Hey Operation Happy Talkers and Fence Sitters, we're six months away from the third year of the invasion/occupation of Iraq. Figured out where you stand yet?
Polls demonstrate that Americans don't think that the war is worth the cost. They want the troops home. Now.
But some of you, especially you "national security Dems" are talking "fine tune." The right can address their own so we'll ask the left and the left posers, exactly what does it take to wake you up?
Especially those of you who pushed Downing St. Memos. Those mattered to you, but you get all squishy when you have to apply the knowledge from those to our current invasion/occupation.
A war built on lies and you want to argue for the this tragedy to continue?
You can toss out facts about how we got there but you seem unable to process what that means beyong "We was lied to!"
You sneer at the peace activists and jaw on about how "We can't afford to cut and run."
Pop quiz, assholes: The bridge ahead is washed out, what do you do, what do you do?
Apparently you'd keep going. Maybe argue, "If we hit ____ MPH, we'll be underwater, drowning if ten seconds instead of five!"
Back on the reality based world, we'll have a serious conversations about what's going on.
As a starter piece, we repost C.I.'s entry from December 2, 2004:
"SHOULD THIS MARRIAGE BE SAVED?"
These are the days of the open hand
They will not be the last
Look around now
These are the days of the beggars and choosers
Okay everybody, I've got a problem. Let me just walk you through it.
See, I'm married to Sandy.
I'm still not really sure how that happened.
A lot of people were saying that "Sandy needs saving." Or "Sandy really needs you." Some even suggested that if I didn't marry Sandy, something really awful could happen.Well normally, I like to think I'm pretty objective. But everyone was saying, "Marry Sandy!"I swear, I was so out of it, it seemed like people on TV were even telling me this -- talking through the tube to me! And, I'm sure I'm dreaming this part, after this wedding of . . . What's the word here? I don't know, but after, and this is the part I'm sure I must be dreaming, it was like people on TV were cheering me on. I swear I heard Katie Couric say, "You rock!" on The Today Show.
I'd blame it all on a LSD flashback if I'd dropped acid, you know?
So I feel like I went in with the best of intentions, maybe I'm wrong. I don't know why others were urging me on. Sometimes I think it was because they just wanted to see Sandy married, other times I wonder if they were just thinking about their own interests? Who knows, maybe they all just wanted to attend a big celebration they could yell and scream at? Or maybe they owned stock in some place we registered at?
But this marriage is coming up on an anniversary, our second. No need to send a gift. We need more than anyone could give! Seriously. The other day, I thought maybe things would be better or who knows, maybe I just thought things would calm down, if I got rid of the china, so I smashed every plate, every bowl, everything. All of it.
Seems like Sandy's even more upset now. Nothing I do is right. And I'm starting to say that to Sandy. Things like, "Sandy, you always . . ." Statements that I know better to make because they're counterproductive and, were we in couple's counseling, statements that are only causing further hurt.
I don't know what the deal is with Sandy. I thought Sandy wanted one thing, then I do it only to find out something else was wanted. I'm not making any headway, people.In fact, more and more it seems like we only hurt each other. We're both bleeding from mutual wounds we've inflicted. But I did have good intentions. I really, really did.
And now I've got this one friend who's in the minority. This friend is telling me that all I've thought I could do, all of it, are things that I can't in fact do. Telling me that I'm doing more and more harm every day. Now this friend cares for me so I get a lot of, "I'm not saying it's all you"s mixed in. But the point is pretty clear to me, intentional or not, I'm hurting more than I could ever help.
Now I can see that point. I mean my idea of rescuing or saving Sandy was my concept of what was best for Sandy based on what I was told. It wasn't necessarily Sandy's idea. Let's be really honest for a moment, I don't know anything about Sandy. The only things I thought I knew about Sandy were just things that were passed on to me. It's not like we spent a great deal of time together before entering into this marriage.
And for the first month or so, we could both focus on the good things. There probably were some good things. And maybe had I then said, "Hey, Sandy, you need to do the things that are best for you, the things that are going to make you happy. . . ." Maybe then things would be different?But I listened to what people told me going in. I mean Sandy was supposed to be "grateful." And initially, early on, I thought I saw an embrace, you know? Maybe, at that moment, if I'd known Sandy better or known what Sandy wanted or needed, maybe then things would be different?But everyone, except this one friend, is telling me basically that "You made this bed, now you have to lie in it." Like even though this was obviously a mistake and we both want out, there's no out. There can be no out, that's what I keep hearing.
"You've got to make it work!" that's what I get told. And like last Sunday my friend Tommy, well he's not really my friend. I don't even care for him. I don't know why he's always showing up telling me what I need to do. I'm not so sure he even knows what he should do himself. But he always issues these proclamations like some coach from Hoosiers morphed into Dr. Phil with a dash of Sally Jessy Raphael. Or something.
So Tommy's blustering to me, "Improv time is over. This is crunch time. This marriage will be won or lost in the next few months. But it won't be won with high rhetoric. It will be won on the ground in a war over the last mile." I don't even know what that means! I don't think he knows either. I would've asked him but I was afraid that he'd babble on some more, you know?
I mean, I just wanted to get away from Tommy. Trust me, a lot of people feel that way. It's not just me. I was all, "Uh huh, later Tommy."
Then I bump into Nick. Now Nick seems like a good guy. I don't doubt that he cares, but we're always getting into disagreements because Nick is the type who makes these "universal truth" statements but often doesn't have all the facts. I'm sure you know someone like that. (Hopefully, you aren't someone like that!) He's the type who'll say, "No one ever cared about foreign athletes until the missionaries went ___" wherever. And you can say, "Woah, Nicky! That's not true. The Olympics have been going on for decades! Longer even!" But he's just read something about some missionary and he's convinced that history has just begun or something. He means well. That's what I try to remember, that he means well.
So Nick weighs in with, "If you leave too soon, Sandy will fall apart. There are areas that aren't strong enough to take this, areas in Sandy." Or like, "Sandy could sink into this really dark period and do you know about mortality rates in a situation like this, because I do!!!!" And then he's giving these examples that he just read and I'm already tuning him out.
I pay attention when I hear him say something like, "Granted, my argument for staying the course is a difficult one to make to you when your immediate concern is your own life. There's
no getting around the fact that if you stay, you will be unhappy at best. And at worst, who knows . . ."
I think he's going back into morality rates. I don't know. I nod and stand there thinking about what I need to pick up at the grocery store.
"I also have to concede," he begins and that gets my attention because I always forget he uses that language not to make a real concession, but as a debating ploy, "that this friend of yours who's saying you should just end it may in the end be proven right: perhaps you and Sandy will stick it out and even so end up divorcing? After squandering both of your lives, both of your dreams."
Nick means well, but he really loves the sound of his own voice, so I hurry away while he's still yammering on about how the marriage has left Sandy "desperately vulnerable and it would be inhumane to abandon . . ."
I'm just trying to get back home, you know? Wow! That works on so many levels. Talk about insight. Anyway, so then I bump into the Billy Goat Gruff, you know the type. I'm sure there's at least one who lives in your neighborhood. Willie's always screaming, "Turn down that music!"
And you can't explain to him that it's not music, it's the birds in the trees chirping. Or he's ranting about how the trash hasn't been picked up because of some liberal, left-wing cabal that no doubt can be traced back to Hillary Clinton. Every neighborhood has an irritating old coot. And you don't have to be old to be an "old coot." I mean, Willie's old. I don't know how old or what he does, I think maybe he teaches grammar or something. But I do know, that he's going to be retiring soon. I'm hoping that will mean he might move. I mean, I wish him no ill will, my days would just be a lot simpler if he wasn't always hollering something from his front yard.
"For one awful moment last week, it seemed the foot-draggers might succeed!" he hollered, apparently to me because I was the only one not lucky enough to avoid him that day.
He continued, "The most important element in the next two months of this marriage is a sense of inexorability." Like I said, I think he teaches grammar. Inexorability? But while I'm trying to figure out the root of that word, he's adding, "Marriage delayed is marriage denied! The best answer to that question," apparently my marriage, I don't know, "I think, is that your mistaken coupling has left Sandy desperately vulnerable, and it would be inhumane to abandon now. If you stay with Sandy, there is still some hope that Sandy will come to enjoy security and a better life, but if you pull out you will be condemning Sandy to anarchy, terrorism and starvation, costing a life, the life you placed at risk by marrying. These are the reasons you should remain with Sandy, until Sandy's in a secure place. Saving Sandy is a worthy cause to risk your life for, even to die for. "
Woah old coot Willie! Nobody ever said anything about risking my life. People said this would be a wonderful marriage, roses strewn in my path or at least on the bed or something. I mean, I was sold on this with this talk of what a good thing I'd be doing and how easy it would be.
But it's like the friend I told you about earlier is saying, "You're not helping Sandy."
And I'm not. Every other day, if not every day, something flares up. I mean, I still see people grinning and giving me thumbs up and all I can think is, "You are so under-informed. You just don't know what is really going on."
I don't blame them, I mean the same matchmakers that got us together have taken it upon themselves to be cheerleaders for our marriage. Commentators even! That's why people come up saying, "Hey, I heard you put in running water." Yeah, in the kitchen sink. We still don't have running water anywhere else in the house. I mean, come on, it's a kitchen sink. I guess it's nice enough but I'm not doing cart wheels.
But this friend who seems like she's on to something is saying that Sandy's either going to fix herself or she's not. "You can't fix Sandy for Sandy. Only Sandy can fix Sandy. You're not helping. Staying in this arrangement is destructive to both of you."
I say to my friend, "Yeah, but, I mean, people are saying I can't leave Sandy until something's been set up." And my friend stops me and says, "Hold it right there! Sandy has to take care of Sandy. You can't set something up for Sandy. If something is going to matter, Sandy needs to set it up. And because it's what Sandy wants and needs, not what Sandy thinks you want to be done."
But I mean, sometimes I'm thinking Sandy needs me and feeling like, what's that saying? You broke it, you bought it? I know it's not really a Pottery Barn policy, but what about the people saying that?
My friend shushes me. And I hate it when someone does that! But I do get her point. Sandy's not Humpty Dumpty. And I'm not God. And right or wrong, I've tried. If Sandy needs help now, it's outside help. We've fallen into this warring pattern that is just not going to go away.
So I'm thinking my friend's right, that for the health of Sandy and myself, it's time for me to be an adult, look at reality and realize it's time to end it. That's the healthy thing to do, that's the mature thing to do. But I'm wondering if I'm mature enough to do the mature thing, you know?I'm also wondering what you think?
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have opened by introducing myself because I might look familiar but who knows? My name's United States of America. My friends call me "U.S." and my rowdier friends like to call me "USA!" It doesn't matter to me. And Sandy's just a nickname I gave my spouse. Most people know Sandy's given name: Iraq.
These are the days of the empty hand
Oh you hold on to what you can
And charity is a coat you wear twice a year
This is the year of the guilty man
Your television takes a stand
And you find that what was over there is over here . . .
-- "Praying For Time" words & music by George Michael
--------------------
"Tommy" is Thomas Friedman and the New York Times column that his comments were "based" on is entitled "The Last Mile" and ran on November 28, 2004."Nick" is Nicholas Kristof (Nicky K!) and the New York Times column that his comments were "based" on is entitled "Saving the Iraqi Children" and ran on November 27, 2004."Willie" is William Safire and the New York Times column that his comments were "based" on is entitled "The Fourth Election" and ran December 1, 2004.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Anatomy of NYT: "Op-ed: How to smear, Times-style"
At The Common Ills, C.I. consistently addresses issues of coverage in The New York Times. Not just in "Oh my God! They beat up Bill Clinton! Again!" manner but the entire main section. We wonder about those always commenting on the political coverage: Do they think the same attitudes don't carry over to the rest of the main section? Here C.I.'s addressing the coverage coming out of Mexico?
"Op-ed: How to smear, Times-style"
A lot of people wonder what could be more insulting than the New York Times stationing an American correspondent with the surname of McKinley in Mexico? Possibly one with the last name of Wilson?
It's an interesting sort of "reporting" that emerges from Mexico. Bully club style, the region's scolded and berated -- such as the tizzy the paper worked itself into when it appeared Vincent Fox's wife might run for office or the "literary critic" book review of a novel co-written by Zapatista Subcommander Marcos. The coverage doles out air kisses to our bully acting as ambassador and more recently to Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (someone the paper was initially against -- but never look for consistency in Times reporting from this region --coverage which appears to be based upon a paternalistic sense of outrage more than anything that resembles actual reporting).
James C. McKinley, Jr. offers up "At a 60's Style Be-In, Guns Yield to Words, Lots of Words."
The headline, which McKinley's not responsible for, clues you in to what awaits. (I have no problems with a Be-In but the Times does and the headline, like the article, is meant to ridicule.)Amping up the melodrama in a way that puts his past efforts to shame, McKinley breaks new ground with this paragraph:
The weekend gathering looked like a cross between the Woodstock concert, a Grange Hall meeting and a convention of Che Guevara fans. At times it looked as if a public hearing in the East Village had been transported to a horse pasture in the rugged green mountains here.
(The intended audience for the Times is supposed to chuckle at the above.)
Now an editor might turn it down a notch on such excessive prose, but when they cover Mexico, the Times prefers to amp the drama and filter out reality. Which is why a basic question is never asked about the above paragraph: Well does it look like a cross between your catch all list in the first sentence or not? (It's really bad writing. Forget the content and just focus on the logic -- or 'logic' -- in the two sentences. It can't look like something and then, a sentence later, "at times" look like something else. "At times" needs to be included in the first sentence for the second sentence to work on any logical level. It's like saying "The earth moves round the sun." followed by "At times the earth moves round Mars.")
You get lines like the following: "Marcos, who may be the only man in history to make a ski mask and pipe look sexy."
Who said that? It's meant to cause laughter among a certain set. But who said it? Because this is reporting and not op-ed.
". . . a panoply of left-leaning folks on the fringe of Mexican politics " -- that clause is really important to the Times, specifically "on the fringe."
While titlating the intended reader of the Times with tales of "lesbian anarchist," "polysexuals,""a collective of witches" and so much more, McKinley never finds the time to inform the reader what issue Marcos has with Lopez Obrador.
(Among other things, Marcos feels that Lopez Obrador and the PRD sold out the legislation, backed by Vincent Fox in 2001, that would have aided the indigenous people. There's also the issue of Lopez Obrador's worshipping at the alter of the free market and privatization.)
By tone and word choice, McKinley signals to the intended reader that Marcos and the Zapatista are to be ridiculed and mocked:
Words there were aplenty. Rebellion was celebrated. Violence against homosexuals was decried. The mainstream media was derided as untrustworthy. The evils of capitalism were roundly criticized, while the virtues of socialism, communal farming, organic foods, same-sex marriage and human rights were expounded at length.
Some participants grew tired of waiting to speak and left early. A few questioned how they were to change the Constitution without forming a political party. Several despaired at all the high-sounding speeches.
And it's "news." Not op-ed. The Times doesn't use pad and pen to report on Mexico, they use a bully club. It's a paternalistic approach which, in good times, means a gentle push or, in bad times, full blown mockery and derision. Again, let's note, this occurs in supposed reporting.
"Words there were aplenty" McKinley guffaws. Laughs on McKinley because in his attempt to turn in a P.J. O'Rourke style prose essay for Rolling Stone on the state of Mexico, he's forgotten he's supposed to be reporting for the New York Times. (McKinley probably curses himself for not finding some local phrase to build it upon, as O'Rourke once did on another region, repeatedly, with "vomit comet.") He's the one piling on the "words" "aplenty" so maybe Freud was right on one thing, the criminal's compulsion to confess? Or maybe it's merely projection on the part of McKinley?
Francisco dubbed Juan Forero "the littlest Judy Miller" and I agree with that. But Forero (with his committment to, and efforts to push, the Reagan views of Latin America) gives me a migraine when I bother to read him. McKinley's a different sort of "reporter." He's given a wide berth to write random musings (that then pass for reporting) as long as he remembers he's to mock and bully in a way that's in keeping with the paper's semi-liberal view on social issues and neolib view on economics.
It doesn't appear to matter that McKinley's informed readers of nothing. There's not one concrete fact informing readers of why Marcos and the Zapatistas are bothered by current situations. (McKinley asserts that he couldn't get an interview with Marcos, then goes on to pull quote him for laughs. Having failed to present Marcos' view, he doesn't have any trouble then airing speculation on the part of those who question Marcos' motives.) As long as he manages to ridicule the event, the Times appears happy to run it and call it reporting.
There's a very xenophobic attitude coming out in the reporting from Mexico. (Or "reporting.")Today on Democracy Now!:
Wed, August 31: On the last day of Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's estate in Crawford, Texas we look back at the day her son Casey was killed in Sadr City, Iraq on April 4, 2004.
"Op-ed: How to smear, Times-style"
A lot of people wonder what could be more insulting than the New York Times stationing an American correspondent with the surname of McKinley in Mexico? Possibly one with the last name of Wilson?
It's an interesting sort of "reporting" that emerges from Mexico. Bully club style, the region's scolded and berated -- such as the tizzy the paper worked itself into when it appeared Vincent Fox's wife might run for office or the "literary critic" book review of a novel co-written by Zapatista Subcommander Marcos. The coverage doles out air kisses to our bully acting as ambassador and more recently to Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (someone the paper was initially against -- but never look for consistency in Times reporting from this region --coverage which appears to be based upon a paternalistic sense of outrage more than anything that resembles actual reporting).
James C. McKinley, Jr. offers up "At a 60's Style Be-In, Guns Yield to Words, Lots of Words."
The headline, which McKinley's not responsible for, clues you in to what awaits. (I have no problems with a Be-In but the Times does and the headline, like the article, is meant to ridicule.)Amping up the melodrama in a way that puts his past efforts to shame, McKinley breaks new ground with this paragraph:
The weekend gathering looked like a cross between the Woodstock concert, a Grange Hall meeting and a convention of Che Guevara fans. At times it looked as if a public hearing in the East Village had been transported to a horse pasture in the rugged green mountains here.
(The intended audience for the Times is supposed to chuckle at the above.)
Now an editor might turn it down a notch on such excessive prose, but when they cover Mexico, the Times prefers to amp the drama and filter out reality. Which is why a basic question is never asked about the above paragraph: Well does it look like a cross between your catch all list in the first sentence or not? (It's really bad writing. Forget the content and just focus on the logic -- or 'logic' -- in the two sentences. It can't look like something and then, a sentence later, "at times" look like something else. "At times" needs to be included in the first sentence for the second sentence to work on any logical level. It's like saying "The earth moves round the sun." followed by "At times the earth moves round Mars.")
You get lines like the following: "Marcos, who may be the only man in history to make a ski mask and pipe look sexy."
Who said that? It's meant to cause laughter among a certain set. But who said it? Because this is reporting and not op-ed.
". . . a panoply of left-leaning folks on the fringe of Mexican politics " -- that clause is really important to the Times, specifically "on the fringe."
While titlating the intended reader of the Times with tales of "lesbian anarchist," "polysexuals,""a collective of witches" and so much more, McKinley never finds the time to inform the reader what issue Marcos has with Lopez Obrador.
(Among other things, Marcos feels that Lopez Obrador and the PRD sold out the legislation, backed by Vincent Fox in 2001, that would have aided the indigenous people. There's also the issue of Lopez Obrador's worshipping at the alter of the free market and privatization.)
By tone and word choice, McKinley signals to the intended reader that Marcos and the Zapatista are to be ridiculed and mocked:
Words there were aplenty. Rebellion was celebrated. Violence against homosexuals was decried. The mainstream media was derided as untrustworthy. The evils of capitalism were roundly criticized, while the virtues of socialism, communal farming, organic foods, same-sex marriage and human rights were expounded at length.
Some participants grew tired of waiting to speak and left early. A few questioned how they were to change the Constitution without forming a political party. Several despaired at all the high-sounding speeches.
And it's "news." Not op-ed. The Times doesn't use pad and pen to report on Mexico, they use a bully club. It's a paternalistic approach which, in good times, means a gentle push or, in bad times, full blown mockery and derision. Again, let's note, this occurs in supposed reporting.
"Words there were aplenty" McKinley guffaws. Laughs on McKinley because in his attempt to turn in a P.J. O'Rourke style prose essay for Rolling Stone on the state of Mexico, he's forgotten he's supposed to be reporting for the New York Times. (McKinley probably curses himself for not finding some local phrase to build it upon, as O'Rourke once did on another region, repeatedly, with "vomit comet.") He's the one piling on the "words" "aplenty" so maybe Freud was right on one thing, the criminal's compulsion to confess? Or maybe it's merely projection on the part of McKinley?
Francisco dubbed Juan Forero "the littlest Judy Miller" and I agree with that. But Forero (with his committment to, and efforts to push, the Reagan views of Latin America) gives me a migraine when I bother to read him. McKinley's a different sort of "reporter." He's given a wide berth to write random musings (that then pass for reporting) as long as he remembers he's to mock and bully in a way that's in keeping with the paper's semi-liberal view on social issues and neolib view on economics.
It doesn't appear to matter that McKinley's informed readers of nothing. There's not one concrete fact informing readers of why Marcos and the Zapatistas are bothered by current situations. (McKinley asserts that he couldn't get an interview with Marcos, then goes on to pull quote him for laughs. Having failed to present Marcos' view, he doesn't have any trouble then airing speculation on the part of those who question Marcos' motives.) As long as he manages to ridicule the event, the Times appears happy to run it and call it reporting.
There's a very xenophobic attitude coming out in the reporting from Mexico. (Or "reporting.")Today on Democracy Now!:
Wed, August 31: On the last day of Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's estate in Crawford, Texas we look back at the day her son Casey was killed in Sadr City, Iraq on April 4, 2004.
Blog Spotlight: "Noting Thanks" Elaine at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
Rebecca's a special person to all of us at The Third Estate Sunday Review. She's helped us and we've learned from her (hopefully, we've done the same). Ty tells of how during the spring semester when he'd make home for the night dragging and need to spend at least an hour of studying before turning in, he'd be too wiped out to. But he'd read Rebecca's latest at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude and it would get his blood pumping and wake him up fully. In this entry, Elaine calls Rebecca "our warrior woman of the left" and we quite agree.
So when Rebecca made the sudden decision to take a vacation and take some time for herself, while we understood, we were wondering what would happen to the site. Rebecca asked her friend Elaine to fill in. We'd heard much about Elaine from both Rebecca and C.I. From the airport, Rebecca, infamous for her phone calls, was still making phone calls in the short time before she had to board her plane. Elaine suspects that we were asked to check up on her by Rebecca (read the entry). That's not the case. However, she did reach Ty and pass on Elaine's phone number and ask that he share it with us. Her reason for doing that was she wanted Elaine to experience the fun (and the not fun, we assume) of helping out with an edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review.
From July 19th until Friday, September 2nd, Elaine's been substituting for Rebecca and she's done an amazing job, impressing us all. She is an important voice and we hope she'll continue to help out here but most of all, like Mike, we're really hoping she'll start her own site.
Among the people Elaine thanks is us and we respond with, "No, thank you." It was a pleasure to read your writing and it is inspiration to work with you here.
Here's Elaine's latest post. We say "latest," not "last." We're keeping our fingers crossed.
"Noting thanks"
Elaine here on what may be my last poll as Rebecca returns Monday from her vacation. I would really love to be able to do a post this weekend but The Third Estate Sunday Review takes a lot of time and energy and I've already committed to helping them (gladly committed). Barring a time miracle, this will be the last post.
I want to again thank everyone who e-mailed and offered support throughout. As a Common Ills community member since November (third day, would have been sooner but C.I. didn't breathe a word of the site until the first e-mails started coming in), I knew that members were smart, funny and interested in the world they live in. After a while you know that, for instance, Lloyd's going to highlight Ruth Conniff at The Progressive or that Cedric loves Colorado Indymedia or that Erika's going to say something profound and make you laugh or that . . .
Grace Lee Boggs was someone I knew of but I had no idea she did a column every other week until Liang spotlighted her for Women's History Month. You learn things about members and you learn about the world so I didn't think, when C.I. started forwarding the e-mails, that I was in for any surprises; however, I was wrong. As committed and passionate as I knew the community to be, I still didn't realize the depth of that committment or the depth of the passion.
So I really want everyone to know that I appreciated the support. I want to thank a number of people but let me, for Mike, first note Democracy Now!
Top City Official Blasts FEMA: "This Is A National Disgrace" (Democracy Now!)
The head of New Orleans' emergency operations blasted the federal government and FEMA for its slow response. The official Terry Ebbert said "This is a national emergency. This is a national disgrace." Ebbert went on to say "FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans." Ebbert said "It's criminal within the confines of the United States that within one hour of the hurricane they weren't force-feeding us. It's like FEMA has never been to a hurricane."
Put the above with the item below.
Bush Officials Criticized For Staying On Vacation (Democracy Now!)
Criticism is also mounting over the Bush administration's handling of the crisis. President Bush didn't return from his vacation until Wednesday and several other top officials remain on summer breaks. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice had been vacationing in New York City but returned to Washington on Thursday. Meanwhile Vice President Dick Cheney has been in Wyoming and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has been in Maine.
Who's working here? Where are the adults in the administration? There's a reason it's a Bully Boy administration as opposed to a Bully Man one. Operation Enduring Falsehood continues and Bully Boy can't be bothered with what's actually going down here. Nor can his administration because they take their cues from the top.
Let me now return to thank yous. These are in no particular order.
Gina and Krista were not just supportive in the gina & krista round-robin, they were also supportive in e-mails and on the phone. When, after a week, I confessed that I thought my lack of experience was hurting Rebecca's site, they listened, at length, and gave me the push to keep going. Thank you.
Cedric gave me a piece of advice early on that he got from Kat: If due to time or any other reason (including having nothing to say), you're not wanting to blog, don't do it. I thought it was good avice. I ignored it the night I attended a vigil in my area for Cindy Sheehan. The next day was a haze. Cedric didn't say, "I told you so." He didn't even bring up the advice when, a few days after, I mentioned it to him. But it was good advice and the only other time (last night) when I was too tired to do much, I heeded it by adding in Kat's advice of "It is what it is." Cedric was a great sounding board and always there to ask how I was holding up. Thank you.
Kat, the groovy Kat. If there's an experience that can't be related through a song, it hasn't had enough publicity to reach Kat yet. She helped me soar on the few times I really reached a level I was proud of and she helped me accept that "It is what it is" on those times when I felt I'd really stunk up Rebecca's site. Kat, if I can speak for the community and not just myself, we are not worthy. Thank you.
Betty never let me forget that life comes first. Which is strange coming from Betty who invests more time in an entry than anyone else I've spoken to. Each entry goes through mulitple drafts and Betty's never satisfied with the end results (I think they're glorious entries). One night when I was having the worst time pulling together what I wanted to say, Betty called and asked, "Can I run something by you?" Her issue struck me as relatively minor, though she would swear today that it wasn't, and I think she was checking up on me. After we discussed her entry, she immediately asked what I was working on and talked me through a problem I was having with a paragraph. She did this while dealing with two kids fighting and rocking a third. Betty, you amaze me. Thank you.
Jess, Ty, Jim, Dona and Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review seemed to spend the first two weeks of my blogging on suicide watch. "Is she okay?" I imagined them asking as they drew straws to figure out who had to call me that day. Each of them brought a gift with their advice. If I were to boil it down to one piece from each one, it would read like the following: Dona gave me the gift of "no set length." A short entry can be as powerful as a long one. Say what you need to say. Ty gave me the gift of "say it from inside yourself and it'll come out true to you." Ty stressed that the only great wrong was writing about something you only half-cared about.
Jim gave me the gift of "speak frankly." Jim truly believes that people should either like what you say or not like it. He feels there are more than enough timid voices making passive statements. Jess gave me the gift of expressing righteous anger. He repeatedly stressed that a committment to peace didn't mean I had to sound like a Zen master and that came in very handy. Ava's gift (one she shares with C.I.) is getting you to talk out the issue and figure out what you really think. A phrase, a key word, would end up being the guide I needed when I found myself lost. Thank you.
Dallas gets a special mention because I had a huge link problem one day. Half the entry was one link. There were supposed to be three links in that half but the whole thing ran together as one link. Stressing, I went to the e-mails and saw Dallas' e-mail. We'd spoken during all night sessions for The Third Estate Sunday Review and I knew he was the "link king." He responded immediately to my SOS and talked me through the problem. Thank you.
Which brings me to Mike and, as Dorothy said to the Scarecrow, "I think I'll miss you most of all." (Or something like that.) I am positive, 100% positive, that Rebecca asked Mike to check in regularly. Mike would deny that. (Rebecca denies it.) In the midst of a draining day when I didn't see how I'd have anything in me worth saying by the evening, my assistant would either tell me Mike was on the phone or, if I had been in a session, that he had called. The first thing out of his mouth, after "Hello", would always be the funniest story that would make me laugh and energize me. Mike has many gifts that he shared but the gift of laughter is what I'll remember most. Thank you.So who does that leave?
C.I. What can you say about someone you've know for years and years and years and years and . . . We've been friends forever. We're still friends despite the fact that C.I. had to hold my hand via the phone to get me through the earliest entries. I do not mean, "Let me read this to you and give me feedback." I mean, "Stay on the line because I'm about to start writing." Anne Sexton and Maxine Kumin used to do that while writing poetry during the day. I don't think I reached either Sexton or Kumin proportions; however, what I did reach (and the fact that I continued) owes a huge debt to C.I. staying on the phone.
A number of us have suggested, at various times, to C.I. the need to take a break. Substituting for Rebecca, I understood why a break from The Common Ills has been impossible thus far. I had only one thing I planned to write about, CODEPINK's Stop The Next War Now and I only got to that this week. Why? Because there are things that members feel are important. As someone who's often disappointed in my party's leadership (or lack of it), I understood when e-mails were forwarded to me that would ask me to address something. I've read all the e-mails forwarded and I think everyone of you has what it takes to run a site. But I do understand shyness and people worrying about not using the correct grammer, etc.
What I got most clearly, however, was that there are issues that matter to you and you need to have them validated. Where I could, I did. Where I couldn't, I plead time constraints.
Near the end there were usually a little over fifty e-mails a day. I addressed what I could. I understand now how, with multiple daily entries, C.I. still can't address every issue raised.(And why, despite the fact that water rights is one of C.I.'s big issues, there's still not been time to go into that at The Common Ills to any real degree.)
I told you earlier that C.I. didn't tell anyone about the site going up until people started e-mailing. There's a post on the second day that C.I. rates as the worst. It's the one about the e-mails that have just come in. I didn't think it was embarrassing (and am unaware of anyone saying to C.I. "You should be embarrased by that") but when you all started e-mailing, I grasped how much that meant. I wasn't flying blind the way C.I. was (as noted in the thank yous, I had plenty of people with experience that I could ask advice from). Even so, when I had e-mails forwarded on the second day, it did mean something to me.
The point of the previous four paragraphs is that you are the voice of The Common Ills. It's your interests and feedback that shape the community. I'd read C.I. writing about that (I think C.I. uses "input" in place of "feedback") repeatedly and think, "Right because they suggest articles to be linked to . . ." But it is a great deal more than that. When C.I.'s said to me that water rights will be the issue of an entry the next day and I've gone over there to read that only to find no mention at all of it, I didn't get how much you determined what was covered. (That's not to imply that the community doesn't care about water rights.) Time and again, your e-mails noting something that you don't feel is being addressed results in it being addressed at The Common Ills.
Whether it's the passing of John H. Johnson or, this week, the coverage from Mexico in the New York Times, you're determing where the community heads. That's why C.I. still reads every members e-mail (even if Ava or Jess has additional time and respond to those e-mails). "Couldn't you just get a summary of the e-mails?" is a question Jim, myself and others have asked at various times. No.There are e-mails where a person may discuss for the bulk of an e-mail one topic and then, almost in a sotto voice, add something important in closing. You have to know the members to know if the closing is going to be where the big issue for them is. Krista and Gina are suggesting a cap on membership and I favor the idea only because the volume of the e-mails have already reached the point where they're really too much for one person.
But I do understand why they have to be read and how much members are shaping the community. I had an e-mail early on from Sherry about an issue that was quite important to her and she expressed the importance clearly. It became a topic here as a result. Mike's on a campaign to convince me to start my own site. To be honest with you, I'm not sure that I want that kind of responsibility. "Want that kind of responsibility." I could handle it, I'm not sure I want it.
People are looking for voices that address issues that matter and not in a "Hey, here's a groovy Republican saying a great message so let's be good lefties and give it up!" I know from the e-mails I've received how upset that makes you. You have voices, from the left, that speak to you and are looking for additional ones. So when a blogger steers you to a neocon or worse (if there is worse), you feel disappointed and let down.
You're also very tired of, and C.I. had told me about this in May but I saw with the e-mails how true it was, "brave voices" that would be brave if this was March, 2002 perhaps but, considering the mood of the country, are only currently slightly to the left of Joe Lieberman.
There was a time when, for instance, sexism is something you would put up with because the voices you knew of were limited to a small number. Now someone makes repeated rude jokes (or, to be C.I., "jokes") about women and you realize there's a whole world out there of other voices. You no longer have to put up with comments about Michelle Malkin's making sense or any other nonsense. (Yes, that's a reference to "Booger." As someone who got the full break down via West and other members contacted -- I can risk the ire of C.I., we've been friends for years -- about West by the "Booger," I've written that site off. As I think has the entire community. What's gone up here by Rebecca and at the other community sites was a limited version because until Gina and Krista posed the question of "Did anyone else here from the Booger?" there was no idea that the Booger was actually slamming West to strangers in e-mails and attempting to find out personal details about West. Possibly Booger would do better work if he weren't trying so hard to work a personal vendetta.)
The tide has turned, as the Rolling Stones would sing (for Kat), and weak, timid voices saying, "Come on guys, here's how we can please the right!" just don't cut it anymore. (And as C.I. noted in May, didn't we already try that in 2004? Water ourselves down with the hopes of stripping off voters? Didn't we see how that worked out?) The left didn't vanish or suddenly go extinct. It did lose public voices and public outlets.
A message of "We're like them except for one or two key issues" is not a message of hope. Americans are concerned with the increasingly lowered standard of living wage. Americans are concerned with the quagmire that's taken too many lives. Presenting fine tuning instead of honest alterntives isn't a message of hope. It's not a message that will inspire. Out flanking doesn't build up a base but it can decrease one.
As Wally wrote, "If you think about it, at some point, Cokie Roberts must have made some people think she had to something to say." Now she's a dinasaur and those who feel the need to push, for instance, the Bull Moose, will find themselves in the same stomping grounds as Cokie.
David Brock has a transformation, an awakening. The Bull Moose just appears to be someone who had a few peeves with his own party and now wants to dub himself an independent so exactly why some on the left and on the "left" want to rush to kneel before him is beyond me.I've never been able to figure out if those types were psuedo left or just plain stupid. People can change and I'll be the first to applaud anyone who truly changes, like David Brock. But the gushing over the Bull Moose and the eagerness to listen to his constant water-down advice is troubling. (Yes, Wally, Sherry, Rhonda, Zach, Rachel, Liang, Keesha and Brad, I'm specifically speaking of the person you asked questions about. As I said in the replies to your e-mails, I have no idea why someone feels the need to get in bed with the Bull Moose but let's hope they use condoms.) When the same person urges that we treat James Dobson with respect (hours after C.I. does the "Focus on the Fool" post), I undertand why so many of you have turned against that voice. Let's do a little check list for a minute. The person brags over Simon Rosenberg and, when called on that, expresses surprise that Simon Rosenberg supported (and supports, at least at that point) the war on Iraq, the person's in bed with the Bull Moose, trashes Victoria Hooper (because she's from "Hollywood" and, probably, because she's a woman), and also wants people to stop making jokes about James Dobson you're left with a voice that has little to say to the left about the times we live in.
Which brings us to the final thank you, Rebecca. Our warrior woman of the left. Kicking ass and taking names. Rebecca, as she herself has noted here, went through a very dark period after a personal tragedy. Instead of allowing it to break her, she found strength (and, judging by the phone calls, she's found even more strength while on vacation).
Whether taking on "centrists" like the whiner Ed ("How dare you write that my hair looks like my mommy cuts it with a bowl!") or The New Republican, Rebecca's not afraid to call it like it is.
She was the assistant Selena Kyle some years ago, now she is our Catwoman. (The Michelle Pfeiffer version.) The wrong community member running a site was dubbed the "catfighter" (no offense to C.I.), the catfighter is Rebecca.
What? A dog fight is something noble but a catfight is something to run from? Forget the stereotypes (and sexism) involved in the labels, a cat (be it a house cat or a panther) fights deadly and so does Rebecca.
Two female bloggers e-mailed me during Rebecca's absence and noted how much they missed her (I did too). That's because, if you're a woman, you appreciate her take no shit attitude. She's not ego stroking the half-comptent male with any hopes that she can make him "better."
If he's a nit wit (yes, Centrist Ed, you'd be near the top of that list), she has no use in making him feel that it's okay that everything he pushes goes against what we believe in.
Centrist Ed was shocked, shocked!, by the way she ran her site. To quote Demi Moore in The Butcher's Wife, "You should get out more." Your ideal of 'the little lady' is your concept, not her's. She won't wear the Scarlet Letter for you. She won't play your sin-eater or tell you it's okay that you want to privatize social security or whatever other public good you're trying to put on the chopping block.
And she'll speak straight from the heart and in a way that her readers can relate. None of that, "I'm sure ___ means well; however, . . ." She'll call you on your bluff, she'll call you on your ego.
Judging by the reactions of so many men, she should change the title of this site to "Rebecca Winters Can't Say That! . . . Can She?" Of course she can. And does.
I thank her for being the brave voice she is. (And I thanked her for that even on evenings and nights when I cursed her for leaving me in charge while she was on vacation.)
I like Lizz Winstead. But when Lizz had a problem with a comment I posted (a pro-peace comment) and attacked, on air, another poster because she wrongly thought they had posted it, Rebecca started this site. People asked what I thought about, about the reason behind Rebecca's site? I thought it was perfectly in keeping with Rebecca. My comments were the ones attacked and, to me, it was something to shrug off. To Rebecca, it was the final straw because you don't do that to her friends. A few years ago, you could. But where others would face despair and cower, Rebecca came out of it roaring.
She's spoken of her abortion here. As much as her ex-in-laws will allow her too at any rate. Which I think is crap, if you want my opinion. I'll give my take and they can be mad at me because I truly don't give a damn. Rebecca and her then husband wanted children. She got pregnant. A few months into the pregnancy, tests revealed that the child would be born with a birth defect that would mean the child would be in severe pain the brief time the child would be alive. Rebecca worked really hard to nail that post and saw it as the most important thing she'd ever write, just to explain one more reason why choice is not the business of the government or anyone looking in from outside. When she finally thought she had nailed it, she sent it to her ex-husband who had no problem with the post and told her she was very brave to share what she was sharing. Then her ex-in-laws (mother-in-law and father-in-law) read the post and told her there was no way it was going up as is. They began "editing" it and gutting everything to the point that if she'd posted it, you would know she had an abortion, that the decision was difficult for her to reach for some reason that was no longer included in the post and a few lines about how important it was to save reproductive rights.
Though her ex-in-laws may not realize it, they put her in a situation she had struggled to emerge from: a sense of powerlessness. She wrote very frankly about the debate she had with herself over her options and explained why she made the choice she felt she had to based on all the medical evidence and not wanting to bring a child into the world when the child's life would be brief and would be filled with multiple operations.
Having set all that down in the frankest language, that very difficult decision that she would still make today, she now once again found herself forced into a decision -- whether she hurts her ex-in-laws or shoves down the story. This came at a time when a number of issues were already perculating (like the attack on West).
That's the reason she went on the vacation. The drama the ex-in-laws created over the post brought the whole sense of being pushed against a wall back to her. In one of the first lines they gutted, Rebecca had written that she had a decision to make, not a choice and that until you're in that position you may not grasp that. Once again, she was put into a situation where she had no choice, only a decision.
Rebecca was as frank about that as she could be here and a number of you have written asking if she's okay. She is okay and she sounds ready to take on the world. I missed her and I know you did as well. But on Monday, when she returns, you'll see that she's recharged and ready to take on the world once again.
Rebecca of Sunny Brook Farm is what many of us used to call her when I first met her. That was partly due to her name and a great deal more to do with her outlook and disposition. If you'd ask me then how she'd handle difficulties, my prediction would have been way off. Some people have inner strength all along and some people gain it. Rebecca falls into the latter camp and I think when we read her, we grasp that and respond to it. She's proven herself not to be a victim. She's also proven herself not to be a survivor. She's a thriver who picks up a layer of strength each time others might go under.
There's nothing in this post that will surprise her because I've made similar comments to her for many months. But the people who get Rebecca, really get her, pick up on that and respond to it.(Ask Mike.) I think it shines through in her posts where she doesn't try to pretty things up but never loses hope in the fact that we can fight anything if we fight it together. I've known Rebecca since high school and I'm truly amazed and surprised by her strength.
There are any number of ways I could say goodbye to everyone who's stayed with the site during Rebecca's vacation but I wanted to go out saying my thanks to those who helped and encouraged and to take a moment to honor Rebecca because I don't think she gets a fourth of the credit she deserves for what she does.
(My other best friend, C.I., is also very strong. But C.I. asked that I focus on the community, which I've tried to do. Tip for everyone, if you're planning on singing C.I.'s praises, keep it under wraps and don't post that it's coming up ahead of time or you will be asked not to do so.)
Rebecca's a very special voice and a needed one. We've all missed you Rebecca! We're glad you're coming back.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
In the struggle rewards are few. In the fact, I know of only two, loving friends and living dreams. These rewards are not so few it seems.
Anonymous
So when Rebecca made the sudden decision to take a vacation and take some time for herself, while we understood, we were wondering what would happen to the site. Rebecca asked her friend Elaine to fill in. We'd heard much about Elaine from both Rebecca and C.I. From the airport, Rebecca, infamous for her phone calls, was still making phone calls in the short time before she had to board her plane. Elaine suspects that we were asked to check up on her by Rebecca (read the entry). That's not the case. However, she did reach Ty and pass on Elaine's phone number and ask that he share it with us. Her reason for doing that was she wanted Elaine to experience the fun (and the not fun, we assume) of helping out with an edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review.
From July 19th until Friday, September 2nd, Elaine's been substituting for Rebecca and she's done an amazing job, impressing us all. She is an important voice and we hope she'll continue to help out here but most of all, like Mike, we're really hoping she'll start her own site.
Among the people Elaine thanks is us and we respond with, "No, thank you." It was a pleasure to read your writing and it is inspiration to work with you here.
Here's Elaine's latest post. We say "latest," not "last." We're keeping our fingers crossed.
"Noting thanks"
Elaine here on what may be my last poll as Rebecca returns Monday from her vacation. I would really love to be able to do a post this weekend but The Third Estate Sunday Review takes a lot of time and energy and I've already committed to helping them (gladly committed). Barring a time miracle, this will be the last post.
I want to again thank everyone who e-mailed and offered support throughout. As a Common Ills community member since November (third day, would have been sooner but C.I. didn't breathe a word of the site until the first e-mails started coming in), I knew that members were smart, funny and interested in the world they live in. After a while you know that, for instance, Lloyd's going to highlight Ruth Conniff at The Progressive or that Cedric loves Colorado Indymedia or that Erika's going to say something profound and make you laugh or that . . .
Grace Lee Boggs was someone I knew of but I had no idea she did a column every other week until Liang spotlighted her for Women's History Month. You learn things about members and you learn about the world so I didn't think, when C.I. started forwarding the e-mails, that I was in for any surprises; however, I was wrong. As committed and passionate as I knew the community to be, I still didn't realize the depth of that committment or the depth of the passion.
So I really want everyone to know that I appreciated the support. I want to thank a number of people but let me, for Mike, first note Democracy Now!
Top City Official Blasts FEMA: "This Is A National Disgrace" (Democracy Now!)
The head of New Orleans' emergency operations blasted the federal government and FEMA for its slow response. The official Terry Ebbert said "This is a national emergency. This is a national disgrace." Ebbert went on to say "FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans." Ebbert said "It's criminal within the confines of the United States that within one hour of the hurricane they weren't force-feeding us. It's like FEMA has never been to a hurricane."
Put the above with the item below.
Bush Officials Criticized For Staying On Vacation (Democracy Now!)
Criticism is also mounting over the Bush administration's handling of the crisis. President Bush didn't return from his vacation until Wednesday and several other top officials remain on summer breaks. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice had been vacationing in New York City but returned to Washington on Thursday. Meanwhile Vice President Dick Cheney has been in Wyoming and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has been in Maine.
Who's working here? Where are the adults in the administration? There's a reason it's a Bully Boy administration as opposed to a Bully Man one. Operation Enduring Falsehood continues and Bully Boy can't be bothered with what's actually going down here. Nor can his administration because they take their cues from the top.
Let me now return to thank yous. These are in no particular order.
Gina and Krista were not just supportive in the gina & krista round-robin, they were also supportive in e-mails and on the phone. When, after a week, I confessed that I thought my lack of experience was hurting Rebecca's site, they listened, at length, and gave me the push to keep going. Thank you.
Cedric gave me a piece of advice early on that he got from Kat: If due to time or any other reason (including having nothing to say), you're not wanting to blog, don't do it. I thought it was good avice. I ignored it the night I attended a vigil in my area for Cindy Sheehan. The next day was a haze. Cedric didn't say, "I told you so." He didn't even bring up the advice when, a few days after, I mentioned it to him. But it was good advice and the only other time (last night) when I was too tired to do much, I heeded it by adding in Kat's advice of "It is what it is." Cedric was a great sounding board and always there to ask how I was holding up. Thank you.
Kat, the groovy Kat. If there's an experience that can't be related through a song, it hasn't had enough publicity to reach Kat yet. She helped me soar on the few times I really reached a level I was proud of and she helped me accept that "It is what it is" on those times when I felt I'd really stunk up Rebecca's site. Kat, if I can speak for the community and not just myself, we are not worthy. Thank you.
Betty never let me forget that life comes first. Which is strange coming from Betty who invests more time in an entry than anyone else I've spoken to. Each entry goes through mulitple drafts and Betty's never satisfied with the end results (I think they're glorious entries). One night when I was having the worst time pulling together what I wanted to say, Betty called and asked, "Can I run something by you?" Her issue struck me as relatively minor, though she would swear today that it wasn't, and I think she was checking up on me. After we discussed her entry, she immediately asked what I was working on and talked me through a problem I was having with a paragraph. She did this while dealing with two kids fighting and rocking a third. Betty, you amaze me. Thank you.
Jess, Ty, Jim, Dona and Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review seemed to spend the first two weeks of my blogging on suicide watch. "Is she okay?" I imagined them asking as they drew straws to figure out who had to call me that day. Each of them brought a gift with their advice. If I were to boil it down to one piece from each one, it would read like the following: Dona gave me the gift of "no set length." A short entry can be as powerful as a long one. Say what you need to say. Ty gave me the gift of "say it from inside yourself and it'll come out true to you." Ty stressed that the only great wrong was writing about something you only half-cared about.
Jim gave me the gift of "speak frankly." Jim truly believes that people should either like what you say or not like it. He feels there are more than enough timid voices making passive statements. Jess gave me the gift of expressing righteous anger. He repeatedly stressed that a committment to peace didn't mean I had to sound like a Zen master and that came in very handy. Ava's gift (one she shares with C.I.) is getting you to talk out the issue and figure out what you really think. A phrase, a key word, would end up being the guide I needed when I found myself lost. Thank you.
Dallas gets a special mention because I had a huge link problem one day. Half the entry was one link. There were supposed to be three links in that half but the whole thing ran together as one link. Stressing, I went to the e-mails and saw Dallas' e-mail. We'd spoken during all night sessions for The Third Estate Sunday Review and I knew he was the "link king." He responded immediately to my SOS and talked me through the problem. Thank you.
Which brings me to Mike and, as Dorothy said to the Scarecrow, "I think I'll miss you most of all." (Or something like that.) I am positive, 100% positive, that Rebecca asked Mike to check in regularly. Mike would deny that. (Rebecca denies it.) In the midst of a draining day when I didn't see how I'd have anything in me worth saying by the evening, my assistant would either tell me Mike was on the phone or, if I had been in a session, that he had called. The first thing out of his mouth, after "Hello", would always be the funniest story that would make me laugh and energize me. Mike has many gifts that he shared but the gift of laughter is what I'll remember most. Thank you.So who does that leave?
C.I. What can you say about someone you've know for years and years and years and years and . . . We've been friends forever. We're still friends despite the fact that C.I. had to hold my hand via the phone to get me through the earliest entries. I do not mean, "Let me read this to you and give me feedback." I mean, "Stay on the line because I'm about to start writing." Anne Sexton and Maxine Kumin used to do that while writing poetry during the day. I don't think I reached either Sexton or Kumin proportions; however, what I did reach (and the fact that I continued) owes a huge debt to C.I. staying on the phone.
A number of us have suggested, at various times, to C.I. the need to take a break. Substituting for Rebecca, I understood why a break from The Common Ills has been impossible thus far. I had only one thing I planned to write about, CODEPINK's Stop The Next War Now and I only got to that this week. Why? Because there are things that members feel are important. As someone who's often disappointed in my party's leadership (or lack of it), I understood when e-mails were forwarded to me that would ask me to address something. I've read all the e-mails forwarded and I think everyone of you has what it takes to run a site. But I do understand shyness and people worrying about not using the correct grammer, etc.
What I got most clearly, however, was that there are issues that matter to you and you need to have them validated. Where I could, I did. Where I couldn't, I plead time constraints.
Near the end there were usually a little over fifty e-mails a day. I addressed what I could. I understand now how, with multiple daily entries, C.I. still can't address every issue raised.(And why, despite the fact that water rights is one of C.I.'s big issues, there's still not been time to go into that at The Common Ills to any real degree.)
I told you earlier that C.I. didn't tell anyone about the site going up until people started e-mailing. There's a post on the second day that C.I. rates as the worst. It's the one about the e-mails that have just come in. I didn't think it was embarrassing (and am unaware of anyone saying to C.I. "You should be embarrased by that") but when you all started e-mailing, I grasped how much that meant. I wasn't flying blind the way C.I. was (as noted in the thank yous, I had plenty of people with experience that I could ask advice from). Even so, when I had e-mails forwarded on the second day, it did mean something to me.
The point of the previous four paragraphs is that you are the voice of The Common Ills. It's your interests and feedback that shape the community. I'd read C.I. writing about that (I think C.I. uses "input" in place of "feedback") repeatedly and think, "Right because they suggest articles to be linked to . . ." But it is a great deal more than that. When C.I.'s said to me that water rights will be the issue of an entry the next day and I've gone over there to read that only to find no mention at all of it, I didn't get how much you determined what was covered. (That's not to imply that the community doesn't care about water rights.) Time and again, your e-mails noting something that you don't feel is being addressed results in it being addressed at The Common Ills.
Whether it's the passing of John H. Johnson or, this week, the coverage from Mexico in the New York Times, you're determing where the community heads. That's why C.I. still reads every members e-mail (even if Ava or Jess has additional time and respond to those e-mails). "Couldn't you just get a summary of the e-mails?" is a question Jim, myself and others have asked at various times. No.There are e-mails where a person may discuss for the bulk of an e-mail one topic and then, almost in a sotto voice, add something important in closing. You have to know the members to know if the closing is going to be where the big issue for them is. Krista and Gina are suggesting a cap on membership and I favor the idea only because the volume of the e-mails have already reached the point where they're really too much for one person.
But I do understand why they have to be read and how much members are shaping the community. I had an e-mail early on from Sherry about an issue that was quite important to her and she expressed the importance clearly. It became a topic here as a result. Mike's on a campaign to convince me to start my own site. To be honest with you, I'm not sure that I want that kind of responsibility. "Want that kind of responsibility." I could handle it, I'm not sure I want it.
People are looking for voices that address issues that matter and not in a "Hey, here's a groovy Republican saying a great message so let's be good lefties and give it up!" I know from the e-mails I've received how upset that makes you. You have voices, from the left, that speak to you and are looking for additional ones. So when a blogger steers you to a neocon or worse (if there is worse), you feel disappointed and let down.
You're also very tired of, and C.I. had told me about this in May but I saw with the e-mails how true it was, "brave voices" that would be brave if this was March, 2002 perhaps but, considering the mood of the country, are only currently slightly to the left of Joe Lieberman.
There was a time when, for instance, sexism is something you would put up with because the voices you knew of were limited to a small number. Now someone makes repeated rude jokes (or, to be C.I., "jokes") about women and you realize there's a whole world out there of other voices. You no longer have to put up with comments about Michelle Malkin's making sense or any other nonsense. (Yes, that's a reference to "Booger." As someone who got the full break down via West and other members contacted -- I can risk the ire of C.I., we've been friends for years -- about West by the "Booger," I've written that site off. As I think has the entire community. What's gone up here by Rebecca and at the other community sites was a limited version because until Gina and Krista posed the question of "Did anyone else here from the Booger?" there was no idea that the Booger was actually slamming West to strangers in e-mails and attempting to find out personal details about West. Possibly Booger would do better work if he weren't trying so hard to work a personal vendetta.)
The tide has turned, as the Rolling Stones would sing (for Kat), and weak, timid voices saying, "Come on guys, here's how we can please the right!" just don't cut it anymore. (And as C.I. noted in May, didn't we already try that in 2004? Water ourselves down with the hopes of stripping off voters? Didn't we see how that worked out?) The left didn't vanish or suddenly go extinct. It did lose public voices and public outlets.
A message of "We're like them except for one or two key issues" is not a message of hope. Americans are concerned with the increasingly lowered standard of living wage. Americans are concerned with the quagmire that's taken too many lives. Presenting fine tuning instead of honest alterntives isn't a message of hope. It's not a message that will inspire. Out flanking doesn't build up a base but it can decrease one.
As Wally wrote, "If you think about it, at some point, Cokie Roberts must have made some people think she had to something to say." Now she's a dinasaur and those who feel the need to push, for instance, the Bull Moose, will find themselves in the same stomping grounds as Cokie.
David Brock has a transformation, an awakening. The Bull Moose just appears to be someone who had a few peeves with his own party and now wants to dub himself an independent so exactly why some on the left and on the "left" want to rush to kneel before him is beyond me.I've never been able to figure out if those types were psuedo left or just plain stupid. People can change and I'll be the first to applaud anyone who truly changes, like David Brock. But the gushing over the Bull Moose and the eagerness to listen to his constant water-down advice is troubling. (Yes, Wally, Sherry, Rhonda, Zach, Rachel, Liang, Keesha and Brad, I'm specifically speaking of the person you asked questions about. As I said in the replies to your e-mails, I have no idea why someone feels the need to get in bed with the Bull Moose but let's hope they use condoms.) When the same person urges that we treat James Dobson with respect (hours after C.I. does the "Focus on the Fool" post), I undertand why so many of you have turned against that voice. Let's do a little check list for a minute. The person brags over Simon Rosenberg and, when called on that, expresses surprise that Simon Rosenberg supported (and supports, at least at that point) the war on Iraq, the person's in bed with the Bull Moose, trashes Victoria Hooper (because she's from "Hollywood" and, probably, because she's a woman), and also wants people to stop making jokes about James Dobson you're left with a voice that has little to say to the left about the times we live in.
Which brings us to the final thank you, Rebecca. Our warrior woman of the left. Kicking ass and taking names. Rebecca, as she herself has noted here, went through a very dark period after a personal tragedy. Instead of allowing it to break her, she found strength (and, judging by the phone calls, she's found even more strength while on vacation).
Whether taking on "centrists" like the whiner Ed ("How dare you write that my hair looks like my mommy cuts it with a bowl!") or The New Republican, Rebecca's not afraid to call it like it is.
She was the assistant Selena Kyle some years ago, now she is our Catwoman. (The Michelle Pfeiffer version.) The wrong community member running a site was dubbed the "catfighter" (no offense to C.I.), the catfighter is Rebecca.
What? A dog fight is something noble but a catfight is something to run from? Forget the stereotypes (and sexism) involved in the labels, a cat (be it a house cat or a panther) fights deadly and so does Rebecca.
Two female bloggers e-mailed me during Rebecca's absence and noted how much they missed her (I did too). That's because, if you're a woman, you appreciate her take no shit attitude. She's not ego stroking the half-comptent male with any hopes that she can make him "better."
If he's a nit wit (yes, Centrist Ed, you'd be near the top of that list), she has no use in making him feel that it's okay that everything he pushes goes against what we believe in.
Centrist Ed was shocked, shocked!, by the way she ran her site. To quote Demi Moore in The Butcher's Wife, "You should get out more." Your ideal of 'the little lady' is your concept, not her's. She won't wear the Scarlet Letter for you. She won't play your sin-eater or tell you it's okay that you want to privatize social security or whatever other public good you're trying to put on the chopping block.
And she'll speak straight from the heart and in a way that her readers can relate. None of that, "I'm sure ___ means well; however, . . ." She'll call you on your bluff, she'll call you on your ego.
Judging by the reactions of so many men, she should change the title of this site to "Rebecca Winters Can't Say That! . . . Can She?" Of course she can. And does.
I thank her for being the brave voice she is. (And I thanked her for that even on evenings and nights when I cursed her for leaving me in charge while she was on vacation.)
I like Lizz Winstead. But when Lizz had a problem with a comment I posted (a pro-peace comment) and attacked, on air, another poster because she wrongly thought they had posted it, Rebecca started this site. People asked what I thought about, about the reason behind Rebecca's site? I thought it was perfectly in keeping with Rebecca. My comments were the ones attacked and, to me, it was something to shrug off. To Rebecca, it was the final straw because you don't do that to her friends. A few years ago, you could. But where others would face despair and cower, Rebecca came out of it roaring.
She's spoken of her abortion here. As much as her ex-in-laws will allow her too at any rate. Which I think is crap, if you want my opinion. I'll give my take and they can be mad at me because I truly don't give a damn. Rebecca and her then husband wanted children. She got pregnant. A few months into the pregnancy, tests revealed that the child would be born with a birth defect that would mean the child would be in severe pain the brief time the child would be alive. Rebecca worked really hard to nail that post and saw it as the most important thing she'd ever write, just to explain one more reason why choice is not the business of the government or anyone looking in from outside. When she finally thought she had nailed it, she sent it to her ex-husband who had no problem with the post and told her she was very brave to share what she was sharing. Then her ex-in-laws (mother-in-law and father-in-law) read the post and told her there was no way it was going up as is. They began "editing" it and gutting everything to the point that if she'd posted it, you would know she had an abortion, that the decision was difficult for her to reach for some reason that was no longer included in the post and a few lines about how important it was to save reproductive rights.
Though her ex-in-laws may not realize it, they put her in a situation she had struggled to emerge from: a sense of powerlessness. She wrote very frankly about the debate she had with herself over her options and explained why she made the choice she felt she had to based on all the medical evidence and not wanting to bring a child into the world when the child's life would be brief and would be filled with multiple operations.
Having set all that down in the frankest language, that very difficult decision that she would still make today, she now once again found herself forced into a decision -- whether she hurts her ex-in-laws or shoves down the story. This came at a time when a number of issues were already perculating (like the attack on West).
That's the reason she went on the vacation. The drama the ex-in-laws created over the post brought the whole sense of being pushed against a wall back to her. In one of the first lines they gutted, Rebecca had written that she had a decision to make, not a choice and that until you're in that position you may not grasp that. Once again, she was put into a situation where she had no choice, only a decision.
Rebecca was as frank about that as she could be here and a number of you have written asking if she's okay. She is okay and she sounds ready to take on the world. I missed her and I know you did as well. But on Monday, when she returns, you'll see that she's recharged and ready to take on the world once again.
Rebecca of Sunny Brook Farm is what many of us used to call her when I first met her. That was partly due to her name and a great deal more to do with her outlook and disposition. If you'd ask me then how she'd handle difficulties, my prediction would have been way off. Some people have inner strength all along and some people gain it. Rebecca falls into the latter camp and I think when we read her, we grasp that and respond to it. She's proven herself not to be a victim. She's also proven herself not to be a survivor. She's a thriver who picks up a layer of strength each time others might go under.
There's nothing in this post that will surprise her because I've made similar comments to her for many months. But the people who get Rebecca, really get her, pick up on that and respond to it.(Ask Mike.) I think it shines through in her posts where she doesn't try to pretty things up but never loses hope in the fact that we can fight anything if we fight it together. I've known Rebecca since high school and I'm truly amazed and surprised by her strength.
There are any number of ways I could say goodbye to everyone who's stayed with the site during Rebecca's vacation but I wanted to go out saying my thanks to those who helped and encouraged and to take a moment to honor Rebecca because I don't think she gets a fourth of the credit she deserves for what she does.
(My other best friend, C.I., is also very strong. But C.I. asked that I focus on the community, which I've tried to do. Tip for everyone, if you're planning on singing C.I.'s praises, keep it under wraps and don't post that it's coming up ahead of time or you will be asked not to do so.)
Rebecca's a very special voice and a needed one. We've all missed you Rebecca! We're glad you're coming back.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
In the struggle rewards are few. In the fact, I know of only two, loving friends and living dreams. These rewards are not so few it seems.
Anonymous
Blog Spotlight: "Every Day is Husband's Day" (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man)
Is there anyone else like Betty? We don't think so. With her kids back in school and Thomas Friedman on vacation, she planned to take a little time for herself to get back into the swing of things and not worry about putting up any entries at her site Thomas Friedman is a Great Man.
Then much to our surprise, we hear Saturday morning that Betty broke her vacation to post. We asked her about this entry and she's not real impressed with it. She says she "tossed it off."
She also said that e-mails came in asking her if she'd stopped blogging so when she had "twenty minutes" she brainstormed an entry and typed it up.
Maybe she's gotten in touch with her inner Thomas Friedman? (If so, Betty, please kick his ass.) All we know is that it's hilarious and that Betinna Friedman (Betty's fictional character) is the only reason we even bother to notice Thomas Friedman these days.
"Every Day is Husband's Day"
Like a Merchant & Ivory film, a vacation with Thomas Friedman begs one question: When will it end?
For the love of God, when will it end?
For over a week, we've searched every store in upper Manhattan looking for the perfect shorty robe after the problems on The Scream Machine at Coney Island.
I don't know if it's his ever increasing number of blonde highlights (Mrs. K is correct, they really do look like gray hairs) or what, but lately he's all Goldilocks on me.
This shorty robe was too shiny, that shorty robe wasn't shiny enough. This one was too rough on his hiney, that one was machine wash only. This shorty robe looked like a blood stain, that one didn't bring out the . . . crumbs in his mustache? I have no idea after day after after day, hour after hour of looking for a shorty robe.
I do know that we didn't go to Goodwill or the Salvation Army. I long ago started to doubt that they were the "upscale" stores catering to an "exclusive" crowd, as Thomas Friedman had repeatedly told me. Somehow, the fact that we went everywhere but, the point was driven home. Constantly.
I've also grasped that a nice outfit shouldn't cost less than a lunch at a diner. Another point Thomas Friedman had previously convinced me of.
I would call the whole thing an eye opening experience were it not for the fact that all the junk in Thomas Friedman's trunk made most of the shorty robes he tried on ride up in the back so I was left to cover my eyes more often than not.
Under the harsh store lights, the butt looked even larger and even hairer. To think of all the times I've played Bill Keller to his Thomas Friedman and kissed that ass.
It just makes me want to gargle for a month with Scope.
At one store that made Thomas Friedman's International Male catalogues look like Guns & Ammo, we bumped into little Davey Brooks who was trying on a sock. Not on his feet, I might add -- a memory I'd prefer to blank on but one that scarred into my brain and emotional well being.
The moment wasn't made easier by the fact that little Davey insisted upon twirling around to show us the full . . . package?
"Brooks, I see your Bo-Bos!" Thomas Friedman cackled.
Little David, who's no David by Michael Angelo, sad to say stood there, lips twitching in that nervous smile he gets while he attempts to figure out what something means. I'm sure you've seen the look countless times on PBS' NewsHour.
The long moment provided me with enough time to note that if your belly sticks out further than your sock packaged goods, it's probably a smart idea to consider another wardrobe choice.
Finally deciding that Thomas Friedman must be insulting him, David, no quick wit there, replied, "Oh yeah? Well Friedman, you got a fat ass!"
"Fluffy!" Thomas Friedman huffed. "I have a fluffy bottom."
If fluffy is a term for a fat and and flabby ass combo, Thomas Friedman is correct.
He was incorrect when he decided that he too must try on a sock. Much to little Davey's amusement, Thomas Friedman couldn't manage to keep the sock on.
As little Davey flounced off in search of something a little less "conservative," Thomas Friedman began cursing the merchandise to the point that we were asked to leave because we were scaring, as the salesman informed us, "The other johns and their tricks."
Today, much to my relief, we finally found the perfect shorty robe.
Standing before the mirror, gazing at his own reflection -- a practice that approaches a hobby with Thomas Friedman -- he asked me if I thought the bright pink, silk, shorty robe would be good for entertaining company in.
"Oh, I think company will find the robe very entertaining," I replied trying not to laugh too loudly.
As we left the store, shorty robe in sack, I asked myself if this was the normal American vacation? A wife spending eight days to help her husband pick out an item that looks hideous on him but you just want to get out and get home? Mrs. K tells a tale of four hours spent with Nicky at Champs as he attempted to decide between two ball caps (one flattened his hair) so perhaps it is.
If that's the case, I demand a national Wife's Day -- a day when all wives are allowed to go twenty-four hours without having to reassure their husbands that they're not short, that last night was mind blowing, and that a little gut on a man is appealing.
Until that day comes, every day is Husband's Day.
Then much to our surprise, we hear Saturday morning that Betty broke her vacation to post. We asked her about this entry and she's not real impressed with it. She says she "tossed it off."
She also said that e-mails came in asking her if she'd stopped blogging so when she had "twenty minutes" she brainstormed an entry and typed it up.
Maybe she's gotten in touch with her inner Thomas Friedman? (If so, Betty, please kick his ass.) All we know is that it's hilarious and that Betinna Friedman (Betty's fictional character) is the only reason we even bother to notice Thomas Friedman these days.
"Every Day is Husband's Day"
Like a Merchant & Ivory film, a vacation with Thomas Friedman begs one question: When will it end?
For the love of God, when will it end?
For over a week, we've searched every store in upper Manhattan looking for the perfect shorty robe after the problems on The Scream Machine at Coney Island.
I don't know if it's his ever increasing number of blonde highlights (Mrs. K is correct, they really do look like gray hairs) or what, but lately he's all Goldilocks on me.
This shorty robe was too shiny, that shorty robe wasn't shiny enough. This one was too rough on his hiney, that one was machine wash only. This shorty robe looked like a blood stain, that one didn't bring out the . . . crumbs in his mustache? I have no idea after day after after day, hour after hour of looking for a shorty robe.
I do know that we didn't go to Goodwill or the Salvation Army. I long ago started to doubt that they were the "upscale" stores catering to an "exclusive" crowd, as Thomas Friedman had repeatedly told me. Somehow, the fact that we went everywhere but, the point was driven home. Constantly.
I've also grasped that a nice outfit shouldn't cost less than a lunch at a diner. Another point Thomas Friedman had previously convinced me of.
I would call the whole thing an eye opening experience were it not for the fact that all the junk in Thomas Friedman's trunk made most of the shorty robes he tried on ride up in the back so I was left to cover my eyes more often than not.
Under the harsh store lights, the butt looked even larger and even hairer. To think of all the times I've played Bill Keller to his Thomas Friedman and kissed that ass.
It just makes me want to gargle for a month with Scope.
At one store that made Thomas Friedman's International Male catalogues look like Guns & Ammo, we bumped into little Davey Brooks who was trying on a sock. Not on his feet, I might add -- a memory I'd prefer to blank on but one that scarred into my brain and emotional well being.
The moment wasn't made easier by the fact that little Davey insisted upon twirling around to show us the full . . . package?
"Brooks, I see your Bo-Bos!" Thomas Friedman cackled.
Little David, who's no David by Michael Angelo, sad to say stood there, lips twitching in that nervous smile he gets while he attempts to figure out what something means. I'm sure you've seen the look countless times on PBS' NewsHour.
The long moment provided me with enough time to note that if your belly sticks out further than your sock packaged goods, it's probably a smart idea to consider another wardrobe choice.
Finally deciding that Thomas Friedman must be insulting him, David, no quick wit there, replied, "Oh yeah? Well Friedman, you got a fat ass!"
"Fluffy!" Thomas Friedman huffed. "I have a fluffy bottom."
If fluffy is a term for a fat and and flabby ass combo, Thomas Friedman is correct.
He was incorrect when he decided that he too must try on a sock. Much to little Davey's amusement, Thomas Friedman couldn't manage to keep the sock on.
As little Davey flounced off in search of something a little less "conservative," Thomas Friedman began cursing the merchandise to the point that we were asked to leave because we were scaring, as the salesman informed us, "The other johns and their tricks."
Today, much to my relief, we finally found the perfect shorty robe.
Standing before the mirror, gazing at his own reflection -- a practice that approaches a hobby with Thomas Friedman -- he asked me if I thought the bright pink, silk, shorty robe would be good for entertaining company in.
"Oh, I think company will find the robe very entertaining," I replied trying not to laugh too loudly.
As we left the store, shorty robe in sack, I asked myself if this was the normal American vacation? A wife spending eight days to help her husband pick out an item that looks hideous on him but you just want to get out and get home? Mrs. K tells a tale of four hours spent with Nicky at Champs as he attempted to decide between two ball caps (one flattened his hair) so perhaps it is.
If that's the case, I demand a national Wife's Day -- a day when all wives are allowed to go twenty-four hours without having to reassure their husbands that they're not short, that last night was mind blowing, and that a little gut on a man is appealing.
Until that day comes, every day is Husband's Day.
Blog Spotlight: "Democracy Now! and my interview with Jess" (Mikey Likes It!)
We like Mikey! We also like our very own Jess. This week, Mike sat Jess down for an interview over at Mikey Likes It! and we enjoyed it so much we wanted to be sure that you didn't miss it.
"Democracy Now! and my interview with Jess"
Good evening. This evening we have an interview with Jess of The Third Estate Sunday Review. Before we get to that, we'll kick things off with Democracy Now! like usual.
FEMA: This Is the "Most Significant Natural Disaster to Hit the U.S."
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making unprecedented preparations to house at least 1 million people in the region whose houses were damaged or destroyed. FEMA's Bill Lokey called the hurricane "the most significant natural disaster to hit the United States."
So we got a national disaster on our hands. Good thing we got a National Guard, right? Right?
6,000 Local National Guard Members In Iraq
While the National Guard has been taking part in rescue operations and law enforcement, some 6,000 members of the Louisiana and Mississippi Guard have been forced to watch the catastrophe from 7,000 miles away in Iraq. 40 percent of Mississippi's National Guard force and 35 percent of Louisiana's is in Iraq. Over the past eight months 23 members of the Louisiana National Guard have died in Iraq - only New York's Guard unit has suffered as many deaths.
"Woopsie!" giggles the Bully Boy. The costs of the invasion/occupation continue to mount and we're the ones paying the cost in this country, not the Bully Boy. Oh sure, he had to cut his month long vacation two days short. Boo hoo. His failed leadership leads to the poverty level in this country rising for the fifth year in a row. 9/11 happened under his watch. We're in an illegal war because of him. When do we start speaking the truth and saying, "That guy ain't cut out for the job?"
Elaine's covering the same two items so be sure and read her take on them.
Now here's my interview with Jess of The Third Estate Sunday Review.
So Jess, any ground rules?
Jess: Do I need 'em?
Well there's a question Jim & Ty both suggested I ask you?
Jess: Well fire away.
Well there's a rumor floating around that you're seeing someone.
Jess: Is there a rumor floating? I haven't seen it float past me.
Look, there it is, in the sky! It says Jess and Ava are dating.
Jess: No comment.
No comment? If you were dating Ava, who would know?
Jess: Well I guess I'd know and I'd guess Ava would too.
Because the thing is, Dona and C.I. aren't speculating and Jim says that's proof that you're dating Ava because if you were dating and keeping it quiet, Ava would tell Dona and C.I.
Jess: Maybe I'd tell Dona and C.I. Did you think of that?
So you really aren't going to answer?
Jess: Ava and I went to a vigil for Cindy Sheehan together and I think that's what started the rumors.
So there's nothing to them?
Jess: You should ask Ava.
Well I've already interviewed her.
Jess: Is this what this whole interview's going to be like? Forget it, this interview is over!
For real?
Jess: No, Dona passed on Candy Perfume Boy's interview with Ira Glass and I thought I'd have some fun like Glass does.
Okay, we'll move on. I really liked the thing you wrote about your parents and was wondering what they thought about it and what sort of response the thing got?
Jess: My folks loved it. They're the easiest people in the world to please though. You just have to be honest with them and they're proud. Readers and members seem to have enjoyed it.
Rebecca brags about your mother, about both your parents, but she really likes your mom.
Jess: I know. She called her up last week. I'm like, "Isn't she supposed to be on vacation?" But then I thought about Rebecca and the phone. But yeah, she thinks my mom's pretty cool and my mom feels the same way about her. Your mom's pretty cool too, I'm going to take her up on the offer to stay with you guys when I'm in town to see a game.
Yeah, Ma's pretty cool. You know, because your parents help out some time by going through the British papers, Ma's saying if she made a strong pot of coffee she could probably help out like that too. Like check out Australia or something.
Jess: She does realize how late those sessions go, right?
I keep telling her. I'm like, "Ma, you can forget church the next morning!"
Jess: Well if she wants to help out sometime, let her know we'd love to have her.
It's really a group effort over there and I figured that I'd ask you how that happened?
Jess: Cool. Okay, well the point was that we were doing this together. We were talking about it, Ty, Jim and I for awhile. About needing to put something out there. And Dona was in classes with us. One time she was around when Jim was talking about it and -- am I going into too much detail here?
No, this is cool.
Jess: Okay, so Dona's there and she says something like, "Talk, talk, talk and never do." You know she can be pretty straight spoken.
Right.
Jess: So that's when Jim said that she should be part of it. And we kept talking about it and talking about other stuff. I think that's when we all first saw that thing at The Common Ills about how they wouldn't let a reporter report on the campaigns because her husband was involved with the Democratic campaign but then they let Robert Kagan come on and give a commentary on John Kerry's campaign even though his wife works for Dick Cheney. Jim and Dona were original readers. They came on board with the "Here Come the Madmen." And then Jim's telling Ty and me that we've got to read that the next day because this was when it was still all rah-rah. And we were against the invasion/occupation so right away The Common Ills was like all of our site. We'd e-mail about this or that, politics or music and C.I. would e-mail back these really long e-mails. Back then, that could happen. If you e-mailed a 5K e-mail, you got back a 5K e-mail. Then there was a sort of teach in on campus and I'm being vague here on purpose. And we're there, Jim, Ty, Dona, Ava and me and there are some strong statements and all but there's this one person speaking and we're getting pissed at Jim because we're trying to listen and Jim keeps whispering, "That's C.I.! I know that's C.I.!" He just wouldn't shut up about it. And then later on, Jim goes up and talks for a bit and then says, "You're C.I. right?"And C.I.'s just sort of staring at Jim and Jim says, "You do The Common Ills." And I guess it was the first time anyone had made the connection because the face gave it away.
So it was like, "Man, we've got C.I. here if we're ever going to do something it should be now."So that's what happened.
Now explain about Ava.
Jess: Ava was friends with Dona, this is what you're talking about? Yeah.Jess: And we really hadn't thought of her being involved because she's really nice and she's really sweet but she was pretty shy and we can all be pretty loud and pretty opinionated. But Dona said, like a week or two before, that if we ever do this, Ava's a part of it because they're friends and roommates.
She's also very pretty.
Jess: She is very pretty. And professors would be steering her towards communication classes because she's obviously got the looks to make it on TV. This was a difficult time for her because she was not from the area and I'm being vague here too because I don't want to give out her business. So let's just say it was a bit of cultural shock for her. So she was getting her feet and feeling herself out and everyone just thought "Oh, she's nice." I mean us, I mean professors.
And then she ended up surprising everyone.
Jess: Man did she. We were doing that first issue and what I remember is C.I. was not going to take part in the TV review because C.I. didn't watch television. And then we were going over the piece and C.I. was like, "Wait, wait!" So C.I. starts adding some stuff and Ava knows television because of . . . We'll leave it at that. And so Ava starts tossing out some stuff. And we had a review. And then the next time it was like that too. And then it ended up being Ava and C.I.'s thing because they were doing the feminist critique from the beginning. If you read those early reviews, anything that stands out, where we're taking on the culture in TV which is one standard for men and another for women, that was Ava and C.I.'s contribution. And Jim was, he admits this, a little dismissive at first. But when it got turned over to them, and they didn't want credit and weren't crediting for being the ones writing them for the longest time, Jim saw what they were doing and realized, to his credit, that they were doing something that wasn't being done everywhere else and that with no one editing them, they were funny as well as offering strong social commentary. And what that did for Ava was help her find her footing and I mean everyone, not just us, but professors too, have pretty much had to re-evalute her written work because she's off on her own level.
It can be spooky the way they know where they're going. Like when we're all discussing something, they are always pretty much on the same page. And like it turns out C.I. knew her aunt and her mother.
Jess: Yeah, that was weird. Small world and all. But yeah, they're a good writing team and when nothing else is working out we always know "Well if nothing else, Ava and C.I. will turn out a review that will keep the readers talking."
Which is a lot of pressure?
Jess: I know. I was really surprised when they did their thing on the Bully Boy's speech to the nation because we're reading that and all and we're blown away and they really didn't want to write it and they really didn't think they'd have much to say on it. And I know from both of them that there are times when they are freaking out because while we can slide on other features, if they slide, the TV review is always the piece we get the most e-mail on, it's like the whole issue is a waste with readers.
Before we go on, I want to ask about the credit because that's something that you guys decided early on.
Jess: Yeah. We didn't want it to be "This is by Ty, this is by Dona, this is by Jess, this is by Jim, this is by Ava" and that sort of thing. We wanted to do it as a group. And, you know this, when someone helps out, they can have just as much input as any of us. There's a lot of singling out in the press and our point was "We are The Third Estate Sunday Review." All of us.
But then Jim goes in and puts in credits for the editorials.
Jess: Because they get copied and pasted elsewhere. And Jim noticed that C.I. was putting credit on it over at The Common Ills. It just makes sense to put it in when we do that since it does get noted elsewhere.
I got my first e-mail from someone in France who saw an editorial at some sort of Amazon like site. Someone had gone in and on some DVD, instead of reviewing it, they'd copied and pasted the editorial.
Jess: Yeah. That's The Common Ills effect. The community, and I'm a part of it, really tries to get the word out.
I wish C.I. hadn't imposed the whole "Don't push the site" rule.
Jess: Me too. But I mean, I help Ava and C.I. with the e-mails and there are so many. And there's also the fact, and you know this, members get really mad when they feel that The Common Ills is being ignored.
Right. I had tried to start a petition to get people to avoid sites that were ignoring The Common Ills. C.I. e-mailed me about that and was nice but firm. Telling me that wasn't the purpose and that The Common Ills was a resource/review. That's why I started up. That's why Cedric started up, to be proactive and get the word out. Do you guys think about quitting?
Jess: Me, I think it about it after every edition. Jim loves the chaos and we've done some strong things because of it but staying up all night and still being up when the sun's coming out. And then we distribute them on Sunday around campus, print editions. I don't mind giving my Saturday but the way it works out, I've lost my Sunday too. I don't know how you, Rebecca, Betty, C.I. and Elaine do it. Because you guys are blogging on Monday.
And C.I.'s blogging on Sunday.
Jess: I know. I mean, you know this, before we got done Sunday morning, C.I. was functioning on one eye. The other one was too blurry to see out of. And we all try to be protective of C.I.'s health and take that into consideration but, well you know, you were on the phone.
Right, everyone was going, look go on over, do your entry and get some sleep. But C.I.'s like a work horse or something. Which is why we insisted on going over after to do the entry with C.I. And then me and Jim wasted time on sports and you know when that entry went up, Dona called us on that.
Jess: Right. She goes, "Oh, I'm sorry, did you think you were helping out at The Daily Howler?"
Cause Bob will talk sports there.
Jess: Yeah. And that bores the hell out of Dona. She likes The Daily Howler but when he's off on his sports, she's always got a pointed remark or two.
Cedric told me he feels bad because he spent a bit of time on the phone with us Saturday and we were all helping him with his speech he had to give on his friend Vern who died.
Jess: Now that time wasn't wasted. No one would say that. We were all wanting to help. And that includes just listening. That's part of being a community. I'll call him tonight and check on him but he doesn't need to feel guilty. And the two things that we were working on that never came together, that happened long after Cedric was off the phone and that's part of the reason it went on so long.
I told him that too. But call him tonight because so far Elaine, C.I. and I have told him that and he's still feeling guilty.
Jess: I will.
What's one thing you'd like to see different at The Third Estate Sunday Review?
Jess: Good question. Besides the hours, I'd like to see us integrate music more. There's a tendency sometimes, I think anyway, to repost one of Kat's entries and then think we covered music. I'd like to see more music roundtables and am glad we did the one on Carole King. I also like it when a song works it's way into an editorial or a feature, you know the lyrics? I think that adds a dimension and I think music's really important. Did you see C.I.'s thing this afternoon?
Quoting U2?
Jess: Yeah. I mean, that's something I just like. Music's a part of all our lives and I'd like to see that reflected more. That's also why when time runs short with the news review, I'm always saying, "Cut me, cut anyone, but don't cut Kat." I think we need that in there.
You've got the Cass Elliott Solo Collection playing in the background, I can hear it.
Jess: Yeah, I've always got music playing.
Last week, I interviewed Ty and I've also interview Dona, Jim, Ava and now --
Jess: You've just done your worst interview.
No. No, this has probably been the longest one.
Jess: Next week, you're interviewing Elaine. I read your thing yesterday and I've got to tell you that I'm sad too. I hope she'll still help from time to time at The Third Estate Sunday Review. I really wish she'd start her own site.
I know. Like I said yesterday, Rebecca and I were talking about that. And I mean, Rebecca and C.I. have talked about Elaine before and all so I'd heard she was really cool and all that but it wasn't until she was subbing for Rebecca that I really got how cool she was, you know?
Jess: Yeah. She's pretty amazing. And she doesn't take any crap. That's got to be the common thread between her and Rebecca!
You think she'll reconsider doing her own site?
Jess: Ava's asking her to. She's saying, "How about you just do a paragraph a day?" And I mean I'd check her out. I love the "Peace Quotes" and all the things she provides. And we need more voices.
Can you imagine what would happen if everyone who was a community member at The Common Ills started their own site? That would be so awesome.
Jess: Well, Krista and Gina are also trying to talk her into doing something like their round-robin if she's not comfortable with putting stuff up at a site. And she's got something coming up in their Friday round-robin that she's writing for community membrs, a message, just to tell them thank you for all their support.
I didn't know that. I always read the round-robin but now I have another reason. So what did you hope I'd ask or fear I'd ask?
Jess: I'll pass on fear, but I hoped you'd ask about music and you did.
You play guitar.
Jess: Yeah and I can do bass too.
Rebecca thinks you could be the next Jack Johnson.
Jess: He's cool but she's inflating my abilities.
Hey, can we rerun one of Isaiah's comics Sunday?
Jess: I'm with you on that. I think it would be a great idea.
Well then I'll go ahead and close this by saying thank you for talking with me.
Jess: No problem. Thank you for all your help over at The Third Estate Sunday Review.
"Democracy Now! and my interview with Jess"
Good evening. This evening we have an interview with Jess of The Third Estate Sunday Review. Before we get to that, we'll kick things off with Democracy Now! like usual.
FEMA: This Is the "Most Significant Natural Disaster to Hit the U.S."
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making unprecedented preparations to house at least 1 million people in the region whose houses were damaged or destroyed. FEMA's Bill Lokey called the hurricane "the most significant natural disaster to hit the United States."
So we got a national disaster on our hands. Good thing we got a National Guard, right? Right?
6,000 Local National Guard Members In Iraq
While the National Guard has been taking part in rescue operations and law enforcement, some 6,000 members of the Louisiana and Mississippi Guard have been forced to watch the catastrophe from 7,000 miles away in Iraq. 40 percent of Mississippi's National Guard force and 35 percent of Louisiana's is in Iraq. Over the past eight months 23 members of the Louisiana National Guard have died in Iraq - only New York's Guard unit has suffered as many deaths.
"Woopsie!" giggles the Bully Boy. The costs of the invasion/occupation continue to mount and we're the ones paying the cost in this country, not the Bully Boy. Oh sure, he had to cut his month long vacation two days short. Boo hoo. His failed leadership leads to the poverty level in this country rising for the fifth year in a row. 9/11 happened under his watch. We're in an illegal war because of him. When do we start speaking the truth and saying, "That guy ain't cut out for the job?"
Elaine's covering the same two items so be sure and read her take on them.
Now here's my interview with Jess of The Third Estate Sunday Review.
So Jess, any ground rules?
Jess: Do I need 'em?
Well there's a question Jim & Ty both suggested I ask you?
Jess: Well fire away.
Well there's a rumor floating around that you're seeing someone.
Jess: Is there a rumor floating? I haven't seen it float past me.
Look, there it is, in the sky! It says Jess and Ava are dating.
Jess: No comment.
No comment? If you were dating Ava, who would know?
Jess: Well I guess I'd know and I'd guess Ava would too.
Because the thing is, Dona and C.I. aren't speculating and Jim says that's proof that you're dating Ava because if you were dating and keeping it quiet, Ava would tell Dona and C.I.
Jess: Maybe I'd tell Dona and C.I. Did you think of that?
So you really aren't going to answer?
Jess: Ava and I went to a vigil for Cindy Sheehan together and I think that's what started the rumors.
So there's nothing to them?
Jess: You should ask Ava.
Well I've already interviewed her.
Jess: Is this what this whole interview's going to be like? Forget it, this interview is over!
For real?
Jess: No, Dona passed on Candy Perfume Boy's interview with Ira Glass and I thought I'd have some fun like Glass does.
Okay, we'll move on. I really liked the thing you wrote about your parents and was wondering what they thought about it and what sort of response the thing got?
Jess: My folks loved it. They're the easiest people in the world to please though. You just have to be honest with them and they're proud. Readers and members seem to have enjoyed it.
Rebecca brags about your mother, about both your parents, but she really likes your mom.
Jess: I know. She called her up last week. I'm like, "Isn't she supposed to be on vacation?" But then I thought about Rebecca and the phone. But yeah, she thinks my mom's pretty cool and my mom feels the same way about her. Your mom's pretty cool too, I'm going to take her up on the offer to stay with you guys when I'm in town to see a game.
Yeah, Ma's pretty cool. You know, because your parents help out some time by going through the British papers, Ma's saying if she made a strong pot of coffee she could probably help out like that too. Like check out Australia or something.
Jess: She does realize how late those sessions go, right?
I keep telling her. I'm like, "Ma, you can forget church the next morning!"
Jess: Well if she wants to help out sometime, let her know we'd love to have her.
It's really a group effort over there and I figured that I'd ask you how that happened?
Jess: Cool. Okay, well the point was that we were doing this together. We were talking about it, Ty, Jim and I for awhile. About needing to put something out there. And Dona was in classes with us. One time she was around when Jim was talking about it and -- am I going into too much detail here?
No, this is cool.
Jess: Okay, so Dona's there and she says something like, "Talk, talk, talk and never do." You know she can be pretty straight spoken.
Right.
Jess: So that's when Jim said that she should be part of it. And we kept talking about it and talking about other stuff. I think that's when we all first saw that thing at The Common Ills about how they wouldn't let a reporter report on the campaigns because her husband was involved with the Democratic campaign but then they let Robert Kagan come on and give a commentary on John Kerry's campaign even though his wife works for Dick Cheney. Jim and Dona were original readers. They came on board with the "Here Come the Madmen." And then Jim's telling Ty and me that we've got to read that the next day because this was when it was still all rah-rah. And we were against the invasion/occupation so right away The Common Ills was like all of our site. We'd e-mail about this or that, politics or music and C.I. would e-mail back these really long e-mails. Back then, that could happen. If you e-mailed a 5K e-mail, you got back a 5K e-mail. Then there was a sort of teach in on campus and I'm being vague here on purpose. And we're there, Jim, Ty, Dona, Ava and me and there are some strong statements and all but there's this one person speaking and we're getting pissed at Jim because we're trying to listen and Jim keeps whispering, "That's C.I.! I know that's C.I.!" He just wouldn't shut up about it. And then later on, Jim goes up and talks for a bit and then says, "You're C.I. right?"And C.I.'s just sort of staring at Jim and Jim says, "You do The Common Ills." And I guess it was the first time anyone had made the connection because the face gave it away.
So it was like, "Man, we've got C.I. here if we're ever going to do something it should be now."So that's what happened.
Now explain about Ava.
Jess: Ava was friends with Dona, this is what you're talking about? Yeah.Jess: And we really hadn't thought of her being involved because she's really nice and she's really sweet but she was pretty shy and we can all be pretty loud and pretty opinionated. But Dona said, like a week or two before, that if we ever do this, Ava's a part of it because they're friends and roommates.
She's also very pretty.
Jess: She is very pretty. And professors would be steering her towards communication classes because she's obviously got the looks to make it on TV. This was a difficult time for her because she was not from the area and I'm being vague here too because I don't want to give out her business. So let's just say it was a bit of cultural shock for her. So she was getting her feet and feeling herself out and everyone just thought "Oh, she's nice." I mean us, I mean professors.
And then she ended up surprising everyone.
Jess: Man did she. We were doing that first issue and what I remember is C.I. was not going to take part in the TV review because C.I. didn't watch television. And then we were going over the piece and C.I. was like, "Wait, wait!" So C.I. starts adding some stuff and Ava knows television because of . . . We'll leave it at that. And so Ava starts tossing out some stuff. And we had a review. And then the next time it was like that too. And then it ended up being Ava and C.I.'s thing because they were doing the feminist critique from the beginning. If you read those early reviews, anything that stands out, where we're taking on the culture in TV which is one standard for men and another for women, that was Ava and C.I.'s contribution. And Jim was, he admits this, a little dismissive at first. But when it got turned over to them, and they didn't want credit and weren't crediting for being the ones writing them for the longest time, Jim saw what they were doing and realized, to his credit, that they were doing something that wasn't being done everywhere else and that with no one editing them, they were funny as well as offering strong social commentary. And what that did for Ava was help her find her footing and I mean everyone, not just us, but professors too, have pretty much had to re-evalute her written work because she's off on her own level.
It can be spooky the way they know where they're going. Like when we're all discussing something, they are always pretty much on the same page. And like it turns out C.I. knew her aunt and her mother.
Jess: Yeah, that was weird. Small world and all. But yeah, they're a good writing team and when nothing else is working out we always know "Well if nothing else, Ava and C.I. will turn out a review that will keep the readers talking."
Which is a lot of pressure?
Jess: I know. I was really surprised when they did their thing on the Bully Boy's speech to the nation because we're reading that and all and we're blown away and they really didn't want to write it and they really didn't think they'd have much to say on it. And I know from both of them that there are times when they are freaking out because while we can slide on other features, if they slide, the TV review is always the piece we get the most e-mail on, it's like the whole issue is a waste with readers.
Before we go on, I want to ask about the credit because that's something that you guys decided early on.
Jess: Yeah. We didn't want it to be "This is by Ty, this is by Dona, this is by Jess, this is by Jim, this is by Ava" and that sort of thing. We wanted to do it as a group. And, you know this, when someone helps out, they can have just as much input as any of us. There's a lot of singling out in the press and our point was "We are The Third Estate Sunday Review." All of us.
But then Jim goes in and puts in credits for the editorials.
Jess: Because they get copied and pasted elsewhere. And Jim noticed that C.I. was putting credit on it over at The Common Ills. It just makes sense to put it in when we do that since it does get noted elsewhere.
I got my first e-mail from someone in France who saw an editorial at some sort of Amazon like site. Someone had gone in and on some DVD, instead of reviewing it, they'd copied and pasted the editorial.
Jess: Yeah. That's The Common Ills effect. The community, and I'm a part of it, really tries to get the word out.
I wish C.I. hadn't imposed the whole "Don't push the site" rule.
Jess: Me too. But I mean, I help Ava and C.I. with the e-mails and there are so many. And there's also the fact, and you know this, members get really mad when they feel that The Common Ills is being ignored.
Right. I had tried to start a petition to get people to avoid sites that were ignoring The Common Ills. C.I. e-mailed me about that and was nice but firm. Telling me that wasn't the purpose and that The Common Ills was a resource/review. That's why I started up. That's why Cedric started up, to be proactive and get the word out. Do you guys think about quitting?
Jess: Me, I think it about it after every edition. Jim loves the chaos and we've done some strong things because of it but staying up all night and still being up when the sun's coming out. And then we distribute them on Sunday around campus, print editions. I don't mind giving my Saturday but the way it works out, I've lost my Sunday too. I don't know how you, Rebecca, Betty, C.I. and Elaine do it. Because you guys are blogging on Monday.
And C.I.'s blogging on Sunday.
Jess: I know. I mean, you know this, before we got done Sunday morning, C.I. was functioning on one eye. The other one was too blurry to see out of. And we all try to be protective of C.I.'s health and take that into consideration but, well you know, you were on the phone.
Right, everyone was going, look go on over, do your entry and get some sleep. But C.I.'s like a work horse or something. Which is why we insisted on going over after to do the entry with C.I. And then me and Jim wasted time on sports and you know when that entry went up, Dona called us on that.
Jess: Right. She goes, "Oh, I'm sorry, did you think you were helping out at The Daily Howler?"
Cause Bob will talk sports there.
Jess: Yeah. And that bores the hell out of Dona. She likes The Daily Howler but when he's off on his sports, she's always got a pointed remark or two.
Cedric told me he feels bad because he spent a bit of time on the phone with us Saturday and we were all helping him with his speech he had to give on his friend Vern who died.
Jess: Now that time wasn't wasted. No one would say that. We were all wanting to help. And that includes just listening. That's part of being a community. I'll call him tonight and check on him but he doesn't need to feel guilty. And the two things that we were working on that never came together, that happened long after Cedric was off the phone and that's part of the reason it went on so long.
I told him that too. But call him tonight because so far Elaine, C.I. and I have told him that and he's still feeling guilty.
Jess: I will.
What's one thing you'd like to see different at The Third Estate Sunday Review?
Jess: Good question. Besides the hours, I'd like to see us integrate music more. There's a tendency sometimes, I think anyway, to repost one of Kat's entries and then think we covered music. I'd like to see more music roundtables and am glad we did the one on Carole King. I also like it when a song works it's way into an editorial or a feature, you know the lyrics? I think that adds a dimension and I think music's really important. Did you see C.I.'s thing this afternoon?
Quoting U2?
Jess: Yeah. I mean, that's something I just like. Music's a part of all our lives and I'd like to see that reflected more. That's also why when time runs short with the news review, I'm always saying, "Cut me, cut anyone, but don't cut Kat." I think we need that in there.
You've got the Cass Elliott Solo Collection playing in the background, I can hear it.
Jess: Yeah, I've always got music playing.
Last week, I interviewed Ty and I've also interview Dona, Jim, Ava and now --
Jess: You've just done your worst interview.
No. No, this has probably been the longest one.
Jess: Next week, you're interviewing Elaine. I read your thing yesterday and I've got to tell you that I'm sad too. I hope she'll still help from time to time at The Third Estate Sunday Review. I really wish she'd start her own site.
I know. Like I said yesterday, Rebecca and I were talking about that. And I mean, Rebecca and C.I. have talked about Elaine before and all so I'd heard she was really cool and all that but it wasn't until she was subbing for Rebecca that I really got how cool she was, you know?
Jess: Yeah. She's pretty amazing. And she doesn't take any crap. That's got to be the common thread between her and Rebecca!
You think she'll reconsider doing her own site?
Jess: Ava's asking her to. She's saying, "How about you just do a paragraph a day?" And I mean I'd check her out. I love the "Peace Quotes" and all the things she provides. And we need more voices.
Can you imagine what would happen if everyone who was a community member at The Common Ills started their own site? That would be so awesome.
Jess: Well, Krista and Gina are also trying to talk her into doing something like their round-robin if she's not comfortable with putting stuff up at a site. And she's got something coming up in their Friday round-robin that she's writing for community membrs, a message, just to tell them thank you for all their support.
I didn't know that. I always read the round-robin but now I have another reason. So what did you hope I'd ask or fear I'd ask?
Jess: I'll pass on fear, but I hoped you'd ask about music and you did.
You play guitar.
Jess: Yeah and I can do bass too.
Rebecca thinks you could be the next Jack Johnson.
Jess: He's cool but she's inflating my abilities.
Hey, can we rerun one of Isaiah's comics Sunday?
Jess: I'm with you on that. I think it would be a great idea.
Well then I'll go ahead and close this by saying thank you for talking with me.
Jess: No problem. Thank you for all your help over at The Third Estate Sunday Review.
Humor Spotlight: "Sunday Chat & Chews" (The Common Ills)
We need more humor these days. Dona's the one who read this first at The Common Ills. She nearly spewed her morning coffee onto the computer screen.
Dona: I know C.I. loathes the Sunday morning "public affairs" shows and I can always count on a laugh or two in these entries, usually mild laughs. This one took me by surprise. My guess is C.I. was tired and just not in the mood for the crap that is the Sunday Chat & Chews.
[C.I. confirms Dona is correct.]
"Sunday Chat & Chews"
Sunday Chat & Chews, can't trust those shows.
Sunday Chat & Chews, puts you to sleep even on NoDoz
(Sing it to the tune of John Phillips' "Monday, Monday" available on many Mamas & Papas collections as well as on their debut album: If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears.)
Check your local listings . . . to find out whether Lost World, Beast Master or Antique Road Show air at the same times. (Sunday morning competition is just so fierce!)
For a change, ABC's This Week was the first out of the gate so we'll start with them. Joining the Georges will be:
Sen. Mary Landrieu, Louis. Dem
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security
Rick Bragg, reporter
Howell Raines, former editor of the New York Times ("and a New Orleans native" -- I believe they forgot to put in the multiple exclamation points)
The roundtable will consist of dueling Georges, Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Cokie Roberts (who discovered this week, apparently, that she wasn't a "kid" although she was still apparently immature enough to attempt to hide behind Mommy to justify her lack of interest in covering New Orleans).
NBC is billing their upcoming Meet the Press as a "Special Edition." Awww. But aren't they all?
Really now, aren't they all? A special show can have challenges but, judging by the fact that so many still watch, they can have their own rewards as well. Such as witnessing, with each passing year, the ever increasing resemblance Tim Russert bears to Friar Tuck of Robin Hood fame.
I think they should bill the episode not as a "Special Edition" but as an "Extra Special Edition."After all, they're bringing you the same topics as This Week. (No fair claiming otherwise, This Week was first out of the gate and beat Meet the Press by over three hours.) They also, as they continue to attempt to see who blinks first, give you Michael Chertoff.
Stop drooling on those silk screen pillow cases with the jeans clad, bare chested photos of Chertoff, everybody -- Mr. No Stuff will be front and center on your TV screens on two, count 'em two, of the Sunday Chat & Chews!
Joining him on Meet the Press will be:
MARK FISCHETTI
Contributing Editor, Scientific American
Author, "Drowning New Orleans"
MARC MORIAL
President and CEO, National Urban League
Former Mayor, City of New Orleans
MIKE TIDWELL
Author, "Bayou Farewell: The Rich Life & Tragic Death of Louisiana's Cajun Coast"
DAVID WESSEL
Deputy Washington Bureau Chief, Wall Street Journal
Note that unlike This Week (which sports two females in the roundtable), Meet the Press declares permanent membership on the security council of Spanky's Women Haters club by devoting yet another hour to an all male group of guests. As Bette Davis once told a whimpering, runny nosed Tim Russert, "It ain't for sissies!" (Well, she should have told him that.)
Over at Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer devotes the half-hour to the under-reported story of the impetus behind Brad Pitt's pursuit of the Billy Idol look. Join Bob, the pitted Brad and Jose Eber for tips on conditioners, gels and hot oil treatments as Jose beseeches Schieffer to just "Shake your head, darling."
I joke. I kid. But why? Well Dallas went to the site and reports when you click on "Who's Next on Face" ("Face" -- they kill us!) not only do they not provide you with any information on this week's guest, they still haven't updated the listing since August 21st.You read that correctly. In this age of "accelerated information" Face the Nation is running two weeks behind. (Don't blame the Manny. He's working on the Public Eye.) (And Natalie, your "Dear Penthouse Forum"-esque e-mails pondering what sort of a show it would be if it starred The Manny and was called the Pubic Eye, though filled with an abundance of detail, are probably better left to your own late night fantasies!) (I will, however, forward them to Rebecca when she returns from her vacation this weekend.)
Doubting Dallas, are you? Click here and read:
August 21, 2005
Host:
CBS Evening News Anchor Bob Schieffer
Topics:
Gas Prices, Real Estate Bubble, Economy
Guests:
Glenn Hubbard
Dean, Columbia Business School
Former Chairman, White House Council Of Economic Advisers
Robert Reich
Professor Of Social And Economic Policy, Brandeis University
Former Secretary of Labor
Mike Allen
The Washington Post
Anne Kornblut
The New York Times
There is behind the times and then there is prehistoric. While others traverse the "information highway," "Face" sticks to tooling down the service roads. ("Face," "Public Eye," Natalie do not even bother e-mailing to venture what a CBS show entitled "Crotch" and starring Montopoli would be like. Consider those thoughts the lambada of the fantasy world -- e.g. "forbidden.")
[Note: I'm joking re: Natalie, with her permission. Note also that I've corrected the typos Shirley caught. Thank you, Shirley.]
Dona: I know C.I. loathes the Sunday morning "public affairs" shows and I can always count on a laugh or two in these entries, usually mild laughs. This one took me by surprise. My guess is C.I. was tired and just not in the mood for the crap that is the Sunday Chat & Chews.
[C.I. confirms Dona is correct.]
"Sunday Chat & Chews"
Sunday Chat & Chews, can't trust those shows.
Sunday Chat & Chews, puts you to sleep even on NoDoz
(Sing it to the tune of John Phillips' "Monday, Monday" available on many Mamas & Papas collections as well as on their debut album: If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears.)
Check your local listings . . . to find out whether Lost World, Beast Master or Antique Road Show air at the same times. (Sunday morning competition is just so fierce!)
For a change, ABC's This Week was the first out of the gate so we'll start with them. Joining the Georges will be:
Sen. Mary Landrieu, Louis. Dem
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security
Rick Bragg, reporter
Howell Raines, former editor of the New York Times ("and a New Orleans native" -- I believe they forgot to put in the multiple exclamation points)
The roundtable will consist of dueling Georges, Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Cokie Roberts (who discovered this week, apparently, that she wasn't a "kid" although she was still apparently immature enough to attempt to hide behind Mommy to justify her lack of interest in covering New Orleans).
NBC is billing their upcoming Meet the Press as a "Special Edition." Awww. But aren't they all?
Really now, aren't they all? A special show can have challenges but, judging by the fact that so many still watch, they can have their own rewards as well. Such as witnessing, with each passing year, the ever increasing resemblance Tim Russert bears to Friar Tuck of Robin Hood fame.
I think they should bill the episode not as a "Special Edition" but as an "Extra Special Edition."After all, they're bringing you the same topics as This Week. (No fair claiming otherwise, This Week was first out of the gate and beat Meet the Press by over three hours.) They also, as they continue to attempt to see who blinks first, give you Michael Chertoff.
Stop drooling on those silk screen pillow cases with the jeans clad, bare chested photos of Chertoff, everybody -- Mr. No Stuff will be front and center on your TV screens on two, count 'em two, of the Sunday Chat & Chews!
Joining him on Meet the Press will be:
MARK FISCHETTI
Contributing Editor, Scientific American
Author, "Drowning New Orleans"
MARC MORIAL
President and CEO, National Urban League
Former Mayor, City of New Orleans
MIKE TIDWELL
Author, "Bayou Farewell: The Rich Life & Tragic Death of Louisiana's Cajun Coast"
DAVID WESSEL
Deputy Washington Bureau Chief, Wall Street Journal
Note that unlike This Week (which sports two females in the roundtable), Meet the Press declares permanent membership on the security council of Spanky's Women Haters club by devoting yet another hour to an all male group of guests. As Bette Davis once told a whimpering, runny nosed Tim Russert, "It ain't for sissies!" (Well, she should have told him that.)
Over at Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer devotes the half-hour to the under-reported story of the impetus behind Brad Pitt's pursuit of the Billy Idol look. Join Bob, the pitted Brad and Jose Eber for tips on conditioners, gels and hot oil treatments as Jose beseeches Schieffer to just "Shake your head, darling."
I joke. I kid. But why? Well Dallas went to the site and reports when you click on "Who's Next on Face" ("Face" -- they kill us!) not only do they not provide you with any information on this week's guest, they still haven't updated the listing since August 21st.You read that correctly. In this age of "accelerated information" Face the Nation is running two weeks behind. (Don't blame the Manny. He's working on the Public Eye.) (And Natalie, your "Dear Penthouse Forum"-esque e-mails pondering what sort of a show it would be if it starred The Manny and was called the Pubic Eye, though filled with an abundance of detail, are probably better left to your own late night fantasies!) (I will, however, forward them to Rebecca when she returns from her vacation this weekend.)
Doubting Dallas, are you? Click here and read:
August 21, 2005
Host:
CBS Evening News Anchor Bob Schieffer
Topics:
Gas Prices, Real Estate Bubble, Economy
Guests:
Glenn Hubbard
Dean, Columbia Business School
Former Chairman, White House Council Of Economic Advisers
Robert Reich
Professor Of Social And Economic Policy, Brandeis University
Former Secretary of Labor
Mike Allen
The Washington Post
Anne Kornblut
The New York Times
There is behind the times and then there is prehistoric. While others traverse the "information highway," "Face" sticks to tooling down the service roads. ("Face," "Public Eye," Natalie do not even bother e-mailing to venture what a CBS show entitled "Crotch" and starring Montopoli would be like. Consider those thoughts the lambada of the fantasy world -- e.g. "forbidden.")
[Note: I'm joking re: Natalie, with her permission. Note also that I've corrected the typos Shirley caught. Thank you, Shirley.]
Humor spotlight: "Clubbing with the New York Times" (The Common Ills)
Sometimes C.I. gives voice to the outrages of our times and sometimes C.I. just has a little fun with the Times. This was always one of our favorite humorous pieces at The Common Ills and when Mike asked that we rerun it, we'd already been asked in e-mails from Wally and Brenda to do the same. This is C.I. reporting on the main section of the Sunday New York Times on April 3, 2005:
"Clubbing with the New York Times"
"Honey, I was punny tonight!" You think any of the headline writers at the Times ever drag themselves home and greet their spouses that way?
Reading William J. Broad's front page story about the dangers of aging nuclear warheads (specifically W-76) you find something a little deeper than the punny headline "Aging Warheads Ignite a Debate Among Scientists." [That's the print headline, online users get the more substance based "A Fierce Debate on Atom Bombs From Cold War."] Just tossing that thought out there as something to consider while your friend drags you from one club to another.
Moving on. You realize you've hit the frou-frou, chi-chi, upscale club scene as you hear Somini Sengupta work in the word "ennui" while doing a poor job of concealing a self-satisfied smirk. (The headline writer merely apes her lead with "Fear, Ennui and Doubt Underlie Calm in Nepal's Capital").
Sengupta, baby, stick to the art galleries when trying to score with impressive vocab, okay? Striving for tome poem, but coming off like fourth rate Cole Porter ["Come to the Supermarket (In Old Peking)"], Sengupta offers such passages as:
On a recent Sunday afternoon,
as the market women sat on their haunches
hawking cabbages,
and the riot police milled about
with eyes darting this way and that,
Nepalis revolting against
their king's emergency rule decree
straggled up the narrow alleys
in ones and twos.
Walk on. Walk on.org. Note the poster art as you're dragged to the next club while you give it up to Angela Jimenez and whomever decided her photo was just the thing to accompany Andrew Jacobs' "AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy." Apathy. AIDS. Even more deadly new strain.
Does it bring to mind two bodies pressed tightly against one another? Does your mind conjure a framed crotch shot in some sort of hommage to the Rolling Stones album cover Sticky Fingers? Well in the minds of "Girls Just Want To Have Fun" Angela Jimenez and the editor/s it conjures up exactly that. Like drunken revelers at karaoke night doing the stiff-neck-head-jerk while singing/slurring "She like to par-tay all the time," I doubt either Jiminez or the editor/s realize how much they've embarrassed themselves. Flee the club quickly before you're tainted by association.
En route to the next club, remember that Jacobs didn't help his own case for being taken seriously, in this non-economic theory article, by referring to a "laissez-faire attitude" towards safe sex. Snort, "He should talk!" While Keesha notes that "The picture and the article combine to scream out the apparent new attitude: 'Step, you muthers! Grey Lady be letting her hair down!'"
Not content to merely toss a new weave, Jacobs also gave his props to fellow peeps such asthe Anne Robinson wanna' be & look alike Ed Needham who, while nearly destroying Rolling Stone magazine in his brief tenure as editor, still managed to create one "trend story:" "bug chasers."
Damned if Andy Jacobs don't give it up for his peep Eddie Need-HAM with a shout out to the questionable and undocumented "bug chasers." (But could it have really been a "trend story" if it was based on heavy documentation or if, in fact, it hadn't been questioned by sources quoted in print just as hit the streets?) Can I get a uh-huh?
Standing in line at the hot new 'in spot,' note the Times' apparent "New Attitude" (Keesha says "the whole thing simply screams of Patti LaBelle's eighties hit") with the in-your-face title of Peter Applebome's "A Meditation on Taxes, and Bad Karma." Full of insta-classics like this sentence striving to be a riddle but far less amusing than Peter's own last name:
So if the question is: What's the sound of one hand flipping land? The answer here is: the howls of local residents fed up with seeing more land taken off the tax rolls.
Destined to be the boy forever left on the wrong side of the bouncer, pithy observations like that ensure Applebome will always remain roped off from the club looking in. But toss him a sympathetic glance as you step into the club -- today's decidedly post-teen, aspiring eggheads may be tomorrow's clock tower snipers so you never know when you might need a little mercy.
Continuing in the "all the news that fit to toss around while you try to close a booty call," you register Hassan M. Fattah strutting off the dance floor, reeking of Jovan, while approaching the bar to toss out "Limits Set for Boy Jockeys in Emirates' Camel Races." Fattah's spent almost as much time shaping this anecdote as grooming the hair.
Feel like the odd one out stuck at the table with two losers as Scott Shane and David E. Sanger state the obvious -- repeatedly -- in "Daily Intelligence Briefings Are Vague, Officials Say." Try to catch the eye of the friend you came with to signal that you're leaving before Shane and Sanger move from verses of "Love is like, you know, it's . . . hard, man, it's really tough, but it's like this, this thing I saw on the Discovery channel about the life cycle of the fruit fly . . ." and break into choruses of, "Dude, you gave her everything!" and "I tried to, man, I really tried to!"
Failing to catch your friend's eye, scream at Shane and Sanger, "Cut this male bonding crap and get a room!" Then try to escape to the safety of the bathroom only to be stopped enroute by
the dreary duo of Jim Yardley and David Barboza who open with:
The pipeline that pours young, eager workers into China's manufacturing juggernaut begins in the country's interior at vocational schools like Hunan Top Software.
[. . .]
For Wu Dongshan, the job placement coordinator at Hunan Top, the most obvious sign of change is that factory recruiters now come to him, a reversal from three years ago, when he would make the long drive to Guangdong with busloads of students desperate for work.
"Punchline, please!" you hiss, while wondering if you're some sort of asshole magnet? Pressing their grinning faces too close your own, Yardley and Barboza leer, "Help Wanted: China Finds Itself With a Labor Shortage." Roll your eyes as they high-five and head butt.
Finally making it to the shelter of the bathroom, you quickly find yourself confronted by little Associated Press, hopped up on God knows what, chattering away, using lots of words but saying very little in "Schiavo's Remains Cremated as Autopsy Becomes Part of Feud." Reassure Ass Press, for the fourth time, that those jeans do wonders for the butt, silently curse your friend for dragging you along and get the hell out of there before Ass Press's eyes start tearing up again.
Hail a cab, and half-way home, realize that cabbie Kate Zernike's yammering on in some value-void, fact-void manner that's possibly worse than anything you heard inside the club:
Across the country, efforts to expand or establish laws allowing concealed handguns have been fueled by the horrifying shootings in the last month - of the family of a federal judge in Chicago, at the church service in Wisconsin, at courthouses in Atlanta and Tyler, Tex., and the nation's second-deadliest school shooting, on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota.
Interrupt her spiel on "Shootings Fuel a Drive to Ease Gun Laws" with, "Yeah, that's what we need, a country of armed vigilantes! Can you just drive? Thank you."
While your eyes water and burn, the morning sun creeps across the sky. Turn the key, open the door and crawl into bed. But as you do, say a prayer for poor Craig S. Smith.
After a week long, mad party spree, full of coverage of the wild and wacky Kyrgyzstan's non-revolution, he wakes with a killer club hangover to announce a "malaise" (whether he's a club child of the late 70s or just a current club child nostalgic for the Studio 54 NYC failed to provide his generation with I don't know) has settled "over this country" and apparently around his temples. In "Kygrystan's Shining Hour Ticks Away and Turns Out to Be a Plain, Old Coup" he announces, possibly between hurls into the toilet bowl, that "we all got it wrong!"
That's more than last night's booze he's tasting, it's also the jagged edges of his (and the press corps) tattered image having bungled coverage of the third "revolution" this year. So say a prayer, say a prayer.
The Five Stairsteps told us:
Ooh Child, things are going to get easier
Ooh Child, things'll be brighter
Ooh Child, things are going to get easier
Ooh Child, things'll be brighter
Some day we'll get it together and we'll get it undone
Some day when the world is much brighter
Some day we'll walk in the rays of the beautiful sun
Some day when the world is much lighter
Leafing through this morning's New York Times, one can only hope.
E-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
[Words & music to "O-O-H Child" by Stan Vincent. I used the Nina Simone version, available on the album Here Comes the Sun (1971), for the lyrics above. On The First Family of Soul: The Best of the Five Stairsteps and on Laura Nyro's Spread Your Wings and Fly: Live at the Fillmore East May 30,1971 the song is listed as "O-o-h Child."]
[Note: Post corrected and "tightened up." Thanks Rob. And to correct Scott Shane's last name which was wrongly listed, by me, as "Shange" in the third mention.]
"Clubbing with the New York Times"
"Honey, I was punny tonight!" You think any of the headline writers at the Times ever drag themselves home and greet their spouses that way?
Reading William J. Broad's front page story about the dangers of aging nuclear warheads (specifically W-76) you find something a little deeper than the punny headline "Aging Warheads Ignite a Debate Among Scientists." [That's the print headline, online users get the more substance based "A Fierce Debate on Atom Bombs From Cold War."] Just tossing that thought out there as something to consider while your friend drags you from one club to another.
Moving on. You realize you've hit the frou-frou, chi-chi, upscale club scene as you hear Somini Sengupta work in the word "ennui" while doing a poor job of concealing a self-satisfied smirk. (The headline writer merely apes her lead with "Fear, Ennui and Doubt Underlie Calm in Nepal's Capital").
Sengupta, baby, stick to the art galleries when trying to score with impressive vocab, okay? Striving for tome poem, but coming off like fourth rate Cole Porter ["Come to the Supermarket (In Old Peking)"], Sengupta offers such passages as:
On a recent Sunday afternoon,
as the market women sat on their haunches
hawking cabbages,
and the riot police milled about
with eyes darting this way and that,
Nepalis revolting against
their king's emergency rule decree
straggled up the narrow alleys
in ones and twos.
Walk on. Walk on.org. Note the poster art as you're dragged to the next club while you give it up to Angela Jimenez and whomever decided her photo was just the thing to accompany Andrew Jacobs' "AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy." Apathy. AIDS. Even more deadly new strain.
Does it bring to mind two bodies pressed tightly against one another? Does your mind conjure a framed crotch shot in some sort of hommage to the Rolling Stones album cover Sticky Fingers? Well in the minds of "Girls Just Want To Have Fun" Angela Jimenez and the editor/s it conjures up exactly that. Like drunken revelers at karaoke night doing the stiff-neck-head-jerk while singing/slurring "She like to par-tay all the time," I doubt either Jiminez or the editor/s realize how much they've embarrassed themselves. Flee the club quickly before you're tainted by association.
En route to the next club, remember that Jacobs didn't help his own case for being taken seriously, in this non-economic theory article, by referring to a "laissez-faire attitude" towards safe sex. Snort, "He should talk!" While Keesha notes that "The picture and the article combine to scream out the apparent new attitude: 'Step, you muthers! Grey Lady be letting her hair down!'"
Not content to merely toss a new weave, Jacobs also gave his props to fellow peeps such asthe Anne Robinson wanna' be & look alike Ed Needham who, while nearly destroying Rolling Stone magazine in his brief tenure as editor, still managed to create one "trend story:" "bug chasers."
Damned if Andy Jacobs don't give it up for his peep Eddie Need-HAM with a shout out to the questionable and undocumented "bug chasers." (But could it have really been a "trend story" if it was based on heavy documentation or if, in fact, it hadn't been questioned by sources quoted in print just as hit the streets?) Can I get a uh-huh?
Standing in line at the hot new 'in spot,' note the Times' apparent "New Attitude" (Keesha says "the whole thing simply screams of Patti LaBelle's eighties hit") with the in-your-face title of Peter Applebome's "A Meditation on Taxes, and Bad Karma." Full of insta-classics like this sentence striving to be a riddle but far less amusing than Peter's own last name:
So if the question is: What's the sound of one hand flipping land? The answer here is: the howls of local residents fed up with seeing more land taken off the tax rolls.
Destined to be the boy forever left on the wrong side of the bouncer, pithy observations like that ensure Applebome will always remain roped off from the club looking in. But toss him a sympathetic glance as you step into the club -- today's decidedly post-teen, aspiring eggheads may be tomorrow's clock tower snipers so you never know when you might need a little mercy.
Continuing in the "all the news that fit to toss around while you try to close a booty call," you register Hassan M. Fattah strutting off the dance floor, reeking of Jovan, while approaching the bar to toss out "Limits Set for Boy Jockeys in Emirates' Camel Races." Fattah's spent almost as much time shaping this anecdote as grooming the hair.
Feel like the odd one out stuck at the table with two losers as Scott Shane and David E. Sanger state the obvious -- repeatedly -- in "Daily Intelligence Briefings Are Vague, Officials Say." Try to catch the eye of the friend you came with to signal that you're leaving before Shane and Sanger move from verses of "Love is like, you know, it's . . . hard, man, it's really tough, but it's like this, this thing I saw on the Discovery channel about the life cycle of the fruit fly . . ." and break into choruses of, "Dude, you gave her everything!" and "I tried to, man, I really tried to!"
Failing to catch your friend's eye, scream at Shane and Sanger, "Cut this male bonding crap and get a room!" Then try to escape to the safety of the bathroom only to be stopped enroute by
the dreary duo of Jim Yardley and David Barboza who open with:
The pipeline that pours young, eager workers into China's manufacturing juggernaut begins in the country's interior at vocational schools like Hunan Top Software.
[. . .]
For Wu Dongshan, the job placement coordinator at Hunan Top, the most obvious sign of change is that factory recruiters now come to him, a reversal from three years ago, when he would make the long drive to Guangdong with busloads of students desperate for work.
"Punchline, please!" you hiss, while wondering if you're some sort of asshole magnet? Pressing their grinning faces too close your own, Yardley and Barboza leer, "Help Wanted: China Finds Itself With a Labor Shortage." Roll your eyes as they high-five and head butt.
Finally making it to the shelter of the bathroom, you quickly find yourself confronted by little Associated Press, hopped up on God knows what, chattering away, using lots of words but saying very little in "Schiavo's Remains Cremated as Autopsy Becomes Part of Feud." Reassure Ass Press, for the fourth time, that those jeans do wonders for the butt, silently curse your friend for dragging you along and get the hell out of there before Ass Press's eyes start tearing up again.
Hail a cab, and half-way home, realize that cabbie Kate Zernike's yammering on in some value-void, fact-void manner that's possibly worse than anything you heard inside the club:
Across the country, efforts to expand or establish laws allowing concealed handguns have been fueled by the horrifying shootings in the last month - of the family of a federal judge in Chicago, at the church service in Wisconsin, at courthouses in Atlanta and Tyler, Tex., and the nation's second-deadliest school shooting, on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota.
Interrupt her spiel on "Shootings Fuel a Drive to Ease Gun Laws" with, "Yeah, that's what we need, a country of armed vigilantes! Can you just drive? Thank you."
While your eyes water and burn, the morning sun creeps across the sky. Turn the key, open the door and crawl into bed. But as you do, say a prayer for poor Craig S. Smith.
After a week long, mad party spree, full of coverage of the wild and wacky Kyrgyzstan's non-revolution, he wakes with a killer club hangover to announce a "malaise" (whether he's a club child of the late 70s or just a current club child nostalgic for the Studio 54 NYC failed to provide his generation with I don't know) has settled "over this country" and apparently around his temples. In "Kygrystan's Shining Hour Ticks Away and Turns Out to Be a Plain, Old Coup" he announces, possibly between hurls into the toilet bowl, that "we all got it wrong!"
That's more than last night's booze he's tasting, it's also the jagged edges of his (and the press corps) tattered image having bungled coverage of the third "revolution" this year. So say a prayer, say a prayer.
The Five Stairsteps told us:
Ooh Child, things are going to get easier
Ooh Child, things'll be brighter
Ooh Child, things are going to get easier
Ooh Child, things'll be brighter
Some day we'll get it together and we'll get it undone
Some day when the world is much brighter
Some day we'll walk in the rays of the beautiful sun
Some day when the world is much lighter
Leafing through this morning's New York Times, one can only hope.
E-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
[Words & music to "O-O-H Child" by Stan Vincent. I used the Nina Simone version, available on the album Here Comes the Sun (1971), for the lyrics above. On The First Family of Soul: The Best of the Five Stairsteps and on Laura Nyro's Spread Your Wings and Fly: Live at the Fillmore East May 30,1971 the song is listed as "O-o-h Child."]
[Note: Post corrected and "tightened up." Thanks Rob. And to correct Scott Shane's last name which was wrongly listed, by me, as "Shange" in the third mention.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
