Mike and Elaine the blog twins. On Tuesday they both noted a compare and contrast worth examing. We're noting both.
First Mike:
BuzzFlash on "The mugging of democracy"
Those who would shrug off an Alito confirmation with a "No" vote -- without a filibuster -- are giving into the mugging of democracy.This will not stand.We will remember those 44 Democrats who would not fight for everything our soldiers throughout our nation's history have died for: our liberty, our freedoms, and our right to an elective government and the rule of law.We will remember, by the power of one grown into a teeming sea of anger.Because we cherish this country, and we will not be reduced to a choice of tyrants and enablers.We will remember.Good evening.
The above is from BuzzFlash's "The Power of One" and if I'm starting with a quote, you know I think it's important. Eight Democrats realized it was safe to vote no on Alito today. We're still a long way from a filibuster but way to go to the people of this country for lighting a fire under the eight Democratic asses and that means if they're your senators or if you had other senators. Your work in the last week showed the cowards that you wouldn't stand for anymore nonsense. C.I. printed an e-mail John Kerry sent out and I agree with C.I. What's the point of sending that out if you don't even mention filibuster? They're still not fighting and it's getting disgusting.
Bush Vows Anti-Choice Movement "Will Prevail"
Back here in the United States, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote today on whether to recommend the confirmation of Samuel Alito as a Supreme Court justice. The vote is expected to be split largely along party lines. Meanwhile on Monday, President Bush told activists who are tying to make abortions illegal that they are pursuing a "a noble cause." To mark the 33th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, Bush said "This is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principle. And history tells us that with such a cause we will prevail." Several groups include the National Organization of Women have urged Democratic Senators to filibuster Samuel Alito's confirmation because they fear he will overturn Roe v. Wade. In 1985 Alito wrote that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion.
Bully Boy thinks he "will prevail?" Well the Dems certainly seem willing to toss in the towel. But the people aren't going to. We forced eight Dems to stand as one today, we can force them to stand as one on the Senate floor when the full vote takes place.
Military Jury: No Jail Time For Interrogator Who Killed Iraqi
In other Iraq news -- a military jury in Colorado ruled last night an Army interrogator who killed an Iraqi general would not have to serve any time in jail. The interrogator -- Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr. - killed the Iraqi man after putting a sleeping bag over his head, wrapping him in electrical cord, sitting on his chest and covering his mouth. Over the weekend the military jury convicted Welshofer of negligent homicide which carries a maximum prison term of three years. But the jury chose instead to fine him $6,000 and ordered him to spend the next 60 days restricted to his home, office and church. The Los Angeles Times reports soldiers and officers inside the courtroom broke out in applause after the jury announced Welshofer would not be jailed for the killing.
That's interesting because someone died and there's no jail time. No one died and there is jail time for a peace activist.
Peace Activist Gets 6 Months in Jail For Recruiting Station Protest
In upstate New York, a peace activist has been sentenced to six months in jail for pouring blood inside a military recruiting station in March 2003 in order to protest the invasion of Iraq. The man, Daniel Burns, 45, was one of a group now known as the St. Patrick's Four. The other three members will also be sentenced this week.
Want to explain how that works? One person stood up for peace, one person is responsible for the death of another human being. One walks, one goes to jail. A Bully Boy America.
That's pretty much all I've got to say this evening. I'm betting everyone else is pretty tired too.
We let all the senators, Republicans and Democrats, know, for a full week, that Alito wasn't a done deal. We fought long and we fought hard. And we forced eight Democrats to stand as one. Now we need to get some rest before the next ongoing battle.
Be sure to go to Like Maria Said Paz and check out Elaine's thoughts.
Now Elaine:
"Peace requires common sense and energy"
The judiciary committee voted, from the Feminist Wire:
Judiciary Democrats Vote Solidly 'No' on Alito
In a straight party-line vote (10-8), the Senate Judiciary Committee voted this morning to approve Alito's confirmation, sending the debate to the Senate floor. "The strong statements from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee demonstrate that the confirmation of Judge Alito is too risky for a nation divided in a time of crisis," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. "This unusual straight party vote on a Supreme Court nominee shows that the Republican Party has moved too far to the right, deserting basic women's rights and individual rights, and it shows a willingness on the part of Republican Senators to give the President a blank check in expanding presidential powers, even to the extent of breaking the law, such as in the domestic surveillance," Smeal continued.
"Women in this nation must recognize that the dominant force in the Republican Party has decided to take away women's fundamental right to an abortion. We cannot continue to fool ourselves and call some Republicans pro-choice when they continue to vote to empower those who would take away our rights," Smeal said.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
Media Resources: Feminist Majority
Can you believe how much work it took to get that vote? Can you believe how much work still lies ahead of us? Those whose nerves were frayed and beyond tired should now read "'How do you think a story can change a life?' (Laura Flanders to Robert Redford)" and take the breather they've earned. Speaking as a health professional, there is no guilt or shame in down time. If you need it, and I'm guessing many do, take it. Take it right now without guilt. There's no date set for the full Senate to vote on Alito. There's no reason for you to feel guilty. So if downtime for you means taking a break, take it now. You've earned it.You'll come back rested and ready to fight. You cannot run a marathon forever. You need a finish line. This was the finish line. Go get some rest prior to the next track meet.
I applaud the work of Gina and Krista in their round-robins and of C.I. They worked their butts off. I hope they'll take some downtime. But whether they do or not, those of you who've e-mailed saying you were exhausted and didn't know how much you had left in you, take the break you've earned. Do it for yourself because you need it. Do it for the movement because you're no good to anyone if you've got nothing left.
Depending upon what's in the news tomorrow, I'll take tomorrow off. You take the downtime you need. There will always be something popping up in the news. But I know many of you have gone beyond anything you knew you were capable of. Take some time to absorb what you did, what others did and what the effect was. It will make you all the more stronger for the next battle.
Bush Vows Anti-Choice Movement "Will Prevail" (Democracy Now!):
Back here in the United States, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote today on whether to recommend the confirmation of Samuel Alito as a Supreme Court justice. The vote is expected to be split largely along party lines. Meanwhile on Monday, President Bush told activists who are tying to make abortions illegal that they are pursuing a "a noble cause." To mark the 33th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, Bush said "This is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principle. And history tells us that with such a cause we will prevail." Several groups include the National Organization of Women have urged Democratic Senators to filibuster Samuel Alito's confirmation because they fear he will overturn Roe v. Wade. In 1985 Alito wrote that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion.
Need another reason to recharge for the next wave of this battle? Bully Boy wants to win it. Unlike the Dems, he's playing to win. We'll need to light an even larger fire underneath the Dems for the full vote. Go recharge.
Military Jury: No Jail Time For Interrogator Who Killed Iraqi (Democracy Now!):
In other Iraq news -- a military jury in Colorado ruled last night an Army interrogator who killed an Iraqi general would not have to serve any time in jail. The interrogator -- Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr. - killed the Iraqi man after putting a sleeping bag over his head, wrapping him in electrical cord, sitting on his chest and covering his mouth. Over the weekend the military jury convicted Welshofer of negligent homicide which carries a maximum prison term of three years. But the jury chose instead to fine him $6,000 and ordered him to spend the next 60 days restricted to his home, office and church. The Los Angeles Times reports soldiers and officers inside the courtroom broke out in applause after the jury announced Welshofer would not be jailed for the killing.
While it appears fairly obvious that others (such as the CIA) were involved, the fact that there's no punishment for Welshofer is appalling. He walks. Must be nice to be able to walk away. The dead man doesn't have that luxury.
Peace Activist Gets 6 Months in Jail For Recruiting Station Protest (Democracy Now!):
In upstate New York, a peace activist has been sentenced to six months in jail for pouring blood inside a military recruiting station in March 2003 in order to protest the invasion of Iraq. The man, Daniel Burns, 45, was one of a group now known as the St. Patrick's Four. The other three members will also be sentenced this week.
Daniel Burns also doesn't walk. For pouring blood in a recruiting station, he gets six months time. Abed Hamed Mowhoush is dead and Welshofer walks. Burns killed no one and gets six months in jail. Our logic and priorities seem to be in question.
Thanks to Cheryl for her e-mail highlighting something from BuzzFlash that C.I. linked to. I wasn't in the mood for links this morning when I checked The Common Ills. No offense to BuzzFlash or Robert Parry, the excerpts showed strong writing. Cheryl did read the BuzzFlash editorial in full and highlighted a section. (Cheryl, I mentioned your e-mail to Mike who had read it and he's going to note the editorial as well.)
"The Power of One" (BuzzFlash):
The timid will lose. In avoiding risk, in bypassing the filibuster of Alito, the Joe Bidens and the Dianne Feinsteins of the world will have taken the biggest risk of all.
George Bush has broken the law and signaled in every way that he intends to keep doing it -- and to ignore the rule of law whenever he sees fit. He and Cheney are showing daily contempt for Congress and packing the Supreme Court with supporters of the "Unitary Executive," or dictatorship.
It is a concept that disdains democracy, that finds no support in the Constitution, and that destroys our system of checks and balances.
Those who would shrug off an Alito confirmation with a "No" vote -- without a filibuster -- are giving into the mugging of democracy.
This will not stand.Go to Mikey Likes It! to get his take. He's tired but sounded (on the phone) like he had more energy than I do.
Peace Quote:
Peace requires common sense and energy. Recharge your energies.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Blog spotlight: Rebecca on education and more
Rebecca's with us for this edition in spirit only. So to those who miss her (we do), we'll note this post she did. It was a toss up between this and another as to which was the best but in the end we went with this one because we do need new dreams tonight. Rebecca, get home safe.
more dreamers not just fact checkers
1st things 1st. i won't be blogging tomorrow night. now for the good news.
filling in for me friday will be blog betty! that's right betty's doing me a solid and then some and what's she's doing for readers is more than a solid. i really think you will enjoy whatever she writes. she's excited but nervous.
i told her, 'don't do any pre-planning, we're casual here. just have fun with it.'
she has to work so damn hard at her site and every 1 who visits thomas friedman is a great man knows that. i'd been talking to her about filling in here if i took a vacation because i think she'd be great at it and i think she'd enjoy it. i also think it would be way easier than what she does at her site.
so i hope tomorrow she just has fun. i think she will and i think you will as well.
i think this is a chance for her to blow off some steam and not think about characters and text and subtext and where is she in her outline and ...
so it will be a treat for readers and, i hope, 1 for her too.
i told her my approach is you're on a team but you've just done research on the company, then at the presentation to the client, every 1 on the team is sick so you have to make the pitch. what do you do?you wing it based on what you researched. you do your best and if any 1 gives you any crap you point out that your entire team flaked out and you were left holding the bag.
i got an e-mail from sherry asking 'what's the problem with yippies?' she explained why she was asking. like i've said before, as men get older and the waistlines expand, their beliefs, like their principles shrink.
what's the problem with yippies? nothing at all.
they provided street theater that helped get a message out. now some people aren't going to get any message no matter how it is presented. but they did get a message out.
and when we were working on '"How do you think a story can change a life?" (Laura Flanders to Robert Redford)' there were a lot of discussions about the way messages can get out and c.i. said the 'on the nose' approach is used too often. which led to c.i., jess and kat discussing how the abstract songs of the 60s led some people to think a bit more deeply and how, if you turned on the radio today - corporate radio, not only did you just hear songs about getting laid and wanting to get laid, you heard them in the most basic form, without subtext, without depth. and that's not doing justice to their discussion, which was a joy to listen to but far out of my depths.
but the point is that there's nothing wrong with yippies. now some sell outs might want to curse them and claim that there was all this energy expanded into fixing the damage done by yippies but they're usually the dlc types, the uptight types, the people who are anal and can only think in 1 way. but sherry, here's a question for you: what do yippies have to do with education? i thought that was the focus of the site you forwarded, didn't you?
you know what, sherry? abbie hoffman had a purpose, he had a goal and he achieved. i don't think we can say the same about the person slamming yippies today.
which, if you think about it, is why he only tears apart.
i mean, think about, really think about it. c.i. steers you to things worth reading, watching, listening to. some 1 just tears apart. he probably broke his toys as a child and then whined until mommy bought him news 1s. maybe mommy didn't buy them quick enough and that's why he appears to have such issues with women? i don't know.
but i know i told more truth about what was done to al gore in 2000 in 1 entry last night than he has in how many years? but maybe if you're pissing all over yippies, you can't take joe lieberman to task?
the 60s had street theater. we could use some more of that today. we could use some more art and some more thought that breaks out of the box. and that's where elaine came in on the third estate sunday review discussion. she and c.i. were talking about how we need new ways of seeing things. as u2 once sang, in better days, 'we need new dreams tonight.' or as carly simon aptly put it, 'let all the dreamers wake the nation.'
i hope educators get that. i hope they get that far behind how well some 1 can spit out a fact they've had drilled into them, it matters that children can think and can think beyond the obvious. that's really the future of any nation and how progress can comes about. you have to go beyond the obvious and beyond the same though pattern.
most of the people i know who are creative or think outside the box are music listeners or actually have musical training. i wonder how worried we are that the cuts to music in school continue and that 'leave every child behind' is set on turning every 1 into robots because the testing and the teaching for the test leaves no time for creativity and really doesn't leave time for thought.
was there a meeting high up that decided the country has no future and we just need drones who'll do their mechanical jobs in a mechanical manner as they go through day after day by rote?
i think it's really frightening and i think we don't need anymore tests. i think we need teaching and inspiration for all ages.
so that's how i go out tonight and you should check back tomorrow for betty. i'll be back on monday and i hope every 1 has a great weekend.
more dreamers not just fact checkers
1st things 1st. i won't be blogging tomorrow night. now for the good news.
filling in for me friday will be blog betty! that's right betty's doing me a solid and then some and what's she's doing for readers is more than a solid. i really think you will enjoy whatever she writes. she's excited but nervous.
i told her, 'don't do any pre-planning, we're casual here. just have fun with it.'
she has to work so damn hard at her site and every 1 who visits thomas friedman is a great man knows that. i'd been talking to her about filling in here if i took a vacation because i think she'd be great at it and i think she'd enjoy it. i also think it would be way easier than what she does at her site.
so i hope tomorrow she just has fun. i think she will and i think you will as well.
i think this is a chance for her to blow off some steam and not think about characters and text and subtext and where is she in her outline and ...
so it will be a treat for readers and, i hope, 1 for her too.
i told her my approach is you're on a team but you've just done research on the company, then at the presentation to the client, every 1 on the team is sick so you have to make the pitch. what do you do?you wing it based on what you researched. you do your best and if any 1 gives you any crap you point out that your entire team flaked out and you were left holding the bag.
i got an e-mail from sherry asking 'what's the problem with yippies?' she explained why she was asking. like i've said before, as men get older and the waistlines expand, their beliefs, like their principles shrink.
what's the problem with yippies? nothing at all.
they provided street theater that helped get a message out. now some people aren't going to get any message no matter how it is presented. but they did get a message out.
and when we were working on '"How do you think a story can change a life?" (Laura Flanders to Robert Redford)' there were a lot of discussions about the way messages can get out and c.i. said the 'on the nose' approach is used too often. which led to c.i., jess and kat discussing how the abstract songs of the 60s led some people to think a bit more deeply and how, if you turned on the radio today - corporate radio, not only did you just hear songs about getting laid and wanting to get laid, you heard them in the most basic form, without subtext, without depth. and that's not doing justice to their discussion, which was a joy to listen to but far out of my depths.
but the point is that there's nothing wrong with yippies. now some sell outs might want to curse them and claim that there was all this energy expanded into fixing the damage done by yippies but they're usually the dlc types, the uptight types, the people who are anal and can only think in 1 way. but sherry, here's a question for you: what do yippies have to do with education? i thought that was the focus of the site you forwarded, didn't you?
you know what, sherry? abbie hoffman had a purpose, he had a goal and he achieved. i don't think we can say the same about the person slamming yippies today.
which, if you think about it, is why he only tears apart.
i mean, think about, really think about it. c.i. steers you to things worth reading, watching, listening to. some 1 just tears apart. he probably broke his toys as a child and then whined until mommy bought him news 1s. maybe mommy didn't buy them quick enough and that's why he appears to have such issues with women? i don't know.
but i know i told more truth about what was done to al gore in 2000 in 1 entry last night than he has in how many years? but maybe if you're pissing all over yippies, you can't take joe lieberman to task?
the 60s had street theater. we could use some more of that today. we could use some more art and some more thought that breaks out of the box. and that's where elaine came in on the third estate sunday review discussion. she and c.i. were talking about how we need new ways of seeing things. as u2 once sang, in better days, 'we need new dreams tonight.' or as carly simon aptly put it, 'let all the dreamers wake the nation.'
i hope educators get that. i hope they get that far behind how well some 1 can spit out a fact they've had drilled into them, it matters that children can think and can think beyond the obvious. that's really the future of any nation and how progress can comes about. you have to go beyond the obvious and beyond the same though pattern.
most of the people i know who are creative or think outside the box are music listeners or actually have musical training. i wonder how worried we are that the cuts to music in school continue and that 'leave every child behind' is set on turning every 1 into robots because the testing and the teaching for the test leaves no time for creativity and really doesn't leave time for thought.
was there a meeting high up that decided the country has no future and we just need drones who'll do their mechanical jobs in a mechanical manner as they go through day after day by rote?
i think it's really frightening and i think we don't need anymore tests. i think we need teaching and inspiration for all ages.
so that's how i go out tonight and you should check back tomorrow for betty. i'll be back on monday and i hope every 1 has a great weekend.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
"Judiciary Committe Votes" Tuesday "on Alito; Filibuster Possible, Says Durbin" (The Feminist Wire)
Tuesday is the vote on Samuel Alito. Note this from the Feminist Wire:
Judiciary Committee Votes Tomorrow on Alito; Filibuster Possible, Says Durbin
Tomorrow, two days after the 33rd anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Samuel Alito, a Supreme Court nominee who in 1985 wrote that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to an abortion. Women's rights leaders and activists rallied last night at the Supreme Court in support of the landmark Supreme Court ruling.
"Since we last gathered to commemorate Roe v. Wade, two seats have opened up on the Supreme Court, and George W. Bush has used both opportunities to nominate judges whose records show a disdain for privacy rights and individual liberties," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "The Senate is poised to vote on confirming Samuel Alito, who would replace Sandra Day O'Connor, a justice whose vote has upheld women's rights for nearly 25 years. How quickly the fate of women's reproductive rights could turn in this nation."
Already, at least nine Senators have come out publicly and strongly against Alito's confirmation, including four who voted in favor of confirming John Roberts as chief justice. In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, said that a filibuster was possible.
"A week ago, I would have told you it's not likely to happen," Durbin said. "As of [Wednesday], I just can't rule it out. I was surprised by the intensity of feeling of some of my colleagues. It's a matter of counting. We have 45 Democrats, counting [Vermont independent] Jim Jeffords, on our side. We could sustain a filibuster if 41 Senators ... are willing to stand and fight."
GET THE INSIDE SCOOPwith The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTIONCall your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATEMake an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women’s rights.
Media Resources: Feminist Majority; NOW statement 1/22/06; Chicago Sun-Times 1/20/06
You're tired? We're tired. But make an effort to do something. We hope Alito's filibustered or outright defeated, but if our side's going down, let's go down fighting.
Judiciary Committee Votes Tomorrow on Alito; Filibuster Possible, Says Durbin
Tomorrow, two days after the 33rd anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Samuel Alito, a Supreme Court nominee who in 1985 wrote that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to an abortion. Women's rights leaders and activists rallied last night at the Supreme Court in support of the landmark Supreme Court ruling.
"Since we last gathered to commemorate Roe v. Wade, two seats have opened up on the Supreme Court, and George W. Bush has used both opportunities to nominate judges whose records show a disdain for privacy rights and individual liberties," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "The Senate is poised to vote on confirming Samuel Alito, who would replace Sandra Day O'Connor, a justice whose vote has upheld women's rights for nearly 25 years. How quickly the fate of women's reproductive rights could turn in this nation."
Already, at least nine Senators have come out publicly and strongly against Alito's confirmation, including four who voted in favor of confirming John Roberts as chief justice. In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, said that a filibuster was possible.
"A week ago, I would have told you it's not likely to happen," Durbin said. "As of [Wednesday], I just can't rule it out. I was surprised by the intensity of feeling of some of my colleagues. It's a matter of counting. We have 45 Democrats, counting [Vermont independent] Jim Jeffords, on our side. We could sustain a filibuster if 41 Senators ... are willing to stand and fight."
GET THE INSIDE SCOOPwith The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTIONCall your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATEMake an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women’s rights.
Media Resources: Feminist Majority; NOW statement 1/22/06; Chicago Sun-Times 1/20/06
You're tired? We're tired. But make an effort to do something. We hope Alito's filibustered or outright defeated, but if our side's going down, let's go down fighting.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
A Note to Our Readers
Sunday, Sunday, can't trust that day. Computer problems always seem to get in our way.
What should have been a straight hour of nonstop posting (three hours ago) has instead been nothing but error messages. On the plus side, we didn't lose any entries.
But we really had hoped to be sure that everyone had time to grab some sleep. We thank Betty and Cedric for staying with us especially since they're giving up sleep and will be headed straight to church. Everyone's been busy the past weekend and this weekend attempting to stop the confirmation of Alito to the Supreme Court. Some of us will be speaking to people on that topic later today. Yeah, yeah, yeah, whine us a river.
But we've got an edition up. Ava and C.I. really didn't think they had anything left in them to give. But they managed to finish the race in the last lap. Check out their "TV: Mayberry on Crack aka My Name Is Earl." We think you'll enjoy it.
The other features were a group effort by the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot
For those who feel they've given so much in the last week, they're near the breaking point, we'd suggest that you start reading with "How do you think a story can change a life?" (Laura Flanders to Robert Redford).
After we did that, we thought about how that's advice we've given but we're not following. So we decided to do an easy feature where we each answered a question that had come up in the e-mails: "Mailbag."
"Osama plays Alanis, Bully Boy pretends to be a man" is the feature that took the most time and had C.I. cursing us all for our lousy book collections. (Hey, we're library users.) Seriously, it was a lot of work and it would have been easier if C.I. had been home and not on the road as made clear when C.I. sighed at one point and asked, "Rebecca, are you awake?" An excerpt from a Robert Parry book would fit in perfectly and C.I. kept waiting for Rebecca to suggest that. When she pulled the book down, she went to the index and started searching. Another sigh. "Try page 326." This happened repeatedly as we'd go through books and find us ourselves reading a chapter or chapters only to have C.I. sigh and ask us to flip to page ___. Since C.I. had no books packed for the road trip we've decided the title of reference librarian has been more than earned.
We'd hoped to have several features on abortion but in the end really only addressed it in
"A populist uprising greets the never-say-win Dems." If hopes were hours, we might all have a decent night's sleep.
That feature fits in nicely with our editorial this edition "Editorial: Senate Dems, if you're done enjoying that golden shower . . ."
We hope everyone grasps what's happening with Alito. We don't mean "filibuster!" (though we pray that will be the case). We mean that once again the Democrats thought they could dimiss the concerns of members of their own party. They have learned in the last week that such is not the case. We need to spend a lot of time between now and the election educating them on that reality.
We thank Maria, Trina and Ruth for allowing us to repost their contributions. We thank Dallas, always, for hunting down links. We thank our readers for their time. Hopefully we provide some enjoyment and you'll find something hear to make you think, make you laugh or enrage you to activism. Ideally all three but we'll go for what we can get.
See you next week.
-- Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and C.I.
What should have been a straight hour of nonstop posting (three hours ago) has instead been nothing but error messages. On the plus side, we didn't lose any entries.
But we really had hoped to be sure that everyone had time to grab some sleep. We thank Betty and Cedric for staying with us especially since they're giving up sleep and will be headed straight to church. Everyone's been busy the past weekend and this weekend attempting to stop the confirmation of Alito to the Supreme Court. Some of us will be speaking to people on that topic later today. Yeah, yeah, yeah, whine us a river.
But we've got an edition up. Ava and C.I. really didn't think they had anything left in them to give. But they managed to finish the race in the last lap. Check out their "TV: Mayberry on Crack aka My Name Is Earl." We think you'll enjoy it.
The other features were a group effort by the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot
For those who feel they've given so much in the last week, they're near the breaking point, we'd suggest that you start reading with "How do you think a story can change a life?" (Laura Flanders to Robert Redford).
After we did that, we thought about how that's advice we've given but we're not following. So we decided to do an easy feature where we each answered a question that had come up in the e-mails: "Mailbag."
"Osama plays Alanis, Bully Boy pretends to be a man" is the feature that took the most time and had C.I. cursing us all for our lousy book collections. (Hey, we're library users.) Seriously, it was a lot of work and it would have been easier if C.I. had been home and not on the road as made clear when C.I. sighed at one point and asked, "Rebecca, are you awake?" An excerpt from a Robert Parry book would fit in perfectly and C.I. kept waiting for Rebecca to suggest that. When she pulled the book down, she went to the index and started searching. Another sigh. "Try page 326." This happened repeatedly as we'd go through books and find us ourselves reading a chapter or chapters only to have C.I. sigh and ask us to flip to page ___. Since C.I. had no books packed for the road trip we've decided the title of reference librarian has been more than earned.
We'd hoped to have several features on abortion but in the end really only addressed it in
"A populist uprising greets the never-say-win Dems." If hopes were hours, we might all have a decent night's sleep.
That feature fits in nicely with our editorial this edition "Editorial: Senate Dems, if you're done enjoying that golden shower . . ."
We hope everyone grasps what's happening with Alito. We don't mean "filibuster!" (though we pray that will be the case). We mean that once again the Democrats thought they could dimiss the concerns of members of their own party. They have learned in the last week that such is not the case. We need to spend a lot of time between now and the election educating them on that reality.
We thank Maria, Trina and Ruth for allowing us to repost their contributions. We thank Dallas, always, for hunting down links. We thank our readers for their time. Hopefully we provide some enjoyment and you'll find something hear to make you think, make you laugh or enrage you to activism. Ideally all three but we'll go for what we can get.
See you next week.
-- Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Senate Dems, if you're done enjoying that golden shower . . .
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts from last week. We think it acurately portrays the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.
There's Bully Boy prancing around with Alito on a leash. There's Alito hiking up his leg and taking a whizz on the Dems. Notice that none of them attempt to run off. We believe that's Dick Durbin who's at least trying to block the urine from his face.
Watching the hearings and then the Sunday chat & chews that followed and reading through the press on MLK Day, we felt as though the Democrats were attempting to act out a scene from Adam's Family Values. As though they were the young girl at camp, waving her hand in the air and excitedly saying, "I'll play the victim!"
To which the Democratic base, playing Christina Ricci's Wednesday Adams, responded, "All your life."
Democrats seemed shocked that the very people who've screamed "BLUE!" everytime the Bully Boy has sworn the sky was brown wouldn't cut them some slack as they attempted to spin their own defeat.
Get used to it.
Learn to listen to the voters who regularly turn out for the Democratic Party or stop seeking office.
It's really appalling that the Democrats seemed happy to be soaked in urine and play along until they were called on it. Maybe Joe Biden enjoys a golden shower?
The voters don't. While Bully Boy's soaked the rich with cash and tax breaks, the rest of the people have just gotten pissed on. To turn around and see their so-called leaders roll around in it was disgusting.
Right now, at this moment, it appears the so-called leaders may have a tiny bit of a spine. Or maybe they're just attempting to stand straight because they've heard loud and clear that they damn well better?
They better start doing something.
There seems to be a rallying cry of, "We're going to win in November because of the DeLay, Frist and Abramoff scandals!" Yeah, seems like a done deal, doesn't it?
The same way that giving Bully Boy a blank check in 2002 seemed smart to the so-called leaders. "We won't oppose and after the elections we'll be back in power because the opposition party always picks up seats in the off year elections!" Was that the "logic"?
Didn't quite work out that way, now did it?
Here's what will work. Showing some action behind the words. Taking some stands. Not aping the Bully Boy. Not being Bush-lite.
If the Democratic Party can't get it together before the election, there's no reason to believe that they will after. Don't give us promises of "serious hearings" when every promise you've made to be tough thus far has ended up a broken one.
You say you're going to fight for us. Let start seeing some bruises. It's not just that you continue losing to the Republicans, it's that you don't even fight back.
It's past time to put some action behind all the words. Do it or step aside and let some new blood pick up the seats because there's too much at stake for 'fraidy cats and lapdogs to be holding office.
A populist uprising greets the never-say-win Dems
More Senators Announce Opposition to Alito
More Senators have announced their opposition to Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Encouragingly, no additional Democrats have announced support for Alito since Ben Nelson (NE).
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, announced his opposition to a packed auditorium at Northwestern University School of Law. "In the record, the writings, the words, and the life of Samuel Alito, I searched for evidence of his caring heart -- evidence that for the next two or three decades he would use his position on the Supreme Court to enlarge our freedom, protect our privacy, and respect the delicate balance of power and responsibility our Constitution creates," said Senator Durbin. "At the end of the day, at this historic moment, I cannot say with confidence that Samuel Alito meets that test."
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), in announcing his opposition, said, "Based on his record, I am gravely concerned that Judge Alito does not believe the Congress has the authority to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans."
Other Senators who have announced publicly their opposition to Alito include Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (the only woman on the Judiciary Committee), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Max Baucus (D-MT). Senators Leahy, Baucus, and Salazar all voted for John Roberts in September.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
Media Resources: Harkin statement 1/19/06; Durbin statement 1/19/06; Feminist Majority
The above is from the Feminist Wire and if it's not one of the most linked to items, you can't say this community didn't do their part. Throughout the country, people stood up and did their part and then some. It was a "done deal" by the time last week's edition was done. That's when various "strong" Senators (on the Democratic side of the aisle) took to the Sunday chat & chews to throw in the towel.
Oh, it's over. Let the Republicans play like their Starship and sing "Nothing's Gonna' Stop Us Now." That was the message in simplest form.
And they must have thought the people were simple as well. That we'd respond with, "Oh well if Dianne Feinstein's so sure that just because she disagrees with Alito fundamentally on every issue doesn't mean he shouldn't serve on the bench, then we're okay with it."
Feinstein's San Francisco office, Friday, was the site of protest demanding that she filibuster Alito. We doubt she still feels so sanguine. (We could be wrong.)
An amazing thing happened this past week. Democrats who have lost their spine said "Nothing to see here, move on." It was the same message too many of them use when asked why they won't speak out against the war. It was the same message that too many of them told us following election 2004. After all the promises that, unlike 2000, they would fight, fight for the victory, for the fight for the voter, they would fight, fight like never before . . .
They knew there were problems with the Ohio vote yet before it could be looked into, the presidential candidate was throwing in the towel and our "brave" Democratic officials were telling us it was for the best.
They're real fond of talking big ahead of elections and then, afterwards, all the big talk fades and words like "realistic" get tossed around. Funny how "realism" never enters the picture while their fundraising.
So they trotted out the same message yet again and this time the public refused to be played for suckers.
Nothing to do, move along? Well if there's nothing to do, why the hell have we been working for your campaigns, giving you donations, showing up to vote for you?
If there's nothing to be done, exactly why do we waste our time with you?
The Democrats hadn't counted on the anger of the people. You can be sure of that. With Republicans scandals in the headlines, they were hoping for an easy lap to victory in this fall's elections. Only now, golly gee, those mean voters weren't playing along.
They seemed surprised early in the week when "people power" started demanding that maybe they actually work for the people. They seemed surprised that working for us meant more than providing soundbytes on the chat & chews.
The people forced this. There's still work to be done to force a filibuster.
But the people took a "done deal" and undid it.
Whether Alito gets confirmed or not, the people rose up.
We think it goes to the summer of protest. Time and again, we stood up to the Bully Boy following Cindy Sheehan's brave example. Along the way, Sheehan's been asking us to stand up to Democrats who continue to support the disaster of the invasion/occupation. Maybe her words are finally sinking in?
For the first time, the Democrats saw large numbers of their own voters demand action. They better get used to that because, regardless of how the Alito vote goes, the easy ride's over. You want to represent us? Start doing it.
The same energy and drive that's been poured into protesting the Bully Boy came back to smack the Democrats in their spineless backs. That's people power.
You can ask and be ignored for only so long. The people got angry, they got motivated and they demanded some action. This was a powerful moment in democracy.
But it's not over yet. We need to keep the pressure on. If you care about civil rights, civil liberties, reproductive rights, human rights, the Constitution, then Alito is not the Supreme Court Justice for you and you need to make yourself heard loud and clear.
As Laura Flanders noted on Saturday's RadioNation with Laura Flanders, "Friend don't let friends fail on the filibuster." Demand it. Demand action. Demand accountability. Don't go hat in hand begging for your representatives to work for you.
That's what they're supposed to do, work for you. But some have been in DC so long, they seem to have forgotten who exactly sent them there. It wasn't corporate lobbyists. It was the people. And they need to start doing the people's business.
Laura Flanders also noted in another segment that women are tired of being shut out and they're tired of candidates who toss a few morsels about abortion rights their way in a campaign and then lose their will to fight. "Issues like choice are raised . . . and then forgotten," she said.
Consider the choice issue where Democratic voters can draw a line that tells the Democratic Party that it's either with us or it's not. It's really quite simple. We've seen the Party back away from the unions, back away from African-American voters, back away from most of what it's supposed to stand for. If it throws in the towel on reproductive rights, it might as well just admit it's joined at the hip to the Republican Party.
Voters want clear differences and clear choices. Let's make the Alito vote a line in the sand where Democratic leaders have to either support the people or own up to the fact that they're happy to take our monies and grab our votes but they really don't like to be associated with us.
Part of the reason for the mess we're in is our own fault.
We've failed to pressure the Democratic Party to return to the base.
It's time they rediscovered their concerns about poverty and health care, time they rediscovered the support for unions, time they realized that African-American voters deserved more than a campaign photo op (usually at a church).
The Democratic Party needs to start serving the Democratic base. It's that simple. To us. If it's hard for them, they need to let us know so we can work on getting new representatives into office, ones who'll fight for us and for what we believe in.
More Senators have announced their opposition to Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Encouragingly, no additional Democrats have announced support for Alito since Ben Nelson (NE).
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, announced his opposition to a packed auditorium at Northwestern University School of Law. "In the record, the writings, the words, and the life of Samuel Alito, I searched for evidence of his caring heart -- evidence that for the next two or three decades he would use his position on the Supreme Court to enlarge our freedom, protect our privacy, and respect the delicate balance of power and responsibility our Constitution creates," said Senator Durbin. "At the end of the day, at this historic moment, I cannot say with confidence that Samuel Alito meets that test."
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), in announcing his opposition, said, "Based on his record, I am gravely concerned that Judge Alito does not believe the Congress has the authority to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans."
Other Senators who have announced publicly their opposition to Alito include Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (the only woman on the Judiciary Committee), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Max Baucus (D-MT). Senators Leahy, Baucus, and Salazar all voted for John Roberts in September.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
Media Resources: Harkin statement 1/19/06; Durbin statement 1/19/06; Feminist Majority
The above is from the Feminist Wire and if it's not one of the most linked to items, you can't say this community didn't do their part. Throughout the country, people stood up and did their part and then some. It was a "done deal" by the time last week's edition was done. That's when various "strong" Senators (on the Democratic side of the aisle) took to the Sunday chat & chews to throw in the towel.
Oh, it's over. Let the Republicans play like their Starship and sing "Nothing's Gonna' Stop Us Now." That was the message in simplest form.
And they must have thought the people were simple as well. That we'd respond with, "Oh well if Dianne Feinstein's so sure that just because she disagrees with Alito fundamentally on every issue doesn't mean he shouldn't serve on the bench, then we're okay with it."
Feinstein's San Francisco office, Friday, was the site of protest demanding that she filibuster Alito. We doubt she still feels so sanguine. (We could be wrong.)
An amazing thing happened this past week. Democrats who have lost their spine said "Nothing to see here, move on." It was the same message too many of them use when asked why they won't speak out against the war. It was the same message that too many of them told us following election 2004. After all the promises that, unlike 2000, they would fight, fight for the victory, for the fight for the voter, they would fight, fight like never before . . .
They knew there were problems with the Ohio vote yet before it could be looked into, the presidential candidate was throwing in the towel and our "brave" Democratic officials were telling us it was for the best.
They're real fond of talking big ahead of elections and then, afterwards, all the big talk fades and words like "realistic" get tossed around. Funny how "realism" never enters the picture while their fundraising.
So they trotted out the same message yet again and this time the public refused to be played for suckers.
Nothing to do, move along? Well if there's nothing to do, why the hell have we been working for your campaigns, giving you donations, showing up to vote for you?
If there's nothing to be done, exactly why do we waste our time with you?
The Democrats hadn't counted on the anger of the people. You can be sure of that. With Republicans scandals in the headlines, they were hoping for an easy lap to victory in this fall's elections. Only now, golly gee, those mean voters weren't playing along.
They seemed surprised early in the week when "people power" started demanding that maybe they actually work for the people. They seemed surprised that working for us meant more than providing soundbytes on the chat & chews.
The people forced this. There's still work to be done to force a filibuster.
But the people took a "done deal" and undid it.
Whether Alito gets confirmed or not, the people rose up.
We think it goes to the summer of protest. Time and again, we stood up to the Bully Boy following Cindy Sheehan's brave example. Along the way, Sheehan's been asking us to stand up to Democrats who continue to support the disaster of the invasion/occupation. Maybe her words are finally sinking in?
For the first time, the Democrats saw large numbers of their own voters demand action. They better get used to that because, regardless of how the Alito vote goes, the easy ride's over. You want to represent us? Start doing it.
The same energy and drive that's been poured into protesting the Bully Boy came back to smack the Democrats in their spineless backs. That's people power.
You can ask and be ignored for only so long. The people got angry, they got motivated and they demanded some action. This was a powerful moment in democracy.
But it's not over yet. We need to keep the pressure on. If you care about civil rights, civil liberties, reproductive rights, human rights, the Constitution, then Alito is not the Supreme Court Justice for you and you need to make yourself heard loud and clear.
As Laura Flanders noted on Saturday's RadioNation with Laura Flanders, "Friend don't let friends fail on the filibuster." Demand it. Demand action. Demand accountability. Don't go hat in hand begging for your representatives to work for you.
That's what they're supposed to do, work for you. But some have been in DC so long, they seem to have forgotten who exactly sent them there. It wasn't corporate lobbyists. It was the people. And they need to start doing the people's business.
Laura Flanders also noted in another segment that women are tired of being shut out and they're tired of candidates who toss a few morsels about abortion rights their way in a campaign and then lose their will to fight. "Issues like choice are raised . . . and then forgotten," she said.
Consider the choice issue where Democratic voters can draw a line that tells the Democratic Party that it's either with us or it's not. It's really quite simple. We've seen the Party back away from the unions, back away from African-American voters, back away from most of what it's supposed to stand for. If it throws in the towel on reproductive rights, it might as well just admit it's joined at the hip to the Republican Party.
Voters want clear differences and clear choices. Let's make the Alito vote a line in the sand where Democratic leaders have to either support the people or own up to the fact that they're happy to take our monies and grab our votes but they really don't like to be associated with us.
Part of the reason for the mess we're in is our own fault.
We've failed to pressure the Democratic Party to return to the base.
It's time they rediscovered their concerns about poverty and health care, time they rediscovered the support for unions, time they realized that African-American voters deserved more than a campaign photo op (usually at a church).
The Democratic Party needs to start serving the Democratic base. It's that simple. To us. If it's hard for them, they need to let us know so we can work on getting new representatives into office, ones who'll fight for us and for what we believe in.
TV: Mayberry on Crack aka My Name Is Earl
My Name Is Earl. NBC, Thursday nights. One of the few audience favorites of a lackluster fall. Along the way, it's been hailed by some as "innovative" and therein lies the problem.
There's nothing "fresh" about My Name Is Earl. The concept is Mayberry on Crack. "Not taped before a studio audience!" scream some. Which make us wonder exactly how far back some "experts" and their knowledge go?
What it reminds us of is the sort of bragging the "geniuses" behind Molly Dodd did (to Rolling Stone as that show was about to start airing). Earl, Jason Lee, is Andy Taylor . . . "trashed." Earl represents America about as well as Molly Dodd represented American women. Which is to say, not very well at all. And the correlation of Earl to America v. Molly Dodd to American women, that's the sort of "critical" thought we can hear from the gadflys who haunt the mythical water coolers. We're a bit tired of lazy critics who constantly play the game of men represent a country and women only represent a subsection of the country (their own gender). But that notion of "representation" is also at the heart of the show.
Earl and company, a bunch of "good old boys," get to coast on warm feelings and the only damn life in the show comes from Jamie Pressly's character of Joy. The show wants to be cute and huggable, but it knows no one will watch a half-hour of whimsy, so it has it both ways by letting the men be cuddly while the main female character is a total bitch.
It's not just that Joy is a bitch and that she's the lead female. By that we mean, it's not just that we've got a stereotype with no alternative lead offered. It's that the show wants to play it as though it's likeable and good natured and many are buying into that.
How do you update The Andy Griffith Show? Apparently turning Andy Taylor into a small town thief instead of a sheriff isn't enough, it's also necessary to turn Thelma into the town nightmare. All the praise for the warm fuzzy ("inspirational" is a favorite word) fails to capture how nasty this show is and how hateful the words that flow out of Pressly's mouth are.
This passes for "charming." Men become a little more petty criminal but keep their hearts of gold while everyone goes to town on Joy and the cheap laughs ensue. Somewhere Aunt Bea's mouth is dropping.
She probably also wonders about Randy Hickey (played Ethan Suplee) and exactly how the hell someone decided that Opie and Barney could be blended into one character? That "blend" works about as well as you'd expect, which is to say not at all.
But the blend does provide the easy chuckle when viewers see Randy and Earl sleeping together. They're brothers! Everything about this show is designed for the maximum comfort of the easily shocked.
Which is why the bland Catalina exists. She's in a few scenes each episode and rarely has anything to do. So why is she part of the cast? To allow someone to go to town on Joy. Yes, My Name Is Earl, like the Bully Boy, hides behind the skirts of women. (For Earl it's Catalina, for the Bully Boy? Katherine Harris, Karen Hughes, Condi Rice . . .)
There's nothing "updated" about the attitude towards women. There's nothing here worth praising. But your water cool critics, who must have gleaned their "critical knowledge" at the water coolers, don't like to comment on that. They like to pretend that this isn't the show where a man can be outraged that another man slept with one of his wives until he finds out which one and then they can share a chuckle and bond over what a tramp she was.
The women don't get to share chuckles. We'll give the show credit for casting Nadine Velazquez as Catalina but we're still waiting for her to be given the chance to strut her stuff. Instead she's stuck playing the walking stereotype (supposedly benign) of the earth mother closer to the land and the mysteries of the world -- a character who only leaves her laconic pose when it's time to lash out at Joy. To do the work that the male character on this show are too scared to do and, in the process, offer up yet another tired catfight.
We'll note that Eddie Steeples plays supporting character Darnell (Joy's husband) and, again, we're glad to see that they've cast someone who brings more diversity to the look of the show. (Steeples is African-American.) But until they find something for Darnell to do, he's not impacting anything but the look.
"Just the good old boys, never meaning no harm?" If true, that wouldn't change the fact that the show is harmful.
We know people working on My Name Is Earl and, after seeing the first episode, before it aired, intended to take a pass on it. The show goes nowhere. Episode after episode. It's Andy Taylor, er Earl, strolling through the neighborhood getting cheap chuckles from the "locals." But then the show started getting praised as "innovative" and "groundbreaking." And then it moved to Thursdays.
Were it not for the deep abiding hatred of women, the show would go nowhere. Pressly has the talent to provide laughter. When one of her sons points out he's five and not four as he looks at the four candles on his birthday cake, Pressly can wring a laugh as she says, "I know how old you are, honey. One, two, three, four, five!" while she puts her lit cigarette into the cake. But after you're done laughing, you're left with a nasty taste in your mouth.
We're going to say that no one involved with the show meant for it to be this offensive. That doesn't change the fact that it is. Or the fact that without Pressly the show's title would be My Name Was Earl. ("I lasted four episodes in the fall of 2005.") Cheap, nasty laughs at the expense of women and people who are working class may delight some but we didn't attend Water Cooler University so we must have missed the whole class on how when you're (male) leads are so flacid and dull it's okay to viciously attack everyone that surrounds them.
There's nothing "fresh" about My Name Is Earl. The concept is Mayberry on Crack. "Not taped before a studio audience!" scream some. Which make us wonder exactly how far back some "experts" and their knowledge go?
What it reminds us of is the sort of bragging the "geniuses" behind Molly Dodd did (to Rolling Stone as that show was about to start airing). Earl, Jason Lee, is Andy Taylor . . . "trashed." Earl represents America about as well as Molly Dodd represented American women. Which is to say, not very well at all. And the correlation of Earl to America v. Molly Dodd to American women, that's the sort of "critical" thought we can hear from the gadflys who haunt the mythical water coolers. We're a bit tired of lazy critics who constantly play the game of men represent a country and women only represent a subsection of the country (their own gender). But that notion of "representation" is also at the heart of the show.
Earl and company, a bunch of "good old boys," get to coast on warm feelings and the only damn life in the show comes from Jamie Pressly's character of Joy. The show wants to be cute and huggable, but it knows no one will watch a half-hour of whimsy, so it has it both ways by letting the men be cuddly while the main female character is a total bitch.
It's not just that Joy is a bitch and that she's the lead female. By that we mean, it's not just that we've got a stereotype with no alternative lead offered. It's that the show wants to play it as though it's likeable and good natured and many are buying into that.
How do you update The Andy Griffith Show? Apparently turning Andy Taylor into a small town thief instead of a sheriff isn't enough, it's also necessary to turn Thelma into the town nightmare. All the praise for the warm fuzzy ("inspirational" is a favorite word) fails to capture how nasty this show is and how hateful the words that flow out of Pressly's mouth are.
This passes for "charming." Men become a little more petty criminal but keep their hearts of gold while everyone goes to town on Joy and the cheap laughs ensue. Somewhere Aunt Bea's mouth is dropping.
She probably also wonders about Randy Hickey (played Ethan Suplee) and exactly how the hell someone decided that Opie and Barney could be blended into one character? That "blend" works about as well as you'd expect, which is to say not at all.
But the blend does provide the easy chuckle when viewers see Randy and Earl sleeping together. They're brothers! Everything about this show is designed for the maximum comfort of the easily shocked.
Which is why the bland Catalina exists. She's in a few scenes each episode and rarely has anything to do. So why is she part of the cast? To allow someone to go to town on Joy. Yes, My Name Is Earl, like the Bully Boy, hides behind the skirts of women. (For Earl it's Catalina, for the Bully Boy? Katherine Harris, Karen Hughes, Condi Rice . . .)
There's nothing "updated" about the attitude towards women. There's nothing here worth praising. But your water cool critics, who must have gleaned their "critical knowledge" at the water coolers, don't like to comment on that. They like to pretend that this isn't the show where a man can be outraged that another man slept with one of his wives until he finds out which one and then they can share a chuckle and bond over what a tramp she was.
The women don't get to share chuckles. We'll give the show credit for casting Nadine Velazquez as Catalina but we're still waiting for her to be given the chance to strut her stuff. Instead she's stuck playing the walking stereotype (supposedly benign) of the earth mother closer to the land and the mysteries of the world -- a character who only leaves her laconic pose when it's time to lash out at Joy. To do the work that the male character on this show are too scared to do and, in the process, offer up yet another tired catfight.
We'll note that Eddie Steeples plays supporting character Darnell (Joy's husband) and, again, we're glad to see that they've cast someone who brings more diversity to the look of the show. (Steeples is African-American.) But until they find something for Darnell to do, he's not impacting anything but the look.
"Just the good old boys, never meaning no harm?" If true, that wouldn't change the fact that the show is harmful.
We know people working on My Name Is Earl and, after seeing the first episode, before it aired, intended to take a pass on it. The show goes nowhere. Episode after episode. It's Andy Taylor, er Earl, strolling through the neighborhood getting cheap chuckles from the "locals." But then the show started getting praised as "innovative" and "groundbreaking." And then it moved to Thursdays.
Were it not for the deep abiding hatred of women, the show would go nowhere. Pressly has the talent to provide laughter. When one of her sons points out he's five and not four as he looks at the four candles on his birthday cake, Pressly can wring a laugh as she says, "I know how old you are, honey. One, two, three, four, five!" while she puts her lit cigarette into the cake. But after you're done laughing, you're left with a nasty taste in your mouth.
We're going to say that no one involved with the show meant for it to be this offensive. That doesn't change the fact that it is. Or the fact that without Pressly the show's title would be My Name Was Earl. ("I lasted four episodes in the fall of 2005.") Cheap, nasty laughs at the expense of women and people who are working class may delight some but we didn't attend Water Cooler University so we must have missed the whole class on how when you're (male) leads are so flacid and dull it's okay to viciously attack everyone that surrounds them.
Osama plays Alanis, Bully Boy pretends to be a man
So Osama bin Laden, fearful of remaining Osama bin Forgotten by the Bully Boy, allegedly releases a a message to the world.
In case you missed it:
Bin Laden Threatens US, Hints At Truce in New Message (Democracy Now!):
In an audiotaped message broadcast on the Arabic television network Al Jazeera Thursday, Osama Bin Laden warned of new attacks on the United States. Warning Islamic militants were prepared to carry out further attacks, Bin Laden said "[that] reality testifies to the fact that the war against America and its allies is no longer restricted to Iraq, as [Bush] claims, but rather Iraq has become a centre that attracts and renews the energies of those who are qualified (to fight)." Bin Laden added: "mujahedeen have been able to infiltrate all the security measures taken by the unjust allied countries time and time again, and the proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the most important European countries in this aggressive alliance. The delay in the perpetrating of similar operations in America is not because of an inability to penetrate your security measures; the operations are being prepared, and you will see them in the midst of your own territory." [. . .]
The White House responds:
White House Dismisses Idea of Truce With Bin Laden (Democracy Now!):
The US immediately rejected the idea of a possible truce with Bin Laden. White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business. We must not stop until they are defeated."
"We put them out of business." At Tora Bora, Scotty?
Why does it all seem like a lovers' quarrel, between two men, that the rest of the world has to put up with?
Kitty Kelley' The Family (page 626):
The President told Lionel Chetwynd, a conservative filmmaker who wrote DC 9/11: Time of Crisis, that visiting Ground Zero had been visceral for him. "I was lifted up by a wave of vengeance and testosterone and anger. I could feel it."
What does it take to get your ya-yas, Bully Boy? And why does the world have to suffer through your attempts to get "lift off"?
As we face another terrorist threat, we'd be wise to keep our wits about us. That means grasping both what happened before (only the adminstration, according to Condi Rice, couldn't have known) and some perspective.
First let's note some recent history.
From Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (Pages 98-99):
According to insiders, FBI agents had wanted to check into two members of the bin Laden family, Abdullah and Omar, but were told to stay away by their superiors -- until September 13, 2001. By then, Abdullah and Omar were long gone from the USA.
Why no investigation of the brothers bin Laden? The Bush administration's line is that the Binladdins (a more common spelling of the Arabic name) are good folk. Osama's the Black Sheep, supposedly cut off from his Saudi kin. But the official line notwithstanding, some FBI agents believed the family had some gray sheep worth questioning -- especially these two working with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which the file labels "a suspected terrorist organization." Let's be careful here: WAMY may be completely innocent. The FBI targets lots of innocents, too many in fact, but there were plenty of signs that the WAMY crew deserved the organization's scrutiny. . . .
Despite these tantalizing facts, Abdullah and his operations were A-OK with the FBI chiefs, if not their working agents. Just a dumb SNAFU? Not according to a top-level CIA operative who spoke with us on condition of strictest anonymity. After Bush took office, he said, "there was a major policy shift" at the National Security Agency. Investigators were ordered to "back off" from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks, especially if they touched on Saudi royals and their retainers. That put the bin Ladens, a family worth a reported $12 billion and a virtual arm of the Saudi royal household, off limits for investigation. Osama was the exception; he remained a wanted man, but agents could not look too closely at how he filled his piggy bank. The key rule of any investigation, "follow the money," was now violated, and investigations -- at least before September 11 -- began to die.
So Bully Boy had a back off policy? And did it cease on September 11th?
From Bob Graham's Intelligence Matters (pages 105-106):
On September 13 as we [Congress] were working out the draft language of the joint resolution authorizing the President to use force against those responsible for September 11, the President was holding a meeting with Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, more commonly called Prince Bandar. Bandar had been informed the night before by a high-ranking CIA official that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis, and that it looked increasingly as if Osama bin Laden, an exiled Saudi, might have been its mastermind. Presumably, this information created a difficult situation for both Prince Bandar and President Bush. Prince Bandar, a scion of the Saudi Royal family, had to maintain a relationship with America -- a country that purchased hundreds of billions of dollars in Saudi oil and supplied Saudi Arabia with hundreds of billions of dollars of weaponry -- although many of the people his family ruled saw America as a mortal enemy. President Bush owed a debt to a family that had been an ally in the 1991 Gulf War, funneled millions of dollars to his own family through an investment group, and, stunningly, would reportedly propose, more than a year later, to lower the price of oil to "prime the U.S. economy for 2004."
Neither the President nor Prince Bandar has disclosed what was discussed in that meeting. But later that day, something strange began to happen. Although the FAA had ordered all private flights grounded, a number of planes began flying to collect Saudi nationals from various parts of the United States. For example, a ten-passenger Learjet picked up three young Saudi men in Tampa and flew them to Lexington, Kentucky, where a Boeing 747 was waiting for some Saudi horse-racing enthusiasts. (For nearly three years, the White House and other agencies insisted that these flights never took place, confirming their existence only under investigation by the independent 9/11 Commission.)
By September 19, more than 140 Saudis -- including several members of the bin Laden family -- had been flown out of the United States. Certainly, the majority of the travelers were innocent of any crime. However, at least one is thought to have had terrorist ties, and even the innocent members of bin Laden's family could probably have provided some insight into his funding and operations. The FBI interviewed none of them.
What did Bully Boy and Bandar discuss? And what of a "debt"? For the answer to the last question, we turn to Michael Moore's Dude, Where's My Country? (Pages 7-9):
Mr. Bush, in 1977, when your father told you it was time to get a real job, he set you up with your first oil company, something you called "Arbusto" (Spanish for "shrub"). A year later, you received financing from a man named James A. Bath. He was an old buddy of yours from your days (the ones when you weren't AWOL) in the Texas Air National Guard. He had been hired by Salem bin Laden -- Osama's brother -- to invest bin Ladens' money in various Texas ventures. Some $50,000 - or 5 percent of control of Arbusto -- came from Mr. Bath.
Was he acting on behalf of the bin Ladens?
Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the bin Ladens for a long time. What exactly is the extent of this relationship, Mr. Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again, off-again business associates?
[. . .]
After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group was none other than the bin Laden family. The bin Ladens put a minimum of $2 million into the Carlyle Group.
Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group. The same year you left the soon-to-be-bankrupt CaterAir, you became governor and quickly oversaw the University of Texas -- a state institution -- make an investment of $10 million in the Carlyle Group. The bin Laden family had also gotten on the Carlyl gravy train in 1004.
The Carlyle Group is one of the nation's largest defense contractors, among their many other lines of work.
[. . .]
After September 11, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this strange coincidence. Your first response, Mr. Bush, was to ignore it, hoping, I guess, that the story would just go away. Your father and his buddies at Carlyle did not renounce the bin Laden investment. Your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! They hate and despise what he has done! These are the good bin Ladens.
And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of those "good" bin Ladens -- including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers -- with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It has been reported in The New Yorker that not only has the family not cut ties to Osama, but they have continued to fund him as they have been doing for years.
So there's a complicated "entanglement" (to steal a favorite term of Bill Keller's)? From Paul Krugman's The Great Unraveling (page 103):
Carlyle specializes in buying down-and-out defense contractors, then reselling them when their fortunes miraculously improve after they receive new government business. Among the company's employees is former President George H. W. Bush. Among the group's investors, until late October [2001], was the bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia.
Well that's certainly interesting. Ties between Bully Boy's family and bin Ladens. But Bully Boy was determined to catch bin Laden, right? We went into Afghanistan with the Bully Boy cry of "dead or alive," remember?
Remember the backing off of that cry? From Gore Vidal's Dreaming War (page 43-44):
Also, there is USA Today, November 11, 2001, "The US combat commander in Afghanistan said Thursday that apprehending Osama bin Laden isn't one of the missons of Operation Enduring Freedom."
[. . .]
Although with much fanfare we went forth to wreak our vengeance on the crazed sadistic religious zealot who slaughtered three thousand American citizens, once that "war" was under way, Osama was dropped as irrelevant and so we're back to the Unocal pipeline, no a go-project. In the light of what we know today, it is unlikely that the Junta was ever going to capture Osama alive: he has tales to tell. One of Rumsfeld's best numbers now is: "Where is he? Somewhere? Here? There? Somewhere? Who knows?" And we get his best twinkle.
Wait, as Danny Schechter might ask in his documentary WMD, was it all a dream? Bully Boy did make that cry, right? From Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege (page 326):
For his part, Bush started talking tough about "smoking out" al-Qaeda or bringing in Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." He also broadened America's goals, defining the task ahead as not just the defeat of the al-Qaeda killers but the destruction of terrorism and the eradication of "evil." Bush began to see the "war on terror" as part of his religious calling. "I think in [Bush's] frame, this is what God has asked him to do," a close acquaintance told The New York Times. "It offers him enormous clarity."
Well it offered him something. A wave of testoterone which is apparently something to be prized by the prep school boy who spent his teens as a male cheerleader. The facts have never spoken to Bully Boy's "valor." Let's return to Parry's Secrecy & Privilege (page 325-236):
In explaining Bush's delay in returning to Washington until after 4 p.m., political adviser [Karl] Rove said there were still reports about civilian jetliners aloft until then and thus still a threat to Air Force One. But Benjamin Sliney, the top Federal Aviation Administration official responsible for air-traffic control, said the agency informed the White House and the Pentagon at 12:16 p.m. that there were no more hijacked planes in the air and all commerical planes were out of U.S. airspace, the Wall Street Journal reported.
There were additonal discrepancies about what orders Bush actually issued that day. Bush told the town-hall meeting in Orlando that "one of the first acts I did was to put our military on alert." But the Journal reported that the evidence was that Air Force General Richard Myers, the acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the decision to raise the U.S. defense level to Defcon III, the highest state of military threat since the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
Ah yes, his little Bunny Fu Fu hop-scotch across the nation that followed his sitting in a Florida classroom and doing NOTHING.
So here we are, five years later this September and what's been accomplished? Bully Boy's blustered and stomped his feet. He's lost interest in Osama bin Laden as he pursued an old partner of his father's. And now Osama sends out his "You Ought to Know" recording. (Tip of the hat to Isaiah's whose The World Today Just Nuts illustrates this feature and who caught the "I'm hear to remind you . . ." nature of the alleged recording.)
We've gone to war on Afghanistan. Supposedly the Taliban but we really didn't run them out of that country. We did go to war on Afghanistan and now we're pretty much done with assisting them, in case you missed that news. We went to war with Iraq for many stated reasons and none of them had any basis in reality. We're still there (as we are in Afghanistan) and "quagmire" may be too weak a word for the situation. We're done pretty much with finanical assistance there as well. We bombed the public utilities and water and electricity are still hit and miss but, hey, that's something for private investors to take care of.
So two wars (still ongoing) and no Osama. (It might be worth remembering that the Taliban asked for our proof of Osama's involvement in 9/11 before they would turn him over. We rebuffed that and the nation still awaits the proof from the government. The media's offered a variety of accounts but the government's much touted proof appears to have slipped everyone's mind.)
Let's drop back a bit again. From Arianna Huffington's Pigs At The Trough (pages 119-120):
It is now painfully clear that our leaders -- both in the current administration and its predecessor -- knew that a terrorist attack on American soil would almost surely happen at some point. So, why didn't they do more to protest us? Could it be because the public interest didn't have a gaggle of lobbyists patrolling Congress and the White House offering cash incentives to protect American people from fanatics and madmen?
If counterterrorism had been an industry doling out large contributions, our political leaders would surely have leapt into action -- pushing through legislation to ensure our airports were secure and our intelligence operations were actually collecting intelligence. Instead, the attacks exposed not only how vulnerable our airports are but how vulnerable our system of government is when policy priorities are determined not in response to the public interest but in response to the best-funded interest groups.
Why didn't they do more to protect us? Good question. And here's the kicker for the Bully Boy who seems to benefit from each of Osama bin Laden's broadcasts, he and his party are in charge.
They control the Congress, they control the White House. (And they stack and pack the judiciary.) If there's another attack on America, he'd be better off not kidding himself that America will want to play rally 'round the loser one more time. He's had almost five years and what has he done?
Nothing really. Well, he did stage his third war, war on Americans. But other than that, he's vacationed a lot, he's handed out a lot of tax breaks to the rich, he's obsessed over the state of gay marriage in a manner that honestly should beg questions as to why he's so concerned, he's made the world less safe, he's vacationed, he's hidden out from Cindy Sheehan (apparently a more frightening figure to him than Osama), he's mangled the English language, he's vactioned . . .
It's going to be a bit more difficult to scream "Bill Clinton!" this time though we're sure he and his court will do just that. But the reality is that he's probably in a worse spot than he was before 9/11. Back then, people just suspected that he was inept. 9/11 came along and two days after he had a photo op, people were scared, and there was a rallying behind him. Bully Boy would do well to remember the reaction to his administration in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. People held him accountable, rightly. And if there's another attack on American soil, people will hold him even more accountable. Photo-ops following a Bunny Fu Fu will probably fall flat.
The 9/11 Commission came up with a list of recommendations. He ignored them. Now here's Osama back to "remind him" in a very Alanis style manner.
We have no idea what sick, symbiotic relationship the two of them share but bin Laden does seem to pop up whenever Bully Boy needs propping. As valid questions are being asked about his illegal activites in spying on Americans without warrants, here's Osama with another recording. It's all very Bully Boy & bin Laden. Someone should stage an adaptation of Romeo & Juliet with the two of them in the leads.
Riding the wave that seemed to assure him that, despite the fact that Big Babs once kicked off the house shoes to join her little cheerleader on the field, he had testes, Bully Boy's waved his hammer and struck at will. The world's a lot less safe for it. Maybe if we'd had a leader with a lot less to prove, we could have followed a wiser course?
Such as the one suggested in Amy Goodman and David Goodman's The Exception to the Rulers (page 39-40):
A few days after the Twin Towers fell, President Bush came to Ground Zero. I watched as a chilling cheer went up around him: "U-S-A! U-S-A!" chanted the crowd in unison. Among those who set up this Ground Zero photo op -- a defining moment in Bush's presidency -- was Jim Wilkinson, who went on to become the media point man in Qatar spinning the Jessica Lynch story and was then appointed communications czar of the 2004 Republican National Convention.
I don't think rallying around the flag is the answer to what happened on Septemeber 11. The answer is a global community united against terror, determined to rout it out wherever it originates -- including the White House and the Pentagon.
The answer is institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), where people who commit crimes against humanity can be tried. But who is the primary force opposing this court? The United States. A reluctant President Clinton waited until the last moment to sign the treaty to recognize the authority of the ICC. Then Bush came in and unsigned the treaty. In mid-2003, Bush strong-armed the UN Security Council to pass a resolution that would exempt U.S. officials and soldiers from being held accountable in the same way as others around the world. And the Bush adminstration has pressured countries, at the risk of losing U.S. aid, to sign bilateral agreements that would prohibit them from bringing charges against the U.S. citizens before an international court.
Of course I think that Osama bin Laden and his accomplices should be tried for what happened on September 11. But when you look at where bodies have stacked up around the world -- from Chile and Argentina to Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and East Timor -- I think Henry Kissinger should also be tried for crimes against humanity.
If we have any hope of routing out terror and breaking the cycle of blowback, we must have a universal standard of justice.
But we didn't choose international order, we chose Bully Boy chaos. The world's a lot less safer. If the recording is real and accurate, we don't appear any safer than we were prior to September 2001. But remember Bully Boy was occupying the Oval Office then too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
