Blog Spotlight: Rebecca on the head liar at HUD

Rebecca covered the HUD issue twice last week.  We're highlighting both pieces. Here's her second one.

 

 

more on hud's lead liar alphonso jackson

it is official. though i have yet to get the promised e-mail, blogger/blogspot has reviewed and decided that i am not a robot.

no more word verification.

now that i've been cleared of the charges, i feel the urge to scream, 'i'm actually part cyborg! like jamie on the bionic woman!'

HUD Secretary Turns Down Contractor Who Criticized Bush
Meanwhile, Housing and Urban Development Department Secretary Alphonso Jackson is coming under scrutiny after he revealed he cancelled a proposed deal with a government contractor who made critical comments of President Bush. According to the Dallas Business Journal, Jackson said the contractor had been selected for a government advertising contract. But the contractor was ultimately not selected after he told Jackson he didn’t like President Bush. Jackson said: "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe." In response, Democratic Congressmembers Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Henry Waxman of California called for a full investigation of Jackson’s contract decisions. In a letter to Jackson, the Congressmemembers wrote: "If this account is accurate, your comments and actions were improper and most likely illegal. Federal contracts should be awarded based on merit, not on whether a contractor likes or dislikes President Bush."

that's from democracy now and i thought i'd start with that because i ended with hud last night.

jackson has a history struggling with the truth, a public history. c.i. passed this on because i'd written about it yesterday. billie had sent this to c.i. to provide a little background on alphonso jackson:


Then there was the Thrilla on Marilla--the lightweight bout between Fielding and Alphonso Jackson which kept us occupied for a few weeks in the winter of 1993. The councilman and the Dallas Housing Authority chief, you may recall, got uniquely physical during a tense meeting in Mayor Bartlett's office. When it was over, no one was at all surprised that someone would want to stomp grapes on Paul Fielding's face--his major in college was, no doubt, the art of bringing out the worst in people. What surprised everyone is that Jackson actually did it.
A diminutive, soft-spoken, horn-rimmed-glasses type, Jackson simply gathered himself into an absolute fury and, like a bull at Pamplona, rammed Fielding face first into the unyielding metal frame of a partially opened door. Blackening eyes. Mangling facial nerves. Sending ears to ringing.
Jackson blew his opportunity to become a sympathetic figure in the eyes of Fielding detractors when he panicked, dissolving into a choke mode--not only denying that he'd beaten Fielding up, but frantically concocting off-the-wall scenarios about what happened. In one, the mayor, who actually witnessed Jackson's handiwork along with half the mayor's staff, was blamed for the bludgeoning.


so he gets into a fight and then lies about it. the author of that piece, by the way, was laura miller who no longer writes for a periodical, she's now mayor of the city of dallas.

and jaime s. jordan provides an update in the dallas business journal, which originally broke the jackson story, that has an interesting footnote:

(On May 3, Tucker told the Business Journal that the contract Jackson was referring to in Dallas was "an advertising contract with a minority publication," though she could not provide the contract's value.)


so on wednesday of last week hud spokesperson dustee tucker was maintaining that the story was true, but yesterday, saying it wasn't.

in congress, house represantives henry waxman and barney frank are asking questions:

In a letter to HUD Secretary Jackson, Reps. Waxman and Frank ask for an explanation of the Secretary's public admission that he decided not to award a contract to a contractor with "a heck of a proposal" because the contractor expressed a negative view of the President.


jackson has more problems. from representative louise slaughter's letter to alphonso jackson:

I was troubled to read recent news reports about the nature of certain contracts awarded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Specifically, I am concerned that a HUD contract has been awarded to a company allegedly involved in illicit activities including bribery, gambling, and prostitution.
Last week, Harper's Magazine's web blog posted an update to its coverage of the federal contracts awarded to Shirlington Limousine and Transportation, Incorporated of Arlington, Virginia. This report indicated that HUD had awarded the company a $519,823 contract. As you may know, the company's president, Christopher D. Baker, has an extensive criminal history including drug possession, attempted robbery, and car theft along with other offenses over the last decade. Additionally, allegations have been bade that suggest that individuals involved in an ongoing Congressional bribery investigation used the limousine service to provide escorts and other services to federal officials in exchange for federal contracts. The fact that a contract from your agency has been awarded to a company embroiled in such a serious criminal investigation raises significant questions about the HUD's procurement process.
This comes on the heels of reports that at an April 28th Dallas real estate forum, you stated that individuals or organizations who had expressed their opposition to President Bush would not be eligible to receive federal contracts. All qualified organizations and businesses should have the opportunity to compete in the federal procurement process, and contract should be awarded to the company that can do the best work at the least cost to the government. Awarding federal contracts based on political affiliation is not only inappropriate, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Therefore, I request that you release all documents and communications in your possession pertaining to any HUD contracts with Shirlington Limousine. Thorough examination of these documents is critical to eliminating suspicion of inappropriate or illegal activity in awarding Shirlington Limousine a federal contract. I also ask you to clarify your comments regarding the eligibility of Administration opponents to compete for federal contracts.
I hope you will swiftly honor my request for the release of all pertinent documents to restore the integrity to the procurement processes of your department.


and just to remember what he said, from an article credited to kutv and associated press:

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.'" Jackson told the group, which promotes business opportunities for minorities in the real estate industry."He didn't get the contract," Jackson said. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

whether he's a lie face or trying to back peddle now (like he did when he got into the physical altercation), he needs to step down or fired.
now kat did another review last night: "Kat's Korner: Need deeper? Check out Josh Ritter's The Animal Years." i really love this cd. 'girl in the war' is, musically, the sort of magic brian wilson probably still wishes he could do.

and tonight? goldie, pay attention. she's reviewing pink's new cd tonight. i know a lot of community members have been waiting for it. she actually had this 1 written (i think the free design is the other 1 left that's already written) but she saw something online and decided to rewrite it. i'm really excited and i bet you are as well. so be sure to check for it. and check at the common ills because she posts her music reviews there, not at her own site: kat's korner (of the common ills). she started there and that's her contribution to the community.

the plan is 7 reviews over the next 2 weeks. she's done 3 so far with the 4th going up tonight. if you missed the other 3, the link to animal years is up above and the other 2 are:

"Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection"
"Kat's Korner: Neil Young's Living With War -- key word 'Living'"

i would like to write about today when i blog tomorrow. (can you follow that?)

but be sure to read c.i.'s "Other Items" and wally's "THIS JUST IN! HILLARY CLINTON LOVES THE BOYZ WHO CHEAT ON HER!" for the latest on hillary. in fact, doesn't she resemble the character of senator in "Head on Home (a musical in four scenes)"?

---

Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

Blog Spotlight: Cedric wonders if we close Guantanamo, where will we put Bully Boy?

We love eclectic so we always enjoy "grab bag" and "different stuff" posts.  Here's Cedric covering a number of items.

 

Different stuff

Thursdays, so I'm blogging. (If you're new, I try to blog Tuesdays and Thursdays.)


"Telecom Companies Helped NSA Spy on Millions of US Citizens" (Democracy Now):
Three of the country's largest telecom companies have provided the National Security Agency with the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. This according to a report in USA Today. One source with direct knowledge of the program called it "the largest database ever assembled in the world" whose goal is to collect a record of "every call ever made" within the United States. The Bush administration has insisted its spy program focuses solely on international calls. The companies -- AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth -- have been under contract since after the 9/11 attacks. Only one major telecom company declined to participate in the program. The company, Qwest, reportedly asked the NSA to get FISA-court approval before it would hand over the records. The NSA refused. Although the program does not involve the direct monitoring of phone conservations, it amasses detailed records on who people have called and when they've called them. At least one company had already been implicated in the program. In a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation earlier this year, former AT&T technician Mark Klein said AT&T has been working with the National Security Agency to spy on Americans. In addition to raising new questions about the extent of the NSA spy program and the companies involved, the disclosure also raises new questions about CIA Director-nominee Michael Hayden. Hayden headed the National Security Agency at the time the spy program was implemented. He declined USA Today's request for comment.

If you're thinking, "What's going on?" Well, Elaine's off on Thursdays and I called to check on Mike and he suggested that we both cover the same items. I can't turn down my sick friend. (He said the fever's gone and the chicken pox is going down. I kidded him about having a kid's disease.) So remember how Bully Boy keeps covering up? Remember how Alberto Gonzales told the Judiciary Committee in the Senate that he couldn't talk about all the programs that were going on? This is just one more that we didn't know of. Just one more. There's a lot more going on and if more of it starts coming out, you're going to see the Bully Boy (who has a 31% approval rating right now) look more and more like the crook he is.

"UK Attorney General Calls For Guantanamo Closure" (Democracy Now):
Britain's Attorney General has called for the closure of the US prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In a speech in London, Lord Peter Goldsmith said: "The existence of Guantanamo remains unacceptable."

Here's my problem, if we close Guantanamo, where are we going to send the Bush Crime Family after the war crimes tribunal? I'm only half-way joking. I think Bully Boy is in real danger of being tried for war crimes. Not just because he's committed them. But because so many people are outraged by them. I think this is like Anita Hill where people tried to dismiss her and act as though her charges weren't a big deal or weren't true. And that worked during the confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas, but a year later, there was this huge number of people who believed she told the truth. I think we're going to see something similar when Bully Boy leaves office. All these people who've been silent because they didn't know what they thought or felt that they couldn't think that way about our leader or whatever. When he's out of office, there will be so much disgust expressed openly by people you'd never expect to hear it from.

Go check out Mikey Likes It! to hear Mike's take from his sick bed in the children's ward. (I'm joking with him.)


I listened to KPFA's The Morning Show today and they had an interesting discussion on race issues (they had a great one last week too that C.I., Kat and I were trying to make part of "Where do you get your information?" but everyone was tired. I'm going to push for that topic this weekend. So I'll talk instead about this Canadian documentary they broadcast. It was about the harmful things in the environment -- and the environment is your home. Philip Malderi said in the introduction that it was in a kind of Leave It To Beaver form and it was. I think they named the toddler Sam and I forget the mother, father and older sister's name. But it was a family, and they had a dog, and it addressed the stuff that was in their home without them ever realizing it. Like the dust mites and the dust in the carpet but also things that get tracked in. They used the dog there. He'd been having a blast in the next door neighbor's yard and when he comes back into the house, he's tracking in all the chemicals that they were using in their garden to try to get rid of weeds. And did you know that some of the most pollution you're exposed to is in your car? Sick building disease was talked about too. It was really informative and I'm trying to think of a comment Andrea Lewis made because when I was listening, I thought, "I need to put that in." Now I'm forgetting it. It wasn't about the dust mites. She made some comments on that but it was on something else.

They also talked about how many chemicals children were exposed to. Oh, Andrea Lewis made the point that the air outside was cleaner than the air in many homes. Which also reminds me of Andrea and Philip talking about this one section on air freshners. When people use those, the products usually either just mask the odor or they deaden the nerves (I think it was nerves) in your nose that allow you to smell.

So that was pretty interesting. If you missed it and are interested in hearing it you can go to
KPFA and check out the archives for Thursday or click on The Morning Show and pull up Thursday's show.

Philip almost didn't get mentioned when we were writing "Where do you get your information?" because people were going, "How do you spell it?" (Watch, I'll have mispelled it in this.) "Is it two 'L's?" (C.I. and Kat knew how to spell it.)


Speaking of Kat, I hope everyone's read her four reviews in the last few days:

"Kat's Korner: Pink's not dead or silent"
"Kat's Korner: Neil Young's Living With War -- key word 'Living'"
"Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection"
"Kat's Korner: Need deeper? Check out Josh Ritter's The Animal Years."

She's done that since Saturday. (She'll have a new review this Saturday.) I've always been a been a big fan of Kat's writing. If you go through the old entries at The Common Ills, you'll see that from before I had my own site. As early as December 2004, I'm praising her because she's a really incredible reviewer. She's doing all these reviews lately for two stated reasons. 1) Ruth is on vacation and music reviews can't replace Ruth but they can provide us with some really interesting things to read. 2) There's so much coming out now that so many have stopped playing "War Got Your Tongue?" (I saw a dopey thing about Bob Dylan and how he performed "Masters of War" in concert -- yeah, and he didn't say one word about the current war. He performed a moldy, golden oldy. He does that on all of his tours because no one's coming to hear the new stuff -- and by "new" I mean anything from the 90s, 80s or 70s. It wasn't a "statement." It was more cowardly acts from the King of Cowards.)

I think there's a third reason. Remember when Kat got attacked by the idiot that she hadn't even written about? And how he e-mailed her with what she needed to put up at her site, only to act like she was saying it and not him? I think she's more than over the All Puff No Politics crowd. They really had a lot of nerve attacking Kat. But that's really the sort of thing they can do -- attack people who speak out against the war while they hide in silence. Grown ups, acting like 12 year-olds addicted to their TVs and putting out puff on really bad TV shows while acting like they're a political site.

They're just a joke. (And a nasty two people, there was this idiotic, screaming rant that one of them sent Ava that could best be summed up as the writer needs therapy.)

So while the Puff crowd have made themselves useless, here's Kat still keeping it real, doing her thing, contributing and refusing to be made useless. Two more things to check out are Betty's "The hopping mad Thomas Friedman" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! HILLARY CLINTON LOVES THE BOYZ WHO CHEAT ON HER!" That's it for me tonight.

 

---

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

Music Spotlight: Kat on The Millennium Collection of Richie Havens

The one and only Kat did four CD reviews we're highlighting.  We'll mix them throughout the highlights.  Here's one of an album that brings back memories of the recent trip to NYC to protest the war. 

 

 

Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection

Kat: Every now and then, an e-mail will remind me of the Bully Boy economy and suggest that I review something less expensive than a new release. I did that with a Nina Simone double disc CD and quite a few of you were able to locate it.

This is the sort of review that was.

It started when Maggie borrowed a CD, without asking -- also known as theft, and lost it. Not really lost it, she insisted, because, "Lost means lost." Yes, it does. "Lost means lost," sky means sky, sun means sun and "borrow" has its own definition too -- one Maggie can look up when I gift her with a dictionary. In the meantime, my Richie Havens Cuts to the Chase CD is not "lost."

See, Maggie explained, "lost" means it could be anywhere. She knows it fell out of the big black almost-carry-on luggage "purse" she carries. Somewhere on Pico. So it's not lost. She was hurring because she was late and it must have fallen out. But she was going to replace it.

I've heard that song before, I've seen the dance as well. As a member of the reality-based community, I don't put much weight into such statements. It's the morning of April 28th, I'm doing my make up and, in my head, checking to make sure I've packed everything for the trip to DC when Maggie's knock-knock-knocking on my front door. Then I'm looking in the mirror, applying mascara, when I see Maggie waving something.

"I replaced it," she says sticking a CD into my purse.

Well what do you know. She even offers me a ride to the airport.

So I'm on the plane and digging around my purse for some gun when my fingers hit the CD. I pull it out to look at it. It's not Richie Havens' Cuts to the Chase CD. It's The Best of Richie Havens: The Millennium Collection.

I don't know how familiar anyone is with "20th Century Masters/The Millennium Collection"?
This is basically a repackaging series. Often the hits of a lot of artists whose labels no longer really exist (gobbled up in the name of synergy). The whole thing looks done on the cheap to me. This isn't a "best of" in the true sense and I'm the last to defend "best of"s and "greatest hits" collections.

The only artist who may benefit from The Millennium Collection is Cher -- who I believe has three collections now (one with Sonny and two solo). That's because there's no consistent musical thread to her work. That's not intended as an insult. But, like Madonna, she's all over the place. In the sixties, there's the earnest folkie of her folk-rockie period railing against the world and, usually, teen pregnanices. There's the early seventies pop storyteller with one "story song" after another about someone dying or someone being ignored. There's the late seventies period that is disco. The undocumented, one album, period where she's trying to be a combination of Patti Smith and Chrissie Hynde (Black Rose). Then in the mid-eighties, she finally moves closer to the sort of rock-anthem songs that she's always maintained she wants to do. By the tail end of the nineties, she's back in the disco.

And I won't even attempt to summarize the Sonny & Cher recordings. But the point is, you can slice up Cher's work. You can pair late seventies disco with the Believe period, for instance. But most artists aren't Cher or Madonna. They usually have a thread of some form they're developing in their work. Such as Richie Havens whose percussive, open tuning guitar work had a huge impact (that's frequently forgotten). When on Cuts to the Chase, he covers Jackson Browne's "Lives in the Balance," it's not just another cover. He's bringing to bear three decades of experience (stage, recording and personal) into the song. That's true of all his later recordings, whether they are covers or songs he's written.

So the slice and dice of The Millennium Collection wasn't anything I was waiting to hear. In NYC, Mike and Wally wondered if I'd brought any music? I had but wasn't in the mood to unpack, so I reached in my purse and pulled out the Richie Havens.

They took it out of the plastic and started playing it and I went off to get some sleep. Saturday morning, it's still playing -- and not just because Mike fell asleep on the couch.

Those of us familiar with Havens' work weren't impressed. But those who were hearing him for the first time were blown away. Mike kept trying to persuade me of how great the CD was. Finally, he says, "Everybody, quiet!" and plays "Follow."

"Follow" is one of Havens' masterpieces. (The song's used beautifully in the film Coming Home.) Jerry Merrick wrote it, Havens gave it life. It's a song that will move you and in the early morning hours, with the rally and march bearing down on all of us, it had a hypnotic power that I'd honestly forgotten.

Wally called the following week to complain that the only CD of Havens he could find (at what we used to call "a record store," he knew not to try one of the Big Box Stores) was this one. They could order others, but this was the only one they carried.

Here's my problem with collections. Too often they act as the end-point of entry. Someone buys the CD and, suddenly, that's all they need. They may even think that they have a strong overview of the artist. That's rarely the case as they tend to focus only on the biggest charters on the pop songs. An important song, one that made the artist exciting, may not make the collection.

It may be the song that caused people to look at the artist in a new way. And maybe because it was a new direction or it had some "foul" language in it, it didn't shoot up the charts. A friend's working on a student dance routine and she told me I'd be so happy because she was using Alanis Morissette's "best song." She's going to have kids dancing on stage, in front of their parents, to "You Ought To Know"? No. "Uninvited"? No. "Hand In My Pocket."

Or take Janet Jackson. The Control album made people look at her differently. "Let's Wait Awhile," the only number one, wasn't the reason she got reconsidered. It was "What Have You Done For Me Lately?" with the follow up "Nasty" that made Jackson worth watching. But I picture a future Millennium Collection focusing on the "soft" side ("Let's Wait Awhile," "That's The Way Love Goes," et al.). Those aren't the best songs. They're the ones that can get airplay easiest.

The Best of Richie Havens: The Millennium Collection isn't the best of Havens' work. "San Francisco Bay Blues," for instance, divorced from the other tracks on Mixed Bags, sounds like nothing but the Rogers & Hart rip-off it always was. (Songwriter Jesse Fuller listened to the music of "Where or When" one time too many.)

It's also true that the collection isn't the worst of Havens' work either. Along with "Follow," you get selections from the three albums that made his name in the sixties. (There's nothing here from his historic Woodstock performance.) If you realize Havens is playing the guitar, you get an appreciation for that. Thankfully, the collection contains three photographs (out of five counting cover and back cover) showing Havens with guitar because the booklet dismisses his guitar playing in a single sentence of a four paragraph "essay."

You also get the voice that was never too smooth. Havens didn't do dance routines onstage. He wasn't an "entertainer" in that sense. He told a story and move you -- the voice was just the right equipment to cut through so much cheese that occupied the airwaves then (most of which is, thankfully, now forgotten). It's a voice (then and only more so now) that has a weight to it, a thickness. He can take it to the upper register and then some, but at its core, the voice is gravity.

Since this is the only CD of Havens that's readily available in music stores, it's a great starting point. I can recommend it for that, and the price, provided it's understood as a starting point.
There are some strong tracks besides "Follow." His covers of the Beatles' "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Lady Madonna" will please many. (But pay attention to the guitar work, especially on "Lady Madonna," to really appreciate them.) "Handsome Johnny" (which Havens co-wrote with Louis Gossett, Jr.) is just as pertinent today as it was during Vietnam.

Forget the entire body of Havens' work, if you just know the three albums that the twelve tracks are pulled from, you'll be thinking, "Well, I would've picked ___" (His cover of Donovan's "Wear Your Love Like Heaven" comes to mind immediately.) This isn't an album for people like that or people like me. This isn't a celebration of Havens' craft (not even from the first three albums).

What is it? A great starter set for new audiences. If you've never heard of Havens or only know his name and not his music, this is a CD you can pick up (apparently the only one in many stores). It will tell you why, at a reasonable price, Havens remains a talent worth listening to.

You need to remember that this isn't his "best" in any sense of the word. It is enough to excite first time listeners. Seeing that, I realized how much I (and maybe you) had grown accustomed to his guitar style (which was groundbreaking). So for "the new millennium" crowd, The Best of Richie Havens: The Millennium Collection is probably a wise and economical purchase. You'll hear some of his finer moments (including his cover of Dylan's "Just Like A Woman" and Merrick's "From The Prison"). If the choice is between this or being unstocked (thereby forgotten), I'd choose this. I'll even recommend it to Havens' fans who have his recordings on vinyl. But, cautionary note, this is a starter set. It's not the end-point, nor is it a representation of his finest work (not even from the three albums they cover).


richie havens
the best of richie havens
the millennium collection
20th century masters
cher
janet jackson
alanis morissette
mikey likes it
the daily jot
kats korner
the common ills

---

New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

Mother's Day Spotlight: Trina's Kitchen

We always enjoy Trina's recipes and commentary.  (And we can all make this week's "dish.")  We think this is the most commentary that Trina's ever provided in a single post and, obviously, it's a topic that's important to her.  It's important to her as well.  Mike notes, "Happy Mother's Day, Ma."

 

Popcorn in the Kitchen

A tough recipe for this week.

It requires a few minutes, some seasonings and a microwave.

Take the microwave popcorn of your choice and place a bag in the microwave. Pop until the timer goes off. Open bag, being careful not to let the escaping heat burn you, pour into a bowl and then add seasonings. You may want to use salt -- table salt or sea salt. I prefer sea salt. Or you may with to add some cheese such as parmesan.

If you have children, eat the popcorn with them while sharing details of the week or details you wished had happened in the week.

The point of this? Tomorrow is Mother's Day. C.I. noted something during "And the war drags on . . . (Indymedia Roundup)" that echoed my own thoughts. It's time to trot out another middle-class worry for the state of motherhood, apparently.

Mothers are overworked, just about everyone in our country is -- everyone except our vacationing Bully Boy. But women with partners need to get serious. If you have a partner and you're pulling all the weight, well, as Rebecca said on the phone last night, the sex must be good.
Why else would you put it up with it?

But there's an idea being pushed of a put upon woman who's just so busy doing it all. I read the magazine article (as did Rebecca and C.I. who may have also read the book the article was based upon -- I haven't read the book) and reading of the mother being the first one up to fix breakfast, get the child to school, do this and do that, I wondered exactly why she had a partner?

I've given birth eight times. Maybe that makes mine a no-frills approach? I didn't have the luxury of aspiring towards perfection. I did what I could and everyone pitched in. While I was fortunate to have parents and siblings and grandparents living nearby, the person who pitched in as much as me was my husband. (He still does pitch in equally.)

Forget raising eight children, I couldn't have raised one without help. But, to me, help always came from outside of our home. I never considered it "help" when my husband did his part. They were, after all, his children as well.

I also never suffered from the belief that I was less a woman if I didn't do it all or if the house wasn't just right. In pregnancy, we know we're not going to be able to wear that beautiful dress that looks just perfect and always earns compliments. That's because you're carrying a child even though it looks as though you've swallowed a water mellon. You have to be practical, or really brave, in those last months especially.

I always saw raising children as an extension of pregnancy. Just as you settled for pracitcal when choosing maternity clothes, you settled for practical in terms of the house once kids were a part of it. The fantasy of an white living room was on hold. A white sofa and kids do not co-exist naturally.

Some people raising children by themselves don't have the luxury of another person to do their share. They may also not have friends or family who can help out. If that's you, stop reading. It's Saturday and you already do enough so if you've got the time to read right now, use it instead to do something fun for yourself.

But if you're reading and you have children and a partner, I'll share a few things that you can take to heart or dismiss.

If you're taking your child (or children) to school every day, why is that? Your partner can't find the school? Is he (or she) banned from school property?

You're making breakfast every morning shortly after you rise, why is that? No one else can work the stove?

My point here is to ask: why?

In some cases it's because we buy into this notion that if we don't everything we're supposedly supposed to do, we're somehow failing. (As "mothers" for women -- but this may apply to some men, both straight and gay, raising children as well.) That's cultural learning, not practical experience.

With eight children, there were always multiple needs. If I was dealing with one child's crisis when another child needed my attention, I learned quickly my limitations as one person. "Go talk to your father." It's one sentence, you can say it. (Or "Go talk to your mother" for some people.) If it couldn't wait and I was already dealing with one issue, then I couldn't deal with two, or three, or four, or five, or . . .

Our son Mike has written about how all the children were expected to pitch in. That's a necessacity in a big family. It should be the case in any family. One person cannot and should not carry the burden or the bulk of the burden.

The children knew they were responsible for making up their own beds, to give one example. That didn't mean, and this is a point that had me nodding when I read C.I.'s entry, that I then went back and said, "That's not good enough for me, I'll remake that bed." I wasn't sleeping in it. If it was a little sloppy, to steal from Cedric, "Oh well." I had enough work without making additional work for myself by deciding that everything would be perfection.

Mike was the worst about making his bed. He knew his oldest sister would come along and straighten his attempt for him. When she moved out, he suddenly had to face that his bed wouldn't be fixed by her and he started making it correctly. All knew how to do that. They were shown that and then, however, they made it up was their business. (They did, however, have to make it up. It might just mean pulling the bed spread up, as was the case with Mike, but they had to make it.)

I thought of an aunt when I read C.I.'s comment a sociology professor had made. I called C.I. and aksed, "Is the woman talking about her mother having a problem with the beds?" She was. I knew it because that was my aunt. The bed had to be made just so, with the corners just so, the pillows just so, everything just so. Her husband would make it and she would rip everything apart and remake it herself.

If it was her hang up and gave her peace, more power to her, but everyone in my family felt she was making more work for herself.

So that's a piece of advice, don't make more work for yourself.

Children forget things. That includes making beds, so you send them back to their rooms to make up their beds. But I'm actually thinking of "I need . . ." It may be a practice or game that they've forgotten. In that case, Cedric again, "Oh well." If they waited until the last minute to inform me of a practice or a game, they didn't go. Even if I had the time or my husband had the time to take them. If they were old enough and able to get their own (walking or taking the bus), then they could go. Otherwise, they missed it. They quickly learned that if they wanted a ride, they needed to say something ahead of time. I came up with that rule early on and both my husband and I followed it with only the exception of a special practice or rehearsal being called at the last minute. If that happened, it certainly wasn't the fault of any child but of an adult who couldn't plan.

What about school projects? An assignment is due the next day and you hear "I need . . ." Due to that being something that's academic and graded, that meant going out at the last minute for it. But not without consequences. If it took us an hour to get ready for the store, go to the store, buy the item and come back home, that was an hour the child who had the need was giving the next day to something around the house. (Usually dusting because things always need dusting.) I said that upfront. "We'll run to the store now, but tomorrow, you're dusting."

As with missing a game or a practice, they learned quickly that they needed to be more on the ball and not wait until the last minute.

With the first child, I had all these dreams and probably would have tried to be Martha Stewart (or my concept of her) for several years had the second child not quickly followed. I also benifitted from the fact that I was raised after the second wave of feminism and was aware, from my own mother and her sisters, of the critiques that came before.

Maybe other women haven't been as lucky. But once you have children, regardless of what you know about feminism going in, you have real life experience. You can learn from it or you can live in a fantasy world.

If playing Joan of Arc is your idea of happy, go for it, by all means. And if listing all the duties you've grabbed is your way of feeling better about yourself, continue sharing. But most women I know aren't going to be listening and thinking, "You're awesome!" Hopefully, if it makes you happy, they'll be happy for you. But other than that, you're asking for something you're not going to get: sympathy.

Our second oldest son and our daughter Kelley (Kelley and Mike are the only ones who don't mind if I use their names here) was the worst about needing something cleaned. He was the first to be put on laundy duty as a result. After I taught him how to use the washer and dryer, he could wash anything of his whenever he wanted. He also took care of the wash period. That's a huge job in any family, especially one of our size. My husband and I would help him at least once a week and during spring cleaning, but we always let him know, "We're here to help, you're calling the shots." He took a lot of pride in the task. Before that, it was split between his older brother and sister with my husband and I on back up duties and we were forever running behind. When all he had to focus on was his own bedroom and the laundry, he took to it with such enthusiasm that we were all shocked. (He'll say to this day that he was so glad not to have different tasks each week but the same ones.) He made up his own schedule and, as we did with the kids on other things, he enforced it. If he did laundy Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays and someone needed something, just had to have it, cleaned Wednesday night, "Oh well."

Cooking meals was always my task. The kids, as they grew older, would often make their own snacks. But when you're cooking for so many children and at least two adults, it really is a task, not just in terms of the amount of work but in terms of knowing how much to fix. I'm sure I've done my share of complaing to friends and family about having to stagger half-awake into the kitchen each morning. But meals were the only task I made my own. And, as I've written before, the thought of several courses, went out of the marriage early on. (My husband would usually bring home chicken or pizza whenever we could afford it. However, with a large family, if something burned -- and it often did, burned beyond eating -- you were looking at throwing out a sizeable portion of food so it just wasn't worth it.)

If one of the children wanted to watch TV in after school and had passed the "Have you done your homework?" quiz, great. While they watched, they could pick up the living room or dust. There was always a number of things needing to be done and by spreading it out, it was done. That's not to say the house was spotless, it is to say it's always been liveable.

Except when a cold or flu was running through the family. When that happened, as a parent, I did pick up the slack. But when everyone was healthy, everyone did their part.

Mike's youngest sister, the baby of the family, has grown through life with the statement/threat that when she gets married, she's making all of her children do everything. As the baby of the family, she wasn't old enough to see what a team we really were. (She also doesn't grasp that what she does now, such as cleaning the living room, isn't as difficult as it was for her siblings when there were eight of them living in the home. There is much less to pick up now.)

But when she makes that vow/threat today, I'm not hurt. I think it's great that if she has children (she may not, not everyone has children, it's not a requirement though the article may make you think it is), she's already realized that she's not going to have to do it all.

Reading the article, and I'm being nice and not mentioning it, I felt I was reading about some with actual problems (such as single mothers with no support network) and some who had decided they were Joan of the Hearth willing to burn at the stake to be Super Mom. If that's your fantasy, go for it. But don't plan on having a large family unless you've got good insurance that will pay for your lengthy, hospitalized rest.

I kept thinking, "She needs an Alice." Remember The Brady Bunch. Did Carol Brady ever do anything besides read in bed and occassionally help Alice carry in the groceries? I'm not remembering it. I'm remembering Alice serving dinner at the table and Alice cleaning and Alice doing pretty much everything. If you can afford help, go for it.

But most of us can't. Which is why, I argue, you have to realize that a family is not a group of people you are there to serve. A family is group of people who all pitch in.

That's not one person and reading the tale of the first woman, I thought, "Give her two more years tops and she'll either be institutionalized or she's going to wise up." Nudge your partner in bed, and tell him/her to get up and make up toast. Toast can be a breakfast meal. If you're that stressed out, toast can be all that is cooked. It can be rounded out with a piece of fruit and/or cereal. And that shower the woman was rushing to take and get her make up on? She could have done that fifteen to twenty minutes later while her husband and child were in the kitchen.

I didn't dislike the woman, but I didn't sympathize with her. I felt she was taking on everything and that she needed to decide whether she got her kicks doing that or not. If she does, complain for fun, many people do. If she doesn't, she needs to stop trying to do it all.

That may be harder to grasp when it's just you, a partner and one child. You may think, "Well I should do everything." But I showed the article to my friends and we were all, sad to say, laughing at the woman. Not at the difficulties she had, but at the fact that she was making her life more difficult. She might get sympathy in some eager beaver Mommies & Me class. But among working class women, she just received a lot of laughs. She was trying to be Carol Brady and Alice rolled into one. Someone needs to tell her, "The Brady Bunch was a TV show."

Times are hard. Everyone has to work these days. That's adults (inside the home and often out) and children. No one can do it alone and, a point of feminism, no one should have to.

But what most bothered me about the article, timed to celebrate Mother's Day, was this notion of Mother's Day as a holiday. That's a nice little TV movie, it's not reality. There is never Mother's Day that is an off day. Quit kidding yourself. Once you have children, you are always "on." Even when they leave home, they often choose Mother's Day as the day to break some news, usually not, "I got a raise, Ma!"

But that's life. There's no holiday in life, either. You get together and celebrate the holidays you celebrate and they're as messy as any other day with someone breaking bad news or working through some perceived sleight from years ago. (I have an older sister who has to, has to, bring up the fact that our youngest sister got a wonderful coat, years after we'd left the house, when she never got her dream coat, always had to have a cloth coat, and how much that hurt her, at 23, to come home and see our youngest sister in that rabbit fur coat -- you'd think it was a mink stole. We've all heard the story a million times and know we'll continue to hear it a million more.)

I was also bothered by another thing and I was glad to hear from C.I. and Rebecca that they were as well. They felt the article was written for Young Bride and not for our current world. I'll agree with that. Reading over and over about "maternity leave" (sometimes the authors tossed in "paterntiy leave"), I did have to wonder exactly how well off the authors were? Reality is that these days, FAMILY LEAVE is much more likely to be used to care for an ailing parent. With the baby boom hitting the golden years, that's only going to become more common. Parents are going to have to deal with not only children but their own parents. The world portrayed in the article struck me as highly simplistic in many cases.

For all the sympathies to single mothers, the article struck me as something written by and for White, upper-middle-class women. It was divorced from reality.

Whether those with partners were taking on every duty or not, there wasn't a thing in the article that hadn't been written by second wave feminists and that women haven't been dealing with for many years. But the article didn't seem to have any appreciation for feminism. After the first story (the woman trying to do it all), it should have been pointed out, "You don't have to do it all." Feminist writing I grew up on would have made the point then if not opening with it.

It seemed to glorify in the notion of "Oh the work we do." Considering the state of the world, not present in the article, I was not impressed.

There was no discussion of the value of the work that goes unpaid, no suggestion, as Gloria Steinem has often made, that all this unapid work (essential to society) should be factored in the GDP (as is done in Canada). It was two women writing about women with no feminist perspective beyond "wages!" Wages are important and a huge body of work already exists on that topic that addresses the topic much better.

I imagined some good soul reading the article and making the mistake of making it a Mother's Day gift to their own mother. That's about as useful as the multitude of ties many fathers get every Father's Day. There's nothing in the article that should be news to most women. It read like a make-work project that was done between luncheons.

Is that harsh? So is life right now. We're a nation at war, not noted in the article, and they want to share a bunch of stories and a few facts (on wages) that aren't news to any but the most sheltered. Considering that the organization responsible for the book is the same organization that goes through periods of ignoring the war, that's really not surprising.

But if anyone's purchased the book as a Mother's Day gift, let me help you out and possibly salvage tomorrow, don't give it. No mother needs that book as a gift. She's probably quite aware of her life without a hastily put together book telling her about it. Give her something useful like CODEPINK's Stop The Next War Now. Or, as C.I. suggested, Judith Stacey, Susan Bereadu and Dan Daniels' wonderful And Jill Came Tumbling After: Sexism in American Education. (A great book that my mother gave me when I had my first child. At a time when I was getting various child care books, all with soothing language and soggy 'theories,' this was the only book worth the time of reading.)

Semi-soulful explorations on the state of motherhood may be news to some, but not to mothers. Possibly, those as well off as the authors appear to be may read it and be shocked that not everyone has all the benefits they do but working women have no use for this book. If they want to know about wages, they want to know about them at length and this article's factoids don't indicate that there's anything in it that addresses the structured system in the United States, merely notes it and proposes some hand wringing.

My husband wondered if the book might offer more than the article? If so, that the authors' problems. They got several pages to make their case (promote their book) and only served to waste time and kill any interest in their book.

I'll note this from CODEPINK:

Declare peace on Mother's Day with CODEPINK! We will be gathering in Washington DC for a 24-hour vigil outside the White House on May 13-14, and will be joined by amazing celebrity actresses, singers, writers, and moms, including Cindy Sheehan, Patch Adams, and Susan Sarandon! Bring your mother, children, grandmothers, friends, and loved ones. We will be honoring the mothers of the fallen by sending them organic roses. Click here to send your rose! We're also writing letters to Laura Bush to appeal to her own mother-heart, turning them into a book, "Letters to Laura." For event info click here, read our blogs and check out our online store for gift ideas.

I think you should know about it. Why? You can see how much attention it gets from the media. That's women honoring Mother's Day which isn't about, as intended, taking a "break" from the world. And most mothers tomorrow won't get a break from the world. Maybe, if they're of a certain economic bracket and they've martyered themselves all year, their spouses will take a little pity on them and give them breakfast in bed. Maybe even take them out for a nice lunch or dinner. But in the real world that most of us live in, we'll be doing what we usually do while hopefully getting a hug from our kids. That's reality.

So instead of trying to fix something wonderful this week, let's all just make a point to pop some pop corn and, if we're lucky, share it with the people in our lives. Have a nice conversation about what's going in our lives and in the world around us. Be part of the world around you.

Some things worth reading:
"The joke is always Thomas Friedman. Always."
"THIS JUST IN! HILLARY CLINTON LOVES THE BOYZ WHO CHEAT ON HER!"
"preaching to the converted"
"Different stuff"
"Guns & Butter and the crappy 1000th issue of Rolling Stone"
"Bully Boy caught lying & spying again"
"NYT: The intentionally blind and the willfully useless (yes, Dexy's back in print)"
"hud run by a liar"
"more on hud's lead liar alphonso jackson"
"The news is not good."
"Chaos and violence continue"
"TV: The Urine Stains of David Mamet"
"Darfur"
"Head on Home (a musical in four scenes)"
"TV commentary takes a back seat this week to Colbert"
"Shame of the Week (Musical)"
"NYT: Says nah-nah, we did in December, though they really didn't (Shane & Lichtblau)"
"Kat's Korner: Pink's not dead or silent"
"Kat's Korner: Need deeper? Check out Josh Ritter's The Animal Years."
"Kat's Korner: Richie Havens: The Economical Collection"
"Kat's Korner: Neil Young's Living With War -- key word 'Living'"

---

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --
Sunday. Noon. Shouldn't have been.

Two things put us behind schedule. First I (Jim), asked (demanded) at the last minute, after Ava and C.I. had already roughed out and researched their TV review, that they instead address the Stephen Colbert issue. I didn't handle that well. My enthusiasm was overbearing and I apologize for that. (Dona asks that I add the point Rebecca made on that, which was that others could have and should have stepped in. That's for others to address.) My apologies to them.

This was supposed to be an easy issue. We had most of it mapped out ahead of time. Cedric gave a heads up to what to expect on Thursday at his site.

Then, possibly due to the thrill I'm thought to get from deadlines, overnights and rushing madly, I announce on Friday that we "must" have a Colbert commentary from them.

Why "must"? Because Ava and C.I. don't tip toe. They've offered their feminist critique from the start. They've spoken out when others have stayed silent. They've never been afraid to call it what it was. As the topic became a huge topic in e-mails, it seemed to me that it "must" be addressed by them.

So that put us behind. (They had to make calls on Saturday and figure out what their approach would be.) It also destroyed a Friday work session. (Ava and C.I. walked out -- well C.I. got off the phone and Ava walked -- smart on both their parts.) Coming off a no sleep weekend last weekend and participating in rallies on Monday, we were all tired. That's why we planned the edition ahead and hoped to be done by two a.m. when we talked throughout the week.

Didn't happen.

The biggest problem, that added four hours to this session, was the musical we provide. Was it a problem to write? No. Jess, Kat, C.I. and Rebecca had come up with bits of it during the week. I was doubtful about how it would be pulled together and C.I. came up with an outline.

The only thing we changed was we reduced it. It was intended to have more scenes and more characters. But when we started writing it, we were still thinking, "Oh we'll get sleep." So we reduced the scope. (Ty thinks it's stronger this way and I think most of us are pleased with it.)

So what was the problem? The polish. And we wanted to check spelling on that more than we usually do. But we couldn't get into it. Betty tried on her computer, Wally on his, five of us on the computer we were crowded around and C.I. as well. Finally, Mike was able to get into it.

It wouldn't scroll at a normal rate. It wouldn't open and then it wouldn't scroll. It took an hour just for Mike to read it to us, not because he reads slowly but because that's how slow it moved. Then it wouldn't publish. We'd intended to get it up quickly, to post it behind the entries it's now ahead of. But Mike couldn't get it to publish or to save to draft. Maybe it's just too long or maybe it's one of those many strange problems that pop up when we work on our editions? Who knows.

To be C.I., "Here's what we do know." Our highlights this issue:


Music spotlight: Kat's Korner "Neil Young's Living With War -- key word 'Living'"
Comite Judicial del Senado investigara afirmaciones de exencion de Bush (Democracy Now!)
Blog Spotlight: Rebecca on Goldie & Marlene's mother and daughter rally
Ruth's Public Radio Report
Blog Spotlight: Rebecca with what Kat calls "Truly, the last chance Texaco"
C.I. checks the NYT on their coverage of the immigration issue
Humor Spotlight: The Daily Jot wonders if Condi hears bells?
Humor Spotlight: "Betinna" tells you about Thomas Friedman's "Trash Dump Psuedo Politics"
Blog Spotlight: Elaine on the ones we need protection from
Blog Spotlight: Kat on music, Guns and Butters and RadioNation with Laura Flanders
Blog Spotlight: Cedric's Bix Mix on Law and Disorder and Bully Boy
Recipe spotlight: Pasta salad with avocado dressing in the Kitchen

We thank everyone for their permission to repost. And, for those wondering, due to Maria's working on the immigration issue in her area, Francisco and Miguel doing the same, there was no feature at The Common Ills that highlighted Democracy Now! headlines in Spanish and English for us to use last week. Two e-mails came in on that.

The following worked on this edition:

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

Plus Dallas who did more than hunt down links this edition (though that's more than enough work), he also contributed to the musical. We thank everyone.

New content? Have we got new content!

"Editorial: Bully Boy Thinking?" came about when no one was in the mood for our planned editorial. Donna said a theme "of sorts" had emerged in the edition and at other sites during the week, so we made that the topic of the editorial.

"TV: The Urine Stains of David Mamet" is the TV commentary Ava and C.I. planned to do. They ended up doing it in addition to the other piece. They note that they wrote both in the time they usually write one so "You get twice the commentary, that's worth less than half each."
Oh, those kidders. This is Ty's favorite review of a show this year. It's a strong one and the Ava and C.I. fans will laugh and be pleased.

"Darfur" -- sometimes, probably because we all want to get done with an edition, someone sits on something. C.I. sat on this last weekend. And only brought it up either before or after we finished the editorial. Why wasn't it brought up sooner, we lamented, so we could write about it for the last edition? I begged C.I. to write it solo and put it up at The Common Ills because I was sure someone would put forth the idea. Betty was worried about that happening as well.

"Head on Home (a musical in four scenes)" last we talked about the need for new ones of thinking. We included ourselves in that. Jess, Kat, C.I. and Rebecca came up with the idea to do a musical. That's been mentioned before, Ty thinks. But they came up with the idea for one on the movement and the opponents to the movement. Their original plan was that the entire edition would be in verse. (Even the TV commentary that Ava and C.I. do.) That was a little too out of the box for some (including me) but we were agreed on a lengthy feature. It's four scenes due to time restrictions (which made us simplify) but I think we're all pleased with it. As Cedric pointed out at his site, fail or succeed, it would shake things up. It did.

"Where do you get your information?" this was going to be one thing but ended up becoming something else. It was going to be about Guantanamo and it is at the beginning. But we realized that we'd failed to note KPFA's The Morning Show. We took out some paragraphs and ended the Guantanamo section with Michael Ratner who was a guest on Thursday's The Morning Show. We then discussed The Morning Show. Not as much as any of us would have liked to (Kat especially had a ton of things she wanted included -- including Monday's regulars but neither Kat nor C.I. could remember the two women's names -- it was late, very late). It is what it is, to use Kat's phrase.

"Radio highlights for Sunday (and one for Monday)" heads up to programming you can hear online or over airwaves depending upon where you live. If you miss it's live broadcast, everything contains an archived version. (Laura Flanders' six hour show is cut down to an hour but that's an hour minus commericals.)

"Why He Took On Rumsfeld: Ray McGovern Talks to Democracy Now!" Ray McGovern talked to Democracy Now! so why are all the links we kept seeing taking us to CNN? The point of this article.

"TV commentary takes a back seat this week to Colbert" the feature that I said we "must" have. I'm tempted to add, "Thank me for it, readers." Okay, I did add that. Ava and C.I. are strong voices. That's why this was the dream topic to me for them.

"Book: Anthony Arnove's IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal" -- we kept meaning to note this book in a feature for two weeks and kept missing it. We'd forget. We'd remember at the last minute.
We finally have something up on it. It is what it is. (What the book is is incredible. Read it.)

"Shame of the Week (Musical)" -- we're not sure which mother started this. We know that Trina and Wally's mother were on the phone and saw the commerical on TV. We know that Wally's mother called Jess' mother while Trina spoke to us about it. We know that Jess' mother and Wally's mother (Trina's Mike's mother, by the way) called us about it. They were livid. C.I., Kat, Rebecca and Elaine walked us through the whys. Read it. We think it's pretty shameful that the song's being used in a commercial (especially that commercial.)

So that's what we offer this week.

We're tired. C.I. still has to write and post at The Common Ills. (Dona adds and speak, and catch a plane and write the "And the war drags on" entry for tonight.) Hopefully you found something to make you laugh, make you think or make you mad.

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

P.S. This week, Ty's off vacation and back to reading e-mails.

Editorial: Bully Boy Thinking?

There's not a lot of natural Bully Boy thinking on the left.

Well, except for George Packer.

But a lot of people on the left are frustrated.

You've got elected Democrats that, as a group, offer no leadership.

You've got both houses of Congress controlled by the Republicans and the only current occupation that's lasted longer than Iraq and Afghanistan is the one that's going on in the Oval Office.

When things get bleak, you can lose hope. You can lose your will.

You can start thinking maybe life would be easier . . .

Or maybe, you can start thinking, "I'll fight and win by fighting their way!"

You're not that clever.

You're dealing what is hopefully the most crooked administration that any of us will ever see in our lifetimes.

They didn't seize power on issues. They didn't seize power on the votes. They didn't seize power through honesty.

So before you start thinking "I can out-snake them!" -- remember that you're dealing with some mighty nasty rattle snakes. These are the people who intimidate their own party.

They stop at nothing. So before you try to learn their up-is-down codebook in order to rebuild your argument in a manner that the administration can understand and waste all those hours making flash cards for the Bully Boy, stop a second and ask yourself, "What am I doing?'

We think the people carrying signs that read "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur!" really don't fit in at anti-war rally. We're all for welcoming and inclusion. But if war's your answer to everything, war all the time, we really have to wonder what you're doing showing up for a peace rally?

Strikes us as the similar to showing up at an anti-gun rally with a sign that reads "No More Pistols, Give 'Em All Uzis!"

And if you've hopped on board the Force Wagon and are joining the cry to "Unleash the hounds of hell" (Bully Boy and his mother Big Babs), we're confused as to what exactly you think will be accomplished?

Are you fan of occupation?

We don't get you.

We also don't get the rush to give props to people who have offended. In one instance, a comedian that's offended women and Asian-Americans. And when called it on by Asian-Americans and organizations representing them, his response was to mock them again.
This a hero for the left?

Maybe you're suffering South Park damage?

Or how about turning a source into a hero and allowing him to trash Cindy Sheehan? And the peace movement which isn't running along on the timetable he, a wanna be leader, would prefer?

You keep expecting him to vow, at any minutes, that he could get the peace train running on time!

He's now taken to saying Cindy Sheehan didn't sacrifice. He says Casey Sheehan sacrificed, but Casey's mother didn't. Isn't he a sweet heart?

He has a funny idea of what sacrifice is.

Like many in America, we're confused as to his relationship with children, but we'll assume he has none or he wouldn't make such an insulting remark.

He's an ass. But he's not our ass.

We didn't prop him up. We didn't promote his book. We didn't hail him as the last chance for truth, democracy and the new fall line.

But some people did.

He's a source. Hopefully, a good source. But his losing his Fox "News" job, that's not really our concern.

There seems to be some sort of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking. No, sometimes, it just means the person has two enemies.

Moving away from Military Man, there's some need to applaud Neil Young as a first. Mighty big slap in the face to those who've been singing out for some time. Exactly what's going on there? Living With War rocks, it's a strong album. We're glad it's out, we'll purchase it. We'll even play it. But we know that while Natalie Maines, Eddie Vedder and others were getting crucified by the fright-wing, Young was on pretty good terms with them.

We're glad he's realized that the war is wrong, that the Bully Boy is out of control and that he's willing to sing out. Again, we'll support that. But we won't act like he invented the wheel. He's one more link in the chain. A lot of people were singing out before him.

What's missing? In all the examples of bad thinking we're addressing, which are examples of Bully Boy thinking, what's missing?

What's always missing from Bully Boy thinking?

Perspective.

We think the nation could really use some right now.

TV: The Urine Stains of David Mamet

The Unit. CBS' Wednesdays. David Mamet's back to fondly stroking his favorite part of the (male) body. Hence the title, "The Unit."

Well what else will a dick write about?

Truly, Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues needed no male counterpoint because the world's been full of talking talking dicks and one of the loudest has been the 'creativity' of David Mamet -- a body of work which indicates some form of artistic hypospadia.

Call it The Unit, The Dick or The Tool. Just don't call it art. While Jackson Pollock splattered, Mamet just pisses and some mistake it for art. A clue for those still confused, real stage artists don't usually end up producing crap for TV.

But that's where Mamet's 'talent' has taken him. And like all 'noted' playwrights, his source material is a really lousy book by a nonwriter (Inside Delta Force by Eric Haney). (That was sarcasm.) Haney, if his claims are true (and some dispute them), often "fought for trouble wherever there's freedom" (to subvert the annoying tune to the G.I. Joe cartoon). More recently, Haney (who is also a producer of The Unit) has been critical of the illegal war. He's even come out against torture. So why he's a part of this show is anyone's guess?

Yes, it makes for a tortured viewing; however, that's not what we mean.

We mean the simple fact that the show endorses torture. Repeatedly. So is Haney full of hot air or did Mamet overrule him? If so, how did that happen?

We imagine they had a sword fight and Haney came up short.

The obsession with the penis is in full flight in the cock and bull that is The Unit.

Men stroke their missile launchers (a rotund movie critic might find that pleasing since he once lamented that Bridget Fonda didn't do just that in Point of No Return -- little did she realize that the chief goal of her performance was to provide fat critics with the means to get off). Men have cock fights, verbal when there's no real reason to go to physical, though, actually, this isn't a very physical show to begin with -- all bluster.

Scott Foley, who was utterly unconvicing in the role of Mr. Jennifer Garner, continues to provide bad performances. Possibly after being paid to do nothing week after week on Felicity he considers it a step up that he mainly walks around in silence while aiming a gun?

In fairness to Foley, there's no character on the show, not one. That's to be expected when one of the producers (Mamet) doesn't know the first thing about acting and, like far too many playwrights, is so married to the text that he fails to grasp that recitation doesn't make for riveting.

You've got a busy cast of nothings. Chief among them, serving in the WAC division, is Kathleen Noonan who's doing what she's been doing for over three decades (though it was freshest when she was Devon's mother Ellen on All My Children). Here, she's just stale, married to a general and called Katherine. (The female characters have names and use them -- must be a sign of 'softness.') Katherine comes off like a robot and then, for no reason in the text and no reason in the performance, warms up in her final scene on Wednesday's episode.

Arc of performance isn't really something a scribbler/dribbler like Mamet worries about. His entire body of work is nothing but a con game of twists and turns meant to leave the audience unbalanced and distract from how little actually goes on and how little sense any of it makes.

The male characters say things like "Damn good to see you" and "What you can't buy, you gotta' take." (We think the latter is what happened to Mamet's soul.) They're fond of the gay jokes (male flight attendents -- oh the dicks crack themselves up!). But most of all, they're fond of free balling.

We think it all plays like someone's suffering from undescended testicles, but whatever.

Used to the dinner tables scenes, are you? Not in world of Mamet where women say nothing (but may smile and gigle amused) while the men folk swing their dicks. We'd worry they might poke someone's eye out but we were told that size issues make that impossible.

So the stumpies swing what little they were given. For instance, a man tells Hector, his daughter's suiter, about when a boy showed up to take his then 16 year-old daughter out to the movies in a "Stamp Out Virginity" t-shirt.

Hector: Big decision [. . .] kill or just maim?
Man: I beat that boy all the way down the street, past the church and the police station. Beat him 'til he was in his momma's kitchen. Let him live so he could remember that beating.

Mother and daughter remain silent, but amused. (And turned on? It was the strangest look they exchanged.) We're a long way from Cliff and Clair Huxtable.

At the end of the episode, we'll go back to Hector and the man. Earlier, he said, "Hector, you look healthy enough. You got all ten fingers. You know how to squeeze a trigger? [. . .] Tell me how a young, healthy male like you can look himself in the mirror working in an office with a bunch of skirts?" Now he's found out that Hector is an elite fighter. Suddenly, the man thinks his daughter finally has some "sense." He calls Hector (who is not engaged to his daughter) "son," tells him a joke and offers to take him to a football game. (In the World of Mamet, that is third base.) During all of this the women are, again, mute as though they're Stepford Wives with a mute option their owners have elected to excercise.

Finally, the young woman, Lorrinda, actually rises and walks out. (In silence.) In the backyard, she'll confront Hector, who follows her, asking what is going on that suddenly her father is buddy-buddy with him? She'll find out that he's a "killer" (her term, send the hate mail to David Mamet) and is offended that Hector has lied to her. Her father will hover and she'll have to insist he leaves. (He's not supposed to want to bed Hector, is he?) Since the father's always close by, in her non-dramatic moment, she'll tell her father to show Hector out.

Apparently the mind, like the dick, is soft which is why we then go to a scene of Hector and his fellow "killers" drinking beer and shooting the breeze. Foley, who's earlier failed at an Irish accent, suddenly decides to channel Dr. Phil and address the issues of Hector's relationship.

"What's her concern?" Foley will ask in the midst of his own Platonic debate. "Her concern is children."

Of course it is. She's a woman in a Mamet play. A "good" woman. (The bad women just want money.) We're not doubting Dr. Foley's diagnosis. We're just noting that this has nothing to do with anything the character he can't quite fill in has done in the rest of the episode. Possibly his consolation prize for this comes in getting the money line next week: "Tell the truth or I will kill you." "I will." Not "I'll." Manly Mamet doesn't traffic much in contractions. Second only to his other hallmark, a disregard for nouns.

Nothing on the show ever makes sense. That's not because the (male) characters are busy rushing around from action scene to action scene. As his screenplay for The Untouchables demonstrated, Mamet can't do action. So there's a lot of statue moments -- where the tough guys are frozen (or just stiff armed) while nothing happens. There's a Mexican standoff at one point that plays like the scene in Reservoir Dogs minus the dazzling dialogue and the breath of life Quentin Tarantino breathed into that film.

After awhile, you start to grasp that The Unit never quite gets it up.

What it does do is endorse torture.

There's a weapons dealer that the boys go after. He's sold six stingers to "the Islamic brigade of Basra." (We'll sidestep the fact that the stingers, naturally, were made in America, ditto, because the show does as well.) It's not enough for Jonas Blane (played by Dennis Haysbert in some sort of homage to the original cast of West Side Story) to slice the dealer's face. Before he can leave, Jonas shows the dealer a photo of two children, the dealer's two children, who go to boarding school in England. Jonas informs the dealer that if he ever hears that the dealer is dealing, he will return to bring the dealer the severed heads of the two children.

Now, when the US military threatens and uses family members (women as well as men) to attempt to get information, our mainstream press (Good Morning, Dexy!) looks the other way. They avoid the topic. They do so because that's so far from what our stated beliefs are that even The Last of the Kool Aid Drinkers might blanch. Fortunately for the Bully Boy, he's got Mamet to soften up American audiences and make it seem palitable to talk of severing the heads of young children. Exactly who are the "insurgents" on this show?

Jonas has a curious fascination with children and pain. It's why, early on, when a mother and a child are threatened at gun point, he will tell his partner to leave it alone. "Sweet Jesus, not our business," he will say as a woman is shot and her body drug across the ground. Moments later, he will tell a child, "That's the last lie I want to hear from you. I'm going to mess you up real bad" and threaten to take the kid's money. The kid in question?

They'll need him to stop the "Islamic brigade of Basra." The kid will ask for only one thing (the kid's under twelve, with a dead mother and no family around) -- that if he helps them, they will take him to America. Jonas doesn't bat an eye as he promises they will. The kid asks him to swear it. Jonas will swear it.

Of course the kid's not taken to America. Jonas lied to him. ("Twists and turns!" screams the playwright who never learned about characterization.) The kid's left in the town where he's not only an orphan struggling to feed himself but, probably, a marked 'man' since it's going to be obvious who ratted out the location of the helicopter that the boys shot down. But that's our amoral world of Mamet.

Machismo means never having to work up a tear for an orphaned child. Jonas Blane probably watches Jerry Lewis telethons to laugh at the children.

If it seems as though Jonas, like every other male on the show, is working overtime to prove his manhood, blame it on the 'genius' at the wheel. It's tough growing up in the soft-pats world of Flossmoor, Illinois. Imagine if the creative 'genius' behind this trash had grown up in Hell's Kitchen? Then he might actually have something to write about. Instead, he gives us stagey talking heads who can't stop obsessing over their "unit." When you grew up middle class, in a suburb, living the soft-pats life, it must be real hard to wanna be a gangsta' so much. If you wanted to title his body of work, the perfect title would be Looking For Mr. Goodbar because Mament's in search of his fantasy male, a dream date, a wet dream, that never really existed. Like many a bored and spoiled kid of the suburbs, he wasn't impressed with his own family. (For the record, unlike many mothers in Mamet's work, his own mother had held a job.) So he took to the 'tough guys' on black & white TV and thought it would be all so much cooler if they just stood around talking. (He was a very verbal child.)

It's not reality and it's not art. It's a writer with a bad case of hypospadia. We suggest toilet training, if not surgery.

Darfur

Darfur. Genocide? Homocide?

We'll operate under the premise that it's genocide. (For an alternate take on that read Gary Leupp's "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur" at CounterPunch.)

So it's genocide.

And what does that mean?

At the NYC rally and march against the illegal war in Iraq, for some that meant carrying signs reading "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur."

Oh, is that how it works?

The last Saturday in April saw a huge, long planned march in NYC against the war and Monday was long ago penciled in for immigration rallies in your own area. So we were a little surprised to see those advocating for Darfur (apparently military action) pick the Sunday between for their rally. As Elaine noted, C.I.'s thoughts on that were, "If you've got the Monterey Pop Festival on Saturday and Woodstock on Monday, you don't try to squeeze in Live Aid on Sunday."

Right or wrong, it did seem to be squeezing in a bit much. C.I. attended the DC rally (a favor/marker called in) and the "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur" signs were even more plentiful than they were at the NYC rally. The crowd wasn't as large. And not a lot of anti-war types. Which may be why they can advocate military action.

Military action? A region that the US would love to get its hands on (due to the natural resources) and some want to go begging to the Bully Boy to send in NATO? Elaine noted the tragedy of that misbegotten notion on April 18th.

The Force Wagon pulled up and, based largely on The New York Times reporting (and op-eds of big cry baby Nicky K), said peaceful solutions didn't work. Hadn't worked for three years, people! It was NATO time! US led, of course.

Well, excuse the hell out of us, but when in the last three years has The New York Times worked? The James Risen article that they sat on for over a year? Or maybe that reporting by the likes of Judith Miller and her cohorts? Or maybe the sliming of Hugo Chavez? Or the creative work of Brian Lavery?

Woah there, Force Wagon rider, we'll need a little more than The New York Times to get us to march off to war.

And here's another thought, since Afghanistan and Iraq are only successes in Bully Boy's mind, what exactly are you pinning your hopes on?

Another long occupation?

No, sorry. If someone's crashed your best friend's car, if they've crashed your romantic partner's car and then they come to you for the keys, you don't hand 'em over. (That's almost Thomas Friedman logic, but we'll go with it.)

You don't.

You don't say, "Okay, this person has crashed two cars but I know they'll take care of mine." You hide the keys. You say "no."

But the force wagon wants a thrill ride.

"We must act now! Lives are at stake!"

Lives are at stake all over the world. People are dying (from war, starvation, inadequate medical attention) all over the world. We're glad you've picked up a cause. We just don't see war as the first resort.

And that's what is it because, if you'd look beyond your New York Times, you'd grasp that there has been no serious effort on the part of the United States to address the issue in non-war terms. They've played around and messed around and joshed and joked.

We were quite comfortable saying "No more war" and leaving it at that. We've seen what Bully Boy unbound can do.

But last Sunday, as we were finishing up, C.I. mentioned something in passing. What? That was our reaction. (Second reaction, "Why didn't you bring this up sooner!")

Genocide.

We want to you to stop a moment and think about the Jews killed in gas chambers, murdered for being Jewish (a long with the gays and lesbians and the Gypsies).

That didn't happen in one year. The death camps weren't set up before the United States joined the WWII war effort.

That drug on for some time. During that time, people in this country and outside, begged the United States to do something. (Begged The New York Times to do something, which is why C.I. brought it up.) And nothing was done. Oh, excuse us, refugees attempting to find sanctuary here were turned away.

So all you shit kickers on the Force Wagon, what exactly are you ready to do?

You're willing to send others in to fight. (Such bravery from the arm chair set.) But is that your only solution?

Had the United States not looked the other way, six million Jewish people might not have died. You can figure out your own percentage that might have lived.

But we looked the other way (something the Force Wagon wants to accuse everyone that's not screaming with the blood lust for one more war for the United States) and, worse, refused people entry to this country.

So Darfur's a genocide.

That's an emergency.

What do you do in an emergency? Do you send in a SWAT team to handle a fire? Do you send in Homocide to handle a heart attack victim?

No. You send in rescue workers.

So, if you can hop off the Force Wagon for just one damn minute, here's an idea to consider: mass extraction.

Those at risk, extract them from the country.

Your other choice is a long occupation.

Now maybe you're happy to send people to their potential death but you get a little antsy about letting 'foreigners' into the United States?

Well that's really your problem, isn't it?

UN's there already. Send in more and start extracting. All the nations of the 'developed' world should open their borders.

If it is a genocide, we're not disputing that or supporting that, then you get them out of there.
A genocide's a crisis, to put it mildly.

Troops on the ground may reduce it but it won't stop it.

So you go in and you offer relocation to the victims.

Now it might put a few nations out. It's easier to send in force then to welcome someone by opening your borders. But isn't that really helping?

If you don't like the idea that's fine. But we've said no to another Bully Boy led (from afar) war.
Afghanistan and Iraq have not demonstrated a concern with human lives or a high regard for them. They have demonstrated a lust for never ending occupation.

But if you don't like the idea, come up with your own. We didn't sit around and think, "What would Bully Boy do?" We went out of the box. (One professor, when told of the idea last week, said it was pre-Bully Boy thinking.) So why don't you try that?

Instead of more guns, more bullets, more deaths and more occupation, why don't you try asking yourself how you would deal with the situation if the government had a real leader?

The most annoying thing about Nicky K is how he bends, bows and scrapes before the Bully Boy (while claiming "left"). He trashes the left (feminists are a particularly favorite scapegoat of Nicky K's). He wants action! So he buys up a woman in slavery. (They give Pulitzers to slave buyers now, apparently.) He wants action! So he thinks like the Bully Boy and calls for war.

Never ending war. Exactly how many more countries have to be at war for WWIII to start?

Again, you don't have to like the idea. We're assuming many won't because it's far easier to send people to die then it is to welcome by opening your borders. That was true in the 1930s and 1940s and it's true now. But after Kosvo, we really think you should be embarrassed to suggest NATO. It's popular with the Bully Boy, true. So is warrantless spying.

Will you next endorse that to get your way?

You stand for what you believe in or you don't. Speaking only for ourselves, we would prefer to never see another sign, banner or t-shirt reading "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur." Find another forum your cause. The peace movement, the anti-war movement, doesn't need to be diluted with cries of "End this war so we can start another!"

And you're fooling yourself if you think that's not what would happen.

[Read Gary Leupp's article. He's the only one we've seen besides Elaine that's addressed the cries from the blood lust crowd. Also check out our four scene musical this edition.]