a woman, Coretta Scott King, that had a place in history and that if her dopey book meant anything to her, which I assume it did, here was a chance for her to put her money where her is mouth is.

So I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she herself isn't racist, she just fell into a racist trap because she was so "Busy!"

If that's not the case, then there are two more options.

One, she's racist.

Two, she's a first ("First woman to be the editor of the editorial page! I'm busy!") so she's scared to rock the boat. She's scared to actually use the power of her position. And all the other saps on the editorial board reflected years of conditioning from the paper that spit on MLK when he was alive. She didn't want to go out on limb.

Regardless of which of the three it is is, and it may be something else completely, by not covering Coretta Scott King's passing with an editorial or op-ed (not one that mentioned her, one that was about her), Gail Collins made herself the biggest huckster in the world. She wants to write about women in her books, about how they are important. But when it was time to put her money where her mouth was, she had nothing to say. That's pretty sad if you ask me. Gail Collins is pretty sad if you ask me.

So maybe the next time she writes (badly writes) another book about how women have a place in history, an interviewer can ask her, "If you really believe that, why did you fail to note Coretta Scott King when she passed away?" She can't have it both ways.






Posted by at

History weigh in

C.I. is one of the worst about "No, highlight someone else." There are several things we'd like to highlight from The Common Ills this week. Pointing out that we're nowhere near completed on the latest edition, led C.I. to say, "Fine, take one." Only having one to go with, we pick this for its historical criticism and also the humor.

NYT: "Republicans on Hill Add Voice To Dissent Over Eavesdropping" (Sheryl Gay Stolberg)

"That is the abyss from which there is no return," Frank Church once warned of the technological developments that, if unchecked and unsupervised, could "make tyranny total in America." It's a concept a few members of Congress may be waking up to.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg offers "Republicans on Hill Add Voice To Dissent Over Eavesdropping" in this morning's New York Times (front page). From the article:

In interviews over several days, Congressional Republicans have expressed growing doubts about the National Security Agency program to intercept international communications inside the United States without court warrants. A growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance, and are calling for revamping the FISA law.

The article paints a picture (intended by Stolberg or not) that's not pretty. I'm not referring to the Republicans here. Nor a need to "fact check" the article.

Rahm Emmanuel is noted for feeling that "Ms. [Heather] Wilson was most likely distancing herself from the White House to curry favor back home." (That's Stolberg's summary, not a direct quote from Emmanuel.)

Maybe you missed the one day of public hearings *last Monday*? (You can listen to them via Pacifica where they're archived on the main page.) If so, consider yourself lucky. Strategy trumped principles. Democrats (such as the disgusting Dianne Feinstein) worried so much about 'positioning the party' that they couldn't fight for the country.

With few exceptions the no-opposition-at-all party fell right in line with the Bully Boy spin. The 'strategy' (such as it was) found them thinking they could prove their own 'national security cred' by repeating over and over (and boy did they ever) that they were for spying on Al Qaeda.
Posturing and puffing out their chests, they were certainly focused on the next election cycle -- they just weren't focused on the country.

For all the people swearing by the latest campaign hula-hoop of "framing," the 'great minds' didn't grasp that their endless pontificating was giving Bully Boy just what he wanted, taking the issue of warrantless spying on Americans and turning it into a 'national security' battle. The 'national security' at stake was what the country is going to become and where it's headed.

But craven and cowardly, Democrats stepped forward (with few exceptions) to attest just how much they supported spying on Al Qaeda, over and over. As if that was the issue. It wasn't. But it's an election year and everyone's reading from the same page (of a campaign book as opposed to anything written about the Constitution).

It's the sort of posturing that led to McCarthyism. It's the sort of "me too!"ism that leads to every shameful event in our nation. Though Bully Boy wanted to make it into a 9-11 issue, Democrats didn't have to help him out. But they did.

"Framing" is one of those useless things that someone thinks up every decade. The actual thing being promoted has been around for years but the infantile minds jumping on the bandwagon are never aware of that fact. They think they've discovered the "cure" and they all jump on that decade's bandwagon. They rally 'round the "cause."

And the "cause" isn't about anything but winning the next election cycle. History books aren't focused on who used what fad to win an election cycle. History books focus on a struggle (and really bad ones on "officials"). Few Democrats made a case for history in the hearings. They also failed to make a case for the Constitution.

Posturing, which is all framing is, goes back in the United States before the nation-state was even formed, it's been known under many names and it didn't surface in this decade. But when children are excited over new toys, you try to let them have their fun . . . to a point. For instance, in the nineties when the adult-children were so convinced that Home Alone was some huge breakthrough in film comedy, it seemed a bit cruel to point out that there was nothing "new" or "breakthrough" about a film that recycled gags their grandparents and great-grandparents grew up on. Let them giggle and enjoy themselves, where's the harm?

The delight over "framing" has now entered the harm stage. Posturing, in the forties, led to the McCarthy era. Instead of calling it out for what it was (truly unAmerican), Truman and assorted others jumped on the bandwagon (steered by Nixon long before he ever got into the oval office). "Communists are bad!" was the talking point. And the framing of that time led not to the questioning of powers created and methods used but instead to the "Well I think it's bad too!" cries as people attempted to frame/posture in such a way that they couldn't be called "weak" or worse.

"Framing" was going to save us. It never has before but don't spoil the children's excitement. Let them have Christmas morning to be boisterous and excited. "Framing" (in its latest form) was going to provide the Democrats with the ability to win on "issues." It never has before, but let them have their excitement.

What we saw as senators framed/postured before Gonzales proved that "framing" will play out in this decade just like it has in every other. Going into that hearing, it was no secret that Bully Boy's "Why We Spy" spin (Amy Goodman coined the "Why We Spy" phrase). If our new toy was of any use at all, we'd see it in that hearing as it was used to take the issue off his favored terrain and placed, instead, into its proper context.

That didn't happen. For all the talk of it as a cure all (in its latest incarnation) it played out the way it always does: cover for people to hide behind. Instead of straight talk, Dems (with few exceptions) used "framing" for their own selfish means (the next election cycle) and the very serious issue was reduced to nothing more than a chance for politicians to do what they've always done best, grand stand with loud cries of "Me too!"

The "frame" going in and flaunted throughout the day was "I'm tough on Al Qaeda too!" Al Qaeda wasn't the issue. Al Qaeda was never the issue. Americans weren't enraged about Al Qaeda being spied upon. They were enraged about the calls and e-mails of Americans being under government watch. But that issue got lost as one after another, with few exceptions, the "opposition" had to rush in to say that they too were opposed to Communists, er terrorists.

Now petulant ones, who can't realize how they watered down the debate themsevles (their own party), rush forward to criticize others with cries of "___'s just worried because of her/his district!" I suppose that's a "frame" as well because it's about as useful and truthful as any other "frame." (What politician isn't worried about their own electorate? Including the pouty ones pointing fingers now?)

If we're done with the toys, and can face the fact that Christmas was sometime ago, maybe we can all be adult enough (or at least some of us?) to face the fact that "success" will be judged on something more than 2006 election turnouts? That what our country's facing requires more than framing/posturing to address?

Tools aren't answers and tools badly used (as they so frequently are) lead not to brave stands but to "me too!" moments that result in the shames of our nation. The Democrats could have staked their ground in opposition to warrantless spying. They didn't. With few exceptions, they all had their little prefaces, their opening remarks, that "strategy" told them was the way to reposition themselves and frequently they returned to those remarks. (Like Sandra Bulluck in Miss Congeniality tossing out "world peace" to get some easy applause in the question and answer segment.) But it's a way to "success" we're assured because "success" isn't measured by whether or not a principle or any ground was staked out, only on how it might play for the 2006 elections.

Suprisingly, some of the same people hailing the craven behavior as "successful" want to then criticize the media for its own craven behavior. (That's not a defense of the media, just pointing out that posturing by the politicians is being greeted in many circles as "success" while similar posturing by the media is being seen as "craven." Both are craven. And juvenile.)

Though the hearing was short on straight talk or truth telling, some of the same ones applauding the "reposition" by the Dems want to whine about the press coverage of the issue. Cowards follow. We don't have a brave press (with few exceptions) and we don't have brave politicians (ditto). The Democrats (as a group) rolled over in the hearing. The press did as well. Now that some Republicans are speaking out, for principle or due to electorate pressures (or a combination), little whiners want to come forward and saying, "They're only doing it because they're facing a tough election." (Jane Harman, to her credit, points out that Wilson had expressed concerns about the spying for some time.) Which is a bit like someone caught cheating on a test whining that someone else "only studied because she was worried about her grade!"

This time round, posturing came with psycho-babble and more recent pop-cultural refernces (Bill Cosby's Cliff Huxtable as the 'good, nuturing father' and other such nonsense). And those excited by the latest gadget and/or ignorant of their own nation's history, were gleeful.

Inside the paper (A11), Scott Shane offers "Attention in N.S.A. Debate Turns to Telecom Industry." From the article:

Some companies are said by current and former government officials to have provided the eavesdropping agency access to streams of telephone and Internet traffic entering and leaving the United States. The N.S.A. has used its powerful computers to search the masses of data for clues to terrorist plots and, without court warrants, zeroed in on some Americans for eavesdropping, those officials say.
Now the companies are in an awkward position, with members of Congress questioning them about their role in the eeavesdropping. On Thursday two Democratic senators, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, wrote to the chief executives of AT&T, Sprint Nextel and Verizon, asking them to confirm or deny a report in USA Today on Monday that said telecommunications executives had identified AT&T, Sprint and MCI (now part of Verizon) as partners of the agency.

Look for the telecom industry to say (frame?) that they, too, don't like terrorists. As if that's the issue but Dems certainly acted in the hearing as though it was so expect others to line up behind them. And look for Al Gore to continue to get the Henry Wallace treatment (by the press and by the Democratic Party). The reasons for both go to "framing." Little Petey Beinart (small teeth, smaller ideas) will probably write one of his Milkquetoast babbles defending it all. He'll be "framing" too.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.











[C.I. note: Post corrected thanks to Jim who called to say "That was this past Monday." It seems so much longer that we were in DC. But Jim's correct and I'm wrong. Thanks for catching that.]

Posted by at

Ruth notes FAIR's 20 years of watchdogging

In her newly rechristened Ruth's Public Radio Report, Ruth salutes FAIR's 20th anniversary. We join Ruth in congratulating them on 20 years of outstanding work. Some watchdogs can bite and bark, as FAIR does. (Others? Wait for the new content to start going up and you'll hear about that.)

Ruth's Public Radio Report

Ruth: Marci e-mailed me wondering if I'd have a report this week since Law & Disorder did not air? No, I do not. So have a great weekend everyone, see you next Saturday.

Pacifica's in fundraising mode currently. That is not a reason not to listen. On WBAI, they broadcast a debate between Noam Chomsky and someone whose name I will not bother to mention. That was quite interesting, on the issue of Palestine and Israel, while Professor Chomsky was speaking. Then the other person, portrayed by Ron Silver in film, had to start being shrill and spouting nonsense such as "on Planet Chomsky." Possibly, it was all a put on from a man who seems determined to cast himself in the role of Bozo the Clown? Otherwise, his insisting that the media never ignores a story indicates not only has he never heard of the Downing Street Memos, he is also ignorant of the history of the press in this country.

Are you? Or do you suspect you might be? If that is the case, this report may offer something of value for you. I have no problem with fundraising by Pacifica, they need funds to continue to broadcasting because they are not taking monies from Wal-Mart or whatever larger corporation NPR repeatedly notes that "this program" was brought to you by. Funny thing, I always thought public radio was brought to you by the public. I thought the "generous grant" was, in fact, the large monies that Congress allocated each cycle on behalf of the public.

But in the last fundraising cycle, a few members e-mailed about problems that they had with the archives while they tried to locate something I had highlighted. Along with Professor Chomsky, you heard Alice Walker interviewed by Amy Goodman and you heard Ms. Walker read a wonderful poem. WBAI's First Voices Indigenous Radio broadcast the documentary on Leonard Peltier that Michael Apted directed and Robert Redford produced. [C.I. note: Incident at Oglala: The Leonard Peltier Story which is also narrated by Robert Redford.] KPFA's Guns and Butter offered David Ray Griffith speaking on the problems with the official 9/11 narrative. There was much to listen to and no reason to tune out when Pacifica goes into fundraising. (There is reason to donate and I hope members who listen and who have the money to spare do make a point to support community radio.)

However, remembering the e-mails from last time, I called C.I. mid-week and offered that I might highlight some of the segments on Democracy Now! this week. It is an idea I may go with next week but C.I. was planning an entry and offered it to me if I wanted it. One of my favorite programs is CounterSpin which is produced by the people at FAIR. They also produce the magazine Extra! and the February 2006 issue is devoted to "Celebrating 20 years of FAIR."

I had the issue and enjoyed reading it but had not considered making it the focus of a report until C.I. suggested it.

The following is Jim Naureckas' "Editor's Note: Democracy vs. Information Control" in full:

For a magazine put out by and for an advocay group, Extra! doesn't spend a lot of time talking about FAIR. We'd generally rather devote the space to doing our job, which is analyzing media bias.
That doesn't mean that we aren't proud of our group -- far from it. We think the work we do is vitally important, and that we've had tremendous success in getting our ideas out to activists, journalists and the broader public. (We've managed to do this with relativelly little exposure in the mainstream media, which is only to be expected; any media crtique that media are eager to amplify is probably wrong.)
In preparing this special issue on the 20th anniversary of FAIR, I've given a lot of thought to those ideas, and I believe they can be boiled down to this: A society's media tends to reflect the views of its most powerful institutions. Why? Control of information is so crucial to control of a society that a ruling elit that fails to dominate media will not be in power for long.
The corollary is that any effort in a society to distribute power more equitably needs to figure out how to distribute media power more fairly. In other words, media reform and democratization go hand in hand.
This is not a new idea, of course -- it's the concept behind the First Amendment, which insulated the press from government control so that it could serve as a check on government power. What FAIR has been saying for the past 20 years -- joined by an increasing number of organizations, activists and ordinary citizens -- is that concentrated economic control of the means of communication is just as grave a threat to democracy.
We haven't seen a major improvement in mainstream media over the past 20 years, but that's not how we measure our success. Instead, our victory is in the increasingly critical attitude the public takes toward the media powers that be. When they no longer have the ability to define reality for the ordinary citizen, their power will be gone. And that's when real democracy can begin to flourish.

The editor's note really summarizes not only the purpose behind FAIR, Extra! and CounterSpin but also the latest issue of the magazine -- as well and the issues facing the nation. In this issue of the magazine, they look foward and backward.

In terms of looking backward, Robin Andersen's "On the Shoulders of Giants" pays tribute to past media critics such as George Seldes, A.J. Liebling and I.F. Stone while also proving the point that the situation of the press today did not begin with the "war on Al Gore" in 2000. From that article, I will offer a quote:

I now realize that we were told nothing . . . that we were shown nothing of the realities of the war, that we were, in short, merely part of the great . . . propaganda machine whose purpose was to sustain morale at all costs and help drag unwillingly America into the slaughter.

Pretty apt description on the coverage of the Iraq war. Reading it, one might think the writer is describing the 'reporting' of Dexter Filkins; however, that's George Seldes writing on the press coverage of WWI. The problems we face today are historical ones and our success or failure in combatting them will depend upon the goals we set. Will we deal with the systematic issues or focus our energies upon setting a up a few to be included in the favored circle of pundits the mainstream media will offer under prolonged and intense pressure?

FAIR's looking at the long range struggle. In celebrating the twenty years of the organization, Steve Rendall, Peter Hart and Julie Hollar contribute "20 Stories That Made a Difference" -- "that had a major impact on our society -- for good or ill" since 1986. Redlining is a topic that Tracey's mother has been following of late and there have been many conversations at the table about it; however, Tracey confessed to me that she had no idea what redlining was until she read about it in this article, it is number three of the twenty. That should be reason enough to recommend the article but I also started thinking about how that is probably the case with the other stories as well. Iran-Contra is discussed and I thought of how Amy Goodman, on Friday's Democracy Now!, asked Mary Mapes to explain that after Ms. Mapes brought it up. Ms. Goodman, unlike myself and other adults seated at my dining table, is very good about grasping that just because you may know about something does not mean that everyone listening does. For those who have followed issues in the last twenty year, "20 Stories That Made a Difference" will be a trip down memory lane, jogging old memories and, hopefully, providing you with some insights that you may have missed in real time. However, it is also a wonderful primer for those who missed out on these important stories.

From page four, I will not two items from "Sound Bites." The first is from Susan Faludi who wrote the wonderful Backlash which, as Beth recently wrote in her ombudsperson column, will probably be the most mentioned book in 2006 at this site as it was in 2005. Let me do my part to make Beth's predicition come true. Here is Ms. Faludi:

It is so important that we have an organization like FAIR: to challenge the crippling social myths that the right promulgates so sucessfully, to question the 'values' of an infotainment media, to expose the shoddy treatment that women and minorities receive in the press, and to appeal for a diverse and intelligent media that we all deserve and desperately need.

While Ms. Faludi "gets" it, as we used to say, Jim Lehrer of the PBS NewsHour and a generation prior to my own, does not "get" it:

A left-wing group with the phony name of FAIR . . . . shoddy, unprofessional, unfair.

His quote is headed "Note the Use of Irony." Robert W. McChensey focuses on the future and the work needed in "A Cornerstone of the Media Reform Movement." Mr. McChesney writes:

FAIR never operated under the belief that the problem with our news media was that we had lazy or incompetent journalists, or that we had particularly malicious owners. The problem with our news media was that the system made it rational for even our best journalists to produce biased and propagandistic work, and for owners to encourage such work. FAIR always understood that, in the end, the solution to the problem facing journalism in the United States was structural. We needed to create a media system that made good journalism the rational expectation of its operation.

Jessica Wakeman details the "The Secret Origins of FAIR: How police spies and media moles helped launch a movement." FAIR first achieved intense media exposure as a result of the ABC miniseries Amerika which Jeff Cohen was passed a script of. Information from the Los Angeles Times in 1977 also helped FAIR. It provided some of the money that Mr. Cohen would use to create the watchdog. How? An article about a protester revealed that Connie Millazo was undercover LAPD. Ms. Millazo had been spying on the Campaign for Democratic Freedoms which Cohen and others belonged to. With the ACLU, Mr. Cohen, Linda Valentino and others brought suite against the LAPD in 1978 which the LAPD settled as the 1984 summer Olympics, to be held in Los Angeles, approached. Mr. Cohen traveled to Europe and there found a more lively media as well as England's Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom. Returning to the United States, Mr. Cohen began work on creating FAIR.

Those are only some of the articles in the February edition of Extra! and, I should note, the issue also contains some reproductions of past covers. I enjoyed the illustration of the February 1989 cover story "Are You On The Nighlightine Guest List?" featuring Ted Koppel and Henry Kissinger, among others.

If these topics interest you, Extra! is available at most bookstores and you can subscribe online, via telephone (800-847-3993), or by mailing a check for $21 (in the United States, other countries should add ten dollars to that amount) to:

FAIR/Extra!
Subscription Service
P.O. Box 170
Congers, NY 10920-9930

Before we close the discussion of the latest issue of the bimonthly, I would like to note Janine Jackson's "Media Reform For What?" which states the purpose of FAIR/CounterSpin/Extra! quite clearly:

Media reform is not an academic excercise. Bad media hurts real people. Better media would help real people. Media reform means gaining the power to speak and be heard, and that means taking some of that power from those who have it now. Media reform is dangerous, done right.
[. . .]
Media reform is not a merely theoretical issue; it is a crucial issue for our time. Asking ourselves, "Media reform for what?" will help us keep our eyes on the long-term goals we hope to achieve and will remind us to acknowledge and celebrate the real, concrete successes we will no doubt achieve on our way to those bigger goals.

Jess and Eddie both have stated they enjoy heads up to programming so let me note Sunday Salon with Larry Bensky airing on KPFA at six a.m. eastern time, seven a.m. central and nine a.m. pacific time:


9:00 am
Sunday Salon
SundaySalon.org
A special three hour program ...
In hour one...
On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance activities. KPFA devoted that day to special coverage. We'll recap, play highlights and have commentary by Elizabeth de la Vega, former assistant US attorney, and Clarence Lusane, professor of political science at American University in Washington.
In hour two
...Michael Parenti joins us to talk about his new book, The Culture Struggle.
In hour three...
A look at the current state of KPFA/Pacifica with historian Matthew Lasar, author of Uneasy Listening: Pacifica Radio's Civil War.

Remember that if you read this after the program airs, you can access the KPFA archives, as well as Sunday Salon's site, to listen. For instance, if you missed Radio Chronicles last Sunday when they aired the Pacifica documentary on the government spying of a previous era, you can listen to that via the archives.









































Posted by at

Blog Spotlight: Elaine on things that don't get attention

As is usually the case, Elaine nixed all our attempts to highlight her posts. Finally we made the point that she's noting Kevin Benderman and that's an issue she's made a recurring theme at her site Like Maria Said Paz. For that reason (Benderman), she agreed to let us note her post. (She's not selfish, she's just overly modest, as Rebecca says.)

"If we are so powerless and unimportant, why are they spying on us?"

Tuesday but it feels like a Thursday. Hope things are better for you and I also hope you will visit Mikey Likes It! to get Mike's commentary.


Bush Proposes Big Increase in Defense Spending, Cuts in Social Programs (Democracy Now!):
In his proposed nearly $2.8 trillion budget President Bush is calling for major increases in defense spending but deep cuts in Medicare and other domestic social programs. Under the proposed budget, defense spending will increase nearly 7 percent to $440 billion. If approved the Pentagon’s budget will become 45 percent larger than when Bush took office five years ago. The military spending is actually far higher because the proposed budget does not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One recent estimate put the cost of the Iraq war at $100,000 every minute. At the same time, the president is proposing to make his tax cuts permanent. This would cost about $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the budget on Monday: "The President's budget request for the Department of Defense represents an increase over last year. It reflects what we believe should be the country's national security priorities. Namely to help defend the United States of America and the American people and their interests, to give flexibility to commanders, to prepare for both conventional and unconventional or irregular warfare, and, importantly, to work closely with partner nations to help them develop the capabilities needed to defeat terrorists within their borders and to co-operate with us and other countries with respect to this global threat."

C.I. addressed this. It's about something but it's not about the people's priorities. There's always money for a new toy, gadget, or any other weapon. When they don't work, it's no big thing. We pour more money down the drain for the next one (and sometimes continue to fund the ones that don't work). We're told that it's for "safety" despite the fact that some don't work, never work, and the fact that 9/11 demonstrated there is no 'safety.'

So our cities are in ruins, our education systems struggle, we don't have national healthcare, we've done nothing, as a nation, to address the homeless issue which has only grown over the last two decades. We don't talk about it much now. We're used to it. The Reagan era cuts created a huge influx in the numbers of homeless Americans. We didn't deal with it under Clinton's two terms.

We've grown used to it. If it bothers us, we'll look the other way or complain to a friend about how "those people" are bothering us just by their presence. Mainly, we just ignore it.

At some point, will we ever address the massive military buildup? Tonight, which feels like a Thursday, I don't think we will. I think we're encouraged to be in this cycle and we've bought the hype for so long that we really can't think out of the paradigm that's been imposed.

Jimmy Carter: Warantless Spying is "Disgraceful and Illegal" (Democracy Now!):
A new critic of the domestic spying program has emerged -- former President Jimmy Carter. He described the Bush administration’s decision to go ahead with the warrantless spying as "disgraceful and illegal." Carter said, "No one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act." Carter made the statement in Nevada at an event where his son, Jack, announced he is running for U.S. Senate.

C.I. pointed out that the Times did a "brief" (from Associated Press) on this event. It noted that Jack Carter was running for the Senate but somehow, careful editing, overlooked the fact that at this event Jimmy Carter had spoken out against the domestic spying. It's so interesting what makes it into the paper of record and what doesn't. Of course, the New York Times has done their part, and then some, to make sure we remain in the paradigm of "danger! danger! we must spend on war!" mode. Currently, they can barely go a day without sounding the drum beat for war with Iran.

It's enough to make you sick to your stomach. So let's note courage rewarded which happens so rarely these days. This item is from the middle of last month and C.I. phoned mid-day. Sensing I was down today, C.I. forwarded it. If you've already seen it, it's worth noting again. However, it was new for me. (The award, not Katherine Jahsinski's bravery.)

"Spc Katherine Jashinski awarded anti-war medal of courage" (Not in Our Name):
Not in Our Name awards "Courage to Resist" medal to Katherine Jashinski
WHEREAS Army SPC Katherine Jashinski became the first woman to speak out publicly against participating in the ongoing Iraq War at a press conference on the morning of November 17, 2005 near the gates of Fort Benning, Georgia.
WHEREAS Army SPC Katherine Jashinski has showed great courage in publicly speaking out against war, including the following that she read at a press conference on November 17, 2005: "Now I have come to the point where I am forced to choose between my legal obligation to the Army and my deepest moral values. I want to make it clear that I will not compromise my beliefs for any reason. I have a moral obligation not only to myself but to the world as a whole, and this is more important than any contract."


So good for Jashinski and applause to Not in Our Name for recognizing her bravery.
This item actually goes to a conversation C.I. and I had with a friend not long ago. First, she called me and I was honestly kind of stunned. Then she called C.I. who went into activist mode. The woman had no idea that anyone in the military had resisted the war. She watches C-Span fairly often and CNN too much. C.I. and I both push Democracy Now! to her but when she's online she always ends up playing games (she doesn't have a dish and DN! isn't broadcast in her area). She's an educated woman and it just stunned me to realize how completely corporate media has been successful in limiting the debate. After she got off the phone with C.I., she called me back and said she was told to ask me about Kevin and Monica Benderman. C.I. had gone over a number of individuals with her (she remembered Camilo Mejias story but had forgotten the other ones C.I. had told her about).

So I started from scratch and spoke to her about Kevin Benderman's stand and the retaliation against him. After we got off the phone, she knew people from the service had spoken out and she knew of two names she could cite as examples (Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman).

There remains a clampdown on this topic as well as on the topic of those who go AWOL. Why is that? The answer brings us to our end quote tonight which answers that question and also addresses the spying issue.


Reality Quote (from Tom Hayden's "No Peace Movement, No Peace"):
Just ask yourselves one simple question: if we are so powerless and unimportant, why are they spying on us? Why are they keeping so many secrets from us? You spy and keep secrets from people you fear, not people you dismiss. They don’t trust you with information. They are afraid of your potential power.














What are the most popular cars? Find out at
Posted by at

Interview Spotlight: Mike questions Wally

We always enjoy Mike's interviews and this week he interviewed Wally to find out what the heck was going on The Daily Jot.

Coretta Scott King's funeral, Rove runs the GOP and my interview with Wally

Good evening, let's kick things off with Democracy Now!


Over 10,000 Attend Funeral Service for Coretta Scott King
In Georgia Tuesday, an estimated 10,000 people filled the pews of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in the Atlanta suburb of Lithonia, for the funeral of civil rights pioneer Coretta Scott King. Former presidents Jimmy Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and President George W. Bush attended the funeral along with 14 US senators and public figures including Maya Angelou, Oprah Winfrey and Stevie Wonder. King died January 30th at the age of 78 after seeking treatment in Mexico for ovarian cancer. She had just recently suffered a rehabilitating stroke and heart attack. At Tuesday's service both former President Jimmy Carter and the former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Reverend Joseph Lowery, made subtle criticism of President Bush. They cited the war in Iraq, civil liberties transgressions and accused the president of ignoring the plight of the US poor.

The people care about Coretta Scott King. The mainstream media ain't real concerned. The New York Times sure isn't. Check out this from C.I. on how the paper of no record ignored Coretta Scott King.


Report: Rove Threatens GOP Senate Judiciary Members Over Spy Program
Meanwhile, the conservative publication Insight on the News is reporting White House deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is threatening any Republican Senate Judiciary members who challenge the White House on the domestic surveillance program. According to Insight, "Sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November." A senior Republican aide told the publication: "It's hardball all the way."


What? You think Bully Boy knows how to play "hardball"? He knows how to cheer. He's grabbing his pom-poms and hopping around screaming "Beat 'em! Bust 'em! That's our custom!" While Karl plays hardball. Then he leaps in the air, kicks his legs real high and comes down in a split. The cheerleading Bully Boy. You know, I'd buy that doll -- just to laugh at it.

Now get over to Like Maria Said Paz today for Elaine's thought. I'm rushing tonight because I interviewed Wally an hour ago and I'm going to try to get that typed up and get this up at the regular time or close to it so Nina and me can head to the movies.

And speaking of laughs, ladies and gentleman, for the hour, Wally of The Daily Jot.

Wally: For the hour!

For the hour!

Wally: For the hour!

For the hour! How long do you think most readers would keep reading if we kept doing that?

Wally: I'm not sure and not sure we should push it. But what the heck, for the hour!

For the hour! That's our Larry King impression. We love doing that. We'll stop.

Wally: For now.

Okay, so let's kick this thing off. You do The Daily Jot. That's your site. Your blog. You started it back in October.

Wally: And you interviewed me before.

Right. October 20th.

Wally: By starting in October I missed the whole "Let's go to DC!" for the September protests.

Yeah and let me note who was there from the community:

The rallies are back. This time we all focus on D.C. Last time "we" included The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty who was on the verge of starting Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man and C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review. This time we're joined by Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Morning Edition Report and her granddaughter Tracey.


Wally: And you all worked on "'Why Are You Here' and 'What's Changed'" which was all these voices from the protest.

And last weekend you went to DC with The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, C.I. of The Common Ills and Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)?.

Wally: That was so cool. A lot of fun. I understand when you guys went before, you were focused and working like crazy. C.I. said at one point that maybe you got cheated out of some of the fun?

Cause it was my first time visiting? Yeah but we were there having fun. I think the thing was that in September there were tons of activites. Friday, Saturday and Sunday. But we did get to have fun and look around.

Wally: You also had good weather on your trip. "Dreary" was D.C. while we were there. But yeah, we went out to eat, went clubbing, lots of fun.

And you needed some fun. That week, you started out really depressed.

Wally: Oh yeah. The spineless Democrats. "I'll vote but I won't filibuster so why are people mad?" Because you were cowards. I was so disgusted.

C.I. told everyone, "Back off and let Wally have some space."

Wally: I read that on your site. Yeah, C.I. said take some time and just do whatever. It was good advice because if I hadn't, I'd probably be doing this interview with you right now to announce the end of The Jot.

It was that bad?

Wally: It really was. I really thought the Democrats would finally pull together, work together and prove that they could stand up for us. Then they rolled over and confirmed Alito. It just blew away all my illusions that they had spines.

It was really disappointing.

Wally: Yep and then comes the news about Coretta Scott King and it was just like, "I can't take anymore bad news."

So what happened? What changed?

Wally: Well, I guess I needed to wallow in despair. This was the first time I really thought we could make the party represent us and then when it was obvious that it wasn't happening, I just felt like, "What's the point?" When I said that to C.I., I was expecting a lecture like, "Well, it's a long fight and we just keep fighting" or something like that. And I honestly think I would've bagged it if that had happened, just quit blogging. But C.I. didn't say that, didn't give a lecture, just said to take time to relax and not worry or feel guilty about it.

And you did that.


Wally: And I did that and then I started having the itch to write something. But I didn't rush back. The Common Ills was all over the New York Times refusing to do an editorial or an op-ed about Coretta Scott King and I wanted to get in on that.

But you didn't.

Wally: Nope because that was one day. I could blog and then go back into my funk. So I took my time off and then Friday morning I called C.I. and said I was ready to fight again and that's when C.I. goes, "Do you want to go to DC? Kat and I are going for the World Can't Wait rally." And, yeah, did I! Absolutely. The only person more excited than me was my mom who thought it was a great thing and also was probably glad I wasn't in my dark mood. So, yeah, I went to DC. And I got to stay for the NSA hearing on Monday which was pretty cool.


And you've got a new direction at your blog that people are loving.

Wally: Yeah. It's "Bully Boy Press." I'm doing that right now. Just making fun of him. I don't know if that's from now on or just for right now. But it's a "jot" and that was one thing C.I. said to me: "You were going to jot and now you're doing all these heavy entries." That started with Florida. When Hurricane Wilma came through and no one seemed to care. So, I'm back to having fun with my site. I might change it up again, you never know. But I get to "Jot."

And you're not a first of the morning site now.

Wally: I never meant to be and kept saying that but it was like no one wanted to hear. Usually, I do it on campus when I've got a break between classes. I just e-mail it to my site and thanks to C.I. because we set that up when C.I. helped me set up my site back in October but it would never work. So while we were in DC we went in to my "dashboard" and "settings" together to figure out what was going on and we fixed it. So I'm usually posting at my site around two or three. Depending on if I bump into some friends or --

Scope out the ladies!

Wally: Scope out the ladies! You know it! Oops! You don't! You've got Nina!

That's right. No scoping for me. I never look. Never.

Wally: Dude, Nina is sooooo going to know you're being sarcastic.

It's cool. She'll notice other guys too.


Wally: Okay then.

So it's just really cool what you've done with your site and I wanted to talk to you about the new change and about how you were because you were pretty down.

Wally: Yep. I was really down. I bounced back. It was a blow, you know. Smart thing to do was to take time off.

You came back stronger.

Wally: Hope so.

Anything before we stop here because we put a time limit on this.

Wally: You hate typing!

I hate typing!

Wally: No. That's about all. Thanks to my old readers and everyone in the community for understanding I needed a break and sending lots of supportive e-mails.

I could say thank you but then you'd say you're welcome and we ain't going out like that. For the hour!

Wally: For the hour!

For the hour!

Wally: For the hour!


















Posted by at

Bully Boy Spotlight: Wally reporting on Bully Boy's attempts to write a new book

Wally was on a winning streak last week as The Daily Jot came back with a vengence. The Bully Boy not knowing a live microphone struck us as far more believable than the press "accidentally" overhearing his remarks to Republicans on Friday. Karl Rove's back to do what he does best, lead them around by the rings in their noses. But if they didn't like to be led, it wouldn't be so easy, would it?

THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY STRUGGLES TO WRITE LATEST BOOK!

BULLY BOY PRESS - DC.
THIS JUST IN!
BULLY BOY IS BUSY WRITING HIS FORTHCOMING BOOK ON TAPE: HOW TO PUSH THE PRESS AROUND. BUT THE PROJECT HIT A SNAG TODAY.
BULLY BOY, GIGGLING, EXPLAINED, "AS ME AND KARL LEARNED, QUICKEST WAY TO GET THE NEW YORK TIMES TO SHUT UP IS TO THREATEN THEM. KEPT 'EM OFF THE VALERIE PLAME STORY AND NOW IT'S KEEPING THEM OFF THE NSA STORY. SURE THEY'LL DO THEIR NAGGING EDITORIALS BUT I SEE THOSE LIKE MAMA'S CRIES OF 'GEORGE, DON'T YOU OPEN THAT CAN OF SODA UNLESS YOU PLAN TO DRINK THE WHOLE THING!' YOU JUST BLOW IT OFF."
PLEASED WITH HIS LATEST CHAPTER, BULLY BOY SAID, "I'M DONE FOR THE DAY, DICK, SHOW ME HOW TO TURN THIS THING OFF."
"THE STAPLER, SIR?" ASKED DICK CHENEY.
RELATED: "Other Items."

Posted by at

Dream Spotlight: Rebecca on JFK, MLK and RFK

Rebecca has a dream . . . Actually she does. Inspired by a book. We had 16 e-mails advising us to highlight this post. (Don't say we don't read the e-mails.)

about when i met jfk, mlk and rfk

i could kill c.i. today! not really. but c.i. recommended a book to me and i was reading it last night and ended up so spooked, it took forever to get to sleep.

the book is by joan mellen and it's entitled a farewell to justice.

it's about jim garrison and john f. kennedy. it's a pretty impressive book but i'd recommend you read it during the day, during broad day light.

it's packed with information from freedom of information requests and all sorts of historical documents.

i had the weirdest dreams all night.

in 1 of them, the only 1 i'll bore you with, i was in dealy plaza (did i spell that right?) in dallas, texas. and i was looking around, i was suddenly in 1963. no every 1 wasn't in black and white!
but fashions, hello! i know fashion styles.

so i'm rushing around and trying to figure out how i can stop it and generally looking like a crazy woman. 'it' being the assassination of jfk.

so i'm asking 'has the president arrived!' and finally, after every 1 looks at me like i'm crazy, and stares at my hair since it's not coated in several layers of hair spray, this guy tells me that the president comes to dallas 'tomorrow.' so i've got time.

i manage to get to him that evening - how? i have no idea, the whole dream was jump cuts with no transition - and being an attractive woman, i manage to meet jfk. immediately i start saying 'i am from the future' and showing my driver's lic. and everything else in my purse. he doesn't believe a word i'm saying.

then i say, 'you slept with marilyn monroe and some woman named judith who was sleeping with the mobster and you're getting shots for your back pain from dr. feel good' and just rattling off everything i've ever read that became public after he died, long after.

so finally he figures out that either i'm the biggest snoop in the world or maybe i'm from the future and he waives the secret service away. so 1st he wants to know what the future's like and i'm going 'excuse me, they're going to try to kill you tomorrow, this is a little more important!' but he wants to hear about the future. then after hearing about computers and civil rights and do we fly in cars (he's very sad that we don't), he finally lets me explain what's going to happen.

after that i tell him how things are today and if he needs to give a speech right now about the cia because he won't live to see through his plans to dismantle it. he's very curious about the bully boy and i tell him about how poppy bush appears at certain interesting times in his own history. he says 'we should have nailed that family for being in business with the nazis in wwii' and i agree but tell him about the texas book depository and lee harvey oswald and the other gunmen and he just wants to talk about jackie, john-john and caroline.

so i start with caroline and tell him she's classy like her mother, she writes books about the bill of rights and other important topics, has a family and appears to be sensible and smart. then i'm trying to get back to what's going to happen the next day and also trying to avoid the whole jackie and john-john issues but he wants to know.

so i tell him jackie dies of cancer. and that makes him sad and then he asks the question that you know he wanted to ask right away, does she ever remarry? what do you say that?

i mean do you say, 'uh, mister faithful, you were not'?

so i say she marries a man and every 1 says she did so to make sure the children are safe. i tell him the man is rich but nothing else because bay of pigs and all, who knows what he might order on ari!

then he asks about john-john. i tell him his son died shortly after jackie but while he was alive, he published a magazine and was considered 1 of the most handsome men on the planet. i leave out the whole needing a few attempts to pass the bar part of the story.

then he wants to know about teddy? i say 'joan becomes an alcoholic, okay? can we move on or do i have to do the full kitty kelley on every 1 you knew? don't even get me started on richard goodwin!' well what about bobby, what about his mother, what about his father, what about . . .

it seemed like he was concerned with everything in the world but what was happening tomorrow. so when i finally do the full entertainment tonight on all the kennedys (the only thing that shocks him is maria is married to a republican intent on undoing all that the kennedy family has supported), i'm thinking we can discuss the next day. but no, he wants to talk frank sinatra.
i tell him, 'he never forgives you for the snub and ends up a republican.'

then he wants to know about angie dickinson and i say 'wait just a minute, buster, i'm the 1 doing all the dishing. angie dickinson will never say whether she had an affair with you or not, so fork it over.' (he says she did.) so he says if what i'm saying is true, take him to future.

i tell him 'uh i'm not 1 of the magical 1s from charmed, i have no idea how i ended up here and am not even sure i can make it back so let's focus on right now' but he wants to see teddy and caroline. and he's so convinced that i can do this, that i end up thinking 'what the hell, i'll try.'
we end up at ted's. he's a very nice host, in the dream.

ted can't belive it and thinks it's some actor until jfk tells him something that happened when ted was 7 and it's never made it into any of the books so ted says 'my god!' then ted's on the phone because before we go back, jfk wants to see caroline.

ted tells her, 'get over here right away' and i say, 'uh excuse me, ted' and grab the phone. 'caroline, rebecca winters here. you don't know me, but "right away" means, take a second to brush your hair, put on some lipstick and wear something nice. you're going to see some 1 you haven't seen in a long time and you'll be upset with yourself if you rush right over. you'll want to be presentable.' because that's just the sort of thing ted would forget. i mean if a woman's going to meet her father that she hasn't seen in years, she's going to wonder what he's thinking about her and not want to show up with something with a food stain on it, or have her hair all over the place because she's had a long day.

so caroline shows up looking very tasteful and ted breaks the new to her about who she's about to talk to and i excuse myself because, hey, private family moment.

they have their meeting and you can tell it really means a lot to both of them but caroline handles it better because she's got her mother's good taste and tendency not to show when she's ruffled. then it's good-byes and back to the past for me and jfk.

so we get back and the morning of and jackie walks into the oval office, sees me, and gives us both a look. i'm like, 'hey lady, i'm a time traveler, not an intern. don't go all hillary on me because i'm not a lewinsky.' she, of course, has no idea what i'm talking about. but, thinking i'm nuts, she assumes i'm with the press and excuses herself.

so here's the deal, jfk goes to dallas. he gets in the convertible. i'm saying 'at least put the bubble on' and he says no. starts talking about the importance of history and how some things have to happen. he says that if his life means anything then it can inspire 'every 1 in your time to fight all the harder.'

i'm shaking my head (and think that pink outfit jackie's wearing looks a lot better in black & white photos then it does up close - and wondering if any 1 ever told her that texas was in the south and it will probably be hot even for november). but off they go.

then, remember jump cuts, i'm all the sudden at mlk's side. 'martin!' i scream and start my whole 'they're going to kill you.' he knows. he doesn't know when or how but he knows. so i start telling him when and how and he wants to know about his family. i know quite a bit about coretta scott king but that's really all. i tell him his children must have kept their noses clean because they don't make the tabloids. i talk about how coretta carries on the fight and that makes him happy and he says 'no 1 ever sees how strong coretta is.' i tell him all about the church committe and how he's been spied upon and plotted against by the government and that doesn't surprise him. he tells me a few things that have happened that he thinks the government's behind and i tell him that some of the stuff from the church committee is still classified.

he asks if we pull out of vietnam. i tell him 'yeah, in the 70s!' that makes him sad. to cheer him up, i offer to try to take him to his family and explain i jsut did the same thing for jfk. he surprise me. he says no. why not?

'i won't have the strength to travel down the road i need to if i see them knowing what's going to happen.'

oh brother.

yes, he's another 1 who doesn't want to muck with destiny and thinks that for his life and his work to mean anything he has to face what's coming.

i'm shaking my head and thinking 'how did i end up jodie foster in the movie somersby? and since when does every man have to be like richard gere ready to die for a principle?' when suddenly, i'm in california, in a hotel lobby and rfk is checking in. i look at him, he smiles at me and i think, 'another 1 destined to keep the date with danger' and wonder why so many die for the cause instead of cheating the odds.

me, i'd have cheated the odds.

so that's 1 of the many dreams i had after reading joan mellen's a farewell to justice. books. read it, it's worth reading, but read it in broad daylight.

you can also check out this speech by mellen "HOW THE FAILURE TO IDENTIFY, PROSECUTE AND CONVICT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINS HAS LED TO TODAY'S CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY" (as with the book, i recommend broad daylight).








Posted by at

Humor Spotlight: "Thomas Friedman plays the woman scorned" (Betty)

When it's time to laugh, where do you go? We go to Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Betty's ongoing novel about her character Betinna's life with Thomas Friedman. Since she's turned the tables on Thomas Friedman and begun feeding him the "vitamins" he used to keep her "controlled," Betinna's been a lively social critic. Here's Betty's latest.

Thomas Friedman plays the woman scorned

Performing the dual roles of confessor and confessee, his own Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky, my husband Thomas Friedman found a new way to embarrass himself this week with "No More Mr. Tough Guy."

Thomas Friedman, for all his Joan Crawford drama posing, does not go over easy as a scorned woman. But there it was, for the whole world to see. His personal kiss-off letter to Dick Cheney. His "Dear, and Screw You, John" letter in Wednesday's New York Times.

The fly in his man tan? Laura Ingraham whom Dick Cheney now runs to. It's not as though Dick was ever Thomas Friedman's first choice. The whole world knew he was carrying the torch for Bully Boy so there's little chance that Dick didn't know as well. But it's always a shocker when your safety school denies you admission and there was Thomas Friedman boo-hoo-ing and vowing "No more."

Gail Collins actually found the column "sprite." She told me that during her "no hard feelings" call. No, Gail, no "hard feelings," no feelings at all. I don't waste time feeling anything for those not worthy of it. It's not my problem that in your racist little world Coretta Scott King's not worthy of an editorial or a column. Just like it's not my problem that no one ever taught you how to use a pair of tweezers.

And it certainly won't be my problem when Gail Collins brushes up against Davy Brooks, as I counseled her to do, and purrs, "I like farm animals."

She wanted an ice breaker. I told her to try that and to try to be sexual. That confused her, so I told her to act like she does when she stubs her big toe. She then managed to almost convincingly purr "I like farm animals."

"And I do," Gail told me in that chirpy voice. "I love horses and I loved Black Beauty when I was a little girl. That's a book, Betinna, don't start back up with that racist nonsense!"

"Wouldn't dream of it, Gail," I replied. "Just remember, 'I like farm aminals' while you press up against him."

"Do you really think he'll get the message?"

"I'm sure he will, Gail, I'm sure he will."

"Well whatever it takes. I am smitten with Mr. Brooks."

As she continued babbling on with what probably passed for girl talk at the turn of the century, the last century, I tuned her out and focused on Thomas Friedman standing before the mirror, trying on his new, red beret. Well Monica Lewinsky had a large ass too.








Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }