The Katrina goes to . . .

"A fifteen-year-old saw the movie Juno and saw a TV show about [a girl having a baby] and it all looks so glamours," huffed Kim Gandy on last week's To The Contrary looking like a bigger idiot than usual and that's really saying something at a time when all of Kim's stress-eating has finally caught up with her.



All of Bonnie Erbe's guests won the Katrina this week: Kim, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Sophia Nelson and Genevieve Wood. They did so because an increase in rates of pregnancy led them to trash women -- all women. The teenagers, the twenty and thirty year-old women.



The US is involved in two wars and in the midst of an economic crisis. Historically, wars and poor economies impact reproduction rates (they tend to increase) but the women couldn't discuss that. Discuss? They couldn't even raise the issue.



They were too busy trashing women -- all women -- who got pregnant in 2007. And they were all so busy raving like lunatics.



Here are some basic facts. Sharon Jayson (USA Today) reported last week, "Birth rates are up for women in their 20s, 30s and early 40s as well as for teens 15-19, according to a government report based on 2007 birth certificates." Erik Eckholm (New York Times) offered, "The 4,317,000 births in 2007 just edged out the figure for 1957, at the height of the baby boom. The increase reflected a slight rise in childbearing by women of all ages, including those in their 30s and 40s, and a record share of births to unmarried women." Based on little more than that, the panelists launched into an attack on women.



Now we weren't surprised by conservatives such as Wood and Nelson launching the attacks. We expect that from them due to their beliefs. But it was shocking to see Kim and Eleanor Holmes Norton join in.



The feminist position was supposed to be "every child a wanted child" but you couldn't tell that from the remarks from Kim and Eleanor. Instead they appeared to advocate every child must be born to two parents -- and they made no effort to include same-sex parents in that equation.

It was the most reactionary nonsense that managed to insult pretty much every liberal position.



Eleanor, trying to see a silver lining near the end, offered that it might, if nothing else, help 'save' Social Security. Eleanor apparently was in such a rush to make the taping she packed nothing but right-wing talking points. Social Security is not in danger -- except from foolish politicians like Eleanor eager to slash it to pieces.



Watching Kim huff and puff, we suddenly grasped why she was attacking movies: Her immense weight gain means she can't sit in a theater, she's too large for the standard sized seats.



So we got Kim vexed as she snarled, "If you watch TV it looks like it's" normal. Normal? Pregnancy normal? Heaven forbid!



Gee, Kim Gandy, you really are working to trash your image in your last days as president of NOW, aren't you?



Pregnancy is normal. It isn't an illness. But Kim was still furious about having to stand in the lobby with her jumbo Coke, bucket of buttered pop corn and nachos, so we all had to suffer.



"A 15-year-old saw the movie Juno and saw a TV show about [a girl having a baby] and it all looks so glamorous!"



Uh, Kim, what TV show? Help us out there. What TV show is focusing on unwed mothers -- of any age? Help us out. And Juno?



We believe all the extra cellulite Kim's packing has invaded her brain cells. That's the only explanation for her insisting that teenagers are having babies and becoming single mothers to be like Juno. Kim, Juno gives her child up for adoption. Did you not hear the ending from the lobby?





We remember when Phyllis Schlafly attacked Juno, insisting it was "the triumph of feminist ideology". So to hear Kim attack it as well went a long way towards explaining how NOW (and Kim herself) became such an embarrassment in 2008.



Kim may want to try to pull in Knocked Up or some other films after the fact. To that we say, she specifically named Juno and only Juno. Had she named Knocked Up we would have had to take a pass because, unlike Kim, we don't generally weigh in on films we haven't watched.



Eleanor wanted to talk about how birth rates go down with education. Uh, Eleanor, did you just call all the women who gave birth in 2007 stupid?



Birth rates go down. Yes. They are not eliminated. No study has found, "Women with X-years-of graduate school have zero babies."



To the women of America who gave birth in 2007, we (Ava and C.I.) say congratulations. If you kept your baby, we're sure you'll try very hard to be the best mother you can be. We don't know you, so we have no reason to create motives for you or your decision.



Pregnancy is not "unnatural." It's a normal part of life. Not everyone wants children and those women who chose not to have them earn our applause as much as those women who choose to give birth. And what of those women who adopt?



We really felt sorry for those women because they were largely left out of the discussion. If you're a single adult woman who can meet the qualifications for adoption, you're apparently still not allowed to adopt in Kim and Eleanor's books since they gave the impression that only a man and a woman together could raise a child. (Again, no same-sex couples were acknowledged.) Sophia Nelson was frequently offering the most advanced (or what passed for it) points during this discussion and she raised the issue that she might adopt as a single parent. If you think Eleanor or Kim rushed to support her on that, think again.



The women earned their Katrinas because they didn't know what the hell they were talking about.



Kim was rushing to blame the entertainment industry (try a lack of honest sex education in this country, Kim) and Eleanor was apparently auditioning to fill in for Judge Judy when Judy goes on vacation.



Here's reality. The study found a 1% increase in the number of births to teenage females. One- percent. Kim's attacking the entertainment industry and Eleanor's getting all prudish over one-percent.



The four panelists apparently never heard of demography. (At one point, host Bonnie Erbe attempted to raise the issue of population explosion but the four guests weren't interested in that either.) Teenagers today would have been born when? The 1990s. 1990 itself was a boom year for pregnancy (6.78 million births). It would slowly taper off throughout that decade but pregnancies were on the rise. So possibly when discussing today's increase in teenage pregnancies, we might need to consider the increase in the number of teenagers?



To make this as simple as possible for the non-scientific, 50 teenage pregnancies in 2007 may seem huge compared to 30 teenage pregnancies in 1992. However, if you find out that there were twice as many teenagers in 2007 than in 1992, the rate of teen pregnancy would have fallen.



As basic as we think the above created example is, we still fear it flew over Kim and Eleanor's heads.



"We know best," that was the attitude Eleanor and Kim sported. To single mothers everywhere in the US, especially single teen mothers, we say, "Look no further than the White House." Barack Obama's mother was a single mother, a single teenage mother. Will your son or daughter become president? Maybe. Someone has to fill the office unless it's abolished.



It's one thing to caution (all) mothers and mothers-to-be about how hard it will be, it's another to push some lie that you must be in a relationship (with a man) in order to raise a child. If that were true, when a spouse died, government authorities would show up and remove children from the homes of widows and widowers.



Things are tough and raising a child is tough. That's regardless of if you have a partner or not, regardless of whether you're a teenager or not, regardless of whether you're economically struggling or not. There are huge responsibilities to being a parent. It would be very easy if all the problems that come with parenting could be solved by age. If there was a 'magic age,' the Congress could just pass legislation outlawing pregnancies until a woman reaches a certain age. There is no magic age and a woman of 16 may turn out to be a better mother than a woman of 34. It's the luck of the draw. That's the reality of parenting.



There are things that can better prepare people. We don't see marriage as one of them. We see mandatory parenting classes in high school as something needed. We also see daycare facilities set up in high schools as something needed. For the young mothers to put their children in while in school? Sure, that's fine. But that's not why we support it. We think every high school should provide low cost daycare (a) because it's needed and (b) because high schoolers need to be around children. Not their brothers and sisters that they can ignore as they may want to or not. But children whose care they're being graded on. Want someone to discover they're not up to be a parent before pregnancy? Putting them in a room with a demanding two-year-old for an hour or two Monday through Friday will go a long way towards making that point.



That's a concrete example so none of the four gas bags offered it or any other. They didn't feel the need to use this topic to address the need for daycare, the need for increased funding of public programs or the need for the creation of new programs.



If you think, "Well they just weren't interested in real life women," stop yourself. They were. There was time to rag on real life woman Angelina Jolie. We know Angelina and we're not really in the mood to watch Kim and Eleanor act like stereotypical harpies at a koffee klatch but that's what happened. It was kluck-kluck-kluck.



In doing so, they not only demonstrated how shallow they are (apparently the only pregnant woman they know is one they know of), they also demonstrated yet again how limited their knowledge was.



As they snarled and hissed about single mother Angelina, we wondered if we should pick up the phone, dial up the Jolie and tell her how sorry we were that she and Brad had broken up.



Brad Pitt. Remember him?



He's been Angelina's significant other since for about four-years-now. They live together. Why is Angelina being brought into this discussion?



Do Kim and Eleanor not get how offensive that is?



They're now not just insulting women who choose to raise a child on their own or with a female partner, they're now also insulting women who raise a child with a partner but do not marry.



Let's sum up the Gospel According To Big Kim Gandy: The only way to raise a child is with a ring on your finger.



And people wonder why NOW is in so much trouble these days?



Repeating, Angelina has lived with Brad since 2005. That's longer than some marriages last. (And longer than her first or second marriage lasted.)



We don't believe you need to be married in order to be a good parent. We don't believe you need to live with a partner in order to be a good parent. We believe in free will and self-determination. We further believe that Kim Gandy needs to get to a fat farm. If she hadn't ballooned up so and wasn't filled with so much self-hatred over that, maybe she wouldn't direct it out at the world around her?



Congratulations to Eleanor, Genevieve, Sophia and especially Kim. They earned their Katrina.

Stevie Nicks, rocking it her way

Stevie Nicks is on the road in the US with Fleetwood Mac. She's also got a new album and DVD due out at the end of this month. The DVD is Live In Chicago and from it comes The Soundstage Sessions album -- ten tracks from the concert which have had additional arrangements and vocals added in Nashville. Both are released March 31st.



Ten tracks on the album proper. Amazon will offer one bonus track ("Enchanted") and iTunes will offer two bonus tracks ("Gold Dust Woman" and "Edge of Seventeen").



Stevie's released only one solo studio album this decade (Trouble in Shangri-La). She's also released a studio album with Fleetwood Mac (Say You Will). So for Nicks fans (and we are), this new live release is of huge interest.







And if it interests you, you may want to check out the single Amazon is offering as a download currently, Stevie performing her "Landslide" and Dave Matthews' "Crash Into Me." You can purchase either for ninety-nine cents or both for $1.89.



"Crash Into Me" is a five minute and thirty-three seconds live track that Stevie owns from the moment she tosses "You've got your ball, you've got your chains" up and to the back of her throat. She could have sang the entire song that way and we (and many others would have loved it) but she brings it down lower and manages to honor the original while owning her cover.

The music in her version makes clear the debt Dave Matthews owes to Tom Petty ("Free Falling"). Three minutes the backup vocals come in and that's a Stevie hallmark. It's been a hallmark of many a great singer, interplay with backup vocalists, but you clink and they're on tour and on album with nothing but their own multi-tracked vocals.



Stevie was a Mamas and Papas fan as a young girl and her love of vocals (plural) and the elements they can create in harmony and counter-point has led to some of her finest work ("Nightbird," for example). Between her lead vocals, the backing vocals, the guitar playing and some amazing drum work, "Crash Into Me" is a must-have for any Stevie fan.



And "Landslide?"



This Stevie Nicks song first appears on Fleetwood Mac's 1975 self-titled album. Along with "Rhiannon" (also written and sung by Nicks) and "Say You Love Me" (written and sung by Christine McVie), it would become a big hit for the group and enter their canon. 1980's Fleetwood Mac Live and 1997's The Dance feature the song. (As do various best-ofs, anthologies and greatest hits put out by the Mac.)



She's reconfigured this song. It's nothing like the intense revitalization she gave "Rhiannon" for her three-disc, boxed set Enchanted but it's still fairly amazing. You'll enjoy the song throughout, she's doing a softer vocal on the verses and there's a wonderful backing joining her for the chorus. But it's at 2 minutes and fifty-three seconds that you especially want to start paying attention. From that moment on to the end, you'll be cursing your bad luck that you didn't see this performed live. (But you can purchase the DVD.)



Stevie Nicks is a one of a kind original. As such, she was relentlessly attacked by male rock critics at the start of her career. Why didn't she do it that way, why didn't she record something more like . . . She rocked it on her own terms and, in doing so, became one of rock's most distinctive and memorable artists. The bulk of male rock critics faves and raves from 1975 to 1979 are forgotten today -- and for good reason. Stevie's a living testament to the strength needed to be a real artist and, listening to her, you never forget it. She rocked it on her own terms and she had the last laugh. Listening to her, you never forget that either. (March 31st, you do not want to miss the live version of "Sara.")

Stand up

Stand up,

Stand up for Jesus,

Ye soldiers of the cross . . .



That's from George Duffield's "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus," a hymnal written in 1858. The concept of standing up being a brave thing, being a needed thing and being a good thing is a concept that transcends political parties and, in fact, politics.



In America, we applaud Patrick Henry for declaring "Give me liberty or give me death," thereby persuading the Virginia Convention to enter into the Revolutionary War which made the United States a sovereign nation. Many who followed Patrick Henry over the centuries has been enshrined in the American canon for standing up for some principle. (Though, no surprise, men are far more likely to be canonized and White ones even more so.) Films and novels, short stories and songs, plays and poems all celebrate various people (real and fictional) who stood up.



In terms of right and left factions, the right has their own set of names they celebrate as stand-up people. That's their business and the left has the right to have their groupings.



But where is the left?



Kristoffer Walker returned from Iraq last month on a two week pass. While on his pass, he made a decision that led him to announce that the Iraq War was immoral, illegal and that he could no longer participate in it.

Translation, he stood up.



Last week, we got the news that Kristoffer had started a website and then the sad news that he had decided to return to Iraq. (A friend of his e-mailed both times.) With just the first news, we were planning on mentioning him again. With the news that he was returning to Iraq, we had a different article on our hands.



Kristoffer's returning to Iraq, returning to a war he doesn't believe in and feels is illegal. He has not retracted his statements and does not plan to. But the military has made a number of threats and he's concerned about his future. All of which is perfectly understandable in the best of times.



But Kristoffer didn't get the best of times. Kristoffer got nothing. He received coverage from the Associated Press and from Wisconsin (his home state) news outlets. That was really it. On the blogosphere, the right-wing covered him like crazy and, as is to be expected from across the aisle, they didn't care for him.



But even with the hate and bile they heaped on him, their statements and actions acknowledged that his stand was news. It was a stand that they (no surprise) disagreed with, but they covered it.



And on the left?



The Nation had no time for Kristoffer Walker. Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! could not even devote a headline to him. The Progressive, whose editor and CEO is based in Madison, Wisconsin, refused to cover him. In These Times never uttered his name. Go down the list. It's a long, long list. Even Courage to Resist -- a US organization congratulating service members who have the courage to resist -- never found the time to note Kristoffer or his brave stand.



Kristoffer Walker is a 28-year-old who stood up publicly. The reaction in Wisconsin media included some support (from one weekly and from those who wrote letters to the editor) and condemnation from one editorial board after another. We can only imagine what daily life must have been like.



When you take a stand -- any stand -- you know it's going to cost you. If it didn't come with a cost, it wouldn't be taking a stand. If it didn't come with a cost, it would just be "shooting the breeze." But while you expect that those who disagree with your stand will attack, you really don't anticipate that those who supposedly agree with you will ignore you.



But that's what happened with Kristoffer who resisted publicly for four weeks and never saw any of our brave left outlets rush to his side or rush to applaud him or, for that matter, even acknowledge him.



In a culture that values brave stands, we're left puzzled by the refusal of the left to support Kristoffer Walker. It shouldn't have required attacks from the right for the left to have supported Kristoffer; however, once those attacks started there was a duty for the left to step up. Our brave 'leaders' and 'outlets' never did.



From time to time, an e-mail comes in asking us: "Are you aware Ralph Nader is still alive?" A number of people are bothered by the fact that this site endorsed Ralph for president (everyone except Ava and C.I. endorsed him -- Ava and C.I. made no endorsement) and now we never highlight any of his writing! Why would we?



Have you read his writing? Have you read that chicken s**t nonsense?



We don't expect Ralph to write like Daniel Ellsberg speaks (though we'd love it if he did), but we do expect that, for example, on the sixth anniversary of the illegal war, a brave person like Ralph Nader can comment on it.



But we didn't get that. He wrote a column about Bully Boy Bush and, somehow, managed to ignore the Iraq War even when reviewing Bully Boy's eight years in the White House. That takes a lot of denial, Ralph.


Like the bulk of this country, we applaud brave stands. We just haven't seen any from Ralph since the election. We've seen a refusal to confront Barack Obama, a refusal to call him out and we've seen a lot of EZ Bake columns on EZ bake topics that every other gas bag in the universe writes about.



And that gas bag echo chamber? It's what prevented Kristoffer's stand from receiving the time and attention it deserved. While a nation debases itself in supplication, Kristoffer stood up. The fact that he received no support from the left media goes not to any faults of his but the very real lack of independence in independent media.

How to raise two ungrateful brats

I will tell you, though, Malia and Sasha -- my daughters, they're just not as impressed. The first time we went on Marine One -– right? You've got the Marines in front and they're saluting you. And we go up and we're passing the Washington Monument, circling around on the way to Camp David and Sasha looks over and she says, "Are those Starbursts?" There's, like, the candy in the little canister. That's –- "Can we have some?" So they're splitting up the Starbursts and we're flying over the Lincoln Memorial. So they got a whole 'nother level of cool.

Barack discussing the 'pressing' issues with Jay Leno, March 18th on The Tonight Show (NBC). If the story's true, we rarely believe a word that falls from Barack's mouth, or if it's not, he needs to stop telling it. His daughters riding on a jet the US tax payers pay for and blithely dismissing the Washington Monument does not play 'cool,' it makes them come off like ungrateful brats. If the story is true, toss the behavior back at the parents who damn well should have explained to their children how to conduct themselves. If these 'tales' continue, there may be a move to restrict travel to the president. And maybe there should be? The spouse and children were not voted into any office. You can't travel on Air Force One, have Daddy share (unflattering stories about you) and still be off-limits. The Obamas better self-check because they can make their daughters off-limits or not. They will determine it by their own actions and right now Barack's begged America to take pot shots at what he's portrayed as two stuck-up and ungrateful young girls.

TV: Explaining Moyers

Near the end of last week, a friend called and heard us laughing as we picked up the phone. "Oh good," he said, "you're watching my show." Uh . . . Yeah. But not right then. See, these days the funniest sitcoms are not your half-hour scripted fare but what passes for 'informed' discussions on 'public affairs' programming.



For example, the laughs don't get much bigger than Mike Davis and Bill Moyers, doing off-off Broadway in Two Old White Male Gas Bags Sitting Around Talking. The two of them sat down across from each other Friday night on Bill Moyers Journal and we couldn't help thinking of the tag line from the opening of Hart to Hart: "Because when they met, it was murder."

Truth is always the first casualty. Watching Bill and Mike speak before the cameras, 'letting it all hang out,' was like watching the latter day Tab Hunters and Anthony Perkins pretend they are just friends. There was Mike explaining why he was a Socialist and how he chose it because he "didn't want become a Marxist." Apparently Bill and Mike sit around wondering how things will 'play' in the mythical Duluth of their minds? That's the only plausible explanation for their refusal to tell the truth repeatedly. Mike Davis isn't a Marxist? That's hilarious.

It was hilarious -- and telling -- to see the two elderly White men chat on about 'injustice' which, for White Little Piggies, always means the woes of the Black man -- emphasis on the "man." If you don't get what two losers Bill Moyers and Mike Davis are, fast-forward and check out the hell they spawned which show up at DC Indymedia to post "Smack A White Boy: March 21 Radical People of Color Anti-War (distr)Action." Proclaiming "A Brownie A Day Keeps Whitey Away," the alleged 'radicals' signs off "D.C. Anarchist People Of Color" and "Philadelphia Anarchist People Of Color." In between, when not yawning, you'll wonder if the two cock-knocking orgs can halt their glorification of the phallus long enough to appreciate what idiots they are?

Probably not. (In fairness, Bill and Mike can't stop self-stroking long enough to grasp how badly they come off either.) So for nine paragraphs (eleven if you want to count in full -- they don't seem to grasp that they reposted two paragraphs twice), they go on about "people" and how "people" have been hurt. But it's not "people" they're concerned with, it's men. It's always men. That's all men like them (and Bill and Mike) give a damn about.

It's not a new characteristic of the left (Ellen Willis railed against it in the late sixties) so it's not surprising to grasp how strong the hatred of women still is. It's there in the comments replying to the DC Indymedia post. It's there when an African-American woman attempts to speak up about sexism. All the "we care about people of color" fronting slides away as the woman is ripped apart and is left undefended by "Tariq," for example, who can't stop posting repeatedly on every other comment.

At one point, "h" would feel the need to link to "Open Letter To Activists Concerning Racism In The Anti-War Movement" -- more telling garbage and this signed by the following losers:
Steve Bloom, Jean Carey Bond, Humberto Brown, Saulo Col?n, Bhairavi Desai, Cherrene Horazuk, Randy Jackson, Hany Khalil Ray Laforest, Ng? Thanh Nh?n, Ren? Francisco Poitevin, Merle Ratner, Liz Roberts, Juliet Ucelli and Lincoln Van Sluytman. [That's the way the letter is signed for those wondering about spelling.] Losers in every sense of the word. The rag-tag begins there "open letter" with "Brothers and Sisters" and tosses in a shout-out to "gay". That's it. One "sisters" and one "gay." Then it's about what they always want to talk about, "race" which translates as only one race (they're never concerned about Asian-Americans, about Latinos, or any other grouping) and only the male members of it. It's garbage, it's reductionist garbage.

The only injury, according to these Carl Davidsons, is the injury to African-American males. That is a fixed point of the remedial 'understanding' these White men almost managed. Heaven forbid they be forced to deal with complexities, let alone realities.

So you get Mike Davis yammering on about, "Well, in my case, there really was a burning bush. And that was the Civil Rights movement in San Diego where I grew up in the '50s and '60s. And at 16 years old my father had a heart attack. And I had to leave school for a while to work. And the black side of my family by marriage, they got me to come to a demonstration of the Congress of Racial Equality in front of the Bank of America in downtown San Diego. And I mean, it literally transformed my life, just the sheer beauty of it and the sheer righteousness of it. And I won't claim that every decision or political stance or political group I joined as a result of the Civil Rights movement was the right one. But it permanently shaped my life."





As you read that babble it's enough to almost make you side with Barack Obama for part of the bad speech he gave in Philadelphia. No, not for the section he stole from this website the Sunday before he gave the speech. But for his comments regarding Jeremiah Wright's generation. If you take those comments but apply them to the White males (and some women) of that generation, we're all on board. Because they are the ones who do the damage: the Mike Davises and the Bill Moyerses. The Jeremiah Wrights may be bitter or not. If they are bitter, they are bitter with good reason. But the soft White hands of a Mike Davis or a Bill Moyer can't grab personal victimhood so they try to hog it by association as they flash back on a rare moment when they briefly (and not to fully) thought of someone other than themselves.



You know those really bad 'coming of age' films, where the (White) boy has the 'universal' experience and we're all supposed to identify and supposed to praise it? That garbage keeps getting tossed on screen for a reason. Not because it's universal. It's done and redone over and over because men in power think they're the template. They think they are the universal. And it's not different from Moyers and Davis. They had their 'leave childhood behind' moment and can never stop yacking about it all these years later.

As Moyers simplistic racial discussions indicate year in and year out, it's not about education. It's about rubbing that fixed memory, rubbing out their nostalgia orgasm.



We can never step forward as a society not because of Jeremiah Wrights but because of the likes of Michael Pfleger. Remember him? Mincing about onstage at Barack's now-former church. Mincing about and screaming about racism. Never mentioning sexism, naturally. Attacking Hillary with lies and hate. And it being eaten up by that uneducated crowd. Whitey Pfleger has nothing to offer. He can't talk about love or God's love. Despite being a man of the cloth. So Pfleger goes to the largely Black church of Trinity and serves up attacks on . . . White people. Serves up race based attacks that have no bearing on reality. And it gets eaten up. That crowd caught on camera looks like Romans screaming with joy as Christians are fed to the lions. There's nothing civilized or advanced about that taped moment and never forget that it was a White man stirring it up.

Which is what Mike and Bill do every day of their life. They're not interested in injustice. They're interested in (and caught in) the past. Which is how you get Socialist (Marxist-Environmentalist) Mike Davis waxing on and on about Barack Obama. Why? Because Mike sees the bi-racial Barack as "Black." The programs of Barack? Mike can't stand them. But those programs are never Barack's fault in Mike's eyes. Of course not. As a "Black" man, Barack is the eternal innocent in Mike's patronizing eyes.



It's really ridiculous and pathetic and most of the time we just roll our own eyes. But we were wrong not to confront it earlier. It's what put Barack in the White House and it's what put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. In both cases, women had to be savaged in order for the men to be installed. So it's time to get honest about what's going on because the Michael Pflegers and Bill Moyers are ensuring that their garbage is fed to younger generations.

All those decades ago, it was the height of 'sophistication' for Moyers, a racist from the South, to grasp that racism against Black men was wrong. That was the life altering moment for Bill and he can't stop revisiting it. Think of it as the political equivalent of Losing It or Porky's or any other movie where the young male 'comes of age' by losing his virginity. All these years later, as Bill constantly revisits Summer of 42, he doesn't see it as it was, he sees it only in his idealized view, the one he's beat off to repeatedly during the many lonely nights that have ensued since.

And we all suffer for it.

Doubt us? Let's review the guest list for the year thus far.

March 20th featured Mike Davis and Marta B. Pelaez




March 13th featured Karen Armstrong





March 6th featured John Lithgow





February 27th featured John McWhorter and Robert Johnson





February 20th featured Parker Palmer and Robert G. Kaiser





February 13th featured Nikki Giovanni and Simon Johnson





February 6th featured Eric Foner, Glenn Greenwald and Jay Rosen





January 30th featured Pierre Sprey, Marilyn Young and Vartan Gregorian





January 23rd featured David Sirota, Thomas Frank, Melissa Harris LIEFACE and Patty Williams.





January 16th featured Simon Schama





January 9th featured Leo Gerard





January 2nd featured John Lithgow





Besides marveling over the fact that in three months John Lithgow has been booked twice, you should have caught on to another basic fact: more men than women. Over twice as many men as women: 17 males and 7 women to be exact. And Bill does this year after year and gets away with it. You'll never catch FAIR calling Bill Moyers Journal out because closeted radicals stick together -- closeted radicals and closeted sexists. (And if you're really observant, you'll note that African-Americans are underbooked and that other racial minorities fared even worse over the last three months.)





Bill Moyers thinks he's a decent caring man. He believes he fights injustice and does a real service. But if that were the case, Bill, how do you repeatedly exclude women? How do you take the majority of the US population and repeatedly under-represent them when compiling your guest list. It's not unlike that ridiculous best-film-of-the-year list that surfaced awhile back where Bill could be fascinated by anything and everything but women. Monsters and King Kong? Check. Mae West (in two box office smashes and film classics), Katharine Hepburn (in an Oscar winning role) and all the other women were ignored in Moyers' long, long list of 'film classics' for 1932.





The Journal doesn't like it when we talk like this. They never like it. They get angry and snitty and it floats back to us via PBS friends. While we put off a sitcom producer this week, he took it in stride. PBS friends freaked when we mentioned that we might be addressing Bill Moyers again.





We were accused of "leading the left movement against Bill!" We weren't aware that there was a movement against him (from the left or the right) but that's really not our problem. Our problem, PBS' problem, America's problem is that Bill Moyers has been cuddled and ego-stroked for far too long. His sexism has been on display for decades, tales are still told of his CBS days and, in DC, tales are still told of his LBJ days. In fact, at a formal dinner Wednesday night, an LBJ alumni entertained our half of the table with nonstop Moyers' tales.





If we were leading a war against Bill Moyers, believe us, we'd be repeating these stories word for word. Instead of getting pissy with us, they might try asking why a 'respected journalist' can't adjust himself to the 21st century? Or why PBS can't impose some order on his show? It's not like they haven't repeatedly tried. On our end, we haven't seen a leftist movement against Bill -- led by us or anyone else. Knowing that Moyers frets and imagines one may be the funniest thing about last week. But like all of last week's other big laughs TV provided, it was an unintentional one.

Who's that hiding in the hangers?

Ava and C.I. had a long aside in one of their TV commentaries this week and we wanted to pull it out to underscore a point they were making.



"Socialist! Stop saying that!"



"It's so unfair!"



That's what Janine Jackson and fellow freak Steve Rendall (already punked out once last week) were yammering on CounterSpin last week. Why do people keep asking about Socialism! Mean Republicans!



First, Janine and Steve, you're not Democrats. You are grown ass adults, why don't you try acting like them? Why don't you tell the world what you are? Seriously, it's okay.



The politically closeted really need an intervention.



And when they whine and moan and, yes, kvetch about Socialism being mentioned, you may be confused as to why that is?



Since when the hell is Socialism a bad thing?



It's a bad thing when you're in a political closet. So instead of being glad that a political theory is getting some traction, some talk, the closet cases have to hiss.



If you're not getting it, picture your uncle Felix. 49-years-old. Never dates. Lives with his best friend Tony. Has for twenty years. And whenever someone mentions Ellen or Lance Bass, Uncle Felix goes into a tizzy. Freaks out.



See, Uncle Felix has locked himself into a sexual closet. People like Janine and Steve lock themselves into political closets.



Closets should only hold wardrobes.



But remember that the next time someone starts whining about whomever mentioning Socialism -- whether they're attacking Newsweek or Republicans or whomever.



As for Tariq Ali. He's advocating that the US "reimagining Socialism" and did so on Democracy Now! Thursday. But should Newsweek or Time pick up on that, look for further cries of "McCarthyism!"



When those cries come, remember, you're dealing with the politically closeted. Like those who choose to be imprisoned by sexual closets, they're dealing with a lot of internal shame. Pity them. Especially pathetic Amy Goodman. Well, pity her and laugh at her.

And if you're still not getting it, picture that Newsweek's cover story had been "We're All Green Party Members Now." Do you really think Greens would be hissing that someone mentioned their party? Screaming it was unfair? Likening it to McCarthyism?

No. It's only the politically closeted who do that.

The dog (still not picked out) ate his homework

When you think it can't get any worse, it does. From the White House website:

PRESS RELEASES

3/21/2009

Weekly Address: President Obama to Focus on Budget Priorities Next Week

IIn his weekly address, President Barack Obama announced that in the coming week, he will highlight the core principles of his budget: cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term and making investments in long-delayed priorities like energy independence, education and health care reform.

"IIn" is their typo, not ours (before anyone e-mails to complain). So Barack gave his weekly address Saturday and his point was he will "focus on budget priorities next week"?



In the midst of an economic crisis, following a week where the celebrity president sat on the couch across from Jay Leno, Barack wanted to reassure America that, next week, he will be focused?

It all sounds like yet another excuse as to why he didn't turn in his homework. We can't wait hear this week's excuse.

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.



"Barack has not apologized and people need to quit making excuses" -- Well the most requested entry this week wasn't C.I.'s "I Hate The War" which came in second. Instead it was this entry by C.I. (Third most requested? )





"Iraq roundtable," "ROUNDTABLE ON IRAQ," "Iraq roundtable," "Iraq" "Roundtable on Iraq," "talking iraq," "Roundtable on Iraq," "Iraq," "Iraq," "The Iraq roundtable," "Iraq" and "Talking Iraq" -- Rebecca did this roundtable featuring Mike, Wally, Isaiah, Jim, Elaine, Trina, Ava and C.I.







"The sixth anniversary in broadcast," "The sixth anniversary in print," "cbs and brian have fun playing around," "Dumb F**k Danny Sphincter and more," "How stupid is Danny Schechter?," "ABC News buries the bar," "THIS JUST IN! HARD WORKING ABC 'NEWS'!," "Sixth anniversary of the war in broadcast TV," "The sixth anniversary of the war in print,"
"THIS JUST IN! ABC NEWS TAPS OUT!" and "PaulTap taps out" -- Just some of the media critiques offered last week.



"barbra," "Janis," "Carly," "Aretha," "Scream, he said," "Neil Young, Andy Worthington, Iraq," "Ben Folds Five, Ireland, Iraq" -- Do you have a favorite artist? Do they have a song you can't stand? Rebecca and Marcia came up with that topic and we wrote on it Wednesday night.

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Everything Bully Is Barack Again" -- Barack and Bush truly are two of kind. That fact certainly excites Little Dicky.

"Kat's Korner: Joshua Radin shares some simple beauty" -- Kat's latest album review. She plans to wait a bit before doing another one; however, we have a music feature this edition.

----------

Confession from Mike: We weren't done. We saved it and intended to come back to it after the roundtable and never did. My apologies because there was a great deal more we wanted to highlight.